I get that Van Halen is a big deal... Duh.
But I've always wondered why Hagar's stint in VH seems to be more of a defining and relevant aspect of his career that always gets brought up??
Seriously... Montrose seems to be more of his defining legacy in rock history. Then his mediocre solo career that entertained the hoople-heads for years before and after VH... then add in his "super-group" crap as side dishes.
I just don't get it... what he did with Van Halen musically just hasn't stood up over time. It had it's brief time in the spot light and charts but none of it could be considered huge " Timeless classics" along side his Montrose work and even some of his sappy solo hits...
What is it that draws the media and simple minds back to the Van Hagar stint... the soap-opera and drama?
But I've always wondered why Hagar's stint in VH seems to be more of a defining and relevant aspect of his career that always gets brought up??
Seriously... Montrose seems to be more of his defining legacy in rock history. Then his mediocre solo career that entertained the hoople-heads for years before and after VH... then add in his "super-group" crap as side dishes.
I just don't get it... what he did with Van Halen musically just hasn't stood up over time. It had it's brief time in the spot light and charts but none of it could be considered huge " Timeless classics" along side his Montrose work and even some of his sappy solo hits...
What is it that draws the media and simple minds back to the Van Hagar stint... the soap-opera and drama?
Comment