Boston VS Van Halen

[Titokinz]

Van Halen without a doubt, can listen to it all the way through without even slightly cringing.

 

[Grunge]

Van Halen apparently has done a hell of a lot better than Boston over the years with a ton more albums. Quality over quantity is my motto and the quality did not hold up for Boston. They went downhill despite my fondness of their first two albums. Regardless I voted Boston due to abhor for the era of music Halen was placed in. Their lyrical and music video focus was tits, partying, sex, you know...the usual other "rock and roll" escapades. Capacity was already full of bands spinning the same immature gimmick. The aggressive increase of it in the 80s was obnoxious yet all the rage - especially to wannabe groupie girls. Aside from the music aspect; the douche baggery is quite strong in this band.

 

[Khor1255]

I'd say Boston's album by quite a bit. But I'm not much of a Halen Head.

Also, what Grunge said with the exception of me only really liking Boston's first album. I'd take that over VH's entire catalog of formula derpery.

 

[TheSound]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of that Boston album was always that there was no such band as Boston at that point in time, and it's a solo album in all but name. About 90% of the instrumentation and production on that album was all Tom Scholtz, which he basically did the whole thing in the studio he had at his house, and then he just added some guy on drums. It's a good record, but on that basis it's a pretty self indulgent exercise, and anyway it sounds so polished to my ears and as bland and over-produced as hell when compared to the first Van Halen album, which was so raw and exciting that it pretty much kicked you in the guts from the first bar of the first track, the Boston record sounds like it probably took him months of painstaking multitrack recording, whereas the VH album sounds like they could have recorded the whole thing in like one manic energetic hour. At the time (late 70's) VH1 set the bar at a new high level with regard to what is possible in a hard rock album. For that reason VH1 for me is one of the most important rock albums ever made, and for quite a few years every other band was playing catch-up with them after that, I still recall as a kid I saw them supporting Sabbath on the 'Never Say Die' tour, which was VH's first tour of England when they were promoting that debut album, and they virtually blew Sabbath off the stage, that's how good they were.

 

[Khor1255]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of that Boston album was always that there was no such band as Boston at that point in time, and it's a solo album in all but name. About 90% of the instrumentation and production on that album was all Tom Scholtz, which he basically did the whole thing in the studio he had at his house, and then he just added some guy on drums.

Not according to Wikipedia who say that while Scholtz was definately the principle songwriter the band was a recording project since 1970 with Delp on board that whole time. So, while they weren't a bar band that took the next step calling it a solo effort or one off collaboration isn't accurate either.
For my money I didn't really know much about the band except that they had good regular jobs and sort of did the Boston thing on the side but while it is almost universally true that great rock and roll must be honed in front of live audiences Boston's album seems the exception to that rule.

It's a good record, but on that basis it's a pretty self indulgent exercise, and anyway it sounds so polished to my ears and as bland and over-produced as hell when compared to the first Van Halen album, which was so raw and exciting that it pretty much kicked you in the guts from the first bar of the first track,

From the article I just read it seems the highly polished sound (and some other things about the record and band) was a direct result of record company meddling in the project on the insistance that either they do it their way or not at all.

the Boston record sounds like it probably took him months of painstaking multitrack recording, whereas the VH album sounds like they could have recorded the whole thing in like one manic energetic hour.

That is perhaps the overwhelming advantage a live group has over any studio project. Because they have to be on night after night they can often come in and get it on the first take or at least have way less trouble than people more used to strickly studio playing. I agree that the energy almos always conveys much bettter to the records and am not saying VH1 is lacking in energy or integrety. I just like Boston's album a billion times better and I usually am a fan of straight up hard rock whenn compared to almost radio sounding pop ala Boston.

At the time (late 70's) VH1 set the bar at a new high level with regard to what is possible in a hard rock album.

What makes you say this? I mean in what way did they raise any bar except maybe the prominence of lead guitar playing as a center piece of a song and even that is arguable.

For that reason VH1 for me is one of the most important rock albums ever made, and for quite a few years every other band was playing catch-up with them after that,

Again, other than next gen cock rockers who was playing catch up with them in a musical sense?

I still recall as a kid I saw them supporting Sabbath on the 'Never Say Die' tour, which was VH's first tour of England when they were promoting that debut album, and they virtually blew Sabbath off the stage, that's how good they were.

Well, I suppose that is a 'you would have had to have been there' deal. Since I regard Sabbath as one of my favorite bands of all time I have a hard time getting my head around any California moron rock comming close to them. But I have heard it so many times from people who share the same taste as I do it dawns on me why Sabbath must have made the decision to try somethhing else after that.

 

[Vehicle]

You had a legitimate debate going on there, right up until the 'California moron rock' comment.

That whittled it all the way down to a personal distaste for the band.

Besides, these two debuts are apples and oranges anyhow. One is raw and from the hip, the other is meticulously polished. Each one has aspects and qualities that the other doesn't possess.

I don't think you can really get a definitive 'who's is 'better''. It'll always be 'who's do you prefer'.

Which is pretty awesome, I think, for me, as a music fan. I don't have to decide one way or another. If I wanna listen to Boston, I will. If it's a VH jones I wake up with, then that's what playing on the way to work.

Rock and roll is pretty awesome that way.

 

[Khor1255]

Yeah, I knew that one wasn't going to be too popular and I agree wholeheartedly with the idea that it is a matter of taste. I actually like VH all right and a few songs I think are very good. But Boston's first album is in a whole different category to me.

 

[WetWilly]

This one's very tough, two masterpieces. But I'm gonna go with Boston, as a matter of fact, I'm gonn go listen to Boston.