Tweet
This group has no directions left that will be able to rouse enthusiasm in a substantial number of people.
Outside of Eddie grunts and Waboritas, whose numbers are thinning as the years march on according to the underattended nature of the 2004 shows, nothing EVH and Co can do from this point forward is gonna a wrothwhile undertaking. Guess the same case could be made for Dave's career at this point, but fuck it, I'm partial.
Is getting a fourth singer really an option at this point? I'm sure there would be plenty of underemployed frontman of yesteryear who might sound great on paper and even more unknowns looking to make a name for themselves who'd take a shot at it. Am sure the Van Halens would be willing to try. Wouldn't be anything other than an uphill battle that they'd be fated to lose in the end anyway (Just ask Gary Cherone. Unlike Hagar, he's not delusional about how his time with the band ULTIMATELY turned out).
More of the same with Hagar at the helm? Christ, after the initial laughter and disbelief of the Feb 2004 announcement Van Hagar MACH 2 was then subjected to media indifference, low concert turnout and three new Van Hagar songs tacked onto a greatest hits compilation that generated nowhere near the visibility and excitement of the same undertaking in 1996 with Roth that differed only in the amount of songs they did (2 in 1996 vs 3 in 2004), the amount of effort put into promoting them (1 non-performing appearance at an awards show in 1996 vs several months of touring in 2004) and the amount of media attention given to it (fall of 1996 was saturated with coverage, most of it in the form of EVH and AVH interviews going negative on Roth vs 2004 with only a few of the usual suspects GUITAR WORLD etc chiming in and passing, obligatory mentions in other outlets). Bottom line: few give a shit about Van Hagar reunited, and VAN HAGAR MACH 2 if it continues would fit the same mold as VAN HAGAR MACH 1: all the curiousity and success would be heaviest at the beginning, and taper off as time went on. Probably much more quickly this time around. There would be no ten-year period of slow but steady downward trajectory a la 1986-1996/1985-1995/1985-1996. Van Hagar is dying fast the second time around.
Getting Dave back for a third attempt at a reunion? Best shot at that was 1996. Eddie and Alex didn't so much blow that opportunity as they just plain didn't want to do it from the get-go. All they wanted were two new Roth tracks to push the sales (try to think what Best Of Vol 1 would have sold if MWM and CGTSNM weren't on them). The controversy, though unwanted, was deemed spinnable. However, they didn't take into account that it wasn't 1985 all over again: Roth wanted to be there this time. When Roth bailed in 1985, many were willing to give Van Hagar a shot. Wasn't like the band had chucked Dave in order to get Sam in there, although the way Ed's musical tastes were 'developing' at that point helped Roth find his way to the door a little quicker. In 1996, the band had a choice, and they made it: they chose Gary Cherone over Roth. 2000? Proof that they were no longer able to get together and even write or record. Plus, is a reunited classic VH now even able to stand up to their own legacy, or rise to meet the standards of the classic fans? Eddie's just gone, dude. Best we could hope for is a by-the-numbers tour of oldies. Not the way I'd want to see the band undertake a last hurrah. Best just to leave it alone.
The band name Van Halen should just be left to rock history now. In an age of diminished expectations, some this year have said that the mere fact that Ed didn't fall over onstage and only made several glaring mistakes in a given show is proof that the band are back and better than ever. Alex seems as delusional as ever regarding Van Halen's relevance today. About the only relevance Van Halen has now is to illustrate what a great band Van Halen WAS more than twenty years ago, and just how far they've fallen in the years since.
The name Van Halen needs to be retired now. They shouldn't feel compelled any longer to travel down the same road as KISS, The Rolling Stones, the Eagles, The Who, etc., towards a future where changing lineups, slavish overemphasis on older material and an inability to recognize a spent creativity all add up to a pile of misplaced nostalgia, half-assed in its execution. Van Halen joined that pantheon of greats to a certain extent by initailly not being afraid to break with form and going about it on their own terms. Would be the closest thing to a positive ending at this point for VH to end it in a manner that would again differ from many of those greats, and stop now instead of plodding along for the sake of a few more dollars.
Still believe Ed has plenty left in him to say with his guitar, but the Van Halen format is just a spent force. Maybe unfettered by formula of a traditional rock band lineup (i.e. a permanent lead vocalist/frontman) EVH can find a new showcase for his undeniable instrumental talent and if not escape his legacy at least find a way to co-exist with the past that won't by default invite comparisons with it. Fairly or not, continuing on the route Van Halen is going regardless of Roth's participation will only provide a contrast between the present and the past, and the Van Halen of today will always come up short. The band is just trying to remake the wheel now in terms of its own myth. A fruitless excercise that's not really helping Ed develop, regardless of how many incredible demo tapes he claims to have in the can (does that matter if we don't get to hear them?).
To make a long story short (too late), apologies for the length of this post, but then again I'm not known for my economy with words here.
Peace.
Outside of Eddie grunts and Waboritas, whose numbers are thinning as the years march on according to the underattended nature of the 2004 shows, nothing EVH and Co can do from this point forward is gonna a wrothwhile undertaking. Guess the same case could be made for Dave's career at this point, but fuck it, I'm partial.
Is getting a fourth singer really an option at this point? I'm sure there would be plenty of underemployed frontman of yesteryear who might sound great on paper and even more unknowns looking to make a name for themselves who'd take a shot at it. Am sure the Van Halens would be willing to try. Wouldn't be anything other than an uphill battle that they'd be fated to lose in the end anyway (Just ask Gary Cherone. Unlike Hagar, he's not delusional about how his time with the band ULTIMATELY turned out).
More of the same with Hagar at the helm? Christ, after the initial laughter and disbelief of the Feb 2004 announcement Van Hagar MACH 2 was then subjected to media indifference, low concert turnout and three new Van Hagar songs tacked onto a greatest hits compilation that generated nowhere near the visibility and excitement of the same undertaking in 1996 with Roth that differed only in the amount of songs they did (2 in 1996 vs 3 in 2004), the amount of effort put into promoting them (1 non-performing appearance at an awards show in 1996 vs several months of touring in 2004) and the amount of media attention given to it (fall of 1996 was saturated with coverage, most of it in the form of EVH and AVH interviews going negative on Roth vs 2004 with only a few of the usual suspects GUITAR WORLD etc chiming in and passing, obligatory mentions in other outlets). Bottom line: few give a shit about Van Hagar reunited, and VAN HAGAR MACH 2 if it continues would fit the same mold as VAN HAGAR MACH 1: all the curiousity and success would be heaviest at the beginning, and taper off as time went on. Probably much more quickly this time around. There would be no ten-year period of slow but steady downward trajectory a la 1986-1996/1985-1995/1985-1996. Van Hagar is dying fast the second time around.
Getting Dave back for a third attempt at a reunion? Best shot at that was 1996. Eddie and Alex didn't so much blow that opportunity as they just plain didn't want to do it from the get-go. All they wanted were two new Roth tracks to push the sales (try to think what Best Of Vol 1 would have sold if MWM and CGTSNM weren't on them). The controversy, though unwanted, was deemed spinnable. However, they didn't take into account that it wasn't 1985 all over again: Roth wanted to be there this time. When Roth bailed in 1985, many were willing to give Van Hagar a shot. Wasn't like the band had chucked Dave in order to get Sam in there, although the way Ed's musical tastes were 'developing' at that point helped Roth find his way to the door a little quicker. In 1996, the band had a choice, and they made it: they chose Gary Cherone over Roth. 2000? Proof that they were no longer able to get together and even write or record. Plus, is a reunited classic VH now even able to stand up to their own legacy, or rise to meet the standards of the classic fans? Eddie's just gone, dude. Best we could hope for is a by-the-numbers tour of oldies. Not the way I'd want to see the band undertake a last hurrah. Best just to leave it alone.
The band name Van Halen should just be left to rock history now. In an age of diminished expectations, some this year have said that the mere fact that Ed didn't fall over onstage and only made several glaring mistakes in a given show is proof that the band are back and better than ever. Alex seems as delusional as ever regarding Van Halen's relevance today. About the only relevance Van Halen has now is to illustrate what a great band Van Halen WAS more than twenty years ago, and just how far they've fallen in the years since.
The name Van Halen needs to be retired now. They shouldn't feel compelled any longer to travel down the same road as KISS, The Rolling Stones, the Eagles, The Who, etc., towards a future where changing lineups, slavish overemphasis on older material and an inability to recognize a spent creativity all add up to a pile of misplaced nostalgia, half-assed in its execution. Van Halen joined that pantheon of greats to a certain extent by initailly not being afraid to break with form and going about it on their own terms. Would be the closest thing to a positive ending at this point for VH to end it in a manner that would again differ from many of those greats, and stop now instead of plodding along for the sake of a few more dollars.
Still believe Ed has plenty left in him to say with his guitar, but the Van Halen format is just a spent force. Maybe unfettered by formula of a traditional rock band lineup (i.e. a permanent lead vocalist/frontman) EVH can find a new showcase for his undeniable instrumental talent and if not escape his legacy at least find a way to co-exist with the past that won't by default invite comparisons with it. Fairly or not, continuing on the route Van Halen is going regardless of Roth's participation will only provide a contrast between the present and the past, and the Van Halen of today will always come up short. The band is just trying to remake the wheel now in terms of its own myth. A fruitless excercise that's not really helping Ed develop, regardless of how many incredible demo tapes he claims to have in the can (does that matter if we don't get to hear them?).
To make a long story short (too late), apologies for the length of this post, but then again I'm not known for my economy with words here.
Peace.
Comment