VH3 review on allmusic.com (more like bashing)

[Mean_Street]

AMG EXPERT REVIEW: The "III" in the title of Van Halen III refers to unveiling of the third incarnation of Van Halen, the post-Sammy Hagar lineup featuring former Extreme vocalist Gary Cherone as lead singer. According to the party line, Van Halen ditched Sammy because they wanted to try new musical and lyrical approaches that Hagar was reluctant to pursue. And it is true that Van Halen III makes a slight break from his dunderheaded party rock, but that's a difference that only hardcore fans will be able to hear. Less tired but no more inspired than Balance, Van Halen III suffers from the same problems as Hagar-era Van Halen — limp riffs, weak melodies, and plodding, colorless rhythms. On top of that, there are layers of pretensions, from portentous lyrics to segmented song structures that don't sound all that different from "Poundcake." Evidently, the group wanted to prove that they could still rock more than they wanted to stretch their musical muscle. There are a couple of new twists on the Van Halen format, whether it's funky breakdowns or political consciousness, but it's all too familiar, since Cherone sounds uncannily similar to Sammy, and Alex Van Halen and Michael Anthony remain the blandest rhythm section in all of hard rock. That would be a shame if Eddie had a clear idea of where he wanted to take the band, but he seems content to wallow in the big arena rock he has long since exhausted, churning out faceless riffs and technically proficient guitar solos that never expand the vocabulary he established 20 years ago. Van Halen III may showcase a new version of Van Halen, but that doesn't make it a new beginning. — Stephen Thomas Erlewine

whoo..

[Dan Halen]

Less tired but no more inspired than Balance, Van Halen III suffers from the same problems as Hagar-era Van Halen — limp riffs, weak melodies, and plodding, colorless rhythms.

Van Hagar had limp riffs, weak melodies, and plodding, colorless rhythms?

[Stuff No More]

The VH reviews on allmusic.com take a very strong Roth bias.

[Guitar Shark]

None of the Van Halen eras achieved much critical acclaim, actually. For whatever reason, Van Halen has never been the critics' favorite. I think it stems mainly from the locker-room lyrics that run through most of the VH material. The critics almost universally give credit to the musicianship of the band (and Eddie's guitar and songwriting skills in particular) but they have generally been critical of the VH frontmen. Also, since Van Halen rarely had anything of "social importance" to say, the critics panned them.

Multi-platinum albums prove that the fans didn't care what the critics thought. Although it appears that most fans agreed with the critics about VHIII.

[Brett]

Like GS said, VH weren't the media darlings for sure, even with Dave. Ed got plenty of critical acclaim, you'd have to be an IDIOT to not give that to him, despite what you think of the singers.

[NxtVanHalen.]

Yep. VH3 definitly wasn't my favorite album. But To attack Balance, now that is uncalled for. That album is awsome.

[Rikk]

From what I read now, on reviews that look back, most critics tend to agree that Dave definitely brought something to the band. My problem with Sammy at the time of his era was what I knew would eventually be true...the music simply wasn't as timeless. I don't think any of the Sammy albums have aged as well. Mind you, yes I completely prefer Dave. But critics that once bashed the band tend to agree that there was much of worth in the original line-up.