80s Glam/Metal Vocal Showdown #32: Roth vs Hagar

[jingle.boy]

For the final matchup in this category, two rock heavyweights.  Let's not debate whether they should've been in the 'classic' (ie, 70s) category.  IMO, they are both most well known for their 80s output.  I hope this doesn't evolve into a Van Halen vs Van Hagar debate.  Personally, I'm partial to the Hagar-era VH, but vocally, including stage presence, DLR is da bomb.

One man did the video for Yankee Rose; the other wore baggy pants in his first significant concert production.

DLR for me.

[Unlegit]

Not really a big fan of Roth's vocals. Sammy's voice is, on the other hand, quite enjoyable. I also like his solo career slightly better. DLR does have better stage presence, however, but that still doesn't make up for his voice.

[bosk1]

Hagar.  As a vocalist, a showman, and a songwriter.  Not that DLR is a slouch in any of those categories, but Sammy is just better.

[jjrock88]

DLR.  His stage presence and charisma is off the charts.  Love those first six VH discs.

[Lowdz]

As a singer it'd be Hagar but who's music would I rather listen to? Roth. DLR is a rock star.

Plus when I saw him live a few years ago in Manchester I was wearing a dodgy Hawaiin shirt and he pointed at me and said in that cool DLR voice "We got a little bit of California here in Manchester tonite". Was a cool moment.

[Jaq]

Hagar, though I suspect the whole "VAN HALEN IS ALWAYS BETTER WITH DLR" thing that's cropped up in the last 10 or so years will make this closer than it needs to be. DLR is a lot of things but NONE of them is a talented vocalist.

[TAC]

DLR all the way.

For the final matchup in this category...

Did I miss the Kiske round?

[King Postwhore]

Love Sammy's voice more but DLR's VH was a great roller coaster ride.

[wolfking]

Hagar.  As a vocalist, a showman, and a songwriter.  Not that DLR is a slouch in any of those categories, but Sammy is just better.

[jingle.boy]

Did I miss the Kiske round?

Future category.

[bl5150]

I'm a big  VH fan/collector  (understatement - see forum nick) - both eras - but as time rolls on I'm finding myself gravitating much more toward the Roth years.  Having seen Roth live recently (playing party rock at almost 60yo is a very tough gig)  I'd rather see Hagar live at the moment but my vote goes to Diamond Dave

[Zook]

I hate DLR so this was an easy choice. Hagar is better in every way anyway.

[Bolsters]

Not really a big fan of Roth's vocals. Sammy's voice is, on the other hand, quite enjoyable.

Same for me.

[Mister Gold]

Sammy wins this. Way too easy.

[BlobVanDam]

I went with Hagar, because he's such an incredible vocalist. If we going for music or stage presence though, DLR is one of the best frontmen of all time, OF ALL TIME!
I love both eras of VH though.

[KevShmev]

One man did the video for Yankee Rose; the other wore baggy pants in his first significant concert production.
 

What do either of those things have to do with who is a better vocalist?

[jingle.boy]

One man did the video for Yankee Rose; the other wore baggy pants in his first significant concert production.
 

What do either of those things have to do with who is a better vocalist?

Nothing... was just trying to be cheeky.

[NunoTenniscourt]

From a technical aspect, Hagar is a better singer, even though I don't like his timbre or phrasing.

From a showman aspect, Roth by a million miles. He was the one other 80's rock frontmen were trying to emulate.

[jingle.boy]

From a technical aspect, Hagar is a better singer, even though I don't like his timbre or phrasing.

From a showman aspect, Roth by a million miles. He was the one other 80's rock frontmen were trying to emulate.

Agreed.  Not sure how anyone can say Hagar was a better showman.  Roth was to the 80s was Freddie was to the 70s.  An innovator and the epitome of charisma and showmanship.

[wolfking]

Basically Roth is Roth and Hagar is Hagar, they are just two completely different types of performers.  I always liked how Hagar just come in and did it his way, he never felt the need to try and live up to anything Roth did, just was himself.  I think that's a reason why both eras were so accepted, and the bands wrote some amazing 80's tunes with Hagar which helped their case.

[BlobVanDam]

Basically Roth is Roth and Hagar is Hagar, they are just two completely different types of performers.  I always liked how Hagar just come in and did it his way, he never felt the need to try and live up to anything Roth did, just was himself.  I think that's a reason why both eras were so accepted, and the bands wrote some amazing 80's tunes with Hagar which helped their case.

Yep. They both did something a little different with VH, and I'd say both Hagar and Roth did their respective music with the band a bit better than the other could have, Roth fitting better for the early hard rock with attitude, and Hagar fitting better for the more melodic side. And both eras have plenty of great material.

[TAC]

From a technical aspect, Hagar is a better singer, even though I don't like his timbre or phrasing.

From a showman aspect, Roth by a million miles. He was the one other 80's rock frontmen were trying to emulate.

Agreed.  Not sure how anyone can say Hagar was a better showman.  Roth was to the 80s was Freddie was to the 70s.  An innovator and the epitome of charisma and showmanship.

That's a great analogy, Chad.

[KevShmev]

One man did the video for Yankee Rose; the other wore baggy pants in his first significant concert production.
 

What do either of those things have to do with who is a better vocalist?

Nothing... was just trying to be cheeky.

 

[Sir GuitarCozmo]

In a VOCAL showdown Hagar will always win this dispute.

[rumborak]

Hagar is definitely the better singer.