Originally Posted by
MaryCalifornia
Hi Delilah, wow has it really been a year? I believe we have a couple of instances where Borderers have refined their original positions, but only one or two.
I understand and respect the "No Glenn No Eagles" contingent's position and that nothing will change it. I would like to ask this hypothetical question to that group - it is not meant to prove any point or serve as a strawman, it is a genuine question: If Don, Timothy and Joe performed together, along with members of the former-Eagles backing band, under a name other than "Eagles", would you be more upset if they didn't perform any Glenn songs, or if someone else sang his songs? I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm genuinely curious. It seems that nobody begrudges the guys continuing to perform if they're not using the Eagles name - this something we all agree on. The question is how are they to handle Glenns' songs - ignore them? Or divvy them up between themselves or guests?
A year in to this, my firm belief was stated very succinctly by Dawn in the "No Glenn..." thread: "For me, I like to think all the money and fame in the world can not compare to the thrill of walking out on stage before thousands of fans many of whom will never forget the thrill of their first Eagles concert... I believe that THIS is the guys' motivation. Period. Not money, not legacy, not grieving for Glenn or feeling closer to him. The thrill of performing is all they know, it is ingrained in their blood for over 50 years, and they aren't quite ready to give it up yet. Again, I don't think anyone disagrees. Where we disagree is that I think Henley is within the bounds of propriety - legal, moral, emotional, music ethics - to use the name. Based on everything I have read, seen, heard, and learned about Glenn over the past six or seven years of my fandom, I think that Glenn would be delighted with the current tour.