Seriously...with all the lead singer changes and multiple goofs this band has provided, don't you think they have dropped well out of contention in any greatest band of all time poll?
I suspect there will be the standard answers:
1. VH fuckin rocks no matter what
2. Dave or the grave
3. Eddie rocks
Personally, I am sort of resolved to the fact that I am a DLR fan and enjoyed the early part of VH, but I have to give a huge dissertation when asked if I like VH....sad but true...
Classic Van Halen most certainly does.
They led the way out of that cloud that was Disco, and got the
music world back on track.
I think CVH is without a doubt one of the most influential Ground breaking bands to ever step in a studio. Sad to see where they have gone.
I agree with both above posts, but CVH is not all there is to VH.....
Does VH deserve to be one of the greatest bands (this would of course take into account all forms)?
I think VH has become a comedy of errors and it sucks to realize how screwed up this band has become....
Maybe I should have asked is there a more screwed up band than VH?
With David Lee Roth... yes.Originally posted by DR CHIP
Does Van Halen really deserve to be considered one of the greatest bands of all time?
With Sammy Hagar... no.
exactlyOriginally posted by light 'em up!
With David Lee Roth... yes.
With Sammy Hagar... no.
VH 1 alone should be held as one of the finest moments of rock and roll supremacy. Anyone picking up a guitar should be given a copy.
Stay Frosty, muthas!
I understand your point, but there is no way for me (as well as for nearly every member here) to consider the band of the post-85 period is the same as Roth Halen.Originally posted by DR CHIP
I agree with both above posts, but CVH is not all there is to VH.....
Does VH deserve to be one of the greatest bands (this would of course take into account all forms)?
I think VH has become a comedy of errors and it sucks to realize how screwed up this band has become....
Maybe I should have asked is there a more screwed up band than VH?
OK, fact is you find all albums in the same entry in record stores... Just because the very same name was kept after Dave left (and took away his performer skills together with the soul, humour, balls, light, inspiration and interest) will unfortunately imply confusion... in unaware folks' minds.
When you know about the story (as you do, doctor...), you can't melt the 78-84 diamond age with the post-85 mess.
Dave's three former comrades could only mess up what he left them, just like a great man's family who would spoil his legacy and memory once the stellar man responsible for the magic quit.
I know a music teacher who left his family a few years ago. They were good friends of my parents, and their daughters were real good friends of mine and my bro's. His wife, who teaches literature, went mad because he was leaving for another woman. She revealed to be a very tough bitch. She started trying to ruin him here and there as much as she could, and their daughters started doing the same, bashing everybody who would openly support him.
He left because the girls had grown up, and also because he'd got fed up with fixing everything at home (the cooking, the wash-up, the cleaning... he even marked his lazy wife's pupils' papers!)... Up to that day, he was a good man with a good family; then his wife and daughters turned into bad witches calling him a dirty bastard... His leaving was just understandable to his true friends. But it appeared that his wife and girls didn't deserve his goodness and proved he alone had borne everything on his shoulders and was responsible for anything good in their family.
It's a different case, I know, but that story can be compared to some of the circumstances of Dave's departure, in a way... Just as no other man could give back prestige and respectability to that family, no other singer could bring VH to the level they reached with him. He was the genie in the band, and when he departed he took his magic away with him.
So, when you talk about the name that unfortunately refers to radically different stuff, no, VH mustn't be considered as one of the very biggest; but if you know where the source of their past magic is, then yes, Van Halen will remain in memories as one of the very greatest bands ever, the very best of their kind. That is "a certain" VH, or "Classic" VH. Or Daddy Roth's VH. That of the great man who held the magic, got the soul, humour, balls, light and inspiration... and even did some kind of cleaning.
Last edited by Jérôme Frenchise; 08-23-2005 at 11:22 AM.
posted by Ellyllions Men say, "I'll never understand women." That's a very lonely place to be if you're a woman because we don't understand half of what we do either.posted by ALinChainz Katy, Pipe down, pump off, and fly back to your cave you old bat.
Guess it depends on what standards one is using to judge them.
For me, there's no question that what Van Halen did when Roth was in the band goes down as some of the best rock music, period.
With each new singer, the overall sound changed. Not even talking about who I think is the definitive lead singer or anything like that. Isn't a putdown directed towards Hagar to say that Van Halen post-1985 just plain sounded different from CVH. It WAS a different band in terms of physical membership and musical content, regardless of the band name staying the same.
It is lame that one would feel the need to specify what time period of the band is being talked about when asked if one likes Van Halen. But for many, it's necessary. Some (like me) shake their head in disgust at the output released under the band name post-1985 and feel both saddened and amused at the state of the band today. Others made the transition from Roth to Hagar to Cherone and liked what they heard along the way. Am sure there are even some out there who enjoyed the 3 2004 tracks and the tour that followed.
Guess in the end the question of Van Halen deserving to top all-time greatest rock band polls or be included in the RRHOF is a moot one, far as any of that stuff matters to me. None of it is gonna make an impact on what that CVH music means to me.
Scramby eggs and bacon.
I agree with you. All is in the name that's the same.Originally posted by Terry
Guess it depends on what standards one is using to judge them.
For me, there's no question that what Van Halen did when Roth was in the band goes down as some of the best rock music, period.
With each new singer, the overall sound changed. Not even talking about who I think is the definitive lead singer or anything like that. Isn't a putdown directed towards Hagar to say that Van Halen post-1985 just plain sounded different from CVH. It WAS a different band in terms of physical membership and musical content, regardless of the band name staying the same.
It is lame that one would feel the need to specify what time period of the band is being talked about when asked if one likes Van Halen. But for many, it's necessary. Some (like me) shake their head in disgust at the output released under the band name post-1985 and feel both saddened and amused at the state of the band today. Others made the transition from Roth to Hagar to Cherone and liked what they heard along the way. Am sure there are even some out there who enjoyed the 3 2004 tracks and the tour that followed.
Guess in the end the question of Van Halen deserving to top all-time greatest rock band polls or be included in the RRHOF is a moot one, far as any of that stuff matters to me. None of it is gonna make an impact on what that CVH music means to me.
If only they had changed it, just like after "Jefferson Airplane" there was "Jefferson Starship" due to staff changes. But "Jefferson" was no member's name, so it's different.
If only they could have called themselves "Van Halen Band (or Group)" so that there wouldn't have been that possible confusion...
Don't really think there was any confusion. Least not for me as soon as the music started up.Originally posted by Jérôme Frenchise
I agree with you. All is in the name that's the same.
If only they had changed it, just like after "Jefferson Airplane" there was "Jefferson Starship" due to staff changes. But "Jefferson" was no member's name, so it's different.
If only they could have called themselves "Van Halen Band (or Group)" so that there wouldn't have been that possible confusion...
Originally posted by Terry
Don't really think there was any confusion. Least not for me as soon as the music started up.
"Proof is in the pudding", but if one lacks the sense of taste and smell...
Suppose to a casual fan of the group, it really wouldn't make too much difference who sings.Originally posted by Jérôme Frenchise
"Proof is in the pudding", but if one lacks the sense of taste and smell...
But therin lies the issue...Van Halen history includes ALL the mess and Van Halen as far as I am concerned (and actually sad to say) deserves nothing more than ridicule for the comedy of errors they have become...Originally posted by Terry
Suppose to a casual fan of the group, it really wouldn't make too much difference who sings.
I realize more and more that I am NOT a Van Halen fan, but a DLR fan...
messy or not they still deserve to be recognized as one of the best fucking bands in rock history....As Yoda would say "changed the face of music, they did, too bad it's all over now.......
"Hear that O.F.? If old school Army gals with solid track records of contribution choose to bless us with their tits, ass, vagina, or just sexy eye shots, leave them be (at least until I've had a chance to rub one out)..."
That is all.
Icon.
"we've always known that van hagar fans are the stupidest people on the planet but my god! "
A historian will look at it as one band, and I'm afraid that much of the influence they created will be overshadowed by the frontman musical chairs.
Musically speaking though, the original incarnation was light years ahead of anything the following versions put out. I always found it funny that the Sam lovers thought that it was a souped up version after he joined. Yeah, let's see Sammy pull off Romeo Delight or Hear About It Later. Hell Hagar couldn't even pull off Runnin' With The Devil or Unchained convincingly, and what songs did they put out with him or Cherone that even compare to any of the songs listed above?
Van Halen IS legendary... Van Hagar and Van Cherone aren't.
hagar was awful , but the cherone error ( sic ) was the final nail in the coffin imo
very very sad
Well, Johnny Cash had his 10-20 years of complete crap too...especially during the 80's...but he's still THE MAN IN BLACK.Originally posted by DR CHIP
But therin lies the issue...Van Halen history includes ALL the mess and Van Halen as far as I am concerned (and actually sad to say) deserves nothing more than ridicule for the comedy of errors they have become...
I realize more and more that I am NOT a Van Halen fan, but a DLR fan...
Aerosmith...they made less legendary hard rock albums than VH...but still...those few from the beginning were amazing...
The Stones have had their weak moments as well...
The point is, they still did something that changed the world and nothing can change that.
Originally posted by Cato
Golden, why are you FAT?http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u...TheDMCross.jpgOriginally posted by lesfunk
Much like yourself as the Jim Morrison of Nazi bunker flies
It is unfortunate that one has to clarify which era of the band is Van Halen to them.
Wouldn't quite take it to the point of saying I'm not a Van Halen fan, but am a Roth fan, as far as CVH goes (although it does describe where I'm at today with the remnants of 1974-1984 Van Halen).
Pretty much choose not to recognize what the band did after Dave left.
Terry, you hit the nail on the head. 99% of the people on this board when we hear VH, we think of VH with Dave. Essentially anyone born 1980 and aftger thinks of VH with Hagar and others. Which means they think of VH as an average band at best.
tcc
And DLR is anything but average....
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote