Actually, I feel my quotes were misrepresented. In particular, the way you present this:
Your little edits... leaving out some of the things you said as if I were questioning the notion that Glenn would make
any kind of legal arrangement pertaining to
anything related to the Eagles, misrepresents my intention.
My replies were specifically addressed to your implication that if Glenn wanted to stop the Eagles from continuing without him, he would surely have made provisions to force the matter legally in his will.
That, after all, was the purpose of this line of speculation in the first place... to suggest that the absence of such a provision indicates that he must have been fine with the Eagles continuing without him.
I find fault with that line of speculation, because a provision forbidding a band's continuance is not something that a person would be likely to put in a will, as you suggested. Hence
my reply:
"I have never heard of any rock star ever putting something like that [ forbidding his band to continue without him ] in his/her will. Have you?"
I added the bracketed information this time to ensure there's no more confusion.
That's also what was the basis for
my other reply, which I here present unedited (the bolded part is what Arlee left out):
"No, I don't think it's been suggested that he would try to control what happened with his band via his will before... because I don't think anyone has EVER tried to do that before (that I'm aware of).
So saying OF COURSE he would have, when NO ONE ever has, is quite a leap."
That's right, folks. Arlee actually deleted the part of the sentence that explained what I was referring to so she could make it look like I was referring to her comment about contracts and negotiations. I leave you to decide how ethical that was.
Anyway, I have yet to see an example of someone forbidding their band to continue in a will, or alternatively requiring it to continue. Some powers end with one's life.
Yeah, no need, chaim. At this point, there's not much to it. Arlee is pulling in quotes from so long ago to create her narrative that I actually had to look one up to see when I posted it... one of the ones she posted on April 19 was from March 30! She's still talking about it now, but the most recent post of mine she quoted was from almost two weeks ago.
I debated over whether I should even reply at this point but I felt the misrepresentation of my posts needed clarifying, especially since they were so long ago that people might have forgotten the originals and assumed Arlee's "edits" were legit.
In short,
that link does not address my point: it is unheard of for a musician to forbid a band from continuing without him/her via a will.
(That link doesn't even talk about wills - it just suggests that bands should be sure to sort out legal matters when they form, which is a pretty obvious point that no one has contested.)
It's not hard to figure out why no one tries to control what a band does via a will. Wills are for distributing property to beneficiaries, not controlling what people do in the future.
The closest you can come is making a gift conditional - like "I bequeath my house to my daughter on the condition she doesn't demolish it" - but you can't say "I forbid my wife from living in the house we co-own if she marries again" in your will. She partially owns that house. Likewise, the Eagles name wasn't solely Glenn's so he can't make it a gift to anyone, or take it away from anyone who currently has ownership in it.
Dead men don't own things and they don't control things.
The best you can do is make your wishes known and hope people comply with them once you're gone.