Eagles Unveil 2005 Tour Plans

[Jahfin]

http://tinylink.com/?CwMCzwW7nh

The Eagles have lined up a 13-date North American tour for next spring, kicking off March 5 in Charleston, S.C., and wrapping April 11 at New York's Madison Square Garden. Tickets begin going on sale tomorrow (Nov. 13).

The band is in the midst of a run of Australian dates, at which they have been performing the new songs "No More Cloudy Days" and "One Day at a Time." That portion of the tour wraps Dec. 4 in Sydney.

The veteran act's "Farewell 1" tour has been on the road since 2002 and has grossed more than $100 million from 84 shows reported to Billboard Boxscore.

Here are the Eagles' 2005 tour dates:

Mar. 5: Charleston, S.C. (Coliseum)
Mar. 6: Jacksonville, Fla. (Veterans Memorial Arena)
Mar. 8: Greenville, S.C. (Bi-Lo Center)
Mar. 10: Atlanta (Gwinnett Center)
Mar. 11: Raleigh, N.C. (RBC Center)
Mar. 18: Reading, Pa. (Sovereign Center)
Mar. 19: Providence, R.I. (Dunkin' Donuts Center)
Mar. 28: Montreal (Bell Centre)
Mar. 29: Toronto (Air Canada Centre)
Mar. 31: East Rutherford, N.J. (Continental Airlines Arena)
Apr. 3: Uniondale, N.Y. (Nassau Coliseum)
Apr. 9: Atlantic City, N.J. (Boardwalk Hall)
Apr. 11: New York (Madison Square Garden)

-- Jonathan Cohen, N.Y.

[mexcooker12]

I went to the Eagles last tour and frankly wasnt that impressed. I love their music and they have an amazing catalog but live they just arent as good as other bands I have seen like Jimmy, Springsteen, U2, AC/DC, or the Stones. The concert was too mellow for my taste.

[photogal]

looks like smaller venues. I liked the last tour. And anyhow Joe Walsh is worth the price of admission as they say......awsome!! If he ever left the band I would never go see them, he carried the show if you ask me. Thanks for the heads up!

[7lords]

looks like smaller venues. I liked the last tour. And anyhow Joe Walsh is worth the price of admission as they say......awsome!! If he ever left the band I would never go see them, he carried the show if you ask me. Thanks for the heads up!

Yep, Walsh would be better off to just continue on his own

[IsleReef]

Let the Eagles hang it up already............. How many farewell tours do they plan to do???????

[captainjoe]

The last tour was their 1st Farewell Tour. When they broke up in the early 80's, they did not have a chance to do a Farewell Tour. So this new tour is their 2nd Farewell Tour. No different than the Stones.

[Jahfin]

I may well be mistaken but I don't think the Stones have ever referred to any of their tours as a farewell. I know the Who have, not so sure about the Stones. I would have a little more respect for the Eagles if they were at least touring behind new material but they're not so that makes them little more than a nostalgia act that's only in it for the money. Money grubbing weasels that they are, they also helped set the precedent for bands charging $100 a ticket all under the premise that this would be the last chance you had to see them. Coming from someone like Henley that sang so much about greed back in the corporate 80s none of it rings true anymore. I'm also pretty sure they've toured more than once since the inititial "Hell Freezes Over Tour" (although I believe it was under the same banner). Joe Walsh did a reunion show with the original James Gang a couple of years ago, that's something I'd much rather see. If they're not going to put out any new material the Eagles should just go away already.

[CaptainP]

Judging from the Eagles past tour, what will ticket prices be? $350 for nosebleed seats?




And the Stones NEED to say farewell...

[Jahfin]

I admit the Stones' studio output has left a lot to be desired in recent years but I was pleasantly surprised when I saw them on the Voodoo Lounge Tour in '94. After all the "smash your walkers!" talk I'd heard on Letterman and less than favorable reviews of their live show I thought they sounded pretty damn good myself.

I think we're in a real interesting time in rock n' roll right now, particularly concerning the older bands like the Stones that are still at it after all these years. Cream is getting back together, Rod Stewart and Ron Wood are talking about reforming the Faces, Jimmy Page is reportedly at work on his first solo album since Outrider in the 80s... I'm just glad to see the older bands not so willing to give up the ghost when so many of the critics would like to see the exact opposite.

[CaptainP]

That was 10 years ago! Sorry, the Stones really need to end it...they haven't produced anything new that was decent since the mid-80s. Even Mick's last solo effort was beyond a flop. I read it sold fewer than 500 copies, so it was pulled!

Some bands can keep it going as they age, but I don't think the Stones are one of them.

[photogal]

I saw the Stones on the last tour and I thought they rocked!! The Eagles keep SAYING they have a new album coming out so maybe thats why the tour. Glen Frye joked about coming around with farewell tour 6 last time I saw them. At least there not playing on a cruise ship tour like Journey/REO Speedwagon/Styx.......how embarrasing is that. Gee people did we not start an IRA when we had the bucks??? I am getting tired of funding some older bands IRA's tho, My son goes to concerts and see's 3 to 5 bands for around $20-25 dollars. p*** me off. They know we have the bucks so lets soak em.

[RinglingRingling]

I admit the Stones' studio output has left a lot to be desired in recent years but I was pleasantly surprised when I saw them on the Voodoo Lounge Tour in '94. After all the "smash your walkers!" talk I'd heard on Letterman and less than favorable reviews of their live show I thought they sounded pretty damn good myself.

I think we're in a real interesting time in rock n' roll right now, particularly concerning the older bands like the Stones that are still at it after all these years. Cream is getting back together, Rod Stewart and Ron Wood are talking about reforming the Faces, Jimmy Page is reportedly at work on his first solo album since Outrider in the 80s... I'm just glad to see the older bands not so willing to give up the ghost when so many of the critics would like to see the exact opposite.

all I can say is that music is probably going to be a "geeez, you're hopelessly trapped in the past" thing when the bands of the 1960s, and 1970s stop touring.

I am really hard-pressed to think of anyone I would pay more than $20 for decent seats to see who "hit" after about 1983.

[Ilph]

I saw the Eagles in the Hell Freezes Over tour and there was no energy there. They should have called it the Making a Few More Bucks tour. I could only imagine what the prices are for this.

[Jahfin]

That was 10 years ago! Sorry, the Stones really need to end it...they haven't produced anything new that was decent since the mid-80s. Even Mick's last solo effort was beyond a flop. I read it sold fewer than 500 copies, so it was pulled!

Some bands can keep it going as they age, but I don't think the Stones are one of them.

Yes, it was 10 years ago but they had their fair share of naysayers saying they should hang it up back then too. I saw the Fourty Licks show that was on HBO last year and thought they were still playing well. As for their last truly great album I'd have to go with Some Girls.

[Jahfin]

I saw the Stones on the last tour and I thought they rocked!! The Eagles keep SAYING they have a new album coming out so maybe thats why the tour. Glen Frye joked about coming around with farewell tour 6 last time I saw them. At least there not playing on a cruise ship tour like Journey/REO Speedwagon/Styx.......how embarrasing is that. Gee people did we not start an IRA when we had the bucks??? I am getting tired of funding some older bands IRA's tho, My son goes to concerts and see's 3 to 5 bands for around $20-25 dollars. p*** me off. They know we have the bucks so lets soak em.

I think Frey released a song a few years ago that he and Henley penned for some movie soundtrack and then there was "Get Over It". That wasn't exactly the Eagles' best but it did have that one good line that really summed the times back then that said, "I'd like to find your inner child and kick it's little ass".

I don't think doing a cruise ship tour is all that bad since everyone from Jerry Jeff to Delbert McClinton and Donna the Buffalo do one each year and I don't really consider any of those artists washed up but there is something I find kinda humorous about Journey, REO and Styx doing one. Going by the Behind the Music specials I've seen I hope they all make it safely ashore without any one of the members having to walk the plank (there's a new VH1 reality show idea for ya).

As for the price of shows these days, I agree it's outrageous but I seldom attend the big arena shows anymore, it's got to be someone I really wanna see. There's plenty of acts that pass through my area that I pay less than $10 to see.

[Jahfin]

I admit the Stones' studio output has left a lot to be desired in recent years but I was pleasantly surprised when I saw them on the Voodoo Lounge Tour in '94. After all the "smash your walkers!" talk I'd heard on Letterman and less than favorable reviews of their live show I thought they sounded pretty damn good myself.

I think we're in a real interesting time in rock n' roll right now, particularly concerning the older bands like the Stones that are still at it after all these years. Cream is getting back together, Rod Stewart and Ron Wood are talking about reforming the Faces, Jimmy Page is reportedly at work on his first solo album since Outrider in the 80s... I'm just glad to see the older bands not so willing to give up the ghost when so many of the critics would like to see the exact opposite.

all I can say is that music is probably going to be a "geeez, you're hopelessly trapped in the past" thing when the bands of the 1960s, and 1970s stop touring.

I am really hard-pressed to think of anyone I would pay more than $20 for decent seats to see who "hit" after about 1983.

I think it's safe to say a lot of those bands have already stopped touring and what few that are out there (unless you're the Stones or the Who) aren't really a big draw anymore. Hell, a lot of those artists may even have a new album out but have a hard time promoting it since there is really no format suitable for them it today's commercial radio climate.

I think of a lot of bands that hit after 1983 that I'd pay that much to see but the majority of them aren't charging that much.

[LIPH]

I've never seen the Eagles live and MSG is real convenient for me (just above Penn Station so I have to go there to get the train home anyway). Tickets go on sale Saturday but there's a presale for AmEx cardholders that started this morning. The cheap seats are only $25 so I decided to get a pair, can't go wrong at that price.

[DeactiveCarib]

I admit the Stones' studio output has left a lot to be desired in recent years but I was pleasantly surprised when I saw them on the Voodoo Lounge Tour in '94. After all the "smash your walkers!" talk I'd heard on Letterman and less than favorable reviews of their live show I thought they sounded pretty damn good myself.

I think we're in a real interesting time in rock n' roll right now, particularly concerning the older bands like the Stones that are still at it after all these years. Cream is getting back together, Rod Stewart and Ron Wood are talking about reforming the Faces, Jimmy Page is reportedly at work on his first solo album since Outrider in the 80s... I'm just glad to see the older bands not so willing to give up the ghost when so many of the critics would like to see the exact opposite.

all I can say is that music is probably going to be a "geeez, you're hopelessly trapped in the past" thing when the bands of the 1960s, and 1970s stop touring.

I am really hard-pressed to think of anyone I would pay more than $20 for decent seats to see who "hit" after about 1983.

I think it's safe to say a lot of those bands have already stopped touring and what few that are out there (unless you're the Stones or the Who) aren't really a big draw anymore. Hell, a lot of those artists may even have a new album out but have a hard time promoting it since there is really no format suitable for them it today's commercial radio climate.

I think of a lot of bands that hit after 1983 that I'd pay that much to see but the majority of them aren't charging that much.

valid points on all sides, but here's my take:

I don't think older bands / artists necesarily need airplay, but rather good reviews and word of mouth. Look at Rod Stewarts past 3 releases. There was no suitable format of radio for that type of music, yet all 3 releases were smash hits, especially his most recent one, which was #1 last time i checked (it may have gone down by now though).

[Jahfin]

I admit the Stones' studio output has left a lot to be desired in recent years but I was pleasantly surprised when I saw them on the Voodoo Lounge Tour in '94. After all the "smash your walkers!" talk I'd heard on Letterman and less than favorable reviews of their live show I thought they sounded pretty damn good myself.

I think we're in a real interesting time in rock n' roll right now, particularly concerning the older bands like the Stones that are still at it after all these years. Cream is getting back together, Rod Stewart and Ron Wood are talking about reforming the Faces, Jimmy Page is reportedly at work on his first solo album since Outrider in the 80s... I'm just glad to see the older bands not so willing to give up the ghost when so many of the critics would like to see the exact opposite.

all I can say is that music is probably going to be a "geeez, you're hopelessly trapped in the past" thing when the bands of the 1960s, and 1970s stop touring.

I am really hard-pressed to think of anyone I would pay more than $20 for decent seats to see who "hit" after about 1983.

I think it's safe to say a lot of those bands have already stopped touring and what few that are out there (unless you're the Stones or the Who) aren't really a big draw anymore. Hell, a lot of those artists may even have a new album out but have a hard time promoting it since there is really no format suitable for them it today's commercial radio climate.

I think of a lot of bands that hit after 1983 that I'd pay that much to see but the majority of them aren't charging that much.

valid points on all sides, but here's my take:

I don't think older bands / artists necesarily need airplay, but rather good reviews and word of mouth. Look at Rod Stewarts past 3 releases. There was no suitable format of radio for that type of music, yet all 3 releases were smash hits, especially his most recent one, which was #1 last time i checked (it may have gone down by now though).

I agree that they don't absolutely need it but media exposure of any kind (whether it be television or radio) is always helpful. In Rod Stewart's case he did benefit from radio and television airplay. The single from his current album reached the number one spot on Adult Contempary radio which is due to airplay.

[DeactiveCarib]

I admit the Stones' studio output has left a lot to be desired in recent years but I was pleasantly surprised when I saw them on the Voodoo Lounge Tour in '94. After all the "smash your walkers!" talk I'd heard on Letterman and less than favorable reviews of their live show I thought they sounded pretty damn good myself.

I think we're in a real interesting time in rock n' roll right now, particularly concerning the older bands like the Stones that are still at it after all these years. Cream is getting back together, Rod Stewart and Ron Wood are talking about reforming the Faces, Jimmy Page is reportedly at work on his first solo album since Outrider in the 80s... I'm just glad to see the older bands not so willing to give up the ghost when so many of the critics would like to see the exact opposite.

all I can say is that music is probably going to be a "geeez, you're hopelessly trapped in the past" thing when the bands of the 1960s, and 1970s stop touring.

I am really hard-pressed to think of anyone I would pay more than $20 for decent seats to see who "hit" after about 1983.

I think it's safe to say a lot of those bands have already stopped touring and what few that are out there (unless you're the Stones or the Who) aren't really a big draw anymore. Hell, a lot of those artists may even have a new album out but have a hard time promoting it since there is really no format suitable for them it today's commercial radio climate.

I think of a lot of bands that hit after 1983 that I'd pay that much to see but the majority of them aren't charging that much.

valid points on all sides, but here's my take:

I don't think older bands / artists necesarily need airplay, but rather good reviews and word of mouth. Look at Rod Stewarts past 3 releases. There was no suitable format of radio for that type of music, yet all 3 releases were smash hits, especially his most recent one, which was #1 last time i checked (it may have gone down by now though).

I agree that they don't absolutely need it but media exposure of any kind (whether it be television or radio) is always helpful. In Rod Stewart's case he did benefit from radio and television airplay. The single from his current album reached the number one spot on Adult Contempary radio which is due to airplay.

what stations are considered Adult Contempary? Now that you mention it i did hear his song on the radio once but that was on the "Delila" program, lol. And now that you bring it up, he did have an A&E live by request special i believe, so that might have helped boost his 2nd most recent album. The third one was almost entirely word of mouth though to the best of my knowledge.

I knew way way way way ahead of time (i knew about it in 1995) that that project was comming from Rod, because my cousin produced the three latest albums. I remember telling a friend of mine about it years before it came out and he said "no one will ever buy that. .. . Rod is way past his prime" Boy, was he ever wrong. I heard Rod isn't gonna do anymore American Songbook albums though, its kind of a shame, but i love his other stuff too so its all good