The VH Trade Site Forums Archives

[suebndave]

Spambo = Sammy

[steecoe]

Animal wrote: But that first impession is priceless.

That's it right there :thumb:

No matter who it was that picked up the mic in 1986, they are NOT DLR, & that is why rothtards hate him. It's like hating your mom's boyfriend because he is not your dad. Your dad left & your mom found someone else. Why are you mad at mom & the new guy? Your dad is the one that took off!!

I love Van Halen. period.

[unchainedheart]

steecoe wrote: Animal wrote: But that first impession is priceless.

Thats it right there :thumb:

No matter who it was that picked up the mic in 1986, they are NOT DLR, & that is why rothtards hate him. It's like hating your mom's boyfriend because he is not your dad. Your dad left & your mom found someone else. Why are you mad at mom & the new guy? Your dad is the one that took off!!

I love Van Halen. period.
It' a good way to see it,and i would say that it's about musical tastes too.I'm a CVH fan for 30 years now and this music(cvh) and all that surrounds it, changed my life Thank God :D I still listen to it with the same passion and it still fires me up.On another side i like the Sammy era too but won't listen to it in audio or rarely but i like to watch it on dvd.

[blu]

The biggest thing I have never been able to undestand (ever) is why a Roth-only fan will blow shit to other fans that like all eras. I love CVH, but I get shit because I like the Sam era too. That's just rediculous. In fact, it is stupid. I think many fan-pages are more of an anti-Sam site than a pro-Dave site. I love the Dave era. I agree with almost every thing that gets said about them. But I can't go to a site like DDLR because I like the Sam era too. I also can't stand Sam-only fans who blow crap too, but there are alot less of those type of fans. Why is not ok to just be a fan? Why does a choice have to be made?

[kaloway]

You guys have it all wrong... it's all about Gary what's his name....
Dave who???
Sammy Who????

I tell ya it's all Gary :D

[Mink]

I'm with you blu, I like all the eras. Why all the hate, it's all VH right. There's definately a difference between all the eras and depending on my mood I might pick one over the other. But it's all great. Even the Cherone era has a purpose. I tend to favor Van Hagar but that doesn't mean I don't like CVH or VHIII. "Why can't we all just get along":)

[Moonbeam]

blu wrote: The biggest thing I have never been able to undestand (ever) is why a Roth-only fan will blow shit to other fans that like all eras. I love CVH, but I get shit because I like the Sam era too. That's just rediculous. In fact, it is stupid. I think many fan-pages are more of an anti-Sam site than a pro-Dave site. I love the Dave era. I agree with almost every thing that gets said about them. But I can't go to a site like DDLR because I like the Sam era too. I also can't stand Sam-only fans who blow crap too, but there are alot less of those type of fans. Why is not ok to just be a fan? Why does a choice have to be made?

You're my boy Blu' (I am with you)

I actually liked both versions of VH too, and can't figure out why one would trash either version. I do tend to favor CVH since that is what I was raised on...but I liked them with Sammy (and Gary-the live show from 98 rocks...).

Each version of VH had it's good and bad...that is like any other band...they go through times where the are hot and times when they are not... Both CVH and Van Hagar have good and bad. Some Examples: Dave acted like a drunk clown on stage, Sammy sang too many love songs....CVH rocked you til your balls would swell, Van Hagar had some VERY CHEESY Top 40 Pop songs...The band seemed to be together more when Sammy was in the band, Dave acted like a dipshit when in the band (but that is what I loved about him)...Sammy played guitar live alot, Dave only strung out the beginning of Ice Cream Man....

You could go on, and on and on.....but bottom line is...it is all Van Halen and I love it all!

[Ford Fairlane]

I've never said I don't like Van Hagar, only that I much prefer CVH. I'll never trash someone for liking one more than the other, it's all opinions.

However, I look at it like Motley Crue in '94. That album sounded nothing like the earlier albums (which, IMHO, I thought was a change for the better). But when they toured under the name Motley Crue, they didn't piss the fans in the face by refusing to play the songs that got them into those arenas in the first place. They probably hated Vince Neil as much, if not more, than the Van Halen brothers did DLR, but they knew the fans that had been there for the past 10-15 years wanted to hear those songs, and since they were playing as Motley Crue, they played them.

I've never heard anyone say they'd like the music of Van Hagar better if they'd changed their name, unless they're just brain dead, because the music is the same no matter what they call themselves. I just always felt that if the band was going to sound different, write different, and not play hardly any of the songs that put them where they are, why rest on the laurels of a name they clearly weren't.

And I hope no one detects any hostility in any of my writings in this thread, because I truly believe each era offers something different. I'm just pointing out the things that always agitated me about the Van Hagar era.

It's all Van Halen? Well, it's all Eddie Van Halen (which is fine, I love guitar), but it was 2 entirely different bands.
I'm not right because I like CVH more, and others aren't wrong for liking Van Hagar more...that's what makes the world go 'round :thumb:

[steecoe]

Ford Fairlane wrote:

It's all Van Halen? Well, it's all Eddie Van Halen (which is fine, I love guitar), but it was 2 entirely different bands.

But it WASN'T 2 entirely different bands. Put "jump" in the middle of the first VH album & tell me if it fits in there, no it doesn't but that does not mean it came from an entirely different band.
There was progression from 78 to 84.
There was progression from 1984 to 1986, there was change, but that doesnt make them entirely different. Two sides of the same coin, maybe but it was still Van Halen.
Those that dont care for VH with Sammy point out what changed or "ruined" VH as making it a different band. Those of us that love VH with Sammy & with Dave still see it as the same band, just with a different flavor. It's still Van Halen.
I could make chicken soup, chicken tacos, baked chicken, fried chicken, chicked strips, BBQ chicken, chicken mcnuggets or a chicken burger, they'd all taste different, but it is still a goddamn chicken. I aint gonna start calling it a fucking turtle or "the meat formerly known as chicken - now featuring Sammy Hagar on vocals"

[Dutchie]

Ford Fairlane wrote:

However, I look at it like Motley Crue in '94. That album sounded nothing like the earlier albums (which, IMHO, I thought was a change for the better). But when they toured under the name Motley Crue, they didn't piss the fans in the face by refusing to play the songs that got them into those arenas in the first place. They probably hated Vince Neil as much, if not more, than the Van Halen brothers did DLR, but they knew the fans that had been there for the past 10-15 years wanted to hear those songs, and since they were playing as Motley Crue, they played them.



Yeah, but that was all Sammy's idea to not play them. I would imagine that that was a major why a lot of people didn't like Sammy from the get go. When you think of it, it's surprising that he was hired in the first place. I cant imagine to many other bands hiring a new singer who didn't want to sing the new bands old catalog... and then had the balls to get the band to sing some of his solo shit.

Say what you want about Gary, but at least he didn't want or expect VH to play Extreme stuff.

BTW, that '94 Crue album was/is awesome.

[Dutchie]

steecoe wrote: Ford Fairlane wrote:

It's all Van Halen? Well, it's all Eddie Van Halen (which is fine, I love guitar), but it was 2 entirely different bands.

But it WASN'T 2 entirely different bands. Put "jump" in the middle of the first VH album & tell me if it fits in there, no it doesn't but that does not mean it came from an entirely different band.
There was progression from 78 to 84.
There was progression from 1984 to 1986, there was change, but that doesnt make them entirely different. Two sides of the same coin, maybe but it was still Van Halen.
Those that dont care for VH with Sammy point out what changed or "ruined" VH as making it a different band. Those of us that love VH with Sammy & with Dave still see it as the same band, just with a different flavor. It's still Van Halen.
I could make chicken soup, chicken tacos, baked chicken, fried chicken, chicked strips, BBQ chicken, chicken mcnuggets or a chicken burger, they'd all taste different, but it is still a goddamn chicken. I aint gonna start calling it a fucking turtle or "the meat formerly known as chicken - now featuring Sammy Hagar on vocals"

You are 100% right, steecoe, but damn, your post is making me hungry...

[Ford Fairlane]

steecoe wrote: I could make chicken soup, chicken tacos, baked chicken, fried chicken, chicked strips, BBQ chicken, chicken mcnuggets or a chicken burger, they'd all taste different, but it is still a goddamn chicken.

LMAO...good one :thumb:

I'll just say it's all in the perspective of what you consider the "chicken" of Van Halen's style. For me, it was always swagger + attitude + tension + a dash of rebellion. I liked the feeling (excitement) when seeing them live (and even on album) that the wheels could fall off the wagon at any moment. If I bite into my taco and don't taste what I know to be chicken, I'm not eating a chicken taco. I still enjoy a good beef taco, but I'm still tasting 2 different things.

Again, I hope no one is getting mad. This is just a fun debate. None of us are right or wrong, just showing each other our views.

[steecoe]

Ford Fairlane wrote: steecoe wrote: I could make chicken soup, chicken tacos, baked chicken, fried chicken, chicked strips, BBQ chicken, chicken mcnuggets or a chicken burger, they'd all taste different, but it is still a goddamn chicken.

LMAO...good one :thumb:


thanx :D
Ford Fairlane wrote:
I'll just say it's all in the perspective of what you consider the "chicken" of Van Halen's style. For me, it was always swagger + attitude + tension + a dash of rebellion. I liked the feeling (excitement) when seeing them live (and even on album) that the wheels could fall off the wagon at any moment.
Me too, but I also liked it when they went to Claudio & got those wheels Balanced & were able to floor it with Sammy (even if they made rest stops here & there) ;)

Ford Fairlane wrote: If I bite into my taco and don't taste what I know to be chicken, I'm not eating a chicken taco. I still enjoy a good beef taco, but I'm still tasting 2 different things.

My point is that even if you don't like the taste of the chicken taco, it is still chicken taco, just prepared differently than you are used to. Or I suppose you could say that the taco (Van Halen) went from chicken (DLR) to beef (Sam) but it is STILL a taco (Van Halen)

Ford Fairlane wrote:
Again, I hope no one is getting mad. This is just a fun debate. None of us are right or wrong, just showing each other our views.

Me too, I love van halen, the music, not the soap opera, but I also love a good debate. I have just never agreed that VH should have changed their name. The only place that argument has come from is the CVH loyalists who never could accept that DLR left. Even if they changed their name those types would be pissed about something, look at how many are STILL mad when dave is back, but now their panties are in a bunch because mikey isnt there. I think wolf is a natural fit for Van Halen, he is a Van Halen for fucks sake :eek: I bet if all those Wolf-bashers had the chance to go back in time & see EVH play when he was 16, they'd be licking his nads left & right :thumb:

[voxwah0]

Quote: Ford Fairlane wrote:
If I bite into my taco and don't taste what I know to be chicken, I'm not eating a chicken taco. I still enjoy a good beef taco, but I'm still tasting 2 different things.

My point is that even if you don't like the taste of the chicken taco, it is still chicken taco, just prepared differently than you are used to. Or I suppose you could say that the taco (Van Halen) went from chicken (DLR) to beef (Sam) but it is STILL a taco (Van Halen)


What are you guys even talking about anymore?

[Ford Fairlane]

voxwah0 wrote: What are you guys even talking about anymore?
Yeah, it does sound kinda weird :yell: :yell: :D

Ironically, I just found out we're having tacos for dinner (beef, for anyone keeping score)