Quote Originally Posted by chaim View Post
The answer to one of the questions seems to be that they never discussed doing it without Glenn.
My two cents - of course they discussed doing it without Glenn. I'm guessing this discussion (with Irving) took place every year for many years starting in the late '80s. They never got to a point where, on balance, they thought it was a good idea to take the first steps without him, but I do think that if Glenn never got on board, Henley, Felder, Schmit, Walsh and who-knows-who-else would have eventually done something. As Don said in HOTE, he was OK with "being in a band again." He didn't say "re-forming the Eagles." Then we get into the same territory we were in in the Led Zeppelin thread - would you go see them? Many would, especially since many Eagles fans (myself included until a few years ago) don't know who sings which songs.

I don't think there would legal problems with Henley, Felder, Walsh and Schmit billing themselves as the Eagles.

Having said all of this as a narrow, direct response to the title of the thread, I think Glenn "is" the Eagles and I adore him and they wouldn't be the same without him. But as I said in the Led Zeppelin thread re: Robert Plant's unwillingness to join in, the music shouldn't be precious, and the other guys shouldn't have to sit home for years because one guy doesn't want to join in. But that's for a different thread - would you go?