MCChris Posted January 11, 2012 Posted January 11, 2012 "Drop Dead Legs" came up on shuffle this morning and lyrically, I think "Tattoo" is in the same ballpark. That being, DLR's nonsensical, stream-of-consciousness rambling around a cursory theme.Nobody bashes DDL because it came out in VH's prime (or close to it).
elduave Posted January 11, 2012 Posted January 11, 2012 Here's Mr. Disagreeable:Drop Dead Legs chorus slays the new tunes chorus. That kind of video "mismatch" is 100% artistic and intentional. That style has been popular for years.They spent at least 2 hours filming. I wouldn't opine except I actually had to be on a rock video shoot yesterday. Fun, but worked 4 hours for a 3 & half minute tune.
svl Posted January 11, 2012 Posted January 11, 2012 Only four hours? "Luxury!" (Python meaning)For the upcoming Product Of Hate opus, we shot three days (two six hour and one 14 hour). Now granted, this is a "short film" which consists of two music pieces, wrap-arounds, special FX and such. Basically we shot 26 hours for a 12 minute video, five cameras.And then there was the months of post, CGI and editing, but that's another story.Agreed, "Tattoo" vid is completely on purpose and an artistic statement. From what I read, they spent an entire day shooting the vid at the Roxy.
MCChris Posted January 11, 2012 Posted January 11, 2012 Drop Dead Legs chorus slays the new tunes chorus.That's neither here nor there.Would you agree it's the same lyrical approach (that being, DLR's nonsensical, stream-of-consciousness rambling around a cursory theme)?
hikarateboy Posted January 11, 2012 Posted January 11, 2012 It didnt grab me but the solo sounded better than the usual nonesense eddie has been calling solos on most of the live youtube stuff. When I was a kid I was all about him but now I really notice how stuck in a box of his own tricks he is. Dont get me wrong thats pretty common I think, look at Gibbons or BB King. When your style is so your style how can you not be. The problem is the keys to it have become gimicks and dont get me like they did before every single person started copying them. He's still one of the greats just not the greatest.That said, I think the Roth songs from the greatest hits (me wise magic, cant get this stuff no more) were great and blow Tatoo away. They sound like what I was hoping for from this new record. You can really hear Roth struggle on those two and since as he purposely goes for the deep growl voice to hide that his top end is shot more often than not.
Dasein Posted January 11, 2012 Posted January 11, 2012 "Drop Dead Legs" came up on shuffle this morning and lyrically, I think "Tattoo" is in the same ballpark. That being, DLR's nonsensical, stream-of-consciousness rambling around a cursory theme.Nobody bashes DDL because it came out in VH's prime (or close to it).I'm going to forgive you this post because I'm sure it's motivated by love for VH --- a defensive reaction perhaps. But come on ----- dude ----- come on.... DDL? Monster tune --- HUUUGGGGE Groove ---- amazing Chorus ---- inventive rhythms and shuffles ---- amazing breaks ----- production and tone -- spot on ...... and that outro? OMG --- their first single SHOULD HAVE BEEN the continuation of that song ---- fading in from that outro.....
elduave Posted January 11, 2012 Posted January 11, 2012 Well, it's here anyway.Frankly I don't even know the words to DDL chorus after the "you know that you want it, I know what you need" bit, but to me, the strength of the melody and chorus construction on DDL is way better than the new one, which takes it out of triple A and into the majors, songwriting-wise.I'd agree that the lyrical approach could be the same.
Dasein Posted January 11, 2012 Posted January 11, 2012 Drop Dead Legs chorus slays the new tunes chorus.That's neither here nor there.Would you agree it's the same lyrical approach (that being, DLR's nonsensical, stream-of-consciousness rambling around a cursory theme)? Same approach -- just not as good an execution. It can be done well or poorly.
MCChris Posted January 11, 2012 Posted January 11, 2012 I'm going to forgive you this post because I'm sure it's motivated by love for VH --- a defensive reaction perhaps.No, it's more motivated by an ability to turn off my 18-year-old self, who did indeed consider everything Van Halen put out to be unassailable, and think about the new song objectively. But that too is neither here nor there. I'm pointing out that it's the same lyrical approach, and thus "Tattoo" is classic Van Halen in every way. Without, of course, Michael Anthony's backing vocals (they fired him), the energy (they're pushing 60), and the attitude (they're rich, sober and comfortable).We could argue about quality until the cows come home or the reunion crashes and burns, whichever comes first.
elduave Posted January 11, 2012 Posted January 11, 2012 Yeah, but you liked Modern Day Delilah too so the point is moot.
MCChris Posted January 11, 2012 Posted January 11, 2012 Yeah, but you liked Modern Day Delilah too so the point is moot.This is true. I liked "Danger Us" even more!
cmatthes Posted January 11, 2012 Posted January 11, 2012 This is true. I liked "Danger Us" even more! Still better than the Ace Frehley Kindergarden formula of A-B-A-B rhyming for every song...
elduave Posted January 11, 2012 Posted January 11, 2012 I prefer Oak, myself...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfoWgLDxT_8
DBraz Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 THE BAD = Bass player looks like the drawing/giveaway winner to be in a VH video.I thought exactly the same. Michael Anthony is a big loss to them.It was kind of cringe worthy. And as someone else pointed out the song would have sounded a whole lot better at a faster tempo. I am still keen to see what else they churn out...
RichRS6 Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 I was a pretty big fan of Dave era VH never really got off on the Sammy stuff although some was good and most of DLRs solo stuff was better IMO. What I loved about VH when they first appeared was their sense of humour, they seemed like a breath of fresh air, especially here in the U.K. where at that time being able to play wasn't considered cool (in 1977 we were inundated with punk bands many of whom were great, but mostly pretty dire the alternative was U.S. style AOR or soft rock which was fairly dull). They had it all, punk energy, a sense of humour and musical excellence.Eddies playing was the icing on the cake and the whole package was mindblowing.I stress here the whole package (not just Daves package!) was what made them special and its great to see them (mostly) together again, the sacking of Mike and subsequent replacement by Wolfie is a mistake, he just looks wrong. I'm sure his playing is fine but theres no way he can fill those boots. It looks from the vid that Dave is having a good time and to me he was a big part of what made VH special, always Tongue firmly in (someones) cheek never taking anything too seriously.Anyway back to the new song, I like it but I don't love it yet.
hikarateboy Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 Lefsetz latest pertains pretty much directly to this arguement as he talk specifically about Tatoo in his latest column, If you have never read him before and like music you should hes usually spot on.http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/
diablo175 Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 Sorry, but this sounds like geriatric-wing VH. Where aging rockers go after they (should 've) retire(d) and eventually die. For the legions of pre-'85 VH fans like myself, this is nothing new or even noteworthy. Good for them that they are still making music and still doing what they love but this ain't gonna set the world on fire. "I'm on FI-YAH!"
DaveL Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 Michael Anthony's backups are MISSING, he was the secret ingredient to every one ofthose awesome VH tunes.
kizanski Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 Sorry, but this sounds like geriatric-wing VH. Where aging rockers go after they (should 've) retire(d) and eventually die. For the legions of pre-'85 VH fans like myself, this is nothing new or even noteworthy. Good for them that they are still making music and still doing what they love but this ain't gonna set the world on fire. We all want classic Van Halen. However (as Muse pointed out with the 18-year-old brain comment), that means Diamond Dave and Eddie in their 20's, spandex pants, pinstriped guitars, Michael Anthony on bass, amp jumps, wire stunts... the whole 9 yards. While we're at it, I'D like to be in my 20's again. I think any of us of a certain age would sign up for that in a minute. The reality of the situation is that this is what we have: a V/H that is older, sober, and has nothing to prove.
gorch Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 Well, I'm not into being in my 20s again. Not that it was a bad time. It's been a very nice time actually, but I don't want to be the same stupid guy again, doing all the hard work since, raising children included. I'd rather watch a crumpy old band for 2 hours instead or buy their CD if that helps.
cynic Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 As is always done, new albums are judged against the last GOOD release. We can't really help it if the last good album came out when we were in our 20's.But, if you read the Lefsetz column linked above, you've come to realize it's our fault Van Halen has lost a step or two because we're not spending enough money on our listening equipment.
MCChris Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 But, if you read the Lefsetz column linked above, you've come to realize it's our fault Van Halen has lost a step or two because we're not spending enough money on our listening equipment.What does fidelity have to do with the band's songwriting ability or level of energy? VH has lost a step or two because they're pushing 60!I still say that if "Tattoo" (or, more accurately, the old song it's based on) were on 1984 and "Drop Dead Legs" were the new single, people would be saying "Drop Dead Legs" sucks compared to "Tattoo." It's just human nature. The things that strike you as fantastic in your youth stick with you into middle age, and that's the bar you set for everything. Very difficult for anything to live up to that later in life.
diablo175 Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 Sorry, but this sounds like geriatric-wing VH. Where aging rockers go after they (should 've) retire(d) and eventually die. For the legions of pre-'85 VH fans like myself, this is nothing new or even noteworthy. Good for them that they are still making music and still doing what they love but this ain't gonna set the world on fire. The reality of the situation is that this is what we have: a V/H that is older, sober, and has nothing to prove. Understood. "What we have" is another way of saying, "settle for." While I love the music and memories of my youth, paradoxically, I believe a band shouldn't just rest on their legend or their laurels. I feel the same way for just about every group, from the Stones to AC/DC. Perhaps MCChris is right about how they'll never measure up to the sound & fury of their Glory Daze. But that doesn't mean I have to ignore the gut level reaction (or lack thereof) to a tune that offers me little in the way of oohs & ahhs. YMMV.
Stike Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 Sorry, but this sounds like geriatric-wing VH. Where aging rockers go after they (should 've) retire(d) and eventually die. For the legions of pre-'85 VH fans like myself, this is nothing new or even noteworthy. Good for them that they are still making music and still doing what they love but this ain't gonna set the world on fire. We all want classic Van Halen. However (as Muse pointed out with the 18-year-old brain comment), that means Diamond Dave and Eddie in their 20's, spandex pants, pinstriped guitars, Michael Anthony on bass, amp jumps, wire stunts... the whole 9 yards. While we're at it, I'D like to be in my 20's again. I think any of us of a certain age would sign up for that in a minute. The reality of the situation is that this is what we have: a V/H that is older, sober, and has nothing to prove. I don't know. After years and years of almost no recorded output, well documented substance abuse problems, and the total fucking over of a bandmate of 30 years I would hope the band and Ed has something to prove. VH has lost a step or two because they're pushing 60! I'll disagree with the age. AC/DC ( I beleive a few members are into their 60's) on the Black Ice tour while sounding great still had the "edge" or whatever you want to call it. I saw Link Wray not too long before his death and that old man also absolutely brought it. I've listened to Tattoo a few times and I don't hate it but I can't get really excited about it either. Maybe after 20 + years of not really enjoying much of anything VH has done and developing a pretty good lack of respect for Ed as a person it's more me than the song?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.