[Ben Sims]

In 1972 in Pasadena, CA, two brothers of dutch immigrant status and massive musical creativity started a band called Mammoth.  While aging hipsters and beatniks were desperately hanging on to their Bay Area psychedelic drivel from years past, a flamboyant young frontman with devil-may-care antics combined with a lead guitarist of startling musical ability and took over the mid-70's bar scene of Hollywood Blvd.  In 1978 they had a new name, and their debut album, which has sold over 10 million copies to date.

Today, Van Halen is widely recognized as one of the greatest bands of all time.  They sold more records in the rock crazy 80's than any other band.  The are the 19th best selling artist of all time.

What made them great?  Two simple reasons.

1)  They were very talented.  No one can dispute the musical ability of Eddie Van Halen.  He took various singular techniques from the guitar world, jumbled them up, hand built a monster guitar, and created the Brown Sound.  It was fresh, difficult, and engaging.  It turned the possibilities of electric guitar on its ear.

2)  They were showmen.  David Lee Roth captivated audiences both on stage and in recordings with what can be described as, "what is he going to do next?"  He did jump splits, drank too much booze, and never took himself too seriously.  As evidenced by his quote that he saw their music as "a combination of religion and hockey."

The combination of talent and showmanship was on display to the max.  The volume was at 11.  The band had chops, and wasn't afraid to show it.

What about golf?  What courses and/or architects have pioneered a look and a playability?  How would an architect combine showmanship and genuine talent and not overshadow either?  Where do aesthetics, routing, strategy, and shaping come together in the ultimate combination of a golf course?  Who would be the Van Halen (Roth version please) of golf architects?

And if you don't think there is a suitable comparison to aesthetic showmanship and the strategic talent of a golf course, why is that?

[Tom_Doak]

The only parallel I can really think of is Mike Strantz.  And maybe Jim Engh has tried to be that guy as well.  But, in a stodgy business such as golf, their work is more polarizing than groundbreaking.

[Ben Sims]

But, in a stodgy business such as golf, their work is more polarizing than groundbreaking.

Tom,

Do you think this is why golf architecture isn't all that comparable to other forms of art, i.e, it has to play more to the middle?

And does this mean that you don't think a natural style or "minimalist" can be edgy and engaging?

[Dan Kelly]

The only parallel I can really think of is Mike Strantz.  And maybe Jim Engh has tried to be that guy as well.  But, in a stodgy business such as golf, their work is more polarizing than groundbreaking.

Tom --

If golf weren't a stodgy business, what would you be doing that you're not doing now?

Dan

[Peter Pallotta]

Ben - I read your post differently than Tom did. Music-wise I'll use Stan Getz - a great talent and dedicated and history-steeped musician who also had the commercial instincts and promotional abilities of a snake-oil salesman. And the parallel I find is with two architects in particular - CB Macdonald and Pete Dye. They took second place to no one in knowing their stuff, but had an instinct (maybe even a love) for promotion and for pushing the right buttons at the right time. (Not to embarrass him, but our own Tom D is in this tradition as well - albeit via a different approach and one best suited to our times.)

Peter

Dan - great question.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Ben,
I know your question is directed at TD, and I look forward to his answer, but here is my take.

Natural and minimal can be the edgiest of them all if we will just allow it to happen. I am not a great historian, but I believe the older courses that went with the ground were very edgy and engaging.

To me, most modern day minimalism or naturalism is more about spending money and using talent to make the ground look like we didn't mess with it. I believe that is one reason we see so few modern day construction photos. Hard to call it minimalism when everything is blown up.

I'd like to see someone take more chances with the land as they find it rather than think they need to build something "edgy". There is plenty of raw land that has all the funk you'd ever want if you could just find someone with the courage to lay out a golf course across it without knocking everything down.

[Tom_Doak]

Ben,

Sure, I think that a naturalist or minimalist course can be edgy or engaging.  I've done alright at promoting that style.  And I think I've probably put together as good a band over the years as anyone else has.

But, one of the other words you used in your opening post was "pioneered".  I wouldn't claim that mantle at all.  I learned most of what I know from looking at a bunch of old golf courses, and from Pete Dye who was much more of a pioneer than me.  I will take proper credit for being one of a very few to realize that the conventional wisdom of the 1980's was wrong, and that you still COULD build golf courses the way the old masters did.  But, to Dan's question, I wouldn't change much at all; I am doing pretty much exactly what I have always wanted to do.

By "stodgy" what I meant was that the golf business is historically not as open to new styles as the music business.  That all goes back to one simple reason:  it costs more to build a golf course than it does to produce a record, and the potential return is a lot less, so the people putting up the money are less likely to take chances on something edgy and unproven.  Heck, most golf course developers really aren't the type to want something edgy, anyway; to date, Rupert O'Neal is probably the only client I've had who would qualify.

I think Don is right that there is plenty of scope for low-profile courses to be even edgier, and also that a lot of the best older courses were much more edgy in their day, than they seem to us now.

[Tim Pitner]

Today, Van Halen is widely recognized as one of the greatest bands of all time. 

"Best selling," perhaps . . . "greatest". . . I don't hear that very often and would respectfully disagree.  I'm sorry--"Hot for Teacher," "Panama"--c'mon.

[Harris Nepon]

What a great way to start a thread Ben. Unfortunatly I don't have enough knowledge of GCA just yet to contribute much, but I really hope this thread takes off with some great discussion.  

[Peter Pallotta]

"I'd like to see someone take more chances with the land as they find it rather than think they need to build something "edgy". There is plenty of raw land that has all the funk you'd ever want if you could just find someone with the courage to lay out a golf course across it without knocking everything down."

Don - this idea/potential approach is probably the only reason I follow threads that discuss "templates".  I find that those threads tend to both state the obvious (re the handful of most famous/used templates) and ignore the more fundamental aspects of the issue, ie that the overwhelming majority of golf holes ever built were designed within a very narrow range  of "forms" that are  traditional-historical-and-acceptable.  The raw land you speak of will only produce/allow for something outside those parameters if and when someone who knows and loves those forms like the back of his hand decides to break free.

But - if I were an architect, I wouldn't try it.

Peter

[Ben Sims]

Today, Van Halen is widely recognized as one of the greatest bands of all time. 

"Best selling," perhaps . . . "greatest". . . I don't hear that very often and would respectfully disagree.  I'm sorry--"Hot for Teacher," "Panama"--c'mon.

Here's a link that has them at #5. 

http://www.avrev.com/top-100-bands-of-all-time/top-10-rock-bands/index.php

[Don_Mahaffey]

Peter,
If it ever happens, it will be client driven. Nevertheless, I do believe that somebody, someday, will tire of reproductions and standardization and build a different type of course. All the inspiration one would ever need is all around us but somebody has to think differently and right now, I see more holding on then looking ahead.  

[Tim Pitner]

Today, Van Halen is widely recognized as one of the greatest bands of all time. 

"Best selling," perhaps . . . "greatest". . . I don't hear that very often and would respectfully disagree.  I'm sorry--"Hot for Teacher," "Panama"--c'mon.

Here's a link that has them at #5. 

http://www.avrev.com/top-100-bands-of-all-time/top-10-rock-bands/index.php

Ok then, I stand corrected.   What a terrible list.  The Rolling Stones at #20 behind the likes of Queen and Yes?  Sorry for the diversion, Ben, it's not important.

[Ben Sims]

Don and Tom,

This natural and edgy golf course, what does it look like?  Have we seen one before?  Ekwanok?  St. Enodoc?  

My premise in starting this thread was to provoke thought about forward movement.  By looking at how, in just a few short years, Van Halen revolutionized a genre, we can draw parallels.   Doesn't 1978 and their debut album seem light years different from the music of 1968?

How does the golf architecture of 2011 differ from 2001?  Has the minimalist ship, sailed?  (rhetorical question)

Tom, for the record, I agree wholly about your idea of a sub 6500yd, sub par 70 golf course.  And Don, you know how I feel about your maintenance practices as a way forward in a very heavy industry.  How do these ideas marry and create aesthetic pleasure and stategic merit?  

--The crux--

Is there a market for this golf course?

[George Pazin]

Natural and minimal can be the edgiest of them all if we will just allow it to happen.

Simple yet deep - I think I need to update one of my profile quotes.

-----

Re: Van Halen and the "greatest' label - that label is far too subjective to be meaningful. Most music - most art - is.

Although I will say, how can anyone not love "Hot For Teacher"?

[Tim Pitner]

Although I will say, how can anyone not love "Hot For Teacher"?

I liked the video better than the song.

[Jon Spaulding]

Interesting topic. But can any architects pull off tight leather pants other than DeVries? I thought not.

There's an excellent caddy at Annandale in Pasadena, nowadays. His name? David Lee Ross. Seriously.

I might be more interested in who the Gary Cherone of GCA would be. That is, a hack architect that took a decent firm and turned it into complete and utter crap.

[Sean_A]

Obviously Ben thinks the world of Van Halen, but I would say at the very least they were a polarizing band when taking in the big picture of music.  It could be the case that nearly every great (no, I don't and didn't consider VH to be great) band was polarizing.  As with polarizing architecture such as Strantz, maybe this type of art just isn't meant to last long - its of its time (this is how I see Van Halen anyway) - no more - no less.  Perhaps the odd revival which manages to grab a kitsch foothold, but this is still polarizing rather than seen as classic - no?   No, I think if we are looking at the big picture we need to point toward guys like Colt and the Rolling Stones as much more permanent trend setters - to the p;oint where they revolutionized their art.  I could never say that about Van Halen or Strantz.

Ben

There is a market of at least one for sub 6000 yards and sub 70 par.  Somehow, I think the idea is too radical for the stodgy golf world.  Although, at a much lower level than Colt in terms of fame, I do believe there is a place for this sort of architecture.  The problem is any archie confident enough to give it a go and can likely pull it off would be charging more than Ma and Pa can afford. 

Ciao

[Guy Nicholson]

The answer is clear to me. GCA's Van Halen is Jack Nicklaus.

-Neither quite revolutionized the form, but people definitely paid attention in the 70s and early 80s.
-Both worked with a guy who left the band for a truly bizarre solo career.
-Both had done their seminal work by 1984, although some people did like the whole Cabo thing.

Little known fact: Sammy Hagar's solo hit was originally called I Can't Drive 255. 

[Ben Sims]

Obviously Ben thinks the world of Van Halen, but I would say at the very least they were a polarizing band when taking in the big picture of music.  It could be the case that nearly every great (no, I don't and didn't consider VH to be great) band was polarizing.  As with polarizing architecture such as Strantz, maybe this type of art just isn't meant to last long - its of its time (this is how I see Van Halen anyway) - no more - no less.  Perhaps the odd revival which manages to grab a kitsch foothold, but this is still polarizing rather than seen as classic - no?   No, I think if we are looking at the big picture we need to point toward guys like Colt and the Rolling Stones as much more permanent trend setters - to the p;oint where they revolutionized their art.  I could never say that about Van Halen or Strantz.

Ben

There is a market of at least one for sub 6000 yards and sub 70 par.  Somehow, I think the idea is too radical for the stodgy golf world.  Although, at a much lower level than Colt in terms of fame, I do believe there is a place for this sort of architecture.  The problem is any archie confident enough to give it a go and can likely pull it off would be charging more than Ma and Pa can afford.  

Ciao

Sean,

Let's explore the idea of polarization.  That is to say--at least in my mind--what isn't polarizing today?  Opinions are thrown about so frequently and with such amazing circulation due to the current world of communication, that any opinion on any subject is readily available.  I bet 5 quid I can find someone who thinks sliced bread is a bad thing in less than 30 seconds with a Google search.  Want an opinion that Pine Valley isn't a great golf course?  I bet I can find it somewhere on this site over the past ten years.

Polarization to me is something that arises due to the nature of the people, not the object of the polarization.  That's why someone saying a band or a golf course is polarizing has little effect on me.  The market has spoken regarding the music of Van Halen whether you like it or not.   

That's why I asked Tom and Don--and everyone else too--if there is a market for a NEW golf course.  Edgy, natural, short.  The market dictates what it dictates.  My opinion is that golf architecture MUST work with golf maintenance and develop a new way of building and maintaining golf courses.

Taking various ideas from great men in the industry from years past, smashing them together with alacrity and clarity, and presenting them in a new way might be the answer for the golf club of the future.   Both business-wise and golf-wise.  

[Mark Pearce]

This thread tells us more about the difficulty of defining or understanding greatness than it tells us about GCA.

In my opinion (and that's all it is) Van Halen weren't and aren't great, or even remotely approaching greatness.  Indeed, until I read this thread it never occurred to me that anybody would consider them so.  Like Tim, I think that list is terrible and not just for the inclusion of van Halen (The Eagles?  The Police? Metallica?  All in the top 15.  In whose world?)

If we're looking for golf's van Halen we're looking for someone who did safe and middle of the road but well packaged very well and had a couple of big hits with catchy if unchallenging designs.  I don't know Fazio's work at all but he's the name that comes to mind.

[Ben Sims]

If we're looking for golf's van Halen we're looking for someone who did safe and middle of the road but well packaged very well and had a couple of big hits with catchy if unchallenging designs.  I don't know Fazio's work at all but he's the name that comes to mind.

I'll assume you're talking about the bass work or some of the drum lines or the lyrics themselves?  Unchallenging is not a word that comes to mind when I think Eddie Van Halen.   At all.  That's like saying Tiger Woods work with a 7 iron is catchy and unchallenging.  

On top of that, if you're focusing on my opinion of the band or their relative greatness, you're on the wrong track.  I'm talking about the way they combined ideas when music was stagnate (post flower power early 70's), packaged themselves differently than anyone else, and brought those new ideas and techniques to market with force. 

I don't think Fazio.  I think Pete Dye and MacKenzie.

[Mark Pearce]

Ben,

Unchallenging was used to describe the listening experience, not the playing.  The Sex Pistols were challenging, before them the Stones were challenging, after them Joy Division.  Van Halen were always an easy listen.  And, as Kelly says, I think you greatly over-estimate how different they were to what went before.  They certainly weren't ground breaking in the way Led Zep, or Hendrix, or the Pistols or Joy Division were.  All IMHO, of course.

[BCrosby]

About VH, me and my friends thought they were a derivative, mainstream heavy rock group. VH was, if anything, conservative, given their musical forbears. Good stuff, but basically fungible rock. Polarizing? How many records did they sell? Weren't they wildly popular?

Getting back to gca.

An observation others might have also had. After playing older courses, there are often pictures in the bar or clubhouse of holes as they appeared in the 1920's or earlier. I am struck by how often the older iterations of those holes appear to be much more edgy, hazards were much more severe, recovery shots much more dicey. Features appear deeper and hairier. The same holes are now domesticated. There is not a hair out of place. Their edginess has been removed.

The least interesting take-away is that the photos are evidence of improved maintenance practices. Perhaps a more interesting take-away is that the photos are a warning about how hard it is to build a modern, edgy, thrills and spills course.   

Bob   

[Tim Pitner]

In my opinion (and that's all it is) Van Halen weren't and aren't great, or even remotely approaching greatness.  Indeed, until I read this thread it never occurred to me that anybody would consider them so.  Like Tim, I think that list is terrible and not just for the inclusion of van Halen (The Eagles?  The Police? Metallica?  All in the top 15.  In whose world?)

I couldn't help myself--I looked at the list again--The Clash at #53, behind, for example, ZZ Top, Aerosmith, GNR, Foreigner and Boston?  I'm speechless.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()