For Those Saying Glenn Frey is Necessary to the Eagles; no Glenn, no legit Eagles

[Ive always been a dreamer]

I do note that on the announcements of the two additional concerts that it says, "The Eagles – Don Henley, Joe Walsh & Timothy B. Schmit, with Vince Gill and Deacon Frey"

There is a "with" added in there which would indicate that to me that the "Eagles" consist of only Henley, Walsh & Schmit. However I do get that several people don't consider those three performing together to be "Eagles" either.

The banner (Glenn Frey 1948-2016) that is at the very top of the page does take you to what I think is a very fitting page recognizing Glenn's passing.

ltef – I get what you are saying and words do matter. I realize it may seem petty to some that I’m bitching about font sizes and pictures. However, I am an instructional web designer, so I know that images often form perceptions even more than words. I make a living thinking about what first impressions will be made when someone visits a web page. So, yes, smaller font size indicates that you are minimizing the importance of something. And the picture with Vince and Deacon included lends more weight than the words. A photo on the band’s official website implies that these are the official members. That is why you never saw an official band photo that included Steuart Smith or Scott Crago for example.

Thanks for pointing out that there was a link in Glenn’s acknowledgement – you are right … I didn’t notice it. Again, that only makes me feel worse because I know lots of effective design techniques that can be used to call attention to these kinds of things. I went back and clicked on the link and it takes you to what was the ‘landing’ page for the site after Glenn’s death – when you went to the site, that is the first page you saw before you went into the official site. Personally, I would have preferred that they had kept it that way, but, if they wanted to subordinate it, as I said, it could have been done a lot more effectively than what exists now.

It seems there are many organizations, bands included, that carry on without their founding members, after they are no longer with us.

I would have thought that there may be some sort of discussion between Glenn and his family, if not other members of the band, what he would like to have happen in the event of his death. Because of his family's support and son's participation in this lineup, it would indicate to me that Glenn would be okay with this. I'm pretty sure he has indicated at times that he saw the Eagles as a business and that the money played an important factor.

I don't expect my comments to change any minds and I'm sure that these points have been made in this thread by others already, but I respectfully am on the side that thinks what they are doing is fine and that their legacy is in no way diminished.

I would have also guessed that Glenn may have expressed his feelings about this too, especially to Cindy. However, I don’t think we can make any assumptions. The only mentions I’ve seen are two statements that Don has made. (I think both to the L.A. Times on two different occasions, but I’m not positive.)

• Bringing Deacon in was my idea,” Henley said. “I think of the guild system, which in both Eastern and Western cultures is a centuries-old tradition of the father passing down the trade to his son, and to me, that makes perfect moral and ethical sense. The primary thing is I think Glenn would be good with it — with both of these guys. I think he’d go, ‘That’s the perfect way to do this.’ ”
  
  
• “People want to hear these songs played live, by the band that recorded them – and not by a tribute band." Henley said. “God knows there are enough of those. And even though it’s not exactly the same band – they want to hear the songs. I think we’re doing it in a highly ethical manner that I think Glenn would approve of.”

So, in both statements, Don says that he thinks Glenn would approve. That tells me he doesn’t know – and I would also think that if Cindy knew what Glenn’s feelings were on the matter, that she would have shared them with Irving and the band. I also noticed that, in both statements, Don asserts what is the ‘ethical’ way of going forward. If he knew Glenn would have approved, he could just say so, and wouldn’t need to offer any other justifications.

Based on many of Glenn’s actions and statements over the years, I tend to believe he would not have wanted the band to continue without him. This has already been discussed here, as well as in the Eagles 3.0 thread, so I’m trying not to rehash the same arguments that have been repeated over and over. However, the truth is we will probably never know for sure what Glenn would have wanted. Having said that, I have no doubt that he would be very proud of his son no matter how he felt about the band carrying on.

So, you are right in that no one's minds have been changed, and I respectfully disagree that this is all just fine and the band’s legacy is not being diminished. I thought it was interesting that Don acknowledged in the second statement that “it’s not exactly the same band”. As I said in my earlier post, I think the precedent has now been set and that this could slowly evolve into the ‘Eagles’ without any former members as long as there is money to be made. If family blood is all it takes to make it ethical and moral, then all of the members, both past and present, have plenty of heirs that can fill that bill. And finally, just for the record, any criticisms that I make about the future direction of the band would also extend to the Frey family since they are, apparently, on board with the decisions that have been made. However, of course, I wish Deacon nothing but the best and hope he has a bright future ahead of him.