Frey-less Eagles??? Was it ever considered?

[VAisForEagleLovers]

TITTL is not my favorite song by any stretch, and it could leave the setlist and I wouldn't care. However, I do enjoy it live with Glenn singing it (perhaps because it's one of the few he sings with his eyes wide open and I always sit near the front). I prefer Glenn's voice to anyone else's, so of course I'm biased. However, he doesn't do it the same as Randy did, and I really think if I could hear Randy sing it the way Glenn does, I would like it over the original. Everyone always makes a big deal over the high notes at the end, and that the crowd always loved it. I'm sure they did, but when the CD player gets near the end of the song, I hit fast forward.

As for what are basically cover bands that Eagles Rule listed below, I have zero interest in going to see half a band, especially when it's one of the lead singers that's missing. It's not just the money, really, it's the travel to the arena, the parking, the fighting with the crowd to get out of the place. It's a lot of effort for little reward. With the Eagles, since the current members have been there since 1978, I feel like they've stayed true to history, and that's probably because The Long Run was the first album I ever bought. The other exception would have been Van Halen because I always liked Sammy Hagar and never liked David Lee Roth. Since David Lee is back, I won't be going to see them. Foreigner has one member from their popular days, and several who went to see them live last summer have told me that it was disconcerting to see so many who were so young compared to Jones. They can't sell out big arenas, so they travel with other bands like they did this past summer with Styx and Don Felder. I'm not sure I call that 'success', I guess my standards are higher.

[Eagles Rule]

Some of us think his voice, his personality, his leadership skills, his musicianship, etc etc, are irreplaceable just as Henley is irreplaceable. You say TITTL doesn't work with him singing it. You are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine which is that the songs he sings also wouldn't work with others singing them. You make one rule for TITTL & then another rule for Glenn's songs. Consistency would be nice.

You mean for yourself or me?
I think we agree more than disagree because I am saying Glenn does not do it justice compared with Randy. But that does not mean he has a bad voice. Since fans still love the song with Glenn signing it, that would be the same for LE if someone else sung it in place of Glenn. I would say they don't sound as good as Glenn, but the fans still love the song, so they would turn out to see Henley or someone else sing it.

The point of this thread as I understand it is to wonder how well the Eagles would have done if Glenn decided to never come back. Some fans may like to think the rest of the boys would just agree never to get back together as some type of loyalty to Glenn or something. I am saying sooner or later some of them would say, it's time to move on. Henley and Felder could have afforded to make a decision to not go on, but Joe and Timmy were struggling. Joe might not even be alive today if not for the Eagles getting back together.
I am glad Glenn came to his senses and decided to come back. But if he didn't, I think the rest of the boys(maybe including former members also) would have come back from vacation.

[Ive always been a dreamer]

Here's where I would disagree with your argument, ER. You brought up Foreigner, Styx, and Journey as examples of bands that have successfully made changes in their lineup. I'm sorry but these bands are not in the same league as the Eagles, so I really think you are comparing apples and oranges here. I'm not saying those bands aren't successful, but they aren't even close to achieving the level of success as the Eagles. They can't individually stand on their own and pack arenas - Journey is probably the most successful of the three and even they have been teaming up with other bands in recent years. So, yes, it is possible that a Freyless Eagles could have achieved some level of temporary success.

But the question in this thread's title is whether a Freyless Eagles was ever considered and the answer is that it was not - at least, not seriously. Don Henley made the decision early on that he would not be part of the Eagles without Glenn. I'm sure we don't know exactly what all of his reasons were, but, to me, it was a very wise decision on his part. The Eagles are a band in the same league with The Beatles, the Stones, Led Zeppelin, and The Who - it's a very exclusive club. All of these bands had a duo that made up the core of the band. No matter what transpired in each of their histories, this core remained in tact in the minds of the public. Much of their legacies are the works created by Lennon/McCartney, Jagger/Richards, Plant/Page, and Townsend/Daltrey, respectively ... and, yes, Henley/Frey.

[Eagles Rule]

TITTL is not my favorite song by any stretch, and it could leave the setlist and I wouldn't care. However, I do enjoy it live with Glenn singing it (perhaps because it's one of the few he sings with his eyes wide open and I always sit near the front). I prefer Glenn's voice to anyone else's, so of course I'm biased. However, he doesn't do it the same as Randy did, and I really think if I could hear Randy sing it the way Glenn does, I would like it over the original. Everyone always makes a big deal over the high notes at the end, and that the crowd always loved it. I'm sure they did, but when the CD player gets near the end of the song, I hit fast forward.

As for what are basically cover bands that Eagles Rule listed below, I have zero interest in going to see half a band, especially when it's one of the lead singers that's missing. It's not just the money, really, it's the travel to the arena, the parking, the fighting with the crowd to get out of the place. It's a lot of effort for little reward. With the Eagles, since the current members have been there since 1978, I feel like they've stayed true to history, and that's probably because The Long Run was the first album I ever bought. The other exception would have been Van Halen because I always liked Sammy Hagar and never liked David Lee Roth. Since David Lee is back, I won't be going to see them. Foreigner has one member from their popular days, and several who went to see them live last summer have told me that it was disconcerting to see so many who were so young compared to Jones. They can't sell out big arenas, so they travel with other bands like they did this past summer with Styx and Don Felder. I'm not sure I call that 'success', I guess my standards are higher.

I am not sure I get what you are saying. If you prefer Glenn's voice over everyone elses, then if Henley left and never came back, you'd be fine and even prefer Glenn singing HC, OOTN, and so on?

Randy may not be your favorite, but he brought more to TITTL than just hitting the high notes. He had an innocence to his voice and performance which suited the songs theme. Glenn for all his abilities never comes across as innocent. Their personalities are very different, and it comes across in the way they sing and perform in my opinion.

I disagree with you saying those groups are just cover bands. I didn't pick them for a specific reason other than all three had their main lead singer refuse to come back, so eventually the rest of the guys went on without them.
With Journey, 3 of the current 5 have been together for over 30 years. They sell out venues with 20,000+ even though their only lead singer of all their major hits refused to make a comeback with them.
Styx has 3 of their 5 original guys and have been together for over 40 years. Another would probably still be with them, but he died. Tommy Shaw has had some lead singing hits, but most were DeYoung. Like the Eagles, the main group waited for him to get his act together, but eventually said lets move on.
That is why this topic is interesting, because sooner or later, from the time they were 4 of 5 in the studio waiting on Glenn in the early 90's, I really think they would have eventually said screw Glenn, we are getting back together.

Those who have some romantic feeling they would honor Glenn's memory by not reforming, I think are wrong. It is not like Glenn died and they hung up their guitars in his honor. Glenn was doing his own thing, making money, while 3 of the other 4 were not. Having seen the documentary now, it seemed selfish and egotistical, but he had his reasons. But if he never returned, the other guys could not keep their lives on hold indefinitely.

I agree with you about Sammy Hagar and Van Halen. That just goes to show that popular bands like VH can get a new lead singer and still tour 20-30-40 years after their peaks.
At least with the Eagles, they still had their best singer who sang most of their biggest hits from OOTN on to when they broke up. Having three of their 4 lead singers, with backing vocals-harmonies in Felder, plus two of them being guitar gods, would be a line up most other bands would die for. Would they have been as good without Glenn?
No way, because he had too many early and popular hits. But just as he calculated getting rid of other members and replacing them even if they were not as good (Bernie's vocals for Joe's), Glenn was also replaceable.

Maybe we should have a poll of how long the rest of the boys would have waited for Glenn (if he refused to ever come back), before they decided to go on without him.

[Funk 50]

I'm not sure how long it would've taken, Eagles Rule, but I agree, eventually the Eagles would have reformed without Glenn. maybe with a different name but any band with either Henley or Walsh in it are going to be big hitters.

Apparently, Tim, Joe and Don F. were already toying with the idea of uniting and I think Henley's sense of loyalty would've dragged him along too.

Without Glenn, they'd definitely be a singer light, they could've invited Randy and Bernie back, two extra singers, although I think they'd prefer Glenn to be involved too or they could have even lined up a big name replacement as they did when Joe replaced Bernie.

Start with McCartney and work down. Who'd refuse such a great gig (apart from Felder).

There's no doubt that Glenn was the driving force that got them to the top but, as they've said, they were still a huge band 14 years after they split. They've enough guile and talent between them to remain there without Glenn.

The Eagles are never short of great songs for their set list so I can't see that causing a problem. I've seen the Eagles perform Take It To The Limit with Glenn on lead. It was great. Not as awesome as Randy's take but I'm certainly glad they played it. When Tim joined the Eagles, I'm sure they discussed what vocals he would do and settled on harmonies and his own leads.

The fact Glenn tackled Take It To The Limit at an Eagles, rather than solo, concert shows that, although authenticity was very important at the time of HFO, it has since become a matter for discussion, which supports ER's theory that they would have eventually reformed whether or not Glenn bothered to show up or not.

Nobody is irreplaceable. Everybody dies.

[UndertheWire]

What would it have taken for Henley to consider a reunion without Frey? It wouldn't give him the better ending he was looking for, as it would likely make relations with Frey worse. Financially, he'd have had to weigh up the income from his share of the reunion against the income from solo work. As someone who had become used to running his own "benign dictatorship", working within a band again (but without the person who'd carried a lot of the load in the previous incarnations) would have been challenging.

Would Joe still have been persuaded to go into rehab?

Let's say there was a reunion with Henley, Felder and Schmit, calling themselves the Eagles and on the other hand, there's the "Glenn Frey band featuring Joe Walsh" both on tour. How much of a premium would you pay for the Eagles brand?

BTW, TITTL was one of the highlights of the HotE show I saw in May. I was surprised because it's not a favourite of mine, but Glenn gave a really good performance. I'm fine with the odd song being sung in a different way or by someone else.

[VAisForEagleLovers]

Eagles Rule, I agree about Randy's voice, and I do like other songs that he sang. When I was young and wasn't as familiar with the band or their catalog (I liked their songs, but didn't necessarily realize they were all by the same group, because DJs never told you who sang a song), I didn't like TITTL. Having songs that ever ended by repeating constantly until the DJ mercifully started the next song were all the rage back then and I disliked most of them, and TITTL is one of those because it repeats the same line over and over and over. The live version does that, of course, but not as much, and of course, it does have to end instead of fading away.

I've also never been keen on high tenors, at least as leads, and sometimes on harmonies as well. I also don't care for descant sopranos with females, either.

Given all that, you can see why TITTL might not be my favorite song. Glenn singing it live means it's in a lower key (that I can sing along to) and the song actually ends instead of fading away.

As to your question about others leaving and me being OK with it, since Don is my second favorite voice, no, I wouldn't be OK with it. I've gone to some of Glenn's solo shows, and all Glenn all the time is a wonderful thing. I do prefer Glenn's version of Desperado over Don's most of the time (Don's performance of it at a few concerts has been spectacular, and the second Atlantic City show in 2012 comes to mind). So, no, I wouldn't be OK with it. I am with TITTL because at least having my favorite voice sing the song adds something to a song I don't care for.

[VAisForEagleLovers]

As for the discussion about how long it would have gone before the others reformed without Glenn, I honestly think it would have been never. While the documentary mentions they tried twice, I think, I believe Felder's book said it was three times. My reasons for thinking this are varied. First off, I don't think Irving was for it at all. I think he knew more than the others that to have the success he and Henley wanted, they needed Glenn. Neither of them wanted the kind of success where they'd need to tour with two other bands in order to fill seats.

Secondly, I really feel they would have been less successful than Henley solo, and no way would Henley put up with that, especially as they'd need to be paid more than the musicians he was using. Our guys care about perception, and Henley would never sign up for anything that would be less than super successful. IMO, it took so long for Glenn to come on board because he wasn't sure they'd be successful even with him there. The Eagles were icons and one of the best ever, and he didn't want to tarnish that image with touring and being just another reunion tour. Henley didn't, either, which is why he'd have never moved forward without Glenn. As Azoff said in the documentary, it was always about when Glenn was ready.

Another thought that comes to mind is that Glenn toured with Joe around 1992 as Party of Two. He knew just how bad Joe was, and he also knew they could never be successful like that. He would have relayed those concerns to Henley and Azoff, and they would have agreed with them. Moving forward with Glenn and having Joe in the shape he was in wouldn't have worked. No way would moving forward without Glenn and having Joe in the shape he was in have worked. I'm sure they all respected Joe as a musician and friend, but Glenn was pretty vocal about it from the beginning. Joe had a lot of respect for Glenn as well. I'm not sure Joe would have cleaned himself up unless Glenn would have been part of the reunion. The very fact that it was Glenn who gave the ultimatum about Joe getting clean proves that he's the one who knows what it takes to be successful, the kind of success they were looking for, and not the kind the other bands mentioned in the list have/had.

To me, we all agree that a Frey-less band would have had some degree of success, but not as successful as the Eagles with Frey. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that Henley and Azoff were only interested in the kind of success they'd achieve with Glenn in the band. Neither were interested in anything less, which is why I don't think a Frey-less band of Eagles would have ever left the ground.

[Funk 50]

Didn't they say HFO was successful beyond their wildest dreams. So obviously they would've been happy with a lot less success than they achieved.

I don't think Glenn and Joe were ever really a duo. i thought Joe was just helping Glenn sell more concert tickets. Given the choice between Glenn and the others, I'm pretty sure Joe would've joined the Tim and Dons. Joe felt Glenn's band left him with nothing to play. Indeed when the Eagles performed Joe's, Ordinary Average Guy during the HFO tour, Joe would mess about during the guitar solo, which was performed by Al Garth on an oboe I think.

I don't think Henley was at all motivated by money. He is still earning an enormous amount from his songwriting. He'd had plenty of solo success but he'd also experienced some business distractions, he was happy to return to a band situation. Didn't he dedicate The Heart Of The Matter to the band? I'm sure he said something about appreciation and friendship.

Lastly Joe's "moment of clarity" happened in New Zealand. I know the Eagles played a big part in him getting sober, obviously it gave him a huge incentive to clean up but it may have happened anyway. Both Tim and Glenn, among many others were happy, or at least prepared, to work with Joe, when he was at the depth of his suffering.

[VAisForEagleLovers]

I don't think Henley was at all motivated by money. He is still earning an enormous amount from his songwriting. He'd had plenty of solo success but he'd also experienced some business distractions, he was happy to return to a band situation. Didn't he dedicate The Heart Of The Matter to the band? I'm sure he said something about appreciation and friendship.

I'll agree with this except with the caveat that the money is a measurable sign of success to entities like Forbes and Billboard. If fans are willing to pay a lot of money for something, you must be doing what the fans want, which when you bring it down to basics, that's always been the goal of the band.

Yes, the tour was more successful than their wildest dreams, but IMO, that was the extension of the tour. It was originally intended to be three months. Believe me, they were planning on the MTV show and the tour to be record-breaking successful, or they wouldn't have priced their tickets so high.

Also IMO, and without a lot of justification, I feel that 'successful beyond their wildest dreams' also meant being able to tolerate being on stage with each other for longer than three months. Given what had happened the last time they'd been on stage together, I can see thinking that three months might be two months and 29 days too long.