A new Van Halen album coming in 2011?

[megowgsh]

Is it me or Eddie look like Al Franken in that picture?

[MIB41]

Yet it can be used as a solid point of reference showing there was indeed "life after 1984" ... WAY after 1984.
Especially poignant in contrast to the Hagar reuinion tracks a few years
later, which most agree were inferior to the Roth ones.
I could take or leave "Mikey"... as long as Dave and Ed are together
I'm satisfied.

Huedell why don't you just say you hate Sammy and leave it there? Because your argument about success with or without Sammy is a weak point. EVERY Van Halen record with Hagar went to Number ONE. Every one of them. NO Van Halen record with Roth ever reached number one. Not even 1984. So if you have to resort to plucking at throw away singles on greatest hits to find fault, then your dealing from a weak hand my friend. And to cast aside Michael Anthony as an after thought tells me you don't listen closely to the dynamics of a Van Halen song. He was an integral part of their sound and will be sorely missed on any new material.

I liked Van Halen with Roth and Sammy. Both did great jobs with entirely different approaches. That is also the rub. When Roth was in Van Halen, they were the ultimate attitude band. Roth strutted his stuff and sang about teen rebellion in a deliciously charismatic flare. No band could touch them back then. With Hagar though, they grew up a bit and covered a broader scope of topics while still tipping their hat to the party generation. So let's be honest. There was more versatility in that selection of songs because of Sammy's vocal and song writing capability. So when Eddie kicked everyone except his brother out of the band and divorced Valerie, he wasn't exactly dealing with a full deck at the time. So here comes Roth back, by default and desperation. And Eddie throws his son in to cover bass duties. Eddie hasn't recorded an album with anyone since VH3, and you believe this shadow of the former band is actually going to release material that will compete with either the original or Hagar era renditions? REALLY? Not a prayer. And given Roth's history with the band, what on earth is the man going to sing about at 56, that won't come off half-hearted, if not down right awkward? At this stage, it's not Roth vs Hagar. Hagar has nothing to prove. It's Roth vs Roth. And Eddie vs Eddie. Good luck with that.

[Tyme2tyme]

After going to see VH in concert a couple of years ago (when David Lee Roth rejoined the band), they announced that they were working on a new album. It's been so long I had nearly written it off, but if the album ever really makes it into production I will have to get it. Roth looked like an old, old man on stage, but as the night progressed he impressed me with the energy he seemed to pull out of thin air. I hope they can pull it together once again, JOHN

[huedell]

Huedell why don't you just say you hate Sammy and leave it there? Because your argument about success with or without Sammy is a weak point.

So you're saying all my arguments are weak, and because of that
I should say "I hate Sammy" and that's it?

Why can't i say I dislike Sammy's STYLE of writing... and that I think it's
inferior to Dave's.... and then CONTINUE, if I feel so inclined?

EVERY Van Halen record with Hagar went to Number ONE. Every one of them. NO Van Halen record with Roth ever reached number one. Not even 1984.

So?

So if you have to resort to plucking at throw away singles on greatest hits to find fault, then your dealing from a weak hand

I "find fault" in that particular way because the results
with the most recent tracks with either were so dissimillar
that I found it to be poignant in the Roth VH vs. Van Hagar debate.
I never liked Van Hagar all that much to begin with... but when I heard
those Van hagar reunion tracks and compared them to the Roth ones
I KNEW what I was hearing was evidence of the total inferior pairing
of Hagar/VH in contast to Roth/VH.

Obviously you disagree w/this method of "grading" but at least you
should understand why I find it valuable.

...my friend.

Patronizing alert!

And to cast aside Michael Anthony as an after thought tells me you don't listen closely to the dynamics of a Van Halen song. He was an integral part of their sound and will be sorely missed on any new material.

Not to me and many others, he won't.

Mike's a cool guy with decent bass chops and great singing ability,
but his presence was MINIMAL in the "total" VH mix. The fact that 3/4ths
of the rest of that classic lineup will be there... PLUS backup vocal
arrangements that will be sufficient (if not clones) of the oldtime backing
vocals there too, along with suffcient bass playing by Wolf, Ed or whoever
....is enough to satisfy me. I don't need high harmony backing vocals
of a specific tone to sell me on the Roth/Ed/Alex VH sound... heck....
I don't even need Alex, truth be told.

I liked Van Halen with Roth and Sammy. Both did great jobs with entirely different approaches. That is also the rub. When Roth was in Van Halen, they were the ultimate attitude band. Roth strutted his stuff and sang about teen rebellion in a deliciously charismatic flare. No band could touch them back then. With Hagar though, they grew up a bit and covered a broader scope of topics while still tipping their hat to the party generation. So let's be honest. There was more versatility in that selection of songs because of Sammy's vocal and song writing capability. So when Eddie kicked everyone except his brother out of the band and divorced Valerie, he wasn't exactly dealing with a full deck at the time. So here comes Roth back, by default and desperation. And Eddie throws his son in to cover bass duties. Eddie hasn't recorded an album with anyone since VH3, and you believe this shadow of the former band is actually going to release material that will compete with either the original or Hagar era renditions? REALLY? Not a prayer. And given Roth's history with the band, what on earth is the man going to sing about at 56, that won't come off half-hearted, if not down right awkward? At this stage, it's not Roth vs Hagar. Hagar has nothing to prove. It's Roth vs Roth. And Eddie vs Eddie. Good luck with that.

I understand your acceptance swallowing Van Hagar and accepting it
as a substitute for the original. Personally, I don't want to trade
Van Halen for a Billy Squire/Foreigner/Journeysque band
with Ed VH playing guitar and Sam singing.

I also understand your plight with the current VH situation, pining for
certain things that the Hagar era had... and worry over what the 2011 VH
will have to contend with.

All I can say is that to me Sammy will always be a middle of the road
semi-interesting rock n roll workhorse to me... one that I respect...
kinda like I respect Steve Perry or Dennis DeYoung or Billy Squire
or whoever (give or take).

On the other hand.. I "get" Roth... even in his failures I "get" him.
Roth currently has an opportunity to make a great album with Ed...
the 1996 music may be from 15 years ago... but it's enough to
give me faith that there is a spark still there when the two get together
because I haven't heard them collaborate since. I thought MWM and
CGTSNM were decent songs for mid-tempo things after a 12 year break.
Just my opinion... but that's how I came to my conclusion in the above
post.

The Hagar reunion tracks reinforce that Hagar and Ed were indeed
lame together on the whole. I never really liked their version of VH
to begin with... and then when they got together 10 years later to make
3 songs, I can honestly say it wasn't just forgettable hard rock/schlock
like I thought most of Van Hagar was... I actually thought it was amongst
the worst I've ever heard Sam or Ed release EVER.

Just my opinion (despite chart numbers that I didn't make)... but that's
how I came to my conclusion in the initial post you commented on.

[Random Axe]

I just don't see how whacked out Eddie and Roth can produce anything of any relevancy. Roth was/is a party rock singer, nothing more. He fit into their little niche in the 80's and was successful. Hagar can actually sing and has the type of voice that carries for decades, it's timeless. Ed got by being a decent guitarist with some fret-tapping trickery. Good? Yes he is. Legendary? Not a chance.

I just don't see how a multi-stay rehabed guitarist and a vocalist with a hip replacement can carry on their former style and a certainly don't see them branching out to create anything new.

Gary Cherone was the most talented member they ever had, but he was a terrible fit within the band's song structure. It was like a peanut butter and clam sandwich.

I'd stay clear of the train tracks, boys and girls. I think the number nine is coming loose real soon. They may prove me wrong, but allevidence suggests otherwise.

[huedell]

I just don't see how whacked out Eddie and Roth can produce anything of any relevancy. Roth was/is a party rock singer, nothing more. He fit into their little niche in the 80's and was successful. Hagar can actually sing and has the type of voice that carries for decades, it's timeless.

Fine line between "timeless" and "faceless"... yes Sam can sing real well...
but the character in his voice leaves a lot to be desired. It's a different
thing to value in singing... a "unique" approach as compared to a "competent" one... apparently there's room for both in the rock world.

Yes... Roth... on the whole is a "party singer". I don't blame him...
and neither does Brian Johnson.

There's nothing wrong with "not growing up" IMHO... and it's one of the
nastiest things to happen to VH.... but I'm willing to deal with
it in order for VH to stay one step ahead of the "Motley Crues" I guess.

Dave did not age well in pop culture's eyes, so I can't really defend him
all that much... but to say that the Roth reunion tracks were "niche party"
tracks or "poor recordings" is missing the truth IMHO... and the songs
critically, and chartwise happen to be positive (not that I care
much about charts... but hey).

And Roth has an opportunity to make a slightly more mature VH record
in the upcoming year (a good one)... and I'm going to hope that he
can do it... even if it's fallen apart before.

Regarding your trying to minimize Ed's guitar playing talent and legendary status? Well... I CAN defend that because rock history has EASILY
shown that Ed has secured his place there as a guitar legend...
so that would make your statement of:

Ed got by being a decent guitarist with some fret-tapping trickery. Good? Yes he is. Legendary? Not a chance.

offbase... if not laughable.

[Cosmicman]

David Lee Roth and Sammy Hagar are good frontmen.....but they are no Ian Gillan and Van Halen is no Deep Purple.

Deep Purple: This Summer, on tour.


Van Halen going to play live again?

[Random Axe]

offbase... if not laughable.

Hue, it's probably closer to laughable. I'm a music snob with an opinion, however flawed. I mean no harm.

I come from a more progressive musical background than just flat out rock. Ed's peers like Kerry Livgren, Steve Lukather, Neal Schon, Alex Lifeson and maybe a lesser extent Tommy Shaw and Richie Sambora all play with feeling. I actually "get" what they are playing. I can feel their music.

I feel nothing with Halen. It's obvious I was never a fan, but they just came off as gimmicky to me. I would say the exact same thing about ACDC, GNR and most of the Aerosmith catalog. I have, however, found an appreciation for the talents of Joe Perry and Slash in my old age.

Didn't mean to come off as the "get off my lawn" guy.

[huedell]

Hue, it's probably closer to laughable. I'm a music snob with an opinion, however flawed. I mean no harm.

I come from a more progressive musical background than just flat out rock. Ed's peers like Kerry Livgren, Steve Lukather, Neal Schon, Alex Lifeson and maybe a lesser extent Tommy Shaw and Richie Sambora all play with feeling. I actually "get" what they are playing. I can feel their music.

I feel nothing with Halen. It's obvious I was never a fan, but they just came off as gimmicky to me. I would say the exact same thing about ACDC, GNR and most of the Aerosmith catalog. I have, however, found an appreciation for the talents of Joe Perry and Slash in my old age.

Didn't mean to come off as the "get off my lawn" guy.

Well, it comes down to "to each their own", but w/Ed with so much
consistent cred over the years...THAT'S where I felt my strength.

Roth is my favorite singer, but Heaven knows I don't have half as
much a leg to stand on when it comes to his impact as a success
as a definitive legendary singer these days.... but Ed? I think
the consensus is pretty solid across the board... and that's
why I said what I said. Thanks for your acknowledgement though.

[MIB41]

Yes. When it comes to discussing the contributions of Eddie Van Halen, there is little to argue regarding his talent, originality, and influence on generations of guitar players. He changed the face of rock music. And whether the next VH album is commercially successful or not, plays no baring on Eddie's place in rock history. Because no matter what your preference for the lead mic, (be it Roth, Sammy or both), there is NO Van Halen without Eddie. He is the soul of that band and always will be.

[Evel KMego]

I like Sammy better as a Solo act w/backing band anyway. To me Van Halen will always be with Roth. I liked some songs when Sammy was with them, but the feel wasn't the same as a unit. I gotta say I was dissappointed in Chickenfoot's first album. Too much talent there to be that bland. In closing..... Dave better with Eddie, Sammy better on his own.