What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

True or False: Van Halen with Sammy was as good as Van Halen with Roth (1 Viewer)

Close call, but I will say it is true.  If I had to list my favorite VH songs, it would be a good mixture of songs from both eras, and the same applies to favorite albums, although the debut would be at the top.
I agree 100%.  Van Hagar produced some really good tracks, and I'd guess that if I made a personal VH playlist it would be around 50-50 or so from both eras.

 
They were both great.   They were so different that I don't see the point in making a comparison.  Sammy could do things vocally that Roth couldn't even dream of, but Roth was a much more entertaining front man.  The styles were different, attitude was different.  I have different preferences at different times.  This question to me is like asking, who was better AC/DC or Aerosmith?   There's just no right answer.  

That being said, it's a fun topic about two great bands.  If it was a poll I would not vote.

 
Van Halen lost it's soul after they kicked out David Lee Roth.

They were an event with him  - it was like the circus came to town with this heart thumping rock and roll with songs (albeit a LOT of cover songs) that kids of that generation will never forget.

They were never the same or as good with Hagar.

 
With DLR one of my top 3 bands. With Sammy, some pretty good tunes and better than nothing. Think I'll put on Fair Warning while I mow the lawn today.

 
Was Pink Floyd better with or without Roger Waters? Was Genesis better with or without Peter Gabriel? Was AC/DC better with Bon Scott or Brian Johnson? Bands with personnel changes normally end up sounding different, but that doesn't always mean one is better than the other.

In the case of VH, they were both good . . . but the DLR version was louder and more obnoxious and the SH version was a little more subdued and leaned more toward pop. Like others have already said, it depends on what mood you are in to pick one or the other to listen to.

 
Love both versions, but I lean towards more of the Sammy albums and songs. Just personal preference based on the albums that came out during my most influential years. I was 9 years old for 1984, and wore it out on cassette, but my high school and college years, my concert going years, were all Sammy.

Side opinion: probably saw Van Halen 5 or 6 times live, and maybe the best show was with Gary Cherone. Sammy is always fun live, but he could never pull off the DLR songs they would play. Cherone did just fine with the Hagar tunes and absolutely crushed all of the DLR tunes, so much in fact they went deeper into the early catalog than they did with Sammy. Cherone did his best Freddie Mercury on stage, stayed near the drum kit and let Eddie and Mike dominate the front of the stage, and they were having fun.

 
Love both versions, but I lean towards more of the Sammy albums and songs. Just personal preference based on the albums that came out during my most influential years. I was 9 years old for 1984, and wore it out on cassette, but my high school and college years, my concert going years, were all Sammy.
That makes total sense. What you grew up with makes a big difference. And I’m sure my love for Roth-era VH in my junior high and early HS years impacts my bias.

Looking at this list, I’m not sure a single one of those songs cracks my top ten VH tunes. 

 
I totally agree that when you grew up makes a big difference. I didn't know who VH was until Jump got played on MTV, and then as I hit my teens and really got into music, VH was kicking ### with OU812 and For Unlawful... and I saw them twice with Hagar in the early to mid 90's.  Such fun shows and times.

The Roth material was strictly party rock and it kicked ###, but the Hagar era had plenty of party rock tunes as well, and they also managed to give us different types of songs that we never would have gotten with Roth.  No, they all weren't the party rock-type tunes with the swagger Roth brought, but nothing wrong with a little variety, right? 

Looking at this list, I’m not sure a single one of those songs cracks my top ten VH tunes. 
That's a pretty good top 10 when you consider their most popular tunes in the Sammy era, although I'd put Black and Blues and the deep cut Pleasure Dome way up there.  They did get 1 and 2 correct, though.  Dreams and Right Now are as good as any song they ever did with DLR, IMO.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
bigbottom said:
That makes total sense. What you grew up with makes a big difference. And I’m sure my love for Roth-era VH in my junior high and early HS years impacts my bias.

Looking at this list, I’m not sure a single one of those songs cracks my top ten VH tunes. 
Other than possibly Poundcake, I'm probably bypassing these songs.

 
Anarchy99 said:
Was Pink Floyd better with or without Roger Waters? 
This isn’t even a question.

David Lee Roth Van Halen made better songs.  Sammy Van Halen was better live.

 
True for me.

But I think a lot of the success of the band came from Michael Anthony's harmonies. He is one of the best rock back up singers (harmonizers) that doesn't get the appreciate deserved for that aspect of his role in VH.

Best example would be 1 from each era: Hot For Teacher and When It's Love

 
True for me.

But I think a lot of the success of the band came from Michael Anthony's harmonies. He is one of the best rock back up singers (harmonizers) that doesn't get the appreciate deserved for that aspect of his role in VH.

Best example would be 1 from each era: Hot For Teacher and When It's Love
I’ll respectfully disagree with the bolded.  I’m not sure there is anyone in the history of rock and roll who gets more props for backing vocals than does Michael Anthony. Where I think he doesn’t get the props he deserves is with respect to his bass playing. I absolutely loved his playing style. It was a combination of technical skill and total rock and roll bombast.

This video is an example of what I mean. 

 
I’ll respectfully disagree with the bolded.  I’m not sure there is anyone in the history of rock and roll who gets more props for backing vocals than does Michael Anthony. Where I think he doesn’t get the props he deserves is with respect to his bass playing. I absolutely loved his playing style. It was a combination of technical skill and total rock and roll bombast.

This video is an example of what I mean. 
Love the song and it did illustrate your point pretty well. I never knew him to be super appreciated for his back vocals. Either way I guess we agree he is a great musician all around. 

 
Two quite different sounds, but I would have to say I enjoyed the DLR version more.   Unfortunately One of the worst concerts I ever attended was Van Halen BECAUSE of David Lee Roth.   Had wait about a hour and a half for them to even get on stage and DLR was totally wasted and was babbling incomprehensively for most of the show.   

 
I remember back in the day when I worked for a concert catering company here in KC during my middle school, high school, and college years.

I’ll never forget David Lee Roth would have his roadies go in the crowd and pick out some girls. He would line them up backstage and after the show would go down the line and point:

You

You

Not You

You 

You

Not You

Not You

Dude is one of a kind.  :lol:

 
Agree with OP, but this is because for me, DLR was middle school, while Sammy was High School and College.  I wore out 2 different cassettes of OU812.

Loved DLR also as a solo, Skyscraper is still one of my favorites.  Damn Good is so damn good.

 
Probably depends on where you were in your life when each was frontman so, for me, Van Halen, not Van Hagar.  5150 was a great  album, collectively, However. 

 
ChiefD said:
Van Halen lost it's soul after they kicked out David Lee Roth.

They were an event with him  - it was like the circus came to town with this heart thumping rock and roll with songs (albeit a LOT of cover songs) that kids of that generation will never forget.

They were never the same or as good with Hagar.
This

 
Dave loathed that sound, he thought it pulled the band away from its roots, and that led to a power struggle between him and Eddie. When "Jump" became a mega, anthem type hit for the band, Dave knew he could never get the band back on course.
DLR failed to realize that bands evolve and change.  Unless your AC/DC, playing the same thing over and over for decades is not a winning formula. 

Kinda funny too that Roth had no problem ending his sets with Jump on his first few solo tours after leaving the band.

 
Dave loathed that sound, he thought it pulled the band away from its roots, and that led to a power struggle between him and Eddie. When "Jump" became a mega, anthem type hit for the band, Dave knew he could never get the band back on course.
1984 is the only album I've ever rushed out to buy on the 1st day of release, and it was a very bitter disappointment.   There were some great tracks on it, but Van Halen's future was obvious after listening to "Jump".

 
1984 is the only album I've ever rushed out to buy on the 1st day of release, and it was a very bitter disappointment.   There were some great tracks on it, but Van Halen's future was obvious after listening to "Jump".
See, I don't get this.  It's not like VH went full synth on 1984 or even the Hagar albums.  Only three songs were synth-driven on 1984 (the short title track, Jump and I'll Wait), only three on 5150 (Why Can't This Be Love?, Dreams and Love Walks In) and only three on OU812 (Mine All Mine, When It's Love and Feels So Good).  And the majority of those still rock, so it's not like they were all of a sudden doing tons of ballads drenched in synths.  If you wanted to rock, those albums all still had plenty in which to sink your teeth. :shrug:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dave loathed that sound, he thought it pulled the band away from its roots, and that led to a power struggle between him and Eddie. When "Jump" became a mega, anthem type hit for the band, Dave knew he could never get the band back on course.
I used to believe this narrative, but then Dave turned his solo career into a second-rate Las Vegas lounge act, so I'm not so sure that Dave really hated the synths so much, or if he just hated Eddie's power play.

 
See, I don't get this.  It's not like VH went full synth on 1984 or even the Hagar albums.  Only three songs were synth-driven on 1984 (the short title track, Jump and I'll Wait), only three on 5150 (Why Can't This Be Love?, Dreams and Love Walks In) and only three on OU812 (Mine All Mine, When It's Love and Feels So Good).  And the majority of those still rock, so it's not like they were all of a sudden doing tons of ballads drenched in synths.  If you wanted to rock, those albums all still had plenty in which to sink your teeth. :shrug:
Synths don't automatically equate with trivial pop music; let's take a minute to remember Pete Townsend using them on "Who's Next".   "Jump" was a disappointment b/c it was a vapid piece of disposable pop, something they'd never done before.  

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top