This Fuckin' Kid

[Catfish]

...even Sammy Hagar...they have (technically) much better technical singing voices than David Lee Roth ever did.

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.

[Rikk]

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.

[DLR Bridge]

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.

[Rikk]

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.

[DLR Bridge]

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.

[Nickdfresh]

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.

I've always thought Hagar sounds like Janis Joplin being raped with a tire iron...

Fucking annoying raspy, screechy shit...

[Terry]

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.

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.

[DLR Bridge]

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.

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.

[Terry]

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.

[Terry]

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.

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.

[nick500]

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.

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.

[VHscraps]

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 ...

[DLR Bridge]

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.

[DavidLeeNatra]

Wow! I can't believe that all you motherfuckers still carry the torch. Great to see you guys.

[Rikk]

Wow! I can't believe that all you motherfuckers still carry the torch. Great to see you guys.

Blast from the past!

Great to see you, friend.