Van Halen w/ Sammy... No love?? (1 Viewer)

[Corey-Reid]

I was reading the thread on peoples favorite classic rock bands and Van Halen came up several times, but with the disclaimer of "with DLR".

I saw Van Halen a few months ago in Fresno Ca with Sammy (of course) and they were incredible.

VH remains one of my all time favorite bands(with both head men) and I was not disappointed in seeing them.

The tracks they did that were Roth songs were still great. Panama brought down the house, and it made no difference it was Sammy. Aint alkin bout love was equally impressive.

Anyone else see this concert, and am I the only one who thinks ammy Kicks a..??

 

[Zen Butler]

No

Also, no love for "No Love for........?" threads. Played out like a Jheri Curl.

 

[John McM]

I think the dislike for "Van Hagar" is because they are so stylistically different than the Roth incarnation. Roth's Van Halen was a classic party rock band. Hagar's Van Halen was more of an arena rock band. Hagar had some good tunes with VH, but he doesn't compare to Roth IMO.

 

[Danny Tse]

Sammy's version Van Halen is cool with me.

 

[Philip Hamm]

I prefer the Sammy Van Halen stuff for the most part, though I've soured on VH lateley after seeing them live. Good show, and Sammy is an incredible performer. I just don't like Dave's goofy style and his vocal range is very limited.

 

[ElevSkyMovie]

Dave was awesome in his day, but his voice is shot and he's a loon.

I think the band is over. I prefer the songs Dave and Eddie wrote, but they'll never get together again. I like a lot of the early Van Hagar stuff, but the last album and the new tracks on the Greatest Hits weren't up to snuff. I think they should hang it up, and Ed and Al should do something outside the Van Halen name.

 

[Kevin M]

I have never taken a liking to "Van Hagar" (yeah..I know that phrase is a bit played out too.) it's not that I thought they were a bad band, because they weren't, I just think Roth's vocals were better suited to the style of the bands music...hard rockin...Hagar was a hard rocker too on his own but IMO when they merged something was lost, they sounded a little too sterile compared to the rough and gritty sound they had before and that was the main reason I liked VH to begin with.
Now some will give the standard "well bands grow up and change"...fair enough but that doesn't mean I have to like what they changed into. It's very much like debate about what happened with Metallica, IMO they changed from a take no prisoners rockin band into a corporate entity...some went along for the ride...I didn't.

 

[Marvin Richardson]

The first two Van Hagar albums (5150 and OU812) are almost as good as anything Van Roth put out. Better than most of them in fact, but not quite as good as Van Halen I or 1984. For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge was decent, but Balance was awful, except for Don't Tell Me (What Love Can Do) and Amsterdam.

 

[Mark Murphy]

I like both "versions" but it is like listening to two completely different bands.

 

[Matt Butler]

Forget Hagar and Roth; Its not VH without Gary Cherone!

All kidding aside I like "Both Worlds". I dont have a preference. I saw the Sac CA show in Aug and it was a killer show!!

 

[Philip_T]

Thats how I've always approached it as well. As soon as DLR left, the old VH was no more in my eyes. When SH joined, it was a new band as far as I was concerned. Both are very enjoyable to my ears for the most part with each band having its own positives (and negatives). Saw them last August on their most recent tour and thought they were still pretty darn good. Not to say that I wouldn't love to see them do a reunion tour with DLR, but Im not holding my breath either.

 

[Bren_Chris]

Makes no difference who's singing - Mike's still playing straight-eight root notes.

 

[Carlo_M]

Count me as a fan of Van Halen...EXTREME!

Not really...

My fave VH songs are w/ DLR, but a lot of Van Hagar is listenable.

I think the most accurate statement I've read, though, is that their time is over.

 

[Danny Tse]

I agree. Van Halen has had their moment in the spotlight for a long time; most artists would kill for the amount of success they've enjoyed. I think an induction into the Rock 'n Roll Hall of Fame, with a performance with everyone who was ever in the band, should seal the deal. Although I think their still-inflated egos are still in the way.

Eddie should move on....how about an instrumental album?

 

[Corey-Reid]

I am 34 and I really dont like much of anything g that is putout by the bands being pushed by the media today. So I must rely on bands like VH, Motley Crue(cant wait to see them now they are back together) and AC?DC to keep my music interests alive.

I am surprised by those of you who fell VH should hang it up.
I saw them this summer and the Save Mart center was packed, and I heard most of the shows they did this summer were also packed. So if a band still has avery large following, they put on an incredible show(which they did) why should they hang it up?

It is very unlikely I will spend any of my money to go see a group of guys in their 20s, but I am very likely to spend big dollars to see the bands I grew up on.

VH has a place, as does Motley Crue and many others. I personally am happy to see many of the 80s bands back in action.

Rock ON

 

[Zen Butler]

I've always thought he should ditch those guys. He is miles above in the talent department. I have seen him live with VH and he stole the show. Edward has a knack for emulating styles outside of the rock realm. I'd love to see pieces such as "Spanish Fly" extended to a reasonable lengths instead of the confined snippets they gave him throughout the years.

 

[ElevSkyMovie]

Although Eddie is a great talent, when I've seen him play with other musicians he seems like a one trick pony, especially when he tries to tap/whammy bar dive all the time while soloing. I saw him play with some guys on the Jeff Porcaro tribute and it was sad. He was just going nuts and it didn't fit the piece they were playing at all.

I agree that he should do an instrumental album and stretch out. I would also like to seem him concentrate on writing better riffs without the rehash from old songs. I would also like it if he stopped hitting the bottle. I think booze is going to run him into the ground.

 

[Danny Tse]

Kyle,

I have the Jeff Porcaro tribute CD and Eddie's contribution on it was very disappointing.

 

[MickeS]

Sums it up well for me. I liked Roth's first solo album (an underrated classic, IMO) more than I liked "5150" by Van Halen.

Still, Van Halen w/ SH is good for what it is. It's just not really Van Halen.

/Mike

 

[TommyJD]

Saw the original Van Halen twice.First time circa their Van Halen 2 LP tour at the Academy Of Music and second time circa their Diver Down tour at the Nassau Colesium.Band was great when they played.David Lee Roth liked to do extended talks between some songs that kind of boring.Most evident during the Diver Down shows where he talked too long between each song bringing the concert momentum to a screaching halt.When they played they rocked!!But Roth's constant stopping the show dead in it's tracks banter between each song turned me off to any future Van Halen concert experiences.Never cared for the Sammy Hagar and only occasionly listen to the first few albums for my VH fill.The band is still an enigma to me and I cannot understand that they are still around after making so much unoriginal and recycled music for so long.VH would only spark my interest if David Lee was rehired and he was given a gag order for in between song banter.