The Academy Awards have devolved into a joke but then Hollywood is a joke. Wolfgang can play at it’s funeral.
The Academy Awards have devolved into a joke but then Hollywood is a joke. Wolfgang can play at it’s funeral.
No! You can't have the keys to the wine cellar!
Nice!
The 2024 Oscars' Dinner Spread Is Basic Yet Bougie
Wolfgang Puck Catering, which has arranged the food for all thirty Governors Ball events, will feed an astonishing 1,500 of Hollywood's crème de la crème this year. Savory foods will be split between buffet-style stations and small bites passed around by servers on trays. There will be a buffet with food inspired by Puck's Santa Monica French-Asian fusion restaurant Chinois on Main, as well as buffet stations serving wood-fired pizzas, paella, crispy rice, and Puck's fish and chips, which won the day at last year's event. As for the small bites, you can expect simple but luxe dishes like saffron rice, tuna tartare in miso cones, and caviar-topped tater tots.
And let's not fail to mention the Governors Ball desserts. In addition to their awards, guests can find gold "Oscar" figurines on top of chocolate eclairs, as part of a giant croquembouche, and likely throughout the dining experience. Dazzlingly realistic-looking chocolate cigars offer a campy touch while a gorgeous selection of desserts like kombucha pâte de fruits, raspberry cheesecake, and calamansi and caramel cream puffs provides a chic and tasty finish.
The wine will be French, from Clarendelle & Domaine, Clarence Dillon Bordeaux, and Fleur de Miraval — just the thing to pair with all those French pâtisseries.
Since this is Wolfgang Puck Catering's 30th time handling the Governors Ball, guests can expect to appreciate some fan favorites from previous years.*No matter if they win Oscar gold or not, any guest at the after-party will be free to grab one of the*5,000 24-karat gold-dusted Oscar statuettes made from Valrhona chocolate, a Governors Ball tradition.
Guests will be able to indulge in plenty of Puck's famous truffle-topped items, like the chicken pot pie and mac & cheese, both of which will be making a reappearance from previous years. The chicken pot pie with shaved truffle is a known favorite of one Barbra Streisand while Viola Davis prefers the mac & cheese. And many of the vegan dishes served at the party are the same that Joaquin Phoenix has raved about in the past. So it looks like no matter how the night ends, Hollywood will be well-fed on Sunday night.
Read More: https://www.foodrepublic.com/1535113...wolfgang-puck/
A lot of deep knowledge and analysis of Van Hagar songs in these recent comments. I proudly have very little clue what you Hagaritas are talking about.
This is fucking nonsense, dude.Originally Posted by Nitro Express
Dave was not a great singer. But he was a singer. He did sing.
I'm a singer. Dave is singing on those Van Halen albums. Dave was more than someone who screamed and was limited to doing spoken-word parts on the middle-eight.
People love to point out that Dave could not sing like so many of his hard-rock or metal contemporaries. AND IT'S TRUE: David Lee Roth never had the voice of a Ronnie James Dio or Bruce Dickinson or Rob Halford. Yes, Steve Perry...even Sammy Hagar...they have (technically) much better technical singing voices than David Lee Roth ever did.
But to claim that Dave isn't even a singer??? COME THE FUCK ON!!
. Listen to the beginning of FOOLS (just Dave & Eddie). Dave is doing those "Oh, yeah"s. That is singing...the style he's using there is totally influenced by plenty of rhythm 'n' blues or soul singers. It even has a Janis Joplin vibe to it.
. No matter what you think of the song, he's singing in I'LL WAIT. It's a sort of pop vocal, mostly out-of-character for Dave...but it is singing.
. COULD THIS BE MAGIC? features a vocal performance. It's singing. Yes, he has a sort of singing/speaking thing he does in some of those songs...but that's very much a particular style of singing, going back to all sorts of blues legends.
. LITTLE DREAMER features a vocal performance...and one with lots of style, bravado...and, yes, emotion.
. SECRETS. That's a vocal performance. Dave is not a rapper. He's a singer. His voice is a persona that he developed for years...for a singular purpose. He marries his distinctive rhythmic-style with his baritone melodies (that happen to be really catchy) and mixes in falsetto (and it's not bad falsetto either).
Dave is a blues singer. He writes catchy melodies. His style is distinctive and this is one of the more ridiculous things I've read from someone who claims to prefer the Dave era of the band.
The Hagar sheep are the number one people who are always trying to claim that Dave is "not a singer" OR that "he didn't sing live" in order to somehow win their argument that the Sammy Hagar years were so much better than the original band's era. And it's a bullshit argument...no matter who is making it.
There's no absolute rule over what makes a singer.
The sheep try and argue that the number of octaves one has within his/her range decides how good an overall singer/performer that person is. And that is absolute crap.
Whitney Houston, Sammy Hagar, Mariah Carey...whoever it is...they can all sing with a much bigger range than people like David Lee Roth...or Mick Jagger...or Iggy Pop...or even John Lennon...
This doesn't make those singers BETTER as frontmen (or women) or, frankly, even better singers than Roth, Jagger, Pop, Lennon...
What makes a singer great is not just about how high or low they can go. It's about the feelings they can put forth in their vocal performances. It's about how they can use their instrument (voice) to contribute to the catchiness or attitude in the performance.
It is sometimes a legitimate argument when someone claims that Dave does not concentrate enough on being a "singer" during live Van Halen performances. Yes, he (especially in the early days) can seem more concerned with showmanship than a full, legitimate vocal performance of the lyrics/melodies in those songs.
But to claim he isn't singing at all, even on the albums...THAT is ridiculous and stupid.
He has distinct melodies...and he sings them. He is always on-key on the albums (not tone-deaf, not just talking his way through the lyrics). He's also not constantly slipping out-of-tune live either, frankly.
If one were to say that David Lee Roth isn't at all a singer, than neither is John Lee Hooker, neither is Mick Jagger, neither is Jimi Hendrix. They have very similar characteristics in their style to Dave. They're not about belting out vocals like an opera singer (I, frankly, find operatic singers overbearing...but of course they're singers).
But anyone who claims that Mick Jagger, Jimi Hendrix, John Lee Hooker or David Lee Roth aren't singers is, sorry, full of shit.
Roth Army Militia
Originally posted by WARF
Rikk - The new school of the Roth Army... this dude leads the pack... three words... The Sheep Pen... this dude opened alot of doors for people during this new era... he's the best of the new school.
I agree--pretty sick of the "not a great singer" shit. These are the people who buy into the "if he can hit the high notes, he's great." It's horseshit. Dave did more with his voice back in the day than many others ever dreamed. He did shit no one touched. AND he had what snobs refer to as '5 octaves.' This ridiculous narrative of the Hagars of the world are great singers needs to shift. But then, I didn't digest all those Van Hagar albums like others here so maybe he's better than I thought..
This is what I'm talking about. How anyone could think that one-trick, one-note, screaming troll has a better voice than David Lee Roth's whisky-stained-sounds-like-he-just-got-done-surfing iconic voice is sickening to me. Ain't no technical shit about it.
Yes. It's about style. Attitude. They are vocals. It's singing. And I don't give a shit how many high notes Sammy can "hit." That doesn't make it better. (Opera singers are obviously very talented. But I don't listen to it. It's not FUN for me. If other people like it, great. Whatever floats one's boat.)
How I could read a Dave fan here claim Dave is "not a singer" just kind of blows my mind.
Dave’s detractors never liked him as a person, as they hated what they felt was an inflated ego. Back in the 80’s when there was no incessant bitching on line because it didn’t exist, the only people who successfully aired any grievances were the critics and they practically never said a thing about Dave having a ‘limited range.’
Flash forward twenty, thirty years, where his vocal power is audibly in a state of decline, and he’s lambasted by every jerk off and his brother on line proclaiming he could never sing. It’s fucking laughable.
How many people dumped on Elton John when his voice dropped five octaves by the late eighties? No on gave him shit. How about Chris Robinson from the Black Crowes? He was never a stellar singer but fit the band well. Why hasn’t he ever been ripped for having a limited range? It all boils down to likability and those that never liked Dave reveled in his struggles.
Ultimately, fuck all the haters.
This. Exactly.
I once tried to debate the greatest rock singers in history with some douchebag who had only an "octave range" chart for different singers as the only measure of a singer's greatness.
It was pathetic. Using this guy's logic, Whitney Houston would end up being the greatest rock singer in history.
I love Dio Black Sabbath. But just because he can sing with far more range (both low & high) and possesses more octave-ability than Ozzy, does this mean he blows away Ozzy Black Sabbath? Not in a million years.
HEAVEN & HELL is one of the great Black Sabbath albums. But even though he can technically sing circles around Ozzy does not remotely mean that what Ozzy brings to albums like PARANOID, SABOTAGE, SABBATH BLOODY SABBATH, MASTER OF REALITY, the debut LP, etc. can be discounted.
Steven Tyler is a good rock singer. He doesn't have an ounce of the actual vocal power or range that someone like Steve Perry does...but I don't give a shit. Steve Perry is technically a great singer...but I still don't fucking like Journey and I would take SWEET EMOTION over fucking DON'T STOP BELIEVIN' any day of the week.
To claim Dave isn't a singer at all is the kind of bile I hear come out of Sammy Hagar fans.
I've read these people claim that JUMP is a great song only because of Ed's keyboard part. That's fucking crap. If it were just a keyboard instrumental, it would not have got to #1. It got to #1 because the melodies and hook are fucking psychotically good.
What Dave is doing on SECRETS or LITTLE GUITARS or, hell, JUST LIKE PARADISE...that is singing.
Being a great frontman doesn't make a hit song. People didn't watch Dave's stage moves to make JUMP a #1 hit on the radio.
I don’t really have the patience to break it all down for the Hagar crowd, but there is no chance in hell that Hagar could’ve turned in a formidable version of I’m The One, On Fire, Atomic Punk, Light Up The Sky, DOA, Outta Love and many others at that particular point in his career. He was doing absolutely horrific pop fluff like You Make Me Crazy in 78, 79. The video floating around of him doing thst song on some variety show is down right damning.
When I hear the old interviews now in full circulation of Al claiming “the powers that be wanted Hagar in the band when we got signed” I barf a little. I mean, to do what? Whatever he did vocally on Rock Candy or I Got The Fire, arguably his more rocking Montrose efforts, didn’t have a tenth of the presence Dave had. I just can’t believe anyone would have thought that putting him in there would’ve been a good idea. Thankfully, Ted came to his God damned senses and cultivated Dave’s weaknesses into strengths and his strengths into mother fucking super powers!
Edit: And by formidable version, I mean him stepping into the likes of those songs as instrumentals and then having to go from there. Not fucking happening.
I've always thought Hagar sounds like Janis Joplin being raped with a tire iron...
Fucking annoying raspy, screechy shit...
Simple enough to say, but it took those four particular people in the band and that particular producer during the 1978-1984 period to make CVH sound the way it did.
Even with Mike Anthony, who wasn't doing anything innovative or distinctive in terms of his bass playing, you take Anthony's vocals out of the backing sound and it ain't CVH.
You get some rock bands where some members were replaceable and the overall sound didn't get altered all that much. The Ramones come to mind, where the band essentially sounded the same through three different drummers.
Yeah, obviously a vocalist is more distinctive than a drummer thus harder to replace. That's the thing about rock music, though, in that as often as not the great rock singers weren't necessarily the singers who had a multi-octave range or enunciated the lyrics particularly well. That's why when Hagar did sing CVH tunes live it just didn't sound right. I remember picking up a cd maybe twenty or so years ago, had a bunch of different pro rock musicians on it doing CVH stuff. Even more than the differences between the other guitarists and Eddie, the thing that stuck out the most was the lead vocals: the album had a lot of what would be defined as technically better singers and hearing them sing the CVH stuff...it just didn't sound right.
Scramby eggs and bacon.
Absolutely, and I believe I have that CD. I actually liked the way Joe Lynn Turner performed Dance The Night Away, but that was actually the only stand out for me. Dug from King’s x, whom I love, did his best with Light Up The Sky, and it’s a tad bit rough, but even he admitted that song was a doozy to sing and he developed some respect for Dave’s craft.
I didn't think that DTNA cover with Turner singing was the worst thing I'd ever heard, but that track does illustrate what I'm saying in that Turners' voice in general terms was much smoother - or less gravelly - than Roth's, and Turner was a singer that consistently sang in key through and through on record. Juxtaposed to Roth who even on the CVH records would have the odd note here and there that was slightly off key...and that was part of Roth's style or charm or individuality or what have you. That's why with that DTNA cover...the instrumentation I didn't have a problem with, and Turner's vocals were adequate in that he was in key and sang perfectly with the melody but therein lies the problem: Dave's vocals on a technical level were never pitch/note perfect on every song for the entire song.
Light Up The Sky, the recorded version, had at least 4 punched in bits on the lead vocals during the verses, where Dave would sing a couple lines of the verse and then the remainder of the verse was obviously a sperate vocal take spliced in...and you could actually hear the edits even without listening all that carefully. I'd bet that song WAS a doozy to sing. Virtually no pauses for the singer to take a breath and some fairly long verses, then straight into the chorus without a pause. I heard a couple live boot versions from the 1979 VHII tour, and Dave did well enough from what I recall...like, what he was doing live was close enough to what was on record.
Then again, I'd tend to think composite lead vocals wasn't all that uncommon across the board for rock bands in general, regardless of the technical proficiency of the lead singer. That's part of why so many rock bands hated bootlegging: that's where the truth in terms of talent is on display as opposed to a multi-overdubbed 'live' album or concert video.
Dave obviously was a singer, but some of the stuff he was at times more shouting than singing.
And that worked fine, too.
That's part of why when Cherone or Hagar tried doing the CVH stuff it didn't sound right. Even outside what Cherone and Hagar did lyrically, just when they tried to sing the Roth VH stuff it didn't sound right and it wouldn't have sounded right with, say, a David Coverdale trying, either. Or a Mitch Malloy.
Dio on a technical level obviously was a better singer than Ozzy. When Dio did those Ozzy-era Sabbath tunes, it didn't sound right.
Some singers are to a degree interchangeable with others if both singers have smooth voices and consistently sing in-key. Some singers like Roth and Ozzy are individual to the point where if anybody else tries to do their stuff it doesn't sound right.
Last edited by Terry; 03-13-2024 at 05:41 PM.
Templeman was an idiot for even considering it.
Montrose was a flop at the time. Hagar sounded like 10,000 other Deep Purple singer clones. The lack of originality was evident even then.
All those songs you mention would not exist with Hagar in the band.
Eddie had to compete with Dave and Dave was a picky guy when it came to songs. Hence the musical chemistry between the two was dynamite.
Dave was a better singer than people give him credit for.
When he had command of his falsetto he had a very unique sound.
Plenty of excellent live stuff from 77-79 where he was singing very well live.
with respect to the notion that Hagar was considered by WB after they signed VH in '77, I have always thought that this was some post-85 split bullshit. For all the ressons already mentioned - Hagar mired in MOR mediocrity, Dave being to co-writer of the VH originals.
The idea that he was some lesser element of the band just does not stack up.
Whose image occupies the entire back cover of VH1? Yes, DLR. He was also more visually prominent in the media, and for years was the public face of VH to anyone who did not read guitar mags. He had the front cover of Rolling Stone - when it meant something - before Van Hagar and ten years or so before EVH
So, fuck this revisionism. DLR was in a band with EVH, one of the most singular rock musicians ever, and he was the one who got most attention.
Name any other rock singer that could have put EVH in the shade if they were in the same band ...
THINK LIKE THE WAVES
Eloquently put, Scraps! I always felt it sounded a bit like a ploy or marketing tactic myself. Ted does mention in his book that the thought had crossed his mind, but I can’t recall if the thought went any further than that at the time. One things for sure, he couldn’t over state it enough that had he made that switch, it would have been the biggest mistake of his career.
Wow! I can't believe that all you motherfuckers still carry the torch. Great to see you guys.
Roth Army Icon
First official owner of ADKOT (Deluxe Version)
Blast from the past!
Great to see you, friend.
Templeman said in his book that he thought it was a mistake for the band to continue to call itself Van Halen after Dave left and that problem he had with the band retaining the name was sort of a deal-breaker to him continuing to produce the band after Dave left.
I'd imagine a lot of producers in 1977 would have reservations about Roth's vocals. Van Halen were an unknown quantity commercially. It wouldn't have been unreasonable for Templeman to have mused that maybe Hagar - who he had already produced in Montrose - would be a better fit for Van Halen in traditional commercial terms.
Well it would have made our lives so much easier. Just today I wandered into a fucking situation in my house.
Me: What the fuck is going on? Get that off now!
Her: Sorry what?
On the big TV she is streaming 'Love Walks In' on YouTube with a big picture on the screen of Van Halen from WACF.
Her: It's a best of Van Halen playlist I thought you liked them?
Interesting to see if you will still be brave enough to post here after being destroyed on June 14th...
Singers are about feel and connection to the material. Pure technical ability gets you on singing shows but doesn't make you an artist. A lot of great artists sing but are not technically great singers but just matched to the material perfectly. The lack of any connection to the material is primary reason Sam to me sounds like shit singing Dave's material. Some vocal items like Sam can not reach Dave's low end but mostly even when sang perfectly by Sam simply sounds like shit
Wolf has reached his peak career wise, in relevance, and in hubris. Forward he is not gonna like the journey. I wonder as all plays out how much more bitter tubby will get
I think the jury is still out on that one. Sure, many of us in here find his brand of music to be a droll rehash of a deeply forgettable era in the annals of rock known as Nu Metal. This is of course why he’s such a good fit for this Creed tour, which I will be ignoring when it passes through town. But make no mistake, he will be picking up the remaining hangers-on fans of this genre by tours end. If I’ve got anything positive to say about the guy these days, it’s that touring your ass off is the way to go if you want a career in music, and even though he certainly doesn’t need the money, he is no doubt putting in the work to keep his name out there. Credit where credit is due.
The biggest problem with the furthering of his career is the manner in which he creates music. It is stiff, over processed and without believable life. I can see knocking out demos for songs by playing everything, then presenting your ideas to a band to then put their own imprint on their instrumental parts. That’s how bands work. His whole “I do everything like the way Dave Grohl once did” was a tired act out of the gate. I don’t know that his present followers necessarily agree with that yet, but unless he makes a refreshing change to his process, they’ll soon catch on that he’s simply writing the same three or four songs over and over, get bored and move on.
Last edited by DLR Bridge; 03-30-2024 at 01:42 PM.
People who admire singers based on their abilities are usually unknowingly hoodwinked into thinking they can do it all. They heard Sam hit slightly higher notes and assumed he was an all around better singer, writer and performer. Terrible assumption.
I was listening to Little Guitars today in the car and it dawned on me that in no way could any other singer do this song any justice. Sam would’ve utterly destroyed it.
Last edited by DLR Bridge; 03-30-2024 at 01:42 PM.
Hagar had a slightly naturally higher vocal key he sang in than Dave did. They were both basically tenors. Hagar's voice was maybe a half-step higher than Dave's was.
I never quite understood how that meant Hagar's voice was therefore better.
It didn't. In any way.
I'm a vocalist with a multi-octave range. My mom also sings...and she always questions me on why I don't do a lot of worn-out vocalist tropes, like:
. Showing off skills with vibrato.
. Always wanting to find a really high note near the end when I write a song.
She doesn't understand why I've cultivated a whiskey rasp in my voice. I've cultivated it because I like how it sounds. I don't like Whitney Houston, Steve Perry-style singers. That kind of singing lacks balls, in my humble opinion. It's like masturbating.
Many of my favorite singers did NOT have great technical skill as a vocalist (it's the attitude in their sound):
. Iggy Pop
. Marc Bolan
. Jim Morrison
. Ronnie Van Zant
. Paul Rodgers (ok, actually, he really is a very talented singer)
Maybe my favorite vocalist of all-time is Chris Cornell...but NOT because he had such vocal range...but because of the character in his voice.
(Sammy Hagar has a pretty big vocal range...but he's a walking cliché-regurgitator...he uses all these stupid "working class" tropes that sound insincere, like "It's my life, get off my ass, get outta my face." Dude has talent...but he never has anything interesting to say. He's not an artist...he doesn't put in the work.)
Wolfgang has some talent...but nothing that jumps off the page or says anything new, the way his dad did.
Wolfgang's 1st album hit #12.
His 2nd album hit #29.
He's already lost so much of the Van Halen fan sympathy vote that occurred with his 1st album. Add to that all the fans he's turned off by insulting them repeatedly on his Twitter (X) page...he's not going to keep going UP. He's going to keep going DOWN.
Totally agree. That’s why I say musically, he needs to switch up and improve. He’s got a cult following who will hang in there. If smaller crowds are all he needs, I’m sure he’ll stick around for a while. I just don’t ever see him putting out something with the success of Jump and moving to the next level.
Wolfgang needs to hire a personal trainer and get his diet under control and get some exercise. This means breaking life long bad habits but it’s as much about the presentation as it is music. I also wonder how good of a manager Wolfie’s uncle really is. Sammy Hagar was successful because he had excellent management. Clearly Wolfgang has a passion and talent for music but he’s going to fade away unless he really wants to get serious about being a top tier entertainer. It’s not just music it’s the whole image you are selling. Wolfgang also has the problem of he’s not charismatic and he’s the frontman. People love charisma and if your personality is boring well they lose interest. I’m not really seeing any rocket sauce in the mix. Wolfgang would have to partner with someone with charisma to make it. His dad had to do that. Van Halen’s just aren’t good front personalities.
I’m not even sure if he has a cult following. He’s benefiting from being in the wake of his dad. He get’s big opening gigs because of that and people want to see him out of curiosity. That’s going to fade away and then what?
Wolf needs a charismatic partner. Keeping it the Wolf Van Halen show is going to run flat.
Most likely it’s going to go as you predict. Wolf wants to be another Dave Grohl but Dave has some excitement and charisma to him. It’s very hard to make it in show business and be fat, boring and bland.
Sammy’s voice sounded like he was taking something super big up his ass with no lube.
Hagar was a certain flavor of gay. He was not the wear leather and pierced nipples gay. We was more of the flowered shirt and yellow pants gay. He really seemed like he would be more at home reaming butts at a hippie commune that grew fruit than a rock and roll stage.
You're spot on with the distinctive sound.
I don't care who "Skynyrd" gets to sing, even if they are related to Ronnie. No one has the "feel"
that Ronnie had. He was a perfect fit for that band at that time and his attitude carried that shit.
If there is a "Bands at their peak I wish I saw" thread, Skynyrd would be at the top of my list.
I watch live clips on YT and those cats were smokin'.
Oh, absolutely, my friend.
Ronnie Van Zant does not have as "smooth" a voice as his younger brother's. But it makes NO difference. He had an attitude in his voice. When he sang those lyrics, you just know he meant it.
When Johnny sings them, he sounds like he's punching a clock...singing for money. No danger, no swagger.
I'd give ANYTHING to go back in time and see them. Pretty much any Skynyrd show (as long as it's a full set, headlining) from 1973-1977 would be perfect. (They were so rehearsed, so consistent live.)
There are Skynyrd "sheep" who literally freak out on me because I have ZERO feeling that the current band is in ANY WAY Lynyrd Skynyrd. They don't have a single original member. A decade ago, they had ONE original member. It's a complete joke.
Lynyrd Skynyrd were one of the 5 or 10 best bands in music history. Truly. The original Lynyrd Skynyrd were at a level of greatness that can be considered in the same zone as Led Zeppelin, Van Halen, etc. BUT...that band died with the plane crash in 1977. Going to see them in the 1990s, when I was a very young lad...it was fun. But it was not remotely Lynyrd Skynyrd.
I wish they never had reformed. They would have had a much greater air of mystery about them...an air of legend.
They still have that to some degree (the original band)...but the shitty tribute band that's been touring for almost 40 years has definitely diluted that.
I agree with the sentiment that many of the former great bands... Skynyrd, Molly Hatchet, ZZ Top, AC/DC, etc. have morphed into "tribute" bands with replacements filling the slots of dead greatness... I won't waste my time or money going to see any of them. Just damn thankful I saw em all a bunch when they were the original ass-kickin legendary rockers in their prime! Fuck sloppy seconds, thirds and posers...
Oh and on subject... Wolfgang has a long way to go to achieve any sort of legendary status beyond celebrity spawn for morning talk and cooking shows...
"If you want to be a monk... you gotta cook a lot of rice...”
There are currently 6 users browsing this thread. (2 members and 4 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote