For Those Saying Glenn Frey is Necessary to the Eagles; no Glenn, no legit Eagles

[WalshFan88]

I don’t think Don would intentionally mislead today. He might backtrack but I doubt he would lie.

Perhaps, but I don't believe him when he says why they were continuing on. From what I know of the band, have seen, plus his actions tell me this is a shameless cash grab. And it reeks of greed. Again, that's just my observation. I stand by it.

Speaking of money, I would bet a good sum that it wasn't just Deacon that made them continue. If Deacon had said no, Don would have tried to move on with another singer and see how fans would react. The buck didn't stop with Deacon, IMO.

Maybe he's not a pathological liar, but I think he fibs from time to time.

[YoungEaglesFan]

Perhaps, but I don't believe him when he says why they were continuing on. From what I know of the band, have seen, plus his actions tell me this is a shameless cash grab. And it reeks of greed. Again, that's just my observation. I stand by it.

Speaking of money, I would bet a good sum that it wasn't just Deacon that made them continue. If Deacon had said no, Don would have tried to move on with another singer and see how fans would react. The buck didn't stop with Deacon, IMO.

Maybe he's not a pathological liar, but I think he fibs from time to time.

My take on the resumption of the Eagles was that it motivated by money. That’s why bands tour at this age. But that without Deacon being there the Frey family would probably not support it, it would be more criticized, and people would just be turned off by the thought of another tour. I agree it wasn’t just Deacon, but without Deacon I don’t think a new tour would be feasible. I don’t think the guys in the band are mal intentioned. It’s arguable if what they are doing is right or wrong but I don’t think they are doing out of [I]just[I] greed. I think the band believes what they are doing is just. I don’t like the view they are doing it just to get more money and are lying to cover that part up.

[YoungEaglesFan]

AT, I don't think anyone has implied any knowledge of anyone close to Glenn disapproving. Rather, that if someone disapproved they would be likely to keep quiet, at least publically, out of respect for Glenn's family. Therefore it isn't a safe assumption that everyone approves just because no one has expressed disapproval. Perhaps I'm reading it that way, because that's the conclusion I'd already reached on my own.

What we do know is that Cindy, Deacon and Taylor Frey, Irving Azoff, Don Henley, Joe Walsh, Timothy B Schmit, Bob Seger, Jack Tempchin and Thomas Sullivan have shown support or acceptance of the band continuing.

Well there is a back and forth about Bob Segar supporting the band continuing, so I wouldn’t list him

[YoungEaglesFan]

When I saw someone say “I don’t know what to tell you” to you, she had said the same thing a few times already, but it seemed that you just replied what you had said already and didn't comment her words in any way. I didn't see how you were trying to understand her viewpoint. I don't know about other occasions, who has said what, so I'm not saying that what you claim hasn't happened.

You’re right about the last instance in the case of me talking about Glenn and the harmonies. I’m talking about other instances. Should have clarified my bad

[YoungEaglesFan]

When I saw someone say “I don’t know what to tell you” to you, she had said the same thing a few times already, but it seemed that you just replied what you had said already and didn't comment her words in any way. I didn't see how you were trying to understand her viewpoint. I don't know about other occasions, who has said what, so I'm not saying that what you claim hasn't happened.

You’re right, in that instance (the Glenn and the harmonies discussion). I meant this and another instance but I should have clarified. My bad

[Dawn]

Perhaps, but I don't believe him when he says why they were continuing on. From what I know of the band, have seen, plus his actions tell me this is a shameless cash grab. And it reeks of greed. Again, that's just my observation. I stand by it.

Speaking of money, I would bet a good sum that it wasn't just Deacon that made them continue. If Deacon had said no, Don would have tried to move on with another singer and see how fans would react. The buck didn't stop with Deacon, IMO.

Maybe he's not a pathological liar, but I think he fibs from time to time.

You know, the more I actually think about it and reflect upon thought provoking posts like this one and others the more I realize had Deacon said no it is quite possible, perhaps even likely, they would have at least tried to find another solution rather than just hang it up.

[WalshFan88]

My take on the resumption of the Eagles was that it motivated by money. That’s why bands tour at this age. But that without Deacon being there the Frey family would probably not support it, it would be more criticized, and people would just be turned off by the thought of another tour. I agree it wasn’t just Deacon, but without Deacon I don’t think a new tour would be feasible. I don’t think the guys in the band are mal intentioned. It’s arguable if what they are doing is right or wrong but I don’t think they are doing out of [I]just[I] greed. I think the band believes what they are doing is just. I don’t like the view they are doing it just to get more money and are lying to cover that part up.

And obviously that has worked for Don and Co. "Oh, Deacon is involved so it all must be alright, let's go!" is a common trend amongst those going. That was never going to be enough for me, considering what was behind it all, IMO.

That said, I think Don would have tried it without him. It may not have worked but I bet dollars to donuts he would give it a whirl and see how it played out.

I just wish they'd be more forthcoming about the reasons. It isn't for the love of it, not from what I've pieced together. It's absolutely about one last big cash grab. Maybe it is therapeutic for Deacon as he's claimed, but that wasn't going to be the motivation for Irving or Don or even Tim or Joe, IMO. My guess is that Irving and Don had it all planned out with all bases covered before Deacon got the call. They would have had alternatives lined up and the money all figured out.

[Freypower]

I have read much of the 3.0 thread, over time. What I see there are people making claims, and expressing their beliefs about things. What I don't see is people making reasoned cases for their claims.


I must admit that certain things, such as this seeming belief that those close to Glenn are unable to express their opposition (even as they seemingly support the band) seem very odd to me. Note: I'm not saying, given your most recent posting, that you yourself are thinking this.

Hence me wanting to know more about why people are believing what they believe.



No, you don't have to approve of it if you don't want to. Neither do you have to explain yourself if you don't want to. However, I wished to understand why people are believing things. E.g. in this thread what appears to be (as far as I can see) a belief that those close to Glenn may well not approve of Eagles continuing but not be expressing that in public. Hence I have tried to learn more about this, including going off and doing quite a bit of research about what those close to Glenn have done.

When you say that you would like your viewpoint respected, what do you mean by this? How should other forum members be acting towards you and your posts?

For a start, the thread was originally about Bob Seger's heartfelt comments about Glenn in an article. It was you who made the statement that you believed Seger approved of the band continuing. I responded to that - to my great regret. Now the entire topic has been derailed for which I must accept some responsibilty & for which I apologise.

If you don't think the people who oppose this have made 'reasoned' claims then no amount of restating the case will convince you otherwise. So forgive me, but I am not going over it again.

You talk about 'research' implying that you & only you are able to see this in a rational, unemotional manner. Your approach to this subject is very similar to someone who no longer posts here.

When I say I wish my opinion to be respected I mean precisely that, just as you wish yours to be respected. Is that so hard to understand?

[Freypower]

I’ve seen this scene play out a couple times for Me personally and for others. I’ve had trouble avoiding arguments which is my fault but there have been times when I just tried to understand other view points and all I’m told is “I don’t know what to tell you”. It’s a tough place to be (for me at least) to avoid arguing but then try to gain a deeper understanding when all I get told is that.

My use of the phrase 'I don't know what to tell you' above was directed at AT, not you. My discussion in this thread has been with him, not you.

[New Kid In Town]

Austin - I agree. Deacon was the frosting on the cake so to speak. He made it legit and acceptable to many, many fans. I have said all along that I think Don(and Irving) were planing this as far back as March 2016, when he gave that interview with that Montreal newspaper. And, that was only two months after Glenn passed.
When I listened to that interview the guys gave in March 2017 to i-heart radio, via my local classic rock station, Joe was the only one who sounded hesitant. Don and Tim gushed on and on about doing it for the fans and saying over and over that Glenn would have approved. Like they were trying to convince everyone it was ok.