That's another thing that has always stuck in my craw re: Hagar.
Back in 1985, I knew who Hagar was. Didn't actively dislike the guy or his musical output prior to 1985. Never thought much of what Hagar had done prior to 1985 was particularly special/exceptional, either.
But I do recall the rounds of press when Hagar first joined Van Halen, and there is Hagar taking potshots at Roth along with the rest of Van Halen in interviews. Back then, I remember wondering where Hagar got the balls to say anything about Roth: it was one thing for Eddie and Roth to trade barbs in the press, but Sammy basically got a winning lottery ticket by accident. Sammy walked into the lead singer slot of a band that was already selling millions and millions of records and breaking attendance records in arenas across the country, neither of which accurately describes Sammy's career up to and including 1985. Sammy's entire career and profile took a big leap just by virtue of him joining Van Halen, yet Sammy continually pretends otherwise and insists that his solo career was on a par in commercial terms with what Van Halen was doing from 1978 to 1984. It just wasn't.
And Hagar's lies extended to his tenure with Van Halen, where he still claims his version of Van Halen was more commercially successful. It just wasn't. Yet a bunch of lazy rock journalists seem to equate the amount of #1 albums and top 40 singles with the amount of albums sold overall and still that myth of Van Hagar being commercially successful persists.
The persistent amount of lies Hagar has told regarding raw data - nothing to do with "who the 'better' singer was" - tells me that Hagar knows what the truth is and is just embarrassed, mostly because he really does believe he is a better singer/musician than Roth and can't understand why the reality doesn't match Hagar's lies.
Back in 1985, I knew who Hagar was. Didn't actively dislike the guy or his musical output prior to 1985. Never thought much of what Hagar had done prior to 1985 was particularly special/exceptional, either.
But I do recall the rounds of press when Hagar first joined Van Halen, and there is Hagar taking potshots at Roth along with the rest of Van Halen in interviews. Back then, I remember wondering where Hagar got the balls to say anything about Roth: it was one thing for Eddie and Roth to trade barbs in the press, but Sammy basically got a winning lottery ticket by accident. Sammy walked into the lead singer slot of a band that was already selling millions and millions of records and breaking attendance records in arenas across the country, neither of which accurately describes Sammy's career up to and including 1985. Sammy's entire career and profile took a big leap just by virtue of him joining Van Halen, yet Sammy continually pretends otherwise and insists that his solo career was on a par in commercial terms with what Van Halen was doing from 1978 to 1984. It just wasn't.
And Hagar's lies extended to his tenure with Van Halen, where he still claims his version of Van Halen was more commercially successful. It just wasn't. Yet a bunch of lazy rock journalists seem to equate the amount of #1 albums and top 40 singles with the amount of albums sold overall and still that myth of Van Hagar being commercially successful persists.
The persistent amount of lies Hagar has told regarding raw data - nothing to do with "who the 'better' singer was" - tells me that Hagar knows what the truth is and is just embarrassed, mostly because he really does believe he is a better singer/musician than Roth and can't understand why the reality doesn't match Hagar's lies.
Comment