Which era of Van Halen is better?

Even though I respect Sammy Hagar's work with Van Halen and a fan of his solo stuff I think David Lee Roth Van halen is better because first off all wasn't so poppy ok I know 1984 has a few poppy songs on it like jump but David Lee Roth was totally against Eddie using keyboards which is one of the reasons why and quite rightly so. The main problem with albums like 5150 and ou812 is that Eddie starts to become more foccused on dominating the songs with keyboards than writing guitar riffs even though his guitar solos still rule and still has a few songs that have killer riffs and Sammy Hagar had no problem with that. But however Eddie Van Halen does a brilliant job with that piano ballad "Right Now" and he should of used a piano not a keyboard in the first place. But with the lyrics its still on the same level like Sammy's lyrics are obviously more mature since he's alot older than DLR. David lee Roth famously once said which makes sense "With my era Van Halen it makes you dance, screw and drink alcohol but Van halen with Sammy Hagar it makes you drink milk, get married and drive japanese cars".

DLR era. But I love both. They are just different. What about VHIII w/ Cherone? You can't blaim him for that awful album. The songs stunk. THe best part of that album were Eddie's Solos!

They have a special place in my metal heart because they were the first band I ever got into. The first album I ever bought was 1984 when I was 8 years old. I've been into the heavy ever since.

What do you think will they ever release anything new?

DLR. No contest.

Roth, when they were a rock/metal band. The first four albums are all great!

Don't really care for the keyboardy pop stuff they did with Hagar.

This thread title should be "Which era of Van Halen do you prefer?".

I prefer the Roth era.

R o t h
Hagar sux

Roth!

David Lee Roth no contest, I think the songs were better, and also David Lee Roth sings and performers with such attitude, he makes every concert seem like one big party.

I do like the Sammy Hagar era also and they wrote alot of great songs but it can't compare to the impact the original line up made not only in the world of metal but to me personally.

manny wrote:

David Lee Roth no contest, I think the songs were better, and also David Lee Roth sings and performers with such attitude, he makes every concert seem like one big party.

I do like the Sammy Hagar era also and they wrote alot of great songs

my answer as well

Roth ERA, when someone asks me to name some VH songs, I never name Hagar ERA songs I always name the classic Roth ERA songs.

Hagar ERA had some great songs especially the more melodic type ballads.

ultmetal wrote:

Roth, when they were a rock/metal band. The first four albums are all great!

Don't really care for the keyboardy pop stuff they did with Hagar.

agreed on both

first 4 albums, especially the first 2. They wrote most of those songs 2 years before the s/t in 1978. But I do like every album they put out up until Carnal Knowledge or Balance era, which are ok at best. IMO Eddie got lazy and uninspired after Fair Warning and Roth was just a parody of himself by then; the joke just wasnt funny anymore. Sammy breathed new life in the band and added some muscle but by then musically they just got passed by by so many new younger hungrier rock and metal bands left them in the dust.

I'll put it this way:

I'd would prefer to see a Roth-era show live, but I'd rather hang out with Hagar-era Van Halen.

The DLR era is my favorite. I really like 5150 and For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge, but I detest OU812. That album, to me, is the definition of "collection filler." VH, VH 2, FW, and 1984 all blow me away and dominate my car stereo in the summer time. Peace.

Roth, of course!!!!!!! I do like the Hager stuff, but the David Lee ROth era is the best!!!! I don;t even have VH III in my collection

Roth - no contest.

Those songs had an edge to them...........except some songs on 1984.

manny's wife and I prefer the Hagar era.

DLR era.

Roth era, no doubt.

Hagar was good but it was really a different band and shouldn't have been called Van Halen, even if it was Ed's name. They started anew on a different course after Roth and why not change the name to reflect that. The VHIII album should have been called the Eddie Van Halen solo album with specials guests Alex, Mike and Gary.

I think that if a band makes a fundamental change that really sets it apart from what it was before, they should change the name of the band. The only reason to keep the name is to ride the coat tails of the good name that was created before the change.

the sentinel wrote:

I detest OU812.

That album has grown on me quite a bit. "Cabo Wabo" and "Source of Infection" are my favorites.

Interesting note:

The solo on "Cabo Wabo" was the first to feature the use of a wah pedal on a Van Halen record.

I bought OU812 when it first came out, listened to it once and took it back to the store the same day and traded it. Haven't heard it since.

I much prefer the Gang Green EP from the same time period called I81B4U.

I don't mind 'OU812" album, and over the years it has grown on me but I hate the cover tune of Little Feat's 'A-Political Blues' just horrid and doesnot suite Van Halen's style.

I like both, but I prefer the Roth era as well.

I enjoy both eras but I see why the Roth era is prefered now that I am more familiar with it (I have the s/t and 1984). However, Van Hagar was my first foray into VH so it is closer to my heart. I especially love For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge which to me sounds closeer to the DLR stuff than most of the other Hagar material (i.e. it doesn't sound like keyboard soaked pop rock to me).