Are they ever going to release another c.d.? I just saw David Lee Roth last week so it made me think of them again. I really miss Van Halen. I do hope they get a good singer. I don't want to see David Lee Roth back in front since he has really lost it. I wouldn't mind if they worked things out with Sammy.
Michael Corvin
08-30-03, 12:57 AM
I wouildn't mind Sammy either. But I think EVH used his giant head/ego to put the final nail in the bands coffin when they fired Cherone and blamed him for poor album sales. Come up with a better excuse than that. And firing your 3rd lead singer after 1 album can't be a good sign.
benedict
08-30-03, 06:14 AM
I'm not a huge VH fan; never really got into them, while still acknowledging their influence and impact on the hard rock scene generally. I bought the greatest hits package and, years ago, used to listen to their early albums.
Sammy Hagar may not have had quite the same profile in his earlier and later career as he did with VH but, from what I've listened to, he produced some respectable material both sides of his time with VH i.e. Montrose was a good band and his solo material contains enough noteworthy tunes not to be written off.
In some ways the situation reminds me of RJ Dio i.e. someone who has been with a couple of notable bands and had a fair degree of solo success but who is still measured more by his time with Rainbow/Sabbath; sometimes almost as if he brought nothing personally to those bands and that outside of them he is a pale reflection. This is as unfair to Dio as it is to Hagar, I think.
Frankly, I'd not see any good reason for Hagar to work with the van Halen family again; certainly not in a band bearing their name as it would be too unequal a set-up for someone of his calibre. Wasn't he doing something along the lines of a supergroup sideproject (Planet Us?) with Michael Anthony, Deen Castronovo, <A HREF="http://www.guitaronemag.com/feature2.asp" target="_blank">Neil Schon</a> and others? Given the initial publicity, maybe they will go out and play with <A HREF="http://velvetrevolver.net/home/home.asp/" target="_blank">Velvet Revolver</a> although a February note on Sam's site suggests that his project is <A HREF="http://www.redrocker.com/index1.html" target="_blank">"on hold"</a>.
And, yes, by all accounts DLR still has the onstage <i>schtick</i> off to a tee, but the ego clash seems to be even more pronounced in that particular combination. If DLR rejoined VH you would almost be expecting an early break-up. And it clearly would be about nothing but money which is hardly the best envirnonment for creativity IMNSHO. But we have the example of Rob Halford and Judas Priest to look at.... if that works then who knows!?
Off at a tangent, I know he has his own "issues" but maybe they should rope in someone like Billy Squiers for a long (Kiss-like) farewell tour & album?
RevLiver
08-30-03, 05:07 PM
Don't know if it's a rumor or not, but I've heard that Eddie's battle with cancer isn't going well and that's why there's been no new VH music.
JestersTear
08-30-03, 07:55 PM
Melodicrock.com is a great source of VH news. Granted, it's all "unofficial" since the VH boys believe in treating their fans like crap and not releasing any news updates or commenting on any rumours.
Their news for the last month has boiled down to this:
Sammy was close to returning to VH before the Sam & Dave tour, but Ed & Alex backed out at the last minute.
Michael Anthony is gone. Eddie couldn't handle Mike being friends with Sammy. Mike hasn't been told that he's out, but his exclusion from being invited to Alex Van Halen's birthday bash and the fact that he hasn't been contacted by either VH brother in over a year is a pretty good sign. Ed and Alex are recording new music, and Eddie has been doing the bass parts.
Van Halen does not have a recording contract, but if Eddie & Alex want to release anything under the name "Van Halen," they are legally obligated to release it through Warner Brothers, who apparently own the name "Van Halen."
WB says that it will not release or allow any recording under the name "Van Halen" if it does not include Michael Anthony on bass and either David Lee Roth or Sammy Hagar on vocals. No guest vocalists, no new vocalists. Dave or Sammy only. WB asserts that they, not Eddie and Alex, have the final say in this.
Rogue588
08-30-03, 11:37 PM
Originally posted by JestersTear
Michael Anthony is gone. Eddie couldn't handle Mike being friends with Sammy. Mike hasn't been told that he's out, but his exclusion from being invited to Alex Van Halen's birthday bash and the fact that he hasn't been contacted by either VH brother in over a year is a pretty good sign. Ed and Alex are recording new music, and Eddie has been doing the bass parts.That SUCKS.Van Halen does not have a recording contract, but if Eddie & Alex want to release anything under the name "Van Halen," they are legally obligated to release it through Warner Brothers, who apparently own the name "Van Halen."
WB says that it will not release or allow any recording under the name "Van Halen" if it does not include Michael Anthony on bass and either David Lee Roth or Sammy Hagar on vocals. No guest vocalists, no new vocalists. Dave or Sammy only. WB asserts that they, not Eddie and Alex, have the final say in this. Wow. Can't believe i'm gonna say this...but I agree with WB. -eek-
JestersTear
08-31-03, 10:20 AM
Wow. Can't believe i'm gonna say this...but I agree with WB. -eek-
Yeah, it's rare that I agree with a label... but in this case, the VH brothers (ok, just Eddie... Al follows along because he knows that he's nothing on his own now) not only withhold info from their fans, but from their own label as well.
Ed should be begging for Sammy to come back and put up with his crap.
Bringing Dave back would be a bad idea... Dave's done for. Sammy routinely blew him off the stage on their tour, to the point where Dave wanted to start putting limitations on what Sammy could do.
And I'll say it, even though it'll bring a lot of flames... they should think about bringing Gary Cherone back. VH 3 wasn't great, but that was partially because they were getting used to a new singer, and mainly because that entire album was written for Sammy Hagar (Sammy said as much in an interview).
I saw VH3 on tour, and by that time they had worked out the kinks. They sounded great, and Gary was every bit the lively frontman that Dave was.
Not only that, but Gary lit a fire under Eddie and got him to play again. Any Extreme fan can tell you that Eddie suddenly started playing a lot like Nuno Bettencourt after Gary joined.
The band had so much potential. I think that a second album from them would have been spectacular.
darqleo
09-01-03, 01:27 PM
Sounds like Van Halen is finished. Too bad because if David Lee Roth came back for a tour they would clean house. But David's already making money off of VH material anyhow and I doubt the average fan would care who was playing guitar/bass/drums just as long as the songs they loved are there and David's singing them. Same applies to fans of Sammy Hagar era-Van Halen.
wm lopez
09-01-03, 02:11 PM
Sammy is out.
Roth comes back, is out again.
Alex & Eddie blame Roth & Sammy, Roth & Sammy have their own story.
Eddie was battling booze in rehab.
Eddie and Valarie divorce.
It sure seems Eddie was the problem for everything.
And Alex being a brother always was backing Eddie.
It seems to all come down to Eddie's drinking that ruined everything for the band.
Well, at least he didn't die.
DVDHO
09-03-03, 06:20 PM
Ya there old and grey and they cant make good music anymore,let them drink and smoke there life away.
lordzeppelin
09-04-03, 12:06 AM
Originally posted by JestersTear
Yeah, it's rare that I agree with a label... but in this case, the VH brothers (ok, just Eddie... Al follows along because he knows that he's nothing on his own now) not only withhold info from their fans, but from their own label as well.
Ed should be begging for Sammy to come back and put up with his crap.
Bringing Dave back would be a bad idea... Dave's done for. Sammy routinely blew him off the stage on their tour, to the point where Dave wanted to start putting limitations on what Sammy could do.
And I'll say it, even though it'll bring a lot of flames... they should think about bringing Gary Cherone back. VH 3 wasn't great, but that was partially because they were getting used to a new singer, and mainly because that entire album was written for Sammy Hagar (Sammy said as much in an interview).
I saw VH3 on tour, and by that time they had worked out the kinks. They sounded great, and Gary was every bit the lively frontman that Dave was.
Not only that, but Gary lit a fire under Eddie and got him to play again. Any Extreme fan can tell you that Eddie suddenly started playing a lot like Nuno Bettencourt after Gary joined.
The band had so much potential. I think that a second album from them would have been spectacular.
I'm going on a limb with ya...and agreeing. I thought they were unreal live with Cherone, although still not as good as with sammy, but Cherone did bring out a different element in the group...I would have liked to see it go for 1 more album...
Clint B
09-04-03, 02:02 AM
I was such a big VH fan thru the DLR and SH eras. The album with Gary Cherone wasn't great, but unlike a lot of people I know who are die-hard VH fans, I didn't think it was horrible either. I question whether or not that album was actually written with Sammy in mind; didn't Gary have a hand in writing some of the music as well as the lyrics? Anyway, while I'd love to see them get back with Sammy, I also think they should've given it another go with Gary before they blew up the band. Unfortunately, I don't think we will ever see another VH album or tour.
SmackDaddy
09-04-03, 10:06 AM
Wel, I've read and watched various interviews with Sammy and he seems open to the idea of getting back into VH. It's seems he and Michael Anthony jam a lot, so that's a step. Now if the Michael is out thing is true, well then I guess VH is really over.
Too bad Eddies giant ego can't deal with someone who might steal his spotlight. As for Gary Cherone and VH, I thought a few track on VHIII were ok, but as a whole it just wasn't a pleasant listnening experience.
I'd pay to see VH with Hagar, but if they got DLR back I don't think it would get past a few rehearshals before they'd break up again.
cungar
09-04-03, 10:38 AM
Why is anyone still talking about Van Halen as a band? They haven't been viable for years. Is there any chance a decent lineup will ever exist again and produce a decent album? No.
JestersTear
09-04-03, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by Clint B
I was such a big VH fan thru the DLR and SH eras. The album with Gary Cherone wasn't great, but unlike a lot of people I know who are die-hard VH fans, I didn't think it was horrible either. I question whether or not that album was actually written with Sammy in mind; didn't Gary have a hand in writing some of the music as well as the lyrics?
I can't remember where the it was, but I definitely recall reading an interview w/ Sammy and the question was asked about the lackluster reaction that VH3 was getting. Sammy's response was along the lines of "Yeah, but most of that album was written for me and my vocal range / singing style."
Gary probably helped re-write things, but it seems that enough of the original material was still there for Sammy to recognize.
B5Erik
09-04-03, 01:22 PM
As I remember it, Warner Brothers dropped Van Halen and terminated their contract with them last year. WB has no input into anything Van Halen at this point. They DID up until they terminated their contract, and it wouldn't surprise me if that's when they laid down the law and said Van Halen with Sammy or Dave (and Michael) or no Van Halen at all. When Eddie & Alex didn't comply, Warners dropped them.
Van Halen LOOKS like they're pretty much done. But bands have come back from worse situations before. KISS was in a far worse situation prior to Lick It Up and they resurrected their career and had several more platinum albums after that.
Dubya
09-04-03, 01:28 PM
We probably will not hear anything about the state of the band until next years R&R Hall of Fame induction ceremony (if they get in on the first ballot that is).
JestersTear
09-04-03, 01:49 PM
Originally posted by B5Erik
As I remember it, Warner Brothers dropped Van Halen and terminated their contract with them last year. WB has no input into anything Van Halen at this point. They DID up until they terminated their contract, and it wouldn't surprise me if that's when they laid down the law and said Van Halen with Sammy or Dave (and Michael) or no Van Halen at all. When Eddie & Alex didn't comply, Warners dropped them.
If WB owns the band name, though, then Eddie and Al will not be releasing anything as Van Halen. So in that case, WB does have every bit of input into anything put out under the name "Van Halen."
Van Halen LOOKS like they're pretty much done. But bands have come back from worse situations before. KISS was in a far worse situation prior to Lick It Up and they resurrected their career and had several more platinum albums after that.
True, but each band had different problems, so it's not a fair comparison.
Kiss still had the foundation of the band - Paul and Gene. They were the 2 primary frontmen, singers and songwriters. Gene also has a much better business sense than the Van Halen boys. Kiss kept promoting themselves, reminidng the people that they still existed.
Van Halen, on the other hand, cannot hold on to a frontman, who is usually also the main lyric writer for the band. Furthermore, they've apparently rid themselves of their bassist, regarded by many to be one of the most solid bass players in rock, and also a very under-estimated backing vocalist. And worst of all, Eddie does nothing to remind the fans that Van Halen still exists. These days you have to stay in the news or you're screwed. VH has been out of any sort of mainstream news (even rock mainstream news) for about 6 years now. Most people have forgotten about them.
GuessWho
09-04-03, 02:50 PM
What WB needs to do is put out Best Of Volume 2, cuz I want 'Hot for Teacher' & 'Runaround' damnit!!
Rogue588
09-04-03, 02:54 PM
Dude, if you want "Hot For Teacher" just get 1984. It's the last one that WB remastered.
Perhaps what you meant to say is "I hope WB continues to remaster the SH-VH discs..." ;)
'sides...you should already OWN 1984. :p
B5Erik
09-05-03, 03:26 AM
Warner Brothers does not own the Van Halen name.
Ted Templeman actually signed VH to a production contract in 1977 and the WB contract was with Templeman originally. (A somewhat common practice back in the day - the label would sign the contract with the record producer and the producer would have a pre-existing contract with the band.)
By terminating their contract with Van Halen Warners gave up all rights to any new product from the band regardless of what they call themselves - unless they sign a new contract with them.
The story about WB owning the VH name is bogus.
JestersTear
09-05-03, 09:31 AM
Originally posted by B5Erik
Warner Brothers does not own the Van Halen name.
Ted Templeman actually signed VH to a production contract in 1977 and the WB contract was with Templeman originally. (A somewhat common practice back in the day - the label would sign the contract with the record producer and the producer would have a pre-existing contract with the band.)
By terminating their contract with Van Halen Warners gave up all rights to any new product from the band regardless of what they call themselves - unless they sign a new contract with them.
The story about WB owning the VH name is bogus.
I have to disagree.
I do not think that WB would be so stupid as to say that they have control over the name "Van Halen" unless they actually did.
You don't know if any other contracts were signed by Van Halen and Warner Bros in the 25 years after signing with Templeman.
Seeing as no band makes a contract calling for 10+ albums, I'd think it's safe to say that more contracts were signed, and we don't know what was in them.
JestersTear
09-05-03, 09:32 AM
More stuff from Sammy Hagar, from an interview w/ Goldmine Magazine:
GM: How is Michael Anthony and what are his thoughts on the Van Halen situation?
SH: He's basically like everyone else out there. He's completely lost touch with any of the Van Halen situation. He hasn't talked to any of those guys in maybe, I dunno, a year? Him and I are close now so I know all this stuff. It's basically, there is not a Van Halen. I mean, I hate to break the news to all these people (laughs), but there is not. Michael Anthony plays with me part time, and if it wasn't for me just being crazy about my wonderful bass player Mona, who I think is the greatest, Mike would be in my band right now. And as far as I'm concerned, if there's no Sammy, no Mike, or no David Lee Roth in Van Halen, then there's Eddie and Alex Van Halen, and that is not Van Halen. I'm sure they're capable of putting together a great band, or doing great solo projects, whatever they decide to do. But I don't think that the world is going to buy it as Van Halen without at least two or more of the original kind of members. So there really is no Van Halen.
GM: I was at a party once with (Ray) Danniels once, and he said part of the problem was Eddie has been a rock star all his life and he's lost touch.
SH: Oh really? (Laughs) That's an understatement. (Laughs) He HAS lost touch, otherwise, he'd be playing music. I mean this guy is a great musician. Not only does he play unbelievable guitar, he plays unbelievable keyboards of any kind and probably could play any instrument he puts his hands on. And the guy hasn't played music for I don't know how long. Something is really wrong. But yes, I'm really down on Eddie for wasting his life. I mean, maybe I don't know everything, but to me, you're a musician you're a famous and a great one. And your fans have been so loyal to you, you have to at least go and give a little bit. I mean, you cant be self-indulgent like that. You got a problem? OK then at least let them know, "Hey, I can't play music right now." You know, every time Eddie makes a statement on their website, it's like "Yeah, be watchin man...Van Halen's coming out with something new real soon! Any day now." You watch it", and it's like, PFFT. I mean, lying to people is not cool.
SmackDaddy
09-05-03, 10:10 AM
:thumbsup: to Sammy.
Last update from Eddie on 5/07/02<--------2002!?!
I know I promised I'd get back to you and I'm sorry for the delay but I wanted to let you all know that I've just gotten a 100% clean bill of health - from head to toe. I wanted to share the good news with you immediately. And of course, I thank you all for all your good wishes and prayers along the way. Now it's time to really get back to the music and fun.....so party on and you'll be hearing from us very soon.
All my love,
Eddie
Looks like Sammy's right on the money.
B5Erik
09-05-03, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by JestersTear
I have to disagree.
I do not think that WB would be so stupid as to say that they have control over the name "Van Halen" unless they actually did.
You don't know if any other contracts were signed by Van Halen and Warner Bros in the 25 years after signing with Templeman.
Seeing as no band makes a contract calling for 10+ albums, I'd think it's safe to say that more contracts were signed, and we don't know what was in them.
Who from Warner Brothers ever said that they "own" the Van Halen name?
EVERY record company that signs a band directly "owns" that band's name while they're under contract to that label. That band is NOT free to record an album and release it under their band name for a different record company - or even to release it themselves.
Once Warners terminated their contract they gave up ALL rights to any future interests in Van Halen, including the Van Halen name.
The one thing I remember specifically about the story when Van Halen was dropped by Warner Brothers was that WB gave up ALL future interests in the band (outside of keeping the rights to the Van Halen back catalog of albums).
Rogue588
09-05-03, 11:48 AM
another :up: for Sammy..BUT..with Eddie's past medical history [and his last update from 2002], i'm hoping something isn't wrong with him [as RevLiver suggested]...
JestersTear
09-05-03, 03:50 PM
Originally posted by B5Erik
Who from Warner Brothers ever said that they "own" the Van Halen name?
EVERY record company that signs a band directly "owns" that band's name while they're under contract to that label. That band is NOT free to record an album and release it under their band name for a different record company - or even to release it themselves.
Once Warners terminated their contract they gave up ALL rights to any future interests in Van Halen, including the Van Halen name.
The one thing I remember specifically about the story when Van Halen was dropped by Warner Brothers was that WB gave up ALL future interests in the band (outside of keeping the rights to the Van Halen back catalog of albums).
I've e-mailed the site that provided the story, asking for more info, hopefully I'll get a response fairly soon.
B5Erik
09-06-03, 10:28 PM
Trust me - you can't have it both ways.
Either you continue a contract in its entirety or you terminate it in its entirety. Warner Brothers can't terminate a band's contract and then prevent them from releasing albums elsewhere. That would be like your boss firing you and then suing you for getting another job.
Warner Brothers has nothing to say about future Van Halen projects.
Unfortunately, it seems that has become a moot point as there may not be any further Van Halen projects.
JestersTear
09-07-03, 01:04 AM
Originally posted by B5Erik
Trust me - you can't have it both ways.
Either you continue a contract in its entirety or you terminate it in its entirety. Warner Brothers can't terminate a band's contract and then prevent them from releasing albums elsewhere. That would be like your boss firing you and then suing you for getting another job.
No, you're very wrong there. Granted, this is from another section of the entertainment industry, but I can make a similar parallell in professional wrestling.
Someone can come into a federation like the WWF / WWE with an established name, but it is very possible for the company to trademark that name and not allow the person to use it when they leave the employ of the company.
Warner Brothers is not stopping Edward Van Halen from releasing albums... they're just claiming that he can't release a new album under the band name "Van Halen." If the band was stupid enough to allow WB to trademark the name, then Eddie is screwed, plain and simple. You might not like it, but that's the law.
JestersTear
09-07-03, 10:38 PM
OK, here's what I got from the guy at MelodicRock.com about VH.
First of all, my claim that WB says they own the name VH is a misunderstanding, based on poor wording on the site. Here's the conversation that took place:
Me: A while back there was a report on MelodicRock about Van Halen, in which it basically said that Warner Brothers claims to own the name Van Halen, and that anything with the name "Van Halen" on it had to be released through them.
How can they claim this if they have dropped the band? Doesn't that free Van Halen from any and all contracts?
Andrew McNeice of MelodicRock: Just to clarify - in no way, shape or form did I say Warner own the VH name. They do NOT. However, they are still under contract with Warner - they have no current deal (hence the "dropped" tag), but Warner retain first right of refusal for any project/new recording
Me: Thanks for the reply... however, this raises another question - how can the band be under contract but have no deal? Aren't they the same thing?
AM: Complicated!
Basically, their current deal for albums ran out - all advances and monies paid out etc...yet a label can have an option clause, which means the band must present new material to them before anyone else and allow the label to say yes, we'd like to negotiate a new deal with you for this material - or bugger off, the new stuff is rubbish.
Something like that - and I've been reliably informed, Warner wants VH with Sam or Dave only...
Me: I have one final question (I think, and I'm sure you hope) - should WB not like new material because they feel it's junk, would Ed & Alex be allowed to shop the material around and release it through another outlet as Van Halen? Or would any company wanting to release it have to pay WB, even though WB refuses to release the material?
AM (paraphrased):
Yes, Alex and Ed could shop the material around if WB doesn't like it.
No, they can not release it through another company as "Van Halen" unless that company pays off WB for the rights to release a Van Halen CD.
I'm not going to badger the poor guy any further on this, but his site is www.MelodicRock.com, and I recommend it to anyone that loves 80's rock / metal.
Geofferson
09-08-03, 01:39 PM
<------- Big VH fan here.
I used to frequent many VH discussion forums in hopes of getting the newest "dirt" on the band. But I finally came to the realization that there is never any new "dirt" and I gave up.
I'd love to see Roth back with the band, but would be satisfied if Hagar came back. Anything just to hear Van Halen play stadium venues once again.
Honestly, I think VH is still embarrased by their VH 3 album with Gary Cherone that they would just be happier living as hermits.
JestersTear
09-08-03, 02:36 PM
Originally posted by Geofferson
Honestly, I think VH is still embarrased by their VH 3 album with Gary Cherone that they would just be happier living as hermits.
Why should they be embarassed? The album may not have been the best, but it was still pretty good.
VH fans acted this way when 5150 came out. We heard lots of "Sammy sucks" cries. Then after a couple albums, suddenly everyone was a Sammy fan.
I think that had a second album came out where Gary had more input on the music, we would have seen a great release.
Flashback
09-08-03, 05:05 PM
Originally posted by JestersTear
VH fans acted this way when 5150 came out. We heard lots of "Sammy sucks" cries. Then after a couple albums, suddenly everyone was a Sammy fan.
Sorry but there were a lot of VH fans, did and still to this day, never liked Sammy Hagar.
JestersTear
09-10-03, 12:22 AM
Originally posted by Flashback
Sorry but there were a lot of VH fans, did and still to this day, never liked Sammy Hagar.
True, but for the life of me I'll never understand why, since Hagar has a better vocal range than Roth, plays guitar and, is a better singer and frontman overall.
However, many of the naysayers were converted after OU812
Flashback
09-10-03, 09:10 AM
Originally posted by JestersTear
True, but for the life of me I'll never understand why, since Hagar has a better vocal range than Roth, plays guitar and, is a better singer and frontman overall.
However, many of the naysayers were converted after OU812
I think it all starts with which band you grew up, or started, listening to. Some people just hate change. However, and I agree with a lot of your statements above about Hagar (except better front man), DLR was more entertaining, or more of a character.
I have seen both versions live and I have to say VH w/ DLR was much more fun than Hagar. I gave it a shot but I always liked the original version since VH was (to me) just a fun, summertime rock band.
Don't get me wrong...I think there was some great songs during the Hagar years off of 5150-OU812- but I still go back to the earlier albums (especially Fair Warning).
cdollaz
09-10-03, 09:11 AM
I don't dislike Hagar, but like the Roth ere much more because of Sammy's writing. Too many ballads and other poppy crap after he joined the band. Hearing When It's Love makes me want to shoot someone.
JestersTear
09-10-03, 02:34 PM
Originally posted by Flashback
I think it all starts with which band you grew up, or started, listening to. Some people just hate change. However, and I agree with a lot of your statements above about Hagar (except better front man), DLR was more entertaining, or more of a character.
I have seen both versions live and I have to say VH w/ DLR was much more fun than Hagar. I gave it a shot but I always liked the original version since VH was (to me) just a fun, summertime rock band.
Don't get me wrong...I think there was some great songs during the Hagar years off of 5150-OU812- but I still go back to the earlier albums (especially Fair Warning).
I never got to see VH w/ Roth. That's the only reason I'd like to see a reunion show, so I can say I saw all 3 singers.
I've been a fan through all 3 incarnations, and I was one of the Sammy haters at the beginning.
However, the fact that Sammy played guitar, and freed up Eddie to experiment more with keyboards made my day.... probably because I'm a keyboardist :-)
JestersTear
09-10-03, 02:37 PM
Originally posted by cdollaz
I don't dislike Hagar, but like the Roth ere much more because of Sammy's writing. Too many ballads and other poppy crap after he joined the band. Hearing When It's Love makes me want to shoot someone.
Actually, it's Eddie you have to blame for that. The first two CD's with Sammy were mainly Eddie dragging out all the songs that he couldn't perform because of Roth not being able to do them vocally (let's face it, there's no way Dave could sing "Dreams") or because he was under too much pressure from Roth to not do keyboard-based songs (hard to believe with what we've seen of Ed's ego, eh?).
Cyberock
09-10-03, 06:42 PM
I think the thing that bugged me with the last Van Halen album was that it sounded like they wanted Gary to sound like Sammy. His vocal style sounded so similiar at times that I had friends ask me if that was still Sammy. I loved the original Van Halen with David Lee Roth. I never got a chance to see them live. I did see Sammy and Gary and have to say I did enjoy both of them. This is the one band where I feel it really isn't the vocals that is the signature of the band. Eddie is Van Halen! I got free tickets to see Roth recently live. I walked out of that show saying to myself, I hope Van Halen never takes Roth back. He has nothing anymore. He seem to be forgetting the words to some of the classis Van Halen songs and even admitted that he forgot some of the words. Besides that, he can't sing anymore. If Van Halen wanted Roth back, they would be better off getting the singer from the cover band Atomic Punks. He does Roth better than Roth does.
wm lopez
09-28-03, 11:07 AM
I've asked this question & written to columnists.
When is Van Halen eligiable to be inducted into the Rock n Roll Hall of Fame?
I read a few years ago that this was the year.
And then when the nominations were announced a few weeks ago they weren't on the list.
Is it because they may not show up to the cerimonies?
Eddie has gone thru a divorce, drinking problem rehab, and fought with it's 2 lead singers.
Dubya
09-28-03, 12:01 PM
Yes, this was the first year they were eligible however they were not put on the nominating ballot. They will eventually be on the ballot and get in, but it will probably be a couple of years.
wm lopez
09-28-03, 10:15 PM
So it sounds like the Hall Of Fame said they will be voted in and not show up and embarrass us so let's not put them on the ballot
this year. Even in rock n roll there's b.s. politics!
Brain Stew
09-28-03, 11:13 PM
Originally posted by wm lopez
So it sounds like the Hall Of Fame said they will be voted in and not show up and embarrass us so let's not put them on the ballot
this year. Even in rock n roll there's b.s. politics!
Dude, chill. There are so many nominees, that tons of artists have to wait to get in.
Buy: