Henley Says Eagles Reunion Possible with Glenn Frey's Son

[MortSahlFan]

I looked all over the board, didn't see this posted.... There were many links - http://www.nme.com/news/the-eagles/96715

[UndertheWire]

The original interview with the Montreal Gazette was posted in the Henley press thread (https://www.eaglesonlinecentral.com/forum/showthread.php?t=278&page=150). It was also discussed here (https://www.eaglesonlinecentral.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6626&page=3)

Other press outlets have picked it up and most are reporting it without going back to the source and are losing the context.

[Gnrguy]

I joined a few days ago after the Kennedy centers hoopla...

I think a tour without Felder now thatFrey is gone would be stupid

[Funk 50]

some major contributors here are deeply offended, maybe even feel threatened, by the the idea of the Eagles continuing without Glenn.

With some guys, their word is their bond. I don't think that's the case with Henley. I think he was just pondering the answer to a question out loud.
Joe has said the Kennedy Center Honors would serve as a fitting closure for the Eagles. Timothy has said he'd be uncomfortable with the idea of doing anything as "The Eagles".

I don't know what Glenn's son thinks of the idea, "Pukin'" is probably an understatement.

In the 80s theindividual members of the band were asked constantly about an Eagles Reunion. If anything, maybe with the immediacy of media now, they've faced even more questions on the issue since Glenn died, although I don't think music fans are as eager now for an Eagles reunion as they were before HFO.

Henley spoke in the documentary about the Eagles having a second act, would they chance a third?

I'm sure, if any are asked whether they are in or out, they'll answer, in.

[Annoying Twit]

'Eagles' reforming is one thing, and unlikely IMHO. I wonder if any of the Eagles will play, write, and/or record together again. Certainly tours with more than one ex-Eagle have happened before.

[Witchy Woman]

Don's statement was taken way out of context. It was a hypothetical answer to a hypothetical question. Don has said the Eagles are over. I know that's a tough pill to swallow for some, but facts are facts. It is just as ludicrous a thought to go on without Glenn as it is to go on without Don.

[chaim]

They are almost seventy years old. I just can't get into this "some time in the future..." way of thinking myself. Even if Glenn was still alive I wouldn't expect them to go on any longer, even though they would still be good live. They certainly have left their mark already. But especially with Glenn gone I don't get why a great band who accomplished everything should reunite yet again. I think they still have things to say individually and perhaps they should concentrate on that stuff before they're running out of time (pun intended).

[maryc2130]

I can see it maybe as a short-term, tribute to Glenn kind of thing, but definitely not long-term and I doubt it would be billed as the Eagles. Maybe the Eagles' kids (Eaglets) can get together and form a band ... ;)

[chaim]

Agreed. Short-term? Perhaps. Long-term? Nah.

[buffyfan145]

I agree Don meant short term and more than likely a tribute concert for Glenn. The media has just twisted this on their own like they always do.

[LovinGlennGirl]

This whole thing just makes me sad. :sad:

[WalshFan88]

I would like to see them do a one off concert with Deacon....do it in LA, do it wherever. Heck, I probably won't even be able to go.....but still.

But yes, a true "farewell"/tribute concert with Deacon would be something I would like to see happen in the future

But them continuing as a unit with that name without GF seems like a lacking Eagles and I wouldn't want to see them just continue to wear it out year after year tour after tour. It wouldn't be right, IMO.

Do something like what Led Zeppelin did with Jason Bonham at the O2.

I think a tribute/farewell show is appropriate but anything beyond that and I'm simply not interested.

I understand those not even wanting a tribute/send off concert and that's totally fine, I get that, but other people will feel otherwise, just as people will feel otherwise to me saying they shouldn't tour, where some will think they should.

[WS82Classics]

I've speculated on the prospect of Felder corralling Leadon, Schmit, and Walsh, putting Joe Vitale on the drum stands, and re-banding the Eagles with Felder himself as the frontman. Of course, I did this more as a joke than anything else.

As far as actual re-banding goes, I sure hope not.

[Brooke]

Don's statement was taken way out of context. It was a hypothetical answer to a hypothetical question. Don has said the Eagles are over. I know that's a tough pill to swallow for some, but facts are facts. It is just as ludicrous a thought to go on without Glenn as it is to go on without Don.

Agreed!

I think they might do a tribute, but that would be it.

[AlreadyGone95]

I don't see anything long term happening, and I don't think it should. The 3 guys (Don, Joe, Tim) seem content and happy to do their solo careers. I would love a filmed one-off tribute show, though.

[LuvTim]

I don't see anything long term happening, and I don't think it should. The 3 guys (Don, Joe, Tim) seem content and happy to do their solo careers. I would love a filmed one-off tribute show, though.

Agreed, AG, I'd like to see a public tribute show happen and have it released on DVD.

[DivineDon]

The media have just blown Don's answer to a hypothetical question all out of order - no wonder he wrote Dirty Laundry :)

[Ive always been a dreamer]

As I said in the other thread where this was discussed, I agree that Don meant having Deacon join for a few tribute shows - not a full-blown Eagles tour. I would welcome the former, but the latter - um, no thanks.

[sodascouts]

I've seen it happen again and again. A sentence gets taken out of context, gets twisted, then in its new distorted form gets parroted endlessly on social media and sites looking for some clickbait.

Every time I see this headline, I cringe, because I know 99% of the people who see it will not look any further and are now fully expecting the Eagles to tour the world in a few months with their new member, Deacon Frey.

[Eagles7]

I hope they all just do their own solo stuff. They can sound good doing Eagles songs in their solos. Don Felder and Joe play Eagles material in their shows and they sound fantastic. I imagine Don F is the same.

There is such a difference in their age and Deacon's age, I can't even imagine it. I wonder how well they actuall know Deacon or he knows them. I think their relationships became professional not personal and they probably had little contact.

[Eagles7]

Fortunately, we will always have their wonderful library on albums, CDs, YouTube, and our phones!

[StephUK]

I agree with what others have said here. A few tribute shows with Deacon may be feasible, but not a so - called Eagles reunion. The Eagles was Glenn's life, not Deacon's. I can't think Deacon would want to live his life as a stand - in/substitute for his dad.

I've read elsewhere(in a facebook group actually) people writing that he Eagles should continue with Deacon in place of Glenn. Those of us who've been around a while grew up with the Eagles, we've been around the block a few times with them & matured with them. You can't bring that back again, or turn back time.

The Eagles weren't forgotten when they 'took a 14 year vacation, and they won't be forgotten now. OK so we're all sorry there won't be any more live shows, but they've given us some great music & memories. Their songs will still be played on the radio, people will still talk about them, and in this way the band will always be with us. Also, Don, Joe & Timothy are still making new music & doing shows.

[Funk 50]

The little footage I've seen of Deacon on stage, with his dad, Deacon covered the Henley vocals. I can't see him subbing for his dad, no matter what Henley has said. The Eagles on stage are top notch professionals, I'm pretty sure that Deacon is a capable amateur at best.

Barring the obvious,Jackson Browne on Take It Easy, I can't see any further than J.D. Souther, as a cover for Frey on stage.

There seems to be a lot of support for a few tribute shows but reluctance to approve of a full tour. If Don, Tim and Joe toured together, I'd love to see it, particularly if they were promoting their new solo material rather than running through the ancient hits all over again. No disrespect to Glenn, but I think the show could be stronger without all his soft country hits in the set list.

Since Glenn's death, the Eagles have gone from, constantly making the global top ten grossing tours, to, I'm guessing, comparatively barely break even shows. A few tribute shows may appeal to sentimentalists but the Eagles are non sentimental touring musicians. Are they really going to turn their backs on megabucks success?

Despite their ages the Eagles are still capable of rejuvenation. I just played Business As Usual yesterday. What a great show opener and name for a tour ;)

[UndertheWire]

Funk50, I understand you're stirring.

I don't know much about Deacon Frey but I've read that he studied at Berklee College of Music, which probably puts him in a different category to "gifted amateur".

I would agree that in a tribute concert, JD Souther would be a good substitute singer for Glenn. However, I doubt he would do more than that. Back in January, he said, "They're done. They're not going to go back out without Glenn, absolutely not. I think it would be sacrilegious. I can't think of a way to do that that would be all right."

It's become common for "classic rock" acts to work together to fill larger venues, such as Joe's tour with Bad Company. If Henley, Walsh and Schmit wanted to get a large audience, they don't have to put together a new "Eagles", they could just put together a package that allows each to play solo material with their own bands before coming together for an encore of Eagles songs.

For myself, I'd rather see each of them tour separately. Smaller venues and cheaper tickets together with set lists with fewer Eagles hits and more fresh material and deep cuts sounds appealing.

What I don't get is the people who want a reunion with a substitute for Glenn because they "never got to see the band". That opportunity has passed. They may as well see a tribute act.

BTW, in the notes of Marc Eliot's book, he says that at the time copyrights were being sorted, after Desperado, they also sorted out the ownership of the band name by Eagles Ltd such that no member could split and tour using the name.

[Delilah]

What I don't get is the people who want a reunion with a substitute for Glenn because they "never got to see the band". That opportunity has passed. They may as well see a tribute act.

Speaking for myself, it's not that I want a reunion (concert) to happen without Glenn, it's that I would not pass up a chance to see it if it were to happen. There's a reason so many of these 60s and 70s acts continue to perform despite losing original members; people still want to see them, even if it's not the "real" thing. Lynyrd Skynrd comes to mind--were they a "tribute" act in the 80s? I'm sure even hardcore fans differ in their opinion about that.

I'm not convinced that Deacon Frey would even want to perform with a bunch of old dudes staring down 70 years of age and rehashing songs from the 70s. I don't mean any disrespect, I'm just trying to imagine it from his perspective. It's a different and special experience to share the stage with one's own father.

People make all kinds of emotionally-charged declarations when someone close to them has just died. It's not uncommon for things to change over time when the pain and grief are not quite as fresh. I think that's why Don H went from "the Eagles are over" to well, maybe envisioning something with Deacon Frey. The same thing could happen to J.D. Souther.

[Freypower]

The little footage I've seen of Deacon on stage, with his dad, Deacon covered the Henley vocals. I can't see him subbing for his dad, no matter what Henley has said. The Eagles on stage are top notch professionals, I'm pretty sure that Deacon is a capable amateur at best.

Barring the obvious,Jackson Browne on Take It Easy, I can't see any further than J.D. Souther, as a cover for Frey on stage.

There seems to be a lot of support for a few tribute shows but reluctance to approve of a full tour. If Don, Tim and Joe toured together, I'd love to see it, particularly if they were promoting their new solo material rather than running through the ancient hits all over again. No disrespect to Glenn, but I think the show could be stronger without all his soft country hits in the set list.

Since Glenn's death, the Eagles have gone from, constantly making the global top ten grossing tours, to, I'm guessing, comparatively barely break even shows. A few tribute shows may appeal to sentimentalists but the Eagles are non sentimental touring musicians. Are they really going to turn their backs on megabucks success?

Despite their ages the Eagles are still capable of rejuvenation. I just played Business As Usual yesterday. What a great show opener and name for a tour ;)

Well, thank you so much for that.

Sometimes it might help if you thought harder about what you write. You have offended me & I would hope everyone else who cherishes Mr Frey's memory.

You obviously believe that without Glenn the remaining Eagles (they are not 'the Eagles') could have megabucks success again. You outright state he was a liability yet you claim no 'disrespect'.

Oh, and the snide dig at Deacon as being a 'capable amateur' was completey unnecessary.

Good luck with this. If it happens I suppose you will feel vindicated. Well I will not. I will feel utterly hollow & cheated.

NB I see UTW wrote that you were 'stirring'. You could have done it in a rather more sensitive way. Or you could have considered the feelings of others.

[Freypower]

Speaking for myself, it's not that I want a reunion (concert) to happen without Glenn, it's that I would not pass up a chance to see it if it were to happen. There's a reason so many of these 60s and 70s acts continue to perform despite losing original members; people still want to see them, even if it's not the "real" thing. Lynyrd Skynrd comes to mind--were they a "tribute" act in the 80s? I'm sure even hardcore fans differ in their opinion about that.

I'm not convinced that Deacon Frey would even want to perform with a bunch of old dudes staring down 70 years of age and rehashing songs from the 70s. I don't mean any disrespect, I'm just trying to imagine it from his perspective. It's a different and special experience to share the stage with one's own father.

People make all kinds of emotionally-charged declarations when someone close to them has just died. It's not uncommon for things to change over time when the pain and grief are not quite as fresh. I think that's why Don H went from "the Eagles are over" to well, maybe envisioning something with Deacon Frey. The same thing could happen to J.D. Souther.

I maintain that Henley's statement was twisted out of context & out of proportion by some media.

[FreyFollower]

IF there ever were any more concerts, it most certainly would not be about "mega bucks success". They all have plenty of money, and were more successful than any other American band. When you get older, and friends start dying, you get a whole new perspective on things. Especially when that friend has been so important in your life's work. I think it would be about honoring him---(whose singing of "all his soft country hits" is the main reason I and many others loved this band). It can never again be "business as usual". Ever. JMHO.

[StephUK]

Despite their ages the Eagles are still capable of rejuvenation. I just played Business As Usual yesterday. What a great show opener and name for a tour ;)

Don, Joe & Timothy wouldn't be so disrespectful to Glenn's memory as to tour under the name 'Business as Usual'.

Also, Glenn's songs are a part of what the Eagles were. If you don't understand that, then you don't understand the Eagles music at all.

[sodascouts]

I find it hard to respond to Funk 50 when he makes a post like the above.

I don't know what happened to Funk 50 in the last few months. Ever since Glenn's death, he's made cruel comments about how the band would be better off without him, starting when Glenn was barely cold in his grave.

I don't understand it. Funk 50 has always stirred crap up before and he was often rude, but he was never cruel. I don't know what changed. Death usually makes people more sensitive to others, but Glenn's death has only made Funk 50 go from occasionally obnoxious to downright sadistic whenever the topic arises, taking pleasure in causing other fans pain.

At any rate, as I've said before, this topic is another tempest in a teapot. I wish people would check out the context of a quote before they spread around distorted "facts."

[Witchy Woman]

I find it hard to respond to Funk 50 when he makes post like the above.

I don't know what happened to Funk 50 in the last few months. Ever since Glenn's death, he's made cruel comments about how the band would be better off without him, starting when Glenn was barely cold in his grave.

I don't understand it. Funk 50 has always stirred crap up before and he was often rude, but he was never cruel. I don't know what changed. Death usually makes people more sensitive to others, but Glenn's death has only made Funk 50 go from occasionally obnoxious to downright sadistic whenever the topic arises, taking pleasure in causing other fans pain.

At any rate, as I've said before, this is another tempest in a teapot. I wish people would check out the context of a quote before they spread around distorted "facts."

It's called being a shit starter. He just wants to get a rise out of people and cause conflict. I'll never understand how someone can be on a message board dedicated to a group and blatantly disrespect one of its founding members. And I fully agree that people are taking Don's comments and twisting them to serve their own purposes. I have zero interest in seeing The Eagles without Glenn. I would have zero interest in seeing The Eagles without Don.

[WalshFan88]

WOW!

I cannot believe the cold callousedness of F50. That's just beyond rude, it's cruelly twisting the knife and doing so with intent. It is very troubling to me.

Trolling and stirring the pot is one thing, and he's done it a lot, but this goes even further into just outright cruelty. I don't understand why you continue to do this.

The dig at Deacon was uncalled for. Of course he's not at is what his dad's level of experience was. He's a young guy. The remark about a capable amateur was just not needed. He from everything I've seen of him is a very good musician who will get better the more he does it. He made his dad proud just by what I've seen.

The comment about Glenn's "soft country hits" and the Eagles being better without them (basically saying without Glenn) was really what upset me, and I'm not as much of a Glenn fan as some here, so I can't imagine how even more offended they are than I already am. I sympathize with them totally.

First off, even if that was all Glenn had, it still would have been very cruel and inappropriate. Even moreso when the man has recently passed. I wasn't his biggest fan but I would never "go there" with that nor do I support some of the things certain DF fans are saying on his FB page. I'm a hardcore Felder fan, but I cannot condone their comments even though I think he should be honored. I think Felder paints himself in a bad light when he lets his fans make vile remarks.

But the fact is, Glenn has almost as much if not as much variety in his lead vocal Eagles tunes as Henley. Sure, he had a lot of soft country-rock songs, which I admittedly don't care for as much, but he had rockin' uptempo songs, smooth RNB songs, and yes twangier country songs. So the man was made of a lot more than just the Take It Easy/Peaceful Easy Feeling type of songs and it's unfair to say his soft country songs bring the set down. Henley has plenty of softer songs too that aren't all out rockers. I'm not going to name them all. Think about it.

And that is coming from the guy who isn't into soft country rock, so it's not like I'm in love with those songs and defending them. It's just not true. What about Already Gone and James Dean and Heartache Tonight? Those are rock songs. To say all the man had were soft country songs is not only incorrect but selling him short, which was your very intention I'm sure. I'm not sure why you get such grandiose pleasure out of doing this, but if you are that miserable in your own life that you need to target people cruelly for your own entertainment, I suggest you get professional help. And I don't mean that in a demeaning way. I truly wish the best for you and that you become happier and healthier. Some when they say "get help" that mean it negatively as a put down, and I mean it honestly and positively in effort to try to help you. I just feel like it's not normal to do.

Also, your comments about them not playing "ancient hits" was also meant to be inflammatory. You want them to play solo music with the 3 guys under the Eagles name. Do you realize how silly that would be? How it would tarnish their name? I campaigned for each member to have solo songs on the HOTE tour but no way would I go see the Eagles and not hear any Eagles music. That'd be like going to the gas station parking lot to watch a movie in my car. It makes no sense at all. Those "ancient hits" MADE them who they are today and are why they are still remember as one of the best bands of all time. They had to play the hits. Otherwise nobody would show up. They might as well went to see the 3 guys solo if they were only doing solo music. Now I could see the three touring together, doing solo hits and coming out to do a number together, but that's as a tour, not as a band and they three would be under their own names and have their own bands. It's the only way that makes sense to me. So yeah, I think that's silly.

Again, I'm not a GF super fan or a "soft country" fan, but even I can admit how cold and inconsiderate your post was, I can only imagine how Glenn's fans felt. And that's coming from someone who has no bias to either of those things. It's just called respect and having a heart, man. I'm no angel but even I wouldn't say those things, and I'm very opinionated. You need to learn where to draw the line. It's one thing to make statements most will be in disagreement with OR miffed at, it's another to be outright cruel and mean. I sincerely hope you will apologize to the members here, not to me, but to the others who have been hurt by this who may or may not have said something about it or may have stayed quiet.

If you are going to stir the pot with inflammatory comments, that's one thing and while I think it's inconsiderate, whatever. But the comments you've made that are purposely intending to not only rile up Glenn fans but to also hurt their feelings is just plain wrong IMO. I've learned to mostly ignore your comments and I felt like leaving a few times but ultimately I learned not to feed the troll. This is more than just trolling. This is targeting people who will be upset, and being mean.

I hope that you understand where I'm coming from even if you don't, I had to say something. I'm sure you'll be surprised and say as usual that you weren't meaning to be offensive and upsetting, but that really is just a lie at this point. You know that this would be very upsetting and you'd get some kind of response.

My only advice to everyone else is that to not show emotions or let him know you are upset. It's hard to do, and I'm doing it right now, but like most bullies if you quit letting them see your reaction, they will get bored and move elsewhere.

[Annoying Twit]

Returning to the topic of the thread, I still think that if anything happens it's not likely to be directly credited as Eagles. E.g. there could be a Henley / Schmit / Walsh / Leadon tour. Perhaps with additional performers, e.g. perhaps Henley / Schmit / Walsh / Leadon / Browne.

[Houston Baby]

:applause: WF88(Austin)
I could not have said it better except I am a devoted Glenn Frey fan. :inlove:
Thank you for your thoughtful response. As a huge GF fan, I could not even come up with words to express my feelings on that totally unnecessary post.:censored:

[chaim]

Personally I love those "soft country rock" songs (or whatever you choose to call them), but like them or not, they are a huge part of what the Eagles are. I wouldn't find any sense in changing what the band is about at this point (they have solo careers to help them express themselves). If Keith Richards happens to die before Mick Jagger, does it mean that the band should forget about the rock stuff it has been doing since the beginning and concentrate on the trends of the day (Mick's speciality more than Keith's) to please a certain part of the audience? I don't think so.

Well, that was a bad example, because Glenn wasn't the only Eagle who was into the "soft country whatever" stuff. He just happened to have a fantastic voice for that stuff.

[WalshFan88]

Well, that was a bad example, because Glenn wasn't the only Eagle who was into the "soft country whatever" stuff. He just happened to have a fantastic voice for that stuff.

My point exactly. They both had all kinds of songs in Eagles work and those softer songs were a big part of what made them who they are. And as I said, I'm a rock guy.

[WalshFan88]

:applause: WF88(Austin)
I could not have said it better except I am a devoted Glenn Frey fan. :inlove:
Thank you for your thoughtful response. As a huge GF fan, I could not even come up with words to express my feelings on that totally unnecessary post.:censored:

I just don't get it. Sometimes I wonder if he himself even believes the things he says. I think he knows how inflammatory those words are and does it for his fun at our expense.

[Freypower]

Returning to the topic of the thread, I still think that if anything happens it's not likely to be directly credited as Eagles. E.g. there could be a Henley / Schmit / Walsh / Leadon tour. Perhaps with additional performers, e.g. perhaps Henley / Schmit / Walsh / Leadon / Browne.

And I don't think that will happen either. There might be one tribute show. I fail to understand why these men would even consider touring without Glenn no matter how they billed themselves. What would be the point of it? Without Glenn's songs, contrary to what was so rudely stated, a great deal of what they had as a band is gone. Henley does't want to sing his songs even in solo shows. Walsh doesn't have the voice for it & I doubt the other two would wish to either. An 'Eagles' show without Glenn & without his songs. I don't even begin to understand why some think this could occur. Unless you want Browne or Souther to sing Glenn's songs. While this would be predictable, it would also be pointless in my view.

As for the post now being discussed, I had my response to it, which may have been too emotional, so thanks to Austin & Soda for giving it the treatment it deserved (or didn't deserve).

[MaryCalifornia]

I fail to understand why these men would even consider touring without Glenn no matter how they billed themselves. What would be the point of it? Without Glenn's songs, contrary to what was so rudely stated, a great deal of what they had as a band is gone. Henley does't want to sing his songs even in solo shows. Walsh doesn't have the voice for it & I doubt the other two would wish to either. An 'Eagles' show without Glenn & without his songs. I don't even begin to understand why some think this could occur. Unless you want Browne or Souther to sing Glenn's songs. While this would be predictable, it would also be pointless in my view.

As for the post now being discussed, I had my response to it, which may have been too emotional, so thanks to Austin & Soda for giving it the treatment it deserved (or didn't deserve).


FP, with all due respect during this time of sadness, these men have played music together for over 40 years, and are still active. Just consider the concept that they may wish to continue to do so. They have earned the right to do whatever the heck they want. Perform what they want, with whom they want. Nothing that they do can detract from Glenn's contribution, talent, or legacy. In fact, it highlights how good of a singer he was.

No song should be precious. I hope lots of people continue to perform Glenn's songs in lots of settings, even various combinations of Don and TBS, Don and Joe, Joe and TBS and whoever else. It is a tribute to him, and I don't think fans should presume to tell them that there isn't a point to them playing together or performing Glenn's songs.

Having said all of that, I highly doubt they'll "tour," (and playing with JD or Jackson just sounds like a horrible idea) but I also don't see them not performing together again and not including Eagles songs, for goodness sake. In grieving Glenn's loss, I don't think you realize how disrespectful your posts are to Don, Joe and Tim. I would think you would want to support them in whatever they decide to do going forward.

And no, my thought process in no way, shape or form aligns with Funk's.

Do you think its bad form for Timothy to sing PEF as a tribute to Glenn? I don't, and I don't think anybody cares if he doesn't sound as good.

[MaryCalifornia]

I think what I am trying to say but neglected to do above is this: It is apparent that Timothy and Don have a sweet relationship, that stayed solid during the 14 years the Eagles were apart. Don has been loyal to Timothy in so many instances over the years, and they seem to genuinely like each other. I also think that Timothy and Joe have a bond and have been through things together, due to their unique situation (the surviving non-Glenn & Don Eagles), that nobody but them could ever understand. I'm not sure about Don and Joe's relationship with each other, but I do believe that these three guys' relationship with each other is more than the Eagles.

Though Glenn's death obviously has a huge impact on the guys, it does not diminish their bonds with each other. That's why I will not second guess if they want to perform together again. Henley has never done anything impulsively. Whatever they decide to do will be tasteful, considered and well thought out, no doubt with Cindy and Irving's approval and endorsement.

[Freypower]

FP, with all due respect during this time of sadness, these men have played music together for over 40 years, and are still active. Just consider the concept that they may wish to continue to do so. They have earned the right to do whatever the heck they want. Perform what they want, with whom they want. Nothing that they do can detract from Glenn's contribution, talent, or legacy. In fact, it highlights how good of a singer he was.

No song should be precious. I hope lots of people continue to perform Glenn's songs in lots of settings, even various combinations of Don and TBS, Don and Joe, Joe and TBS and whoever else. It is a tribute to him, and I don't think fans should presume to tell them that there isn't a point to them playing together or performing Glenn's songs.

Having said all of that, I highly doubt they'll "tour," (and playing with JD or Jackson just sounds like a horrible idea) but I also don't see them not performing together again and not including Eagles songs, for goodness sake. In grieving Glenn's loss, I don't think you realize how disrespectful your posts are to Don, Joe and Tim. I would think you would want to support them in whatever they decide to do going forward.

And no, my thought process in no way, shape or form aligns with Funk's.

Do you think its bad form for Timothy to sing PEF as a tribute to Glenn? I don't, and I don't think anybody cares if he doesn't sound as good.

I support them in whatever they do as long as they don't do a tour referring to themselves as 'Eagles' with Glenn's songs being sung by someone else. How is that disrespectful to them? It's realistic, that's all. There is a time where this all has to be let go and they have to realise that part of their life is over & it can't ever be brought back. Led Zeppelin did & they didn't lose their frontman & one of the two main singers. Glenn was not just anybody.

Of course I agree with Tim doing PEF & I agreed with Joe doing TITTL. In that setting, during solo shows, it's fine by me. But Don has said he won't sing Glenn's songs & he is ultimately the one who would decide on such a venture.

I agree that Glenn's songs should still be performed, so that they will not be forgotten. I just have a problem with any sort of tour. One or two tribute shows is what I have wanted all along. NB I just saw your next post & I agree that whatever they do will be tasteful, etc. I will leave it at that.

[Annoying Twit]

And I don't think that will happen either. There might be one tribute show. I fail to understand why these men would even consider touring without Glenn no matter how they billed themselves. What would be the point of it? Without Glenn's songs, contrary to what was so rudely stated, a great deal of what they had as a band is gone. Henley does't want to sing his songs even in solo shows. Walsh doesn't have the voice for it & I doubt the other two would wish to either. An 'Eagles' show without Glenn & without his songs. I don't even begin to understand why some think this could occur. Unless you want Browne or Souther to sing Glenn's songs. While this would be predictable, it would also be pointless in my view.

As for the post now being discussed, I had my response to it, which may have been too emotional, so thanks to Austin & Soda for giving it the treatment it deserved (or didn't deserve).

A lot of those songs that Glenn sang were Henley/Frey compositions. Don H may be quite happy for those songs to be put on the shelf and not performed again. Or, he may feel that they shouldn't be and consider the options for performing them. It could be that Don H would consider it disrespectful to perform those songs again, or he eventually may consider it disrespectful to never perform them again and may look for opportunities to do so.

It's easy to argue both sides. What we don't know, and what Don H perhaps doesn't know himself, is what he'll feel about it in a year's, or two year's, or three year's time. One thing I believe: Don H is key, and if he decides he wants to do it, the others will do it. Whatever "it" is. EDIT: I personally don't expect that "it" would be a full tour or even single concert under the Eagles banner. I think it more likely that members may tour together under their own names, as Glenn & Joe did.

[MaryCalifornia]

I support them in whatever they do as long as they don't do a tour referring to themselves as 'Eagles' with Glenn's songs being sung by someone else. How is that disrespectful to them? It's realistic, that's all. There is a time where this all has to be let go and they have to realise that part of their life is over & it can't ever be brought back. Led Zeppelin did & they didn't lose their frontman & one of the two main singers. Glenn was not just anybody.

Of course I agree with Tim doing PEF & I agreed with Joe doing TITTL. In that setting, during solo shows, it's fine by me. But Don has said he won't sing Glenn's songs & he is ultimately the one who would decide on such a venture.

I agree that Glenn's songs should still be performed, so that they will not be forgotten. I just have a problem with any sort of tour. One or two tribute shows is what I have wanted all along. NB I just saw your next post & I agree that whatever they do will be tasteful, etc. I will leave it at that.

Agree with you 100% here, FP. Except that's not what you stated in your prior post - what you said was, "I fail to understand why these men would even consider touring without Glenn no matter how they billed themselves." Like you don't think they should perform together, regardless of the context.

[Freypower]

Agree with you 100% here, FP. Except that's not what you stated in your prior post - what you said was, "I fail to understand why these men would even consider touring without Glenn no matter how they billed themselves." Like you don't think they should perform together, regardless of the context.

OK, the key word there is 'touring'. I would be happy for them to perform together as a tribute. If they wish to perform together in various combinations at any time that's fine by me. I am totally against anything billed as 'Eagles'.

[Annoying Twit]

I personally don't believe that we should say what the Eagles should or shouldn't do. Within limits. (And I'm not going to give an example of something that perhaps everyone would think wrong.)

If the surviving Eagles do decide to tour as Eagles, then that in my opinion is their choice. I would not criticise them for it, or even think it wrong.

Note: I don't expect it to happen. But, it's fully their choice. And in reality, I suspect it's Don H's choice.

[maryc2130]

I personally don't believe that we should say what the Eagles should or shouldn't do. Within limits. (And I'm not going to give an example of something that perhaps everyone would think wrong.)

If the surviving Eagles do decide to tour as Eagles, then that in my opinion is their choice. I would not criticise them for it, or even think it wrong.

Note: I don't expect it to happen. But, it's fully their choice. And in reality, I suspect it's Don H's choice.

I don't see the harm in giving our opinions on what they should do. Obviously, they're not going to have and effect on the band's decision, but we're entitled to our opinions.

I agree that it will ultimately be Don's decision, although I'm sure Joe, TBS, and possibly Bernie would have a say, and I'm even more sure that DH would take Glenn's family's wishes into consideration.

[Brooke]

I can't imagine that they would ever want to tour as the Eagles again. It's up to them, but I just don't think they ever will. Maybe a one off tribute to Glenn.

I would not be interested in seeing the Eagles without Glenn. Or Don H for that matter.

[Annoying Twit]

I don't see the harm in giving our opinions on what they should do. Obviously, they're not going to have and effect on the band's decision, but we're entitled to our opinions.

I agree that it will ultimately be Don's decision, although I'm sure Joe, TBS, and possibly Bernie would have a say, and I'm even more sure that DH would take Glenn's family's wishes into consideration.

Giving opinions is fine. However, some of the posts I read do sound to me a little bit more like moral judgements than personal opinions. In some cases, rather absolute moral judgements.

[VillageGirl]

AT, I am completely with you dude, but I just finished trying to fight this fruitless battle yesterday.

[NightMistBlue]

I've lit some incense to promote peaceful vibes in here. :xoxo:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/14/58/d6/1458d68708503c382991ef622d3ab347.jpg

[Freypower]

Giving opinions is fine. However, some of the posts I read do sound to me a little bit more like moral judgements than personal opinions. In some cases, rather absolute moral judgements.

I don't think it is a 'moral judgment' to say that I would object to Henley, Walsh, Schmit & perhaps Leadon touring & calling themsleves 'Eagles'. I say that there is no 'Eagles' without Glenn Frey. If not even statements like this can be made on this board any more, I begin to despair.

Of course I can't tell them what they can & can't do. But until today I at least was able to express my thoughts.

[UndertheWire]

Of course I can't tell them what they can & can't do. But until today I at least was able to express my thoughts.
Watch out, today you're not even aloud to think those thoughts!

This is a discussion board. What's the point of having a board where everyone has to be "nice" all the time - except, of course, when they're criticising others for not being nice enough?

For the record, I wasn't hurt by Funk50's post. I just assumed he was trying to stir things up because he thought it was a bit quiet. I also don't object to people stating their opinions strongly or bluntly. Myself, I just hate it when someone takes something I've written and misrepresents it.

I suggest that everyone rereads: https://www.eaglesonlinecentral.com/forum/showthread.php?t=450 . If you think someone's post breaches these guidelines, report to a moderator and ask them to investigate. If you don't trust the moderators, take it up with the owner of the board. It's her hard work (and money) that keeps this going.

Can we get back to discussing the band?

[Annoying Twit]

I don't think it is a 'moral judgment' to say that I would object to Henley, Walsh, Schmit & perhaps Leadon touring & calling themsleves 'Eagles'. I say that there is no 'Eagles' without Glenn Frey. If not even statements like this can be made on this board any more, I begin to despair.

Of course I can't tell them what they can & can't do. But until today I at least was able to express my thoughts.

Remember that in reading forum posts we are interpreting written words, which don't include nuances of tone. Some of what I read goes beyond personal opinions and thoughts, and looks to be clear statements on what is objectively right and wrong.

And I think it's important to remember that there is an awful lot we don't know. All it would take is for Glenn and Don H to have had a discussion about what they would want for the future should one of them pass, and then the entire 'properness' (for want of a better word) of any eventuality can flip from one extreme to another. The guys in the band know Glenn and his family's wishes much better than we do.

You can say that you would morally object should the band tour again. To which my response (as a Devil's Advocate as I don't believe the band will tour again) would be that how can you know that Glenn wouldn't have approved? E.g. if he had known that he was dying and had the chance to talk about the topic.

I have no objections to people expressing and discussing personal opinions. But, I think that in some cases people need to be clearer that what they are saying is a personal opinion, not a claim to objective morality. Note: Just speaking for myself, I wouldn't want to stop people expressing their thoughts on this forum or anywhere. But, I also have the right to respond to people's posts.

I think that suggesting that we're not allowing people to express their thoughts is a misinterpretation of what I'm saying (assuming that it's me that's being responded to here.) I'm just expressing my own thoughts about how we can't really be sure what is wrong or right in this situation. We don't, and I suspect can't ever, know what is right or wrong as Glenn is able to speak for himself.

You can say that without Glenn Frey that there is no Eagles. To which I would respond that without Glenn Frey things could never be the same. However, if Don H (and it's just my opinion that it's solely up to him) decided differently, I would not feel that I had grounds to object.

If things went my way, I would be happiest with a Henley/Walsh/Schmit/Leadon album and/or tour credited to that name or a new band name. However, I don't feel that as some random person around the world that I would have any basis for criticising them if they did the same but credited it to Eagles. Note: No Randy as I don't feel he's well enough. Again, this is just my guess from what I know, which could be wrong.

[Freypower]

Thanks for clarifying, but as a fan of Frey since 1979 & as a fan of the Eagles since 1976 I do believe I have a right to object to any combination of the suriviving members calling themselves 'Eagles'. The heart of the band is gone. Regardless of the others' talents, in my opinion anything else would be a shell of what the band used to be. I suppose my use of the word 'wrong' implied that I was indeed sitting in judgment. I'm not. If they do this let them. But I don't have to approve of it.

Glenn was the frontman, sang half the songs & was the bandleader. He also was a major part of the harmonies they were so well known for. Take that away & you have what Henley once called 'his backing band'. You want to go & see Henley, Walsh, Schmit & Smith & Crago with that huge gap in the middle? Fine. If you think that's 'Eagles' your definition is more flexible than mine.

[Glennsallnighter]

I'm 100% with FP on this one. Glenn :heart: was the cornerstone of the Eagles. Without him they are no more IMHO. I do not think they can just rebrand like that and replace him, even with Deacon. What would they want to prove anyway?

[Ive always been a dreamer]

I, too, agree, FP.

And UTW, you must have been reading my mind. I was also going to link to our Netiquette Guidelines. I think they are right on about what our members should expect from other board members.

I don't think we should be in the business of censuring opinions on the board. But, as outlined in the guidelines, the key to offering opinions is to be respectful of other members and the band, and base it on known facts instead of insults, name-calling, or character assassination. And, of course, if you want to offer opinions, you should be prepared that others may disagree and challenge you. Also, keep in mind that if have a minority viewpoint, try not to take it personally. It doesn't mean everyone is ganging up on you just because they happen to disagree with you.

I think that, overall, we have a great community where most of our members are very respectful of one another. Hopefully, this will continue to be the case.

[Annoying Twit]

I'm 100% with FP on this one. Glenn :heart: was the cornerstone of the Eagles. Without him they are no more IMHO. I do not think they can just rebrand like that and replace him, even with Deacon. What would they want to prove anyway?

We may decide that Eagles are no more (which I think Don H has decided.) However, that is their decision, not ours. They wouldn't have to want to prove anything. They might just want to continue on with the band that they have devoted a large part of their lives to. This has happened with other bands who have lost very important members. The Guess Who, Genesis, Manic Street Preachers, Pink Floyd, Depeche Mode, and I'm sure many others. I'm not saying that it would be the right thing or the wrong thing for Eagles to continue. I'm just saying that it's fully their decision. And I personally think the right thing for them to do or not do is what they want to do or not do, not what others think they should do.

If Eagles continued on, then they wouldn't have to be the same band, nor would they have to 'replace him'. As has happened with other bands, and Eagles themselves, they could continue on with just the current members. Or they could include other members such as Bernie, Randy if well enough, or anyone else they choose.

Early on in the Eagles' history, Glenn was the clear leader and sang half the songs. But, their roles changed over the years, and Don H emerged from being compositionally and vocally a minor member to become their main lead vocalist and an equal compositional partner to Glenn during their peak period. If we look at their last album, Don H and Glenn were very even in terms of their vocal contribution. Glenn may have been the lynchpin originally, but within a few years Don H matched him in terms of composition and eclipsed him in terms of lead vocals. Joe and Tim had lesser contributions, but a future album with Don H/Tim/Joe/Others (however attributed), if they decided to do that, could have expanded participation by Tim/Joe, neither of whom I think are spent talents. Particularly Tim. whose just released album is IMHO the best thing he's done yet. It's not a band which has one talented guy and 'a backing band', it's a band where all members were talented, could contribute quality songs, and could sing. See the other thread where five Eagles have had top 40 solo hits (if I remember correctly.) Deacon Frey might work for a tribute where there would be a need for someone to sing Glenn's songs. But, if they go on more permanently, then they don't need a replacement for Glenn. They could continue on as something different.

Now, I'm not saying that Eagles should or should not continue. But, they most certainly can continue. All they need to do is agree that they are going to do it, and there will be nothing to stop them. At present, this looks very unlikely to me. However, things can change. As I mentioned, there's a reason why they released an album called "Hell Freezes Over".

My opinion is: they should do what they (collectively) want to do. 'Eagles' belongs to them, and it's their lives they're making decisions about.

[Ive always been a dreamer]

AT, at the risk of beating the dead horse, of course, the future is up to the band, not us fans. I don't remember reading anyone suggesting otherwise here. However, fans shouldn't be precluded from respectfully offering their feelings and opinions about this. But, since this remains a contentious topic where fans, obviously, have a wide range of views, we all should be sensitive to that.

[Freypower]

How many people on this board would actually go and see this 'band' without Mr Frey? How many people consider that his songs were so unimportant that they can just be ditched? How many people would actually consider it the real thing?

As for the suggestion that they should consider doing an album it took them long enough to do LROOE. Why would Henley do an album to make more use of Walsh & Schmit? I got the distinct impression, with his stated opinion that it should have been a single album, that he wasn't happy with their contributions. They have their own careers for that.

I apologise for going over the top with the 'I can't express myself' stuff but I am finding this thread more & more depressing & distressing the further it goes. I hope that makes sense. I am NOT trying to tell the former Eagles what to do. But I personally don't WANT them to continue as if nothing happened. They haven't had a lineup change. Their founder died.

[LovinGlennGirl]

The very thought makes me sad, no Glenn no Eagles. They didn't break up to reunite. Glenn didn't quit, he didn't retire: he died. There is no reunion to be had. I just want to cry now.

:weep::weep::-(:-(:cry::cry:

[MaryCalifornia]

How many people on this board would actually go and see this 'band' without Mr Frey? How many people consider that his songs were so unimportant that they can just be ditched? How many people would actually consider it the real thing?

I would, FP. Why would they ditch Glenn's songs? Others can sing them. It's not the original thing, but the songs stand up on their own.

Keep in mind that lots of people, including members of this board, actually pay good money to see Eagles tribute bands. The point I'm making is that people love the songs.

I really hope you are seeing that my perspective is not remotely an attempt to diminish Glenn's talent and impact, nor is it an attempt to argue with you. It's just...the other guys, who we also love, are still out there, playing the songs. I'll be happy to be in their presence no matter what they call themselves or what they play or who they play with. I'm sorry if you see this as a betrayal of Glenn or his memory.

[UndertheWire]

I can't remember what my original position was but I may be turning through 180 degrees. I've now read interviews by Don, Joe and Timothy where they have each mentioned the possibility of doing something - while making it clear that nothing has been discussed. With those three being open to the idea, I don't see how Irving could resist. However, whatever they do, I'm sure they will try to be respectful of Glenn and will involve Glenn's family in the discussions.

I'm neither for nor against it, at this point, but it would have to be something really special to get me there.

As for new music, I do wonder if there is any finished or unfinished material that could be completed for release. I'm not talking about a quick cash-in, but something that could be done with love and care. I hate the thought that Glenn worked hard on something that will never be heard.

[DivineDon]

Well, I for one would be very happy to go to see Don, Joe and Timothy together. Of course they wouldn't refer to themselves as the Eagles - maybe former Eagles. Don made it quite clear that the Eagles died when Glenn died. But these three touring together, playing their solo sets and playing Eagles' songs (not Glenn's as Don said he wouldn't sing Glenn's songs) would be a great show. Of course it wouldn't be the same and I am expressing my personal feelings and I'm not trying to be disrespectful to Glenn's memory by expressing that opinion. But I do feel that there would be an appetite to hear these guys together....

.... Do I believe that it will happen? Most definitely NO! I don't believe Don would do it because of the memories and associations with Glenn. His hypothetical answer regarding Deacon was just him thinking out loud. I repeat, I don't think it will ever happen but there's nothing wrong in contemplating it or speculating on it.

[shunlvswx]

If I say yes, I hope I don't get berated or fussed at because I say yes because that's what's been going on lately.

If they decided to do one off show or a few shows, I would go, but only if its close by. I'm sorry to say I'm not going to LA or even NYC to see them. Not because Glenn is not there, but because I can't afford to go anywhere that's not between an hour to 10 hours drive. I can't afford a plane ticket. That would be my only reason for not going.

I'm one of those people who didn't get to see them as a group and I will never forgive myself for not pushing myself to seeing them these last 3 years. They were always hinting this could be the last tour(I hate that it came true), but I push it to the side since they always say that, but nobody expect what would happen 6 months later. I had too many I will see them next year moments and my "I will push to see them next year" came too late because I was going to try to see them this year if they decided to go tour. Of course Glenn got sick and I was going to try to see them if they decided to go back on tour once Glenn got better. Of course Glenn didn't get better and I miss my chance. My memories of the guys will be YouTube concert clips and DVDs since I didn't see them in concert. I don't have a concert memory of Glenn and the guys like the others have. I didn't get to see them 3 or 4 times.

Maybe some people are not going to support the remaining members as solo acts. I know some who are not going to and that's your decision, but I'm going to support them. I saw Joe in August. I had a ball seeing him and hanging with Soda. I can't wait to see my very first Don show in January(which I was going to try to see with an Eagles show this year) in Houston which not in a million years I would had never travel to Houston, but I am.

Whatever decision the guys make later down the road, I will support. Maybe I'm stupid and thinking with my head than my heart.

I wonder if it was Don or any of the other guys instead of Glenn that died, would we be having this argument and division that's happening right now. IMO. I say no. You know you will still see them if any of the other guys left this world. If any of the other guys left this world, I would still support the surviving members.

I'm just so tired of Don getting so much flake these past 9 months. Rather its Don touring too soon after Glenn's death(I still don't get why nobody was giving Joe so much flake when he was the first to put out dates), Don not saying anything about Glenn(Joe was getting that too), Don's quote from an article that the darn media just picked up on a month after he said it, Don's fault with what's going with KCH. Everything!!! I'm just want to put my hands and just say "I give up!!!" I kinda know how the Felder's fans and other former members fans are feeling at this moment.

IMO Sometimes I really wish Glenn didn't died in January because I hate this division that's going on between fanbases. If Glenn was still alive, we all would be not biting each other's heads off, fussing at each other or complaining rather the band should still go on or not. We'll be talking about I'm going to see the guys at this city or that city. Its just breaks my heart with all these division going on on this board or getting fuss at because you want this. I try not to take this stuff too personal, but sometimes some people can be down right mean with what you say. I think I just going to stay quiet when it comes to these debates.

I wish I discover Glenn's before he died. I was starting to like his solo music and really appreciate him. Not that I didn't appreciate before. He was a wonderful great musician and singer. Glenn was one of a kind. I do agree that it is hard to full his shoes. Nobody can fill his shoes.

[buffyfan145]

I agree with the others and I would go too. I wouldn't miss seeing Don, Joe, and Timothy together especially since I never saw them with Glenn. I'm not sure if it would happen but if they did something I'd totally support it. I'm not sure if they would get someone or multiple people to do Glenn's songs or do like The Monkees have done and play recordings of Davy Jones for his songs on their tour (and Michael Nesmith has been performing at some shows with Mickey and Peter).

But if they do anything I agree mostly likely it would be a one time tribute show to honor Glenn. I don't think they would use the Eagles name either. Plus, I'm am happy I did get to finally see Don solo this past summer and hope to with Joe and Timothy solo regardless.

[Annoying Twit]

How many people on this board would actually go and see this 'band' without Mr Frey? How many people consider that his songs were so unimportant that they can just be ditched? How many people would actually consider it the real thing?


Eagles without Glenn Frey wouldn't be the same. The same as Pink Floyd weren't the same without Roger Waters, and Genesis weren't the same without Peter Gabriel.

But, I don't think it being 'the real thing' is a binary either/or situation. If they have three members, then that's more 'the real thing' than if they had two members, or if there was only one Eagle left (as has happened with 10CC.) Being 'the real thing' is a matter of shades of grey. There are still three members of the band left, including Don H who was one of the central two. Four if Bernie is added, etc. And, that only really matters if they call themselves Eagles. If they tour under a different name, then it's just a matter of a few musicians who know each other touring together, and there is no question of them being 'the real thing'.

You do say that you are depressed by this thread, but I think one reason that it continues is that you appear to be putting words into people's mouths that they don't agree with. E.g. 'How many people consider that his songs were so unimportant that they can just be ditched?' I don't think wanting to see a concert with Henley/Walsh/Schmit (however labelled) says that Glenn's songs are unimportant, or they can just be 'ditched'. It's just saying that what is left after Glenn is no longer here would still be worth seeing, if we get the opportunity to see them. They all have a lot of songs up their sleeves, and whether or not they sung the 'Glenn' songs (many of which were co-written with other members) or not, there is still plenty left to make an excellent show. This doesn't devalue, in my eyes, Glenn's songs. It just puts a value on the other guys' songs. In the same way that wanting to see Don H live doesn't devalue Glenn's songs.

I would personally like to see Glenn's songs sung again; I don't want to see them just die. And if they are going to be sung, is there anyone that much better to sing them than the other Eagles members?



As for the suggestion that they should consider doing an album it took them long enough to do LROOE. Why would Henley do an album to make more use of Walsh & Schmit? I got the distinct impression, with his stated opinion that it should have been a single album, that he wasn't happy with their contributions. They have their own careers for that.


Who knows what they will decide in the future. We know that Don H has worked with both Joe and Tim on his solo albums. E.g. Dirty Laundry. Things have been one way in the past, but perhaps Don H, who always calls in compositional and instrumental help on his solo albums may decide that he'd like to work with them again rather than other contributors such as Stan Lynch or Danny Kortchmar. I'm not saying it's likely, in fact I think it more likely that Don H will just record with non-Eagle collaborators, but I don't think it can be dismissed out of hand. And dismissing it out of hand is how your post reads to me. There are many and complex reasons why people decide to do things or not decide to do things. And these reasons change over time. I don't think we understand the remaining Eagles members' motivations and personalities enough to preclude anything happening. Particularly since things can change over time.

They are all skilled musicians and songwriters. If they decided to do another album, they could write, record, and produce it in any way that they wanted to. Just because their last album took a long time and was (in Don H's view, not mine) overlong doesn't mean that a future one would have to be. If that's what they decide (which I don't think they will.)



I apologise for going over the top with the 'I can't express myself' stuff but I am finding this thread more & more depressing & distressing the further it goes. I hope that makes sense. I am NOT trying to tell the former Eagles what to do. But I personally don't WANT them to continue as if nothing happened. They haven't had a lineup change. Their founder died.

Continuing and acting as if something (rather than nothing) happened are not mutually exclusive. Provided that the members want to continue (and I think they don't) then I think the only reason they shouldn't is if there isn't enough talent left in the band to continue. Which I think isn't the case here. They could still write and record an excellent album if they wanted to. And even if they were spent but decided that they still enjoyed music and still wanted to create and wanted to label it Eagles e.g. so that more people would want to listen to it, why should they not do so? We can see that many Eagles fans would be outraged, as many Pink Floyd fans were outraged by a Waters-less PF, and many Genesis fans were outraged by Genesis without Gabriel, but do fans really have the right to limit or otherwise influence what the actual artists do?

[MaryCalifornia]

What would they want to prove anyway?

And here we again have the type of disrespect I called out in FPs post.

It's OK to say you don't want to see any future iteration of Don, Tim and Joe.

It's OK to ask who would want to see them tour.

I don't think anyone on here has any problem with any of this.

The reason I continue to step in and why this topic won't die is because it is not OK to question the guys' motivation if they wish to continue to perform. It's disrespectful and it is not your place. Why does anyone do anything? Maybe their motivation would be financial, maybe creative, maybe social - doesn't matter. These types of statements go one step too far. It goes from mourning the loss of Glenn to actively disrespecting the surviving members, for no good reason.

[L101]

How many people on this board would actually go and see this 'band' without Mr Frey? How many people consider that his songs were so unimportant that they can just be ditched? How many people would actually consider it the real thing?



I'm 100% with FP on this one. Glenn :heart: was the cornerstone of the Eagles. Without him they are no more IMHO. I do not think they can just rebrand like that and replace him, even with Deacon. What would they want to prove anyway?

I agree with MaryCalifornia with her comments on these two posts!

Yes, it is heartbreakingly sad that Glenn is no longer here, but there are a lot of people who are fans of Don, Joe and Timothy as well and would go to see them if they continued on.
As for the comment that Glenn's songs are considered to be "so unimportant that they can just be ditched" - that is wrong on so many levels and is such an insult to the fans of this group!! It is possible to be a fan of the music as well as the people who write/sing the songs.

The amount of disrespect shown towards anyone who is not a 100% Glenn fan is maddening - we are all entitled to post our thoughts on this, whether everyone agrees with them or not.
All this debating is probably in vain, as Don, Joe and Timothy might decide not to continue with the band or they might decide to continue on in some form or other - that alone is their decision and all we can do is speculate and wonder about it here.

I know this bit is slightly off topic and a bit ironic, but I understand how Felder fans feel when certain posts are made about him .....

[shunlvswx]

I wanted to add to my post. Yes I have my individual favorite, but when the guys are together as a group, I love them as equals. Even though I'm a Don fan, some of my favorite Eagle songs are sung by Glenn. I even have a least favorite Eagles song sung by Don. I don't always like all the songs Don sing. I do agree with others that Glenn is very hard to replace. He's irreplaceable IMO just like Don is too if Don left this world.

Like I said earlier, I really hate the division that's going on at right now. It sad that the death of Glenn is dividing us. Like L101 said, you can be a fan of the music as well as the people who writes or sings the songs.

L101. That's how I'm feeling too and it kinda hurts to tell the truth. Its hard to respect everybody's feelings when you don't get the respect back sometimes. Its just my honest opinion and only my opinion before I chewed out.

[Freypower]

I don't understand this 'disrespect' business & that I am apparently supposed to support everything Henley, Walsh & Schmit do without question. I never had the slightest intention of being 'disrepectful' to any of them. If people have this impression, then I apologise. I have already said where I think the 'disrespect' is.

If the fans of Henley, Walsh & Schmit would be happy for something like this to occur & would go & see it, that is fine by me. But please don't expect Frey fans to just shrug their shoulders & say 'yeah, OK'.

How is my statement about Glenn's songs perhaps being ditched in any continuation not about the songs? Those songs were & are great. It would be tragic to see a show with these guys & none of those songs played. So it IS about the songs, not just about Glenn.

Shun, I have said not a word in this thread about Henley. I agree with what others have said that his comments were twisted out of proportion.

Oh, and to put it mildly, I wish Glenn had not died too. But not because it has 'divided the fanbase'. I can only assume you didn't mean that statement to come out quite the way it did.

I'n not going to address any of AT's arguments. He puts them well. Everyone puts their arguments well.

I will leave you to it. But I have one last comment which was written by Mr Frey himself.

Sometimes you can't go back again.

[sodascouts]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see anyone attacking Don Henley in this thread. I think everyone is pretty much in agreement that his words were taken out of context and misrepresented.

[travlnman2]

I concur. I think what he means is like a one off sort of thing.

I would like to see Henley,Joe,Timothy and Bernie do some sort of Rossington Collins Band type of thing.

[sodascouts]

As I said earlier, I wouldn't mind a one-off. I just wouldn't like Don, Joe, and Tim making music / touring together under the moniker "Eagles." However, to be clear, I also believe:
- They can do whatever they want.
- It doesn't make them bad people if they do it.
- Fans who would go see them in such a configuration are not wrong to do so.
But... I wouldn't like it. It's possible to understand all of the above and still not like the idea.

Here's the thing: the idea of an Eagles without Glenn hurts my heart. I wouldn't be able to enjoy it. It would feel wrong to me. Please don't interpret my negative emotional response to the idea as a lack of respect for Don Henley.

I suspect that Don himself would understand my feelings. I suspect that Don might even share them.

[WalshFan88]

As I said earlier, I wouldn't mind a one-off. I just wouldn't like Don, Joe, and Tim making music / touring together under the moniker "Eagles." However, to be clear:
- Of course they can do what they want.
- It doesn't make them bad people if they do it.
- Fans who would go see them in such a configuration are not wrong to do so.
But... I wouldn't like it. It's possible to understand all of the above and still not like the idea.

Here's the thing: the idea of an Eagles without Glenn hurts my heart. I wouldn't be able to enjoy it. Please don't interpret my negative emotional response to the idea as a lack of respect for Don Henley.

I suspect that Don himself would understand my feelings. I suspect that Don might even share them.

My feelings exactly, Soda. A one off I would encourage, anything else and I'm not interested as long as they are under that name. To forego GF's songs or have someone singing them in his place (other than a one off tribute), wouldn't work for me.

But I must say, it isn't so much a morals thing to me.

[Witchy Woman]

I have no interest in seeing them together under The Eagles moniker without Glenn. I have no problem with those who would go see them. I just don't like the idea, and I don't think they do, either. Maybe somewhere down the line we may see Joe or Tim join Don on one of his solo tour dates, or maybe a get together for a charitable organization. I have no doubt we will see them collaborating in one way or another, but not on tour as The Eagles.

[Annoying Twit]

I don't understand this 'disrespect' business & that I am apparently supposed to support everything Henley, Walsh & Schmit do without question. I never had the slightest intention of being 'disrepectful' to any of them. If people have this impression, then I apologise. I have already said where I think the 'disrespect' is.


It would help if you responded to people's thoughts and discussions as they are. Nobody, that I have seen, has suggested anything resembling expecting others to support everything Henley, Walsh, and Schmit do without question. The discussions that I've seen don't resemble this characterisation at all.


Sometimes you can't go back again.

Nobody, that I have noticed, is suggesting that we can 'go back again'. Even in the most extreme case that the remaining Eagles work again under the banner 'Eagles', it will be a very different band from what it was before. That won't be going back, it'll be moving to a different place. I'm not saying this because I believe that Eagles will play again, or should. At this point, I'm just trying to clarify what people such as myself are saying, because it seems to come back at us in a highly exaggerated form.

If we're to discuss the topic, we need to understand what each of us are saying. At present this isn't happening.

[StephUK]

Thanks for clarifying, but as a fan of Frey since 1979 & as a fan of the Eagles since 1976 I do believe I have a right to object to any combination of the suriviving members calling themselves 'Eagles'. The heart of the band is gone. Regardless of the others' talents, in my opinion anything else would be a shell of what the band used to be. I suppose my use of the word 'wrong' implied that I was indeed sitting in judgment. I'm not. If they do this let them. But I don't have to approve of it.

Glenn was the frontman, sang half the songs & was the bandleader. He also was a major part of the harmonies they were so well known for. Take that away & you have what Henley once called 'his backing band'. You want to go & see Henley, Walsh, Schmit & Smith & Crago with that huge gap in the middle? Fine. If you think that's 'Eagles' your definition is more flexible than mine.

I agree with you Freypower, and I also have been an Eagles fan since 1976.
I hope that Don, Joe & Timothy will continue playing solo shows, as they always have. Personally I'd rather hear Don sing an Eagle's song during his solo show (with Stewart, Scott, Will & Michael in his backing band!) than see Don, Joe & Timothy touring as the Eagles.

NB. This is my opinion. If you disagree with me, that's okay; discuss if you wish, but don't verbally attack me for having an opinion you don't share.

[WKMB55]

It is not possible to "go back". I do believe that a great deal of the healing process for Don, Joe and Timothy, Glenn's family and friends, and the fans is not to "stand still" but to move forward. I don't believe that anyone is suggesting that we forget about Glenn Frey. I think that we all respect Glenn's many contributions to music and the Eagles and at the same time we can still appreciate any individual concerts or collaborations of the remaining band members. Everyone has to choose what works best for them.

[Freypower]

It would help if you responded to people's thoughts and discussions as they are. Nobody, that I have seen, has suggested anything resembling expecting others to support everything Henley, Walsh, and Schmit do without question. The discussions that I've seen don't resemble this characterisation at all.



Nobody, that I have noticed, is suggesting that we can 'go back again'. Even in the most extreme case that the remaining Eagles work again under the banner 'Eagles', it will be a very different band from what it was before. That won't be going back, it'll be moving to a different place. I'm not saying this because I believe that Eagles will play again, or should. At this point, I'm just trying to clarify what people such as myself are saying, because it seems to come back at us in a highly exaggerated form.

If we're to discuss the topic, we need to understand what each of us are saying. At present this isn't happening.

MaryCalifornia:

The reason I continue to step in and why this topic won't die is because it is not OK to question the guys' motivation if they wish to continue to perform. It's disrespectful and it is not your place. Why does anyone do anything? Maybe their motivation would be financial, maybe creative, maybe social - doesn't matter. These types of statements go one step too far. It goes from mourning the loss of Glenn to actively disrespecting the surviving members, for no good reason.

L101:

The amount of disrespect shown towards anyone who is not a 100% Glenn fan is maddening - we are all entitled to post our thoughts on this, whether everyone agrees with them or not.

I interpreted MC's statement to mean that no matter what H, W & S decide, the fans MUST support it. Saying 'it is not OK to question their motivation' what is that if not a direction to stop questioning it, even though that is not what I did. All I did was disapprove of them attempting to continue under the name Eagles. (NB: I said it would be 'pointless' & that I was 'totally against it'. I never used the word 'wrong'). For this I am accused of 'disrespect' towards the other members when I have stated clearly that this was never my intention. I said over & over again that they could do what they liked but I didn't have to approve of it. But apparently not even that is now allowed. As for 'we are all entitled to post our thoughts' I appear to be completely at odds with the majority.

As for your own comments about them 'moving to a different place' I won't address them just as I didn't wish to address your previous post about a possible album (which I had of course 'dismissed out of hand'). Whatever reasons or explanations I have had are just being brushed aside. You didn't even attempt to look at it from my viewpoint, which at least MC did. I'm not prepared to have everything I post be picked apart & told how wrong it is now. If people thought I did that to them, fair enough. I didn't mean to. But there is a limit.

Now I am being told that I have exaggerated everything others have said. This is in addition to my 'moral judgments' of course. If that is all that is going to be said to me then I see no point in posting further. It works both ways. You haven't understood anything I have said either. I conceded defeat yeaterday. Can you now just leave it. Or rather, as I tried to say yesterday, continue the discussion, and I will stay out of it.

[Glennsallnighter]

I agree with you Freypower, and I also have been an Eagles fan since 1976.
I hope that Don, Joe & Timothy will continue playing solo shows, as they always have. Personally I'd rather hear Don sing an Eagle's song during his solo show (with Stewart, Scott, Will & Michael in his backing band!) than see Don, Joe & Timothy touring as the Eagles.

NB. This is my opinion. If you disagree with me, that's okay; discuss if you wish, but don't verbally attack me for having an opinion you don't share.

That is my opinion too Steph. I don't think I could go to a show done by the other guys but without Glenn :heart: unless it was a one off tribute. I think it would be too hard to do for them too

[MaryCalifornia]

Well, now we have an actual instance, not a "what if" -

On Ticketmaster, Timothy's new solo shows are listed as "TIMOTHY B. SCHMIT of the Eagles" - like, that's the official name.

I don't know what to think. Personally, I don't think its necessary, he has a group of fans who know who he is and I'd like to see him stand on his own. Sort of sounds like something Felder would use! Maybe it's just how the venue decides to promote it, it's not Timothy's own styling.

And they spelled his last name wrong on two of the postings.

[Glennhoney]

The only thing I would be interested in would be a "tribute" concert for Glenn...sort of like "Concert for George"...other than that, I would probably see Don solo but that would be it...just my opinion..

[UndertheWire]

Clarification from Don:


Henley said that while there will be plenty of Eagles songs in his solo tour of arenas and wineries when it comes to Australia in March, he was adamant that without Frey there is no future for the band. He also hosed down speculation that Frey’s son, Deacon, could potentially replace his father in the Eagles line-up.


“I’m sorry I brought that up,” he said. “The press took it, made a whole big deal of it, but there is nothing like that in the works. I haven’t spoken to his son about that. His son is quite talented — but he is only 22 years old so there are no plans in that regard.”

http://www.couriermail.com.au/entertainment/music/don-henley-says-the-eagles-are-done-as-he-pays-tribute-to-glenn-frey-on-an-australian-solo-tour/news-story/d95c2a1f019e5353f7c3041b92c5f604

[Brooke]

Finally, what most of us thought! The press blew it all out of context!

This part makes me wonder when this ever happened!

“We do all hits of course, but we also do some deep album cuts and some unexpected things, songs we haven’t done since maybe the late ‘70s. This band is capable of pivoting on the spur of the moment and I can call out surprises — we don’t do the same thing every night."

[shunlvswx]

The Last Resort, Wasted Time and Best Of My Love was a surprise. Even though he had The Last Resort in his setlist since his European tour, WT and BOML was thrown in almost at the end of the tour. I'm glad he's changing his setlist around. He did drop All She Wants To Do Is Dance at a few shows and I'm surprised he did that.

I wonder what songs he will put into the show. Is he going to do a Glenn song even though he said he wasn't? Before I get jumped on. Disclaimer. I'm not saying he's going to do that. I've listened to a concert where he did sang Already Gone and Lyin' Eyes(heck the whole show was very different and I think that's my favorite Don solo bootleg), but I know he's probably not going to touch any of Glenn's song which I understand. Its different now then it was when he did it 23 years ago. Joe and Timothy will probably do that or are doing that with Take It To The Limit and Peaceful Easy Feeling.

I wonder what other Eagles songs that hasn't been played in concert(his solo show and/or Eagles show) that hasn't been played since the 70s. I really can't think of any.

Unless its songs the Eagles never played with the backup musicians who've been with them since 2001(except Scott since he's been with them since 1994), I think some Eagles songs won't be a problem for them to play at the spur of the moment especially if they played it on the HOTE tour or other tours. They probably will have to change the arrangements around now that its only Don and them singing them.

[Delilah]

I wonder what songs he will put into the show. Is he going to do a Glenn song even though he said he wasn't? Before I get jumped on. Disclaimer. I'm not saying he's going to do that. I've listened to a concert where he did sang Already Gone and Lyin' Eyes(heck the whole show was very different and I think that's my favorite Don solo bootleg), but I know he's probably not going to touch any of Glenn's song. Joe and Timothy will probably do that or are doing that with Take It To The Limit and Peaceful Easy Feeling.

I wonder what other Eagles songs that hasn't been played in concert(his solo show and/or Eagles show) that hasn't been played since the 70s. I really can't think of any.


Get out! He sang Already Gone and Lyin Eyes? I never knew that. Was this in the 80s? I know some songs that haven't been performed by the band since the 70s are Tryin, Certain Kind of Fool, Too Many Hands, Earlybird, Twenty-One, Get Up Kate and Journey of the Sorcerer.
Disclaimer: I am not saying Don should or will be or could be considering performing these songs. I'm just trying to answer Shun's question. Though it would be fun to see Don and his band break into JOS.:grin:

Edit: oops, I forgot about Nightingale, that's another one.

[shunlvswx]

Get out! He sang Already Gone and Lyin Eyes? I never knew that. Was this in the 80s? I know some songs that haven't been performed by the band since the 70s are Tryin, Certain Kind of Fool, Too Many Hands, Earlybird, Twenty-One, Get Up Kate and Journey of the Sorcerer.
Disclaimer: I am not saying Don should or will be or could be considering performing these songs. I'm just trying to answer Shun's question. Though it would be fun to see Don and his band break into JOS.:grin:

Edit: oops, I forgot about Nightingale, that's another one.

Oops. I'm sorry. I just looked at the setlist of the concert I was talking about. He didn't sing Lyin' Eyes, but he did sing Already Gone. I thought I heard audio for Lyin' Eyes, but it was Already Gone I heard audio to. It was in 1993 at Jones Beach Theater. He played a lot of rare Eagles songs he doesn't play in concert: Best Of My Love, The Last Resort, and The Sad Cafe. Well rare back then since Don added BOML and TLR in his setlist this past tour.

He might put The Sad Cafe in his setlist. When was the last time that was played at an Eagles concert.

ETA: I just looked it up again and Don did sing Lyin' Eyes at one of his concerts in 1993. It was a show in Illinois and WI(probably more cities because some setlist were not online. He sang Already Gone at a few shows, but only Lyin' Eyes once. So I was right. I did hear an audio of Don singing Lyin' Eyes.

[SilverAcidRayne]

well of course the press takes his words and twists them around and makes it a big deal. they have been doing that a lot lately. ugh

[Freypower]

Finally, what most of us thought! The press blew it all out of context!

This part makes me wonder when this ever happened!

“We do all hits of course, but we also do some deep album cuts and some unexpected things, songs we haven’t done since maybe the late ‘70s. This band is capable of pivoting on the spur of the moment and I can call out surprises — we don’t do the same thing every night."

I feel I should point out that this is identical to an interview he did before his European tour & people commented on this back then, too, saying 'when does he ever just decide to just do a song on the spur of the moment'.

[Brooke]

I know, Fp... just sayin'

[Glennsallnighter]

Well he certainly called out a surprise by singing 'The Last Resort' during his European tour. I'd always hoped I'd have gotten to see it live but never thought it would so I was delighted with that.
I never really thought Deacon taking his fathers place would be either suitable or viable for the band. Maybe for a specific tribute but not as a working member of the band. I'm glad Don has clarified that. I'd rather remember the Eagles as they were in all their spleandour - not as a band trying to redefine itself. TBH It wouldn't work.

[Jonny Come Lately]

I am glad that Don has clarified the situation about Deacon. I agree that I'd be happy for him to perform Glenn's songs in a one-off show or similar, but I personally don't think it would be right on an extended tour. I am glad that he is performing some of the less obvious Eagles songs in his show, although I think he's also made some surprising choices with his solo songs (Shangri-La has been played at quite a few shows IIRC, as has How Bad Do You Want It, whereas a big hit like ASWTDID hasn't been a permanent fixture). With regards to the press, I can only quote Don's own lyrics from Frail Grasp On The Big Picture - 'That ain't what's going on - journalism dead and gone...'


Get out! He sang Already Gone and Lyin Eyes? I never knew that. Was this in the 80s? I know some songs that haven't been performed by the band since the 70s are Tryin, Certain Kind of Fool, Too Many Hands, Earlybird, Twenty-One, Get Up Kate and Journey of the Sorcerer.
Disclaimer: I am not saying Don should or will be or could be considering performing these songs. I'm just trying to answer Shun's question. Though it would be fun to see Don and his band break into JOS.:grin:

Edit: oops, I forgot about Nightingale, that's another one.

To my knowledge there's at least two threads on songs the Eagles never played live - this one has what I think is a definitive list of these:

https://eaglesonlinecentral.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3243

If we are considering ones that they haven't played live since the 1971-80 era, then this includes every other Randy vocal bar Take It To The Limit and every other Bernie song except Train Leaves Here This Morning. There's probably quite a few more - off the top of my head and without checking setlists.com or anything like that, apart from Bernie/Randy vocals and the ones you've already mentioned, I think the following probably have not been played:

- Chug All Night
- Out Of Control
- Outlaw Man
- You Never Cry Like A Lover
- Good Day In Hell
- After The Thrill Is Gone (IIRC this was only played at the Cranston benefit shows)
- King Of Hollywood
- The Greeks Don't Want No Freaks

Several of those are Glenn vocals, but maybe one night he'll decide that the time has come to perform Greeks again! :laugh:

[sodascouts]

Clarification from Don:


Henley said that while there will be plenty of Eagles songs in his solo tour of arenas and wineries when it comes to Australia in March, he was adamant that without Frey there is no future for the band. He also hosed down speculation that Frey’s son, Deacon, could potentially replace his father in the Eagles line-up.


“I’m sorry I brought that up,” he said. “The press took it, made a whole big deal of it, but there is nothing like that in the works. I haven’t spoken to his son about that. His son is quite talented — but he is only 22 years old so there are no plans in that regard.”

http://www.couriermail.com.au/entertainment/music/don-henley-says-the-eagles-are-done-as-he-pays-tribute-to-glenn-frey-on-an-australian-solo-tour/news-story/d95c2a1f019e5353f7c3041b92c5f604

Glad Don clarified that for those who were confused. Sadly, I doubt this will get even a fraction of the press that the misrepresented quote did.

[Freypower]

There is a similar situation at the moment with some of Phil Collins' words being twisted to mean that Genesis Are Reforming. :shrug:

[sodascouts]

I changed the title of this thread to reflect Henley's recent statement that there will NOT be a "new" version of the Eagles with Deacon.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/music/don-henley-says-the-eagles-are-done-it-was-always-glenn-freys-band/2016/11/28/ccd89a4a-aa6a-11e6-977a-1030f822fc35_story.html

[Annoying Twit]

I still hope that various Eagles members do decide to play together at some time. At least as guest artists at each other's concerts, or similar.

[Funk 50]

I changed the title of this thread to reflect Henley's recent statement that there will NOT be a "new" version of the Eagles with Deacon.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/music/don-henley-says-the-eagles-are-done-it-was-always-glenn-freys-band/2016/11/28/ccd89a4a-aa6a-11e6-977a-1030f822fc35_story.html

I detect a bit of relish there sodascouts :twisted:, I never really took the Deacon idea seriously.
It looks like Jackson Browne


“This is a great band even if it went on without Glenn,”....."I see how the band could go forward without Glenn.” and Irving Azoff
“I think Henley was the guy that came up with the words ‘when hell freezes over,’” he says and pauses. “If hell can freeze over, pigs can fly. I’d never say never.” will attempt to convince Don and company that the Eagles do have a future. I think one of Don's great qualities is that he's con-vincible. :p

[Brooke]

Yeah, even though Don stated at the beginning of the article that they would NOT go out since it was Glenn's band, JB and Irving leave room for possibility...

I just wish they wouldn't do that.

[GlennLover]

I agree, Brooke. I had hoped that Irving would have enough respect for Glenn to accept that the end of the Eagles has come with Glenn's passing. I guess he is still out for the almighty dollar.

I was surprised at Jackson's remarks that the band could continue without Glenn.

[thelastresort]

I do wonder what Joe and TBS's thoughts on the matter are. I think a big question, which sadly can't be definitively answered now, is what would Glenn want the other three (and Irving et al) to do? It's obvious that he cared for the band as an entity so deeply and with his son at the helm would he have been happy to pass on the role so to speak? Obviously there's also the psychology of the others to consider but I do think it's quite an important aspect of proceedings.

[Freypower]

Yeah, even though Don stated at the beginning of the article that they would NOT go out since it was Glenn's band, JB and Irving leave room for possibility...

I just wish they wouldn't do that.

I agree.

And yet still we have people on this thread attempting to believe otherwise.

[Funk 50]

I do wonder what Joe and TBS's thoughts on the matter are. I think a big question, which sadly can't be definitively answered now, is what would Glenn want the other three (and Irving et al) to do? It's obvious that he cared for the band as an entity so deeply and with his son at the helm would he have been happy to pass on the role so to speak? Obviously there's also the psychology of the others to consider but I do think it's quite an important aspect of proceedings.

I think the article offers some evidence of what Glenn wanted;

https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/music/don-henley-says-the-eagles-are-done-it-was-always-glenn-freys-band/2016/11/28/ccd89a4a-aa6a-11e6-977a-1030f822fc35_story.html


“He gave me a big, huge thanks for participating,” remembers Leadon. “Then he said, ‘It’s been really awesome to have you back out there. This is not the end.’ ”

I think Joe and Tim will go along with whatever Don says but, without Glenn, I'd guess that Don would consult the others, rather than make decisions alone. One of his comments about the production of Long Road Out Of Eden was the band didn't communicate as much as they did when they made their previous albums. I'm pretty sure that Don didn't consult Joe when he brought Steuart Smith into the Eagles.

Henley always affirms that Eagles is Glenn's band but since HFO I believe it's Irving's band. He, not Glenn, got them back together again.

If Irving has a plan for the Eagles in the future, I think he'll be able to talk the band members into doing it. Without Irving, I'd expect the band to be over but I can't predict the future.

The worst, s*** hits the fan, case scenario would be, the band ends and Felder adopts the vacant name. I'm sure Henley would want to avoid that.

Lastly, I have no doubts about the respect everybody has for Glenn. I don't need it to be constantly on display. I understand that some Frey fans would be unable to see anything beyond the absence of Glenn, if the rest of the band got back together but I'd want them to ignore the past with Glenn and attempt to put on the best show they possibly can for the people who are paying out the money in the present. They're in the entertainment business where the motto has always been "The Show Must Go On".

[Annoying Twit]

I do wonder what Joe and TBS's thoughts on the matter are. I think a big question, which sadly can't be definitively answered now, is what would Glenn want the other three (and Irving et al) to do? It's obvious that he cared for the band as an entity so deeply and with his son at the helm would he have been happy to pass on the role so to speak? Obviously there's also the psychology of the others to consider but I do think it's quite an important aspect of proceedings.

I suspect that Don knows that Glenn would have thought much better than any of us do. Referring to another post, Glenn's "This is not the end" to Bernie is no longer relevant due to Glenn's passing.



And yet still we have people on this thread attempting to believe otherwise.

Which posts? I've had a look at last few pages and I can't see anyone suggesting that they'd play again as Eagles.

In case there's been a misunderstanding and you meant my post, I wasn't suggesting playing as Eagles. I meant something like Joe appearing to do a song at a Tim concert, or Tim doing some backing vocals on a Don album. That sort of thing. I can't see any reason why that wouldn't, or shouldn't, happen.



I think Joe and Tim will go along with whatever Don says but, without Glenn, I'd guess that Don would consult the others, rather than make decisions alone.

I think the decision is Don's alone, and his clarification makes things amply clear.

[UndertheWire]

Same old arguments. What's clear is that Azoff will continue to look for ways to put together a package that will appeal to Henley and he's known Henley for more than 40 years. The obvious compromise is a series of benefit concerts with special guests and described as a tribute to Glenn.

[Annoying Twit]

Same old arguments. What's clear is that Azoff will continue to look for ways to put together a package that will appeal to Henley and he's known Henley for more than 40 years. The obvious compromise is a series of benefit concerts with special guests and described as a tribute to Glenn.

Why should Don H compromise? I don't think he has any need to. And I don't think anyone has any real leverage to make him do something he doesn't want to do.

[Brooke]

This is a dead horse and I wish everyone would let it ly.

Don said it, the band is done without Glenn. Why can't we respect that?

[Freypower]

Which posts? I've had a look at last few pages and I can't see anyone suggesting that they'd play again as Eagles.

In case there's been a misunderstanding and you meant my post, I wasn't suggesting playing as Eagles. I meant something like Joe appearing to do a song at a Tim concert, or Tim doing some backing vocals on a Don album. That sort of thing. I can't see any reason why that wouldn't, or shouldn't, happen.

I think the decision is Don's alone, and his clarification makes things amply clear.

Not yours. Funk 50's & his latest effort above yours, not to mention his incredibly insensitve post early in the thread. I agree with what you say here.

[Freypower]

I think the article offers some evidence of what Glenn wanted;

I think Joe and Tim will go along with whatever Don says but, without Glenn, I'd guess that Don would consult the others, rather than make decisions alone. One of his comments about the production of Long Road Out Of Eden was the band didn't communicate as much as they did when they made their previous albums. I'm pretty sure that Don didn't consult Joe when he brought Steuart Smith into the Eagles.

Henley always affirms that Eagles is Glenn's band but since HFO I believe it's Irving's band. He, not Glenn, got them back together again.

If Irving has a plan for the Eagles in the future, I think he'll be able to talk the band members into doing it. Without Irving, I'd expect the band to be over but I can't predict the future.

The worst, s*** hits the fan, case scenario would be, the band ends and Felder adopts the vacant name. I'm sure Henley would want to avoid that.

Lastly, I have no doubts about the respect everybody has for Glenn. I don't need it to be constantly on display. I understand that some Frey fans would be unable to see anything beyond the absence of Glenn, if the rest of the band got back together but I'd want them to ignore the past with Glenn and attempt to put on the best show they possibly can for the people who are paying out the money in the present. They're in the entertainment business where the motto has always been "The Show Must Go On".

Where to start? I mean, I don't know why I bother responding to this stuff, but I don't believe it should be ignored.

Irving's band? He could not have done anything about reforming them if Glenn had not agreed. He cannot do anything now if Henley does not agree. He's not in the band. He's management. He can't force people to do something they don't want to do.

The band has ended & I am sure that Felder would be sued from here to eternity if he ever tried such a thing.

Ignore the past with Glenn? Yeah, sure. Sure. Why can't you see how you hurt people when you write stuff like this, while prefacing it with 'some Frey fans' etc. It is like you were saying that Frey fans have forfeited any right to have any opinions on this issue.

As for 'I don't need the respect for Glenn to be constantly on display'.... well no, I guess you don't, and I will pass over the implication behind your words & confine myself to saying speak for yourself. You do not speak for me.

The show must go on? Why?

Oh, and by the way, you don't know what Glenn wanted & neither do I. As stated above, when he said 'this isn't the end' or whatever, he was still alive. You know, as John Cleese said, the bleeding obvious.

[WalshFan88]

Same old arguments. What's clear is that Azoff will continue to look for ways to put together a package that will appeal to Henley and he's known Henley for more than 40 years. The obvious compromise is a series of benefit concerts with special guests and described as a tribute to Glenn.

Azoff is NOT in it for the fans and the music, Azoff is in it for the MONEY....I totally agree with what you said UtW. Anything for him to make a buck while under the guise of "helping others". He tried for YEARS to get the guys back together, until it happened it '94. He doesn't care what they think, only to better himself. I'm not a fan of the guy. I think he's like most LA managers - corrupted.

[WalshFan88]

I'm glad DH cleared the air about this. I'm very much in support of his decision, I hope Azoff and the other big wigs respect it rather than try to line their pockets.

[Eagles7]

Felder adopt the name of the band...for real.. did someone actually suggest than
T and another person say that he would be sued if he did it. That whole scenario is ludicrous...just another example of people trying to throw a jab Felder's way.

Don H said it ain't happening. I'm taking from that that the Eagles (past/present) will all continue to perform as solo artists because they love music and performing it. Don H, Joe and Don F. all have toured a lot this year and have plans for 2017. I think Timothy has done some shows to promote his recent release too. Joe has a book in the works, Felder has another album in the works, so everyone is still performing and we can hear Eagles songs at anyone of those individual's shows. I don't know if Randy or Bernie will or would be back performing.

The age difference between Deacon and The Eagles is too vast to imagine that they would be working together, other than just a charity event or a tribute show. I don't even know if Deacon is a professional musician or if he has plenty of his own plans for life.

The Eagles records, CDs, DVDs will continue to sell and their music will still dominate the Classic Rock stations. We'll always have them, but just in a different way.

[chaim]

Whatever Jackson Browne thinks about this issue is totally irrelevant IMO.

[GlennLover]

Whatever Jackson Browne thinks about this issue is totally irrelevant IMO.

That's true, Chaim.

[Brooke]

Agree!

[Freypower]

Felder adopt the name of the band...for real.. did someone actually suggest than
T and another person say that he would be sued if he did it. That whole scenario is ludicrous...just another example of people trying to throw a jab Felder's way.

Don H said it ain't happening. I'm taking from that that the Eagles (past/present) will all continue to perform as solo artists because they love music and performing it. Don H, Joe and Don F. all have toured a lot this year and have plans for 2017. I think Timothy has done some shows to promote his recent release too. Joe has a book in the works, Felder has another album in the works, so everyone is still performing and we can hear Eagles songs at anyone of those individual's shows. I don't know if Randy or Bernie will or would be back performing.

The age difference between Deacon and The Eagles is too vast to imagine that they would be working together, other than just a charity event or a tribute show. I don't even know if Deacon is a professional musician or if he has plenty of his own plans for life.

The Eagles records, CDs, DVDs will continue to sell and their music will still dominate the Classic Rock stations. We'll always have them, but just in a different way.

Funk 50 said Henley would want to continue the 'vacant' name to prevent Felder taking it over. 'Another person' (that's me) said if Felder tried that I thought he would be sued. I don't know who owns the name, but I doubt it is Felder. This is not a 'jab' at Felder at least by me. I agree that the scenario is ludicrous.

[Funk 50]

I suspect part of the legal settlement was that Felder couldn't use the Eagles name but if the Eagles are no more, who would be responsible for challenging Felder?

This really is tenuous speculation but who is going to spend time, money and energy fighting over something that has no future. Didn't Roger Waters lose Pink Floyd to David Gilmore in such a case. Felder is currently the, go to, ex Eagle if you want to hear Eagles tunes live in concert.

I'm pretty sure that adding the word "Eagles" to your billing could add a few zeros to the size of your paycheck. I know very little about retiring band names but I'm guessing that it's not as straight forward as protagonists would like it to be.

[Freypower]

Sigh.... when Waters left Pink Floyd Gilmour, Wright & Mason were still in the band. If there was a dispute over the name I'm not aware of the details. However.... for one person who was fired from the Eagles 16 years ago to think he could possibly bill himself as 'Eagles' or anything similar when he would be the only ex-member taking part, is ridiculous. He is already routinely referred to as 'former Eagle'. He doesn't need to include the band name in his billing.

Who would challenge him? Henley & Azoff and perhaps Frey's estate. Logical, surely. You ask why they would fight it? Why would they NOT?

Oh, and you seem to have conveniently forgotten that you can hear Eagles songs if you see Henley in concert.

[Brooke]

Completely agree, Fp. I'm sure Don and Irving would take care of that.

And yes, Felder would not be who I would go see to hear Eagles songs. He sang one during his career with them! Don Henley would certainly fill that bill!

Good grief! :-x

[chaim]

My thoughts about Felder's "sense of himself" are well known in this forum, but even I don't see even a remotest possibility that he would ever even consider entertaining the idea of possibly calling his act "Eagles". As for Pink Floyd, Wright wasn't in the band at that point, but Gilmour and Mason certainly were so there's nothing to compare.

[Jonny Come Lately]

My thoughts about Felder's "sense of himself" are well known in this forum, but even I don't see even a remotest possibility that he would ever even consider entertaining the idea of possibly calling his act "Eagles". As for Pink Floyd, Wright wasn't in the band at that point, but Gilmour and Mason certainly were so there's nothing to compare.

Totally agree with this. With regard to Pink Floyd, I fortunately happen to have Mark Blake's Pink Floyd book Pigs Might Fly to hand so I had a check of the mid-1980s section. I found this passage especially interesting:


As just one shareholder of the company Pink Floyd Music, Waters needed Gilmour and Mason's agreement to dismiss [the band's long serving manager, Steve] O'Rourke. They refused, as in their eyes, Pink Floyd was still a going concern, and they wished to retain Steve as their manager. They also believed that dismissing him would strengthen Water's position in dissolving the group (they later turned down Roger's proposal to fire O'Rourke in exchange for him allowing them to continue using the Pink Floyd name).

From this, you can see that Pink Floyd had a company that was their own equivalent of Eagles Ltd, Pink Floyd Music Ltd, which was founded in the early 1970s. Don Felder is in exactly the same position as Rick Wright was at this point in time - a former member who had been fired from the band, and therefore had no say in the name dispute. Rick Wright would have been powerless to stop Waters dissolving Pink Floyd if he'd objected, rather than Gilmour and Mason. It's not as simple a case as just adopting a name, especially not for such a big band. The same would be true in the unlikely scenario of Bernie or Randy using the Eagles name. Also, there is a difference between dissolving a band and simply not being active - there was a very good reason why the final Waters Floyd album was called 'The Final Cut'. By contrast, while it's quite possible the Eagles have played together for the last time, there doesn't seem to be any hurry to actually disband.

[UndertheWire]

Also, there is a difference between dissolving a band and simply not being active - there was a very good reason why the final Waters Floyd album was called 'The Final Cut'. By contrast, while it's quite possible the Eagles have played together for the last time, there doesn't seem to be any hurry to actually disband.
Agreed. I think it's likely that "Eagles" will continue as a brand, even if no-one plays under that name. We know there are plans for a musical and I expect Azoff will continue to look for ways to exploit the name and back catalogue (and Henley will probably resist).

From various books, interviews etc, I believe that the name became the property of Eagles Ltd in the 70s to remove the risk of ex-members touring under the name as had happened with The Byrds. When Bernie and Randy left, they gave up their claim to the name, along with their shares leaving the name effectively owned equally by Frey, Henley and Felder. Of course, we don't know if there were changes as a result of the settlement of Felder's lawsuits or what happens to the shares in Eagles Ltd when a shareholder dies. It's possible that Felder has as much claim to the name as Henley.

However, even if Felder has a claim to the name, I don't see much advantage in him exercising it. There's little doubt that Azoff and Henley would object and that would be costly. Besides, the brand would probably earn more for him if left in Azoff's management.

[Funk 50]

Thanks for the insight UtW. I've just read Henley quoting James Brown "The music business is 25% music and 75% business". As much as I hate it, it looks like Eagles are now 95-100% business. Thanks to the internet, it looks like band names brands aren't as lucrative as they were when Pink Floyd went to court.

I'm hoping Joe will be a lot more prolific outside the Eagles and will get to focus on recording and playing music. I don't want him wasting his time with non-musical Eagles projects, Kennedy Center Honors excepted. 8)