New Van Halen - Tattoo Video

Bruins


I will stand by my statement that is a song is stuck in your head for a week it would in fact be a good song. Weather you want to admit it is a whole other story. If a hook sticks to your melon then they did something right. Much like the old Mentos commercials they were so bad it was good. How do I know this in regards to commercials and songs? Well drummer made a point of a over 50 year old song and everyone knows what it is and how it goes...(thats not good?) and Friday is such a good song I am now singing it in my head even though I have not heard it in months. Thats not a good song? Guy's I know it is not cool on prog snob central to admit to liking songs it is not "cool" to like, but I will again say they are so good cause you are talking about it and it proves a point.

 
This is just not true at all. You cannot make a statement "a song is good because it is stuck in your head" without first making the statement that "a song stuck inside your head means a good thing" and that I would love to see proven by psychology or biology cause sorry, I think that's an impossible thing to prove. There are too many factors of the mind and of psychology that can generate the effect of a song being inside your head and the idea that it is a good song is only one of the many possibilities. Yes, you can't automatically discard but to assume it is the only reason is too dismissive. Also talking about a song also doesn't automatically or only point to the idea that the song is good for exactly the same reasons. I can talk about cats or dogs all day long and you walking down the street hearing me talk about them would for you automatically denote that I must like cats and dogs. But if you were to ask me per say, I might say, no I hate them. The only way you tell if a person likes something based on whether or not they are talking about it or if it is stuck in their head is if you ask them because only the person knows the emotion attached to that response. Whether you believe them is another story, but no one but the person can describe that emotion nor is it universal by default.

^^^ Actually, there are studies of this (why you get what they call "ear worms") and it has nothing to do with whether the listener thinks the song is "good" or "bad", though I'm sure someone could (and will) argue that the same traits that go into a song being "good" will also lead to it being a candidate for "musical imagery repetition". 
 
Sorry.  Carry on. 

Stadler


^^^ Actually, there are studies of this (why you get what they call "ear worms") and it has nothing to do with whether the listener thinks the song is "good" or "bad", though I'm sure someone could (and will) argue that the same traits that go into a song being "good" will also lead to it being a candidate for "musical imagery repetition". 

Sorry.  Carry on. 

I'm glad you mentioned that because it is true.  Many times I get a song I don't like stuck in my head and there has been scientific research as to why this happens.  It has nothing to do with the perceived quality of music.

AdRock18

jammindude

bill1971


I will never complain about Queensryche going downhill anymore, compared to this, their latest album was a masterpiece.

Oh come on.   You're saying that this milquetoast track is as bad as Defecated to Chaos???      That's like comparing Status Seeker to Lulu....   I mean yeah, it not great...it's not even what they are capable of....but you're comparing something that's simply lukewarm and limpwristed to something that is truly, utterly horrible 100% pure aural DRECK.     Heck, St Anger and Lulu combined can't touch  the absolute *bile* of DoC.   

I call BS...I think you're coming up with hyperbole to get attention.  

This. Sorry, Bails, but nothing remotely compares to QR's downhill slide.

 
Huh? WhatchootalkinboutWillis?
 
I never said a thing about QR.
 

Stadler

AdRock18
 

I love Eddie but he's never done the right thing by his bandmates or his fans and now he's paying for it.

This is probably the single most accurate statement in this thread.

 
Word to ya mutha.

There is no way a song being stuck in my head = a good song automatically. I've been on this earth since the 70's and I've heard some serious shit for music since then and had it stuck in my head. BTW, Tattoo has never been stuck in my head, at least not yet. Forgettable for me so far.

cgrosso74

Just makes me miss the Van Hagar era even more. I just re-bought 'For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge' on iTunes. I just think the quality of songs with Sammy was way better overall. I'm in the minority, I know.

 
I couldn't agree more brother!

I'm enjoying seeing some of the love for the hugely unfairly maligned Van Hagar in this thread.  I agree with the poster who said F.U.C.K. is the best album by either lineup (despite the awful album title).  Balance is a little patchier but still has moments of brilliance, that riff in Seventh Seal is one of the greatest, most blistering riffs in rock history for me.
 
I'm a fan of both lineups but Hagar must seriously be laughing his ass off right now at how much better Chickenfoot is than this awful tune.  Hope the rest of the album is better but can't see why it would be, why would they not release the strongest, most accessible, song as the first single?

Peter Mc


I'm a fan of both lineups but Hagar must seriously be laughing his ass off right now at how much better Chickenfoot is than this awful tune.  Hope the rest of the album is better but can't see why it would be, why would they not release the strongest, most accessible, song as the first single?

Uh, any one of a 1,000 reasons?  This happens more often than not, actually.  If I had the initiative or time I could probably put a list of 50 albums where the lead single was not the "strongest, most accessible" (all subjective anyway) song.  I can think of two right off the top of my head, though:

Def Leppard, "Hysteria": first single, "Women" (with "Pour Some Sugar...", "Animal", "Rocket" and "Love Bites" held back).
Van Halen, "F.U.C.K.": First single, "Poundcake" (with "Right Now", "Runaround", and "Top of the World" held back).
 
You might even put Guns'n'Roses here.  The first single from Appetite was "Welcome to the Jungle", with "Sweet Child o'Mine" and "Paradise City" held back.  Not a great example, though, because Welcome later became iconic in it's own right.

Well, I like this song better now than I did two days ago, but it's still extremely weak and watered down material for VH.  Hopefully it gets better from here.

Stadler

Peter Mc


I'm a fan of both lineups but Hagar must seriously be laughing his ass off right now at how much better Chickenfoot is than this awful tune.  Hope the rest of the album is better but can't see why it would be, why would they not release the strongest, most accessible, song as the first single?

Uh, any one of a 1,000 reasons?  This happens more often than not, actually.  If I had the initiative or time I could probably put a list of 50 albums where the lead single was not the "strongest, most accessible" (all subjective anyway) song.  I can think of two right off the top of my head, though:

Def Leppard, "Hysteria": first single, "Women" (with "Pour Some Sugar...", "Animal", "Rocket" and "Love Bites" held back).
Van Halen, "F.U.C.K.": First single, "Poundcake" (with "Right Now", "Runaround", and "Top of the World" held back).

You might even put Guns'n'Roses here.  The first single from Appetite was "Welcome to the Jungle", with "Sweet Child o'Mine" and "Paradise City" held back.  Not a great example, though, because Welcome later became iconic in it's own right.

You can add to that VH's own precedent with Jump (with Panama, Hot For Teacher..and hell, EVERYTHING else on that album held back).  
 
Jump was made #1 by alot of people who didn't like Van Halen generally....it was made popular because the mass populace of people who DON'T usually like Van Halen found something that they did like.   
 
By the standards of the Van Halen followers...it's generally considered to be one of weakest tracks from 1984.  (there are people who will disagree with me...but they are in the minority.)

I am also in the camp that enjoys the Sammy stuff more. I honestly don't know why bands sometimes choose the first single to be something less than a blow-em-away track. To me, that defeats the idea that the single should promote a record. If the single is bad, it doesn't promote anything. Like Tattoo. There are already people saying that after hearing this they gave up on hoping for a good record.

Smirnoff


I am also in the camp that enjoys the Sammy stuff more. I honestly don't know why bands sometimes choose the first single to be something less than a blow-em-away track. To me, that defeats the idea that the single should promote a record. If the single is bad, it doesn't promote anything. Like Tattoo. There are already people saying that after hearing this they gave up on hoping for a good record.

"Why Can't This Be Love" was weak compared to the rest of 5150 and "Jump" wasn't nearly as good as the rest of 1984 but they went on to sell a shitload of units but I do agree that the strongest track on the recording should be the first single out.

jammindude

You can add to that VH's own precedent with Jump (with Panama, Hot For Teacher..and hell, EVERYTHING else on that album held back).  

Jump was made #1 by alot of people who didn't like Van Halen generally....it was made popular because the mass populace of people who DON'T usually like Van Halen found something that they did like.   

By the standards of the Van Halen followers...it's generally considered to be one of weakest tracks from 1984.  (there are people who will disagree with me...but they are in the minority.)

Well Jump was the main reason that the album sold as much as it did. The right choice as the first single easily imo. And even if the majority of Van Halen followers thinks it's one of the weakest songs off of 1984, what does that prove? That it's a bad song or not a "true" VH song? Please, that proves absolutely nothing. It's just a song like any other. Some like it, others don't. 
 

Smirnoff

I honestly don't know why bands sometimes choose the first single to be something less than a blow-em-away track. To me, that defeats the idea that the single should promote a record. If the single is bad, it doesn't promote anything. Like Tattoo. There are already people saying that after hearing this they gave up on hoping for a good record.

I too am baffled by this sometimes. I don't know who chooses the singles, the record company or the artist, but if the latter, maybe they are too close to their own material to be totally subjective towards it sometimes. And it ain't always easy to choose the single from an album with equally-as-good tracks. Stadler mentioned Def Leppard, they were totally lost with choosing "Women" as the first single off of Hysteria.If I remember correctly (I saw a documentary way back), they stated that they just didn't see Pour Some Sugar On Me as a smash hit or single at all but it was huge, the last single off the album. I guess they thought it was too stupid, but stupid is as stupid does sometimes 

^^^  But this is all relevant to the conversation.  I think it goes to show that artists have their own preferences like we do, and also that this stuff can't be planned to the degree that some of us think.
 
Though, I think there is some method to the madness.  There is some wisdom to the "slow burn" approach. I know Sting has said in the past that that is a strategy he has bought into.

But Sting's singles were always some of the strongest tracks he had to offer!

Can't believe anyone is seriously saying that Jump wasn't easily the most accessible song on 1984, it's got hit written all over it.  Outside of the US, it's pretty much the only VH song anyone knows!
 
All the songs mentioned on Hysteria, including Women, are pretty strong, it would have been a toss up which of those to use.  Poundcake was also an awesome rocking tune to blast out as first single and announce that you're back to kick some ass.  Perhaps they were accused of becoming too ballady and wanted to show they could rock out.  Right Now was a bit of a risk for Van Halen, a more mature thoughtful piece and the award winning video really made the song take off.  Certainly Poundcake was not a weak first single by any stretch.  Rock bands tend to release rocking tunes as the first single so they avoid alienating their hardcore audience, the ballads get an outing later down the line.
 
Certain bands like DT and recent Iron Maiden tend to save their best for the big epics and obviously can't release them as singles.  Most commercial bands though tend to release (what they percieve to be) their best, most commercial, songs as singles.  Bands like Bon Jovi, Van Halen, Def Leppard etc are trying to maximise album and ticket sales, you don't do that by hiding your best commercial hit songs from the world.

Peter Mc


Certain bands like DT and recent Iron Maiden tend to save their best for the big epics and obviously can't release them as singles.  Most commercial bands though tend to release (what they percieve to be) their best, most commercial, songs as singles.  Bands like Bon Jovi, Van Halen, Def Leppard etc are trying to maximise album and ticket sales, you don't do that by hiding your best commercial hit songs from the world.

But you are contradicting yourself.  My comment on "Women" and "Poundcake" wasn't that they weren't good songs (I love Poundcake) but you can't possibly argue that in terms of "best most commercial singles" that "Women" is the best, most commercial song on that album, nor is "Poundcake".  So if you are going to give them a pass for whatever reasons, I think - at least until you hear the followup singles - you have to give Tattoo a pass as well.  

Stadler

Peter Mc


Certain bands like DT and recent Iron Maiden tend to save their best for the big epics and obviously can't release them as singles.  Most commercial bands though tend to release (what they percieve to be) their best, most commercial, songs as singles.  Bands like Bon Jovi, Van Halen, Def Leppard etc are trying to maximise album and ticket sales, you don't do that by hiding your best commercial hit songs from the world.

But you are contradicting yourself.  My comment on "Women" and "Poundcake" wasn't that they weren't good songs (I love Poundcake) but you can't possibly argue that in terms of "best most commercial singles" that "Women" is the best, most commercial song on that album, nor is "Poundcake".  So if you are going to give them a pass for whatever reasons, I think - at least until you hear the followup singles - you have to give Tattoo a pass as well.  

Whether or not those two the songs were the single most commercial hit songs on their respective albums.  They were certainly amongst the best songs on the album, they weren't weak tracks.  So I'll slightly revise my own statement if you like and say that if Tattoo is (one of) the best songs on the album they've got problems.  My own feeling would be that if you've been away for 15 years you come back all guns blazing with a huge song and let the world know you're back and you mean business.  This song falls far short of proving that, instead a dead cert buy on 1st day of release has now become a possible purchase once I've heard some more.