Hear It Here: 90 Second "Blood and Fire" Clip
<object width="853" height="480"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/tY7ZqN8Ksdg?version=3&hl=en_GB"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/tY7ZqN8Ksdg?version=3&hl=en_GB" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="853" height="480" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>
Sounds very cool! And thats Blood and Fire
Second single: "Blood and Fire" (Rolling Stone preview)
Fookin' hell!!! Here's another preview!
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/ne...-fire-20120125
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tY7ZqN8Ksdg
Quote:
Van Halen's new album A Different Kind of Truth will be released in less than two weeks. In the meantime, here's an exclusive 90-second preview of the LP's second single "Blood and Fire." The disc's first single "Tattoo" was based off the group's 1977 unreleased track "Down In Flames"; another track on the album, "She's The Woman," which the group played live at their recent secret show in New York City, was originally recorded as a demo in 1976.
So we offer a challenge to Van Halen's hardcore fans: Does this sound like a completely new song, or do you hear anything that sounds like an old riff or melody? To be very clear, there's absolutely nothing wrong with a band using old material on a new album. Groups do it all the time and you can't plagiarize from yourself. In fact, many of Van Halen's most famous songs (including "Right Now") took elements out of older material. We're just curious to know how much of this Van Halen album was created with that process.