Hairball, we've disagreed many times and probably will continue here.

For me personally, I judge all bands separately. There may be no reason I see one band as legitimate and another not, I fully admit that. KISS DID continue without key members, but it only got bad when they started dressing them up. I follow 80s and 90s KISS, but it only got bad when they started passing people off as Ace and Peter. It seems small, but when it was transparent it was one thing. When it became an act it was worse.

IMO Pink Floyd isn't Pink Floyd without all 4 of those people. When they toured without Roger it tarnished the legacy I thought of them and I just ignore it. Having said that, I'm fine with Zeppelin touring with John's son if they ever did. Probably because they did go away so if they came back I do think it would be as a tribute which is fine. I have no problem with the Stones continuing without Taylor and I'm a massive Taylor fan. Or Brian, Bill. In the end, thats a band where its the Stones as long as Mick and Keith are there. Don't know why, thats just how I feel.

The Who have cheapened their legacy for so long I just accept it. Some bands can get away with it IMO, some can't. No one took Guns N Roses seriously till Slash came back, and while I wish this current tour was original band, I and many others will accept it with just Slash and Axl. Why they are different than Pink Floyd, I don't know, but its how I see it. The Eagles were Don and Glenn. Without any, I think its a fraud, but if people want to go that's their prerogative.

Bands change.
When Mick Taylor joined the Stones, he commented that is was a new band. He was new and the band was evolving. They hadn't played live in a couple of years and had lots of new material.
When Ronnie Wood joined the band, it was a new band. The guitars meshed differently.
Sometimes bands even change without adding new members. The Stones went through a lot of transitions even when the five members stayed the same. The '78 Stones were a different band than the '75 band, having stripped away Preston and some of the horn sections.
So if a band wants to carry on with replacements, I have no problem. But they are going to be judged on their merits.
And I am not really a believer that a band can tarnish its legacy. The Beach Boys had a brilliant period in the '60s, and even though they've been a cliched tribute outfit since then, it doesn't take away what they did.
It's like Michael Jordan with the Wizards didn't tarnish what he did with the Bulls.

Quote
RollingFreak
Hairball, we've disagreed many times and probably will continue here.

For me personally, I judge all bands separately. There may be no reason I see one band as legitimate and another not, I fully admit that. KISS DID continue without key members, but it only got bad when they started dressing them up. I follow 80s and 90s KISS, but it only got bad when they started passing people off as Ace and Peter. It seems small, but when it was transparent it was one thing. When it became an act it was worse.

IMO Pink Floyd isn't Pink Floyd without all 4 of those people. When they toured without Roger it tarnished the legacy I thought of them and I just ignore it. Having said that, I'm fine with Zeppelin touring with John's son if they ever did. Probably because they did go away so if they came back I do think it would be as a tribute which is fine. I have no problem with the Stones continuing without Taylor and I'm a massive Taylor fan. Or Brian, Bill. In the end, thats a band where its the Stones as long as Mick and Keith are there. Don't know why, thats just how I feel.

The Who have cheapened their legacy for so long I just accept it. Some bands can get away with it IMO, some can't. No one took Guns N Roses seriously till Slash came back, and while I wish this current tour was original band, I and many others will accept it with just Slash and Axl. Why they are different than Pink Floyd, I don't know, but its how I see it. The Eagles were Don and Glenn. Without any, I think its a fraud, but if people want to go that's their prerogative.

So what you're saying in a nutshell is there's no absolute right answer to any of this and it's based on ones personal feelings? If so, we agree 100%.

As for the bands you mention:
Kiss - I liked them for about 10 seconds in 6th grade c.75, so really don't have an opinion one way or the other.
Pink Floyd - agreed, no Roger Waters no Pink Floyd. The albums and tours after he left were a "clever forgery" (credit quote to Roger).
Led Zeppelin - agreed, and it still might happen one day!!!
Stones - obviously agreed.
The Who - somewhat agree - but Pete and Roger as the two main frontmen carry it well. They were fantastic at both Desert Trip shows .
Guns and Roses - No real opinion other than they peaked in '88/89 and should have completely called it quits then.
As for the Eagles...hmmm...I really have no absolute opinion - well maybe I do, but I was just kind of playing the Devils advocate.
If there was ever any legacy being tarnished, it already happened with all the cheesy reunion tours and their treatment of former band members (Felder specifically).
As for now, it's all kind of harmless anyways, and many people will continue to enjoy them. Bottom line, I was never a big enough fan to care one way or the other and won't lose any sleep about it.
I'll continue to enjoy some of the music they provided back in the day, and wish them all the best for whatever the future holds.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

I honestly think there's no good rule.

If a band gets away with replacing a "key" member of a band and can still play venues that were as big as they did previously, then they've successfully replaced a member.

That's it.

When Bruce Dickinson and Rob Halford left Iron Maiden and Judas Priest respectively, both bands were reduced to playing small clubs in America. When they returned, they were back to playing arenas worldwide.

Pink Floyd played stadiums without Roger Waters, so they got away with it. As a fan, it's not proper Floyd, but if millions of people still went to see them, then my opinion doesn't count.

Quote
Hairball

Quote
RollingFreak
Hairball, we've disagreed many times and probably will continue here.

For me personally, I judge all bands separately. There may be no reason I see one band as legitimate and another not, I fully admit that. KISS DID continue without key members, but it only got bad when they started dressing them up. I follow 80s and 90s KISS, but it only got bad when they started passing people off as Ace and Peter. It seems small, but when it was transparent it was one thing. When it became an act it was worse.

IMO Pink Floyd isn't Pink Floyd without all 4 of those people. When they toured without Roger it tarnished the legacy I thought of them and I just ignore it. Having said that, I'm fine with Zeppelin touring with John's son if they ever did. Probably because they did go away so if they came back I do think it would be as a tribute which is fine. I have no problem with the Stones continuing without Taylor and I'm a massive Taylor fan. Or Brian, Bill. In the end, thats a band where its the Stones as long as Mick and Keith are there. Don't know why, thats just how I feel.

The Who have cheapened their legacy for so long I just accept it. Some bands can get away with it IMO, some can't. No one took Guns N Roses seriously till Slash came back, and while I wish this current tour was original band, I and many others will accept it with just Slash and Axl. Why they are different than Pink Floyd, I don't know, but its how I see it. The Eagles were Don and Glenn. Without any, I think its a fraud, but if people want to go that's their prerogative.

So what you're saying in a nutshell is there's no absolute right answer to any of this and it's based on ones personal feelings? If so, we agree 100%.

As for the bands you mention:
Kiss - I liked them for about 10 seconds in 6th grade c.75, so really don't have an opinion one way or the other.
Pink Floyd - agreed, no Roger Waters no Pink Floyd. The albums and tours after he left were a "clever forgery" (credit quote to Roger).
Led Zeppelin - agreed, and it still might happen one day!!!
Stones - obviously agreed.
The Who - somewhat agree - but Pete and Roger as the two main frontmen carry it well. They were fantastic at both Desert Trip shows .
Guns and Roses - No real opinion other than they peaked in '88/89 and should have completely called it quits then.
As for the Eagles...hmmm...I really have no absolute opinion - well maybe I do, but I was just kind of playing the Devils advocate.
If there was ever any legacy being tarnished, it already happened with all the cheesy reunion tours and their treatment of former band members (Felder specifically).
As for now, it's all kind of harmless anyways, and many people will continue to enjoy them. Bottom line, I was never a big enough fan to care one way or the other and won't lose any sleep about it.
I'll continue to enjoy some of the music they provided back in the day, and wish them all the best for whatever the future holds.

I agree 100%, mainly that I don't have enough care to really make a stand. I just don't see bands I don't want to see. But I do think there's a difference between a cheesy reunion and past actions against previous members than actually touring without a founding member. What it boils down to is how transparent someone feels that its a cash grab. Make no mistake, the Eagles have ALWAYS been a cash grab. Thats nothing new. But there's a sentimental issue to it. WOULD Mick continue the Stones if Keith tragically died? And more importantly, how would a person feel about that? I think thats why this Eagles thing is specific. Because in addition to being greedy, it also seems to lack any emotion behind it. He may have left us too soon, but its not like the Eagles didn't have a good (long) run. Its not the worst thing if he prematurely is the reason they call it quits, they've done fine. And again, people wouldn't be as critical if it wasn't called the "Eagles".

There's a thing thats been happening for awhile but will soon be bigger than normal where bands will try to market certain things as genuine. When, and they've said they'll do it, Paul Stanley and Gene Simmons leave KISS and its no original members and its a sanctioned tribute band called KISS, is it not even the same, or just a band anymore? Like when is enough enough? The answer seems to be never. But I feel strongly that if that becomes a thing its a sad comment on these bands. Maybe its great, because it means these bands did enough that anyone will see them just cause of a name. But at a point its not the band that made the music and there's no originality. Its just a money train. Again, its personal preference, but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth when you continue without someone you said "was the undisputed leader of the band." As I said, why its different for certain bands, I don't know why. But there's a line somewhere that some bands have crossed. KISS did when they dressed other people up as Ace and Peter and didn't let them be themselves. IMO the Eagles do it when you play shows as the Eagles without Glenn.

But I also completely agree of the opinion that people can do what they want, it doesn't actually bother me despite how much I can write and talk about it. I know what's right and wrong to me. In a large way keefriff is right that Pink Floyd did it successfully. I'll never see it as Floyd, but millions of people did. If people want to spend what I feel is wasted money on these guys, there's no reason I should stop them. But I do think less of certain bands when they continue, and the Eagles made my list with this move.

The reason I became interested in the Eagles beyond just hearing them on the radio was the "Very Best Of" hits collection that was released in 2003. That was the first Eagles collection or album I ever bought, and I grew up hearing them on the radio. The liner notes of that collection made me interested in them. It consists of Don and Glenn discussing the writing of each song, and was compiled by Cameron Crowe. They talked about the lives they lived during the time they made the original records, and they really were like brothers at one point. It just seems weird to me that Don would want to carry on the band, and performing those songs under the Eagles name, without his brother Glenn.

I think if they had presented the upcoming two concerts as a tribute to Glenn, featuring Jackson Browne, Vince Gill, perhaps J.D. Souther, Frey's kid, whomever...then it would be a form of closure and a nice way to ride off into the sunset. But with Henley saying "Then it’s Irving’s ball" signifies that as long as it's financially lucrative, this begins a new chapter and the band will continue. To me it seems Henley doesn't care about Frey's place in the band or any legacy - as long as Irving says they can make money, he's on board. Of course, as others have noted here, the Eagles were always about the money, so it shouldn't be surprising now.

Quote
Jah Paul
I think if they had presented the upcoming two concerts as a tribute to Glenn, featuring Jackson Browne, Vince Gill, perhaps J.D. Souther, Frey's kid, whomever...then it would be a form of closure and a nice way to ride off into the sunset. But with Henley saying "Then it’s Irving’s ball" signifies that as long as it's financially lucrative, this begins a new chapter and the band will continue. To me it seems Henley doesn't care about Frey's place in the band or any legacy - as long as Irving says they can make money, he's on board. Of course, as others have noted here, the Eagles were always about the money, so it shouldn't be surprising now.

The somewhat poor sales of this East/West thing could be a determining factor on the future of the Eagles.
Aside from Fleetwood Mac and Steely Dan who can still sell out arenas (FM) or ampitheaters (SD), the rest of the lineup can be seen in small casinos, very small theaters (if they're lucky), and County fairs - sometimes for free with price of fair admission. I don't know anyone who would pay more than $50 to see Journey, Earth, Wind & Fire or The Doobie Brothers - and some wouldn't see any of those bands even you paid them. To think this lineup is worth the price of overpriced admission to these East/Coast shows is completely unrealistic. I don't know what kind of fan base The Eagles have anymore, especially without Glenn, but by reading most of the comments here they're not going to be drawing in any big numbers of their former fans. If this thing is a failure, and the Eagles do decide to continue after this (or if Irving decides), you might be able to catch them at a County Fair or a casino near you for under $50, and you'll probably be getting what you pay for.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Quote
Hairball
If this thing is a failure, and the Eagles do decide to continue after this (or if Irving decides), you might be able to catch them at a County Fair or a casino near you for under $50, and you'll probably be getting what you pay for.

Yup, I can see it now...Henley's Eagles on a double bill with Mike Love's Beach Boys!

Quote
Hairball

If this thing is a failure, and the Eagles do decide to continue after this (or if Irving decides), you might be able to catch them at a County Fair or a casino near you for under $50, and you'll probably be getting what you pay for.

A ‘Country Fair?’ LOL That sounds so quaint and 19th century. Don’t folks bring their cows to such events? I know several people who’d pay 50 bucks to watch Henley sing Desperado to farm animals.

I have no issue with the way has-been rock stars fuel their 30 year old limos - it’s kinda pathetic but no doubt they think we stink for listening to their music on YouTube gratis – but if there’s a petition to force Paul Stanley to wear his make-up in all public arenas I’ll sign it.

I have one more thing to say: if any of the above bands or even the Stones for that matter want to sell more tickets to their shows they should drop their weakest link and hire Dan Ferguson. Dan, as you may recall, wrote and performed the guitar and bass parts for the Barney Miller theme. Yes that indelible searing tasty guitar solo which Keith would’ve had trouble replicating even in the 70s came from Dan. To the best of my knowledge Dan is still alive too.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-06-05 09:04 by Swayed1967.

Like it or not, it will definitely be interesting to see how this Eagles thing (sans Glenn Frey) sorts itself out over the next year or two.

Quote
Swayed1967

Quote
Hairball

If this thing is a failure, and the Eagles do decide to continue after this (or if Irving decides), you might be able to catch them at a County Fair or a casino near you for under $50, and you'll probably be getting what you pay for.

A ‘Country Fair?’ LOL That sounds so quaint and 19th century.

He said County Fair. The annual L.A. and Orange County Fairs both have an agricultural basis, but those components have been overwhelmed by other entertainment attractions.

Quote
loog droog

Quote
Swayed1967

Quote
Hairball

If this thing is a failure, and the Eagles do decide to continue after this (or if Irving decides), you might be able to catch them at a County Fair or a casino near you for under $50, and you'll probably be getting what you pay for.

A ‘Country Fair?’ LOL That sounds so quaint and 19th century.

He said County Fair. The annual L.A. and Orange County Fairs both have an agricultural basis, but those components have been overwhelmed by other entertainment attractions.

Yeah I said County, but I didn't bother correcting him as Country fair sounded better lol. And people do bring their farm animals to the L.A., Orange, Ventura, or whatever county fairs, and they still have a large presence.
Maybe not the main attraction as they once had amidst all the rides and concerts, etc., but we always take the time to stroll through the animal area to see the pigs, cows, chickens, goats, sheep, etc. - it's very quaint and a throwback to simpler times.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

The Eagles are going to do a few more shows


From what I heard they will finish Dec 10th in Austin TX

MONEY TALKS

I know they get a lot of hate here, but I like their sound a lot.

I wish I'd gone and seen them when Glenn was still alive. It's just one of those things where you don't think that some day these guys won't be around anymore.

Yes, Money talks. So does applause.

I'm not going to begrudge Henley, et al any more than I did previously. All power to them and their fans. I hope they all enjoy themselves and each other. I am glad that I got to see them with Glenn (sans Felder). I doubt that I'll go see them again. I like and enjoy their music enough to have gone and seen them that one time but don't feel the need for repeat shows.

Peace,
Mr DJA

Wondering what the verdict is regarding the new lineup amongst diehards since they've played a couple of shows now
I know there was some mixed feelings prior, but personally I saw no reason to care one way or the other. If Henley and the rest wanted Deacon Frey and Vince Gill to be official Eagles, then so be it.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Has any other band gone on like that after the death of a singer/songwriter member late in life?

Quote
Send It To me
Has any other band gone on like that after the death of a singer/songwriter member late in life?

I'd put the loss of Carl Wilson to the Beach Boys in a similar category.

Not sure if I'd put vocal groups like the Temptations, Four Tops, etc. in that category even though they continued after "lead" singers passed.

Off the top of my head I can't really think of any others.

Peace,
Mr DJA

Quote
Send It To me
Has any other band gone on like that after the death of a singer/songwriter member late in life?

Status Quo kept on playing right after Parfitt died last year. They're still touring. Parfitt had a Keith-like position in the band, although he sang more songs than Keith.

Quote
mr_dja

Quote
Send It To me
Has any other band gone on like that after the death of a singer/songwriter member late in life?

I'd put the loss of Carl Wilson to the Beach Boys in a similar category.

Beach Boys are a tad different though cause people were always leaving and it was a lot of different singers. I could see them continuing without Carl, but I can't there ever being a lineup without EITHER Mike or Brian.

As for the Eagles, I think its completely wrong and I lost any remaining respect I had for them. Maybe thats an overreaction but its how I honestly feel. If people enjoy it, good for them, but seriously I think this is a terrible sign for the music industry and I'm sadly not surprised people accept it. And its their right to, who's to say I'm correct, but if people accept this I don't know what people won't accept anymore. No one, at this level, has really done this, not to make it sound melodramatic. Anyone you can think of is not at arena single headlining level.

Quote
RollingFreak

Quote
mr_dja

Quote
Send It To me
Has any other band gone on like that after the death of a singer/songwriter member late in life?

I'd put the loss of Carl Wilson to the Beach Boys in a similar category.

Beach Boys are a tad different though cause people were always leaving and it was a lot of different singers. I could see them continuing without Carl, but I can't there ever being a lineup without EITHER Mike or Brian.

As a lifelong Beach Boys fan, I disagree a bit...after Brian stopped touring in the mid-'60s, Carl and Mike were the constants as lead vocalists for the next 30+ years (not to discount Al, who sang lead on fewer songs). When Carl passed away in 1998 (and Brian no longer touring with the band at all), that was kind of it for me. I've always enjoyed Brian's solo shows in the years since, but have never had any interest in Mike and Bruce's touring "Beach Boys." The 2012 reunion was great, but that was a one-time thing, and, to me, their swan song. Carl was the soul of the band, and is sorely missed to this day.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-08-04 20:34 by Jah Paul.

Saw them in 1979, 2013. And Henley a couple of times...

The whole is greater than the sum of its parts

Quote
Jah Paul

Quote
RollingFreak

Quote
mr_dja

Quote
Send It To me
Has any other band gone on like that after the death of a singer/songwriter member late in life?

I'd put the loss of Carl Wilson to the Beach Boys in a similar category.

Beach Boys are a tad different though cause people were always leaving and it was a lot of different singers. I could see them continuing without Carl, but I can't there ever being a lineup without EITHER Mike or Brian.

As a lifelong Beach Boys fan, I disagree a bit...after Brian stopped touring in the mid-'60s, Carl and Mike were the constants as lead vocalists for the next 30+ years (not to discount Al, who sang lead on fewer songs). When Carl passed away in 1998 (and Brian no longer touring with the band at all), that was kind of it for me. I've always enjoyed Brian's solo shows in the years since, but have never had any interest in Mike and Bruce's touring "Beach Boys." The 2012 reunion was great, but that was a one-time thing, and, to me, their swan song. Carl was the soul of the band, and is sorely missed to this day.

Carl was the soul of the band

Quote
Jah Paul

Quote
RollingFreak

Quote
mr_dja

Quote
Send It To me
Has any other band gone on like that after the death of a singer/songwriter member late in life?

I'd put the loss of Carl Wilson to the Beach Boys in a similar category.

Beach Boys are a tad different though cause people were always leaving and it was a lot of different singers. I could see them continuing without Carl, but I can't there ever being a lineup without EITHER Mike or Brian.

As a lifelong Beach Boys fan, I disagree a bit...after Brian stopped touring in the mid-'60s, Carl and Mike were the constants as lead vocalists for the next 30+ years (not to discount Al, who sang lead on fewer songs). When Carl passed away in 1998 (and Brian no longer touring with the band at all), that was kind of it for me. I've always enjoyed Brian's solo shows in the years since, but have never had any interest in Mike and Bruce's touring "Beach Boys." The 2012 reunion was great, but that was a one-time thing, and, to me, their swan song. Carl was the soul of the band, and is sorely missed to this day.

I agree wholeheartedly Jah Paul. I'm too young to have seen the Beach Boys with Brian as an active touring member but have been a fan since I was young.

To me, in this conversation/comparison, Mike & Carl were similar to Don & Glen with Al Jardine playing a role similar to either Joe Walsh or Timothy B Schmidt. I haven't seen the Beach Boys since the mid-90's. I kick myself for not making the effort to catch them on the reunion tour. I don't think I'll ever pay to see the "brand name" version again unless some bridges get mended. If I do see any of them again, it will be the Brian/Al/David group.

Peace,
Mr DJA

Deacon looks like Glen on the stage. Not sure his playing history

The latest Eagles shows have received very good reviews, with only a few noting how odd it is to not have Glenn doing the talking between songs. It's not something I would want to see, but most of their audience consists of nostalgic people who don't care. They come to have a beer and sing along to the songs that were hits during their school days.

Irving Azoff convinced them to do it. He manages all the acts in these put-together mini-fests. He called Vince Gill's manager to offer the job, no one from the band did. It's all business.

As for the Beach Boys, they should have retired the name after Carl. Their act has improved since they hired Scott Totten as musical director. They do an especially good job on the early, guitar-oriented songs. I enjoyed them at a free county fair show. I would not pay a ticket price to see them. I liked Brian's early touring days, but his voice and enthusiasm have lessened over the years. Adding Al and Blondie help make up for that somewhat. He has a really good, large band that excels on the later songs.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-08-04 21:22 by marianna.

Quote
marianna
The latest Eagles shows have received very good reviews, with only a few noting how odd it is to not have Glenn doing the talking between songs. It's not something I would want to see, but most of their audience consists of nostalgic people who don't care. They come to have a beer and sing along to the songs that were hits during their school days.

Irving Azoff convinced them to do it. He manages all the acts in these put-together mini-fests. He called Vince Gill's manager to offer the job, no one from the band did. It's all business.

As for the Beach Boys, they should have retired the name after Carl. Their act has improved since they hired Scott Totten as musical director. They do an especially good job on the early, guitar-oriented songs. I enjoyed them at a free county fair show. I would not pay a ticket price to see them. I liked Brian's early touring days, but his voice and enthusiasm have lessened over the years. Adding Al and Blondie help make up for that somewhat. He has a really good, large band that excels on the later songs.

Azoff is a brilliant businessman and marketer, no doubt about it. He makes Michael Cohl look like a piker.

Speaking of Michael Cohl...why did he and the Stones part ways? They didn't part on the best of terms if I'm not mistaken.

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
marianna
The latest Eagles shows have received very good reviews, with only a few noting how odd it is to not have Glenn doing the talking between songs. It's not something I would want to see, but most of their audience consists of nostalgic people who don't care. They come to have a beer and sing along to the songs that were hits during their school days.

Irving Azoff convinced them to do it. He manages all the acts in these put-together mini-fests. He called Vince Gill's manager to offer the job, no one from the band did. It's all business.

As for the Beach Boys, they should have retired the name after Carl. Their act has improved since they hired Scott Totten as musical director. They do an especially good job on the early, guitar-oriented songs. I enjoyed them at a free county fair show. I would not pay a ticket price to see them. I liked Brian's early touring days, but his voice and enthusiasm have lessened over the years. Adding Al and Blondie help make up for that somewhat. He has a really good, large band that excels on the later songs.

Azoff is a brilliant businessman and marketer, no doubt about it. He makes Michael Cohl look like a piker.

Speaking of Michael Cohl...why did he and the Stones part ways? They didn't part on the best of terms if I'm not mistaken.

There was something about a twist between Cool and Live Nation, I believe.