Just heard it today for the 1st time today. It definetely got that Van Halen sound and tone to it. And of course its got David Lee Roth's half talking/singing vocals in it. 2nd time I listened to it,it reminded me of a older Van Halen song my backyard/garage band would attempt to cover called "Down in Flames" and then upon further review its sounds a bit like the James Gang song "Walk Away" with very bland artists like Daughtry on the radio,its good to have 3/4 of original Van Halen back. "Tattoo" is a very groove laden song that will grow on you.
haven't heard it but am guessing it will wind up for me like the newer Stones and Bon Jovi songs did. songs that tried to mimic their original sounds that ended up sounding like cheap imitations (even if they are imitating themselves).
It ain't no "Panama", that's for sure. It seems very lazy and uninspired. I'd imagine they're all hurting for money which is what prompted this new song and album.
If you've read Sammy Hagar's book "Red", man he makes Eddie out to be a complete nut. If half of what Sammy says in the book is true, I'm surprised he managed to complete another album.
As for the single, haven't heard it. Haven't even heard anything about it til this post, so not so good on the marketting front.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
Don't get me wrong, I like some 'Tallica, GNR, Tom Petty, and bunch of random others time to time, but musically that has to be the worst decade other than well, the 2000s and beyond. I mean grunge in the 90s came, evolved, and went. The 80s power ballad seemed to linger like stale cigarette odor on a tour bus.
As for older bands recreating more their original sound from the past, at what age is it that vocals and instrumentals just go the wayside? Just this past year alone listening to the new tracks from Bush (sounds like mid 90s Bush) and Foo Fighters (also sounded like their self-titled album), it seems doable as long as there's some semblance of artistic vision behind it. And vocally/musically they haven't totally deteriorated. It's not their ground-breaking tuneage from the 90s, but it's better than a lot of older bands who try to get back on the horse (Sorry, but Metallica's St. Anger, as someone else alluded Bon Jovi, etc.) and just don't bring the noise anymore.
Politicians are puppets, y'all. Let's get Geppetto!
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
Musical artists are in a catch 22. If a band tries to deviate from its sound from its 1st few releases,then the die hards won't buy into it....if they stay to a tried and true formula,then fans complain and gripe "how come they don't evolve" that middle ground is hard to find. I have no problem with the 80's music. the artists then actually then gave fans their monies worth...release album,promote, video, tour..repeat. Now days there is very very little originality or actual talent. You can't sing..doesn't matter...hit a button and auto tune will give the illusion that you can hit those notes on the high end. wear alot of 18k gold, gets tattoos all over your neck...you will sell. oh and go on the Grammys and sing to backing tracks. point being everything is manufactured and you don't really have to bust your dupa to make it, Nicki Minaj,Lil Wayne, Jay Z, Justin Bieber....factory assmebled. I will take Van Halen,Motorhead, Motley Crue,RATT, Duran Duran, and Prince over anything on todays current radio.
There have been bands that have changed styles and done well. Aerosmith from the 70's was not the same Aerosmith of the 80's & 90's. The Beatles of the 60's were not the same Beatles in the 70's. Both they were very successful and remained relevant throughout those periods.
Just because a band is successful at doing a certain sound means they will be successful at a different sound.
It's like Micheal Jordan, best BB player ever, terrible baseball player.
If a band changes their sound and it's good they will sell.
Van Halen from the beginning always "took shortcuts"...lazy if you will. Ted Templemen told them "if you cover a song.your half way to a hit"... "Pretty Woman:...."Dancin in the Streets".. Aerosmith really didn't change their sound or formula even in the 80's and 90's. Still very blues based and released a ton of ballads.
Aerosmith definitely changed their sound despite still relying on blues riffs in both 'eras'. They want from edgy, scratchy sounds (Sweet Emotion, Mama Kin) to a much more refined, smooth sound (Crazy, Blind Man, Amazing).
They still had some of their edgy, scratchy sound songs later (Shut up and Dance - my favorite of them), but none of those caught on.
Quote: Van Halen from the beginning always "took shortcuts"...lazy if you will. Ted Templemen told them "if you cover a song.your half way to a hit"... "Pretty Woman:...."Dancin in the Streets".. Aerosmith really didn't change their sound or formula even in the 80's and 90's. Still very blues based and released a ton of ballads.
Bah, The original 'Van Halen" was one of the best records ever! Theyve ALWAYS created good original stuff! The old stuff, for the most part is ANYTHING but lazy!
I'm not too fond of this new song though. And...
Without Michael Anthony though the circle is broken.
IMO Aerosmith when they stopped doing coke and heroin is when their music became very "radio friendly" kinda boring and not so edgy. "Angel","Jamie's Got a Gun","Cryin" blah... Even live they were paint by numbers....
Quote: There have been bands that have changed styles and done well. Aerosmith from the 70's was not the same Aerosmith of the 80's & 90's. The Beatles of the 60's were not the same Beatles in the 70's. Both they were very successful and remained relevant throughout those periods.
Just because a band is successful at doing a certain sound means they will be successful at a different sound.
It's like Micheal Jordan, best BB player ever, terrible baseball player.
If a band changes their sound and it's good they will sell.
Technically, there was no 70's Beatles because they broke up in 1970. The only period in which to draw from is 60's Beatles, as their recording career went from 1962-1969.
Quote: Van Halen from the beginning always "took shortcuts"...lazy if you will. Ted Templemen told them "if you cover a song.your half way to a hit"... "Pretty Woman:...."Dancin in the Streets".. Aerosmith really didn't change their sound or formula even in the 80's and 90's. Still very blues based and released a ton of ballads.
Can't agree with this at all. VH's first 6, the Lee Roth records are pretty tour de force if you ask me. Only a small handful of covers. As many clunkers and filler songs as Zepplin had over a similar span. If you think about it the vast majority of the "great" rock bands in history, the "classic" stadium filler rock bands are British. There's only a few american bands that had it all, so to speak. At least one awesome truly musician, a charismatic and great singer/front person and more than a few truly inspired hits. Lots of 2nd tier bands but very few top tier. Outside of VH, there's Aerosmith? Ok. 4 good early albums and a few great songs and lots of filler if you ask me. And now? I mean, they're singing Diane Warren songs now for crisakes, uhhg. Jimi & Experience.. who else? (Don't even say Kiss). VH had how many great songs over 6 solid albums? I'll even begrudgingly concede 5150 as at least a high quality 80's pop rock record even if I can't listen to it. That makes 7 albums. You can't chalk that up to skating by. They're the last of the great American hedonism bands. Hot for Teacher changed my life! lol. One end to the other that song is pure genius.
"Team Chemistry No Match for Team Biology" (Onion Sports Headline)
I was meaning as far as their singles go. Quite a few in their DLR era were covers. yes you can include KISS.They are very much a top tier band..their staying power is testament to that. who discovered Van Halen...Gene Simmons.
Van Halen's first 5 albums or so set the standard for the 80's. They had a unique sound and style that was copied by just about every rock band from the 80's until the grunge thing happened.
Eddie Van Halen's playing style was fresh and different from anything else. Their best songs were not their hits. I saw the first five tours and they were fantastic.I was a died in the wool southern rock guy, but VH quickly became one of my favorites. David Lee Roth was a great performer, and Eddie and company had great stage presence.
The only thing I hated about them, is that they sprurned copy cat bands that were crap, such as Poison, Motley Crue, and any other cookie cutter hair band from that time.
Haven't listened to the new song yet, but I heard that many of the "new" tunes are actually stuff they had written years ago, and just never finished.
David's voice sounds old, Eddie sounds great, Alex sounds very good, and Eddie's kid is adequate on bass, but its pretty obvious this is a money grab tour, and then they'll fade into the sunset, this time paying more attention to how they spend their money. I mean no offense to VH; the Who has done it 5 times.
hate to disagree,bands didn't try to copy Van Halen musically but visually yes. Motley Crue, RATT, Dokken,W.A.S.P ,Great White, GNR don't sound anything like Van Halen. But there were several bands that had the blueprint for visuals...blonde lead singer and the guitarist,bassist and drummer were brunette. DLR was never a great singer....very thin voice,can't really hold a note,but he has charisma and pizzazz. rather hear VH than a tired political band like U2 or a band that is boring as hell on stage like Dave Matthews.
That was slow loading on my computer so I only got the first 90 seconds or so. No problem though, because that's all I had to hear to know that it suuuuuucked.
I just listened to it again ....just to make sure that I wasn't unfairly dismissing the song without giving it a fair chance.
Eddie can still play. David Lee Roth can probably still sing as well as he ever did. The song is just ....... nothing special anywhere. It feels like filler.
I look back at the great DLR Van Halen stuff ...... Hot for Teacher, Runnin' with the Devil, Ain't Talkin' "Bout Love, Jaime's Crying, And the Cradle Will Rock .......... hell ... even songs like Dance the Night Away and Jump had a drive to them that was unmistakable. This song had nothing. It's boring.
I liked some of the Van Hagar stuff. My biggest problem with Van Hagar was that they combined 2 acts that I liked and that they could have released more stuff if they had stayed apart.
I couldn't tell you a single Gary Cherone / Van Halen song.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
I for one like it. I have always preferred the David Lee Roth VH years to the Sam Halen VH years. Saw them in Cleveland in 2007 and they more than rocked out. As far as all of the Michael Anthony sympathizers are concerned, it sounds to me like no matter how well Wolfgang Van Halen plays for the band he will never measure up to the hero of many, that being Michael Anthony. Hey, there's always chickenfoot.
I plan on seeing them again either in Pittsburgh or Buffalo...it sucks because there are no Ohio dates on their schedule. Hopefully that will change.
"My opinions and feelings are mine and shall not be influenced by anyone....especially liberals."
My point was kinda that Roth was always far more showman than vocalist. That really drives it home.
That being said ..... I still like the old stuff.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
Quote: My point was kinda that Roth was always far more showman than vocalist. That really drives it home.
That being said ..... I still like the old stuff.
The old stuff is all I own...meaning the DLR years. Sam Halen changed the way this band sounded, and not for the better. Dreams, When It's Love, and Can't Stop Loving You sound like they're destined to be played on soft rock radio stations.
"My opinions and feelings are mine and shall not be influenced by anyone....especially liberals."
They definitely went to more of a ballad sound with Hagar ..... which I never understood.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
I don't really see a huge comparison between Montrose and Van Hagar.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
I liked "Panama", "The Cradle Will Rock", and "Ain't Talkin 'Bout Love" a lot, but my all-time fave Van Halen song is "Why Can't This Be Love?" from the Van Hagar era. My favorite from the DLR time is a hardly-ever-heard song called "Drop Dead Legs" ... "nice white teeth - Betty Boop" ... great driving music.
There isn't ONE decade in history where music was pure garbage. Now if you are talking about what was topping the charts, then you may be right, but there has always been and always will be fantastic music being made. You just might have to dig deeper than you want to . . .
As for Van Halen, I haven't heard the single, but am about to . . . I haven't been excited at all for them to get back together in the studio. I saw them on that last tour w/ Roth back and Wolfgang on bass. I loved the set-list, but man it was still a let-down. It wasn't loud enough and I feel like they were trying to cover up how bad Roth's vocal abillity has gotten. Eddie still can play. He hit every note on Eruption, just like I've heard it a bazillion times. But he just seemed in a daze the whole time . . .
What I AM excitied about is the new Black Sabbath album w/ Ozzy, also out this year. I will be going to see them on their tour for sure. . . .
There isn't ONE decade in history where music was pure garbage. Now if you are talking about what was topping the charts, then you may be right, but there has always been and always will be fantastic music being made. You just might have to dig deeper than you want to . . .
As for Van Halen, I haven't heard the single, but am about to . . . I haven't been excited at all for them to get back together in the studio. I saw them on that last tour w/ Roth back and Wolfgang on bass. I loved the set-list, but man it was still a let-down. It wasn't loud enough and I feel like they were trying to cover up how bad Roth's vocal abillity has gotten. Eddie still can play. He hit every note on Eruption, just like I've heard it a bazillion times. But he just seemed in a daze the whole time . . .
What I AM excitied about is the new Black Sabbath album w/ Ozzy, also out this year. I will be going to see them on their tour for sure. . . .
The Black Sabbath tour I heard is on hold, because Tony Iommi is recovering from cancer.
Last edited by Molly Hatchet Dawg; 01/15/1211:40 AM.
"My opinions and feelings are mine and shall not be influenced by anyone....especially liberals."
![[Linked Image from mypsn.eu.playstation.com]](http://mypsn.eu.playstation.com/psn/profile/Letherface.png)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/PortlandDawg/banner.jpg)
