Eagles.... 3.0

[Annoying Twit]

I can't imagine that there won't be a significant tribute to Glenn during the upcoming concerts. I would like to see them do a tribute similar to the Concert for George, which I think was really excellent.

Of course, what would be more important is that there is the tribute (or even lack of a tribute) that Glenn wanted. The guys have known each other for most of their lives. They will know more about each other than we ever could.

[Annoying Twit]

I don't understand what you're saying to me in the beginning of this post, but earlier you said "I'm not sure what will happen at the concerts. But, I do believe that having something left of Eagles (which is what I interpret this to be, not full Eagles) is better than having nothing left and the music dying."

All I'm saying is that if they didn't perform without Glenn, I don't agree that the situation would be as bad as "having nothing left and the music dying". Whether music "dying" or "being alive" is a good or bad way to put it has nothing to do with my point.

I don't disagree with what you say in the latter half of this post I quoted. But what you (and perhaps some others - I don't usually remember who said what ) said earlier painted a more grim picture IMO.

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.

[chaim]

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.

I have no problem with how you see this - at least now that you've explained it. The earlier post of yours seemed more grim than what you've been saying after that. Personally I feel that - even if they choose to continue - they don't have too many years left anyway at this point as a band, so a few extra years at this point ain't that much in terms of keeping the music "alive". Just the way I see it. I think radio and word-of-mouth will always be getting them new fans.

I have no problem with your dead/alive metaphor about music either. It's a common one. It's just the way you used it that made it look like their music will be forgotten any minute now if they don't keep on playing live.

[sodascouts]

However, if it were only money that was involved, then why would they be working on new material and a new album?

Did I miss something? Was a new album announced? Please link me to this announcement.

I know that money has been a factor for them for a long time - for Glenn as well. They've been criticized for that before by many. No one, not even the most ardent fan, thinks it was just about the art for any of them.

But there are some lines that shouldn't be crossed. Family shouldn't be sacrificed. Integrity shouldn't be sacrificed. In my opinion, the Eagles legacy shouldn't be sacrificed.

I thought Don felt the same way, from things he said - his now-infamous quote about greed and desperation was made less than four months ago. Right up until the announcement, I naively believed they wouldn't call themselves the Eagles.

I was wrong.

Please spare me the "It's what Glenn would want" line. You don't know that, so it comes off as an attempt to emotionally manipulate those who love him.

You know, some people here in the past have taken pleasure in criticizing the band and its members, especially Glenn and Don. I find it painful to do so.

This is true not only of the Eagles, but of Don. I don't enjoy criticizing him either. I have driven all over to see him solo because he is an amazing songwriter with an unforgettable voice. I was happy to drive 4, 5, even 6 hours just to hear that voice, feel it charge the air and vibrate straight to my soul. I loved him, too - don't dismiss me as "just a Glenn fan."

For years, I have poured an incredible amount of time, effort, money, and emotional investment into this band and its members. These sites are just the beginning. Those of you who know me know how deeply I have cared. I have been a fierce advocate of the Eagles when some of the contributors to this thread have insulted them, disparaged them. I fought for them. I adored them, and now...

My heart is broken.

No pronouncements about how I "should" feel will mend it.

As for the Remnants of the Eagles, nothing they do will mend it, either, and that includes name-dropping Glenn during these shows.

Last night, I tried to think of a way they could somehow make this right, some way that would allow me to love them again, because I want to love them again.

I couldn't think of anything.

As for those of you who are pleased by this development, more power to you. I won't tell you you're wrong to feel that way. I won't tell you that you shouldn't go to these shows. Do what makes you happy.

Just don't tell me I'm "unreasonable" and "unfair" for not feeling the same way you do.

[Funk 50]

Some people here seem to suggest that it's better that they continue performing without Glenn than to let the Eagles music die. Does this mean the Eagles music will die a few years from now, when they really can't play live anymore? So they only have a few more years to desperately keep the Eagles music alive? If so, I don't agree. (The) Eagles's musical legacy is big enough by now to survive without live performances by the band.

The Eagles did quit in 1981. I don't think anybody questions that their music was kept alive almost entirely by Radio. Radio no longer has that power. Glenn also insisted that he and Don were paid twice as much as the other Eagles as, he claimed, they did the most to promote the band's name during the "14 year vacation". The band's name held firm but the names of the individuals involved can be covered by Glenn's phrase "Prelude to obscurity".

The Eagles were bigger in the 70s but richer in the 90s and beyond. The HFO tour was the tour that started the big rewards for heritage artists. Classic East/West is no more money grabbing than HFO was.

I've observed that many, many loyal Eagles fans became Eagles fans after that money grabbing, HFO reunion. After they all said the Eagles were finished, after Don ststed that The Eagles will reunite when "Hell Freezes Over".

Tim, Joe and especially Don, have invested most of their working lives in this band, they've never been bit part players, they've worked their asses off, just as much as Glenn, to achieve all that they did and they've all been richly rewarded, there's no "desperately" about keeping it going. They obviously want to carry on being the Eagles. They can't carry on with Glenn so they have to carry on without him.

All those who say Glenn deserved better just remember that Mozart, among many great artists, died in penniless obscurity. In the music industry, few have been as handsomely rewarded as the Eagles. They've made the best of the hand they were dealt, they'd be mad to walk away while the machines still coughing up riches.

Honour and respect are great things to have, the Eagles have received plenty, not least their award last December from President Obama. 'Well deserved' was the general consensus wasn't it? I've never had a problem with the band chasing more tangible rewards and I don't expect it will change in future... at least, not until Irving's demise.

[Annoying Twit]

Did I miss something? Was a new album announced? Please link me to this announcement.
.

Please see my previous post, discussion of an 'album' was a mistake on my part. This is what happens when I read articles at work when I can't give them full focus. When I quickly read the article I was fooled by the recent 'March' un-yeared date and discussion that appeared to match recent events. When I went back and checked the article properly I found a reference to Don H's just-released solo album "Inside Job".

Apologies if I caused any confusion. After I didn't believe that Eagles would be playing the festivals until long into the process, I just thought I'd go with that one. Mistake.

.But there are some lines that shouldn't be crossed. Family shouldn't sacrificed. Integrity shouldn't be sacrificed. In my opinion, the Eagles legacy shouldn't be sacrificed.

I thought Don felt the same way, from things he said - his now-infamous quote about greed and desperation was made less than four months ago. Right up until the announcement, I naively believed they wouldn't call themselves the Eagles.

I was wrong.

Please spare me the "It's what Glenn would want" line. You don't know that, so it comes off as an attempt to emotionally manipulate those who love him.

You know, some people here in the past have taken pleasure in trashing the band and its members, especially Glenn and Don. I find it painful to do so.

This is true not only of the Eagles, but of Don. I don't enjoy criticizing him either. I have driven all over to see him solo because he is an amazing songwriter with an unforgettable voice. I was happy to drive 4, 5, even 6 hours just to hear that voice, feel it charge the air and vibrate straight to my soul. I loved him, too, you know - don't dismiss me as "just a Glenn fan."

For years, I have poured an incredible amount of time, effort, money, and emotional investment into this band and its members. These sites are just the beginning. Those of you who know me know how deeply I have cared. I have been a fierce advocate of the Eagles when some of the contributors to this thread have insulted them, disparaged them. I fought for them. I adored them, and now...

My heart is broken.

No pronouncements about how I "should" feel will mend it.

As for the Remnants of the Eagles, nothing they do will mend it, either, and that includes name-dropping Glenn during these shows.

Last night, I tried to think of a way they could somehow make this right, some way that would allow me to love them again, because I want to love them again.

I couldn't think of anything.

As for those of you who are pleased by this development, more power to you. I won't tell you you're wrong to feel that way. I won't tell you that you shouldn't go. Do what makes you happy.

Just don't tell me I'm "unreasonable" and "unfair" for not feeling the same way you do.

I haven't said "It's what Glenn would want." I am saying that the other members will know what Glenn would want better than us, which doesn't logically imply that what they are doing is compatible with what he would want nor not. I'm also saying that if I try to think of what Glenn would want, then I imagine that he would want his songs sung live. That's far from saying that definitely is what he would want.

I used the terms "unreasonable" and "unfair", so I imagine the last sentence is above is directed at me. I didn't say it was unreasonable or unfair to feel one way or another. That was specifically aimed at specific claims about the band. I'm happy for anyone to feel what they like about the band reuniting. But, if people say that Don, Tim, and Joe are continuing because of X or Y, then that's a claim about what other people are thinking. And that can be unfair and unreasonable if we don't know what they are thinking, the context they're in (e.g. what they know of Glenn, and Glenn's family's beliefs/opinions), but make claims about them. Claims about third persons should be firmly evidenced.

BTW: I am not 'happy' for the band to continue. I just think it's better than them never playing together again.

[Philh]

Many people don't seem to like Irving.
I actually do- his job as manager is to make the best possible decisions to further the career and fortunes of the many bands under his wing.
He has done a remarkable job- he has helped the Eagles capitalise on their talents. They would have done well without Irving but his drive, power and influence certainly helped propel the band into the superstar league they are in.
If Irving had sat back and coasted along, I'm sure fans would be moaning more.
As Don once said, "He may be Satan, but at least he is our Satan!"
Sure ticket prices are high but that is the norm these days.
Of course I would prefer to see the band in a small intimate venue but those days of the early 70's are long gone.
I hope Soda can rekindle her love of the Eagles and continue with this excellent message board.

[MaryCalifornia]

It's all very mixed up. I think emotionally, a lot of fans aren't ready to move on because they (we) feel there should be some kind of tribute to Glenn that is shared with fans. Perhaps what is particularly upsetting is that Don, Joe, Timothy and Irving are moving to the next stage without giving us that tribute.

We have multiple references in these threads to the tribute to George Harrison that took place one year after he died. Per Wikipedia: The event was organised by Harrison's widow, Olivia, and son, Dhani, and arranged under the musical direction of Eric Clapton and Jeff Lynne. The profits from the event went to the Material World Charitable Foundation, an organisation set up by Harrison.

The person responsible for all elements of mourning the death of a loved one is the spouse, not work colleagues. Just like if it were you or me who died. Cindy is the one who would be spearheading a public tribute to Glenn, not Don, Timothy and Joe. I feel confident that if she asked them to put one on, they would do it, don't you? Though EAGLES is a big massive machine, Glenn was a private person with a family, and his family is honoring his life in the ways that they wish to honor it. Without Cindy's participation and blessing, the Eagles brand does not even have a moral or ethical right to put on a public concert tribute to Glenn. If you are unhappy that there hasn't been a public event, direct your request to Cindy, not your ire at Don, Joe, Tim and Irving, who are certainly friends and colleagues, but are not the decision-makers when it comes to events honoring his passing.

The guys played at the Grammys in his honor, which was obviously difficult. They participated in a blow-out private memorial. They sat with Cindy at the Kennedy Center Honors. They speak of Glenn in every interview. They sing his songs and dedicate songs to him in every solo show. They will undoubtedly honor him at the Classic shows. Some will think their public acknowledgement of his death has been entirely appropriate, but others think it is sorely lacking. I think we should keep in mind that in this most sensitive and stressful situation, Cindy is the one in charge of how his fans are to be acknowledged.

[Funk 50]

......
Last night, I tried to think of a way they could somehow make this right, some way that would allow me to love them again, because I want to love them again.

I couldn't think of anything.

I'm really impressed with your balance and fortitude sodascouts. Sure I'm a loyal Eaglesfan but my ability to care is but a fraction of your's.

Presuming that you were looking forward to Glenn's Broadway stage show. Isn't that still something to look forward to?

I concur with your comments about Irving, Philh and your last line about sodascouts. ... and well said MaryCalifornia

[MaryCalifornia]

I too am impressed with Soda's continued participation and inputs despite the fact that she is in mourning. I really hope she will continue the board, and maybe take me up on my offer from a couple of years ago to help with a fundraising effort from board members to cover costs (and maybe a little extra to buy herself something nice since we all derive so much pleasure from being a part of this community )