Roth or Hagar?

Now here’s the million dollar question. As a Van Halen fan, I’ve actually always wanted to talk about this, because it’s a question I see people on YouTube “debating” for pages upon pages, so I’ve decided to give my own thoughts, because I think that both David Lee Roth and Sammy Hagar have their own charms as lead singers.

First off, I will get into the history of Van Halen, because there is a lot of backstory to keep in mind. Van Halen is an American rock band formed in 1974 by guitarist Eddie Van Halen and his brother, drummer Alex Van Halen, bassist Michael Anthony, and lead singer David Lee Roth (far left in above picture). Now if you’ve ever listened to the radio in your life, chances are you know at least one of this band’s many hits from 1978-1985, with such classic rock hits as “Jump,” “Panama,” “Hot for Teacher,” “Ain’t Talkin’ ‘Bout Love,” “Dance the Night Away,” “Unchained,” “Runnin’ with the Devil,” and their cover of “You Really Got Me” by the Kinks. Or if you don’t know any of those, then you probably know Eddie Van Halen’s guitar solo from “Beat It” by Michael Jackson.

But in 1985, lead singer Roth left the group, or was fired, depending on whose story you hear. While he pursued a solo career of his own, Eddie Van Halen made the controversial choice of replacing him with Sammy Hagar (third from left). Hagar, formerly the lead singer of Montrose and having cultivated a successful solo career, joined the group from 1986-1996. Now this decision was already controversial at the time because Hagar’s vocal style was completely different from Roth’s, and it wasn’t helped when Eddie decided to drastically change the style, focusing more on pop rock and synthesizers, and when they decided to mostly stop playing their hits from the Roth era. Roth did eventually rejoin in 2006 after another brief stint with Hagar from 2003-2005, and Roth has been in the group ever since.

Now among Van Halen fans, replacing Roth with Hagar is to this day a more controversial decision than when Stone Temple Pilots replaced Scott Weiland with that guy from Linkin Park, so I don’t want to just give one opinion on this, which is why I’ve brought my girlfriend Dana on board to give her own thoughts.

Dana: Hi again, Internet!

Kirb: Now Dana, you know me, so you know that I’m a huge fan of straightforward, guitar-bass-drums hard rock. By comparison, you’re more into love songs, slow ballads, and the like.

Dana: This is true, which is why it might surprise some of our watchers that I’m actually the Roth fan and Kirb is the Hagar fan.

Kirb: Yeah, this has stumped me for the longest time too. So let’s discuss each of them, shall we?

Dana: We shall. So let’s start with the obvious first choice: the songs. Now, Kirb, you know I’m going to win this one. David Lee Roth-era Halen had some of the most legendary songs of the 70’s and 80’s, songs that still get airplay to this very day! When was the last time you heard “Dreams” or “When It’s Love” on the radio?

Kirb: Well, now wait a minute. Look at the history of Van Halen’s singles. With Roth, they had seven hits in the United States, and a good three of those were covers. With the Red Rocker, they had ten hits in the US, all of which were originals.

Dana: Kirb, chart performance doesn’t count for anything. Jimi Hendrix only had one top 40 hit, and Katy Perry has more hits than both versions of Van Halen combined.

Kirb: True, but I do still hear some Van Hagar songs on the radio, like “Finish What Ya Started,” “Why Can’t This Be Love,” “Best of Both Worlds,” and “Right Now.” But admittedly, that’s nowhere near as many songs as the ones I’ve heard from the Roth years.

Dana: But what about the songwriting itself? The songwriting in the Hagar years seemed very monotonous, and consisted of a lot more love ballads. Just look at some of the song titles from the Hagar years: “Why Can’t This Be Love,” “Love Walks In,” “Summer Nights,” “When It’s Love,” “Don’t Tell Me (What Love Can Do),” “Can’t Stop Lovin’ You”…

Kirb: Couldn’t the same thing be said about Roth-era Halen? Some critics even accused them of writing nothing else besides girls, partying and cars, and that was what a lot of their songs were about, though granted, they only had one song about cars (Panama). Besides, why are you getting upset at them for writing love ballads? You usually like that sort of stuff!

Dana: I like love ballads when they’re done well. Here, let’s look back at some of Van Hagar’s questionable lyrics, like Why Can’t This Be Love’s classic line “Only time will tell if we stand the test of time.” Department of Redundancy Department much?

Kirb: Well, yeah, but…

Dana: Or from Up for Breakfast: “Hot tub, loosen up, baby been soaking, been tokin’, been sippin’, slip slide slippin, all got me tripping.”

Kirb: Well, lyrics don’t have to…

Dana: Or let’s not forget how he just up and mentions aliens in the middle of Love Walks In?

Kirb: Okay, okay, so maybe the lyrics got a little weaker in the Hagar years, but how about the instrumental part of the songwriting? We still got some songs that sounded like old Van Halen, like “Top of the World,” “Best of Both Worlds,” and “Good Enough,” among others. The arrangement of keyboards in the Hagar years was definitely strong, too.

Dana: But that’s the thing; Eddie Van Halen’s place is with a guitar, not behind the keys.

Kirb: Hey, come on. I like it when musicians go out of their comfort zones and play instruments they don’t usually play. “Dreams” and “Why Can’t This Be Love,” for example, are two great tracks. And besides, regardless of what you think of it, Eddie’s reliance on keyboards isn’t really Sammy’s fault. Roth was a control freak about the band’s sound, and insisted they keep on writing nothing but party songs and cock rock. Hagar only allowed Eddie more wiggle room in his own songwriting process. Remember the Roth-era songs “I’ll Wait” and “Jump”? Those were both keyboard-driven and showed the early beginnings of the band’s change in songwriting style. Plus, without Eddie on the keys, we never would have had “Right Now.”

Dana: Fair enough. Right Now does have possibly the greatest piano intro to any rock song from the 90’s. But we’ve talked enough about the music. How about the guys themselves? Well, for me, I like Roth because he was the epitome of a glam metal lead singer. Hagar had a better singing voice, I admit, but Roth had more stage presence. Whenever he let out one of his yelps of “AAAOOWW-YEAHH!” every girl in the audience instantly needed a change of panties. At least I assume they did; I wasn’t alive at the time so I can’t confirm anything.

Kirb: Hagar, meanwhile, didn’t have the stage presence of Roth, though he would occasionally try to emulate that on their tracks. (Again, listen to Good Enough; the first lines on the album are “HEELLLLOO BAAAAAYYBEEHHHH!” followed by Eddie’s guitar moving in in full force.) But he did have one thing that Roth didn’t have: he played an instrument.

Dana: This is true. Roth did try playing guitar sometimes, but it was always in open-tuning and he rarely ever did it.

Kirb: Hagar did play guitar, which certainly made live arrangements of songs like “Love Walks In,” “Why Can’t This Be Love,” and “Finish What Ya Started” much easier to play, as he would dual guitar with Eddie or play guitar while Eddie switched to keys. But in addition to that, Hagar was simply a better singer, or at least he was better for the genre of music they switched to. Listen to the original Roth recording of “Jump,” followed by a live version with Hagar. There’s no comparison. Hagar is much better in the vocal department. So really, this one is a tough one. Do you prefer technical performance or stage presence? Honestly, this is a bit of a toss-up for me.

Dana: I know which one I prefer, but what about the live performances? Any schmuck can sound good in the studio, but it takes a real performer to sound good live, and Kirb, let’s face it, Diamond Dave knocks Hagar out of the park. He was athletic, he could jump really high, he was handsome as can be, and he strutted around the stage more than Freddie Mercury. Plus, they actually played real Van Halen songs, instead of just the watered-down stuff from 5150 to Balance.

Kirb: Ah, but Van Halen’s performances with Hagar were also fantastic. They did still play some Roth-era tracks, like “You Really Got Me,” “Ain’t Talkin’ ‘Bout Love,” “Panama” and “Jump,” and they also mixed it up with some of Hagar’s solo tracks, such as “I Can’t Drive 55,” as well as some great covers. Would you ever hear Roth-era Halen cover “Won’t Get Fooled Again” or “Rock and Roll”? No, Roth simply didn’t have the cords for it. I again have to bring up the point about Hagar’s guitar playing, as that added a lot to the shows.

Dana: I was hoping you’d say that, because I now have to ask, how many of Van Halen’s songs did Hagar actually play guitar on? Once Eddie let pre-programmed keyboards take over in 1991, the number of songs where Hagar played guitar dropped significantly.

Kirb: Sadly, this is true. Compare the VH live video albums Live Without a Net, filmed in 1986, and Live: Right Here, Right Now, filmed in 1992. On LWAN, Hagar plays guitar on around half of the tracks; on LRHRN, I’m pretty sure he only plays it on two of them. Between ’86 and ’92, Hagar stopped playing live guitar on “Why Can’t This Be Love,” “Dreams,” “Love Walks In,” and “You Really Got Me,” among others, and a lot of that was due to Eddie choosing not to play his own keyboard parts, instead using playback. And that really sucks because any band that uses playback and can’t play their own songs live without the help of backing tracks is cheating.

Dana: I’m glad you acknowledged that Van Hagar had flaws, and now it’s my turn to talk about some of Roth-era Halen’s flaws. Namely, I can’t find any good quality live performances of them on YouTube! Again, I wasn’t alive at the time, so I couldn’t have seen them live—and I technically still can’t see them live because, no offense, Dave’s gettin’ a little too old for this—but the lack of live recordings that aren’t shot on low-quality VHS is surprising to me. How can I judge a live performance if half of it is drowned out with static? Also, I hate to say this, but Dave wasn’t always good live. Matter of fact, in half the full performances I saw, he seemed like he was either drunk or high off his ass, or both. He would often sing off-key, slur his words, or forget them entirely. I don’t know, if some better quality recordings of his shows existed, I’m sure I would be a better judge on this, because I’m sure they had some really great concerts back then—they were legends of rock, after all—but just seeing what I have so far, I’m not very impressed.

Kirb: Wow, I bet it took a lot of guts to acknowledge that. Seeing Roth live nowadays, people say he sucks, but I can’t help but wonder if he was always like that. Hell, just from Dana’s description and from what I’ve seen, now he at least remembers all the words. I don’t doubt that he had or still has a lot of stage presence—recently he actually broke up a fight in the audience, and another time he even continued playing after breaking his nose—but Hagar will always have a higher place in my heart.

Dana: So at the end of the day, we’re still back where we started?

Kirb: Yup, because really, it’s all a matter of opinion. Whether you’re a Roth fan or a Hagar fan, it’s still Van Halen. With Roth, they created hair metal; with Hagar, they perfected it. But it still has the great bass and backing vocals of Michael Anthony, the underrated rhythm section of Alex Van Halen, and the superb guitar work of Eddie Van Halen, so the preference of Diamond Dave or the Red Rocker all boils down to personal taste, and who am I to tell you what you can or can’t like?

Dana: Besides, at the end of the day, they’re both still better lead singers than Gary Cherone!

Kirb: Grr… Dana, what did we talk about?

Dana: (sigh) I know… Never speak Gary Cherone’s name in a Van Halen conversation.

Kirb: That’s a good girl.

-Kirb.