Eagles New Album, Only at Wal-Mart?

The New Eagles album, Long Road Out of Eden, releases tomorrow. Only at Wal-Mart. Why Wal-Mart? Keep reading, I'll explain in a bit.

It's their first album of new songs in 28 years. Some of the themes sound familiar. Instead of "Life in the Fast Lane" there's "Fast Company." Henley and Frey wrote it for their daughters. It's about peer pressure.


"Old man don't know what's happening, but I've been around a while," the song says. "Everybody wants to check you out, everybody wants to be your friend. Fast company."

Instead of "The End of the Innocence" there's "No More Walks In The Wood."

No drugs on this album. It's the voice of sobriety. I guess that means no more sing-along greats like "There were lines on the mirror, there were lines on her face, she pretended not to notice she was caught up in the race" or from Smuggler's Blues,

So baby, here's your ticket, and the suitcase in your hand
Here's a little money, now we'll do it just the way we planned
You be cool for twenty hours, and I'll pay you twenty grand

Is this it for the Eagles? Not so fast.

We've always had a great concern about exiting gracefully," [Henley] says. "We really want to step off the wave just before it crashes on to the rocks. "I'd thought several times in the past that time had come. But now we have a new album. And a whole new life."

Rocky Mountain News music critic Mark Brown gives the album an A-, saying it doesn't so much sound like any prior album as all of them. He also interviewed Henley on the album.

Three of the sounds have political themes, "Long Road Out of Eden," "Frail Grasp of the Big Picture" and "Business as Usual." Henley says he's a news junkie, reading "periodicals." I suspect that means he doesn't read blogs, but I don't know for sure.

About the sound of the album, Henley says:

This will probably be our last album and we wanted something that sounded like the early days. And that does. It sounds like Take It Easy" and "Already Gone"."

I'm sure I'll be one of the first to buy it, although it will probably be off the Eagles' website rather than Wal-Mart. What's up with the Wal-Mart deal anyway? Henley says,

"They've got something we want as well and that's distribution. We sat down and looked at the entire picture. Some people are trying to use the Internet, with, so far, not a lot of success. Some are signing to the indie labels, which aren't really indie. Other people are signing with certain coffee companies and there's not much success happening there. We just said ‘How can we get the most CDs out there to the most people and give them good value for their money?' One of the good things is this is going to cost $11.88. Wal-Mart came to us with this offer. Our deal with them expires in a year. Then the CD can be sold in other outlets.

More justification by him here.

Get ready for a media blitz. Just remember you can buy it off the Eagles' website instead of Wal-Mart.

< ABA Calls for Moratorium on Death Penalty | Why the World "Flinches" at the Prospect of Giuliani >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Go see Dylan (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 07:52:51 AM EST
      He's a 100 times better and he plays small venues (and relatively small towns) all over. I've seen him a bunch of times and never paid more than $50 for excellent seats. Plus, he plays different set lists and it's all about the live  music not staging and duplicating album cuts.

    I'm seeing Fogerty this friday.... (none / 0) (#7)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 08:13:20 AM EST
    for under 50 bucks, and he's ten times the musician as anybody in the freakin' Eagles.

    never shop at Wal-Mart (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Comrade Rutherford on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 05:49:22 PM EST
    I refuse to even aknowledge the existence of Wal-Mart.  I never shop there and never will.  If they are the only outlet around with a product I need, I'll do without.

    Their anti-American business practices usede to be illegal, and certainly still are immoral, they don't deserve my money.

    I specifically go out of my way to purchase as much as possible at locally owned mom-n-pop stores, because I love America.

    Facts vs fiction (1.00 / 0) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 09:07:19 AM EST
    Anybody here actually live in small towns in the 50's?? I mean besides me.

    The myth of the benign small town retailer is exactly that. A myth. The vast majority had very limited selection, as high a price as they could possibly get, poor quality in many cases, and very anti-union. I can well remember when the Teamsters came to the small factory where my father worked from 6 until 3 (he then farmed from 4 until 9. The local merchants slurred and threatened. One of the favorites was that no man was worth... are you ready for this?... a dollar an hour. Health care? Huh? What's that? Vacation? Well, if you don't want to work, we'll just find someone that does.

    I'm not thrilled with Wal-Mart, but understand who they replaced, and why they were capable of doing it.

    You want NHC? Then push for it, and push for it to be paid for by a national sales tax. Fairness in action.

    You want US made goods? Then push for lower taxes on investment income because people don't do start ups on their weekly paycheck.

    National Sales tax is neither fair nor necessary (5.00 / 0) (#12)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 09:10:39 AM EST
    to pay for NHC. Let me ask you, if NHC were proposed without a national sales tax, would you support it?

    I would have to see the proporsal in (none / 0) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 12:18:01 PM EST

    My guess, based on the current Demos in power would be no.

    Two reasons.

    1. It would be unfair. Everyone should pay for their health care. That would include illegal aliens, drug dealers, Ebay Merchants, the rich, who pay very little in taxes...

    2. It would, very quickly, cause shortages of services by limiting income to the Doctors/Nurses and cost reducing by removing equipment, etc.

    Your next question is??

    Not surprised (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 01:04:37 PM EST
    As Bill Kristol pointed out, if the Dems passed NHC, the GOP would be doomed for a generation.

    I see you are hedging already in your putative support- Illegal aliens?

    If you want the rich to pay their share of taxes, you need to demand a progressive income tax- which you don't seem to be inclined to do. And stop supporting political parties that cut taxes on the top 2 %- which you also don't seem to be inclined to do.

    Its also clear you are not in the least familiar with the plans put forward by Edwards, Obama or Clinton.


    Are you in an alternative universe?? (none / 0) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 05:51:04 PM EST
    We already have a progressive FIT that doesn't require a family of four (assuming both kids are under 17) to pay anything on income up to around $38200... (You be happy DA???)

    And it is past time for you to quit the mantra of let the rich pay.

    The rich don't pay. They have CPA's to avoid that.

    It is the upper middle class, and middle class, who get soaked.


    As opposed to all those (5.00 / 0) (#14)
    by jondee on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 09:36:33 AM EST
    pro-union retailers throughout U.S history? lol

    Walmart also charges the highest price they can get -- after buying from, (and subsidizing), those that keep costs down by: paying virtual slave wages to employees working 12 to 16 hrs a day; utilizing child labor when they can get away with it; adhereing to the absolute bare minimum of environmental/safety requirements for their workers etc, etc

    "America in the fifties" would be like dying and going to heavan for the people that have to suffer with the labor practices Walmart subsidizes.


    jondee (1.00 / 0) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 12:05:42 PM EST
    Spoken by someone I don't believe who was alive, much less old enough to know what was going on.

    BTW - There's a difference between between against unions and firing employees whose spouse works at the plant where the union is trying to come in.

    I have often wondered where you lived. Now I kniw.

    Never Never Land.


    And now (none / 0) (#50)
    by jondee on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 01:47:07 PM EST
    you've dedicated yourself to shilling for the sons and daughters of the ones who did the firing.

    You've come up in the world: into the big house workin' for massa.

    Western N.Y between Rochester and Buffalo.


    Those small town retailers (none / 0) (#15)
    by jondee on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 09:40:54 AM EST
    just came into contact with a more technologically advanced civilisation..

    Just Like (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by squeaky on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 12:23:06 PM EST
    Subprime Mortages. Another beautiful example of natural selection.

    B W Squeaky opines. (1.00 / 1) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 05:55:36 PM EST
    Subprime mortages came into existence to allow people who couldn't qualify otherwise, to purchase a home.

    You don't want the poor to have a home??


    They Lost (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by squeaky on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 10:35:19 PM EST
    Their homes. Haven't you been following the news.

    B W Squeaky opines ... They lost their (none / 0) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 01:12:16 PM EST
    homes. That is incorrect. Not everyone who took advantage of a subprime loan has lost their home.

    And many who used the loans were never qualified and a disaster waiting to happen.

    Now, what would you do? Let the ones who can't pay keep the homes?

    Or would you have forbid the subprimes loans to start with??

    It isn't an easy question if you care about people owning their homes.


    The SubPrime Scandal/Disaster (5.00 / 0) (#52)
    by squeaky on Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 01:33:51 PM EST
    Was function of greed by big time predatory lenders.  The problem was not lending to the poor so that they could buy their homes, it was born from  deceitful advertising that quicky put these new homeowners in a position where they were paying interest rates much higher than those who qualified for regular 30 year mortages.

    All of a sudden their monthly rates skyrocketed.


    You think you're being fnny. (1.00 / 1) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 12:11:57 PM EST
    Buy you are correct.

    Why should they have to justify??? (none / 0) (#1)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 07:08:17 AM EST
    It appears that the same people who tell us that the artists should be judged on their art and not their politics now tell us the artist is wrong to select the best deal for them??

    That is a double standard.

    I'll have my copy on the day it hits.

    not going to defend WalMart's (none / 0) (#2)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 07:14:18 AM EST
     environmental, trade or labor policies, but there are environmental advantages to distributing through WalMart.

      Let's say I have a truckload of Eagles' CDs to sell.  I ship the entire truckload to a WalMart distribution center. It then ships the CDs to 10 stores in trucks that are also bringing other merchandise. The CDs are then sold during the course of a month from those ten stores. The buyers while at WalMart buy not only the CD but a couple of other CDs, some new drapes,  a week's worth of groceries, a can of WD40, a new soccer ball, some childrens clothes, an extension cord, Christmas cards, their prescription drugs and get a haircut.

       Compare that to the buyers who get the CD delivered along with 2 others by UPS from an internet store, make a trip to the local interior furnishing store,  a trip to the local supermarket, a trip to the hardware store, a trip to the sporting goods store, a trip to a clothing store, a trip to the drug store, and a trip to the barber.

       Some of the reasons WalMart is cheaper are questionable policies, but one of them is the efficiency of its distribution system saves it money. It saves money because it uses less resources to stock than smaller, less diverse sellers. A lot of that money is saved because it uses less polluting and costly  fuel.

       From the consumer standpoint having a huge amount of diverse goods available in one place  means more can be bought by traveling fewer miles.


    decon, (none / 0) (#6)
    by cpinva on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 08:12:40 AM EST
    while you're right, with respect to wal-mart's economies of scale, there are other reasons they're able to offer lower prices (at least for the moment):

    • they contract with foreign companies, who have to produce at almost nothing, with only the barest gpm. to do this, they have nearly slave-labor.

    • the bulk of their "associates" are part-time. this means less in the way of benefits, which contributes to their bottom line. of course, those employees also tend to draw heavily on public assistance, which the rest of us pay for.

    i'm making no judgment on these practices, merely pointing them out, in the interest of full disclosure.

    as far as the band's decision to distribute through wal-mart, so what? it's strictly a business decision. the music industry is, and always has been just that, a business.


    that's why I said (none / 0) (#8)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 08:20:52 AM EST
     Some reasons... and one reason....

    Finally glad (none / 0) (#16)
    by Slado on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 11:28:12 AM EST
    to agree with you on something.

    I once attended a group dicussion with my wife while she was receiving her MBA and listened to a bunch of MBA students complain about Walmart as a buisness model.

    I couldn't have been more stunned.  Walmart has excelled by taking basic buisness practices that everyone uses and doing them better then everyone else.   Nothing that WalMart does isn't done by any common grocery store, or other big box retailer.  They are simply the best at it.  

    I understand they are the easy target of people who hate captilism at it's best and worst but they are simply that.   The big kid on the block.

    IF you don't like WalMart and you like the Eagles then you have a tough decision to make.  

    I would suggest going in quickly and only buy the CD because Walmart is surely only offering the CD at a reduced price in the hopes that you'll buy something else.

    That way you can call it a draw.


    Desperado, why don't you charge less for tickets? (none / 0) (#3)
    by joejoejoe on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 07:41:23 AM EST
    The Eagles, all about saving you money:
    Fans of soft-rock band the Eagles will have to dig deep if they want to see the group perform their first new music in 28 years, with some tickets priced at more than £1,000 each. [...]

    The cost for one person to see the show is nearing ten times that of other A-list acts like Madonna, and only Barbara Streisand, whose fans paid around £1,200 for her millennium eve show, charged more.

    OT: This is a most beautiful version of Desparado.

    Not public tickets (none / 0) (#4)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 07:51:29 AM EST
    It's a private industry concert.  The article says:

    A spokesman for the east London venue said: "This is a private event to launch the album and no tickets are for sale to the general public."

    I won't buy anything from Walmart (none / 0) (#9)
    by lilybart on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 08:35:34 AM EST
    Walmart could win be back if they became the organizing force for Universal Health Insurance for all Americans. Business knows it cannot continue to provide this necessary service, so why don't they join with the auto industry to make health care an issue?

    Walmart (none / 0) (#10)
    by Wile ECoyote on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 08:51:36 AM EST
    would make me happy if they lowered the prices on their ammo.  It went up a few months ago.  

    I know funny (none / 0) (#17)
    by Slado on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 11:29:32 AM EST
    and that was funny Wile.

    Guns and ammo.... (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 12:04:58 PM EST
    is probably all they sell that doesn't come from China...make that guns, ammo, and crappy Eagles records:)

    I've said before (none / 0) (#13)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 09:28:18 AM EST
     we need to reconsider thinking the "insurance model" is the best way to provide basic  health care.

      The issue is providing health CARE. Insurance necessarily makes it more expensive for everyone. First, it adds huge administrative costs and on top of that creates another level from which profit must be extracted.

      Which makes more sense taking thousands of dollars from every person and putting it in a pool from which over a third is dedicated to administration and profit for insurers and also having government spend tax revenues to give the people who can't purchase the insurance or having a fee for service system where people pay for the services themsleves, eliminating much of the administrative cost and eliminating one entire level responsible for hundreds of billions in profit?

       It would be cheaper to have government pay for health care than for government to pay for health insurance. The fact is that the money needed for health care already is there and is already used, just in a terribly inefficient and somewhat ineffective manner.  

    I've said it before (none / 0) (#18)
    by Slado on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 11:38:54 AM EST
    and I'll say it again.  NHC is a bad option if the goal is to offer the best care to everyone.

    Everyone for the most part gets good care in this country it's just that many people may/can go bankrupt if they get it.

    If you think we should all get affordable care then that's what we'll get.   Affordable sub par care which is exactly the care you get in England, Canada or any country that has socialized medicine.

    What is funny is that these systems are actually more unfair to poor individuals because they simply don't get the care they need or waiting lists and government rules are able to wait them out till they die or give up.  

    Profit is what allows the US to offer far and away the best care in the world.  Is it affordable.  No.   But good health care does not equal affordable health care.

    We need to get the governmental regualtion that is driving up insurance costs out of the insurance industry so healthy people can pay less and save their money for an emergency.  

    NHC is not the answer but I know Dems can't resist more government so they break a less then good systema and give us a worse one because they can't figure out a good way to fix it.

    That's ok.  I'm rich so I'll be able to pay for private insurance and get the best care.   That's must be what the dems must want because they must know that's what they'll get.


    The best care in the world (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by jondee on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 11:46:26 AM EST
    really, where do you get this stuff, Slado?
    You sound like you're making a stump speech in Mormon country.

    Have you checked the U.S infant mortality rate against the rest of democratized, developed world, for starters?


    What an absolute (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by jondee on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 11:49:04 AM EST
    unadulterated crock.

    But, by gosh, by jingo, we've always had the best crocks in the world here in American. By Far.


    Jondee (none / 0) (#21)
    by Slado on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 11:58:10 AM EST
    Wwhat are the waiting times for simple radiation and chemotherapy treatment in this country?

    If you answer zero or 1 week that would be correct.

    Here is Hillary care if it where adpoted.

    Infant mortality rate?  Is that the best you got?

    How about this report of wait times from the British government?

    If you think we the US could do it better then tell me how but all the realistic signs of other countries trying it show me that what you get is what you pay for.

    Again it won't matter to me I'll fly to Malaysia to get treatment.   But when I did have cancer (three occurances) I received my treatment within days.   I'll take my system any day.


    This quote alone tells me (none / 0) (#22)
    by Slado on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 11:59:55 AM EST
    NHC is crazy...

    Almost half of patients were treated within 18 weeks of seeing a GP


    Slado (none / 0) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 12:10:04 PM EST
    No where is it written that we must adopt a program from anyplace that is a known failure.

    Keep Medicare with some minor changes.

    Pay for it with sales taxes so that EVERYONE pays, not just the middle class and up.


    It would probably surprise you to learn (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 01:08:51 PM EST
    According to Paul Krugman, France's version of NHC is the closest to our Medicare.

    Looking at the Light Molly opines (1.00 / 0) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 05:58:03 PM EST
    I really don't know what "closet to" means.

    Do you??


    most resembles (none / 0) (#40)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 06:16:24 PM EST
    now let wait until the next NHC thread to continue.

    Let's see a source (none / 0) (#32)
    by jondee on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 02:25:57 PM EST
    for your "zero or one week", Slado.

    Also, is that before or after waiting three weeks to  see an oncologist?

    Last I heard we were rated somewhere behind Saudi Arabia in quality of care by the World Health Organization ( I know, I know, obviously pinko America haters).

    Btw, Where do get treatment for that Koolaid toxicity condition?


    Slado (none / 0) (#34)
    by jondee on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 03:21:16 PM EST
    I missed that last part about your condition. Seriously, I hope you're feeling better. That can be  rough.

    No worries (none / 0) (#42)
    by Slado on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 09:12:12 PM EST
    I don't bring it up for sympathy just to show that unfortuantely I'm very familiar with our medical system, my dad is also a physician.

    Our system offers the best care for seriously ill people.  My disease was 1 in a million literally.  There where probably 5 physicians in the country who could treat me.   I found one and he has kept me alive.   In Canada or Britain I would have had to wait weeks to see a specialist and my cancer would have killed me.  

    I was admitted to an emergency room, diagnosed and started receiving my first round of chemotherapy in days of walking into a hospital not knowing what was wrong with me at 23years old.   That would never, ever, ever have happened in Canada or Britain unless I had paid for it.

    In our for profit system profit enables research, medical discoveries, experimental procedure etc... In NHC systems overruns on costs and waiting lists means the overall leve of care drops and there is no incentive for research and better care.

    There really is no argument that other sytems preform better medically.   They aren't even cheaper just cheap to the "consumer".

    We need to fix our system but NHC is a non starter.   Hospitals, insurance companies and drug companies will not let it happen.   Dems like Hilliary are using it to get votes even though they know it's not possible.

    Jondee the WHO study is bogus.  


    this thread is about (none / 0) (#33)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 03:18:59 PM EST
    the Eagles and WalMart. Please take your health care discussion to an open thread, ok?

    As long as Joe Walsh (none / 0) (#35)
    by jondee on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 03:25:03 PM EST
    can still get down, there's at least one thing right with the world. That much can be said.

    I'm not sure (none / 0) (#41)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 06:34:58 PM EST
    Denver has a Wal-mart. At least not in the city. (The suburbs might be different.)

    The only one I've ever been in is the one in Glenwood Springs, about 40 miles outside of Aspen. I stopped in a few times looking for new cd's for the drive back to Denver. It was pretty trashy (like a five and dime) and the music was outdated...but that was probably ten years ago. Apparently they are now leaders in cd sales.

    Do a lot of people still buy cd's? I would think most people just download to their iPod or MP3 player.

    Henley has always been financially savvy. He knows what he's doing. I suspect the Eagles will do very well with this deal.

    mp3 files (none / 0) (#44)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 08:28:28 AM EST
     are scorned by audiophiles. IPods are great for portable music but the compression that allows for the easy portability of vast libraries comes at a cost. I actually still buy vinyl albums when available because there is a quality to the sound not duplicated by the best digital formats let alone mp3 files.

    Sound vs Music (1.00 / 0) (#46)
    by squeaky on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 08:57:49 AM EST
    I never really understood the audiophile thing. Some audiophiles I know are more interested in the audio sound and seem to care less about the actual music. For me recorded music is dead. it is the same every time, IOW lifeless. So my experience is not so different listening to a crappy mp3 or a $300,000+ sound system.  Some contemporary music is an exception because it was and is never "played", it only ever was electronic.

    I largely agree with that (none / 0) (#47)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 09:18:24 AM EST
    Probably my 2 favorite artists are Bob Dylan and Neil Young who usually produce their albums in a "primitive" fashion. I'd also rather listen to a crappy bootleg recording of "good" music than a technologically advanced reproduction of mediocre music.

      I have my live music is better bumpersticker and if I could get Bob and Neil, et al  to come by more often to play for me I'd be thrilled, but I depend more on listening to recorded music because the selection of live acts that appeal to me these days is quite limited.

      Today even a lot of "live music" is artificial in some respects as sound systems can do more than merely amplify,  and it seems most acts simply strive to duplicate their albums with maybe longer solos tossed in. that's why Dylan is so great he can "create" very different music from the 10,000th or whatever performance of a song.



    Yes (1.00 / 0) (#48)
    by squeaky on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 09:29:41 AM EST
     Today even a lot of "live music" is artificial in some respects...

    Yes, I guess it is a function of lack of talent all way around.  I am in the "classical" world and do not listen to much pop. But I totally agree with you about Dylan, he is an amazing genius and it comes through no matter how bad the recording is.


    There are 10 in metro Denver (none / 0) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 11:26:29 AM EST
    time machine (none / 0) (#45)
    by bernarda on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 08:43:29 AM EST
    The clips I heard were like entering a time machine. I didn't like the Eagles then and there is no reason to change. The only track that seems to have some promise is "The Long Road Out of Eden". I don't like Wal-Mart either. Read Barbara Ehrenreich's "Nickel and Dimed" to get an idea.