“Music that is for the people”: the perfect Van Halen singer and how he shaped the band
The purpose of music, or art in general, for that matter, will always be debated by both those who make and those who consume it. Rick Rubin, for many, released the definitive text about creativity.
In his book, The Creative Act, he dismisses the finished product as being the reflection of the artist and instead states that an artist should be judged on their process. Don’t think about the result, don’t think about the consumer, and instead just focus on being true to yourself in the creation of art.
“Living life as an artist is a practice,” wrote Rubin. “You are either engaging in the practice, or you’re not. It makes no sense to say you’re not good at it. It’s like saying, ‘I’m not good at being a monk.’ You are either living as a monk, or you’re not.”
His sentiment is echoed by other musicians, who say that the moment you start making music with the consumer in mind, you lose. Noel Gallagher famously said “fuck the customer”, backing up his ethos by saying that the customer didn’t know that they wanted Jimi Hendrix, The Beatles or the Sex Pistols, but without such artists, the musical world would look very different.
I suppose this argument is pretty valid, as great art has always been pushed forward by innovators, and by their very definition, innovators don’t think like everyone else. However, the idea that this is the only mindset that can apply to something like music is silly, as it’s an art form that can do different things for different people. Sure, some of those anti-consumer forward-thinking masterpieces might make people view the world differently, but what happens when a punter just wants to enjoy the world they already know? Can art not facilitate that as well?
Eddie Van Halen certainly thinks that both approaches to art can exist, and his attitude towards the lead singer of Van Halen is a clear reflection of that. Towards the end of the band’s trajectory, he admitted that he couldn’t imagine anyone fronting them other than David Lee Roth. “I think it’s now built into people’s DNA,” he said. “That it just won’t be Van Halen if it’s not Roth’s voice.”
He made such an assessment by putting the customer first, but that doesn’t mean that Eddie Van Halen isn’t also an innovator. He changed the way that people viewed the guitar as an instrument thanks to his unique tapping technique. Additionally, he was always open to exploring new avenues of music, which is exactly what he did when David Lee Roth left Van Halen the first time around. Rather than get someone who was a copycat and continue churning out the same ol’ sound, he instead opted to try and make something different.
The result was some of the band’s most popular music, even though it strayed from that original Van Halen sound. There were synthesisers, fewer guitar solos, and a funk element that you wouldn’t expect from the hard rockers, so Eddie clearly had an open-minded approach when it came to living life as an artist, but when the band was playing in their last ten years, his mindset changed, and he leaned heavily into the idea of giving the people what they want, and in this instance, the people wanted David Lee Roth. Did such an ethos make Eddie Van Halen less of an artist? Some would argue yes, but this writer believes that he simply became more aware.
“This conversation brings me back to being in Pasadena Community College with Alex, where all these strict jazz guys would call us musical prostitutes, because we would be gigging at rock clubs every night and then stumbling into class the next day,” recalled Eddie.
Concluding, “But there is an element of music that is for the people. You make music for people. Otherwise, just play in your closet. And how do you reach the most people? By giving them the band that they know. To do it any other way would be selfish.”
