Van Halen: Fair Warning (1981): Song by Song

Let’s save that for another thread ok?

 

This provides me an opportunity to ask : If Michael Anthony was such a slouch on bass, why did they keep him around? The harmony vox?

 

He’s not a slouch. In fact, he’s quite good and, more importantly, provided absolutely essential background vocals that are as important to the band’s sound as his bass playing (if not more). Playing in the studio and live are obviously two different things. Many guitarists have laid down bass tracks for albums. It happens. It’s not a reflection on the bass player but what the guitarist is hearing for a particular track. Eddie wrote this music so it would make sense that he’d have a good idea of what he wanted the bass parts to sound like. Most of FW was written in the studio as opposed to being developed on stage or otherwise. Of course there’s a good possibility it IS Michael Anthony on bass on this album, but it’s not totally unreasonable to think it could be Eddie.

 

it would be awesome if van halen released deluxe editions of the roth years and added a disc of just the sounds with no vocals so you could hear all of the work on them

 

While I am certainly no huge Sammy Hagar fan, I don't have the disdain for him that you do. I confess I haven't heard this album in a mighty long time, and I'm sure some of it hasn't aged all that well, but I'm prepared to say I enjoy it more than you do. It was a mainstay of the summer of '86 so I have a certain nostalgic affection for it.

 

seems like a very biased review with some really bad comparisons. hagar was a rocker and showed that before and after VH. if you don't like the songs because they are musically weak,, as you pointed out for some of them, blame EVH not hagar. he wrote lyrics over music written by the rest of the band

 

Maybe this:

 

Sammy was great all by himself. Saw him as Boston's opening act a few times and as a headliner. He's no slouch.

 

Whoever did the parts on Push Come To Shove . . . great job.

For what it's worth, I always assumed it may have bene Eddie on So This Is Love. Really sounds like a guitar-player's approach to bass on that tune.

 

I agree with your opinion. Seems to me, though, that guitarists approach the bass as a guitarist would. - There is a different mindset at work between a guitar player and a bass player. EVH is such a stringy/bendy/jerky/tappy type of player, I find it difficult (though not impossible) to believe that the bass lines were him playing. Just my stoopid opinion.

 

I think it's Mike on bass. The tone is somewhat different but it sounds like the same player. To me it does anyway.

I think there are two main differences. First, this album is more produced than the ones before it. On the first three albums they're just blasting it out live with their stage gear and it sounds like it. Mike was using Ampegs at that time and the bass has that classic SVT /8x10 sound.

On this one I don't know what if anything they did differently gear-wise but it is a bit of a different sound. I think they were paying more attention to sounds in general here, not just with the bass. They were trying to do something other than just record the band how they'd sound in a rehearsal.

And then the other thing that's different is it's kind of tightened up. It's not as jammy or loose as the second and third albums. The grooves/rhythms are tighter or more precise. So it sounds a bit different but I think it is Mike on bass.

 

Yes, Eddie deserves blame for those albums too, but Hagar didn't help coming in with such milquetoast, white bread, mofo bulls***.

yeah, a rocker like Kenny Loggins. Really the only rocking thing he ever did was Montrose, which is the only reason anyone gives him a pass.

 

Actually, for a band that recorded all their albums with the same producer and engineer, and mostly using the same studio, it's interesting how different their albums sound. None of the classic six really sound very much like each other.

 

Yeah interesting to note, that's true.

 

Different guitars, different amps , different angles, different drugs / booze ... etc.

They are all classic albums, though.

 

According to Noel Monk, it was the same drugs and booze, but more and more with each passing year. A bit tragic that so many bands are both ignorant and stupid about those things. Strong words, I know, but it's the truth.

 

Well, cigarettes were on the menu ...

 

They didn't really mess with Roth's voice until a few years later.

 

Funnily enough, I was referring to Eddie's smoking habit. I did not realize David was a smoker.

 

Noel Monk is also the guy that said Fair Warning was a mediocre album.

Almost did one of these when I read that one.

 

Yeah . . . I parted company with his opinion on that one, too.

 

A bit overplayed on the radio but "Unchained" is still a classic- along with "Mean Street" and "Hear About It Later", the classics on the album. Quintessential EVH riff here...actually "Unchained" is a pretty good summary of what these guys were all about back in the good old days.

 

apparently you've never heard his 70's solo albums. sounds very similar to Montrose. he has had some great solo albums since 1995 too.

 

Stupid question... is there a Van Halen unplugged or anything similar. I'm not a faithful Kiss fan, but I like them and saw them once when I was a teenager. However, the Kiss unplugged album is a fave of mine and was wondering if VH had anything similar.

Thanks

 

Hear About It Later - This chugs along nicely but again the chorus isn't all that great. Gorgeous rhythms from Eddie again but another tedious tortured solo for the sake of it.
Unchained - I'd almost repeat what I said above but the hooky chorus saves it - catchier. Good poodle rock.