This week in 1986 Van Halen's Album 5150 was certified Platinum

Their first Van Hagar turd. Not as bad as OUbought12 but pretty bad. I remember being pretty disappointed when I heard all of the synthesizers in 1984 but holy hell, that is a brilliant album compared to this crap. Sammie Hagar is the rock version of Jimmy Buffet to me; cabo wabo duuuuuuuude.

quote:

---

Sammie Hagar is the rock version of Jimmy Buffet to me

---

From a net worth stand point you would be right. Sammy is worth more money than both Van Halen Bros combined

I bought this and OU812 on their release dates. As someone who had been listening since VHI, I wanted to believe. It just never was the same for me.

Was listening to this album yesterday. I like most of the Sammy stuff. I just treat them as two separate bands, no need for any of the "that's not Van Halen" butthurt. Seems childish.

Hang 'Em High is still Van Halen. Intruder and Little Guitars still rocked too. Nothing on 5150 compares to that. I agree that Diver Down was the beginning of the end and 1984 was the end. 5150 was the steaming afterbirth of a cynical money-grubbing union.

Love this album. I was a fan of Van Halen AND Van Hagar. IMO they carried out both versions out well.

And the Blue Angels "Dreams" video is the shite.

The purists can keep their clown show, IMHO. The Van Hagar era was far more musically sound and competent than the random musings of a guy who could just barely sing to begin with. His antics were entertaining when I was a teenager and quickly soured as I got older.

Now, do I still enjoy those early songs? Sure. Eddie's work was groundbreaking and that rhythm section was top notch. Am I clearly on #TeamHagar in the "Great Van Halen Divide" debate? Yep.

quote:

---

The purists can keep their clown show, IMHO. The Van Hagar era was far more musically sound and competent

---

well that's certainly debatable. To me it's essnetially 2 entirely differnet bands not just becaus eof the obvious change of lead singer but the overall sound of the group changed with the times beginning with 1984. Me personally I prefer the kickass, straightforward, in your face hard rock of the early days. Sure the vocals are more flash adn scream rather than nuanced runs and precise arrangements but I don't care abotu that. If you prefer the lighter, softer, dentist-rock stylings of "dreams' and "why can't this be love" then who am I to say you're wrong? IF that's your thing and your musical prference knock yourself out. But those early albusm ARE van halen, and it's what made them a worldwide phenomenon taht's still talked abotu today. If they had started out from the beginning playing synthesized lilting singalong love songs you can karaoke to we wouldn't even rmeember the name, but I mean if that's the version you prefer then rock on I guess.

quote:

---

everyone blames Sammy for Van Hagar when in reality it was EVH that wanted to go in a different direction with more Synths, Piano and a singer with more range than Roth.

---

exactly, this was already starting in 1984 culminating with Jump. Then just continued to expand from there.

quote:

---

Like it or not every Alubum with Sammy went to #1

---

Less over the top kickassery + softer/smoother vocals + more synth and piano for the ladies = a more paltable easy listening sound that's better digestable for the masses and radio play.

They have been more widely accpeted and popular after the shift but it certainly didn't mean they were "better".

Then, even when Hagar's VH were selling albums by the pile, the Roth era defined Van Halen. It still does and it always will. What made Van Halen exceptional happened on those early albums. What came later was professionally done pop rock, but most of those songs have not resonated long term.