ANALYSIS OF A ROCK GUITAR GOD

[toomanycats]

Take the quite and reserved cool of a Keith Richards or a Joe Perry, marry it to shredding chops on par with a Van Halen, add in an intense melodic sensibility and swing on par with the best clarinet players of the big band era, and you get Warren DeMartini. A soloist par excellence.
He's not a household name.
He didn't make a gazillion bucks doing what he does.
He will never be in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.
But those who know know.
He is undoubtedly one of the greatest rock guitarist of the 80s.

[PsychoCid]

Well that was short and sweet.

DeMartini is only known as one of the greats in small circles.

He had some damn magical riffs too.

[PsychoCid]

[toomanycats]

Lay It Down is an amazing riff, but I'll bet Robin probably wrote it. The solo is likewise incredible, and it's obviously Warren. As highly as I praise Warren, I like his playing best when he's soloing over rhythms written by Robin, who was really the riffmeister of RATT. After Robin left RATT, or in any case become debilitated to the point where he was no longer providing musical input, their sound shifted significantly.

[PsychoCid]

Lay It Down is an amazing riff, but I'll bet Robin probably wrote it. The solo is likewise incredible, and it's obviously Warren. As highly as I praise Warren, I like his playing best when he's soloing over rhythms written by Robin, who was really the riffmeister of RATT. After Robin left RATT, or in any case become debilitated to the point where he was no longer providing musical input, their sound shifted significantly.

I couldn't find anything to confirm either way, credit just goes to both in most cases

Way Cool Jr is another fav

[Rollin Hand]

Ratt has always been a favourite of mine, as has Warren.

And that Lay It Down riff is utter badassery.

[PsychoCid]

Ratt has always been a favourite of mine, as has Warren.

And that Lay It Down riff is utter badassery.

One time a redhead convinced me to date her by offering to bring over her Ratt and VH vinyl collection

I was glad to oblige

[Rollin Hand]

I always preferred Ratt to the Crue back in the day (I was the only one in my high school), but Ratt doesn't seem to have the indescribable "thing" that the truly historic bands do, where they aren't hurt so much by trends and remain popular over time.

But I still love their stuff, the first three label albums being particularly strong. And Warren is the real deal.

[toomanycats]

I always preferred Ratt to the Crue back in the day (I was the only one in my high school), but Ratt doesn't seem to have the indescribable "thing" that the truly historic bands do, where they aren't hurt so much by trends and remain popular over time.

But I still love their stuff, the first three label albums being particularly strong. And Warren is the real deal.

Me too as far as preference for RATT over Crue back in the day, the reason being, as a guitarist myself I was biased towards bands with a virtuoso player. Sure, I thought Crue had some great tunes, and I especially like their Too Fast For Love album, but let's just say I didn't spend a lot of time studying Mick Mars simple licks. That being said, that Mar's playing was "simple" may well have something to do with it remaining popular over time.

There could be an entire separate thread about the question of why Crue and Poison have more lasting widespread popular appeal than RATT. It may have something to do with the fact that they have all the original members, and that they were more like caricatures than the guys in RATT, and that their songs are simpler.

[PsychoCid]

I always preferred Ratt to the Crue back in the day (I was the only one in my high school), but Ratt doesn't seem to have the indescribable "thing" that the truly historic bands do, where they aren't hurt so much by trends and remain popular over time.

But I still love their stuff, the first three label albums being particularly strong. And Warren is the real deal.

Me too as far as preference for RATT over Crue back in the day, the reason being, as a guitarist myself I was biased towards bands with a virtuoso player. Sure, I thought Crue had some great tunes, and I especially like their Too Fast For Love album, but let's just say I didn't spend a lot of time studying Mick Mars simple licks. That being said, that Mar's playing was "simple" may well have something to do with it remaining popular over time.

There could be an enter separate thread about the question of why Crue and Poison have more lasting widespread popular appeal than RATT. It may have something to do with the fact that they have all the original members, and that they were more like caricatures than the guys in RATT, and that their songs are simpler.

Being simple and caricature like makes it digestible for wider audiences, but what the public likes doesn't matter at all. The power of the radio, tv, internet allows manufactured consent, heh.

It's amazing to see people say they didn't like or don't believe something, but then after the tv or Google forces it on them consistently for 3, 5, or 20 years, they believe they love it and forget they ever thought otherwise.

Most likely they were allowed to stay mainstream, with TV shows highlighting Tommy and Brett, because they are useful as covert communications vehicles to bankers and other unscrupulous media owners.

[toomanycats]

I always preferred Ratt to the Crue back in the day (I was the only one in my high school), but Ratt doesn't seem to have the indescribable "thing" that the truly historic bands do, where they aren't hurt so much by trends and remain popular over time.

But I still love their stuff, the first three label albums being particularly strong. And Warren is the real deal.

Me too as far as preference for RATT over Crue back in the day, the reason being, as a guitarist myself I was biased towards bands with a virtuoso player. Sure, I thought Crue had some great tunes, and I especially like their Too Fast For Love album, but let's just say I didn't spend a lot of time studying Mick Mars simple licks. That being said, that Mar's playing was "simple" may well have something to do with it remaining popular over time.

There could be an enter separate thread about the question of why Crue and Poison have more lasting widespread popular appeal than RATT. It may have something to do with the fact that they have all the original members, and that they were more like caricatures than the guys in RATT, and that their songs are simpler.

Being simple and caricature like makes it digestible for wider audiences, but what the public likes doesn't matter at all. The power of the radio, tv, internet allows manufactured consent, heh.

It's amazing to see people say they didn't like or don't believe something, but then after the tv or Google forces it on them consistently for 3, 5, or 20 years, they believe they love it and forget they ever thought otherwise.

Most likely they were allowed to stay mainstream, with TV shows highlighting Tommy and Brett, because they are useful as covert communications vehicles to bankers and other unscrupulous media owners.

So what you're saying is that there's an underlying reason why the free U2 album that iTunes pushed onto my phone and I still can't delete sucks so bad.

[PsychoCid]

Me too as far as preference for RATT over Crue back in the day, the reason being, as a guitarist myself I was biased towards bands with a virtuoso player. Sure, I thought Crue had some great tunes, and I especially like their Too Fast For Love album, but let's just say I didn't spend a lot of time studying Mick Mars simple licks. That being said, that Mar's playing was "simple" may well have something to do with it remaining popular over time.

There could be an enter separate thread about the question of why Crue and Poison have more lasting widespread popular appeal than RATT. It may have something to do with the fact that they have all the original members, and that they were more like caricatures than the guys in RATT, and that their songs are simpler.

Being simple and caricature like makes it digestible for wider audiences, but what the public likes doesn't matter at all. The power of the radio, tv, internet allows manufactured consent, heh.

It's amazing to see people say they didn't like or don't believe something, but then after the tv or Google forces it on them consistently for 3, 5, or 20 years, they believe they love it and forget they ever thought otherwise.

Most likely they were allowed to stay mainstream, with TV shows highlighting Tommy and Brett, because they are useful as covert communications vehicles to bankers and other unscrupulous media owners.

So what you're saying is that there's an underlying reason why the free U2 album that iTunes pushed onto my phone and I still can't delete sucks so bad.

Nailed it. =)

[PsychoCid]

Well, hot damn.

Every single time I comb through my vinyl records... I am ridiculously impressed by my good taste.

All killer, no filler!

After this I'm gonna play some Bowie, because I fekkin rock at picking out great albums.

[Rollin Hand]

I always preferred Ratt to the Crue back in the day (I was the only one in my high school), but Ratt doesn't seem to have the indescribable "thing" that the truly historic bands do, where they aren't hurt so much by trends and remain popular over time.

But I still love their stuff, the first three label albums being particularly strong. And Warren is the real deal.

Me too as far as preference for RATT over Crue back in the day, the reason being, as a guitarist myself I was biased towards bands with a virtuoso player. Sure, I thought Crue had some great tunes, and I especially like their Too Fast For Love album, but let's just say I didn't spend a lot of time studying Mick Mars simple licks. That being said, that Mar's playing was "simple" may well have something to do with it remaining popular over time.

There could be an entire separate thread about the question of why Crue and Poison have more lasting widespread popular appeal than RATT. It may have something to do with the fact that they have all the original members, and that they were more like caricatures than the guys in RATT, and that their songs are simpler.

Simpler helps. And that is by no means a slight against Mick, who is really good.

Original members help too. When you had two versions of Ratt touring, neither with Warren...it dilutes the brand somewhat.

It could also be that Stephen's vocals aren't for everyone (and no, not getting into Vince's current "capabilities").

In the end, though, the Crue were the trendsetters. They were the bad boys, the dangerous ones. Bands bought outfits from Ray Brown to keep up with them. That wasn't happening with Ratt.

Awesome band, but they just didn't have the same culural impact.

And Cid, no one (ok, at least not me or TMC) is doubting your taste!

[PsychoCid]

I always preferred Ratt to the Crue back in the day (I was the only one in my high school), but Ratt doesn't seem to have the indescribable "thing" that the truly historic bands do, where they aren't hurt so much by trends and remain popular over time.

But I still love their stuff, the first three label albums being particularly strong. And Warren is the real deal.

Me too as far as preference for RATT over Crue back in the day, the reason being, as a guitarist myself I was biased towards bands with a virtuoso player. Sure, I thought Crue had some great tunes, and I especially like their Too Fast For Love album, but let's just say I didn't spend a lot of time studying Mick Mars simple licks. That being said, that Mar's playing was "simple" may well have something to do with it remaining popular over time.

There could be an entire separate thread about the question of why Crue and Poison have more lasting widespread popular appeal than RATT. It may have something to do with the fact that they have all the original members, and that they were more like caricatures than the guys in RATT, and that their songs are simpler.

Simpler helps. And that is by no means a slight against Mick, who is really good.

Original members help too. When you had two versions of Ratt touring, neither with Warren...it dilutes the brand somewhat.

It could also be that Stephen's vocals aren't for everyone (and no, not getting into Vince's current "capabilities").

In the end, though, the Crue were the trendsetters. They were the bad boys, the dangerous ones. Bands bought outfits from Ray Brown to keep up with them. That wasn't happening with Ratt.

Awesome band, but they just didn't have the same culural impact.

And Cid, no one (ok, at least not me or TMC) is doubting your taste!

Lol

You know what's weird though... I never learned Mick Mars stuff specifically because it 'seemed' harder to play. Dunno why.

[Rollin Hand]

Me too as far as preference for RATT over Crue back in the day, the reason being, as a guitarist myself I was biased towards bands with a virtuoso player. Sure, I thought Crue had some great tunes, and I especially like their Too Fast For Love album, but let's just say I didn't spend a lot of time studying Mick Mars simple licks. That being said, that Mar's playing was "simple" may well have something to do with it remaining popular over time.

There could be an entire separate thread about the question of why Crue and Poison have more lasting widespread popular appeal than RATT. It may have something to do with the fact that they have all the original members, and that they were more like caricatures than the guys in RATT, and that their songs are simpler.

Simpler helps. And that is by no means a slight against Mick, who is really good.

Original members help too. When you had two versions of Ratt touring, neither with Warren...it dilutes the brand somewhat.

It could also be that Stephen's vocals aren't for everyone (and no, not getting into Vince's current "capabilities").

In the end, though, the Crue were the trendsetters. They were the bad boys, the dangerous ones. Bands bought outfits from Ray Brown to keep up with them. That wasn't happening with Ratt.

Awesome band, but they just didn't have the same culural impact.

And Cid, no one (ok, at least not me or TMC) is doubting your taste!

Lol

You know what's weird though... I never learned Mick Mars stuff specifically because it 'seemed' harder to play. Dunno why.

Speed is easier to emulate then feel.

I will say this too; I can't play Live Wire with all downstrokes. Mick's got a pretty damn good right hand.

[Sinster]

Way Cool Jr.

[nomadh]

Interesting. For being a rocker I was never an 80s hair metal guy. Even VH never really interested me. Hendrix was my first wow and that was years after he was dead for me. Then my longtime guitar hero was schenker and I still floored by him. I almost completely checked out of popular rock by the 80s and blamed mtv for most of my hatred. I went retro and listened to SRV all through the 80s. Mostly didn't hear anything I liked in public again until I heard man in the box and I was reborn.
I did have 2 80s hard rock or hair metal bands I actually bought music from; Dokken and Ratt. For some reason I never understood I didn't feel I was being punished for listening to them. Never could figure why they seemed different to me. I thought maybe I liked the singers or the songs more. Maybe the production? I can be sensitive to that I think. It was only many years later I heard an interview with lynch where he gave full praise to schenker. And then at a schenker show dimartini showed up and sat in and I learned of their mutual admiration society. I was less interested in ratt but definitely like them as opposed to hating most the others. Maybe partly because they were a san diego band?
So question to you experts? What stands out about those 2 bands of that era compared to all the typical Hair bands? Was I really just hearing echos of schenker?

[toomanycats]

So question to you experts? What stands out about those 2 bands of that era compared to all the typical Hair bands? Was I really just hearing echos of schenker?

Even in the context of the hothouse of guitar playing that L.A. was back in the 80s, Warren DeMartini and George Lynch were standout players with serious instrumental credibility. That they stood out from the pack for you proves that you could separate the wheat from the chaff.
Also, I assume you admire Schenker not just for his technical prowess, but also for the fact that he is extraordinarily melodic. This also applies to DeMartini and Lynch, as they are very melodic in their phrasing and don't just run scales.
Lastly, all three have a unique wide vibrate. Schenker does his in the traditional way of bending the string, though DeMartini and Lynch did this thing where they rapidly slide up and down the string to produce the effect.

[PsychoCid]

Yep.

Those two bands had artists / musicians, while many bands simply had guitar players.

This is long why I have credited myself as a player. Not to box myself in, simply to recognize those who are much deeper in the craft.

[glasshand]

A little late to this thread, but yeah, DeMartini was always criminally underrated, IMHO. I think his reputation was hurt to some degree by being in a hair metal band (and one that wasn't as successful as some others). Someone once speculated to me that his reputation was also hurt by the recent death of Randy Rhoads around the time that Ratt was coming into the public eye; dunno about that, but it's interesting to think about.

[PsychoCid]

A little late to this thread, but yeah, DeMartini was always criminally underrated, IMHO. I think his reputation was hurt to some degree by being in a hair metal band (and one that wasn't as successful as some others). Someone once speculated to me that his reputation was also hurt by the recent death of Randy Rhoads around the time that Ratt was coming into the public eye; dunno about that, but it's interesting to think about.

What band was he in that wasn't as successful as others?

RATT was a stadium-filling band a la Beatles. Apparently he was associated with Whitesnake, Dokken, and Dio too. Geez if that's accurate it seems he's touched nothing but top notchers.

[Rollin Hand]

A little late to this thread, but yeah, DeMartini was always criminally underrated, IMHO. I think his reputation was hurt to some degree by being in a hair metal band (and one that wasn't as successful as some others). Someone once speculated to me that his reputation was also hurt by the recent death of Randy Rhoads around the time that Ratt was coming into the public eye; dunno about that, but it's interesting to think about.

What band was he in that wasn't as successful as others?

RATT was a stadium-filling band a la Beatles. Apparently he was associated with Whitesnake, Dokken, and Dio too. Geez if that's accurate it seems he's touched nothing but top notchers.

Um, RATT. They could fill big halls in their heyday, but never were as big as the Crue, or even GnR, and DEFINITELY nowhere near the Beatles, unless I somehow missed them selling out Shea Stadium.

And they petered out in the early 90s, when the Crue and GnR (despite Axl's best efforts) endured.