Eagles.... 3.0

[Delilah]

Thank you for posting all that, TM. It answers a lot of questions.

[OutlawManNJ]

For all those that approve of this continued Eagles....would you approve of a continued Eagles if Henley passed away and Felder, Walsh, Bernie and Tim toured as the Eagles?

[Delilah]

For all those that approve of this continued Eagles....would you approve of a continued Eagles if Henley passed away and Felder, Walsh, Bernie and Tim toured as the Eagles?

As long as there is at least one original Eagle and there is no new member replacing Henley, I think I'd be ok with it. Especially with Felder and Walsh together b/c Hotel California is so iconic for the Eagles. There are a number of bands touring and performing with one or no original members that the grouping you describe is not nearly as much a travesty. At any rate, these are grown men who are entitled to conduct their careers as they wish; it's really not my job to "approve." I don't care for Journey with the fake Steve Perry, but I don't condemn them for continuing to perform as Journey.

[shunlvswx]

I don't know if you are saying if both Glenn and Don were gone. I doubt Joe and Timothy would continue on as the Eagles and I doubt the people you listed would start up the Eagles with them. I just don't see that. I also don't see Irving pushing Joe and Timothy. Joe and Timothy are not that dumb to continue the Eagles without either Glenn and/or Don. They respect them too much.

If the tables had turned and it was Don, yes I would had still support them if they got back together and I would had still support them as solo artist too like I'm doing now. Irving probably would had pressure Glenn too to put the band back together.

[Delilah]

From tonight's I Heart Radio interview. Transcripted by Eagles Fastlane on Facebook:

Here is the entire transcript of the I Love Radio Interview.
"That’s the important thing…that people want to hear these songs and they want to hear them played live by the people who were involved.”

Don's statement here is intriguing--the people (other than Don and Glenn) who were involved with most of their hits haven't been part of the Eagles for many years.

[Dawn]

Any guesses on who Henley/Azoff recruited to join the brand (not a typo).

I'm thinking one of them is Deacon Frey. Bernie? Jackson? JD?

What about Steuart Smith. Did he get a mention at all?

[chaim]

Any guesses on who Henley/Azoff recruited to join the brand (not a typo).

I'm thinking one of them is Deacon Frey. Bernie? Jackson? JD?

What about Steuart Smith. Did he get a mention at all?

I think it's obvious by now that whatever they do, Steuart will be there. Plus he's never been an actual member. So he doesn't need to be mentioned.

[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.

[Annoying Twit]

Thank you very much to Tequila Mockingbird for posting the interview. It really helps fill in the gaps, and it's good to see the opinions of the three remaining Eagles.

I wouldn't jump to any conclusions as to who will be performing with them and who won't (apart from Steuart being involved. I'd be very surprised if he isn't.)

It's interesting that Don describes this as a celebration of Glenn's work, and good that he mentions that Glenn's family was approached/consulted. I also note that Don says that Glenn would approve. I can't think of anyone who would know what Glenn would want in this musical sense than Don H.

As for some questions that have been posed in other posts. I would very much like to see people such as Bob S, Jackson B, JD Souther, Jack T, Deacon F, and others appear.

Whether or not a band is Eagles or not is not an either or thing, but shades of grey. I don't feel that the band became less "Eagles" during the 70s even with personnel changes as they were still regularly producing new content. They did create LRooE as a four piece, but even so it seems to me that they were a little less than full Eagles after Don F left. I can't logically defend that, it's just how I feel. The band without Glenn is far less Eagles than even the four piece. If Don H wasn't involved, if it were just Joe and Tim, then it would be hardly Eagles at all to me. Adding Bernie increases the 'Eagle-ness' of any band, but for me the band needs either Glenn or Don H to be even a 'part Eagles'.

But, if it was legal and with the agreement of Don H or his family if Don H had passed, I wouldn't have any problem with them continuing in that way. I just wouldn't think it was very much the Eagles. But it's shades of grey. not absolutely is/is not.

If Don F started up Eagles without any other members then I would consider it a tribute band. Also, the Eagles name is owned by people. Both legally and morally. If the legal and moral owners of the name gave Don F permission, then I wouldn't object. I'd still consider it pretty much a tribute band, however.

People have used 'remnants' in various ways, but for me, I think the description works. They are the remnants of Eagles, but having remnants of Eagles is better than no Eagles at all. And, the remnants of Eagles have both the legal and moral right to continue playing under the name. Particularly if Glenn's family approve.

I believe that the concerts themselves will tell us more about their motivations. (For those who don't want to believe Don H, Joe, and Tim's words.) If it is just a money grab, then they'll use cheap and faceless people to fill in Glenn's parts. If they have known artists such as Bob, JD, Jack, etc. appearing, then that would show that it's not just about the money, but also about celebrating Glenn.

[Dawn]

I think it's obvious by now that whatever they do, Steuart will be there. Plus he's never been an actual member. So he doesn't need to be mentioned.

True I was just wondering if they'd keep their lineup or revise it to make room for the new sidemen.

Personally, who they recruit to replace the irreplaceable Glenn Frey makes absolutely no difference to me. I'm not buying what Azoff/Henley are trying to sell.

IMHO Don got it right the first time. No Glenn. No Eagles. Then Azoff called.

Didn't have to end this way.

Sad. Desperate. Greedy.