Well, firstly, I love both eras for totally different reasons. I don’t waste my time with DLR VS SH arguments from a “who’s better” POV. They’re both great for their own unique strengths

David Lee Roth is a much more vaudevillian, circus ringmaster performer, game show host with a ton of jazz preference in terms of taste. His voice and charisma is stunningly amazing and unique in the studio, but he focused less on the voice and more on the charisma during live performances in order to put on a visual spectacle and a truly “stellar production”. Back in the day, this was actually pretty important and set them apart. There were no gigantic TV screens above the stage allowing everyone to see every minor thing that happened on stage. He leaned on theater antics and athleticism to give as many people as he could something to actually SEE at a concert because, really, they’d already heard the songs. They were there to SEE a show.

Sammy had his own very, very successful career along side VH’s rise and even pre-dating it with Montrose I believe. Sammy, being much more of a songwriter and musician in his band(s) than DLR was in VH, focused very heavily on the execution of melody and vocals in his work, backed by a real bluesy R&B influence VS jazz like DLR. Now, sure he did perform VERY actively on stage during these times, but mostly running around VS DLR’s gymnastic jumps, banner flag twirling, swordplay, etc.

For me, neither one of these is necessarily better than the other holistically speaking. They are just two totally different approaches to rock and roll and each executed MASTERFULLY within the realms of their own goals.

Sammy Hagar was undoubtedly a more talented singer, and musician than Dave ever was. He had better technique while singing, was always on key and most importantly, dependable live.

However, I personally feel his voice was just like a generic rock singer’s. Brush through many bands throughout rock history, and you’ll find many singers with Hagar-ish voices. Also, he lacked the attitude that made Van Halen.

That said, Van Hagar had good songs like Black and Blue, Finish What Ya Started, Dreams, Poundcake, Right Now and Top of the World. All those songs are good because of Eddie and the boys, though. Hagar’s lyrics are plain cringe inducing.

Dave, on the other hand, while not a very technically talented singer, was probably the greatest rock frontman of all time (in my opinion). His attitude, his lyrics, his antics and his debauchery all contributed to Van Halen becoming the biggest band in the world during the early 80s.

While Hagar was asking “Why can’t this be Love?”, Dave was announcing that he “Ain’t Talkin’ ‘Bout Love”.

Hagar was undoubtedly a more dependable singer, but Roth in many ways, was Van Halen.

To me, Van Halen is all about kicking out the most killer rock jams any band ever made. Somebody Get Me A Doctor, On Fire. Jams that get your adrenaline pumping. Greasy, raw, dirty fun.

Van Hagar? How will I know it’s love? It’s just something you feel together? That’s what dreams are made of? Are you shitting me? These are fucking Air Supply songs, not Van Halen. Nope.

Roth was a badass rock star. Hagar was a wannabe badass rock star. This is the best example of the singer being crucial there will probably ever be. They had some tracks that slapped with Sammy, but Dave would have sung them cooler.

You see the opposite with Dave’s band. Vai was probably a more trained guitarist in the way that Hagar was a “better” singer, but like Sammy can’t rock like Dave, and Vai ain’t no Eddy.

Rock is 80% attitude. Sammy ain’t got it. He can sing though, and I think they were looking for someone who would be more subordinate to the band after Dave made the mistake of leaving them.

The best way to describe it is Van Halen is 100% Van Halen, and Van Hagar is only 80% Van Halen.

80% of Van Halen is some seriously formidable rock and roll. But it ain’t that pure shit.

Who would you rather see? The three Van Halens with no singer at all doing all their best tracks, Sammy and Michael doing Van Hagar era music, or David Lee Roth’s band doing all the Van Halen classics?

Edward grew up. Since VH IS EVH, follow the music. DLR era, Ed was young and firey and out to prove himself (mostly against Randy). They were a cover band which meant they played 3minute, fast (or groovin’), radio top 40 hits. Their originals were fast, short, radio ready, swinging little gems with Eddie…being Eddie. As time goes on, Ed wants to incorporate keys, cuz that’s what he feeling, he’s getting older, tastes changing etc. In my opinion, it was a natural progression, I don’t think as Eds writing style matured, Dave would’ve fit at all anymore. So, Dave going off to make movies and do whatever Dave thought he was gonna do and Sammy moving in was a perfect fit for Eddies writing at that age/time. Combine that with the other answers about their contrasting styles and I think you get a pretty good idea. my2

In other words: Dave wanted to make filthy, dirty, original, unique style of rock and roll. Then Eddie got tired of it, tired of being innovative, and wanted to do what everyone else was doing, the easy stuff.

Original VH wasn’t “radio ready.” That phase came when Sammy joined the band, which is why they had their most successful Top 40 songs with Sammy, and not with David.

Hagar is a great, great singer. As are a lot of people. David Lee Roth is David Lee Roth. As is no one else. That’s really the difference between the two men.

Hagar is more dependable, and with him the band made some dependable middle of the road rock (although a lot of it is shit). With Roth, they made the kind of music that sounded like the wheels are going to come off at any second, but they didn’t care. Musically, during this period they were loud, fast, and endlessly inventive. It could be argued that this down to their youth at the time, except their most recent album with Roth is miles better than anything they did with Hagar. I get the impression that overall, Roth had the pop smarts. As soon as he left, it’s almost as if they relaxed and grew old overnight.

Great comment. If I want to see a concert where the singer sings like he did on the album, I’d pick Sammy.

Dave sucks live, skipping half the words, using his showman’s scripted line of ” oops, I forgot the fucking words.”

But when it came to creating amazing rock and roll, and putting it down on an album, it was Dave. Without Dave, Van Halen offered nothing in the studio. And ADKOT was better than anything they did with Hagar. It was just more proof that Van Halen without Roth wasn’t truly Van Halen.

But again, I admit, Sammy was much better live. That’s the one thing that always pissed me off about Dave, is that he never really seemed to try in his life shows, but instead preferred playing the carnival barker.

They are both amazing, but one era saved rock and roll, created the sound of the next 10 years of rock, left an impact on culture and is the reason we’re still talking about the band today. And i ain’t talkin bout Hagar. I love Sammy’s songs with Van Halen but culturally it’s forgettable.