Originally Posted by
Annoying Twit
Speaking of the music dying is a metaphor, and of course music never dies in the same way that living things die. In hindsight, I should have used a different analogy or not used an analogy. So, without an analogy, I meant that fewer and fewer people will know the music if they just stop. And part of music being 'alive' to me is that it's played, both by the original artist and by others. If the remnants of Eagles play the songs, then this to me is a positive thing. I find it difficult to imagine a songwriter not wanting their songs to be played after the songwriter has passed on. And if they're going to be played, why not by Don, Tim, & Joe?
And of course, even if Eagles never perform again, there will still be the past music to play, probably new solo material, covers, etc. However, there would be no functioning band, no new band material. That is what I meant by nothing left. In terms of the future, as distinct from the past, I would prefer there be something in the future rather than nothing more.
By having 'nothing left' I mean the band. Which can exist or not exist separate from its legacy. Legacy including previous recordings of all types, the songs already written, etc. If the remnants of Eagles never met up again, never played live, then there is no band any more. Legacy yes, band, no. This is what I meant by 'nothing left'. I would prefer that there still is a band, even without Glenn, than no band.
BTW: Up above I thought I'd found reference to Don H talking about a new album. I was shocked to see this but carefully went through my history to find the link. It was an ABC link and by reading it carefully and fully, I found that the March mentioned in the year-less date was before LRooE. So, I was mistaken.
But, going back to that. Even if the band will never record new material, I would still prefer to have the band do some concerts than never play again.