Eagles.... 3.0

[eaglesfan]

I don't object to that The Blockheads are doing, but I've little interest in seeing them.

I may come to terms with what is being done with the Eagles brand but again, I have little interest in seeing them. I'd much rather see Don, Joe and Timothy solo than see them try to reproduce the old hits with a key element missing.

Referring back to something Funk 50 wrote (I think), it seems unlikely that the remaining Eagles will produce new material as a unit - it seems that rather than inspiring each other, the compromises kill creativity. Timothy certainly sounded happy to be writing alone, Don has other writing partners and, going from his comments, Joe finds Don glacial style of writing and recording frustrating. So let them leave the new material to their solo projects. Besides, people who are paying a lot of money to see the new "Eagles" probably want the hits.

I'm not ready to criticise Don for his change of mind, although I hope he gives an explanation. The band ending with Glenn seemed like the right decision.

A further thought is these two shows needn't tarnish their reputation. I think of Pete Townshend and Roger Daltry touring as "The Who" and although they are not what they were in their prime with Keith Moon and John Entwhistle, it doesn't take away from their legacy.

But don't Henley, Walsh and Schmit play Eagles songs in their concerts? In Henley's case, it's a major reason why he can still play the bigger venues as fans know they will hear songs such as Hotel California, LIFTL, OOTN, Desperado etc. So it's okay for him to do that so long as he doesn't do them with Walsh and TBS?

Look, I agree with those that say it will never really be the full Eagles again. On the other hand, Frey, as driven and talented and visionary as he was, didn't play a huge role in the live performances of some of their biggest hits. That's no disrespect to him as he was the main reason the Eagles even existed in the first place. Maybe, just maybe, it's actually a testimony to him that he created something that actually outlived him.

[Glennhoney]

"Glenn didn't play a huge role in the live performances of some their biggest hits"......Have you ever been to an Eagles concert????
Tequila Sunrise, Take it easy, Heartache tonight, Peaceful easy feeling, Already gone, New kid in town, Lying Eyes......Need I go on??????????????

[UndertheWire]

But don't Henley, Walsh and Schmit play Eagles songs in their concerts? In Henley's case, it's a major reason why he can still play the bigger venues as fans know they will hear songs such as Hotel California, LIFTL, OOTN, Desperado etc. So it's okay for him to do that so long as he doesn't do them with Walsh and TBS?

Looking at recent setlists

Don 8 of 22 were Eagles songs
Joe 3 out of 17
Timothy 4 out of 19

That doesn't seem like they're relying on Eagles material excessively. If they were playing 80-90% Eagles songs (like Don Felder), I wouldn't be interested.

[Annoying Twit]

I know a few of their songs, but I don't know anything about the dynamics within the band. Did Ian form the band or was he one of the founding members? Was he the boss or just one of the members? Did he lead the songwriting process (choosing which ideas to use, building songs from everyone's ideas etc.) or did he just suggest ideas?

Not that I'm interested in pondering this personally, but it is a fair question from you IMO.

Thanks for considering my question. Ian Dury formed the band with Chaz Jankel. I don't know exactly how it happened, but from what I saw in the biopic (and a quick revision on Wikipedia) it wasn't just Dury appointing members, but more or less friends of friends etc. being formed into a band.

Ian Dury wrote the words, and band-members wrote the music. (Probably Dury wrote the vocal melodies too, though they weren't a band with standout vocal melodies.) Chaz Jankel wrote the music for their big early hits. And IMHO he was pretty much just as important to their success as Dury.

Dury wrote the lyrics, Jankel (mostly) formed them into songs. There was a very clear division of labour.

I consider the title of their most recent album "Same Horse Different Jockey" to be a tip of the hat as to what they are doing.

Clearly I would be happiest if Ian Dury was still around writing and performing with The Blockheads. However, given that Dury has passed on and this is impossible, I consider that the albums being released with Derek Hussey acting as a 'replacement' for Ian Dury and writing and 'speak-singing' in Dury's style are better than nothing, particularly since Jankel seems to have found his music-writing and arranging mojo back again. If I had never heard of Ian Dury and the Blockheads and came across one of The Blockheads' albums by random, I would really enjoy it.

But, my reason for mentioning this other situation is not to argue one way or another. It's clear to me that there are very different ways of thinking on this thread, and I'd like to understand others' opinions better. I also think there's a lack of understanding, and hence wondered how that could be addressed.

[eaglesfan]

Looking at recent setlists

Don 8 of 22 were Eagles songs
Joe 3 out of 17
Timothy 4 out of 19

That doesn't seem like they're relying on Eagles material excessively. If they were playing 80-90% Eagles songs (like Don Felder), I wouldn't be interested.

I didn't say they played Eagles material excessively in their solo shows. They do, however, play Eagles songs and as I'm sure most of have seen at particularly Henley's solo shows, the Eagles material tends to be the crowd favorite.

Henley tried for a while playing nothing but solo material. I'm not sure why he went back to playing the greatest Eagles hits that he sang lead on, but I'm sure the audience generally speaking wants to hear the major Eagles hits that he sang lead on and I'm sure he can sell more tickets at higher prices if the crowd knows/thinks they will hear Hotel California, ONe of These Nights, The Long Run, Desperado etc than if they expect to hear just solo material. As he says "three for you, one for me" in his concerts.

[eaglesfan]

"Glenn didn't play a huge role in the live performances of some their biggest hits"......Have you ever been to an Eagles concert????
Tequila Sunrise, Take it easy, Heartache tonight, Peaceful easy feeling, Already gone, New kid in town, Lying Eyes......Need I go on??????????????

With all due respect, I don't know what to make of your post. I said Glenn didn't play a huge role in the live performances of some of their biggest hits...and then you go on to name some of the Eagles biggest hits that Frey sang lead on. Can you please clarify?

[maryc2130]

Looking at recent setlists

Don 8 of 22 were Eagles songs
Joe 3 out of 17
Timothy 4 out of 19

That doesn't seem like they're relying on Eagles material excessively. If they were playing 80-90% Eagles songs (like Don Felder), I wouldn't be interested.

It may be only 8 of 22 in Don's case, but I'm sure those 8 are the reason a good few fans attend Don's concerts. Hotel California, LITFL, Desperado, etc are surely a bigger draw than his solo stuff. (And this is coming from someone who loves his solo stuff, but it's reality. People will pay to see those songs, and especially in the past year or so when the future of the Eagles was uncertain, it's the only way they were going to hear them.)

Like eaglesfan, I've been thinking about the way Don never definitely said they wouldn't tour anymore as the Eagles. He said things like, "I can't imagine it," or "It seems like greed," but never a definite no. For someone as intelligent as he, and someone who has had problems dealing with the press for years, he seems awfully careless with his remarks. It's irresponsible at best, and misleading or untruthful at worst.

I, too, really wish they wouldn't use the Eagles name. Without Glenn, it doesn't seem like the Eagles to me. I was fine with Eagles Family and Friends, but I'm unhappy with them going on as Eagles. Does that mean I won't go to see them? It depends on how they choose to go on. I don't like huge, money-grabbing events in hot, over-crowded stadiums, and I really can't afford the festival ticket prices, anyway. If they do a regular tour, I might consider it, but I still wish they would call themselves something other than Eagles. Other than the name, I still feel happy that they want to play together. I like these guys and I really like them together. It won't be the same without Glenn, but I would still rather see them together than separately.

[UndertheWire]

Eaglesfans, I can only speak for myself and I'm not interested in an "Eagles" without Glenn whereas I would be interested in solo tours by Timothy or Joe.

One of the unfortunate side-effects of this event is that talk of Timothy's UK tour has disappeared.

[eaglesfan]

Eaglesfans, I can only speak for myself and I'm not interested in an "Eagles" without Glenn whereas I would be interested in solo tours by Timothy or Joe.

One of the unfortunate side-effects of this event is that talk of Timothy's UK tour has disappeared.

I understand why you and many others feel that way. Frey was obviously a key and in many ways indispensable member of the band overall, so for those who aren't interested in going to a concert and seeing Henley-Walsh-TBS perform together if they call themselves the Eagles, imho that's a very reasonable and understandable position.

I also understand those who feel that life is short, these guys are growing old fast and they'd like to see the Henley, Walsh and TBS songs performed once more by the surviving members.

[eaglesfan]

It may be only 8 of 22 in Don's case, but I'm sure those 8 are the reason a good few fans attend Don's concerts. Hotel California, LITFL, Desperado, etc are surely a bigger draw than his solo stuff. (And this is coming from someone who loves his solo stuff, but it's reality. People will pay to see those songs, and especially in the past year or so when the future of the Eagles was uncertain, it's the only way they were going to hear them.)

Like eaglesfan, I've been thinking about the way Don never definitely said they wouldn't tour anymore as the Eagles. He said things like, "I can't imagine it," or "It seems like greed," but never a definite no. For someone as intelligent as he, and someone who has had problems dealing with the press for years, he seems awfully careless with his remarks. It's irresponsible at best, and misleading or untruthful at worst.

I, too, really wish they wouldn't use the Eagles name. Without Glenn, it doesn't seem like the Eagles to me. I was fine with Eagles Family and Friends, but I'm unhappy with them going on as Eagles. Does that mean I won't go to see them? It depends on how they choose to go on. I don't like huge, money-grabbing events in hot, over-crowded stadiums, and I really can't afford the festival ticket prices, anyway. If they do a regular tour, I might consider it, but I still wish they would call themselves something other than Eagles. Other than the name, I still feel happy that they want to play together. I like these guys and I really like them together. It won't be the same without Glenn, but I would still rather see them together than separately.

One thing to remember, though, is that this is BIG business for these guys. As Henley has said about ticket prices in the past, this is how they make their living.

So, from a business standpoint, Henley may have been sending a signal to promoters and venues that he's not inclined to tour as the Eagles...they implication being if you want me to get up there and participate as the Eagles without Frey, then you better pay up.

It could be very calculated...really he'd be foolish to say, "Yeah, I'd absolutely want to tour again!", as promoters would push back and say "well, without Frey you're not really the actual Eagles anymore.." and try to lowball him.

I don't know Henley but he and Azoff are very calculating....notice how Azoff in his stance was much more open to it..signaling a willingess to negotiate with the promoters but maybe telling Henley to appear to not want to do it out of respect for Frey in order to drive the bids up.