During the recent episode of Eddie Trunk’s radio show, a Mötley Crüe fan joined the show via phone to criticize recent singing performances of Crüe singer Vince Neil.

After the comment of the phone guest, Eddie Trunk compared David Lee Roth to Vince Neil and added that David Lee Roth is a better singer than Vince Neil at live shows.

As we all know, the reunion tour of Mötley Crüe will be started with Def Leppard and Poison in the Summer of 2020 but for some fans, Vince’s singing performance is a big curiosity.

Here’s what Eddie Trunk stated:

“For better or worse, Vince’s vocals are all real in terms of his lead vocals, the backing vocals are not. Nikki [Sixx] has admitted that Motley Crue has used tracks for 30 years. I don’t agree with that, but at least they’re transparent about it.

Vince has struggled man, I’m not going to lie to you. But to me, much like David Lee Roth, Vince was never a good singer live. You’d be kidding yourself if you thought Vince Neil was good live.”

He continued:

“I would rather have a guy do that than sing to a track, that’s just cheating. With Vince, at least his lead vocal is real. With Roth, people listen to the Van Halen Live from Tokyo record that came out a few years ago, Dave struggles greatly on that record, and he has live for a long time. But here’s what it is, take it or leave it.

I’ve seen Vince have good nights, and I’ve Vince have some rough nights, and I’ve Vince have some mediocre nights. If people think Vince was every Freddie Mercury, you never saw the band, I don’t know what you’re thinking.

Much like David Lee Roth, he got by on being a good looking guy, and a frontman, with the charisma and spirit of the band. There’s a great parallel now that I’m thinking about it, the way they got by as frontmen. It wasn’t about their voice. Both of them were great on the records.

To this day Vince still sounds great on record. Listen to the new tracks, he sounds perfect for the band, just like Roth sounded perfect for Van Halen on record. Live was another story.”

Click here for the source of the statement.