Van Halen Reunites:

I’ve been out of the loop. Today is the first day, I’ve heard of this. Sammy Hagar is back as the front man and Van Halen are going on tour. Van Halen have been without a singer since their attempt to replace Hagar with former Extreme singer Gary Cherone failed.

It makes sense that this would happen eventually. There is just too much $ to be gained by reuniting and touring. And as between David Lee Roth and Sammy Hagar the band made the right choice (Roth would reunite with them in a second).

If you ask most folks which Van Halen era they prefer—the Roth or the Hagar—most choose the Roth era. It is still nonetheless possible to agree with that and believe that Van Halen are better off now with Hagar.

First, Roth is a “class A” jerk, and a wacky one to boot (BTW, anyone catch is guest appearance on the Soprano’s last night? He played himself and sat in on Tony Soprano’s card game). Sammy & the band did have some pretty big issues that resulted in their first break up, but they are much more likely able to get along for the immediate future with Hagar.

Second, Hagar is a much better singer and musician. Hagar clearly has a better voice, better range. And his voice has held up better over the years. Many of you who prefer Roth to Hagar might disagree. However, this is not a matter of “opinion,” but of “technique.” I know not everyone completely understands this, so let me elaborate: You might prefer the sound of Roth’s voice, think it much “cooler” than Hagar’s, but from a purely technical matter, Hagar is a still better singer. For instance, Freddy Mercury technically was a better singer than John Lennon—this is not a matter of debate, its like saying Barry Bonds hit more home runs that Mark McGuire. But you may still prefer the sound of John Lennon’s voice to Mercury’s (as many do). Similarly Eddie Van Halen, from a technical standpoint, is a better guitar player than Eric Clapton, but you may still prefer Clapton’s playing to Van Halen’s.

I think the reason why many folks prefer the “Roth” era than the “Hagar” has less to do with Roth and more to do with the band at that time. They were younger, had more creative energy, chemistry, and wrote better, cooler songs with Roth. And I think it was the rest of the band who supplied the creativity, the talent and basically carried Roth. I’m pretty sure that the band wrote all of the vocal melodies for Roth, but didn’t need to do so for Hagar (as I said, Hagar is just a better musician).

Roth I think is dependent on other folks, other musicians for the creative material that he performs. This isn’t so rare; Frank Sinatra never wrote any of his songs. Roth, initially after leaving Van Halen had two great solo albums that sounded more like “classic” Van Halen than the stuff Van Halen were doing with Hagar. But Roth also had a spectacular back-up band to carry him along, consisting of guitarist extraordinaire Steve Vai (who can play circles around Eddie Van Halen) and bassist Billy Sheehan. As it was with Van Halen, it was they, not Roth who supplied the creativity, the energy, and the music.

But after those two albums, Vai and Sheehan left, and Roth’s career basically went into the toilet. He just couldn’t pump out the good songs anymore, and his voice took a turn for the worse. At the same time, Van Halen were consistently producing better material with Hagar. In the end, Van Halen ended up as a success without Roth and he failed without them.