A person wrote:

So when Roth goes back into the studio and his band DOESN'T include Vai, Sheehan and Bissonette, he WON'T call it "David Lee Roth," right? Following YOUR logic it wouldn't be his ORIGINAL band. He perpetrated this "fraud" upon the poor buying public when his band broke up after the second CD, right? He continued to call it "David Lee Roth" but it DIDN'T have the "original" members.

The answer to that is quite simple. "Van Halen" is a name for a band. "David Lee Roth" is the name of a solo artist. The disadvantage of being a solo artist is you take all the blame (i.e. Roth sucks!) when someone doesn't like you. The advantage is you take all the accolades and acclaim (i.e. DLR kicks a**!) when someone does like you.

When Dave went "solo" and left the band "Van Halen" he also took over the rights to call ALL the shots. It was HIS band, under his FULL name. He could screw it up to his heart's content if he wanted to. It was his NAME on the albums. "Van Halen" is now essentially a solo artist (Eddie Van Halen) using a bands name for it's safety and protection and name value. I would be happy if he just added "Eddie" to "Van Halen", it would be a lot more honest and dignified.

Frank Sinatra and Elvis were "solo" artists that made many personnel changes over the years. Led Zeppelin and the Beatles were "bands" that disbanded when one of the members were no longer around or one had quit. I buy "David Lee Roth" albums for David Lee Roth. Not because of Steve Vai, Jason Becker, Billy Shehan, Terry Kilgore etc.. Dave rises or falls on his own name, he takes all of the responsibility, thus he deserves to call all the shots. Eddie is in a (in his own words) "Band". That is the difference.

Roth naming the band Van Halen shows his humbleness more than anything. I think later when VH made it big he regretted this because so many "outside" fans thought HIS name was Van Halen. If Eddie IS the band like you guys like to say, why doesn't he call it "Eddie Van Halen"? If Ed left and brought in Ace Frehley on guitar, by your logic, it would still be Van Halen because they just made a personnel change or because Al is still there and his name is VH.

It's all about money, the name brand, recognition by the public. The general public at large don't know the difference half the time when changes are made. They just know the name. VH with Dave and VH with Sam are the same band in name only. Eddie has the benefit of a solo artist without the pitfalls of a solo artist.

Let's see, these bands kept the same name: Pink Floyd twice, Black Sabbath, the Alan Parsons Project all the time, Bad Company, Black Sabbath, Genesis, Yes, Iron Maiden a couple of times now, the aforementioned Deep Purple

What I would still like to know is what do these bands, that go on performing under the same name because they can't sell under any other name, have to do with DLR being a solo artist and VH being a group band. Steve Vai said, "He (DLR) has the right to make the decisions. It was his band."

Would Sammy, Alex, Michael or Gary go on record and say, "Eddie has the right to make the decisions. It is his band." Every interview VH gives they always stress the "band" concept. "Sammy didn't want to be a part of this band", "This is a band, Sammy wanted to be a solo artist."

The difference between a band like Sabbath or Maiden carrying on without the lead singer instead of breaking-up like Zeppelin or The Beatles, is that their is not enough individual talent or name recognition or what have you. Robert Plant and Jimmy Page had enough recognition to go solo are start another band.

Eddie Van Halen gets to have his cake and eat it too. Since the name of the band is "Van Halen", he still gets the recognition of a solo artist. But when someone in that band wants to do their own thing or do something on the side with their name on it, Eddie uses it against them and claims it goes against the band concept.

Eddie gets the benefits of a solo artist with no pit-falls attached. He also gets the benefit of using an established name of a band to promote his music. That is the problem.

Another point: Look at the credits for a VH song. They all get equal credit on every song. Why? Because the are a group.Now, let's look at one of Dave's records "Skyscraper" and see who gets credit:

Knucklebones: David Lee Roth, Matt Bissonette, Gregg Bissonette

Just Like Paradise: David Lee Roth and Brett Tuggle

The Bottom Line: David Lee Roth and Steve Vai

What is the one name that links all these songs together?

David Lee Roth

That, is not my opinion, THAT is fact.

David Lee Roth is a Solo Artist. He LEFT VH to go SOLO. VH is a BAND. Sammy was in a BAND. He is now SOLO. Call it a solo artist or solo artist band. It doesn't matter. VH is a group. That is why DLR can do whatever he wants in HIS band. He takes ALL the responsibility, Period. How hard is this for you Eddie people to see this.

Will somebody tell DLR NOT to call his next band - unless it includes Vai, Sheehan and Bissonette - "David Lee Roth."

I think I'll let Steve Vai himself answer your last statement.

From Guitar (for the practicing musician) Feb 1990. page 77, word for word:

Steve Vai: I very much respect David Lee Roth. He's a very unique person, and I mean that in all sincerity. With all the years that Dave's been in the industry, he has the right to make the decisions. IT WAS HIS BAND. I'm at a point in my life where there's certain types of control that I don't want to give up."

So there you have it, from someone who was IN Dave's band.



So I go back to the Wherehouse and return my used "F.U.C.K." CD and exchange it for Extreme's used "3 Sides To Every Story". I really had not heard that much Extreme besides what I had heard on the radio. I read here what a few Extreme fans were posting "His voice is technically better", "He is a better lyricist", "VH doesn't deserve GC", "Nuno is better than Eddie" etc.

So I was ready to get educated and I listened to the whole album a few times and with and open mind.

My thoughts?


It doesn't suck, they are just an average rock band.

Sammy Hagar is "technically" better in my opinion. At least Sammy had some kind of image also. He was "The Red Rocker". He had some sort of fan base. When you hear Sam on the radio at least you know it is him singing. Cherone blends in with all the other marginal talent. Cherone has no trademark quality in his voice that separates him from the pack.

Roth is a better all-around vocalist than Cherone. That goes for the 1978 DLR and the 1997 DLR. No question about it. He has more bottom end, more dynamic range, his vocal melodies are a lot more creative as well the lyrics. The most important thing though, is that DLR has a style. He has personality and soul in his singing. Gary Cherone is the generic hard rock singer you hear on all those beer commercials.

Same with Nuno. How could anyone say he is a better player than Ed? He has a good tone and sound on the album. He has the chops. What he doesn't have is the melodies or the songwriting skills of a VH. He is just another good rock guitarist. A good notch below a VH, Vai, or Malmsteen.

I can see how Gary would be good doing a Queen cover. He has hints of a Freddie Mercury in his voice. But Freddie was a lot more fuller sounding and his voice fits much better in with Brian May's guitar harmonies. But in the end he fails, because he is not unique. He is just another rock singer. The Extreme people hear would like to think he is great and that Extreme is some great band but it simply is not true.

Sure you can add sound effects and add an orchestra to your album and say it is more mature or more diverse or whatever. In reality though, it is all a cover-up. VH never needed the gimmickry or the L.A. Philharmonic to create butt-kicking rock albums like they did with their first four. Who wants to hear Van Halen create a rock opera?!! An Extreme fan I am sure. But I want Van Halen to sound like Van Halen. That is what they do best. They can only achieve this with the original four.

A quartet is something special. That is why Led Zep, The Beatles and The Doors, among others, only made it with their original line-up. Most other bands that replace members successfully are usually bigger than a quartet.

VH3 might do okay. The record buying public is pretty dumb sometimes. They do still have the VH name brand. Under any other name I would guarantee failure. People are going to hear an average rock band come Mockery III delivery day. Just like in the movie "Multiplicity", this is clone No. 3 all the way; a wuss with no personality.

Eddie made a BIG mistake. He must really think he can make anybody a rock singer. Well, if he does it with Cherone, than maybe I will become a believer. Until then, I don't see it happening. After hearing more of Extreme, I am even more unconvinced. Not just because I am a fan of the original VH, but because, quite simply, Cherone is a wanna-be. If the public gets beyond the name and judges it on it's merits, not Ed's hype or anyone else's, than this is the end for VH.

Sure, I haven't heard the new VH yet, but by going on their recent past and Cherone's past, it is going down! VH DOWN IN FLAMES!

This time we have a choice. Say NO to the band formerly known as Van Halen!

I'll end this with Sammy Hagar's fitting comments on Extreme:

Road: Have you heard some of Nuno Bettencourt's (ex-Extreme guitarist) comments ....

Hagar: "Fuck him, man. He was sayin' shit like, 'Van Halen finally sounds like a real rock band. They got a good lyricist for a change and a charismatic performer.' I'm saying, 'Well, if you were both so fucking good, why didn't you guys make it?' Nuno came to a show one time and I complemented him on 'More Then Words.' I asked him if Gary was his brother because of the way their voices blended so well. He goes, 'Fuck no! That asshole ain't my brother!' I knew they were done then, the guy's got a bit of an ego trip. But, it's going to be tough for Gary. Personally, I don't think you're gonna see the band last. It was a tough enough job for me and I was coming off a double platinum album. He's coming from zero."

A fan replied:

But is there a chance Gary could record an album with VH that totally rocks? If he did, would you have the balls to admit that it was good?

There is also a "chance" the St. Louis Rams can go to the Super Bowl.

Look, VH, basically, has done nothing the last 12 years. Their lead singer has been replaced by someone with even less talent. They have down-graded. I don't see it happening.

It's nice to say "Hey, I'm a VH fan and I will support them and I will hold my judgement" etc. But the fact of the matter is, Ed screwed up the band. He has an ego twice the size of a Kevin Dubrow after a No.1 debut. I will not support that.

If I like the new VH I will gladly say so. I will judge it like I judge everything: honestly.

Honestly, the best VH was the original VH.

Honestly, the second VH didn't do it for me.

Honestly, the third VH has even less talent than the second VH. Why would I expect anything better?

No matter how good the new VH "might" be, it could be that much better with DLR in the band. I will not support the new VH, no matter what. The only reason I am back is because of DLR. If this new VH flys I will go back to obscurity. VH will once again be just a memory and I will look forward to the new releases of the Diamond one.

Hey, if I am interested AT ALL in the new album I will either:

A) Record it off the world premiere on the radio

B) Buy it used at the store or off an unhappy fan

C) Tape it off someone else

D) Copy it and make my own CD seeing how I have a CD recorder now

These are ways I suggest ALL SH and DLR fans to boycott the Mockery III disk. I probably won't even go to that trouble, because I never even bothered when they released CD's the last ten years. But if for some reason you MUST have the new CD, choose either A, B, C or D. I won't give Ed or Al a penny, never again.