Did Eddie Van Halen need David Lee Roth?

Van Halen - Would They Have Been as Great Without David Lee Roth???


Results are only viewable after voting.

rabidcatfan

New member
Jan 25, 2003
9,198
272
0
This has been an ongoing question between my friends and I for many years now - would Eddie Van Halen be as well known and revered today if the band had not hired David Lee Roth as its lead singer?

My answer is NO. I believe that, although Eddie was a singular talent and his guitar playing technique was certainly something that could attract attention on its own, it would've been considered more of a circus stunt after a few years if not for Roth's stage persona and songwriting skills. The combination of Eddies playing and Roth's singing and stage antics is what helped propelled Van Halen into the stratosphere.

Eddie is an amazing guitarist, but there are plenty of other amazing guitarists like Steve Vai, Joe Satriani, and Yngwie Malmsteen among others who are just as talented as Eddie but never reached the heights of Van Halen simply because they weren't paired with an polarizing lead singer like Eddie was with Roth. Randy Rhoads is a guitarist with a similar path as Eddie. Both came up in the So Cal area and both hit the club scene at the same time and both played a similar style of lead guitar with the signature hammer-ons and pull-offs and "tapping" techniques, but as the lead guitarist for the band Quiet Riot (before they hit it big themselves), Randy wasn't very well known outside L.A. until he was hired by Ozzy Osbourne for his first solo Blizzard of Ozz album, and now despite his untimely death at age 25 in 1982, is widely regarded as one of the greatest rock guitarists of all-time, despite only producing 2 albums with Ozzy (4 if you count the Mr. Crowley Live EP and the live Tribute album released 5 years after his death). I believe this is greatly attributed to his pairing with Ozzy.

Same goes for Eddie, great guitarist, but without Roth, I don't think he would be nearly as well known.
 

cawoodsct

Well-known member
Apr 27, 2006
39,727
4,231
102
To answer your thread title its YES. Yes, he was a star and they would have never gotten as big.
To answer the poll its NO. They would have never been as great as they became without Roth.

You have kind of asked 3 questions in one thread. Even the first sentence has a question of its own that can be answered. Because yes, Eddie could have been just as revered without Roth but it would have been in a guitarist only way and not band. Maybe like Malmsteen
 

rabidcatfan

New member
Jan 25, 2003
9,198
272
0
The thread title and poll question are essentially the same thing. I see what you are saying with the first sentence of my thread, but I believe he wouldn't be as revered as he is now without the success he experienced with the band. Yes Vai, Satriani, and Malmsteen are great guitarists who are revered within the musical community for their fretboard prowess, they are not well known outside those circles, unlike Eddie Van Halen who is almost a household name - hell, even my 80 year old Grandmother knew who Eddie was by name and this was in the late 1990's and she never listened to rock music whatsoever. Guys like Jimi Hendrix, Eric Clapton, Stevie Ray Vaughan, Jimmie Page, B.B. King, Chuck Berry, etc. are all more famous because of commercial success than they would have been based on their talent alone, and I think that's what I'm eluding to with this thread.

Another way to look at it I guess would be to take into account guitarists like Warren DeMartini, Phil Collen, C.C. Deville, or Jerry Cantrell - all great lead guitarists for huge bands of their era (Ratt, Def Leppard, Poison, and Alice in Chains respectively) who are still not very well known names outside the musical community despite their huge commercial success and talent. I guess they prove that you can be a great axe-man, play in a band with a charismatic lead singer, have enormous album sales, and still not be well known.
 

gamecockcat

New member
Oct 29, 2004
10,524
313
0
I'd have to say no. For instance, Van Hagar was never as good nor as popular as the original VH, imo. Roth was very limited as a singer and is extremely immature and egotistical. He was also a fabulous front man for the band. EVH is wonderfully talented but, without a worldwide audience brought in by a combination of his guitar playing and Roth's antices, no way would he be as well known. Way too many great guitarists out there, many of whom no one knows their name unless they are very deep in the music business, for EVH to become well known just for that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rabidcatfan

-LEK-

New member
Mar 27, 2009
11,787
12,233
0
Crazy from the Heat is one of the best rock n roll biographies out there. Highly recommend.
 

rabidcatfan

New member
Jan 25, 2003
9,198
272
0
It may be the greatest musical example of the whole being greater than the sum of the parts.

Good point.

Break Down -

David Lee Roth - Average to almost below average singing ability, way above average stage persona, eccentric to the Nth degree, good songwriter
Eddie Van Halen - virtuoso guitarist, developed a ton of unusual techniques and tricks, extremely fast lead guitarist, average rhythm player, average songwriter
Michael Anthony - Average Bass player, decent backup singer (may have been a better singer than Roth actually), average songwriter
Alex Van Halen - Average drummer, not great, but not sub par either. Used a large drum kit with a gong towards the mid to late 1980's which made him stand out a bit as a drummer, average songwriter.

Seperately, these guys don't add up to much of anything spectacular, maybe Eddie only because of his unusual guitar techniques, but together they added up to much more than the sum of each of their parts.

Van Halen could have found somebody else to rip off Jim "Dandy" Mangrum's act.

I agree with this as well, but to be fair, a lot of guys were doing similar stuff in the late 1970's.

I also see Roth as emulating a mix of a lot of guys including Robert Plant, Mick Jagger, and Steven Tyler.
 

MegaBlue05

New member
Mar 8, 2014
10,042
2,686
0
I don't think so. As cawoodsct said, Eddie would still be known as a great guitar player but he probably would've achieved a fraction of the commercial success.

When it comes to Van Halen, I've always thought Roth was the better front man, Sammy was the better singer. Roth was more charismatic, and his stage presence mixed with EVH's playing are what made VH huge.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rabidcatfan

funKYcat75

Well-known member
Apr 10, 2008
32,261
14,822
112
Michael Anthony is a great backup rock singer, maybe one of the best, but that's not the point of this thread.

I think Eddie would have still been one of the best, but no, his band wouldn't have been what it was without David. He would have had a great career still.
 

KopiKat

New member
Nov 2, 2006
14,018
1,791
0
The only additional musician Edward ever "needed" was his brother, Alex. The extent of how much Eddie Van Halen revolutionized the playing of electric guitar is not yet known. And nobody ever asks the question, "did David Lee Roth need Eddie Van Halen?" Because that is a simple YES. Eddie Van Halen IS THE NUMBER ONE GREATEST ROCK GUITARIST OF ALL TIME.

 
  • Like
Reactions: P19978

rabidcatfan

New member
Jan 25, 2003
9,198
272
0
The only additional musician Edward ever "needed" was his brother, Alex. The extent of how much Eddie Van Halen revolutionized the playing of electric guitar is not yet known. And nobody ever asks the question, "did David Lee Roth need Eddie Van Halen?" Because that is a simple YES. Eddie Van Halen IS THE NUMBER ONE GREATEST ROCK GUITARIST OF ALL TIME.




DLR ABSOLUTELY needed EVH. Just as EVH ABSOLUTELY needed DLR. It is Yin and Yang. They needed each other to achieve their goals and ambitions, but there are some who feel that EVH would've succeeded and achieved the same level of success without DLR, which I believe to be false. If you read any of the earliest reviews of Van Halen when they started to blow up in 1976-1977-ish they would mention two things - the amazing, almost surreal guitar playing of Eddie Van Halen, but more so the outlandish and brash stage antics of the bands eccentric front man David Lee Roth. The reports generally leaned toward the Roth stuff more than the Eddie stuff, because no matter how great a guitarist is, they will never be bigger than the front man.

I do agree however that Eddie is greatest Hard Rock guitarist of all time. Can't say he's the greatest rock guitarist of all time however because he has some pretty damn good company in Hendrix, Clapton, and Page among others.
 

gamecockcat

New member
Oct 29, 2004
10,524
313
0
Yeah, there's a pretty long line for those that some think are the GOAT guitarist. I'm sure there are some that think EVH is the guy. I don't think so, but it's all personal taste. Truthfully, I'd rather hear BB or Freddie King or Mark Knopfler or Brian Setzer or Mick Taylor or Dickie Betts or several others play guitar over EVH. Not downgrading his talent (and influence), his style is just not my cup of tea.

EVH needed someone to sing and be the front man and DLR was awesome at it (for a few years, anyway - can't say he held up very well). As another said, very much a yin/yang, EVH fronted by another excellent front man would probably be just as well known. If Sammy Hagar had been the original front man for VH, no way they are ever as big. Obviously, DLR needs major talent behind him to cover up all his shortcomings. They need/needed each other. Nothing wrong with that. Led Zeppelin needed a front man to be the biggest band in the world for a few years and Jimmy Page is just as awesome a guitar player as EVH.
 

lacocat

New member
Nov 7, 2007
2,606
460
0
Eddie didn't need Lee Roth whatsoever, Roth had nothing to do with his guitar work and any other long hair screeching hair guy would have worked.
 

KopiKat

New member
Nov 2, 2006
14,018
1,791
0
, but there are some who feel that EVH would've succeeded and achieved the same level of success without DLR, which I believe to be false..

I agree with most of what you wrote, although you created sort of a new question to answer (question wasn't "would EVH have achieved the same success?). Ed's success would have been different, but tremendous success he would certainly have had. The miracle of Edward's guitar was not going to go without being known to the world. Without Roth, Ed's guitar would not have gone without fame and tremendous celebration the world throughout. Eruption and Spanish Fly are two of the most ear and mind-boggling guitar works ever, released in the 70s at a time when Ed was still very, very young and some in the industry still though it was possible for the Beatles to reunite. The world was destined to hear them and celebrate Eddie Van Halen's genius. Both of those works without of peep out of Roth, who, without Eddie Van Halen, may never have been known to any of us..

lol at the poster who said fumble finger Jimmy Page was as good as Eddie
 
  • Like
Reactions: lacocat

drawing_dead

Member
Nov 21, 2005
862
23
13
"It might get loud"

excellent documentary about three guitarists.

i cannot find the video of eddie and les paul playing together. it was just those two guys, two guitars, and two bar stools.

BTW, sammy says that he has made ten-fold the money selling tequila than his entire musical career.
 

gamecockcat

New member
Oct 29, 2004
10,524
313
0
It's a funny thing about judging guitarists. Supposedly Roy Clark was one of the best there ever was on a multitude of stringed instruments. I've run across some famous guys who are really good at what they do but can't play **** outside their narrow genres. For instance: Neil Geraldo (sp?) with Pat Benatar. Always thought he was a pretty solid guitarist. Until I saw them do Crossroads on CMT where he was playing leads on country tunes. Dreadful. No feel for the music whatsoever. Kept trying to shred and pinch harmonics over basic country chords. Just completely out of his element. Another: watch Jeff Beck and Brian Setzer play rockabilly on YouTube. Beck is very mediocre. Setzer smokes him and you can see on Beck's face that he knows it.

And, while no fan of Jimmy Page or Led Zeppelin, he was a highly paid and highly sought after studio guitarist before EVH probably ever picked up a guitar. So 'fumble fingers' could play. In fact, I think I saw an interview where EVH himself gave Page his props. Now 'better' is purely subjective. Not sure I've ever heard EVH play country or jazz or Indian raga or much of anything outside his hard rock style. I feel certain he can, but just never heard him. So, better? Eh, maybe. Different and appealing to different people with different tastes? Yes.
 

KopiKat

New member
Nov 2, 2006
14,018
1,791
0
the great thing about genius and the truly gifted, it just keeps giving and giving . . .

 

DSmith21

New member
Mar 27, 2012
8,297
2,036
0
Van Halen needed a charismatic front man to really hit it big. Did it have to be Roth, no but they needed someone.

This was the attitude in The Who early on. Pete Townsend felt that they had the best bassist and drummer in the business. He saw himself as an excellent guitarist and songwriter. In the early years, Pete often threatened to throw Roger Daultrey out of the band because he was JUST THE SINGER and he could easily be replaced. Roger's booming voice was a every bit as important to the Who's sound and success as all the talent of the other musicians.
 

buster3.0

Active member
Aug 10, 2009
5,036
303
83
I don't know.

5150, the first Hagar album, was pretty good and very successful from a sales, radio play, and touring viewpoint. The follow up Hagar albums also sold well. Maybe the reputation they already built from the Roth years had something to do with that.
 

KopiKat

New member
Nov 2, 2006
14,018
1,791
0
I'll take this question from another angle - for people who have followed the band closely for decades, it's been pretty obvious that David Lee Roth has struggled to be his own man:

 
Apr 8, 2007
4,452
108
0
VH 3 is why Eddie needed Dave.

That band was so friggin bad *** from 1974-1984.

Sammy stuff w VH was decent but it just lost something IMO. Dave solo went south after Steve Vai left.

Dave live is a shell of his former self but that album they put out in 2012 was pretty good even if it was old reworked demos.

In this "newest Halen" era Dave was rockin for them in 07-08. Band is playing tight right now and Dave is a little better than he was a couple of years ago.
 

cawoodsct

Well-known member
Apr 27, 2006
39,727
4,231
102
I don't know.

5150, the first Hagar album, was pretty good and very successful from a sales, radio play, and touring viewpoint. The follow up Hagar albums also sold well. Maybe the reputation they already built from the Roth years had something to do with that.
5150 was a great album. I need to go back and listen.
 

buster3.0

Active member
Aug 10, 2009
5,036
303
83
In watching that interview video shown above, and having watched may others like it, I came up with a theory of my own. How many lead singers have they had? Why did Michael Anthony leave? I think the problem may have to do with the Van Halen brothers, Eddie specifically, and not the other guys. Its too much of a pattern. Those drama queen brothers can't seem to get along with anybody.
 

cawoodsct

Well-known member
Apr 27, 2006
39,727
4,231
102
In watching that interview video shown above, and having watched may others like it, I came up with a theory of my own. How many lead singers have they had? Why did Michael Anthony leave? I think the problem may have to do with the Van Halen brothers, Eddie specifically, and not the other guys. Its too much of a pattern. Those drama queen brothers can't seem to get along with anybody.
Your theory has been a fact for decades.