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

[chaim]

Well, it's very ironic indeed, Don using the phrase in that context. Totally upside down.

[WalshFan88]

In 10 years time Deacon might be able to sit back on his millions and reminisce about his time following in his fathers footsteps, and yes he will be free from many of the financial pressures that other young people have to face, but IMO he is sacrificing his own identity and career path to do so - to be a filler in for Dad and to please the masses who missed the Eagles first and second time around. Its not like a young lad taking over a business from a parent who has retired where he could grow with that business for life, build on it, expand it, break new frontiers. Once this current line up breaks down which with its 3 main members over 70 it inevitably will, where will Deacon go? I'd say Vince likes the opportunity to play with a big group, and is augmenting his pension nicely while he does so. But he'll have no regrets when it ends.

True, it's just that he still gets to do this and didn't have to prove himself or work his way up the ladder to do so. He's very lucky, in that regard. I felt the same way about Eddie Van Halen's son, Wolfgang, who replaced Michael Anthony in Van Halen. Wolfie didn't have to do anything to get there. His dad was mad at MA, so Wolfie is their new bassist. Sadly, Wolfie doesn't have one tenth of the same skill.

He is giving up his identity for sure. I think he will regret it. He's giving up his young adulthood to be a caricature of his late father. He will lose out on a lot of years. Yet, when you wave money in people's faces they can be manipulated.

Vince, well I'm not a fan of Vince Gill in any way, I actually think putting the Eagles on his resume will make him better. I don't care how many records he's sold, his musicianship doesn't stand up to that of Walsh, Felder, or Frey. I think even Steuart Smith is a far better guitarist than Vince Gill. But I digress.

[WalshFan88]

At this point I'm not surprised about Don's hypocrisy or the fact that he's gone back on his word. In fact, nothing he can do will surprise me now. Disappointing..

[Freypower]

People freely use "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" to mean the following: "The opinion I used to hold was foolish. Therefore, if I were to be consistent in keeping to that opinion, it would be silly. It would mean I had a little mind. Thus, you can't blame me for being inconsistent in my opinion. In fact, you should applaud me for changing my opinion to something that isn't foolish! It shows I have a GREAT mind, just like the great Ralph Waldo Emerson!"

This is used by politicians to break campaign promises all the time. "I know I said that I would vote to give funds to help the poor, but my new opinion is that the money would be better used to finance the war effort, and a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds!"

In fact, it can be used by ANYONE to justify breaking their word.

"Yes, I told you that I'd let your mother come live with us when she got sick, but my new opinion is that the arrangement's just not going to work out... no, you can't hold me to my promise, dear, because as Emerson says, a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds!"

Don Henley used it this way: "Yes, I said that to continue the Eagles without Glenn would be greedy and desperate. However, my new opinion is that it's a great idea to continue the Eagles without Glenn - and a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds!"

It's disgusting how poor Emerson is abused by people when they want to go back on their word.

However, if you read "Self-Reliance" in its entirety, you see that he never meant it to be taken that way. Who's going to do that, though? Almost no one. If one is curious enough to Google it, one will only find simplistic E-notes type study sites made for students which parrot the basic interp. Who goes and reads the whole thing?

Apparently, not even Don Henley.

Wow. Thanks for explaining that so thoroughly, Soda. I am not familiar with Emerson's work at all, and when I saw the quote I thought it was one of the coldest, most heartless things anybody could say.

[Freypower]

I may be way off the mark here, and I sincerely mean no disrespect to Deacon, but maybe for him, this is a way to avoid what is a very harsh and tragic reality, the loss of his father. By playing with his father's band, singing his father's songs, with the long hair and sunglasses like his father had in the 70s (and doesn't he have a mustache now too), he can pretend to be his father, in a sense, step into his father's shoes, and live his father's life. Then he can avoid fully processing this for a while longer. Then one day when they stop doing this, as they inevitably have to, given the age of the rest, the reality of this will hit him like a ton of bricks.

Like I said, I could be way off, and I really don't mean any disrespect to him. I can't imagine how hard this must be for him and the other kids.

On a side note, I read somewhere that Jackson Browne is still dedicating Take It Easy to Glenn in shows. I haven't read a review of their concerts in quite a while, but they're not dedicating songs to Glenn anymore, are they?

I think Don dedicated Desperado to him a couple of times. All they do now is flash up a black & white photo at the end of PEF.

[chaim]

Don's Emerson quote also seems to be based on the assumption that consistency in itself is foolish since I don't see where the "foolish" part would have come in in this case.

EDIT:

I don't mean the actual quote, but the way Don used it.

[sodascouts]

Don's Emerson quote also seems to be based on the assumption that consistency in itself is foolish since I don't see where the "foolish" part would have come in in this case.

Only when the consistency is based solely on a reverence for tradition, religion, conforming to the opinions of others, the opinions of the greats of the past - in other words, something that is not really in line with one's own truth. If your past opinion is based on one of these things, it is foolish. It would fit into the "pop culture" definition of the foolish consistency that one may and should change without shame. (In Don's case, is the opinion that the Eagles should end with Glenn's death applicable here? No!) On the other hand, Emerson argues one should be CONSTANT to one's truth. But people use it as an excuse to validate every change of opinion, even when they stray from their conscience, from what they know is right.... as Don did. Thus, he violates Emerson.

The FIRST part of "Self-Reliance" does lend itself to the "pop-culture" interpretation because, again, there are SOME instances where Emerson finds such a change of past opinion justifiable - when that opinion was not based on one's own truth. However, when you read beyond the opening paragraphs, you see that changing one's opinion is not universally justifiable; as I said earlier in my summary, you cannot change from your truth to an opinion that violates your conscience. Reading further, you see his real point:

"And now at last the highest truth on this subject remains unsaid; probably cannot be said; for all that we say is the far-off remembering of the intuition. That thought, by what I can now nearest approach to say it, is this. When good is near you, when you have life in yourself, it is not by any known or accustomed way; you shall not discern the foot-prints of any other; you shall not see the face of man; you shall not hear any name;—— the way, the thought, the good, shall be wholly strange and new. It shall exclude example and experience.

[...]

If we cannot at once rise to the sanctities of obedience and faith, let us at least resist our temptations; let us enter into the state of war, and wake Thor and Woden, courage and constancy, in our Saxon breasts. This is to be done in our smooth times by speaking the truth. Check this lying hospitality and lying affection. Live no longer to the expectation of these deceived and deceiving people with whom we converse."

Admittedly, there are other interpretations, and I've only pulled out a couple passages when there are far more to discuss (not that these are the only ones to support me). However, I despise it when Emerson is used to justify doing what one knows in one's heart is wrong. I do not think that was Emerson's intent. In fact, Emerson was concerned that people would think that "the bold sensualist will use the name of philosophy to gild his crimes." However, he hoped that "the law of consciousness abides" and people would follow their truth rather than use his teachings to justify betrayal and wrongdoing, to listen to those who would "tempt" us with things like money...

Honestly, overall, Emerson has a lot of problematic doctrines, and the truth is that his philosophy is really not one to live your life by in any case. But if you are going to tout him as your inspiration, be aware of his larger point.

[chaim]

Only when the consistency is based solely on a reverence for tradition, religion, conforming to the opinions of others, the opinions of the greats of the past - in other words, something that is not really in line with one's own truth. If your past opinion is based on one of these things, it is foolish. It would fit into the "pop culture" definition of the foolish consistency that one may and should change without shame. On the other hand, Emerson argues one should be CONSTANT to our truth. But people use it as an excuse to validate every change of opinion, even when they stray from their conscience, from what they know is right.
The FIRST part of "Self-Reliance" does lend itself to the "pop-culture" interpretation because, again, there are SOME instances where Emerson finds such a change of past opinion justifiable - when that opinion was not based on one's own truth. However, when you read beyond the opening paragraphs, you see that changing one's opinion is not universally justifiable; as I said earlier in my summary, you cannot change from your truth to an opinion that violates conscience. Reading further, you see his real point:

"And now at last the highest truth on this subject remains unsaid; probably cannot be said; for all that we say is the far-off remembering of the intuition. That thought, by what I can now nearest approach to say it, is this. When good is near you, when you have life in yourself, it is not by any known or accustomed way; you shall not discern the foot-prints of any other; you shall not see the face of man; you shall not hear any name;—— the way, the thought, the good, shall be wholly strange and new. It shall exclude example and experience.

[...]

If we cannot at once rise to the sanctities of obedience and faith, let us at least resist our temptations; let us enter into the state of war, and wake Thor and Woden, courage and constancy, in our Saxon breasts. This is to be done in our smooth times by speaking the truth. Check this lying hospitality and lying affection. Live no longer to the expectation of these deceived and deceiving people with whom we converse."

Admittedly, there are other interpretations, but I despise it when Emerson is used to justify doing what one knows in one's heart is wrong. I do not think that was Emerson's intent. In fact, Emerson was concerned that people would think that "the bold sensualist will use the name of philosophy to gild his crimes." However, he hoped that "the law of consciousness abides" and people would follow their truth rather than use his teachings that way.

Honestly, overall, Emerson has a lot of problematic doctrines, and the truth is that his philosophy is really not one to live your life by in any case. But if you are going to tout him as your inspiration, be aware of his larger point.

Sorry I didn't mean the actual quote, but the way Don used it. Once again I couldn't find the right words in English to say exactly what I had in mind, and what I finally came up with says something else.

[sodascouts]

Sorry I didn't mean the actual quote, but the way Don used it. Once again I couldn't find the words to say exactly what I had in mind, and what I finally came up with says something else.

No, it's a good thing, because anyone can CLAIM an interpretation is valid. Since the first part of the essay lends itself to the pop culture interpretation, and most people do not read beyond the opening, it is good for me to demonstrate the proofs of my interpretation.

Don's using it to say that his initial opinion that the Eagles should end with Glenn was foolish. His new opinion is the true one. He now rejects - will no longer be consistent to - his "foolish" opinion. Simplistic, pop-culture usage.

[carol7lynn]

Well I just find it hard to believe that it's still about the healing process for Deacon.

It's not. It's about "living in the limelight..the universal dream," and earning, to quote Jessie Pinkman, "fat stacks," while "slouching to Bethleham," making sure to by-pass Eden along the way knocking back "pink champagne on ice.....(as they) dance to forget!"

Deacon needs to break away and get on with his "search," to avoid the pitfalls of "Wasted Time."