Eagles.... 3.0

[YoungEaglesFan]

You admit that this 'sound quality' is not as good now. Yet you still claim that Glenn's singing & presumably also musicianship was the least of his talents. I say to you that you could not be more wrong.

Please don't talk to me or some of the other senior members of this board about 'time, money & emotional investments'.

I had no intention of being 'disrespectful' towards you but what you said needed to be challenged. I am finished with this topic.

I am more than willing to say you guys have done more as fans of the Eagles but for some reason you won't accept me as being one. That's my issue. The sound quality in some ways is better because having the youth helps BUT it's not the true Eagles sound so it's in my subjective opinion worse. Glenn's singing wasn't the least of his abilities. It was just the least important as of now. Glenns voice is great and maybe my favorite but it lacks a special quality. It is more plain sounding which is a reason why I like it. But what I loved about Glenn was, he was the leader of the band, the guy with the jokes, the man up front, the one who called band meetings. In a band with 7 Guys who have sang lead vocals, his work as a writer, composer, leader, and band mate made him so special. His work ethic was spectacular. These great traits made Glenn so great. His voice was great but one could argue it wasn't the best in the band. The band doesn't miss his voice. The miss the person. The reviews of the Eagles concert say they've been great. And they have. They replaced a great voice with two good ones. So the main drop off his Glenn's personality. I accept challenges to my views. That's why I commented on this. But it needs to be accurate and respectful. I praised you as being an exceptional fan but you think I act like I'm better than you. Why?

[YoungEaglesFan]

Let's not forget -- Glenn Frey didn't have to be replaced. The band could have continued performing without him maintaining song power and keeping the legacy of the Eagles from being reimagined/reinvented post Glenn Frey. They could have also just quit and continued with their solo careers honoring Glenn in their own way as they had been doing all along. The Eagles music was never going to be forgotten if Vince Gill and Deacon Frey hadn't been tapped to replace Glenn. Bands don't live forever ... their music does.

I don't think that was an awful choice but I dont think what don did was wrong. It was respectful, reserved and I think he knew his place. I believe Don would rather do his own thing than spend time with the Eagles. I don't think it was selfishly motivated. This continuation I believe is neither good or bad. It's just the band going on for a year or two. A couple years that will provide lifetime of good memories to some. Is that not worth a watered down eagles for a couple years? These years will not be remembered by those who didn't see them. It's the most irrelevant time in the bands history and is only relevant because Glenn is dead.

[WalshFan88]

You admit that this 'sound quality' is not as good now. Yet you still claim that Glenn's singing & presumably also musicianship was the least of his talents. I say to you that you could not be more wrong.

Please don't talk to me or some of the other senior members of this board about 'time, money & emotional investments'.

I had no intention of being 'disrespectful' towards you but what you said needed to be challenged. I am finished with this topic.

Well said.

[WalshFan88]

This continuation I believe is neither good or bad. It's just the band going on for a year or two. A couple years that will provide lifetime of good memories to some. Is that not worth a watered down eagles for a couple years? These years will not be remembered by those who didn't see them. .

Well, I'm not about to judge those for going but I personally feel sorry that they never got a chance to see the real thing. To me a watered down Eagles, is just that, a caricature of what it used to be. I'd personally, in the shoes of someone who has never seen the band, choose not to go and not remember something that isn't on the same level of quality as what came before. If they want to go, they should go and feel ok doing so. But I just don't feel like they'd be seeing the same band as I called the Eagles. It's not about the fans that want to go, it's about being offered a very diluted experience of what used to be greatness. I feel for people that never got to see the band. But I just don't feel going on for a couple of years with a watered down experience was in any way the right thing to do here.

[Freypower]

I am more than willing to say you guys have done more as fans of the Eagles but for some reason you won't accept me as being one. That's my issue. The sound quality in some ways is better because having the youth helps BUT it's not the true Eagles sound so it's in my subjective opinion worse. Glenn's singing wasn't the least of his abilities. It was just the least important as of now. Glenns voice is great and maybe my favorite but it lacks a special quality. It is more plain sounding which is a reason why I like it. But what I loved about Glenn was, he was the leader of the band, the guy with the jokes, the man up front, the one who called band meetings. In a band with 7 Guys who have sang lead vocals, his work as a writer, composer, leader, and band mate made him so special. His work ethic was spectacular. These great traits made Glenn so great. His voice was great but one could argue it wasn't the best in the band. The band doesn't miss his voice. The miss the person. The reviews of the Eagles concert say they've been great. And they have. They replaced a great voice with two good ones. So the main drop off his Glenn's personality. I accept challenges to my views. That's why I commented on this. But it needs to be accurate and respectful. I praised you as being an exceptional fan but you think I act like I'm better than you. Why?

Utterly, totally wrong.

Glenn Frey was my favourite singer (WAS). To say that this band or whatever it calls itself doesn't 'miss' or need his voice is wrong. That is my opinion, just as I suppose your sweeping 'the band doesn't miss his voice' statement is yours.

You are insulting every single one of Frey's fans when you state that his personality was what was most important about him. Sadly, this is a common misconception, even among people he used to work with like Don Felder, that vocally he wasn't that hot. You'll get no argument that he wasn't the band's best guitarist; but it is unfair in the extreme to be so scathing about his voice (even if you grudgingly use the word 'great' in the very same paragraph you have damned the man with faint praise about how 'plain sounding' he was.

The loss of his personality also leaves them sadly diminshed. At least you concede that.

I have not said that I think you are acting as if you are better than me. I am saying that you grossly underestimate Frey's talents.

As Austin said to you, the 'watered down' Eagles which even you admit is 'irrelevant' is not worth the effort. It is a poor substitute for something which was great & should be rights have finished.

[New Kid In Town]

QUOTE BY: YEF "I don't think that was an awful choice but I dont think what don did was wrong. It was respectful, reserved and I think he knew his place. I believe Don would rather do his own thing than spend time with the Eagles. I don't think it was selfishly motivated. This continuation I believe is neither good or bad. It's just the band going on for a year or two. A couple years that will provide lifetime of good memories to some. Is that not worth a watered down eagles for a couple years? These years will not be remembered by those who didn't see them. It's the most irrelevant time in the bands history and is only relevant because Glenn is dead."

YEF - We could go on arguing with you forever about this.You state Don would rather do his own thing than spend time with the Eagles. Well, if that is true, than that is what he should/would be doing.(NOTE:His touring last year was contractually obligated via his Cass County cd before Glenn passed and should not count regarding this). He made numerous statements, including as late as Dec. 2016, that the Eagles would no longer perform again. He stated Glenn was irreplaceable. That without Glenn, the founder, leader, co-lead singer/songwriter, it would be a money grab. Well, that is what it has become and it is selfishly motivated. They have replaced Glenn. You think that Glenn's voice is plain and not the best in the band, but I and many other people here disagree with you. His voice was different but beautiful. The same with Randy's and Bernies's were. You ask if it is not worth a watered down Eagles for a couple of years and my answer is a resounding NO. We feel this cheapens the legacy of the Eagles. I think it is safe to assume that had Don Henley passed instead of Glenn, we would not see this version of the Eagles. Glenn would never have tried to replace Don H. and understood his importance to the legacy of the band. This was a bold and calculated move by Don H. and Irving Azoff motivated by money. Yes, Glenn was about money, but not enough to cheapen the legacy of the band he loved and spent 3/4 of his life guiding and performing in. And THAT is mine as well as numerous other people's point.

NOTE:MY ABOVE STATEMENTS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THOSE WHO HAVE CHOSEN TO GO SEE THE BAND. I HAVE STATED NUMEROUS TIMES THAT THOSE WHO WANT TO GO SHOULD DO SO. THIS IS A RESPONSE TO YEF STATEMENTS ONLY.

[WalshFan88]

I am more than willing to say you guys have done more as fans of the Eagles but for some reason you won't accept me as being one. That's my issue. The sound quality in some ways is better because having the youth helps BUT it's not the true Eagles sound so it's in my subjective opinion worse. Glenn's singing wasn't the least of his abilities. It was just the least important as of now. Glenns voice is great and maybe my favorite but it lacks a special quality. It is more plain sounding which is a reason why I like it. But what I loved about Glenn was, he was the leader of the band, the guy with the jokes, the man up front, the one who called band meetings. In a band with 7 Guys who have sang lead vocals, his work as a writer, composer, leader, and band mate made him so special. His work ethic was spectacular. These great traits made Glenn so great. His voice was great but one could argue it wasn't the best in the band. The band doesn't miss his voice. The miss the person. The reviews of the Eagles concert say they've been great. And they have. They replaced a great voice with two good ones. So the main drop off his Glenn's personality. I accept challenges to my views. That's why I commented on this. But it needs to be accurate and respectful. I praised you as being an exceptional fan but you think I act like I'm better than you. Why?

This was totally uncalled for IMO. Your comments on Glenn's voice are just not at all correct. Glenn's voice lacks nothing. NOTHING. That's not up for debate.

His voice is equal to Henley's. It has every quality Don Henley's does. So no, one could NOT argue his voice wasn't the best. Any real Eagles fan would realize that.

I think it was silly to have him sing less songs as time went on. Don, as good of a singer as he is, isn't the best vocalist in the band. He was no greater than Glenn.

[chaim]

I think you misunderstood what i was saying. I do take a side. I am pro current Eagles lineup not because it makes them better but that they can have a final goodbye, let people like me see them etc BUT i understand the other sides view on this. I was trying to say that those who have previously seen the Eagles with Glenn Frey would have no need to see the current lineup and thus wouldn't like the new lineup. People who haven't like me, typically defend the lineup because it allows us to see them.

Ok, thanks for clarifying.

[YoungEaglesFan]

Well, I'm not about to judge those for going but I personally feel sorry that they never got a chance to see the real thing. To me a watered down Eagles, is just that, a caricature of what it used to be. I'd personally, in the shoes of someone who has never seen the band, choose not to go and not remember something that isn't on the same level of quality as what came before. If they want to go, they should go and feel ok doing so. But I just don't feel like they'd be seeing the same band as I called the Eagles. It's not about the fans that want to go, it's about being offered a very diluted experience of what used to be greatness. I feel for people that never got to see the band. But I just don't feel going on for a couple of years with a watered down experience was in any way the right thing to do here.

I get that and I don't plan on debating that. That is just something I can't change your mind on and something you can't change my mind on. I accept that

[YoungEaglesFan]

Utterly, totally wrong.

Glenn Frey was my favourite singer (WAS). To say that this band or whatever it calls itself doesn't 'miss' or need his voice is wrong. That is my opinion, just as I suppose your sweeping 'the band doesn't miss his voice' statement is yours.

You are insulting every single one of Frey's fans when you state that his personality was what was most important about him. Sadly, this is a common misconception, even among people he used to work with like Don Felder, that vocally he wasn't that hot. You'll get no argument that he wasn't the band's best guitarist; but it is unfair in the extreme to be so scathing about his voice (even if you grudgingly use the word 'great' in the very same paragraph you have damned the man with faint praise about how 'plain sounding' he was.

The loss of his personality also leaves them sadly diminshed. At least you concede that.

I have not said that I think you are acting as if you are better than me. I am saying that you grossly underestimate Frey's talents.

As Austin said to you, the 'watered down' Eagles which even you admit is 'irrelevant' is not worth the effort. It is a poor substitute for something which was great & should be rights have finished.

I hope to end this now. I'm afraid my point just doesn't come across the same as I intend to. Glenn Frey's voice is great, when I mean plain I mean that it isn't exotic or isn't weird. It's just a great all around singing voice. Don's was more "interesting" as it had a rasp, Randy's was more interesting as it was higher that doesn't mean his voice was worse. When I say plain I don't mean it as an insult. It was just the most plain because everyone else's in the band had a different quality that stand out. I also don't underestimate his talents. Without Glenn there is no Eagles. You get mad at me for saying this but his voice is replacable. If you changed Glenn's voice to another good voice the band would be the same as it is today. Assuming they wrote the same material the band would still be as legendary. However if you take away Glenn's writing, leadership,and other qualities you take away the band entirely this is why I argue this is more important to the legacy. If JD souther or Jackson Browne sang all the Glenn songs the band would be largely the same in popularity. Because they have great voices too. (Glenn's is better but it's not like they are bad singers. They are all good) the difference between Glenn and just some good singer is his worth ethic and other skills. This is why I say you can't replace Glenn's impact on the band. To sum up if you found someone who could sing just as good as Glenn it still wouldn't make a difference in my mind. You can't replace Glenn just in terms of vocals. You can replace a great vocalist with another one but you can't replace the man. When I say replace I mean like you can actually plug in someone, not like actually replacing how good his voice is. It's funny you mention felder because I HATE that felder doesn't ever compliment Glenn in his book. It's childish. I hope I explained my point and we can move past this