![]() Plenty of people dug it and it went straight to number one. When I heard 5150, it did nothing to alter my expectations: it confirmed that this incarnation was softer, weaker, and ballad-y-er. I was underwhelmed, then, to hear that the ever-uninspiring –i f stand-up dude - Sammy Hager was stepping into Diamond Dave’s stanky shoes. But I can imagine how I may have felt if Robert Plant had left Zeppelin, or, say, Corey Glover left Living Colour and I had to deal with the prospect of a replacement.įor all intents and purposes (at least as far as I’m concerned) the band did end in 1985. ![]() (Their high water mark remains Fair Warning which, despite some rough edges, still seems to represent the band at a creative peak and showcases EVH’s most ambitious and impressive playing).įor my money, it was a series of diminishing returns after this: splashes of brilliance and moments of unquestionable virtuosity, but due to alcohol, drugs, lack of inspiration, and laziness (likely some of all of these), Eddie Van Halen never really pushed himself like this again, so it didn’t devastate me when Roth left. I certainly appreciated 1984, like seemingly everyone else, but I definitely did not–and do not–consider it their masterpiece, like seemingly everyone else. I was never a die-hard Halen fan, though. I did, and honestly still do, feel the naysayers’ pain. Thanks to Roth’s ego and ambition, we got Van Hagar, and it seems like most fans abruptly split into two camps: for it and against it. What would we think of Eddie Van Halen if he had stopped making music in 1985? Imagine, instead of David Lee Roth’s semi-forced departure, the band just ended? ![]() It’s not necessarily covering the studio antics that produced OU812 or F.U.C.K., but provides some explanation (or evidence) for why Eddie Van Halen went from being one of the best guitarists of his generation to the punch-drunk burnout he’s become. Since the semi-reclusive Eddie Van Halen is less than likely to ever write an autobiography, this may be the closest eye-witness account we’ll ever get from someone who lived through it - not necessarily the good but definitely the bad and most definitely the ugly. And yet, whatever its literary merits, it may ultimately become a useful historical document. The parts of the book that focus on pre-and-post Van Halen life will probably appeal only to the most ardent Hagar fans (are there ardent Hagar fans? Anyone whose life has been missing the inside scoop of the Montrose years or an elaboration on why he can’t drive 55?). Holy “let me learn from Charlie Sheen and up the ante to move more product”, Batman!) (Breaking news, real-time edit: he is now claiming he was abducted by aliens! And here I was, just praising his business acumen. It’s a poorly-kept secret that Eddie Van Halen is difficult to get along with, and who could blame Hagar for wanting to put his imprint on the permanent record? Of course, he also has a tale to tell, particularly as he may want to set the record straight regarding his involvement in the band (and the on-again/off-again status of the various redux reunions). Who knows how much coin he has pocketed from the Van Hagar albums and the recent tours? His book will sell plenty of copies and who can hassle that? The question could be begged: why would a very wealthy dude take the time to write a book detailing the degeneracy of his former bandmate? To make money, obviously. The dude has made tens of millions from his own brand of tequila. ![]() Look: it’s obvious that Hagar is a good businessman. And when I saw there were “tell-all” excerpts from his new book, Red: My Uncensored Life in Rock (IT Books, 2011) in the latest Rolling Stone, I figured there would be some avert-your-eyes ugliness. ![]() When I heard he was tapped to replace ass-clown extraordinaire David Lee Roth in 1985, I anticipated uninspiring results. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |