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

[Ive always been a dreamer]

Ah - Looks like we've come full circle once again. I think it's been repeated ad nauseum - go see this band if you like and enjoy yourself even though most everyone acknowledges that this version of the band is not the same band you saw when Glenn was alive.

And it all boils down to this simple objection - since it's not the same band, they should not legitimately be representing themselves as the 'Eagles'. It is wrong because they are no longer that. If they called themselves something else, most of us would probably be okay with that even if we didn't want to go to a show.

[sodascouts]

It's ridiculous to argue that those of us who are participating in this are under some illusion that it's the same or that the differences aren't noticeable and palpable.

I never said you thought it was better, or that you couldn't tell it was different. That would indeed be ridiculous.

I don't appreciate the strawman version of my argument, which has already been echoed by two members instead of what I actually said (which I notice you didn't actually quote).

Here is what I actually said (where "they" refers to people attending the concerts):

However, on a musical level, they do not believe his absence matters enough to call the band to a halt. Another voice will do.

And that is true.

If you did not believe this, you would not be OK with the existence of "this version of the band" calling itself the Eagles regardless of the fact that it's lesser, or what you call it in your head despite what the marquee says in order to justify it to yourself.

Shun, travlnman2, please note my actual words, and address them if you want.

But why would you want to? It is your right to feel that way. You want to call this a "version", fine.... but you can't have it both ways.

[maryc2130]

The way I see it is the thread starter made a comment primarily on the number of shows, and people jumped right in with the same old negative comments. Perhaps my view is skewed, but I am sick to death of this whole discussion. Everyone knows some people are excited about it, and some people think it's not the Eagles and they shouldn't continue.

Can't we move on from this? I've given my views many times (as have most of the others posting on this thread.), and I'm certainly not going to bother giving them again. We're not convincing anyone, and we're not going to. We're just rehashing the same arguments, ad infinitum, IMHO.

[Ive always been a dreamer]

And let's be clear - EVERYONE who posts in this thread contributes to rehashing the same old arguments.

So let's not rehash this juvenile argument of who started it first and who's being the meanest. Both sides are equally responsible for the 10+ pages of discussion in this thread.

I'm sick of this too, but, as moderators, we would have been criticized no matter how we handled this. Even though the topic is beyond tired, most everyone has been respectful this time around. And we have tried to address the ones that were not. So, it serves no purpose to start pointing fingers other than to upset others.

[Dawn]

All things considered I now believe the band most likely would have continued whether Deacon Frey agreed to join them or not and that once he did agree that's when the addition of a second hire to ease the burden on Deacon's shoulders began in earnest.

Enter Vince Gill.

And the rest as they say is history.

52 play dates and still counting.

[MaryCalifornia]

OK, I'm bringing this back around to the original topic because the number of shows and how this tour is shaping up is a decent topic, whether you're intending to see them or not. They are coming to my hometown but I'm not planning on going.

As far as number of dates, it looks like it is right in line with previous tours at this point.

With regard to "Especially considering their ages" in the original post. I've seen recent photos of Timothy and Joe and I can say that they are incredibly fit, robust, vibrant men. No doubt that air travel, even private with plush lay-flat beds, will make you sick. But, if anybody knows what it takes to stay healthy and motivated during this type of tour, it is these guys. They have it down to a science, and I'll bet they have more energy and are more healthy than a lot of touring musicians in their 20s.

I also think that having Deacon and Vince Gill in such prominent roles will make the 3 guys have to pay more attention and be more of "band leaders", just to make sure everything is sounding right. Their sound checks will probably have more substantive corrections/fixes. They were probably happy to just get through the first few shows. Now, they'll drill down to make it sound better, they have more time.

[Dawn]

Like I said earlier, none of my Eagle fan friends are interested in seeing the new lineup but several are wanting to see the guys solo shows which is awesome.

[WalshFan88]

The way I see it is the thread starter made a comment primarily on the number of shows, and people jumped right in with the same old negative comments. Perhaps my view is skewed, but I am sick to death of this whole discussion. Everyone knows some people are excited about it, and some people think it's not the Eagles and they shouldn't continue.

Can't we move on from this? I've given my views many times (as have most of the others posting on this thread.), and I'm certainly not going to bother giving them again. We're not convincing anyone, and we're not going to. We're just rehashing the same arguments, ad infinitum, IMHO.

My problem with not having these discussions is that it seems unfair. Unless you want all new tour stuff to not be discussed. Otherwise we have anticipation threads and "excitement", and yet nothing for us. It seems a little one sided. I'm personally not okay with just going along with no more discussing those against it while others get to share their excitement and discuss it positively to their heart's content. That seems a little unfair to those of us against it. Either we let both sides say what they want, or none of them. Just letting the celebratory posters post and that's it, seems unfair to those of us against it when I have a big problem with these shows and I feel while those who love it are celebrating, we can say how we feel, no matter how circular and/or redundant it is. It's only fair.

But to allow only positive Eagles 3.0 posts and not negative would be unfair, and I have a problem with unfairness, obviously. I think it would be wrong to do that.

I'll be the first to agree we aren't going to change anyone's minds, but to have celebratory posts and for us to keep to ourselves rubs me the wrong way. I feel if they want to celebrate, we have every right to state our distaste with the shows.

I don't know what the answer is to this honestly, and I think it puts Soda and Dreamer in a tough spot. But I think only letting one side speak about this is not the answer either, and will only lead to me not wanting to post here or feeling like I've been silenced/censored/etc, and I'm not ok with that. Nor should anyone be.

I agree with being sick about this whole discussion, but that goes for the positive/celebratory posts too, regarding 3.0. I think it works both ways...

[Freypower]

My problem with not having these discussions is that it seems unfair. Unless you want all new tour stuff to not be discussed. Otherwise we have anticipation threads and "excitement", and yet nothing for us. It seems a little one sided. I'm personally not okay with just going along with no more discussing those against it while others get to share their excitement and discuss it positively to their heart's content. That seems a little unfair to those of us against it. Either we let both sides say what they want, or none of them. Just letting the celebratory posters post and that's it, seems unfair to those of us against it when I have a big problem with these shows and I feel while those who love it are celebrating, we can say how we feel, no matter how circular and/or redundant it is. It's only fair.

But to allow only positive Eagles 3.0 posts and not negative would be unfair, and I have a problem with unfairness, obviously. I think it would be wrong to do that.

I'll be the first to agree we aren't going to change anyone's minds, but to have celebratory posts and for us to keep to ourselves rubs me the wrong way. I feel if they want to celebrate, we have every right to state our distaste with the shows.

I don't know what the answer is to this honestly, and I think it puts Soda and Dreamer in a tough spot. But I think only letting one side speak about this is not the answer either, and will only lead to me not wanting to post here or feeling like I've been silenced/censored/etc, and I'm not ok with that. Nor should anyone be.

I agree with being sick about this whole discussion, but that goes for the positive/celebratory posts, too regarding 3.0. I think it works both ways...

We're supposed to post in the 'Legitimate' thread. Sorry, the 'No Legit Eagles' thread. But that's eased off as there are only so many times we can say the same thing.

[WalshFan88]

We're supposed to post in the 'Legitimate' thread. Sorry, the 'No Legit Eagles' thread. But that's eased off as there are only so many times we can say the same thing.

True. I felt this wasn't supposed to be a positive/celebratory thread. I don't feel this was simply about talking about the number of tour dates or that is was another anticipation thread. I thought it was a open debate thread for both sides.

Regardless, yes, I think some aspects of this apply to 3.0 aka no legit Eagles, but some are new. I just assumed it was a debate thread not for one purpose. Like I see the legitimacy thread meant for negative opinions, and the anticipation and tour thread for positive and celebratory opinions. And I thought this one was supposed to serve both purposes, but maybe not. I didn't see a bias with it. I saw it as being for both sides to debate it and not for any one side. It was different.