Eagles.... 3.0

[sodascouts]

Well it would seem that several recent posts in this thread have been placed elsewhere. I suppose the rational is that if something is discussed related to say Glenn Frey's playing, it is taken from here and inserted into some other thread that focuses on his playing.
Seems like micromanaging taken to an extreme if you ask me.

It is the practice on this forum (and on most others) to put posts on a certain topic into the established thread for that topic, if one already exists.

If you find this policy unacceptable, this forum is not the place for you.

If you have further concerns on this matter or on any other matter regarding forum policy, please address them to me privately via PM.

Now, back to what L101 deemed "Eagles 3.0."

[sodascouts]

In that spirit... I appreciate the answers to my questions so far. It's interesting to read people's views on such a "what if" scenario.

[Annoying Twit]

I'm re-posting what is I said in the Classic Northwest thread when this was brought up about Joe and added the emphasis.


I still feel the same.

As far as Timothy goes, it's a little different. What I'm about to say is not about my own emotions or sentimentality; I'm just trying to be practical. Unless a bass player is a lead singer/main songwriter, he or she is pretty much replaceable. A seasoned, competent bass player can learn the bass parts the way that Timothy did when he replaced Randy. If for whatever reason TBS leaves the band, Vince is there to sing the high backing vocals. What would be really missed is Timothy's ICTYW, but luckily Vince has covered that before. As far as LWKUA, I'm sorry but I'd rather hear any one of 10 Vince songs than that one (runs and hides).

Any instrumentalist is replaceable. Deep Purple replaced Ritchie Blackmore - twice! In both cases, the band continued.

Lead vocalists are hardest to replace, but it happens. Deep Purple replaced Rod Evans, Ian Gillian, and David Coverdale (with Ian Gillian). AC/DC replaced their lead vocalist and continued on.

The hardest thing to replace is the main songwriter. Depeche Mode managed it, in a way. (When Vince Clarke left, existing band member Martin Gore took over.

Fleetwood Mac replaced their main songwriters, with varying degrees of success.

Anyone is replaceable. What is important is how good the replacement is, and how the band develops after the change of personnel. Some bands continue on fine with new members, some become a pale shadow of themselves.

[L101]

Now, back to what L101 deemed "Eagles 3.0."

Just being a bit pedantic here - but I did not deem the current line-up "Eagles 3.0". That was someone else. I just ended up being first to comment when you merged the comments related to this.

I really have no more comments to make on this subject, I'm just going to enjoy the Eagles and whatever happens, happens

[FreyFollower]

Joe's brief conflicting show made me wonder...

Would it be acceptable for the band to tour without Joe, and replace him if need be?

Replace Tim if need be?

Is the Eagles brand bigger than anyone, and the personnel largely irrelevant at this point? Perhaps Even Don? If not, why not?

No judgments. Just asking.

I don't know either, at this point. All of this makes me think of the joke about the guy with "Granpa's old axe". He 's changed the blade twice, and the handle three times, and still thinks he has "Granpa's old axe". LOL
(not being serious here, folks!)

[New Kid In Town]

TY Soda !

Soda - I have been thinking about what you said. Well, tech. speaking, if they can replace Glenn, then they can replace anyone. Should they ? That is a different story.........

[Annoying Twit]

I just remebered something. My partner is/was(ish) a fan of Runrig. They lost their lead vocalist Donnie Munroe, and replaced him. Not only did they change lead vocalist, but the very Scottish band replaced him with a Canadian!

I was at one of the first concerts they did, and everyone went very quiet when it was time for the new vocalist to sing. But, clearly he had the goods and the response was very appreciative. Decades later, the band is still active. Interesting that Canadian singer Bruce Guthro has continued his solo career alongside his work with Runrig.

Comparisons with Eagles is more different, as Runrig is mainly led by the MacDonald brothers who are still members, they were younger than Eagles are now, etc. But, it does show that bands can continue after losing lead vocalists in the general sense.

I'm not too knowledgeable about Journey, but I think it added interest that they replaced their lead vocalist with an unknown Filipino. Vocally he sounds very much like Perry, but having an otherwise very different person in the role is somehow more interesting (to me at least) than having someone more Perry-like. It also helps with their concerts in Spanish speaking countries and understandably has boosted their popularity in the Philippines!

If Eagles did, e.g., make a new album (not that I think that they will), I would prefer that they added someone talented but not a clone of Glenn. This could be someone like Vince, Deacon branching out in his own direction, or ???? If someone apes Glenn, then no matter how good a job they do, it's just going to be second rate. IMHO they'd be better off with someone who brings in their own style. The band will change, but without Glenn it is different. Fleetwood Mac and Deep Purple did that: move in a different direction with personnel changes.

[Delilah]

Any instrumentalist is replaceable. Deep Purple replaced Ritchie Blackmore - twice! In both cases, the band continued.

Lead vocalists are hardest to replace, but it happens. Deep Purple replaced Rod Evans, Ian Gillian, and David Coverdale (with Ian Gillian). AC/DC replaced their lead vocalist and continued on.

The hardest thing to replace is the main songwriter. Depeche Mode managed it, in a way. (When Vince Clarke left, existing band member Martin Gore took over.

Fleetwood Mac replaced their main songwriters, with varying degrees of success.

Anyone is replaceable. What is important is how good the replacement is, and how the band develops after the change of personnel. Some bands continue on fine with new members, some become a pale shadow of themselves.

Of course anyone is replaceable in a literal sense. That wasn't the question. The question was whether it would be acceptable for the present day Eagles to tour without Joe or Timothy. That AC/DC replaced their lead singer almost 40 years ago is irrelevant to the question. Although I point out that they are without Brian Johnston now in 2017 and rather than replacing him they are calling it quits; go figure.

The gist of what I said is that it would be more acceptable to replace TBS and tour w/o him than Joe. I said w/o Joe the band would be dangerously close to being a tribute band but I never said that they couldn't go on without him. What's ironic is after going off on a tangent you basically come to the same conclusion ("some become a pale shadow of themselves") but you apparently missed it in my post. Sorry if I was unclear; being a big fan of a member who was replaced, I was trying to be diplomatic.

[sodascouts]

Just being a bit pedantic here - but I did not deem the current line-up "Eagles 3.0". That was someone else.

No, I'm a big stickler for accuracy, and I appreciate you pointing it out. My apologies. I see now it was steve_e_dee.

[sodascouts]

Of course anyone is replaceable in a literal sense. That wasn't the question. The question was whether it would be acceptable for the present day Eagles to tour without Joe or Timothy.

Exactly. We all know they CAN do it, but would we, as Eagles fans, find it acceptable? I don't even mean morally (although feel free to weigh in on that if that factors in for you, as it does for many) - would we be interested? In the broader sense, would they still realistically be marketable as the Eagles?