Sammy and his Dead Horse

Hagar & Halen would have been more believable.
Sam & Ed had the same Ferrari mechanic in LA. It was the Italian mechanic that suggested the both get together cuz they were both outta a job.
 
romanianreaper said:
I'm one of those rare souls that loves both Van Halen eras. I even like some of the Cherone songs. I'm a fanboi of Ed though. I picked up a guitar because of him and just thought his guitar was an appendage, not an instrument.

Eddie just wanted to create and I don't cars what anyone says, the Sammy stuff was great too. I was 15 years old when 5150 came out and I loved it because the band was still Van Halen but changed their look and started creating hits. I would have loved for DLR to have stayed but his head was the size of New York City by that point.
Click to expand...
I am right there with you. I thought both eras were great. 5150 tracks just jumped off the record to me back then and still do. Yes, EVH wanted to write more pop music etc and he did quite successfully. The band rose to greater heights than DLR could ever take them to. I never understand why everyone has to denigrate the other era and make a choice. What does it matter? This debate goes on forever - who cares?

Eat Em and Smile was a killer record too. Dave tried to get more pop oriented as well but he fell off.

I found the music in the Sammy era to be more complex and varied. I enjoyed hearing EVH evolve from the early days. Artists change and evolve - that is human nature. Only an idiot would expect an artist to write the same song over and over again.

I could live the rest of my life and never hear Ain't Talking About Love again and be fine.
 
I much prefer the Sammy Hagar era too. Better musicality and isn't way overplayed on the radio.
 
Hagar can't let it go and I don't know why other than insecurity and ego.

Van Hagar did not sell 50 million albums. It's ridiculous. Here are the totals from an Billboard article several years back. Look Roth era was classic VH, and I liked some of the Hagar era. I think "Knowledge" is an excellent album. Roth's Eat 'em was pretty damn good as well.

Fact is, as annoying as Roth has become Hagar is no different with his constant reaching out about the past. Let it go dude, you're beyond rich with your sale of the Tequila brand, hell you made more money from that than anything you ever did music wise and it's probably at the heart of the Brothers dislike of you. I still think they think something went down there without their knowledge but that's just opinion based on hearsay.
 

Attachments

  • 2024-04-01 10_02_27-Window.png
    2024-04-01 10_02_27-Window.png
    13 KB · Views: 65
Last edited:
Matt300ZXT said:
I much prefer the Sammy Hagar era too. Better musicality and isn't way overplayed on the radio.
Click to expand...
wuh ?
Sam has a weekly 2 hr radio show. He used to play other music with commentary. Since his Satriani plays VH tour every week all Sam plays is VHG.
Plus that radio station plays VHG all week long.
Cant get more overplayed than that.
 
shar-vell Dan said:
wuh ?
Sam has a weekly 2 hr radio show. He used to play other music with commentary. Since his Satriani plays VH tour every week all Sam plays is VHG.
Plus that radio station plays VHG all week long.
Cant get more overplayed than that.
Click to expand...
Especially in St. Louis.
 
jabps said:
Hagar can't let it go and I don't know why other than insecurity and ego.

Van Hagar did not sell 50 million albums. It's ridiculous. Here are the totals from an Billboard article several years back. Look Roth era was classic VH, and I liked some of the Hagar era. I think "Knowledge" is an excellent album. Roth's Eat 'em was pretty damn good as well.

Fact is, as annoying as Roth has become Hagar is no different with his constant reaching out about the past. Let it go dude, you're beyond rich with your sale of the Tequila brand, hell you made more money from that than anything you ever did music wise and it's probably at the heart of the Brothers dislike of you. I still think they think something went down there without their knowledge but that's just opinion based on hearsay.
Click to expand...
Just goes to show how he's embellished his accomplishments and out of touch with reality.
 
Idk, I'm definitely not a Van Halen freak. They were awesome and Legendary. Eddie was of course innovative and changed the game but I'm into other music a lot more.

I'm not a fan of Van Hagar at all as any VH I would listen to are the early days but Hagar is not wrong here at all.

Of course they wouldn't change their name, that would have been the worst business move they could have done. They already had the brand and that's exactly why all of these bands who have changed members did not change their name either. Unless there was a legal dispute which forced them to why the hell would they start over?

I think his comments are completely justified but he didn't write the book so, sucks for him.
 
legend71 said:
I am right there with you. I thought both eras were great. 5150 tracks just jumped off the record to me back then and still do. Yes, EVH wanted to write more pop music etc and he did quite successfully. The band rose to greater heights than DLR could ever take them to. I never understand why everyone has to denigrate the other era and make a choice. What does it matter? This debate goes on forever - who cares?

Eat Em and Smile was a killer record too. Dave tried to get more pop oriented as well but he fell off.

I found the music in the Sammy era to be more complex and varied. I enjoyed hearing EVH evolve from the early days. Artists change and evolve - that is human nature. Only an idiot would expect an artist to write the same song over and over again.

I could live the rest of my life and never hear Ain't Talking About Love again and be fine.
Click to expand...
How did they rise to greater heights? Yes they become overtly more commercial, yes they gained a different audience, yes they had number one albums but none of that translated into more record sales with Hagar. VH1 and 1984 alone sold more than the entire Hagar catalog. They were still playing the same venues with Hagar as they did with Roth. They did do the Monsters tour with Hagar but Roth was always adamant he didn't want to play stadiums although they were the highest paid band in the world with Roth and the US Festival. And neither version dominated Europe like they did the US, in fact both versions pretty much ignored that area.

I like artists growing and evolving. I think what EVH did was the next logical step and I don't think it could have happened with Roth. Sometimes fans stay for the ride, some bail and new fans come on board. And it's not about the comparison of music between the two era's, that's subjective. I just would like to know your thoughts of how they rose to greater heights.
 
Last edited:
jabps said:
How did they rise to greater heights? Yes they become overtly more commercial, yes they gained a different audience, yes they had number one albums but none of that translated into more record sales with Hagar. VH1 and 1984 alone sold more than the entire Hagar catalog. They were still playing the same venues with Hagar as they did with Roth. They did do the Monsters tour with Hagar but Roth was always adamant he didn't want to play stadiums although they were the highest paid band in the world with Roth and the US Festival. And neither version dominated Europe like they did the US, in fact both versions pretty much ignored that area.

I like artists growing and evolving. I think what EVH did was the next logical step and I don't think it could have happened with Roth. Sometimes fans stay for the ride, some bail and new fans come on board. And it's not about the comparison of music between the two era's, that's subjective. I just would like to know your thoughts of how they rose to greater heights.
Click to expand...

I think you missed my point but that is ok. Go back to arguing the Sammy vs Dave era argument that has been going on since 1986. It is a waste of time.
 
legend71 said:
I think you missed my point but that is ok. Go back to arguing the Sammy vs Dave era argument that has been going on since 1986. It is a waste of time.
Click to expand...
I wasn't being a smartass, I just asked a basic question. Also, I stated above I wasn't comparing the era's of music as I generally agree with what you said in regards to Dave and Sam and the music evolving.
 
jabps said:
I wasn't being a smartass, I just asked a basic question. Also, I stated above I wasn't comparing the era's of music as I generally agree with what you said in regards to Dave and Sam and the music evolving.
Click to expand...
Either way, if what Hagar said was true....assuming it is....Selling out every show for a decade, that is definitely something and a huge part of the band's history.
 
OldGtrGuy said:
Either way, if what Hagar said was true....assuming it is....Selling out every show for a decade, that is definitely something and a huge part of the band's history.
Click to expand...
Of course it is but the sales figures don't lie, Roth's version outsold the Hagar version over 2 to 1. So I've never understand where Sam was coming from there other than ego. I'm wasn't arguing which was better, that is completely subjective. I just asked a simple question. Not trying to start anything about why legend thought the band rose to new heights, just wondering. It's fine, not trying to piss anyone off.
 
jabps said:
Of course it is but the sales figures don't lie, Roth's version outsold the Hagar version over 2 to 1. So I've never understand where Sam was coming from there other than ego. I'm wasn't arguing which was better, that is completely subjective. I just asked a simple question. Not trying to start anything about why legend thought the band rose to new heights, just wondering. It's fine, not trying to piss anyone off.
Click to expand...
Lol yeah, I guess i missed the initial question. Can't really say they rose to anything new except a new style. My comments were geared more towards I can see why he was pissed he wasn't in the book.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top