Tweet
One thing I certainly had no idea about was Monk's contention that initially Fair Warning was looked upon as unlikely to go platinum, so payola was employed to get the targeted/requisite radio stations to give it airplay.
-
Scramby eggs and bacon. -
I think a straight-up Van Hagar lineup reunion tour would do okay, sales-wise.
The thing that is easy to forget is probably most of the middle-aged, concert-ticket buying audience aren't necessarily mega hardcore fans: I'd be willing to bet it's along the lines of what Va Beach VH Fan said, in that people want to go to a concert strictly for a good time, and for a certain aging segment of rock fans, Van Hagar represents...what? Journey-type, pop-rock music. And there's still a profitable market for that stuff.
I wouldn't dream of disagreeing that Van Hagar were far more timely than timeless, nor that Van Hagar would be able to fill (much less instantly sell out) 15,000 seat venues these days as a headline act without some difficulty. I would also tend to think promoters would recognize that the 2004 tour bombed in direct proportion to how bombed Eddie was. So while there may be more clauses in the contract this time around as opposed to 2004, I'd bet promoters would still be willing to take a cautious shot at booking a Van Hagar tour on cautiously optimistic terms. Eddie has been sober and demonstrated a consistent ability to play well for the last two Van Halen tours. Plus, for the casual rock fans, you have to imagine the mindset that people are realizing that every time Eddie Van Halen steps on a stage is potentially the last time, if only because Van Halen have more tours behind them than they do ahead of them.
Eddie is a living legend, and can still produce the goods. Even with a testicle barnacle like Hagar clinging onto Eddie's nutsack, I'd wager there are still plenty who think Eddie alone is still worth the price of admission.Scramby eggs and bacon.Comment
-
Mmmmmmmmmm...I think Roth on the '83 tour demonstrated an ability to stammer through inbetween song patter utilizing what I'd deem as very basic, elementary Spanish.
Which isn't to downplay the fact that Roth was able to go down there in 1983 and speak to audiences in any type of Spanish at all: doubtless the audiences were pleased even when he semi-mangled the language strictly because Roth was making the attempt.
But, yeah, I won't necessarily take everything Monk says as gospel. I mean, you're talking about a guy who hasn't been in contact with the band for...what...30+ years? Time and memory play tricks on us all.
Still, it's a pretty good/interesting read. My expectations were fairly close to the ground for the book, so thus far I'm safe to say Monk has been hurtling the lowered bar with ease (if one wants to take that as a compliment). I mean, I don't feel like the book was a total rip-off job a la the Everybody Wants Some book. I got my money's worth.Scramby eggs and bacon.Comment
-
Is it just me or does anyone else think that Alex and the band was justified in firing Noel?
His handling of the sponsorship situation was odd.
You know your band is dysfunctional and yet when you have the news, you don't call a meeting, but instead lob a phone call?
Even after the odd conversation, if for no other reason than to cover yourself, have a face to face meeting.
This couldn't have been the only time things were handled pretty amateurishly.
I was waitign for him to say how he managed to get a payday for the use of the exterminator logo for the tour...I know I could have. Kind of weak.sigpicRoth Army CanadaComment
-
There were definitely times, such as this one, where he sounds as though his side of the story can not be contested. I, too, found it odd that he cemented a deal without an all around agreement with his client first. I also think he misinterpreted, then misrepresented Dave's "Marlboro/Levi's" remark. Regardless, he does show more accountability for situations regarding the band than Bette did in his book, which was virtually never.Comment
-
I can't imagine reading Sam's book...sigpicRoth Army CanadaComment
-
Who knows but even if he had made a complete hash of that sponsorship deal it's hardly a sacking offence given all the rest he had done for them. It's not like the rest of the band found the deal, it was his.
It seems far more likely to presume that a band out of their minds on ego, coke, in-fighting, greed and paranoia did something shitty. By all accounts Alex had all the power at that stage because Eddie would go along with anything he said and so with 2 votes is going to win. Maybe he sacked Noel for not removing the penises coming out his wall properly.
If there is a valid reason they sacked him it's not in the book. If you have ever been around addicts you will know that they do irrational things.Comment
-
Monk did say that when the band approached him about being their manager, he told them he wasn't necessarily the most experienced person they could have picked, and they should shop around a bit. So, Monk owns up to his inexperience and that all of it was a learning curve for him.
Regarding the sponsorship, didn't the band turn it down because they wanted to be associated with products on the level of "Levi jeans and Marlboro cigarettes": that Van Halen in 1983/1984 wanted to be associated with iconic, name brand products, and they initially looked at the sponsorship offer they had on the table as underwhelming in terms of the brand and the dollar amount?
Also, in the early 1980s, corporate sponsorship of rock bands was still fairly in its infancy.
Ultimately, the band was 100% justified in firing Monk (or stripping him of his purview/amount of duties): Monk served at the pleasure of the band. Van Halen didn't work for Monk.
I recall Eddie giving an interview in the wake of Roth's departure and claiming that "Monk was Roth's puppet and did whatever [Dave] wanted." I think some of that had to do with the general perception of the situation - which Monk confirms - in that Roth was the band member who by far took the largest interest in the non-musical activities of the band (public relations, merchandising, artwork, etc.). Apparently, Alex also took some interest when he wasn't busy drinking himself into a state of hallucinations that drive him to sleep between his parents in their bed with a loaded shotgun at the ready (what a fuckin' freak!).Scramby eggs and bacon.Comment
-
It was of interest inasmuch as the Van Halen inside dirt from Hagar's perspective went.
Ultimately, it was EXACTLY as DLR Bridge said, in that Hagar never once takes any responsibility for anything bad that happens...ever.
Like, even down to when Hagar's wife had various physical ailments and mental/emotional issues: Hagar in essence uses all of that not just as an excuse to fuck groupies on the road (keeping in mind that Hagar was a 40 year old + man when this was going on), but as a justification in terms of placing blame on his (now ex) wife for HAGAR's actions. Basically: "hey, man, my wife was sick and crazy, so it was her fault I fucked all those groupies when I was in Van Halen!!"
Utterly charmless. The only other rock star autobio I can recall that had that consistent level of 'everything bad that happened in my life was someone else's fault and I was 100% blameless in all of it because I'm such a great guy' attitude was Paul Stanley's.Scramby eggs and bacon.Comment
-
I don't understand your use of the word 'justified'.
They were within their legal rights and in fact if I remember correctly from law school in UK at least, a band manager job was seen as being too personal so that legally even with a contract you can't force someone to accept a personal manager although you would have to pay compensation for breach.
Being within your legal rights isn't the same as being justified though. If one day you decide you don't like the color of the eyes of your employee after 20 years of service you may be able to find a way to sack them but that doesn't make it justifiable (at the moment we have a few protections still remaining against shit like that although not for long).Comment
-
Do you think at this moment, Pete Angelus and Ed Anderson are working at a fever's pitch on their own "my time with Van Halen" books?Comment
-
Perhaps justified, in terms of moral justification, if one argues that Van Halen's reasons for demoting Monk were far weaker than the strengths Monk brought to the organization as their business manager, wouldn't be the best word.
Ultimately, though, considering Monk was employed under a monthly contract with the band and to restate that Monk worked for Van Halen (and not the other way around), Van Halen from a legal and business standpoint had all the justification they needed.
I'd agree 100% that people can do plenty of things that are deemed legal yet said things are still...what? Morally bankrupt? Ethically dubious?Scramby eggs and bacon.Comment
Comment