Sammy Hagar... overlooked as a great singer?

335clone said:
Clearly you lack context. Had you been a teenager in 1979 when VH hit the scene, there is no way you could have considered them overrated by any standard. You are looking through the filter of time.
Click to expand...
That happens a lot here, I've noticed. Be it VH in the 70s/80s to the Beatles in the 60s, to Elvis in the 50's, folks that didn't live through it can't relate the impact that any of them had at the time. It was all new back then. These days there's not much that's truly "new", or innovative...especially when so many folks are re-sampling older tunes and releasing them as "new".

Edit: Just to be clear, I think there are a ton of great, modern musicians cranking out top notch music. I just don't see anything revolutionary like it was in the previous decades. Compare the jump from 40's swing to where we were in the 70's popular music, to where we've come in the same 30 years since the 80's. Now you kids get offa my lawn!
 
shoeless said:
That happens a lot here, I've noticed. Be it VH in the 70s/80s to the Beatles in the 60s, to Elvis in the 50's, folks that didn't live through it can't relate the impact that any of them had at the time. It was all new back then. These days there's not much that's truly "new", or innovative...especially when so many folks are re-sampling older tunes and releasing them as "new".
Click to expand...
I agree with the first part of your statement; the combination of the music with life events when you are coming of age is powerful. I must disagree about music today; it may not speak to me, but it is no better or worse than the music of my day.

Take a look back at 60's albums, and many artists, including The Beatles, were redoing songs from the 50's. Same as it ever was.
 
Gary Blanchard said:
I agree with the first part of your statement; the combination of the music with life events when you are coming of age is powerful. I must disagree about music today; it may not speak to me, but it is no better or worse than the music of my day.

Take a look back at 60's albums, and many artists, including The Beatles, were redoing songs from the 50's. Same as it ever was.
Click to expand...
Agreed. The Beatles, Stones and Zepplin all cut their teeth on 50's and earlier music. But they progressed way beyond that. By the time Sgt. Pepper or Abbey Road was released, they were in uncharted waters. Similarly, Stairway to Heaven was a masterpiece that showed no resemblance to Howlin' Wolf. They all grew immensly over time, along with the record industry, production technology, etc etc.
 
shoeless said:
That happens a lot here, I've noticed. Be it VH in the 70s/80s to the Beatles in the 60s, to Elvis in the 50's, folks that didn't live through it can't relate the impact that any of them had at the time. It was all new back then. These days there's not much that's truly "new", or innovative...especially when so many folks are re-sampling older tunes and releasing them as "new".
Click to expand...

Yeah, and Titanic and Avatar broke box office records.

Or, to continue my Vin Diesel comparison, Furious 7 is one of the most successful films ever made.

Popularity isn't an indication of greatness, it's an indication of marketability to Asian audiences.
 
Tiltsta said:
I can't imagine describing him as overlooked. He has had a solid solo career and fronted Montrose and Van Halen. I think that is far from overlooked. He is a decent enough signer and frontman, and his curriculum vitae shows exactly that. If anything he might be a bit overrated. I was surprised VH picked him as a Roth replacement when they could have had almost anyone. I say that and I am a fan of his stuff.
Click to expand...

Agree with the first three sentences. Not so much #s 6 & 7 :wink:

When DLR "left", I was like "WOW - what's gonna happen now?". Then when Sammy was announced, I thought it was a match made in heaven. Maybe there were better singers available (were there any?), but IMO he was the PERFECT guy that no one would have expected, as he had a successful solo career going. Yeah, he gets a lot of (well-deserved) crap for his awful lyrics, but he gets a lot of undeserved crap from those who thought it was his fault that VH got "soft" after DLR left - like it was Sammy who wrote all the music. The DLR fanbois are in eternal denial that one reason that DLR and EVH were at odds was because it was Eddie who insisted on branching out into different musical directions, and DLR didn't want to (he was not a fan of "Jump" and "I'll Wait" because he thought they were too "poppy").

Other than from the VH brothers when the war of words was going on, I have never heard a bad thing about Sammy, and he lives a life that we could only dream about over 100 lifetimes.

I'm a fan.
 
Last edited:
CBHScott said:
Agree with the first three sentences. Not so much #s 6 & 7 :wink:

When DLR "left", I was like "WOW - what's gonna happen now?". Then when Sammy was announced, I thought it was a match made in heaven. Maybe there were better singers available (were there any?), but IMO he was the PERFECT guy that no one would have expected, as he had a successful solo career going. Yeah, he gets a lot of (well-deserved) crap for his awful lyrics, but he gets a lot of underserved crap from those who thought it was his fault that VH got "soft" after DLR left - like it was Sammy who wrote all the music. The DLR fanbois are in eternal denial that one reason that DLR and EVH were at odds was because it was Eddie who insisted on branching out into different musical directions, and DLR didn't want to (he was not a fan of "Jump" and "I'll Wait" because he thought they were too "poppy").

Other than from the VH brothers when the war of words was going on, I have never heard a bad thing about Sammy, and he lives a life that we could only dream about over 100 lifetimes.

I'm a fan.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I can't really say who else they could have picked, and I'm not going to 'armchair quarterback' and 'what if' the choice the band made. I think VH made a solid choice with Sammy Hagar, and their commercial success with him as frontman is a good indicator of that. As I said in my previous post, I'm a fan of Hagar.
 
I loved Tori Amos's Night of Hunters wherein she took classical pieces as inspiration for new music, kind of reversing the art song process...sort of(?). Regina Spektor has a hunk of pieces that might be fall within (or near) the realm of art song as she has very strong classical influences along with Russian folks influences. Despite my appreciation of the abilities of classical trained singers and their ability to sing opera, it's right there with modern pseudo-country/pop twang as not something that my ears enjoy.

But I digress.

I'm a Sammy fan although I rarely listen to his music. He was the best thing that happened to VH for my ears, but I get why the Roth fans weren't excited by his contributions.
 
Kerouac said:
The filter of time is precisely how we can tell exactly how overrated Van Halen is. Most of the things we like when we're teenagers is suspect.
Click to expand...

You simply have no idea how much of a game changer VH was. I actually pulled off the freeway and parked the first time eruption came on the radio. I thought aliens had taken control of the airwaves. :eek:Sure, now it sounds like any shredder you might want to name, but not then.

The same thing gets said about Hendrix. Some people just don't 'get' the impact he had.

Nobody sounded like Jimi in 1968, and nobody was anywhere close to Van Halen in 1979.


*sigh*
 
335clone said:
You simply have no idea how much of a game changer VH was. I actually pulled off the freeway and parked the first time eruption came on the radio. I thought aliens had taken control of the airwaves. :eek:Sure, now it sounds like any shredder you might want to name, but not then.

The same thing gets said about Hendrix. Some people just don't 'get' the impact he had.

Nobody sounded like Jimi in 1968, and nobody was anywhere close to Van Halen in 1979.


*sigh*
Click to expand...

I remember the 1979 VH release, and, yeah, I agree on all points.
 
Flamencology said:
The difference is that Hendrix is 70mm and EVH is Betamax.
Click to expand...

Make all the disparaging comments that come to mind, you are still wrong about their impact at the time. Besides setting the course for hard rock over the next decade, they were undeniably the premier party band. Ever.

I will not make the comparison between them as far as being equally as important in the long run, because they are not. I rarely put VH on any more, but VH1 and VH2 were solid hard rock albums.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top