Originally Posted by
UndertheWire
What are the issues?
1) Should a version of the band continue to play without Glenn?
2) High ticket prices.
3) Should they have backup musicians, off-stage musicians, backing tracks in order to them sound good live?
4) Should they give special opportunities to their children?
The first has been done to death. I'm not keen on the idea but it doesn't hurt me if they do. People close to the band and to Glenn have come around to the idea, so who am I to object? I just don't feel a strong desire to see this version.
They charge what people will pay. I don't have to have to buy tickets and this is where a lack of desire to see them works for me.
They've been using extra musicians since the late seventies. It allows them to play music that they couldn't if it was just the "Eagles". In the 70s, they could pull most of it off with just four of them, but with age comes wear and tear on voices, fingers and backs. If they want to maintain quality, they need help. There's nothing more sad than seeing a once-famous performer who no longer has a voice. We hope they are honest by showing us who is there to help, otherwise it's just a bunch of old guys pretending.
It's essentially a family firm and the owners can bring in members of their families to give them work experience. Again, that started back in the 70s, continued with the HFO tour and looks like it will happen now. Maybe it's not fair to those who don't have family connections, but what business is?
The part I'm interested in is whether it will be any different. This time, there's no new album or documentary to give them a theme and playing the same hits but with Deacon/Vince instead of Glenn seems uninspired.