Unlike the Led Zeppelin reunion rumors, the Van Halen reunion rumors are apparently true. A teenager named Wolfgang Van Halen (no relation to Eddie--jus keeding) will play bass along with the Van Halen brothers and David Lee Roth (What? Gary Cherone wasn't available? I demand a refund).

I celebrate the opportunity to see one of America's best hard-rock bands, and understand why the tour will gross a lot of dough. Alas, I sense it really won't work. Here's why:

1. Ditching Michael Anthony, perhaps for maintaining a friendship with Sammy Hagar, is a vindictive move that hurts the fans. Obviously the least visible member of Van Halen, Anthony, if you really, really listen, provides an ingredient to Van Halen that makes it more delicious than, say, Kiss or Motley Crue. I've never really noticed anything spectacular about his bass playing (you have to be a pretty spectacular bass player--Peter Hook, John Entwhistle, Duff McKagan--to make the bass sound spectacular), but Anthony's background vocals are about as good as they come (Mike Mills from REM is also excellent in this regard). Listen to Dance the Night Away, Pretty Woman, and When It's Love. Background vocals make those songs, which is a claim that cannot be credibly applied to too many songs. The novelty of a teenage Van Halen, even if a prodigy like the original Wolfgang, is pretty cool. But it's not as cool as hearing Michael Anthony provide vocal harmonies alongside Eddie Van Halen.

2. David Lee Roth is a shadow of David Lee Roth. Aside from the real David Lee Roth adopting the cartoonish persona of the stage David Lee Roth, which makes for some serious identity issues, Roth has aged ungracefully. Superficial evidence, such as that (not?) found atop his head, abounds. Substantive evidence comes in the form of his voice, which lost that rich, bass quality a long time ago. Sammy Hagar is six years older than David Lee Roth. David Lee Roth looks and sounds six years older than Sammy Hagar. Try not to pull a quad doing a Bruce Lee ceiling kick, Diamond Dave.

3. Alex Van Halen is an okay drummer with the reputation of an awesome drummer. My sense is that this stems from Van Halen the elder playing behind drum kits larger than the van that guy from Silence of the Lambs used to kidnap great big fat women. He's not bad, but Charlie Watts can make better sounds with four drums than Alex Van Halen can make with 144. Now that playing behind a millions drums has taken its place alongside such insecurity complexes as lead singers stuffing socks in their trousers, Alex Van Halen can no longer use his Jedi Mind Trick to hoodwink crowds into believing he is to the drums what his brother is to the guitar.

4. After divorce, hip replacement, bitter spats with lead singers, and too many trips to rehab, Eddie Van Halen comes across as a cranky geriatric. Hopefully, he doesn't play like one on this tour.

5. Something is lost without those dudes in their early twenties, driving camaros, wearing vintage nikes and three-quarter sleeve shirts, sporting barely grown-in mustaches, smuggling joints inside, and bearing strong resemblances to Todd from Beavis and Butthead, who populated the Van Halen concert audience in the golden years. Ditto for the considerably younger concert sluts they brought along. Because they're not there I'm not there.

I know. I know. They will be there. It's just that they will be thirty years older, and so will the band they came to see. It's tough to imagine the excitement that greeted Van Halen when they rolled into town in the late '70s/early '80s. Those Marshall stacks, that lion-haired, karate-kicking frontman, that massive, massive drum set, that overweight guy swigging down a Jack Daniels bottle filled with iced tea, that virtuoso guitarist--what it might have been to have heard Ain't Talkin Bout Love or Unchained. Alas, that's not the Van Halen that's coming to town this fall.

C'mon, Dan. Give us a break.

Prediction:

The first show might get good press because it's the FIRST show, but certainly by the second show -- the media will say how lousy they are, fans who shell out enourmous amounts of money to see this crap will revolt, and the band will break up (AGAIN).

So if you REALLY want to see these assholes (I'm really just talking about Eddie, because we all love Dave) and step up to become the living, breathing Van Halen 401K, I suggest you try and catch the first few shows, cuz this tour ain't lasting long.

If they don't have all the original members then it's not Van Halen. They'd be nothing more than any of the other rock bands that pass through my town that have one or two of the original members, the rest are space fillers.
It'd be more accurate to call them a Van Halen tribute band.

"Ditto for their considerably younger concert sluts they brought along"

Heh-Heh-Heh...You said sluts!

all true , but i wont miss it for the world! these guys were my first concert, and i will be there.

I suspect that this reunion will be nothing but disfunctional.

Van Halen is one of my favorite bands. That being said, at this point they risk "Rolling Stone Syndrome" .... an aging band that should've hung it up a long time ago.

Don't ruin my high school memories with some half-assed concert!

hey guy, i wouldnt worry about a halfassed show. i went to the DLR and hager show couple of yrs back. and roth put on a good show. i didnt stay for hager LOL.

ps. runnin with the devil baby! i can feel it!

DBJ: One break, comin' up...

That's what you wanted me to say, right?

At the prompting of this post, I started going through You Tube videos of the band and there's some pretty good schtuff. 'You Really Got Me', 'Ice Cream Man' (who knew DLR played the guitar?) are two of the better ones.

After watching a few of these, it dawned on me that had VH been a current band, multiple tattoos would have been the order of the day. Interesting to see how style in the 80's discouraged them. Even for rock bands.

Good tatoo observation, ASDF. It's really not until eighties metal, methinks, that tatoos really invade music. Led Zeppelin? The Who? The Stones? I don't see any tatoos. Aside from outside the mainstream acts like Motorhead, and perhaps Ozzy, I don't remember seeing them in abundance until, say, Tommie Lee, Axl Rose, and other LA-scene hard rock/metal acts. Van Halen, which was very much a part of that scene just a few years before Motley Crue, missed the tatoo scene completely. What happened in those few short years that made tatoos obligatory? I know ink happened. I don't know why ink happened.

I think ozzy and the crue are the main reason for the tat explosion.

Although I have a reasonably small one from my days in the service of Uncle Sam, I'm not a big 'tat' guy and believe that people look better without them. So, in my opinion, VH is two up on Ozzie and the Crue: better appearance and better music.

With reference to ink or not to ink, I think that tats have always been the mark of the rebellious and rock stars are (or try to be) the ultimate rebels. Why the explosion of them in the last twenty years (and especially the last ten), don’t know. Common man’s rebellion against society?

Hmm........I have hair almost down to my ass, a Harley and have been in heavy rock bands since I was 10. No tattoos, though. With everyone and their grandmother sporting tats these days, I feel like I've I've become a rebel by default.

I couldn't disagree with you more, Dan. Alex is an excellent drummer. Not a premium drummer but pretty damn good IMO.

Charlie Watts?! You sure you don't drink Tequila? (just kidding)

VH was a great band in their day but I also wander in they're not a bit long-in-tooth at this point.

Speaking of Mike Mills of R.E.M.. Dan haven't you been mistaken for him on many ocasions?

Excellent point. Having no tats does mark the new rebel it seems.

Wooohooo!
Take a look at this...
Hey Dan...that suit is YOU!
Wooooweeee!
You'll get some leg tonight for sure...
Tell us how you do!
Woohoohoo...