Please provide proof that Van Halen is better with Sammy Hagar!

[riverflush]

Seriously guys...

Some of the political posts on here are getting very ridiculous.

I had no idea there would be so many people trying to save the world on a poker messageboard when I wandered on here a while ago. It's even worse over on RGP, where you regularly see stuff like:

OT: BUSH IS AN ASS

or

OT: KERRY LIED ABOUT BREAKFAST

A little levity goes a long way...lots of people need to lighten up.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]

A little levity goes a long way...lots of people need to lighten up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok. I personally like D.L. Roth, but girls seem to tend to like Sammy Hagar more. With Sammy, I get to listen to Eddy's guitar and the woman gets to listen to her Sammy. We both win!

[Stu Pidasso]

Heres the proof. (http://www.misterpoll.com/results.mpl?id=1437856341)

Stu

[bernie]

I like Sammy on his own. He kicks ass. With Van Halen, it's turned into very 'safe' rock. Which made for easier radio play. The castration of VH. When an old VH tune vs. a VHagar tune comes on the radio, which usually gets turned up louder?

I heard one of their latest songs with Sam. Feels like i'm back in '88. How about an update guys!?! Starting to sound like Boston. Where every song kinda sounds the same.

Dave is one of the most entertaining/influential frontmen ever. Including interviews. Often imitated, never duplicated. Sure, he's a goofball, but the guy IS rock n roll. What band out now even compares to old VH? Not just in music, but attitude? The last one to compare (that comes to mind) was Motley Crue. Though GNR is right up there. Those guys are lucky to be alive. For no other purpose other than to rock n roll and have a blast doing it. (Somehow, i just don't get this feeling with bands like pearl jam)

I like some the the Van Hagar stuff, but it's nothing compared to the originals.

As much as i like Eddie, he's a headcase. Alex is an A-Hole riding Ed's coattails.

I'd still see the reunion tour with Dave.

b

[dsm]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd still see the reunion tour with Dave.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'd like to see a VH reunion tour featuring both Dave AND Sammy. The first hour and a half with Dave, then close with Sammy. Will never happen though, too bad.

[jagoff]

There is no proof that Van Halen was better with Sammy Hagar. From this bastards standpoint Van Halen ended when DLR left the group!

[moondogg]

[ QUOTE ]
Heres the proof. (http://www.misterpoll.com/results.mpl?id=1437856341)

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

To put things into perspective, that same bunch of clowns said Phil Collins was better than Peter Gabriel, and we all know that sh*t ain't true.

[moondogg]

Wow. I don't think a single person read the body of the original post.

Besides, it doesn't matter who wins, because they are both losers. Van Halen has consistently sucked since DLR left originally, and that includes the times he's been back since. Fate would have done them a great favor if they were all struck dead in 1985.

I was wondering who the hell was still listening to them. Mystery solved. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Bubbagump]

Personally, I never liked Van Halen. But the proof as to when they were better is in the record sales. VH sold a lot more records with Sammy Haggar. Case closed.

Bubbagump

[riverflush]

Yes....I was poking fun at the overly partisan political posts on here that regularly make me laugh. They, at times, remind me of the internet Sammy vs. Dave message board arguments that go nowhere. It's a battle that never ends, much like our political bickering.

I recently went to a Van Halen concert, saw the reinvigorated VH with Sammy...so it was on my mind.

For the record I like the music of the DLR era better, but think DLR has gone nuts (and lost his voice), and I'm ok with Sammy. It's two different bands in my opinion.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
But the proof as to when they were better is in the record sales. VH sold a lot more records with Sammy Haggar.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, actually they didn't. The DLR era has sold the majority of the VH catalog. Of 50 mil. VH has sold, 20 mil alone were 1984 and the first album.

Uh.....DLR rocks. Case closed.

b

[Bubbagump]

[ QUOTE ]
VH has sold, 20 mil alone were 1984 and the first album.


[/ QUOTE ]
Not really sure what you are trying to say here but...

5150 and OU812 were the first and I think only Van Halen albums to reach #1 on Billboard. Also the majority of VH's hit singles were recorded with Hagar. Look it up.

Bubbagump

[riverflush]

You guys are both right...

The DLR era has sold more albums TOTAL, while the early Sammy albums were the most successful releases in the history of the band. VH has had more #1's with Sammy - correct.

They've done well with both guys. Let's just say none of the guys will be moving to Europe for all the great "social services" that they offer there.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
Not really sure what you are trying to say here but...


[/ QUOTE ]

Im saying of total albums sold, 2/5ths of the total were from 2 DLR albums. Their best selling album to date is 1984. Which i believe hit #1.

However, just because it hit high in the charts, doesn't mean it stayed long enough to outsell it's predecessors. Sounds like you may need to look some stuff up.

The old catalog, longevity-wise, will always outsell the Hagar stuff.

DLR's version outsold Hagars. Flat out.

b

[Bubbagump]

[ QUOTE ]
Im saying of total albums sold, 2/5ths of the total were from 2 DLR albums. Their best selling album to date is 1984. Which i believe hit #1.

However, just because it hit high in the charts, doesn't mean it stayed long enough to outsell it's predecessors. Sounds like you may need to look some stuff up.

The old catalog, longevity-wise, will always outsell the Hagar stuff.

DLR's version outsold Hagars. Flat out.


[/ QUOTE ]

I thought I heard that Van Halen sold more records when Haggar was with the band on the special VH1 ran a while back, but since I can't verify that online, I must have heard incorrectly. But I do know that 1984 did not hit #1. Jump, the first single did reach #1, but the album only reached #2.

Bubbagump

[playerfl]

Roth is clearly superior, anyone who doesn't think so is probably a communist and a satan lover.

[NoPeak]

1984 is one reason why Van Halen ISN'T better with Sammy. That album was awesome. At least Sammy was better than the last chump they tried to use. They were a serious rock band with DLR and just another hair band with Sammy.

[Bubbagump]

Well, I guess it's a good thing for the world that you are not heading up the rock'and'roll Gestapo these days.

Bubbagump

[NoPeak]

I suppose you are one of the few Sammy fans.

[Bubbagump]

[ QUOTE ]
I suppose you are one of the few Sammy fans.

[/ QUOTE ]


Not really. I'm just yanking playerfl's chain for making such a narrow minded statement.

I prefaced a post I made earlier in this thread by stating that I am not a Van Halen fan at all. I don't know why, but they just never did anything for me. But being a musician and guitar player myself, I can appreciate the fact that they are all great musicians and top notch songwriters (though Michael Anthony's bass skill could be debated).

That being said (about not being a fan and all), When I hear their stuff on the radio, I do prefer the stuff Hagar did with the band. The songwriting is light years ahead of where they were when DLR was in the band. But that can only be expected. If you don't improve as a musician and songwriter you don't experience the long-term success that they have had over the past 20+ years.

And speaking of having a career that spans multiple decades, what's DLR been up to lately?
JMHO....

Bubbagump

[riverflush]

I don't think you guys even read the posts before you jump right in. The more individually successful (hits) albums occured during the Sammy Hagar era, while they've sold more total albums from the DLR era.

Again, let's repeat guys....they've sold MILLIONS with BOTH.


This is so funny, I knew this would end up like the political posts, where people just ignore the stuff they don't agree with and repeat the stuff they've already said. Classic.

[astroglide]

it is not possible to provide proof because van halen is better than van hagar

[Bubbagump]

[ QUOTE ]
This is so funny, I knew this would end up like the political posts, where people just ignore the stuff they don't agree with and repeat the stuff they've already said. Classic.

[/ QUOTE ]

What the hell are you talking about?!! Where in this thread to you see people repeating what they've already stated and ignoring what they don't agree with?

Hell, I even conceded the fact that I was mistaken in my original post regarding record sales! How ofter do you see somebody admit they were wrong on this site?

Bubbagump

[playerfl]

This man speaks the truth, even though his handle hints at lewd fornication.

Van Halen is not Van Hagar, they are mutually exclusive concepts.

[charlie_t_jr]

Yep, no way to "prove" it. But Sammy is the best performer/front man, today. Dave may have been on the same level or better back in the day, but Sammy just has that "something" that connects with his audience.

I saw the Sam and Dave tour a couple of summers ago, and there was no comparison, Sammy kicked Dave's ass.

I grew up listening to both, and have always been a big solo Sammy fan. When Dave left the band, it was a drag. But when it was announced Sammy was joining, I thought this was going to be pretty cool...however I was pretty disappointed with the 1st album. Sammy and VH did get better though.

Its all a matter of taste...but if you look at the two overall careers, Sammy certainly stands out. Plus Sammy has his own fans. Sammy will be able to play in front of an audience for as long as he wants to play...I'm not so sure the same thing can be said for Dave.

[charlie_t_jr]

if you want proof, this may tip it to Sammy's favor /images/graemlins/wink.gif

http://www.cabowabo.com/

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
But that can only be expected. If you don't improve as a musician and songwriter you don't experience the long-term success that they have had over the past 20+ years.


[/ QUOTE ]

Which gets more radio airplay? The 'new improved songwriters' or the ones who took on the world?

It's not even close.

That said, I'm a big sammy fan on his own. I think he's much better on his own.

And yes, other than the occasional pedal tone bass notes, Mike A's bass is nearly non existant.

b

[Bubbagump]

[ QUOTE ]
Which gets more radio airplay? The 'new improved songwriters' or the ones who took on the world?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, you are right. Sadly, that is the nature of pop music. The best pop songs usually have a very simple, catchy melody. This, I believe is why so few pop artists are able to sustain their early success without brining in outside songwriters who specialize in this. Most musician as they improve lose their pop sensibilities and with it their core audience. Many musicians realize this and move on to other styles of music as they improve but unfortunately, many musicians try to 'dumb down' their music to appeal to the mindless masses which is why we have so much crap on the radio these days.

There are few, very few artists who are able to stay in the mainstream as they improve as musicians.

Bubbagump