Van Halen Relevance if Dave Never Left

**It's Mike** · 07.30.06, 08:40 PM

Hey all,

If Dave and VH never split in 1985, how relevant do you think they would have been in 1995? For all the criticism Sammy gets from many of you, one certainly can't argue that he kept the band very relevant throughout his time in the band securing #1 albums and getting massive radio & video play in a time when that type of music really wasn't getting much. I guess what I'm asking is would the band's music with Dave fallen out of favour by 1995? His solo success certainly fell off the face of the earth by the early 90's. And other band's of their ilk, Motley and the other California bands, saw their success come to a complete halt. I wonder if Van Halen's would have as well if Dave was still fronting them? What do you all think?

**Van Squalen** · 07.30.06, 08:56 PM

Oh, they'd have surpassed the legends of Zeppelin, the Beatles, and JFK combined.

Duh.

**It's Mike** · 07.30.06, 08:59 PM

Originally Posted by Van Squalen

Oh, they'd have surpassed the legends of Zeppelin, the Beatles, and JFK combined.

Duh.

anyone sober have an opinion?

**metro3454** · 07.30.06, 09:03 PM

This is always a tough question when it comes up, and its pretty much all speculation. My opinion? Though the Roth-era will likely always be the most respected, radio-friendly, and well-known music, I think Hagar allowed them to explore new territory, new sounds, and navigate through times (late 80s early 90s) where pop rock and hard rock took a back seat to alternative and grunge. Van Hagar changed the way the band sounded, keeping somewhat true to its old roots. No matter if youre a Dave or Sam fan youve GOT to give credit to Sammy for acheiving that with Van Halen. It wasn't grunge at all, but at the same time, it wasnt 3 minute pop rock and pop metal oriented songs anymore. They picked up new, younger fans while still retaining those who never got tired (and never will) of Eddie's playing. Roth would have never written or sung (or be able to sing) darker songs and wouldve frustrated Eddie so much that it probably wouldve turned into a disaster. Does anyone seriously think an album like Diver Down wouldve sold well in 1993? No chance.

Maybe you guys will think this analogy is stupid, but here's how i look at it.
On a space shuttle launch, youve got those boosters that shoot the thing up really fast and serve a huge purpose, and its the most awesome time for everyone to watch and be amazed by. But farther up, the boosters run out and they fall away to the ground and the shuttle just sails. No matter what anyone says, I will always believe that Roth was the "booster" of Van Halen. Without him, no one hears Eddie. Without his business savvy and his antics, and willingness and deep desire to be in the spotlight at all times, Van Halen never gets off the ground and never gets noticed. And though his time was the most exciting and revolutionary, the band just wore out its welcome with Roth. The music that Roth excelled at was coming to fall out of favor with the public, it couldnt have lasted or sold well for many more years if they kept going. So as much as I love Dave, and still listen to his solo stuff, and still see him in concert. I'm grateful that Sammy was able to take the band, respect Eddie's creativity, and keep the mighty Van Halen around for another decade.

**Van Squalen** · 07.30.06, 09:09 PM

I'm dry as the well of new Van Halen music, my man.

Here's an alternate opinion. They would've sold out to the corporate whore of Babylon and Eddie and Dave's mutual pop leanings would've eventually resulted in Van Halen becoming Uber Ultra Super Night Ranger, playing the Vegas B list casino circuit free stages for drinks and tips.

That's the fun part of crystal ball speculation threads. Can say whatever you think might've happened since we'll never know either way.

**Jimmy is Cool** · 07.30.06, 09:10 PM

Originally Posted by metro3454

Maybe you guys will think this analogy is stupid, but here's how i look at it.
On a space shuttle launch, youve got those boosters that shoot the thing up really fast and serve a huge purpose, and its the most awesome time for everyone to watch and be amazed by. But farther up, the boosters run out and they fall away to the ground and the shuttle just sails. No matter what anyone says, I will always believe that Roth was the "booster" of Van Halen. Without him, no one hears Eddie. Without his business savvy and his antics, and willingness and deep desire to be in the spotlight at all times, Van Halen never gets off the ground and never gets noticed. And though his time was the most exciting and revolutionary, the band just wore out its welcome with Roth. The music that Roth excelled at was coming to fall out of favor with the public, it couldnt have lasted or sold well for many more years if they kept going. So as much as I love Dave, and still listen to his solo stuff, and still see him in concert. I'm grateful that Sammy was able to take the band, respect Eddie's creativity, and keep the mighty Van Halen around for another decade.

That is one great analogy

**LLFHS** · 07.30.06, 09:47 PM

Originally Posted by metro3454

Maybe you guys will think this analogy is stupid, but here's how i look at it.
On a space shuttle launch, youve got those boosters that shoot the thing up really fast and serve a huge purpose, and its the most awesome time for everyone to watch and be amazed by. But farther up, the boosters run out and they fall away to the ground and the shuttle just sails. No matter what anyone says, I will always believe that Roth was the "booster" of Van Halen. Without him, no one hears Eddie. Without his business savvy and his antics, and willingness and deep desire to be in the spotlight at all times, Van Halen never gets off the ground and never gets noticed. And though his time was the most exciting and revolutionary, the band just wore out its welcome with Roth. The music that Roth excelled at was coming to fall out of favor with the public, it couldnt have lasted or sold well for many more years if they kept going. So as much as I love Dave, and still listen to his solo stuff, and still see him in concert. I'm grateful that Sammy was able to take the band, respect Eddie's creativity, and keep the mighty Van Halen around for another decade.

**LLFHS** · 07.30.06, 09:49 PM

Originally Posted by Van Squalen

I'm dry as the well of new Van Halen music, my man.

Here's an alternate opinion. They would've sold out to the corporate whore of Babylon and Eddie and Dave's mutual pop leanings would've eventually resulted in Van Halen becoming Uber Ultra Super Night Ranger, playing the Vegas B list casino circuit free stages for drinks and tips.

That's the fun part of crystal ball speculation threads. Can say whatever you think might've happened since we'll never know either way.

I got news for you, Mister.....Night Ranger is in fact "Uber", "Ultra", and - yes - "Super". Unless you agree, you are dead to me.

ARMBI.

**Van Squalen** · 07.30.06, 09:56 PM

Originally Posted by LowLifeFlatHeadScum

I got news for you, Mister.....Night Ranger is in fact "Uber", "Ultra", and - yes - "Super". Unless you agree, you are dead to me.

ARMBI.

Heh.

Eddie's comin' out tonight.

**BREW CREW** · 07.30.06, 10:06 PM

Originally Posted by Van Squalen

Heh.

Eddie's comin' out tonight.

Great, another flower shop gig? Porn and flowers, that will perk it up!

**artimusbill** · 07.30.06, 10:19 PM

Originally Posted by metro3454

This is always a tough question when it comes up, and its pretty much all speculation. My opinion? Though the Roth-era will likely always be the most respected, radio-friendly, and well-known music, I think Hagar allowed them to explore new territory, new sounds, and navigate through times (late 80s early 90s) where pop rock and hard rock took a back seat to alternative and grunge. Van Hagar changed the way the band sounded, keeping somewhat true to its old roots. No matter if youre a Dave or Sam fan youve GOT to give credit to Sammy for acheiving that with Van Halen. It wasn't grunge at all, but at the same time, it wasnt 3 minute pop rock and pop metal oriented songs anymore. They picked up new, younger fans while still retaining those who never got tired (and never will) of Eddie's playing. Roth would have never written or sung (or be able to sing) darker songs and wouldve frustrated Eddie so much that it probably wouldve turned into a disaster. Does anyone seriously think an album like Diver Down wouldve sold well in 1993? No chance.

Maybe you guys will think this analogy is stupid, but here's how i look at it.
On a space shuttle launch, youve got those boosters that shoot the thing up really fast and serve a huge purpose, and its the most awesome time for everyone to watch and be amazed by. But farther up, the boosters run out and they fall away to the ground and the shuttle just sails. No matter what anyone says, I will always believe that Roth was the "booster" of Van Halen. Without him, no one hears Eddie. Without his business savvy and his antics, and willingness and deep desire to be in the spotlight at all times, Van Halen never gets off the ground and never gets noticed. And though his time was the most exciting and revolutionary, the band just wore out its welcome with Roth. The music that Roth excelled at was coming to fall out of favor with the public, it couldnt have lasted or sold well for many more years if they kept going. So as much as I love Dave, and still listen to his solo stuff, and still see him in concert. I'm grateful that Sammy was able to take the band, respect Eddie's creativity, and keep the mighty Van Halen around for another decade.

Great point. As to the whole "relevance" thing, I don't look to any rock bands for relevance. How may bands (or musical acts period) have had any relevance in the last twenty years? Mabey two or three?

**lil'devil** · 07.31.06, 02:18 AM

looking at roth now, no way.

the way i see it, van halen died in 1984.

whatever muse had visited them back in the day left when roth left. it's like night and day to me. something 'extra' was there one day and then the next it wasn't.

perhaps it was simply meant to be.

just as james dean, marylin monroe and hendrix died at times in their lives that forever cemented them in our imagination as subjects greater than they really were, so too perhaps would van halen have probably destroyed their legacy had they remained together.

sure we laugh at ed and dave now for the stupid stuff they do, but as ed has said in every interview, change a single band member and you change the band. the name of the band may be the same but it definately was simply a different band in each of its incarnations.

in retrospect, dave leaving vh at the top of their careers allows us to remember van halen for what it was, SIMPLY GREATNESS. it also lets us assign all the bad memories to other bands they formed, some of which simply have the same name.

that's the wonderfull lesson we can all learn from led zeppelin ... the zep dudes KNEW they were visited by a muse the day the had their first session (listen to some of pageys descriptions of that day), and the zep dudes KNEW the muse left the day bonzo died. the greatest thing they ever did was let zep lie.

i don't think the vh guys really get that, at least not dave nor ed.

**F'nRockstar** · 07.31.06, 07:11 AM

shoooooooooot. If Dave would've stayed, it would've gotten bad. Look at the little aint enough video... getting scary. The sam and dave tour was worse.

I think he has finally got a good style for his age. A Reunion now would be cool, but 3 years ago, no way. (As far as Dave goes) Ed would just have to get his shit together the way Dave has.

A Sam reunion would always be cool, but once again, Ed would have to come back down to earth.

**metro3454** · 07.31.06, 08:55 AM

I agree with the post above. Dave HAS actually gotten a lot of his shit together the past few years. From cutting the hair, to landing the radio spot, acting a little more mature during interviews etc. I think ALL of the attention should be on Ed now. But he should be able to take his time, the man deserves at least a couple years to get his shit together also.

**VanBlu** · 07.31.06, 04:10 PM

I pretty much agree with everything else that's said. If Dave had stayed, they would've gradually slid downhill saleswise until they croaked like every other hair band (they'd have just lasted longer). Then, they couldn've kept on chuckin' and been on all those popular 80's concerts going around the last few years. I think with Sam they changed just enough with each album to stay up there enough. (I know Eddie says he doesn't write with what's out there but that's crap, he does too; it's just usually better). I think even Ed Leffler never died they'd have carried on quite well for quite awhile longer and we'd have had a good four more albums since Balance, but oh well. I have to stop, my magic 8 ball just broke.......