Wow, don't miss this one. Only a few cities in across the country on this tour. Took my wife Friday to the first of three dates in Atlanta, GA.

[eagles.com]

They definitely still have it. Tight harmonies and guitars.

They are playing "Hotel California" album start to finish then a long second set of hits.

I counted 32 songs on the setlist.

Mike

Mike


[www.flickr.com]

This is so sad. Rock and Roll is on its last legs. Only the Museum groups are left, playing their Greatest Hits over and over. At higher prices yet. I guess U2 will have been the last relevant rock group.

Quote
24FPS
This is so sad. Rock and Roll is on its last legs. Only the Museum groups are left, playing their Greatest Hits over and over. At higher prices yet. I guess U2 will have been the last relevant rock group.

I think you're looking at this in the wrong way. Many of these songs are out and out masterpieces. Would you ever get tired of hearing Bach, Beethoven, etc.

Don Henley's the only remaining original member left...

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

Don Henley's gonna tell me how to vote? I don't @#$%&' think so...I got two words for Don Henley, okay, "JOE @#$%&' WALSH". Thank you for calling, Don...how long's your ponytail now?

I see both sides: yes, that its a sad state of affairs that legacy acts are just trodding out their greatest hits at the highest prices they ever have been 30 years after their prime.

BUT I also see that these people are legends and if they're someone like the Stones who still have MOST of their people, I don't see as much a problem with it. What else are they supposed to do, and while they could be better, I'm glad they still put on a good show.

Which leads me to the Eagles. Listen, nothing against them, but if you're missing Randy Meisner, Glenn Frey AND Don Felder I have a hard time coughing up that dough. Fully admit I wasn't a huge Eagles fan until their documentary, which proved Don and Glenn to be massive @#$%& but talented guys. That History Of The Eagles tour was one I should have seen. You still had Glenn, and they brought back Bernie to play pretty much the whole first set. That would have been enough for me. I skipped cause of price since I was a relatively new fan and didn't think I had to spend that much even though they are a great band. Once Glenn died, I can't really justify seeing them now. Too many people not there (Glenn, Don Felder, Randy, Bernie) and I don't care about Timothy Schmidt and I've already seen Joe Walsh on his own. I'm sure it sounds good, but sorry, I'd rather they tour under their own name at a reasonable price. I'm sure they sound great, but I can accept that I just missed the boat with it.

I passed last year as there was no Glenn Frey but it was performing the full Hotel California album that sold it to me this time.

For what it's worth, my wife and I saw them with Glen Frey in 2005, and to be honest it was rather quite bland - note for note/precise renditions of their greatest hits, along with various solo material from various members. Setlist
That said, I'll always like many of their studio recordings, and in hindsight, pleased I was able to see them with a proper lineup.

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

Quote
Hairball
For what it's worth, my wife and I saw them with Glen Frey in 2005, and to be honest it was rather quite bland - note for note/precise renditions of their greatest hits, along with various solo material from various members. Setlist
That said, I'll always like many of their studio recordings, and in hindsight, pleased I was able to see them with a proper lineup.

In all honesty, not having Glenn there really doesn't mean much. As long as you have Don Henley and Joe Walsh that really IS enough. But I'm a stickler for original bands, and it was never just DON'S group, it was a BAND, and even if Glenn is just up there legitimizing it, it's what I'd prefer. If we're being honest, I'd argue its basically the same as Keith's participation at a Stones performance. He's really NOT necessary, he's really not doing much of anything, but personally I need him there.

Henley without Frey = Mick without Keith = Paul without John, etc.

Still an excellent show but Paul's current band shouldn't be billed as "The Beatles". And Donald Fagen's solo band became "Steely Dan" as soon as Becker died.......

WTF?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Quote
RollingFreak
its basically the same as Keith's participation at a Stones performance. He's really NOT necessary, he's really not doing much of anything, but personally I need him there.

Sorry to disagree, but that sounds ridiculous and there's really no comparison.

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

Quote
Hairball

Quote
RollingFreak
its basically the same as Keith's participation at a Stones performance. He's really NOT necessary, he's really not doing much of anything, but personally I need him there.

Sorry to disagree, but that sounds ridiculous and there's really no comparison.

Oh, I expected nothing less lol.

Just don't get it, This lot leave me cold. I did like One Of Those Nights but ...that's it. Spend your money

Quote
steffialicia

Quote
24FPS
This is so sad. Rock and Roll is on its last legs. Only the Museum groups are left, playing their Greatest Hits over and over. At higher prices yet. I guess U2 will have been the last relevant rock group.

I think you're looking at this in the wrong way. Many of these songs are out and out masterpieces. Would you ever get tired of hearing Bach, Beethoven, etc.

Actually, the more correct analogy would be if Bach and Beethoven stopped writing new stuff and went on the road (they did tour and play in public) playing their early masterpieces. As long as they were alive, they continued to write new stuff, unlike Eagles, Stones, etc. Obviously, that stopped once they died. I guess what you are saying is that the classic rock groups are creatively dead.

Quote
RollingFreak

Quote
Hairball

Quote
RollingFreak
its basically the same as Keith's participation at a Stones performance. He's really NOT necessary, he's really not doing much of anything, but personally I need him there.

Sorry to disagree, but that sounds ridiculous and there's really no comparison.

Oh, I expected nothing less lol.

Seriously though - while Glen Frey was replaceable (and evidently not missed much in the lineup by most), the same can not be said for Keith.
While Eagles fans and the general public have accepted this latest diluted version (based on the success of sales, etc.), I don't think the Stones without Keith would fare as well - at least not from Stones fans.
Keith is still cranking out the riffs and is half the engine - just this last summer his playing was better than it's been in years, and without him the sound would truly suffer immeasurably.
To say "he's really not necessary" and "he's really not doing much of anything" seems a bit misguided, and that's putting it mildly.

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

Quote
Hairball

Quote
RollingFreak

Quote
Hairball

Quote
RollingFreak
its basically the same as Keith's participation at a Stones performance. He's really NOT necessary, he's really not doing much of anything, but personally I need him there.

Sorry to disagree, but that sounds ridiculous and there's really no comparison.

Oh, I expected nothing less lol.

Seriously though - while Glen Frey was replaceable (and evidently not missed much in the lineup by most), the same can not be said for Keith.
While Eagles fans and the general public have accepted this latest diluted version (based on the success of sales, etc.), I don't think the Stones without Keith would fare as well - at least not from Stones fans.
Keith is still cranking out the riffs and is half the engine - just this last summer his playing was better than it's been in years, and without him the sound would truly suffer immeasurably.
To say "he's really not necessary" and "he's really not doing much of anything" seems a bit misguided, and that's putting it mildly.

it s4eems misguided on the Frey side as he sang some of the bands biggest hits. keith Richards sings zero of the bands biggest hits

Clearly we disagree. I saw him last summer in NJ. I loved seeing him smile, I thought the band sounded great, I adore having Keith on stage with that band. Having said that, being brutally honest from what I saw, he did almost zero work. The dude was up there just to strum rather aimlessly at least 75% of the time. And I don't begrudge the guy, if anyone has earned that right I believe its Keef @#$%& Richards. Its not meant to ruffle feathers here and its not to reduce him in any way (even though I guess it is, but its seriously not coming from a harsh place), but that truly seems like an unbiased observation if we were all being honest. Mick anchors the show, Charlie is still pounding those drums, and Ronnie handles the guitar work. And Keith stands there, providing rhythm occasionally, and sings two songs. When he plays really well, I think its the greatest thing ever. Most of the time, if I was being honest, he's just there. The band would sound almost the same without him, even though I obviously don't want that and I wouldn't call it the Rolling Stones without him there.

I agree with you on the point that you couldn't sell the Rolling Stones without Keith Richards the way the Eagles do without Glenn Frey. They brought in his son and are labeling it as "carrying the torch", but the bottom line is they wouldn't continue if Don Henley was the one that passed. The Stones are more visually linked to both of them, whereas you can more easily minimize Glenn Frey's contributions to the Eagles, especially live. Personally, I don't like it, because I think he is the the one that started that band, he is the one that wrote or co-wrote almost all the songs, and he was a prominent voice on many of their huge hits. I think its kinda insane to continue without him, but I get that live he's basically reduced to being Don's backup man, so honestly you could more easily tour without HIM than you could Joe at this point.

We may not agree and thats absolutely fine. Again, its not unexpected lol. But I think Keith Richards in the grand scheme of things is more important as a face of the band rather than a player and contributor. Didn't seem like a controversial think to say something like that, as I feel its thrown around here quite often, mainly because we're just being honest. The difference between Glenn and Keith live is that people come just to look at Keith Richards. In that way, he adds much more than Glenn does to a live performance. But if we're talking about just from a playing and singing perspective, I'd say its not insane to equate them, and that for most of those shows they were essentially just standing there. They were leaders and founders of these bands that now don't need to do very much when they tour. I get more joy just seeing Keith up on stage having fun than I do Mick Jagger running around on stage like a medical marvel.

Quote
keefriffhard4life

Quote
Hairball

Quote
RollingFreak

Quote
Hairball

Quote
RollingFreak
its basically the same as Keith's participation at a Stones performance. He's really NOT necessary, he's really not doing much of anything, but personally I need him there.

Sorry to disagree, but that sounds ridiculous and there's really no comparison.

Oh, I expected nothing less lol.

Seriously though - while Glen Frey was replaceable (and evidently not missed much in the lineup by most), the same can not be said for Keith.
While Eagles fans and the general public have accepted this latest diluted version (based on the success of sales, etc.), I don't think the Stones without Keith would fare as well - at least not from Stones fans.
Keith is still cranking out the riffs and is half the engine - just this last summer his playing was better than it's been in years, and without him the sound would truly suffer immeasurably.
To say "he's really not necessary" and "he's really not doing much of anything" seems a bit misguided, and that's putting it mildly.

it s4eems misguided on the Frey side as he sang some of the bands biggest hits. keith Richards sings zero of the bands biggest hits

Well tell that to all the people who are buying Eagles tickets and don't seem to care who has replaced Glenn Frey.
Then ask yourself how much of the Stones sound is based around Keith's guitar playing - doesn't matter if he sings zero of their hits - the sound of the band is based around his guitar playing and the riffs he created.

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

Rock'n' Roll would be better off if The Eagles and U2 never existed.

Quote
Rolling Freak
seems like an unbiased observation if we were all being honest

I was being completely honest - clearly we have differing opinions.

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

To die-hard Eagles fans, Glenn was as central to his role in that band as Keith is to the Stones. It's really a matter of perspective.

We'll almost certainly never test the premise of how well the Stones would fare without Keith, and thank Lemmy for that...

...BUT let's just imagine that Mick, Ronnie and Charlie attempted to tour as the Stones...I honestly think they would do fine. The casual public is really clueless when it comes to band personnel, as RollingFreak and I have discussed several times.

I think as long as Mick is on the tour poster, they could still tour.

Just glad I saw them in 2014 with Glenn (and Bernie)...no interest in the remnants and replacements.

Quote
Hairball

Quote
keefriffhard4life

Quote
Hairball

Quote
RollingFreak

Quote
Hairball

Quote
RollingFreak
its basically the same as Keith's participation at a Stones performance. He's really NOT necessary, he's really not doing much of anything, but personally I need him there.

Sorry to disagree, but that sounds ridiculous and there's really no comparison.

Oh, I expected nothing less lol.

Seriously though - while Glen Frey was replaceable (and evidently not missed much in the lineup by most), the same can not be said for Keith.
While Eagles fans and the general public have accepted this latest diluted version (based on the success of sales, etc.), I don't think the Stones without Keith would fare as well - at least not from Stones fans.
Keith is still cranking out the riffs and is half the engine - just this last summer his playing was better than it's been in years, and without him the sound would truly suffer immeasurably.
To say "he's really not necessary" and "he's really not doing much of anything" seems a bit misguided, and that's putting it mildly.

it s4eems misguided on the Frey side as he sang some of the bands biggest hits. keith Richards sings zero of the bands biggest hits

Well tell that to all the people who are buying Eagles tickets and don't seem to care who has replaced Glenn Frey.
Then ask yourself how much of the Stones sound is based around Keith's guitar playing - doesn't matter if he sings zero of their hits - the sound of the band is based around his guitar playing and the riffs he created.

as yourself how many people will show up to see something billed as "the rolling stones" with no keith. the answer is a ton. there are people who don't even know who sings "take it to the limit". I think you are no in touch with the general public who see "the eagles" are touring and show up. Freys son is there and so was big name himself vince gill

Even more expensive than the Stones. Regular price for SF show for good seats was $750 plus fees. $250 plus fees to get in the door. I passed on it.

There is no Eagles without Glen. Period. His voice was integral to their sound. I saw them several times with the original line up. Wouldn’t go see this show for free. Vince Gill? Ugh.

Quote
MKjan
Rock'n' Roll would be better off if The Eagles and U2 never existed.

That's as dumb of a quote as I've ever read on here.

Rolling Freak your talking garbage

Quote
keefriffhard4life

Quote
Hairball

Quote
keefriffhard4life

Quote
Hairball

Quote
RollingFreak

Quote
Hairball

Quote
RollingFreak
its basically the same as Keith's participation at a Stones performance. He's really NOT necessary, he's really not doing much of anything, but personally I need him there.

Sorry to disagree, but that sounds ridiculous and there's really no comparison.

Oh, I expected nothing less lol.

Seriously though - while Glen Frey was replaceable (and evidently not missed much in the lineup by most), the same can not be said for Keith.
While Eagles fans and the general public have accepted this latest diluted version (based on the success of sales, etc.), I don't think the Stones without Keith would fare as well - at least not from Stones fans.
Keith is still cranking out the riffs and is half the engine - just this last summer his playing was better than it's been in years, and without him the sound would truly suffer immeasurably.
To say "he's really not necessary" and "he's really not doing much of anything" seems a bit misguided, and that's putting it mildly.

it s4eems misguided on the Frey side as he sang some of the bands biggest hits. keith Richards sings zero of the bands biggest hits

Well tell that to all the people who are buying Eagles tickets and don't seem to care who has replaced Glenn Frey.
Then ask yourself how much of the Stones sound is based around Keith's guitar playing - doesn't matter if he sings zero of their hits - the sound of the band is based around his guitar playing and the riffs he created.

as yourself how many people will show up to see something billed as "the rolling stones" with no keith. the answer is a ton. there are people who don't even know who sings "take it to the limit". I think you are no in touch with the general public who see "the eagles" are touring and show up. Freys son is there and so was big name himself vince gill

As I stated, not many Stones fans would bother to see the Stones without Keith - I know I certainly wouldn't - though they would probably do ok selling out to the general public.
And then I went on to say, both the general public AND Eagles fans don't seem to care who makes up the band- as you said "there are people who don't even know who sings Take it to the Limit".
Those same ones don't care about Glen Frey being there, and seemingly neither do most Eagles fans. Fill in the blanks with Freys son and Vince Gill, and voila there's "The Eagles".
I don't think it would be as easy for the Stones to replace Keith and perform without Keith. Besides, whose gonna fill his shoes? His son? Randy Travis? lol.....

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

Quote
Rokyfan

Quote
steffialicia

Quote
24FPS
This is so sad. Rock and Roll is on its last legs. Only the Museum groups are left, playing their Greatest Hits over and over. At higher prices yet. I guess U2 will have been the last relevant rock group.

I think you're looking at this in the wrong way. Many of these songs are out and out masterpieces. Would you ever get tired of hearing Bach, Beethoven, etc.

Actually, the more correct analogy would be if Bach and Beethoven stopped writing new stuff and went on the road (they did tour and play in public) playing their early masterpieces. As long as they were alive, they continued to write new stuff, unlike Eagles, Stones, etc. Obviously, that stopped once they died. I guess what you are saying is that the classic rock groups are creatively dead.

Not really but since you need to read it that way, have at it.