A Hypothetical for ya.....

[SoldMySoul4RnR]

Okay have a think about this. Imagine the history of the music industry remains exactly the way it is, but the DLR era of Van Halen had never existed(God fobid). Music in the 80's is still exactly the same, and instead...Van Halen had began in 1985 with Sammy as frontman.

My question is, would anybody have given two shits about them? Would they have been the innovative, original, classic band they are currently remembered as? My answer would be FUCK NO. The fact is, Van Halen with DLR as frontman was an absolute monster, they were new and fresh, Ed changed the way people played guitar and Dave wrote a whole new rule book for frontmen everywhere. Van Halen with Sammy were a cheesy 80's hair band, they simply treaded water. They weren't innovative or fresh. They simply fit in with all the other hair bands.

If Van Halen had began in 1985 with Sammy, they would simply have been another hair band. Clear and simple! Sammy was all cheese...and cheese doesn't keep well over time.

Just my opinion. What do others think? Aye?

[DrMaddVibe]

No, they would've been as important as Thomas Dolby, Flock of Seagulls, Men Without Hats and every other one-hit wonder back in the 80's.

I'm not beating on 80's music, it's just that the majority of bands that came out then sure didn't have stable legs underneath to carry them further!

[Panamark]

Well I was a fully fledged mosher/banger at that time.
Poodle Haired Van Hagar was fucking embarrassing.
Me and my peers wouldnt have given them a second
listen..

Hang on... WE DIDNT ! :D

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by Panamark
Well
Poodle Haired Van Hagar was fucking embarrassing.
Me and my peers wouldnt have given them a second
listen..

Hang on... WE DIDNT ! :D

Same here.

I think they would have had about as much success as Loverboy without the name and back catalogue.

[SoldMySoul4RnR]

A little something for the sheep to ponder....

[fe_lung]

Hey, if 3 Doors Down can make it why not Van Hagar. It all depends on how much money the record company wants to put behind an act.

[vanzilla]

Originally posted by fe_lung
Hey, if 3 Doors Down can make it why not Van Hagar. It all depends on how much money the record company wants to put behind an act.

Actually that's a great point fe. Fucking record companies are calling the shots - and they're doing it by illegally paying radio stations to put their acts in rotation. You got pay to play anymore.

As for the topic at hand, If VH came out in 85 with Sam as frontman, I'm picturing a legacy not unlike Loverboy, Foreigner - bands of those ilk.

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by fe_lung
Hey, if 3 Doors Down can make it why not Van Hagar. It all depends on how much money the record company wants to put behind an act.

Free copies to deaf schools for example?

The record company wouldn't have put anywhere near as much money into 5150 if it was a debut.

[Matt White]

Nor would half as many people have bought 5150 without the CLASSIC VAN HALEN legacy looking over its puny shoulders. van hagar wouldn't have gotten SIGNED without DAVID LEE ROTH having put 'em on the map. 20+ years later and DAVE STILL FRONTS VAN HALEN! HA!

[DlocRoth]

I dont know....

I hate Van Hagar as much as the next guy, but nobody thinks Eddie wouldnt have still been a star?

[Seshmeister]

No.

He might have got a deal with Blue Note or something doing widdly widdly music or possibly got Bruce Kulicks job in Kiss but they would have sucked the soul out of him.

Plus you would still have had Paul Stanley solo spots.

[DlocRoth]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
No.

He might have got a deal with Blue Note or something doing widdly widdly music or possibly got Bruce Kulicks job in Kiss but they would have sucked the soul out of him.

Plus you would still have had Paul Stanley solo spots.

Well said!:D

5 stars for you, and five for that fuck Simmons.

[Hollywood Jesus]

Unfortunately, I must admit that Van Hagar would have still had legs in 1985 without the DLR head-start.

Sammy was coming off a hot album. In fact, the band would not have been called Van Halen at all. It probably would have simply been the new band in his solo career.

Eddie would certainly have been more of a nobody as 2nd fiddle in the Sammy Hagar band. Probably more like Stevie Stevens with Billy Idol.

Your guitar god replacement would have been George Lynch. The big Los Angeles band would have been Quiet Riot.

And the '80s would have been filled with Kevin BuBrow clones instead of DLR clones. Thank you, God it didn't happen this way.

[m_dixon1984]

Originally posted by DlocRoth
I dont know....

I hate Van Hagar as much as the next guy, but nobody thinks Eddie wouldnt have still been a star?

The six-pack made both Dave and Eddie superstars. Originally, Van Hagar benefitted greatly from Eddie's legacy both as a guitar player and as member of CVH. Many of us, regrettably in hindsight, continued buying Van Hagar albums in hopes of finding some remnants of Eddie's past glory. Unfortunately for us all there were few signs of Eddie's greatness in the post CVH material. His star had risen during CVH and it got dimmer and dimmer as Spammy spewed his worthless ramblings. To answer your question: No, Eddie would not have been a star if his career had started with Van Hagar.

I disagree with Hollywood Jesus. 5150 had hits only because Van Halen had hit it huge with 1984. Spammy's success was nothing in comparison to VH's at the time and in the Pop music picture he was always a second or third rate star. Nobody would have paid for the keyboards and synth drum sound found on 5150 and Eddie would have faded into instant obscurity.

Without his eruption in 1977, and his work with DLR, Eddie would have been nothing but a worthless drunk, with bad hair, a gay brother, a fat son, hanging out with a Ronald McDonald wanna be...oh, wait, that's exactly what he is.

M

[Coyote]

Re: A Hypothetical for ya.....

Originally posted by SoldMySoul4RnR
Okay have a think about this. Imagine the history of the music industry remains exactly the way it is, but the DLR era of Van Halen had never existed(God fobid). Music in the 80's is still exactly the same, and instead...Van Halen had began in 1985 with Sammy as frontman.

My question is, would anybody have given two shits about them? Would they have been the innovative, original, classic band they are currently remembered as? My answer would be FUCK NO. The fact is, Van Halen with DLR as frontman was an absolute monster, they were new and fresh, Ed changed the way people played guitar and Dave wrote a whole new rule book for frontmen everywhere. Van Halen with Sammy were a cheesy 80's hair band, they simply treaded water. They weren't innovative or fresh. They simply fit in with all the other hair bands.

If Van Halen had began in 1985 with Sammy, they would simply have been another hair band. Clear and simple! Sammy was all cheese...and cheese doesn't keep well over time.

Just my opinion. What do others think? Aye?

I think this site would be an Angel-fan site if that were the case...
(not the TV series, for those of you wondering.)