Former Eagles

[The Thrill Is Never Gone]

The Eagles are not the Eagles without Bernie, Randy & Don F. Definitely my opinion.

[Brooke]

The Eagles are not the Eagles without Bernie, Randy & Don F. Definitely my opinion.

I nearly choked on my cappuccino on that!

That's a bit funny since they've been touring and selling out venues under the Eagles name since the 70's without Randy and Bernie and since what, 2001 without Felder! Who was it I saw in concert in St. Louis in October?

[MaryCalifornia]

Well, it's like saying the Rolling Stones aren't the Rolling Stones without Brian Jones and Mick Taylor, right? Even down to the similarity of Ronnie Wood and Joe Walsh joining their respective bands in '75 and have remained ever since. And even though the biggest hits came prior to two original members leaving. It's like someone not liking Mick and Keith, or wanting to see their show, or hear those great songs performed because Brian Jones and Mick Taylor aren't there. Strange.

[luna65]

I see this in fandom all the time - people refer to the version of Pink Floyd which existed from 1987-1995 as Faux Floyd because Roger Waters was no longer a member. Or the "No Jon, No Yes" movement which arose because Jon Anderson is no longer in the band. I have my own prejudice in that Chicago was never the same for me after Terry Kath died, but I could understand why they wanted to keep the band going.

[Freypower]

Some may also feel that way about AC/DC and Genesis.

I certainly do not feel it about the Eagles. I never did. I didn't really become an Eagles fan until Joe joined although I liked their songs prior to that.

[luna65]

I think for fans questions/debates of legitimacy are different than the actual considerations. If Axl Rose can get people to see a version of Guns n'Roses with only one original member, then I think it proves that the brand name has a power beyond the identities of any one single person (in most cases).

[Freypower]

I think for fans questions/debates of legitimacy are different than the actual considerations. If Axl Rose can get people to see a version of Guns n'Roses with only one original member, then I think it proves that the brand name has a power beyond the identities of any one single person (in most cases).

That is true if a band has only one dominant individual. However, there would be no band called the Eagles without BOTH Glenn Frey AND Don Henley. The Eagles require and always required both of these men. If only one of them tried to tour under the name 'the Eagles' it would not work even if Joe & Tim were with them. As Don said after the failed reunion attempt in 1991 if he had tried to do it without Glenn it would have been him & his backing band.

[luna65]

Yes, that's why I chose the phrase "in most cases" because every situation is different. It's certainly obvious to most people that neither Don nor Glenn could use the brand name on their own.

[UndertheWire]

If you want to get an idea of how messy it can all get, I suggest reading the recent ruling on a court case between Andy Powell and Martin Turner on the use of the name Wishbone Ash. That court hearing only lasted two days, possibly becaus there isn't a lot of money involved. It does show how complicated it can all get with people leaving and joining through the years.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/IPEC/2013/3242.html

[Springbo]

I nearly choked on my cappuccino on that!

That's a bit funny since they've been touring and selling out venues under the Eagles name since the 70's without Randy and Bernie and since what, 2001 without Felder! Who was it I saw in concert in St. Louis in October?

You saw Glenn Frey and Don Henley with Timmy Schmit, Joe Walsh and Steuart Smith. I agree with Thrill. Not sure how old you are, but I attended my first Eagles concert in 1972, and that's when I became a fan, which is why the Eagles will always be the original four to me.