Another Journalist Has No F*<king Clue...

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Nickdfresh
    SUPER MODERATOR

    • Oct 2004
    • 49567

    Another Journalist Has No F*<king Clue...

    ...
    VAN HALEN

    Many purists with too much time on their hands to think about these things will tell you that the massively influential American rock act really died when its chaps-loving frontman David Lee Roth exited stage left with a flying roundhouse kick in 1985. But Eddie and band mates brought former Montrose singer and guitarist Sammy Hagar into the fold and enjoyed the band's most commercially successful period. Huh??!

    Verdict: Commercial success is nice and all, but Hagar's arrival seemed to coincide with the band losing its raucous edge and Eddie getting way, waaaay too into the whole keyboard thing, losing the creative fire that fueled such classic guitar wankery as "Eruption."

    VAN HAGAR

    With Sammy Hagar manning the mic, Van Halen churned out a string of hits, such as "Dreams" and "When It's Love," that appealed to fans far beyond the group's hard rock roots. Escalating tension between Eddie and Sammy, however, led to the latter's firing (or quitting, depending on whom you believe) in 1996. This time, Van Halen reached out to former Extreme singer Gary Cherone, who was lacking more than just Roth and Hagar's blond hair. Cherone showed little personality and less stage presence and was largely blamed both for the poor sales of "Van Halen III" and spotty attendance by fans at live shows.

    Verdict: Love him or hate him, Hagar brought the band big bucks. Replacing him with Cherone is seen almost universally as one of the dumbest moves in rock. Ever.
    VAN HAS-BEEN

    Gary Cherone was fired from the band in 1999, and Van Halen itself went on extended hiatus while its eponymous guitarist battled cancer. Despite rumors of a Roth reunion, when the band finally went back on the road, it was with Sammy Hagar once again - and with virtually none of the magic that once made the band synonymous with American hard rock.

    Verdict: During the band's 2004 show at the Bradley Center, entire sections of fans were heard booing during one of Eddie's formless and uninspired "solos." Enough said.
    ...
    Extract from http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=410233

    "Most commercially successful period?" How can one sell less albums and be more commercially successful? I just e-mailed this author on his factual errors...
  • Nickdfresh
    SUPER MODERATOR

    • Oct 2004
    • 49567

    #2
    Here's what I wrote!

    Dear sir:

    I wish to quibble over a fact that you presented in the recent article entitled "Roster changes can rock bands to their roots:
    Music history teaches us that some stand-ins don't always stand out from the crowd."


    In that article, you stated: "But Eddie and band mates brought former Montrose singer and guitarist Sammy Hagar into the fold and enjoyed the band's most commercially successful period." I am forced to point out that this is in fact not true. The albums' sales figures for what is termed as "Classic Van Halen" (the David Lee Roth era) outnumber the Van Hagar era by nearly 2:1. It is true that Van Hagar sold some albums, and had a number one hit in "Why Can't This Be Love." Furthermore, Van Hagar released five albums to CVH's six, and that one of those albums was a live release; but two DLR-era albums, Van Halen I & 1984, have gone "diamond" (over 10-million sold) while the biggest Van Hagar album, 5150, has sold six-million to date. Also, no other Van Hagar album released (touched) these numbers in sales. This info is available at Van "Halen's" official site here: http://www.van-halen.com/newsite/music.html Click on each album to get the sales figues and other release info. So, I think we can garner that the SAMMY-era was in fact less commercially successful, as well as substationally less productive than the original line up...

    Thank you for your attention to this matter at have a great day...


    Sincerely Yours

    Nickdfresh
    www.RothArmy.com



    Ha! I showed him. Uhuhuhuhuhuhuhuhuhuh...

    Comment

    • ThrillsNSpills
      ROTH ARMY ELITE
      • Jan 2004
      • 6627

      #3
      This is good stuff but we need a last line clincher to make the misinformed bastard scratch his head.
      Something like this:

      So, I think we can garner that the SAMMY-era was in fact less commercially successful, as well as the fact that Kevin Cronin and Sammy got into a Purse swinging fight over who got to sing Keep on Lovin You.

      Van Hagar had good crossover with the DeBarge market, and without it Boy George never would have been considered for VHIII...

      Cunsider a ball transplant operation...and have a great day, etc....

      Comment

      • jero
        Crazy Ass Mofo
        • Jan 2004
        • 2927

        #4
        Good one Nick! Most of those asshole journalist just don't understand.

        Comment

        • Warham
          DIAMOND STATUS
          • Mar 2004
          • 14589

          #5
          "Why Can't This Be Love" never hit the top spot. It peaked at #3 on the Billboard Hot 100.

          Comment

          • DR CHIP
            Foot Soldier
            • Jan 2004
            • 618

            #6
            The commercial success VH had with Spammy was due to where they had been taken commercially by DLR when Spambo arrived......

            In my opinion, Splatulation gradually killed any and all success the band had....then Gaybo put the final fork in it....

            The 2004 tour was just a public viewing before VH was laid to rest....

            Comment

            • Nickdfresh
              SUPER MODERATOR

              • Oct 2004
              • 49567

              #7
              Originally posted by DR CHIP
              The commercial success VH had with Spammy was due to where they had been taken commercially by DLR when Spambo arrived......
              I'm a big believer in this...

              The only reason 5150 sold six million is that it came after 1984, and oh yeah, the curiosity factor...

              But I hate this myth that Van HAGAR was actually more commercially successful than real VAN HALEN...

              Comment

              • bueno bob
                DIAMOND STATUS
                • Jul 2004
                • 22951

                #8
                Exactly.

                Hagar had NOTHING to do with 5150 going number one.

                After 1984, fuck, I could have been singing (at 12 years old) and the album still would have went #1...

                Thank God I didn't though, hunh?
                Twistin' by the pool.

                Comment

                • BigBadBrian
                  TOASTMASTER GENERAL
                  • Jan 2004
                  • 10625

                  #9
                  Verdict: Commercial success is nice and all, but Hagar's arrival seemed to coincide with the band losing its raucous edge and Eddie getting way, waaaay too into the whole keyboard thing, losing the creative fire that fueled such classic guitar wankery as "Eruption."

                  Yep, that pretty much sums it all up in a nutshell right there.

                  “If bullshit was currency, Joe Biden would be a billionaire.” - George W. Bush

                  Comment

                  • Hardrock69
                    DIAMOND STATUS
                    • Feb 2005
                    • 21897

                    #10
                    The only reason that 5150 tour and album were as successful as they were was because people had not seen or heard how lame they truly were.

                    After the tour was over, sales dropped off drastically.

                    Comment

                    • Dirty Duck
                      Sniper
                      • Aug 2005
                      • 791

                      #11
                      Originally posted by Nickdfresh
                      Here's what I wrote!

                      Dear sir:

                      I wish to quibble over a fact that you presented in the recent article entitled "Roster changes can rock bands to their roots:
                      Music history teaches us that some stand-ins don't always stand out from the crowd."


                      In that article, you stated: "But Eddie and band mates brought former Montrose singer and guitarist Sammy Hagar into the fold and enjoyed the band's most commercially successful period." I am forced to point out that this is in fact not true. The albums' sales figures for what is termed as "Classic Van Halen" (the David Lee Roth era) outnumber the Van Hagar era by nearly 2:1. It is true that Van Hagar sold some albums, and had a number one hit in "Why Can't This Be Love." Furthermore, Van Hagar released five albums to CVH's six, and that one of those albums was a live release; but two DLR-era albums, Van Halen I & 1984, have gone "diamond" (over 10-million sold) while the biggest Van Hagar album, 5150, has sold six-million to date. Also, no other Van Hagar album released (touched) these numbers in sales. This info is available at Van "Halen's" official site here: http://www.van-halen.com/newsite/music.html Click on each album to get the sales figues and other release info. So, I think we can garner that the SAMMY-era was in fact less commercially successful, as well as substationally less productive than the original line up...

                      Thank you for your attention to this matter at have a great day...


                      Sincerely Yours

                      Nickdfresh
                      www.RothArmy.com



                      Ha! I showed him. Uhuhuhuhuhuhuhuhuhuh...
                      You rule brother. Good writing. Couldnt have done it better myself...

                      Comment

                      • Halen High
                        Commando
                        • Jul 2004
                        • 1231

                        #12
                        Well done Nickdfresh! Did you get a reply? As a journo, I am constantly amazed at the poor level of research amongst other journos in regard to the history of VH. It's lazy. Way too much reliance on the Van Hagar spin.

                        Comment

                        • jhale667
                          DIAMOND STATUS
                          • Aug 2004
                          • 20929

                          #13
                          Well done, Nick. Another Journalistic Spammy-sheep OWNED. :D
                          Originally posted by conmee
                          If anyone even thinks about deleting the Muff Thread they are banned.... no questions asked.

                          That is all.

                          Icon.
                          Originally posted by GO-SPURS-GO
                          I've seen prominent hypocrite liberal on this site Jhale667


                          Originally posted by Isaac R.
                          Then it's really true??

                          The Muff Thread is really just GONE ???

                          OMFG...who in their right mind...???
                          Originally posted by eddie78
                          I was wrong about you, brother. You're good.

                          Comment

                          • Terry
                            DIAMOND STATUS
                            • Jan 2004
                            • 12133

                            #14
                            Yeah, I just don't get why this "Van Hagar enjoyed more commercial success than Roth" line has been parroted by seemingly every rock journalist who writes about the two lineups...even Hagar says this, and while I suppose it is confusion over Van Hagar having its studio albums go #1 as opposed to CVH not having that happen (although they always omit that Van Halen's only #1 single was with Roth), and equating that with being more successful...

                            ...but it's really just laziness in the post-mass internet age to keep saying this when the sales figures are readily available...even on Van Halens own fucking website!

                            When an article starts out with an incorrect premise such as that, I tend not to bother with the rest of it.

                            See, Van Halen as a brand name was already established by the time Hagar joined, so to me much of those initial 5150 sales were part inherited from what had transpired from 1978 to 1984 (and to Ed, Al and Mike's credit, what they did in those years made it so the new lineup deserved a listen) and part curiousity.

                            Hardrock69 nailed it: after 5150, sales lessened with each Van Hagar release. That trajectory oughta tell a rock journalist something right there in regards to Van Hagar's commercial superiority.
                            Scramby eggs and bacon.

                            Comment

                            • Nickdfresh
                              SUPER MODERATOR

                              • Oct 2004
                              • 49567

                              #15
                              Originally posted by Halen High
                              Well done Nickdfresh! Did you get a reply? As a journo, I am constantly amazed at the poor level of research amongst other journos in regard to the history of VH. It's lazy. Way too much reliance on the Van Hagar spin.
                              Not yet, I'll give the dude a couple of days...


                              Originally posted by jhale667
                              Well done, Nick. Another Journalistic Spammy-sheep OWNED. :D
                              I can't say he was a SHEEP, just a bit misinformed with a myth that has been propagated for some reason, mostly because the sisters crowed about how much better they were doing without ROTH. Even though they were full of shit...

                              Comment

                              Working...