Looks like The Band is on a full fledged tour next year! How do you feel about that?

[MaryCalifornia]

*As I've said before, I realize it matters emotionally and the "pro" camp recognize it is different... but does it matter enough to bring the Eagles to a halt?

And this is the crux of all of the disagreement on this board the past year, right Soda? That Glenn's death was not enough to bring the Eagles to a halt. Glenn's hardcore fans view this with surprise, extreme disappointment and a firmly held belief that he is not getting the respect he is due.

Would Mick Jagger's death halt the Stones? Probably. Jon Bon Jovi? Bono? Probably. What is the difference? Obviously, that the Eagles have never had a lead singer and that there are still plenty of songs to be sung by their original singers. (Queen defies this theory.) But even regardless of who sings lead on what songs and who is brought in to perform with them, my point is, if you have 1) the remaining members want to tour; 2) HUGE money 3) a majority of the set list still sung by the original singers - whose legacy WOULD be enough to halt this?

And I say this in an attempt to comfort the Glenn fans. I know I won't change your minds, but with all of the elements in play here that we now know are in play, there was never a chance that his death would halt the band - not a chance. I say that NOBODY's death could have halted anything similar to the machine that is the Eagles. There is too much at stake personally, professionally, financially for those remaining behind.

[WalshFan88]

This is especially true when the living are making money by cheapening the past. They cheapened the Eagles sound when they replaced Glenn.

While the ethical aspect may be subjective, there is no denying that the music they are making now does not sound the same as it did with Glenn. I guess the question is: does it matter?*

I fear to some, that question was entirely dependent on another question: "Are the 'Eagles' marketable without Glenn?" As soon as they found out the answer was "yes", then the question "Does it matter" was answered with a "No."

*As I've said before, I realize it matters emotionally and the "pro" camp recognize it is different... but does it matter enough to bring the Eagles to a halt?

Well said, especially with the cheapening comment. I agree with FP, inferior product at the same old prices. Not too many businesses can get away with it.

[WalshFan88]

Soda – I believe you are dead on with your remark that the band's sound was cheapened when Glenn was replaced. As maryc2130 said, ‘the band evolved with Don and Glenn standing shoulder-to-shoulder', and, to me, that's the way it should have ended. And I can say with 100% certainty that if we were talking about Don here, God forbid, I would be saying exactly the same thing.

And to further address the arguments that the band should be enjoying life – I couldn't agree more; but, I believe they should seek options other than capitalizing on the ‘Eagles’ name. Because the ‘Eagles’ that Glenn was such an integral part of crafting and nurturing for over 45 years deserves better. His incomparable vision and contributions to the band should have been immortalized with unconditional dignity, and not compromised for the enjoyment, benefit, or catharsis of the remaining members. The best way to honor and preserve a legacy is to LEAVE IT ALONE!

Exactly.

They may have been standing shoulder to shoulder, but one could also make the argument that it was Glenn that asked Don, not the other way around. He was the most powerful person in the Eagles by a long shot IMO. "The" guy. They often made decisions together but even Don would say it was Glenn's band. While I agree Don was also key to the band's success, I feel that Glenn was the guy. I just feel that he always knew what was best for his band. Including choosing to step back and let Don sing more, which I never agreed with but I respected it.

[WalshFan88]

And this is the crux of all of the disagreement on this board the past year, right Soda? That Glenn's death was not enough to bring the Eagles to a halt. Glenn's hardcore fans view this with surprise, extreme disappointment and a firmly held belief that he is not getting the respect he is due.

Would Mick Jagger's death halt the Stones? Probably. Jon Bon Jovi? Bono? Probably. What is the difference? Obviously, that the Eagles have never had a lead singer and that there are still plenty of songs to be sung by their original singers. (Queen defies this theory.) But even regardless of who sings lead on what songs and who is brought in to perform with them, my point is, if you have 1) the remaining members want to tour; 2) HUGE money 3) a majority of the set list still sung by the original singers - whose legacy WOULD be enough to halt this?

And I say this in an attempt to comfort the Glenn fans. I know I won't change your minds, but with all of the elements in play here that we now know are in play, there was never a chance that his death would halt the band - not a chance. I say that NOBODY's death could have halted anything similar to the machine that is the Eagles. There is too much at stake personally, professionally, financially for those remaining behind.

I think Glenn was getting tired. I think if he hadn't passed, he would have probably stopped the band at some point. He didn't have the drive anymore, as Don apparently does. If Don died, that retirement and halting the Eagles would have happened simply because I don't think he felt like touring much anymore and I think it would have ended anyway, and certainly because losing Don. I think if Glenn was alive, the Eagles would have stopped touring in a couple years.

[EagleInKansas]

How can the past be cheapened? It's the past. It has already happened. Everything that happened within the band "in the past" is already secure. No No. 1 hits or Grammys are being taken away, they're not downgrading albums from platinum to copper. They're not releasing Hotel California with a newly distorted Don Felder guitar solo. We haven't found out that the Eagles were lip-synching throughout the 1970s.

So what is cheapened? Everything is the same. Now is different, but the past hasn't changed.

[MaryCalifornia]

There's nothing more sad than seeing a once-famous performer who no longer has a voice. We hope they are honest by showing us who is there to help, otherwise it's just a bunch of old guys pretending.

I don't know about Joe, but Don and Timothy are still touring solo and don't seem to have lost much of anything as far as their voices, according to the reviews of those who attended the shows. I listened to the Grand Ol' Opry show on Sirius (which was a high quality feed, I disregard anything from YouTube recorded on mobile phones) and they sounded fantastic, like they always have. I honestly don't think that Don, Tim and Joe require any more backup help now than they ever have, not yet anyway.

[MaryCalifornia]

I think Glenn was getting tired. I think if he hadn't passed, he would have probably stopped the band at some point. He didn't have the drive anymore, as Don apparently does. If Don died, that retirement and halting the Eagles would have happened simply because I don't think he felt like touring much anymore and I think it would have ended anyway, and certainly because losing Don. I think if Glenn was alive, the Eagles would have stopped touring in a couple years.

Exactly. In the case you give, #1 in my equation would be a "no" if Don died and Glenn wanted to be done. That would end it. But when the answers to #1, #2, and #3 are all "yes" - it's not a question of the deceased's level of respect or talent, nothing is going to stop it.

[Freypower]

How can the past be cheapened? It's the past. It has already happened. Everything that happened within the band "in the past" is already secure. No No. 1 hits or Grammys are being taken away, they're not downgrading albums from platinum to copper. They're not releasing Hotel California with a newly distorted Don Felder guitar solo. We haven't found out that the Eagles were lip-synching throughout the 1970s.

So what is cheapened? Everything is the same. Now is different, but the past hasn't changed.

You totally contradicted yourself there.

Of course the past hasn't changed. That is not the objection.

[EagleInKansas]

Everything from the past is the same is obviously what I meant. Context clues. And yes, it is being argued that the past has been cheapened. How?

[Freypower]

Everything from the past is the same is obviously what I meant. Context clues. And yes, it is being argued that the past has been cheapened. How?

Despite what some are attempting to argue, the longer the 'Eagles' continue to perform without Glenn Frey, with others singing his songs, his legacy will diminish & he will be forgotten. That is already happening with the enthusiasm some are showing for this lineup.