Over at Kurt's Krap, there's extensive discussion of the relative merits of Sammy Hagar and David Lee Roth as the front man for Van Halen. You can also find them discussing a bunch of other songs, but the Hagar/Roth question is the important one.
By a weird coincidence, I read Chuck Klosterman's Fargo Rock City over the weekend (booklog post forthcoming), which also contains an extensive discussion of this critical pop-culture question.
It's kind of a tough call: Roth had more style, but Hagar was a little more consistent. I'd probably go with Roth, but I have a soft spot for Hagar, as the first rock concert I went to was Van Halen on the OU812 tour in Syracuse.
Gary Cherone, of course, was a total joke.
- Log in to post comments
I'd have to go with Roth. Van Halen with Hagar was a top-notch hard rock band, Hagar's had more staying power (and as you mention, consistency); but with Roth's outrageousness combined with Eddie's fireworks they were a truly original band.
I'd say Roth, although whenever I make that suggestion around my younger brother, who's the true hard-core VH fan in the family, I get derision (he's a dyed-in-wool Hagar partisan). I dunno, songs like "Dancing in the Streets" and "Running with the Devil" hit me at a particularly formative time, what can I say?
DLR -- for the spandex. And the Panama video. And the spandex on the trapeze in the panama video.
You know, neither. The Van Halen brothers were each among the best musicians in rock and roll, and together, they were unstoppable. Whatshisname the bassist at least had the sense to stay out of the way. But the joker at the microphone was always holding them back.
Roth, no question. They were a better band with Hagar, but with Roth they were at the top of the pile and one of the defining bands of the MTV era.