Dumb things said about The Eagles

[Funk 50]

While I agree that Joe is certainly centrally to the second half of the Eagles live show nowadays, I can't agree that they'd be nothing without him

Taylor's quote is that "the Eagles would be dead in the water without him"

The Eagles are great writers, great performers and arrangers and work hard at their craft but their early, pre-Walsh hits, as great as they are, just don't transmit as well, in huge arenas (unless you're sat in the first few rows).

[Jonny Come Lately]

I still wouldn't go as far as saying they'd be dead in the water without Joe (although adequately replacing him would be very difficult, to say the least - unlike with Felder, they wouldn't only be losing a musician, they'd be losing a big personality) but I agree they probably would have more trouble filling out arenas. I think the biggest thing was getting him in the band in the first place, which brought plenty of Walsh fans on board for Hotel California. If Joe had left the band post-HFO or had not agreed to a reunion, I think they would still be able to draw in the big crowds, albeit only by playing songs Walsh was prominently featured on originally. Who knows how big they'd be now if Walsh joining had been vetoed, or if he didn't want to join? It's difficult to say as I think Bernie and the Eagles split at the right time (and arguably, judging by how different his OOTN songs are from the rest of that album, one album too late). They probably wouldn't be as big as they became, that's for sure, but

I still think the Eagles break up came too soon for the Felder and Walsh, as their partnership produced some great material on HC but if anything they were even more prominent on The Long Run. I'd love to have heard what they could have come with up together and I feel that The Long Run Leftovers showed that the struggle to come up with adequate material for that album wasn't down to them (of course, the strain placed on the Henley-Frey partnership meant a breakup probable sooner rather later, and explains why there was enough music but not enough complete songs with lyrics).

You are correct about the earlier country rock songs not translating as well to arenas. I think the band was able to make Take It Easy work in the big venues with a more rock and less country arrangement (with a great Joe guitar solo) but acoustic songs like Bitter Creek and Most Of Us Are Sad aren't 'big' enough. Of course Joe's hard rockers are more naturally suited to these venues than the likes of Peaceful Easy Feeling or Lyin' Eyes, although a number of later Eagles songs - maybe not a song like ICTYW, but Hotel California, LITFL and Heartache Tonight all the fit the bill IMO.

[Ive always been a dreamer]

Well if you count all the folks that make ridiculous comments based on total lack of knowledge and misinformation as 'dumb things', then we could make a very long list of things for this thread. To me, one of the main downsides to the internet is that people can write whatever they want with little regard for the facts, but that's a whole 'nother topic.

IMO, Taylor Hawkins comment that the Eagles would be dead without Joe fits well in this thread. I absolutely love Joe and agree that he is an important part of the band, particularly in the band's live shows. But, as almost all of the band members have said at one time or another, the Eagles' success comes down to one thing - THE SONGS. They are still alive and kicking because of the great songs and that's why people still pay big bucks to see them perform.

Even though Joe (and Tim) aren't equal partners in the Eagles' organization, I do think that, at this point in their careers, they are all equal partners on stage. Each of them contributes in their own way, so I don't believe there is much appetite for any line up changes now. If any of the current four members became unwilling or unable to perform, I doubt that they would be replaced and the band probably would call it quits, but this certainly hasn't always been the case.

I understand that fans have their favorites, but what I have a hard time understanding is why folks like Taylor feel compelled to make these kinds of comments. I would bet good money that Joe fully understands his role in the band, and apparently seems very satisfied with it since he has often said the Eagles were the best thing that ever happened to him largely because he didn't want to be the main guy. So, if Joe understands and is content with this, why can't fans be?

[Freypower]

Taylor's quote is that "the Eagles would be dead in the water without him"

The Eagles are great writers, great performers and arrangers and work hard at their craft but their early, pre-Walsh hits, as great as they are, just don't transmit as well, in huge arenas (unless you're sat in the first few rows).

Again I don't agree with this.

Also I think you said you haven't seen them since 2011 & yet you are happy to make these generalisations based on 4 year old memories. I haven't seen them since 2010, but my memories are the opposite of yours. As far as I was concerned the pre Walsh songs worked just fine for me & I could tell, for most of the audience. Lyin' Eyes especially has the crowd singing along, as does TITTL.

I think you are placing far too much emphasis on Walsh & downplaying the talents of the other members.

[chaim]

I would think that there are a lot of people in the audience today who just go to hear the great Eagles songs they know, like HC, Take It Easy, New Kid In Town, Peaceful Easy Feeling - as much as they go to hear them play rock songs and to see someone jumping around during the second half of the show. I love Joe, but if they replaced him with another showman, there probably would be a lot of people in the audience who would be just as entertained. Today I mean, probably not in the 70's.

I'm not bashing Joe at all. I just don't want to put him on a pedestal either. I don't think Joe himself feels that he's absolutely irreplaceable or that he makes the concerts what they are. He probably just enjoys having a good time up there, playing great music with the guys and making a nice amount of money doing that.

Having said that, I totally understand that people exaggerate these things. "They're nothing without Felder, "dead in the water without Joe" etc. etc. But they are just words, and usually you couldn't tell this from the ticket sales.

But I must admit that I haven't seen that many rock concerts in big arenas, so I probably don't know what I'm talking about!

[WalshFan88]

I would think that there are a lot of people in the audience today who just go to hear the great Eagles songs they know, like HC, Take It Easy, New Kid In Town, Peaceful Easy Feeling - as much as they go to hear them play rock songs and to see someone jumping around during the second half of the show. I love Joe, but if they replaced him with another showman, there probably would be a lot of people in the audience who would be just as entertained. Today I mean, probably not in the 70's.

I'm not bashing Joe at all. I just don't want to put him on a pedestal either. I don't think Joe himself feels that he's absolutely irreplaceable or that he makes the concerts what they are. He probably just enjoys having a good time up there, playing great music with the guys and making a nice amount of money doing that.

Having said that, I totally understand that people exaggerate these things. "They're nothing without Felder, "dead in the water without Joe" etc. etc. But they are just words, and usually you couldn't tell this from the ticket sales.

But I must admit that I haven't seen that many rock concerts in big arenas, so I probably don't know what I'm talking about!

Wow - I must thoroughly and strongly disagree!

To me the highlight (but not the entire show) of the concert is Joe being Joe... I have 0 doubt if they replaced him that their ticket sales would decline. Some people feel the bulk of the Eagles and what makes them what they are is Don and Glenn and I must respectfully disagree. They all as a unit are what made the band what it is and if you just had all different members but Don and Glenn no amount of money would get me to watch that show without Joe and Tim. It was hard enough losing Felder. I'm not saying Joe makes the Eagles or he is the sole reason for a great show, but Don and Glenn by themselves don't either and I find that important to say. It's a team effort. Hell, I doubt I'd ever go if they ever replaced Tim! That's how much the group as a GROUP means to me. I would try not to judge but totally wouldn't understand the people that think they would go see the band with great session players as long as Don and Glenn were there. Now, to be honest I wouldn't go for the reverse either. They ALL have to be there for me.

Now, back in the early days of the band, I probably wouldn't have went to see them with the first or even second lineup, just a bit too tame for me. I much prefer the HC and TLR lineups (equally like Randy and Tim) with a more rockin' edge.

For me I like a rock show, with high energy and I need some of that, so for me Joe fills that gap so I get to have the best of both worlds, the songs and the energy I'm looking for in a rock show. But I've been to big arena shows like AC/DC, Aerosmith, REO Speedwagon, Def Leppard, Styx, Lynyrd Skynyrd, .38 Special, Tesla, RATT, Quiet Riot, Firehouse, Cinderella, Bob Seger, Eagles, Cheap Trick, KISS, etc. So I'm used to high energy rock n' roll. In other words, you may find me at a Jason Aldean (high energy country that is basically rock n' roll) concert but you won't find me at a Merle Haggard show or a Jimmy Buffett concert. I go for the gimmicks and the production and stuff. Otherwise I might as well listen to my CDs. Now the Eagles is the only exception to that, because of their great performance as a collective, and Joe's fun energy and tearing it up in the 2nd half.

The bottom line - Joe is not just another guitar player and I believe he is more recognizable than even Don Felder, so people will know if he's not there. He is NOT replaceable.

[chaim]

I wasn't saying that I think Joe would be easy to replace. What I meant was that at this point there probably are many people in the audience who remember the hits from when they were young etc, and don't care so much for the members. People who are not fans, but like the hits they know.
I feel the same way about The Orchestra performing ELO songs. There probably are people in the audience who even think it's ELO, and even more people who think that most of those guys were in ELO. A lot of them probably don't even care, as they just like to hear the ELO hits.

I'm not saying anything about how important Joe is in my eyes. I'm just trying to imagine what an average concert-goer might be like at this point in their career. And it's just how I feel. I could be dead wrong.

[WalshFan88]

True.. Although I do think most people know who Joe Walsh is by now, even moreso than Felder. I mean he's pretty much a household name.

I've even had people talk to me about the Hotel California solo with Joe Walsh and "that other guy". So as much as I hate to say it, I think Walsh is far more known. I also believe Felder has a more reproducable style due to his fluidity on the fretboard and everything is clean and precise. Joe is all over the place and when given the chance, is an improv master and more all over the place and more unique in terms of style and is more recongizable with his guitar licks and sound. I think someone else posted that the other day in another thread and I think it was spot on...

[VAisForEagleLovers]

We could debate this for a year and still not come to an agreement! I will say there are plenty of people in the audience who have no idea who Joe is. The flip side of that is that generally they don't know Glenn, Timothy, or Don's name, either. I have a friend that owns everything the Eagles have ever done on CD and cassette or vinyl, and has been a fan since the late 70's. She had no idea Don was in the Eagles until she saw Farewell 1. As they've said many times, not putting their pictures on their albums and avoiding the media back in the 70's contributed to this.

As for Taylor and what he said, I agree with others. Why would he say such a thing and what was the point of it supposed to be? He's entitled to his opinion and obviously there's two people here who agree. Many others don't, including me. The biggest reason it falls into the 'dumb' category because the idiotic statement implies that the others could leave and the Eagles would not be dead in the water. Please. Could you imagine the crowd's reaction if someone else sang Take It Easy, I Can't Tell You Why, or Hotel California?

[chaim]

It's also possible that Taylor just got a bit carried away while praising Joe and therefore exaggerated a little. He probably didn't mean to diss the other guys with this statement.
So if it was just a way to praise Joe and not meant literally, it wasn't that dumb a comment.
(Trying to find some middle ground here...)