Talk:Eddie Van Halen/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Eddie's age

Eddie was born in 1956. Whoever is changing it knock it off — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.130.166.48 (talk) 00:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

        He is the youngest member of the original Van Halen line up making him 56 now so he'd have been born in 56.

Frankenstrat

In one section this article says the body and neck was made by Wayne Charvel, and in another Lynn Ellsworth. Wayne Charvel says the neck came from Lynn Ellsworth and he made the body. Which is it?

And why no discussion on the pickups used? DavidRavenMoon (talk) 17:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Variac

With regards to the usage of the variac: Is there any evidence that Eddie used the variac on the input AC supply?

I had always asumed he used the variac to lower the voltage on the speaker output. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.144.180.23 (talk) 10:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

This requires clarification. "The reduced mains voltage causes the distortion to start at a lower volume." True enough. "The amplifier can only deliver an output less, or equal to the voltage it is supplied, anything higher than this causes distortion." Not true, and it says so right in the article: "The high voltage output transformer primary has hundreds of volts running through it and is extremely dangerous." You could change the coupling transformer to get about any voltage you want, or eliminate it completely. It might not be healthy for your speakers, but the voltage is there.

That a an "amplifier can only deliver an output less, or equal to the voltage it is supplied" is pure baloney. Power x Impedance = Voltage squared (PZ=V2). In bridged mono a QSC RMX5050 power amp has a continuous average output power rating of 3600 W into 8 Ohms (EIA); that's 170 V continuous from an input as low as 100 V. (QSC Audio, RMX Series, specifications) Output voltage is in no way inherently limited by input voltage. All you have to do is a slap step-up transformer across the output. For that matter, very high voltages are required to drive electrostatic speakers.

Cheers, Rico402 (talk) 23:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Alex

But Alex is at Alex van Halen. RickK

So I'll move it. Problem solved. -- Jim Regan 02:20 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

One take on "Beat it", etc.

When discussing Eddie's work on Beat It, it should be noted that his ripping guitar solo was done in one take. --Ross

Also, I believe EVH wasn't paid a cent up front or in royalities by his choice for his contribution to "Beat It".

(YOU PEOPLE ARE SUPPOSED TO SIGN YOUR POSTS WITH YOUR ISP.) Go to youtube, and you'll find video of Eddie's May 2013 appearance on CNN on the Piers Morgan show. In the 13 minute interview, he mentions some things about his work on Beat-it. LL Cool J is also in the video; Eddie and LL Cool J recently collaborated on LL's recent album. MS 206.192.35.125 (talk) 14:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Another item, I think EVH is a classically-trained virtuoso 'pianist' not guitar player.

Van Halen rarely if ever did solos in one take. His usual method was to record 3 or 4 different versions, then pick the best parts out of each. They were either edited together, or he would try to duplicate how he thought they should run together. The exception to that was most of the first album. Those were ready to go, sincethey had been playing and evolving those songs for 3 or 4 years in clubs.--Xj14y 16:42, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

i agree. i think it was Bruce Swedien (MJ engineer) who said that the "beat it" solo wasn't one take, but "very few" takes. SaltyPig 11:23, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

A good example of the "spice and dice" solo is "Good Enough" from 5150. My understaning is that that solo was created on the mixing board.

I'm pretty sure EVH did not do the riff for Thriller, nor anything in the movie Back to the Future. Aren't those both two long standing myths?

He did work on Beat It, at the behest of Quincy Jones, which was on the Thriller album. The song in Back To The Future that was titled "Donut City". He made a 4 or 5 minute song to use 3 seconds of it in the movie. Not myths. --Xj14y 18:14, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As for the "Beat it" song, the rhythm guitar was played by Steve Lukather (ex-Toto) guitarist. Alot of Ed's solos from his first few albums were done in one take. As for Back to the Future, the clip Michael J Fox blared on his walkman in the movie, was from a pre-Van Halen track that was never used in any album and was not from the song "Donut City"

And yes Ed is most definitely the all time guitar god.

There is a story that Eddie was fighting with someone on the phone. When the phone rang in the middle of this fight, Eddie picked it up and said something to the effect of, "I told you not to keep calling me!" The story goes it was Quincy Jones calling to ask about doing the spot on the Thriller album. Eddie felt so bad about talking that way to QJ, when the latter asked him what he wanted for consideration (money, royalites), Eddie said he'd felt bad about the business on the phone, so "let's just call it even."

rhythm guitar

While his prowess as a stunning soloist is well established, what is not widely known is that Van Halen is also among the greatest rhythm guitarists in rock history.

whoever added that sentence is... well, you're a genius. EVH was one of the tightest rhythm dudes around (e.g., overdub on "feel your love tonight" solo, most of the "fair warning" album) — stunning work that's often ignored in favor of the flash. very glad to see it mentioned in the article. nice job. SaltyPig 11:23, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

There is a great quote that, unfortunately I have to paraphrase because I find it, from Van Halen that goes: "I'm truly a right-handed guitarist." He was making reference to his perference for rhythm. The quote is used as the opening quote for the rhythm chapter of a guitar-lesson book that I used to have. If anyone can find it, quote it exactly, I think it would be a nice addition to honour Ed's great rhythm technique. --Bentonia School 10:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• How can "greatness" be not widely known?! It's an awful fanboy quote, dripping in POV. Few consider EVH a rhythm guitarist at all, let alone.....well, you know. -- Delsource (talk) 22:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The above statement is untrue. All good guitar players (Above average) normally agree that Ed Van Halen is an incredibly underated rhythm guitar player. In my humble opinion, the greatest rock rhythm guitar player.--190.51.29.56 (talk) 17:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)drmogutus--190.51.29.56 (talk) 17:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Compare a Hendrix tab and an EVH tab, and you´ll see how limited are the guitar players when they have to do rhythm. Hendrix was the best rhythm player, always talking about mainstream rock.

Most lead guitarist are good rythmn players. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.11.33.166 (talk) 22:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

EVH's chord choices are often pretty sophistcated, inversions and stuff; wouldn't that argue for him being a sophistcated rhythm player. I think people are just looking for fault, like they say, "Well, you know, he didn't invent tapping". I heard one guy say he learned it from Joe Satriani. What's the point?

Cheers, Rico402 (talk) 11:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

mammoth

I didn't change anything personally, but I noticed a link to "a band already by that name." -- referring to their original name "mammoth." As far as I know, and I've been a Genesis follower since the early 80's, they never had any association with that name. I'm not sure why that link is there, and I think it should be deleted. The text itself is fairly subjective and without reference is probably untrue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.29.15.81 (talk) 07:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

tuning

i just noticed that the second quote i put in could be construed as referring to a retuning of the E string to D (or similar). here's the context, which i trimmed because i didn't want it to seem like the article was on an eff word kick. if somebody can remove the possible confusion without dropping another eff bomb in the same section, please do: If you tune an open E chord in the first position and it's perfectly in tune, and then you hit a barre chord an octave higher, it's out of tune. The B string is always a motherfucker to keep in tune all the time! So I have to retune for certain songs. And when I use the Floyd onstage, I have to unclamp it and do it real quick. But with a standard-vibrato guitar, I can tune it while I'm playing. SaltyPig 14:25, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Moving factoids

I moved these tidbits from the band's article. Perhaps someone can use them in this article.

• His main influence was Eric Clapton (of Cream), and Alex's were Ginger Baker (also of Cream) and John Bonham (of Led Zeppelin).

EVH has mentioned many influences. I have listed some of the more prominent; I accept that Eric Clapton was the most important influence, but there were others that EVH has mentioned, including Allan Holdsworth, who influenced EVH's speed, legato style and tremelo arm techniques. In fact EVH said of Holdsworth, "He's the best in my book." It's appropriate therefore to put these guitarists in alongside Clapton. He also mentions Jimmy Page in a 1989 interview, stating that he gets his "reckless abandon" approach from Page.

Note from Glucoboost: I think it's important to keep EVH's quote about Holdsworth in. This quote comes from an 1980 interview in Guitar Player (http://www.vhlinks.com/pages/interviews/evh/gp0480.php). Notably, this interview occurred early in EVH's career, so it's clear that Allan Holdsworth is a major influence. Please read the interview for the context.

I think it's reasonably for fans of EVH to know who he thinks is the best.

Ridiculously Random Fact, originating from the comment: "One Take On Beat It etc."

Did you know that "Good Enough" was played on the movie Space Balls? It's heard near the end when they're all sitting at some restaurant. I recommend checking it out.

slop

if you don't yet know how to write somewhat smoothly, please don't hack away at articles. this is worse than a blank page -- slop piled on top of slop. did i say "slop" yet? cause that's what it is. and when it's not slop, it's trite. what purpose is served by treasuring/polishing these "contributions"? none, in the short or long term. fix your own dreck or never add it in the first place. Wbfl 04:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Sources

I've begun sourcing this page. You can help by leaving information on my talk page, or on this talk page. - Corbin ∫ 1 ɱ p s ɔ ♫ ^{Rock on, dude!} 20:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Tuning: "Perfect" thirds

There's no such interval as a perfect third (see Interval (music)). I'm not sure what this section is actually getting at - flattening the B string slightly doesn't create a "perfect" third, just a slightly flat major third. Is "perfect" being used here to indicate that the new interval doesn't sound dissonant through an amp? If so, we need to find a new word. Soobrickay 01:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

as you'll note if you visit the articles on perfect fourths and fifths, perfect intervals are "so called because of their extremely simple pitch relationships resulting in a high degree of consonance". you claim that EVH's flatted B string "doesn't create a 'perfect' third, just a slightly flat major third." that's incorrect. a major third in equal temperament is intentionally detuned from consonant to the wide side (top note sharp). EVH's major achievement was in recognizing that he could flat the B string back from this bastardized state, to bring consonant thirds as (or more) beatless as perfect fifths. rather than the "slightly flat major third" of your claim, it was a slightly unsharped major third, rendering that third perfect. he then learned to bend the B string up when playing, for example, an open D chord.

the reason you are under the false impression that "there's no such interval as a perfect third" is because there is no such thing as a perfect third in equal temperament tuning, and you've probably done nothing but play in equal temperament and learn equal temperament theory. however, what EVH did was deviate from equal temperament tuning, bringing a real perfect third into the mix.

Is "perfect" being used here to indicate that the new interval doesn't sound dissonant through an amp?

absolutely.

we need to find a new word.

no, you need to learn what you're talking about. at least you could google "perfect third" before making your false pronouncements. 65.145.193.132 09:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Citation About "Alan Holdsworth is number one."

I have the whole quote on page 21 in my Guitar Legends: Van Halen magazine:

"I'd just want people to like what I play. I don't want people to say, "You're number one." It's a matter of taste. To me, Allan Holdsworth is number one. Kids might listen to him and not even understand what he's doing. Older people might think I suck."

dude we need a better pic of him in his later years

I mean I have one, but I don't know how to put it in! :P

dude, there isn't a better pic of him. Face it, the hot Eddie of the 80's and 90's is at the bottom of his Jim Beam. So sad. Can't the guy afford teeth? -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.47.15.38 (talk • contribs)

They dressed the best in the 70s with the long silks 14:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC) -Ben

Band or artist?

I think, there is too much stuff about the band in the article, rather than about Eddie himself. --Martinxxxx72 16:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed -- much of the band information is redundantly presented here. Ogre lawless 17:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Looking better in the morning, Floyd Rose goes sharp

As I major Eddie fan and imitator, I am so saddened to see that picture posted. It's the pits. It's one of those pictures that get's someone at their worst. I've looked that bad sometimes, but luckily nobody caught it on film. Whoever posted it needs to apply at 'The Enquirer', right after he gets his ass kicked. On a technical note... the stuff about the Floyd Rose tuning: If you don't have the tremelo all the way against the body (No Rising Technique)when a string breaks the tension of six strings in tune is distributed against FIVE stings. The spring tension is greater and therefore pulls UP on the bar, causing the guiter to go SHARP...not flat, in tuning, as mentioned in the article.

PS: I have replaced the disgusting photo, with a much better one from this year. If any one can help me with the copyright stuff, it was a publicity photo from germany. The company info is:

Warner Music Group Germany Holding GmbH New Media & Market Research Vertretungsberechtigter: Tim van Dyk Verantwortlicher im Sinne von § 6 des Mediendienstestaatsvertrages (MDStV): Benedikt Loekes Alter Wandrahm 13-14 20457 Hamburg

........................................My2Cents,t1n02112

Floyd will go sharp with lost string

With a Floyd Rose (or any floating fulcrum style vibrato), breaking a string will cause the remaining strings to go sharp, not flat. This is because the loss of tension string-side is countered by the even spring-side tension - the springs can pull the vibrato unit further, causing the remaining strings to go sharp.

Porn music

Hey, I just heard on the news that Eddie Van Halen is now writing songs for porn soundtracks, I was wondering if anyone had a verifiable source for this, and if so, maybe it should go into the article under "Later years". --Cyde↔Weys 14:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

"Perfect" third

the fact is that there is no such thing as a "Perfect" third in western music which uses tertian harmony. there are major thirds, minor thirds, diminished thirds and augmented thirds. The term for what Eddie Van Halen is doing is flatening the Major third interval until it reaches just intonation. --Anthraxrulz 10:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Dimebag memorial

He made an appearance at Dimebag Darrell's memorial service(December 12, 2004?) and donated his guitar from the Van Halen II album. It was buried with Dime, as said from "VH1's Behind the Music: Pantera" and other various sources found with a google search.

• Okay... I did a search for a reliable source for the guitar in coffin statement. I couldn't find one, so I tagged that part of the article as being "cite needed". Tabercil 22:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm leaning strongly toward removing that statement - it is disputed and there are no sources. --Spike Wilbury 00:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

In the video the making of the frankenstein replica eddie talks about how he gave bumblebee to dimebag @ his funeral go on youtube and look its right there. he sais it to the interviewer, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.147.123 (talk) 16:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Text removed from article

Eddie has recently said publicly that David Lee Roth is the best front man ever, despite that they had conflicts together.

Eddie is widely respected as one of the modern days greatest guitarists for his ability to create a large sound and fill out the space on songs.

Legendary Pink Floyd guitarist David Gilmour has commented that Eddie is a guitar player that he respects widely. This is a big compliment as Gilmour has always declared a lack of interest in most modern music and always preferred the music that he grew up listening to.

These paragraphs were in the "sources" section. They need to be worked into the article proper if they're to be there at all. - furrykef (Talk at me) 03:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Wolfgang

When you click the link for Wolfgang, it redirects to this article...but I don't know much about wiki, so somebody who does, I just though I would bring this to attention.--Sneewop 02:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Collaboration request

I think this article needs a lot of work, and could become a great article with all the material that is available on EVH. I would like to start by removing unsourced material (there is a lot of it), and trying to move material that is more about the band to the Van Halen article. :I'll try to chip in. The opening line of that section is a little weasely too. And the word virtuoso shouldn't be on any guitarist page no matter who they are. I'll get slapped trying to rm it but if anyone agree's please turf it.

Pickups & Beat it.

There is no mention of when Edward was looking for "the brown sound" and experimenting on guitars how he would re-wind pickups or swap magnets or manipulate pickups from different companys. Also his Humbucker phase is very interesting.
As for "Beat it" I think it is pretty much common knowledge that he did 3 takes and used the first one, no cut & splice. Also a lot of his playing style is from playing in a 3 piece band so he would "noodle" around abit for filler. It was Ted Templeman who talked him into using overdubs, which he hated doing.
Also no info on his input in the Music Man EVH guitars, ie.how all the necks were shaven down and shaped after his worn down kramer necks to fit him better than a new neck.

"I don't really go for DiMarzio pickups, because they're real distorted. I like a clean sound with sustain -- I hate the fuzz box, real raspy sound. So I put a PAF magnet in a DiMarzio pickup and rewound it by hand, which took a long lime. I actually ruined about three pickups, and by the fourth time it worked. I didn't count the windings -- I just did it by sight." EVH Dec 1979 Guitar Player darrennie 06:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

2004 Summer Tour Guitar Smashing Incident

This article tries to claim that Edward Van Halen definitely destroyed his guitar (and does not mention there was a second one destroyed or when) because of growing tention between himself and lead singer Sammy Hagar. On November 22, 2004, VHND.com wrote:

Not only did the IloveAllAccess representative inform the Five Star fans before the show that many pranks were planned by the band and the crew, such as the Great Silly String Assault, but she specifically forewarned "I'm not going to tell you, But I will Say Whatever You Do, DO NOT be in the Bathroom During RIGHT NOW." Our source does tell us that Ed was in fact very mad at someone backstage that night, but it wasn't Valerie, his girlfriend, his son, or anyone else in the VH camp so we do not think it appropriate to name them.

I was also at the August 10, 2004 show at the HP Pavillion in San Jose, and, Van Halen neither appeared intoxicated, nor played poorly, as stated in both this article as well as in Van Halen.

Origin of tapping

I've added some text to the technique section, including a quote from EVH talking about the role of the Heartbreaker solo in developing the techique. If we need a citation for this, I will find one from a book somewhere, so please don't randomly delete it. Also, I think it's very important to point out that EVH did not invent tapping as a technique - it's a commonly held misconception, but false. Of course he may well have come up with the technique independently (can't really see him listening to Steve Hackett to be honest).Mikejstevenson 15:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The great Les Paul was pick-hand tapping and fret-hand pulling-off in the 50s. Can't for the life of me find a decent reference though..... -- Delsource (talk) 00:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Harry DeArmond used to demonstrate how sensitive his pickups were by playing two guitars at once, and tapping on both necks. Jimmie Webster also did it in the 1950s and published an instructional book on it. Later in the 60's Harvey Mandel did it in a rock context. See the Wikipedia article on tapping. DavidRavenMoon (talk) 17:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Playing truant

The line about playing truant from school seems a bit contentious without a direct citation - so have removed itMikejstevenson 15:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge to Van Halen page

there are some interesting (though uncited) facts on the formation of Van Halen here, which I think would be better off in the main band page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mikejstevenson (talk • contribs) 07:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC).

Ongoing work

We're getting there. But still more work required. Will continue plugging on.Mikejstevenson 11:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Create a new article

Since the section on eddie van halen's equipment is getting quite long, it might be a good idea to summarize what we have right now, and move what is currently there to a new article, such as Eddie Van Halen's rig or something like that. Any thoughts? Justinmeister 18:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

You can try. A more "encyclopedic" article title though. It stands a chance of just being tagged for merger back to this article unless it can be completely "Wiki-clean"...wikified sections, inline citations(preferably book refs) and fair use images. If you decide to break it out let me know and I will watchlist it for vandalism. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 01:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

In principle yes, but would recommend we keep it here until the article gets to the point where it's 'solid' ;) Mikejstevenson 13:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

EVH is an American citizen right?

Why is he a "Dutch guitarist" if he moved here and trained and started his career here when he was a toddler. Has Eddie even been to Holland except to tour? If he was an American citizen in the 70's-80's then it is insulting to list him as Dutch, since Van Halen itself is an American band. 11:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC) -Ben

It should be changed to American. That's like saying Joe Satriani is an Italian guitarist. True, he is of Dutch ethnicity, but he is an American citizen and played in an American band. Justinmeister 16:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Because, dumbass, he was born in the Netherlands. Even though he is a citizen, he is still Dutch.

He is actually born in Nijmegen, not in Amsterdam. His brother Alex was born in Amsterdam. They moved to USA when they were around 7-9 years old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.125.204.133 (talk) 18:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• • • • "Has Eddie ever been to Holland"?.... well, he was born there - I think that might count! Chilkoot 17:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

yes and he still speaks dutch Markthemac (talk) 20:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Better intro needed

I don't think the introduction to this article provides enough initial information about Eddie Van Halen or sums up his influence and contribution to music and guitar in particular. If one were to compare the introduction to the Jimi Hendrix, Eric Clapton, Jeff Beck and Jimmy Page articles, you will see they are fleshed out much more by the inclusion information about their accomplishments. I propose authoring an additions to the introduction that adds some of this information about Eddie Van Halen's career.

I would agree with this idea. Robertknyc 07:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I have written the following proposed revision to the introduction. I have not provided sources, as most of the information in this intro can be found elsewhere in the article.

Edward (Eddie) Lodewijk Van Halen, born Eduard Lodewijk van Halen on January 26, 1955[1] in Nijmegen, Netherlands, is a guitarist, songwriter and producer most famous for being a co-founder of the hard rock band, Van Halen.

As a guitarist, Edward Van Halen has been a ground breaking and highly influential musician, popularizing a number of techniques, such as two-handed tapping, extreme and expressive use of tremelo bars, pinch and artificial harmonics, as well as gear, such as Super Strats and Floyd Rose tremolos. Van Halen’s tone, techniques and equipment has made a lasting impact on a number of genres, particularly hard rock, heavy metal and shred guitar.

--Gypsyjazzbo 11:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Birthday

I changed the date of birth into 1957, if I missed a date (or if someone knows how to change the category "birth") I would be pleased if someone would submit it. 14:17, 27. Jan. 2007

According to imdb.com, allmusic.com, the Starpulse listing linked in the article, NNDB [1], and the less-reputable "The Van Halen Newsdesk" fansite (which said in 2001 that he celebrated his 46th birthday), Edward Van Halen was born on January 26, 1955. I cannot find a source saying he was born on Jan 26 1957, other than this here Wiki article which keeps being changed to say that. If someone can find two or more checkable sources with a decent reputation that say for sure and without a doubt that Eddie was born in 1957, then let's change it, but otherwise, please leave it alone. Thanks. Salamurai 15:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Eddie Van Halen is the youngest original member of Van Halen. He was born in 1956 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.130.166.48 (talk) 00:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I can't see the tour lasting

First off I worship Ed. I'd pay to see him and Wolfy play (alex too) but Dave. When he took over for Stern on the East coast I couldn't listen to Van Halen song's. He's gone. Hey, 1982 he was probally the best front man out there, now he need to quit. Just remember Rod and Beck, the egos will kill this tour. Long live Edward he is a god. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.230.246.236 (talk) 22:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC).In the library at my High School they had Popular Music books from a major publisher, with all the major artists. They listed his birthday as January 26, 1957. I was always confused because I saw two birth dates for him; 1955 and 1957.

Too much detail on Floyd Rose tremolos

The Floyd Rose was a big part of EVH's style, but it dosn't need to be explained in so much detail on the EVH page.

Most of the Floyd Rose tremolo info in this article duplicates info at the Wikipedia entry for "Floyd Rose". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.236.158.195 (talk) 07:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

Solo album

He said on the Howard Stern show that he's releasing a solo album, has there been any word on it since then. 75pickup (talk · contribs) 02:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Emmy Awards Photo

I don't think that photo is from 1993. 1993 was just after the F.U.C.K. tour and the same year that Live: Right Here, Right Now was released. Ed was much heavier in those days, his face was much fuller. This photo is definitely from the 80s. Since it is supposedly from the Emmy Awards, it's most likely 1983 when One Day at a Time was still on air. It should be checked for clarity. I can't source it but it is certainly not from the 90s. --Bentonia School 20:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

That photo is part of this series of photo's. See also this image which clearly shows it's the 1993 Emmy's. Garion96 (talk) 20:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, cool. --Bentonia School 09:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

B-Class Guitarist article'?

What the hell is this 'B-Class Guitarist article' thing on the categories list? Has anyone had a look at that list? It lists Jimi Hendrix, for Christ's sake! Ed is no B-Class guitarist, himself, but what faith can anyone have in Wikipedia if it lists Hendrix as 'B-class'? Ridiculous. --Bentonia School 20:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The article is B-Class, not Van Halen himself. —Chowbok ☠ 20:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, then. It can be read to be misunderstood though. Anyway to convince anyone to change the method? How about "B-Class Article: Guitarist"? --Bentonia School 10:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Infobox photo

The infobox photo should be the most up-to-date image of the subject as per the guidelines set out by the living persons bio project. A very good live shot has been uploaded but unfortunately it is an older shot and better suited for the article section where it best falls...in this case the Hagar section. It would be great if the uploader of the live shot would provide a more current image for free use. If one were provided it could then supplant the Emmy Awards image in the infobox. Until then proper Project guidelines should be followed and the most recent image must stay in the infobox. 156.34.216.36 22:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a shit photo that pales in comparison........

That would be POV. Opinions have no place in an encyclopedia. Policies ahould/must be followed and maintained. 156.34.216.36 22:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

State your user-name A-Hole........

Don't require one. IP range 156.34 is a University library with over 10000 valid Wikipedia edits and vandal rv's. Why ruin a perfect track record with a made up name? 156.34.216.36 23:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

F/Y .........

That photo made me think he was still that handsome at age 53 until I read the caption.. then I was left wondering how handsome he was. That photo is almost old enough to drive.

EVH Feature Photo

Any strong opinions on the appropriate infobox feature photo for this page ? Please state your opinions, but it seems rather obvious that a classic rock photo is more appropriate for the top of the page, and more representative of EVH than a fuzzy candid from the Emmys.Dannyg3332 22:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

See the previous section for discussion already initiated on the topic. Do you have a more recent shot to upload and use? the infobox pic is supposed to be the most recent "free-use" image available....regardless of quality. 156.34.216.36 22:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

You keep saying that, but I've never heard of such a policy. It doesn't make a lot of sense, to be honest. What if it were a picture of Charlie Chaplin? Assuming both photos were free, wouldn't one from 1920 be more appropriate than one from 1977? I have no opinion on which image should go in the userbox in this case, but saying it should be the "most recent" as though it's some sort of policy is silly. —Chowbok ☠ 23:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

If you're that ignorant I'll just remove it in it's entirety.Dannyg3332 22:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

You've onviously never read WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL. I like the live shot. But it's outdated. As for removing it. It's on Wiki-commons now so it's free use for anyone to use, anywhere at any time. A recent live image would look great in the infobox. Do you have one? It would be a valid replacement for the poor "head shot". 156.34.216.36 22:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Danny, you can't just remove the image if you're unhappy with its placement. You released it under the CC license, so you no longer have any more (or less) say than any Wikipedia editor on its usage. —Chowbok ☠ 23:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all, there's no reason for anybody to be aggressive about this. It's just going to entrench people in their positions and make outside observers want to avoid the discussion instead of taking part and help resolve it. Secondly, as Chowbok points out above, there is no "Most recent photo must be used" policy that I am aware of, although I have heard this repeated before. If someone could point me to a page that is giving this impression, I would be happy to edit it. Finally, as to the matter at hand, that being which of the two pictures is used in the infobox, this seems to me to be largely a matter of personal preference and aesthetic judgement. I have some sympathy for the idea that the "classic rock star" image is more representative of the subject of the article, and, if I was a regular editor of this article, may well have chosen that one. I could also see an argument for the one that has more detail of the subject's face, but personally happen to find that less compelling. Frankly, this almost seems to me to be an argument against infoboxes, since there seems to be an implication here that one particular photo must be chosen and receive prize of place indefinitely. Wikipedia articles are constantly being edited; if we cannot guarantee that there won't be a picture of a cow in the infobox at some point in the future, we certainly can't guarantee that any one particular image is going to stay there. In any case, I would like to invite the regular editors of this article to weigh in on the photograph issue, as those people most familiar with the subject. Jkelly 23:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I restored previous state after reading and seeing no conclusion or concensus. 216.21.150.44 01:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Citation needed on cancer section

Just for whether or not eddie really used a metal pick, because theres no record AT ALL of him ever using one, and plastic picks don't give you mouth cancer. I think, since he was a big smoker and drinker, thats probably what gave him mouth cancer. Also, people who have tounge piercings or lip piercings may be around recording booths with radiation. People may also have things like braces and big plates of metal in their mouth and when I got my braces and rpe, no one told me to stay away from radiation. Theres more metal in my mouth than in 2 or 3 metal picks. So, that's why I say, that is bogus. So if you can find me at least a citation that he ACTUALLY uses a metal pick, then i won't complain. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ramones421 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

Just to be clear, citation is only needed to demonstrate that Eddie said this. I'm not able to look it up right now, but I read the interview in which he said the thing about the pick, and about curing his cancer using controversial and/or previously unknown techniques. Everything he said may have been utter nonsense, but proving that he cured cancer or used a metal pick is not the same as proving that he said he did. ShaneCarey 19:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

B-string flattening - is this really an innovation?

Van Halen developed a technique of flattening his B string slightly so that the interval between the open G and B reaches a justly intonated, beatless third. This consonant third was almost unheard of in distorted-guitar rock and allowed Van Halen to use major chords in a way that mixed classic hard rock power with "happy" pop.

The article speaks of this as if it were a major innovation, but, really, I had independently invented the same technique just by using my ears when tuning before I had heard of Van Halen doing it. Is this really that big of a deal? - furrykef (Talk at me) 10:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not actually up to us to determine if it's a big deal. If we have a source saying it's an innovation, then we should write about it. If there is no source backing it up, we should remove that language and just note that he did it. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 14:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Commercial Success With Van Hagar

"The change in sound prompted many fans, both positively and negatively, to refer to the band as "Van Hagar." This was a very successful time for Van Halen - eclipsing the success of the Roth years commercially.[citation needed]"

By what measure of "commercially" did someone determine this? According to the Van Halen discography article, the top 5 Roth era albums easily outsold (double!) the only 5 Hagar era albums. Hagar had more successful singles. But in terms of commercial success of singles, it would probably be extremely close between Hagar and Roth because both singers' popular Van Halen songs are played very often. In Houston for example, only an 80's station only occasionally plays a Hagar hit single, while both classic rock and modern rock stations play Roth's most popular VH songs roughly on a daily basis, perhaps even twice a day between them. One would have to know their respective royalty rates to figure this out, but it is likely a small difference. Given this assumption, Roth's big lead on Hagar with album sales would definitely indicate Roth era as the greater commercial success. I think the sentence should be split in two with one regarding most hit singles, compared to the other that Roth era sold more albums. If no one disagrees, I will make this change.

Regularjohn44 17:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not gonna change the article, but it't very likely that the Hagar years did indeed commercially eclipse the Roth years depending on concert revenues, along with t-shirt & other merchandise sales, etc., even if the Hagar albums only sold in half the quantities of the Roth ones. Record sales weren't explicitly referred to in that quote. Vonbontee (talk) 06:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Movie Work

Is possible and worthwhile to expand info on his movie work?

Although "Donut City" is the only track to appear on the "Wild Life" soundtrack, Eddie's playing scores several parts of the film, including a notable early appearance of the main riff from "A.F.U."

I'd like to know more about his alleged playing on "Back to the Future," as I had never, before Wikipedia, heard that this was actually credited to him. The playing on the "Edward Van Halen" cassette that Marty uses as an alien brain scrambler is full of Eddie's techniques, but it doesn't sound like it's actually *him*. Citation needed, but also I'm just curious if they asked Eddie for whatever scratch recordings he had lying around. --ShaneCarey 18:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Widely considered one of the best...

The sentence "He is widely considered to be one of the greatest guitarists ever" continues to be added and removed from the lead. I'll agree that it's a bit full of weasel words, but it's also a decent summation of his awards and accomplishments. Is there a better way to sum up? Snowfire51 (talk) 01:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Tuning section

I've commented out the section on Tuning for now, it's still on the page so it can be readded. Not only is the first part of it WP:OR, I cannot find in the reference where EVH admits to purposefully detuning his B sting. I've never heard of this, and the Guitar Player interview from 1979 does not mention detuning at all.

If I've missed something, I apologize. The text is still there but it needs to be properly referenced. Snowfire51 (talk) 04:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good - thanks for your hard work so far! --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 13:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Trivia Section

I propose dissolving the Trivia section by moving the Tapping information to that sections and creating small Volume Swell section under the Technique section because they belong there anyways. The reference to the movie Tenacious D in the Pick of Destiny can be dropped I would think. Any thoughts on this? StereoDevil (talk) 23:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I changed the heading for Trivia because the items are not about his technique they are awards and trivia. I moved volume swells to Technique section and I moved tapping to the beginning of technique because it reads well as the first paragraph to his tapping technique. See the Trivia section on the talk page for more info.StereoDevil (talk) 13:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Rolling Stone 100 Greatest Guitarists

I think the article should at least briefly mention it and provide a link to it. I've seen all the others with a link, and also the ones with a lower number. But yet it mentions the 100 greatest guitar solos, which he is fairly high up on. Just because he wasn't in the top doesn't mean it shouldn't be mentioned that he was on the Rolling Stone. 100 GGoAT. That is very biased to me. The majority of people that wrote this obviously thinks he's the greatest so they'd rather not mention it. That's like a Britney Spears fan editing her article not mentioning all her mishaps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.248.173 (talk) 09:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we could make an awards section and trim out all the trivia but personally I think it would be too big and could never be complete due to the numerous awards over the years from guitar magazines alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StereoDevil (talk • contribs) 13:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Only the big magazines should be up there. Rolling Stone, Guitar World, etc. Why the hell is "Skin and Ink" magazine up there? That sounds like a tattoo magazine, what do they know about guitarists? It's not even sourced, I'm deleting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.248.173 (talk) 14:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I got rid of the trivia section, and put it in the proper place. I deleted the part about the Tenacious D movie--that's just random trivia and it has no place here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.248.173 (talk) 14:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The rankings in the Rolling Stones Guitarist list mentioned is widely regarded as one of the greatest jokes/insults in history of music pubs. Take a look a the list, and decide for yourselfand look up reactions to it around the net. You'll find that I am not exagerating. Maybe you could add a more to the sentence that mentions the dubious nature of the rankings. I didn't want to do it outright, without asking, because it might have seemed like graffitti against Rolling Stone. I will admit that as a guitarist, I am partial to Van Halen, but I'm sure anyone working on this article would be. Having said that, I will say that most of the rock fans around the world, and almost all guitarist would agree he would have to be in the top ten. And that's what initially piqued my curiousity about that list: that fact that Van Halen was #70.(!?!) I thought to myself, who are the 69 above him. When I looked up and read the list, I laughed out loud. Check out the list for yourself. http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/5937559/the_100_greatest_guitarists_of_all_time I think he deserves proper representation, and mentioning that he is #70 on a dubious list is an insult. t1n0 04:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by T1n0 (talk • contribs)

I agree with the prior comment, this piece of trivia should not be in the introductory paragraph, as the list has been widely criticized. It is a deceiving piece of trivia, as it is at odds with the remainder of the article (not to mention public opinion) as far as Van Halen's significance as a guitarist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.58.122 (talk) 00:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Valerie who?

Wow, I can't believe I've only just now read EVH's bio here. I also can't believe some of the strange problems this article has! Ok, from a guitarist's POV, this article is pretty nice, talks about a lot of stuff we're interested in. On the other hand, Valerie, his wife of many years, is mentioned only in a photo caption! Few other "minor" oversights like that. lol Anyways, I might come back later and fix it. Maybe, I dunno. Just thought I'd better point it out here tho, in case I forget. :) Eaglizard (talk) 19:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Technique

167.196.201.71 wrote "He is the greatest guitarist of all time" and edited other stuff--that's completely biased. You can't honestly have that on the article, this isn't a message board; it's an article. --71.238.248.173 (talk) 02:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Surname

Usually "Van" is written without capitals, it directly translates to "Eddie of Halen", so I propose to change the article's name. - PietervHuis (talk) 00:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

However, in the case of Van Halen, it is capitalized. You can check out their official site if you like, they spell his last name Van Halen, not van Halen. We should keep it the way it is. Purplepurplepurple (talk) 13:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

PietervHuis may be correct. The "official site" only describes a legal entity called "Van Halen", not the natural person. (Why is the "official site" for a legal entity even mentioned in this biographic article? It's not the artist's personal site.) Since Eddie was born in the Netherlands, his family name is almost certainly registered as "van Halen" in official records. See the Wikipedia article "Van (Dutch)" for capitalisation rules. Moreover, the "official site" creators/maintainers may not be the best authority — spelling and, particularly, orthography have not been the strong suit of most computer geeks that I've known in the last 20-30 years. A better source might be the subject of the article himself. Unfortunately, graphic samples of his autograph freely available on the Web are of little help: They're entirely an illegible cursive scrawl, or an illegible cursive scrawl meant to represent "Eddie", accompanied by printed "VH" in block letters, emulating the style of the logo used by the band. —Quicksilver^{T @} 18:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Merge Brown sound into this article

I think the topic "Brown Sound" could be better covered here than in its own article for several reasons. One, the topic is likely to be short anyway and covered in this article. Two, it really isn't a technical term but a slang term used in music and is therefore a likely canidate for deletion.Nrswanson (talk) 01:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Edward or "Eddie"

Current name: Eddie Van Halen Proposed name: Edward Van Halen

The subject of the article is named "Edward Van Halen", not "Eddie Van Halen", the nickname by which he is know to fans and in the popular press, but not to family, friends and band mates, whatever Valerie Bertinelli calls him notwithstanding. (Would one expect an article on Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart to identify him "Wolfy Mozart"?)

But this is not a fan site or an article in the popular press, it's an entry in an encyclopedia, and the title of the article should reflect that.

Entering "Edward Van Halen" redirects the user to "Eddie Van Halen". The title of the article should be changed and a redirect created for "Eddie Van Halen".

If the title appeared as "Edward 'Eddie' Van Halen", I suppose I could accept that, given the ubiquity of the nickname ascribed to the subject by fans and the popular press.

Van Halen's songwriting credits list him as "Edward"; in Neil Zlozower's Van Halen: A Visual History: 1978 - 1984 (2007), in a description of his debut appearance at L.A's Whisky a Go Go, he's identified as "Edward"; in an interview about the band's early days (on MTV or VH-1, I can't remember), David Lee Roth repeatedly refers to him as "Edward"; and in the film Back to the Future (1985), when Marty McFly (Michael J. Fox) insets a tape of a screaming Van Halen guitar solo into a Sony Walkman to terrorize the 1955 version of his father George McFly (Crispin Glover), the tape is clearly labeled "Edward Van Halen".

Cheers, Rico402 (talk) 13:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know he was officially named "Edward Lodewijk" "van Halen" (I am quite sure about van/Van, not so sure about Edward/Eduard), but that doesn't say a lot about his name ("name" as in how others call him and to which call he would react).

My father's official name is "Gerrit Hendrik" "Warmelink", his real name is "Henk" (sometimes "Ghendrik"). My official name is "Hendrik Barend Gerhard" "Warmelink", my real name is "Erik" (sometimes "Winnetoe" or "Flip"). Erik Warmelink (talk) 04:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

That brings me to the use of "middle name" (in section Childhood). There no concept of "first name" or "middle name" in Dutch, only "voornaam" (and "achternaam"). "Lodewijk", "Ludwig", "Louis" and "Clovis" are all corruptions of "Hlodovech", if his parents wanted to name him after Beethoven, they could have named him Ludwig. Of course they could also name him "Lodewijk" after "Ludwig", but naming him after someone also named Lodewijk seems to be more probable. Erik Warmelink (talk) 04:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no support for move. Few common names are this clearly weighted to one side. Approx. 8,000 news results for the common name, verses 320 for the birth name.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

I support this proposed change, based on Rico402's explanation. Any last minute counter arguments? --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 11:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose, as per WP:COMMON - Eddie is far more frequently used worldwide. - fchd (talk) 19:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose not the common name 76.66.196.229 (talk) 22:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. His name is Eddie. Andrewa (talk) 19:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Generally with common nicknames, we name the article with the commonly used name, and use the "official" name in bold in the intro. See, for example, Tony Blair, which is not at Anthony Blair. --Delirium (talk) 06:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. As per the example above re Tony Blair. Jonesy (talk) 06:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Again, article introduction is insufficient

18 months ago, I proposed the need for a better introduction to this article, as the few lines this article begins with are hardly comparable to the articles written about other guitarists who have achieved as much, or less, than Edward Van Halen. After inserting my own introduction, it was removed without comment by a user and I have since decided to let someone else step up to the plate, since my work was obviously not wanted. However, nothing has happened, and the article is still lacking. Please compare this article's introduction with that of other guitarists and decide for yourself if more detailed commentary than what is listed is appropriate for the wiki entry for such an influential musician. --Gypsyjazzbo (talk) 07:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

About the Yellow and Black Strat, it was buried with Dimebag. As someone mentioned above, they talked about it on VH1 Classic's: Behind the Music Pantera. They said EVH was there and place the guitar from Van Halen II into his casket. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.209.4.247 (talk) 03:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Steinberger

Eddie played a Steinberger Transtrem for a while, and I believe some of his songs can not be played without a transtrem, as that guitar gives you the ability to change keys instantly during a musical phrase. I believe the guitar was a Steinberger GL-2T which was custom made for him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Trem

147.114.226.194 (talk) 15:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Eddie Van Halen and primary influences

This little quote doesn't indicate that Jimmy Page was a primary influence: "He's Jimmy Page a genius. He's a great player, a songwriter, a producer. Put it this way, he might not be the greatest executor of whatever, but then you hear a Page solo, he speaks. I've always said Clapton was my main influence, but Page was actually more the way I am, in a reckless-abandon kind of way."

It most certainly indicates Eddie considered his playing style to be more similar in the 'reckless' kind of way, but doesn't back up the notion that he was a 'primary influence', the bits on Eric Clapton due however indicate Clapton was. If this is to be added, that Jimmy was a primary influence, I'm going to say this needs another reference that actually indicates this. I vote to have that re-changed, and look to make that bit more specific bit as to what the link says for the time being. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickens (talk • contribs) 13:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I've always said Clapton was my main influence, but Page was actually more the way I am

These words are enough to say that Jimmy Page was his primary influence. After all, Eddie got the idea of two-hand tapping, a technique which he later improved and popularized, after seeing Jimmy play Heartbreaker Solo Live. Wikipedia is about accuracy, verifiability and truth, not favoritism and fanaticism.

Secondly I was the one who found, interpreted and utilized this quotation in the first place. Thanks for using the talk page. --Scieberking (talk) 01:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Although this direct quote from Eddie was sufficient, added AllMusic Biography page as a reference to back up my point (which also states that Clapton and Page were early and primary influence on Eddie Van Halen's playing):

"as such, hard rock guitarists as Eric Clapton and Jimmy Page soon influenced the youngest Van Halen's playing". --Scieberking (talk) 01:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, you see thats only half the quote, see, it goes on to state in a 'reckless' kind of way, rather then an overall kind of way, where as Clapton as the main influence (as he directly states), gives weight to the Clapton bit, but not enough for the Jimmy Page part, As for the secound part, that still doesn't really indicate the degree of influence of either of the guitarists, and doesn't give weight to what you technically wanted in there see. Thats why I nominate to cut that bit down, as some of those quotes give no more or less weight to state that Brian May or the other individuals mentioned weren't a primary influence see. If you could possibly find another quote from Eddie saying what you want in there that actually states i.e. a Primary Influence, that'd be great, but they way you have included those statements with those quotes, don't back up the claim. Otherwise I think that'll need to be trimmed, friend. Rolling Stone website has a primary influences section from what I recall, you could check there. As for the quote "Wikipedia is about accuracy, verifiability and truth, not favoritism and fanaticism" You made me laugh with that one, thats pretty funny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickens (talk • contribs) 09:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Added the full quotation with reference. This specific section on Wikipedia is about Eddie's Childhood. This Guitar World quote and AllMusic Biography both state that Clapton and Jimmy were the most notable (or primary) influences on Eddie's playing. In both these sources these two names (Clapton and Page) are prominent and seemingly inseparable. So stop adding misinformation/ disruption that Eddie said "Jimmy's (and his) style is "reckless", which, in turn, creates confusion for a normal reader. Secondly, the mention of ACDC and Highway to Hell is totally irrelevant in the Childhood section. --Scieberking (talk) 12:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Also your remark "You made me laugh with that one, thats pretty funny" is inappropriate to use on Wikipedia (read WP:EQ and WP:CIV). The information you have recently added contains grammatical mistakes and needs copy-editing. Thanks --Scieberking (talk) 12:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

And your Cream (supergroup) information has already been addressed in the earlier paragraph. Thanks for your contribution, though. --Scieberking (talk) 13:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, I've looked at your references, and you see, the Allmusic part only identifies those 2 to being early influences, not main influences so to speak, and you see, the other quotes from the guitar magazine do identify Clapton as a main influence, but only a quote stating his style to be more like Eddie's in a 'reckless way'. So I think that'll need to go back to the adjustment. And the information on AC/DC in the childhood section, I will put that down lower. If you feel my grammar isn't good enough please alter it accordingly, but those references don't exactly state what you've got in there. And my Cream information shouldn't have been removed.

Rickens, is that you? Why don't you sign your entries to avoid confusion and this one, unluckily, is not auto-signed. I've not written in the article that Clapton and Page are his "main" or "primary" influences. I've instead used "most notably" and that's what the AllMusic biography mentions and his direct interview quote tends to explain. In the quote, Eddie is not talking about his "style" but influences. Clapton has NEVER been his style. Read clearly: "I've always said [Eric] Clapton was my main INFLUENCE (not STYLE), but [Jimmy] Page was actually more the way I am, in a reckless-abandon kind of way." . Secondly, AC/DC is NOT related to his childhood. Thirdly it was quite odd to discuss Cream twice in the same section. You can still add your information after "in the band Cream "note for note" by age 14" thing, if you can make it go coherent. Thanks and now please don't revert my edit regarding Clapton and Page. --Scieberking (talk) 06:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

By the way, Allmusic is not a very good reference and we should defer to magazines, books, and journal articles written by known journalists. Allmusic should only be used for basic facts and nothing contentious, which this seems to be. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 03:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

For the same reason, in addition to the AllMusic biography, I've added a full direct quote from Eddie's interview to back up my claim. Don't revert. --Scieberking (talk) 05:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

And FYI, All Music Guide obviously passes WP:RS, is reliable and already been used throughout the entire article. The article starts with "The All Music Guide has called him "undoubtedly one of the most influential, original, and talented rock guitarists of the 20th century." --Scieberking (talk) 05:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, the sources state that Clapton is his primary and most notable influence, and you appear to have contradicted yourself friend, and gone back on what you were originally arguing, as the references indicated otherwise, which I had pointed out.

All I did was elaborate on what the actual sources stated, further elaborating and changing what was originally implied, which wasn't backed up with the sources accordingly. In terms of guitarists, all of them were notable sure, but Clapton is cited as the main, while Page is an individual who he considers to be an influence that he was more similar to in a 'reck-less kind of way', I added this information in and elaborated on his quotes and your original sources, as well as adding information in regards to his love of Cream (which was also new information), and Eddie's touring information with AC/DC, along with his appreciation of some of their albums. It was all sourced and shouldn't be removed or misrepresented, and I'm requesting these new additions be kept in and not removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickens (talk • contribs) 08:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

No this quote and AllMusic Biography both state that Page and Clapton are Eddie's main influences. The full quote should be included, otherwise not. You don't have any idea what you're talking about and add content with severe grammatical, common diction mistakes with weak references. Stop doing that. --Scieberking (talk) 09:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm adding the Eddie Van Halen disagreement on Third Opinion. Please don't revert until it gets resolved. Its a humble request, Rickens. Thanks. --Scieberking (talk) 09:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Another Revert?. Again, the sources do not indicate this, they do for Clapton however. I'm not saying he wasn't an influence and I included that quote originally, but these sources indicate Clapton as his main influence. Your revert just caused me to lose information I just added in relation to new information on Van Halen and will now have to piece all of that together. That was most inconvenient. Your reverting is an inconvenience for those wanting to contribute new and accurate information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickens (talk • contribs) 09:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Without removing the disputed information, add whatever (sourced) information you want to. I'll happily copyedit your stuff and add proper citations, stylistics. Thank you. --Scieberking (talk) 10:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

No thats okay, I'll add it back in a day or so, with all the information that I already had, including the elaboration on the references that were originally included, please stop reverting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickens (talk • contribs) 11:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Third Opinion Request in progress:

I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O and am currently reviewing the issues. I have made no previous edits on Eddie Van Halen/Archive 1 and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. (Please let me know immediately on my talk page if I am incorrect about either of those points.) The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.—TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Response to Third Opinion Request:

Opinion: This dispute has a couple of elements: Do reliable, verifiable sources establish that Jimmy Page was a primary influence on Eddie Van Halen? I believe the answer to be yes, at least based upon the sources - AllMusic.com and Vogel - currently being considered. The reliability of AllMusic.com has been extensively discussed (see this and this and this and this) without coming, in my opinion, to any firm consensus about its reliability or lack thereof, save and except that the greater weight of opinion seems to suggest that it is only somewhat reliable for genre classification but considerably more reliable as to - the important thing here - biographical information. The Vogel book, the relevant page of which can be viewed here, however, plainly states that Clapton and Page were his influences. Other, more reliable, sources such as peer-reviewed or academic sources would be better sources, but until someone finds them, my opinion is that these are adequate and reliable, particularly taken together. Should the Guitar World quote be included: Again, my answer is yes. The fact that Page was a primary influence having been established, this quote refines the way in which he was an influence. (Let me note that I would have been uncomfortable, at least, if this quote had been offered as the only evidence that Page was a primary influence: that fact is suggested by the quote, but it does not establish it directly.) As a further explanation of the fact established in the prior sentence that Page was an influence, however, it is both appropriate and useful. My opinion is, therfore, that the paragraph beginning "Eddie has many influences" should remain as it is now (diff, but as reference to that particular paragraph only, not any other changes shown in the diff). This opinion does not address or reflect on any other dispute between the parties including, but not limited to, disputes about Cream, Queen, or AC/DC. A note to Rickens: Please start signing your talk page comments by adding ~~~~ at the end. Though the signature bot finds and corrects most unsigned posts, it misses some, too, both of which are reflected in this case. You're weakening your arguments and your ability to draw third parties into consensus if people can't follow the discussion. What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

While I appreciate your input, I disagree, and I think a third source should evaluate what the references actually stated. The sources that were originally used and discussed, don't establish this,

-The Allmusic reference only indicates that the 2 were early influences, it states nothing on 'primary'

-The quotes from the Guitar magazine (which I actually added in) Identify Clapton as his main/primary influence, it only identifies the later being more similar in the 'reckless' department, (which I added to elaborate)

-Vogel states both as an influence, but based on what is indicated his most notable/primary influence, the above identifies it to be Clapton. I originally elaborated on the quotes/sources as it was incorrect, I actually added more accurate information relating to the sources, and this was removed and reverted numerous times, along with additional information I added in relation to touring stuff and Cream.

Based on the sources, Clapton was identified as the primary source so to speak, which is what I tried to correct and elaborate on.

If you wanted to add "Eddie had many influences", thats fine, but on what is considered most notable, based on the references, it is identified as Clapton. So maybe as a compromise, you could remove the short sentence on both being the most notable, and start with the quote on Clapton as the main and where he got the more 'reckless' aspects of his style. Or just keep in the line as Clapton as most notable, I think thats fair, based on the actual sources.'''' Signature: --Rickens (talk) 00:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Third Opinionator Comment: At this point, how the page is edited is to be determined by the consensus of the editors of the page and the community. As I noted above, I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. If additional assistance is needed to reach consensus, please see the "What happens next" section of the WP:3O FAQ. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Even though you completely reject the third opinion above, I compromise. However, I only think "many" is the right word here; diction:

Eddie has noted many influences (numerous means "innumerable" or "amounting to a large indefinite number", and I don't think the word makes sense in the sentence)

--Scieberking (talk) 06:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I acknowledged the third opinion, and pointed out it was incorrect. However I made a fair compromise, to keep everyone happy. If you like, I could add "numerous" instead of "many" if you feel that sounds better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickens (talk • contribs) 08:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I meant "many", right, yep, cool, forgot before editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickens (talk • contribs) 10:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Internal link for Eric Clapton is already there. Not far way, just the paragraph above... Wikipedia doesn't recommend adding multiple internal links for the same article. --Scieberking (talk) 06:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Also the the third opinion by TRANSPORTERMAN was very just and smart, but I still compromise... --Scieberking (talk) 06:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it was good intentioned, but ill informed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickens (talk • contribs) 02:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I already knew you were an all-new sock of User:CosmicLegg.... --Scieberking (talk) 09:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Eddie/Edward

There are inconsistencys throughout the article, sometimes he is refered to as Eddie and others as Edward. Although it seems that the majority of this article refers to him as Eddie, I think it should all be Edward. Only the fans and media refer to him as Eddie, his friends, family and band mates all refer to him as Edward. Perhaps someone could shed some light on Wikipedias guidelines on this sort of thing. Whatever the outcome is I dont think it will mater but surely it should be the same throughout.--95.146.130.197 (talk) 21:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Guitar Enthusiast

Wanted to comment about early stages of Metal, and how Van Halen began their own revolution in the late '70's. Combining atmospheric decibals, and electronic wizardry, as in the 1980 Invasion speakers, should be Gold standard. Any Van Halen fan, or professional guitar player should keep that in mind. Going to school and late night partying didn't play a part in beginning stages. History, Electric Guitar. Lynn. Letterman75.248.162.71 (talk) 13:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

New Picture

I think there needs to be a more recent pic rather than a pic from 1991-1993.

Then find one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.1.156.204 (talk) 18:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

What Exactly Is The Subject Of This Article?

Is this article about Eddie Van Halen, or is it about the band. Most of the article seems to reference the band and not the person. Ridernyc (talk) 00:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Funny that I come across this just as I was browsing the article and wondering why no mention of Phil Hendrie's parodies, just to name one thing.RadioKAOS (talk) 18:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

What does this mean?

See 2000s section.

From the entry: "A player receives the "Eddie Van Halen" achievement for hitting 500 or more notes in succession.[23]"

This should be written in past tense as is the rest of the paragraph. Also, is it supposed to be the "Eddie Van Halen Achievement Award"? And if the name of the person isn't included then why should this be mentioned at all? I'm going to take it out. Risssa (talk) 02:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Length of entry

This entry is way too long (compare with the Alex Van Halen entry). Also it seems to be equally about Van Halen the band and about Eddie. It (and the Alex entry) are full of poorly-written sentences and badly need a complete rewriting. Risssa (talk) 03:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

this article is a white-wash / memorial-hero worship job that needs a major overhaul for Wiki standards

Just for starters, there's no mention of his alcoholism troubles. Or the many incidents (documented) of his very strange behaviour at times (like his call-in to the Howard Stern show). This looks almost like it came from his publicist. HammerFilmFan (talk) 13:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

problematic article - too fanboyish

1. The article is about the guitarist, not the group/band - too often, it veers into BAND territory that is covered in the Van Halen article - this should be trimmed out. 2. There is not enough coverage of EVH's well-known alcohol issues, or his much-publicised personality quirks. While acknowledging his talent, the man is not (nor has he really claimed to be) a model citizen. A much more balanced viewpoint should be set in the article. Warts and all. One gets the feeling there is some WIKI:OWN going on here, some sort of protectionism by his fans. Regardless of who's right or wrong, the vicious media remarks made by him against Roth, Anthony and Hagar should be noted. Also, his bizarre behavior during the Howard Stern interview should be mentioned (granted, this was when he was still in a drugged-out fog, and many people inside the VH camp were expecting to open the morning paper and see him dead 'any day now'.) 68.19.5.88 (talk) 09:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree on all points. We'd love for you to work on it. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 15:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)