The Battle of Van Halen and Van Hagar!

[Classic Rock Revisited Admin]

Battle of Van Halen and Van Hagar!

Now Be nice :-)

[john ezell]

there is no contest. VAN HALEN!!

[Jon]

Definitely Van Halen.

Watching the "Jump" video brings back memories of a New Years Eve party where we sat around drinking, listening to "2112" by Rush while waiting for the MTV world premiere of "Jump". We were kind of depressed after hearing the song because, back then, it wasn't what we expected from Van Halen but it eventually grew on us all, especially after hearing the whole album.

Go ahead and take all the Van Halen studio albums and rank them from best to worst. Can almost guarantee that the top 5 will be Roth heavy.

[THE GREEK]

IAM SORRY ITS VAN HAGAR,SAMMY SINGS A HELL OF ALOT BETTER,PLUS HE CAN JAM ON THE GUITAR.

[Bassville]

Van Hagar - Full Stop !

[Niels]

Absolutely Van Halen !!!!

There's not one Van Hagar-album I like.

[Gordon Williams]

This is a tough one for me. I agree that Sammy could sing Dave...uh, under the table. But Eddie was at his absolute best on guitar during the Roth era, in my opinion. More up-tempo, rockin' songs with Dave, but more harmony/melody with Sammy. Saw both live on stage, and neither disappointed at all...although at times, Dave had an annoying habit of having the microphone too far from his mouth, and I could not hear him at times. But I loved his energy and his, for lack of a better word...his act.

Final vote for me: Van Halen, but just by a small margin.

(I think they would both be "cool guys" to bring to a party!)

[Wombat]

Let's be honest - effectively two different bands even though it was only the singer who changed.

Hagar and Roth were/are such distinct personalities and singers that neither could really do the other's songs justice. I can't see DLR doing Dreams for instance or Sammy convicing me on Running With The Devil.

Each are good but for me the classic material is...Van Halen.

[Gordon Williams]

Wombat, I've never heard the "two different bands" described like that, but I believe you hit the nail right on the head. Good observation! Only 25 percent of the band changed, but yet, the entire "aura" of the band changed, for sure.

[Dave]

It became pretty obvious to me when I picked up their greatest hits CD. I didn't know half of the Hagar stuff. But I knew every Dave song and they left off about 5 or 6 that should have been there.

They just wrote better songs in the early years.

[RJhog]

Sammy sings better and plays guitar better!! That being said, I still like Van Halen better than Van Hagar. I can only think of a couple of songs from the first 6 records (Van Halen) that I don't care to listen to. In addition, I can only think of a couple of Van Hagar songs that I like to listen to.

[THE GREEK]

STOP IT ,VAN HAGAR ,SAMMY ROCKS!!!!

[Dr.J.Jones]

Ok well look at it this way. Montrose, Hagar's first band were a major inspiration on Van Halen, especially their first album. It's the same guitar sound, the same producer, plus an early version of Van Halen used to play Montrose songs in concert & in reality while Roth is the only vocalist for Van Halen I saw the band in 1984 & they absolutely sucked. I also saw Hagar's Van Halen & they blew me away.

Again, I saw the Sam N' Dave tour & Sammy blew Dave away. Roth was embarrassing, trotting out the same old, tired catchphrases he was saying in 1984. He should be a gameshow host! His agility had gone, as had his hair & he was flatter voice wise than he was before.

To be fair though it's the Roth fronted Van Halen people want to see. Although I don't consider this line-up of Van Halen to be Van Halen without Michael Anthony.