Looks like The Band is on a full fledged tour next year! How do you feel about that?

[sodascouts]

It's circular discussion and part of the reason I've stayed off of the boards for a few months.

I would think it would turn people off, and yet it seems there are people who almost solely post in these kind of threads. Indeed, I see several who have been silent of late in positive threads coming out of the woodwork for this thread even as they bemoan the debate.

[Delilah]

You have not accepted that some of us don't see this as just another lineup change.

If the comments by the non-supporters were restricted to such as this, there wouldn’t be an issue. But I agree with TM2 that some of these posts have been condescending toward the supporters.

My advice to you TM2 is to ignore such comments. If they can’t get over it, it’s their problem, not yours. Don’t let these type of comments ruin your Eagles experience.

[travlnman2]

That's the 'EVERYONE KNOWS THAT' post, is it? It is contradicted by the later post.

I am done with this.

No its below that after my second one

[WalshFan88]

But don’t try and ruin the shows for me. Opinons are always welcome but don’t ruin things by saying you feel sorey for me because I am excited to see the Eagles.

Maybe don't put so much stock into internet opinions. If you were going to let someone who doesn't like it and says such "ruin it", and can't overlook it, then it's your problem and not ours. We haven't ruined anything. If you don't like our opinion fine, but we aren't ruining anything here, and you can choose to celebrate with those going in the appropriate thread. I don't feel either side should have to censor themselves but I think it's appropriate to make sure that if you are getting to where you feel someone is raining on your parade, to avoid those threads and stick to the ones that make you excited for your upcoming concert. Because I'm not against those going. But I'm not about to withhold my displeasure...just as I wouldn't ask you to withhold your excitement. Again, in the appropriate threads. When I say I feel sorry, it's not with malice. It's done because I wish those could have seen Glenn and the real Eagles that were lead by him and not just base the band off of what they are now for better or worse. Because with Glenn in the band, they were the best American rock and roll band of all time. Now, IMO, they are a caricature of that. They are trying to be on the same level but they are not.

If saying I feel sorry people didn't get to see Glenn in the band is so bad, then alert the presses because I'm guilty as charged. All I meant was I wish they had seen the band with Glenn so they could for better or worse compare it to the shows they are going to. That's all. It wasn't done maliciously or arrogantly. How you construe it is how you do it, but from my perspective there was nothing bad and I refuse to accept that it was done with a haughtiness or had an uppity meaning. It was done in the right mindset and from a place not of rudeness. I can't control whether you believe me or not, but I'm not the bad guy here.

Notice I didn't say I was sorry for your excitement. That is not what I said or meant.

[maryc2130]

The way I see it is the thread starter made a comment primarily on the number of shows, and people jumped right in with the same old negative comments. Perhaps my view is skewed, but I am sick to death of this whole discussion. Everyone knows some people are excited about it, and some people think it's not the Eagles and they shouldn't continue.

Can't we move on from this? I've given my views many times (as have most of the others posting on this thread.), and I'm certainly not going to bother giving them again. We're not convincing anyone, and we're not going to. We're just rehashing the same arguments, ad infinitum, IMHO.

[sodascouts]

It's true there's certainly nothing new to be said.

Travlnman2, I noticed you posted in the tour thread about going to a show. Despite your earlier false claim that in every show thread excitement was "Shut down," everyone congratulated you and wished you the best. That was back on Feb. 5, three weeks ago.

Then, a few days ago, this thread gets started. Now you want to claim that people are determined to ruin things for you? Well, they sure waited a while, then!

I can't help but notice how you only posted about your excitement once in the last three weeks (unless I'm missing something) despite the fact that no one was negative to you, but in the past few days, your complaints and angry posts in this thread have risen to the sky.

Maybe you'd feel more excitement if you focused on posting about that instead. Again, no one replied negatively to you in the "anticipation" thread.

I think maybe you should take a step back and be more positive in your own posting habits regarding the shows if you want to feel better about going to them.

[Ive always been a dreamer]

Regarding the discussion that has come up here regarding whether or not Glenn would have wanted the band to continue - this has also been discussed repeatedly, but was brought up again here, so although most everyone reading this thread has likely already read this as well, I am going to repeat what I wrote in another thread ...

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

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

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

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

I'll just add a few other comments here, Glenn remained pretty consistent about what he thought made the band legitmate, which was also discussed in the other thread. And lastly, to me, if the band had known or even believed that Glenn wanted them to continue, it makes absolutely no sense to me that they would have made all of the statements declaring the band was over up until early 2017.

[Ive always been a dreamer]

And let's be clear - EVERYONE who posts in this thread contributes to rehashing the same old arguments.

So let's not rehash this juvenile argument of who started it first and who's being the meanest. Both sides are equally responsible for the 10+ pages of discussion in this thread.

I'm sick of this too, but, as moderators, we would have been criticized no matter how we handled this. Even though the topic is beyond tired, most everyone has been respectful this time around. And we have tried to address the ones that were not. So, it serves no purpose to start pointing fingers other than to upset others.

[Dawn]

All things considered I now believe the band most likely would have continued whether Deacon Frey agreed to join them or not and that once he did agree that's when the addition of a second hire to ease the burden on Deacon's shoulders began in earnest.

Enter Vince Gill.

And the rest as they say is history.

52 play dates and still counting.

[MaryCalifornia]

OK, I'm bringing this back around to the original topic because the number of shows and how this tour is shaping up is a decent topic, whether you're intending to see them or not. They are coming to my hometown but I'm not planning on going.

As far as number of dates, it looks like it is right in line with previous tours at this point.

With regard to "Especially considering their ages" in the original post. I've seen recent photos of Timothy and Joe and I can say that they are incredibly fit, robust, vibrant men. No doubt that air travel, even private with plush lay-flat beds, will make you sick. But, if anybody knows what it takes to stay healthy and motivated during this type of tour, it is these guys. They have it down to a science, and I'll bet they have more energy and are more healthy than a lot of touring musicians in their 20s.

I also think that having Deacon and Vince Gill in such prominent roles will make the 3 guys have to pay more attention and be more of "band leaders", just to make sure everything is sounding right. Their sound checks will probably have more substantive corrections/fixes. They were probably happy to just get through the first few shows. Now, they'll drill down to make it sound better, they have more time.