Well, by the same logic, there are people who will not have seen the band before Don Henley goes, so after he does, why not keep the "Eagles" going without him so those people can see the band, too? Why say losing Don is the definitive end?Originally Posted by YoungEaglesFan
The new person may not sound exactly like Don, but will that be a problem? Vince doesn't sound like Glenn and people don't seem terribly bothered.
I’m saying it would be hypocritical for me to both highly enjoy my concert experience but then say the band should call it quits. And trust me there’s not a chance they could move on without both Don and Glenn. You still have the majority of the set list intact without one of them but without both you’re done. And who would lead the effort? Joe? Tim? Neither would dare do such a thing. I know you guys disagree with me about the band continuing but this is pretty much an absurd argument
I dunno, to me saying that a raspy voice is tougher to replace than a "smooth" voice is a bit like saying that a guy who plays guitar with lots of distortion is harder to replace than a guy who plays with a cleaner sound. It's not like all the raspy voices are unique and non-raspy voices aren't. (According to a legend, some people thought it was Rod Stewart when they heard Peter Criss sing Kiss's "Hard luck woman") Dean Martin didn't have a raspy voice, and one could consider it rather "smooth", but I wouldn't want to hear just anybody with a "smooth" voice sing the songs he's known for.
I do get the point, but IMHO "smooth" says next to nothing about Glenn's voice. It's just one way of putting it into some category. But it goes much deeper than that.
Last edited by chaim; 10-24-2017 at 06:21 AM.
I didn’t think this would be controversial to say that if Don passed away the band would be 100% done. Only part of my argument was that Henley’s voice would be very hard to replace. Does anyone here have anyone in mind right now on who could replace him? There was at least one obvious one for Glenn (deacon) and Gill is in the roughly the same ball park in terms of timbre. Not the same not as good but it was about as good as you’re going to get in terms of mainstream people right now. Would anyone think the Eagles could find someone who sounds like Joe Walsh If he passed? No they couldn’t because his nasal quality is not that common. It’s just silly to argue this. I understand that it’s done to show an apparent hypocrisy in my and other pro Eagles 3.0 people but it’s not. The band would lose anyone who was part of the first 4 Albums. You would have almost the ENTIRE set list be of someone who wasn’t in the band ever. I’m not hear to debate Glenn again. I’m just pointing out the obvious that the band is done without Don
I really think that Don is just carrying on touring with the band until his own son is old enough and ready to take the banner and take his place.
Now, I know this is pure conjecture. But when they replaced Deacon after Glenn, Don put it this way: "an old system both in Eastern and Western culture called the guild system, where the father is the master and the son is the apprentice. The trade, the craft, the business is handed down from father to son."
Surely, he, too, had thought of what would happen to the Eagles when his time comes and takes the inevitable final bow. I think, somehow, they want to keep flying the 'Eagles' flag by passing it on to their heirs.
...btw, hello! I've been lurking on here for a while and enjoying reading all the posts. I'm a 70's Eagles fan- the original four to all of them at the end of the decade. Would I buy a concert ticket now if they come to my area-Europe? No way! unless they halve their price (lol, dream on) then I may be tempted.
I'm happy watching the DC concert again and again. For me, that's the real Eagles.