Tweet
Originally posted by bueno bob
Wrong. Ed's proven since 1985 that his work ethic is absolutely shit. It's being proven right now in an arena near you. The only reason you had a positive output from Van Halen during the Roth era was because he kicked ALL of their asses into shape and MADE them work for their success. Otherwise, yes, Van Halen probably would have had some success without Roth...their studio output at this point would probably rival Boston.
Wrong. It was an electric combination and Roth's face is what SOLD Van Halen to the masses in the 80s. Don't believe me? Go to eBay and look through teen magazines from 1978-1985...see how many times you see David's face on the cover and the words "Van Halen" right next to it...no doubt that Ed, Mike and Al were making the music, sure, but the lead singer is what sells the band to the masses, PERIOD. If you think Roth didn't sell Van Halen to EVERYBODY and their brother in the early 80s, you weren't there or you're writing your own revisionist history. Plus, you've also conveniently omitted the fact that every successive Van Halen album without David at the helm has sold less then the one before it, and it's a PROVEN FACT that the David Lee Roth fronted Van Halen has outsold the Spammy Hagar fronted Van Hagar albums 3-1.
That may be true. Even if it is, you're in the very minor majority among Van Halen fans...and this message board is DEFINATELY the wrong place for you.
Good, then there's some hope for you.
There would have been SOME form of Van Halen without David, but not acknowledging that David made Van Halen the most amazing rock and roll band from America during the late 70s and early to mid 80s just proves how ignorant you are about the actual history of Van Halen and how little you know about how much work he put into it.
Wrong. Ed's proven since 1985 that his work ethic is absolutely shit. It's being proven right now in an arena near you. The only reason you had a positive output from Van Halen during the Roth era was because he kicked ALL of their asses into shape and MADE them work for their success. Otherwise, yes, Van Halen probably would have had some success without Roth...their studio output at this point would probably rival Boston.
Wrong. It was an electric combination and Roth's face is what SOLD Van Halen to the masses in the 80s. Don't believe me? Go to eBay and look through teen magazines from 1978-1985...see how many times you see David's face on the cover and the words "Van Halen" right next to it...no doubt that Ed, Mike and Al were making the music, sure, but the lead singer is what sells the band to the masses, PERIOD. If you think Roth didn't sell Van Halen to EVERYBODY and their brother in the early 80s, you weren't there or you're writing your own revisionist history. Plus, you've also conveniently omitted the fact that every successive Van Halen album without David at the helm has sold less then the one before it, and it's a PROVEN FACT that the David Lee Roth fronted Van Halen has outsold the Spammy Hagar fronted Van Hagar albums 3-1.
That may be true. Even if it is, you're in the very minor majority among Van Halen fans...and this message board is DEFINATELY the wrong place for you.
Good, then there's some hope for you.
There would have been SOME form of Van Halen without David, but not acknowledging that David made Van Halen the most amazing rock and roll band from America during the late 70s and early to mid 80s just proves how ignorant you are about the actual history of Van Halen and how little you know about how much work he put into it.
What a superb post I applaud you,sir !!!
Comment