Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 2345678 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 77

Thread: How have your Eagles opinions changed?

  1. #51
    Moderator Glennsallnighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    ... On a journey from innocence to experience..... In Ireland!
    Posts
    13,963

    Default Re: How have your Eagles opinions changed?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ive always been a dreamer View Post
    I think replacing Joe would be hugely unpopular and have a much more severe impact than losing Felder. Joe's solo songs and stage presence are such an integral part of the second half of the show that I consider him nearly as irreplacable as Henley or Frey.
    I would have to agree with that too Dreamer. Even from talking to avid fans and friends who like the band there is a significant cohort who will attend a show specifically to see Joe perform. For that group of people he is a ticket seller. I would also say that even if you are going to see the band as a whole like I do, or have a different 'favourite' to Joe, his contribution to the overall experience is very important. He has built this up over a long time and I don't think someone else could just step in and reproduce this. Its not like a backing singer or a backing band member is being replaced. Joe has a significant part to play in the overall success of the band.
    'I must be leaving soon... its your world now'
    Glenn Frey 1948-2016 RIP

  2. #52
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,662

    Default Re: How have your Eagles opinions changed?

    I've just thought of somebody who could replace Joe. Francis Rossi.

    After hearing him confess that he prefers country pop, to the rock, Status Quo are famed for, he'd love being in the Eagles. Replace the Walsh tracks with a few heads down, Quo anthems and parity is restored.

    I think the Eagles could easily carry on with Bernie instead of Joe. Glenn and Don have had enough up-tempo solo hits to adequately replace the Walsh tracks.

    The show would probably have to be half an hour shorter but that isn't such a bad thing. I'm sure the fans would still leave satisfied but wanting more, which is key to being a successful act.

    Hearing that Joe, did a 20 plus minutes, set at the end of a Kenny Chesney gig last night has left me seething with jealousy.

    Joe's obviously, not busy enough being an Eagle but too busy to devote adequate effort to a solo career so Walsh fans are left with scraps and left overs.

    Are the Eagles currently anything more than an authentic tribute act?

  3. #53
    Stuck on the Border VAisForEagleLovers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Ridin' with Lady Luck in Kentucky
    Posts
    11,013

    Default Re: How have your Eagles opinions changed?

    Quote Originally Posted by Funk 50 View Post
    Are the Eagles currently anything more than an authentic tribute act?
    How on earth can they be a tribute act of the Eagles when they ARE the Eagles? That statement makes no sense, and so I wonder what point you are trying to make. I realize you think these these guys should spend their time cranking out new music. I would love new music from these guys, as a group and definitely solo, but since their manager has basically said he sees it as a waste of their time, I sincerely doubt it'll happen. I can sort of see why. Half the critics and fans alike criticized LROOE for not being like their old stuff. The other half criticized it for merely cranking out the same old stuff. When they toured for LROOE, they were criticized for playing the new songs when people wanted to hear the hits (of course with HOTE, they've been criticized for not having anything new to play).

    You, F50, are enough of a fan to join a fan forum and post regularly, which makes you more than a casual fan by far. Yet you've criticized LROOE, and you've criticized Analog Man. If you as a big fan of the band so openly dislike their new music, it's easy to see why Irving feels the way he does.

    However we feel about it, the majority of the fans who are actually paying for tickets have made it clear, they want to hear the hits. So I think your comment about them being a tribute band (especially when the current members have been members for nearly 35 years) is out of line.
    VK

    You can't change the world but you can change yourself.

  4. #54
    Border Troubadour
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    England
    Posts
    1,462

    Default Re: How have your Eagles opinions changed?

    Quote Originally Posted by Funk 50 View Post
    I've just thought of somebody who could replace Joe. Francis Rossi.
    *Falls off chair laughing*

    I'd happily pay the ticket price again for them not to play any Quo material if that ever happened.

  5. #55
    Stuck on the Border Jonny Come Lately's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Watching the hazy sun sinking in the sea in England
    Posts
    1,974

    Default Re: How have your Eagles opinions changed?

    Quote Originally Posted by Funk 50 View Post
    I've just thought of somebody who could replace Joe. Francis Rossi.

    After hearing him confess that he prefers country pop, to the rock, Status Quo are famed for, he'd love being in the Eagles. Replace the Walsh tracks with a few heads down, Quo anthems and parity is restored.

    I think the Eagles could easily carry on with Bernie instead of Joe. Glenn and Don have had enough up-tempo solo hits to adequately replace the Walsh tracks.

    The show would probably have to be half an hour shorter but that isn't such a bad thing. I'm sure the fans would still leave satisfied but wanting more, which is key to being a successful act.

    Hearing that Joe, did a 20 plus minutes, set at the end of a Kenny Chesney gig last night has left me seething with jealousy.

    Joe's obviously, not busy enough being an Eagle but too busy to devote adequate effort to a solo career so Walsh fans are left with scraps and left overs.

    Are the Eagles currently anything more than an authentic tribute act?
    I'm sorry but do you seriously think Eagles fans would accept Status Quo songs as substitutes for Joe's songs? Status Quo may be famed for their rock sound but IMO they are far from the level of the likes of Led Zeppelin or Deep Purple, and also from the Eagles themselves. You are entitled to your opinion of course but if you ask me their stuff is just the same old slurry regurgitated over and over. I have seen Quo concert footage on TV and find them boring to watch, every song starts to sound the same to me. None of their songs can match Joe's Life's Been Good.

    I for one would be far from happy if the Eagles replaced Joe with a guy from another band and started playing their songs. I would feel uncomfortable even if it was say David Gilmour or Mark Knopfler who was joining the band in his place and certainly wouldn't be happy to see someone like Rossi (who isn't in the same league as Joe IMO) join the band. The songs Joe plays with the Eagles now were played by the band in the 1970s and therefore have genuine Eagles heritage, rather than just being played for the sake of representing a band member.

    In any case, the Eagles song which I think most resembles Status Quo is Chug All Night. This song is hardly a fan favourite already, who on here really wants wants more songs like that? I'd far prefer to the band to play rockers with the genuine Eagles stamp on them such as Already Gone, GDIH or Outlaw Man.

    I concede that Joe was underused on LROOE, but he was absolutely essential in the 1970s. I could not imagine songs like Hotel California, Those Shoes and LITFL without his contributions - he may not have written the first two, but his guitar parts on those songs make them the classics I think they are. As for your comment about them being a tribute act, all I will say is that I find their commitment to authenticity to be commendable.

    From this and your previous posts I sense that you consider Glenn and Don's 1980s solo works to be more 'rock' than the 1970s Eagles material. I could not disagree more - the Eagles might be one of the softer/more laid-back of the elite rock bands but I've always considered their style to be very much rock, ranging from soft or country rock to a harder or funkier style. I feel that Don and Glenn went pop after the breakup. If the Eagles had wanted to continue making 'country pop' as you call it, why would Joe have joined the band? Bernie would have been less likely to leave the band if they'd not changed their style towards a more mainstream rock sound. He was crucial in defining the band's original country rock sound. There are no such songs on The Long Run and I would say that only TALA (soft rock not country to my ears) on Hotel California could be considered as such.

  6. #56
    Moderator Ive always been a dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Cruising down the center of a two-way street in VA
    Posts
    20,198

    Default Re: How have your Eagles opinions changed?

    Yeah - it seems to me that there are some folks that will never be happy no matter what the band does or doesn’t do. So it's no wonder to me if the band follows the immortal words of Rick Nelson ... "You can't please everyone, so you got to please yourself." While I know there are some that disagree, it seems to me that Joe in the Eagles has worked out pretty darn well – it’s a win-win-win situation. The Eagles are extremely lucky to have Joe for lots of reasons, but mainly because of what he adds to the live shows. Joe is extremely lucky to have the Eagles for lots of reasons, but mainly because it gives his music visibility that he would never have as a solo artist. And Eagles fans are extremely lucky because they get to enjoy the best of both worlds. So, given the band’s success at touring over the last 40 years, if Joe and the Eagles are content with him being in the band, then that’s what is important. It's good enough for this fan. And I'll stand by my original comments – I honestly can’t think of anyone on the planet that I feel would be a suitable replacement for him in the band at this point in their careers. They maybe could have gotten away with replacing Joe at the time of the HFO reunion, but I seriously doubt it. And now, I find the whole idea kind of laughable. But, hey, I've learned to never say never, so if Kid Rock is available, maybe that would work out.

    "People don't run out of dreams: People just run out of time ..."
    Glenn Frey 11/06/1948 - 01/18/2016

  7. #57
    Stuck on the Border
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    24,191

    Default Re: How have your Eagles opinions changed?

    Quote Originally Posted by Funk 50 View Post
    I've just thought of somebody who could replace Joe. Francis Rossi.

    After hearing him confess that he prefers country pop, to the rock, Status Quo are famed for, he'd love being in the Eagles. Replace the Walsh tracks with a few heads down, Quo anthems and parity is restored.

    I think the Eagles could easily carry on with Bernie instead of Joe. Glenn and Don have had enough up-tempo solo hits to adequately replace the Walsh tracks.

    The show would probably have to be half an hour shorter but that isn't such a bad thing. I'm sure the fans would still leave satisfied but wanting more, which is key to being a successful act.

    Hearing that Joe, did a 20 plus minutes, set at the end of a Kenny Chesney gig last night has left me seething with jealousy.

    Joe's obviously, not busy enough being an Eagle but too busy to devote adequate effort to a solo career so Walsh fans are left with scraps and left overs.

    Are the Eagles currently anything more than an authentic tribute act?
    You do know that the Eagles are an American band & virtually nobody in the United States has even heard of Francis Rossi, right? The man is one of my heroes. But a guitar hero he is not.

    I'lll just echo what VA said about your 'authentic tribute act' comment which I find very unfair.
    Last edited by Freypower; 03-28-2015 at 05:53 PM.

  8. #58
    Stuck on the Border VAisForEagleLovers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Ridin' with Lady Luck in Kentucky
    Posts
    11,013

    Default Re: How have your Eagles opinions changed?

    Yes, I assumed F50 was joking with the comment, since I've never heard of Frank Rossi or Status Quo!
    VK

    You can't change the world but you can change yourself.

  9. #59
    Stuck on the Border
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    3,521

    Default Re: How have your Eagles opinions changed?

    Just as Joe was a surprising choice for the Eagles, I guessed F50 was looking for an equally surprising substitution but I can't think of a group that's less compatible with the Eagles and their audience. If you want to boogie at a corporate do, they would be great, but sitting down in an arena, less so. It prompted me to look at what Status Quo are doing now and that was interesting. They alternate between two lineups the "Frantic Four" - original line-up who play deeper cuts and a current line-up who play the greatest hits. I assume Rossi and Rick Parfitt are in both. If you're interested here's more.

    I haven't thought about it much, but it seems to me that many of the 70s "rock" acts that survived moved more into "pop". Just think of Genesis/Peter Gabrial/Phil Collins but I'm sure there are others.

  10. #60
    Stuck on the Border Jonny Come Lately's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Watching the hazy sun sinking in the sea in England
    Posts
    1,974

    Default Re: How have your Eagles opinions changed?

    Agreed about the rock acts moving to pop - Fleetwood Mac are another good example, in the late 1970s they were mostly soft rock but 1987's Tango In The Night is definitely pop to my ears (its sound is dominated by keyboards and synthesisers and features few guitars, let alone guitar solos). In fairness, the rock acts which became more pop tended to continue to be successful in the 1980s, more so than the legendary songwriters like Bob Dylan or Neil Young who both had troubled decades.

    It's possible that a 1980s Led Zeppelin may have gone in a more pop direction based on the evidence of In Through The Out Door, although I think it's unlikely they'd ever have gone outright pop as Page wasn't a big fan of songs like All My Love on ITTOD but as he was 'out of it' as the time had little influence and I believe the proposed follow up album would have marked a return to a harder rock sound (I hate to say it but I fear John Bonham's death may have prevented an ugly fall out between Robert Plant and Jimmy Page).

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •