Originally Posted by
WalshFan88
So I've been giving this all some thought and about why I believe the way I do about the band continuing on without GF. I have compiled some thoughts on this.
First, I have been to plenty of shows where the lead singer has either left or died and they've replaced him. Journey without Steve Perry (although I'll elaborate in a minute why I feel it's different), Lynyrd Skynyrd without Ronnie Van Zant (which IMO is a pretty similar deal), AC/DC without Bon Scott (I also feel this is a unique situation), Styx without Dennis Young (similar to the Journey deal), Boston without Brad Delp (similar to LS), on and on. So what is the difference?
For Journey and Styx, Steve Perry and Dennis Young, god bless them, wanted to leave both for health reasons. And that's fine. But they both did it during the start of massive tours and they had no interest in coming back. They both have stated they never felt a part of the band (just watch the Behind The Music for each band), while the rest of the band is saying WTF?!, you controlled us from day one....I tend to side with the band in both cases. They had great voices. Both are important to the band's legacy, but the show must go on in this case and get someone who does a good job to the music. Is it the same, no, but IMO that's no reason not to go see them. So that's not really comparable to the Eagles IMO.
For Lynyrd Skynyrd and Boston, both lead singers died. IMO this is probably the most comparable to the Eagles from all that I've listed, especially Skynyrd.
I thought especially in Skynyrd's case, it's special because it's his younger brother and it's a family thing. What makes some dyed in the wool Skynyrd fans unhappy is that Gary Rossington is now the only original member and Ronnie's wife stated she didn't want to see the name used unless '3' original members pre-crash were in the band. The sad thing is, there are two living pre-crash members they could add to the band, but Gary isn't interested. Gary, right or wrong, has kind of taken over that legacy and some don't like it. I can see where they are coming from, it does come across as greedy but they put on such a good show I overlook it.
For Boston, Brad Delp was a unique voice there is no denying that. But Tom Scholz literally put a band together around HIS sound he made from his engineering degree. HE pioneered their sound and simply brought in guys to fill out the "band", but make no mistake Tom Scholz was the literally Boston's sound and founder. Brad Delp had a unique voice, but IMO if Tom wanted to continue the band he should, as he and he alone founded it, created it, and made it what it was. He also was the main songwriter. So in that case I have no trouble with it. Different from the Eagles, IMO. Scholz IMO is the "Don and Glenn" of Boston.
So why do I feel ok about Lynyrd Skynyrd but differently about the Eagles? They would have even more original members than Skynyrd does, yet I go see them.
And to the best of my ability, I cannot come up with a real answer. Maybe it's because Don went back on his words rather than leaving it open. Perhaps it's because Glenn founded the band, and even while Glenn and Don were the bosses, I feel like Glenn had even more control and say-so than Don did. I feel it was his band. There is more to it than just him, but you take him out and for whatever reason, it feels like a bigger chunk is missing than Skynyrd. And I agree, it shouldn't be that way. And I'll be the first to say I have no idea why.
I'm certainly no GF super fan, you can find posts all over this board that say otherwise. But even as a stone cold DF supporter and was upset with Glenn's treatment of him, I have to say it's really a bigger loss and IMO would be very damaging to continue on without him. I probably felt as strongly about him being gone, but looking at it with more objective"ness", I feel like he was too important to replace, even more than DF, RM, or BL. And as much as it pains me, even more than JW or TBS, although I would have never seen an Eagles show without them. But I wouldn't see an Eagles show without Don or Glenn even if JW and TBS were there, even DF. IMO GF and DH were the most important members, and it does sometimes pain me to say that as I've always been one to think it was misbalanced but it is what it is. Those guys, especially Glenn were the brains.
I do think it is kind of unfair to refer to JW, TBS, and DH as "remnants" but I feel like I can sympathize with Soda and the way she is hurting from all of this and when you feel like that, you can say things that get misconstrued or even things you regret. I know I have with the whole DF issue and elsewhere in my life.
So while having Deacon onboard and "keeping it in the family" ala Johnny Van Zant in Lynyrd Skynyrd for his younger brother, they feel different to me. Maybe not the closest comparison but its the one band I've seen that I felt could be the closest in this situation. I'm as puzzled as I'm sure some are. But I cannot find an excuse as to why I feel and treat them differently. Maybe it will dawn on me...
For me personally, I direct most of any anger I feel about this to Irving Azoff. Yes Don had the final say-so, but I feel like Azoff could be very manipulative, persistent, and pressures people into things while waving money in front of them. And it takes a whole hell of a lot of self control to say no to it when it's in your face, figuratively or literally. So I personally don't have much animosity to Don or the other guys right now. I feel it was a bad choice but to me I'm directing my animosity to Irving. IMO he is the one who is to blame, but again JMO. He's the one that started this and should have thought more about how this would look or how Glenn's fans and others might have felt. But he doesn't care about that. He cares about making him and his bands some money and f#$k everyone else.