For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
TornAndFriedQuote
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.
Quote
HairballQuote
keefriffhard4lifeQuote
HairballQuote
keefriffhard4lifeQuote
HairballQuote
RollingFreakQuote
HairballQuote
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.....
Quote
TornAndFriedQuote
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.
You're*Quote
stargroover
Rolling Freak your talking garbage
Quote
Woz
Timothy B. Schmidt have both been in the band since the 70's. From the first album to Hotel California you had three constant members, Henley, Frey and Mesiner. The band has been a rotating cast from the beginning. It was Glen Frey's band, for sure, but it was also ever changing. Sq the current line up last year at the Giants Ballpark (whatever it's named after this week) and I enjpyed them as much as when I first saw them in '78.
Quote
HairballQuote
Woz
Timothy B. Schmidt have both been in the band since the 70's. From the first album to Hotel California you had three constant members, Henley, Frey and Mesiner. The band has been a rotating cast from the beginning. It was Glen Frey's band, for sure, but it was also ever changing. Sq the current line up last year at the Giants Ballpark (whatever it's named after this week) and I enjpyed them as much as when I first saw them in '78.
I do know their history, thanks.
And there you have it - evidence that Eagles fans don't really care whose in the ever-evolving lineup - be it the "son of", or a country star.
Quote
RokyfanQuote
steffialiciaQuote
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
Jah PaulQuote
HairballQuote
Woz
Timothy B. Schmidt have both been in the band since the 70's. From the first album to Hotel California you had three constant members, Henley, Frey and Mesiner. The band has been a rotating cast from the beginning. It was Glen Frey's band, for sure, but it was also ever changing. Sq the current line up last year at the Giants Ballpark (whatever it's named after this week) and I enjpyed them as much as when I first saw them in '78.
I do know their history, thanks.
And there you have it - evidence that Eagles fans don't really care whose in the ever-evolving lineup - be it the "son of", or a country star.
Not all Eagles fans. I didn't even want to see them after Don Felder was dismissed, but still went in 2014 because at least I would hear the two main lead vocalists in Henley and Frey - and with Bernie participating, that's 5 of the 7 Eagles on stage (plus I had never seen them before and didn't want to miss out). It was a great show (Walsh was excellent!) and I have no interest in seeing them now without Glenn. Same thing for me with Fleetwood Mac - lucky enough to see the classic Rumours lineup together in 2014, but after Lindsey was kicked out, that was it for me.
It's my guess that most of the people going to see these altered lineups are casual fans; they go to hear the familiar songs...the songs they grew up with. A lot of them probably don't even know all the band members and who's in the current lineup or not...they're just there for the tunes.
Quote
Jah PaulQuote
HairballQuote
Woz
Timothy B. Schmidt have both been in the band since the 70's. From the first album to Hotel California you had three constant members, Henley, Frey and Mesiner. The band has been a rotating cast from the beginning. It was Glen Frey's band, for sure, but it was also ever changing. Sq the current line up last year at the Giants Ballpark (whatever it's named after this week) and I enjpyed them as much as when I first saw them in '78.
I do know their history, thanks.
And there you have it - evidence that Eagles fans don't really care whose in the ever-evolving lineup - be it the "son of", or a country star.
Not all Eagles fans. I didn't even want to see them after Don Felder was dismissed, but still went in 2014 because at least I would hear the two main lead vocalists in Henley and Frey - and with Bernie participating, that's 5 of the 7 Eagles on stage (plus I had never seen them before and didn't want to miss out). It was a great show (Walsh was excellent!) and I have no interest in seeing them now without Glenn. Same thing for me with Fleetwood Mac - lucky enough to see the classic Rumours lineup together in 2014, but after Lindsey was kicked out, that was it for me.
It's my guess that most of the people going to see these altered lineups are casual fans; they go to hear the familiar songs...the songs they grew up with. A lot of them probably don't even know all the band members and who's in the current lineup or not...they're just there for the tunes.
Quote
Hairball
Yeah Jah Paul - didn't intend to lump all Eagles fans together, and in a previous post I did say "...most Eagles fans".
Still think it would be WAY more difficult for the Stones to try and replace Keith - even the most causal fan (even a non fan) would realize something major was missing.
Quote
Jah PaulQuote
Hairball
Yeah Jah Paul - didn't intend to lump all Eagles fans together, and in a previous post I did say "...most Eagles fans".
Still think it would be WAY more difficult for the Stones to try and replace Keith - even the most causal fan (even a non fan) would realize something major was missing.
I agree on that. I've always been sort of a purist (as much as possible) with regard to band lineups...heck, I wouldn't even see Fleetwood Mac without Christine McVie during her long hiatus all those years. Glad I went when she finally returned, because unfortunately the Rumours lineup reunion didn't last long.
Quote
daspyknowsQuote
TornAndFriedQuote
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.
Second dumbest. The dumbest one was last week. Don't worry, we will get more dumb ones on here.
Quote
HairballQuote
keefriffhard4lifeQuote
HairballQuote
keefriffhard4lifeQuote
HairballQuote
RollingFreakQuote
HairballQuote
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.....
Quote
RollingFreak
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".....
Quote
Hairball
My wife and I are seeing Steely Dan again in June at the Bowl, though this will be the first I've seen them without Walter Becker...
Not sure I'd go if it was just "Steely Dan" alone on the bill, but Steve Winwood is opening and he's always fantastic.
Glad I saw them when Walter was around, and the same with the Fleetwood Mac Rumours lineup a couple of times - excellent shows those were.
*I also had tickets to see FM around '09 without Christine, but due to a change of plans ended up giving them to a friend and his wife. They enjoyed it, while I really didn't miss much.
Quote
keefriffhard4life
most eagles fans are upset frey isn't there . the stones could concerts now seemed to be a majority of general public fans anyways
Quote
HairballQuote
keefriffhard4life
most eagles fans are upset frey isn't there . the stones could concerts now seemed to be a majority of general public fans anyways
And somehow you know this as fact? Seems the opposite to me - perhaps you missed his post, but even Woz stated it makes no difference and they're still excellent.
In his words, "a rotating cast from the beginning"....and they're just as good now as when he first saw them in '78.
Quote
RollingFreak
But so why does Woz' words mean more than ours? Its all opinion
Quote
RollingFreak
In the end, we all know what the real Eagles band was. It was never a rotating cast. It was 4 guys, which became 5 and 6 when they added Don and replaced Bernie. Thats really it. Not sure how we've started pushing the idea they're the Grateful Dead or Fleetwood Mac or something. Thats a falsehood, if we're trying to bring facts into this. There were 6 members up through Hotel, and only 2 of them currently still exist or are allowed to play with the band. And only one of them is original when it was clearly a two headed leadership. Thats not enough for some.
Quote
Jah PaulQuote
RollingFreak
In the end, we all know what the real Eagles band was. It was never a rotating cast. It was 4 guys, which became 5 and 6 when they added Don and replaced Bernie. Thats really it. Not sure how we've started pushing the idea they're the Grateful Dead or Fleetwood Mac or something. Thats a falsehood, if we're trying to bring facts into this. There were 6 members up through Hotel, and only 2 of them currently still exist or are allowed to play with the band. And only one of them is original when it was clearly a two headed leadership. Thats not enough for some.
That's how I look at it...the original 4 guys for the first two albums, Felder added to beef up the guitar sound for the 3rd LP, then Walsh replaced Leadon before Hotel California, and Schmit replaced Meisner for their final album and tour. Sure, a couple of changes over a decade (1971-80), but hardly a "rotating cast from the beginning." And when they returned in '94, it was the '78-'80 lineup...picking up from where they left off.
Nearly a year after Frey died, Henley said, "I don’t see how we could go out and play without the guy who started the band. It would just seem like greed or something...it would seem like a desperate thing." Of course, a few months later he changed his tune, no doubt after Mr. Azoff enlightened him on the potential dollars to be made from future "Eagles" tours - no matter who was on stage.
Quote
HairballQuote
keefriffhard4life
most eagles fans are upset frey isn't there . the stones could concerts now seemed to be a majority of general public fans anyways
And somehow you know this as fact? Seems the opposite to me - perhaps you missed his post, but even Woz stated it makes no difference and they're still excellent.
In his words, "a rotating cast from the beginning"....and they're just as good now as when he first saw them in '78.
Quote
keefriff99
Keith is iconic in a way that Glenn Frey is not...but I still contend that the Stones, due to the way they've marketed and priced themselves over the past 30 years, have largely turned into a casual tourist destination for boomers with lots of disposable income, and a massive corporate ticket comp dump for coked-up hedgefunders and their high-priced escorts.
No doubt Keith's absence would be noticed by a lot of people, but as long as people see the tongue logo alongside Mick's face, most people would still buy tickets blissfully unaware that a crucial member was missing.
Quote
RollingFreakQuote
Jah PaulQuote
RollingFreak
In the end, we all know what the real Eagles band was. It was never a rotating cast. It was 4 guys, which became 5 and 6 when they added Don and replaced Bernie. Thats really it. Not sure how we've started pushing the idea they're the Grateful Dead or Fleetwood Mac or something. Thats a falsehood, if we're trying to bring facts into this. There were 6 members up through Hotel, and only 2 of them currently still exist or are allowed to play with the band. And only one of them is original when it was clearly a two headed leadership. Thats not enough for some.
That's how I look at it...the original 4 guys for the first two albums, Felder added to beef up the guitar sound for the 3rd LP, then Walsh replaced Leadon before Hotel California, and Schmit replaced Meisner for their final album and tour. Sure, a couple of changes over a decade (1971-80), but hardly a "rotating cast from the beginning." And when they returned in '94, it was the '78-'80 lineup...picking up from where they left off.
Nearly a year after Frey died, Henley said, "I don’t see how we could go out and play without the guy who started the band. It would just seem like greed or something...it would seem like a desperate thing." Of course, a few months later he changed his tune, no doubt after Mr. Azoff enlightened him on the potential dollars to be made from future "Eagles" tours - no matter who was on stage.
Its almost worth it to see them drag their legacy through the mud to see Don be so completely transparently without a backbone.
If you didn't pick and choose my quotes at random, you'd know very well my opinion was made clear, I think its dogshit. Henley shouldn't be a p*ssy and just tour under his own name with Walsh's and they can promote that they are playing Eagles songs. But if he doesn't want to, and people accept it, those same people should realize they'd do the exact same thing (or that its hardly much different) than if the Stones toured without Keith. Its putting it in a perspective a Stones fan could understand and see how absurd it is.
Quote
HairballQuote
RollingFreakQuote
HairballQuote
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.
Quote
keithsman
With the Eagles you can replace a singer because there are many, and the same with the guitarists, the whole sound doesn't rely on one particular sound that is the complete structure of the music.
But we're die-hard fans...it's easy to be in the IORR bubble and not realize that we're a VERY small percentage of the people that go see the Stones these days.Quote
keithsmanQuote
HairballQuote
RollingFreakQuote
HairballQuote
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.
Well it goes without saying really, Keith is the sound of the Stones, he created the live sound and he still delivers it. Just as Mick is the singer, there is no Stones without both of them as is obvious when they have toured solo. With the Eagles you can replace a singer because there are many, and the same with the guitarists, the whole sound doesn't rely on one particular sound that is the complete structure of the music. Yes of course you could get a copy cat Keith but why would anyone want to pay to see a clone of Keith when we are still blessed with the genuine article.
That's a good question...I can't think of any off the top of my head.Quote
RollingFreakQuote
keefriff99
Keith is iconic in a way that Glenn Frey is not...but I still contend that the Stones, due to the way they've marketed and priced themselves over the past 30 years, have largely turned into a casual tourist destination for boomers with lots of disposable income, and a massive corporate ticket comp dump for coked-up hedgefunders and their high-priced escorts.
No doubt Keith's absence would be noticed by a lot of people, but as long as people see the tongue logo alongside Mick's face, most people would still buy tickets blissfully unaware that a crucial member was missing.
And then defend it even though now it seems inconceivable. "Listen, Keith made it to 80. Thats way longer than anyone expected! And Mick had to hold himself back because of Keith for decades. The other guys in the Stones deserve to continue as a tribute to Keith's brilliant riffs." The fickleness of the concert buying public for the last 20 years truly knows no bounds. Has there been a single thing they HAVEN'T accepted?