PDA

View Full Version : DLR Band - does the production spoil it, or Daves voice or....



Master Joe
07.20.02, 07:04 AM
...is it the songs?

A lot of people criticise the production on the album, is that coz wawazat (aka DLR) produced it? I mean its basically vocals guitars and drums - the production is minimal, it doesn't 'sound' like a big budget album, but I think that totally suits the songs - rough and ready, practice, practice, practice, and in the studio record the best rehearsal - like what VH used do.

DLR's voice? - yes I will admit that is it a little shot - but it is not so bad that it ruins the songs. The man has lived 100 lifetimes, he's had an incredible life, and he smokes like a chimney, and drinks Jack Daniels, its going to have an effect. Maybe he should stick to the range that suits him, don't strain himself - and when he goes for it, it does show how damaged his voice is - but like I said, it doesn't ruin the album for me.

The songs?, well I think the songs are awesome - great rock n roll tunes, guitars all over the shop, my ultimate album. It really is one of my fave all-time cd's.

RothnRoll
07.20.02, 01:59 PM
Don't ask me Joe, I think its one of his best.

NE169
07.21.02, 06:54 PM
Part of it's gotta be the voice - he tries to overextend himself in spots (Relentless), not a bad album, but to me lacked a big fat sound!

ScottRoberts
07.21.02, 07:13 PM
I think it's the best solo Dave album after EEAS and Skyscraper. If anything is lacking, though, it's gotta be Dave's vocal range.

MikeL
07.21.02, 10:15 PM
The vocals seem buried under the guitars to me. I think that was done intentionally, to keep Dave's vocal limitations from being the centerpoint of the album. The reason I say this is if you listen to something within Dave's range at the time such as Black Sand, the vocals are right up there where they should be. When Dave's gotta sing fast or high, they subside into the mix.

dirtymovies
07.23.02, 05:49 AM
I love it too. I was quite shocked at how good and fresh it was.

Brett
07.23.02, 10:12 AM
Definitely not the production that's for sure. Dave's voice is pretty ragged for the most part. He has moments when he's not trying that high octave crapola where he sounds like old Dave. But it's a fun record, some good tunes, not a big enough sound.

Rikk
07.23.02, 10:38 AM
I like the album. It definitely sounds kinda indie...there are a few third-rate cuts, but then there are also masterpieces like LITTLE TEXAS. I do think he should have limited it to 10 songs or so, just so it was consistently brilliant. That's one thing I loved about the original albums...they were pretty short, thus, were short enough to be totally consistent listens.

Down In Flames
07.23.02, 02:39 PM
I'm with Rikk and Mike on the album. In spots, Dave's voice seems to get swallowed up by the instruments and I think that's by design, which is a smart move. A smarter move would be to not sing so high in the first place, but Dave's gonna do what he likes. And that's cool.

Slam Dunk - Great lyrics but the music isn't so hot to me. The little breakdown where Dave talks low, he should do more of that. He's got a great low voice.

Blacklight - The music's all right. But Dave tries to do too much vocally. It's almost like he's doing an impression of Robert Plant. <-- Back when Plant could hit the high notes. ;) The chorus and back up vocals just don't mesh with everything else. One of the lesser songs on the album, although Dave is smoking on that little harmonica bit.

Counter-Blast - Has a bit of a punk edge to it. I dig it. The high stuff Dave tries to hit on this one, he does for the most part.

Lose The Dress (Keep The Shoes) - Pimpin' lyrics. They're just another example of how someone, say, Sam ;) could live a billion years and never write such lyrics. The music, on the other hand, doesn't measure up.

Little Texas - Rocks. It could be a 1984 leftover, it's that solid, IMO. More great lyrics, catchy riff, chorus, and melody. This song is cool on all fronts.

King Of The Hill - It took me a while to catch the lyrics on this one. I don't like the music on this one. Catchy chorus and melody, though.

Going Places - Nice change of pace. Typical DLR-style curveball. Mellow without being weak. Sam could learn a thing or 17 from a song like this.

Wa Wa Zat is another great song. Great guitar work, heavy riff. I remember someone once saying the music was a bit generic. I don't think that, though. The guitar solo could have been a bit more thought out, but that's really the only drawback and it's a minor one.

Relentless - Great opening. But then Dave starts singing. :D Dave should have toned down the vocals because they take away from the lyrics. The chorus, especially near the end of the song, is painful to listen to. Neat solo. Great drumming. The songs got a cool energy to it.

Indeedido - Filler, IMO. Dave's lyrics deserve better vocals on this one. The music sounds tired on this one, which is surprising following Relentless.

Right Tool For The Job - WTF is this? This is the worst track on the album, IMO. Dave sounds good, but his lyrics are pretty light. I don't know, maybe that's what he was going for. The music stinks on this one.

Tight - Cool gravel-voice by Dave again and, in parts, funny lyrics. Can't get into this song, though. The music is uninspired. Just shows me that the first half of the album is easily the better of the two.

Weekend With The Babysitter - You gotta love this. Pimp Dave, middle-aged, crooning about nailing a babysitter. graemlins/devil.gif . "Suddenly occurs to me, Maybe I need therapy, Cause I'm also hot for teacher..." This one clicks. Rock on, lil' Elvis.

Black Sand - I'm guessing that Dave wanted to close the album on a winner (which he does), but being Dave, also wanted to showcase his range by creating a juxtaposition; having this follow the likes of WWTB. Just when you've finished laughing at Dave waxing poetic about the babysitter, he bitchslaps you with a song to think about. Great moody intro, melodic riff, and vibe. The lyrics and music work hand in hand. Dave nails the vocals. (Might sound funny, but when I first heard this song, my first thought was "Brian Wilson on downers." smile.gif Which is not to say it's a depressing song because it's not.) This song redeems the second half of the album.

Hopefully, with whatever Dave's supposedly cooking up right now, a couple of tracks will be in the vein of Little Texas, Wa Wa Zat, and Black Sand.

[ July 23, 2002, 03:40 PM: Message edited by: Down In Flames ]

Brett
07.23.02, 03:08 PM
I agree with most of your take DIF. Just mentioning some things that come to mind.

"Slam Dunk" bugs me because the music is such a blatant ripoff of "Hot For Teacher" and "The Full Bug," it's such a sell-out tune. No creativity at all musicially, I like Dave's lyrics, but he strains too much for my taste.

"Blacklight" has no flow to it at all like DIF said. Chorus doesn't work with the verses, and I don't know what the hell Dave is doing on those verses, but his voice sounds likes poopoo ca-ca. smile.gif Good harmonica solo.

"King Of The Hill" sucks, plain and simple. The mix is probably the worst pile of crap I've ever heard, I've mixed my band's demos better. I know that the late Mike Hartman used this song on his solo album without the lyrics because you can hear him soloing over the whole song. It doesn't work, Dave's vocals don't work at all. Bad tune all around. But it is the only song on the album where Dave actually gets out his signature scream, and it actually sounds good.

Now I disagree totally on "Indeedido," I dig that song a lot. I like the riff, to me it feels very VHish. Dave's lyrics are OK, his vocals are way too strained, but I really like the guitar playing. In fact I had the DJ play this song at my wedding if you can believe that, people wanted to know who it was, they liked it.

"Black Sand" IMO is one of the best songs Dave has done in years. Just a very cool vibe and his lyrics and vocals are perfect for it. Easily the most creative tune on the album.

Master Joe
07.24.02, 01:57 PM
Although I love the album, I could live without Indeedido and Right Tool...they are the only fillers IMO, but King of the Hill is one of the highlights for me - excellent guitar work - and the only song ever to have naa, naa, naa's sounding actually cool.

therealdeal
07.29.02, 01:36 AM
This is Dave's best solo album, period.

Taken as a whole, Side 1 (the first 6 songs) is one of the best listens of the 1990s. "Little Texas" is my favorite Roth solo tune. "Black Light" is a very cool departure from the norm for a Roth record. "King Of The Hill" does more with a 90s grunge sound than most 90s bands would have ever hoped to conceive, let alone create. "Slam Dunk" & "Counter-Blast" are signature Halen-esque ideas done well.

Side 2 is largely filler; "Black Sand" is the lone killer tune - definitely cut from the "Coconut Grove"-"Damn Good" cloth. Everything else on Side 2 is admittedly mediocre, but it doesn't take as much muster away from the album as a whole because all the sh*t is tacked onto the back of the album, unlike almost all of Dave's other releases, wherein the boring tracks are sprinkled throughout front-to-back :(

But that's moot when you consider that Side 1 plus "Black Sand" is equivalent time-wise to at least half of the Dave-era VH releases. I am as animated in my enjoyment of these 7 songs as the cream of the album as I am with any of the DEVHRs. I can't say that about any of Dave's other releases - on all the others I have to constantly skip around the disks to catch the tunes I like. 'Eat Em & Smile' would be the only other release that's comfortably listenable front to back, but that record's best songs aren't as strong as 'DLRB'.

As for production: what's not to like? The sound is full and plenty bright where it needs to be, and acceptably less so where the song warrants ("King Of The Hill"). I hear everything fine, and I'm confident that the production here will stand the test of time far better than the production of, say, 'Skyscraper'.

When I think of how this record is generally perceived, it reminds me a lot of the 'Coverdale/Page' album. I honestly think that both fans & critics don't give these albums the hefty kudos that they deserve. Just because the popular culture and entertainment media call you a has-been, doesn't make it so. Santana should be proof of that.

Plus these are fun tunes to play (in a band)! That never hurts graemlins/thumb.gif

If you don't have this record, go get it! graemlins/bounce.gif Side 1 is Dave's best album side, and it's as good as either side of 'Women & Children First' or 'Diver Down'.

The Real Deal

Master Joe
07.29.02, 10:47 AM
THATS WHAT I'M TALKIN ABOUT!!!!!

Thanks RealDeal - I enjoyed reading that.

Yeah, the second half is a little weaker, mainly coz of Indeedido and Right tool... I would add Weekend w/the babysitter to your 7 song list as well.

Rikk
07.29.02, 11:34 AM
Great post, Real Deal.

I really like the album. I've never thought any of Dave's solo stuff is as good as the DLR-era Van Halen (which is unbeatable stuff...neither Van Halen nor Roth were ever able to match those six albums). But certain cuts on each solo album stand out. SHYBOY, YANKEE ROSE, GOIN' CRAZY and LADIES NIGHT IN BUFFALO are great...DAMN GOOD and JUST LIKE PARADISE are great...A LI'L AIN'T ENOUGH and SHOWTIME are amazing...I even like BIG TRAIN, and SHE'S MY MACHINE is okay. But DLR BAND is pretty consistent. LITTLE TEXAS is a Roth solo song that I'd put on par with early Van Halen (also my favorite Roth solo song), KING OF THE HILL, BLACK LIGHT, SLAM DUNK, BLACK SAND. These are all under-appreciated classics.

The COVERDALE/PAGE album was also amazing. It was actually better than the PAGE/PLANT album WALKING INTO CLARKSDALE. Why COVERDALE/PAGE didn't do well is beyond me. It had some of Page's best work (PRIDE AND JOY still gives me goosebumps every time I hear it). I really don't care what the public accepts or likes. If I like it or keep going back to it, it's a classic. Hey, if I actually liked VH3, I would be defending it to my grave. But I can't defend it because...it's really bad (with a few small exceptions). It's a shame that Dave's album didn't get full-blown promotion, but he couldn't get that in 1998, nor did he really expect to. But if you put DLR BAND up against VH3, it's pretty clear to me which one is the winner. (And I'm sorry, but both albums are still better than MARCHING TO MARS...that was the first and only Hagar solo album I purchased, and I re-sold it pretty quickly...MONTROSE is great though.)

[ July 29, 2002, 12:35 PM: Message edited by: Rikk ]

theodore templeman
07.29.02, 11:47 AM
DLR Band is an awesome recording. It sounds to me like Dave want to produce a downright mean, surly, badass, in your face CD and that's exactly what he did. His performance is high energy no-holds-barred with great lyrics. The songs are all good. And the guitar playing is innovative and cutting edge. In fact if DLR Band had been released in the '80s John Lowery would be a fucking guitar god on the level of Vai and Sykes.

MikeL
07.30.02, 08:29 AM
Originally posted by Rikk:
But if you put DLR BAND up against VH3, it's pretty clear to me which one is the winner. (And I'm sorry, but both albums are still better than MARCHING TO MARS.No way, not to my ears. MtM beats them both handily. I put DLR Band at about the same level as VH3. There are some gems, but there are enough lame songs like Blacklight and Counter-Blast to ruin it for me.

MikeL
07.30.02, 08:31 AM
Originally posted by theodore templeman:
In fact if DLR Band had been released in the '80s John Lowery would be a fucking guitar god on the level of Vai and Sykes.That's probably the most preposterous statement I've read here, and I've read a lot of loony posts over the years. smile.gif

Rikk
07.30.02, 09:29 AM
Originally posted by MikeL:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Rikk:
But if you put DLR BAND up against VH3, it's pretty clear to me which one is the winner. (And I'm sorry, but both albums are still better than MARCHING TO MARS.No way, not to my ears. MtM beats them both handily. I put DLR Band at about the same level as VH3. There are some gems, but there are enough lame songs like Blacklight and Counter-Blast to ruin it for me.</font>[/QUOTE]MARCHING TO MARS has some of the most unmemorable songs I've ever heard. It's crap. graemlins/thumb.gif

MikeL
07.30.02, 09:33 AM
While none of the three albums are all that memorable, I find myself remembering the things I don't like about DLR Band and the things I do like about MtM. Maybe that's the difference between the two for me.

I also got to see a good live show for MtM, which no one ever will for DLR Band.

Master Joe
07.30.02, 10:51 AM
Originally posted by MikeL:
[/qb]That's probably the most preposterous statement I've read here, and I've read a lot of loony posts over the years. smile.gif [/QB][/QUOTE]

I've read worse - your reply for one!

DLR Band would've been huge in the '80's - probably bigger than EEAS. He would've kept a lot of his fan-base had he released it after EEAS. And Lowery would'be been up there with Vai and Sykes - why not????

theodore templeman
07.30.02, 12:43 PM
Originally posted by MikeL:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by theodore templeman:
In fact if DLR Band had been released in the '80s John Lowery would be a fucking guitar god on the level of Vai and Sykes.That's probably the most preposterous statement I've read here, and I've read a lot of loony posts over the years. smile.gif </font>[/QUOTE]How is the concept of John Lowery being a guitar virtuoso in an age when guitar virtuosity is not recognized anymore a preposterous statement? I listen to some of the riffs on DLR Band and I can't imagine how they were created. Please explain.

MikeL
07.30.02, 01:23 PM
You guys are really impressed with that guitar work? I think you're taking your affection for DLR and undeservedly projecting it onto his guitar player at the time.

Via and Skyes drove massive commercial success in a time of "me too" guitarists. Lowery's playing is very much in the "me too" vein, and isn't anything remarkable. You guys are suggesting that if Lowery had been around in the late 80s, he'd have been huge. That's crap. Utter crap. He'd have been a second rate guitarist then, just as he is now. His association with DLR's least successful album certainly doesn't help his image. He pales compared to Van Halen, Via, and Becker. He's purely second team, and his lack of recognition amongst music fans confirms that.

It's cool to be a DLR cheerleader. I can dig it. But trying to make a nobody into another Via just because you like Dave? Please, that's a non-starter.

[ July 30, 2002, 02:24 PM: Message edited by: MikeL ]

Brett
07.30.02, 01:46 PM
John Lowery is comparable to Steve Vai?! :confused: Holy fucking shit Batman, get off the crack immediately!

You can't imagine how the riffs on the DLR Band album were created? I take it you're not a guitar player Theo?

TyndellE
07.30.02, 10:49 PM
DLR Band was a good album. His voice (as with YFLM) was straining so I agree with the others that said he should have stuck to the lower registers.

John Lowery is a great guitar player, but I also don't think he'd have been a guitar god if that album had been released in the 80s. He would have been rated with Jake E. Lee, George Lynch, Vivian Campbell (who is one of my favorite guitar players....Last In Line guitar solo is one of my all-time favorites), Craig Goldy......all tier 2 players when it comes to popularity in the World of Guitar Players..... Not in the same league as Van Halen, Rhodes, Hendrix, Clapton......

Master Joe
07.31.02, 09:44 AM
Well, all I know is that I love the album, and if it was released 10 years earlier it would've been a massive commercial hit. And thus Lowery would be thrown into the lime-light big-time.

therealdeal
07.31.02, 01:48 PM
Wow. Kinda cool to see a thread about 'DLRB' take off and inspire some heated conversation.

I respect and understand all of the dissenting opinions about this album. One guy's treasure is...yada yada...

Some follow-ups:

- On Lowery, I agree that the guy's not Vai, but he's solid and (in 1986) certainly would've stirred up 90% or more of the noise that Vai ended up generating when he debuted. But this is somewhat of an apples & oranges argument ("Who's greater? Joe Montana or Otto Graham?")

- On 'DLRB' low sales figures, this is an unfair criticism plain & simple that again echoes the lame argument against 'Coverdale/Page'. 'DLRB' had virtually zero press or media coverage on release, and radio completely ignored it. This is simply a product of the times, and it's a shame that a good rock record can be completely ignored just because the popular/cultural perception of Roth's latter career is so negative and derisive. It's also a shame that the perception of the music on a good record is skewed negatively because the record didn't sell. Hell, 'VH III' sold better than 'DLRB', so according to MikeL, this must mean Sherrone is better off for his association with 'VH III' than Lowery is for his association with 'DLRB'. graemlins/wtf.gif graemlins/drunk.gif Pass the shrubbage that produced that logic my way, PLEASE. Take a poll of a hundred people anywhere and of those that are familiar with either musician and/or album you'll readily hear that Sherrone's image is far worse off than Lowery's. No offense, Mike, but record sales have little substantive bearing on a guy's image (see Alan Holdsworth).

(To your credit, Mike, the 'MtM' live show was way better than anything out of Dave during the same period (but the songwriting and the energy don't hold a candle to 'DLRB', and never will).)

- Totally agree that a pared-down 'DLRB' would have sold great as a Warner release in 1986, and probably would've outsold '5150'. In a perfect world, all the best songs from 'Eat Em' & 'DLRB' with both Vai & Lowery and Sheehan/Bissonette would've been Dave's debut album (not EP..) in 1986. Such an album would've been so massive, Dave would've dwarfed the first Van Hagar release and sent the brothers back to Dave in time for Monsters Of Rock...oh, wow, I guess MY shrubbage just started to kick in graemlins/drunk.gif

But it is a cool fantasy smile.gif

The Real Deal

MikeL
07.31.02, 02:17 PM
Originally posted by therealdeal:
On Lowery, I agree that the guy's not Vai, but he's solid and (in 1986) certainly would've stirred up 90% or more of the noise that Vai ended up generating when he debuted.Anybody who was with DLR in 1986 would've gotten a lot of press. Lowery would've never been with DLR in 1986, simply because he isn't that good. He is not a remarkable talent. It's absurd to say he is, when he hasn't produced anything remotely close to justifying a comparison to Via.

Hell, 'VH III' sold better than 'DLRB', so according to MikeL, this must mean Sherrone is better off for his association with 'VH III' than Lowery is for his association with 'DLRB'. graemlins/wtf.gif graemlins/drunk.gif Pass the shrubbage that produced that logic my way, PLEASE. [/qb][/quote]

Get a clue. I never said that, and I've never drawn any sense of quality from album sales. You pulled that out of your ass, as it certainly didn't come out of my posts.


Totally agree that a pared-down 'DLRB' would have sold great as a Warner release in 1986, and probably would've outsold '5150'. That's pure speculative BS, and it's a flawed assumption too. Anything with DLR's name on it would've sold well in 1986. DLR Band pales in comparison to EEAS. For a guy who doesn't put any credence in album sales, you're using that argument above.

If John Lowery is so great, why hasn't he done anything of interest with Manson? DLR Band did get radio play, and if you payed attention at the time DLR himself was bragging about the success of the singles on the rock charts. The problem wasn't just in the distribution, or in the lack of a major label. The problem was that the album wasn't as stellar as you guys wish it was.

therealdeal
07.31.02, 03:19 PM
Mike,


His [Lowery's] association with DLR's least successful album certainly doesn't help his image OK, I pulled that out of my ass... graemlins/sssh.gif ...don't let it get out that YOUR quotes can occasionally emanate from my ass smile.gif To follow up, taken in the context of the rest of your quote, "success" appears to be defined as album sales/radio airplay. I know it's rhetorical, but show me where this quote implies anything but album sales/radio airplay...

Now, while you're taking out your scalpel to further dissect why our collective love of 'DLRB' is misguided, why don't we take a couple of polls here on DLR's catalog (favorites & best) and see what shakes out? Or place it head-to-head against 'VH III', with the caveat being you don't vote if you haven't owned both for any length of time and thus can't make a quality call on that basis.

Either way, I enjoy sparring with non-believers over both 'DLRB' and 'Coverdale/Page'. Zep fans that don't like 'C/P' (or the other solo projects from Page and Plant) are those that seem to be blinded by their love of the Bonham catalog, just as Halen fans that don't like either the Van Hagar releases or 'VH III' or any of the solo Dave releases seem to be blinded by their love of the Dave-era VH catalog. It's almost instinctual for some people to be unhappy when the apple cart gets knocked around. I'm no different with plenty of things myself (eg: some of Van Hagar and definitely 'VH III' - that was plain-and-simple an example of someone driving the apple cart off a cliff!).

You dissenters have laid a substantive groundwork for me to respect your collective opinion, despite my disagreement. I think us 'DLRB' fans have laid our groundwork for you to respect ours. But the bottom line is: I like it because I think so much of the material is great, you don't like it because you think much (if not all) of the material is both mediocre and not produced well or played well. Agreed?

In the end, opinions are like...yada yada yada...I'll sleep fine tonight & I'm sure you will too.

Argue again soon... graemlins/thumb.gif

The Real Deal

Brett
07.31.02, 03:26 PM
Originally posted by Master Joe:
Well, all I know is that I love the album, and if it was released 10 years earlier it would've been a massive commercial hit. And thus Lowery would be thrown into the lime-light big-time.He's playing with Manson now, who is 10X more popular than DLR is at this very moment. I don't see the guitar hero label being given to him, even with the notoriety he's getting in the limelight now.

MikeL
07.31.02, 06:17 PM
Originally posted by therealdeal:
To follow up, taken in the context of the rest of your quote, "success" appears to be defined as album sales/radio airplay. I know it's rhetorical, but show me where this quote implies anything but album sales/radio airplay...For me, DLR Band is Dave's least successful album because it doesn't impress me nearly as much as the rest of his catalog.


But the bottom line is: I like it because I think so much of the material is great, you don't like it because you think much (if not all) of the material is both mediocre and not produced well or played well. Agreed?Fair enough, but I don't dislike it. I just don't think it stands with the rest of Dave's work, and I really don't think Lowery compares to Dave's better guitarists.

Master Joe
08.01.02, 10:03 AM
Originally posted by Brett:
He's playing with Manson now, who is 10X more popular than DLR is at this very moment. I don't see the guitar hero label being given to him, even with the notoriety he's getting in the limelight now.[/QB][/QUOTE]

DLR's name is synominous (sp??) with great guitarists - Manson's is not.

In '86 the name John Lowery would've been on every Rocks fans lips as the new side-kick for DLR - You cannot deny that.

And Lowery w/Manson is a waste of talent - just like Vivian Campell is wasted playing second fiddle in def leppard.

Brett
08.01.02, 10:31 AM
In 1986, Lowery's chops wouldn't have gotten him a gig with anyone worth a shit. Guitar playing has gone so far downhill since 1986 that anytime we hear ANYONE with even a shred of ability, we label them a great guitar player. Lowery is not a great player, his chops are nothing out of the ordinary, and are nowhere near the skill of an EVH, Vai, or even Jason Becker.

In 1986, Dave was playing with Vai, a far more respected and accomplished virtuoso, and a large part of why Dave's solo career worked right off the bat. Lowery is a slightly-better than average guitar player, that's it. With his abilities, Dave wouldn't even have looked at him in 1986. Going from EVH to John Lowery?!?! Ouch. graemlins/scared.gif

theodore templeman
08.01.02, 11:47 AM
Originally posted by Brett:
John Lowery is comparable to Steve Vai?! :confused: Holy fucking shit Batman, get off the crack immediately!

You can't imagine how the riffs on the DLR Band album were created? I take it you're not a guitar player Theo?Listen, I'm the first to praise Vai's work on Eat 'Em. He had one hell of task in front of him, basically stepping into the shoes of the great Edward VH and laying the foundation for DLR's solo career. It was a trial by fire and by god he pulled it off masterfully. Eat 'Em is a categorical hard rock/guitar wizard classic. You can hear the crackle of the sparks in every note he plays on that record (the rhythm section is no slouch either by the way).

Lowery sounds nothing like Vai. But his playing is filled with bursting energy, is beautifully executed, and is totally unique. That combination gets high marks in my book.

No disrespect to Vai, but did he really live up to the promise of Eat 'Em? I don't think he did.

Now Joe Satch? That's a whole 'nother story...

[ August 01, 2002, 12:48 PM: Message edited by: theodore templeman ]

Master Joe
08.01.02, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by Brett:
In 1986, Lowery's chops wouldn't have gotten him a gig with anyone worth a shit. Guitar playing has gone so far downhill since 1986 that anytime we hear ANYONE with even a shred of ability, we label them a great guitar player. Lowery is not a great player, his chops are nothing out of the ordinary, and are nowhere near the skill of an EVH, Vai, or even Jason Becker.

In 1986, Dave was playing with Vai, a far more respected and accomplished virtuoso, and a large part of why Dave's solo career worked right off the bat. Lowery is a slightly-better than average guitar player, that's it. With his abilities, Dave wouldn't even have looked at him in 1986. Going from EVH to John Lowery?!?! Ouch. graemlins/scared.gif O.K. - lets try a different approach - forget the guitar player angle - do you concede that DLR Band released in 1988 would've been a massive hit - and I'm not talkin it would've sold at least a Million coz Roth was still big in '88 - I mean a Major selling Rock album - like Pump, new jersey, and ou8i2.

Master Joe
08.01.02, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by theodore templeman:
[/qb]Lowery sounds nothing like Vai. But his playing is filled with bursting energy, is beautifully executed, and is totally unique. That combination gets high marks in my book.

[/QB][/QUOTE]

HELL YEAH!!!! - and lets not forget Terry Kilgore and Michael Hartman.

King of the Hill was the second single released, I believe - and Black Sand.... well, this song is a modern-day Masterpiece. Best Roth song EVER!!!!

MikeL
08.01.02, 06:59 PM
Originally posted by Master Joe:
I mean a Major selling Rock album - like Pump, new jersey, and ou8i2.It's not in that league. What you're trying to do here is take a... shall we say controversial? album out of its setting and place it in a most favorable position, where the circumstances make it look far better than it actually is. WB would've never let it out the door in 1988 the way it is. Dave would've never replaced the Yankee Rose band with a bunch of unknowns.

Taking it back in time doesn't change the album, or somehow fix its flaws. It doesn't make John Lowery a better guitar player. It doesn't change a thing.

Honest, if DLR Band really was a great album, somebody would've picked it up when Dave was shopping it around. Same goes for that DVD Dave's been pushing.

theodore templeman
08.02.02, 10:39 AM
[/qb][/QUOTE]O.K. - lets try a different approach - forget the guitar player angle - do you concede that DLR Band released in 1988 would've been a massive hit - and I'm not talkin it would've sold at least a Million coz Roth was still big in '88 - I mean a Major selling Rock album - like Pump, new jersey, and ou8i2.[/QB][/QUOTE]

I'm not sure that DLR Band would be in the same commercial league as Pump, NJ, or ou812 simply because it is not chock a block full of hit singles like those others you mentioned, records designed specifically for maximum radio and MTV. However I firmly believe that the playing and intensity of the recording would have placed it very high in the minds of the metal cognescenti.

Master Joe
08.03.02, 12:11 AM
Originally posted by theodore templeman:

I'm not sure that DLR Band would be in the same commercial league as Pump, NJ, or ou812 simply because it is not chock a block full of hit singles like those others you mentioned, records designed specifically for maximum radio and MTV. However I firmly believe that the playing and intensity of the recording would have placed it very high in the minds of the metal cognescenti.Yes, Pump and new jersey have Demond Child all over them. The only credit I would ever give van hagar is at least they wrote their own tunes - I might hate them - but at least THEY wrote 'em not song doctors.

I think myself that if DLR Band was released after EEAS (or maybe instead of!!!!) it would've been huge in the Rock community - and I could see Slam Dunk, Little Texas, King of the Hill, and Black Sand all being big hits on MTV.