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

[Ive always been a dreamer]

Yep Soda - I totally agree with your post. I am an instructional web designer and pretty much the same rules apply. A well-done professional website is designed to basically 'tell a story'. Every font, image, content, and placement is carefully thought out to promote the intended message and there are no 'accidents' if properly done.

I also think it would be an interesting exercise to get feedback from your students about an Eagles publicity photo. Hope you can fit that into the class schedule.

[MaryCalifornia]

That would be awesome Soda! Maybe they could compare and contrast the stories told by the two different publicity photos...Let's put these students to work! haha

[longtimeeaglesfan]

Here is an article I found interesting:

https://uproxx.com/music/the-eagles-...-this-eddie/4/

I tend to agree with his observations and conclusions.

[WalshFan88]

Here is an article I found interesting:

https://uproxx.com/music/the-eagles-...-this-eddie/4/

I tend to agree with his observations and conclusions.

I definitely don't agree with that article.

Just because Deacon is happy does NOT make this ok...or any less wrong. IMO, that shouldn't bear any weight on if it's the Eagles or not, son or not. It wouldn't have mattered to me if it was Deacon or just Vince and some other guy. Having Deacon in the band didn't and still doesn't make it ok, in my book. Not at all. I have no warm fuzzy feelings over him being in the band at all. Doesn't matter.

[longtimeeaglesfan]

I definitely don't agree with that article.

Just because Deacon is happy does NOT make this ok...or any less wrong. IMO, that shouldn't bear any weight on if it's the Eagles or not, son or not. It wouldn't have mattered to me if it was Deacon or just Vince and some other guy. Having Deacon in the band didn't and still doesn't make it ok, in my book. Not at all. I have no warm fuzzy feelings over him being in the band at all. Doesn't matter.

I really don't get that calling themselves Eagles is wrong. I also don't get when people post something like, "No Don Felder = No Eagles!"

Maybe it has to do with him being a founding member. However, other bands such as Fleetwood Mac seem to be accepted even though they only have one of three founding members.

Would I rather see them with Glenn Frey? Absolutely. Would I prefer to see Don Felder playing opposite Joe on Hotel California? Of course. And Randy, if he was still able to perform, and Bernie too.

Do I wish that they had stopped in 2016? No. I am glad they have continued and they put on a top quality performance. I'm glad they are enjoying themselves and I'm glad that they have the blessing and inclusion of Glenn's family. It doesn't destroy or negate my enjoyment of having attended concerts when Glenn was with them or their recordings. It also has allowed thousands of others who presumably appreciate them and their music to hear it live.

I think they have an appropriate recognition of Glenn in their current concerts - not sure what people want or expect beyond what they are doing.

It is disappointing to see this cause such divisiveness among the fans of the group and its individual members.

[Freypower]

I definitely don't agree with that article.

Just because Deacon is happy does NOT make this ok...or any less wrong. IMO, that shouldn't bear any weight on if it's the Eagles or not, son or not. It wouldn't have mattered to me if it was Deacon or just Vince and some other guy. Having Deacon in the band didn't and still doesn't make it ok, in my book. Not at all. I have no warm fuzzy feelings over him being in the band at all. Doesn't matter.

This part of the article:

In one of their more incisive moves, the band decided to stack the end of the show with some of Walsh’s most beloved songs. The guitarist got to bust out the six-string acrobatics and involuntarily hilarious orgasmic-life faces over two solo cuts “Life’s Been Good” and “Funk #49” back-to-back, before ending the main set with “Life In The Fast Lane.”

Now apparently we are going to be told that this is all new & improved, when in reality the real band had stacked the end of the show with Walsh songs for several tours. (It got too much for me the last time I saw them; but that is a separate issue).

[sodascouts]

I really don't get that calling themselves Eagles is wrong. I also don't get when people post something like, "No Don Felder = No Eagles!"

Maybe it has to do with him being a founding member. However, other bands such as Fleetwood Mac seem to be accepted even though they only have one of three founding members.

Would I rather see them with Glenn Frey? Absolutely. Would I prefer to see Don Felder playing opposite Joe on Hotel California? Of course. And Randy, if he was still able to perform, and Bernie too.

Do I wish that they had stopped in 2016? No. I am glad they have continued and they put on a top quality performance. I'm glad they are enjoying themselves and I'm glad that they have the blessing and inclusion of Glenn's family. It doesn't destroy or negate my enjoyment of having attended concerts when Glenn was with them or their recordings. It also has allowed thousands of others who presumably appreciate them and their music to hear it live.

I think they have an appropriate recognition of Glenn in their current concerts - not sure what people want or expect beyond what they are doing.

It is disappointing to see this cause such divisiveness among the fans of the group and its individual members.

The comparison with Fleetwood Mac doesn't really work because Peter Green and Jeremy Spencer left of their own volition quite early on, and the ones who literally define the band (Mick Fleetwood and John McVie) are still there 50 years later. (Side note: McVie might as well have been a founding member, as he joined after they had only played a few dates, and Peter Green named the band after him in order to get him to join.)

A more appropriate comparison would be the Beatles reforming without John Lennon... an idea which appalled McCartney. No calls were made to Julian Lennon to join a "Beatles 2.0" and go on what would have no doubt been an insanely profitable world tour.

Glenn Frey was fundamental to their sound as not only the founder of the band, but also the man who was instrumental in shaping the band's music and legacy from start to finish.

He was more than just another member of the band. It isn't just like replacing Don Felder. He's more important than that.

At least, in my opinion. Obviously, not everyone agrees.

[WalshFan88]

The comparison with Fleetwood Mac doesn't really work because Peter Green and Jeremy Spencer left of their own volition quite early on, and the ones who literally define the band (Mick Fleetwood and John McVie) are still there. (Side note: McVie might as well have been a founding member, as he joined after they had only played a few dates, and Peter Green named the band after him in order to get him to join.)

A more appropriate comparison would be the Beatles continuing without John Lennon... an idea which appalled McCartney.

Glenn Frey was fundamental to their sound as not only the founder of the band but the man who was instrumental in shaping the band's music and legacy from start to finish.

He was more than just another member of the band. It isn't just like replacing Don Felder. He's more important than that.

At least, in my opinion. Obviously, not everyone agrees.

Exactly. You can't put Glenn on the same level as Felder or any of the others really. He was more than just a member. He was the leader and visionary.

[longtimeeaglesfan]

Exactly. You can't put Glenn on the same level as Felder or any of the others really. He was more than just a member. He was the leader and visionary.

I agree he that Felder is not on the same level as Glenn. I'm just stating that there are many who feel strongly that without Felder there is no Eagles. I disagree with that as well.

[longtimeeaglesfan]

A more appropriate comparison would be the Beatles reforming without John Lennon... an idea which appalled McCartney. No calls were made to Julian Lennon to join a "Beatles 2.0" and go on what would have no doubt been an insanely profitable world tour.

The Beatles had already broken up before John Lennon was killed and they had no plans to get back together. In the case of the Eagles, they were still together as that group with apparent plans to continue as Glenn mentioned to Bernie at the end of the HOTE tour, "This isn't the end." Were the Beatles still together at John's death, maybe something different would have happened.