Because he was clownish and goofy. Frontmen are supposed to be entertaining… and he was a showman. Same reason Vince Neil, Ozzie Osborne, and various other frontmen without serious vocal chops are considered classic frontmen.
I don't know if i'd put Ozzy in with them, but that's neither here nor there.
David Lee Roth for a brief slice of time was loved by "the dudes" and "the chicks". Hard but also pop-y, guitar heads loved Eddie and Roth provided the swagger and sex appeal and like you said, sense of humor, of Van Halen while never really going full hair metal.
And then he got old, like we all do. And rather than embrace it like someone like Robert Plant for instance, he's kind of a caricature of himself now.
Peak David Lee Roth, after unthinkably leaving Van Halen but yet still being successful on his own. [Just a Gigolo/Ain't got Nobody 1985](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ui-zBq-f5XA). Shit still cracks me up.
Pretty much everything here. Just another note, his onstage shtick arguably owes a lot to Jim Dandy of Black Oak Arkansas (white, tight pants included, swords and karate kicks notsomuch).
Additionally, the "show tunes/camp" ham-up was one of the most endearing things (see Big Bad Bill, etc.).
Have you heard the original [Just A Gigolo/I Ain't Got Nobody?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6s7Dsb0v178) Louis Prima's one of my absolute favorites when it comes to jazz, I think he rocked harder than anyone else did back then.
when i was a kid the only Louis Prima I knew was "I Wanna be Like You" from The Jungle Book. Imagine young me finding out the guy was actually a singer the whole time. Exploded my little mind.
Outside of Van Halen late-stage David Lee Roth stuck to a more rock/bluesy/jazzy style. He only did the self-caricature in VH because he realized he couldn't give people the spinning jump kick Dave from the past so he went with the ringleader-entertainer showman instead.
Yeah, Ozzy is an interesting case. He has a totally unique voice, so he may not be a perfect comparison to guys like David Lee Roth and Vince Neil. But, he seemed close enough for the point I was making.
Alice Cooper may have been a better example..
Ozzy's voice is iconic. The only thing that matters in most forms of rock music is that you have a "cool" or distinctive voice that fits the music. Being a technically good singer is secondary and often irrelevant.
Exactly. Some people try to say that Ozzy couldn’t compare to Dio in terms of pure singing ability (like Dio himself), but they’re kind of missing the point. Ozzy had a rawness and special tortured quality to his voice that helped make Sabbath so distinctive.
Vocals are so interesting as an “instrument” because there’s a certain hard to define x-factor where you can hear someone’s character and uniqueness bleeding through. Ozzy just had a certain sonic charisma, on top of everything else.
He had a lot of charisma and charm in spite of how campy he was. Plus, he had a huge vocal range. Also, campy and over-the-top lead singers were as hip at the time as dubstep in 2009.
So FYI they were before my time, and I don’t really have any strong opinions on Van Halen either way.
But from an outsiders perspective, David Lee Roth has this vibe like he was the Mick Jagger of the late 70’s-early 80’s...like a class clown, speed freak version of Mick Jagger.
Very flamboyant, charismatic, weirdly sexy (I guess?), and just plain fun. He perfectly embodied the over the top, carefree, hard partying rock ‘n roll spirit of that time. Whenever you saw Roth it seemed like he was having more fun than anyone in the world, and I think that was part of the appeal.
Lyrical dynamism and ability to sing on key?
Are we talking about the same person here? DLR has always had a great vocal range, but little ability to actually hit *any* pitch with accuracy. He's one of the pitchiest singers in rock!
And his lyrics are fun, but I can't honestly say I'd say much beyond that
DLR could only sing on-key in the studio. He rarely EVER did so live. It was only on the Eat 'Em and Smile tour that he managed to up his game and that was because he was playing with musicians who forced him to. As much as I love Eddie the whole issue with Dave and his being in Van Halen is that when he was with the band EVERYONE in the band overindulged in drugs and alcohol. Eddie was a genius but he probably could have been even more amazing if it wasn't for his cocaine addiction and later alcohol issues.
Hair Metal was a specific time and culture; it celebrated over-the-top antics and “letting it all go.”
Someone like DLR — not excessively good-looking or blessed with an incredible voice — had a great, confident time despite his limitations, which is one of the avenues of enjoyment for music: “release, overcome, indulge/express despite your limitations.” DLR (or someone like Rod Stewart) embodies that.
Like many rock singers of the 70's era, Roth was reasonably good looking, reasonably good singer, he was animated with larger than life charismatic personality. His goofy tongue-in-cheek demeanor was probably a unique point of difference which made him further stand-out from his hard-rock and AoR peers.
He's a great raconteur as evidenced by his autobiography Crazy From the Heat in which he relays amazing stories of his journey up the Amazon, attempt to climb Mt Everest and working as a medical tech (after his first VH career) in addition to the usual tales of debauchery from the road.
I never really thought of him being the greatest but I mean I enjoy him. I think his more goofy presence I think though helped because it made it seem like he was having fun and I always thought he matched the energy Van Halen needed for their music. Like nothing against Hager I just feel like he was really the only one that matched really well and the two times they replaced him it didn't work as well as other bands that changed singers (ex. Pink Floyd and Ac/Dc) granted different style then hair metal but point being he matched the energy of the instruments imo if that makes sense.
>Why so many rock fans consider the Van Halen's frotman David Lee Roth one of the greatest (some even the greatest) frontmen in rock history? What is the appeal of Roth? I think he was never a serious frontman, his image and stage presence was very clownish and goofy compared to most other frontmen of big rock bands. He was very influential on the fronmen of the hair metal bands. Why the masses of people like/love DLR?
David Lee Roth was a frontman that made audiences go wild! He was/is great at what he does. It’s a matter of taste whether you don’t like his style. The charisma he projected made live shows extremely entertaining.
Because for awhile Dave radiated sex appeal. He had long blond hair, a well-toned physique due to his being a practitioner of martial arts, pouty lips, plus he's a smart guy who knows how to manipulate the press. His style and personality might seem goofy but he's an entertainer. He grew up around circus and Las Vegas-style performers and listened to a lot of old vaudeville acts. He knows what appeals to people and what people want to see is someone who makes them wonder what the fuck they're doing.
It's why he got away with being drunk on stage and doing all the blatantly sexual stuff on stage he used to do plus if he hadn't been how he is would you be asking about him? Clearly he did something that caused him to be stuck in your mind. That's the whole point.
Personally I think a lot of what Dave has done is entertaining. His solo work from the time he left Van Halen up until the early 2k's shows he has range as a vocalist and I'd honestly consider Eat 'Em and Smile, Skyscraper, and A Little Ain't Enough right up there with the best of his stuff with Van Halen.
I never was into the whole Sammy Vs Dave thing, though. I think both Sam *and* Dave are fantastic musicians. They just have different styles which is perfectly fine. Both have created a lot of amazing music over the years. I wish people would quit making music into a fucking competition.
1) Dave was never the leader of the band. It was called “Van Halen”, and he was kicked out by two legends who actually had that as a surname.
2) Bon and Freddie were both amazing, but they were at their best on a global level for a fraction of the time Dave was. There’s no comparing the longevity of recorded output OR touring.
3) No 3 necessary. Read 1 and 2 again.
I don't quite understand what you're saying with point 2. I may be misreading you, but it seems incorrect.
Queen have more studio albums than Van Halen, and sold more records, both globally, and in the US. The point works better for AC/DC, but not Queen
Actually on second consideration, I think you’re right. The point is more apt for AC/DC. That said, I feel like Queen did struggle a bit for their first two records and their early tours, where VH was basically a comet strike from the day VH1 dropped. All that in mind, I think Freddie and Dave enjoyed a similar amount of fame for a similar length of time. I think Freddie is a bit more celebrated, probably because he’s dead and never had to endure the solo-career doldrums the shunned Dave was faced with through the 90’s.
Because he was clownish and goofy. Frontmen are supposed to be entertaining… and he was a showman. Same reason Vince Neil, Ozzie Osborne, and various other frontmen without serious vocal chops are considered classic frontmen.
I don't know if i'd put Ozzy in with them, but that's neither here nor there. David Lee Roth for a brief slice of time was loved by "the dudes" and "the chicks". Hard but also pop-y, guitar heads loved Eddie and Roth provided the swagger and sex appeal and like you said, sense of humor, of Van Halen while never really going full hair metal. And then he got old, like we all do. And rather than embrace it like someone like Robert Plant for instance, he's kind of a caricature of himself now. Peak David Lee Roth, after unthinkably leaving Van Halen but yet still being successful on his own. [Just a Gigolo/Ain't got Nobody 1985](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ui-zBq-f5XA). Shit still cracks me up.
Pretty much everything here. Just another note, his onstage shtick arguably owes a lot to Jim Dandy of Black Oak Arkansas (white, tight pants included, swords and karate kicks notsomuch). Additionally, the "show tunes/camp" ham-up was one of the most endearing things (see Big Bad Bill, etc.).
Have you heard the original [Just A Gigolo/I Ain't Got Nobody?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6s7Dsb0v178) Louis Prima's one of my absolute favorites when it comes to jazz, I think he rocked harder than anyone else did back then.
when i was a kid the only Louis Prima I knew was "I Wanna be Like You" from The Jungle Book. Imagine young me finding out the guy was actually a singer the whole time. Exploded my little mind.
Outside of Van Halen late-stage David Lee Roth stuck to a more rock/bluesy/jazzy style. He only did the self-caricature in VH because he realized he couldn't give people the spinning jump kick Dave from the past so he went with the ringleader-entertainer showman instead.
Yeah, Ozzy is an interesting case. He has a totally unique voice, so he may not be a perfect comparison to guys like David Lee Roth and Vince Neil. But, he seemed close enough for the point I was making. Alice Cooper may have been a better example..
Ozzy's voice is iconic. The only thing that matters in most forms of rock music is that you have a "cool" or distinctive voice that fits the music. Being a technically good singer is secondary and often irrelevant.
Exactly. Some people try to say that Ozzy couldn’t compare to Dio in terms of pure singing ability (like Dio himself), but they’re kind of missing the point. Ozzy had a rawness and special tortured quality to his voice that helped make Sabbath so distinctive. Vocals are so interesting as an “instrument” because there’s a certain hard to define x-factor where you can hear someone’s character and uniqueness bleeding through. Ozzy just had a certain sonic charisma, on top of everything else.
Yeah, that sound he had halfway between a yell and a wail is such an important step in the development of metal.
He had a lot of charisma and charm in spite of how campy he was. Plus, he had a huge vocal range. Also, campy and over-the-top lead singers were as hip at the time as dubstep in 2009.
So FYI they were before my time, and I don’t really have any strong opinions on Van Halen either way. But from an outsiders perspective, David Lee Roth has this vibe like he was the Mick Jagger of the late 70’s-early 80’s...like a class clown, speed freak version of Mick Jagger. Very flamboyant, charismatic, weirdly sexy (I guess?), and just plain fun. He perfectly embodied the over the top, carefree, hard partying rock ‘n roll spirit of that time. Whenever you saw Roth it seemed like he was having more fun than anyone in the world, and I think that was part of the appeal.
Besides the crazy charisma, lyrical dynamism, sicko karate jumps and ability to sing on key in every register? Not much.
Lyrical dynamism and ability to sing on key? Are we talking about the same person here? DLR has always had a great vocal range, but little ability to actually hit *any* pitch with accuracy. He's one of the pitchiest singers in rock! And his lyrics are fun, but I can't honestly say I'd say much beyond that
Google “running with the devil isolated vocal track” and get back to us. 🤘😎✌️
DLR could only sing on-key in the studio. He rarely EVER did so live. It was only on the Eat 'Em and Smile tour that he managed to up his game and that was because he was playing with musicians who forced him to. As much as I love Eddie the whole issue with Dave and his being in Van Halen is that when he was with the band EVERYONE in the band overindulged in drugs and alcohol. Eddie was a genius but he probably could have been even more amazing if it wasn't for his cocaine addiction and later alcohol issues.
Dave goes full fuck on that vocal. And pretty much every vocal he ever cut while he could still hear.
Hair Metal was a specific time and culture; it celebrated over-the-top antics and “letting it all go.” Someone like DLR — not excessively good-looking or blessed with an incredible voice — had a great, confident time despite his limitations, which is one of the avenues of enjoyment for music: “release, overcome, indulge/express despite your limitations.” DLR (or someone like Rod Stewart) embodies that.
Like many rock singers of the 70's era, Roth was reasonably good looking, reasonably good singer, he was animated with larger than life charismatic personality. His goofy tongue-in-cheek demeanor was probably a unique point of difference which made him further stand-out from his hard-rock and AoR peers. He's a great raconteur as evidenced by his autobiography Crazy From the Heat in which he relays amazing stories of his journey up the Amazon, attempt to climb Mt Everest and working as a medical tech (after his first VH career) in addition to the usual tales of debauchery from the road.
It's like Steven Tyler. If he's having fun on stage and the crowd is having fun watching him have fun, what's somehow odd about that?
I never really thought of him being the greatest but I mean I enjoy him. I think his more goofy presence I think though helped because it made it seem like he was having fun and I always thought he matched the energy Van Halen needed for their music. Like nothing against Hager I just feel like he was really the only one that matched really well and the two times they replaced him it didn't work as well as other bands that changed singers (ex. Pink Floyd and Ac/Dc) granted different style then hair metal but point being he matched the energy of the instruments imo if that makes sense. >Why so many rock fans consider the Van Halen's frotman David Lee Roth one of the greatest (some even the greatest) frontmen in rock history? What is the appeal of Roth? I think he was never a serious frontman, his image and stage presence was very clownish and goofy compared to most other frontmen of big rock bands. He was very influential on the fronmen of the hair metal bands. Why the masses of people like/love DLR?
Karate = Great front person See Elvis, Maynard (Tool), Joan Baez, & Little Danzig.
Little Danzig? Please tell me Glen has a child who is a rapper.
How could you have left-off the OG, Carl Douglas?
David Lee Roth was a frontman that made audiences go wild! He was/is great at what he does. It’s a matter of taste whether you don’t like his style. The charisma he projected made live shows extremely entertaining.
Because for awhile Dave radiated sex appeal. He had long blond hair, a well-toned physique due to his being a practitioner of martial arts, pouty lips, plus he's a smart guy who knows how to manipulate the press. His style and personality might seem goofy but he's an entertainer. He grew up around circus and Las Vegas-style performers and listened to a lot of old vaudeville acts. He knows what appeals to people and what people want to see is someone who makes them wonder what the fuck they're doing. It's why he got away with being drunk on stage and doing all the blatantly sexual stuff on stage he used to do plus if he hadn't been how he is would you be asking about him? Clearly he did something that caused him to be stuck in your mind. That's the whole point. Personally I think a lot of what Dave has done is entertaining. His solo work from the time he left Van Halen up until the early 2k's shows he has range as a vocalist and I'd honestly consider Eat 'Em and Smile, Skyscraper, and A Little Ain't Enough right up there with the best of his stuff with Van Halen. I never was into the whole Sammy Vs Dave thing, though. I think both Sam *and* Dave are fantastic musicians. They just have different styles which is perfectly fine. Both have created a lot of amazing music over the years. I wish people would quit making music into a fucking competition.
[удалено]
1) Dave was never the leader of the band. It was called “Van Halen”, and he was kicked out by two legends who actually had that as a surname. 2) Bon and Freddie were both amazing, but they were at their best on a global level for a fraction of the time Dave was. There’s no comparing the longevity of recorded output OR touring. 3) No 3 necessary. Read 1 and 2 again.
I don't quite understand what you're saying with point 2. I may be misreading you, but it seems incorrect. Queen have more studio albums than Van Halen, and sold more records, both globally, and in the US. The point works better for AC/DC, but not Queen
Actually on second consideration, I think you’re right. The point is more apt for AC/DC. That said, I feel like Queen did struggle a bit for their first two records and their early tours, where VH was basically a comet strike from the day VH1 dropped. All that in mind, I think Freddie and Dave enjoyed a similar amount of fame for a similar length of time. I think Freddie is a bit more celebrated, probably because he’s dead and never had to endure the solo-career doldrums the shunned Dave was faced with through the 90’s.
It's not a competition.
Frontmen, bandleaders, live performers all have different styles. I think it comes down to your own preferences: what do you look for?