Ghost Rider
Footballguy
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.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.
Yeah I’ll listen to Hot For Teacher, pretty much anything else I change the channelFalse. Though admittedly, Van Halen gets an immediate channel change anytime they come on the radio.
This is where I come down. I respect Sammy’s talent, but Van Hagar tunes lack the moxie, swagger and fun of DLR-era Van Halen.Nothing against Hagar but the songs were just better in the early days. This isn't really even a question for me, they were better with Roth.
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.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'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.Looking at this list, I’m not sure a single one of those songs cracks my top ten VH tunes.
You are dead to me.Dreams and Right Now are as good as any song they ever did with DLR, IMO.
I’ll concede that.FALSE.
However.....the best of Hagar is better than the worst of Roth.
They were way better with DLR.Mr.Pack said:Close call indeed, but have to say no. They were a bit better with DLR
Other than possibly Poundcake, I'm probably bypassing these songs.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.
This isn’t even a question.Anarchy99 said:Was Pink Floyd better with or without Roger Waters?
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.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
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.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.
Not sure I agree. Both were great on stage and knew how to work a crowd, just in different ways.They were way better with DLR.
Sammy was good, but as a showman he's no Roth.
ThisChiefD 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.
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.Absolutely false. Van Hagar = too much synth, not enough good songs.
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.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".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.
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.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".
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.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.
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.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.