Quote Originally Posted by Delilah View Post
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, Vince Gill is no chump. He has won more Grammys than all the Eagles put together. He is from the country music genre, where you cannot possibly succeed unless you have the vocal goods and one cannot simply rely on gimmicks, a sexy image, etc. as some rock/pop acts have (although that may not be the case anymore now that country has changed). I don’t get why it’s so shocking to some that reviewers consistently praise his performances. It’s one thing to say his voice doesn’t suit the songs or doesn’t appeal to one’s personal taste but as far as “quality” goes—Henley chose him for a reason.

Rather than conjuring up conspiracy theories or bashing reviewers, maybe it’s to accept that, for reviewers like much of the public, Vince is a damn fine singer.



Concert reviews should be focused on the performances, IMO. If there were comparisons to be made, they should have been made last summer/fall when this whole enterprise was getting off the ground. Glenn has been gone for almost 2 1/2 years now—and he will never be forgotten—but I do believe the reviewers have struck the right balance between evaluating the performances and remembering Glenn’s contributions. As a fan of Bernie, Randy and Don F, I understand “rewriting history” and I don’t see how that is happening with Glenn.



How is Glenn not being treated fairly? He’s not in the band anymore!
Sorry Delilah I meant in the past, I should have clarified