The VH Trade Site Forums Archives

[scoobie]

it always gets me going about the in-fighting over "classic van halen" vs "van hagar" Ron and I talked about this before the chicago show and it's all van halen. ;) I'm 41 brought up on CVH saw them 80-84,sammy comes along and all the back lash-sambo,not DLR,lyrics too "moody". I like both era's mach I and mach II(to take a moniker from deep purple)it's all good.As I would put vh 78-84 up against anything that was put out at the time, I would do the same from vh 86-95.Just some great tunes from that each era :yell: Count the bands on one hand who were great,then count the bands who were great and have lasting power, with 2 differant singers(sabbath&purple withstanding) then we can talk.Just as I 'd put VH up against any band 78-84,name me another band 86-95 that holds a candle to VH.I'm not a big sammy solo fan but as the sammy said himself "that's the best music I've written in my life"(guitar world 2004)

[liquid_steel_az]

:D

[suebndave]

Sure Wes, go add more fuel to the fire LOL!

[Ford Fairlane]

I can see both sides to this one. I liked Van Hagar, I absolutely loved Van Halen.

But in reality, they were 2 different bands. CVH was rough and aggressive, Van Hagar was polished and refined. My biggest complaint with Van Hagar was they should have used a different name. Not because of the "CVH legacy" or "Dave wasn't in the band", but their sound and songwriting was very different (plus they didn't even play hardly any of the older tunes anyway).

Then again, there's always people that can hear Ed fart sideways into a microphone and they'd claim it's the best recording of the year.

[VAiN]

Ford Fairlane wrote: I can see both sides to this one. I liked Van Hagar, I absolutely loved Van Halen.

But in reality, they were 2 different bands. CVH was rough and aggressive, Van Hagar was polished and refined. My biggest complaint with Van Hagar was they should have used a different name. Not because of the "CVH legacy" or "Dave wasn't in the band", but their sound and songwriting was very different (plus they didn't even play hardly any of the older tunes anyway).


+1 on that. You just nailed exactly how I feel. I was able to tolerate Van Hagar because I'm a huge fan of Eddie. But with Van Halen, I'm a HUGE fan of the BAND.

[radikal]

Ford Fairlane wrote: I can see both sides to this one. I liked Van Hagar, I absolutely loved Van Halen.

But in reality, they were 2 different bands. CVH was rough and aggressive, Van Hagar was polished and refined. My biggest complaint with Van Hagar was they should have used a different name. Not because of the "CVH legacy" or "Dave wasn't in the band", but their sound and songwriting was very different (plus they didn't even play hardly any of the older tunes anyway).

Then again, there's always people that can hear Ed fart sideways into a microphone and they'd claim it's the best recording of the year.

Van-Hagar was more commercial than CVH....

I love the CVH era more for a main reason that CVH was a dignified distinct Hard rock sound that was diferent than all other bands

[Decatone]

Ford Fairlane wrote:
Then again, there's always people that can hear Ed fart sideways into a microphone and they'd claim it's the best recording of the year.

Ummm... the great sound of the 2004 tour :(

[Ford Fairlane]

radikal wrote: I love the CVH era more for a main reason that CVH was a dignified distinct Hard rock sound that was diferent than all other bands

Very true. We all know Ed has a very distinctive sound. But if you take the guitar solos out of the Van Hagar era and just listen to the songs, that could have been any number of bands during that period. Yet the early songs sounded like no one else.

[unchainedheart]

radikal wrote: Ford Fairlane wrote: I can see both sides to this one. I liked Van Hagar, I absolutely loved Van Halen.

But in reality, they were 2 different bands. CVH was rough and aggressive, Van Hagar was polished and refined. My biggest complaint with Van Hagar was they should have used a different name. Not because of the "CVH legacy" or "Dave wasn't in the band", but their sound and songwriting was very different (plus they didn't even play hardly any of the older tunes anyway).

Then again, there's always people that can hear Ed fart sideways into a microphone and they'd claim it's the best recording of the year.

Van-Hagar was more commercial than CVH....

I love the CVH era more for a main reason that CVH was a dignified distinct Hard rock sound that was diferent than all other bands

well said brother :thumb:

[SRC]

I loved sammy before he joined vh ,when he joined they went from "ain't talkin bout love" to "why can't this be love"

[rhoadsfanz5150]

SRC wrote: I loved sammy before he joined vh ,when he joined they went from "ain't talkin bout love" to "why can't this be love"

or to:

Love Walks In, When It's Love, Can't Stop Lovin' You, Don't Tell Me What Love Can Do :thumb:

[sickman]

rhoadsfanz5150 wrote: SRC wrote: I loved sammy before he joined vh ,when he joined they went from "ain't talkin bout love" to "why can't this be love"

or to:

Love Walks In, When It's Love, Can't Stop Lovin' You, Don't Tell Me What Love Can Do :thumb:

Don't forget Feels So Good. Sure there were great tunes like Black and Blue, Source of Infection but Van Hagar was like going to the Prom with your highschool sweetheart, CVH is like going to a keg party with the highschool slut.

[VAiN]

sickman wrote: Source of Infection

In the running for worst song ever. Lyrics, or lack of, are pure garbage. Crank it! Blow out! Woo!

[liquid_steel_az]

sickman wrote: CVH is like going to a keg party with the highschool slut.

Yea, baby!! :yell: :yell: :D :thumb:

[SRC]

with sammy in the band if they should have changed the name , it's a whole other band and it could have been looked at as something new instead,it's who is better roth or sammy,roth is vh like paul rodgers is bad company