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

[Ive always been a dreamer]

I read this yesterday regarding Steely Dan touring in 2018. Similarly, a founding member (Walter Becker) died.

In a September installment of Rolling Stone's Music Now podcast, Fagen admitted he would "would actually prefer to call [the group] Donald Fagen and the Steely Dan Band or something like that." He added, "We got a lot of flak from Live Nation about [not] calling it Steely Dan … To me, Steely Dan was just me and Walter."

I'm sure similar forces were at play to keep the Henley/Schmit/Walsh group that is touring now named "Eagles."

ltef - With all due respect, I guess I'm not seeing the point of posting this in this thread. Perhaps you can clarify. First of all, this Steely Dan comparison is not new and has been discussed several times over the last year or so. So, if you are trying to persuade those of us posting here this this is makes it acceptable, you are pretty much wasting your time and energy. To us, this just reinforces that using the 'Eagles' moniker was because of money. You are not a newbie here and I would think you are aware of what this thread is for. It is not a debate thread. But, just in case I'm wrong and you are unaware of this, I'll copy part of the opening post again:

People who post in this thread essentially agree with the following statements by Don Henley made on November 28, 2016 in The Washington Post:

“I don’t see how we could go out and play without the guy who started the band [...] It would just seem like greed or something. It would seem like a desperate thing.”

Irving Azoff asked Best Classic Bands on November 16, 2017: "What's your definition of the Eagles? Glenn's gone."

Here's ours:

It's not the Eagles without Glenn Frey.

Personally, I'm not opposed to anyone presenting new arguments as to why the current version of the band is legitimate, although admittedly it would have to be a whopper to convince me. But, honestly, I haven't seen any new arguments presented in a very long time - just a rehash of the same tired stuff. However, it is perfectly okay to continue to debate if you want, you just need to do it here:

https://www.eaglesonlinecentral.com/...ead.php?t=7389

[chaim]

Yeah, I shouldn't have replied because this indeed is the wrong thread for this. I haven't participated in the previous Steely Dan discussions, so I just jumped right in when I noticed that post.

[longtimeeaglesfan]

ltef - With all due respect, I guess I'm not seeing the point of posting this in this thread. Perhaps you can clarify. https://www.eaglesonlinecentral.com/...ead.php?t=7389

I didn't realize this comparison had specifically been made before. I knew comparisons had been made to other bands but I never saw before where Donald Fagan had said he would have preferred to have used another name to tour rather than Steely Dan. My point in posting was to share that perhaps this current group containing Don, Timothy and Joe may have felt the same way but have received a similar negative response from Live Nation.

It was meant to be a neutral post and not an attempt to persuade that touring under the name "Eagles" is right or wrong.

I did search this thread and the other thread and did not see where this was brought up before regarding the naming. I thought it would actually be of more interest here as the posters in this thread are more concerned/upset about the naming of the current band.

[Ive always been a dreamer]

I appreciate your response, ltef and thank you for the clarification. However, the problem is that it is not a neutral post because if you support this lineup as legitimate, then your viewpoint is likely to be very different than those who do not. But, I'm not going to move the post since you intended it to be neutral. Those of us who meet the criteria of posting here are free to respond. However, the problem is the we may say something that you disagree with and, viola, before you know it, we have a debate. So if you wish to discuss both sides of this, I would encourage you to copy your post over to the thread that I linked to in my previous post. I'm sure you'll hear from both sides over there. I may be misremembering, but I think the topic came up just recently in that thread. Thanks for understanding.

[sodascouts]

Was Henley pressured to go back on the road as the Eagles? Safe bet there!

It would have taken a strong man to maintain his integrity in the face of that kind of pressure, to resist the lure of that kind of paycheck, to put principles over the almighty dollar.

Don Henley was not that man.

[WalshFan88]

Thanks everyone. Of course I got ANOTHER PM in the night saying how great it was. I said "good to hear" and left it at that. Talk about rubbing it in my face.

Chaim - I'm sure he didn't know how I felt, but still I feel if you want to see Vince Gill, you go see Vince Gill. Makes no since. It'd be like saying I'm going to see Bob Seger's show to see Don Brewer (his drummer), when you could see/hear Don and his music in the Grand Funk Railroad shows where he might shine.

[WalshFan88]

Was Henley pressured to go back on the road as the Eagles? Safe bet there!

It would have taken a strong man to maintain his integrity in the face of that kind of pressure, to resist the lure of that kind of paycheck, to put principles over the almighty dollar.

Don Henley was not that man.

No he wasn't...

[Ive always been a dreamer]

As far as I know Fagen continued with the dates that had alread been booked? When Glenn died Eagles had no gigs coming up so they could have just remained inactive.

More on topic...As far as I know none of the Eagles have expressed anything but happiness about continuing to be "Eagles". In fact they have added two new people who seem to love performing under that name.

Toni - no need to apologize for your response - it's natural for some of us to want to respond to this. It's also okay if anyone wants to take the discussion to the other thread, IMO. And BTW - I agree with what you wrote.

Was Henley pressured to go back on the road as the Eagles? Safe bet there!

It would have taken a strong man to maintain his integrity in the face of that kind of pressure, to resist the lure of that kind of paycheck, to put principles over the almighty dollar.

Don Henley was not that man.

And Soda - Like minds. I came here and I was going to post almost the same thing. The only difference is that I also extend the criticism to Joe and Timothy. The only pass I would give them is if it turns out that they were somehow contractually obligated to perform. As I've said repeatedly, I don't object to them wanting to perform and make money. But, clearly, they could have pursued a different course to do this.

[FreyFollower]

I think that Glenn was the creative visionary and the keeper of the Eagles' legacy; always looking to do whatever was "the best thing for the Eagles". Without him, (IMO) they were left adrift, easily swayed by someone as persuasive as Azoff. In that, I'm more deeply disappointed they are continuing than angry. It was pressure MOST could not resist, but I had thought they would.

[chaim]

I think that Glenn was the creative visionary and the keeper of the Eagles' legacy; always looking to do whatever was "the best thing for the Eagles". Without him, (IMO) they were left adrift, easily swayed by by someone as persuasive as Azoff. In that, I'm more deeply disappointed they are continuing than angry. It was pressure MOST could not resist, but I had thought they would.

"Disappointed more than angry". I've never really thought about it, but I guess that's how I've always felt about it. Disappointed and sad more than angry. Although I do feel slightly angry when I see that Vince Gill material is played under the Eagles name.