I See Similarities

[Strat God]

I find it interesting to look at the history of VH in comparison to bands like the Beatles -

The early stages created simple, raw dance tunes tailored for bars and parties. Then maturity set in with the sobering realization that they were the biggest thing in music and under an intense scrutiny with immense responsibility to deliver the next disc of "hits".

In both instances, VH and the Beatles did exactly that- delivered music that would alter the future course of rock music.

Anyone see other similarities?

[Otis5150]

Mark Stone = Pete Best

[AVH Blues]

I find it interesting to look at the history of VH in comparison to bands like the Beatles -

The early stages created simple, raw dance tunes tailored for bars and parties. Then maturity set in with the sobering realization that they were the biggest thing in music and under an intense scrutiny with immense responsibility to deliver the next disc of "hits".

In both instances, VH and the Beatles did exactly that- delivered music that would alter the future course of rock music.

Anyone see other similarities?

Dance to early VH? Maybe the whiteboy-redneck headbob but that is about it for dancing to Atomic Punk. About 6 or 7 years ago in a club a DJ played a remix of JUMP that people could dance to but I've never considered The Beatles or VH as producing raw dance tunes.

[chefcraig]

Dance to early VH? Maybe the whiteboy-redneck headbob but that is about it for dancing to Atomic Punk. About 6 or 7 years ago in a club a DJ played a remix of JUMP that people could dance to but I've never considered The Beatles or VH as producing raw dance tunes.

You are forgetting the awkward and unnatural manner in which white folk have danced since man first discovered rythm by banging his noggin on woodbark.

All that is needed is a steady 4/4. People have been doing the ridiculous "march in place-stomp" since Bachman Turner Overdrive set back music forever by introducing "Takin' Care Of Business" in the mid-seventies. For punk, what was "pogoing" other than simply leaping straight up and down? The "Twist"? The "Hustle"?

Given enough alcohol (or other stimulant) people will dance to just about anything. The actual music is merely incidental.

[Van Squalen]

You are forgetting the awkward and unnatural manner in which white folk have danced since man first discovered rythm by banging his noggin on woodbark.

All that is needed is a steady 4/4. People have been doing the ridiculous "march in place-stomp" since Bachman Turner Overdrive set back music forever by introducing "Takin' Care Of Business" in the mid-seventies. For punk, what was "pogoing" other than simply leaping straight up and down? The "Twist"? The "Hustle"?

Given enough alcohol (or other stimulant) people will dance to just about anything. The actual music is merely incidental.

Heck, head-bangin' and bobbin' has substituted as a type of dance for us cool type hard rockers since the days of Zeppelin.

In addition, VH covered lots of dance-style grooves back in the days of the Whiskey and the Roxy and Pasadena backyard parties. KC and the Sunshine Band, anyone? Dave digs the dance tunes.

Booze is a dance precusor, yes, and the music is indeed incidental. How many wasted gals have you seen at VH shows dancing the night away to presumably odd dance tracks like When It's Love, Unchained, or Running with the Devil?

Um, lots.

Ah, the wonders of fermented hops and grains.

[chefcraig]

Booze is a dance precusor, yes, and the music is indeed incidental. How many wasted gals have you seen at VH shows dancing the night away to presumably odd dance tracks like When It's Love, Unchained, or Running with the Devil?

Um, lots.

Ah, the wonders of fermented hops and grains.

Absolutely. Yet it indeed bares pointing out that we (meaning white folk) are so socially inept (even with the introduction of alcohol) at expressing ourselves creatively through dance that some fucker actually had to invent the concept of "line-dancing".

I find this mind-boggling, to say the least.

[Van Squalen]

Absolutely. Yet it indeed bares pointing out that we (meaning white folk) are so socially inept (even with the introduction of alcohol) at expressing ourselves creatively through dance that some fucker actually had to invent the concept of "line-dancing".

I find this mind-boggling, to say the least.

Sadly, I grew up in a southern Cal hick burg where as a local I did indeed learn to line-dance. I left the Stetson and rattlesnake hide boots at home, though.

[broken9500]

I find it interesting to look at the history of VH in comparison to bands like the Beatles -

The early stages created simple, raw dance tunes tailored for bars and parties. Then maturity set in with the sobering realization that they were the biggest thing in music and under an intense scrutiny with immense responsibility to deliver the next disc of "hits".

In both instances, VH and the Beatles did exactly that- delivered music that would alter the future course of rock music.

Anyone see other similarities?

Ok...you can certainly make a case for the similarities and I agree with your basic thought but before I elaborate I think it's important to say that the concepts of being the "biggest thing in music" and "immense...scrutiny" aren't exactly similar as they relate to these two bands. On the one hand you have the Beatles...arguably, STILL the biggest thing in music...if not from a gross sales or ticket revenue standpoint than certainly from the perspective of standard bearers. The scrutiny that they endured was not simply from the music buying public and record executives but from society as a whole. Their "influence" and "significance" reached well beyond the Billboard charts and music shops. Van Halen, at one point, was perhaps the biggest thing within their genre of "hard rock" or "rock and roll" or "heavy metal" or whatever, and their impact on style, technique and such certainly reached far and wide but only within their genre...that's not a slight against them...it's simply setting up the difference between the two...

Now as far as the similarities you listed concerning the style and feel of their initial recordings and how it progressed, I think it's a fair assessment. Both bands turned things upside down with a raw, passionate focused debut record that ripped through each track with reckless abandon. Both bands had a strong affinity towards cover tunes. Both groups began to "mature" and explore the limits of their musical ability and creativity. This is where I see a huge difference though: the Beatles, for a litany of reasons (to mention a few: less media saturation, a more open minded and ambitious audience, and the obvious benefits of being the "first" of their kind and thus had no one's shadow to live in except their own and the power and clout which comes with that) benefited from being able to follow their muse wherever it went. No other band could have pulled off Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt Pepper, the White Album, Magical Mystery Tour, Yellow Submarine, Let it Be and Abbey Road. Each album being such a dramatic departure from what had come before. Look at what happened with Brian Wilson and Pet Sounds...and more to the point of these boards look at what happened with VH3.

In order for there to be a band like the Beatles that "mature" and "explore" new territory, there has to be an audience willing to let them. For whatever reason, there are certain bands that “get” to grow and mature and others don’t. So many fans became invested in VH and EVH so much that the band and EVH became parts of these people’s identity. Thus, when the band began to “mature” beyond the point of its audience, the audience rebelled. Audience to VH: “If you aren’t you anymore…than who am I?!”

I don't think the Beatles could pull off Rubber Soul today. It wouldn't sell, record companies wouldn't want to gamble on marketing it and the audience would feel the guys had abandoned their cute mop top sensibilities for their own self-absorbed ambitions. Because of the demassification of music, and the media as a whole, the days of these types of bands are long gone. Now you have many more groups that benefit from not being beholden to the mass audience or to large record and distribution companies…EVERYTHING is “alternative” music now because there is no real dominant groups anymore…not like it was when you had Elvis, the Beatles, the Stones, the Mamas and Papas, the Beach Boys and on and on and on…these were bands that connected with the MASSES. But whatever…that’s aside the point.

Today we talk a big talk about wanting good music but I don't think people do whenever something challenges them on any level; they back off and immediately crave what worked in the past. In today's world of immediate gratification and lack of patience, no one wants to grow with their art, the way they did with art they've grown with to this point. We want everything to sound close enough to what we already love so that we don't have any adjustment but we want it to be just subtlety different enough so we can say we are always discovering "new bands" and brag about our eclectic tastes.

So…to answer your question, yes there are lots of similarities but unfortunately all the differences that define the context within which each band resides makes it impossible to really evaluate the significance or degree of said similarities.

[Rebel Yell5]

The Beatles were like any other British Invasion band at first, but they were the most successful, and most popluar at the time. They wrote their own songs. They were set apart from other Invasion bands and bands in general after they started writing more of their own hits, and being influenced more by the likes of Bob Dylan. Rubber Soul era sounded about right from above.

Beatles evolved the later their career went. I don't think many bands can say that. How many times do you hear- "I like their early stuff" about a band from people you talk to.

Few bands get better and their best is later in their career, but I can't think think of many. The Beatles were together about the same amount of time Sammy or Dave were in VH. The Beatles got better and better once they got closer to the end of their career as a group. Sgt Pepper, Magical Mystery Tour, White Album, Abbey Road, Let It Be.

I would say VH changed from what they were in the beginning, but I don't truly believe they evolved and made a Sgt. Peppers or Staitrway to Heaven as VH claimed they had in 1995 as the later part of their career went on. IMO VH was always two bands. Original and Mach II. They had slightly different styles same general message, and I think VH's masterpiece is Fair Warning. Some might say the self titled or 1984.

The Beatles it was always more clear cut what is considered their best album and their defining moment. Most point to Sgt Pepper. While VH is not the Beatles I believe the Dave years is when they put their best foot forward. I think the best overall albums and groundbreaking guitar work is from the early days of VH. So yeah I will say about VH what most might say about alot of bands- "I like their early stuff."

[vanzefflin]

There's 4 of 'em in each band

[Menlow]

There's probably about an equal chance of either group reuniting.

[belikemike]

How many times do you hear- "I like their early stuff" about a band from people you talk to.

I've always thought it was the fans close-minded attitude that brought those responses on. You like the early stuff, it's what made you first fall in love with the band, so it's always gonna be your favorite. It doesn't mean it's the best work, it's just the work that turned you on to them so naturally you'll be biased. That's just human nature.
Quite frankly, I think Balance blows away just about anything else VH has done (save maybe Fair Warning). And that record was done 20+ years into the band's history.
I know many, many Beattles fans that loved their early stuff and didn't dig the later stuff. Once again, just human nature -- don't change something I love.

[Rebel Yell5]

I've always thought it was the fans close-minded attitude that brought those responses on. You like the early stuff, it's what made you first fall in love with the band, so it's always gonna be your favorite. It doesn't mean it's the best work, it's just the work that turned you on to them so naturally you'll be biased. That's just human nature.
Quite frankly, I think Balance blows away just about anything else VH has done (save maybe Fair Warning). And that record was done 20+ years into the band's history.
I know many, many Beattles fans that loved their early stuff and didn't dig the later stuff. Once again, just human nature -- don't change something I love.

It isn't a close minded attitude to like a band's earlier material. There are alot of groups people could make this statement about, and people do. Ask fans of these acts: Pink Floyd, Iron Maiden, AC/DC, Aerosmith, and Kiss fans about earlier versus later material. They still have lead singer and material debates going on too.

Nor is it closed minded to think a band's earliest material is its best in many cases. I didn't say that was the definitive arguement; be all end all for every group ever either. I said based on what people say alot and my personal preference with VH. My point is you do hear this with alot of bands people will talk about.

Early material can be where a band puts its best foot forward when they are hungry and trying to make it, others hit their stride after a few releases. still what is my Picasso could be someone else's pile of shit. Hence the reason I am not close minded just honest about the VH I like.

Just because I don't agree that Balance was the best VH record in their repertoire doesn't mean it isn't to you. It is once again opinion. I don't think much of that VH record at all. I also don't happen to know many Beatles fans that prefer the I Wanna Hold Your Hand period compared to A Day In the Life, but that is their cup of tea.

[mannyroth]

Three words:

"Silly Love Songs"

[Rebel Yell5]

Three words:

"Silly Love Songs"

Nice. That is a whole other ball of wax! What to do when they go solo!