And like that, live. Alan? Yeah? Tell us about our guest today. Hey, this is a treat to have Steve Rosen on with us today. Author, journalist, you know, you've written many things over the years, decades actually. And then you got a new book out that we're gonna talk about today. Don't change it. You do. I was very excited about this book, Steve. The only thing that threw me off was how many pages it was. I go, I kind of calculated, okay, two weeks we're talking to Steve and I'm going, okay, I'll read and I'll read. And I realized, oh my God, I got 400 pages to go. This is a thick book. Show us your book, show us your book. Tom Chaser. Wow. Show the thickness of it. 580 pages, people. Might want to call it Tomb Chaser. That's quite the tomb. Exactly, Tomb Chaser, exactly. Wow. I wasn't, if I was gonna do it, I was gonna do it right. You know, there was a lot to be said over the course of 26 years. So I put it all, I put it all out there on the page. Let me ask. To use Eddie Van Halen's expression, the book is neat. Exactly. All right, so. Steve, me and Alan. Rush through it and be ready for this interview, but I'm definitely gonna go back and read a page for a page and it's just, it's fascinating. Once you start reading it, you can't stop. I was up for like four hours last night. That's cool, man, thank you. Steve, just explain the premise. Like, okay, there's the tapes, the interviews. What's the premise of this book that's so much more different than all the other autobiographies or biographies on Van Halen or Eddie Van Halen, that is. I mean, that's a great question. When I sat down to start writing this, I actually Googled autobiography and they tell you, I mean, there's a format for autobiographies or in this case of biography, I suppose, same thing. And they said, one of the things you absolutely cannot do is jump time periods. It's gotta be set. You can't jump back and forth. And I thought, well, I don't know if I can write it that way. I don't know if I can write it here in 2020. So everything I'm writing about sort of becomes a memory. You know, and I thought, well, I'd have to be back there in the moment. I've got to bring that reader with me, man. So I've got to be right there and they have to be back there with me. So I just tossed every rule that I read about out the window for the best. That's one thing that makes it way, way different. Secondly, I somehow had the idea that Edwards words in and of themselves wouldn't be enough. You know, you could read that in an interview, you know, my interviews in Guitar World, you know, it's a question and Edward answers and you get a certain sense of him and that was, that's cool. But I wanted to go deeper than that. I wanted you to understand, you know, how did he feel that day and what was this tone of voice and, you know, did he want to talk and was he in good spirits and how did he utter a certain phrase? And in order to do that, well, I didn't know how to do that. And I thought, you know, I can't make every other paragraph describing, well, look, Edward was really happy that day and, you know, you have to listen to his responses.  I'm gonna become this third party. So there's this dude writing the book. There's this Steve Rosen guy. There's this participant. There's this guy who's back there in that moment with Ed. That's the participant. And then there's gonna be this other guy who's gonna give the reader all of these notes and he's gonna let you know exactly what Ed was feeling that day and how many cigarettes was he smoking and, you know, how was he holding his the tarpick? You know, things that just simply would not come through the words on the page. And I guess I call that person the observer.  And yeah, I mean, I'd never seen that done. So that took the form of note and I tried to be clever, you know, blue notes and long notes, whatever the, instead of just saying note, note, note, you know, so you know when you come to a note thing, you know, you're getting not only the writers in sight, this Steve Rosen guy, the participants in sight, this guy who was there, but hey, there's this other guy who knows more than these two people combined. And this is what we're hoping you're reading and what you're sensing. So that was totally different.  They're gonna see this book and they're gonna think, wow, this guy was friends with Deborah Van Halen, you know, there's some other books about Edward out there, but none of these writers have that kind of a friendship and they're gonna look at this and they're just gonna follow over themselves. You know, they're gonna say, my God, we want this book, we want this book. Now, one agent even got back to me. I'm sorry, one agent did. Man, this book is way too long, this first comment. Secondly, we really don't wanna read about you in there. We really don't care that you were a journalist or you went to UCLA or you interviewed other people. It's like, okay, okay. Well, that was a little disheartening to be honest. And I was talking to my good friend, Neil Slosauer, Neil who took this remarkable, amazing shot on the cover, shot this one from the damn green back in 78. I asked him, I said, Neil, man, Neil looking for publishers and anybody who knows Neil knows that Neil talks in a voice like it's, you know, he's gargling with the razor blades. Even when he's on your side and your friend, he can be insulting to you. He says, what, and I hope I can cuss here.  There's no publisher's gonna give you an advance and they're gonna cut the book.  You know what? You're right, man. You're right.  Well, here's 580 pages, you fuckers. I can't jump tenses. Well, here I jumped backwards, forwards and sideways, you know? And guess what? I'm gonna get to keep all the money when I sell it too. That's it, right? Exactly right. So screw that. Not just 10%, the whole thing. Exactly. And, you know, you take from start to finish getting the book out, there was two years, you know? Yeah, I could have no offense to McDonald's but I could have worked the McDonald's broiler and made more money than I would have made from a publisher. So, yeah, man, there was a lot of things. I just thought, screw this, my book, if it never sees the light of day, which wouldn't have made me happy, I was gonna write the book at that point.  And yeah, I mean, the responses so far have been pretty remarkable. Brilliant, brilliant, I'm gonna say. Brilliant, brilliant book. Don't worry, we got your back, Steve. We got your back, Steve, on this show. Brilliant book. Yeah. Well, it's much more interesting the way you did it than the standard, like you said. You know, I was born here, my grandparents came from here, dah, dah, dah, all the way up. It just makes for a much more interesting read. And you feel a little bit more to get to know you and feel what you were going through throughout the whole process back in the day, trying to get the initial book written, so. Yeah, man, absolutely, that's what I wanted. I mean, I wanted the reader to feel honestly like they were right there, you know?  Crazy, Steve, Steve. So people understand, again, going back to the premise of the book, you had, I don't know how many tapes you had. You recorded all your interviews with Eddie Van Halen, most of them, at least. Most of them. Most of them. So you had, what, 30 tapes? Yeah. I don't even know if there's any other person in this world who has that much audio on Eddie Van Halen speaking than you. And then to see it transcribed in a book raw, at least I would think it's raw. Pretty raw. To me, this is what the premise is. You're getting Eddie Van Halen, the transcription of not only the interview you did with him, bonus, plus all the sort of the surroundings of that time period. And me and Alan were discussing this. We're saying, at one point he goes, okay, stop recording this, but you're still transcribing. So not only are you getting the raw, but you're getting the, I don't know what I'll call it, off the record stuff. Exactly, exactly, exactly. No, that's exactly what it was. Look, I could have written a really simple book. I could have taken all those interviews, transcribed them and written three pages of text that I could have been done in two months. But that just wasn't a book.  I mean, every time you see where I've left in where Eddie has said, don't print this, hey man, you're not printing this, don't use that. You have to put that in context. That interview may have taken place, for example, in 82 or 78 or 81, when in that timeframe, him saying those things would have been disastrous for the band. I mean, had it gotten out or making comments about Michael or Dave. So yeah, he would dive deep. There was things he wanted to tell me. And then he'd say, don't print that. And I never printed it, not once. I never printed a word that he didn't want printed. Other than anybody who's read the book know there was a little incident when I interviewed head and Alex made some comments about Bon Jovi and I thought those should be printed. And Edward, you know, just reamed me on a new one. And I talk about that moment, but I could have also taken the easy way out by not putting in those moments when Ed says, don't print this. I could have just printed those interviews. There's been, I think maybe two people out of all the books that I've gotten out there who said, well, man, you know, you're printing stuff that Edward said, don't print. Again, what this person, I'm not quite sure, realizes is one, he said that because of that timeframe that he may have told me something, you know, two weeks after a record had come out when printing that would have been, yeah, not a good thing. The other part of that is he doesn't understand that by me putting in, by me including Edward saying, don't print this, that I'm telling you the reader, hey, this is stuff that Edward didn't want out. This was stuff close to his heart. And I'm now revealing it 17 years later because it is part of the story. It needs to be out there.  You know, it's the opposite of that. I mean, I'm doing that because I wanted to show, one, what a faithful and honorable and truly good friend I was to him. And as a journalist, I never betrayed that. And two, to show that he had a lot of things he wanted to say that he couldn't. And I think they deserve to be in the book. I think not putting that stuff in the book, that part of him, you know, remains in my archives forever and nobody ever knows about that. I don't think that's right.  I'm not asking for congratulations, but I thought, you know, either I write that kind of a book or I don't.  But it's what everybody knows already, but what you're doing is expanding on what they already know and giving more details of what they already know. Right, Alan? Yeah, I mean, you know, I like reading a lot about autobiographies or biographies. And, you know, the three of us can be in the same room and experience the same event and we'll have three different takes on it, right? I mean, I got no monks book here. So when you brought up about, you know, Eddie's story at the time of why they got rid of no monk, well, it completely contradicts what he says in his book. And then Sammy and David got their books and they all, you know, again, the same event, three different opinions. So this just rounds out the narrative. Eddie was kind of a quiet guy. He never did his own book and you had these tapes. And again, we should go back. I said, you're back on, you've written books about Zeppelin, Jeff Beck, Brian Wilson, and you had these tapes that you came across and it's not like you're cashing in on anything now because Eddie's past. It's just that you, maybe we can touch upon that, how you found the tapes and why we're at where we're at today. So. Well, one thing I want people to know, and I've said this before and I wouldn't even bring it up except that, and again, not many people have said it, but I tend to, you know, wear my heart on my sleeve.  My point being is that I started the book on my birthday, August 24th. I had passed, forgive my memory, October 16th, 16th. I don't remember either. I forgot. Yeah, so a little over a month. It's actually, it's been not too long ago. Yeah. So a little over a month before he passed, I began the book. And yes, it was as a function of finding what I call the Twilight tapes. I've always, I've always been an archivist.  So again, I tell the story in the book and I have all my tapes on the shelves, you know, and they're in binders and they're numbered. And my good friend, Dave Jeffers did all that work for me over the course of many, many years. And there was one binder. There was no label on the spine and I opened it up and I didn't know what it was. I mean, I knew I had to be something, you know, for me to have kept them. And I looked, you know, I was looking at some of the labels and one said, love, R-E-L, look, what is that? You know, something else just said music, you know, and then I don't know if I saw something that said EVH or Edward and I put it on. And I think the first thing that came on was Ed making, Ed talking about his dad and which I write about in the book and Edward saying, yeah, my dad thinks I'm a genius and Edward's crying. And I go, oh my God, I know what these tapes are. You know, these are all of the tapes, you know, that I was smart enough to, you know, if he came over or the telephone rang to start the cassette player, which he gave me absolute permission to do. He says, man, you can record anything you want. I don't care, record everything.  I should have recorded every single second when I was with him, but you can't do that.  So I'm lucky and, man, I'm just so thankful. I have as many of these, what I call Twilight tapes and there's probably 10 or 12 or 15 hours of those. And those were the, to my mind, it was a fantastic stuff. My interviews with him, you know, that stuff is really good. I mean, I'm really proud of that. But this is just a conversation and we're just talking, you know. And so that was a big impetus behind getting started in the book. I had thought about the book many times over the years. Honestly, and again, I write about this. I didn't feel up to the task. I didn't feel that I was capable, even though I was there and I saw it and everything I could talk about was real and the truth. I just didn't feel capable as a journalist writing it. I thought, I'm not a good enough writer. I mean, I believe that, you know. And so it took a long time and there was some friends who were encouraging and urged me and finally, I don't know. Again, my cat would wake me up at ungodly hours and I would get up to feed him and one day at night instead of going back to bed, I went over to the computer and started piping and I had some ideas, you know, and that turned into the first iteration of the intro and kind of once I found that, you know, once I found my voice and I hate to be, you know, so pompous about it, but once I found that, I thought, okay, I can do this, you know, I can do this. And I felt really good about it. I felt, you know, wow, that's an interesting intro.  My intro is about 20 times as long as any intro should be and probably makes a publisher rolling in his grave and, you know, but, you know, it just had to be a long intro, just, you know, so yeah, man, it kind of started from finding those tapes, kind of feeling like I had to do it, you know, and yes, I wanted fans to read that stuff, you know, and I hate to say it was catharsis or anything as deep as that, but I knew that if I didn't write this, you know, I was gonna be disappointed myself for a very long time and there was, you know, no getting around that, no one to blame, no one to carry that burden. So yeah, just sat down and I thought, man, let me get a couple of good pages out at night. I don't think, I think there's a compliment to David Lu Ross book, you know, like, you know, this is as close as it's gonna get to any biography on Eddie Van Halen, right? This is raw, you know, this is Eddie Van Halen, you know, the good, the bad, you know, and everything else, right? So this is it, this is the one. I mean, it might not be, his perspective might not be the right perspective because that's his opinion, right? Or the way he sees it, but it's like David Lu Ross book, like Allen was alluding to, right? You know, that's his perspective. Might not necessarily be the right perspective, but that's what he thought at the time, right? I thought it was, yeah. Absolutely, and I think that's what, you know, the couple of people who got mad, I think that's what they were mad at. Seeing Edward in that light or, you know, putting him in those situations, not putting him in those situations, writing about those situations that they would think, well, he's Edward Van Halen, that can't be right. He can't do that, you know what I mean? But, you know, that's what it is. And yes, those were Edward's opinions. And I always trying to balance that. One, I always put my opinions in there. And two, whenever Edward was, you know, talking about Mike or Dave, there's multiple times in the book when it comes out how much he loved those guys, you know?  He just wanted more out of them. You know, one thing, that's why I told Allen, one thing I learned about this book, and I don't wanna give away too many spoilers, we'll just toss out a couple. Yeah. He loved David Lee Roth and how much, how hurt, how hurt he was. Yeah. And people could read about it in the book, you know, the details about it, but he was really hurt when Dave left because me and Allen, as kids and teenagers growing up, and as we lived through it as a teenager, we thought it was like, you know, who cares? I don't want him in my band anyways, but the reality was, and he was really, and I mean, you're with him, right? When he was going through this, right? I mean, tell us about the pain of David. He was hurt once, he was hurt twice because he was trying to, you know, the initial leaving and then leaving during the greatest hits and after the MTV fiasco and he was building a relationship with Dave and he was enjoying that relationship with Dave and getting back to know him. And so he actually was hurt twice by Mr. Roth, so. Absolutely. And I love the one story and I don't want to give it away when Ed, you know, spends some time with Dave and thinking, you know, it's all cool.  Do you really think Dave has changed that way?  You know, one, he would have, you know, gotten mad at me or say, yeah, you're crazy, but I mean, Dave was Dave, good, better and different. You know, Dave was obviously integral to that band. People say, oh, it was Dave's band. It was never Dave's band. It was Edward's band. You know, they've had a lot to do with the look and the feel and videos and that's important, but those are Kuchamal, right? Those are embroideries. You know, Edward was the heart of that band. They wanted to be a star and Eddie wanted to be a musician and I think is how you phrase it in the book. Yeah, I love that line of his. Or how Eddie phrased it. It's hard to build the line between the two.   A lot of people have called him Humble because you don't see him. You don't see him.  You never heard him really bad-mouthing other guitar players. I mean, on a basic level, when you complimented him, yeah, when I complimented him and I tried not to do that too often because he really was uncomfortable with that and you know, tied into that humility somehow, he would just, it didn't mean anything to him. And that's why I've tried to explain that Edward was really a pretty multi-personality guy. He was this extraordinary musician and he knew that. He knew how good he was, but he never had to tell you.  He didn't want to hear that.  But there was moments when I think he, honestly, he questioned that. I don't remember this specific incident. I don't want to give it away, but he had played me something and I said, man, that's good. I was a solo or something. When my instinct, every time he would play me something, anything was like, oh my God, that's, you know, but I know if I'd reacted that way, he just would have turned off to it. So he said that, you know, I said, yeah, yeah, that's good. And I have it on tape, so I can hear the tone of my voice and the way I say it. That's pretty cool. The way I say it, because I'm trying to not go overboard and be a fanboy about it, is that it almost sounds dismissive. He interprets it as, oh my God, Steve didn't like the solo. So that's when he says, well, I thought it was neat. You know, and it's like, he's trying to tell me, to convince me that it was really good, that he cared so much about my opinion or thought so little about his own talent at that point, that that's what blew my mind. And it happened a lot. It wasn't just one time.  Look, there's a lot of guys who project a sense of humility and it's false humility. You know, they are... I tell Alan, he's great all the time. I tell Alan, he's great all the time. Alan, you're the best. You're the best. I get what you're saying, Steve. I just want people to understand the relationship between you and, and there's too much to talk about here. So I'm just trying to like focus here. You met him as the sort of up and coming new guitarist before the first album was released. From the, as a journalist with him, you know, interviewing him, that is, off the second album, the third album, then the friendship starts building slowly to the next album, to the next album. So you were with him from the beginning. We're talking about when the first album was released, hearing, you know, rough mixes of the songs in the albums and that's what you're referring to. I'm not giving anything away. I'm just setting it up. So people understand the depth that you were friends with him and what's on those tapes that you, you know, you sort of have access to in a sense, right? Does that, did I explain that pretty well without giving too much away? That was pretty good to me, absolutely. Yeah. I don't know, I don't know how it happened or, but yes, I was given access, you know, and I have that stuff on tape and I remarked before how it just, it's a blade in the heart that I just didn't record more with him.  I used to call me from the road.  Oh God, why I didn't record those anyway. Yeah, so I saw those things.  I saw it, man, I saw this guy, you know, you know, first record to the second record to the third record and yeah, it was amazing. I mean, it was, it was a close friendship. It wasn't the kind of friendship where, you know, you talk to somebody every day and certainly that wasn't gonna happen with him when he was gone, you know, nine months out of the year for most of those years that I knew him. So it wasn't that type of thing or he wasn't gonna invite me over to dinner or we weren't gonna go have lunch, but it was close. I mean, and he felt safe with me, he felt comfortable and that's just who I was.  That's who I was. As a music journalist, I mean, what is his occupation more than anything than sitting there for 45 minutes listening to a guitar player, you know, talk about his life. So, you know, I had a lot of training. I was an excellent listener, you know, I think I had some insights. I think I had a lot of insights to who guitar players were. I'd spoken to a lot of guitar players and he just, he sensed all of that stuff and he would say things to me and, you know, I tried to be as honest with him as he was with me. I don't think I was. Honestly, I don't think I was as open with my life as he was with his, not that I tried to hide anything, but I just, you know, I wasn't able to open up like he did. But yeah, man, I was there. It was really close. And as time went on, I don't wanna give anything away. We see what happens with that relationship and yeah, it was... It was intense, yeah. That's everything in the book and I see how close you are to Eddie, you know? I got that scene from Almost Famous where Lester Bang's telling the journalist, you know, they're not your friends, you know? Don't get close to them. They want you to, you know? And you can see, so Jim and I were discussing this early, where's the line? Like when you say, okay, I gotta put my journalist hat on and I gotta step back and be kind of neutral. But then again, Eddie's calling me at three o'clock in the morning and he's inviting me over to 50-150, so. Yeah, man, that was hard, Alan. And again, I write about that. It happened every time I had to interview him. You know, the professional in me, such as it was, said, hey man, there's a magazine waiting for a story. You've gotta get that story. You know, you can't sit here and tell him how amazing it is. You can't have the kind of a conversation you would if you were just talking to him and it wasn't for any interview. A lot of the information we talk about, I already knew, we've spoken about it. I knew about the album, he played me that stuff, you know? And I knew about the gear and this and that, you know? But Ed, I don't think, and I don't know if I write about it, but I don't think Ed, I don't think he ever felt that way where he was one Edward Van Halen with me when the tape wasn't running and another Edward Van Halen when it was. But I think he understood intuitively that he was sitting down for an interview.  So he knew and he was always really good about that, man. You know, he talks about not enjoying interviews and I don't think he, well, I know he didn't. I know he felt put upon and was that thing, people saying, oh my God, you're the greatest guitar player in the world and what an amazing album and he didn't like that. I saw him at NAMM shows and, you know, I wanted to see him wanted to run and hide. He felt like he was on display, but he was always really good with me. And, you know, if I was stumbling for a moment, man, he'd fill in that silence, never made me feel funny about anything I asked him. I mean, other than say, hey, don't print that, you know. The name of the book should have been called Don't Print That. Just kidding, just kidding. Yeah. Joke. Don't print that.  You know, he's a genius with the guitar but might not know how to work a Michael way. What's your opinion on that characterization? I think Ed was obviously, as a musician, we don't need to even talk about that. I think he was one of the most honest people I've ever met. I mean, brutally honest. I mean, really honest. You know, I referenced that a couple of times. I'm pretty positive that Edward never read anything I'd written about him. Not that he should have, but I don't think he read much, which doesn't mean anything. If you're tested his IQ, I don't know. I mean, that's hard to say. Alex is very bright. You know, I don't know.   He was focused on music. That's what it was. You know, he was just completely focused. Yeah. At least my interpretation, like that's how I see it. And anything else was a distraction in a sense, right? Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, with him, I don't even think focus is a strong word. It was an obsession. Yeah, exactly. But beyond an addiction, he was more addicted to music than he was to anything else. I mean, you know. Music was his life, and that was his way of expressing it. You know, he wasn't the best guy to express his emotions or phrase it in a certain way. But man, he could certainly talk through his music for sure. So that's what I took away from it. Steve, tell us what you can tell us about, you know, over the years, this Michael Anthony thing, this relationship between Eddie and Michael, a lot of us know pretty much the story, you know?  There's a lot of that in there, you know? Tell us what you can about that, the relationship between Eddie and Michael and how he looked at him. I'm trying to figure out how to phrase this, how he looked at him, you know, as a member of the band. Yeah. I mean, I tried to dive into that whenever it was saying those things to me. And as a caveat, I also write about my own feelings about Michael in the book. Michael was about the nicest person you'd ever wanna meet. He was quiet. He was always very friendly with me. And that's who he was in the band. I mean, the simplest way I can put it is that I think Ed would have done anything if Michael had just tried a little harder. And now in Michael's defense, Michael probably tried as hard as he could. Maybe Michael didn't have that last little bit that Edward wanted. I mean, look, nobody was gonna work on the music as hard as Edward.  So he wanted more out of Michael. I think that he, I know he loved the guy. I mean, he said it many times.  I think had Mike just given just a little bit more. I think that, I don't know. I think Mike would have been in the band till the end. Again, I don't know about. Well, I mean, you know, you're not the only one, right? You know, there's David Lee Roth's book. There's a Monk's book. There's, you know, this is not a new story, right? But we're just hearing sort of Eddie's perspective of this and it seems to line up with all the other stories, right? It does. And again, it was, it comes down to respect with Ed and Ed felt disrespected. I know that. And yeah, if Mike, I don't know, man, they come in with some bass risks and say, man, here's an idea. And, you know, look, I know Mike's not a songwriter. I get that. But if that's what it took to, you know, to really make the band work and keep things even, I mean, I don't know, man, that's your gig. You do what you need to do. And again, I'm not trashing Mike. No, no, I think you're saying it very respectfully. You're saying it very respectfully, you know? And, and, and, and, and the same with that, you know, quickly, you know, Dave was supposed to be back on a, from a vacation in two weeks and he's still out there. And Ed writes about that. Ed never did that, you know? On the other side of that, Ed would never spoke about Dave not having lyrics done or not having melody, melody stuff. So, and that respect, you know, I think Dave, He pulled his weight. Dave pulled his weight big time, right? You know, yeah. He didn't respect his character, but he respected his contributions, right? Exactly. Another member of the Van Halen family are that I think you have a lot of respect for is Don Landy. And, you know, it's been said that he was so important because he was the only one that could work the 5150 studio, the way it was wired and everything. He was the only genius, but I think he meant a lot more to Edward than that. So I just wonder your feeling about Don Landy and your experience. But preface it for everybody else out there. He was the engineer on, you know, on many of the big albums, we'll say, right? On all of the big albums. Well, my, my, any hardcore Van Halen, the first up to 1984 or a couple after that. 5150, yeah, yeah. Yeah, Don, Don was a legend in the business.  I mean, Don, Don was, Don was a genius.  Yeah, he wired those for it. So he knew how they worked. And again, with Ed, it was Edward loved the guy, you know? I mean, how many times did I write about it in the book? You know, I couldn't make these records without Don. Don was about the most self-effacing person you could ever meet, which is why they connected. I mean, there was that music thing, but they connected on an emotional level. Don was amazing. He was always very cordial to me. Made me feel comfortable up there because she was always up there when I was there.  He always made me feel comfortable because he knew that I was there as Edward's friend that I was not gonna hurt Ed in any way by hurt.  Let me tell you. Um, the guy was built like a fighter. You know, he said he used to jump rope man, his arms and his stomach, man, the guy was amazing. But Don was amazing. And then there's moments towards the end of the book and I don't want to give it away and Edward says some things. And, you know, Don was let go, which I just, I couldn't understand. And then again, I write towards the end of the book, you know, Don, I reached out to Don a couple of times when I was writing the book. It's kind of like I wanted, Don, is it okay that I'm doing this, man?  What was it like, you know, and Don writes those beautiful words in the book for those who've read it. And I felt good about it, you know, and, but Ed did say some things about Don and my instinct was, oh my God, do I, should I take that stuff out? But, you know, man, I gotta leave that in. And I'm hoping Don understands that, you know, and if he's read it and, you know, he knows where all that was coming from. But yeah, Ed loved him. I mean, revered him. Yeah, yeah. So one of the questions I have, I mean, you know, we all grew up seeing Van Halen, Eddie with the constant cigarette, I played guitar with that beatific smile on his face at all times and all the videos and concerts. And then, you know, we all progressed, right? We all get older, 27 years later. He's not the same person. None of us are the same person 27 years later. But he's sober. And, you know, there was a funky period there that we weren't sure what he was doing, what he was on or whatever. But I mean, was a real, and your estimation was the real Eddie Van Halen was the fun, good luck young guy that had the beer in his hand at all times. Or was the real one, the way he finished kind of was at the end a little bit jaded by the industry and the people surrounding him. There's no doubt in my mind what the fun Edward Van Halen is.   And to be fair, that wasn't a lot. You know, I write about one or two of those episodes and that was horrible to see that. It was horrible. Though again, I know, and I'm not trying to be like any genius about it, but I knew the cigarettes. I said, you know, he can do drugs not for the next 1,000 years and drink beers and vodka, the cigarettes will get in before anything, you know, anyway. I wish he would have given up the cigarettes, you know, and still done the other stuff to be honest with you, but I don't know, you know, to say that after he got sober, he wasn't fine anymore, God, that's a crazy statement to make. He started changing before he got sober and I write about it in the book and I don't know where those changes came from. And it wasn't more drug use or less drug use. It was, I'm guessing the same. I don't know what it was. Maybe he was looking for something and hadn't found those answers and he didn't know what it was. He didn't know what answers and would ultimately find it in sobriety and, you know, his Buddhism leanings and finding Jesus and God and going to the therapist. I don't know, but he was not the same person. At least he didn't treat me like this other Edward Van Halen did, you know? So I, and I've tried to answer my mind where those changes came from at that point in his life. You know, I guess like the mid 90s, early 90s, Gary Chirone, you know, and maybe the band wasn't experienced the kind of highs they had been. I don't know. We never talked about that. So that's why I didn't even speculate the book. I can only say that he did change.  He was just, he was just so positive, man. It's just, he made you feel good to be around him. That's what it was, you know? You know, and I had, man, I had shortcomings. My God, I was, you know, I had no self confidence. And then he just, he always was there.  And none of that was over there later on. And if I ever showed any of that, it was like, you know, he wasn't gonna react in this sort of supportive way. So I kind of, I tried not to show that. It was different. Do you find, as your therapist here, as your therapist, do you find that? And me and Alan, we're also, we do what you do. We, you know, we only do bands for a long, long time. And you find that maybe you got too involved emotionally, you know, into someone more so than you should have. Not to say that you shouldn't have been friends, but you know, sometimes we cross that line, right? Like we, you know, we should remain sort of in a sense neutral, right? You find you, you gave too much of yourself, right? You're too much of yourself to him, right? I don't know, like, you look. Yeah, I mean. Just speaking as your therapist now. Just speaking as your therapist. I mean, that's for this way. I couldn't have, I couldn't have acted in any other way. Yeah. You know. Who could have? Who could have? Who could have in your shoes, right? I mean, yeah, I could have tried and, you know, you know, but yeah, I know what you're saying.  Was that, did I fabricate that? Was he that person, you know? That's what I'm getting at. That's what I'm getting at. But you got the tapes though. You could keep listening back to your tapes and you could say, you know what? It wasn't me, right? Yeah. You know, and again, what I took away from the book was, you know, you've got a job to do. You've got to earn income. There was talking about writing a book. Okay, ultimately, maybe it wasn't the right time.   We said, where's the fine line of me really harassing him and just following up on our discussion of what we said we were going to do. And then it became almost like, almost as if you were a jilted lover at one point saying, Eddie, hey, well, I'm still here. Like you're not calling. Like we've got plans, you know? So, you know. And just so you know, Steve, we talked to artists all the time, me and Alan. So we could see that how that exists. That's why he's saying it, right? We can see that that line there sometimes it moves, right? And, yeah, absolutely. Yeah. And in fact, I had a similar experience in 1977. Actually, I think it might have been right before almost maybe exactly when I met Ed. I wrote a book on Jeff Beck. It was actually the first book on Jeff Beck. It was called The Beck Book, which came out only in Japan. I was writing for a Japanese magazine at the time called Player. And they said, oh, you do book on Jeff Beck? I go, yeah. Hell yeah. So I wrote the book and I wanted, obviously I wanted Jeff's participation. So I reached out to Jeff through his manager. Same kind of thing, making the phone calls to Ed. This is letters because his manager is in the UK and his manager would write back to him, yeah.  And I'm sorry, this is pre-77 before the book came out. Anyway, same thing happened with Jeff. The line kept moving. And then I wanted to get the book. I thought, well, it's only out in Japan. I'd like to, you know, we just, the book updated and get it out in America, at least English speaking countries anyway. And so that's when I started corresponding with the manager again. And I have these letters.  So the book was already out. So like they could have looked at the book. So I sent them some ideas, you know? Yeah, the line just kept getting moving and obviously Jeff. And Steve, I'll just, I'll even add more to that.  The artist's job is to make us feel comfortable, to make us feel, you know, that we, they're being appreciated, you know? At least in most cases, I'm not saying they're lying or anything, but that's kind of their angle, right? They're just trying to make us be friendly with us. They want good press. They want, you know, to be, for us to say great things about them. So they are trying to, I wouldn't say cozy up to us, but get friendly with us, right? And then we misinterpret that, especially me and Alan's very early years, as you know, they're our best friends, right? And that's kind of where the line keeps moving, right? Right? And I get that. And that's what I'm trying to tell you. Like it's easy to get sucked into something like that, right? But now that we're hard, me and Alan are very hard, you know, hard-hearted, what do you want to call it? Like we don't get stuck in those little traps anymore. Like we didn't when we were kids. But I think for me, Steve had a job to do and he was trying to do his job and it wasn't always easy. And it's like, you know, I called him left message or left message.  Exactly, exactly, exactly, exactly. And I'm not saying this as you an example. I'm just saying this as a general example for everyone that goes through that interview, interviewee process and especially, list some of the credentials. So somebody, like there's a chat going on here too that I'm ignoring. Has Steve interviewed other musicians? You said, Jeff Beck.  Zeppelin, Aerosmith, Purple, The Who, Stevie Windwood, Stevie Wonder, Steve Vai, Peter Frampton. I'm looking on my walls the photo. Tony Aome. There's too many today. Albert Lee, Night Ranger, Queen, Raymond Zarek, Zach Wilde, Laurie Gallagher, Frank Marino. Hey, Frankie. Hal DiMiola, Todd Grungren, Michael Shaker, Leo Fender, Les Paul, Jethro Tau, The Eagles, Tom Johnston, Eddie Money. ACDC? ACDC, Ozzie, Nugent, Jim Marshall, Jack Bruce. Geez, you got them everywhere. Nicky Hopkins, Gary Moore, Paul Kossoff, 38 Special, Mick Ronson, Yes, Moody Blues. And 40 or 50 that you're forgetting. Yeah, there's a lot of... Okay, somebody said, what about Iron Maiden? You missed Iron Maiden. I did, I'm sorry. Yeah, this is gonna give me trouble. I was never an Iron Maiden fan. But now I wish I interviewed them more.  Okay, and now that you've been... Tell us about quickly, just quickly, like five of the magazines that you wrote for, because somebody's saying, for what magazine? So the big magazines back in the day? Back in the day, there was Cream and Circus, which were fantastic. I love being able to read for them. Craw Daddy, there was a magazine called Musician, Guitar Player, Guitar World, Zoo World was one. Record Review, I was actually a music editor for them. The Japanese one. Did a few things. Did a few things for Playboy, did some album reviews for the Los Angeles Times, their calendar section. That's pretty great to see your name L.A. Times. I wrote for a lot of foreign magazines. I've written for Japanese magazines. Player, I wrote for them for, I think, 40 years. Wrote for Japanese magazines. Wrote for some magazines in China. That was pretty amazing. Spain, France, Italy. You got the credentials. That's what I'm saying. You've interviewed people, you've worked for the right companies. My God, you've got it all. The question I have, Steve, is, you know, back in the day when you were trying to write the original book, you know, you got to kind of legalized during the process and you were, you know, how to sign a contract. Now this book is out. Does anybody reach out to you to say, oh, hold on there, Steve. What are you doing? You know, it's funny. I had a friend ask me the same question. Did he, did anybody, you know, reach out to you to not write the book or something, but, you know, along those lines? No, I haven't heard from anybody. I mean, I show that contract in the book. I'm guessing the statute of limitations if there is anything like that with a simple contract like that, probably ran out about 20 years ago, but I figured I was, you know, pretty safe at that point. But yeah, yeah, that's funny actually. And one of my favorite parts of the book is definitely that interview that kind of sounding, it just happened by chance is with Les Paul and Eddie and yourself where Eddie took over the interview and they really got in some really good details and a great conversation with Les Paul. That was fantastic. That was the moment realized, you know, when I went there that night, again, serendipitously, or the music journalist in me kicked in, I brought my cassette player, figuring, you know, I just maybe walk around and there was gonna be so many amazing people there. You know, hey, Les Paul, could I get a couple of words? Although I had met Les, in fact, Les wrote the intro for that Jeff Beck book I told you about. But you know, all those great people get a few words from them. That was my reason for bringing the cassette player.  So I think I approached Les first and, hey man, you know, Edward Van Halen's here and you know, I think I might have said, hey man, he'd love to speak with you. Would you speak with him? And Les said, yeah, I mean, if he'll speak to me, I'll speak to him.  And you know, introducing them, we walked upstairs and you've read the rest of it in that guitar world story, which I expanded upon in the book. But that was fantastic. It was like, that was a perfect night. And then Don Landy afterwards, you know, coming up to me and like I said, it's the first time I'd ever seen Don outside of the studio. I thought he had like a bracelet on that, you know, would give him a shock if he walked through the doorway or something, you know. But you know, he was there that night and you know, he experienced all of that.  Said a few other things that I just couldn't catch it, you know, but yeah, that was a fantastic night. And again, you know, a part of who Edward was, was never remembering stuff that we did. He'd remember the riff he played when he was 13 and he could tell you the first guitar he took apart and what kind of screw jevers. But he couldn't tell you that I had introduced him to Les Paul three days earlier. He did not, he didn't remember I was even there.  What, you know, what is wrong with them? I realized it just, it just wasn't important enough for him or whatever to be in his radar because that same thing happened, you know. And drugs, and drugs too, that's what it does, right? Yeah, well, it could be, but he was really sober at the points when he said he never remembered.  I don't know. I don't think it was drugs, man. Look, drugs didn't help. No, no, no. I think it was something, I think it was something else. I don't know what it was, but it happened over and over and over. Well, you know, that's, I think I'm reading David Lee Roth's book and Sammy Hager said the only thing they agreed on is, hey, when you're trying to have a conversation with somebody that was so wrecked, and he was talking about the Van Halen brothers, so wrecked that they couldn't even remember what the whole episode was about. And then they come back and blame you for doing things that, and you brought up a good case in your book that you get accused of something that was kind of agreed upon, but they weren't in the right frame of mind to remember these situations.  Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, yeah. Look, I'm not saying that none of it had, none of it was liquid or drug fueled. I mean, it certainly was, but yeah, it's just that whenever it came up, it, you know, he wasn't particularly high. So yeah, I don't know, you know? I mean. I kind of liked that. It wasn't on, he so was fixated on something else where you weren't on his radar. You know, I could see that. I could see that with some people that I know, you know, that are like that. Yeah, and you know, it's like, it's like you want to take it personally, this and that, but it's like, that's just what he was, it happened over and over. And yeah, and it was. It's insulting. It's insulting. Is that? It's insulting to you. Like, you know, I think it is. I'd be insulted. Yeah, and it was like, yeah. Yeah, it was, it was insulting because I knew how much those people meant to him.   But yeah, it was, it was, it was strange, you know, and it happened over and over. And yeah, it was uncomfortable every time it happened. And you know, I don't think I ever made much of a thing of it, but yeah, that's just how it really was. Tell us a little bit about, you know, this, what I find that the, I'm trying to, you know, make sure to keep a very high level. Sammy Hager and Eddie, that relationship. And before Hager joined the band, how, and I mean, I've read this elsewhere to how, you know, he wasn't really a fan of his work, but he still liked his voice, right? He wasn't a fan of Sammy's, you know, work in general, but he loved his voice.  I mean, maybe you could expand on that a little bit. We didn't talk about Sammy a lot, but yeah, what you say is true.  Yeah, on that first time. And we're saying before he joined the band, we're talking about before he joined the band, right? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Not as writing in the band. No, no, no, sorry, sorry, yeah. His writing is solo stuff, yeah. He thought he has song structures. He talks about a little bit. He just thought his song structures were strange. He just couldn't understand them. I thought that was funny, but because Sammy's music is pretty simple, to be honest. I mean, it's good, but pretty simple. But yeah, he did like his voice. And I think those, for those first records, I mean, I think the relationship worked. I think his work, I mean, I think Sammy had a monster work ethic as well. I remember Sammy saying to me once, and I didn't actually interview Sammy a couple of times before he joined Van Halen. And I can't remember. Well, obviously he must have, yeah, either he had just joined, yeah. So obviously he was already in Van Halen. We had some conversation or an interview. I can't remember. But I may be asking, he says, well, man, what does it feel like to be the singer in Van Halen? It's kind of like the dream gig for any singer out there. And he said, well, you know what, man? He says, I don't really need this gig. I've got a solo career, and I don't need this gig. And when he told that to me, I thought, wow, that's a pretty unbelievable thing to say. But when I thought about it, I thought, you know what? What it said to me is that he was joining the band because he really loved the music and he wanted to join the band. He didn't do it like, you know, like some singer may have, you know, for the notoriety, for the money. And I thought that was a pretty amazing thing to hear him say. However, it turned out to be just the opposite, not that he needed the money, but that he continued with his solo career. Had he really been that focused on the band and committed, he would have trashed the solo career or put her on hold for at least, you know, let the first record, the first two records come out. He didn't do that. But yeah, I think Ed loved his voice, loved his range, you know, what he could do. You know, his writing was expanded, you know, he could write in different keys and, you know, higher notes. But then I think Edward, you know, maybe that was just Edward, you know, wanted more from Sammy. And again, there's those two sides. Edward told me his side, which sounds very believable. I read about Sammy's side. So obviously the truth is somewhere in the middle. I never thought that the band was as good as the first band. And I was never a David Lee Roth fan. Yeah, I could tell that in the book. I could tell that in the book. You're never really a big David Lee Roth. I am though, I am. Yeah, but that's cool. That's cool. But musically what they were doing, I mean, you know, his first records were just so much. I don't know, they had so much more passion. They're feeding off each other. That's what I say. And that's why David Lee Roth was so important because they were feeding off each other, the energy, the rawness, the melodies. Everything was just exciting, you know? And then Sammy came in. It was more of a contrived, we'll call it, or more, more contrived, not completely. Which is structured, definitely. More structured, generic. More structured sound and then anything. Generic, garlic is that word. He's exploring the keyboards a lot more than the guitars. I think he even alluded to that in your book at one point. Yeah. But again, he had that same kind of love-hate relationship that he had with Mike and Dave, you know, love the guy, love the guy, you know, and, you know.   And how many rhythm sections has he had? And he were players. Yes.  A good batter is different. And Edward, you know, maybe that's who he was. Maybe, you know, had things remain the same, whatever, you know, Gary would have been replaced by another singer or, I don't know. I don't know, but Edward's always looking for those people who are gonna give as much as he did. Obviously, he got that out of the bow. And- That's another part of the book.   Even talked about the Kiss era, the demos with Gene Simmons, that was in the book. Talked about meeting Richie Blackmore, which, you know, everybody kind of knew that. He liked Richie Blackmore as a guitarist, right? You talked about that, that incident, right? But what happened there, right? The friendships between Michael Anthony, David Lee Roth, like we mentioned before, the Us Festival, the engineering Ted Templeman, Noel Monk, I guess, a bit of that, I was in there, and then I guess the Hager years till the end, right? And that's kind of summarizes, that's the high level for everybody to know what's about. The birth of his son, which was so important to him, right? The birth of Wolfie, so that changes life enormously, so. Yeah, absolutely, absolutely. So Wolf was born when? My chronology's bad. 20 years ago maybe, 21 years ago, something like that. 2000, I know, would it be two? No, probably a little even more than that now. I was around the 2020 to 22 years. I did the math when you put it in your book, so. Yeah, but yeah, yeah, so yeah, that little bit when he talks about Wolf and, you know, like I said in the book, I'm pretty positive that's the first time he ever, I'm not saying it's the first time he ever talked about his son to anybody, but I'm pretty positive it's the first time he ever talked, you know, to journals or anybody about his son being a musician. You know, Wolf was 11 at that point. So that was pretty amazing, you know, which brings up, you know, Jimmy, you kind of gave an overview there and that was really good. And I guess when I hear that, it makes me think about how much more I wish I could have done, how much more I wish I could have written about, you know. A thousand pages. Easy. Easy. What about somebody mentioned here in the chat, what about taking these audio recordings and creating some sort of audio book, or I don't know, you could, I don't know what the legality of that is. I would think you're probably in your green light in terms of transcribing, I don't think there's any issues there if you gave you your permission, right? Yeah, no, absolutely, and I've gone through this before because I've licensed my, you know, interviews with other artists. Some companies made, you know, some interview CDs and various things. And I've gone to lawyers and basically it comes down to that content belongs to me. Yeah, you created it. I was never on the staff of any magazine so no magazine can lay claim to it. Look, anybody can sue anybody in this world. So you can put a tape out there and somebody says, oh yeah, I don't want that, that belongs to me, that's my property. In which case you remove it or delete it. But in response to an audio book, I've thought about that a lot. I'm really bad with that kind of thing in terms of technology and how you do that stuff but I'm talking to some people and I've been thinking about that. I guess part of me is a little, and I don't know what the word is, not reluctant but guarded. And even though I've written about it and you can read the text, hearing those tapes, some of those tapes, I don't know if I would, if I could, you know, put those out there but I have enough stuff where it could be pretty amazing. I mean, my idea was like an enhanced audio book of sorts. So it would have maybe the text and then it would come to a section where it's talking about the ferriac or whatever and then there'd be that little, yeah, that would be cool. I don't know if I could click on a button or a, but I'm thinking, oh my God. You would integrate it with your voice and his voice going back and forth, right? Exactly, so now instead of, you know, this other person I was talking about for this observer describing what you're hearing, well here is the guy talking. Yeah, this is exactly what I have. That's Alan, that'll Alan do that role. Yes, I think that's a great idea. You know what, you have a little clip of hearing Eddie, do you have like a 10 second thing there? No, not loud, just hear his voice. Do you have it right in front of you? Just hear Eddie, do you have a little clip? Yeah, do you have like a little 10 second clip right there, right there, just hear his voice, clip? No, that'd be fun. I should have told you that beforehand. Just a 10 second little thing. Just to get everybody to go crazy. We, there's so many stories in the book. We can spend another four hours on this. It's just, it's just such a great book and hats off. I'm glad you took the time to do it, Steve, because it really is a worthwhile read and a really historical document. Well, thank you, man. Thank you guys, I appreciate it. I'm happy you did, I'm happy you did 600 pages because it tells your story in parallel with his story and that's the only way it makes sense. Exactly, so having read that book at 500 pages, you tell me, as these dickhead publishers did, well cut the book in half, you tell me how that book could have been cut in half and not turned into just garbage. That's right. I didn't know how to do it. I couldn't have done it if I had wanted to. So, but anyway, yeah, man. Let's see.   I hate being that way, man, but it's like, you know, that's all good, man. All right, you want to show the book again so everybody could go. Yeah, what a beautiful cover. There it is. Look at that. Yeah, I got Neil's book downstairs with all the photos from Eddie and the gang from that time series as well. Because Daniel Gray was your art director on Neil's book and Daniel Gray was your art director on mine. In fact, I met him through Neil and I don't know if you can see, but, you know, it made it hard to tell, but Ed is kind of like shiny. So it's a Les Paul. That's like called like this UV thing and you've seen it before, but I just, it was like the printer's idea.  I think it's beautiful. I love that picture.  You know, that's the Eddie we want to remember. Exactly. And that's what I was looking for. Neil so generously allowed me to look through his archives and you can imagine the kind of photos he had. You know, I didn't want Eddie smiling. I didn't want Eddie live. I didn't want Eddie jumping up doing splits. I didn't want Eddie, because that's not the Eddie in this book. I wanted somebody, you know, and he's kind of looking out there, you know, and, you know, to me, that just says tone chaser. You know, I just, Yeah, I agree with you, man. All right, quickly. Christmas around the corner. Christmas around the corner. For people, Where can they, You can fit it under the tree. You can see where they, can they get it. They can get the book. They can, first of all, they can get it on Amazon, Reverb, or Etsy, ETSY. And you just go there. And if you just type in tone chaser, it'll populate on any of those sites. Or you can get the book directly through me by sending if you're in the US, $47 to paypal.me backslash tone chaser. Paypal.me backslash tone chaser. Include your address, and please send it as family and friends so we don't give PayPal any more money. Okay, Steve, send me that link in an email and I'll add it to the description in this video. Oh, fantastic. That'll be a lot easier. Also, there was one question that came over over during the interview. Any plans to translate into this to other languages? You know, I've been working on Japanese. The thing with the Japanese is a book like this is like 10 times too thick. So we're talking about maybe cutting it down, but I would love to have it published in different languages. I've tried to reach out to some foreign publishers. It's difficult. I'm not used to dealing with those kinds of people, but I'd love for that to happen because I haven't had people from, I mean, many, many, many, many, many non-English speaking countries get the book. So yeah, it'd be fantastic if they could come out in German and French and Italian and Swedish and all that stuff. Yeah, that'd be amazing. I'd love that. So anybody out there who does licensing for Europe, can you shout? Steve, last note, Highway Sentinels.  We have David Ries on vocals.  Donnie Van Staven from Riot on a bass. This is a great lineup. You guys released an album. You want to quickly talk about that before we go. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, Highway Sentinels. I've been writing songs with my buddy Jimmy Waldo for many minutes. Oh, Jimmy Waldo. Yes, him too, yes. Yeah, Jimmy's keyboard player in Alcatraz. And so we had this collection of songs. Jimmy was working with the manager. He was somehow heard one of the songs. He said, wow, man, this is really good. Could you kind of update it, you know, make it a little bit more modern because these songs are kind of like 80s rock and the record is still kind of 80s rock. But anyway, we said, yeah. So Jimmy, I got together with Jimmy and I kind of, you know, we kind of re-imagined the songs, basically the same song, same structure, but tried to, you know, sweeten them a little bit.  You know, Jimmy did some more keyboards and I think we might have updated drums. And then we got them out to these different players, David Reese, who sang all the vocals and did the lyrics. Because these songs originally, you know, had vocals from other vocalists and lyrics, which I had written. So we just sent him tracks. He never heard the original melodies or anything. And he came up with these great lyrics and melodies.  So the first person I reached out to thinking it's never gonna happen, you know, with Joe Satranic. I've known Joe since 99, 98, 89, very long time. And then he writes back five minutes later, yeah, man, send me the track. You know, anyway, he just blew me away. He did that amazing solo. I restarted the Bumblefoot, Tracy Kahn's, Matt Heathy, Paul Gilbert, the other guitar player from, except, God, I'm sorry. Anyway, we put these things together and we got it released on louder than loud records. And yeah, man, I'm really proud of it. I mean, I think it's a really good record.  That was fun, man. That was a lot of fun. I love it. Well, congratulations. We've had David on, we've had Jimmy Aldo on, we've had Mark Sander recently. So now we're glad to have you on as well, Steve. Oh, cool. Well, then it was my idea and I played all the instruments. Just that journey, I meant Steve Rosen did this. They guys, they said, oh, did you play that solo? Of course, that's what I asked you. That was all me. I played the drums too. Yeah, yeah, yeah. All right, guys, it's been a pleasure. Thank you, Steve. It's been a pleasure, Steve. All the best and great success with the book. Thanks so much, guys.


Hi everyone, in this tutorial you will learn how to write a program to find factorial of a number using recursion in Python language. We're gonna write our program by using this recursive formula. It says that if n is equal to one then the value of our factorial is gonna be one, one is gonna be the returning value and on the other case if our number is not equal to one then the factorial of our number is gonna be that number times that number minus one factorial. On the other words in this case factorial function is gonna call itself with an argument that's less than one than initial argument. Let's implement this recursive formula in our program. So I'm gonna create a function I'm gonna call it factorial I want to find factorial of a number this variable n stands for number so our recursive formula said that if n is equal to one then we're gonna return one as the result and in other way we're gonna return n times factorial of n minus one and that's it let's try to find factorial of a number five for example and let's try to print our result let's run this code and as you can see here we got the result 120 which the result of finding factorial of number five that's all in this tutorial don't forget to subscribe to my channel


Our next speaker is Alfonso de la Rocha from Protocol Labs. Alfonso's involvement in R&D began at the University at the Polytechnic University of Madrid, where he worked on topics related to energy efficiency in data centers. Before joining PL, he was a blockchain expert at Telefonica R&D, where he was responsible for the design and development of core technology based on blockchains, distributed systems, and advanced cryptography. R&D experience also includes research into compression efficiency of video coding standards at Ericsson and projects related to inter-domain routing at KTH. His talk today is titled Hierarchical Consensus, horizontal scaling framework for blockchains. This framework is designed around the concept of subnets organized hierarchically, which can be spawned on demand with their own states, consensus, and policies. Alfonso, the floor is yours. Saying that, of course, I'm not the only one behind this work. I mean, all the consensus lab team is contributing to this, and mainly left areas George and Marco, so you can blame them for the bugs. I mean, you're probably aware of these slides. We want to target a Web3 able to accommodate the kind of use cases that we see in Web2, but if we want to do that, we see that we have a bottleneck in one of the key substrates for the Web3, which are blockchains. And this is what we are trying to tackle at consensus lab. Marco also shared all of the requirements that we are targeting, so it would be great if we can have a substrate for the Web3 that can handle internet scale throughput with fast local finality and another number of interesting features. What I'm going to talk today is about the architecture that we're coming up that we call hierarchical consensus in order to horizontally scale the blockchains in general, and we are focusing initially into following. And the idea is that hopefully this architecture will allow us to target all of these features, especially the ones that you can see inside the square. And it will allow to integrate many of the technologies.  So I feel that is great. So hopefully, like after this talk, we can have a lot of discussions. And if we go through the different lines of work that we have right now at consensus lab, we could frame these hierarchical consensus into the sharding. I mean, we don't call it sharding, and you'll see in a moment why. But we can frame it here as the architecture to start like accommodating the different building blocks that will allow us to scale or hopefully scale consensus into the requirements that we've been mentioning. And like the motivation behind hierarchical consensus is quite straightforward. Of course, there are a lot of work out there that we're trying to scale blockchains. We layer twos with payment channels. We've seen a few of these proposals. But at a consensus layer, our take is that probably we can't come up with one size fits all consensus that allows us to accommodate any kind of use cases. And if we want to accommodate the like from the more decentralized like DeFi use cases to the more web 2.0 kind of use cases, we cannot come up with the right tradeoff between security and performance. Because like all of these proposals in the end, they impose some kind of tradeoff between the security guarantees and the performance of the of the substrates of the blockchain. So as we think that we cannot come up with the right and optimal tradeoff, we were thinking, okay, let's make a flexible framework that allows for users and developers to grow the blockchain substrate to fit in a way that fits their needs. So the idea is to have like an on demand horizontal scalability, as I said, initially for five going, but hopefully, generally enough to be adopted in any blockchain. And the idea is to give developers a way to like spawn new states, spawn a new blockchain substrate that fits their security guarantees, and the kind of performance that they need for the use case, but keeping the ability to interact with the rest of the networks and the rest of the hierarchies, the rest of the networks that and the subnets that we have in the system. And something that we realized when we were working on this that we have a first MVP, is that it may also foster the innovation in the consensus layer, because having this framework, which is flexible, and having the right interfaces can allow others like the talks that we've seen and the technical proposal that we've seen to integrate inside this framework and see how things work together. And before I start describing in detail what hierarchical consensus is, I'm going to just throw a few concepts there, in case they sleep, and in order to present them early. So whenever I say subnet, in the end, we'll see that a hierarchical consensus subnet is like a side change. So it's an independent network with its independent state, its own consensus algorithm, but that will be able to interact with other subnets in the hierarchy. When I say that, or I refer to a parent subnet, we'll see that new subnets are spawned from a specific network. So I spawned from a specific network that become the parents, and I am the child. So once we build the hierarchy, this will make a lot more sense. But just to, in case I start talking about parent subnets, so that you know what I'm talking about. Of course, when I say peer or node, I'm referring to full nodes, and user and clients are light nodes. So these light nodes not necessarily need to sink the full state of a subnet. Then we have the native token in order to interact and become a participant in all these subnets and be part of the hierarchical consensus. The token that we use for all these interactions is the token of the rootnet. The rootnet is the main chain, in our case, Falcon Mainnet, but the main chain from which the hierarchy starts being built with all of these subnets. And the circulating supply of a subnet is the amount of native tokens that have been injected in a subnet. So these are the native tokens that through a bunch of cross-net transactions. So transactions between different subnets were injected in a specific subnet. So yeah, cross-net messages are transaction between subnets. And then the collateral is something that I won't describe in detail, probably in this talk, because of lack of time. But in order to spawn a new subnet, users need to stake some collateral. And the reason for this is that we, I mean, we don't assume, I mean, we don't enforce any kind of security guarantee in the consensus of the child subnets. So this means that there can be certain attacks there and misbehaviors. And this collateral is just a way of covering, like making validators have skin in the game when they spawn a new subnet, so the validators of a subnet. And in order to be able to slash specific misbehaviors in a subnet. Again, hopefully I will try to introduce this slightly, but I don't think I will have time to describe it in detail. And finally, final disclaimer, I may be talking about messages when actually they're transactions, because that's the way we refer to them in the Falcon world. And then whenever I say I refer to lectures, they're in the smart contracts in Falcon. So without further ado, let's see how heretic consensus work. So as I've said, the idea is to have an on-the-pan on-the-man scaling framework to simplify like the deployment of new networks that allows the seamless interoperability between all of these chains. So we can have, for instance, a rootnet, like the Falcon mainnet that has its own consensus, its own state. We can have storage, like it's the case of the Falcon mainnet. And we could even have a parallel chain, like Bitcoin, where we are periodically checkpointing in order to protect against long-range attacks. But at one point, a subset of users of this rootnet may, I mean, they want to deploy a use case for which, I don't know, the load of Falcon mainnet is not enough of the rootnet, or maybe the finality is not enough. So with heretic consensus, they're able to spawn their own subnet. These subnets, in the end, what they're spawning is a completely independent network with its own state and its own consensus algorithm. So this user will be able to choose the consensus algorithm that fits the needs of their use case. All these subnets will be validated as they are running their own consensus algorithm. There will be validating transactions in parallel. So the consensus algorithm between these subnets, they are not connected, but subnets can interact with each other through what we call cross-net transactions. And then these child subnets, so we have the rootnet being the parent subnet for these new two child subnets, these child subnets will be anchoring their security to that of their parent, in this case the rootnet, through checkpoints. We'll talk more about checkpoints in a minute. And finally, the main requirement that we enforce in subnets regarding security is the firewall requirement. So whenever, as we don't know the consensus algorithm that subnets will run because we want to leave this open to the users, so what we can enforce through correct consensus is that the in case, I mean, if there's an attack in a subnet, the maximum impact of this attack in the amount of native tokens can be up to the circulating supply. So the amount of native tokens that are held and have been injected in a subnet. So in this way, we protect to some extent against attacks in the subnet. Of course, we have then another alternative to cover for potential misbehaviors, which is the collateral and as I said, I mean, I'm going to leave that for some other tug. And this hierarchy can be built recursively. So if a subset of users in this first subnet see that the consensus algorithm is not enough for their use case and they want to scale horizontally even further, they could also deploy new subnets from a child. And in this way, we would be building the hierarchy of subnets and users will be building the actual architecture of the system. The implementation. So hierarchical consensus works thanks to two main actors. So all of the logic is handled by two actors or smart contracts in the different networks. First, we have what we call the subnet coordinator actor, which is a system actor. So it's an actor that it's deployed in a subnet, or in this case is deployed once we do the upgrade in the Falcon Mainnet. And it's the one that implements all of the logic for the hierarchical consensus protocol. So it is the one that enforces the firewall requirement. It is the gateway from a subnet to the rest of the hierarchy. It is the one that handles all of the crossnet messages. So it's the one that handles all of the mechanisms of hierarchical consensus. And then we have the subnet actor. The subnet actor, actually what we have is a reference implementation of a subnet actor and then a subnet interface because subnet actors are user-defined actors that determine the consensus algorithm, the different governing policies and so on of a subnet. So whenever a subset of users want to deploy their own subnet, the first thing that they do is to deploy a subnet actor in the parent. So with this subnet actor, they say, hey, this is a new subnet that I'm deploying from this parent and that we'll have these policies, these governing policies, these joining policies and so on. This is the minimum stake that you need and so on. So with this, the subset of users will be able to to spawn the process for their new stack with their new network consensus and state, but they won't be able to interact with the rest of the hierarchy until they register to the hierarchy. And the way in which a subnet registers to the hierarchy is by putting this collateral threshold. So putting, staking this minimum amount of collateral to cover, I guess, potential needs behaviors. With this, once the subnet is registered, it can start anchoring its stores through checkpoints and exchanging cross-net messages with the rest of the hierarchy. At any point, if we want another subnet, the thing that we do is, again, deploy a subnet actor that determines the consensus algorithm, all of the policies and so on, and starting the subnet and registering to the hierarchy so that we can start interacting with the rest of the networks. If we look at the peer level, how is this implemented inside a peer? In the end, what we're doing is instantiating, a subnet is just an instantiation of a new stack for the blockchain. So we see that when we have a subnet and we start either syncing or we spawn a new subnet, what we are instantiating inside the node is a new transport layer in order to broadcast messages, a new message pool, a new consensus algorithm, new state tree, a new API. But we are sharing all of the semantics. And this is what allows us to interoperate with the rest of the networks because we are all running the same semantics for the state tree. We are all running the same VM. And we, thanks to this, this is why we can interoperate with the rest of the networks. And another thing that it's really interesting about this is that subnets are uniquely identified and the ID is inferred from the ID of the parent. So the root net always has the same ID, which is root. And then the way in which we infer the unique ID of a subnet, it's through the ID of the subnet actor in the parent. So in this case, we can see this child subnet that has ID root slash T01. If we had another subnet like the one to the right, we would have root slash T01 slash the ID of the subnet actor. The advantage of having this deterministic identification of subnets is that we don't need any kind of discovery service in order to be able to exchange messages or interact with subnets in the system because they follow the architecture of the hierarchy. So the IDs directly map with the architecture of the hierarchy. As I already advanced, subnets use checkpoints to interact with the higher levels of the hierarchy and to anchor their security. And we'll see that in a moment. And okay, I also mentioned this, we enforce the file requirements. So we limit the impact in amount of native tokens. Of course, once this misbehavior affects the state and not the exchange of native tokens, we will need additional things like fraud proofs and does the collateral that we are staking in order to spawn a subnet. But at least for native tokens, there's a limit in the impact, even if there's some misbehavior or an attacking subnet. So let's talk a bit about the checkpoints. As I said, checkpoints include two core pieces of information. First, we commit a proof of the state of a subnet. This proof of a state of a subnet right now, like in our reference implementation right now, what we propagate is the tip set at a certain epoch in the subnet so that this can be seen as actual checkpoints of the states of the blockchain that we can use afterwards in order to validate the state in the subnet or even create fraud proofs. But we are already exploring using more complex proofs, like for instance, a sake proof of the state of the blockchain so that we can verify it directly and simplify fraud proofs. So in checkpoints, what we have is in the end a field where the subnet through the subnet actor can choose what they want to introduce in this blob of data that can serve in order to get a proof of state committed into our parents. And then also, so this is this part of the checkpoint. And then we have, we also use checkpoints to propagate cross messages to the rest of the hierarchy. Once we talk about cross-net messages, you'll see how checkpoints help in propagating messages to the rest of the hierarchy. And if we look now to the checkpoint empirical and how it works, checkpoints through the subnet actor, checkpoints are free to choose their checkpoint in period. So how often they want to commit these checkpoints to their parents. And I like to think about these checkpoints as the clock of the system. So it's what is these checkpoints, they flow through the system and it's the key scheme that orchestrates the communication between the different subnets. So let's consider a subnet that has a checkpoint in period of 100 epochs. We differentiate two stages in the checkpointing protocol. We have first what we call the checkpointing window, which is the window of a checkpoint period in which we populate with the corresponding information the checkpoint. And then we have what we call the signing window. And in the signing window, what we do is that the validators, they agree on the checkpoint and they commit it to the parent. So let's consider this checkpoint window that goes from epoch 100 to epoch 200. In this, in this check period, what we will be doing is to populate the checkpoint template for epoch 200. So as trust messages arrive to the subnet, we will be including them. The ones that need to be routed through a checkpoint will be included in the checkpoint template. And also we will include checkpoints from children, from these subnets children, so that they can be aggregated and propagated up to the hierarchy so that they are recursively anchored to the upper layers of the hierarchy. Then once we reach epoch 200, the checkpoint template for epoch 200 closes, which means that we don't accept more cross messages and more checkpoints from children. And this epoch 200 starts the signing window for the epoch 200 and in parallel the population, the checkpointing window for the checkpointing of epoch 300. So in this signing window, validators of the subnet will take this checkpoint template, will inspect it, validate that is correct, include their, their, their proof of the state of the subnet, being this safety proof or an epoch or whatever the subnet has decided, and they will sign it and commit it to the parent. The way in which these checkpoints can be signed and verified in the parent, it's also up to the subnet actor and to the founders of the subnet. Right now, in the reference implementation, we, we expect that supermajority, so two-thirds of the votes from the validators in the subnet to commit the sign-chain point to the parent, but we could use something like, we are also working, Sarah is working on, on threshold signature schemes and so on. So we could use also that threshold signature in order to sign these checkpoints and propagate them up to the parent. And in parallel, as I've said, cross messages and other checkpoints as they arrive to the subnet, they're included in the, in the template for epoch 300. And we start all over again when it closes, there's a sign and window, there's a checkpoint. And in this way, we have this clock that populates checkpoints and propagates them up to the, to the parent for two reasons, to anchor the security through these proof of the subnet and also in order to propagate cross-net messages. And in hierarchical consensus, we have two and a half types of messages. So we have first what we call top-down messages that are messages that go from a parent to a child. So they go from an upper level of the hierarchy down. And these, so all, all validators in a subnet are required to sync with, with their parents. This means that propagating a message from the parent to the child is quite straightforward because whenever there's, and we'll see in a moment in detail how these words, whenever we see that there's a new message for a child or that needs to be routed through the child, we can pick it up from the state of the parent right away. Then we have bottom-up messages. And these are a bit harder because parents are not syncing, are not required to sync with their children. So in this case, the way in which we propagate cross-net messages to the rest of the hierarchy and like for these bottom-up messages is through checkpoints. So we include, as we saw before, the cross-messages in the checkpoint and we propagate them up. And finally, we have path messages that are the ones that we see here in pink that are a combination of bottom-up and top-down messages. So in the end, they're either, so they are propagating in a checkpoint to the closest common parent and from the closest common parent is a top-down message that goes down. As I'm running out of time, I'm going to go super quick here. So whenever we send a top-down message, low-level, how these look is that we send a top-down message to the SCA, which is the subnet coordinate director. These trigger a state change in the parent. And then subnet validators, they have two kinds of message pools. They have the plain traditional message pool that collects unverified messages within the subnet. So that needs to be, that are stored and are executed within the subnet. And then the cross-message pool, which is listening to the state of the parent and listening for cross-net messages in general that have been unverified and that need to be proposed. So whenever the cross-message pool sees that there's a new unverified cross-net message in the parent state, it proposes, I mean, it goes through the consensus engine of the subnet, it proposes in a block, and once it's validated in a block, it will be executed in the subnet. For bottom-up messages is similar, but not the same. Because in this case, what we are propagating up is just a link to the list of messages that are propagated inside the checkpoint. So in this case, in order to avoid state explosion as we propagate messages up, as cross-messages arrive, and when we close the cross-message, sorry, the checkpoint template, in the cross-messages, we don't include all of the messages, but a CID with the list of the messages that need to be propagated. Once the checkpoint arrives to the parent, there's a state change and the cross-message pool is notified about like new cross-message meta, as we call it. So new links to messages that need to be applied in this network that are available and are unverified. But in this case, the cross-message pool will have to resolve the messages behind that CID because it doesn't have the individual messages, but just the link to those messages. And in order to resolve these messages, we have a content resolution protocol that can resolve through the state of the children. So it broadcasts a message through the transport layer, requesting the resolution of the messages behind that CID. And with this, once the cross-message pool has the list of messages, it can pass them through the consensus engine. And once it's validated inside these messages inside a block, they can be executed as a plain message in the subnet. So as I mentioned, we have this cross-message pool resolution protocol that is used to not only to resolve, I mean, it's used to resolve any object in the state of a subnet that is behind a CID. We use it for cross-messages, but we can use it also for lock state for the atomic execution protocol, as we'll see in a moment. And really briefly, we have two main approaches for these. Whenever the validators of a subnet propagate a checkpoint, they proactively broadcast a message with information or the objects that are behind the CID that are included in the checkpoint for the case where the validators of the other subnets, that they're receiving subnets like Root and Sub-1 in this case, they want to cache and store locally the information to use it as soon as they need it. If this is not the case, and once the information is needed, they haven't cached this information, they have also a pull-fallback where they can pull the information behind the CID by sending a message to the search network. And another important point here is that as we see here, so here we had some CID-CA messages to the Root and CID-CB to Sub-1. As we go up in the hierarchy, we aggregate recursively the messages so that what we propagate up is just a single CID that will be resolved recursively with this protocol. In this way, we are making checkpoints as small as possible so that we don't need to propagate raw messages. All right. Okay. And up till now, we've been talking about exchanging messages between different parties. But what if we want to perform an execution, an atomic execution, using state that lives in different subnets? So for these, we came up with this atomic execution protocol, which actually is quite similar to the payment channels approach with, of course, its differences, but we use the account-based approach. We want to enforce the following properties in this protocol, atomicity, timeliness, and affordability, and of course, consistency. So we want that after the execution, the output states, we want the output states of the execution to be consistent with the history of the different subnets involved. And briefly, how these protocol works is that there's, of course, an off-chain agreement between the different parties. Here we see two parties, but we could have end parties in end subnets. They do an off-chain agreement to agree on the function to be executed, the actor or the semi-contract to execute, and the input states to use. And the first thing, once they agree on this, the first thing that they do is lock the state of their actress. So they lock it in order for new messages not to be able to change that state. When we lock the state, we create a CID, a unique CID that is used to identify the lock state and be able to gather it with this constant resolution protocol. So all the parties pick up the state, the input state that they are missing, and they perform the execution off-chain. So they perform the execution, they get the output state, and then they delegate the orchestration of the atomic execution to the common parent. They could use any other subnet, but the reason why we choose the closest common parent is because it is the, I mean, they have some shared trust assumptions over this parent because it's the closest parent for both of them. And with this, one of the parties would initiate the execution by sending the output CID, the function being executed, and the input states, and then the other parties will have to commit their output states. The parent net orchestrating the execution will check that the output states match, and if they match, what the SCA in the common parent does is send a top-down message with the output state in order to unlock the state in the corresponding subnets and merge the output state to the state of the subnet. At any moment, any of the parties, in case like the protocol blocks or there's a party that disappears, any of the parties can abort, and if the protocol is aborted, what it happens is that the SCA does a top-down message, but in this case, directly unlocking the state. And that's, I mean, we have an MVP already, we have a spec, we hope to be able to have it in the Falcon mainnet soon. I don't know what soon means, but soon. And of course, there are other escalability approaches. I really love all of your talks because there's a lot of inspiration that we can use and even integrate directly many of your solutions. And we have a bunch of open problems and things that we still have to fix in hurricane consensus. An example is data availability. I mean, you've seen this content resolution protocol. This content resolution protocol assumes that these want honest participants, so we are exploring how to relax a bit these requirements. Then there's the question of censorship resistance. We, I mean, subnets have children in the hierarchy have a lot of trust on their parents, and parents, if they go wrong, they could do a lot of sketchy things. So that's why we're coming up with fallbacks for, for instance, children to be able to tell subnets to be able to migrate to other parents if things go wrong. There's a full design of the crypto model, how gas would work here and how the checkpointing fees would work. Of course, all of this is public. So if you want to participate into these discussions or contribute, let us know. We can chat in Slack and we can point to the right resources. There's the question of poll proofs and fraud proofs because we have the firewall requirement, but then once the misbehavior impacts state, we may need additional things in order to, to report misbehavior signs slash these misbehavior so that it's economically insane to do it. And before going to production, we want to do some performance measurements. We have some theoretical idea of what would be the performance of these framework, but we need to work a bit more on this. And of course, we may be losing something and there may be more things to do. So let us know if you've realized like a blind spot or something that needs to be improved in this design, because we will love to, to hear your thoughts. And that's so, of course, I mean, we have an MVP. You can test it. I cannot demo lack of time. There's a really small paper that describes the idea and we have a working progress spec that it's looking.  So it should be good enough for now at least. Thank you very much, everyone. And if there are questions, I guess I don't have time, but we can chat inside. Thanks. All right. Thank you all. So we are indeed at time for the break. There, there has been some discussion already in slack, but I will read out a question by Dave Costinato. I don't think he's in the, I don't see him in the, in the Zoom room. But the question is, is that a novel filecoin innovation having collateral pledged by validators that has a prerequisites, sorry, prerequisites to spawning a subnet? So I don't know if I got the question. So the question is, if collateral, yes, if is having collateral pledged by validators as a prerequisite to spawn a subnet and innovation, or does this happen in other systems? I don't know. That's a great question. I guess, I don't know. If someone knows, please, I mean, it's the most, it's like the proof of stake approach is the most straightforward way that we could think to incentivize well-behaving validators with such an open system. But I don't know if others are doing it. Like the inspiration gone from proof of stake more than like subnet spawning. I guess this is the question.