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.
Agreed. This disqualifies it from being the best, in my opinion.
This penetrates the heart of it. Does VH hold up in any way today? That is why I take Women and Children First first. There's a range on that album missing from the introduction of Van Halen, and Van Halen II sounds angry, patchy, burnt out on their own success and press. Women And Children First is a re-establishment of talent album. It's unmistakable in the songs they choose, the ranges they decide to traverse. But you ask the first and foremost question.
Sure. That's what I was saying with them being my first band in seventh grade. Why the growth? From where? How do they miss the currents of thought of either the generation past or current, and what does age have to do with it? I figure that is food for thought, too, and the selection for those who self-select to answer the question will tell us in the description regarding why. Indeed, the simple act of self-selection or answering the question (or posing it) will tell us something about the answerer, too.
Absolutely. Let's not forget the military guys and the symbiosis with that whole demographic. Van Hagar was exceptionally good at appealing to people in the California suburbs who still drive Ford F150s without any payload to worry about besides a sack of vegetables for groceries in the back.
Totally agree. Motley Crue definitely had a glam/punk edge, and "D.O.A.," as I've noted before on this board as my favorite VH song depending upon the mood, is a punk song at heart, even if the angry trappings of Roth aren't ever punk enough.
Not sure about this. I think rock was the vernacular Eddie was meant to play in, like many virtuosos, his problem was finding compositionally adept people around him. Roth was one of the rare ones who could create and hang with Eddie. Once Roth was gone, they were screwed.
Many a musician tells this story.
Same thoughts here. The only worthwhile music of the '80s was some alternative and new wave, in the late '80s you had thrash. But punk was where it was at in California in the early '80s, namely because the art scene wasn't totally dead yet in the punk world before hardcore moved in and played bully with the art kids and freaks.
I can get with this.
I voted for 1984 before reading the responses, and this post pretty much sums up my thoughts too. I love a bunch of tracks from their first album, but I can listed to 1984 all the way through and enjoy every song. It's their most complete album.
Well I’ll go with the popular choice that may put off some of the VH diehards.
Yes, the style and tone of Eddie's guitar was far different than the other rock/metal of that time.
I was the opposite. I was 12 when 1984 came out. Also in the northeast
I thought it was awesome, when I hit high school I went backwards and bought all their albums. 
I agree with those that said what makes this album so great/special in their catalog is that is was a sound nobody had heard before. They didn't sound like so and so. They had their own sound, and the album has hard rocking catchy songs on it. Eddie Van Halen had a distinct sound, and David Lee Roth was a great frontman for Eddie's sound and style. It's a great debut album, and it put Van Halen on the map, and it began a new chapter in hard rock.
This is an awesome story. But your buddy’s brother had it right. Yankee Rose is a smokin’ tune.
I love that tune. For all my talk about outgrowing Van Halen, I sure do like a bunch of their songs.
He really is all over the cymbals much of the time. Rarely does it bug me, but it's certainly noticeable.
Funny you say that because I disliked Don't Tell Me What Love Can Do a lot the first time I heard it because of how noisy his cymbals were in the choruses. I had never really noticed the overuse of cymbals that much until that came out in '95.
