If Hagar had not joined VH, who should have been the new singer?

Sparky2

Friend of Leo's
Joined
Apr 15, 2017
Posts
4,801
Age
62
Location
Harvest, Alabama
Leo Sayer had the inside track, or so I'm told.

But he had commitments.

o_O

leo sayer.GIF
 

pypa

Tele-Holic
Joined
Jul 21, 2020
Posts
725
Age
52
Location
new jersey
Steve Perry. By then his Journey was ending and it would have been a great second life for both of them. Perry had a sincere voice that wasn’t trying to be too hard or bad, which would have made a better new chapter for them.

however, looking back. Van hagar did some good work in the middle of all the hair band schmaltz. So I’d still call it an amazing success as it was. And Hagar was and is a good, smart, talented guy so I’m happy he got the boost he deserved.
 

bottlenecker

Friend of Leo's
Joined
Dec 6, 2015
Posts
4,876
Location
Wisconsin
Of course it doesn't. The thing about Van Halen is kinda like James Bond, I think. The first one that got your attention becomes your favorite. For people that were in from the beginning, Dave will always be the guy. For folks that came on board with Sammy, well, he's your man. I was in high school when 1984 was released, but also when 5150 came out. So I straddle the line as both lineups contributed to the soundtrack of my high school years.

Well, now I have to confess. I loved 5150 when it came out. I was 12. I hadn't yet grown out of my preteen love of sappy melodic rock and pop, and was a little obsessed with Ed.
By 15, I couldn't take van hagar anymore, but I still enjoyed the dlr records from time to time.
My adult brain concludes that original recipe VH is cool, and van hagar is lame adult contempoary pop.
It's not like I didn't give sammy a chance. I watched my VHS copy of live without a net many times as a young lad, and even bought OU812 when it came out, out of pure curiosity (it was terrible).

Full disclosure: I do have a personal connection to mr. hagar that causes me to think very little of him as a person. But I like lots of music by people I don't like. In hagar's case, it's just convenient that he sounds as he does.
 

bottlenecker

Friend of Leo's
Joined
Dec 6, 2015
Posts
4,876
Location
Wisconsin
I wouldn't say better, but definitely different. The music was more complex and involved with Sammy, but with Roth Eddie was under constant pressure to stay away from the keyboards and stick with the stunt guitar. Sammy encouraged Eddie to follow his whims and had the range to sing over all of it.

On the flip side, Roth VH was a stripped down, good times party band. There's an undeniable appeal to that, too.

What in the world is more complex about van hagar songs? The lyrics are embarassingly trite, and the riffs and structures are typical van halen, but mellowed out.
 

Frodebro

Doctor of Teleocity
Ad Free Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2012
Posts
17,166
Age
52
Location
Seattle
What in the world is more complex about van hagar songs? The lyrics are embarassingly trite, and the riffs and structures are typical van halen, but mellowed out.

Eddie branched out a lot more with the keyboards, so the songs were often not riff based like the majority of the Roth era songs were. This actually started with 1984, which was arguably their "crossover/breakthrough" album, so Eddie was already moving in that direction before Roth left the band.
 

bottlenecker

Friend of Leo's
Joined
Dec 6, 2015
Posts
4,876
Location
Wisconsin
Eddie branched out a lot more with the keyboards, so the songs were often not riff based like the majority of the Roth era songs were. This actually started with 1984, which was arguably their "crossover/breakthrough" album, so Eddie was already moving in that direction before Roth left the band.

I think there's nothing more sophisticated about his keyboard songs, they just have a different sound.
 




Top