Frey-less Eagles??? Was it ever considered?

[BillBailey1976]

Today I was thinking about the reunion attempt that was made in 1990. You had Henley, Felder, Walsh and Schmitt on board, but Frey balked at the 11th hour.
So, let's suppose for a moment that they'd said, "Fine, no Glenn, we're still doing this". I have a couple of questions to ponder about that time.

1. Was there any consideration to move forward with the members they had?
(Remember Don H. and Don F. could have voted to move forward and Glenn couldn't have stopped it....2/3 of the Board of Directors would have had say so)

2. Had this lineup moved forward, what sort of success would they have enjoyed?

3. What sort of Setlist would they have employed? More Henley would be a given, but would they have brought in more Walsh Solos, a few Schmitt songs, maybe even bringing back Visions as a live song??
(From the HFO special, you would have only lost TS, TIE, and TGFY. Touring would have impacted more)

I know this didnt happen, but I like to wonder sometimes.

[Freypower]

It was not considered.

Glenn Frey was/is the leader of the Eagles & he vetoed it. I don't believe the alleged 2 out of 3 thing ever even came into it. Don Henley was quoted as saying that without Glenn it would be him (Henley) & his backing band.

There is no Eagles without Glenn Frey & therefore I have no intention of speculating whether there would have been any 'success'.

[Ive always been a dreamer]

I agree it was never seriously considered. Don Henley had made it clear that he would not perform as the Eagles without Glenn when Glenn dissolved the band in 1980. I respect him for that decision because I believe for most fans no Henley or no Frey means no Eagles.

[VAisForEagleLovers]

Believe me, if there had been even the smallest thought of moving forward without Glenn, Felder would have mentioned it in his book and would have made it seem like it was a close thing.

As for success, I think it would depend on your definition of success. They probably would have made more money touring than what it cost them to be on the road. It would have been a short tour and then done. Casual fans don't always know the names of band members, but they surely would have noticed the lack of magic.

[Houston Baby]

I for one am thankful they did not go that route. I can't imagine EAGLES without Glenn.

[BillBailey1976]

I am glad they didn't do that, as well. I wasn't suggesting that it would be a good idea. I was just thinking about the 90 almost reunion..and was just wondering...what if..

[sodascouts]

1. Was there any consideration to move forward with the members they had?
(Remember Don H. and Don F. could have voted to move forward and Glenn couldn't have stopped it....2/3 of the Board of Directors would have had say so)
I'm not sure this is true. I think there would have been legal complications if they had continued without Glenn against his wishes.

[Funk 50]

I believe that Glenn did actually quit in 1980 but the rest of the band decided not to carry on without him. So I can see why they wouldn't reform without him.

There's actually been about half-a-dozen different incarnations of the Eagles since they started so another change may be more likely than not. I'm not sure how to treat the return of Bernie.

If any of the band, felt unable or unwilling to continue, I wouldn't want them to carry the responsibility of breaking up the Eagles, so in that sense, I'd always want the band to carry on, no matter who quits. Irving could be the most irreplaceable.

[Jonny Come Lately]

From a purely musical viewpoint, I'd have been interested to see what a Frey-less Eagles would have come up with.

After all, Joe and Tim both played on Don Henley's first solo record, with Joe playing the great first guitar solo on Dirty Laundry, and if I remember correctly both Henley and Tim sing on Don Felder's soundtrack song Heavy Metal (Takin' a Ride). I suspect Don would have been the band's dominant songwriter and would have covered similar lyrical subjects to his solo career but with more guitars, although given that it would have been in the 1980s I think they'd have made significant use of synthesisers. Joe and Tim would probably have been given one song per album, maybe Felder too with Glenn no longer being in the band. Clearly this is purely speculation but if the band had continued after Glenn left, would it have been that much of a stretch to imagine them hiring a full time keyboard player? They would have had Walsh and Felder to play guitar and having Joe playing synthesisers most of the time would have been a waste.

Of course, that was never going to happen, I can totally understand why Don didn't want to continue the band without Glenn (although I cannot agree with Henley's comments that the Eagles would have been him and his backing band - Walsh and Felder were both absolutely crucial on The Long Run, the hardest rocking album they've ever done, and I think the leftovers on the Selected Works set showed they had plenty of good guitar parts left unused).

[Funk 50]

I think the leftovers on the Selected Works set showed they had plenty of good guitar parts left unused).

I forgot about the Long Run Leftovers JCL. They already had a load of material to release a Frey less album in the early eighties. Six of the seven Eagles, released albums at the beginning of the eighties. Most of them two.

The obvious addition to the Eagles line up would be Joe Vitale. Drums, percussion, Keyboards and Flute. That would allow Henley to spend more time at the front of the stage.

Vitale released a great album in 1981 too with Joe, Tim, Don F, Bill Szymczyk and a plethora of big name helpers.

[BillBailey1976]

I'm not sure this is true. I think there would have been legal complications if they had continued without Glenn against his wishes.

In the HOTE doc, Glenn makes a big deal out of the "Felder signs by midnight, or he's out of the band" confrontation. Since Felder, Henley and Frey were each 1/3 partners in Eagles LTD. Could any 2 of them not made that decision?

[BillBailey1976]

From a purely musical viewpoint, I'd have been interested to see what a Frey-less Eagles would have come up with.

After all, Joe and Tim both played on Don Henley's first solo record, with Joe playing the great first guitar solo on Dirty Laundry, and if I remember correctly both Henley and Tim sing on Don Felder's soundtrack song Heavy Metal (Takin' a Ride). I suspect Don would have been the band's dominant songwriter and would have covered similar lyrical subjects to his solo career but with more guitars, although given that it would have been in the 1980s I think they'd have made significant use of synthesisers. Joe and Tim would probably have been given one song per album, maybe Felder too with Glenn no longer being in the band. Clearly this is purely speculation but if the band had continued after Glenn left, would it have been that much of a stretch to imagine them hiring a full time keyboard player? They would have had Walsh and Felder to play guitar and having Joe playing synthesisers most of the time would have been a waste.

Of course, that was never going to happen, I can totally understand why Don didn't want to continue the band without Glenn (although I cannot agree with Henley's comments that the Eagles would have been him and his backing band - Walsh and Felder were both absolutely crucial on The Long Run, the hardest rocking album they've ever done, and I think the leftovers on the Selected Works set showed they had plenty of good guitar parts left unused).

You hit my original thought right on the head here. That's what was running through my mind when I was thinking about this. It would have been different, but just how different is the question.
I too think that there was never a chance this would happen, but I do love what if questions.

[VAisForEagleLovers]

What if questions are something I spend a lot of time on while driving!

When we tear apart comments like Henley's "me and my backing band", you need to keep in mind the context. We can sit here in 2014 and look back and say that Timothy and Joe are vital to the band and a lot more than 'backing band'. However, pre-HFO, Timothy had had one album and one tour with the band, and most of his history was Poco and not the Eagles. Joe had two albums and two tours with the band, but he was known for his guitar playing capability and not his vocals. From what I've read and heard from others, the band also didn't turn him loose during concerts like they do now. At any rate, I believe Henley was stating the take the media and DJs would have about a Frey-less Eagles, and he was right. I don't think he was stating how he'd have perceived it.

[Brooke]

The Eagles without Glenn? I can't even comprehend the thought!

Well, I guess I can but I just wouldn't want to. And as VA posted, if it had been thought about Felder would have certainly run with it.

[sodascouts]

In the HOTE doc, Glenn makes a big deal out of the "Felder signs by midnight, or he's out of the band" confrontation. Since Felder, Henley and Frey were each 1/3 partners in Eagles LTD. Could any 2 of them not made that decision?

Since Felder wasn't a founding member, getting rid of him would have no effect on the band's ability to continue touring as the Eagles, "wrongful termination" suit aside. That is not the case with Glenn and Don Henley, who originated all of this. Remember that with Glenn and Don Henley, there would be issues with who owns the name "Eagles" and stuff like that. There's been similar messes with other bands and they have inevitably involved lawsuits. Henley/Walsh/Schmit/Felder could have toured under another name without any legal issues, but that wouldn't have been nearly as marketable.

It would have been very ugly. No wonder Don Henley didn't want to engage in such a horrible mess. Regardless of who "won", it would have been a Pyrrhic victory.

[UndertheWire]

From what I remember, Felder does mention consideration of carrying on without Glenn in his book. In 1980, he says that someone suggested continuing but noone wanted to do that without Glenn. He also says that in 1990 they considered a Frey-less Eagles and that lead to Henley's comment about Don Henley and his backing band. Felder also says that they received threats of legal action from Frey.

It would have been messy. It sounds like Frey never actually left the band in legal terms.

There's a useful explanation of "the brand", bands breaking up and solo careers from former Eagles manager, John Hartmann. He explicitly mentions Henley and Frey.

http://theholodigm.blogspot.co.uk/2009/07/question-of-day-breaking-brand-july-20.html

Henley used to describe Frey as the "glue" that held the band together and from what I've read, Frey has always done a lot of the behind-the-scenes work. So even if he was replaced musically, there would be a big hole.

[BillBailey1976]

I guess ownership is the real question. Was "The Eagles" name owned and licensed by Eagles LTD. or by DH or GF or both? I think that would answer the ultimate question of going on without Glenn. If Eagles LTD. owned the name then any 2 of the 3 members of the Eagles LTD. board could make that decision.

I have no understanding of corporate law or partnerships or anything legal on that front.

It sounds as though there was some original deal with the first four.
then Eagles LTD. was established to handle the money at a later date.
Then it was a 5 person equal partnership in Eagles LTD. (Did ALL band money and activities originate and function as part of Eagles LTD.?)
Bernie leaves - sells/forfeits his shares. (Did the shares evenly spread out among the 4?)
Randy leaves - sells/forfeits his shares (Did the shares evenly spread out among the 3? It sounds as though it did, by accounts coming from all parties involved)

So essentially in 1980 when the band stopped, you had 3 partners and 2 hired players. Did they split it all evenly with the 5, or were the 3 splitting everything 3 ways and paying expenses evenly out of their money...expenses being Joe and Tim's salaries plus crew, planes, etc...?

Fast forward to 1994. What happened to Eagles LTD? Why would the split have not been the same? How could Glenn demand more? Was Eagles LTD dissolved and a new corp. organized with a 2/7, 2/7, 1/7. 1/7, 1/7 deal?
Were Tim and Joe part owners of the new corp?

Then a new deal in 2000? NEA? New Eagles Agreement? I don't understand how there could have been, or needed to be a new deal.

I tried to follow it all and piece it together using the HOTE doc and Felder's book, but I just can't follow it all.

I would really like to understand all of this?

I think someday, this group's business practices will make up a full semester class at a business school :)

[Houston Baby]

Interesting! Thanks for posting the link UTW!

[BillBailey1976]

BTW, I hope no one takes my comments or discussion as in any way saying that I don't love the band just the way it is...(with the exception of Don Felder being gone).
I am thrilled they are together and am so glad that I got to see them one more time.

i just like discussion and love to talk about the Eagles.

It's funny. At work whenever music is discussed I usually end up saying something like "Well the Eagles......" for nearly every answer..hahaha. They are the only group that I have all their albums (and all of DH and GF solo stuff) and really the only group that I have ever followed much.

[UndertheWire]

Bill, your description of the shareholdings from 1974-1980 seems correct. Even though Joe and Tim weren't shareholders they probably had a deal that gave them an equal share of the profits from the tours and records that they participated in. What Joe and Tim didn't get was ownership of the brand or a formal place in the decision-making.

In 1994, a new corporation was set up to handle the HFO tour, album etc and that's where the 2/7, 1/7 shares come in.

The original Eagles Ltd corporation continued to exist in parallel but I assume it was mostly concerned with handling royalties from recordings from 1972-1980. Although Randy and Bernie had surrendered their shares, they were still entitled to royalties for the tracks they played on.

Just as Glenn and Don Henley were able to outvote Don Felder, I believe the two Dons could have outvoted Glenn. However, it seems the Glenn made it clear he would challenge that and noone wanted that fight.

[BillBailey1976]

Just as Glenn and Don Henley were able to outvote Don Felder, I believe the two Dons could have outvoted Glenn. However, it seems the Glenn made it clear he would challenge that and noone wanted that fight.

The way Glenn sounds in interviews, I'm sure you're right. They didn't want to deal with that, I'm sure. Sounds like he has always been a "my ball, my rules" kinda guy.
I have thought alot about Glenn's comments regarding Don F. worrying about how much money Glenn and Don were making, and not appreciating what he was making. I can see that side of it, but I can also see the side of it that, they ALL were making so much money, why not split it evenly. They ALL make grossly more than nearly EVERYONE who buys their music and goes to their concert.
I think the greed thing goes both ways.

It's a bit like pro sports players. They hold out, demand trades and raises, when they already make an obscene amount of money. What difference is there really between 20 and 50 million dollars....you can't spend it all either way!!!

At the end of the day, I'm glad that they figured out how to make it work as much as they have. The listening public has gotten some great music from it.

[Freypower]

It's Christmas so let's have some fun with this just to prove that I can do such a thing in a topic so close to my heart.

So it's 1992, say, and you and a group of excited friends are off to see the reunited Eagles with a lineup of Henley, Felder, Walsh & Schmit (no doubt with a keyboards player, as suggested, and let's throw in Scott Crago although this is ahead of 'real time)'.

'So guys', you eagerly start the conversation. 'What songs will we hear? Should be an awesome night'!

'Well', someone else says, 'I guess we won't hear Take It Easy, Peaceful Easy Feeling, Tequila Sunrise, Already Gone, Lyin' Eyes, New Kid In Town or Heartache Tonight'.

An uneasy silence descends.

'Hey! Cheer up!' someone else says. 'Maybe they'll do Visions'!

And anyone who replies that Henley could have sung some of those songs is missing the point.

[UndertheWire]

At this point, someone asks, "How will it differ from Don Henley's solo show?"

[Freypower]

No doubt someone will answer that Walsh & Felder are the ones who matter anyway & they're really there to hear Waslh & Felder. :eyebrow:

(I know there are people who think this so it's pointless not to say so. Maybe I shouldn't have posted anything). :sad:

[Ive always been a dreamer]

Well there are some folks around who would like all kinds of variations in the lineup, but, IMO, they are a small minority. I truly believe that the vast majority of Eagles fans would not want to see an "Eagles" show without Glenn or Don Henley. As mentioned in the article that UTW posted with John Hartmann, neither Don or Glenn couldn't even match the success of the Eagles as solo artists.


The way Glenn sounds in interviews, I'm sure you're right. They didn't want to deal with that, I'm sure. Sounds like he has always been a "my ball, my rules" kinda guy.

BB76 - I agree that Glenn has always been very protective of the Eagles brand, and, understandably so, IMO. The Eagles are "his baby" and as Soda once put it, when it comes to the band, there are certain things where it's "the Frey way or the highway". To paraphrase what he stated when he decided to call it quits in 1980 - "I started the band, and I ended it".


I have thought alot about Glenn's comments regarding Don F. worrying about how much money Glenn and Don were making, and not appreciating what he was making. I can see that side of it, but I can also see the side of it that, they ALL were making so much money, why not split it evenly. They ALL make grossly more than nearly EVERYONE who buys their music and goes to their concert.
I think the greed thing goes both ways.

Maybe they are greedy, who knows. I can't really pass judgment about that because I don't know them. But, I agree, if there is greed, it definitely goes both ways. And to those of us with modest incomes, it's understandable that we may see it that way because most of us can't even begin to wrap our heads around that kind of money. However, we also do need to keep in mind how much it costs to run a multi-million dollar corporation. The overhead is staggering. Now, as far as them splitting the money evenly among all the band members, I have to disagree with you. They didn't all make the same contribution to the success of the band, so I believe it is fair to compensate them accordingly. One of the things that was pointed out in the HOTE doc is how Glenn and Don lived the Eagles 24/7 in the 70's while the others took breaks away from the band. Apparently, none of the members had a problem with that, even though they were all being compensated equally in the early years. So, to my way of thinking, Glenn and Don asking for more compensation in the 90's was more than fair.


At the end of the day, I'm glad that they figured out how to make it work as much as they have. The listening public has gotten some great music from it.

Amen to that!

[BillBailey1976]

I think you also have to consider that an Eagles Reunion without Glenn would have probably included Bernie Leadon and Randy Meisner as well, so you'd have the Rocked out Walsh tunes, but you'd probably gain back some of the terrific early stuff from Randy and Bernie

Set 1
01. Hotel California
02. Victim of Love
03. Try and Love Again
04. Wasted Time
05. Pretty Maids All in a Row
06. I Can't Tell You Why
07. Those Shoes
08. Visions
09. Is It True
10. Ordinary Average Guy
11. One of These Nights

Set 2
12. Train Leaves Here This Morning*
13. Doolin-Dalton*
14. Saturday Night*
15. My Man*
16. Sad Cafe*
17. Love Will Keep Us Alive*
18. Life's Been Good
19. Boys of Summer
20. Take The Devil
21. Life In The Fast Lane

Encore 1
22. Rocky Mountain Way
23. Dirty Laundry

Encore 2
24. Long Run
25. In The City
26. Desperado
27. Take It To The Limit

*denotes semi-acoustic set up

[BillBailey1976]

Excellent comments Dreamer.

Again, I don't want people to think that I am advocating a lineup change, or that I don't like Glenn.

I do like to think about things, like I have stated, the what ifs are fun for me.

I hope no one takes this thread in the wrong spirit. I am in no way saying that they SHOULD have went forward without Glenn...just what if they had?? sorta thing.

But afterall, "Lost" was my favorite TV show and me and the guys that I work with spent 6 seasons "What Iffing our way through the days".....This is the same kind of thing for me.

BTW, I love Glenn's solo stuff. I have it all, and "Live in Dublin" is one of my favorite DVDs. Not a Glenn hater at all.

[Freypower]

Why would a Freyless reunion have included Meisner (or Leadon for that matter)? They would also have dumped Schmit for Meisner, would they? And yet you include ICTYW in your setlist. You appear to be saying that they could have two bass players but no Glenn Frey.

It isn't a bad setlist, but if you are telling me that OAG & Visions & Is It True & Take The Devil are adequate substitutes for those missing songs...I'm sorry but this is starting to get ridiculous, your last post notwithstanding and the fact that it's hypothetical notwithstanding.

[BillBailey1976]

Why would a Freyless reunion have included Meisner (or Leadon for that matter)? They would also have dumped Schmit for Meisner, would they? And yet you include ICTYW in your setlist. You appear to be saying that they could have two bass players but no Glenn Frey.

It isn't a bad setlist, but if you are telling me that OAG & Visions & Is It True & Take The Devil are adequate substitutes for those missing songs...I'm sorry but this is starting to get ridiculous, your last post notwithstanding.

I was thinking that since friction with Glenn was one of the main reason for both departures, and you were not going to have Glenn, that bringing back those 2 would be smart, if for no other reason that vocals.
An Eagles lineup without Glenn would leave a huge hole to fill. You couldn't do it by adding a backup guitarist, although I'm sure the guitar parts would be easier to replace than vocals. But 2 original members returning, along with the songs they sang, would help. Not fix it, but help it.
The biggest thing would be having TITTL and Try and Love Again back.
2 bass players wouldn't be a problem. I mean they both wouldn't have to play bass (Rock n Roll Hall of Fame style), or even if they did, I mean they do use 3 guitarists, and 2 drummers, and 2 keyboard players now.
I'm sure they could figure out 2 bassists.

I think you are looking at this from the wrong perspective. This is not a "Let's kick Glenn out" thing, it's more of "Glenn won't budge, and we want to do it" thing.
The songs were just ideas of what you might try to put together to have the Eagles without Glenn there.
Do I think Visions is comparable with Glenn's hits? Not in the least. Do I think it's better than some of Glenn's songs? Yes.
I think that without Glenn, you'd look to every avenue, aside from NEW members to make it the best show possible.

[BillBailey1976]

I'm also not sure what is "ridiculous" about my post. This is a message board about The Eagles. I mean there are threads here from actual musical and group discussions to "hotness" of members.
If discussing a hypothetical scenario is ridiculous, then I guess I'm just ridiculous :)

I think that music is something to have fun with. So are the musicians, and things like that.
This whole topic was just a fun time killer. I sincerely apologize if I have stepped across some imaginary Glenn line or something. I am new here and that's the last thing I wanted to do.

I have probably came up with a dozen Eagles albums, setlists, lineup variations (within the original members......and Jackson Browne) to come up with some rather interesting listening.

Since I have everything ripped as mp3's I like to have fun with it, and copy and paste songs into folders and move them about.

Just a couple examples.
I have a 1981 Eagles album using stuff from all of their first post-Eagles solo albums.

I have a double CD Long Run, doing a similar thing mixing in current Long Run songs with solo material.

[Freypower]

What I meant was the whole idea was starting to get ridiculous, not your posts which are very well thought out, although I will never agree that a band can have two bassists. In a song like LITFL if one of them plays bass what is the other going to do? Acoustic guitar? Not on a song like that.

It's just that we are talking about Glenn's voice, his personality and his leadership skills (I won't go into his skills as a keyboardist & rhythm guitarist or arranger) and we're just throwing all of that away, saying none of it matters.

I suppose I should say that it doesn't work if you leave out Henley's voice, his personality, his drumming & his lyrical skills either.

[BillBailey1976]

What I meant was the whole idea was starting to get ridiculous, not your post which is very well thought out.

**Thanks for clearing that up.:) **

[/quote]It's just that we are talking about Glenn's voice, his personality and his leadership skills (I won't go into his skills as a keyboardist & rhythm guitarist or arranger) and we're just throwing all of that away, saying none of it matters. [/quote]

**You are exactly right. I mean the behind the scenes impact may have made this even less workable than the on stage performance.**

[/quote] I suppose I should say that it doesn't work if you leave out Henley's voice, his personality, his drumming & his lyrical skills either.[/quote]

** I agree. I think that for it to really work, you do need the unit of Glenn and Don. All fun and what if's aside, I think that a Frey-less Eagles, while workable, would NOT have been as successful. HFO? They could have pulled that off and made millions without Glenn. On the other hand, that was 20 yrs ago, and they are still going strong. Soooo...initially, I think yes, but long term...without Glenn or Don they wouldn't be around today**

I will take your word that 2 bassists wouldn't work. I don't know alot about the technical side of music, so I will defer completely to you on that.
My thought was without Glenn, more Eagles would give them more of a fighting chance.

[BillBailey1976]

Just as an aside, how awesome would HOTE tour been if all the stars had aligned and fences mended, and we'd have had all 7 Eagles on tour!!!

They could have truly worked magic on a History tour with everyone available!!

[WalshFan88]

Just as an aside, how awesome would HOTE tour been if all the stars had aligned and fences mended, and we'd have had all 7 Eagles on tour!!!

They could have truly worked magic on a History tour with everyone available!!

Agreed...though it would have never happened sadly, Felder is a bad word for them, and Meisner as I understand it isn't in good enough shape for a tour, but a special appearance would be nice on a number or two.

[WalshFan88]

No doubt someone will answer that Walsh & Felder are the ones who matter anyway & they're really there to hear Waslh & Felder. :eyebrow:

(I know there are people who think this so it's pointless not to say so. Maybe I shouldn't have posted anything). :sad:

I'm not sure who you are referring to with this, but I don't believe this way and never have.

They might be my favorites but the Eagles as a group is what made them so great, and certainly the vocal and lyrical contributions of GF and DH included in that.

[BillBailey1976]

Agreed...though it would have never happened sadly, Felder is a bad word for them, and Meisner as I understand it isn't in good enough shape for a tour, but a special appearance would be nice on a number or two.

Yeah..that ship has sailed unfortunately.

[Freypower]

I'm not sure who you are referring to with this, but I don't believe this way and never have.

They might be my favorites but the Eagles as a group is what made them so great, and certainly the vocal and lyrical contributions of GF and DH included in that.

I was referring to the imaginary conversation I started amongst a group of people going to see the Freyless Eagles.When UTW suggested that someone might ask how it would differ from a Henley show, it seemed logical to me that fans of the guitarists would then speak up. After that I realised that I probably shouldn't have raised the issue in the first place. I was making a very unsuccessful attempt to have fun with the very thought that a Freyless Eagles could be possible.:brickwall:

[Ive always been a dreamer]

Well - I feel like if this is a topic that members want to engage in and have fun with, then they should feel free to do so. If the members feel that it is an exercise in futility, then the thread will die a natural death.

[VAisForEagleLovers]

FP, when listing Glenn's contributions to the band, you left out one of the important ones. Arranging.

As far as the tensions between Glenn and Randy and Glenn and Bernie, we need to keep in mind that in a lot things, Don agreed with Glenn and Glenn was the one that had to be the hard-ass. So, quite a few of those tensions would have still been there with Don at the helm.

What I like about Glenn, and his detractors seldom acknowledge this when saying it always has to be his way is that while true, his decisions were for the good of the band and not always for his good. A prime example is the decision for him to sing leads less in the late 70s. I STILL boo the TV when I watch the DVD and he says that.

[Freypower]

FP, when listing Glenn's contributions to the band, you left out one of the important ones. Arranging.

As far as the tensions between Glenn and Randy and Glenn and Bernie, we need to keep in mind that in a lot things, Don agreed with Glenn and Glenn was the one that had to be the hard-ass. So, quite a few of those tensions would have still been there with Don at the helm.

What I like about Glenn, and his detractors seldom acknowledge this when saying it always has to be his way is that while true, his decisions were for the good of the band and not always for his good. A prime example is the decision for him to sing leads less in the late 70s. I STILL boo the TV when I watch the DVD and he says that.

Back again; I did mention arranging after I listed keyboards & rhythm guitar.

Of course I completely agree with you about Glenn's decreasing number of vocals & I am so grateful for LROOE in that department.

[Funk 50]

I'd definitely go to a Frey-less Eagles concert, just as I've attended and enjoyed solo shows when I've had the opportunity. In fact at this point anybody dropping out, barring my hero Joe, would lead to more interest in attending an Eagles concert, rather than less, I'd just have to see how they cope and witness the change in dynamics.

Up to the recent reduced set lists, I think there were 12 tracks that had never been dropped from the Eagles set list. Off the top of my head: Hotel California, Life In The Fast Lane, Life's Been Good, Heartache Tonight, Take It Easy, I Can't Tell You Why, I'm struggling, :???: er, One Of These nights, Funk #49, Can I phone a friend? Desperado, Dirty Laundry, er.... what was the question again? This History Of The Eagles set list has thrown me, Love Will Keep Us Alive, maybe, Rocky Mountain way, maybe missed on the odd occasion, Tequila Sunrise could be another.

Of those, I'd say only Hotel California and Desperado are really essential. Glenn's quite capable of singing Desperado but who besides Henley could do Hotel California justice? Is that Felder with his hand up at the back?

I suppose Felder could sing Victim Of Love, Those Shoes or Heavy Metal in Henley's absence but I think they'd be a singer light without Glenn or Don.

I wonder if JD would ever sign up if the circumstances arose where he was asked. Jackson Browne covered for Felder once.

In 1990, it would have been a very unsatisfactory reunion without the whole band involved, unless it was with long time bassist, Randy rather than new boy, Timothy.

In 1980, it wouldn't have been a major upheaval, outside the band, for the Eagles to continue without Glenn, they'd already changed the line up 3 times in the previous 6 years. 4 times if you count the addition of Joe Vitale but I'm sure, within the confines of the band, they'd be a gang without a leader, lacking direction and confidence. I'd back them to overcome any difficulties though.

I'm going to ponder some set lists. One Frey less Eagles from around the early eighties and a HFO with Randy. Twice as many songs in the HFO setlist.

[sodascouts]

"Take It Easy" is also considered a definitive Eagles tune by many. The world wouldn't end if they left it out, but it would be missed.

I've heard Felder do "Take It Easy" and other Eagles songs and not to be unkind, but, well, it's not quite the same quality vocally. You might leave such an Eagles concert satisfied, but I have a feeling a lot of fans wouldn't.

I've heard Jackson Browne do "Take It Easy" and I've heard JD Souther do "New Kid in Town", "Heartache Tonight", and "Best of My Love". These are immensely talented men, but I couldn't help but feel it didn't sound "right." This is in part because the rockers were deliberately arranged to be more mellow, presumably to best fit their voices. I will say that Souther's version of "Doolin-Dalton" / "Doolin-Dalton Reprise" was amazing and moving, but it wasn't epic like the Eagles version.

Over on the Fleetwood Mac board I frequent, a similar discussion is going on about the Mac touring without Stevie... only, just like all other FM discussions, it's a lot more heated! lol! To be fair, it's being considered seriously rather than hypothetically, so you can't blame Stevie fans for getting really worked up. It's the same problem. Dropping some of their hits, having Christine trying to sing some of her leads... Some would be OK with it, but others would feel ripped off or not attend at all. Those who would be OK with it are primarily Lindsey and Christine fans - a few of whom loathe Stevie and are thrilled by the thought of a Stevie-less FM (again, you can see why it's heated) - but what about your general audience? Would they miss Dreams? Landslide? Rhiannon? I think so. Would Christine be able to pull off singing some of Stevie's songs? She could sing them note for note, even take them to a higher range to make them fit her voice better, but I think a lot of people would be disappointed.

They don't just want to hear the songs; they want to relive the records. There are rare occasions when a new lead singer on an old song satisfies these fans - "Take It to the Limit" gets a fantastic reception at shows. I'm not sure if the same would be true for Joe singing "Train Leaves Here This Morning" - it would be interesting for the hardcores, but most people would be going "huh?" In other words, most of the time, a new lead singer doesn't work. To have a set with several such songs would be problematic, IMHO.

To replace them with solo songs brings back the "Henley and backing band" danger, as does a setlist heavy with Henley vocals. Felder could do "Heavy Metal" I suppose... Joe could do more of his solo / James Gang songs... Timothy could do "Roxy's Eyes" maybe... it's starting not to sound like an Eagles show. Again, the hardcore might find it an interesting experience for novelty's sake. The general audience... not so much.

Thus, it would be quite difficult to maintain the same level of success, IMHO, with so many popular songs missing or sung by others. Those who would enjoy it are in the minority - we must remember that most of the seats are filled by casual fans.

[Funk 50]

When the Eagles did their first tour without Felder in Europe. A lot of people I spoke to thought it was Joe that had left.. the other guy didn't really do anything was an amusing logic.

By all account Eagles concerts appear to be getting better and better. They are great solo. They are even better together. I don't know how many Eagles you need on stage to make it better than a solo show. Five I'd put down as gluttony. That's the standard they set themselves but I don't think an audience of casual fans would expect that, even at the prices they charge.

[Freypower]

I'd definitely go to a Frey-less Eagles concert, just as I've attended and enjoyed solo shows when I've had the opportunity. In fact at this point anybody dropping out, barring my hero Joe, would lead to more interest in attending an Eagles concert, rather than less, I'd just have to see how they cope and witness the change in dynamics.

Up to the recent reduced set lists, I think there were 12 tracks that had never been dropped from the Eagles set list. Off the top of my head: Hotel California, Life In The Fast Lane, Life's Been Good, Heartache Tonight, Take It Easy, I Can't Tell You Why, I'm struggling, :???: er, One Of These nights, Funk #49, Can I phone a friend? Desperado, Dirty Laundry, er.... what was the question again? This History Of The Eagles set list has thrown me, Love Will Keep Us Alive, maybe, Rocky Mountain way, maybe missed on the odd occasion, Tequila Sunrise could be another.

Of those, I'd say only Hotel California and Desperado are really essential. Glenn's quite capable of singing Desperado but who besides Henley could do Hotel California justice? Is that Felder with his hand up at the back?

I suppose Felder could sing Victim Of Love, Those Shoes or Heavy Metal in Henley's absence but I think they'd be a singer light without Glenn or Don.

I wonder if JD would ever sign up if the circumstances arose where he was asked. Jackson Browne covered for Felder once.

In 1990, it would have been a very unsatisfactory reunion without the whole band involved, unless it was with long time bassist, Randy rather than new boy, Timothy.

In 1980, it wouldn't have been a major upheaval, outside the band, for the Eagles to continue without Glenn, they'd already changed the line up 3 times in the previous 6 years. 4 times if you count the addition of Joe Vitale but I'm sure, within the confines of the band, they'd be a gang without a leader, lacking direction and confidence. I'd back them to overcome any difficulties though.

I'm going to ponder some set lists. One Frey less Eagles from around the early eighties and a HFO with Randy. Twice as many songs in the HFO setlist.

I have to say I am very sorry you feel this way & perhaps you should put yourself in the position of someone who has Frey as their 'hero'. As long as your hero is there, you don't care who is in the band. Well, I want to see my hero, and I want to see the rest of the current lineup. With Felder, I saw him once. It didn't bother me when he left because he didn't sing any songs. That is not the case with any of the others, Frey especially.

What a shame it is that his own actions which VA mentioned about him singing fewer songs 'because we had Don Henley' seem in part to have led to him being treated as unimportant by many people who claim to be fans.

Another song which has never been dropped, unlike Dirty Laundry which isn't in the HOTE setlist, is Lyin' Eyes. Need I go on?

As for the second part I highlighted we are talking about the leader & founder of the Eagles. It would have been major. It wouldn't have worked.

I know that Soda is pleased this hasn't become heated but perhaps in the interests of balance we should start imagining the Eagles without Henley as well. You do mention that briefly. The bottom line is there is no Eagles without either of them.

[shunlvswx]

I watched a clip of Don singing Already Gone and also another one. I think it was Peaceful Easy Feeling at one of his concerts. It was weird hearing Don singing those songs like Glenn singing Desperado. It sounded good, but it wasjust weird hearing the other singing a song they didn't originally sing. Much weirder with Don F singing Don and Glenn's songs.

[UndertheWire]

If there was a time for a Frey-less Eagles, I'd say it was around 1978 when Frey and Henley fell out. It would have seemed like a continuaton of the trend which had Frey singing fewer leads and playing less lead guitar. At that time, they had enough momentum to carry them through, so long as the material was good enough.

The real question is how they would have managed without Glenn's drive and energy.

[thelastresort]

Indeed, for all you could say about Frey's perhaps lesser vocal and guitar capability than some of the other members, you'd have to go a very, very long way to find someone who could lead the band so well publicly. Obviously Henley is on an equal footing image-wise, but is more of a studios legal eagle than an outgoing ferocious captain. Like TBS calls him, he's the fearless leader, the man who'd lay down his own sake for the band's, the man who would without question get your name up in lights. None of the other six Eagles could ever get close to that level of leadership.

[Freypower]

Indeed, for all you could say about Frey's perhaps lesser vocal and guitar capability than some of the other members, you'd have to go a very, very long way to find someone who could lead the band so well publicly. Obviously Henley is on an equal footing image-wise, but is more of a studios legal eagle than an outgoing ferocious captain. Like TBS calls him, he's the fearless leader, the man who'd lay down his own sake for the band's, the man who would without question get your name up in lights. None of the other six Eagles could ever get close to that level of leadership.

Most of what you say is correct except for the 'lesser vocal capability'. In my humble opinion Glenn Frey is the equal of Henley vocally and superior to all the other band members in thiis department.

[Glennhoney]

Don Felder is without doubt a very gifted guitarist....but definately not a gifted singer....

[UndertheWire]

On a message board, I saw the 1979/1980 Frey-Felder situation described as a "failed palace coup". I've no idea if this was based on knowledge or just speculation but the idea is intriguing. Felder denies trying to take control which makes me believe there must be something to it! If Felder had been able to get Henley on his side, what might have happened?

[Funk 50]

I have to say I am very sorry you feel this way & perhaps you should put yourself in the position of someone who has Frey as their 'hero'.

I know that Soda is pleased this hasn't become heated but perhaps in the interests of balance we should start imagining the Eagles without Henley as well.

Happy Christmas Freypower;

Henley's just retired so they've retained Bernie (hypothetical of course)

I wouldn't want to miss it:)


James Dean
How Long
Walk Away
Hollywood Waltz (sung by Bernie)
New Kid In Town
I Can't Tell You Why

Saturday Night
Bitter Creek
Tequila Sunrise
Love Will Keep Us Alive
Twenty One
Doolin Dalton (Bluegrass Reprise)
Outlaw Man
Desperado (sung by Glenn)

Journey Of The Sorceror
Lying Eyes
Pretty Maids All In A Row
Peaceful Easy Feeling
Life's Been Good
Somebody
In The City
Already Gone
Funk #49
The Heat Is On
Rocky Mountain Way
Ol' 55
Heartache Tonight
I Don’t Wanna Hear Anymore
Take It To The Limit

Seven Bridges Road
Life In The Fast Lane (Sung by Joe)
Hotel California Sung by Everyone)
Take It Easy

[Funk 50]

I watched a clip of Don singing Already Gone and also another one. I think it was Peaceful Easy Feeling at one of his concerts. It was weird hearing Don singing those songs like Glenn singing Desperado. It sounded good, but it was just weird hearing the other singing a song they didn't originally sing. Much weirder with Don F singing Don and Glenn's songs.

Don's also performed I Can't Tell You Why, in the past. Tim's is still the best.

Glenn's done Rocky Mountain Way to celebrate the end of hostilities with Joe. Joe's sang Desperado and Life In The Fast Lane a lot and he did singing and slide, with Steve Winwood on a quaint version of Love Will Keep Us Alive at the Jim Capaldi tribute concert a few years ago. Pretty good singing The Best Of My Love with Sarah Evans too.

It's funny hearing about Felder criticising the averageness of Glenn's vocals for The Girl From Yesterday. I reckon every solo song Felder's ever released would be better sung by someone else and I like quite a few of them.

[shunlvswx]

I do remember that clip of Joe singing The Best Of My Love with Sara Evans. It wasn't bad. I enjoyed it. I have seen a clip of Joe singing LITFL.

Actually I think it was Lyin' Eyes not PEF I saw a clip of Don singing.

[Lisa]

I had not heard that the Eagles would have considered reuniting without both Don Henley and Glenn Frey as band members.

I would think that Don Henley would have had to think about whether the Eagles would once again tour as the Eagles after his having had a successful and continuing solo career after the Eagles disbanded. I would think that likewise that would be a consideration for Glenn Frey and his successful solo career. All of that is speculation about two solo careers and the scope of an Eagles reunion.

[Freypower]

On a message board, I saw the 1979/1980 Frey-Felder situation described as a "failed palace coup". I've no idea if this was based on knowledge or just speculation but the idea is intriguing. Felder denies trying to take control which makes me believe there must be something to it! If Felder had been able to get Henley on his side, what might have happened?

Surely this is pure speculation. I'd be grateful if you could provide a source for this. The idea of Felder attempting to take 'control' of the Eagles is laughable.

To Lisa there was never any suggestion of the band reforming with neither Frey nor Henley. And again I have to stress that when Frey said no, there was no question of them reforming without him either.

[Freypower]

Happy Christmas Freypower;

Henley's just retired so they've retained Bernie (hypothetical of course)

I wouldn't want to miss it:)


James Dean
How Long
Walk Away
Hollywood Waltz (sung by Bernie)
New Kid In Town
I Can't Tell You Why

Saturday Night
Bitter Creek
Tequila Sunrise
Love Will Keep Us Alive
Twenty One
Doolin Dalton (Bluegrass Reprise)
Outlaw Man
Desperado (sung by Glenn)

Journey Of The Sorceror
Lying Eyes
Pretty Maids All In A Row
Peaceful Easy Feeling
Life's Been Good
Somebody
In The City
Already Gone
Funk #49
The Heat Is On
Rocky Mountain Way
Ol' 55
Heartache Tonight
I Don’t Wanna Hear Anymore
Take It To The Limit

Seven Bridges Road
Life In The Fast Lane (Sung by Joe)
Hotel California Sung by Everyone)
Take It Easy

F50 I appreciate your attempt to do this but I must again stres this wouldn't work either. All those classic Henley vocals gone? Sorry, no.

[UndertheWire]

Surely this is pure speculation. I'd be grateful if you could provide a source for this. The idea of Felder attempting to take 'control' of the Eagles is laughable.

Probably just speculation but interesting as a "what if?" scenario. At that time, there may have been some drug-induced paranoia.

[VAisForEagleLovers]

I've read bits and pieces in a lot of different places, and put them together and given it some thought. It was briefly mentioned in the HOTE documentary as well. Felder would be all buddy-buddy with Glenn and tell him things Henley was doing that he knew Glenn wouldn't like. Then he'd do the same with Henley about Glenn. He was always trying to play one off against the other, and the words used in the documentary supported the idea, to me, that it was for control. I never got the impression that he was trying to get control of the band, but he was trying to be one of two against the other.

If anyone remembers the bits in HOTE, please provide the words. Otherwise, it'll have to wait until I get time to watch the DVD again. I think most of the other things I remember reading may have been in Eliot's book, I'll have to do some research to find it all again.

[Funk 50]

I had not heard that the Eagles would have considered reuniting without both Don Henley and Glenn Frey as band members.

Actually I don't think it's disputed that Randy, Don F and Joe were so pissed off at Glenn and Don during the recording of Hotel California that they agreed to jump ship when the album cycle was complete. After it's astonishing reception, Joe and Don decided to stick with Glenn and Don and shafted Randy.

Didn't Felder say that he thought that the Eagles broke on the day he became an official member but was told that that's the way they worked in the studio.


On a message board, I saw the 1979/1980 Frey-Felder situation described as a "failed palace coup".
Felder denies trying to take control which makes me believe there must be something to it!

I chortled a bit when I heard that Walsh's involvement, in the pre HFO Scmit/Felder/Walsh project, ended (I wonder if Randy or Bernie were invited?) when Felder decided he couldn't work with drunk Joe.

Is/was Felder big enough to call that shot?

Joe's been box office since he first set foot on stage in his college days! Even now, Felder relies on Hotel California and the Eagles to garner attention.



If Felder had been able to get Henley on his side, what might have happened?
One of the things I like about Don Henley is that he's like a faithful old dog. Loyal to the end. It's a great quality.


Before HFO, Joe was leading an ill-fated band of British musos;
Frankie Miller (Suffered a massive brain hemorrhage in New York on August 25th 1994. He'd just attended an Eagles show as a guest of Joe),
Ian Wallace (RIP), Chris Stewart and Nicky Hopkins (RIP) with Bill Szymczyk producing.

Joe's band did actually release some music. Apart from providing Love Will Keep Us Alive to the Eagles, I'm not aware of anything from Felder's project.

[UndertheWire]

From his book, Felder's project with Schmit and Walsh had a record deal but without Walsh, they couldnt get one. On that note, there's a 1992 interview (http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/interview--an-eagle-lands-glenn-frey-tells-lloyd-bradley-about-life-after-the-eagles-1530716.html) with Frey where he notes that he and Henley are the only Eagles with record deals and that alters attitudes.

[Funk 50]

Thanks for the link UTW http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/interview--an-eagle-lands-glenn-frey-tells-lloyd-bradley-about-life-after-the-eagles-1530716.html

Joe released Songs For A Dying Planet in May 1992. A year after Ordinary Average Guy (April 1991). He didn't support the album with a tour as he toured with Timothy in Ringo Starr's All Starr Band. But I reckon he had a recording contract.

I thought Henley's record company problems were one of the reasons that the Eagles resumed, not long after this 'It definitely won't happen now" interview. Glenn confirms that Henley and Frey lost their ability to write together.

Thanks again for the link UndertheWire and for the first time, I may be interested in Felder's, bash the Eagles, book.

[Lisa]

I would speculate that with two successful solo careers--the Eagles may have been a higher business risk to regroup. I would think that going ahead with floating the Eagles may have been a little more expensive and riskier a business decision to make. Maybe it is this apprehension that plays a part in the reformation. Pure speculation, but happily, the Eagles are playing as a group again after their long hiatus.

(Of course, this could all be completely unrelated in reality--)

[Ive always been a dreamer]

As far as the tensions between Glenn and Randy and Glenn and Bernie, we need to keep in mind that in a lot things, Don agreed with Glenn and Glenn was the one that had to be the hard-ass. So, quite a few of those tensions would have still been there with Don at the helm.

What I like about Glenn, and his detractors seldom acknowledge this when saying it always has to be his way is that while true, his decisions were for the good of the band and not always for his good. A prime example is the decision for him to sing leads less in the late 70s. I STILL boo the TV when I watch the DVD and he says that.

Well stated on both points, VA.

And I read both the Frey-less and the Henley-less hypothetical setlists posted in this thread, and, I'll say it again ... for me at any point in the band's history, no Frey or no Henley - no Eagles. And at this given time in the band's history, I don't think the band would continue without Joe and Timothy either.

[UndertheWire]

I think the only time for a Frey-less or Henley-free version of the Eagles would have been the seventies when there was still an expectation they would play new music rather than the old hits. I'm guessing that the majority of people didn't know who sang or wrote what so there woudn't have been an immediate outcry and the new music would have been judged on its own quality.

[Freypower]

I've read bits and pieces in a lot of different places, and put them together and given it some thought. It was briefly mentioned in the HOTE documentary as well. Felder would be all buddy-buddy with Glenn and tell him things Henley was doing that he knew Glenn wouldn't like. Then he'd do the same with Henley about Glenn. He was always trying to play one off against the other, and the words used in the documentary supported the idea, to me, that it was for control. I never got the impression that he was trying to get control of the band, but he was trying to be one of two against the other.

If anyone remembers the bits in HOTE, please provide the words. Otherwise, it'll have to wait until I get time to watch the DVD again. I think most of the other things I remember reading may have been in Eliot's book, I'll have to do some research to find it all again.

You're in luck because I was watching this last night. I can't repeat it word for word but it's during the segment of the recording of The Long Run. Glenn says that Felder was trying to gain more control and co-opted Joe for this purpose. Felder & Joe were thus pitted against Glenn & Don. It's only then is the growing rift between Glenn & Don hinted at - mainly by Felder, who says nothing about any attempt by himself to gain control.

What Glenn should have done as the band leader was tell Felder in no uncertain terms that his attempts to divide the band into armed camps would not be tolerated. Sadly I think at this stage he no longer cared & hardly involved himself.

[MaryCalifornia]

r the first time, I may be interested in Felder's, bash the Eagles, book.

Felder's book is definitely worth reading for any Eagles fan. I like the parts about his early life - many on here don't, but I always think a rags to riches story is intriguing, and his family was really poor. Maybe not Africa-poor, but poor, they didn't have much. He is somewhat of a guitar prodigy, which you probably already know. Obviously, you have to take his comments about Henley and Frey with a grain of salt (and Tim and Joe for that matter), but it's pretty well-written and was a quick read for me.

[Ive always been a dreamer]

I think the only time for a Frey-less or Henley-free version of the Eagles would have been the seventies when there was still an expectation they would play new music rather than the old hits. I'm guessing that the majority of people didn't know who sang or wrote what so there woudn't have been an immediate outcry and the new music would have been judged on its own quality.

:hmm: I'm not sure I agree with this, UTW. I believe there were indeed many, many fans back in the day that did know who sang which songs and would have noticed if there was a new vocalist. However, I'm sure you're right that many casual fans may not have known or cared.

And for this to have worked, we have to assume that the new material would have been equally as good or better than what the Henley-Frey songwriting team had produced - a pretty tall order, no doubt.


Felder's book is definitely worth reading for any Eagles fan. I like the parts about his early life - many on here don't, but I always think a rags to riches story is intriguing, and his family was really poor. Maybe not Africa-poor, but poor, they didn't have much. He is somewhat of a guitar prodigy, which you probably already know. Obviously, you have to take his comments about Henley and Frey with a grain of salt (and Tim and Joe for that matter), but it's pretty well-written and was a quick read for me.

I enjoyed Felder's book for the most part too, MC. As you said, I particularly liked the parts about his early life. Although I still enjoyed the latter parts, my biggest beef is that I didn't learn much new when he got to the Eagles stuff. I thought it was mostly Felder's spin on events that most of us hardcores were already familiar with. I also wasn't impressed by his tell-all complaining or the inconsistencies, contradictions, and inaccuracies that I came across. Because of this, I would caution folks to use their critical thinking skills and keep in mind that this is only his version of events. I won't go into much more detail other than this because I have already expressed my opinion more than once in the thread devoted to the book. But, overall, it's a good read and I would recommend it to fans. I have to admit though, as someone who read the books when it first came out, I have grown rather weary of discussing it all these many years later.

[Ive always been a dreamer]

One other thing that I forgot to mention in my previous post - I enjoyed reading that interview again that UTW posted - it's been a while since I read that. I'm not sure whether Joe had a record deal or not at that time, but I assume he did, and Glenn misspoke about that. He definitely released two new albums in the early 90's - Ordinary Average Guy ('91) and Songs for a Dying Planet ('92). Hopefully, someone can shed some light on this for us.

[shunlvswx]

Wikepedia says those two albums were made on Epic Records. Maybe when Glenn and Joe got together for the Party of Two tour, Joe didn't have a record deal.

[UndertheWire]

Thanks for the details of Joe's releases. I took Glenn at face value but maybe he wasn't too throrough with his research.

:hmm: I'm not sure I agree with this, UTW. I believe there were indeed many, many fans back in the day that did know who sang which songs and would have noticed if there was a new vocalist. However, I'm sure you're right that many casual fans may not have known or cared.

And for this to have worked, we have to assume that the new material would have been equally as good or better than what the Henley-Frey songwriting team had produced - a pretty tall order, no doubt.

I'm thinking of a Frey-less follow up to Hotel California. Imagine "The Long Run" album without "Heartache Tonight", "Teenage Jail", "I Can't Tell You Why" (I know it's Tim's song, but I believe there's a lot of Glenn in the music and arrangement) and "The Long Run". Add in versions of the three tracks Felder put forward for Henley to write lyrics (which Felder later completed as "Heavy Metal (Takin' a Ride)", "Bad Girls" and "Haywire"). Perhaps a reprise of "The Disco Strangler"?

It wasn't until I'd written the above, that I realised this new "Long Run" album was missing the title track and all the hit singles. It would have been released because it said "Eagles" on the cover but...

I'm just taking the idea and running with it and I've just about convinced myself that a Frey-less Eagles wouldn't work.

[Funk 50]

This threads got a number of strands to toy with.

Firstly, changes in the 70s. The Eagles did lose a major vocalist in the 70s. Randy Meisner and the quality of the songs on The Long Run are not as strong as on Hotel California. It was very noticeable at the time but nobody ever said, this isn't working anymore, the magic's gone, they're not as good as they were, they're now irrelevant, they should disband.

Secondly, it is quite possible that Joe's record contract was over once Songs From A Dying Planet was released. I can't recall seeing any promotion for it. Indeed I asked the retailer I bought it from (mail order, I've never seen it in a shop) if it was genuine as it came so soon after his previous release.

Don's book, Heaven And Hell: My Life In The Eagles (1974-2001), to give it it's full title, has never grabbed my interest. If it's padded out with material from before 1974, when he grew up on a dirt road etc., I just thought it must be lacking in content from the time the title actually refers to. I'll pay for Eagles music, I won't pay for vengeful muck-raking.

Being a Walsh fan, I'd be interested in reading about Don's involvement with Joe beyond the Eagles but I wasn't expecting that subject to get, anymore than a passing mention.

Does Don mention Joe's recordings of Told You So and Rivers (Of The Hidden Funk), or indeed the earlier Walsh recordings, he contributed to, in his book?

This past month we've seen Joe mourning the loss of Rick Rosas, Ian McLagan and Joe Cocker. There was a time when we couldn't envisage that he'd be outliving those guys. One Day At A Time, indeed.

Somewhere along the line, we'll all be mourning the death of an Eagle. Do they carry on, as The Who, for one, have done, twice, or do they immediately retire and await their own inevitable demise in solitude.

Since the Eagles own incredible success with HFO, the trend is undoubtedly for bands to reunite rather than spit up. In fact I'm struggling to think of a major band that have actually recently split. (one : REM). I could say Simply Red but I only realised they'd split up after they announced a reunion tour.

I suppose the real question isn't whether or not they'll continue, it's if they will actually produce any work together.

[BillBailey1976]

I suppose the real question isn't whether or not they'll continue, it's if they will actually produce any work together.

I think that IS the real question. I'm not sure they have any more in them.
I don't think that they really had anything left when they came back for HFO.
That's why we get 4 new songs and no new album for 13 yrs after.

[Freypower]

This threads got a number of strands to toy with.

Firstly, changes in the 70s. The Eagles did lose a major vocalist in the 70s. Randy Meisner and the quality of the songs on The Long Run are not as strong as on Hotel California. It was very noticeable at the time but nobody ever said, this isn't working anymore, the magic's gone, they're not as good as they were, they're now irrelevant, they should disband.

Secondly, it is quite possible that Joe's record contract was over once Songs From A Dying Planet was released. I can't recall seeing any promotion for it. Indeed I asked the retailer I bought it from (mail order, I've never seen it in a shop) if it was genuine as it came so soon after his previous release.

Don's book, Heaven And Hell: My Life In The Eagles (1974-2001), to give it it's full title, has never grabbed my interest. If it's padded out with material from before 1974, when he grew up on a dirt road etc., I just thought it must be lacking in content from the time the title actually refers to. I'll pay for Eagles music, I won't pay for vengeful muck-raking.

Being a Walsh fan, I'd be interested in reading about Don's involvement with Joe beyond the Eagles but I wasn't expecting that subject to get, anymore than a passing mention.

Does Don mention Joe's recordings of Told You So and Rivers (Of The Hidden Funk), or indeed the earlier Walsh recordings, he contributed to, in his book?

This past month we've seen Joe mourning the loss of Rick Rosas, Ian McLagan and Joe Cocker. There was a time when we couldn't envisage that he'd be outliving those guys. One Day At A Time, indeed.

Somewhere along the line, we'll all be mourning the death of an Eagle. Do they carry on, as The Who, for one, have done, twice, or do they immediately retire and await their own inevitable demise in solitude.

Since the Eagles own incredible success with HFO, the trend is undoubtedly for bands to reunite rather than spit up. In fact I'm struggling to think of a major band that have actually recently split. (one : REM). I could say Simply Red but I only realised they'd split up after they announced a reunion tour.

I suppose the real question isn't whether or not they'll continue, it's if they will actually produce any work together.

1. A lot of Meisner fans thought the band was never the same after Meisner left. However it has been pointed out that Meisner's only vocal & songwriting credit on HC was Try & Love Again and therefore his departure did not noticeably change the songwriting situation.

2. Felder does not talk about the small amount of session work he did while the band was apart, with Walsh or anyone else, in his book. He actually didn't do much at all. As for any further relationship with Joe I'm not aware of any connection outside the Eagles. The outside Eagles connection was with Bernie.

3. Any death would only affect the band if it involved one of the four current members. From what I can understand the four of them are happy & healthy.

4. Pink Floyd are about to split up for good.

[BillBailey1976]

3. Any death would only affect the band if it involved one of the four current members. From what I can understand the four of them are happy & healthy.


I think there would at least be discussion involved if it were Tim or Joe, but if it were Don or Glenn, I think there would be no question, at this point.
I would say that they are within 5 yrs of retirement anyway, at least I hope so.

The last thing the Eagles need to become is a novelty act like "The Beach Boys".
There will be a time when they can't play the guitar parts and hit the notes...and I hope (and really think they will)they realize when it's time to hang it up, and dont go beyond that.

[VAisForEagleLovers]

I think there would at least be discussion involved if it were Tim or Joe, but if it were Don or Glenn, I think there would be no question, at this point.
I would say that they are within 5 yrs of retirement anyway, at least I hope so.

The last thing the Eagles need to become is a novelty act like "The Beach Boys".
There will be a time when they can't play the guitar parts and hit the notes...and I hope (and really think they will)they realize when it's time to hang it up, and dont go beyond that.

While I agree with your assessment, that when they can't hit the notes or play the parts the time has come. I can honestly say there's no evidence of it happening anytime soon. My honest opinion is that being the perfectionists they are, they'll want to stop while they are still on top, still performing at an awesome level. My concern is that they'll stop too soon.

I like a lot of bands and a lot of artists. There's a lot of things I like about the Eagles, but in reality, it comes down to the harmonies and the way the voices blend. Especially Don and Glenn's. Other artists and bands would be able to fill the void in a lot of ways, but no one will ever produce the magic of those voices and harmonies. I realize I'm biased, but there's sold out arenas all over the world that tell me a lot of other people feel the same way.

[BillBailey1976]

I think you are right. They will probably stop too soon. With the perfectionist mentality, they will hear something in the voices long before any of us would ever notice it.
I wouldn't mind them backing down to a 90 minute show, and lasting longer, hopefully doing another mix-up in their set list to include more rare gems, or if they can do it, come up with a whole new album to support.

Do 6 or 8 songs off of it, plus 8 or 10 Eagles classics, and get the tickets back down to a very reasonable price.
This does a couple things. Makes them some more money, plus leaves fans with the impression of them as a band with reasonable priced admission who care about the fans.

Maybe wait till 2017, give their voices and bodies time to recover, do the new album, and tour as a 45th Anniversary tour, 90 minutes, all tickets 45.00!!

[Funk 50]

Thanks for the reply about Felder's book Freypower:thumbsup:


I think there would at least be discussion involved if it were Tim or Joe, but if it were Don or Glenn, I think there would be no question, at this point.
I would say that they are within 5 yrs of retirement anyway, at least I hope so.

I don't understand what you're trying to say BillBailey1976. Discussions and questions about what?

I was also surprised to read that you're keen for the band to retire within 5 years.

If they had any desire to retire, they could've done it 30 years ago.
Obviously their voices are not what they once were, Glenn stopped singing the wonderful "Woo hoo! in Heartache Tonight over half a lifetime ago, they are dropping the keys of their most popular songs but they are still up there, at the top of their profession, selling out huge arenas all over the world, charging extortionate ticket prices and they're still receiving rave reviews. It will end eventually but I can't say when, how or why it will happen.

Apart from Glenn's past flirtations with golf and acting and Don's environmental side projects, I don't think they've ever wanted to do anything else and while Irving is still keeping them active, I don't think that will change.

I'm very pleased that they've gone back to the 3 hour set lists. They tried the shortened set list with a support act or shared headliner and they weren't as successful. McCartney still does 3 hour set lists solo doesn't he?

[thelastresort]

I can see them packing it in once they've done something to mark either Hotel Cali's 40th or the band as a whole's 45th: as amazing as they are now they can't hold such a high standard forever and by the 2016~ they'll be pushing 70. I can't imagine, especially with the amount of pride they take in performing and perfection, that they'd ever cut down the setlist to 90 mins and tour with support, I think they (and what I'd personally prefer) would go out whilst they are still riding a wave (25-30 song setlists, 3 hour evenings etc), and not just giving whatever their health lets them.

I can envisage a less-intense tour in honour of Hotel California's 40th with Leadon back and, if health allows, Meisner in part (dare I even hope for Felder invited back?) then them calling it a day full stop. I'd so much rather they gave a definitive all guns blazing last performance than relegated themselves to a much shorter set, or finished unexpectedly on account of something unexpected occurring (God forbid that should ever happen).

[BillBailey1976]

Thanks for the reply about Felder's book Freypower:thumbsup:



I don't understand what you're trying to say BillBailey1976. Discussions and questions about what?

I was also surprised to read that you're keen for the band to retire within 5 years.

If they had any desire to retire, they could've done it 30 years ago.
Obviously their voices are not what they once were, Glenn stopped singing the wonderful "Woo hoo! in Heartache Tonight over half a lifetime ago, they are dropping the keys of their most popular songs but they are still up there, at the top of their profession, selling out huge arenas all over the world, charging extortionate ticket prices and they're still receiving rave reviews. It will end eventually but I can't say when, how or why it will happen.

Apart from Glenn's past flirtations with golf and acting and Don's environmental side projects, I don't think they've ever wanted to do anything else and while Irving is still keeping them active, I don't think that will change.

I'm very pleased that they've gone back to the 3 hour set lists. They tried the shortened set list with a support act or shared headliner and they weren't as successful. McCartney still does 3 hour set lists solo doesn't he?

I'm sorry that I wasn't clear. I meant discussion as whether or not to continue in the event of a death in the group. I was saying if Tim or Joe passed away, they would probably discuss the options of staying together or calling it quits, but that if Glenn or Don passed away, I don't think there'd even be a discussion at this point i their careers.

As to being "keen" for them to retire within 5 yrs, I just can't see their voices holding up much beyond that. 4 yrs from right now, they'll all be at least 70 years old. If they can, I think that's great, but I just don't see it.
My mind keeps going to the Beach Boys, and I don't want them to end up like that. (I know they are about a decade older than the Eagles.)

[Ive always been a dreamer]

Based on statements the band members have made, I think their timeline for performing boils down to how long they can continue performing at a high level and how long they continue to enjoy themselves.

[UndertheWire]

Is there a thread for speculating about future plans? I'm interested to read everyone's ideas but it doesn't seem to fit in with the "what if?" speculation of most of this thread.

I've a few, rather obvious, thoughts on breakups and reunions.

In 1980, they were men in their thirties, still with ideas and creativity that they wanted to explore outside the confines of a band, so it's no surprise there was a lot of new material. However, by 2001, they were in their fifties with different priorities and maybe running low on fresh ideas.

When a band reunites, I wonder if they still have it. Can they still play? Can they sing? Is it going to be embarassing? In 1994, I would have looked at the solo careers and thought Henley, Frey & Walsh still have it and Schmit looks like he's kept busy so they were probably ok. However, if it was 2015 and they were reuniting after a 14 year break, I'd have serious concerns. As solo artists, it's unlikely that they would have continued to have the level of success they had in the eighties (indeed, it had dropped off in the nineties) and so they would be retired or playing in small venues. How would they cope with the larger venues and the pressures of working within the band again? Would they just be a novelty act with a bunch of elderly men, who used to be famous, going through the motions?

[VAisForEagleLovers]

I agree, UTW.

While we're playing 'what if' scenarios that by definition aren't based in reality, what if they had reunited in 1992 (or whenever the first attempt was) without Glenn, and then did that tour and nothing else, then reunited again in, say, 2006 with Glenn? IMO, most would have lost respect for them in 1992 for reuniting without a key member, and doing it for real in 2006 would have made them a novelty act.

Our guys took a lot of heat, and continue to do so, that reuniting and subsequent tours have been a money grab. I don't get this. Who goes on tour purely for the fun of it? Some do, but it's a vast minority. When a band goes on tour, sells out arenas, delivers a quality, perfect concert, gets rave reviews, and the fans are happy, it's not a money grab.

Getting back together without Glenn at any point would have been a money grab.

[UndertheWire]

Going with the scenario of a Frey-less reunion tour between around 1991-1992, I wonder what impact it might have had on Glenn's solo career. Perhaps the extra publicity might have helped Strange Weather - it's a good album so why wasn't it more successful? Or perhaps Glenn would have reinvented himself as a country artist - he had plans to record in Nashville and had invested in the Soundcheck facility. Did he also have thoughts of working with Dave Edmunds, or am I imagining that?

[Funk 50]

I'm sorry that I wasn't clear. I meant discussion as whether or not to continue in the event of a death in the group. I was saying if Tim or Joe passed away, they would probably discuss the options of staying together or calling it quits, but that if Glenn or Don passed away, I don't think there'd even be a discussion at this point i their careers.

Thanks for the reply BillBailey1976. I think I get the gist. They may continue if they lose Joe or Tim but they'll definitely terminate the Eagles if founders Glenn or Don die or become incapable first.

I dunno. Glenn says to the audience "If you keep payin', we'll keep playin' and since a few, stuttering years they experienced at the beginning of their career, they've enjoyed consistent success, despite all the upheavals, controversy and the passing of much time. It seems, ultimately the audience will decide when the Eagles cease to be.

I'm sure Irving will be calculating the possibilities presented by the fast approaching anniversary of Hotel California and if that's a hit, and everything the Eagles do, seems to be, then The Long Run or Hell Freezes Over's 25th. They could squeeze in a 10th birthday for Long Road Out Of Eden.

I'm disappointed they didn't mark the anniversary of Desperado, especially with Bernie returning but even ignoring all the anniversaries, the successful return of Leadon has given them a fifth lead singer, which will help them continue with a 3 hour show and even allow a couple of new/old tracks to be added to the set list. I don't know what he can contribute to a Hotel California celebration though.

The Beach Boys 50th was quite a good do. Decent album and reunion tour but it's quickly returned to being a travesty. The only way the Eagles will fall into that rut is if they become more famous for their litigation than for their music.

One of the reasons I gave for not attending the HOTE tour was the matter of authenticity. Don and Glenn walking out on stage as if to play a duet, when in fact other, invisible musicians, are also playing along. With that attitude to authenticity, they still have a long career ahead of them, as long as they are vertical men as Ringo would put it.

[Funk 50]

Going with the scenario of a Frey-less reunion tour between around 1991-1992, I wonder what impact it might have had on Glenn's solo career. Perhaps the extra publicity might have helped Strange Weather - it's a good album

I think it would have helped Glenn's solo career but there would still be pressure on him to return to the Eagles. It was great to hear all those new Frey tracks together.

Maybe the Eagles could have performed a couple more tracks than Silent Spring. River Of Dreams is a particular favourite, with the full intro.

[Eagles Rule]

Today I was thinking about the reunion attempt that was made in 1990. You had Henley, Felder, Walsh and Schmitt on board, but Frey balked at the 11th hour.
So, let's suppose for a moment that they'd said, "Fine, no Glenn, we're still doing this". I have a couple of questions to ponder about that time.

1. Was there any consideration to move forward with the members they had?
(Remember Don H. and Don F. could have voted to move forward and Glenn couldn't have stopped it....2/3 of the Board of Directors would have had say so)

2. Had this lineup moved forward, what sort of success would they have enjoyed?

3. What sort of Setlist would they have employed? More Henley would be a given, but would they have brought in more Walsh Solos, a few Schmitt songs, maybe even bringing back Visions as a live song??
(From the HFO special, you would have only lost TS, TIE, and TGFY. Touring would have impacted more)

I know this didnt happen, but I like to wonder sometimes.

1. After watching the documenrty I thought the same thing when everyone was there with the promise of Glenn showing up. When he left them at the alter, Henley & Felder could have voted to go on since they were 2 of the 3 owners of the company. Joe and certainly Timmy would have been on board.

2. I think they would have been very successful just like other bands who get back together without one of the original members.

3. I am not sure who would be the best guy to sign the songs Glenn was lead on, but with that much talent someone would be able to do it. The songs would sound different, but Glenn does a horrible TITTL and the fans still enjoy it. I always wonder why Timmy doesn't sing it since his voice is closer to Randy's.
They might have brought back Randy & Bernie since the main reason they left was because of Glenn.
The other guys would have gotten more of a chance to sing like Timmy who has a great voice.

I am sure Glenn would have sued and probably settled out of court like Felder did years later. Or maybe it would have pressured him to come back, because he gave in and came back a few years later anyway.

The Eagles could get by without Glenn easier than without Don H in my opinion. If Glenn never came back, the other guys would have reunited sooner or later.

[Freypower]

1. After watching the documenrty I thought the same thing when everyone was there with the promise of Glenn showing up. When he left them at the alter, Henley & Felder could have voted to go on since they were 2 of the 3 owners of the company. Joe and certainly Timmy would have been on board.

2. I think they would have been very successful just like other bands who get back together without one of the original members.

3. I am not sure who would be the best guy to sign the songs Glenn was lead on, but with that much talent someone would be able to do it. The songs would sound different, but Glenn does a horrible TITTL and the fans still enjoy it. I always wonder why Timmy doesn't sing it since his voice is closer to Randy's.
They might have brought back Randy & Bernie since the main reason they left was because of Glenn.
The other guys would have gotten more of a chance to sing like Timmy who has a great voice.

I am sure Glenn would have sued and probably settled out of court like Felder did years later. Or maybe it would have pressured him to come back, because he gave in and came back a few years later anyway.

The Eagles could get by without Glenn easier than without Don H in my opinion. If Glenn never came back, the other guys would have reunited sooner or later.

On what basis do you make this assertion?

If Glenn's version of TITTL is so 'horrible' then why do the fans enjoy it?

As for them being just as successful, I'm sorry, but I don't think they would have been. The fact that they chose not to continue says rather more than 'what if'.

[Freypower]

Thanks for the reply BillBailey1976. I think I get the gist. They may continue if they lose Joe or Tim but they'll definitely terminate the Eagles if founders Glenn or Don die or become incapable first.

I dunno. Glenn says to the audience "If you keep payin', we'll keep playin' and since a few, stuttering years they experienced at the beginning of their career, they've enjoyed consistent success, despite all the upheavals, controversy and the passing of much time. It seems, ultimately the audience will decide when the Eagles cease to be.

I'm sure Irving will be calculating the possibilities presented by the fast approaching anniversary of Hotel California and if that's a hit, and everything the Eagles do, seems to be, then The Long Run or Hell Freezes Over's 25th. They could squeeze in a 10th birthday for Long Road Out Of Eden.

I'm disappointed they didn't mark the anniversary of Desperado, especially with Bernie returning but even ignoring all the anniversaries, the successful return of Leadon has given them a fifth lead singer, which will help them continue with a 3 hour show and even allow a couple of new/old tracks to be added to the set list. I don't know what he can contribute to a Hotel California celebration though.

The Beach Boys 50th was quite a good do. Decent album and reunion tour but it's quickly returned to being a travesty. The only way the Eagles will fall into that rut is if they become more famous for their litigation than for their music.

One of the reasons I gave for not attending the HOTE tour was the matter of authenticity. Don and Glenn walking out on stage as if to play a duet, when in fact other, invisible musicians, are also playing along. With that attitude to authenticity, they still have a long career ahead of them, as long as they are vertical men as Ringo would put it.

You answered your own question. This band does not mark anniversaries.

I think it's a bit much for you to complain about lack of authenticity when you haven't even seen the HOTE show. Yet you are happy to talk about the successful return of Bernie Leadon.

[Eagles Rule]

On what basis do you make this assertion?

If Glenn's version of TITTL is so 'horrible' then why do the fans enjoy it?

As for them being just as successful, I'm sorry, but I don't think they would have been. The fact that they chose not to continue says rather more than 'what if'.

Most great bands from that era are touring to rake in the dough. Some do not have their only lead vocalist of the band, such as Foreigner, Styx, Journey. But there fans are willing to pay to see them. At least with the Eagles they have so many different people who can sing their own songs,( Henley, Joe, and Timmy) that fans would still come out. Someone could have subbed if for Glenn.

I'm sorry but Glenn's voice is not suited for TITTL. That is why I wonder why Timmy doesn't sing it. No one is going to sing it like Randy, but fans still love the song. That is why fans still enjoy it even though Glenn cannot do it justice.

I never said they would be just as successful. I said they would still be successful without Glenn. That is a big difference because some fans would not come without Glenn. But he was not irreplaceable, just like Lou Gramm, Dennis DeYoung or Steve Perry were not.

[Freypower]

Most great bands from that era are touring to rake in the dough. Some do not have their only lead vocalist of the band, such as Foreigner, Styx, Journey. But there fans are willing to pay to see them. At least with the Eagles they have so many different people who can sing their own songs,( Henley, Joe, and Timmy) that fans would still come out. Someone could have subbed if for Glenn.

I'm sorry but Glenn's voice is not suited for TITTL. That is why I wonder why Timmy doesn't sing it. No one is going to sing it like Randy, but fans still love the song. That is why fans still enjoy it even though Glenn cannot do it justice.

I never said they would be just as successful. I said they would still be successful without Glenn. That is a big difference because some fans would not come without Glenn. But he was not irreplaceable, just like Lou Gramm, Dennis DeYoung or Steve Perry were not.

Some of us think his voice, his personality, his leadership skills, his musicianship, etc etc, are irreplaceable just as Henley is irreplaceable. You say TITTL doesn't work with him singing it. You are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine which is that the songs he sings also wouldn't work with others singing them. You make one rule for TITTL & then another rule for Glenn's songs. Consistency would be nice.

[VAisForEagleLovers]

TITTL is not my favorite song by any stretch, and it could leave the setlist and I wouldn't care. However, I do enjoy it live with Glenn singing it (perhaps because it's one of the few he sings with his eyes wide open and I always sit near the front). I prefer Glenn's voice to anyone else's, so of course I'm biased. However, he doesn't do it the same as Randy did, and I really think if I could hear Randy sing it the way Glenn does, I would like it over the original. Everyone always makes a big deal over the high notes at the end, and that the crowd always loved it. I'm sure they did, but when the CD player gets near the end of the song, I hit fast forward.

As for what are basically cover bands that Eagles Rule listed below, I have zero interest in going to see half a band, especially when it's one of the lead singers that's missing. It's not just the money, really, it's the travel to the arena, the parking, the fighting with the crowd to get out of the place. It's a lot of effort for little reward. With the Eagles, since the current members have been there since 1978, I feel like they've stayed true to history, and that's probably because The Long Run was the first album I ever bought. The other exception would have been Van Halen because I always liked Sammy Hagar and never liked David Lee Roth. Since David Lee is back, I won't be going to see them. Foreigner has one member from their popular days, and several who went to see them live last summer have told me that it was disconcerting to see so many who were so young compared to Jones. They can't sell out big arenas, so they travel with other bands like they did this past summer with Styx and Don Felder. I'm not sure I call that 'success', I guess my standards are higher.

[Eagles Rule]

Some of us think his voice, his personality, his leadership skills, his musicianship, etc etc, are irreplaceable just as Henley is irreplaceable. You say TITTL doesn't work with him singing it. You are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine which is that the songs he sings also wouldn't work with others singing them. You make one rule for TITTL & then another rule for Glenn's songs. Consistency would be nice.

You mean for yourself or me? :nahnah:
I think we agree more than disagree because I am saying Glenn does not do it justice compared with Randy. But that does not mean he has a bad voice. Since fans still love the song with Glenn signing it, that would be the same for LE if someone else sung it in place of Glenn. I would say they don't sound as good as Glenn, but the fans still love the song, so they would turn out to see Henley or someone else sing it.

The point of this thread as I understand it is to wonder how well the Eagles would have done if Glenn decided to never come back. Some fans may like to think the rest of the boys would just agree never to get back together as some type of loyalty to Glenn or something. I am saying sooner or later some of them would say, it's time to move on. Henley and Felder could have afforded to make a decision to not go on, but Joe and Timmy were struggling. Joe might not even be alive today if not for the Eagles getting back together.
I am glad Glenn came to his senses and decided to come back. But if he didn't, I think the rest of the boys(maybe including former members also) would have come back from vacation. ;)

[Ive always been a dreamer]

Here's where I would disagree with your argument, ER. You brought up Foreigner, Styx, and Journey as examples of bands that have successfully made changes in their lineup. I'm sorry but these bands are not in the same league as the Eagles, so I really think you are comparing apples and oranges here. I'm not saying those bands aren't successful, but they aren't even close to achieving the level of success as the Eagles. They can't individually stand on their own and pack arenas - Journey is probably the most successful of the three and even they have been teaming up with other bands in recent years. So, yes, it is possible that a Freyless Eagles could have achieved some level of temporary success.

But the question in this thread's title is whether a Freyless Eagles was ever considered and the answer is that it was not - at least, not seriously. Don Henley made the decision early on that he would not be part of the Eagles without Glenn. I'm sure we don't know exactly what all of his reasons were, but, to me, it was a very wise decision on his part. The Eagles are a band in the same league with The Beatles, the Stones, Led Zeppelin, and The Who - it's a very exclusive club. All of these bands had a duo that made up the core of the band. No matter what transpired in each of their histories, this core remained in tact in the minds of the public. Much of their legacies are the works created by Lennon/McCartney, Jagger/Richards, Plant/Page, and Townsend/Daltrey, respectively ... and, yes, Henley/Frey.

[Eagles Rule]

TITTL is not my favorite song by any stretch, and it could leave the setlist and I wouldn't care. However, I do enjoy it live with Glenn singing it (perhaps because it's one of the few he sings with his eyes wide open and I always sit near the front). I prefer Glenn's voice to anyone else's, so of course I'm biased. However, he doesn't do it the same as Randy did, and I really think if I could hear Randy sing it the way Glenn does, I would like it over the original. Everyone always makes a big deal over the high notes at the end, and that the crowd always loved it. I'm sure they did, but when the CD player gets near the end of the song, I hit fast forward.

As for what are basically cover bands that Eagles Rule listed below, I have zero interest in going to see half a band, especially when it's one of the lead singers that's missing. It's not just the money, really, it's the travel to the arena, the parking, the fighting with the crowd to get out of the place. It's a lot of effort for little reward. With the Eagles, since the current members have been there since 1978, I feel like they've stayed true to history, and that's probably because The Long Run was the first album I ever bought. The other exception would have been Van Halen because I always liked Sammy Hagar and never liked David Lee Roth. Since David Lee is back, I won't be going to see them. Foreigner has one member from their popular days, and several who went to see them live last summer have told me that it was disconcerting to see so many who were so young compared to Jones. They can't sell out big arenas, so they travel with other bands like they did this past summer with Styx and Don Felder. I'm not sure I call that 'success', I guess my standards are higher.

I am not sure I get what you are saying. If you prefer Glenn's voice over everyone elses, then if Henley left and never came back, you'd be fine and even prefer Glenn singing HC, OOTN, and so on?

Randy may not be your favorite, but he brought more to TITTL than just hitting the high notes. He had an innocence to his voice and performance which suited the songs theme. Glenn for all his abilities never comes across as innocent. Their personalities are very different, and it comes across in the way they sing and perform in my opinion.

I disagree with you saying those groups are just cover bands. I didn't pick them for a specific reason other than all three had their main lead singer refuse to come back, so eventually the rest of the guys went on without them.
With Journey, 3 of the current 5 have been together for over 30 years. They sell out venues with 20,000+ even though their only lead singer of all their major hits refused to make a comeback with them.
Styx has 3 of their 5 original guys and have been together for over 40 years. Another would probably still be with them, but he died. Tommy Shaw has had some lead singing hits, but most were DeYoung. Like the Eagles, the main group waited for him to get his act together, but eventually said lets move on.
That is why this topic is interesting, because sooner or later, from the time they were 4 of 5 in the studio waiting on Glenn in the early 90's, I really think they would have eventually said screw Glenn, we are getting back together.

Those who have some romantic feeling they would honor Glenn's memory by not reforming, I think are wrong. It is not like Glenn died and they hung up their guitars in his honor. Glenn was doing his own thing, making money, while 3 of the other 4 were not. Having seen the documentary now, it seemed selfish and egotistical, but he had his reasons. But if he never returned, the other guys could not keep their lives on hold indefinitely.

I agree with you about Sammy Hagar and Van Halen. That just goes to show that popular bands like VH can get a new lead singer and still tour 20-30-40 years after their peaks.
At least with the Eagles, they still had their best singer who sang most of their biggest hits from OOTN on to when they broke up. Having three of their 4 lead singers, with backing vocals-harmonies in Felder, plus two of them being guitar gods, would be a line up most other bands would die for. Would they have been as good without Glenn?
No way, because he had too many early and popular hits. But just as he calculated getting rid of other members and replacing them even if they were not as good (Bernie's vocals for Joe's), Glenn was also replaceable.

Maybe we should have a poll of how long the rest of the boys would have waited for Glenn (if he refused to ever come back), before they decided to go on without him.

[Funk 50]

I'm not sure how long it would've taken, Eagles Rule, but I agree, eventually the Eagles would have reformed without Glenn. maybe with a different name but any band with either Henley or Walsh in it are going to be big hitters.

Apparently, Tim, Joe and Don F. were already toying with the idea of uniting and I think Henley's sense of loyalty would've dragged him along too.

Without Glenn, they'd definitely be a singer light, they could've invited Randy and Bernie back, two extra singers, although I think they'd prefer Glenn to be involved too or they could have even lined up a big name replacement as they did when Joe replaced Bernie.

Start with McCartney and work down. Who'd refuse such a great gig (apart from Felder).

There's no doubt that Glenn was the driving force that got them to the top but, as they've said, they were still a huge band 14 years after they split. They've enough guile and talent between them to remain there without Glenn.

The Eagles are never short of great songs for their set list so I can't see that causing a problem. I've seen the Eagles perform Take It To The Limit with Glenn on lead. It was great. Not as awesome as Randy's take but I'm certainly glad they played it. When Tim joined the Eagles, I'm sure they discussed what vocals he would do and settled on harmonies and his own leads.

The fact Glenn tackled Take It To The Limit at an Eagles, rather than solo, concert shows that, although authenticity was very important at the time of HFO, it has since become a matter for discussion, which supports ER's theory that they would have eventually reformed whether or not Glenn bothered to show up or not.

Nobody is irreplaceable. Everybody dies.

[UndertheWire]

What would it have taken for Henley to consider a reunion without Frey? It wouldn't give him the better ending he was looking for, as it would likely make relations with Frey worse. Financially, he'd have had to weigh up the income from his share of the reunion against the income from solo work. As someone who had become used to running his own "benign dictatorship", working within a band again (but without the person who'd carried a lot of the load in the previous incarnations) would have been challenging.

Would Joe still have been persuaded to go into rehab?

Let's say there was a reunion with Henley, Felder and Schmit, calling themselves the Eagles and on the other hand, there's the "Glenn Frey band featuring Joe Walsh" both on tour. How much of a premium would you pay for the Eagles brand?

BTW, TITTL was one of the highlights of the HotE show I saw in May. I was surprised because it's not a favourite of mine, but Glenn gave a really good performance. I'm fine with the odd song being sung in a different way or by someone else.

[VAisForEagleLovers]

Eagles Rule, I agree about Randy's voice, and I do like other songs that he sang. When I was young and wasn't as familiar with the band or their catalog (I liked their songs, but didn't necessarily realize they were all by the same group, because DJs never told you who sang a song), I didn't like TITTL. Having songs that ever ended by repeating constantly until the DJ mercifully started the next song were all the rage back then and I disliked most of them, and TITTL is one of those because it repeats the same line over and over and over. The live version does that, of course, but not as much, and of course, it does have to end instead of fading away.

I've also never been keen on high tenors, at least as leads, and sometimes on harmonies as well. I also don't care for descant sopranos with females, either.

Given all that, you can see why TITTL might not be my favorite song. Glenn singing it live means it's in a lower key (that I can sing along to) and the song actually ends instead of fading away.

As to your question about others leaving and me being OK with it, since Don is my second favorite voice, no, I wouldn't be OK with it. I've gone to some of Glenn's solo shows, and all Glenn all the time is a wonderful thing. I do prefer Glenn's version of Desperado over Don's most of the time (Don's performance of it at a few concerts has been spectacular, and the second Atlantic City show in 2012 comes to mind). So, no, I wouldn't be OK with it. I am with TITTL because at least having my favorite voice sing the song adds something to a song I don't care for.

[VAisForEagleLovers]

As for the discussion about how long it would have gone before the others reformed without Glenn, I honestly think it would have been never. While the documentary mentions they tried twice, I think, I believe Felder's book said it was three times. My reasons for thinking this are varied. First off, I don't think Irving was for it at all. I think he knew more than the others that to have the success he and Henley wanted, they needed Glenn. Neither of them wanted the kind of success where they'd need to tour with two other bands in order to fill seats.

Secondly, I really feel they would have been less successful than Henley solo, and no way would Henley put up with that, especially as they'd need to be paid more than the musicians he was using. Our guys care about perception, and Henley would never sign up for anything that would be less than super successful. IMO, it took so long for Glenn to come on board because he wasn't sure they'd be successful even with him there. The Eagles were icons and one of the best ever, and he didn't want to tarnish that image with touring and being just another reunion tour. Henley didn't, either, which is why he'd have never moved forward without Glenn. As Azoff said in the documentary, it was always about when Glenn was ready.

Another thought that comes to mind is that Glenn toured with Joe around 1992 as Party of Two. He knew just how bad Joe was, and he also knew they could never be successful like that. He would have relayed those concerns to Henley and Azoff, and they would have agreed with them. Moving forward with Glenn and having Joe in the shape he was in wouldn't have worked. No way would moving forward without Glenn and having Joe in the shape he was in have worked. I'm sure they all respected Joe as a musician and friend, but Glenn was pretty vocal about it from the beginning. Joe had a lot of respect for Glenn as well. I'm not sure Joe would have cleaned himself up unless Glenn would have been part of the reunion. The very fact that it was Glenn who gave the ultimatum about Joe getting clean proves that he's the one who knows what it takes to be successful, the kind of success they were looking for, and not the kind the other bands mentioned in the list have/had.

To me, we all agree that a Frey-less band would have had some degree of success, but not as successful as the Eagles with Frey. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that Henley and Azoff were only interested in the kind of success they'd achieve with Glenn in the band. Neither were interested in anything less, which is why I don't think a Frey-less band of Eagles would have ever left the ground.

[Funk 50]

Didn't they say HFO was successful beyond their wildest dreams. So obviously they would've been happy with a lot less success than they achieved.

I don't think Glenn and Joe were ever really a duo. i thought Joe was just helping Glenn sell more concert tickets. Given the choice between Glenn and the others, I'm pretty sure Joe would've joined the Tim and Dons. Joe felt Glenn's band left him with nothing to play. Indeed when the Eagles performed Joe's, Ordinary Average Guy during the HFO tour, Joe would mess about during the guitar solo, which was performed by Al Garth on an oboe I think.

I don't think Henley was at all motivated by money. He is still earning an enormous amount from his songwriting. He'd had plenty of solo success but he'd also experienced some business distractions, he was happy to return to a band situation. Didn't he dedicate The Heart Of The Matter to the band? I'm sure he said something about appreciation and friendship.

Lastly Joe's "moment of clarity" happened in New Zealand. I know the Eagles played a big part in him getting sober, obviously it gave him a huge incentive to clean up but it may have happened anyway. Both Tim and Glenn, among many others were happy, or at least prepared, to work with Joe, when he was at the depth of his suffering.

[VAisForEagleLovers]

I don't think Henley was at all motivated by money. He is still earning an enormous amount from his songwriting. He'd had plenty of solo success but he'd also experienced some business distractions, he was happy to return to a band situation. Didn't he dedicate The Heart Of The Matter to the band? I'm sure he said something about appreciation and friendship.

I'll agree with this except with the caveat that the money is a measurable sign of success to entities like Forbes and Billboard. If fans are willing to pay a lot of money for something, you must be doing what the fans want, which when you bring it down to basics, that's always been the goal of the band.

Yes, the tour was more successful than their wildest dreams, but IMO, that was the extension of the tour. It was originally intended to be three months. Believe me, they were planning on the MTV show and the tour to be record-breaking successful, or they wouldn't have priced their tickets so high.

Also IMO, and without a lot of justification, I feel that 'successful beyond their wildest dreams' also meant being able to tolerate being on stage with each other for longer than three months. Given what had happened the last time they'd been on stage together, I can see thinking that three months might be two months and 29 days too long.

[GlennLover]

I don't think Glenn and Joe were ever really a duo. i thought Joe was just helping Glenn sell more concert tickets. Given the choice between Glenn and the others, I'm pretty sure Joe would've joined the Tim and Dons. Joe felt Glenn's band left him with nothing to play. Indeed when the Eagles performed Joe's, Ordinary Average Guy during the HFO tour, Joe would mess about during the guitar solo, which was performed by Al Garth on an oboe I think.

Lastly Joe's "moment of clarity" happened in New Zealand. I know the Eagles played a big part in him getting sober, obviously it gave him a huge incentive to clean up but it may have happened anyway. Both Tim and Glenn, among many others were happy, or at least prepared, to work with Joe, when he was at the depth of his suffering.

I think Glenn was helping Joe. Joe was in pretty bad shape at the time so I think Glenn was trying to be supportive of Joe by including Joe in his shows. In any videos I have seen of the"Party of Two" in the early eighties Joe doesn't look capable of carrying a whole show by himself.

In HotE Joe credits Glenn & 2 others for saving his life by insisting he get sober before a resumption could happen.


It has been quiried as to why Timothy doesn't sing TITTL. I have read a number of times that Timothy didn't want to sing Randy's leads, probably out of respect for Randy.

[Brooke]

It has been quiried as to why Timothy doesn't sing TITTL. I have read a number of times that Timothy didn't want to sing Randy's leads, probably out of respect for Randy.

I've always heard this too, GL.

I also enjoy Glenn's version. No, he doesn't sound like Randy, but he does do a very nice job with it. And the crowds I've been in have loved it sometimes to the extent of a standing ovation!

[Freypower]

I am not sure I get what you are saying. If you prefer Glenn's voice over everyone elses, then if Henley left and never came back, you'd be fine and even prefer Glenn singing HC, OOTN, and so on?

Randy may not be your favorite, but he brought more to TITTL than just hitting the high notes. He had an innocence to his voice and performance which suited the songs theme. Glenn for all his abilities never comes across as innocent. Their personalities are very different, and it comes across in the way they sing and perform in my opinion.

I disagree with you saying those groups are just cover bands. I didn't pick them for a specific reason other than all three had their main lead singer refuse to come back, so eventually the rest of the guys went on without them.
With Journey, 3 of the current 5 have been together for over 30 years. They sell out venues with 20,000+ even though their only lead singer of all their major hits refused to make a comeback with them.
Styx has 3 of their 5 original guys and have been together for over 40 years. Another would probably still be with them, but he died. Tommy Shaw has had some lead singing hits, but most were DeYoung. Like the Eagles, the main group waited for him to get his act together, but eventually said lets move on.
That is why this topic is interesting, because sooner or later, from the time they were 4 of 5 in the studio waiting on Glenn in the early 90's, I really think they would have eventually said screw Glenn, we are getting back together.

Those who have some romantic feeling they would honor Glenn's memory by not reforming, I think are wrong. It is not like Glenn died and they hung up their guitars in his honor. Glenn was doing his own thing, making money, while 3 of the other 4 were not. Having seen the documentary now, it seemed selfish and egotistical, but he had his reasons. But if he never returned, the other guys could not keep their lives on hold indefinitely.

I agree with you about Sammy Hagar and Van Halen. That just goes to show that popular bands like VH can get a new lead singer and still tour 20-30-40 years after their peaks.
At least with the Eagles, they still had their best singer who sang most of their biggest hits from OOTN on to when they broke up. Having three of their 4 lead singers, with backing vocals-harmonies in Felder, plus two of them being guitar gods, would be a line up most other bands would die for. Would they have been as good without Glenn?
No way, because he had too many early and popular hits. But just as he calculated getting rid of other members and replacing them even if they were not as good (Bernie's vocals for Joe's), Glenn was also replaceable.

Maybe we should have a poll of how long the rest of the boys would have waited for Glenn (if he refused to ever come back), before they decided to go on without him.

He was the founder, leader, co-writer & co-singer of the band's biggest hits. He's not just anyone. He wasn't replaceable. As far as the quality of his voice, he's as good as Henley in the opinion of the majority of people who contribute to this board, so just saying 'they still would have had the best singer' doesn't work. You appear not to have addressed Dreamer's point about the Eagles being one of the handful of bands with a core of two key members; in this case Frey & Henley. You just wave Frey aside.

You also refer to him being 'selfish & egotistical' for vetoing the reunion in the first place That was the end of it, despite what you seem to think. In this case all the 'they would have done it eventually' stuff cannot be sustained. Why didn't he do it then? He thought all the others cared about was money. He didn't want to do it for money.

Oh, and by the way in my view TITTL is not about innocence. It's about disillusion & world weariness. However there seems no point continuing to debate the merits of Glenn singing it in this thread except I will endorse GL's comment that Tim doesn't WANT to sing it.

[BillBailey1976]

My thoughts about Tim are that even though, yes he was taking over as bass player, and singing Randy's harmony parts, he didn't want to be seen as "Randy's replacement", but as Timothy B. Schmitt bass player and singer for the Eagles.
Are there any leads (other than Glenn's recent TITTL) that have switched members when one was replaced or quit. I don't recall ANY of Randy's others being done, or any of Bernie's?

[Freypower]

My thoughts about Tim are that even though, yes he was taking over as bass player, and singing Randy's harmony parts, he didn't want to be seen as "Randy's replacement", but as Timothy B. Schmitt bass player and singer for the Eagles.
Are there any leads (other than Glenn's recent TITTL) that have switched members when one was replaced or quit. I don't recall ANY of Randy's others being done, or any of Bernie's?

Not by the Eagles. A couple of them have been switiched for solo shows, most notably Desperado sung by Glenn.

I forgot to say that in terms of lead vocal distribution on the hit singles, it is fairly evenly balanced. Given that LE, NKIT & HT all come from the last three albums to say that Henley sang 'most' of the hits from this period is not correct.

[BillBailey1976]

Has anyone ever heard the story of why Glenn decided to start doing TITTL? I think the New Year's 99 show was the first time he peformed it, wasn't it?
Was it fan requests, or I wonder if Glenn thought about doing it from the start? or just decided that it was too big a hit for them to not do?

[BillBailey1976]

Not by the Eagles. A couple of them have been switiched for solo shows, most notably Desperado sung by Glenn.

I forgot to respond to the comment about Henley singing 'most of the biggest hits from OOTN until the breakup'.

In fact, three of those biggest hits were Lyin' Eyes, New Kid In Town & Heartache Tonight. The last two of those were the first singles from their respective albums. By comparison, Henley's hits were OOTN, HC, LITFL, PCHFC & TLR. Then there is Seven Bridges Road, on which Glenn can be clearly heard. Although Henley sang more songs on the albums, as far as hits go honours are fairly even. So again the comment that Glenn sang the 'early' hits is not fair.

Sorta off topic, but in line with song choices...does anyone know why they don't do "Sad Cafe"...i absolutely love that song. Have they done it at all since the resumption?

[Freypower]

Has anyone ever heard the story of why Glenn decided to start doing TITTL? I think the New Year's 99 show was the first time he peformed it, wasn't it?
Was it fan requests, or I wonder if Glenn thought about doing it from the start? or just decided that it was too big a hit for them to not do?

I don't wish to overdo this, but from what I understand he wrote most of the music & he has always considered it 'his' song in this regard.

They've never played The Sad Café live. Let's face it; it isn't a crowd pleaser, is it?

NB: As you can see I edited my previous post which BB had quoted. I thought it would be better to make a more generalised point. Apologies.

[thelastresort]

Has anyone ever heard the story of why Glenn decided to start doing TITTL? I think the New Year's 99 show was the first time he peformed it, wasn't it?
Was it fan requests, or I wonder if Glenn thought about doing it from the start? or just decided that it was too big a hit for them to not do?

I think Glenn mentioned that they started doing it in the summer of 2001 on the Farewell 1 disk: presumably that's at the same time Desperado and Take It Easy swapped positions in the setlist.

[Freypower]

I think Glenn mentioned that they started doing it in the summer of 2001 on the Farewell 1 disk: presumably that's at the same time Desperado and Take It Easy swapped positions in the setlist.

That's correct, but he did first sing at at the Millennium show.

[BillBailey1976]

I don't wish to overdo this, but from what I understand he wrote most of the music & he has always considered it 'his' song in this regard.

They've never played The Sad Café live. Let's face it; it isn't a crowd pleaser, is it?

NB: As you can see I edited my previous post which BB had quoted. I thought it would be better to make a more generalised point. Apologies.

That makes sense with Glenn and writing it. I remember in the Doc that Randy indicated that he only had the "take it to the limit" idea...not even the full concept.

Do you mean they haven't done Sad Cafe since the resumption? I know they did it back in 1980. Its on "The LA Long Run"

[thelastresort]

Sorta off topic, but in line with song choices...does anyone know why they don't do "Sad Cafe"...i absolutely love that song. Have they done it at all since the resumption?

That's the one thing I kinda have a problem with the guys' setlists: there is very often no surprise inclusions or revived work. They do it a bit in HOTE currently, but once you get past the seventh song (D-D/D Reprise) only one of the remaining 20+ is something not played in a while - Those Shoes. Look at Farewell 1 - aside from a couple of bits and bobs that ended up on LROOE anyway, nothing bar famous work was in there. I know it will never happen, but I would love it for them just to include something a bit odd in a concert - something like Ol' 55 or Turn to Stone or After the Thrill Is Gone. Something just to add a bit of spice to it.

[BillBailey1976]

That's correct, but he did first sing at at the Millennium show.

In one of those funny happenstances, there is a DVD playing right now, in the living room, and Glenn is singing TITTL...hahaha.

[Freypower]

That makes sense with Glenn and writing it. I remember in the Doc that Randy indicated that he only had the "take it to the limit" idea...not even the full concept.

Do you mean they haven't done Sad Cafe since the resumption? I know they did it back in 1980. Its on "The LA Long Run"

Well, yes, then I obviously did mean since the resumption. :blush:

[BillBailey1976]

Well, yes, then I obviously did mean since the resumption. :blush:

I thought so, but I wasn't sure. I had to look just to make sure. haha.
I know there are a few songs, like "After the Thrill is gone" that as far as I know, they only did during the Summer of 80, right before the break up.

I almost couldn't believe that. It, again was one that I really liked.

[thelastresort]

I know there are a few songs, like "After the Thrill is gone" that as far as I know, they only did during the Summer of 80, right before the break up.



Only ever played live once, 31 July 1980 at Long Beach, CA. How very fitting. (I am aware it was most likely intentional on Glenn's (?) behalf.)

I also believe that one night was the only time Saturday Night was played live between 1974~ and 2013...

[BillBailey1976]

I think Saturday Night must have been played for the series of shows recorded for Eagles Live. The date on Eagles live has it on July 28.

You are probably right about ATTIG. I figure that was Glenn's parting shot.

[GlennLover]

Has anyone ever heard the story of why Glenn decided to start doing TITTL? I think the New Year's 99 show was the first time he peformed it, wasn't it?
Was it fan requests, or I wonder if Glenn thought about doing it from the start? or just decided that it was too big a hit for them to not do?

I don't know the answer to that BB1976. I do know that Glenn started singing it as early as the 1986 concert in Japan where he shared the bill with Christopher Cross.

[Eagles Rule]

I need to go back and watch the entire documentary from the beginning since I have only watched parts of it. I may have some of the time line wrong.

It is strange how one poster said Glenn didn't want to come back just for the money, but if I remember the documentary right, he made of point of mentioning that he and Henley should be getting more money than the others.
That seems like being focused on the money to me.
He also said he sang less because they had Henley, and implied Henley was the best singer in the group. If posters who like Glenn's voice best want to argue the point, take it up with him, not me.

[Freypower]

I need to go back and watch the entire documentary from the beginning since I have only watched parts of it. I may have some of the time line wrong.

It is strange how one poster said Glenn didn't want to come back just for the money, but if I remember the documentary right, he made of point of mentioning that he and Henley should be getting more money than the others.
That seems like being focused on the money to me.
He also said he sang less because they had Henley, and implied Henley was the best singer in the group. If posters who like Glenn's voice best want to argue the point, take it up with him, not me.

He was wrong, in my view, to sing fewer songs 'because we had Don Henley'. Wrong. I have never agreed with that and I never will, even if that is what he thinks. However, I would have thought his detractors might acknowledge that it was supposedly for the good of the band that he allowed Henley to sing more songs, and admit that his ego was not as overpowering as claimed. Instead all they say 'well, this proves Henley is a betteer singer. Even Frey says so'.

Glenn Frey is, I repeat, in my view, Henley's equal vocally. I am not saying he's better; he's equal, and I personally would rather listen to him than to Henley. Others prefer Henley & that is their right, of course. Making a statement such as 'Henley is the best singer in the group' is stating opinion, not fact, because not everybody agrees with it. That is where I intend to leave this. The people who dislike Frey will never be convinced by any argument I can make.

Regarding the money question things had changed by 1994. His original statement referred to 1991. If they were going to reform then I think both Glenn & Henley felt they had contributed more than the others & therefore deserved more money. The rights & wrongs of this can be argued forever.

[Eagles Rule]

He was wrong, in my view, to sing fewer songs 'because we had Don Henley'. Wrong. I have never agreed with that and I never will, even if that is what he thinks. However, I would have thought his detractors might acknowledge that it was supposedly for the good of the band that he allowed Henley to sing more songs, and admit that his ego was not as overpowering as claimed. Instead all they say 'well, this proves Henley is a betteer singer. Even Frey says so'.

Glenn Frey is, I repeat, in my view, Henley's equal vocally. I am not saying he's better; he's equal, and I personally would rather listen to him than to Henley. Others prefer Henley & that is their right, of course. Making a statement such as 'Henley is the best singer in the group' is stating opinion, not fact, because not everybody agrees with it. That is where I intend to leave this. The people who dislike Frey will never be convinced by any argument I can make.

Regarding the money question things had changed by 1994. His original statement referred to 1991. If they were going to reform then I think both Glenn & Henley felt they had contributed more than the others & therefore deserved more money. The rights & wrongs of this can be argued forever.

You know how certain songs just sound right with certain voices. That is the way I think about the Eagles.
I do not think Henley's voice is better, I just like it better on certain songs. I made that comment because it seems as if most of the band feels that way because no one stood against Glenn when he said that. Felder said it to as if Henley's voice was the best compared with anyone.
Personally I prefer Randy's voice on TITTL, and if anyone in the Eagles is going to cover it, I would like to her Timmy do it. Not because he is a better singer than Glenn, but because his voice is closer to Randy's. Does that make any sense?

On the money issue, I doubt we will agree. But I am going to watch the whole thing this time. Maybe 3 years later Glenn needed the money more. But this topic centers on whether there would have been a "Frey-less Eagles". Glenn was probably set for life, so if he never wanted to come back, would you fans of Glenn not ever want the Eagles to get back together, ever?

I remember how happy I was when I heard Hell was about to freeze over, and probably would have seen them no matter what the line up.

[UndertheWire]

Has anyone ever heard the story of why Glenn decided to start doing TITTL? I think the New Year's 99 show was the first time he peformed it, wasn't it?
Was it fan requests, or I wonder if Glenn thought about doing it from the start? or just decided that it was too big a hit for them to not do?
Right on cue, I've just listened to an interview from 2000 in which Glenn talks about it. At that time, he used to do unplugged private shows where he would sit at the piano and sing. He decided to play some of the songs that he'd co-authored whether he sang the original record or not and Take it to the Limit was one of the songs. When they were planning the Eagles Millenium shows he suggested it as a way of including another of their hits but with a different spin.

[VAisForEagleLovers]

You know how certain songs just sound right with certain voices. That is the way I think about the Eagles.
I do not think Henley's voice is better, I just like it better on certain songs. I made that comment because it seems as if most of the band feels that way because no one stood against Glenn when he said that. Felder said it to as if Henley's voice was the best compared with anyone.
Personally I prefer Randy's voice on TITTL, and if anyone in the Eagles is going to cover it, I would like to her Timmy do it. Not because he is a better singer than Glenn, but because his voice is closer to Randy's. Does that make any sense?

On the money issue, I doubt we will agree. But I am going to watch the whole thing this time. Maybe 3 years later Glenn needed the money more. But this topic centers on whether there would have been a "Frey-less Eagles". Glenn was probably set for life, so if he never wanted to come back, would you fans of Glenn not ever want the Eagles to get back together, ever?

I remember how happy I was when I heard Hell was about to freeze over, and probably would have seen them no matter what the line up.

I agree with you about certain songs and certain voices, yet I also agree with FP about Glenn's voice. I love Don's voice, but Glenn's touches that magic spot in my brain somewhere that seems to make all of the tension melt away.

Due to some personal issues in my life at the time, while I was excited the band was reforming, that excitement ended rather abruptly a few days before they came to DC. Given what all happened at the time, I probably would have preferred a Frey-less line up, because then I wouldn't have minded so very much that the ticket I thought I had went to someone else.

If I ever have the chance to meet Glenn, I wouldn't waste the opportunity by making him angry by telling him I disagree with him on anything. However, if I ever would risk it, the subject of him singing less leads as time went on would be the subject I would bring up.

As for the money, FP is right, Glenn was pretty vocal back in the early 90's that he didn't want to be part of a reunion tour that was all about the money. When the time did come, it was his insistence that Joe get cleaned up, because the fans should get the best they all have to offer. I'm GUESSING it was his insistence that they do a few new songs to justify a new tour, although Henley would certainly have felt the same way. It was also his insistence that he and Don get more money, so I can see why people think he was all about the money. Like FP, I think he thought if he was going to be mired in misery for the length of the tour by having to put up with all the drama and conflicts, he should get paid enough for it to justify it. As for being set for life, it's all subjective. It's easy for someone who makes a hamburger salary think that a steak salary is utopia, but the person who gets the steak salary might want some Dom Perignon to wash it down with.

[Funk 50]

At the start of the Eagles, I think Henley was short of lead vocals. Which may explain why, Get Up Kate didn't make the list but Nightingale did.

The best balanced album vocally and cohesively is The Greatest Hits 1972-75 album. They no longer needed to accommodate a Leadon track. Meisner's track is there on merit. Needing to include tracks written by and sung by the other members probably weakened all the other albums. Even though that material is often far from poor.

Post GH1, Henley dominates the lead vocals. We know Henley only sang Victim Of Love because Felder didn't come up to scratch. I can't imagine Glenn singing any of the others but then again, I couldn't imagine him singing Take It To The Limit.

The Long Run album is more of a mystery. As it was going to be a double album, you'd think they could've swapped Disco Strangler with a Frey vocal.

The Eagles performed Sea Cruise in 1980 before Glenn put it out on his first solo album. Too Much Drama sounds like another Henley song though.

Maybe Glenn was already saving tracks for his solo album. None of The Long Run leftovers sound much like Frey or Henley songs though.

[Ive always been a dreamer]

Well I'm another fan who prefers Glenn's voice, although I love Don's too. I'll repeat what I've said before on this subject. I'm sure there are some technical criteria to measure how good of a singer someone is, but, I believe for most of us, the criteria is simply what our ears tell us - and that, of course, is very subjective. Since my 'best' may not be yours, I try to respectful of that when I comment here, and, hopefully, the favor will be returned.

As far as Henley and Frey making more money ... for those who don't think that was fair, then nothing I or anyone else here says will probably convince you otherwise. But, simply put, they thought they deserved more because they contributed more to the band's success. And at the time of the reunion, there was only one band member that disagreed with them. I can only say this - in the U.S.A., whether you think it's a fair concept or not, we customarily pay our leaders more. While there may be occasional exceptions, most of us here who hold jobs make less money than our team leaders, bosses, and upper management.

And I wanted to comment on VA's remark about disagreeing with Glenn. When Soda, PLS, Molly, and I saw Glenn at Pebble Beach a few months after LROOE was released, he actually asked us what song off the album was our least favorite. Now, no kidding, I like them all, but I would have felt perfectly comfortable telling him if that were not the case. I didn't get the impression that he would have been offended at all as long as I delivered the message in the right way. He seemed very approachable to me.

[Ive always been a dreamer]

But this topic centers on whether there would have been a "Frey-less Eagles". Glenn was probably set for life, so if he never wanted to come back, would you fans of Glenn not ever want the Eagles to get back together, ever?

ER - I think this question has already been answered in this thread in a variety of ways, but I'll try it again. For me, it is not a matter of being a Glenn fan. If he weren't an Eagle, I could presumably see him as a solo artist. But, that's not the point for me - I am, first and foremost, an Eagles fan and I would never want to see a band touring under their name unless it included both Don H. and Glenn. As I said in my opening post in this thread:

"...I believe for most fans no Henley or no Frey means no Eagles."

[Brooke]

Amen, dreamer! Again!

[VAisForEagleLovers]

And I wanted to comment on VA's remark about disagreeing with Glenn. When Soda, PLS, Molly, and I saw Glenn at Pebble Beach a few months after LROOE was released, he actually asked us what song off the album was our least favorite. Now, no kidding, I like them all, but I would have felt perfectly comfortable telling him if that were not the case. I didn't get the impression that he would have been offended at all as long as I delivered the message in the right way. He seemed very approachable to me.

If he asked, it would be one thing, and while I have no problems disagreeing with him (or anyone), I guess what I was trying to say that I would not want to take the precious few minutes I'd be granted when meeting him to waste it on disagreeing with him on something!

I also agree with you, Dreamer, on your comment about "Henley-less" Eagles, and to be honest, at this point I feel the same about Joe. Really, on a scale of 1 to 10 on sounds that make me happy, Glenn's voice is an 8.0 and Don's is a 7.99. Hearing them together and the contrast between them is a perfect 10. Seeing them live, well, Glenn has the serious eye-candy thing going for him... :smokin:

[Freypower]

ER - I think this question has already been answered in this thread in a variety of ways, but I'll try it again. For me, it is not a matter of being a Glenn fan. If he weren't an Eagle, I could presumably see him as a solo artist. But, that's not the point for me - I am, first and foremost, an Eagles fan and I would never want to see a band touring under their name unless it included both Don H. and Glenn. As I said in my opening post in this thread:

"...I believe for most fans no Henley or no Frey means no Eagles."

Agreed.

[Eagles Rule]

I think one of the main reasons I disagree with all the Glenn lovers is that there is an assumption that "most" others feel the same way. Many people, especially younger fans, are not going to find him as attractive as fans did 30 years ago in his prime. What does that have to do with his singing? Judging from the posts I've been reading on this forum, his sex appeal has a massive influence with many women posters.

I was talking to a country music fan who is 22, and she only knows about the Eagles because her parents use to listen to them. I showed her a recent video of them, and her words were "eeww they are gross". :sad:
I was surprised by her reaction and asked her why she said that. " Because they are all old like my grandpa".
My thinking is that they look pretty good for their age, but I am older and know what they use to look like.
I showed her a video of them when they were younger, and she still was not impressed (too much facial hair and needing haircuts). She liked Randys looks the best "even though he needed a haircut". She wondered which one of them from the first video he was, and told her he was no longer with the band. When I showed her a recent picture of him, she was even more grossed out. (I have to agree he has aged the worst of all the current and former members)
My point is that younger female fans will not be falling for the boys like many here did. Many will also not know who sings which songs, and would not know if Glenn was there or not. Even back in the 90's, they were 15 years older and past their best looking years.

OFF TOPIC - Is there a thread or poll about which current and former Eagles have held up the best or look the best now verses when they were young?

Can anyone but the most biased Glenn fans really say they would not have ever wanted the Eagles to get back together if Glenn was MIA?

[thelastresort]

I'm a heterosexual teenage male but will very openly admit that pre-Long Run Glenn was, I'll be frank, pretty damn handsome.

I think all of the guys look great for their ages (all well over 65 now): e.g. if Henley lost the goatee he'd not look a day older than 55. Randy I'll agree hasn't aged as well, but when you've been out of the public eye for well over 35 years and been in quite poor health for the past couple then that's understandable.

[Freypower]

I think one of the main reasons I disagree with all the Glenn lovers is that there is an assumption that "most" others feel the same way. Many people, especially younger fans, are not going to find him as attractive as fans did 30 years ago in his prime. What does that have to do with his singing? Judging from the posts I've been reading on this forum, his sex appeal has a massive influence with many women posters.

I was talking to a country music fan who is 22, and she only knows about the Eagles because her parents use to listen to them. I showed her a recent video of them, and her words were "eeww they are gross". :sad:
I was surprised by her reaction and asked her why she said that. " Because they are all old like my grandpa".
My thinking is that they look pretty good for their age, but I am older and know what they use to look like.
I showed her a video of them when they were younger, and she still was not impressed (too much facial hair and needing haircuts). She liked Randys looks the best "even though he needed a haircut". She wondered which one of them from the first video he was, and told her he was no longer with the band. When I showed her a recent picture of him, she was even more grossed out. (I have to agree he has aged the worst of all the current and former members)
My point is that younger female fans will not be falling for the boys like many here did. Many will also not know who sings which songs, and would not know if Glenn was there or not. Even back in the 90's, they were 15 years older and past their best looking years.

OFF TOPIC - Is there a thread or poll about which current and former Eagles have held up the best or look the best now verses when they were young?

Can anyone but the most biased Glenn fans really say they would not have ever wanted the Eagles to get back together if Glenn was MIA?

You seem determined to keep asking this, hoping someone will agree with you, and people keep telling you that for this band to be the Eagles both Frey & Henley are necessary, and still you refuse to accept what the members of this board are saying.

I am not a Glenn Frey fan just because of his sex appeal, but because of his talent, which I believe I have tried to make clear every time I have posted in this thread. Not once have I mentioned his appearance.

The answer to your question, once and for all, is NO. I'm sorry it's not the answer you want, but I think it is the answer that the regular posters on this board will give.

[Ive always been a dreamer]

ER - There have been a few comments about appearance in this discussion, but I personally am rather offended that you could read this entire thread and characterize the discussion as being nothing more than the opinions of several sex-crazed Glenn fans who believe everyone must think exactly as we do. Although the band has some younger fans, the majority of their fanbase are baby-boomers most of who do not follow the band because of their looks. By your comments and inquiries, it seems that you are the one most hung up on their appearances. For most of us here, it's the music that we love and are most passionate about.

You are new here, but it seems like you have formed your opinions based on some preconceived notions. As the moderator of this thread, I would ask you to please be careful that your comments do not insult other members on the board. Thanks.

[VAisForEagleLovers]

ER, because I do a lot of Twitter searches for news, I see a lot of comments on all our guys. I can't tell you how many I've seen since HOTE was released on Netflix from young women who think both Glenn and Don are hot now as well as when they were younger. If you can't look past the long hair or expect every man to have the current 'bedhead' look, then yes, they'll never appreciate their looks.

I can't even tell you where I posted it on here, but my story is... I had no idea who sang Best of My Love (because DJs never told you who sang a song, I complain about that a lot), but I had a huge, huge crush on whoever sang the lead. I'm sure I dropped him like a broken toy when I heard the next song that I liked, because young girls at the age of 13 or 14 or so can be pretty fickle. I do remember eventually falling head over heads in love with whoever sang the leads on NKIT. A school mate showed me a picture of that lead singer, it was a photo from the On The Border era, but still...it was the first time my knees ever went weak over a man. While I've never looked back, I did fall for his voice before I saw the picture.

Anyway, I think I've stated pretty clearly and maybe you're looking for others to validate it, but I'll say it again. I didn't go see HFO even with both Frey and Henley at the helm, but I wanted to. I would not have paid HFO prices for a band with either of them missing, however, I may have paid less to see a lineup without one of them. I doubt it, though. At that point in my life, I'd never seen either of them solo, and I would have felt it a glorified solo show even if the word 'Eagles' had been in the band name.

For the record, if the unthinkable happened, I would not go to a Henley-less Eagles show now, nor would I go to a Frey-less one now. I wouldn't go to a Joe-less show now, either. I say this, but if the tickets were reasonable (less than $200 for near the front), then I might consider it. I'll go see either one of them solo, though, regardless of cost.

[Ive always been a dreamer]

If he asked, it would be one thing, and while I have no problems disagreeing with him (or anyone), I guess what I was trying to say that I would not want to take the precious few minutes I'd be granted when meeting him to waste it on disagreeing with him on something!

Oh - I see what you mean and I totally agree about wasting your precious few minutes. :thumbsup:


I also agree with you, Dreamer, on your comment about "Henley-less" Eagles, and to be honest, at this point I feel the same about Joe.

I alluded to this earlier in the thread, but quite honestly, at this point in their careers, I would have a very hard time accepting the band if any of them left now. I doubt I'd have to worry though because if it came to that, I'm betting they would call it quits. Ouch! I don't even want to think about that. :sad:

[VAisForEagleLovers]

I alluded to this earlier in the thread, but quite honestly, at this point in their careers, I would have a very hard time accepting the band if any of them left now. I doubt I'd have to worry though because if it came to that, I'm betting they would call it quits. Ouch! I don't even want to think about that. :sad:

I agree, I don't want to think about them calling it quits. I have to say, even though Tim sings limited leads, there'd have to be a really damn good reason for him not to be on the stage with them or I'd be seriously torqued. He's part of the band, part of the show, and it would be like twirling a baton with a finger missing.

[GlennLover]

I agree, I don't want to think about them calling it quits. I have to say, even though Tim sings limited leads, there'd have to be a really damn good reason for him not to be on the stage with them or I'd be seriously torqued. He's part of the band, part of the show, and it would be like twirling a baton with a finger missing.

I totally agree!

[Eagles Rule]

You seem determined to keep asking this, hoping someone will agree with you, and people keep telling you that for this band to be the Eagles both Frey & Henley are necessary, and still you refuse to accept what the members of this board are saying.

I am not a Glenn Frey fan just because of his sex appeal, but because of his talent, which I believe I have tried to make clear every time I have posted in this thread. Not once have I mentioned his appearance.

The answer to your question, once and for all, is NO. I'm sorry it's not the answer you want, but I think it is the answer that the regular posters on this board will give.

Wait just a cotton picken minute. You and other Glenn fans can talk about looks, feelings and speculate that people would have thought the way you do. But I offer a different take and somehow I am the bad guy? VAisforEaglesfans brought it home in a personal way which is fine. But giving my opinion and I get warned in another post by a moderator (with a Glenn photo) not to offend what is a group of Glenn fans, who seems like a Glenn fan herself?
I like the guy, and think he is talented. I guess that is not enough. I didn't start this topic, but some here seemed determined that the subject is closed and anyone who thinks differently must be shouted down. Just shut the thread down then if you do not want a difference of opinion. Glenn is great! Glenn is god! He is 7 times better than all other Eagles combined! The Eagles are nothing with out him! END OF TOPIC,,,,,PERIOD!!!

I know from having read other topics there are fans of the other members and the group as a whole. But they are not participating in this thread. Now I see why. I guess I will leave you to your adulation and worship of Glenn.

[VAisForEagleLovers]

ER, we certainly didn't mean to upset you or offend you!

I guess my take is that the fans who pay the $$ to go to concerts, regardless of who our favorite is, would not want a Frey-less Eagles back in the early 90's. For the most part, even though this is in an Eagles forum, the word 'Frey' in the title means that other fans will look at other threads first when they don't have time to read all the threads.

I guess I shouldn't have mentioned that Glenn is 'eye-candy' because it seems to have gotten some riled up around here, and apparently I'm sex-crazed. The point I was trying to get across is that while Glenn is my fave, Henley is a very, very close second. As well, asking today's youth is not exactly a good gauge, because in the early nineties, most people knew of the Eagles, and if looks were a factor, the guys weren't 'old as grandpa's'.

At any rate, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. Since I had just purchased a house that turned out to be a money pit, me personally, I can't see myself in the early nineties going to see a line-up that was less than the real thing. If I'd had the money, then I really don't know. I'm just glad it was never put to the test. I feel the media would have been brutal at the idea of it and the long-term affect may have been that they'd have done a short tour and never, ever reunited again after that, real deal or not.

[UndertheWire]

I'm disappointed with the turn this thread has taken. I was enjoying the discussion and speculation on different line-ups and even set lists, along with background information on the situation and motivation of band members at different times. Over the last few pages, it's been diverted into yet another go round on whose voice people prefer and whether Glenn should sing TITTL.

As for the looks and sex appeal aspect, it wasn't part of the discussion until ER brought it in and I don't see how it's relevent.

[VAisForEagleLovers]

I'm disappointed with the turn this thread has taken. I was enjoying the discussion and speculation on different line-ups and even set lists, along with background information on the situation and motivation of band members at different times. Over the last few pages, it's been diverted into yet another go round on whose voice people prefer and whether Glenn should sing TITTL.

As for the looks and sex appeal aspect, it wasn't part of the discussion until ER brought it in and I don't see how it's relevent.

I believe I mentioned that Glenn was 'eye-candy', and apparently that was the wrong thing to say.

There just seemed to be a lot of disbelief, and from more than one person, that a true Eagles fan might not appreciate a line up with Glenn not in it. Glenn's voice is a major reason I like the Eagles, so I thought the voice aspect of it was relevant to the discussion.

[UndertheWire]

Is there anyone they could have brought in to sing Glenn's songs that you would have considered acceptable?

I wonder how important having both Henley and Frey was to MTV, the tour promoters and record company executives.

[VAisForEagleLovers]

In my opinion, it would have been very important. I can't see the MTV thing happening without 'the real deal', but I hadn't paid much attention to the MTV shows by the 90's (I'd moved on to CMT), so I'm not sure what other kinds of shows they had. Did they have other bands where major pieces of the band weren't there?

For me, personally, bringing in someone else would have definitely meant I'd not attend a show. I can't think of anyone who would have been acceptable, but you know, I never would have considered Joe Walsh in for Bernie, and I liked Joe a lot.

[Funk 50]

d I would never want to see a band touring under their name unless it included both Don H. and Glenn. As I said in my opening post in this thread:

"...I believe for most fans no Henley or no Frey means no Eagles."

Repeating an argument doesn't make it any nore valid. I can't believe if 6 of the 7 Eagles went on tour you wouldn't refer to the as the Eagles.

Sometime this summer, cricket pundit Graeme Swan joined commentator, Jonathan Agnew for a stint of live commentary. He was raving about the Eagles concert he had attended the previous night. It was a short conversation before they started talking cricket. The conversation was something like:

GS - The Eagles concert last night was one of the best concerts I've ever been too

JA - Did they do Pretty Maids All In A Row that's one I particularly like?

GS - No

JA - Was it the original line-up?
(the commentators as a group attended a Drifters concert in the West Indies sometime ago, where they could tell by the ages of the people on stage, that it wasn't the original band)

GS - No' they fractured in the 70s. The last 3 songs they played we're Hotel California, Take It Easy and Desperado


The Eagles were, and probably still are, pretty anonymous individually, to the vast majority of people here in the UK.

How about JD Souther or Jackson Browne being a Frey sub?

[UndertheWire]

The BBC's New Year show featured a concert from Queen + Adam Lambert which was a good reminder that even someone like Freddy Mercury could be replaced to some extent. Of course I was thinking Lambert isn't a patch on Mercury but it was still enjoyable. A few years ago, I was mildly interested in the combination of Queen and Paul Rogers and I'm not even a Queen fan.

So all that got me wondering who might make me interested in a Frey-less Eagles. James Taylor? Robert Plant? (ok, I'm joking with that one) Someone with their own identity - upthread someone suggested McCartney but that might be too much identity.

Sorry, I'm rambling without a lot of purpose.

BTW, I'm under the impression that at least four of the posters on this thread are male.

ETA: How about Jackson Browne and JD Souther?

[chaim]

What a long thread. Can't read it all. The answer to one of the questions seems to be that they never discussed doing it without Glenn.
As for success. IMO they could have had some level of success only because it's the EAGLES, because a lot of people wouldn't have known that there's "a Glenn Frey" missing. There seems to be an awful lot of people who can't tell Phil Bates from Jeff Lynne or The Orchestra from ELO. So it probably wouldn't have been a total disaster without Glenn.
And, remember folks, Glenn is and has always been my favorite member and my favorite voice in the band. So for me it would have been a disaster.

[VAisForEagleLovers]

What a long thread. Can't read it all. The answer to one of the questions seems to be that they never discussed doing it without Glenn.
As for success. IMO they could have had some level of success only because it's the EAGLES, because a lot of people wouldn't have known that there's "a Glenn Frey" missing. There seems to be an awful lot of people who can't tell Phil Bates from Jeff Lynne or The Orchestra from ELO. So it probably wouldn't have been a total disaster without Glenn.
And, remember folks, Glenn is and has always been my favorite member and my favorite voice in the band. So for me it would have been a disaster.

I agree that a lot of people wouldn't have noticed except that here in the States, it would have been hit pretty hard in the media. People would have known someone was missing, and in concert, well, not having Glenn's voice do the songs they like, it would have been noticed. However, after the ticket is sold is a little too late.

I think as to who they might have chosen would depend on a few things. Guys like Jackson Browne or JD Souther would be good as Special Guests, a temporary solution, if they were thinking it would be a one tour and end it again, or if they thought Glenn would join up later.

[VAisForEagleLovers]

Maybe this will help convince those who don't believe I'd not attend a Frey-less Eagles concert, then or now... I'm a huge, huge fan of Boston. Even though I think it's incredibly sad that he's gone, and I know it was his problems that kept the band from performing, I still have no interest in seeing them without Brad Delp. I would never consider going to see Queen without Freddie Mercury. In my opinion, these are both little more than cover bands now. If I'm shelling out money, I want the real deal. The only exception is Led Zeppelin. If they ever toured again, I'd go see them without John Bonham, and I'd prefer to see his son in the drumming chair.

[chaim]

Yeah, I was thinking about it perhaps from the Finnish perspective. I don't know it for sure, of course, but I would imagine that here people would have just said "Eagles is coming. Cool!" even if Glenn wasn't there.
Of course there must be people like me here too, or like my father, for whom Glenn's voice is what makes it EAGLES for him. (I've said that last thing before, but as a Glenn fan I like to repeat it.:hilarious:)

[Funk 50]

What a long thread. Can't read it all. The answer to one of the questions seems to be that they never discussed doing it without Glenn.

They did in 1980 but they opted to separate. They never considered resuming without Glenn. I've found it a very interesting and informative thread, chaim. I've learned a lot, even about my own opinions.


...it probably wouldn't have been a total disaster without Glenn.
And, remember folks, Glenn is and has always been my favorite member and my favorite voice in the band. So for me it would have been a disaster.

I can totally understand that, chaim but wouldn't you rather have more solo Glenn projects than more Eagles album with just the odd, one or two lead vocals from Glenn. Which is what was happening until LROOE.

As a Walsh fan, I'd be delighted if the Eagles ditched Joe or Joe left the Eagles. There's never been enough Walsh on the Eagles albums for me and his Eagles touring time, recycling the same half dozen songs since the mid 70s, doesn't half get in the way of producing great new material for me to enjoy.

I can't speak for Henley fans but his solo concert set lists are always full of intrigue and diversity. The total opposite of the Eagles model. Are they happy for Don to ride along on the Eagles gravy train while Cass County remains unreleased?

[MaryCalifornia]

The answer to one of the questions seems to be that they never discussed doing it without Glenn.


My two cents - of course they discussed doing it without Glenn. I'm guessing this discussion (with Irving) took place every year for many years starting in the late '80s. They never got to a point where, on balance, they thought it was a good idea to take the first steps without him, but I do think that if Glenn never got on board, Henley, Felder, Schmit, Walsh and who-knows-who-else would have eventually done something. As Don said in HOTE, he was OK with "being in a band again." He didn't say "re-forming the Eagles." Then we get into the same territory we were in in the Led Zeppelin thread - would you go see them? Many would, especially since many Eagles fans (myself included until a few years ago) don't know who sings which songs.

I don't think there would legal problems with Henley, Felder, Walsh and Schmit billing themselves as the Eagles.

Having said all of this as a narrow, direct response to the title of the thread, I think Glenn "is" the Eagles and I adore him and they wouldn't be the same without him. But as I said in the Led Zeppelin thread re: Robert Plant's unwillingness to join in, the music shouldn't be precious, and the other guys shouldn't have to sit home for years because one guy doesn't want to join in. But that's for a different thread - would you go?

[Ive always been a dreamer]

Repeating an argument doesn't make it any nore valid. I can't believe if 6 of the 7 Eagles went on tour you wouldn't refer to the as the Eagles.

Well F50 – So sorry, but believe it. Trust me, I’m not lying - so I’ll repeat again, I would NOT consider the Eagles to be a legitimate band without both Henley and Frey. And I also don’t think I’m alone in my feelings about this. I totally agree that repeating an argument doesn’t make it any more valid, but it keeps being repeated because the question keeps being repeated. This is why I’m not a big fan of these “what if” type discussions – we are all speculating about something that never happened so all we can do is give our own opinions and perspectives about it. None of us has the answer to what would have happened since it never did, so there is no right or wrong opinion here. These threads inevitably end up repetitive, circular, and inconclusive.

I mentioned earlier that I believe there are a handful of bands that are the rock and roll ‘elites’ – The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, The Who, and the Eagles. I think their legitimacy would be compromised without both of their core members – Lennon and McCartney, Jagger and Richards, Page and Plant, Daltrey and Townsend, and Henley and Frey. And given their histories, it seems to me that they must have also agreed somewhat about this, If it ever did happen with any of them, I do believe it would diminish their legacy. JMHO

[chaim]

My two cents - of course they discussed doing it without Glenn. I'm guessing this discussion (with Irving) took place every year for many years starting in the late '80s. They never got to a point where, on balance, they thought it was a good idea to take the first steps without him, but I do think that if Glenn never got on board, Henley, Felder, Schmit, Walsh and who-knows-who-else would have eventually done something. As Don said in HOTE, he was OK with "being in a band again." He didn't say "re-forming the Eagles." Then we get into the same territory we were in in the Led Zeppelin thread - would you go see them? Many would, especially since many Eagles fans (myself included until a few years ago) don't know who sings which songs.

I don't think there would legal problems with Henley, Felder, Walsh and Schmit billing themselves as the Eagles.

Having said all of this as a narrow, direct response to the title of the thread, I think Glenn "is" the Eagles and I adore him and they wouldn't be the same without him. But as I said in the Led Zeppelin thread re: Robert Plant's unwillingness to join in, the music shouldn't be precious, and the other guys shouldn't have to sit home for years because one guy doesn't want to join in. But that's for a different thread - would you go?

The thing I underlined is what I think could be the case here in Finland. It's just a feeling. Some people might go, with somebody else singing it, "Hmm, the vocal in Take It Easy sounds a bit different". But then they'd perhaps go, "Well, the guy's older".:hilarious:
Zeppelin, hmmm. Not sure it they should call it Led Zeppelin without Plant, but by all means play the stuff. This is how I feel about Queen. Queen was the second band I fell in love with, and I'm a bit disappointed that Brian and Roger keep doing stuff as "Queen and whoever". Queen could have been a band in music's history books that had the same four guys all the way through. Well, the same with Zeppelin, of course. Now that John Deacon (and obviously Freddie) isn't there, I wish they wouldn't use the name Queen, although I love the fact that they still play the stuff. But it's a different thing with Queen. Even people here in Finland know that there's one rather important Queen member missing today.:hilarious:
But, as much as I love Glenn, Robert Plant and Freddie Mercury are perhaps more a part of the "collective consciousness" than Glenn, and therefore Glenn perhaps could've been slightly more easily replaced in the eyes of the average Joe (no pun intended) - at least at that point, when they'd been away for a few years. And this is not because Glenn isn't as good as them, but the way I see it, Eagles was never a band where individual members were raved about as much as Queen and Zeppelin. People just think about the songs when in comes to Eagles.

[VAisForEagleLovers]

I can't speak for Henley fans but his solo concert set lists are always full of intrigue and diversity. The total opposite of the Eagles model. Are they happy for Don to ride along on the Eagles gravy train while Cass County remains unreleased?

I can give my unequivocal answer. NOT HAPPY.

I wouldn't want it to have interfered with HOTE and the tour, I would have liked it to come out the same time frame as Analog man and After Hours, when the band scheduled time for solo time.

[BillBailey1976]

Do the individual members record for different companies now than the Eagles Recording Co.? If not, you'd think it would be very lucrative and beneficial to have Eagles merchandise, along with the new Walsh, Henley, and Frey material at the tables.
I would think do the albums, support them on a limited basis during breaks in the Eagles tours, and promote the heck out of it.

[BillBailey1976]

Personally, I think that the time to do solo albums is when you are together, and popular. I have always listened to the Eagles albums, BUT, since the HOTE doc and the tour and getting to see them live again, it's got my interest up even higher. I would go out and buy anything that they did right now.

[Freypower]

Do the individual members record for different companies now than the Eagles Recording Co.? If not, you'd think it would be very lucrative and beneficial to have Eagles merchandise, along with the new Walsh, Henley, and Frey material at the tables.
I would think do the albums, support them on a limited basis during breaks in the Eagles tours, and promote the heck out of it.

After Hours & Expando were on Universal. Analog Man was on Fantasy. I think Don's contract is with Warner Bros.

[BillBailey1976]

After Hours & Expando were on Universal. Analog Man was on Fantasy. I think Don's contract is with Warner Bros.

Oh, so cross promotion probably wouldn't work very well then.

[Brooke]

I've pretty much stayed out of this discussion because, as Dreamer mentioned, these 'what if' discussions drive me crazy. The constant going around in circles, there is no right or wrong answer, only opinion, cause it never happened.

For me, no, I would not go see the Eagles if Glenn or Don weren't there. As someone else mentioned, I also have no desire to see Journey, Styx, or Foreigner anymore because their lead singers left them. They just aren't the same for me. I know the remaining members and the new singers all have amazing talent, but it's just not the same. I want to hear THOSE voices on THOSE songs. I can't help it. :shrug: