Why is Eddie so far to the left?

[TBush]

There is something special about early Van Halen... They aren't another hair metal band. I wouldn't put them in the metal genre at all. With DLR, they were like like show tunes on speed or Vaudeville on speed. They had swing. Just listen to "I'm the One" from Van Halen , or "Bottoms Up" and "Beautiful Girls" from Van Halen II , or "Sinner's Swing" and "So This is Love" from Fair Warning , or "The Full Bug" from Diver Down . Love 'em or hate 'em, they were quite different from other acts at the time. Todd

 

 

Exactly- I'll never forget the 1st time I heard their debut record as a young guitarist- summer of '78- me and my friends just lost our minds over the amalgam of blues, hard rock, hot-rod histrionics, and fun that was VH. Dittos on "I'm The One"...

 

They were indeed unique and yet of the times- perfect combination.

 

To this discussion, back in the early 80's there used to be a local radio station that was the only choice if you wanted real rock and roll. the problem was that they used a public radio station that was mono FM, and instead of summing L/R together, they simply connected out of the right channel and broadcasted anyway. How do I know what channel it was? Because every VH song sounded like the guitar was 100 feet away and in a culvert! It (the station) got me through the drudgery of my body shop job at the time, but why they didn't just sum the L/R I'll never know...

 

I did talk to a DJ from there some years later and he said that they heard everything fine in their own headphones, and figured it didn't really matter as long as they had a show to broadcast!

[UstadKhanAli]

 

There is something special about early Van Halen... They aren't another hair metal band. I wouldn't put them in the metal genre at all. With DLR, they were like like show tunes on speed or Vaudeville on speed. They had swing. Just listen to "I'm the One" from Van Halen , or "Bottoms Up" and "Beautiful Girls" from Van Halen II , or "Sinner's Swing" and "So This is Love" from Fair Warning , or "The Full Bug" from Diver Down . Love 'em or hate 'em, they were quite different from other acts at the time. Todd

 

 

Exactly. They weren't really metal at all. They had this snarling punkish quality but with a total nudge and a wink, with this fun over-the-top Vaudevillian quality. Totally different from other acts at the time....or any other time.

 

And I love them. At least, the early VH.

[Vito Corleone]

 

Love 'em or hate 'em, they were quite different from other acts at the time.

 

 

Agreed, but how much of all that do you think people connect with 30 years later? I, too, loved all the DLR vaudeville type stuff and thought it make VH unique, but is that really part of what anyone might describe as "the Van Halen Mystique"?

 

I think that, in 2012, the huge reverence for Van Halen is almost entirely centered around EVH and his guitar prowess--which virtually no one other than musicians care about-- and for the rest of the world, they're just another 80s band. The fact that they came out before the 80s, pioneered a lot of stuff, and did some things that were completely off-center for a typical hard rock/metal band is all lost now.

 

Which is why, for virtually all cover bands, VH music doesn't even really work. Beyond "Jump", how many early VH songs still resonate with audiences? MAYBE a few of the early hard-rock classics--"Runnin With The Devil" or "Jamie's Cryin'" maybe. "Beautiful Girls"? Forget about it..

[Lee Knight]

 

Agreed, but how much of all that do you think people connect with 30 years later? I, too, loved all the DLR vaudeville type stuff and thought it make VH unique, but is that really part of what anyone might describe as "the Van Halen Mystique"? I think that, in 2012, the huge reverence for Van Halen is almost entirely centered around EVH and his guitar prowess--which virtually no one other than musicians care about-- and for the rest of the world, they're just another 80s band. The fact that they came out before the 80s, pioneered a lot of stuff, and did some things that were completely off-center for a typical hard rock/metal band is all lost now. Which is why, for virtually all cover bands, VH music doesn't even really work. Beyond "Jump", how many early VH songs still resonate with audiences? MAYBE a few of the early hard-rock classics--"Runnin With The Devil" or "Jamie's Cryin'" maybe. "Beautiful Girls"? Forget about it..

 

 

I not even a fan but I disagree... you're gauging the band on how well cover bands pull of the material????? That is way misinformed. The early songs worked and still work because of a certain punky vibe they brought to their over the top Sunset Strip rock and roll. The band worked well as an organic unit. Jamie's Cryin'... now there's a band on their game being captured at the moment of truth.

 

What does cover bands being unable to lift the VH swagger have to do with their "mystique". The mystique issue is silly anyway. Who gives a... about this mystique or the band's current demographics with regards to their early catalog.??? What?

 

They rocked like a lot of us wish we could rock, even if we don't play that type of music.

 

 

I think that, in 2012, the huge reverence for Van Halen is almost entirely centered around EVH and his guitar prowess

 

 

Who cares, you're talking demographics, not music. Jeez... it frustrates me sometimes when the actual music... gets overlooked.

 

So, are you making the point that people that frequent cover clubs don't get them or that you don't get them? Your cover band audience focus group concept has me stunned....

 

You know, I don't get the Nat King Cole mystique. Ever see a cover band try to pull off Nature Boy? It totally dies. WTF?!?!?1

[UstadKhanAli]

 

Agreed, but how much of all that do you think people connect with 30 years later?

 

 

1. Who cares? Hardly anyone listens to Ella Fitzgerald or Billie Holliday either, but they're still great.

2. All the people who sold out VH shows in a couple of minutes per arena.

 

I, too, loved all the DLR vaudeville type stuff and thought it make VH unique, but is that really part of what anyone might describe as "the Van Halen Mystique"?

 

 

I think that, in 2012, the huge reverence for Van Halen is almost entirely centered around EVH and his guitar prowess--which virtually no one other than musicians care about-- and for the rest of the world, they're just another 80s band. The fact that they came out before the 80s, pioneered a lot of stuff, and did some things that were completely off-center for a typical hard rock/metal band is all lost now. Which is why, for virtually all cover bands, VH music doesn't even really work. Beyond "Jump", how many early VH songs still resonate with audiences? MAYBE a few of the early hard-rock classics--"Runnin With The Devil" or "Jamie's Cryin'" maybe. "Beautiful Girls"? Forget about it..

 

 

I don't care about cover bands. But the first two albums resonate for me and for a lot of other people, and that's why the latest album gets so many people excited. It's a return to that (note that I'm not saying it's as good, but it's a return to that).

[Vito Corleone]

 

I not even a fan but I disagree... you're gauging the band on how well cover bands pull of the material?????

 

 

As one gauge. Sure. Why not? It's as valid a measure as any other. It's not at least as valid, 35 years later, as "they really resonated with me when I was 15 year old wanna be guitar player?" I think it is. But I certainly never meant to imply it should be the ONLY measure or any such nonsense.

 

 

That is way misinformed. The early songs worked and still work because of a certain punky vibe they brought to their over the top Sunset Strip rock and roll. The band worked well as an organic unit. Jamie's Cryin'... now there's a band on their game being captured at the moment of truth.

 

 

Agreed. But my point is I'm just not sure how well all that is still translating now. Again, beyond musicians, I'm not seeing this huge groundswell for whatever-vibe VH brought forth in 1978. I'm not not really sure that "mystique" exists beyond the confines of forums such as this. Maybe I'm just missing it---maybe I'm just hanging out with the wrong people or something, but among MUSICIANS I hear VH constantly being held up in Beatles, Zeppelin, MJ, Prince-type territory, but I'm just not feeling the transcendation beyond musicians to the regular masses the way those groups did. At the time? Yeah, I think they did that pretty well---with the campy DLR stuff and all that as part of the mix---but I'm just not sensing any big recognition of those past days anymore.

 

And yes, the way cover band audiences respond to VH material is one good measure of that.

 

 

 

Who cares, you're talking demographics, not music. Jeez... it frustrates me sometimes when the actual music... gets overlooked.

 

 

You're making my point for me, really. I'm not sure why we're even disagreeing. Yeah, musicians OFTEN get frustrated when they think "the actual music" gets overlooked. All I've said is the Van Halen "mystique" is something that really only resonates with MUSICIANS. And when I list some reasons why I believe this is true, you disagree with me by pointing out what great musicians VH are? OK. We agree.

 

I guess we all have different interpretations of terms, but when I think of "mystique" I think of a star-power that transcends beyond simple playing ability. I think VH sorta-had that back in the 70s/80s, but I don't think they have it any more. Doesn't make them any less great. Doesn't make EVH any less of guitar God. But, just sayin' I don't think we're going to be seeing a Cirque de Soleil show based on VH music any time soon.

[Vito Corleone]

I, too, loved all the DLR vaudeville type stuff and thought it make VH unique, but is that really part of what anyone might describe as "the Van Halen Mystique"?

 

Someone brought it up. And I agreed that was part of it. Especially if you're looking for anything that would define their 'mystique' behind EVH's guitar Hero status.

 

Jeez, you people around here just floor me sometimes. I LIKE Van Halen. a LOT. Especially the DLR era stuff. But dare to even be remotely critical or objective about them and I get all jumped on like I went to into a Christian forum and dared to point out contradictions in the Gospels.

[Lee Flier]

Jeez, you people around here just floor me sometimes. I LIKE Van Halen. a LOT. Especially the DLR era stuff. But dare to even be remotely critical or objective about them and I get all jumped on like I went to into a Christian forum and dared to point out contradictions in the Gospels.

 

I don't think it has much to do with the fact that you're being critical. I'm not much of a VH fan myself, and yet I can't sympathize with your views at all. I think the reason people are jumping on you is because a lot of your comments are just irrelevant and/or show a lot of ignorance of the field (production and engineering). Which would be fine as far as it goes - I'd never belittle anyone for simple lack of knowing. But if you combine that with being critical and opinionated, it's not a pretty picture. You're coming off as though being snarky and cynical and is more important than the truth. Sorry but that's the truth.

[Lee Knight]

I don't think it has much to do with the fact that you're being critical. I'm not much of a VH fan myself, and yet I can't sympathize with your views at all. I think the reason people are jumping on you is because a lot of your comments are just irrelevant and/or show a lot of ignorance of the field (production and engineering). Which would be fine as far as it goes - I'd never belittle anyone for simple lack of knowing. But if you combine that with being critical and opinionated, it's not a pretty picture. You're coming off as though being snarky and cynical and is more important than the truth. Sorry but that's the truth.

 

Yeah, that^

 

As I said, I'm not even a fan. But I won't deny an awesome rock vibe was captured on VH 1. And I won't deny there was some very creative production choices made on that 1st to highlight what works about that band in their early stages.

 

The cover band focus group thing is entirely irreverent. As far as I know, this wasn't a radio programming brainstorming session. It about music and band dynamic and engineering and creative production. Not about some mythical mystique.

 

That kind of cynical demographic thinking has no place in my world. I'm not blind to it. Actually I embrace demographic thinking to a degree, but not with a cynical aloof musician muso outlook.

 

I could go on. Sorry Dave/quido. I don't mean to pick, it's just, that kind of thinking only brings us farther away from what matters.

[Vito Corleone]

I don't think it has much to do with the fact that you're being critical. I'm not much of a VH fan myself, and yet I can't sympathize with your views at all. I think the reason people are jumping on you is because a lot of your comments are just irrelevant and/or show a lot of ignorance of the field (production and engineering). Which would be fine as far as it goes - I'd never belittle anyone for simple lack of knowing. But if you combine that with being critical and opinionated, it's not a pretty picture. You're coming off as though being snarky and cynical and is more important than the truth. Sorry but that's the truth.

 

Well, so be it. I don't think I'm being snarky and cynical so much as being INTERPRETED as such because I dare criticize the Great Godness of Van Halen. But whatever. I can't control how people perceive things in their own head

 

I still stand by the two points I made:

 

1) that the decision to pan the guitar so far to the left was based primarily because, if you don't want to add a lot of effects to a single-guitar sound, you don't have a whole lot of other options if you want to keep a stereo sound-field. Why people would argue with that, or think it shows a lot of ignorance when there was a article quoting Don Landee saying pretty much EXACTLY THAT is beyond me. Why people would think I was saying I didn't like the choice to do so when I never said that and in fact said the opposite is beyond me also. People would be better served to do a lot more READING of posts rather than READING INTO them, IMO.

 

2) the Van Halen "mystique" is something that is primarily confined to musicians. The bulk of everyday music vans lump them in with most other rock/metal bands from that era and don't see them as anything greatly special or unique. If that doesn't make a lot of sense to musicians who wish that everything was "more about the music", I don't know what to say. "Mystique", pretty much by definition, would mean we're talking about qualities of a band that go beyond "just the music" wouldn't you say?

[Vito Corleone]

 

Yeah, that^ As I said, I'm not even a fan. But I won't deny an awesome rock vibe was captured on VH 1. And I won't deny there was some very creative production choices made on that 1st to highlight what works about that band in their early stages. The cover band focus group thing is entirely irreverent. As far as I know, this wasn't a radio programming brainstorming session. It about music and band dynamic and engineering and creative production. Not about some mythical mystique. That kind of cynical demographic thinking has no place in my world. I'm not blind to it. Actually I embrace demographic thinking to a degree, but not with a cynical aloof musician muso outlook. I could go on. Sorry Dave/quido. I don't mean to pick, it's just, that kind of thinking only brings us farther away from what matters.

 

 

Geez, talk about going far beyond anything I was saying.

 

Somebody says they never got the "Van Halen Mystique" and all I did is offer up some opinions/reasons on why I don't think there is even one to get UNLESS you're a guitar player. All I did was offer up the fact that they aren't a band whose material works well for most cover bands as evidence that they don't really have a lot of mystique beyond other musicians. Sorry, but I don't see how saying that as some big detraction from "what matters".

 

How you got from there to "cover band focus groups" or "radio programming brainstorming session" or "cynical demographic thinking" is beyond me.

[Sillypeoples]

I don't think it has much to do with the fact that you're being critical. I'm not much of a VH fan myself, and yet I can't sympathize with your views at all. I think the reason people are jumping on you is because a lot of your comments are just irrelevant and/or show a lot of ignorance of the field (production and engineering). Which would be fine as far as it goes - I'd never belittle anyone for simple lack of knowing. But if you combine that with being critical and opinionated, it's not a pretty picture. You're coming off as though being snarky and cynical and is more important than the truth. Sorry but that's the truth.

+1

[UstadKhanAli]

Jeez, you people around here just floor me sometimes. I LIKE Van Halen. a LOT. Especially the DLR era stuff. But dare to even be remotely critical or objective about them and I get all jumped on like I went to into a Christian forum and dared to point out contradictions in the Gospels.

 

No, no, it has nothing to do with that. I just disagree with your statements. It has nothing to do with whether you like VH or not.

 

Like this statement: "Agreed, but how much of all that do you think people connect with 30 years later?" We start talking about one thing and you jump in with that or discussing the "VH mystique" when we are talking about music.

 

If you say "I don't like the drumming and bass playing sound" or "I don't like his guitar playing in this song", no one would jump on you (and yes, I know you like them, but I'm just saying this to make a point). We disagree here all the time. But you're not just disagreeing. Read Lee's post above.

[Vito Corleone]

No, no, it has nothing to do with that. I just disagree with your statements. It has nothing to do with whether you like VH or not. Like this statement: "Agreed, but how much of all that do you think people connect with 30 years later?" We start talking about one thing and you jump in with that or discussing the "VH mystique" when we are talking about music.

I wasn't the one to bring up the "VH mystique" My mistake, I suppose, for responding to someone else's tangent?

Maybe I should go back and read the forum rules. Apparently I'm not clear on when talking about Van Halen in a thread about Van Halen has veered too far off-topic to be acceptible for forum etiquette.

[Lee Flier]

 

Somebody says they never got the "Van Halen Mystique" and all I did is offer up some opinions/reasons on why I don't think there is even one to get UNLESS you're a guitar player.

 

 

Speaking as someone who was a teenager in L.A. when they burst onto the local scene (as were several of us here) - not true. Sure, the guitar geeks at my school worshipped EVH (a zeal I did not personally share even though I was a guitar geek myself), but pretty much every teenager was way into them, and Eddie's playing was only a small part of the reason why (although he certainly did inspire some people to play guitar who'd never thought to do it before, as all great players do). People liked them because of the brashness, the energy, the fun and rebellious spirit of the songs and performances, and yes, the sound of the records. What Lee K describes as "their records leaped out of the speakers" was really true. They very much stood out sonically as well as having DLR's huge voice and presence, and the specific production decisions had a lot to do with that. They were a party band, and kids cranked up those records at the beach and at parties. That was what appealed to people - the guitar god thing was a bonus for guitar players, and plenty of non guitarists could still appreciate Eddie's talent and showmanship.

[Lee Flier]

Maybe I should go back and read the forum rules. Apparently I'm not clear on when talking about Van Halen in a thread about Van Halen has veered too far off-topic to be acceptible for forum etiquette.

 

It's not anything to do with "etiquette," it's that most of us simply can't understand what your point is. Not that you haven't made a couple of underlying points that are reasonable enough, but nearly every post has been dripping with this attitude that makes it hard to follow or appreciate what you're saying. And that attitude seems to be: "Van Halen is some past relic that doesn't matter anymore. They weren't really all that except to a handful of guitar players. Ted Templeman wasn't really all that good a producer, he was just a guy doing his job. If those early records had been made today they would have much better stereo imaging than anything available in 1978. You're all a bunch of old farts worshiping false gods." Then when we've called you out on this attitude you say, "But I LIKE Van Halen - you just don't like it that I'm criticizing your gods!" No, in fact several of us are not even big VH fans - we just don't like it when people say stuff that isn't true and seem more concerned with cutting revered artists or producers down to size, and/or trying to seem hip and relevant to today's times, than anything else.

 

Maybe you're not aware that this attitude is so strong, but it really is. In fact you're saying a lot of stuff that isn't even true for the sake of perpetuating it. That's why you're getting all the blowback.

[Vito Corleone]

It's not anything to do with "etiquette," it's that most of us simply can't understand what your point is. Not that you haven't made a couple of underlying points that are reasonable enough, but nearly every post has been dripping with this attitude that makes it hard to follow or appreciate what you're saying. And that attitude seems to be: "Van Halen is some past relic that doesn't matter anymore. They weren't really all that except to a handful of guitar players. Ted Templeman wasn't really all that good a producer, he was just a guy doing his job. If those early records had been made today they would have much better stereo imaging than anything available in 1978. You're all a bunch of old farts worshiping false gods." Then when we've called you out on this attitude you say, "But I LIKE Van Halen - you just don't like it that I'm criticizing your gods!" No, in fact several of us are not even big VH fans - we just don't like it when people say stuff that isn't true and seem more concerned with cutting revered artists or producers down to size, and/or trying to seem hip and relevant to today's times, than anything else. Maybe you're not aware that this attitude is so strong, but it really is. In fact you're saying a lot of stuff that isn't even true for the sake of perpetuating it. That's why you're getting all the blowback.

 

 

I'll work on my attitude but what have I said that isn't true? The comment about stereo imaging being better today? OK, fine. I told you I was willing to concede that point to you a couple of pages ago.

 

The part about Templeman not being that good a producer? Well, I don't think I said THAT except to say I personally don't like some of the sounds he got back in the 70s. I'll work on the 'tude but I think I'm entitled to that opinion.

 

Was it the part about much of the sound and success of that album maybe being as much serendipitous and it was planned? Yeah, I believe that's probably true. I don't think you'd find too many huge first albums where people went into the project knowing it would be huge. That sort of stuff usually just happens. And, in fact, wasn't it you who said they tried all sorts of different micing techniques on the guitar before they settled on what they did? Where did you hear that? Not saying it isn't true, but the interview linked here with Landee suggests that they didn't do that when he talks about "just doing pretty much what they had done before".

 

Here's a story I have I've always remembered, (at the risk of going off on a tangent, but it relates to serendipity and even Templeman in a six-degrees sort of way....):

 

I was doing a recording years ago with an engineer who had served as one of the assistant engineers on the Doobie Brothers' "Minute by Minute' album, and I was asking him how that was saying it must have just been electric during those sessions with those guys going in there with all those great songs and almost certainly knowing what the finished result would be.

 

He told me that no, it was more the exact opposite. That it had been the previous "Livin' On The Fault Line" album where they went in thinking they really were at the top of their game and had a huge hit on their hands, but after that album had ended up being a relative failure--in part due to hardcore Doobies fans' negative reaction to the new Michael McDonald-led sound--that the group didn't know WHAT was going to happen next. The attitude was more one of "this will probably be our last album and who knows WHAT comes after that...."

 

Obviously, the end result was quite a bit different.

[Lee Flier]

I'll work on my attitude but what have I said that isn't true? The comment about stereo imaging being better today? OK, fine. I told you I was willing to concede that point to you a couple of pages ago.

 

That was just the first thing.

 

The part about Templeman not being that good a producer? Well, I don't think I said THAT except to say I personally don't like some of the sounds he got back in the 70s.

 

I don't either. I share your opinions about his drum sounds for the most part. And I don't like the Doobies at all so I have even less reason to revere him than you do. But that's as you say just personal opinion that we're all entitled to.

 

Where you get into the "just untrue" territory is stuff like this:

 

Then again, there's a temptation to look back at huge albums and think everyone involved must have been a genius, when the truth is you or I could have probably engineered the first VH album and it still would have been a big hit.

 

Besides reinforcing this attitude of "you're all just a bunch of old farts enshrining your teenage memories", this is just not true. As many here have mentioned, the sonics of those records struck ordinary people as much as anything else did, and it would have been very easy to screw that up. There are countless examples of records that featured really talented musicians and songwriters and did not really break through simply because the production failed to get their strengths across.

 

If Templeman and Landee really were "losing it" as you imply, the label and VH would've gone to somebody else. It was an incredibly competitive scene in L.A. with an unbelievable number of dedicated, hard working, knowledgeable engineers and producers at the top of their game, and a very finite number of major label recordings released. These choices were not made by accident.

 

Was it the part about much of the sound and success of that album maybe being as much serendipitous and it was planned? Yeah, I believe that's probably true. I don't think you'd find too many huge first albums where people went into the project knowing it would be huge. That sort of stuff usually just happens.

 

Not in this case. Everyone knew VH was going to be huge. They had the advantage of being a local L.A. band who had been playing around the clubs and at parties and making huge waves. There were loads of other local bands playing music that was in a similar vein, but there was never any question that VH were the best of the lot by a huge measure, or that they were going to be major stars. This in a town that was full of would-be stars. Everyone knew going in to make that first record that it was going to be a monster so long as they didn't {censored} it up - so they couldn't {censored} it up. And recordings - especially first albums - are very easy to {censored} up if you put the wrong people together.

 

Yes, a lot of decisions in recording happen serendipitously and aren't planned - at first. And part of a good producer's job is to leave room for those sorts of things to happen and not control things too tightly or make things too rote that those spontaneous things can't happen. But at some point, somebody has to decide that such an "accident" was a happy accident and it's staying - otherwise you try something else. Generally, that somebody is the producer. Even relatively low budget albums (and I think VH, for the abovementioned reasons, had a bigger budget for their first albums than many) in those days had plenty enough studio time to experiment with different sounds for a reasonable amount of time. And of course, it's only an accident the first time it happens. If a producer or artist keeps going back to the same well for two or three albums in a row, it's obviously a deliberate choice.

 

In any case, your posts came off like you were implying Templeman and Landee were just in the right place at the right time, that anybody could have done those records and they would have been big hits, that they just stumbled into the right sounds... and I'd have to take extreme exception to that.

[drewl]

On the classic AC/DC albums the Young brothers are panned hard left and hard right. Sounds awesome.

 

 

I like doing this on some of my own stuff, sometimes the same guitar part but with a different sound or effect so you have the same guitar part panned hard left, and hard righ which creates a nice wide soundscape.

[Vito Corleone]

Besides reinforcing this attitude of "you're all just a bunch of old farts enshrining your teenage memories", this is just not true. As many here have mentioned, the sonics of those records struck ordinary people as much as anything else did, and it would have been very easy to screw that up. There are countless examples of records that featured really talented musicians and songwriters and did not really break through simply because the production failed to get their strengths across.

 

 

I'm not going to argue with that. All I really meant by my comment was to COMPLIMENT Van Halen by saying the music and playing on the album is so good that it probably would have been a big hit regardless of the production/engineering.

 

 

If Templeman and Landee really were "losing it" as you imply, the label and VH would've gone to somebody else.

 

 

Did I say they were "losing it"? I don't recall using that term. All I said is thought they were a bit behind the times at that specific period. Just my opinion. From a strictly engineering standpoint, I think some of the albums they did in that mid-70s period were--for whatever reasons (not all their fault because the Doobies were falling apart at that point) a low point for them. But that's a far cry from "losing it". And also, Templeman was the guy who 'discovered' VH and brought them to Mo Ostin, wasn't he? So it probably isn't too likely he'd have assigned them to another producer regardless.

 

 

In any case, your posts came off like you were implying Templeman and Landee were just in the right place at the right time, that anybody could have done those records and they would have been big hits, that they just stumbled into the right sounds... and I'd have to take extreme exception to that.

 

 

I offered that position simply to contrast the opposite extreme position that was given: that the entire project was some glorious pre-planned event and that everyone involved knew right from the beginning what the end result would be, that no mistakes were made or could have been made or that anything happened serendipitously. The truth, most likely--as it almost always does--, lies somewhere in the middle.

[Lee Flier]

Did I say they were "losing it"? I don't recall using that term. All I said is thought they were a bit behind the times at that specific period. Just my opinion.

 

Yes, you said they were behind the times and that by the time VH came along, they needed VH as much as VH needed them, that they weren't on top of their game. In so many words, that's implying they're losing it.

 

I'm curious in what way you think they were "behind the times." Who was "ahead" of them at that point? There were other people who left a bigger sonic signature, made more flamboyant use of the latest technology, but I'm not sure I would say they were "ahead" of Templeman and Landee, just that they made different aesthetic decisions which you or I may or may not personally like better.

 

And also, Templeman was the guy who 'discovered' VH and brought them to Mo Ostin, wasn't he? So it probably isn't too likely he'd have assigned them to another producer regardless.

 

He would have if he hadn't had faith that Templeman could deliver a hit. Not that Templeman wouldn't likely have been given a finder's percentage and/or "executive producer" credit for "discovering" them, but label execs are certainly ruthless enough not to care about sweeping aside producers, managers or anybody else if they feel they aren't the right person for the job.

 

I offered that position simply to contrast the opposite extreme position that was given: that the entire project was some glorious pre-planned event and that everyone involved knew right from the beginning what the end result would be, that no mistakes were made or could have been made or that anything happened serendipitously.

 

Who said that? Most people were just trying to say that the guitar panning specifically was a conscious decision more than a serendipitous one. Nearly all great records are some combination of serendipity and pre-planning, and a good producer is one who knows when to plan things out and when to get out of the way and let spontaneous things happen, and I haven't seen anybody really say otherwise.

[Anderton]

"Damn! I listened to the master, and it seems the panpot on Eddie's guitar was way to the left. Think we need to remix?"

 

"Nah, I mean, no one will care. It's not like people are going to be debating it decades from now." [everyone collapses in laughter at the thought]

[Vito Corleone]

Yes, you said they were behind the times and that by the time VH came along, they needed VH as much as VH needed them, that they weren't on top of their game. In so many words, that's implying they're losing it.

 

Yeah, I guess that WAS a little harsh in retrospect. Sometimes I exaggerate a bit to make a point...

 

I'm curious in what way you think they were "behind the times." Who was "ahead" of them at that point? There were other people who left a bigger sonic signature, made more flamboyant use of the latest technology, but I'm not sure I would say they were "ahead" of Templeman and Landee, just that they made different aesthetic decisions which you or I may or may not personally like better.

 

I addressed that in an earlier post, and yes, you're right that a lot of it is probably just personal taste but I talked about how the sound of 1975's "Stampede" was uneven and maybe not even up to the quality of 1972's "Toulouse Street" (which I complimented as being one of the best sounding albums put out that year, IMO) and then contrasted that with the sonic leaps-and-bounds between the 1972 and 1975/76 productions of guys like Steely Dan/Roger Nichols, Gus Dudgeon and Maurice White.

 

One of MY big memories of that era is it seemed like every couple of months there was some new album coming out where just the SOUND of it was some new awesome-never-heard-that-before-how-the-hell-did-they-do-THAT? experience. Seems there were a LOT of advancements coming fast-and-furious in those days. But maybe that's just how I remember things...

 

He would have if he hadn't had faith that Templeman could deliver a hit. Not that Templeman wouldn't likely have been given a finder's percentage and/or "executive producer" credit for "discovering" them, but label execs are certainly ruthless enough not to care about sweeping aside producers, managers or anybody else if they feel they aren't the right person for the job.

 

I have no doubt he had 100% faith in Templeman to deliver a hit.

 

Who said that?

 

You're not the only one allowed to read the most-extreme implications into people's posts, are you?

 

Most people were just trying to say that the guitar panning specifically was a conscious decision more than a serendipitous one.

 

I never said it wasn't conscious. I agreed from the outset it was. All I ever said about the panning was that it was likely the best option if you want to keep a stereo-field with a single guitar without resorting to adding a bunch of effects. Which is exactly what Don Landee said about it. My only point on any serendipity of the guitar sound is that it's possible that the (AGREED!) awesomeness of the sound created by the panning may be due as much to a bit a luck and a bit of retrospective viewpoint (what DOESN'T sound great on an album you've loved for 35 years) as it is to any bit of "oh my God, we've just recorded the most awesome sounding guitar EVER!" that may have been going on in that studio at the time.

 

Bottom line---none of us were there. So all any of us can do is apply a bit of speculation to what we know. My speculations are based in part on what Landee has said about "we just went with what we did before" and the reports of Eddie hating the panning. Your speculations are based in part on other things it seems. It's all good. Just a friendly discussion between music fans and pros.

 

And, for the record, I often reserve my most critical discussions on things I love the most. That's how I learn and move forward. If I thought, for a minute, that the sound of the Van Halen record was {censored} or that the people involved with it were hacks, I probably wouldn't even offer an opinion in this thread. It's the stuff that I really like that I enjoy dissecting, imagining what the mindsets might have been when it was created, and discussing the various attributes--both the positive and negative. That's how I do things and how I learn best. If it annoys people or offends anyone, I apologize for that. Certainly not my intent.

 

You'll KNOW, straight away, when and if I ever INTEND to offend anyone.

[Vito Corleone]

 

Even relatively low budget albums (and I think VH, for the abovementioned reasons, had a bigger budget for their first albums than many) in those days had plenty enough studio time to experiment with different sounds for a reasonable amount of time.

 

 

You probably know more than I about what was considered "plenty enough studio time" or reasonable budgets in those days, but according to this link, the sessions for the first VH album consisted of 25 songs recorded over 18 days with a budget of $40,000.

 

http://www.classicvanhalen.com/albums_vh.shtml

[Zooey]

 

 

I found the quote from EVH on stereo panning that I mentioned above:

 

I can't stand it. I guess it worked for the first record. But after that it got old really fast. If you have a car and the left speaker's blown, the guitar is gone. If you're sitting on the right in the back seat, you don 't hear the guitar even if both front speakers work. What kind of {censored} is that?

 

http://www.guitarworld.com/1995-guitar-world-interview-eddie-van-halen-regains-his-balance?page=0,2