Van Halen vs. Aerosmith - Page 3

roosta · 06-29-2008, 05:44 PM

they both equally suck for different reasons. why isnt that an option on your little poll?

kegkilla · 06-29-2008, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roosta

they both equally suck for different reasons. why isnt that an option on your little poll?

actually there is an option for you and brekk: don't vote, shut the fuck up and get the hell out of my thread.

Simas · 06-29-2008, 07:10 PM

Anyone listen to Lewis Grizzard?

This reminds me of the "who cares, its like two mules fighting over a turnip"

Eomer · 06-30-2008, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scientologist

Probably because they aren't a metal band. Never were, never tried to be.

Zeppelin has plenty of faster/harder rock songs but I will agree they have a lot of slower stuff as well but it's still damn good music whether or not you can "rock" to it.

edit: and also Van Halen is arena rock, not glam.

For their time, Zep could be considered metal, and some people categorized them as such. There's not many bands from the late 60's that played much louder than Zep. I mean shit, The Who were considered metal as well.

I remember my parents had a set of Grollier encyclopedias, and for the entry for "metal music" or something like that a picture of Robert Plant was part of the article.

Smithiy · 07-06-2008, 01:49 PM

Proof of Van Halen's superiority.

Chanur · 07-13-2008, 12:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eomer

I way prefer Aerosmith personally. I mean yeah, both bands suck ass today and have for decades (Eat The Rich was pretty good, though). But Aerosmith in the 70's was a phenomenal band, it's just that most people today don't know it. They have so much good shit from around that time. They were up there with Led Zep and the Rolling Stones.

Van Halen was mediocre pop/glam-rock from the very start of their career IMO, and I can't stand that shit. Don't get me wrong they had some great songs and Eddie changed the way people play guitars, but I just don't think they have nearly as good of a catalogue as Aerosmith does. Not to mention they're a bunch of cat fighting little bitches.

After wiki'ing both bands, it's actually surprising how closely their numbers match. In terms of total albums sold worldwide and in the US, they're almost identical, with Aerosmith having a slight lead.

Speaking of the way Eddie played guitars, I always preferred Randy Rhodes.

AngryGerbil · 07-13-2008, 02:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Surlok TP

Glam Rock was shit like Poison, you weren't really sure if what you were witnessing was females or men. David fell into the spandex jump suits for sure but he still bared the hairy chest and shit. They were in the style of the times, shit even James Hetfield wore spandex in those days on occasion.

Van Halen is more the Hair Metal big arena rock songs, Poison Warrant, fucking Nelson, that was glam rock where the guys were more models than anything else. Roth certainly wasn't in that category.

No. They were glam.

Compared to Warrant or Poison they might have been edgy as fuck, but compared to every other band since the creation of music, they are 80's glam rock.

Put them under an anachronistic microscope and you might be tempted to say they are hardcore, like say, Kiss. But stand back and look at the whole picture and see them for what they were, glam. Like Kiss. Hell, like Aerosmith. All three bands suck more than the human mind should be allowed to comprehend, but at least Aerosmith had the jailbait version of Silverstone in their video. Yes, that is about the only thing that makes them better. And yes, I just hated on Kiss. Fuck Kiss and fuck all ya'll.

Eomer · 07-13-2008, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Hell, like Aerosmith. All three bands suck more than the human mind should be allowed to comprehend, but at least Aerosmith had the jailbait version of Silverstone in their video. Yes, that is about the only thing that makes them better. And yes, I just hated on Kiss. Fuck Kiss and fuck all ya'll.

Aerosmith was kinda sorta glam I guess in the 80's, but again, people really really REALLY need to fucking listen to their early shit. They were a hard rock band, and a very good one at that in the 70's. They were America's answer to Led Zep (and once again, I'm not saying as good, just along the same lines).

It's really unfortunate that the awesomeness of Aerosmith in the 70's is totally overshadowed by the awfulness they became later in their career. They're actually a fucking perfect example of why I think it's best for pretty much EVERY band to only last 10-15 years, with Led Zep being once again a great example. I'm glad as hell they didn't continue making music past Bonham's death, because even their last couple albums aren't all that great (compared to the rest) and even though I'm a big fan, I hardly listen to them. Bands that can continue making good, relevant music much past half a dozen albums or a decade or two are incredibly rare.

Locithon · 07-13-2008, 03:15 PM

Why isn't there a neither option? I just don't get these bands, to me their the same as every other awful 80's hair metal band. Then again I never liked Guns 'n Roses either.

kegkilla · 07-13-2008, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Locithon

Why isn't there a neither option?

because its a casual survey to get some opinions on these two immensely popular rock bands, not an invitation for you to come in and gay up my thread with your emo-loving faggotry.

Locithon · 07-13-2008, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kegkilla

because its a casual survey to get some opinions on these two immensely popular rock bands, not an invitation for you to come in and gay up my thread with your emo-loving faggotry.

Yea you're right, just because I don't like shitty arena rock must automatically mean I like faggety emo garbage. How about this, pick up a drink and blast Van Halen in your Dodge Neon as you plow into a pregnant lady on her way to give birth.

kegkilla · 07-13-2008, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Locithon

Yea you're right, just because I don't like shitty arena rock must automatically mean I like faggety emo garbage. How about this, pick up a drink and blast Van Halen in your Dodge Neon as you plow into a pregnant lady on her way to give birth.

with pleasure

Tingteng · 07-13-2008, 11:43 PM

We should have a poll to see who sucked more corporate record company cock.

Post David Lee Roth Van halen or Post Permanent Vacation Aerosmith.

I despise both horribly, they're both unlistenable.

DiscW · 07-14-2008, 07:35 AM

If there was a option for "David Lee Roth era Van Halen" that would be an easy choice. But if we're looking at their whole catalogue, Aerosmith is far, far better.

Dr. Funkenstein · 07-17-2008, 12:22 AM

I voted Aerosmith. I'm a fan of both bands (as well as just about every band people have compared them to in this thread), but Aerosmith Pump was one of the albums that got me in to music, Permanent Vacation is awesome from beginning to end and their 70s catalog shouldn't be missed by anyone that considers themselves music fans.

Van Halen is awesome, themselves. And blaming Hagar for their musical direction post-Roth is stupid. 1984 was full of keyboards. It was Eddie's direction. Hagar wrote corny lyrics, and maybe Roth's cheesy lyrics would have been better, but it was Eddie that turned the band synth.

-Internets for me!

View Poll Results: Which band rocks harder/sucks less?
Van Halen	92	57.14%
Aerosmith	69	42.86%
Voters: 161. You may not vote on this poll

06-29-2008, 05:44 PM	#31 (permalink)
roosta Registered User Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 295 -3 Internets	they both equally suck for different reasons. why isnt that an option on your little poll? __________________ ------------------------------------------------------ The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.

06-29-2008, 07:10 PM	#33 (permalink)
Simas Say word Join Date: May 2005 Location: NoVa Posts: 1,386 -24 Internets	Anyone listen to Lewis Grizzard? This reminds me of the "who cares, its like two mules fighting over a turnip" __________________ Destroyer

07-13-2008, 11:43 PM	#43 (permalink)
Tingteng Thread Killer Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Portland,OR Posts: 1,225 -12 Internets	We should have a poll to see who sucked more corporate record company cock. Post David Lee Roth Van halen or Post Permanent Vacation Aerosmith. I despise both horribly, they're both unlistenable. __________________

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

07-14-2008, 07:35 AM	#44 (permalink)
DiscW All I wanted was a pepsi. Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 797 +0 Internets	If there was a option for "David Lee Roth era Van Halen" that would be an easy choice. But if we're looking at their whole catalogue, Aerosmith is far, far better.

07-17-2008, 12:22 AM	#45 (permalink)
Dr. Funkenstein Registered User Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 680 -7 Internets	I voted Aerosmith. I'm a fan of both bands (as well as just about every band people have compared them to in this thread), but Aerosmith Pump was one of the albums that got me in to music, Permanent Vacation is awesome from beginning to end and their 70s catalog shouldn't be missed by anyone that considers themselves music fans. Van Halen is awesome, themselves. And blaming Hagar for their musical direction post-Roth is stupid. 1984 was full of keyboards. It was Eddie's direction. Hagar wrote corny lyrics, and maybe Roth's cheesy lyrics would have been better, but it was Eddie that turned the band synth. -Internets for me!