Re: since when is success...
Posted by: ddregs ()
Date: June 13, 2001 06:13PM

FORD wrote:
> Eddie Van Halen, without Dave
> or Sammy is only capable of writing a one minute guitar solo.
> He can't write songs for @!#$ without the right partner, and
> even Sammy let him get away with far too much crap.

Actually, to be fair, I believe Eddie Van Halen could and still can write lots of good music. And not only guitar solos. He did one in his life and he didn't even write that. How could you say that he's only capable of writing a one minute guitar solo?


> And if
> "the singer doesn't matter" then why did Van Hagar sound
> different from Van Halen? Why did the generic hair band "Bad
> Company" sound NOTHING like the real Bad Co?

Here I agree with you. When a singer teams up with a guitarist, he leads him and cooperates with him, and he's led too. That's why Van Halen is still way better than Van Hagar IMO (and this is my personal opinion), and the chemistry of them without Dave is missing in every Van Hagar record. And that's why the chemistry of Dave WITH Van Halen is missing in every Dave release. They miss each other.

> For that matter,
> why didn't "The Firm" sound like Led Zeppelin??
>

Well, here I don't agree with you. The first Firm record has a few songs that actually sound a lot like Zeppelin. Take Midnight Moonlight, it was meant to be a Stairway II, with the acoustic intro and the majestic electric section, and other things clearly recall Zeppelin. Zeppelin was the chemistry of four people, but each one still carries on some bits of the original sound, only in different ways.
That's why I believe May's Back to the Light sounds more like Queen than every single Freddy Mercury record. The chemistry of the four guys playing together IS Queen, not Freddie Mercury IS Queen.
If Freddie Mercury IS Queen, than the crapola Living on my Own is Queen?
And, aside from me, who thinks Made in Heaven sucks big time and was put out just to cash in? I prefer Back to the Light a lot, and the chemistry of Brian May + Cozy Powell will never be repeated unfortunately.

Close your eyes...

>
> > And just because they HAD chemistry doesn't mean they can
> > recapture it. Those two crapola songs with Dave on Greatest
> > Hits proved that.
> >
>
> Crapola? They sure beat the hell out of anything Van Hagar
> did. And completely blow away ANYTHING Journey or Styx did
> with ANY singer.

They don't blow away ANYTHING Journey or Styx did with ANY singer. Different kinds of music cannot be compared. Personal opinions here. Anyway I believe they blow away almost every Van Hagar song.
As much I'd say Journey's Higher Places blow away every Journey+Perry song since Raised from Radio included.


>
> > I still think they could make a go with someone like Eric
> > Martin or Jeff Soto.
> >
>
> Eric Martin?? A guy who works with people like Billy Sheehan
> and Paul Gilbert and STILL makes cheese ballads?? No thanks.

I agree with you, but for Mr.Big, well... in their first record there wasn't a single ballad and that is a very good record. Lean Into it and subsequent records were filled with them, but The Drill Song has been plagued by Eddie Van Halen in Poundcake. I guess it doesn't bother you because it was Van Hagar...

> And hasn't Soto been a third
> stringer enough? Do you think he would even want the gig?
> Would ANY singer, after the @!#$ they have pulled since 1996?
> Why don't you ask Gary Cherone if he'd do it again?
>

Fully agreed.


> > Can you remember anything they (Foreigner) have recorded
> since Lou came
> > back?
>
> No, but then I thought Foreigner was dead with the release of
> "I Wanna Know What Projectile Vomiting Is", so I probably
> wouldn't have paid attention anyhow. Their first 3 albums
> were great, but they REALLY went lame after that. Besides,
> YOU are the one who suggested a new singer brings them back
> to life, not me.

Nothing against what you said.
The fact they released "I wanna know what love is", a very cheesy love ballad, jumped them into top charts, so they were able to tour lots of countries due to their popularity.
Same was for Van Halen with Jump.
So far, I don't mind singles that make great bands jump at the top of charts.
The important part is the single must be backed up by a great record. 1984 was, absolutely. Girl Gone Bad is Van Halen at their peak.


>
> > That's sad because Bad Co never turned into a hair bad wanna
> > be. They were AOR to the core with Brian Howe. Obviously you
> > never listened to them.
>
> They may not have dressed like transvestites or had the hair,
> but they sounded just like all the other cheese ballad
> bullshit that was on the radio in the late 80's.

Didn't ever listen to Bad Co.

>
> > Sorta like, if you keep telling yourself Dave is coming back
> > you eventually believe it?
>
> It's a fact Dave has been recording with the band at some
> point within the last 2 years. It's also a fact that they
> cannot succeed with a 4th singer. So would I rather believe
> Van Halen will be back than believe they are dead forever? Yes.

Fully agreed.

>
> > The majority of melodic rock music could be called "blah"
> > (and has by many non-fans).
>
> And rightly so. Much of it is so over-produced, generic, and
> cheesy. I have always preferred the true originals who stand
> the test of time. And I can usually tell who that's going to
> be even with their first album.

Agreed.
A song like Journey's latest Higher Places is a classic right now. Just like Any Way You Want It, Jump, I Want to Know What Love is.
Sorry, but when most of the people think about Van Halen, they come up with Jump. Foreigner, I Want to Know what Love is.
MTV did that.
And... what was up in the charts in mid-90s? grunge-crap like Nirvana and the clones, dance-acts like Take That and the clones. Thanx to MTV and the grunge generation. The wave of destroyal hit the music just like punk almost destroyed everything out there. Story always repeats itself.

Navigate: Previous MessageNext Message
Options: ReplyQuote


SubjectViewsWritten ByPosted
Why do people want Queen "back"??? 75 Misterpomp 06/09/2001 05:02AM
Re: Why do people want Queen "back"??? 51 Brian 06/09/2001 05:36AM
Re: Why do people want Queen "back"??? 50 Captain Can Man 06/09/2001 05:44AM
Re: Why do people want Queen "back"??? 59 Captain Can Man 06/09/2001 05:42AM
Re: Why do people want Queen "back"??? 60dave06/09/2001 05:49AM
Re: Why do people want Queen "back"??? 52Surfpunk06/09/2001 06:04AM
Re: Why do people want Queen "back"??? 58Doc K06/09/2001 06:34AM
in tribute of? 56 sfk kurt 06/09/2001 06:45AM
Successfully???? 46 Misterpomp 06/09/2001 08:35PM
Re: Successfully???? 52 sfk kurt 06/09/2001 09:52PM
Re: The Trick of Genesis 53 Eric Abrahamsen 06/09/2001 11:42PM
Not "back" but "forward"! 52 koogles 06/09/2001 09:35AM
That's my point ... 51 Misterpomp 06/09/2001 08:38PM
did you ever think... 60 sfk kurt 06/09/2001 09:53PM
Good point ... 65 Misterpomp 06/10/2001 02:03AM
Re: That's my point ... 53 Matt 06/10/2001 01:06PM
Re: That's my point ... 45 FORD 06/11/2001 01:59AM
Actually I'd disagree there ... 54 Misterpomp 06/11/2001 04:04AM
well it sure as @!#$ aint gonna be David Lee Hairp 54 sfk kurt 06/11/2001 04:30AM
since when is success... 48 sfk kurt 06/11/2001 04:37AM
Re: since when is success... 48 FORD 06/11/2001 11:57AM
Re: since when is success... 59 sfk kurt 06/11/2001 11:01PM
Re: since when is success... 50 FORD 06/12/2001 04:58AM
Re: since when is success... 53 sfk kurt 06/12/2001 05:32AM
Re: since when is success... 59 FORD 06/12/2001 02:31PM
Hey FORD! 49 Captain Can Man 06/12/2001 11:07AM
Re: Hey FORD! 51 FORD 06/13/2001 06:04AM
Re: since when is success...51 ddregs 06/13/2001 06:13PM
Re: Why do people want Queen "back"??? 55 croman 06/11/2001 11:21PM


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Powered by Phorum.

Disclaimer: melodicrock.com takes no responsibility for the contents of messages posted on this open forum, or for the sanity of those posting.