Michael Schenker V. Eddie Van Halen: "INTO THE ARENA" "ON FIRE!"

[custom55]

Diver Down a filler ???

 

I think Eddie's epogee is with Hang'em High. Exhibit A:

[custom55]

Women and Children a filler ???

 

Exhibit B: http://youtu.be/2euKIcljqMk

Edited December 26, 2014 by custom55

[RUSHHEAD666]

Ya Earl I always make the same comparisons between Ed and Michael.. I always thought of schenker as the "Eddie across the pond" lol.

 

I kinda thought Eddie was all washed up until I saw VH last year. Man the they guy can still shred!! I was impressed! But unfortunately Schenker is the man for me. He did that Rock Bottom solo when he was barely old enough to drive and it's still the best solo of all time! (Yes it is!! Lol)

 

Schenker doesn't need to try very hard either, he just gets up there and plays and it sounds amazing!

 

I will DEFINATELY check out this album though!! I listen to Schenker/UFO probably more than anything else. Thanks for the tip!!

 

Yeah, I saw Van Halen in 2008 twice! Eddie was ON FIRE then too! I don't think Eddie is washed up at all! I hope somehow he records something again. Maybe an Eddie Van Halen solo album? Schenker has a ton of them! I have them all! LOL!

 

There is no doubt about the "Rock Bottom" guitar solo. I have probably written a few threads on here over the years about it!

 

It truly is one of the greatest guitar solos in the world!!! Can you name an Eddie Van Halen solo that comes close to that one?

 

Every note on Fair Warning.

 

DITTO

[EagleMoon]

 

I never see any guitarists with a Floyd Rose.

 

 

Alex has a Floyd Rose on his signature Axcess Les Paul.

[Detonator]

I don't think so. You're entitled to your opinion of course. ;)

 

4 of them are rock good albums... I agree.... not perfect as they have a lot of dumb "fillers" like Bottoms Up, And Diver Down and Women & Children First are mediocre at best.

 

I¨m in my 30's so I didn't grow up with the old Van Halen stuff and Roth. Maybe you're older guys and you did. So maybe, just maybe I view the discography differently because of that. ;)

 

Did you grow up with Moving Pictures? Are you a Beatles or Rolling Stones fan? I don't think you need to have been a teenager when something came out to love it.

 

I do agree you're entitled to think Van Hagar > Roth era VH.

 

Moving Pictures is timeless. When I first heard it, I instantly recognized a masterpiece. It was like Led Zep's IV. But it's very hard for me to love the Stones. I just don't get it what's so great about them. My dad loves them though.

 

I acknowledge their influence and legacy, like Exile and It's Only Rock'n'Roll... but I don't particularly love them. Most of their stuff sound dated and boring.

 

Rolling Stone magazine just recently claimed that The Clash's "London Calling" is best rock album ever made. Personally, I think it's a mediocre pop album. Nothing special musically.

 

It's fascinating how there are so many "right" or "wrong" opinions in pop music. And they're just opinions.

 

Like old Rush vs. new Rush. Just imagine that there must be people who still think nothing after Fly By Night isn't worth listening. :D

 

I really LIKE most ot fhe Roth-era... but Roth was very one dimensional... "Tough rock guys" can't admit that they like stuf like "When it's Love". Might be the best rock ballad ever made. Roth could never have performed it. And songs like Feelin' and Right Now are just simply rock music taken into another level, imho. ;)

Edited December 26, 2014 by Detonator

[Xanadoood]

 

I never see any guitarists with a Floyd Rose.

 

 

Alex has a Floyd Rose on his signature Axcess Les Paul.

 

I'm referring more to local bands. Guys you see in clubs. In the suburbs, yeah, you'll see the horrible cover band at the Chinese restaraunt, and the guitarist is stuck in 1985. But in the city, nope.

[Rick N. Backer]

I don't think so. You're entitled to your opinion of course. ;)

 

4 of them are rock good albums... I agree.... not perfect as they have a lot of dumb "fillers" like Bottoms Up, And Diver Down and Women & Children First are mediocre at best.

 

I¨m in my 30's so I didn't grow up with the old Van Halen stuff and Roth. Maybe you're older guys and you did. So maybe, just maybe I view the discography differently because of that. ;)

 

Did you grow up with Moving Pictures? Are you a Beatles or Rolling Stones fan? I don't think you need to have been a teenager when something came out to love it.

 

I do agree you're entitled to think Van Hagar > Roth era VH.

 

Moving Pictures is timeless. When I first heard it, I instantly recognized a masterpiece. It was like Led Zep's IV. But it's very hard for me to love the Stones. I just don't get it what's so great about them. My dad loves them though.

 

I acknowledge their influence and legacy, like Exile and It's Only Rock'n'Roll... but I don't particularly love them. Most of their stuff sound dated and boring.

 

Rolling Stone magazine just recently claimed that The Clash's "London Calling" is best rock album ever made. Personally, I think it's a mediocre pop album. Nothing special musically.

 

It's fascinating how there are so many "right" or "wrong" opinions in pop music. And they're just opinions.

 

Like old Rush vs. new Rush. Just imagine that there must be people who still think nothing after Fly By Night isn't worth listening. :D

 

I really LIKE most ot fhe Roth-era... but Roth was very one dimensional... "Tough rock guys" can't admit that they like stuf like "When it's Love". Might be the best rock ballad ever made. Roth could never have performed it. And songs like Feelin' and Right Now are just simply rock music taken into another level, imho. ;)

 

I think you missed my point. You said us "older guys" (or us "tough rock guys" but I'm not sure where that comes from) like the Roth era better because we grew up with it. Maybe, just maybe, we like it better than the Hagar era because we just think it's just better? ;)

 

There are never right or wrong opinions. But they're fun to discuss, as long as everyone participating in the conversation realizes that someone saying they don't agree with you isn't the same as insulting you. :D

[ReRushed]

I think London Calling is the greatest rock and roll album of all-time. It's a wonderfully diverse album.

[EagleMoon]

 

I never see any guitarists with a Floyd Rose.

 

 

Alex has a Floyd Rose on his signature Axcess Les Paul.

 

I'm referring more to local bands. Guys you see in clubs. In the suburbs, yeah, you'll see the horrible cover band at the Chinese restaraunt, and the guitarist is stuck in 1985. But in the city, nope.

 

Oh really? Maybe it's a local thing. I still see guys using them. Probably depends on the type of music they're doing.

[Xanadoood]

 

I never see any guitarists with a Floyd Rose.

 

 

Alex has a Floyd Rose on his signature Axcess Les Paul.

 

I'm referring more to local bands. Guys you see in clubs. In the suburbs, yeah, you'll see the horrible cover band at the Chinese restaraunt, and the guitarist is stuck in 1985. But in the city, nope.

 

Oh really? Maybe it's a local thing. I still see guys using them. Probably depends on the type of music they're doing.

 

I guess my point is that Eddies style is very much part of an era. It defined rock guitar playing in the 80s. Whereas someone like Keith Richards, and the Stones in general, that style fits in any decade. Remember the Black Crowes? They came out in the 90s and were huge. And had a 70s sound to them.

[EagleMoon]

I never see any guitarists with a Floyd Rose.

 

 

Alex has a Floyd Rose on his signature Axcess Les Paul.

 

I'm referring more to local bands. Guys you see in clubs. In the suburbs, yeah, you'll see the horrible cover band at the Chinese restaraunt, and the guitarist is stuck in 1985. But in the city, nope.

 

Oh really? Maybe it's a local thing. I still see guys using them. Probably depends on the type of music they're doing.

 

I guess my point is that Eddies style is very much part of an era. It defined rock guitar playing in the 80s. Whereas someone like Keith Richards, and the Stones in general, that style fits in any decade. Remember the Black Crowes? They came out in the 90s and were huge. And had a 70s sound to them.

 

I know what you're saying. The Stones are kind of timeless because what they do is based in the blues. What Eddie did was more "out there" and a bit unique so it sticks out more so is connected with a certain time.

[Detonator]

I don't think so. You're entitled to your opinion of course. ;)

 

4 of them are rock good albums... I agree.... not perfect as they have a lot of dumb "fillers" like Bottoms Up, And Diver Down and Women & Children First are mediocre at best.

 

I¨m in my 30's so I didn't grow up with the old Van Halen stuff and Roth. Maybe you're older guys and you did. So maybe, just maybe I view the discography differently because of that. ;)

 

Did you grow up with Moving Pictures? Are you a Beatles or Rolling Stones fan? I don't think you need to have been a teenager when something came out to love it.

 

I do agree you're entitled to think Van Hagar > Roth era VH.

 

Moving Pictures is timeless. When I first heard it, I instantly recognized a masterpiece. It was like Led Zep's IV. But it's very hard for me to love the Stones. I just don't get it what's so great about them. My dad loves them though.

 

I acknowledge their influence and legacy, like Exile and It's Only Rock'n'Roll... but I don't particularly love them. Most of their stuff sound dated and boring.

 

Rolling Stone magazine just recently claimed that The Clash's "London Calling" is best rock album ever made. Personally, I think it's a mediocre pop album. Nothing special musically.

 

It's fascinating how there are so many "right" or "wrong" opinions in pop music. And they're just opinions.

 

Like old Rush vs. new Rush. Just imagine that there must be people who still think nothing after Fly By Night isn't worth listening. :D

 

I really LIKE most ot fhe Roth-era... but Roth was very one dimensional... "Tough rock guys" can't admit that they like stuf like "When it's Love". Might be the best rock ballad ever made. Roth could never have performed it. And songs like Feelin' and Right Now are just simply rock music taken into another level, imho. ;)

 

I think you missed my point. You said us "older guys" (or us "tough rock guys" but I'm not sure where that comes from) like the Roth era better because we grew up with it. Maybe, just maybe, we like it better than the Hagar era because we just think it's just better? ;)

 

There are never right or wrong opinions. But they're fun to discuss, as long as everyone participating in the conversation realizes that someone saying they don't agree with you isn't the same as insulting you. :D

 

I don't take these things personally at all. Au contrary, it's interesting and sometimes music discussions can make you soften your views and maybe try something again with different attitude.

 

The "tough guy rock" comment wasn't directed at you, but to people who disliked Hagar's ballads (Love Walks In, When it's love, Dreams, etc.) Those alienated a lot of old Roth-era fans from the band but brought a lot of new fans. I really like those songs, they're powerful and beautiful at the same time.

 

Believe it or not, it was Eddie himself who wanted to do more ballads and melodic stuff because with Hagar he was able to do them. Roth's vocal range only enabled them to do that much. Old VH is very good but still it's all quite one-dimensional, straightforward rock. Nothing wrong with that though... it's kinda like comparing Fly By Night to Hold Your Fire. A comment that "Roth era blows Hagar era away" is an opinion but not a "fact". The band and its music & songwriting developed tremendously after Roth left, imho.

 

I've watched a lot ot VH concerts (from both eras) and the band was simply at its peak (musically) in the early 90's (f**k and Balance tours), imho. I know that they have "doctored" the sound of this concert afterwards a little, but the band's energy and power was unbelievable in this gig.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdBqQ_ZA2Os

[Rick N. Backer]

I don't think so. You're entitled to your opinion of course. ;)

 

4 of them are rock good albums... I agree.... not perfect as they have a lot of dumb "fillers" like Bottoms Up, And Diver Down and Women & Children First are mediocre at best.

 

I¨m in my 30's so I didn't grow up with the old Van Halen stuff and Roth. Maybe you're older guys and you did. So maybe, just maybe I view the discography differently because of that. ;)

 

Did you grow up with Moving Pictures? Are you a Beatles or Rolling Stones fan? I don't think you need to have been a teenager when something came out to love it.

 

I do agree you're entitled to think Van Hagar > Roth era VH.

 

Moving Pictures is timeless. When I first heard it, I instantly recognized a masterpiece. It was like Led Zep's IV. But it's very hard for me to love the Stones. I just don't get it what's so great about them. My dad loves them though.

 

I acknowledge their influence and legacy, like Exile and It's Only Rock'n'Roll... but I don't particularly love them. Most of their stuff sound dated and boring.

 

Rolling Stone magazine just recently claimed that The Clash's "London Calling" is best rock album ever made. Personally, I think it's a mediocre pop album. Nothing special musically.

 

It's fascinating how there are so many "right" or "wrong" opinions in pop music. And they're just opinions.

 

Like old Rush vs. new Rush. Just imagine that there must be people who still think nothing after Fly By Night isn't worth listening. :D

 

I really LIKE most ot fhe Roth-era... but Roth was very one dimensional... "Tough rock guys" can't admit that they like stuf like "When it's Love". Might be the best rock ballad ever made. Roth could never have performed it. And songs like Feelin' and Right Now are just simply rock music taken into another level, imho. ;)

 

I think you missed my point. You said us "older guys" (or us "tough rock guys" but I'm not sure where that comes from) like the Roth era better because we grew up with it. Maybe, just maybe, we like it better than the Hagar era because we just think it's just better? ;)

 

There are never right or wrong opinions. But they're fun to discuss, as long as everyone participating in the conversation realizes that someone saying they don't agree with you isn't the same as insulting you. :D

 

I don't take these things personally at all. Au contrary, it's interesting and sometimes music discussions can make you soften your views and maybe try something again with different attitude.

 

The "tough guy rock" comment wasn't directed at you, but to people who disliked Hagar's ballads (Love Walks In, When it's love, Dreams, etc.) Those alienated a lot of old Roth-era fans from the band but brought a lot of new fans. I really like those songs, they're powerful and beautiful at the same time.

 

Believe it or not, it was Eddie himself who wanted to do more ballads and melodic stuff because with Hagar he was able to do them. Roth's vocal range only enabled them to do that much. Old VH is very good but still it's all quite one-dimensional, straightforward rock. Nothing wrong with that though... it's kinda like comparing Fly By Night to Hold Your Fire. A comment that "Roth era blows Hagar era away" is an opinion but not a "fact". The band and its music & songwriting developed tremendously after Roth left, imho.

 

I've watched a lot ot VH concerts (from both eras) and the band was simply at its peak (musically) in the early 90's (f**k and Balance tours), imho. I know that they have "doctored" the sound of this concert afterwards a little, but the band's energy and power was unbelievable in this gig.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdBqQ_ZA2Os

 

I'm aware that part of the friction between EVH and Roth was Eddie's wish to go in a more commercial direction. I think it's debatable whether 5150, OU812, F*CK and Balance are ultimately better albums than the Roth era albums. Dave's obviously not a ballads kind of guy, and if the inclusion of ballads on an album makes or breaks that album for a listener, then Sammy's stuff will come out ahead. For me, it's a question of which era made a more lasting impression upon music. I like a lot of Sammy's solo stuff, and I enjoy his work with Van Halen. I just don't think in the end those albums were transformative. That doesn't make them bad, it just doesn't put them on par with the Roth era stuff IMO.

[Turbine Freight]

I tend to think of the Roth & Hagar eras as almost 2 separate bands. The Hagar stuff is OK, but for me the DLR era VH will always be king.

[Rick N. Backer]

I tend to think of the Roth & Hagar eras as almost 2 separate bands. The Hagar stuff is OK, but for me the DLR era VH will always be king.

 

I do too. In fact, I think of VH as being a lot like Black Sabbath with the Ozzy era and the Dio era. The band that recorded Heaven and Hell sounds nothing like the band that recorded Paranoid. I like both eras, but if I feel like hearing Mob Rules, I'm not likely to throw on Volume 4 right afterwards.

[Detonator]

Hey... I like that comparison (Ozzy vs. Dio).

 

And I also agree that they're two different bands.

 

Hagar era has more different kind of music... ballads and melodic songs... and songs like Feelin' that have some prog rock elements, even (might be the best Hagar era song). Roth era is more straightforward, classic rock.

 

But then again Judgement Day, Amsterdam and Big Fat Money are even heavier... they could be labeled as "metal", even by today's standards.

 

OU812 is probably the weakest Hagar album. Mine all Mine and When It's Love are great but the rest of the album... hmm...

 

PS: Did you know that Dave's first solo was "Eat 'Em And Smile" and OU812 was a direct response to that (Ou You Ate One Too). ;)

[Rick N. Backer]

PS: Did you know that Dave's first solo was "Eat 'Em And Smile" and OU812 was a direct response to that (Ou You Ate One Too). ;)

 

Of course, I'm an "older guy" who remembers when they would report that stuff on MTV between videos. ;)

[Detonator]

Speaking of old Van Halen, this is very underrated song. I love Eddie's guitar in this one.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmX-j4-mznI

Edited December 26, 2014 by Detonator

[custom55]

enough said... What's on the top of your Christmas tree ?

 

http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w276/custom55/10888952_604235823011278_841934557899765549_n_zps2679d365.jpg

[Detonator]

Eddie the "pretty boy" approves.

 

http://www.onanyotherday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/eddie_vanhalen.jpg

[Xanadoood]

I don't think so. You're entitled to your opinion of course. ;)

 

4 of them are rock good albums... I agree.... not perfect as they have a lot of dumb "fillers" like Bottoms Up, And Diver Down and Women & Children First are mediocre at best.

 

I¨m in my 30's so I didn't grow up with the old Van Halen stuff and Roth. Maybe you're older guys and you did. So maybe, just maybe I view the discography differently because of that. ;)

 

Did you grow up with Moving Pictures? Are you a Beatles or Rolling Stones fan? I don't think you need to have been a teenager when something came out to love it.

 

I do agree you're entitled to think Van Hagar > Roth era VH.

 

Moving Pictures is timeless. When I first heard it, I instantly recognized a masterpiece. It was like Led Zep's IV. But it's very hard for me to love the Stones. I just don't get it what's so great about them. My dad loves them though.

 

I acknowledge their influence and legacy, like Exile and It's Only Rock'n'Roll... but I don't particularly love them. Most of their stuff sound dated and boring.

 

Rolling Stone magazine just recently claimed that The Clash's "London Calling" is best rock album ever made. Personally, I think it's a mediocre pop album. Nothing special musically.

 

It's fascinating how there are so many "right" or "wrong" opinions in pop music. And they're just opinions.

 

Like old Rush vs. new Rush. Just imagine that there must be people who still think nothing after Fly By Night isn't worth listening. :D

 

I really LIKE most ot fhe Roth-era... but Roth was very one dimensional... "Tough rock guys" can't admit that they like stuf like "When it's Love". Might be the best rock ballad ever made. Roth could never have performed it. And songs like Feelin' and Right Now are just simply rock music taken into another level, imho. ;)

 

I think you missed my point. You said us "older guys" (or us "tough rock guys" but I'm not sure where that comes from) like the Roth era better because we grew up with it. Maybe, just maybe, we like it better than the Hagar era because we just think it's just better? ;)

 

There are never right or wrong opinions. But they're fun to discuss, as long as everyone participating in the conversation realizes that someone saying they don't agree with you isn't the same as insulting you. :D

 

I don't take these things personally at all. Au contrary, it's interesting and sometimes music discussions can make you soften your views and maybe try something again with different attitude.

 

The "tough guy rock" comment wasn't directed at you, but to people who disliked Hagar's ballads (Love Walks In, When it's love, Dreams, etc.) Those alienated a lot of old Roth-era fans from the band but brought a lot of new fans. I really like those songs, they're powerful and beautiful at the same time.

 

Believe it or not, it was Eddie himself who wanted to do more ballads and melodic stuff because with Hagar he was able to do them. Roth's vocal range only enabled them to do that much. Old VH is very good but still it's all quite one-dimensional, straightforward rock. Nothing wrong with that though... it's kinda like comparing Fly By Night to Hold Your Fire. A comment that "Roth era blows Hagar era away" is an opinion but not a "fact". The band and its music & songwriting developed tremendously after Roth left, imho.

 

I've watched a lot ot VH concerts (from both eras) and the band was simply at its peak (musically) in the early 90's (f**k and Balance tours), imho. I know that they have "doctored" the sound of this concert afterwards a little, but the band's energy and power was unbelievable in this gig.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdBqQ_ZA2Os

 

I'm aware that part of the friction between EVH and Roth was Eddie's wish to go in a more commercial direction. I think it's debatable whether 5150, OU812, F*CK and Balance are ultimately better albums than the Roth era albums. Dave's obviously not a ballads kind of guy, and if the inclusion of ballads on an album makes or breaks that album for a listener, then Sammy's stuff will come out ahead. For me, it's a question of which era made a more lasting impression upon music. I like a lot of Sammy's solo stuff, and I enjoy his work with Van Halen. I just don't think in the end those albums were transformative. That doesn't make them bad, it just doesn't put them on par with the Roth era stuff IMO.

 

What kills a lot of the Sammy stuff for me are the lyrics. I always felt Roths lyrics were quite unique. The f**k album in particular is quite cringe worthy , with shit like Spanked and Man on a mission. And the opening song on the first VH album with him , Good Enough.. Yikes.

Edited December 26, 2014 by Xanadoood

[Detonator]

I agree that "Spanked" is total crap. I always skip that.

[Rick N. Backer]

I don't think so. You're entitled to your opinion of course. ;)

 

4 of them are rock good albums... I agree.... not perfect as they have a lot of dumb "fillers" like Bottoms Up, And Diver Down and Women & Children First are mediocre at best.

 

I¨m in my 30's so I didn't grow up with the old Van Halen stuff and Roth. Maybe you're older guys and you did. So maybe, just maybe I view the discography differently because of that. ;)

 

Did you grow up with Moving Pictures? Are you a Beatles or Rolling Stones fan? I don't think you need to have been a teenager when something came out to love it.

 

I do agree you're entitled to think Van Hagar > Roth era VH.

 

Moving Pictures is timeless. When I first heard it, I instantly recognized a masterpiece. It was like Led Zep's IV. But it's very hard for me to love the Stones. I just don't get it what's so great about them. My dad loves them though.

 

I acknowledge their influence and legacy, like Exile and It's Only Rock'n'Roll... but I don't particularly love them. Most of their stuff sound dated and boring.

 

Rolling Stone magazine just recently claimed that The Clash's "London Calling" is best rock album ever made. Personally, I think it's a mediocre pop album. Nothing special musically.

 

It's fascinating how there are so many "right" or "wrong" opinions in pop music. And they're just opinions.

 

Like old Rush vs. new Rush. Just imagine that there must be people who still think nothing after Fly By Night isn't worth listening. :D

 

I really LIKE most ot fhe Roth-era... but Roth was very one dimensional... "Tough rock guys" can't admit that they like stuf like "When it's Love". Might be the best rock ballad ever made. Roth could never have performed it. And songs like Feelin' and Right Now are just simply rock music taken into another level, imho. ;)

 

I think you missed my point. You said us "older guys" (or us "tough rock guys" but I'm not sure where that comes from) like the Roth era better because we grew up with it. Maybe, just maybe, we like it better than the Hagar era because we just think it's just better? ;)

 

There are never right or wrong opinions. But they're fun to discuss, as long as everyone participating in the conversation realizes that someone saying they don't agree with you isn't the same as insulting you. :D

 

I don't take these things personally at all. Au contrary, it's interesting and sometimes music discussions can make you soften your views and maybe try something again with different attitude.

 

The "tough guy rock" comment wasn't directed at you, but to people who disliked Hagar's ballads (Love Walks In, When it's love, Dreams, etc.) Those alienated a lot of old Roth-era fans from the band but brought a lot of new fans. I really like those songs, they're powerful and beautiful at the same time.

 

Believe it or not, it was Eddie himself who wanted to do more ballads and melodic stuff because with Hagar he was able to do them. Roth's vocal range only enabled them to do that much. Old VH is very good but still it's all quite one-dimensional, straightforward rock. Nothing wrong with that though... it's kinda like comparing Fly By Night to Hold Your Fire. A comment that "Roth era blows Hagar era away" is an opinion but not a "fact". The band and its music & songwriting developed tremendously after Roth left, imho.

 

I've watched a lot ot VH concerts (from both eras) and the band was simply at its peak (musically) in the early 90's (f**k and Balance tours), imho. I know that they have "doctored" the sound of this concert afterwards a little, but the band's energy and power was unbelievable in this gig.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdBqQ_ZA2Os

 

I'm aware that part of the friction between EVH and Roth was Eddie's wish to go in a more commercial direction. I think it's debatable whether 5150, OU812, F*CK and Balance are ultimately better albums than the Roth era albums. Dave's obviously not a ballads kind of guy, and if the inclusion of ballads on an album makes or breaks that album for a listener, then Sammy's stuff will come out ahead. For me, it's a question of which era made a more lasting impression upon music. I like a lot of Sammy's solo stuff, and I enjoy his work with Van Halen. I just don't think in the end those albums were transformative. That doesn't make them bad, it just doesn't put them on par with the Roth era stuff IMO.

 

What kills a lot of the Sammy stuff for me are the lyrics. I always felt Roths lyrics were quite unique. The f**k album in particular is quite cringe worthy , with shit like Spanked and Man on a mission. And the opening song on the first VH album with him , Good Enough.. Yikes.

 

Or Black and Blue, musically a very cool tune. The lyrics are a joke ("bitch sure got the rhythm"). Sammy often makes Brian Johnson look like John Lennon lyrically.

[Detonator]

Oh yeah.... there's always SO much depth in those Roth era lyrics. :D

 

She saw the look in his eyes, 'n' she knew better

He wanted her tonight, ah, and it was now or never

He made her feel so sad

Oh, whoa, whoa, Jamie's cryin'

Oh, whoa, whoa, Jamie's cryin'

Now Jamie wouldn't say, "All right", ah, she knew he'd forget her

'N' so they said goodnight, ah, oh, 'n' now he's gone forever

She want's to send him a letter, uh yeah yeah

Uh just to try to make herself feel better

It said "Gimme (gimme a call sometime")

But she knows what that'll get her

Oh, whoa, whoa, Jamie's cryin'

Oh, whoa, whoa, Jamie's cryin'

Now Jamie's been in love before (ahhh)

And she knows what love is for (ahhh)

It should mean, a little, a little more (ahhh)

Than one night stands, whoo

She want's to send him a letter, uh yeah yeah

Just to try to make herself feel better

It said "Gimme (gimme a call sometime")

But she knows what that'll get her

Oh, whoa, whoa, Jamie's cryin'

Oh, whoa, whoa, Jamie's cryin'

[Repeat til outro]

[ReRushed]

Oh yeah.... there's always SO much depth in those Roth era lyrics. :D

 

She saw the look in his eyes, 'n' she knew better

He wanted her tonight, ah, and it was now or never

He made her feel so sad

Oh, whoa, whoa, Jamie's cryin'

Oh, whoa, whoa, Jamie's cryin'

Now Jamie wouldn't say, "All right", ah, she knew he'd forget her

'N' so they said goodnight, ah, oh, 'n' now he's gone forever

She want's to send him a letter, uh yeah yeah

Uh just to try to make herself feel better

It said "Gimme (gimme a call sometime")

But she knows what that'll get her

Oh, whoa, whoa, Jamie's cryin'

Oh, whoa, whoa, Jamie's cryin'

Now Jamie's been in love before (ahhh)

And she knows what love is for (ahhh)

It should mean, a little, a little more (ahhh)

Than one night stands, whoo

She want's to send him a letter, uh yeah yeah

Just to try to make herself feel better

It said "Gimme (gimme a call sometime")

But she knows what that'll get her

Oh, whoa, whoa, Jamie's cryin'

Oh, whoa, whoa, Jamie's cryin'

[Repeat til outro]

 

There's nothing wrong with those lyrics, especially with the melody.