Quote
TornAndFried

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.

You're certainly entitled to your ersatz musical taste.
I'm happy with mine.

Quote
Hairball

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.....

Timothy B. Schmidt and Joe Walsh 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 Meisner. The band has been a rotating cast from the beginning. It was Glen Frey's band, for sure, but it was also ever changing. I saw the current line up last year at the Giants Ballpark (whatever it's named after this week) and I enjoyed them as much as when I first saw them in '78.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2020-02-11 18:42 by Woz.

Quote
TornAndFried

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.

Second dumbest. The dumbest one was last week. Don't worry, we will get more dumb ones on here.

Quote
stargroover
Rolling Freak your talking garbage

You're*

It was worth it.

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.

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. The question is then, will it still be the Eagles after Don Henley either leaves or passes away?
They could really go on forever - just keep replacing members as they fall o the wayside. I heard KISS have toyed around with similar ideas keeping KISS ALIVE for eternity.

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

Quote
Hairball

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.

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
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.

They're practically all creatively dead. They might get a spirited rendition of one of their ancient hits on a given night, but it's been over in the studio for decades. There are a handful of Stones songs since Steel Wheels that I would listen to again. But if they'd never happened, it wouldn't be that great of a loss. The loss would have been if they'd left those EOMS and Some Girls bonus cuts in the can. Or the BBC tapes, refurbished so you can hear the bass. Blue and Lonesome is fantastic. But it's not new work. It's a cover album. Which is fine, because I'd love to hear more of it, with guest guitarists. At least the Stones slogged through the 80s with some notable songs. When was the last Eagles hit?

Quote
Jah Paul

Quote
Hairball

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.

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.

True. I saw them in 2013, opening night, Los Angeles. I was so excited when Mick T came on for Midnight Rambler. You had to explain to most of the people there who the hell Mick Taylor was.

Quote
Jah Paul

Quote
Hairball

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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
Jah Paul

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.

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.

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.

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

Quote
daspyknows

Quote
TornAndFried

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.

Second dumbest. The dumbest one was last week. Don't worry, we will get more dumb ones on here.

What was the other dumb quote on here last week?

Quote
Hairball

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.....

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
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".....

Small Frey

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.

I saw Steely Dan only once, at the Greek in '93 for their initial reunion (and first tour since '74)...long-awaited and well worth it! Wish I had gone again while Walter was still around.

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

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.

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

Quote
Hairball

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

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.

But so why does Woz' words mean more than ours? Its all opinion.

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.

A lot of people saw Pink Floyd without Roger Waters. In fact, they were massively successful. Cause the concert buying public is dumb and just wants to see a name. Try as they might, it was never Floyd without Roger. Its not really the Eagles without Frey, but as has happened for decades, people will convince themselves otherwise.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-02-11 07:20 by RollingFreak.

Quote
RollingFreak
But so why does Woz' words mean more than ours? Its all opinion

To be completely honest, I'm not sure what your opinion is on this

In one post you say:

"if you're missing Randy Meisner, Glenn Frey AND Don Felder I have a hard time coughing up that dough"

And the next post you say:

"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".


Seems a bit inconsistent and even contradictory, but whatever...no point in digging any deeper on this.

For those like Woz who still enjoy them no matter whose in the band, have a great time.

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-02-11 07:40 by Hairball.

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.

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.

>heck, I wouldn't even see Fleetwood Mac without Christine McVie

I thought the same way about Jeremy Spencer.

And Syd Barrett now that I think of it.

At least the Eagles still got Joe Walsh, hes worth a ticket just by himself.

jb

All seven Eagles - Rock & Roll Hall of Fame, 1998.

[youtu.be]

Quote
Jah Paul

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.

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
Hairball

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

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.

well theres an entire thread at the steve Hoffman forum of people complaining its not the eagles

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
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?

Quote
RollingFreak

Quote
Jah Paul

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.

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.

I have seen the Eagles about six times from 1995 until Glenn died. The only interesting thing about this tour is the Hotel California part and the orchestra but I do not want to pay a premium price just for that. The second half of the show is totally unchanged to back before Glenn died. Why a garbage song like "Those Shoes" has stayed in the setlist for years at the expense of others is a mystery to me.

Every few years Henley does tour on his own and I would pay to see that. A much better setlist as he features some of his good solo songs like "New York Minute" and "Heart of the Matter". Henley could have made good money doing that the rest of his life. But, yes, greed money was more important.

Disappointing.

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.

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.

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.

And the myths just keep on comin! I can't imagine an Eagles without Don Henley, or Joe Walsh at this point. People would say the same before Glenn passed.

Quote
keithsman

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.

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.

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.

In fact, and I don't know if anyone else agrees, it seems the number of Stones fanatics is smaller than other groups (Dylan, Springsteen, the Beatles, Zeppelin just for starters). It seems that the number of passionate Stones completists who really study the history and personnel of the band is smaller in number than some of their peers...anyone else feel the same?

Quote
RollingFreak

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.

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?

That's a good question...I can't think of any off the top of my head.

I mean, Skynyrd has been down to Garry Rossington for a few years now and they still manage on the county fair circuit.