George Starostin's Reviews



Become a Certified Commentator today by following this link!

!!Before adding new comments, please check the GUIDELINES. Don't say I didn't warn you!!


<> (29.11.2002)

I respect everyone's opinion, but I am sick and tired of people calling Eddie VH 'soulless'. Christ, have we become that ignorant? Eddie is a guy who has been praised by just about everyone. From Frank Zappa, Jimmy Page and Jeff Beck to Slash, Steve Vai, David Gilmour and Dimebag Darrell. Even Randy Rhoads use to go see Eddie play in clubs out in LA and always listed Eddie as one of his top influences. Every band from Metallica to Slayer to Alice in Chains to even newbies like System of a Down & Incubus have all proffesed their love & respect for VH. They have all stated how they grew up listening to those albums. People seem to forget nowadays what an innovative cat he was. Sure a lot of those bands dont end up sounding like VH, but then again, Ozzy never ended up sounding like the Beatles! And the Beatles where the reason how got into rock music and formed a band.. So buy a clue.. Eddie VH is a guy who never had a single guitar lesson, ok? And dont tell me those 2 or 3 years of piano he took before picking up the guitar at age 12 helped him much. Go hand Billy Joel or Elton John a freakin' guitar and see what they can do. Everything Eddie plays comes from within, especially considering he was completely self taught on guitar. So how can he be 'soulless'. What, just cuz he plays very fast at times? So what? Faster may not be better, but neither is slower. It's all in how ya use it, dig? And bottom line is- Of all the shredders ever, Eddie VH probably wrote the best songs and was the most tasteful. In fact, he wrote more classic tunes than just about any of those shredders combined! Which is why Van Halen sold over 70 MILLLION albums worldwide and those others shreds where selling 70,000... Cuz VH has the SONGS. It's funny how a drummer can play fast or a sax player like Coltrane can play fast passages and no one bitches. A violin virtuoso can rip and wail away playing very fast and no one minds. But when a guitar player does it, it's 'soulless'? LOL!!!!!!! Puleez... Buy another clue. Funny how no one bitched at Andres Segovia when he ripped out fast classical pieces.

And to the dildos who wanna blame VH for the 80's cuz record labels wanted to put their own version of VH out there, buy yet another clue. You cant hold VH responsible for that. If we looked at bands that way, we would have to arrest the Beatles for paving the way for everything from the Monkees to Nsync. We can thank the Beatles for all the boy bands of the world. Or lets arrest The Ramones cuz of Blink 182, The Donnas and other putrid so called 'punk' bands they paves the way for. Lets arrest Aerosmith cuz lord knows Motley Crue, Poison and Cinderella owe so much to them it aint even funny. Or people dont remember how glammy and spandexed out Aerosmith was in the 70's & 80's?? Aerosmith and Kiss probably caused about as many hair bands as anyone. Besides, despite Diamond Dave's colorful aspects at times, Vh was not glammy at all. they never had huge aqaunetted hair or wore makeup, EVER..... Lets go arrest Nirvana for all the lame shitty guitar playing bands that came out in the last 10 years like Silverchair, Bush, Puddle of Mud and more. Gee, those arent Nirvana clones huh?

Van Halen is a great band. And pretty damn consistent too. Despite making a lead singer change, changing their style completely and shutting the door on all the classic Roth era material in concert, they still fired off 12 consecutive multi-platinum albums from 1978-1996. And dont tell me how Brittany & Nsuck sell millions too. There is a universe of difference bewteen the sales of some modern day TRL made pop act with songwriters, corporate media hype and all that crap and the sales of a hard rock band comin' outta Pasadena in 1977! Hell, MTV didnt exist till like 82'? VH has inpired so many people to get into rock and to pick up a guitar. Which is a lot more than I can say about other people. So before many of you come spewing your opinions and cliche's, do your fuckin' homework....

Tony Souza <> (20.07.2003)

Van Halen is one of those groups whose supporters are right and their critics are equally as right. People that love this band are justified in their praise -- just concerning the Roth years alone, Van Halen put out six albums of fun, catchy, hard-but-not-heavy rock 'n roll. Their lyrics are a lot more clever and biting than what your average hard rock group churns out. As far as the musicians themselves are concerned, Eddie's guitar playing was revolutionary when it first came out and I've always thought Alex Van Halen's drumming was overlooked. He's a very good drummer. He may not be the greatest in the world, but he's certainly above average. Roth fits the party animal image perfectly and his vocals fit the music perfectly. I agree with George that he's not offensive.

However, VH's detractors are also correct. For one thing, while they may have written above-average lyrics, their image (or, more correctly, Roth's) of being nothing more than stupid, let's-get-drunk-and-fall-down idiots overrides those clever lyrics. Songs like "Hots For Teacher" and "Everybody Wants Some" - to name just two - come to mind. Also seeing Roth flying though the air hooked to a cable and Anthony playing a Jack Daniels-shaped bass certainly doesn't help either. People that criticize the band have a point because VH played up to that image. They aren't dumb, but they dumbed-down, and that's the difference. They may have been smarter than they looked, but they played up stupid side and that's the side that both their supporters and critics remember. On their sixth album, they were still writing shit like "Hots For Teacher". At that point I thought "Fuck it. It's the same old crap, the same image as when they first started out." For me, It got old, fast.

As far as Eddie's playing is concerned, the person who commented that his playing was "souless" was not entirely incorrect. I personally like EVH's rhythm playing al lot better than his lead playing. I think too much has been said about how fast he plays but not enough has been said about the great riffs the guy has come up with. I think that's where the "soul" of his playing fits in. His lead playing, however, may have shit-loads of energy, but little soul IMHO. George is correct about "Eruption" -- it's just a "look-at-me" exercise, nothing more and a lot of his leads on other songs come across that way. The problem with this kind of show off type playing is, while I'm sure it comes for EVH's soul, the end result doesn't reflect that. At least to me.

In the end Van Halen was, to me, like a guest that stays too long at a party. It's great when they first came on the scene. They put out a lot of great music, and while Roth's shtick is not offensive, it is annoying. And boring. And by 1984, old hat.

David Dickson <> (09.07.2004)

Hello, it's me. My name has been changed to Todd Rundgren.

Bad shutkas aside, there's something I'd like to say about Van Halen, which relates to musical taste in general. As freaky, weird, and illogical as my comments tend to be, which you've no doubt noticed by now, my musical preferences could hardly be further from that disposition. In general, I prefer my music pompous, serious, and laced with sincerity, whether real or fake. Yes, even if it's a bunch of plastic theatrical derivativity, it doesn't matter to me, as long as the artist SOUNDS committed. The seriouser the music seems, the more likely I am to continue listening to it. And as a result, I've never really understood the thrills some people get from "irony," "absurdity," and "wacky whimsy" in popular music, especially its modern (translation: post-1969) variants, whether that be from the Pixies, R.E.M., Pavement, Bjork, Beefheart, or anyone resembling satirical/dadaist tendencies exclusively to the detriment of everything else (translation: hooks, melodies, good production, non-suckiness, etc.). So when I listen to Van Halen, I realize I have a choice between two guys: one who doesn't have much technical vocal ability, but has loads of jokes and goofiness, and one who has loads of vocal ability, but not much of the rest. Guess which guy I prefer.

No, I'm not saying the Van Hagar era is necessarily BETTER than the Van Roth. I haven't listened to enough albums from the group to make such a determination. But I AM saying this: Song-by-song, Roth gets on my nerves a LOT faster than his older--and much more clean-livin'--counterpart. Get this: Both men went on a tour together recently, and Hagar pretty much blew him away, both in terms of showmanship and actually being able to get through a song while hitting at least half the notes. And he's SEVEN YEARS OLDER than Roth! What's going on here? Isn't Roth supposed to be the "tru" rocker here?

Well, maybe you can just attribute that to the ravages of time. But you can't excuse the recorded material. Even album-by-album, Hagar comes out on top for me so far. I've only listened to three VH albums thus yet, all supposedly the "classics" of their pantheon--Van Halen, 1984, and 5150. Guess which one I like the best.

Yes. Yes, I admit it! I AM the inventor of genericism! It was I who kept punk rock from destroying arena rock in 1978! It was I who kept the Pixies from becoming more popular than Nirvana! It was I who am responsible for the existence of Liz Phair and the Smashing Pumpkins, who have perverted indie rock into the melodic and listenable genre it is today! You have found the FIEND!

***This reader comment contains elements of the Rush Power Windows review, Copyright Some Unknown Year All Rights Reserved.***

Hope I have time to live to comment on the albums now.

<> (23.07.2005)

van halen, not one of my favorite bands by a longshot, ya know if u think about it ,they're ,as i think u pointed out , not any different from countless other hair bands of the late 70s early 80's i thought they were bad enough with david lee roth, much worse with sammy hagar , i cannot believe i used to actualy enjoy their music, how embarrassing. Eddie might be a talented guitar player, so fucking what? anyone who listens to a band for the only reason such as that is wasting their time completely, somewhat like i am right now . but anyway, i agree that 1984 ,that i think about it, is definitely their high point in their career, nothing they do know can top that album.even if they are still making music(not that i could give a shit) I just dont know why their are so many van halen fans around to this day, especially with all the other music from that decade which is infinitally better than them, boy i am really writing a lot of negative things about them, still they do have a few songs that i might be able to stand to listen to on a good day,


Bryan Boyd Jackson Jr. <> (14.03.2001)

I do not mean to tick anybody off out there, but I do not like Van Halen. Not only do I hate David Lee Roth's vocals, I also do not like Eddie Van Halen's guitar playing, at all. Other reasons I hate Van Halen? Let's see. All those 80's hair bands took a page from their sound, or at least most did. Also, what's with all those cover songs? I hate when metal bands do cover songs. It's not like a Rolling Stones or David Bowie cover song, which are good (I know they're not metal bands, but they did some cover songs). No, Van Halen brings a cheesy sound to the cover songs, which is completely horrible. Man oh man, is Van Halen ever overrated! I am so sorry if anybody reading this likes Van Halen. I do not mean to put down your favorite band, but I felt like I had to address this. This isn't the worst band I've listened to though. I know of more 80's bands that I dislike more. But Van Halen probably caused them in some way, shape, or form.

Now, let's run down the track listing. "Runnin' With The Devil" Nice, explosive way to start off an album. It certainly is nice, but very boring. Maybe it's just me, but this song always reminded me of "Dealer" by Deep Purple. "Runnin' from the dealer," "Runnin' with the devil." Sounds the same to me. "Explosion" another Deep Purple rip-off, sounding similar to something on the In Rock album. Yes, I know Eddie Van Halen isn't nearly as good as Ritchie Blackmore, but what can you say? Oh, just like David Lee Roth sucks in comparison to Ian Gillan!!! Boy, oh boy. I'm getting wound up now!!! Let's just move that stupid cover song! "You Really Got Me." Yeah, you really got me skipping over this trashfest of a song! Okay, that was a little extreme. I kinda like it more than the Kinks version actually, maybe because the quality of the song is better, but really, I never cared for the song anyway, so let's go on to the next track. "Ain't Talkin' 'Bout Love" my favorite on the album. Fast hard rocker, that I really do like, probably my favorite Van Halen song. "I'm The One" is okay, with the poppy singing (if that made sense). "Jamie's Cryin' " yet, another good song. My second favorite on the album. "Atomic Punk" I forget what it's like, but remember I liked it too. "Feel Your Love Tonight" is terrible. The most unmemorable song Van Halen ever did. The last three tracks- "Little Dreamer," "Ice Cream Man," and "On Fire" are all decent Van Halen songs. I meant that in, just decent for Van Halen, though that middle one is a little weak. Overall, this is the best Van Halen album they ever put out. I probably won't buy it, just borrow it from my friends when I feel really, really bored. Overall, I'd give it a 10, maybe 11 or 3 stars. That's the highest rating I'll ever give a Van Halen record. I feel so much better now that I got this off my chest. Van Halen I always felt was overrated big time, so if you like Eddie Van Halen's fast guitar riffs, go ahead and buy the album. But radio stations are doing a number on it all ready, so it's your decision. The good news is, their are more bands I hate more than Van Halen. That's good, right???

Jeff Melchior <> (17.03.2001)

I have to agree with your ambivalent feelings towards Van Halen. I found in my experience that my enthusiasm for or downright hatred towards this band was based on the extent to which I either considered these guys revolutionary musicians (failing on most counts) or just a fun rock 'n roll band (for which, at least with DLR at the helm, they were almost peerless).

Just a comment on Eddie Van Halen's guitar style: for a long time, any guitarist who's ever griped about EVH's speed-for-speed's sake style has been accused of pure jealousy. What a crock of shit - these criticisms are well-founded because EVH essentially introduced a synthetic, soulless form of guitar playing into hard rock - heck, popular music in general - that popular music has never completely recovered from. I certainly do not begrudge, say, Randy Rhoads his speed-demon style because he used his guitar pyrotechnics to contribute to the power and emotion of the music. It was very appropriate for Ozzy's music. At least half of Van Halen's songs do not need a whizz-bang solo, yet there it always is and without fail.

As for the album itself, it's probably pretty good, I guess, although certainly not as revolutionary musically as so many would have one believe. I'll take the underrated and undersold Fair Warning myself, and on a good day maybe Women and Children First, but I suppose I'm jumping the gun here.

Glenn Wiener <> (26.02.2002)

A groundbreaking guitar style if nothing else by Eddie V. David Lee Roth's vocals are kind of comical in a good sort of way. Several catchy songs....'Running With The Devil', 'Ice Cream Man', 'Atomic Punk', 'Little Dreamer', others. A few are just plain nerve racking 'I'm On Fire', 'I'm The One'. But in general these guys showed a style that for the most part would make you smile.

Brian Sittinger <> (28.08.2002)

It's probably best to see this from when it was first released. Otherwise, one can easily get stuck with that bad flavor in his mouth. well, overall, this album is quite solid, even though it does get a bit tiresome toward the end. "Ain't Talking About Love" , "You Really Got Me", and "Running With the Devil" are my favorites from here. Eddie's soloing and riffing are explosive (love that tone), and for me, David Lee Roth hadn't become way over-the-top yet. And, "Eruption" needs no introduction: ****1/2.

B L <> (27.06.2005)

Van Halen's first is an underdeveloped peice of bar band metal that displays little of the pop smarts or originality of their susequent albums. In fact, the LP bears striking similiarity to the debut album by "Montrose" (1973) to the point of being a rehash. Produced by Ted Templemen and featuring Sammy Hagar, the "Montrose" album is a worthwhile listen to anyone interested in purist heavy rock. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of Van Halen.

Upon its release, the most celebrated aspect of Van Halen was Eddie Van Halen's guitar work. But let's face it,Eddie is a mixed blessing. When he locks his riff into a bass and drum groove as mighty as the one in "Running With the Devil", the bump and grind ranks right up there with Zeppelin. However, his fusiony gee whiz soloing would be more at home on a Chick Corea record. Eddie simply lacks the gut socking intensity of a Page, Hendrix or (even) the technically inept Mark Farner.

Eddie aside,the real problem with this record lies with David Lee Roth. His groin pulling theatrics on cuts like "Atomic Punk" and " On Fire" render these tracks unlistenable. Jim Dandy Roth shows none of the sly show biz instincts that would make future Van Halen albums such a humorous gas. Only on the admitably great "Jamie's Crying" does he temper his bombast with a joyous wink.

This is a lousy record. Stick with 1984.


Glenn Wiener <> (26.02.2002)

A little poppier but still plenty good. 'Beautiful Girls' is a fun kind of tune where DOA is raw and mean. 'Dance The Night Away' and 'Women In Love' have tender pop melodies. So there is an ounce of diversity if not a heavy sampling. Good but never as good as the first time.


Glenn Wiener <> (05.04.2002)

Plenty of good guitar riffs, but the songs are a bit weak in general here. The lyrics to 'And The Cradle Will Rock' are a bit captivating. 'Take Your Whiskey Home' has a cool bluesy feel to it most notably due to Diamond Dave's singing. 'Could This Be Magic?' is fun and shows off some nice slide work by Eddie. 'Romeo's Delight' rocks all quite nicely. However, as a whole Van Halen have put out better releases.


Glenn Wiener <> (05.04.2002)

Probably the best by these guys. No filler pieces as compared to such previous numbers as 'I'm On Fire', 'Tora Tora', 'Loss Of Control', 'Outta Love', 'I'm The One', etc... Even 'Sunday Afternoon In The Park' has a creative feel with the synthesizer. But those riffs on 'Mean Streets', 'Unchained', 'Dirty Movies', and 'So This Is Love' are simply gorgeous. And 'Hear About It Later' is just such a cool song with a good vocal arrangement. This is the Van Halen disc to start with.


Glenn Wiener <> (27.05.2002)

A different tone certainly exists on this batch of Van Halen tunes. A light hearted mood is in order here and these tunes are all quite snappy even if there is an excessive number of cover tunes. However all the covers are performed in an innovative manner. Maybe not a classic recording but it scores points for being a pleasant upbeat listen.

matt <> (22.02.2004)

Actually, Eddie's playing on 'Cathedral' was done with an Eventide H-3000 Harmonizer.

I have mixed feelings about this album. The covers are done really well with the exception of 'Good Times.' And I thought it was a good idea for the band to come out with such a lighthearted record after the heaviness of Fair Warning. However, I still think it's a little lame for the band to take laziness to new heights. It was unneccessary for the band to do an album that had FIVE covers on it.


Glenn Wiener <> (13.07.2002)

This one is a bit overrated. Yes, the hits 'Jump', 'I'll Wait', 'Panama', and 'Hot For The Teacher' are all classic 80's Rockers with some awesome videos as well. 'Top Jimmy' is an awesome guitar driven song. However the remaining four songs are just not up to the task. Heck the last two are just too noisy. Good riffs yes but little in the terms of song structure. I'd rate this one fifth out of six of the Dave era Van Halen.

<> (03.12.2002)

You said that VH's 1984 album was "very short, clocking in at just over 30 minutes"..

Actually, it's over 33 minutes long... Besides, who gives a shit how long an album is really? It's the QUALITY, not QUANTITY that matters.. No one ever bitches that the first 3 Beatles albums where all like 32 minutes long each! Those records had like 14 songs each and where just hitting 32 minutes. Hell, even the Rubber Soul & Revolver albums where like 34 minutes each!! But they are phenomenal. Look, I aint comparing VH or the Beatles or anyone. I am just saying that bitching about an album "only" being 33 minutes long is ridiculous... It's as silly as the imbeciles who bitched about VH supposedly only getting succesfull doin cover tunes. Sure Diver Down, their 5th album, was a mistake. Even Eddie & Alex VH admit it. But VH did 8 covers in their entire career. The Beatles had 18 covers on their first 3 albums alone!! Each album had 6 cover tunes on it and I dont see people bringing that up ever.. Besides, after Diver Down came 1984. And 1984 was a huge smash, sold millions and went to # 2 on the chart with NO COVERS. And all 4 studio albums they did with Sammy went to # 1 on the chart, sold millions and had NO COVERS.... Go pick up The Cream of Clapton cd, which is Eric Clapton's greatest hits album basically.. There are like 6 covers in it!!! Go pick up Van Halen's Best Of Volume 1- There are NO COVERS on it. And when they release Volume 2, there should be NO COVERS on it either... People just dont know their facts.. Oh, and thanks for printing my other email I sent ya. I was totally shocked to see it up on your site. Very cool.... peace

[Special author note: This is what happens when words are ripped out of context. This is what I wrote: "one might complain about the shortness - barely over thirty minutes - but the shorter a Van Halen album is, the less filler it has, and this one has none". As for Van Halen having less covers than the Beatles, might I remind that for a pop band in 1963, having six covers out of fourteen songs on an album was a lightning years greater achievement than for a pop band in 1978 having no covers at all.]


Glenn Wiener <> (08.08.2002)

You make some good points about why you dislike Sammy Hagar. He certainly lacked the "personality" that old Diamond Dave brought to the table. However, 5150 is one of Van Halen's most consistent efforts regardless of who was handling the lead vocals. All of the songs are well structured and Eddie Van Halen is still on top of his guitar game. The synthesizer embellishments are actually very good as with the possible exception of 'Love Walks In', they don't dominate this record. They merely add to it. I certainly prefer this one to 1984 and Women and Children First.

matt <> (22.02.2004)

I don't think Hagar is that bad......

Okay, his screaming can be pretty annoying sometimes, but if you'll notice......he can ACTUALLY SING. Ever listen to the live album? Sammy does 'Panama' a hell of a lot better than Dave did it, despite the fact that he stopped it and tried to get the crowd to chant along "Right Now."

This moron Ryan Atkinson is even worse. At least you justified why you don't like Hagar, i.e. the "hello baby" part at the beginning of 'Good Enough'. This guy just sits there and cries like a little fucking two year old about how "Sammy Hagar ruined Van Halen." You don't like Hagar...fine. At least you explained why. I respect you for that.

David Dickson <> (20.06.2005)

George, George. . . (*rolls eyes, trys with all might not to speak in a snotty tone of voice*)

I understand this exaltation of "goofiness," and "tongue-in-cheekness" amongst the "the '80's suck on principle" crowd you, as we say, "hang" with, but that doesn't mean I have to like it. "Irony"? "Looking at oneself from the outside?" You're in Glam-Rock-And-Roll-Excess-Fantasy Land here, sir, and like it or not, nobody here gives a good goddamn about your notions of "humor" and "realism." We're here to pretend that pussy, partying, decadence, and glossy production are the meaning of life, whether they are or not (they're not). Hard rock, from its not-so-'umble beginnings under Cream and Led Zep, has essentially been an escapist genre. Escape from the less-bombastic, power-chord-less realities of existence, you suede denim secret policeman, you. (Jello Biafra, 1979)

Yikes. I'm being mean as a Mongol here, forgive me. It's just that there are some genres of music, it seems, you absolutely refuse to take on their own terms. Nothing wrong with that, of course--I, for one, refuse to take minimalist hip dadaist punk from this same decade on ITS own terms. Unless it's done by the Minutemen--not a bad band, those surreallist jokers.

Any-huay, I must emphasize: Van Halen's image did NOT do a one-eighty with this album, at least in the eyes of the public. As far as Average Reagan- voting Joe was concerned, Van Halen were hard-rockin' deviants with Lee Roth, and they were hard rockin' deviants with Hagar. If any album changed their image, it was 1984, with its *gasp!* synthesizers on two tracks. Perhaps a few "hep" people back in 1986 (mostly non-fan-hepsters) noticed the shift, but for the vast majority of soon-to-be-soccer-moms out there, it was like a shift from peaches to juicy, juicy nectarines. I use that analogy deliberately. Maybe I'm becoming one of "them," eh. . . ?

So! The album. "Best of Both Worlds," "Why Can't This Be," and especially "Dreams" are all nicely-written classics. "Good Enough," despite its "hello baby" thing, is a pretty catchy album track--and by the way, those two words are every bit as ironically intentioned as Roth's asides. Don't let Hagar's deadly serious reputation fool you. Rolling Stone liked it! And they hate everybody and everything. Except Liz Phair. Her LYRICS are just so P.C.-PANDERING! Ain't that interesting?

Perhaps "Summer Nights" is the one single I really don't care for--mainly because Hagar wrote the whole thing, up to and including the guitar riff. It sounds, stylistically, almost EXACTLY like "Three-Lock Box" from his solo career, and that's not a good thing. Decent metal singer, this guy, but leave the songwriting to Eddie.

But whoa. What the fuckin' hell is wrong with "Love Walks In." I mean, seriously, it's an alright song. Really. Yes, it's slow, cloying, calculated, and *drumroll* UNIRONIC (uh-oh. We're all gonna die. We can't LIVE without smirky, drug-addled sarcasm in life. DARN those people who take songwriting seriously! Darn them all to HECK! :)). But there are about a million ballads out there that are far, far worse, most of them written by Journey, Chicago, and the Swedish songwriters responsible for the Backstreet Boys. A bad power ballad has a bad melody, no hooks, and no reason to listen to it whatsoever, even if you're a girl. THIS ballad doesn't have those awful traits. It has a good melody. It has a good chord progression. And unless you're allergic to all power ballads of the era on principle (*cough* *GEORGE* *SEEMINGLY*), it's listenable. All I can say is, if you hate this one, then you might as well throw in the towel on the whole decade, because you ain't gonna like anything else in that vein at all.

Not that it's one of the best songs ever written, of course. It's just that I've seen the same treatment dealt to Styx songs of the same calibre and genre. . . because they're wuvey-dovey wuv songs with a cloying vibe and bombastic choruses. No other reason. Despite the hummable melody. That just ain't right. And George, you're about the most interesting not-for- profit writer I've read on these subjects, so it's admittedly painful when you go off on these Wilson-and-Alroy-esque "this-genre-sucks-on-principle- period" tangents. [Hey, at least I do like Alice Cooper's "Love's A Loaded Gun". Does that count? -
G.S.] No offense intended, I just wanted to rant a little. Maybe I'm wrong on your biases. Maybe.

But the other three songs are just-kinda-meh. Overall, the album is just a decent party-hearty good time. JUST. So I give it four stars. Same as 1984, oddly enough. Hagar didn't sink the band's quality, Eddie's sinking creativity did.

Agnes Ayres <> (17.07.2005)

"'s the kind of cock rocker I actually can stand, emphasizing the power and the energy rather than the size of one's thingy, if you know what I mean."

George,George,George- "thingy"???!!! LOLOLOLOLOL!! I'd say you have quite a sense of humor yourself,Mr George,I'm giggling my ass off!

{Catching breath}

ANYway,I like the point of your comparison of "Love Walks In" to "I'll Wait". Barring David Lee Roth's(somewhat caricatured) sex appeal and charisma,(which joke he himself was in on,to his credit),THIS is just why I couldn't stand Van Halen after his departure. Whatever grittiness and humor they had,(and humor can be a real turn-on),it left when he did,and this band needed that humor,as you say,to rise above all the copy-cat hair bands that came in their wake.They just weren't "hard" enough to be truly dangerous and threatening,in their style,and the only way to recognise that without being weak is humor(or above-average intelligence,musically speaking I mean).After that,well, it's getting bad when you're a bad copy of your imitators.

I've always understood,perhaps miguidedly,that this was a kind of "guys" band(before the dum power ballads,I mean-ughh-just the concept of a "power ballad" makes me gag). Well, if that's true,something's screwy,because when my I was 16,my boyfriend of the day turned me onto Van Halen,and he knew the quickest way to get me in a romantic mood was to play "I'll Wait". I just remembered that,reading this review. Damn that song was hot,(the much-feared synths even managed to ADD to the disturbing sound of this ONE song-in retrospect,it makes me think of a stalker)how could they do something like that,and then turn around and cheese the place up with things like "Love Walks In"?

Return to the main index page