Do you think VH3 would have been better if... - Page 4

Brett · 11.18.09, 08:26 PM

Obviously Ed knew that Sam was the perfect voice for VH, since he was forcing poor Gary to strain to sound like him.

BTW I think both Dave and Sam are the perfect voices for VH, Sam is just more versatile than DLR and I think Ed always liked that.

chefcraig · 11.18.09, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brett

BTW I think both Dave and Sam are the perfect voices for VH, Sam is just more versatile than DLR and I think Ed always liked that.

Timing was the key. Sam came along at precisely the moment that Ed decided it was time to flex his musical ability. That isn't a knock on Dave Roth. Hell, making the most of a limited instrument is what the blues (and to an extent jazz) are all about, and up until that time VH was a blues-based boogie band, albeit one dressed in the trappings and cliches that go along with that genre.

The "Jump" single changed all of that. It was as dumb as a box of hammers and catchy as hell. And it's success changed the way Ed Van Halen approached music. With Hagar, he could explore areas of music he never could with Roth's abilities.

And therein lies the demarcation line amongst VH fans. Those that choose the primal, riff-hungry attack of the Roth years and the expanded, perhaps more musical side of the Hagar era. As a Roth-head, I will say this: To my ears, the band never sounded as muscular and well primed in a live, party-like situation as it did during the Roth era. By the same token, during the Hagar-era shows, the band sounded well tuned and tight, but the overall sense of excitement was limited. Perhaps the band was more professional by that point, and that in and of itself might have been the problem.

This is why the shows with Cherone were at times so refreshing. The older material sounded positively thunderous. The crummy thing was that what made the classics sound better also made the new shit pale by comparison.

At0micPunk · 11.18.09, 09:53 PM

I do love VH 3 in a sense because I think EVH laid down some very interesting and amazing stuff on it. It's more like a side project though. YTTD for me is fantastic guitar wise. The voice bleh, Music? Holy shit!

Do I love it as a true VH record? hell no! But I do dig the music on a lot of it. I don't think any of the riffs are crap. I don't listen to it often and I wish it could be redone with another singer lol but still I like a lot of the guitar work. Not because I'm just an old EVH fan that automatically likes all he puts out(though very few things Ed has recorded has bored me guitar/music wise). I'm very picky in my own way...but some stuff he plays on it inspires me and that does not = total failure in my book..as a VH record though it is lacking. I strongly agree to that but imo that is ok. EVH has done enough to release 10 3's if thats what he truly wants, why not? He is another one. He should just STFU and go for it. Who gives a fk what critics say or how much it sells @ this point.

Dave's Dreidel · 11.19.09, 04:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brett

BTW I think both Dave and Sam are the perfect voices for VH, Sam is just more versatile than DLR and I think Ed always liked that.

I would tweak this to just say that Sam is more versatile singer in a hard rock/metal band setting.

Roth, as much as some can't stand him, actually sings the standards and lounge pieces very well, and you can tell that is where his heart lies. I have always felt that he is a hard rock singer by accident, that it is not really the type of music he listens to when he is in his car. As for Sam, he is a rocker through and through. Not saying one is better than the other, just different.

Big Bad Bill, I'm Easy (solo tune), Ladies Nite in Buffalo (solo) are the songs in which Dave's vocals really shine, cannot see Sam pulling those off as well as Dave.

However, can you imagine Dave trying to sing Dreams? Blech, he would have to go falsetto to do it and it would be a mess.

Gary would probably fit right in on Broadway, and I think he fits well with Extreme. But in a more traditional hard rock format, DLR and Sam both kill him in my humble opinion.

Just a quick ramble.

Ausfan · 11.19.09, 05:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brett

Cherone is not a superior singer to Sam BTW. Sam destroys, absolutely destroys Cherone when it comes to singing pure hard rock songs. There's not even a comparison. Cherone is a very theatrical singer, Sam is a rock singer, and a MUCH better voice for Van Halen. I do think Cherone is a very talented singer and a great person, but as a pure rock singer, nowhere near Sam's league.

Gotta disagree with you there Brett. Gary is much more versatile and in my opinion has a better voice. Sammy (especially of late) just sounds like he is screeching when he is singing "rock" songs.

Quote:

Look production aside, the album blows. Bad production doesn't overshadow bad music. I happen to think "Fair Warning" (beyond Ed's guitar tone) is a not one of the better-produced VH albums, yet somehow though it's some of VH's most brilliant work despite that. So production doesn't mean jack, it's the music that matters the most. Give VH 3 "Balance's" production and it's still a POS.

Look 3 is certainly not a shining light. fair warning has a much better sound than 3 and production certainly does mean jack. Yes the music does matter the most.

Quote:

And "Balance" is BY FAR Van Halen's best-sonically produced album, and if Ed thinks otherwise, he's either lying or he's completely deaf.

Balance sounds great, along with the tracks produced on BOV1 (MWM etc.) it has the best production by far.

Had 3 had the same production values it would have been viewed more favourably.

broken9500 · 11.19.09, 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kimmie5150

Is this SUPPOSED to be a joke??? Just wonderin......Where is Broken when ya need him?????

haha...that's pretty funny. I just noticed this thread. I haven't been spending much time out of the music only forum and haven't been around much.

Honestly I'm pretty bored with the whole VHIII "debate." Everyone knows where we all stand. Most people think the record sucks. I like it...a lot.

I guess the only thing I have to add is the bit about rolling stone. It's always interesting to me how Rolling Stone is trashed as being a pathetic rag, completely disconnected from reality if they pan something that is liked or if they don't go out of their way to cover something that is believed deserves attention. We're not supposed to respect its opinion or validity at all. Yet, here we are with many of the same people who deride Rolling Stone for their incompetence and irrelevance citing Rolling Stone as some sort of evidence of the record's crappiness.

Interestingly enough, the same article praises Once and even How Many Say I and muses about the possibility of an Eddie Van Halen solo record.

For me, if it's good to me it's good. I really don't see the point in trying to turn it into some sort of situation where we're counting heads and taking a vote. Similar to the Rolling Stone deal, many of the same people who are the first to say "commercial viability or popular consensus doesn't mean anything! Just look at Brittany Spears!! Millions love her and buy her records but she sucks! Look at Fall Out Boy! They suck too and i don't care how many people disagree" are right here talking about the general consensus on VHIII sucking is somehow the end-all-be-all and thus, there is no discussion needed because X-number of Van Halen fans can't possibly be wrong on the issue.

Most hate the record...a few like it. Whatever.

Kimmie5150 · 11.19.09, 07:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by broken9500

haha...that's pretty funny. I just noticed this thread. I haven't been spending much time out of the music only forum and haven't been around much.

Honestly I'm pretty bored with the whole VHIII "debate." Everyone knows where we all stand. Most people think the record sucks. I like it...a lot.

I guess the only thing I have to add is the bit about rolling stone. It's always interesting to me how Rolling Stone is trashed as being a pathetic rag, completely disconnected from reality if they pan something that is liked or if they don't go out of their way to cover something that is believed deserves attention. We're not supposed to respect its opinion or validity at all. Yet, here we are with many of the same people who deride Rolling Stone for their incompetence and irrelevance citing Rolling Stone as some sort of evidence of the record's crappiness.

Interestingly enough, the same article praises Once and even How Many Say I and muses about the possibility of an Eddie Van Halen solo record.

For me, if it's good to me it's good. I really don't see the point in trying to turn it into some sort of situation where we're counting heads and taking a vote. Similar to the Rolling Stone deal, many of the same people who are the first to say "commercial viability or popular consensus doesn't mean anything! Just look at Brittany Spears!! Millions love her and buy her records but she sucks! Look at Fall Out Boy! They suck too and i don't care how many people disagree" are right here talking about the general consensus on VHIII sucking is somehow the end-all-be-all and thus, there is no discussion needed because X-number of Van Halen fans can't possibly be wrong on the issue.

Most hate the record...a few like it. Whatever.

AH! There he is!

Thank you, and WELL SAID!

VH1988 · 11.19.09, 07:35 AM

There is no question Sammy Hagar was the best voice Van Halen ever employed.

Sure there are other elements to the front man, but going on vocals alone, Sammy wins.

broken9500 · 11.19.09, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VH1988

There is no question Sammy Hagar was the best voice Van Halen ever employed.

Sure there are other elements to the front man, but going on vocals alone, Sammy wins.

different strokes and all that jazz. Many people love Sam's style of singing...just singing; no need to bring up any other elements. I don't. He has a god awful voice to my ears. For those that enjoy that style, awesome. Enjoy. I'll take dozens of singers over him every day, in VH or out.

Brett · 11.19.09, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by broken9500

I guess the only thing I have to add is the bit about rolling stone. It's always interesting to me how Rolling Stone is trashed as being a pathetic rag, completely disconnected from reality if they pan something that is liked or if they don't go out of their way to cover something that is believed deserves attention. We're not supposed to respect its opinion or validity at all. Yet, here we are with many of the same people who deride Rolling Stone for their incompetence and irrelevance citing Rolling Stone as some sort of evidence of the record's crappiness.

Rolling Stone IS a worthless rag, still doesn't change the fact that its comments on VH 3 are right on. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Quote:

For me, if it's good to me it's good. I really don't see the point in trying to turn it into some sort of situation where we're counting heads and taking a vote. Similar to the Rolling Stone deal, many of the same people who are the first to say "commercial viability or popular consensus doesn't mean anything! Just look at Brittany Spears!! Millions love her and buy her records but she sucks! Look at Fall Out Boy! They suck too and i don't care how many people disagree" are right here talking about the general consensus on VHIII sucking is somehow the end-all-be-all and thus, there is no discussion needed because X-number of Van Halen fans can't possibly be wrong on the issue.

Uh what?

Quote:

Most hate the record...a few like it. Whatever.

Uh ok.

VanHalenRules · 11.19.09, 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VH1988

There is no question Sammy Hagar was the best voice Van Halen ever employed.

Sure there are other elements to the front man, but going on vocals alone, Sammy wins.

And those other elements are exactly what Roth brought to to the table back when VH began. If vocals alone were the defining quality of the lead singer, Brian Johnson may well be out of a job by now.

VH1988 · 11.19.09, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VanHalenRules

And those other elements are exactly what Roth brought to to the table back when VH began. If vocals alone were the defining quality of the lead singer, Brian Johnson may well be out of a job by now.

Totally agree.

Brett · 11.19.09, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by broken9500

different strokes and all that jazz. Many people love Sam's style of singing...just singing; no need to bring up any other elements. I don't. He has a god awful voice to my ears. For those that enjoy that style, awesome. Enjoy. I'll take dozens of singers over him every day, in VH or out.

How ironic that you're a fan of an album where the singer does his best to strain, shriek, and squeal to sound like Sammy Hagar.

VanHalenRules · 11.19.09, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brett

How ironic that you're a fan of an album where the singer does his best to strain, shriek, and squeal to sound like Sammy Hagar.

I still remember a friend of mine and I going to see Leathal Weapon IV....him, not really being into VH, was like, "Damn, Sammy's voice sounds all fucked up on that tune".

broken9500 · 11.19.09, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brett

How ironic that you're a fan of an album where the singer does his best to strain, shriek, and squeal to sound like Sammy Hagar.

not really because it is my least favourite of his performances...because he's doing that god awful screechy shriek thing way too often.

I, like many, wish we could have heard Gary be Gary and I'm of the opinion that time would have taken care of that. I think the longer the pair had to gel and work together, the more comfortable with one another they would have become and Ed would have come to understand how to approach songs. Or not...maybe a VHIII second record would have suffered from all the same problems.