For Those Saying Glenn Frey is Necessary to the Eagles; no Glenn, no legit Eagles

I'm don't agree that Deacon opened himself up to criticism from those who think "this" is wrong. I agree that he is subject to the same criticism as anyone else who sings publicly in large venues or just for their friends or neighbors. Criticism and praise should be expressed on the basis of abundance or lack of talent. My opinion is that to make negative or snarky or critical comments against someone just because you don't like or agree with their career decisions is baseless and kind of shallow whether you're talking about Deacon Frey or anyone else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EagleInKansas

I'm going to leave this here just so we can all read it and marvel without it being surrounded by equally uninsightful comments.

Go ahead then, WalshFan, criticize Deacon. Have at it. What a fan you are. Better than me, that's for sure. You'll criticize Deacon Frey, like it or not. So brave. Take the shots. Not going to participate or even attempt to enjoy his contributions, but you'll be the first to line up when it's time to attack. What a fun existence! I wish I could learn to hate something that I've always loved, but dammit, I can't come up with the great things to say like "Like it or not." Tell us more, WalshFan. We're all so lucky to hear the thoughts of a guy willing to take shots at a 24-year-old with the gall to sing Already Gone. IN PUBLIC!!!!!

---

Relax. Austin hasn't hasn't been rude about Deacon and he has every right right to say he wished Deacon had his own career.

Again, not what he said. He said something much, much dumber.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philh

New interview with Don about the Eagles’ future and the HC re-release

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/fe...future-w511253

---

"They'll be pissed at me for saying this [laughs], but that wasn't them just sitting down and spontaneously playing it in one take."

:lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EagleInKansas

I agree, there would be nothing wrong with that, if that is what was said. Except that it wasn't. Dang. Instead, it was said that "it looks bad" that Deacon is riding Glenn's coattails. Or whatever the verbage was. Keep me posted, however, on which strangers it is acceptable to make personal attacks against. Now that we know it's okay to level them against Deacon, I assumed posters were fair game, as well. But unlike Austin, who quickly backtracked, I'll stand by my thoughts and stand up for Deacon. Whether you like it or not.

---

EIK - Seriously - my God ! Austin has a right to his OPINION. You do not have to like it but there is no need to get so bent out of shape and nasty. And, whether anyone likes it or not, Deacon is now a public figure and will be subject to criticism just like any other public figure. I am sure Deacon is well aware of this - he seems like a very bright kid. He has spent his entire life watching his father deal with both the good and bad of the music business. I would guess he was made well aware of all of this prior to his decision to join the band. Why are you taking this so personal ? I'm sure Deacon can take care of himself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EagleInKansas

Again, not what he said. He said something much, much dumber.

---

There was also an "IMO" there. And I don't get why "it looks bad" is such a horrible thing to say anyway. And we are free to disagree with it.

1. I wish this thread could be left for those of us who object to the continuation of the 'band'. Those who support it have many other threads in which to express their supposed support, without attacking those who do not.

2. I support everything Austin & others have said about Deacon Frey. He appears to be a personable, talented young man, but now that he has chosen this path, he is no more immune from criticism than the others.

3. Many here have insisted that Glenn Frey must somehow have OK'd the decision to continue. I draw their attention to Don Henley's comments in the Rolling Stone interview which I now quote:

It's extraordinary what that young man has done. I saw him sing "Peaceful Easy Feeling" at his father's memorial service. As difficult as that might have been, he was so brave and composed. I'm sure, on the inside, he was churning. After a few months went by, I thought, "Why not see if he would like to be in the band?"

And:
Did you ever question whether it was right to continue without Glenn?
Yes, I did. The only way it felt justified to me was to have family blood in the band.

Oh, and...on Deacon's future:

I've told him that he doesn't need to feel obligated to do this indefinitely, that he doesn't have to stand in his father's shadow. If he wants to start his own band and write his own music, he should do that. He can do this as long as we all agree that we want to do it. He may want to carve out his own future, and that's just fine.

No doubt I will STILL be told that it's what Glenn wanted. No doubt I will be told a lot of things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EagleInKansas

I agree, there would be nothing wrong with that, if that is what was said. Except that it wasn't. Dang. Instead, it was said that "it looks bad" that Deacon is riding Glenn's coattails. Or whatever the verbage was. Keep me posted, however, on which strangers it is acceptable to make personal attacks against. Now that we know it's okay to level them against Deacon, I assumed posters were fair game, as well. But unlike Austin, who quickly backtracked, I'll stand by my thoughts and stand up for Deacon. Whether you like it or not.

---

EIK, I have never backtracked on any of my beliefs regarding the new band or Deacon.

NKIT is right, you were being nasty towards me.

And I'm pretty sure if you read the rules of this board, it is NEVER okay to attack posters under ANY circumstances. I'm sure Soda (admin) would agree with that.

Here's some facts. Your first post on this board was in defense of this new lineup in THIS thread, where people are not okay with it. It seems to me you just want to be argumentative and put those of us down against the new band while you build yourself up. You've done that over and over and over. It's getting old.

Let's get something very straight, we aren't likely to see eye to eye on this, ever. So why keep berating me for my feelings and opinions on this. What do you hope to achieve by being rude and condescending to me? Think about that for a bit. If you want to change my mind, it likely won't happen, and if it would you are going about it all wrong. You are not doing yourself or your viewpoint any favors here.

Again, I don't really care one way or another how you feel about me, or if you say that stuff you did about me. I just worry that you are either looking for an argument or are getting too worked up about my opinions on this. That's all.

PS: Deacon is now an adult, and he can fend for himself without your help.

I for one am not at all worried about Deacon and don't feel the need to stick up for him. My comment was meant as an observation about Borderers who post, repeatedly, what they think Deacon should be doing instead of what he is currently doing. He's been with the Eagles for a hot minute, but people say that he should be doing this, or doing that, or doing whatever. He's doing the Eagles and you don't like it - that's fine. To take it a step further and suggest what he should be doing instead is absurd. It's like when people say the guys should just retire already, they've made enough money - this is horrid for so many reasons. You don't get to tell people what to do.

I'm pleased for the dissenters to have their own thread to complain about band activities and won't argue about that. I just marvel at people who think they know what is best for others.

IMHO Deacon Frey is a big reason if not the sole reason the band reversed their earlier position that without Glenn Frey they could not/would not continue. He is the emotional connection to an iconic band and the huge void left by the passing of his beloved dad. Vince Gill fullfills a different purpose and/or need.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaryCalifornia

To take it a step further and suggest what he should be doing instead is absurd. It's like when people say the guys should just retire already, they've made enough money - this is horrid for so many reasons. You don't get to tell people what to do.

---

Of course we don't get to tell them what to do and make them do it, but that doesn't mean that we have to feel their choice is right or refrain from commenting about our displeasure in said choice. However, if Soda doesn't want us to discuss the value of their decisions, I'm more than happy to oblige. But that doesn't mean I'm not thinking it all of the time, because I will be, obviously.

The whole retiring because of money comments come from the fact that the only fathomable reason they'd continue without Glenn is the money on the table. It certainly isn't for the love of doing it. These guys weren't best buddies as of lately and just want to do it to keep the spirit alive. If someone thinks that's true, then I've got some oceanfront property I'd like to sell them in the middle of the desert.

And that's why Henley changed his mind. As long as their is an opportunity to keep getting money from the cash cow, of course they are going to do it and forget about doing what's right (IMO) or going on without the leader of the band and one of the two most important members. I'd have just as much problem if Glenn went on without Henley but somehow I doubt that would have happened. JMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sodascouts

Deacon is basically foregoing having his own identity for several years, singing his father's songs, playing his father's music, living his father's life...but he'll be well compensated. He obviously thinks it's worth it.

Vince hasn't had much of a solo career, so it's no great loss to give it up for the so-called Eagles if he doesn't mind playing second fiddle... And it appears he doesn't.

---

I have to disagree about Vince not having much of a solo career. I've been a fan of Vince's since the early 90's. He's had an amazing career - he's won 21 Grammy awards and almost as many CMA awards. I've seen him in concert several times. Amazing guitarist as well as a great singer and songwriter.

Mary - I agree with you in that I also feel Deacon is doing exactly what he wants to be doing. I also believe that he probably finds it therapeutic in dealing with the loss of his father. If he did not want to do it, this new version of the Eagles probably would not have happened.
However, I see nothing wrong with people saying they hope Deacon goes on to pursue his own career in music or music production/engineering. That is simply their opinion. Everyone does not have to agree with it. Not that it matter at all, but I bet Deacon does not give a crap what we or anyone else thinks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by New Kid In Town

Not that it matter at all, but I bet Deacon does not give a crap what we or anyone else thinks.

---

And frankly, that's how he should feel...along with the rest of the guys. I guarantee you they aren't losing sleep or getting in a hissy fit about the distaste for this that some of us have, like EIK is doing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by klmeps

I have to disagree about Vince not having much of a solo career. I've been a fan of Vince's since the early 90's. He's had an amazing career - he's won 21 Grammy awards and almost as many CMA awards. I've seen him in concert several times. Amazing guitarist as well as a great singer and songwriter.

---

I stand corrected. That's very impressive indeed.

So why do you think he would give all that up to tour for years with the "Eagles"? Were the shows not selling?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WalshFan88

the only fathomable reason they'd continue without Glenn is the money on the table. It certainly isn't for the love of doing it.

---

Austin, you and I are friends, but I absolutely do not know where you are getting this. It's like you don't understand that they are actually real people, with real emotions. I think it's the exact opposite, they don't know what to do with themselves and want to continue playing in front of thousands of adoring fans because it's fun and who wouldn't want to?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaryCalifornia

Austin, you and I are friends, but I absolutely do not know where you are getting this. It's like you don't understand that they are actually real people, with real emotions. I think it's the exact opposite, they don't know what to do with themselves and want to continue playing in front of thousands of adoring fans because it's fun and who wouldn't want to?

---

I guess it comes from knowing how manipulative Irving can be (in fact, I blame this getting off the ground on all on him). I think he made Henley an offer he couldn't say no to, and with Deacon on board everyone would go along with it.

Also, the fact that there's been numerous stories that the band didn't get along well (Glenn, Don, Tim, and Joe) and that it was truly a business venture and there wasn't a lot of camaraderie. Sometimes they looked downright stuffy on stage. I always got the feeling that the thing keeping them together was the money on the table and the fact they could stay relevant, which brings them more money. I mean they Fed Ex'd each other parts for the LROOE album because they couldn't stand to be in a room together. I really can't imagine those guys, even when it's just Don, Tim, and Joe loving it so much that they can't imagine anything else to do with their time. It just doesn't feel right to me.

I really hope that you are right. I still don't agree with it, but it would be easier to take I guess than feel it's a shameless money grab. The fact is, we don't know what their motive is, I can only piece it together from my observations and what I can see on the surface. And I feel like I have enough evidence to feel this way.

I dunno. I just feel like it's not for the love of doing it. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm right. But I can't help but to go on what I've seen and heard of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by New Kid In Town

I see nothing wrong with people saying they hope Deacon goes on to pursue his own career in music or music production/engineering.

---

Thanks, NKIT. I guess the problem I have with the above is that it is pulled from thin air. To our knowledge, Deacon hasn't been pursuing either of these things in earnest. Yes, we have little tidbits of information here and there about his interests, but to me it's like someone saying, "I think Deacon should go work for Irving Azoff's company" or "I think Deacon should finish his dad's Hotel California musical." Why do we have to have other ideas for him, or future ideas for him? I think people are trying to be nice by saying, "I don't like him with this band, but I would be OK with _____", which just seems really presumptuous. I know I'm splitting hairs here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sodascouts

I stand corrected. That's very impressive indeed.

So why do you think he would give all that up to tour for years with the "Eagles"? Were the shows not selling?

---

Listening to some sound bites from Gill today on the Sirius Eagles channel, it does sound like Gill was/is simply a superfan who considers it an amazing honor to play with the Eagles. Imagine if Paul, George, and Ringo had decided to tour in the 80s or 90s, and, say, Clapton took Lennon’s place. Would people wonder, gee, why would Eric do that, with his own incredible solo career? I doubt they would... because it’s the freakin’ Beatles! Except in Gill’s case: It’s the freaking Eagles! Why *wouldn’t* Gill want to do it?! 😄

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sodascouts

I stand corrected. That's very impressive indeed.

So why do you think he would give all that up to tour for years with the "Eagles"? Were the shows not selling?

---

I really don't know. I know he cut back on his touring some after he married Amy Grant and they had a family. But as far as I know he still does well when he does tour. My guess is that it really is what he says about how he's such a fan of their music and that he's honored to get to be onstage with them.

I treat you that way, WalshFan, because I can't imagine being so cynical, negative and hateful toward something as joyful, fulfilling and unifying as music. I don't get it. I have tried really hard to understand and I have come up with nothing. The Eagles have given me so much happiness, friendship, bonding with my family, that I can't ever imagine turning my back because of a lineup change. It's blind loyalty, and it's not going anywhere. I have it for Glenn, Don, Joe, Timothy, Randy, Bernie, Deacon, Vince, Steuart, etc. Never going to change. I'll always defend them, to anyone, regardless of when my first post here was or how old the band members are -- two incredibly horrible arguments, by the way. So yeah, we can agree to disagree. That's fine. Or you can say, man, I haven't taken the time to think about why this might be meaningful to others, and it would be really stupid to try to kill their joy. Don Henley is my favorite Eagle, but if he had died and Glenn decided to let Clint Black or the guy from Rascall Flatts sing his songs, I'd be the first guy in line. Not because it's better or because it was my first choice, but because someone I have invested real, meaningful thought, time and love into made the choice. It's the least I could do to support this. I want Glenn back as badly as anyone possibly could. But Don, Joe, Tim and the rest have added so much to my life that I could never repay, so I'm not going to turn on them.

Don, Glenn, Joe and Timothy never denied that part of the reason they still toured was because of the money. It seems like there wasn't nearly as much criticism about high ticket prices or the occasional performance where they all seemed tired or the amount of money they were making until Glenn passed. He was a huge part of all of the decisions that factored into Eagles business until his unfortunate death. Now that the others have decided to continue to perform there are many, many more negative comments about high ticket prices, a "money grab" and decreased performance levels than there ever were prior to Glenn's passing. Since they are conducting business almost the same way as they always have, I think maybe it has a lot more to do with those that disagree with the decision to continue than with the band's business practices.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WalshFan88

Also, the fact that there's been numerous stories that the band didn't get along well (Glenn, Don, Tim, and Joe)

---

This I did not know about or hear about. It seems like between 2001 and 2015 this iteration of the band had found a way to make it work...that worked for all of them. Timothy may not be the best singer or bass player, but I think he has qualities that actually contributed to the band being at peace, personally, as much as they could be - but that's for a different thread!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EagleInKansas

I treat you that way, WalshFan, because I can't imagine being so cynical, negative and hateful toward something as joyful, fulfilling and unifying as music. I don't get it. I have tried really hard to understand and I have come up with nothing. The Eagles have given me so much happiness, friendship, bonding with my family, that I can't ever imagine turning my back because of a lineup change. It's blind loyalty, and it's not going anywhere. I have it for Glenn, Don, Joe, Timothy, Randy, Bernie, Deacon, Vince, Steuart, etc. Never going to change. I'll always defend them, to anyone, regardless of when my first post here was or how old the band members are -- two incredibly horrible arguments, by the way. So yeah, we can agree to disagree. That's fine. Or you can say, man, I haven't taken the time to think about why this might be meaningful to others, and it would be really stupid to try to kill their joy. Don Henley is my favorite Eagle, but if he had died and Glenn decided to let Clint Black or the guy from Rascall Flatts sing his songs, I'd be the first guy in line. Not because it's better or because it was my first choice, but because someone I have invested real, meaningful thought, time and love into made the choice. It's the least I could do to support this. I want Glenn back as badly as anyone possibly could. But Don, Joe, Tim and the rest have added so much to my life that I could never repay, so I'm not going to turn on them.

---

So, basically you want those against it to keep quiet as not to spoil your fun?! We should just all keep quiet for those of you who like this. Seriously? I mean really?

I'm sorry, but the world does not work that way EIK. The way you think you are more of a fan than those against the guys moving forward without Glenn and the way you constantly remind us that we can't be Eagles fans if we don't want them to move on without Glenn. Who made you the guy in charge of deciding who is a fan or not?! That's right, no one. Get off of your high horse for a change. Jeez.

And now you have the "gall" (to use your own term) to tell me I'm not a music lover (or worse, that I hate music!) because I'm against them moving forward?! Get a damn grip. Just who do you think you are telling me what to think and to just keep quiet because we don't see eye to eye?! I'm sorry but I'm not willing to be kept in a cage where I'm not allowed to express my feelings and opinions for the sake of your or others happiness. If that upsets you so much, then maybe invest in some therapy or something. But trying to bully me into doing it, no thanks. Not all of us are "blind loyalists", ok. We can love a band while still criticizing them, and we can only like a certain era or most but not all eras and still be a fan. You don't get to play god and try to tell us otherwise. Sorry.

Also it's highly ironic that you want me to stop saying how I feel because I kill your joy. Have you ever thought about the reverse? How WE might feel?! I bet you haven't. Besides, if someone loved the new Eagles, they have the choice to not visit this one thread where it's all contained. They and you choose to read it.

One thing is for sure, we are never going to get along so I'm going to ignore you. You can't seem to debate like a rational person, so why should I treat you like one. You'd rather throw out insults and judge me. That's awfully immature, EIK.

Mary California, after seeing several of Timothy's solo shows I think he had more to offer than he was given a chance to express. He must have decided that he was comfortable with what Don and Glenn assigned to him. I agree that all of his talents that benefited the Eagles were not necessarily viewed by the audience. I was not aware either that there was a great deal of discord in the 2000's. Like everyone else they got together to work. I don't know how others are, but I loved my co-workers. It didn't mean that I wanted to spend my days off or my vacations with them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WKMB55

Don, Glenn, Joe and Timothy never denied that part of the reason they still toured was because of the money. It seems like there wasn't nearly as much criticism about high ticket prices or the occasional performance where they all seemed tired or the amount of money they were making until Glenn passed. He was a huge part of all of the decisions that factored into Eagles business until his unfortunate death. Now that the others have decided to continue to perform there are many, many more negative comments about high ticket prices, a "money grab" and decreased performance levels than there ever were prior to Glenn's passing. Since they are conducting business almost the same way as they always have, I think maybe it has a lot more to do with those that disagree with the decision to continue than with the band's business practices.

---

It's funny - I see it the opposite way. We've always known that money was a huge motivator for these guys - they've been pretty open about it - but now, many people want to act like money's not a motivator, and it's all about how much they love playing together. I think maybe it has a lot more to do with those who agree with the decision to continue than with the band's business practices.

Regardless, there's one thing no one can deny: they're using the name Eagles for its monetary benefit. They can play together without doing using the name "Eagles". Since the use of the name is my main point of contention, then I can quite easily say that money is the issue.

Don't get so worked up. Spare us the outrage. Why do you take it so personally?

Anyway, I also agree that you're not worth my tme. You have no interest in reading my actual words and would much rather saddle me with an extreme viewpoint when I am providing plenty of nuance and clarity. Catch ya later, WalshFan. Good luck with that whole hating music thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EagleInKansas

Don't get so worked up. Spare us the outrage. Why do you take it so personally?

Anyway, I also agree that you're not worth my tme. You have no interest in reading my actual words and would much rather saddle me with an extreme viewpoint when I am providing plenty of nuance and clarity. Catch ya later, WalshFan. Good luck with that whole hating music thing.

---

That last message is nothing but a personal attack, EIK. I don't know what's going on with you or what kind of service you think you're doing for Deacon Frey, but I doubt he'd thank you for it. Lay off.

I'm sure he'd be filled with adoration for people saying it "looks bad" that he is singing his late father's songs and bashing his life choices.

I understand what you are saying, Soda. I still don't know how I feel about the situation in its entirety. There are a few things I like and a few I don't. I haven't been to an Eagles concert since 2015.

From what I understand, the 2000s onwards were a business relationship situation - ie, no big dramatic fights, but not much hanging out together either. They did their thing on stage and then went their separate ways for the most part.

The LROOE recording process seems to have had relatively little conflict, with "ground rules" about how many songs each member would have set out at the beginning, and who would make the decisions firmly established. Joe and Tim seem to have accepted all of this with minimal complaint. The biggest drama seems to have been arguments between Glenn and Don over whether or not it should be a double album, with Glenn insisting on the double album. Personal interactions were kept to a minimum with recording of each member's vocals and instruments done at different studios and then overlaid digitally.

Judging from that, I wouldn't say it was done because they were just so full of love for each other that they wanted to work together. The interactions for the most part seemed very business-like. I'm grateful for that business, though. It got me new music and shows from the Eagles.

A question for those of you who are opposed to the "Eagles" name being used for this current iteration of the band: If Felder, Leadon, or, by some miracle, Meisner, rejoined them for the 2018 tour, would you still feel like they shouldn't call themselves the Eagles? Are the "Eagles" Henley/Frey only (cannot be Eagles without Glenn Frey), or would having a higher percentage of the "classic lineup" make it more acceptable?

Genuinely curious, no judging.

A tough question. I wouldn't have much personal interest in it, but I guess it would be at least more ok than the present situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sodascouts

From what I understand, the 2000s onwards were a business relationship situation - ie, no big dramatic fights, but not much hanging out together either. They did their thing on stage and then went their separate ways for the most part.

The LROOE recording process seems to have had relatively little conflict, with "ground rules" about how many songs each member would have set out at the beginning, and who would make the decisions firmly established. Joe and Tim seem to have accepted all of this with minimal complaint. The biggest drama seems to have been arguments between Glenn and Don over whether or not it should be a double album, with Glenn insisting on the double album. Personal interactions were kept to a minimum with recording of each member's vocals and instruments done at different studios and then overlaid digitally.

Judging from that, I wouldn't say it was done because they were just so full of love for each other that they wanted to work together. The interactions for the most part seemed very business-like. I'm grateful for that business, though. It got me new music and shows from the Eagles.

---

Soda, I think this is a fair assessment. Reportedly at the time of his death in January 2016 Glenn Frey was estranged from Don Henley and Jackson Browne as well. They had just finished the mammoth HOTE tour and a private gig shortly thereafter. (Glenn was hospitalized in November 2015)

One of the most candid interviews is the one in 2007 with CBS's Steve Croft.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/glenn-f...-saved-band/3/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dawn

Soda, I think this is a fair assessment. Reportedly at the time of his death in January 2016 Glenn Frey was estranged from Don Henley and Jackson Browne as well. They had just finished the mammoth HOTE tour and a private gig shortly thereafter. (Glenn was hospitalized in November 2015)

One of the most candid interviews is the one in 2007 with CBS's Steve Croft.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/glenn-f...-saved-band/3/

---

I still don't understand why they were "estranged" though in 2016. I knew the LROOE was difficult for them to get together and that 2007 interview indicates that. But by 2016 what was the source of the problems? And I don't understand the distance between and Frey and Jackson at all...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dawn

Soda, I think this is a fair assessment. Reportedly at the time of his death in January 2016 Glenn Frey was estranged from Don Henley and Jackson Browne as well. They had just finished the mammoth HOTE tour and a private gig shortly thereafter. (Glenn was hospitalized in November 2015)
One of the most candid interviews is the one in 2007 with CBS's Steve Croft.

---

Dawn is correct. That is Don Henley's and Jackson Browne's own words. Don gave an interview with the Washington Post in late Nov./early Dec. 2016 right before the KCH. In that interview Don stated he was estranged from Glenn for I believe many years. Jackson had said the same thing to Don. That 60 Minutes interview was quite telling - Don barely looked at Glenn when sitting at that table with Steve Croft. Glenn said they were friends and Don said it was complicated and they were like brothers who fight with each other. You can see the interview on you tube if it is still up.

I think Glenn entered the hospital in October 2015. Bob Seger said he went in Oct. and was placed in the drug induced coma in Nov. Makes me sad to think and talk about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scottside

I still don't understand why they were "estranged" though in 2016. I knew the LROOE was difficult for them to get together and that 2007 interview indicates that. But by 2016 what was the source of the problems? And I don't understand the distance between and Frey and Jackson at all...

---

I'm only speculating but by the end of the HOTE tour I think there was most likely a profound sense of accomplisment and pride. Not just for getting the job done physically and mentally but emotionally as well. They were in their 60's. "On the Back Nine" so to speak. They may have believed it wasn't the end. Certainly they woud have each and perhaps collectively had ideas about the future especially Glenn Frey who according to long time friend Bob Seger was actively involved in plans for a Hotel California musical. Glenn was living in NYC and was also involved with teaching a songwriting course at NYU Steinhardt that reportedly he thoroughly enjoyed along with students who spoke after he died about how much they loved Glenn and appreciated his advice and guidance. Whatever the source for the estrangement between Don and Glenn it appears maintaining the business side of their relationship was a practical and viable resolution.

Edited to add:

Awhile back I remember reading that while Glenn loved and respected Don Henley as a musician/songwriter there was a period when he didn't much like him personally. It's probably just that simple. Personal v Professional (Business)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by New Kid In Town

Dawn is correct. That is Don Henley's and Jackson Browne's own words. Don gave an interview with the Washington Post in late Nov./early Dec. 2016 right before the KCH. In that interview Don stated he was estranged from Glenn for I believe many years. Jackson had said the same thing to Don. That 60 Minutes interview was quite telling - Don barely looked at Glenn when sitting at that table with Steve Croft. Glenn said they were friends and Don said it was complicated and they were like brothers who fight with each other. You can see the interview on you tube if it is still up.

I think Glenn entered the hospital in October 2015. Bob Seger said he went in Oct. and was placed in the drug induced coma in Nov. Makes me sad to think and talk about it.

---

Thanks NKIT, that's important to know. It greatly saddens me to think of what Glenn endured I suppose I am glad he was placed into a drug induced coma to ease what had to be an extremely painful situation and so very distressful for his wife and kids. I remember reading he was successfully brought out of the coma only to be re-induced because it was so painfully difficult for him to breathe.

What articles are there that detailed what happened to Glenn in the final months? I know very little about it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YoungEaglesFan

What articles are there that detailed what happened to Glenn in the final months? I know very little about it

---

There are two threads in the Glenn sub-board.
https://www.eaglesonlinecentral.com/...ead.php?t=6068
https://www.eaglesonlinecentral.com/...ead.php?t=6077