Why Van Halen can't win with their new album!

[coltrane2]

I didn't miss Van Halen III, but I wish I had. It's one of the worst LPs I've ever heard from a major artist and that's despite the fact that I highly rated Gary Cherone in Extreme.

Anyway naysayers, hot off the press, here comes the juggernaut that everyone said would not happen....

Van-Halen.com

 

[E-Z]

Hey dude your dead on it's so BAD that it's GOOD

I thought Gary (Cherone) done a good vocal job on the album but there isn't any rockers on it but in my 'twisted mind' i actually LOVE THE RECORD

 

[coltrane2]

Actually, you've made me open iTunes and retread Van Halen III again. It's not THAT awful, just almost entirely free of any sense of melody. I think what it's about is Eddie and Alex got very bored with the Sammy Hagar commercial zone and went for something a little more out there and experimental. Easily their worst album IMO, but if you get something out of it then who the f*ck am I to argue with you?

 

[E-Z]

Well you could almost be quoting Martin Popoff back in 1998 in his review of the 'demos' of VAN HALEN III that they were all 'formless tunes' and nothing else.

Yeah i like this album, i'm not entirely sure why i do maybe cos it is a 'strange album' for VAN HALEN and it's the only one that features Gary Cherone but for a very long time overhere in London England i never saw it in any record shops (only HMV left overhere now) for about 11 or 12 years until recently.

 

[coltrane2]

Given that my musical tastes stretch to free jazz (Ornette Coleman/ Albert Ayler et al), I'm the last person that should be dissing anyone for liking far out material.

It's all about extremes anyway (if you'll pardon the pun): I'm comparing III to the dizzy heights of the debut, II and 1984. Doubtless if your amateur musician friend passed you a tape in 1998 proclaiming "this is my new band", we'd be declaring it the best thing we've heard and that it "sounds like an experimental Van Halen album".

 

[TeleCat]

I couldn't disagree more. Even if it's a great album it likely won't sell "bucketloads" because Van Halen doesn't capture that crucial female audience (anymore) that it takes to move large numbers of albums. Besides, most people just aren't buying albums these days period other than more serious music fans and/or old school people who don't, for one reason or another, buy from iTunes or just illegally download all together. So regardless of one's reason for still buying albums they'll buy the upcoming Van Halen album whether it's fantastic or a steamy pile of ***** just because it IS Van Halen.

Good point. The record companies don't promote their bands like they did in the past. Gone are the days of seeing billboards promoting new releases and record stores are passe' as well. It has a lot to do with the internet. Bands can release an album and distribute it on their own.

 

[coltrane2]

Don't underestimate that Van Halen still have a massive following (they enjoyed one of the five highest grossing tours in the world in 2007-8) and are in that Bon Jovi/ Journey/ Guns N Roses territory of still having the scale of fan base to approach seven figure sales (I'd guess just short of 1 million in the US) if the album is good enough and promoted properly.

Anything above 500,000 units is bucket loads in this day and age.

I'm not saying they're going to challenge Thriller in terms of sales (even if Eddie did play on that album).