For all of the clueless dorks out there maintaining a position that this guy can't play the bass, suck on this. http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/7553/thefingeril4.gif

Van Halen - I'm The One 11-19-2004 Tucson, AZ (3:40)
guzqu4qKO-w

For all of the clueless dorks out there maintaining a position that this guy can't play the bass, suck on this. http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/7553/thefingeril4.gif

Van Halen - I'm The One 11-19-2004 Tucson, AZ (3:40)
guzqu4qKO-w

Nicely done, chef.:thumb:

:thumb:

Nice! They played this in Jersey back in 2004, what a soundcheck!

Plus...Sammy came out & did JUMP.

Nice! Ed sounds tight as well.

eddies vocals sound fucking terrible! still, mike does a killer job holding this one down!

Looks like Ed hit the booze after the soundcheck. He sounds great here, but this is the infamous "Black Friday" show with the guitar smashing incident.

Mike is awesome here. Nice performance. Ed does a sweet job as well.

sigh.....just awesome!!!!

Now that is what I call 5*'s getting their money's worth! :thumb:

That shit rocked dude.....:drunk:

They did I'm The One at soundcheck in Detroit in '04 too - it was the highlight of the entire night for me. Mike rocked on bass and lead vocals, Al was Al - totally tight, and Ed shredded the hell out of it. Totally kicked ass.

fuck yeah!!!! now that is Van Halen.

They were piping in Wolfie's bass to sweeten the sound :)

yeah...Mike sucks doesn't he. that was GREAT! nice ballsy bass sound too. that is what we should be hearing this time out....Van Halen.

yeah...Mike sucks doesn't he. that was GREAT! nice ballsy bass sound too. that is what we should be hearing this time out....Van Halen.
I really didn't hear bass. Mike's YELPING i did hear. It was awesome though.

Who said he couldn't play bass? I never thought that was a criticism of Mike. He's just not a virtuoso on the insturment, that's all. He's certainly capable and the right man for the job, that's for sure.

Who said he couldn't play bass? I never thought that was a criticism of Mike. He's just not a virtuoso on the insturment, that's all. He's certainly capable and the right man for the job, that's for sure.

There's a few dinks on this site who are actually calling Mike talentless and they're usually people who've seen a show and are convinced that Wolfie is the second coming.....because, ya know - it was HIS idea to get Dave back in the band.


Or something like that.

Wolfie is the next Mozart, you just wait! The next VH album that he will write will 200 million copies!

/sarcasm mode off

I think some on this site give Mike too much credit, and some too little. By no means the most important member of the band, but he made significant contributions none the less.

I think some on this site give Mike too much credit, and some too little. By no means the most important member of the band, but he made significant contributions none the less.


Most important member? No.
Most fan friendly? INDEED.

Shabily treated despite his long history and devotion to the band? Goddamn right, he was.

Who said he couldn't play bass? I never thought that was a criticism of Mike. He's just not a virtuoso on the insturment, that's all. He's certainly capable and the right man for the job, that's for sure.



yep, never thought (or posted) that he couldn't play....nicely stated Ashe


with all the bad blood between the Sam/Mike camp & Eddie...I don't think he is the right man for the job anymore.

Who said he couldn't play bass?

A lot of '07 Wolfie apologist wackjobs, that's who. :)

As equally important a member as the other three/four.

Sometimes I still can't believe it's come to this. If he was still in the band, NONE of this would've ever come up for debate.

Far worse than the Sam vs. Dave crapola. Just utterly pathetic.

It ain't Van Halen without Dave or Sam.
It ain't Van Halen without Ed.
It ain't Van Halen without Alex.
It ain't Van Halen without Mike.

How hard is this to comprehend?

I just don't get it.

As equally important a member as the other three/four.

Sometimes I still can't believe it's come to this. If he was still in the band, NONE of this would've ever come up for debate.

Far worse than the Sam vs. Dave crapola. Just utterly pathetic.

It ain't Van Halen without Dave or Sam.
It ain't Van Halen without Ed.
It ain't Van Halen without Alex.
It ain't Van Halen without Mike.

How hard is this to comprehend?

I just don't get it.

I love Michael Anthony but there's no way that anybody in that band was as important as Eddie and it's not even that close.

I love Michael Anthony but there's no way that anybody in that band was as important as Eddie and it's not even that close.

sorry but you are wrong. it takes all of them to truly be Van Halen. you are telling me that Ed, without Dave or Sam, without his brother, and without Mike would have been anywhere near as successful as he was with Van Halen the band? no way. they are a hugely great ensemble cast.

sorry but you are wrong. it takes all of them to truly be Van Halen. you are telling me that Ed, without Dave or Sam, without his brother, and without Mike would have been anywhere near as successful as he was with Van Halen the band? no way. they are a hugely great ensemble cast.


I didn't say any of that.

Michael Anthony was very important to VH. Further, I always thought that VH was greater than the sum of its parts and would not have worked as well without any of the guys. I never said, nor believed, that VH could be Eddie and whoever else he chose. VH was better because Michael Anthony was in that band. It would not have been the same without him.

However, let's not kid ourselves. Eddie Van Halen wrote nearly all the music and redefined his instrument. The other guys all made Ed better, but he was still the driving force. Eddie is the primary reason the band was successful.

Without Mike, Van Halen would have been less successful than they were, but still more successful than they would've been with Mike and without Eddie.

I know we all love Mike, but this is bordering on ridiculous.

I didn't say any of that.

Michael Anthony was very important to VH. Further, I always thought that VH was greater than the sum of its parts and would not have worked as well without any of the guys. I never said, nor believed, that VH could be Eddie and whoever else he chose. VH was better because Michael Anthony was in that band. It would not have been the same without him.

However, let's not kid ourselves. Eddie Van Halen wrote nearly all the music and redefined his instrument. The other guys all made Ed better, but he was still the driving force. Eddie is the primary reason the band was successful.

Without Mike, Van Halen would have been less successful than they were, but still more successful than they would've been with Mike and without Eddie.

I know we all love Mike, but this is bordering on ridiculous.

You've been awfully VH 4 apologist lately. :)

It's not ridiculous. Nobody said Ed isn't the cornerstone. As you said, VH is the sum of its parts, no less or more. You're contradicting yourself, by claiming Mike's importance is less than Ed's, yet maintaining VH is the sum of its parts. Those statements are mutually exclusive. I dunno why you flipped, maybe you had a better time at VH 4 than you thought you would. But Ed without any of the others isn't Van Halen.

There are Van Halen fans, and there are Eddie Van Halen fans. This tour above all others has shown who's who.

What borders on ridiculous is the flip flopping so-called long term fans engaged in when they 'had' to accept Mike being replaced by Ed's kid, and how 'pragmatic' nearly everyone got about it....:rolleyes:

Ya know, even if you're starving, you really don't have to eat a shit sandwich. It's toxic and bad for you and might skew your standards. :)

Let's put it another way....without four of five of these guys, it isn't Van Halen. It's something else, just like VH III was. VH 4 is another Van Halen-ISH type gig. Van Halen? Nope.

You've been awfully VH 4 apologist lately. :)

It's not ridiculous. Nobody said Ed isn't the cornerstone. As you said, VH is the sum of its parts, no less or more. You're contradicting yourself, by claiming Mike's importance is less than Ed's, yet maintaining VH is the sum of its parts. Those statements are mutually exclusive. I dunno why you flipped, maybe you had a better time at VH 4 than you thought you would. But Ed without any of the others isn't Van Halen.

There are Van Halen fans, and there are Eddie Van Halen fans. This tour above all others has shown who's who.

What borders on ridiculous is the flip flopping so-called long term fans engaged in when they 'had' to accept Mike being replaced by Ed's kid, and how 'pragmatic' nearly everyone got about it....:rolleyes:

Ya know, even if you're starving, you really don't have to eat a shit sandwich. It's toxic and bad for you and might skew your standards. :)

Let's put it another way....without four of five of these guys, it isn't Van Halen. It's something else, just like VH III was. VH 4 is another Van Halen-ISH type gig. Van Halen? Nope.

I'm not apologizing for anything.

It sucks that MA isn't in this band anymore and it's silly that Wolfie is. I've never stated differently. I would never try to defend that move and it ticks me off to this day.

I don't know why everyone has to assume that because I don't think Mike was as important as Ed it's a dig at Mike or an insult to him. I don't think Dave, Sam, or Al were as important either. Does that mean Ed can do whatever he wants and it'll turn out great--uh, no. See VHIII.

There was no contradiction of myself either. The band is greater than the sum of its parts--that doesn't mean the parts are all equal. How is that a contradiction? Let's assign a numeric value to each guy. If Ed is a 5 and Dave, Mike, and Al 4s, then together they make 25. Thus the sum is greater than the parts, but not all parts are equal.

I feel like I'm living in an alternate reality when my statement that the guy who wrote nearly all the damn music for the band was the most important member is somehow perceived as an insult to the other members.

Further, what does any of this have to do with VHIV? I thought we were discussing whether Mike was as important as Ed.

Since you brought up VHIV, not me, perhaps you're the one who's letting your negative feeling about it cloud your judgement on everything that transpired from 1978-2004?

Perhaps you don't quite understand what 'sum of parts' means. It has nothing to do with greater or lesser degrees of contribution, as you made it out to be. It means that without any one aspect of that sum, the whole is less than what it should be, which means by definition all parts are equally essential if their absence affects the totality of the whole, or if their replacements or proxies fill that role with less than equal or better cohesion.

I get what you're saying, but I see the band as The Band, not as Eddie's outfit. In that sense, none of them are replaceable, and all of them are equally important to making up the true Van Halen. Obviously Eddie is the keystone, nobody, even the band itself, denies that. But Eddie isn't jack shit without Alex, Dave, Sam, or Mike. He's just another Yngwie/Satch/Vai solo artist playing thousand seat clubs.

Without Mike, Van Halen would have been less successful than they were, but still more successful than they would've been with Mike and without Eddie.




I pretty much agree with all of your perspective on this topic but I don't believe for a second that Van Halen would have been any less successful had they started with a different bass player and we never knew Mike. Mikey was a nice piece of the puzzle and of course I really like him, but I have no doubts that Van Halen would have been every bit as big as they are had M.A. never stepped foot into this band.

Perhaps you don't quite understand what 'sum of parts' means. It has nothing to do with greater or lesser degrees of contribution, as you made it out to be. It means that without any one aspect of that sum, the whole is less than what it should be, which means by definition all parts are equally essential if their absence affects the totality of the whole, or if their replacements or proxies fill that role with less than equal or better cohesion.

I get what you're saying, but I see the band as The Band, not as Eddie's outfit. In that sense, none of them are replaceable, and all of them are equally important to making up the true Van Halen. Obviously Eddie is the keystone, nobody, even the band itself, denies that. But Eddie isn't jack shit without Alex, Dave, Sam, or Mike. He's just another Yngwie/Satch/Vai solo artist playing thousand seat clubs.


I understand sum of parts, thank you. :)

I understand we're you're coming from as well. Without MA, Van Halen wouldn't have been VH. I get that, and I agree. Without Eddie though, I think it would have been even less.

Let me explain in terms of your other favorite band. I love The Police. As the principal songwriter,I think Sting is the most important member of that band. As a solo artist though, I never cared for Sting as much. It just wasn't as good, probably because Andy and Stewart weren't there. They contributed to what made Sting better when in The Police. You need all three guys to call it The Police--but I still think Sting made the greatest contribution.

You can't have The Beatles withiout George and Ringo, but John and Paul were still the most important guys in that band.

Quite frankly, in any siuccessful band, off the top of my head I couldn't name one where the guy that does almost all the composing isn't the most important member.

Obviously Eddie is the keystone, nobody, even the band itself, denies that. But Eddie isn't jack shit without Alex, Dave, Sam, or Mike. He's just another Yngwie/Satch/Vai solo artist playing thousand seat clubs.

If it's obvious Ed is the keystone, then why did I get ripped for saying as much?

LOL, okay, dude. You're entitled to your opinion.

I don't rank the members of my favorite bands. I don't see Ed's axe playing as more important than Mike's bass playing because Ed's axe playing WITHOUT a rhythm section means nothing to me. Same goes for Sting without Andy or Stewart. I see them as a whole, as a One Soul unit. That's my take, and only my take, not yours or anyone else's, nor am I trying to convince you to change yours.

I'm not trying to make you change your mind.

I wonder though, if MA were still in the band and everybody was happy and doing well and there hadn't been all the drama of the last 20 years, if anybody would have said boo to the statement that "Ed was by far the most important member of the band." :sssh:

Mike and Alex are just as important to the tone and flow of Van Halen as Ed.

Accept it.

LOL, okay, dude. You're entitled to your opinion.

I don't rank the members of my favorite bands. I don't see Ed's axe playing as more important than Mike's bass playing because Ed's axe playing WITHOUT a rhythm section means nothing to me. Same goes for Sting without Andy or Stewart. I see them as a whole, as a One Soul unit. That's my take, and only my take, not yours or anyone else's, nor am I trying to convince you to change yours.

1+1+1=4, or 1+1+1+1=5.

Agreed - live it, love it, accept it...;)

1+1+1=4, or 1+1+1+1=5.

Agreed - live it, love it, accept it...;)

So that's what is wrong with Van Halen: My first wife is handling their bookkeeping. :brickwall :eek:

1+1+1=4, or 1+1+1+1=5.

Agreed - live it, love it, accept it...;)

It's complicated math to some, bud. Ah well. Whaddya gonna do.

So that's what is wrong with Van Halen

Nah. Hey, I got a super idea. I could compile a list of everything that's wrong with Van Halen. A comprehensive, detailed examination.

I'm sure folks would appreciate that around here. I mean, I HATE Van Halen, according to some. Absolutely hate 'em, yup.

I'm the Anti-Halen. http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/teufel/devil-smiley-029.gif

Mike and Alex are just as important to the tone and flow of Van Halen as Ed.

Accept it.

Thanks for not trying to change my mind. :)

Thanks for not trying to change my mind. :)

No problema, amigo. :thumb:

The first time I ever heard Van Halen.....way back when......I was really too young to truly appreciate what Eddie was doing as a guitar player....all I knew was that it sounded really cool.....but what also sounded really cool to me were the vocal harmonies that MA provided....his vocals were just as distintively Van Halen as Eddies guitar playing.....Although I agree that Eddie is the most indispenable componet......I disagree that Van Halen would have been as successful if MA never joined the band.....

Halen's backing vocals were (to me) always as noteworthy as Ed's playing. In fact before I was told that was Mike's wail in the background I just assumed that it was Ed, being the musical genius I saw him as.

Menlow's right.

Mike and Alex are just as important to the tone and flow of Van Halen as Ed.

Accept it.

C'mon really?

Alex...yes, he is a very underrated/overlooked (mostly because his brother is well Eddie Van Halen) drummer.

But Mike....nah...not the most complicated bass lines, his "Van Halen" contribution is his backing vocals...I'm pretty sure they could've found someone who had that "chemesty" with the rest of the band as well as lock in with Alex's beat.


He's a nice guy...everyone agrees, he provided very distinctive backing vocals (but c'mon this is the band that counted on continued success while changing lead singers)...he's not the most technically gifted bassist (he's not Geddy Lee...not by a long shot)....really the importance of Mr. Anthony is very overstated on this board....talk about misplaced fanboy crap....its more ridiculous than the DLR vs. Sam fued.

bringing up loyalty....this is Van Halen....not Led Zeppelin....everyone whose last name is not Van Halen is expendable/replaceable.....and they don't care what the fans think about those decisions....that is a hard cold fact.





....now let the flaming and hair splitting begin!





Unleash the hounds!

....now let the flaming and hair splitting begin!





Unleash the hounds!

Nah.....not even worth the effort, especially when I know I'm right. :D

Michael Anthony's backing vocals were just as important to the sound of Van Halen as the "guitar player".....

end of story....

Listen to Feel Your Love Tonight, Women In Love, Beautiful Girls and Romeo Delight for starters, and tell me that Mike was replaceable...:irked:

IMHO, Mike's vocals complimented Dave better than Sam, but was still an integral part of the VH sound in either era.

...IMHO, Mike's vocals complimented Dave better than Sam, but was still an integral part of the VH sound in either era.

Hell, just listen to his voice in the video that started the thread. If he can make the Golden Throated "Mr. How Many Say I" sound relatively good, he certainly must be doing something right. ;)

Hell, just listen to his voice in the video that started the thread. If he can make the Golden Throated "Mr. How Many Say I" sound relatively good, he certainly must be doing something right. ;)

Yeah, I think HMSI would have been in far better "hands" had Mike been doing the lead vocal.

Wait a minute, that would have actually made sense...:sssh:

I can appreciate everybody's respect and loyalty to Mike and I doubt there is a single person on all of these boards that isn't pissed about how he was treated. We all grew up with Mike in VH so anyone other than him (i.e. Wolfie) just feels wrong. It's just not VH.


All that being said, I think his contributions to the overall success of this band is being grossly overstated. He's a great talent and a great guy but no one will convince me this band doesn't go on to the exact same sucess if Mike's not there. Of course they do. To say that Van Halen is less successful if Michael Anthony is not there from the beginning sounds ludicrous to me.

I can appreciate everybody's respect and loyalty to Mike and I doubt there is a single person on all of these boards that isn't pissed about how he was treated. We all grew up with Mike in VH so anyone other than him (i.e. Wolfie) just feels wrong. It's just not VH.


All that being said, I think his contributions to the overall success of this band is being grossly overstated. He's a great talent and a great guy but no one will convince me this band doesn't go on to the exact same sucess if Mike's not there. Of course they do. To say that Van Halen is less successful if Michael Anthony is not there from the beginning sounds ludicrous to me.

exactly!

...All that being said, I think his contributions to the overall success of this band is being grossly overstated. He's a great talent and a great guy but no one will convince me this band doesn't go on to the exact same sucess if Mike's not there. Of course they do. To say that Van Halen is less successful if Michael Anthony is not there from the beginning sounds ludicrous to me.

Yet essentially you are dealing with an entirely hypothetical argument! You are saying that the band would be equally successful minus a key member with absolutely zero way of proving the theory, just as those saying the band would be less successful minus this input have no manner of proving their point.

The truth is both sides of the issue are not only ludicrous, yet preposterous as well as neither one is provable.

I mean come on...what if Kennedy (either one) had lived? What if Reagan had not? What if I had taken that job with the cable company in 1979? Who knows? Simple belief is not proof, and I'm not attempting to disparage either side. Yet the actual truth at work here is that there is absolutely no manner for one side to prove the other wrong, so the entire exercise is sorta pointless, ya know?

Good shit...Mike sounded better with Sam btw...IMO

All that being said, I think his contributions to the overall success of this band is being grossly overstated. He's a great talent and a great guy but no one will convince me this band doesn't go on to the exact same sucess if Mike's not there. Of course they do. To say that Van Halen is less successful if Michael Anthony is not there from the beginning sounds ludicrous to me.


If you think about it, it really isn't as crazy as it would seem. The public is extremely fickle and only rewards fame and fortune to a very small percentage of people. I would tend to think that Van Halen would have been discovered and probably experienced some success without Mike but those wonderful harmonies made Van Halen very distinctive among the competition. Who is to say what would have happened without him??? I tend to believe that it was the band as a whole with each member providing a necessary element of the end product that made them as successful as they became in the beginning.

If you think about it, it really isn't as crazy as it would seem. The public is extremely fickle and only rewards fame and fortune to a very small percentage of people. I would tend to think that Van Halen would have been discovered and probably experienced some success without Mike but those wonderful harmonies made Van Halen very distinctive among the competition. Who is to say what would have happened without him??? I tend to believe that it was the band as a whole with each member providing a necessary element of the end product that made them as successful as they became in the beginning.

I guess where we differ on this is the public perception of the band in the early days. I don't put nearly as much emphasis on the bands success as a result of Mikes vocals. This band was discovered because it was impossible to ignore the insane ability of Eddie. Combine that with a frontman like Dave and there was no stopping VH.

I am not trying to discount Mike's role as we came to know it, I'm just saying that I don't believe a different bass player in Mike's shoes from Day 1 affects the future of this band in any way. It's nice that we had Mike and of course I miss the guy, but IMO somebody else would have worked out just fine.

Wow actually real bass playing and backing in Van Halen, not like the farce now.

I guess where we differ on this is the public perception of the band in the early days. I don't put nearly as much emphasis on the bands success as a result of Mikes vocals. This band was discovered because it was impossible to ignore the insane ability of Eddie. Combine that with a frontman like Dave and there was no stopping VH.

I am not trying to discount Mike's role as we came to know it, I'm just saying that I don't believe a different bass player in Mike's shoes from Day 1 affects the future of this band in any way. It's nice that we had Mike and of course I miss the guy, but IMO somebody else would have worked out just fine.

Yes....someone else would have worked out fine.....I don't contest that....VH still would have been a hugely sucessful band with Mark Stone....but it was those harmonies that MA brought that separated them from the flashy guitar player/flamboyant frontman rabble......and bought them a larger audience....

simply awesome. Mike has been a huge inspiration to me, one of the reasons I started playing bass. I've loved VH since I first saw them in 1979, and nothing will beat that chemistry. Just as I put up with Tommy Thayer and Eric Singer in KISS now (I"m also a huge KISS fan), I will put up with Wolfgang. I don't have to 'like' it, but I go see KISS still just to see Paul and Gene, and I go see VH to see Dave and the brothers again. I didn't pay Wolfgang much attention. I would never bad mouth him. He's just a kid put into a situation and he's doing his best. He has really improved from the first Charlotte show to when I saw them again a few months later. He's a good little player.
But I would do anything to see Mike on that stage with them. As I went to the 3 VH concerts on this tour that I was able to get to, each time I thought 'Man, what if Mike was there, the original 4? Now THAT would be magic",,,,,,,,,,,,just something was missing for me. One of my heroes was missing. :(

I guess where we differ on this is the public perception of the band in the early days. I don't put nearly as much emphasis on the bands success as a result of Mikes vocals. This band was discovered because it was impossible to ignore the insane ability of Eddie. Combine that with a frontman like Dave and there was no stopping VH.

I am not trying to discount Mike's role as we came to know it, I'm just saying that I don't believe a different bass player in Mike's shoes from Day 1 affects the future of this band in any way. It's nice that we had Mike and of course I miss the guy, but IMO somebody else would have worked out just fine.

No way man! This band would NOT have been the same without Mike's presence whatsoever. Sure, you could have brought in a powerhouse lead style of bass player such as Bill Sheehan, but it wouldn't have worked. Ed knew that he didn't need a showboat sideman for his guitar playing. Mike complimented Ed's playing perfectly. Without him, this band is sorely lacking in so many different ways.

I always get a kick out of you people who preface their statement with "It's great we had Mike yada yada yah....:rolleyes:

I'll put it this way, Mike made himself an irreplaceable part of VH, and that quite simply, is undeniable. However, would they have a sold as many records without him? I'm inclined to say probably, but they could've made it with anyone as long as they had A) EVH, guitar superhero and B)DLR, the quintessential frontman. Judging by these tour figures, the argument that they would succeed sans Mike appears to be supported, although this nostalgia tour is recycled tunes that Mike added his signature vocals too.
Anyways, commercial success is one thing all it's own, something a true music fan doesn't give a damn about. In terms of sound, this current band does little justice to the name it carries. Part of it's age, but just imagine what you just watched on stage with VH as he should be, whole new ball game.

Mike makes Van Halen sound like "Van Halen". However so does Dave and Eddie or Sam and Eddie. Listen to Feel Your Love Tonight as somebody pointed out. You hear Mike for sure because he is singing the 5th harmony. Yet another important one is the 3rd that Eddie is singing. Remove that 3rd and now there is no anchor for Mike. The chorus loses its effect.

Listen to the end of "Nah Nah's" in When Its Love. You definitely can hear Mike because its eaiser to hear the 5thl. Yet underneath that is Eddie singing a 3rd. Same with Top of the World. While Mike provides the anchor for Eddie in the songs from an instrumental standpoint, Eddie provides that for Mike in the background vocals. Both guys (along with contributions from Sam and Dave) make the signature VH background vocals. Its just not Mike. Listen to The Other Half and tell me that sounds like VH singing. Just like VH3 or this current version does not sound like VH. Unless you believe that all the backgrounds are piped in.

Its funny how Mike's importance with backgrounds is viewed here because you can look at a band like Extreme which makes VH's background vocals look basic. The guy who sang the 3rd is Nuno. The guy who sings the 5th is Pat Badger. Yet in that band, Nuno is the signature guy who makes Extreme choruses sound like Extreme.

In reality everybody makes a contribution to the sound.

Mike makes Van Halen sound like "Van Halen". However so does Dave and Eddie or Sam and Eddie. Listen to Feel Your Love Tonight as somebody pointed out. You hear Mike for sure because he is singing the 5th harmony. Yet another important one is the 3rd that Eddie is singing. Remove that 3rd and now there is no anchor for Mike. The chorus loses its effect.

Listen to the end of "Nah Nah's" in When Its Love. You definitely can hear Mike because its eaiser to hear the 5thl. Yet underneath that is Eddie singing a 3rd. Same with Top of the World. While Mike provides the anchor for Eddie in the songs from an instrumental standpoint, Eddie provides that for Mike in the background vocals. Both guys (along with contributions from Sam and Dave) make the signature VH background vocals. Its just not Mike. Listen to The Other Half and tell me that sounds like VH singing. Just like VH3 or this current version does not sound like VH. Unless you believe that all the backgrounds are piped in.

Its funny how Mike's importance with backgrounds is viewed here because you can look at a band like Extreme which makes VH's background vocals look basic. The guy who sang the 3rd is Nuno. The guy who sings the 5th is Pat Badger. Yet in that band, Nuno is the signature guy who makes Extreme choruses sound like Extreme.

In reality everybody makes a contribution to the sound.

Finally...somebody who gets it! :thumb:

Menlow's right.

Yep.

I was listening to a VH mix on my iPod last night with a set of good ear buds I recently purchased and even with Mike down in the mix, damn is there some funky cool stuff in there.:thumb: