Diamond's Aren't Forever

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Terry
    TOASTMASTER GENERAL
    • Jan 2004
    • 11953

    Diamond's Aren't Forever

    Article from a Classic Rock and Metal Hammer mag titled The 1980's. It's kinda long. Will throw my own comments in as I type it...

    Diamond's Aren't Forever
    By Malcolm Dome

    To many rock fans, 'Diamond' David Lee Roth was the ultimate frontman. With a larger-than-life stage presence, he was an integral part of Van Halen's rise to fame from 1978 to 1984. But by then the ego had landed [Roth's or Eddie's? - T]


    David Lee Roth rarely talks in straight lines; he throws curve-balls and uses convoluted metaphors as ways of disarming anyone who dares to interview him in any meanigful sense. He's a Rock Star - and expects you to play his game, by his rules. And it usually works. But every so often he's distracted, and gives away more than he planned.
    It happened backstage in Vancouver on May 1, 1984 at a sold-out Coliseum. At the time, Van Halen were the biggest band in the world and their 1984 album was white-hot. But even on stage it was obvious there were cracks in the varnished image. In reality, this was a Diamond Dave solo show: the high jumps, the wisecracks; it was all done with his inimitable eye for the absurd. But the rest of the band seemed to sink in the background. There was no rapport between Roth and guitarist Eddie Van Halen, drummer Alex Van Halen and bassist Michael Anthony [have to disagree here, as I saw that tour and each band member got plenty of spotlight time - Dave wasn't hogging the show, although it was clear he was the primary focus of many in the audience, including me who was a die-hard EVH fanatic at the time]

    Backstage at the post-gig party it was even worse. "Hey, pull up a bottle and join the fun," Dave bellowed as a few of us ambled into the Van Halen party room. Surrounded by girls, shaking two virtually empty bottles of champagne, Roth even shouted down the massive stereo system he'd installed. This was his playground.

    The Diamond was shining bright, but the rest of the band looked miserable. They didn't want to be there - it was obvious from the body language. In different corners, they displayed indifference to the antics of their vocalist.
    All of us not directly connected to the band - or female an connected to Dave's torso - felt more than a little uneasy.
    Outside, four limos were parked up - one for each member of the band. Oddly, the distance between the one at the front and the others was symbolic.
    As previously mentioned, Roth does sometimes give away too much without realising it. There was a competitive edge to his performance backstage that made you believe he was trying to overshadow everything else for a purpose. Three years later, I suggested this to him.
    "Competitive? Yeah, that's what I do, compete. With my father. With my bandmates. Maybe even with myself."
    Perhaps even a control freak? "If you're not piloting, you've given someone else control of your life. Someone big will kick you, then you kick someone smaller, and so it goes. I'm in control because I'm the biggest bully in the class. I've got the tactical nuclear weapon; they've got catapults. Game over."
    There was something wistful about these comments. Stripping away the bluster and bull, it struck straight to the core of what makes David Lee Roth, well, David Lee Roth.



    Part two to be continued.
    Scramby eggs and bacon.
  • Terry
    TOASTMASTER GENERAL
    • Jan 2004
    • 11953

    #2
    Part 2


    Diamond Dave has a multi-purpose presence. Few people, if any, can so easily switch between shades of their personality with such ease. The side he shows at any one time is the one that gains him the most.

    For someone who professes a need to be the center of attention, he's more like a hairline trigger sociopath. He rarely listens to what you ask during interviews, and instead gives you what he wants you to print. And most of the time you enjoy the ride. But extrapolate the above quotes into the Van Halen scenario and you begin to realise what went on. Roth is not a leader, but he wants to be in charge [?????? - T].
    His desire to always have his own way led to friction even in Van Halen's early days. There were financial choices made that he allegedly bulldozed through. And by 1984 he seemed to be building his own empire. The striking videos that helped fuel the band's success all came from the minds of Roth and his future business partner Pete Angelus. Image had firmly sidelined musical worth [not quite sure I buy this - T]. Diamond Dave was the one dragging the band into a more commercial phase [um, wasn't Ed the one who wanted to use more synths? - T]. He'd worn them down - and worn them out.
    While Van Halen had never been bigger, there were the first rumblings of disaffection. Just a word here and there, but enough to suggest that 1984 could be Van Halen's last album with Roth. In the end, the man who seemed like a genetic mutation taken from James Brown, Bugs Bunny and Errol Flynn allowed the band to move on without him [think it was Dave who moved on without the band, since he was the one who quit - T] .
    A solo EP in 1985, Crazy From The Heat, seemed innocuous enough. But it got Roth on his own Happy Trail, thanks to some uniquely colorful promo clips and a hit with a cover of the Beach Boy's California Girls. He then brazenly announced he was going to do a movie called Crazy From The Heat. So that was it, the end of an era.
    The Crazy From The Heat film never got into gear, but by that time he'd been replaced in the band. Van Halen went for the experienced Sammy Hagar, successful in his own right both as a solo act and, prior to that, with Montrose [Montrose was a success?]. More musician than performer, Hagar's arrival saw a lot of the wit taken out of the band, replaced by musical credibility and substance [suffice it to say this notion has me rotflmmfao - T] .
    The new Van Halen - quickly dubbed Van Hagar - lost no time releasing an album from the new lineup (5150), and launching scathing attacks on their former frontman; accusations of egotism became commonplace. Roth inexplicably replied: "I have no big ego. What I do have is a spirit. Ego suggests being self-satisfied. I'm never that confident in my decisions. I can listen to criticism, because I don't look in the mirror and see Errol Flynn, and I don't listen to my singing and think of Caruso."


    Part 3 coming up.
    Scramby eggs and bacon.

    Comment

    • Terry
      TOASTMASTER GENERAL
      • Jan 2004
      • 11953

      #3
      Released in March 1986, 5150 topped the US chart, and brought the new-look band hit singles such as Why Can't This Be Love. Roth responded later the same year with the solo album Eat 'Em And Smile. That record made only No.4 in the US, despite the fact that Diamond Dave had a far better publicity machine. Roth had the profile, but Van Hagar had the stronger sales.
      Roth kept quiet on the subject of Van Halen for a time, but when he finally opened up it was with a classic Roth slavo.
      "While I was in the band, what did you wanna do? Dance, drink and have sex. The new Van Halen makes you wanna drink milk, drive a Nissan and get into a relationship. Look at the Beatles, the Stones and Zeppelin. They all expanded with the times. Van Halen didn't. We'd become Spinal Tap.
      When I put my current band together (the EEAS Band) I wanted the spirit of rock and roll. I wanted precision, but also that sense of being in touch with what makes anyone love music. I don't believe I'd had that for a few years with the previous band.
      There are those who ask why we did so many covers in Van Halen, and why I keep doing them. Some of those I used to work with are suggesting it's because I can't write. Did anyone ask Elvis or Zeppelin why they did covers? No, because it's part of the plan. Shut up and dance. That's all you should care about."
      Both Roth proved unable to keep his stellar band together. His star quickly burnt out, while Van Halen continued to sell millions of records and play sell-out tours [just not as many records as they sold with Dave fronting them - T]. Van Hagar found a formula [mmmmmm, indeed - T], while Diamond Dave used amusing one-liners to hide his waning influence.
      A reunion attempt in 1996 went badly wrong. The original four recorded two songs together (MWM and CGTSNM) for The Best Of Van Halen Volume 1, but the results were pale imitations of their glory years [think myself that they were a promising starting point for the band to jump off from, and still make me wonder what they could have done with a year in the studio in terms of a new album being released in late 1997/early 1998 - T]. And hopes of a re-formation tour collapsed at the MTV Awards in September of that year when Roth only succeeded in embarrassing himself [seems the author is buying the EVH bunk issued in the wake of the failed reunion - T]. Roth claimed the band had set him up [more likely scenario - T].
      Roth is talking again about a possible reclamation of his old crown. But he's far removed from the iconic figure who was once a unique version of charisma, self-depreciation and acrobatic machismo; the man who "had a surgically implanted disco beat."
      The circus quit town when Dave Roth left Van Halen. But the band found a new focus and barely missed a step. Diamond Dave was left wondering why people couldn't see that he was 'bigger than the band' [when the fuck did Roth ever say anything like that? - T].










      Anyway, this guy clearly buys into the line that Van Hagar was more commercially successful and just plain better than CVH, and Van Halen was better off when Roth left, but thought it was an interesting read anyway.
      Scramby eggs and bacon.

      Comment

      • DlocRoth
        ROCKSTAR

        • Jan 2004
        • 5515

        #4
        what a douche....

        the writer, not you.
        Fuck Scott Weiland. Fucking asshole. I get trashed all the time and still go to work. And my job sucks ass. -ODShowtime

        Comment

        • sadaist
          TOASTMASTER GENERAL
          • Jul 2004
          • 11625

          #5
          Well, "commercially successful" can be construed in different ways. More albums sold = CVH. More radio play = CVH. Although Van Hagar did have a #1 album which CVH did not. But much of that is due to coming off of 1984, which gained an enormous amount of new fans. Also the curiosity factor. But after 5150, sales (and music quality in my opinion) went downhill. Van Halen was very lucky to have the success they did with Sam. Very few bands are able to change lead singers and be successful. Especially bands of that magnitude.

          Journey - Steve Perry = crap
          Sabbath - Ozzy = crap
          Judas Priest - Halford = crap
          Maiden - Bruce = crap
          Crue - Vince = crap
          Ratt - Pearcy = crap
          Van Halen - Roth = crap

          and the list goes on & on & on & on .......
          “Great losses often bring only a numb shock. To truly plunge a victim into misery, you must overwhelm him with many small sufferings.”

          Comment

          Working...