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

[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