Van Halen, and only I and II
75 responses Add your response
Being that Eddie Van Halen is the guitarist who doesn't need another guitarist on the stage, I thought it was very bold of Sammy Hagar to stand there and play opposite EVH.
Lokie, Eddie Van Halen guitar playing on Van Halen records, is fundamentally blues based. He distorts it, stretches it and even at times mangles it, but it's still blues based. Where he differs from Clapton, Page and others is that he mixes in tinges of jazz and California surf stylings. It was a truly fresh sound!
An interesting bit of trivia about David Lee Roth. He credits Frank Sinatra as one of his biggest influences as far as singing style goes. You can really hear it at times too. Frank had that way of sometimes sounding like he was singing slowly even on uptempo songs. He had a tendency to hold the note for the full duration, without any decrescendo. David does that as well.
Oh, and I vote for Roth / Van Halen hands down. Although I liked some of the songs on 5150, the Roth era was when they were a "rock band"!
*have you seen junior's grades?*
I'm always amazed at how many people don't seem to pay attention to Fair Warning.
Ask most musicians who study Van Halen closely, and they'll tell you that Fair Warning was where they were absolutely on fire - especially Eddie.
The first album is great, of course, but I'd take Fair Warning first no matter what.
"but god help me if Michael Anthony isn't the most boring bass player on record."
Michael Anthony is the most undervalued member of the group. Not only is he rock solid, he also provides great background vocals. Take a close listen to the bass track on "Panama". He can play.
Oh, and there is only one VH. The one with DLR fronting it.
It's good to see that in this instance, (so far) the majority is not wrong. The post Roth band was a downgrade. (I know ... they sold more records). This doesn't change the fact that the quality knob got turned way down... the guitar work went stale, the vocals got sappy and generic, and there was a mediocre sameness that dominated their records. Fair Warning (which is packed w/ Holdsworthian nutrients), the 1st two VH records and the first two Roth solo records effortlessly whomp the low quality stuffing out of all Hagar releases, (Pat Boone was not better than Little Richard). Spammy stoops to a new low w/Chickenfoot ... a tasty combo of leftover cafeteria food and Bud lite backwash... almost as good as Damn Yankees was w/ the Styx guy and that old genius Turd Nugget, uh, I mean Ted Nugent.
You know after watching "It Might Get Loud" recently it made me think about guitarists and their personal legacy, and I still think EVH is hugely underated. The man is a virtuoso on his instrument.
I didn't always like VH, but I still think on almost all albums, and especially live, he's an amazing mucisian.
BTW, what the hell are Jack White and the Edge (love U2 but, come on) talking with Jimmy Page like they are all equals? Jimmy, come on, were you just bored? How about doing the same movie with say Jimmy, EVH, BB King, Kirk Hammett, Chuck Berry, hell even the the extremely overated Eric Clapton in there. Movie sucked except for the background stuff with Page, which was worth the $2.99 rental on AppleTV.
Listen to Van Halens' cover of "You're No Good". Total ear-bleed IMO. He squeals like my 3 year old daughter, but not nearly as cutely! ;*) I remember when this LP came out- I was so excited. But I hated it. Still do. Even the name of the album is lame. Ya- I know, Zep used it before as well as a myriad of other artist. Still its not creative at all. The next track is "Dance the Night Away". Sure it was a huge hit, but how many DLR squeals can YOU take? Totally cheesy. I tossed this on my TT to let my wife listen and it is even worse than I remember. The music is great, it is just DLR I can't stomach. I pretty much like most of VH's music- the difference in which albums I listen to is the singer. Van Halen has a LOT of great songs- I wont argue that, and I love their first album. But DLR needed to be knocked down a peg or two. Or at least be de-squealed
I've never heard of Kirk Hammett being a laughing stock of anything. Maybe there is some jealously of how popular Mettillica has been, but laughing-stock? No that's hard to take seriously. He has ripped off some incredible riffs over the years, and is an amazing musician live.
He has a way cool style, that may not be to everyone's taste, as with EVH, but dismissing him in such a way as if that's the common perception, that's just not reality.
Van Halen!!! Only the original was the real thing. Hagar was fine on his own -- I was never a big fan though, too limited in voice tone. Anyway, I have all 6 original albums (ending with 1984) and haven't bought one since. But, did go see them for the 'reunion' tour last year (or was it 08), sounded pretty good, I was a bit surprised though, I reckon we all have to cut our hair eventually ... LOL
Went bar-hopping one evening when Van Halen was having great success with their first release. My buddies and I went to a half dozen or so establishments that evening, and that lp was playing when we arrived at three of them...in succession.
The majority of my lp collection is '70s rock, and I have no Van Halen. I'm not saying they were a bad band. They were damn good, just look at their success. But I can't put my finger on the reason I dislike them.
Yes Synthfreek, I listen to smooth jazz...and blues, and rock, some country, some bluegrass, etc., etc.
i just heard a van halen marathon on the radio yesterday. they played many old cuts with roth and played the same amount of cuts with sammy hagar. the old van halen tunes are pretty poppish/bubble gum type whereas the newer sammy hagar/van halen songs sounded much better, better balance, more full, and it reinforcedmy thoughts on how good sammy made van halen.