I read your review and had to oppose my contrarian opinion.

1) they didn't record "everything they had" and cover songs - implying they had really little. If you heard their early demos you'd know most of the songs off VH1, VH2 and Women And Children First were ready mid 70s.

2) like you said, the most important of the album is Eddie's guitarwork. But it goes beyond "nodding the head and tapping the fingers". Eddie's a noteworthy composer in the metal scene, especially for the odd choice of notes he makes. His music is full of chromatism, surprising transpositions, use of noise, open strings, and his songstructures, melodies and harmonies are without par.

Often I come back to VH are realise how rich this music is in terms of fresh ideas. Each and every song has something special. Not to mention his tremendous tone. Not to mention that Eddie's a pionner for most guitar techniques, tapping, sliding, pinch harmonics, legato, tremolo, whammy bar... He did not invent all of this of course, but the way he uses is always relevent. Why do we listen to music? I listen to Van Halen (maybe not particularly this album but the others too) because he never fails to incorporate crazy ideas into his songs ; sometimes it doesn't make a great song, but it's surprising, interesting and inspiring on the technical level. I also like how he splices lots of different segments to craft a song.

so yeah, "songwriting 5 ; originality 4" ?? I'm upset.

While paradoxically, your favorite song is "Ain't Talkin' About Love", which is the most deprived of what I just described, with just a Am arppegio for a riff (repeating for the whole song), a lazy solo, and twice of it.

(Ok I admit "Running With The Devil" is short of genius too)

Eruption ! Eruption... yeah it's a bit noisy, but what a solo !

(Ok I admit "You Really Got Me" is short of... listen to the lead solo and all the little fills Eddie does though)

"I'm The One" ! that shuffle rhythm is crazy too, don't tell me it's worth a 4 in originality, I've never heard a song like this before, nor after. It's intrictate to play (while it's not grandiloquent wankery). And the bluesy plural singing at the end is neat.

"Jamie's Crying"'s got a fantastic riff and chord structure. It's made out of nothing basically, but it works, and Eddies shines with the main riff like he's a guitar god or something. He's just a clever composer. The rest of the song is pretty mellow.

what about the intro for "Atomic Punk" ? Evidence that Eddies likes a lot to experiment with his sound, and knows how to use it in a song. As you said the pace is rather metal-like. In fact I wouldn't speak of heavy metal for the other songs, or VH in general ; it's rather hard rock.

"Feel Your Love Tonight" and all the vocal harmonies. C'mon. And note all the transpositions this song has.

"Little Dreamer" is neat too... Impressively, Eddie spends a lot of time not playing at all, between two chords. He's just companioning the bass. I might sound like a tool or a fanboy, but not every guitarist does that. Most of the time guitarist want to fill all the space.

"Ice Cream Man" is a cover song, but it's all damn good too

"On Fire": that sounds he makes while muting all the strings and only smothered harmonics come out. It's a nice idea too. The song is pretty metal flavored too. And the "fiiiire" choir ? maybe not well executed but it's a nice idea too. I like the demo version of this song more.

Anyway... The songs are short, maybe some feel bland... Safe if you know what to listen to.

How poor that time people had in metal, best what happened was 90 and after, today we have much more to chose, thay have what they had, we have much mlore. After teenage days this band is far away from my lust, even David era is ok, few good songs

Written by Ansercanagicus on 10.09.2019 at 18:26

I read your review and had to oppose my contrarian opinion.

...

Thanks for the detailed response! I think there are always going to be some things I won't fully appreciate (or even just understand) by not being a guitarist. I'm glad you have a strong connection with the album; it's nice reading anything when you can tell the person has passion. I definitely think I'm in the minority on this one. This has just always been a head-scratcher of a band and album for me when I hear and see people rate them alongside stuff like Sabbath and Maiden.

To complete my answer, it is true that VH's albums are weak in some ways. You can't spin any of them and expect pure bliss for their whole length. There always are filler tracks, uninspired songs, the blame is often on the production lacking subtllety. It's a bit disappointing. But I can highlight a bunch of awesome tracks, and at a smaller scale, ideas in songs.

If you like the metal part especially, maybe listen to "Judgement Day" off For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge.

If I was to compare VH to Iron Maiden, i'd say that of course it's not the same mood at all. Also, Iron Maiden managed to release succesful albums one by one for years, but ultimately it's always the same chord progressions coming back, the same song structure, the same licks and scale for the leads etc... VH is more experimental, and while it doesn't pay off for albums, it does for songs and their general legacy as a band. Did Iron Maiden ever pulled out a song as tremendous as Hot For Teacher ? or played with their volume knob long enough to have such a good idea than Cathedral ?

etc...

Written by Ansercanagicus on 10.09.2019 at 19:34

Did Iron Maiden ever pulled out a song as tremendous as Hot For Teacher ?

Dozens I'd say, not just one. But comparing IM with VH is like comparing apples to oranges. Different styles, different music. Like, if I tell you that Empire Of The Clouds is "more tremendous" than Hot For Teacher what kind of comparison would that be?

Eddie is of course a guitar god, no doubt about that.

6 is a harsh rating. And VH has worse albums than the debut. What rating will those get? LOL
So the VH worship or popularity is suspect? I agree but they were mainstream darlings, good live band. It helped.
Debut and 1984 are my favorite albums with DLR.

Written by JoHn Doe on 11.09.2019 at 00:00

6 is a harsh rating. And VH has worse albums than the debut. What rating will those get? LOL
So the VH worship or popularity is suspect? I agree but they were mainstream darlings, good live band. It helped.
Debut and 1984 are my favorite albums with DLR.

For me, 5 and 6 are "average". That's kind of my de facto range unless something is really good or really poor. I think a lot of their albums would probably be similar for me, but I haven't listened to the Hagar stuff in a while. Not necessarily the worship being suspect, because every band will have their worshipers, but the collectively high rating; it really surprises me that this is still in the top 200.

Written by SeanC on 11.09.2019 at 00:06


For me, 5 and 6 are "average". That's kind of my de facto range unless something is really good or really poor. I think a lot of their albums would probably be similar for me, but I haven't listened to the Hagar stuff in a while. Not necessarily the worship being suspect, because every band will have their worshipers, but the collectively high rating; it really surprises me that this is still in the top 200.

VH's debut is one of their most beloved albums and it is one of those "good time" albums, nothing wrong with that, it's what I was expecting from them And what Eddie was doing in 1978 was rather unique. Nobody played like that.

It's a well written review. Good read

Production a 5? Even to this day and age the production of Templeman pisses over everything out there. The production is truly a perfect 10. Just listen to how the guitar goes from left to right and back. And that is just one point.

Subjectively I agree with the rating but you've massively under-valued the importance of Van Halen. This isn't to say you have to like them, as music is so differently interpreted, but the review comes across rather ignorant of the history and influence this album still has in the modern rock and metal scenes.

I would also agree that as an album, it's not the most well-constructed, but the individual songs have parts and pieces of interest. From a technical stance, it's bordering on brilliance, if not fully across that line, but for what I typically look for when I sit down and listen to an album, this one offers very little of what I want.

Written by Troy Killjoy on 11.09.2019 at 21:43

Subjectively I agree with the rating but you've massively under-valued the importance of Van Halen. This isn't to say you have to like them, as music is so differently interpreted, but the review comes across rather ignorant of the history and influence this album still has in the modern rock and metal scenes.

I would also agree that as an album, it's not the most well-constructed, but the individual songs have parts and pieces of interest. From a technical stance, it's bordering on brilliance, if not fully across that line, but for what I typically look for when I sit down and listen to an album, this one offers very little of what I want.

If I understated the importance, that was my bad. This is definitely one of the most influential American hard rock/early heavy metal albums of all time, and I recognize that. The reasons that gave way to that, though, make me think people either weren't buying what some of Van Halen's American predecessors were selling or just really valued the technical play above the songwriting.

Written by SeanC on 12.09.2019 at 00:43

If I understated the importance, that was my bad. This is definitely one of the most influential American hard rock/early heavy metal albums of all time, and I recognize that. The reasons that gave way to that, though, make me think people either weren't buying what some of Van Halen's American predecessors were selling or just really valued the technical play above the songwriting.

It was more the overall negative tone of the review that made it seem as though it was being understated as opposed to any specific examples, so it may just be how I read it. I think your latter theory of overvaluing the technicality is a more accurate one as I see that extended to lots of other artists and bands, particularly in the prog and instrumentalist categories where people are so amazed by the techniques and proficiency that they overlook the songwriting suffering from a lack of cohesion. Such is the case with his album, I believe.

Written by SeanC on 10.09.2019 at 19:14

Written by Ansercanagicus on 10.09.2019 at 18:26

I read your review and had to oppose my contrarian opinion.

...

Thanks for the detailed response! I think there are always going to be some things I won't fully appreciate (or even just understand) by not being a guitarist. I'm glad you have a strong connection with the album; it's nice reading anything when you can tell the person has passion. I definitely think I'm in the minority on this one. This has just always been a head-scratcher of a band and album for me when I hear and see people rate them alongside stuff like Sabbath and Maiden.

I don't like VH albums as much. This might have a few highlights like "Ain't Talkin Bout Love" & "Eruption" but that's it for me. I don't revisit it neither, not do II like their cool guys rock style of music. The guitars are the only real highlight of this album and most of the other VH albums.

Good review. I always had the impression, partly confirmed now, that the VH debut is overrated. The sound is good (the rating for production quality is totally off the mark, considering that for frigging 1977, this kind of production was pure gold), the guitar playing is terrific and energetic, Roth's vocal delivery is decent but not fully developed yet, but the song-writing is average. I think there is a high nostalgia factor that pushes the rating of this album so high. None of the tracks here can even hope to bite the toes of any track on the 1984 album.

VH really started to hit their stride with Fair Warning, when they recorded their first great song "Dirty Moves". Although that album as a whole was uneven, it signified the start of a positive change. It was 1984 that really signified their peak in terms of song-writing capabilities. That album had it all good. Performance, song-writing, production quality and originality. And of course, from such an excellent album, the only way to go was down. VH started to play stupid Americana style music afterwards.

Written by ManiacBlasphemer on 19.09.2019 at 12:31

Good review. I always had the impression, partly confirmed now, that the VH debut is overrated. The sound is good (the rating for production quality is totally off the mark, considering that for frigging 1977, this kind of production was pure gold)...

Thank you!

As a couple people have pointed out the production rating, I should probably say that - in my reviews, at least - that number doesn't solely reflect the literal quality of sound in terms of how crisp it is but takes into account the producer's role more largely (mixing, arrangements, structure, etc.). And even if it is strictly the quality of the sound (which is the only parameter for the MS definition in doing reviews), that's also a lot more subjective than people give credit for - similar to how technically great musicianship isn't always necessarily going to be better than a less perfect performance for some people. I may be misinterpreting that category, but a high quality recording doesn't always sound good or right to me, if that makes sense.

"Why do we listen to music?" - great question but I think you have the wrong perspective on the answer. It's depended on the individual not the music. When I listen to 'Running With The Devil', depending on my mood it could take me back in time driving down with friends on a long city road, or simply keep my ears fed with something while I'm doing something else (other than focusing on music). If you give this record to a 5 year old who hasn't been corrupted by today's crystal-clean sample-driven sounds, he/she's going to be excited. Purpose-wise VH is pop music. Easy-going, light and fun. Just like the kind of people most bandmembers (or should I say the most prominent members) were at the time of recording. It was strongly underpinned by the objectively great production (to this day in some aspects), the vocal performance, and the (at the time) revolutionary guitar work. I recommend checking this video out about the production:

While I'm still upset with the Iron Maiden / VH comparision. Beato's explaination about the chords modality is great. The song is stupidly simple and also really cool. I began a week ago a compilation of all IV-V-vi progression in Iron Maiden, and managed to blend almost EVERY song with one another, all through the 16 albums. It's lame af, no inventivity at all. Same goes for song structure, or cycles of fifths, galop rhythms, work on the sound...

There's arguably more stuff to dig in Van Halen I (the album) than in the whole IM's discography.

Written by nikarg on 10.09.2019 at 19:58

comparing IM with VH is like comparing apples to oranges

Yes, I mean IM is great too of course, but musically speaking, I'm still defending VH tooth and nail. To all the people claiming there's a nostalgy factor surrounding this album, yes there is, but it's not only that. It is crippled with some flaws maybe, but also have astonishing qualities in many ways.