Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Ghost Rider

True or False: Van Halen with Sammy was as good as Van Halen with Roth

Recommended Posts

On 9/20/2020 at 8:02 PM, The Future Champs said:

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 also largely agree with this. People who think Hagar sent them down this path are sorely mistaken. Still... Panama. :wub:

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/20/2020 at 4:04 PM, rockaction said:

DLR and not even close.

:goodposting: 

If a VH song with Hagar comes on, I change the channel. If a VH song wtih DLR comes on, I turn it up.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sammy the far better singer 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not sure I buy into the narrative that DLR didn't like the VH adaptation of more of a synth sound (and the impending move to more of a softer, poppier style). Roth as a solo artist had several hits with a slicker, glitzy pop sound (in addition to several songs that still featured a lot of guitar). And he did put out THIS and THIS (Fair warning that you can't unhear either of those once you listen to them).

I think Dave and Eddie parted ways over creative direction and control. By many accounts, there were frequent disagreements on how to do things and how serious the music should be. The live shows got to be more about Dave and less about the music, which didn't sit well with the VH brothers. After 5 years of consistent touring, depending upon who is telling the story, the band agreed to take a year off. Roth decided to make a movie (which never got made) and the other guys said they weren't going to wait around for Dave and they wanted to move forward with the band and opted to press on without him. Did Dave quit? Was he fired? Who really knows?

The other odd part about VH lore was that BEFORE their first album, there was talk that producer Ted Templeman was unhappy with Roth's vocals and mentioned that the band should take a look at replacing Dave with none other than Sammy Hagar. Templeman produced Montrose and Sammy was available after he left Montrose. That was all in the 1975-76 era. This has been confirmed by several people. Sammy said no one ever contacted him at the time, so it was only internal discussion. But there was talk of bringing in Sammy 10 years earlier than when he took over for DLR.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think 'Ain't Talkin Bout Love' is their best song, and that was DLR.  But I prefer Van Hagar.  I think DLR was a horrible singer.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Anarchy99 said:

 

The other odd part about VH lore was that BEFORE their first album, there was talk that producer Ted Templeman was unhappy with Roth's vocals and mentioned that the band should take a look at replacing Dave with none other than Sammy Hagar. Templeman produced Montrose and Sammy was available after he left Montrose. That was all in the 1975-76 era. This has been confirmed by several people. Sammy said no one ever contacted him at the time, so it was only internal discussion. But there was talk of bringing in Sammy 10 years earlier than when he took over for DLR.

I remember reading about this. Thank God they didn't go with Sammy from the start. I enjoy the music Van Hagar put out but the swagger and moxie they had with DLR was so much fun. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Anarchy99 said:

I am not sure I buy into the narrative that DLR didn't like the VH adaptation of more of a synth sound (and the impending move to more of a softer, poppier style). Roth as a solo artist had several hits with a slicker, glitzy pop sound (in addition to several songs that still featured a lot of guitar). And he did put out THIS and THIS (Fair warning that you can't unhear either of those once you listen to them).

I think it's possible that there's a middle ground here -- i.e., Dave disliked synthesizers as a lead instrument, but he loved cheesy pop & lounge music. I think that if he had stayed in the band, he would have pushed for Eddie to record more lounge-esque/easy listening stuff, which (IMO) would have been just as bad as Sammy's penchant for teenage love songs.

I think the bottom line with the split was that "California Girls" became a smash hit and Dave's ego started to get out of control. If "California Girls" is a flop, then Dave goes back to Van Halen and they churn out a few more albums (each with fewer and fewer rock songs) before calling it a day when grunge hits the scene.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think people over complicate it, I always follow the money, I think the tension comes from "I'm doing more than you, I deserve more, etc."  It's nothing new, it's been going on for years and years but I think a lot of lead singers figure "I'm out in front, I'm the voice of the band, it's my face everyone associates with, if I leave I take the sound, the audience, everything goes with me, etc."

Around that time, I mean you had the same thing happening over and over.  Sting left the Police around that time at the height of their popularity, Paul Rogers left Bad Company a little before that, Steve Perry left Journey a bit later on, etc.  I think it's pretty simple, instead of splitting the money 3, 4 or 5 ways you take the lion's share of the pie and split it up how you decide and you get the bonus of having 100% of the creative decision making, it's your band you get to decide who's in, who's out, what songs go on the album, how the money gets divided, the royalties from the album, etc.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Anarchy99 said:

I am not sure I buy into the narrative that DLR didn't like the VH adaptation of more of a synth sound (and the impending move to more of a softer, poppier style). Roth as a solo artist had several hits with a slicker, glitzy pop sound (in addition to several songs that still featured a lot of guitar). And he did put out THIS and THIS (Fair warning that you can't unhear either of those once you listen to them).

I think Dave and Eddie parted ways over creative direction and control. By many accounts, there were frequent disagreements on how to do things and how serious the music should be. The live shows got to be more about Dave and less about the music, which didn't sit well with the VH brothers. After 5 years of consistent touring, depending upon who is telling the story, the band agreed to take a year off. Roth decided to make a movie (which never got made) and the other guys said they weren't going to wait around for Dave and they wanted to move forward with the band and opted to press on without him. Did Dave quit? Was he fired? Who really knows?

The other odd part about VH lore was that BEFORE their first album, there was talk that producer Ted Templeman was unhappy with Roth's vocals and mentioned that the band should take a look at replacing Dave with none other than Sammy Hagar. Templeman produced Montrose and Sammy was available after he left Montrose. That was all in the 1975-76 era. This has been confirmed by several people. Sammy said no one ever contacted him at the time, so it was only internal discussion. But there was talk of bringing in Sammy 10 years earlier than when he took over for DLR.

Very interesting 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Sullie said:

I think people over complicate it, I always follow the money, I think the tension comes from "I'm doing more than you, I deserve more, etc."  It's nothing new, it's been going on for years and years but I think a lot of lead singers figure "I'm out in front, I'm the voice of the band, it's my face everyone associates with, if I leave I take the sound, the audience, everything goes with me, etc."

Around that time, I mean you had the same thing happening over and over.  Sting left the Police around that time at the height of their popularity, Paul Rogers left Bad Company a little before that, Steve Perry left Journey a bit later on, etc.  I think it's pretty simple, instead of splitting the money 3, 4 or 5 ways you take the lion's share of the pie and split it up how you decide and you get the bonus of having 100% of the creative decision making, it's your band you get to decide who's in, who's out, what songs go on the album, how the money gets divided, the royalties from the album, etc.

Money is normally a pretty big motivator but I am not sure it always fits every situation. Let's look at each case individually . . .

Sting and the other two guys weren't really getting along great and Sting wanted to go in a different direction musically. Sting was likely the majority contributor to the band, so it's not like the other two were going to get someone else to write the songs and sing and still call themselves The Police. The Police sold more than Sting did, so I am not sure the motivation for Sting was to get a bigger share of a much smaller pie. Similarly, there have been any number of times The Police could have reformed over the years and they only did so for one tour. There was always talk of getting together to record a new album and there was too much going on personality wise for that to ever happen. Sting had to be the one in charge so another album never happened. Even now, if they wanted a money grab, they could reform tomorrow and print money if they wanted to.

Bad Company also grew to global fame. The band took a three year break and went back and recorded their last album with Paul Rodgers and then broke up in 1982. Rodgers put out a solo album the following year that didn't sell. He ended up joining forces with Jimmy Page to kickoff The Firm. The rest of Bad Company had a hankering to get back together, but Rodgers was already entrenched in the The Firm so they had to make do without him. I don't know if Rodgers would have reupped if he wasn't busy, but I don't think this was a money issue. Both The Firm and the reconstituted Bad Company enjoyed being smaller scale bands than what they were accustomed to.

Journey hit the big time with Escape and Frontiers. While they were recovering from repeated world tours, Steve Perry put out a very successful solo album. He could have called it a day and stayed a solo artist, but he returned for Raised On Radio. At the end of their tour, Steve Perry had vocal chord issues and they had to scrap the rest of the tour. While waiting for Perry to recover, Neal Schon started Bad English. Perry got better but Journey wasn't really active, so he recorded another solo album. The Journey hiatus stretched to 8 years but they finally got back together. Trouble ensued again when Perry needed replacement hip surgery and couldn't tour. At that point the band voted Perry off the island saying they needed a new singer to be able to make money. So this one was about the money, but not the singer leaving for more money.

Another person I wanted to bring up was Phil Collins. Genesis was popular but not chart topping popular. Collins went off and launched a huge solo career . . . bigger than Genesis. But then he came back and recorded a handful more albums with the band and they became cash cows too. If it was all about how the money was divided, Phil could have just stayed a solo artist. So this one was about the money in that Genesis was a big draw, and apparently Collins felt a piece of a giant pie is still a lot of money. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Bob Sacamano said:

I also largely agree with this. People who think Hagar sent them down this path are sorely mistaken. Still... Panama. :wub:

"Hot for Teacher" is my favorite track, although that might be influenced by the video...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Anarchy99 said:

I am not sure I buy into the narrative that DLR didn't like the VH adaptation of more of a synth sound (and the impending move to more of a softer, poppier style). Roth as a solo artist had several hits with a slicker, glitzy pop sound (in addition to several songs that still featured a lot of guitar). And he did put out THIS and THIS (Fair warning that you can't unhear either of those once you listen to them).

I think Dave and Eddie parted ways over creative direction and control. By many accounts, there were frequent disagreements on how to do things and how serious the music should be. The live shows got to be more about Dave and less about the music, which didn't sit well with the VH brothers. After 5 years of consistent touring, depending upon who is telling the story, the band agreed to take a year off. Roth decided to make a movie (which never got made) and the other guys said they weren't going to wait around for Dave and they wanted to move forward with the band and opted to press on without him. Did Dave quit? Was he fired? Who really knows?

The other odd part about VH lore was that BEFORE their first album, there was talk that producer Ted Templeman was unhappy with Roth's vocals and mentioned that the band should take a look at replacing Dave with none other than Sammy Hagar. Templeman produced Montrose and Sammy was available after he left Montrose. That was all in the 1975-76 era. This has been confirmed by several people. Sammy said no one ever contacted him at the time, so it was only internal discussion. But there was talk of bringing in Sammy 10 years earlier than when he took over for DLR.

Nice touch. :P

5 hours ago, Joe Summer said:

I think it's possible that there's a middle ground here -- i.e., Dave disliked synthesizers as a lead instrument, but he loved cheesy pop & lounge music. I think that if he had stayed in the band, he would have pushed for Eddie to record more lounge-esque/easy listening stuff, which (IMO) would have been just as bad as Sammy's penchant for teenage love songs.

I think the bottom line with the split was that "California Girls" became a smash hit and Dave's ego started to get out of control. If "California Girls" is a flop, then Dave goes back to Van Halen and they churn out a few more albums (each with fewer and fewer rock songs) before calling it a day when grunge hits the scene.

Agreed about California Girls.  DLR as a solo artist was an instant MTV star, thanks to California Girls and Just a Gigolo, and then took it to the next level with Yankee Rose and Goin' Crazy when he released his first full length solo record.  You won't find another male rock star who could have walked out on stage in 1986 in assless chaps and had everyone in the crowd (guys and gals) cheer like crazy. :lol:

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Anarchy99 said:

Another person I wanted to bring up was Phil Collins. Genesis was popular but not chart topping popular. Collins went off and launched a huge solo career . . . bigger than Genesis. But then he came back and recorded a handful more albums with the band and they became cash cows too. If it was all about how the money was divided, Phil could have just stayed a solo artist. So this one was about the money in that Genesis was a big draw, and apparently Collins felt a piece of a giant pie is still a lot of money. 

Mike Rutherford and Tony Banks really stuck up for Phil to become the lead vocalist after Peter Gabriel departed, and not bring in someone from outside the group (which was what the label wanted, as they were going to re-brand the group as something totally new). Phil's enormous solo career resulted because of their loyalty, and I have read that he felt he owed it to them to use his popularity to return the favor. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Encyclopedia Brown said:

Mike Rutherford and Tony Banks really stuck up for Phil to become the lead vocalist after Peter Gabriel departed, and not bring in someone from outside the group (which was what the label wanted, as they were going to re-brand the group as something totally new). Phil's enormous solo career resulted because of their loyalty, and I have read that he felt he owed it to them to use his popularity to return the favor. 

Yep. Phil did his solo work because he wanted to try something different from the band’s sound, not because he was unhappy or wanted more money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Anarchy99 said:

I am not sure I buy into the narrative that DLR didn't like the VH adaptation of more of a synth sound (and the impending move to more of a softer, poppier style). Roth as a solo artist had several hits with a slicker, glitzy pop sound (in addition to several songs that still featured a lot of guitar). And he did put out THIS and THIS (Fair warning that you can't unhear either of those once you listen to them).

I think Dave and Eddie parted ways over creative direction and control. By many accounts, there were frequent disagreements on how to do things and how serious the music should be. The live shows got to be more about Dave and less about the music, which didn't sit well with the VH brothers. After 5 years of consistent touring, depending upon who is telling the story, the band agreed to take a year off. Roth decided to make a movie (which never got made) and the other guys said they weren't going to wait around for Dave and they wanted to move forward with the band and opted to press on without him. Did Dave quit? Was he fired? Who really knows?

The other odd part about VH lore was that BEFORE their first album, there was talk that producer Ted Templeman was unhappy with Roth's vocals and mentioned that the band should take a look at replacing Dave with none other than Sammy Hagar. Templeman produced Montrose and Sammy was available after he left Montrose. That was all in the 1975-76 era. This has been confirmed by several people. Sammy said no one ever contacted him at the time, so it was only internal discussion. But there was talk of bringing in Sammy 10 years earlier than when he took over for DLR.

Also of interest along these lines:

I recently watched the Sammy Hagar episode of Live from Daryl’s House. They mentioned that after DLR left, Eddie called a bunch of different singers — including Daryl Hall.

Edited by Pip's Invitation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Anarchy99 said:

Money is normally a pretty big motivator but I am not sure it always fits every situation. Let's look at each case individually . . .

Sting and the other two guys weren't really getting along great and Sting wanted to go in a different direction musically. Sting was likely the majority contributor to the band, so it's not like the other two were going to get someone else to write the songs and sing and still call themselves The Police. The Police sold more than Sting did, so I am not sure the motivation for Sting was to get a bigger share of a much smaller pie. Similarly, there have been any number of times The Police could have reformed over the years and they only did so for one tour. There was always talk of getting together to record a new album and there was too much going on personality wise for that to ever happen. Sting had to be the one in charge so another album never happened. Even now, if they wanted a money grab, they could reform tomorrow and print money if they wanted to.

You make valid points so, out of my own curiosity, I took some time to research Sting's departure to see if he was better off with The Police or on his own and I'll share what I discovered below here :

The Police sold roughly 15 million records/tapes over 5 studio album releases in the US.  Of course, if you count all the other countries it gets much higher but just for sake of a quick comparison, if we just look at the albums sold by The Police, US sales were around 15 million.   Additionally, I'm absolutely positive those first few album deals were probably largely in the record company's favor so I would be willing to bet the record company (A&M) made the lion's share of profit off those first few albums.  Regardless, profits still had to be split up further between the three of them beyond what the label took. You have producers, agents, engineers, etc.with their hands in that pie as well.  My point is, even though they sold a lot of albums and made a lot of money, I'm not so sure they made as much off those first few albums when they were unknown. Even later on, when they became established, still, if the profits had to be split up between the band members.  So, for example, The Police's best selling album was Synchronicity.  So that album sold 8 million copies in the US right?  Let's simplify it down and say that The Police band received $1.00 for every album sold okay?  So $8 million / 3 = $2.67 million each.  Even though Sting only sold 3 million US copies of his first album, still, if he received the same $1.00 per album sold, that's $3 million on his very first album alone and that's just for album tape sales.  I would strongly argue that it was EXTREMELY lucrative for Sting to go out on his own when he did, it's not like he took a pay cut, if anything I'm sure he got paid more and I'm willing to bet he gambled on himself that he would be better off on his own when he split off from the band.

Sting, on his own, did 8 solo albums and he did about 15.5 million in US sales alone on those, and like The Police album sales, I'm not counting UK, Germany, Canada, France, etc. sales but that doesn't include the money from concert tours, merchandise, DVD's, etc. Once again, ALL of that went to Sting and I would wager his deal with A&M records was much more profitable in his favor since he was already an established brand at that point.  Additionally, he also did 6 live albums and 9 compilation albums, again, all of that went to him, he didn't have two other partners to split the money with.  The biggest point here is the royalties go to Sting and Sting alone.  So if he sold however many million albums in the US in 1987, that's one thing, but then he can continue to get the royalties from all the times his albums sell from 1987 and on.  I mean, hell,  he may have sold another 10k albums per year from new listeners or sales on iTunes or song royalties for songs used in commercials, movies, etc.  It's not just the number of albums sold from the year the album was released.  There may be some resurgence in Sting songs next year where he sells a million copies of his first album because it was used by some famous Youtuber or something, again, all that royalty money goes to him, he doesn't have to split it between the other band members.

And as I pointed out though in a lesser point, in addition to the money, there's also creative, output and content control.  If you wanted to do an album full of remakes, you don't have to ask your bandmates for their permission or input, you'd just do it.  If you don't feel like putting out an album every year and you're in the driver's seat, then you'd put out an album whenever you felt like it.  I think the other thing about is, is the freedom of splitting out from the band as well.  I was looking at Sting's discography as I was writing this and he did a TON of one off projects with other artists and groups over the years plus his side projects in acting jobs here and there.  Again, if he's in The Police band, I'm not sure he has that kind of freedom at the very least and at most, those solo projects, acting jobs, etc.  would have surely caused friction between the band members because that would have taken time away from him making The Police albums, touring with the band, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Short of having access to the financials, we are all just guessing about the numbers In terms of which outcome was more lucrative. The Police are said to have sold 97 million albums worldwide and Sting 52 million. However, most of The Police’s haul came across 5 years while Sting’s totals have come across 35 years. 

Like most artists on their initial record contracts, the early efforts of The Police likely made the label way more money than the band got. So Sting probably got a bigger piece of the pie going things alone. That’s a different scenario than VH, as the Van Halen brothers could move forward without DLR while Stewart Copeland and Andy Summers couldn’t without Sting. 

No doubt Sting had a very successful solo career, but who knows how popular and how much The Police could have been if they stayed more active. Sting could have gone the Phil Collins and Genesis route and pulled double duty. The limited Police tour in 2007 took in also $400 million. Big picture, there are ways to debate either way if Sting made the right choice if he only cared about the money. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True for me.

I like both of them for what they are - the DLR years are the harder rock (Devil, Aint talking bout love, Unchained, Cradle, etc.), and the Sammy years are a little more pop-rock, but maybe also with some better overall songs. It's like comparing AC/DC to Bon Jovi - they both fit well into the listening rotation. 

However, in terms of fandom, Sammy has aged much better. For me, Roth's act got tired really fast - his first full solo album was good, then he more or less went downhill quickly. Once spandex on a rock star became weird, he didn't adapt.

I'd go see Sammy in concert today. DLR? meh. His last round with VH could only be described as awkward. He doesn't know what to do with himself onstage, and looked uncomfortable. And he sounds terrible.   

Edited by jwb
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After this thread got me re-listening to some live Van Halen, I gotta say they SOUND terrible live.  I was more into Metallica and Megadeth, but Van Halen was right in my middle school years and I liked their songs.   But the VH singing and sound is terrible, even with Hagar.  EVH's guitar even sounds horrible, and that seems impossible.  Then Roth sold out for MTV pop money, and those were some awful songs.  Band was probably way overrated looking back at it.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Brunell4MVP said:

After this thread got me re-listening to some live Van Halen, I gotta say they SOUND terrible live.  I was more into Metallica and Megadeth, but Van Halen was right in my middle school years and I liked their songs.   But the VH singing and sound is terrible, even with Hagar.  EVH's guitar even sounds horrible, and that seems impossible.  Then Roth sold out for MTV pop money, and those were some awful songs.  Band was probably way overrated looking back at it.

 

The original VH run fell in my middle school and high school years. In high school, VH, Def Leppard, Motley Crue, Ozzy, and Rush were huge. The Van Hagar years fell in my college and post-college range, and no one I knew was into the band with Sammy in it. People lamented that VH and Def Leppard had gone soft and instead cranked up their early material at college and riding around in cars. Music changed by the early 90's with bands like Nirvana and Pearl Jam, so who knows if VH with DLR would have stayed popular if they were together. But for me in HS and college, even if the original VH stuff wasn't ground breaking it still got people in the mood to party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/24/2020 at 1:57 PM, Anarchy99 said:

The original VH run fell in my middle school and high school years. In high school, VH, Def Leppard, Motley Crue, Ozzy, and Rush were huge. The Van Hagar years fell in my college and post-college range, and no one I knew was into the band with Sammy in it. People lamented that VH and Def Leppard had gone soft and instead cranked up their early material at college and riding around in cars. Music changed by the early 90's with bands like Nirvana and Pearl Jam, so who knows if VH with DLR would have stayed popular if they were together. But for me in HS and college, even if the original VH stuff wasn't ground breaking it still got people in the mood to party.

I was in high school from the fall of 1987 through the spring of 1991 and almost everyone I knew in high school who was into music was a big Van Hagar fan. Many were also big time into DLR's solo material that first year or two of high school. I remember seeing a ton of Skyscraper concert t's at school the day after his tour hit STL (I didn't start going to concerts until 1990, so I did not go).  I remember a guy on the school bus who always had his walkman and listened to some Alex Van Halen drum solo literally every day for months.  Two of my younger cousins (born in '76 and '79) also were diehard Van Hagar fans and to this day still prefer that era of the band (although they love the Roth era like crazy as well).   Like you said, often times, it all depends on your age and when you fell in love with the band and which era was going strong.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Van Halen with Sammy Hagar = way more commercially successful.

Van Halen with David Lee Roth = way more the better band.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This totally got me thinking about my favorite unanswerable band-related  question:

Which was the better AC/DC lineup:

  • The one with Bon Scott
  • The one with Brian Johnson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ghost Rider said:

I was in high school from the fall of 1987 through the spring of 1991 and almost everyone I knew in high school who was into music was a big Van Hagar fan. Many were also big time into DLR's solo material that first year or two of high school. I remember seeing a ton of Skyscraper concert t's at school the day after his tour hit STL (I didn't start going to concerts until 1990, so I did not go).  I remember a guy on the school bus who always had his walkman and listened to some Alex Van Halen drum solo literally every day for months.  Two of my younger cousins (born in '76 and '79) also were diehard Van Hagar fans and to this day still prefer that era of the band (although they love the Roth era like crazy as well).   Like you said, often times, it all depends on your age and when you fell in love with the band and which era was going strong.

Same basic era myself (HS class of 90).  I more or less was woke to Halen in the Hagar era and I am very partial to it.  I also think DLR is an overrated clown.  
 

And, yet still, i just don’t see any way Hagar era lives up to what came before him.  When VH first came on the scene, they were transcendent and transformative.  Most of that credit obviously goes to EVH.  But,  even just going song by song, I can’t find anything in Hagar era catalogue (with maybe the exception to the actual track ‘5150’) that remotely comes close to the stuff from their first album.  And Fair Warning.  And 1984.  To me it’s hands down DLR, even if his whole shtick is/was absurd.

Edited by cobalt_27
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/23/2020 at 12:13 PM, Anarchy99 said:

The other odd part about VH lore was that BEFORE their first album, there was talk that producer Ted Templeman was unhappy with Roth's vocals and mentioned that the band should take a look at replacing Dave with none other than Sammy Hagar. Templeman produced Montrose and Sammy was available after he left Montrose. That was all in the 1975-76 era. This has been confirmed by several people. Sammy said no one ever contacted him at the time, so it was only internal discussion. But there was talk of bringing in Sammy 10 years earlier than when he took over for DLR.

I have heard the story that when the labels had only a demo tape of Van Halen, nothing else, the first and loudest critique was the less than stellar vocals of Dave. However, if anyone from the label had seen Van Halen in concert, the first thing they pointed out was Dave's on-stage charisma and showmanship.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

VH with DLR had better songs and more edge.   Dave was also more fun.  Hagar was the better singer.   He was solid live but I agree with the poster that stated VH wasn’t a good live band.    It’s not that they were awful but they didn’t blow you away like Metallica or  Queensryche, or entertain you for the whole show such as Pantera, Skid Row, or even Ozzy to name a few.   VAn Hagar sounded thin and bored me after a few songs.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My only beef with VH live was too much time was always wasted with solo spots and covers.  I saw them for the first time in 1993 on the tour for the live album they released from the Carnal Knowledge tour, and even though the Hagar lineup had released three studio albums, only 11 of the 23 songs they played were from those albums, because ya know, they just had to play three solo Sammy songs, have a bass solo, a drum solo, a guitar solo, and close the show with two covers (You Really Got Me and Rockin' in the Free World).  Would have been nice to get more deep cuts from those Van Hagar albums.

Edited by Ghost Rider
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Ghost Rider said:

My only beef with VH live was too much time was always wasted with solo spots and covers.  I saw them for the first time in 1993 on the tour for the live album they released from the Carnal Knowledge tour, and even though the Hagar lineup had released three studio albums, only 11 of the 23 songs they played were from those albums, because ya know, they just had to play three solo Sammy songs, have a bass solo, a drum solo, a guitar solo, and close the show with two covers (You Really Got Me and Rockin' in the Free World).  Would have been nice to get more deep cuts from those Van Hagar albums.

I’d feel ripped off not getting 15-20 minutes of just Eddie up there.  
 

But, I could do without AVH drum solo and most definitely Michael Anthony.  Hagar solo songs (usually Where Eagles Fly) 100% represented a piss break.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the songwriting and playing was tighter with Hagar.

I think VH was more exciting with Roth.

That said, I can not listen to "Running With The Devil" It's so damned turgid it makes Bad Company (no speed demons themselves) sound like a thrash band.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cobalt_27 said:

But, I could do without AVH drum solo and most definitely Michael Anthony.  Hagar solo songs (usually Where Eagles Fly) 100% represented a piss break.

For me, the quintessential Sammy Hagar solo tune will always be Heavy Metal because of (1) this movie, which I somehow managed to see at 12 or 13 despite the R rating; and (2) it was always a great tune to play at the skating rink during that same time period of my childhood. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DLR was better at drinking tequila, Hagar was better at selling it.  

Gimme me the drinker all day.  

Never seen them live with DLR, but they weren’t a good live act compared to Hagar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I appreciate the majority of people not "gatekeeping" one person's taste of one or the other. 

I grew up in the late 80s and early 90s and Sammy was one of the voices I knew as soon as I heard a song come on. I love the synth, the music and Sammy's voice but I appreciate the DLR era as well. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Stompin' Tom Connors said:

This totally got me thinking about my favorite unanswerable band-related  question:

Which was the better AC/DC lineup:

  • The one with Bon Scott
  • The one with Brian Johnson

Bon Scott.   As good as they are with Brian, they would have been so much better with Bon all these years.

  • Like 2
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, AndrewClark said:

I appreciate the majority of people not "gatekeeping" one person's taste of one or the other. 

I grew up in the late 80s and early 90s and Sammy was one of the voices I knew as soon as I heard a song come on. I love the synth, the music and Sammy's voice but I appreciate the DLR era as well. 

Musically, 1984 sounded like a VH album that Hagar could have sung instead of DLR.  I was very familiar with Sammy from Montrose and his solo career.  He didn't really change the direction of VH as much as Eddie did with 1984.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, cobalt_27 said:

I’d feel ripped off not getting 15-20 minutes of just Eddie up there.  
 

But, I could do without AVH drum solo and most definitely Michael Anthony.  Hagar solo songs (usually Where Eagles Fly) 100% represented a piss break.

Yeah, I get that many wanted that Eddie solo, to get Eruption, 316, Spanish Fly and God knows what else, but I could have done without the rest.  I love Eagles Fly, so I didn't mind that one.  MA's bass solo seemed like an excuse for him to show off his Jack Daniels bass and makes lots of noise (and to let the others get serviced back stage, assuming what Hagar has said is true :lol: ).

57 minutes ago, FairWarning said:

Musically, 1984 sounded like a VH album that Hagar could have sung instead of DLR.  I was very familiar with Sammy from Montrose and his solo career.  He didn't really change the direction of VH as much as Eddie did with 1984.

Very true.  Synths were becoming a somewhat regular part of the VH sound in the latter half of the 80's no matter who the new singer was. 

Edited by Ghost Rider
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, FairWarning said:

Musically, 1984 sounded like a VH album that Hagar could have sung instead of DLR.  I was very familiar with Sammy from Montrose and his solo career.  He didn't really change the direction of VH as much as Eddie did with 1984.

Actually this is spot on. Well put. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, AndrewClark said:

Actually this is spot on. Well put. 

After listening through it this evening. Especially "I'll Wait"with heavy 2 different synth sounds and I actually think Sammy might have been a better singer for that song. 

Edited by AndrewClark
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, bigbottom said:

For me, the quintessential Sammy Hagar solo tune will always be Heavy Metal because of (1) this movie, which I somehow managed to see at 12 or 13 despite the R rating; and (2) it was always a great tune to play at the skating rink during that same time period of my childhood. 

Not to sidetrack, but this comment brought back a TON of memories. I think for guys our age, this was an R rated movie we all saw while underage -- I saw it right around the same age -- maybe because it was animated and was easier to fly under parents' radar, and a very active underground VHS/Beta tape swap network (or at least there was in my town growing up).

On my end, a lot was driven by the fact that a lot of SCTV actors lent their voices to the film, so it added a cool hometown flavor: "Hey, did you know John Candy, Eugene Levy, Joe Flaherty, and Harold Ramis are in this?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, AndrewClark said:
4 hours ago, FairWarning said:

Musically, 1984 sounded like a VH album that Hagar could have sung instead of DLR.  I was very familiar with Sammy from Montrose and his solo career.  He didn't really change the direction of VH as much as Eddie did with 1984.

Actually this is spot on. Well put. 

Woulda been weird hearing Sammy on "Hot for Teacher", but the rest ... yeah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Doug B said:

Woulda been weird hearing Sammy on "Hot for Teacher", but the rest ... yeah.

No one could have pulled off that spoken part after the second chorus of Panama like Diamond Dave.

"Yeah, we're runnin' a bit hot tonight...."

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I owned all the DLR albums, only the first 2 with Hagar.  I thought they were all pretty good, but I definitely prefer DLR. 

One thing I noticed a long time ago was that musically, the DLR years were much more diverse.  The Hagar years had a very homogenized sound.  I usually can't tell which song I'm listening to from the Hagar years until I hear a bunch of lyrics.  That never happens with the DLR songs.  They are all very recognizable by the music itself.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will share the craziest of dreams I had over the summer (when I had not been listening to VH at all). Back in high school in the early 80's, I dabbled playing bass. I certainly wasn't great at it. In the early 2000's, one of my buddies went and saw a solo Sammy show. That's the back story.

In my dream, that friend was out on a trip to Vegas (present day) and bumped into Sammy at a 7-Eleven. They got to chatting about the show my friend had gone to, and he ended up playing a round of golf with the Red Rocker. While they were on the course, it came out that Sammy and Eddie had kissed and made up and were talking about reforming VH with Sammy. But Eddie didn't want Mike back and Sammy didn't want to play with Wolfie. So the conundrum was they had no bass player. My buddy suggested me as a replacement alternative, and Sammy called me directly from the golf course to see if I was interested (ignoring the fact that I hadn't picked up a bass in 35+ years and was a terrible bass player).

Ultimately they flew me out to audition and jam with the band. Things worked out great, and I co-wrote what would turn out to be their new single. I ended up being the regular bass player on their new album . . . and then they wanted me to learn their back catalog to be able to tour with them starting in a few weeks (ignoring this thing called COVID).

But I was still active on the FBG message boards, so I actually leaked that the band was reforming and I was the new bass player in a Free For All post. No one believed me until I posted a link to the video for the new song and a press release naming me as the new bass player of VH. And then I woke up . . . and at the time I woke up I remembered the lyrics and the music to the song I allegedly co-wrote (I since forget it now). That's how real the dream was. I agree . . . I want more of the drugs I apparently was on that night.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Stompin' Tom Connors said:

Not to sidetrack, but this comment brought back a TON of memories. I think for guys our age, this was an R rated movie we all saw while underage -- I saw it right around the same age -- maybe because it was animated and was easier to fly under parents' radar, and a very active underground VHS/Beta tape swap network (or at least there was in my town growing up).

On my end, a lot was driven by the fact that a lot of SCTV actors lent their voices to the film, so it added a cool hometown flavor: "Hey, did you know John Candy, Eugene Levy, Joe Flaherty, and Harold Ramis are in this?"

I definitely identify with this. There were certain movies that define different parts of your youth. This was certainly one of them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Anarchy99 said:

I will share the craziest of dreams I had over the summer (when I had not been listening to VH at all). Back in high school in the early 80's, I dabbled playing bass. I certainly wasn't great at it. In the early 2000's, one of my buddies went and saw a solo Sammy show. That's the back story.

In my dream, that friend was out on a trip to Vegas (present day) and bumped into Sammy at a 7-Eleven. They got to chatting about the show my friend had gone to, and he ended up playing a round of golf with the Red Rocker. While they were on the course, it came out that Sammy and Eddie had kissed and made up and were talking about reforming VH with Sammy. But Eddie didn't want Mike back and Sammy didn't want to play with Wolfie. So the conundrum was they had no bass player. My buddy suggested me as a replacement alternative, and Sammy called me directly from the golf course to see if I was interested (ignoring the fact that I hadn't picked up a bass in 35+ years and was a terrible bass player).

Ultimately they flew me out to audition and jam with the band. Things worked out great, and I co-wrote what would turn out to be their new single. I ended up being the regular bass player on their new album . . . and then they wanted me to learn their back catalog to be able to tour with them starting in a few weeks (ignoring this thing called COVID).

But I was still active on the FBG message boards, so I actually leaked that the band was reforming and I was the new bass player in a Free For All post. No one believed me until I posted a link to the video for the new song and a press release naming me as the new bass player of VH. And then I woke up . . . and at the time I woke up I remembered the lyrics and the music to the song I allegedly co-wrote (I since forget it now). That's how real the dream was. I agree . . . I want more of the drugs I apparently was on that night.

You should have grabbed your phone and recorded yourself singing the tune before it was lost!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Stompin' Tom Connors said:

No one could have pulled off that spoken part after the second chorus of Panama like Diamond Dave.

"Yeah, we're runnin' a bit hot tonight...."

I kicked his ###.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Stompin' Tom Connors said:

No one could have pulled off that spoken part after the second chorus of Panama like Diamond Dave.

"Yeah, we're runnin' a bit hot tonight...."

Ever "Dave song" that Sammy tried to do live never sounded good. And the speaking parts were just the worst. Sammy knowing he couldn't pull off the DLR vibe and trying to make it is own, and it just made it worst. Basically turned into a cheap pop shouting out to whatever city they were in ("I know you know this part Dallas, Texas!!!") or getting the camera guy to find some bare boobs in the crowd.

I regret never seeing vintage Dave do the Dave songs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Bogart said:

Ever "Dave song" that Sammy tried to do live never sounded good. And the speaking parts were just the worst. Sammy knowing he couldn't pull off the DLR vibe and trying to make it is own, and it just made it worst. Basically turned into a cheap pop shouting out to whatever city they were in ("I know you know this part Dallas, Texas!!!") or getting the camera guy to find some bare boobs in the crowd.

 

On the one hand, I agree with this, but on the other hand, the door swings both ways.  No, Sammy couldn't pull off DLR's talking parts, but imagine Roth trying to sing Dreams, Right Now or Poundcake. I shudder just thinking about it.  They are just two very different types of singers and entertainers.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Ghost Rider said:

On the one hand, I agree with this, but on the other hand, the door swings both ways.  No, Sammy couldn't pull off DLR's talking parts, but imagine Roth trying to sing Dreams, Right Now or Poundcake. I shudder just thinking about it.  They are just two very different types of singers and entertainers.

I could see him tackling Right Now. There would be a lot of "WOAH" and other yelps. The other two, not so much. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Ghost Rider said:

On the one hand, I agree with this, but on the other hand, the door swings both ways.  No, Sammy couldn't pull off DLR's talking parts, but imagine Roth trying to sing Dreams, Right Now or Poundcake. I shudder just thinking about it.  They are just two very different types of singers and entertainers.

Agree 100%. No doubt that is why they didn't do a single Sammy song on their last tour with DLR. No way he even cared to try to sing those songs. Which is good, you get more of the early deep cuts. Win/win either way. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Bogart said:

No doubt that is why they didn't do a single Sammy song on their last tour with DLR.

Dave's inability to sing Sammy's songs is not the reason that Dave never sang Sammy's songs.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.