I always understood the name Van Hagar; it made total sense to me. I was a Hagar fan long before Van Halen to be honest. Now as for Eddie being entitled to keep the name, well the answer is of course so, it’s after all his actual last name. But do I think it was a good idea, nope I don’t. I think it would have been far cooler, & a lot easier for people to accept than still adhering to the entire last name of “Van Halen”. Now as for our boy “Sammy”, I will take “solo” Hagar over what he did with Van Halen any day of the week, but that’s just my personal taste. To each his own I say, if Hagar with Van Halen rocks ya, then more power to ya, but to me I tuned completely out in those days with Hagar. As far as I am concerned Van Halen died a long time ago, & in my eyes he basically got lazy as a guitar player, but that’s just how I feel about it all….
Now as for Ace, I totally agree with you that Ace is a street level player at best, now that doesn’t mean I don’t respect him for the inspiration he gave for a lot of the up & coming guitar players during his reign with Kiss, Dimebag Darrell to name just one of the many few. To me Ace is basically just a guy that was at the right place at the right time, or so I see it that ah way, maybe you do as well. Now since you mentioned Vinnie Vincent, yes that boy sure can play, I mean wicked he is, but he is as crazy as a June bug, & with him being insane, well it has only managed to exile him from the band completely & I strongly suspect forever. What a total maroon. Haaahahahahaa!
I agree the Dickinson years are by far the best, & I tuned out when he finally bailed. As for it being a good thing when a singer leaves I guess it all depends. Personally I think a lot of bands should take a lesson from rage against the machine joining up with Chris Cornell via melding into becoming Audioslave. Here is an excellent example of when I think it was almost pure genius to change the name when the original singer stepped out, why? Because Audioslave doesn’t sound a s***in ass thing like rage, and never will. Now that doesn’t make me like Audioslave any more, or less as far as their musical content goes, but as far as not insulting me by trying to pass it off as rage against the machine, well I appreciate that fact, & I also appreciate them having the balls to try something new & different, & not be afraid of not having the name as a selling point when it comes time to sell all those millions of records. So with that all said & done, my universal point is that a band can almost always make band changes when it comes to bass & guitar, even drums & it wont really effect the sound of the whole band, or at least not as detrimental as when canning your lead vocalist.
All I am really trying to say here, is that bands should not be so afraid of letting go of the original name they made it with, they should let the music do the talking, & f*** it when it comes to the original name of the band. If the music is good the people shall come/buy, the bands name could be anything, or they could look like anything, for instance they could all start wearing suit & ties, & I would still buy the music, the packaging isn’t the focus point really, its whether it kicks me in the balls or not that matters to me, but that’s just me & what I look for in a band, the actual music content.
As for "GNR" I hear ya, but to be fair Tony & Ozzy never got as stupid as Axl Rose, yuck! I have to say no to Axl being a good singer, in fact I think he pretty much sucks, & always has. Instead I will say he was a descent front man, he could work the audience pretty well, up until he lost his mind & started creating riots, lol. But I could, & can sound almost exactly like Rose, so it is on that note I base my statement of his so-called talent, the best he will get from me is he was kind of creative. Slash I have nothing but respect for, I am happy he went on to do his own thing with Velvet Revolver kind of re validating his credibility as a real rock & roll musician, instead of just another over night sensation. But Slash is no Tony Iommi if ya know what I’m sayin lol…
As for the singer is the front man; I say yes no doubt about it. Now for Tony not going to the mic stand because it would limit his playing ability. I kind of hear you, but I think Tony didn’t have the singing talent to do it himself obviously, now lets say if he could indeed sing as well as he played guitar would it have been some kind of hindrance to him, I kind of think not. It never seemed to be the case for guys like Eric Clapton, Neil Young, or John Lennon. They all made awesome careers for themselves at doing both. So it is for these reasons I feel if Tony would have had a incredible singing voice to go along with those awesome doom riffs of his, well the world might have never, ever known who the hell Ozzy Osbourne was.
Sign in for community access log in
Not a member? Sign up
Visit www.OnGuardOnline.gov for social networking safety tip for parents and youth.