Did Van Halen Really ‘Stink’ Live? An Unbelievable 1979 Concert Review

[Seshmeister]

Join Robert John Hadfield as he takes us back to 1979, diving into a vintage, brutally honest review of a Van Halen concert in New Haven, CT. Hear why the critic labeled it “the pits” and dissected the legendary band’s early live performance flaws. From David Lee Roth's antics to Eddie Van Halen's “cheating” guitar technique, this review offers a unique, raw perspective on the band’s early years. Let’s hear your take: was this review justified, or just a product of the times?

[FORD]

I'm guessing this "critic" was the guy this newspaper sent to all the disco concerts in the late 1970s and he was disappointed that this show was nothing like the Bee Gees or the Village People.

[Seshmeister]

It is a reminder of how negative a lot of press were back in the day. Van Halen being near the top of Rolling Stone polls these days is not the way it used to be.

[Von Halen]

When I saw Van Halen on July 19, 1979 at the Century II Convention Center in Wichita, KS, Screams was the opening band. They weren’t very memorable. Van Halen on the other hand, was totally the opposite of this dumbfucks review. They were spectacular. Like Dave says, the music critics preferred Elvis Costello, because they all looked like him. The guy that wrote that review is a dumb motherfucker that looks even more stupid today, than he did the day that review came out.

[Terry]

It is a reminder of how negative a lot of press were back in the day. Van Halen being near the top of Rolling Stone polls these days is not the way it used to be.

Rolling Stone shit on them for virtually the entire time the CVH lineup was together. The band got a featured story during the 1984 tour, when the band were too big to ignore. Soon as Hagar joined, Rolling Stone rolled out the red carpet for the group. Mid-80's was an eye-opener for me and that rag, and not just regarding Van Hagar, either. Seeing cover stories given to the likes of Michael J. Fox around that same period...lame.

[Vinnie Velvet]

Rolling Stone shit on them for virtually the entire time the CVH lineup was together. The band got a featured story during the 1984 tour, when the band were too big to ignore. Soon as Hagar joined, Rolling Stone rolled out the red carpet for the group. Mid-80's was an eye-opener for me and that rag, and not just regarding Van Hagar, either. Seeing cover stories given to the likes of Michael J. Fox around that same period...lame.

What's funny is that despite the huge success of 1984 Rolling Shit Stone still didn't give CVH the cover.

Dave got it the next year. But then RS as you say was all over Van Hagar.

[twonabomber]

Mid-80's was an eye-opener for me and that rag, and not just regarding Van Hagar, either. Seeing cover stories given to the likes of Michael J. Fox around that same period...lame.

If one wanted to know what shoes bands were wearing, they read Rolling Stone. If one wanted insight into their gear, songwriting, and production, they read Musician magazine.

[Kristy]

"Miserably poor in concert"

Yeah, I can believe that.

[Kristy]

"Miserably poor in concert"

Yeah, I can believe that.

And then that fucker started talking about Zeppelin.

[Terry]

If one wanted to know what shoes bands were wearing, they read Rolling Stone. If one wanted insight into their gear, songwriting, and production, they read Musician magazine.

As the 1980's wore on, Rolling Stone would have a smattering of stories I found of interest. Usually, those stories had nothing to do with either music or politics (i.e. Mike Sager's The Devil and John Holmes, and other stories along that line...more human-interest stories than anything to do with entertainment or politics).

Once the 1990's rolled in, the mag was too content to give blowjobs to Bono or Bill Clinton in print and even the occasional human-interest stories dried up.

None of which is to say I expected the magazine to remain faithful to its late-1960's, New Left/hippy roots forever. It just evolved into a publication that had this centrist democrat consensus core, kept fobbing off uncritical reviews of aging hippy rock acts and was willing to put whatever cultural flavor of the month was on the cover. All of which may well have been the smart move in terms of securing circulation as the years went by. However, by the 1990s, Rolling Stone magazine was meaningless to me.

[Kristy]

As someone who writes shitty "poorly worded" reviews about the absurdity of rock stars being the most useless people on the planet that guy sounds not like a failed musician but a pillow biter for Jimmy Page. So Van Halen sucked in 79. How many concert have you cretins gone to that were much the same? Lots of variables here, people. Bad PA, band tired from doing shows each night non-stop playing the same song over and over, equipment breakdowns, not being paid what was on the promoter contract. This is no question your classic band was also shit live in your heyday of Roth homoerotism relying only on Eddie to carry the load and Roth to due his ego-tripping theatrics. I saw Depeche Mode in 2017 and thought they were shit, then saw them in 2023 and that was one of the best shows in my life.

People who read Rolling Stone the late 70s and early 80s were Queen and Zeppy fans and high school English teachers who smoked dope before each class. It was a stoner rag for wet liberals and suburban academics you know, people like slave FORD Rolling Stone as it is today only sells you what they believe your pop culture experience should be. This is why they praise kink fleeting rap artist and girly singer/songwriters for a Gen-Z base of nitwits. They make it up as they go along knowing full well print is just as dead today as it was in 79. They'll shit on Dido but tell you Van Morrison's 80s output was his best work. Makes me wonder why Olivia Rodrigo is still slumming in the offices of Rolling Stone.

So you see kids, it does not matter what the critics think. it all comes down to what you want to believe. Was VH shit? No question but you will always believe otherwise and that only what matters.

[FORD]

For the record, I dumped my Rolling Stone subscription in the 1990s when they started putting Britney Spears and N'Suck on the cover.

[Terry]

As someone who writes shitty "poorly worded" reviews about the absurdity of rock stars being the most useless people on the planet that guy sounds not like a failed musician but a pillow biter for Jimmy Page. So Van Halen sucked in 79. How many concert have you cretins gone to that were much the same? Lots of variables here, people. Bad PA, band tired from doing shows each night non-stop playing the same song over and over, equipment breakdowns, not being paid what was on the promoter contract. This is no question your classic band was also shit live in your heyday of Roth homoerotism relying only on Eddie to carry the load and Roth to due his ego-tripping theatrics. I saw Depeche Mode in 2017 and thought they were shit, then saw them in 2023 and that was one of the best shows in my life.

People who read Rolling Stone the late 70s and early 80s were Queen and Zeppy fans and high school English teachers who smoked dope before each class. It was a stoner rag for wet liberals and suburban academics you know, people like slave FORD Rolling Stone as it is today only sells you what they believe your pop culture experience should be. This is why they praise kink fleeting rap artist and girly singer/songwriters for a Gen-Z base of nitwits. They make it up as they go along knowing full well print is just as dead today as it was in 79. They'll shit on Dido but tell you Van Morrison's 80s output was his best work. Makes me wonder why Olivia Rodrigo is still slumming in the offices of Rolling Stone.

So you see kids, it does not matter what the critics think. it all comes down to what you want to believe. Was VH shit? No question but you will always believe otherwise and that only what matters.

Going into the year 1984, I was about as big a Van Halen fan as I ever would be. Wasn't thrilled with the keyboard tracks on 1984 then (nor am I today) and when I saw them on the 1984 tour there was a substantial amount of concert time taken up by the bass solo, the drum solo, multiple lengthy Roth stage monologues and an overlong Eddie solo spot. Thus, even though Van Halen were my favorite band in 1984 and that concert was the one I was anticipating the most it didn't end up being the concert I enjoyed the most. So even back then I never considered Van Halen flawless. I just thought they were a great band.

Far as critical reviews, I don't have a problem with someone writing a negative review of something I like long as the review itself is coming from an honest place. I'd far sooner read something along those lines, even when I disagreed with it, than a bunch of reviews which on a 5-star scale consistently give everything a 3 star or higher due to the magazine basically being in cahoots with the record industry (or the movie industry or whatever) and serving no other purpose than being a periodical to essentially promote whatever records are being put out.

But Rolling Stone, certainly from 1978 through to 1984, basically had it in for the band. I couldn't say if it was a function of the particular critics who reviewed the records released, where they plain just didn't like the band or the records, or just the overall vibe the magazine had toward the band back then. Then again, that attitude back then wasn't restricted to Roling Stone magazine, either. In the end, it didn't matter re: the band becoming successful. Certainly didn't matter to me. Was probably just a case back in the CVH days of the reviewers not even being fans of the band or the hard rock genre in general. Whereas they were probably falling all over themselves to praise whatever Joni Mitchell or Bob Dylan were putting out circa 1979.

[Von Halen]

The guy that wrote that review is almost as dumb as that old fraudulent hag, Krusty. You know, the decrepit old dummy that loved Douche Mode in 2023! Ha ha ha! Fortunately (s)he has zero credibility on Van Halen, or music in general. That ignorant diatribe (s)he posted is as meaningless as the dull life she lives.

I would love to hear a bootleg from the show that dude reviewed. I can guarantee he’d look even dumber for writing that.

Of all the VH shows I saw, 1984 was my least favorite. To me, the flow of the show got messed up by all the solos, and costume changes from Dave. It was still a great show, just not my favorite tour. If you watch the Montreal ‘84 bootleg video, you’ll see what we are talking about. But you’ll also see the motherfucking kings of the world kicking ass. If the 1984 tour was the only VH tour you saw, you still saw greatness.

Fucking Douche Mode. I still can’t believe anyone would fucking admit to seeing that shit. Not once, but twice! Wow.

[Terry]

The guy that wrote that review is almost as dumb as that old fraudulent hag, Krusty. You know, the decrepit old dummy that loved Douche Mode in 2023! Ha ha ha! Fortunately (s)he has zero credibility on Van Halen, or music in general. That ignorant diatribe (s)he posted is as meaningless as the dull life she lives.

I would love to hear a bootleg from the show that dude reviewed. I can guarantee he’d look even dumber for writing that.

Of all the VH shows I saw, 1984 was my least favorite. To me, the flow of the show got messed up by all the solos, and costume changes from Dave. It was still a great show, just not my favorite tour. If you watch the Montreal ‘84 bootleg video, you’ll see what we are talking about. But you’ll also see the motherfucking kings of the world kicking ass. If the 1984 tour was the only VH tour you saw, you still saw greatness.

Fucking Douche Mode. I still can’t believe anyone would fucking admit to seeing that shit. Not once, but twice! Wow.

The 1984 show - the only CVH show I ever saw - WAS a 'larger than life' spectacle.

The thing that stuck out most was the production. The stage, the lights...biggest indoor arena production I'd ever seen to that point. Indeed, one of the biggest indoor arena productions I'd ever see.

There wasn't a lack of energy in terms of the band's performance, either. Whatever was going on offstage between Roth and the rest of the band in terms of acrimony, none of that was apparent onstage. Nobody was phoning it in.

Just too many solo spots and stage raps that went on a bit too long. Could have shortened those and squeezed in at least 3 or 4 more tunes; the show ran about an hour and 45 minutes and for that amount of time the band didn't play as many songs as one would have hoped. Even so, it wasn't a case of leaving afterward and thinking it was a bad show.