Just a question but what exactly do you mean by pay his dues for Deacon? I get Vince has been too cheerful and easy going but what would you like Deacon to do? Not criticizing but just curious. Should Deacon pay his dues the same way Vince should or would it be a different standard
TBF- Please don't feel that you can't post here. There is a form for all the new 2018 concerts/discussions, etc. You just posted in the wrong form about wanting to see them. As you are new here, I'm not sure if you know that this is the one form for people who do not agree with the "new" Eagles. You can post away in any other forms.
My own opinion is that Deacon should have attempted to develop his own career and not have been thrust into this without any preparation, without playing to small audiences, without developing a sense of HIMSELF as opposed to being made into an imitation of his father. But that is just a small part of my endless objections to this.
I just think Vince has had a very easy in that he didn't deserve...And now he gets to tack that name onto his resume when he's not an Eagle and never contributed anything during their real period (70s, 90s, or 00s). He now gets to put that on his bio and I don't think he worked quite hard enough for it. I feel while he may be a good guy and a good musician, he isn't up to Eagles standards and while he and Glenn might have been friends, they never did anything musically together with the band and just looks like he got a prestigious award for doing nothing.
Deacon in theory yes should also have to prove his worth and have came up into that role by starting out in bars and going small and having to earn it rather than just slide into that place just because he's a family member. It's like when a famous family gets their kid into some role because they "know people" and they never did anything to deserve it be it the pay nor the admiration. But I somehow find it easier to tolerate than Vince. Still though, I wouldn't want the band to go on without Glenn but those things also have weighed on my decision, admittedly.
We are presented with a timeline of:
November 28, 2016: Henley says the Eagles are done, says the Eagles continuing without Glenn would be "desperate" and seem like "greed" in the Washington Post
December 4, 2016: The Kennedy Center Honors take place, and Azoff gets the idea that Vince Gill would make a good addition to a "new" Eagles without Glenn
March 2017: We hear that Don Henley has emerged from his "shock" and decided that actually it's a great idea - indeed, it's a noble endeavor - to continue the band without Glenn, with the addition of Vince Gill and Deacon Frey, just in time to headline for Azoff's Classic East/West festivals
-------------
What I don't understand is why they bothered pretending they weren't going to do this for so long. Did they want to wait until after Glenn had been dead at least a year before they declared their intentions for the sake of appearances, even though logistically they must been working on the arrangements only months after his death?
SO tired of all the BS.
Yes, I believe this was planned only two months after Glenn's death. In March 2016, Don gave an interview with a Montreal newspaper while on his CC Tour. He gave an interview then with a Montreal newspaper stating the only way he could see the Eagles regrouping was if Deacon was involved. He received all kinds of shit from the press and backtracked stating he was only mussing. I personally believed this was in consideration since than. I thing he/they felt they had to wait until a year after Glenn passed to make this whole thing seem more acceptable. This did not just happen over night.
Wow! That timeline was interesting. Things weren't certainly moving too slow.