Traveller69

I am missing a third option: Chickenfoot :) 

Well, you could always make your own poll, including all Van Halen-related bands and projects:
- Van Halen with Hagar
- Van Halen with Roth
- Van Halen with Cherone
- Sammy Hagar solo
- David Lee Roth solo
- Chickenfoot
 
Of course, there are heaps of other bands that have featured various members of Van Halen (either before or after they were VH members), like Extreme, Montrose, Waboritas, Tribe Of Judah, etc. I'd say that these are the typical ones that are associated with Van Halen the most though.

Van Halen went from Aint Talkin Bout Love to Why Can't This Be Love, I'll take the Aint Talking Bout Love days any day, every day

To me, "Van Hagar" IS Van Halen.
 
IMO, they went as far as they could go with DLR with 1984. If they never parted ways, I doubt very much we'd be still talking about their post-1984 releases... assuming they made many.
 
DLR = very entertaining, but also very limiting.

Two different bands, really. Apples and oranges. Both have merit, but I went with Van Halen because it's what I grew up with... the swagger, the attitude, the in-your-face out-there'ness. Oh, and no power ballads. 

I'd be curious as to the percentage of Van Hagar voters who either weren't born during the Roth era or who were too young to really "live through it."  
 
I cut my teeth on VH after the first album was released and openly embraced Van Hagar, and while I *do* dig about an album's worth of Hagar-era songs and saw them live, VH to me is the Roth era.  
 
No matter whether the new album is good or not, I'm just glad they're out there.

I agree with the idea that DLR is limiting. In a sense the first 5 albums are primarily the same. 1984 was a step into new territory but it still had the same feel as the others. 5150 was a complete break from the mold and each album after just got more and more original. Sammy Hagar took the band to the next level, a level DLR would have probably never been able to do.
 
Van Hagar all the way.

barryintexas


Van Halen went from Aint Talkin Bout Love to Why Can't This Be Love, I'll take the Aint Talking Bout Love days any day, every day

I'd argue that "Don't Tell Me What Love Can Do" is more representative of Van Hagar.
 
Really don't understand all of the fuss about the ballads of Van Hagar.  They only did 1-2 per album, and they were usually pretty good.  They still rocked every bit as much as when DLR was in the band.

Bails

Really don't understand all of the fuss about the ballads of Van Hagar.  They only did 1-2 per album, and they were usually pretty good.  They still rocked every bit as much as when DLR was in the band.

+1
 
No ballads on F.U.C.K., by the way.

Bails

barryintexas


Van Halen went from Aint Talkin Bout Love to Why Can't This Be Love, I'll take the Aint Talking Bout Love days any day, every day

  They still rocked every bit as much as when DLR was in the band.

Sorry just have to disagree with you on this one.

Don't understand why, but whatever.

Just my opinion that DLR era over rocked Hagar era and its not even close. While Hagar era was good it was a more polished and not as in your face. There are so many ripping songs from the DLR era I was just surprised by your comment.

And there are so many ripping songs from the Sammy era that I don't understand yours.
 
It's all good - like you said - we disagree.

The more I think abuot this, the more I come to the conclusion... that it is an impossible question, and while it is always up to a person's opinion (you like what you like), some of the reasons baffle me. 
 
I think some of the people here don't realize just how big Van Halen was circa 1984, and what a difference 1984 was to the hard core faithful ("keyboards???  really????").  There was arguably more "growth" between Van Halen I and 1984 than there was between 5150 and Balance.  
 
Granted, there is what many would call a musical maturity to the Hagar era records, but I think it is hard to argue that 5150 would have happened without the six albums that preceded it. 
 
Interestingly enough (at least to me) the Roth-era generated roughly 210 minutes of music (across six albums and one reunion) and the Hagar-era generated roughly 215 minutes of music (across four albums, a soundtrack, and one reunion).  I'm of the opinoin that the progression from "Atomic Punk" to "I'll Wait" to "Me Wise Magic" is far greater than "Why Can't This Be Love" to "Can't Stop Loving You" to "It's About Time". 
 
Lastly, at least three songs (four if you count "Crossing Over") contain music or riffs from the Roth-era (some even pre-Van Halen I).

Hagar easy, DLR is ok but for me I've always been more drawn to the hear what the musicians he's performed with bring than his vocals.

By the way, I meant to say "at least three songs from Balance..."

Naigewron

I guess you could include him in the poll, but I doubt he'd get many votes. Most people (me included) would say he wasn't a good fit with Van Halen, and that VH III was a very sub-par album (probably through very little fault of his, though).

 
Why would you say Cherone wasn't a good fit?  He kicked ass live on that tour.  Seemed to be just what they needed rather than the nostalgia act that they are now.
 
Although, as a disclaimer, I thought III was decent but near the bottom of the VH discography.

The album was not one of my favorites, but I would've killed to see that show live.  The full catalogue all in one fell swoop?  I'm in!  Just like I would've loved to have seen Deep Purple with Joe Lynn Turner.  Total respect for those guys for having the balls and chops to tackle any part of a legendary bands' catalogue.

As a live band I prefer Hagar. As far as the albums go, 5150 is probably my favorite Van Halen album, but I don't love all of the other Van Halen/Hagar albums.
 
On the other hand, while I love VH I, II, Fair Warning, 1984 and the original songs on Diver Down, I absolutely cannot stand David Lee Roth. Lousy musician, and I don't feel he deserves to be called a singer.
 
Basically, I feel like Eddie wrote most of his best work before Sammy joined the band, but I love Sammy Hagar.

Monk


I agree with the idea that DLR is limiting. In a sense the first 5 albums are primarily the same. 1984 was a step into new territory but it still had the same feel as the others. 5150 was a complete break from the mold and each album after just got more and more original. Sammy Hagar took the band to the next level, a level DLR would have probably never been able to do.

Van Hagar all the way.

Great Assessment.

Spunky

Naigewron

I guess you could include him in the poll, but I doubt he'd get many votes. Most people (me included) would say he wasn't a good fit with Van Halen, and that VH III was a very sub-par album (probably through very little fault of his, though).

Why would you say Cherone wasn't a good fit?  He kicked ass live on that tour.  Seemed to be just what they needed rather than the nostalgia act that they are now.

Although, as a disclaimer, I thought III was decent but near the bottom of the VH discography.

Yeah, I worded that pretty badly, but that was my point too. Cherone is a great singer, both live and in the studio, but the album they made with him was just... I don't know, it didn't have any magic, and although the songs were pretty poor even without vocals, I suspect Cherone was another part of that lack of magic and chemistry. Sometimes you can have the best musicians in the world, but if the chemistry isn't there they won't be making great music.

pullmyfinger


On record:
1. Van Halen

2. Van Hagar

3. Van Cherone

Live in concert:
1. Van Cherone

2. Van Hagar

3. Van Halen

THIS!!

I voted "both" also, for reasons already mentioned. In a nutshell (for me): VH w/ Roth was generally "party rock"; w/ Hagar it was "polished rocks." Both were great, while different.
 
And I have to give my 2 cents on VH3 and the Cherone era: I'm a big Extreme fan anyway, so when I heard he joined VH I was pumped. When I heard the album, I loved it, but I also realized it had Cherone's lyrical stamp all over it, which was a bit of a departure for them. It was like they went from "party" to deeper songs to...gasp!...SPIRITUAL songs! I guess it's a logical evolution, but I realized right away that it was going to polarize fans. In hindsight, it's sort of an anomaly album for VH, much like "The Elder" is for KISS fans. Some love it, but most die-hard fans don't.

http://www.cackblabbath.c...view-with-sammy-hagar/
I wanted to post a link to this recent interview with Hagar and felt like this was probably the right thread, considering the fact that Chickenfoot contains half of what was once Van Halen, plus Sammy makes some direct comparisons between the bands and guitarists in each group. One thing about Sammy-he doesn't pull any punches and I think he tends to be pretty honest with his comments (at the very least, he believes it's the truth).

^^^ If anyone would know, it's him.  Though the song itself is growing on me.  It's missing something... it feels like it is about to go into a soaring chorus (or the existing chorus is going to take off) and it doesn't.  But I like it better than I did at first.

This is why I love Sammy Hagar.  In an interview excerpted on Eddie Trunk's site, he, in one sentence, compares his band, man for man, with one of the greatest rock bands in history, then in the next sentence, says he would open for them in a heartbeat, for free!
 
If you take Joe Satriani versus Eddie, you take Dave Lee Roth versus me, Wolfie Van Halen versus Mikey Anthony, Chad Smith or Kenny Aronoff versus Al Van Halen…I mean, come on! You know what I mean? Man for man, who can sing the best? Dave or I, today? Who can play the best? Joe or Eddie, today? Who could play or sing the best? Wolfie or Mikey? I think it’s a joke. Sure, I love the comparison as long as it’s fair. Not because you’re a big Eddie Van Halen fan, you think that he’s God, therefore you think that he’s better than Joe; you have to be bipartisan and just listen and watch both of them play. Listen, I played with them both, I can tell you right now, there is no comparison today. Never mind the innovator that Eddie was. I’m talking about what they can play today.”
But despite all that, Hagar would be happy for Chickenfoot to open for Van Halen. “Are you kidding? Right now, for free. They wouldn’t even have to pay me.”
 
(Now, I'm not dumb; he's jabbing at VH hard, and would open because he knows there's at least a 50-50 shot they'll blow VH off the stage, but still.  I love this guy.)

Not trying to start a riot with this, but after reading Sammy's book (its name must have been RED) and listening to his music I'd say the man has always been a business man first and a musician second. Still, I've got respect for the guy even though his music has never really hit me that much, except for a few songs. 

^^^ Well, maybe I'm partial to the guy and giving him a break, but I think it is a mix of both.  At heart, I think he's a lot like Paul Stanley. Is there some calculation?  Sure.  Is there some eye to the $$$?  Sure.  But at the end of the day, neither one is really doing something they don't want to do, and both are certainly putting their heart and soul into what they do.  So how can you void them for actually making a good living at it?  And their music doesn't impact (except by name recognition) the $$$ they've made in non-music endeavors (liquor, cars, painting).   Sammy has had songs covered by a variety of artists; his music is (or at least used to be) in demand beyond "I Can't Drive 55".
And both are still bringing it in their early (Paul) and mid (Sammy) 60's, better than a lot of singers half their age.