Van Halen - A Different Kind of Truth

I will admit that when it comes to this line up or at least David Lee Roth in Van Halen nostalgia plays a big part in my excitement in hearing and getting this album.

Growing up, Van Halen meant everything, they were ultimate party band with the ultimate front man. They combined musicianship with a sense of fun, and DLR took nothing seriously including himself, which is his saving grace.

I am a fan of Van Halen era with Sammy Hagar and good as those albums were, to me the singer to Van Halen is always going to be David Lee Roth.

Eyesore wrote:

I think nostalgia is playing tricks on some of you. Haha.

...When OK turns to EXCELLENT instantly without any reservation, you could be Right

S.D. wrote:

This album should be cynic proof, it's a kick ass party ROCK N ROLL record.

Van Halen has reminded me that ROCK N ROLL doesn't have to be significant, it just has to be FUN. The album delivers in spades.

This is what I would expect from a VH album at this point. I may be adding this to my collection.

EmoElmo wrote:

Eyesore wrote:

I think nostalgia is playing tricks on some of you. Haha.

...When OK turns to EXCELLENT instantly without any reservation, you could be Right

That's what I mean. After so many pages of people being mostly disappointed by the samples, I'm pretty surprised by this turnaround. Haha.

And for the record, my "lap-dog fanboy" comment was said in jest. =)

Eyesore wrote:

After so many pages of people being mostly disappointed by the samples, I'm pretty surprised by this turnaround. Haha.

I'm surprised myself. There are 3 songs on the record I'm not crazy about (Tattoo, The Trouble With Never, Stay Frosty), by some odd coincidence those are the same 3 songs they previewed.

Even those songs work better within the context of listening to the album than they do on their own.

For those interested, Best Buy will have this on Tuesday. $9.99 for the regular single cd edition, $14.99 for the cd/dvd combo.

As far as I can tell, the dvd has a few live acoustic performances of older tunes on it. I don't think there are any bonus tracks. If anyone knows different, let me know.

I miss having a Best Buy nearby (even though they've been paring down their CD section for years). It's not worth the hassle of traffic to go over to the next town.

Gonna be picking my copy up from Walmart tomorrow, they'll have the CD/DVD bundle as well and supposedly a t-shirt bundle too.

I am picking up my copy tomorrow, and looking forward to it

I'm debating...I may wait til later on to pick it up.

manny wrote:

I am picking up my copy tomorrow, and looking forward to it

Likewise. I'm listening to "Tattoo" again right now. I'm really liking the song and can't wait to hear the rest of the album. "Metal" Tim Henderson gave the CD a glowing review over at Bravewords.com.

http://www.bravewords.com/news/177292

Count me as one of those that thought this album would suck ass. I am eating crow right now because I got the album a couple of hours ago and it's excellent. Definitely worthy of the VH name. Damn, I am shocked.

Gotta admit, the praise shocks me. The samples did nothing for me. But I'll gladly eat my words.

One of my friends heard Tattoo and hated it and was ready to give up on Van Halen and not go see them this tour. Then he heard the rest of the album... 1/2 way through he decided that the concert is a must.

For me, this is an album you have to listen to all the way through and the sample do not do the album justice. I think some of you will be pleasantly surprised!

thejokeriv wrote:

One of my friends heard Tattoo and hated it and was ready to give up on Van Halen and not go see them this tour. Then he heard the rest of the album... 1/2 way through he decided that the concert is a must.

For me, this is an album you have to listen to all the way through and the sample do not do the album justice. I think some of you will be pleasantly surprised!

Indeed. This is swaggering, sassy, heavy, Van Halen from the days of yore. Unbelievable really. I didn't think they could pull this off. Dave's in fine voice, Ed's shredding like crazy, Alex is pounding away and Wolfgang is acceptable. Michael's harmonies are missing but that's a minor quibble. Tattoo is crap but everything else is at least good if not great.

The more I hear of it, the more I like it. Wasn't at all impressed on first hearing Tattoo and Trouble With Never, but even Tattoo is growing on me and the other songs I've heard are flat-out awesome.

Eyesore wrote:

Gotta admit, the praise shocks me. The samples did nothing for me. But I'll gladly eat my words.

Samples really aren't indicative of how a song works, you need to hear the full song and also hear that song within the context of the album to really judge it's merit.

metalinmyveins wrote:

MEGATRON wrote:

Eyesore wrote:

I'm not buying any of the lap-dog fan-boy comments here!

My first real exposure to the band was just a few months ago. So when I say I think it's a great album (maybe even their best), I really mean it. I'm not a "lap-dog fan-boy" blinded by nostalgia.

Yeah, but in the same respect, you also haven't had decades to digest the band's earlier work. There are people on here, who started listening to the band when they first broke out on the scene, or someone like myself who remembers hearing them around '82 for the first time. Nostalgia doesn't even have to enter the picture, as Van Halen was never a band that I considered to be "My band". They rarely were a band where I made connections between their songs and powerful moments in my life. For others, I'm sure nostalgia might come big time into play.

Don't take this the wrong way, but I'm probably going to place more credence on someone's opinion of this record who has listened to the band for decades over that of someone who has only digested a band's work for the better part of a few months. That doesn't mean you're wrong about the quality of the album....

Blimey that's a bit harsh on the young lad. So by your reckoning your dismissing the opinion of a young guy that is new to the band and doesn't have decades of bias and rose tinted nostalgia infused spectacles.

Personally I wouldn't dismiss any opinion, old fans or new fans but I think an opinion from someone new to van halen is very interesting. If someone can pick this album up, an album by a band with a huge reputation and back catalogue, with no expectations and enjoy it then I say that's the mark of a very decent album.

I've only managed a couple of listens myself and I like what I've heard so far. I've never been the biggest van halen fan, they've been a band I've dipped into over the years and always enjoyed what I've heard. This album was a pleasant surprise as I really don't like tattoo. I think that song is a tad boring and the cringe worthy vocal melody singing the word tattoo over and over gets on my nerves. I picked the album up whilst in the local supermarket doing the shopping and it was a good price.

Have to say, like a few others have said, get passed tattoo and this album rocks. Has a nice crystal clear production, a heavy vibe and some great guitar work by Eddie coupled with some decent vocals and a few catchy riffs and overall you have a very enjoyable album. It's even encouraged me to dig out my other van halen albums and get right into the band

Wayne wrote:

If someone can pick this album up, an album by a band with a huge reputation and back catalogue, with no expectations and enjoy it then I say that's the mark of a very decent album.

I agree completely. I envy young-ins who get to hear bands like Van Halen or King Crimson or Rush for the first time. They hear a recent album by one of these groups, enjoy it and feel inspired to explore the back catalogs. Then they dig that stuff and branch out into other bands from that era. It's a good thing.

S.D. wrote:

Wayne wrote:

If someone can pick this album up, an album by a band with a huge reputation and back catalogue, with no expectations and enjoy it then I say that's the mark of a very decent album.

I agree completely. I envy young-ins who get to hear bands like Van Halen or King Crimson or Rush for the first time. They hear a recent album by one of these groups, enjoy it and feel inspired to explore the back catalogs. Then they dig that stuff and branch out into other bands from that era. It's a good thing.

Very true and something that's happened to me a lot. Most of my favourite bands are those with a long history and based on my age and when I started listening to them I often started with later albums that are dismissed by long standing fans. Take iron maiden for example, my favourite band. I got into them during the no prayer/fear of the dark era. Two albums that a lot of longer standing fans than me dismiss as being lacklustre yet they grabbed me enough to delve into the bands back catalogue and I've never looked back.

I think without the benefit of nostalgia and expectation some fans can look at albums in a more objective way. Having said that I've been a fan of a lot of bands for 20 years plus now so I have built up expectations for new albums from a lot of artists so I can understand how long time fans of bands form their opinions.

Wayne wrote:

metalinmyveins wrote:

MEGATRON wrote:

Eyesore wrote:

I'm not buying any of the lap-dog fan-boy comments here!

My first real exposure to the band was just a few months ago. So when I say I think it's a great album (maybe even their best), I really mean it. I'm not a "lap-dog fan-boy" blinded by nostalgia.

Yeah, but in the same respect, you also haven't had decades to digest the band's earlier work. There are people on here, who started listening to the band when they first broke out on the scene, or someone like myself who remembers hearing them around '82 for the first time. Nostalgia doesn't even have to enter the picture, as Van Halen was never a band that I considered to be "My band". They rarely were a band where I made connections between their songs and powerful moments in my life. For others, I'm sure nostalgia might come big time into play.

Don't take this the wrong way, but I'm probably going to place more credence on someone's opinion of this record who has listened to the band for decades over that of someone who has only digested a band's work for the better part of a few months. That doesn't mean you're wrong about the quality of the album....

Blimey that's a bit harsh on the young lad. So by your reckoning your dismissing the opinion of a young guy that is new to the band and doesn't have decades of bias and rose tinted nostalgia infused spectacles.

Personally I wouldn't dismiss any opinion, old fans or new fans but I think an opinion from someone new to van halen is very interesting. If someone can pick this album up, an album by a band with a huge reputation and back catalogue, with no expectations and enjoy it then I say that's the mark of a very decent album.

Harsh? Compared to some of the stuff I've seen on here over the years, that was a softball response to an early fan boy in the making. Plus, what was the last thing I stated to him? "That DOESN'T mean you're wrong about the quality of the album". I didn't say that his opinion was null and void, I just stated that I would be more interested in others opinions, who've digested the band's work over the years. Regarding the word "Nostalgia", there are plenty of people who don't have an emotional nirvana when listening to Van Halen. Granted, Van Halen were trend setters in the industry, but they weren't everybody's favorite band, hence there are plenty of people who can be excited about an upcoming album release, AND give a critique that is subjective in nature.

Regarding age discrimination and the thoughts of the young being dismissed rather than that of someone who is his/her elder, this happens regularly and in many times is justified. For instance, if one is going to have a major surgery (where one's life may hang in the balance) that individual will most likely seek out a medical professional whose resume is knee deep in that area, rather than the person who might be a little wet behind the ears. This is why professional sports teams for the most part don't throw the rookie to the wolves and play the veteran. Why? Because of decision making and the maturity that goes along with their actions in a game. Politics might be one of the only arenas in life where we the constituents are looking for new ideas, rather than that of some old fart who wants to recycle old ideas. Growing old sucks, but the one good thing that comes with age is the fact that we elder states people get taken more seriously.

S.D. wrote:

Wayne wrote:

If someone can pick this album up, an album by a band with a huge reputation and back catalogue, with no expectations and enjoy it then I say that's the mark of a very decent album.

I agree completely. I envy young-ins who get to hear bands like Van Halen or King Crimson or Rush for the first time. They hear a recent album by one of these groups, enjoy it and feel inspired to explore the back catalogs. Then they dig that stuff and branch out into other bands from that era. It's a good thing.

Hey, I also love it when a young person goes against the grain and listens to something that wouldn't be considered musically relevant among their peers. Many times I will see young people speak about bands on Youtube that predate their existence and applaud them for liking that song/band/movement.

S.D, let me ask you something. If we had some young whipper snapper join here who loved jazz, but was only a few months into the scene, wouldn't you like to be seen as that individual who might be able to offer a little more insight on the music? In other words, isn't there something to be said for having listened to Jazz for 17 years versus that of someone who has listened to this music for 6 months? S.D, would you say that your Jazz acumen has increased exponentially over those years, or would you say that you peaked after immersing yourself in that music after a two year period?

Back to the topic.

I picked this up today and am digging it.

Sounds, to me, as close to the old stuff as they are likely to get.

metalinmyveins wrote:

AND give a critique that is subjective in nature.

James B. wrote:

metalinmyveins wrote:

AND give a critique that is subjective in nature.

What's so funny about that? I don't have a problem with being able to do such a thing. It's called intellectual honesty.

metalinmyveins wrote:

James B. wrote:

metalinmyveins wrote:

AND give a critique that is subjective in nature.

What's so funny about that? I don't have a problem with being able to do such a thing. It's called intellectual honesty.

what sort of critique or opinion is not subjective ?