Eagles.... 3.0

[travlnman2]

I get it. Fans are expendable too. Not to worry. i don't need Don Henley or Azoff or anyone else to tell me that.

I dont know if you are agreeing with ne or not. Sorry I just dont know what you mean.

[sodascouts]

Agree. Its this situation when fans claim without so and so this is not the band that irks me.

Actually, that is what I'm claiming with regard to Glenn (as well as Don Henley - no Eagles without him either), but that's my perspective.

However, you are correct in that they are branding themselves as the Eagles and thus, technically, are the Eagles in corporate terms as well as in the eyes of many fans.

This would be true even if Don passed tomorrow (God forbid) and Joe, Tim, and whoever else toured as the Eagles. They would technically be the Eagles, too. I wonder, though, how many people would passionately defend such an iteration as legitimate regardless of it being technically true.

There are fans who feel the Eagles without Glenn is just as illegitimate as the Eagles without Don, with just Tim and Joe... Although if you feel that would be OK, then I can understand why you would feel the same way about the Eagles without Glenn.

[travlnman2]

Actually, that is what I'm claiming with regard to Glenn (as well as Don Henley - no Eagles without him either), but that's my perspective.

However, you are correct in that they are branding themselves as the Eagles and thus, technically, are the Eagles in corporate terms as well as in the eyes of many fans.

This would be true even if Don passed tomorrow (God forbid) and Joe, Tim, and whoever else toured as the Eagles. They would technically be the Eagles, too. I wonder, though, how many people would passionately defend such an iteration as legitimate regardless of it being technically true.

There are fans who feel the Eagles without Glenn is just as illegitimate as the Eagles without Don, with just Tim and Joe... Although if you feel that would be legitimate, then I can understand why you would feel the same way about the Eagles without Glenn.

If Don passed tomorrow (please dont) I would NOT think Timmothy and Joe would tour as the Eagles. If Don is in the band they would be the Eagles. If Glenn was the one doing this and Don passed it would be the Eagles. In order for them to be the Eagles Glenn or Don need to be in and that proved true through this past year. No Glenn or Don=No Eagles. One of those two must be in the band for it to still be the Eagles. It just happens to be Don and not both of them.

[Ive always been a dreamer]

Well, for many fans, including myself, in order for them to be the Eagles, Glenn and Don both need to be in the band. And as recently as a couple of months ago, it seems that the remaining members felt the same way ...

I don’t see how we could go out and play without the guy who started the band. “It would just seem like greed or something. It would seem like a desperate thing.

Interviewer: Is there any hope for an Eagles reunion?

"No. Certainly not as the Eagles. The Eagles without Glenn -- it’s over. What happens in the future, if anything with Don and Joe and I -- I have no clue. Nothing’s been talked about and I think we’re still processing this huge change in our lives, so I don’t know. The real answer is we don’t know. We’ll see what happens".

This is a good place to figure out how to navigate life after Glenn, to figure that out. I know a lot of performers have come through Las Vegas and done well. We could do something of a retrospective, and I’ve thought of doing that with Don, actually. It wouldn’t be the Eagles, but maybe we can go out and he can play his stuff and I can play my stuff.

Honestly, we seem to have reached a point where this thread is becoming quite circular and redundant on all sides. We are starting to rehash the same arguments over and over, which can be perceived as rubbing salt in the wound on either side and, inevitably end up in confrontation.

[Ive always been a dreamer]

Have you ever been part of a forum where the owner actually wants the band to be inactive or decides that as reality is not to their liking they will declare themselves ruler of an alternative reality where they can discard what the actual band does and dictate the relevant history of the band themselves... that's the impression I get.

If you're not representing the Eagles, sodascouts, it's as much a travesty to call this site Eagles Online as it is for your "remnants" to call themselves Eagles.

This post is beyond common decency and you should be ashamed of yourself as far as I’m concerned. I sure hope you are a kinder, gentler person in real life than you are on this message board. As someone else said, if you're so dissatisfied with the way this board is run, then do yourself a favor and don’t post here.

And just a reminder, the Terms of Service and Netiquette Guidelines remain in effect for the board. I can just say that you should be glad that Soda is the owner of this board, because if it were me, you may not be welcome here due to the numerous times you have been warned about being rude, heartless, and confrontational with members of this community. As has been said many times, everyone here can decide for themselves how they feel about this and other topics, but everyone also needs to be respectful and sensitive to others feelings. There may not be a right or wrong in how we feel, but there is a right and wrong in how we express ourselves.

If my admonishment is harsh, it’s because it is an appropriate response to your post.

[thelastresort]

Of course, and this applies to any other privately owned forum too, anyone who disagrees so drastically with the managements' definitions, conduct, standards or administration is more than welcome to show such dissatisfaction by setting up their own forum where they can do as they please.

Think of it as you bought it, you name it. From what I can gather, this entire forum and much of the associated EOC content is primarily Soda's doing. As such she is free to do with it as she wishes.

[OutlawManNJ]

Skynard change happened in 1978 when the guys were what 30 if that. Big difference that 70 year olds like the Eagles. At 30 you just must go on. At 70..with 300 Million in the bank....not so much.

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.

[WalshFan88]

Skynard change happened in 1978 when the guys were what 30 if that. Big difference that 70 year olds like the Eagles. At 30 you just must go on. At 70..with 300 Million in the bank....not so much.

Not exactly correct.....

To me they are pretty comparable. Besides, they didn't continue right after the crash and "kept going". Much like Don has said, "we won't continue under the name and it's over", they all agreed until MONEY got into their heads in the late 80s/early 90s, as somewhat older men. Then it was "just for the tribute tour" with the "Lynyrd Skynyrd Tribute Tour" name. Then it was ok, we can use the name LS as long as there are three original members, and got the widow's blessings for that rule. Then that came and went and the number kept dropping and IMO, they disrespected the families of the crash victims by going on and not sticking with what was agreed on. They weren't young men in need of money that HAD to continue. They may not have been 300 Million rich (or maybe so), but it's a damn good comparison IMO. They sold a ton of records, toured a ton, and people still played their music after the crash and they got royalties. Plus they had solo projects outside of the LS name for a few years before the tribute tour. So they could have stuck with that, it was certainly enough money to stay more than afloat, plus the LS earnings. It's called going back on your word. Though with the Eagles, they've only done it once....where as the likes of Gary Rossington just kept doing it and revising the "rule" again and again and even got into legal trouble with RVZ's family over it.

Age is irrelevant. It's about A - going back on your word and B - not doing what's right.

[Delilah]

Not exactly correct.....

Age is irrelevant. It's about A - going back on your word and B - not doing what's right.

Except no one went back on his word. No one made any promises and no one signed any contracts. In an early grief-stricken state, Don H said the Eagles were over. Later he made similar statements using open-ended qualifiers like "perhaps" "maybe" "seems like" "I think." As I posted earlier somewhere, when he started talking about performing with Deacon Frey, it appeared to me he was not ready to let go. He started getting flak apparently, so he back-peddled from that a bit. But it looked like (to some of us anyway) that the door to Eagles future performances was not yet shut.

As far as "doing what's right", that's a matter of opinion and moral judgment. To Don, Joe and Timothy, doing what's right could mean following one's heart and being true to themselves e.g. performing music and entertaining audiences as Eagles.

[Dawn]

Let's be real. The band had to reunite if they wanted to capitalize on the mega lucrative 6 band Classic East/West - Irving Azoff's bicoastal version of Desert Trip 2016. This has been in the works for months.