Leaderboard

new Van Halen!!!

swarfrat said:
You call Dave & Sammy VH rejects, then say put Satch in? While arguing for DLR?  You could go on that point for a while, but Satch, while talented - like a lot of virtuoso instrumentalists - always struck me as a pile of talent in search of direction and purpose. At any rate, Satch wouldn't have a career if it weren't for HIS stint as 'We need an EVH substitute."

+ 1
 
"Tatoo"

Was that crap produced by Simon Cowell? It's just the same cookie cutter pie filler from a once innovative artist who has run out of original ideas and inspiration.
 
Super Turbo Deluxe Custom said:
AutoBat said:
Torment Leaves Scars said:
Sammy...errr.  The "Red Rocker."  He wouldn't even have a career if it weren't for his stint with VH.
VH wasn't exactly his first gig.
montrose73front.jpg

+1

He already had a greatest hits album by the time he joined VH.  But let's please not make this a Sammy vs. Dave thread (speaking of no career w/out VH), instead like it as an "Eddie is a failure at being a decent person" thread.

Who's making it a DLR Vs. Sammy thread?  I never even entertained that thought, you did. 

Montrose?  Please.  How many rabid Montrose fans do you know?
 
There are a couple of invisible 800-pound gorillas stomping about disrupting conversation, as usual. One is that, if you were a 14-year-old susceptible to a particular message at a certain point in history, Van Halen was and always will be TOTALLY AWESOME. Even when they're not, they just... ARE. It may actually have been at 12, or 16, but it's just a breaker switch and it doesn't un-pull - VAN HALEN gets slotted into total forever awesomeness.

And the other fact is that there are only two categories, TOTALLY SUCKS and TOTALLY AWESOME. There was a YouTube video floating around of a re-union "Jump" where the recorded keyboard part was running at the  wrong speed, in a key completely inaccessible to even Eddie's brave whammy efforts. It was posted as evidence for the TOTALLY SUCKS bin, but the interesting part - to me - they still got quite a hearty applause from the crowd. Who saw a band that was already TOTALLY AWESOME, who cares what it sounds like?

I must've grown up at a certain juncture, or been born jaded, or caught the tale end of honest guitar-mag articles - before there had to be a "best" (and only one at a time!). I already knew that the Rolling Stones were a crappy live band, the Grateful Dead were stellar only when they coordinated their buzz, Jimmy Page was sloppy, a lot of "live" albums were anything but, and that - gasp! - good musicians had bad nights. And I'm pretty sure that being a 15-year-old bass player in a band of 20-somes had a lot to do with it, but on a scale of 1 to 10, with the Mahavishnu Orchestra being a 10 and KISS being a 1, Zepp was maybe a 6, Van Halen & Aerosmith were 4's, and AC/DC were a 3 - anybody else old enough to remember the category "bubblegum metal?"  :evil4:
 
I'm quite confident I'm old enough to have seen the beginning, body and end of "Bubblegum Metal", but I've never heard the term or its application. I'm imagining you're talking about the likes of Vincent Furnier and his crew of snake-tolerant players? If not, some examples?
 
Torment Leaves Scars said:
you[/i] know?

I was reading between the lines.  Ya, know Sammy wouldn't have a career without VH.  That could be inferred as Sammy vs. Dave, but I've been wrong before and often.  Just read my signature.
 
Super Turbo Deluxe Custom said:
Torment Leaves Scars said:
you[/i] know?

I was reading between the lines.  Ya, know Sammy wouldn't have a career without VH.  That could be inferred as Sammy vs. Dave, but I've been wrong before and often.  Just read my signature.

Eh, we've all been wrong.  Nice sig.  :laughing11:
 
Sammy actually had a pretty lucrative career before VH.  He had hit singles all through the 70's and 80's including his last solo album before joining VH.
 
TonyFlyingSquirrel said:
Sammy actually had a pretty lucrative career before VH.  He had hit singles all through the 70's and 80's including his last solo album before joining VH.

Yeah, he did. I don't understand this assertion that Van Halen "made" him. It was just the last thing he did before Chickenfoot, that's all. I seriously doubt VH would have even considered him if he weren't already a known quantity, since they were already so commercially successful. They had no need to mentor a new screamer. They needed a proven, successful performer. Witness the fact that they're letting David Lee Roth sing again. Guy's a known pain in the ass whose talent is fading fast, but he's got name recognition and a proven track record.
 
I heard the new song played today "Tattoo", and it sucked, compared to anything Dave or Sammy ever did previously with VH. Even the stuff they did with Cherone was better. Maybe some of the other songs on the album are better, but if this is a precursor to the rest of the album, then be prepared for suckage....Just my .02¢
 
DangerousR6 said:
I heard the new song played today "Tattoo", and it sucked, compared to anything Dave or Sammy ever did previously with VH. Even the stuff they did with Cherone was better. Maybe some of the other songs on the album are better, but if this is a precursor to the rest of the album, then be prepared for suckage....Just my .02¢

Tattoo is...craptastic.
 
Okay, to actually discuss specifics of the new song - and obviously others opinions will vary from my own.


1.  The background vocals are, well, unsatisfying.  One of the hallmarks of Van Halen (and this is true of both the viable previous editions) was MA's voice, and its absence is felt here.


2.  Ed's tone has become remarkably generic.  He doesn't sound like Ed.  Perfectly serviceable hard rock tones, but they could just as easily be anyone.    Of course, it may be that Ed's hearing ain't what it once was, having stood in front of walls of cabs for years.  So perhaps we're stuck with the engineer's or producer's or mastering tech's preference for EQ, compression, etc.  Anyway, it's kinda short on vinegar, if you know what I mean.


3.  Dave's vocals doubled at the chorus - well, not my thing.


4.  Ed's technique - I suppose since he's been playing for fifty years, he can be forgiven for sounding like he's just doing Ed-schtick, but there was none of the "Holy crap, how's he gonna hold it together through the end of that solo?" riskiness.  THen again, there hasn't been much of that since 1984 (or arguably 5150), so I suppose this is rather a tardy criticism.


5.  And maybe this is an unreasonable critique for a band that first found fame in the late 70's, also, but where's the sexuality, the danger?  Maybe the lyrics allude to it, but the dudes aren't feeling it.  Pop a Cialis before your next session, dudes.


6.  I hear the riff (bomp! bomp! ba-BAH-dum!) but I don't hear a hook.  It's just not that great of a pop song.


Anyway, it's my opinion, and worth what you paid for it...


Bagman
 
Bagman67 said:
5.  And maybe this is an unreasonable critique for a band that first found fame in the late 70's, also, but where's the sexuality, the danger?  Maybe the lyrics allude to it, but the dudes aren't feeling it.  Pop a Cialis before your next session, dudes.

Little Eddie is 56 years old and DLR is 57. You want sex and danger? Cialis will give 'em a serviceable hard-on, but I suspect they're both a little beyond the sexuality/danger point. At this stage of the game, it probably takes about 1000mg of ibuprofen and some strong coffee just to get the kinks out in the morning, along with a maintenance dosage over the course of a day. I need that and I'm 5 years downstream of them with nowhere near the mileage on me.
 
Cagey said:
Bagman67 said:
5.  And maybe this is an unreasonable critique for a band that first found fame in the late 70's, also, but where's the sexuality, the danger?  Maybe the lyrics allude to it, but the dudes aren't feeling it.  Pop a Cialis before your next session, dudes.

Little Eddie is 56 years old and DLR is 57. You want sex and danger? Cialis will give 'em a serviceable hard-on, but I suspect they're both a little beyond the sexuality/danger point. At this stage of the game, it probably takes about 1000mg of ibuprofen and some strong coffee just to get the kinks out in the morning, along with a maintenance dosage over the course of a day. I need that and I'm 5 years downstream of them with nowhere near the mileage on me.
crackup.gif
 
I think they're in a predicament, trapped by their past.  If it sounds like old VH, that's a criticism.  If it doesn't sound like old VH, that's a criticism.  I'll say this about the solo, his older stuff with a million packed notes had a melody that you could hum or sing.  This one was a collection of licks.  But hey, atleast it's something new from them.
 
Good points. Another might be that they need the money. Contrary to popular belief, there isn't much money in royalties from recording sales, even for the mega-bands. They make their money off concerts and merchandising while the labels make money selling recordings. If it's not properly invested in something, or the investments go sour (which is distressingly common for everybody these days), then highly renowned artists you'd think would be rich are left to go scratch.
 
Super Turbo Deluxe Custom said:
I think they're in a predicament, trapped by their past.  If it sounds like old VH, that's a criticism.  If it doesn't sound like old VH, that's a criticism.  I'll say this about the solo, his older stuff with a million packed notes had a melody that you could hum or sing.  This one was a collection of licks.  But hey, atleast it's something new from them.

It wasn't long ago I read an interview with Eddie and he said he wasn't releasing anymore records because people didn't want to hear new stuff, they wanted to hear the classics.  He said that anytime he played something new people would just kinda stop and look at each other, confused.

Personally, for me, I want to hear some new Van Halen material.  I think Eddie has it all wrong; I don't think it's a matter of people not wanting to hear new stuff, I think it's a matter of them wanting to hear good new stuff.

IMO, the chemistry never changes between members of a successful band, but egos and priorities of band members do change.  I don't doubt for a second that Eddie, Dave, Alex, and Michael could put together an awesome record.  Michael was a huge part of the Van Halen sound and his absence is very much noticed on this new song and probably the rest of the record.

I think it's great that Eddie and his song are spending a lot of quality time together and enjoying each other's company but let's be honest, Wolfie just doesn't have what it takes to run with the big boys.
 
Torment Leaves Scars said:
I don't think it's a matter of people not wanting to hear new stuff, I think it's a matter of them wanting to hear good new stuff.

That's about where I'm at. I wouldn't care if they showed up with their old-school style or something completely different, but it's all academic if the songs aren't any good. This new one isn't terrible in parts but just pretty bad overall, and it's not as if Eddie/Alex/Dave don't still sound like themselves (and I'm not going to blame it all on a bass player).

You could always hope they just made a bad choice in song to use as their lead off single. It sounds like a bad filler song from one of DLR's later records.
 
jay4321 said:
Torment Leaves Scars said:
I don't think it's a matter of people not wanting to hear new stuff, I think it's a matter of them wanting to hear good new stuff.

That's about where I'm at. I wouldn't care if they showed up with their old-school style or something completely different, but it's all academic if the songs aren't any good. This new one isn't terrible in parts but just pretty bad overall, and it's not as if Eddie/Alex/Dave don't still sound like themselves (and I'm not going to blame it all on a bass player).

You could always hope they just made a bad choice in song to use as their lead off single. It sounds like a bad filler song from one of DLR's later records.

Right, the song has a hook but it's just very cheesy and amateur.  I think Dave's a great frontman but the whole "Vegas Lounge Act" get-up has to go.  He's just...goofy.  Nothing wrong with having a good time and enjoying yourself but he's corny.  That whole solo career of his was nothing short of ridiculous.

No, it's not all the bass player's fault but I can't help but feeling like that song lacks the punch because they wanted to "slow down" to accommodate Wolfie's lack of experience.
 
Back
Top