Van Halen and the rock and roll hall of fame

mrwalkerb

k no I don't like them very much at all granted but what my real question is do they deserve it? What are people voting on? I understand teh basic requirements (25 years after first record etc.) but almost all other bands in there have better artistic merits. Granted VH sold shit loads of records in the early 80s they were huge there is no denying that but to the same effect so were N*sync and Britney, are they going to be inducted in 2018? I'm hoping for something more than "Van Halen is awesome" feedback wise here guys and gals.


edit-sorry I totally bunged up the title

Lizard

your title sounds like your against it

pearljam0000

mrwalkerb wrote:

k no I don't like them very much at all granted but what my real question is do they deserve it? What are people voting on? I understand teh basic requirements (25 years after first record etc.) but almost all other bands in there have better artistic merits. Granted VH sold shit loads of records in the early 80s they were huge there is no denying that but to the same effect so were N*sync and Britney, are they going to be inducted in 2018? I'm hoping for something more than "Van Halen is awesome" feedback wise here guys and gals.


edit-sorry I totally bunged up the title

They have a lot of number one songs.

norm

Van Halen is awesome

mrwalkerb

pearljam0000 wrote:

They have a lot of number one songs.

so do the backstreet boys, is that all it takes?

fragileblake

I agree. VH look like a bunch of posers when compared to the likes of REM and Patti Smith. How a band who wrote shit like "jump" and "hot for teacher" can be voted in above iggy pop (I saw his name on a list of noms I believe) is beyond me.

transplant

despite the fact that their first 4 discs are awesome, from what my guitar friends tell me, EVH pretty much redefined how many play the guitar. They aren't necessarily VH fans however they are blown away by how good the guy is. They don't put him in the Hendrix category obviously but they were hard pressed to come up with others that have redefined how rock guitar is played.

One can also argue that when he wasn't wasted beyond recognition, DLR was one hell of a frontman.

And besides, Zakk Wylde said he is the greatest

ok, last edit. I will admit to being surprised that anyone who likes rock music can't appreciate the DLR era.

JOEJOEJOE

I think some of the criteria for election should involve credibility. Some bands have continued to milk-it after being elected, even without many original members, but that is out of the control of the rock hall.

VH was ok with the first 2 singers, but then they seemed to be trying to milk-it when they brought in that bloke from Extreme.

Now, they have talked about touring again with DLR, and replacing michael Anthony with Eddie's son.

To me, the more changes a band makes, and the more frequent the changes, the less they deserve to be in the HOF.

Shawn Smith Collective

Here's how I see it, and while I do enjoy Roth era VH and own all those albums, I'm not a HUGE fan of VH.

Eddie played a mean guitar. His style spawned quite a following and influenced a generation of heavy metal lead guitarists.

Alex was a very solid drummer. Quite frankly, he's a much better drummer than guys in bands I really like.

Mike Anthony on bass...really I don't have much to comment on here. I've never heard anything wrong with his playing, but I've never been wowed.

Finally, David Lee Roth might be one of the best frontmen in rock history. During his tenure with VH, he had it all...voice, charisma, style.

The band cut 11 albums over a 10 year period, all of which broke the top 20 charts. Sales don't mean much to me, since you can compare sales to N' Sync and Brittney Spears...HOWEVER...bubblegum acts DO NOT maintain those type of sales because that DO NOT maintain that type of following. The only way to do that is to actually be good at what you do.

When you did deeper than the hits they're most known for, VH was not ALL party tunes. They actually have some incredible stuff.

I was not much of a fan of the Hagar years and not at all of the Cherone moment, but the had some huge hits during the Hagar years too, and as noted earlier, continued to maintain a huge and strong fanbase.

pearljam0000

mrwalkerb wrote:

so do the backstreet boys, is that all it takes?

No, that is not all that it takes. But they do kickass and the backstreet boys do not. Besides, they have Eddie Van Halen.

mrwalkerb

pearljam0000 wrote:

No, that is not all that it takes. But they do kickass and the backstreet boys do not. Besides, they have Eddie Van Halen.

uhh Kevin Richardson?? hello

I agree that EVH just shreds, I mean the guy is insane and all, even more impressive because he can't read music which makes everything else he's done more impressive. Roth on the other hand is just a fucking moron, but in the end I just don't think they deserve to be there, they are a footnote in rock and roll not a chapter.

IDgotI

I've just been swapping emails with a friend of mine who is a terrific musician and is very fond of both EVH and Pearl Jam. I've basically been explaining to him why I don't get EVH, and since I just saw this thread here, I figure I'll paste some of what I wrote below.

=========================

Van Halen to me seemes like a radioactive mutation that grew out of Page's virtuosic high speed high intensity crisp and technically precise playing.

Slash, to my mind is a slightly more palatable off shoot of Page's. I don't love him or anything, but he seems to be emotionally connected to his playing where Van Halen seems to be so over practiced that he could be thinking about his laundry or grocery shopping while he executes his performances.

But then I'm a Neil Young fan. Young is a player whose technical ability is more limited, so that the richness in his playing comes from the phrasing, the savoring of note attack, sustain and decay. Young as a player's is like a human Envelope filter. Very different musical approach.

W Van Halen I get the feeling he doesn't percieve the notes apart from being items to execute in a performance. He plays them, but doesn't seem to appreciate them as he does so. The note gets played, and followed by the next note. Sometimes it gets held for a precise count, then next note.

Young... (Mike Eddie and Stone) to me convey the *event* of playing each note, their joy of the moment they are in, and the music they are making.

I'm sure Van Halen experiences that joy as well, but I have a hunch for him it's in the compositional process, or that it's more internalized. His actual playing to me seems more sterile and precise, as though he has made it a mark of professionalism to detach himself from letting himself get too swept up in the moment because it might distract him from precise calculated execution.

I guess I've interpreted the sort of detached technical precision of Van Halen as a sort of fear of the audience, whereas I interpret the admited sloppy and raged playing of Young as a sort of courage. The precision to me translates like a technically skilled actor who has learned his lines and cues so well he can hit them all regardless of his level of stage fright.

Young is a very different sort of animal... willing to fall flat on his face in public as often as he soars because he is sharing his pursuit of a musical / improvisational ideal WITH his audience.

==============================================

Well that was what I wrote my friend.

Now I should add that my friend is an amazing musician, and he can't stand Neil Young. I guess there is a sort of color band blindness at work. Some people can't see blue, some can't see green. I don't 'get' Van Halen, apart from a "notes per minute" contest. My friend can't stand Neil Young. I wonder if there is anyone out there who loves them both? Maybe they could help bridge the gap. Anyway I know better than to dis Van Halen. There are just too many people out there who are really, really passionate and sincere about music who think he's one of the greatest of the great. To each their own I guess.

norm

IDgotI wrote:

I've just been swapping emails with a friend of mine who is a terrific musician and is very fond of both EVH and Pearl Jam. I've basically been explaining to him why I don't get EVH, and since I just saw this thread here, I figure I'll paste some of what I wrote below.

===

Van Halen to me seemes like a radioactive mutation that grew out of Page's virtuosic high speed high intensity crisp and technically precise playing.

Slash, to my mind is a slightly more palatable off shoot of Page's. I don't love him or anything, but he seems to be emotionally connected to his playing where Van Halen seems to be so over practiced that he could be thinking about his laundry or grocery shopping while he executes his performances.

But then I'm a Neil Young fan. Young is a player whose technical ability is more limited, so that the richness in his playing comes from the phrasing, the savoring of note attack, sustain and decay. Young as a player's is like a human Envelope filter. Very different musical approach.

W Van Halen I get the feeling he doesn't percieve the notes apart from being items to execute in a performance. He plays them, but doesn't seem to appreciate them as he does so. The note gets played, and followed by the next note. Sometimes it gets held for a precise count, then next note.

Young... (Mike Eddie and Stone) to me convey the *event* of playing each note, their joy of the moment they are in, and the music they are making.

I'm sure Van Halen experiences that joy as well, but I have a hunch for him it's in the compositional process, or that it's more internalized. His actual playing to me seems more sterile and precise, as though he has made it a mark of professionalism to detach himself from letting himself get too swept up in the moment because it might distract him from precise calculated execution.

I guess I've interpreted the sort of detached technical precision of Van Halen as a sort of fear of the audience, whereas I interpret the admited sloppy and raged playing of Young as a sort of courage. The precision to me translates like a technically skilled actor who has learned his lines and cues so well he can hit them all regardless of his level of stage fright.

Young is a very different sort of animal... willing to fall flat on his face in public as often as he soars because he is sharing his pursuit of a musical / improvisational ideal WITH his audience.

---

Now I should add that my friend is an amazing musician, and he can't stand Neil Young. I guess there is a sort of color band blindness at work. Some people can't see blue, some can't see green. I don't 'get' Van Halen, apart from a "notes per minute" contest. My friend can't stand Neil Young. I wonder if there is anyone out there who loves them both? Maybe they could help bridge the gap. Anyway I know better than to dis Van Halen. There are just too many people out there who are really, really passionate and sincere about music who think he's one of the greatest of the great. To each their own I guess.

Huh?

IDgotI

2 people. Me and the friend I was writing to. I'm the Neil Young fun. My friend is the Van Halen fan who hates Neil. I went back and edited the post to clarify after reading Cutback's quote.

sapperskunk

This is from Wikipedia.

Edward Van Halen's approach to the guitar involved several distinctive components. His innovative use of two-handed tapping, natural and artificial harmonics, vibrato systems, and speed picking - combined with rhythmic sensibility and a melodic approach - have influenced an entire generation of guitarists.

Whilst relatively commonplace today, Van Halens ground breaking techniques were originally a closely guarded secret; before the release of the bands eponymous first album, the guitarist would often play solos and more complex riffs with his back to the live audience. This was done at the advice of his bandmates to prevent any guitar players from stealing his style and technique before the album came out in 1978


From 1978 to 1998 the band released 11 studio albums (all of which broke the Top 20 spot of the Billboard 200 music charts[2]). The band has sold more than 75 million albums worldwide[3] and has received several Grammy nominations[4]. Van Halen is listed in the Guinness Book of World Records with the most number one hits on the Billboard Mainstream Rock List[5]. According to the Recording Industry Association of America Van Halen is #19 on the list of Top Selling Artists of all time (having sold more than 56 million albums in the U.S.)[6]. Van Halen is one of seven rock groups that have had two albums sell more than 10 million copies in the U.S. (the others being: Led Zeppelin, Eagles, Pink Floyd, Def Leppard, and The Beatles).

norm

sapperskunk wrote:

This is from Wikipedia.

Edward Van Halen's approach to the guitar involved several distinctive components. His innovative use of two-handed tapping, natural and artificial harmonics, vibrato systems, and speed picking - combined with rhythmic sensibility and a melodic approach - have influenced an entire generation of guitarists.

Whilst relatively commonplace today, Van Halens ground breaking techniques were originally a closely guarded secret; before the release of the bands eponymous first album, the guitarist would often play solos and more complex riffs with his back to the live audience. This was done at the advice of his bandmates to prevent any guitar players from stealing his style and technique before the album came out in 1978


From 1978 to 1998 the band released 11 studio albums (all of which broke the Top 20 spot of the Billboard 200 music charts[2]). The band has sold more than 75 million albums worldwide[3] and has received several Grammy nominations[4]. Van Halen is listed in the Guinness Book of World Records with the most number one hits on the Billboard Mainstream Rock List[5]. According to the Recording Industry Association of America Van Halen is #19 on the list of Top Selling Artists of all time (having sold more than 56 million albums in the U.S.)[6]. Van Halen is one of seven rock groups that have had two albums sell more than 10 million copies in the U.S. (the others being: Led Zeppelin, Eagles, Pink Floyd, Def Leppard, and The Beatles).

I believe that's true.

norm

IDgotI wrote:

2 people. Me and the friend I was writing to. I'm the Neil Young fun. My friend is the Van Halen fan who hates Neil. I went back and edited the post to clarify after reading Cutback's quote.

Thank you so much. Now it's clear.

IDgotI wrote:

I've just been swapping emails with a friend of mine who is a terrific musician and is very fond of both EVH and Pearl Jam. I've basically been explaining to him why I don't get EVH, and since I just saw this thread here, I figure I'll paste some of what I wrote below.

=========================

Van Halen to me seemes like a radioactive mutation that grew out of Page's virtuosic high speed high intensity crisp and technically precise playing.

Slash, to my mind is a slightly more palatable off shoot of Page's. I don't love him or anything, but he seems to be emotionally connected to his playing where Van Halen seems to be so over practiced that he could be thinking about his laundry or grocery shopping while he executes his performances.

But then I'm a Neil Young fan. Young is a player whose technical ability is more limited, so that the richness in his playing comes from the phrasing, the savoring of note attack, sustain and decay. Young as a player's is like a human Envelope filter. Very different musical approach.

W Van Halen I get the feeling he doesn't percieve the notes apart from being items to execute in a performance. He plays them, but doesn't seem to appreciate them as he does so. The note gets played, and followed by the next note. Sometimes it gets held for a precise count, then next note.

Young... (Mike Eddie and Stone) to me convey the *event* of playing each note, their joy of the moment they are in, and the music they are making.

I'm sure Van Halen experiences that joy as well, but I have a hunch for him it's in the compositional process, or that it's more internalized. His actual playing to me seems more sterile and precise, as though he has made it a mark of professionalism to detach himself from letting himself get too swept up in the moment because it might distract him from precise calculated execution.

I guess I've interpreted the sort of detached technical precision of Van Halen as a sort of fear of the audience, whereas I interpret the admited sloppy and raged playing of Young as a sort of courage. The precision to me translates like a technically skilled actor who has learned his lines and cues so well he can hit them all regardless of his level of stage fright.

Young is a very different sort of animal... willing to fall flat on his face in public as often as he soars because he is sharing his pursuit of a musical / improvisational ideal WITH his audience.

==============================================

Well that was what I wrote my friend.

Now I should add that my friend is an amazing musician, and he can't stand Neil Young. I guess there is a sort of color band blindness at work. Some people can't see blue, some can't see green. I don't 'get' Van Halen, apart from a "notes per minute" contest. My friend can't stand Neil Young. I wonder if there is anyone out there who loves them both? Maybe they could help bridge the gap. Anyway I know better than to dis Van Halen. There are just too many people out there who are really, really passionate and sincere about music who think he's one of the greatest of the great. To each their own I guess.

Right here. Uncle Neil and Van Halen are both great. By and large, my appreciation of music is listening. I'm not a musician and I can't read music. But whatever Neil puts together sounds good to me. And up until 1984 the same goes for VH. I can't believe that under 25 set doesn't like VH. Try to focus on the beginning with DLR. It may look cheesy now, but it was shit back then.:)

Poncier

fragileblake wrote:

I agree. VH look like a bunch of posers when compared to the likes of REM and Patti Smith. How a band who wrote shit like "jump" and "hot for teacher" can be voted in above iggy pop (I saw his name on a list of noms I believe) is beyond me.

A. Lets not forget that REM wrote "Shiny Happy people" and "Stand" (even Pearl jam recorded the gem "Bugs")


2.Let me just say that anyone who judges Van Halen merely on "Jump" and "Hot for Teacher" falls right in line with those who reduce Pearl Jam to "Alive" and "Evenflow" and think that Iggy Pop's career was merely writing songs for Cruise ship commercials.

Listen to Women and Children First, Fair Warning and the entire first album and then pass further judgement.

Thirdly. Anyone who was a rock fan from 1978 to 1984 knows Van Halen was at that time perhaps the biggest rock band in America at the very least and had a major influence on a number of hard rock bands and guitar players. If you are too young, so be it, but do a bit of research and you'll see they are quite HoF worthy (and should have been inducted 4 years ago) regardless of the recent Tomfoolery that has been going on with the band.

redrock

IDgotI wrote:

I wonder if there is anyone out there who loves them both?

I like them both, though I would take Neil Young over VH anytime.

PissBottleMan

Poncier wrote:

[Listen to Women and Children First, Fair Warning and the entire first album and then pass further judgement.

Your line reminded me of the song from Nerf Herder:

"I bought Women and Children First
Fair Warning and Van Halen II
Dance the night away

PBM

norm

Poncier wrote:

A. Lets not forget that REM wrote "Shiny Happy people" and "Stand" (even Pearl jam recorded the gem "Bugs")


2.Let me just say that anyone who judges Van Halen merely on "Jump" and "Hot for Teacher" falls right in line with those who reduce Pearl Jam to "Alive" and "Evenflow" and think that Iggy Pop's career was merely writing songs for Cruise ship commercials.

Listen to Women and Children First, Fair Warning and the entire first album and then pass further judgement.

Thirdly. Anyone who was a rock fan from 1978 to 1984 knows Van Halen was at that time perhaps the biggest rock band in America at the very least and had a major influence on a number of hard rock bands and guitar players. If you are too young, so be it, but do a bit of research and you'll see they are quite HoF worthy (and should have been inducted 4 years ago) regardless of the recent Tomfoolery that has been going on with the band.

Great post.


And great use of the word Tomfoolery!:D

mrwalkerb

PissBottleMan wrote:

Your line reminded me of the song from Nerf Herder:

"I bought Women and Children First
Fair Warning and Van Halen II
Dance the night away

PBM

I bought Van Halen One
It was the best damn record I ever owned

PissBottleMan

mrwalkerb wrote:

I bought Van Halen One
It was the best damn record I ever owned

I remember Sammy saying on MTV that Nerf Herder wanted him for the video to that song. He said he didn't want to give them any more publicity and fame off that song.

It is quite catchy.

PBM

DCGARDEN

Musically speaking, VanHalen was as gifted a band to come around in a long time. Eddie did re-define a generation of players, they've sold millions of albums, played before millions of fans.

I'd take them over the sh*t that is Bon Jovi anyday, and I don't doubt Bon Jovi will be there one day either.

Deal with it

mrwalkerb

DCGARDEN wrote:

Musically speaking, VanHalen was as gifted a band to come around in a long time. Eddie did re-define a generation of players, they've sold millions of albums, played before millions of fans.

I'd take them over the sh*t that is Bon Jovi anyday, and I don't doubt Bon Jovi will be there one day either.

Deal with it

but here's the thing everything that people have said here with the exception of the actual guitar play (which granted could be the most important part I guess) could just as well be talking about Bon Jovi and I mean BJ-tee hee- has lasted longer and been way more successfull over the last 10-15 years than van halen

norm

mrwalkerb wrote:

but here's the thing everything that people have said here with the exception of the actual guitar play (which granted could be the most important part I guess) could just as well be talking about Bon Jovi and I mean BJ-tee hee- has lasted longer and been way more successfull over the last 10-15 years than van halen

The percentage of acts in th HOF that have been relevant in the last 10-15 years is minuscule. The HOF is meant to salute and honor acts from the history of rock and roll.

Lizard

^^
Exactly. By the time they make it in, they are not BIG usually. But they were at a time. Like Van Halen was!!

JOEJOEJOE

cutback wrote:

The percentage of acts in th HOF that have been relevant in the last 10-15 years is minuscule. The HOF is meant to salute and honor acts from the history of rock and roll.

I agree that its an honor for the past, but do you think recent activity (Gary Cherone, dodgy reunion tour with Sammy) should be considered a demerit?

norm

JOEJOEJOE wrote:

I agree that its an honor for the past, but do you think recent activity (Gary Cherone, dodgy reunion tour with Sammy) should be considered a demerit?

No. In my opinion, VH is being honored for the years 1977-1985. Although they had early sucess with Sammy, it just wasn't the same. I think VH broke up in 1985. The rest was just EVH jerking off.:)

JOEJOEJOE

cutback wrote:

No. In my opinion, VH is being honored for the years 1977-1985. Although they had early sucess with Sammy, it just wasn't the same. I think VH broke up in 1985. The rest was just EVH jerking off.:)

I think it kills the legend of a band when they carry-on too long, or when "EVH jerks off"....I hope if more then 1 or 2 members of PJ decide to call it quits, the band will opt out.

Not that its a perfect comparison, but look what Axel has done to the G N R name!

PissBottleMan

I like the Dave-era stuff too, but you can discount Sammy's contribution to the band.

...and I can't believe I've been reduced to defending the Sammy stuff.

They had a lot of success from '85-'96...was it the same as the early stuff...nah...but, they were still a great rock band.

PBM