Ratt

Not in the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame

Eligible since: 2008 (The 2009 Induction Ceremony)

Previously Considered? No  what's this?


Essential Songs (?)WikipediaAmazon MP3YouTube
Round and Round (1984)

Ratt @ Wikipedia

Ratt Videos

Will Ratt be inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame?
"Musical excellence is the essential qualification for induction."
   

Comments

66 comments so far (post your own)

RATT???? Give me a frickin break already. Can Anybody say "ONE HIT WONDER"??? The only "big" hit these guys had was ROUND AND ROUND. They were more famous because of the lead singer's relation to Milton Berle. Ratt gets in but RUSH, KISS AND BILLY IDOL ARE LEFT OUT IN THE COLD?? Don't embarrass yourselves.

Posted by Jason on Saturday, 05.26.07 @ 14:04pm


They had many hits but only one that made it big.
They were a damn good band and the should be in.

Posted by ======= on Saturday, 06.30.07 @ 19:51pm


Ratt should be a no brainer. Great unique sound. The guitar work was always incredible. Yeah, "Round and Round" was kinda cardboardish, but they had a few hard hitters - "Lay It Down", "Back For More".... "Dance" and "Nobody Rides For Free" are just plain facking excellent 80's Rock and Roll. "Nobody Rides For Free" is actually got to be one of the best rock hits out of that big hair era. And make no mistake, it was a hit!!!!!!!!!!!! Hell, they used as the closing music for that surfing movie with Keaunu???? Point Break.....Stephen Pearcy's shrilly voice was a perfect compliment to the groups sound.

Posted by Joe on Saturday, 07.14.07 @ 05:23am


f no they sucked

Posted by martin on Tuesday, 09.18.07 @ 10:38am


SURE THEY WILL!!!

Posted by Johnny on Tuesday, 10.23.07 @ 10:33am


I actually like Ratt. They actually moved away from the formula in the 80's. They had a bit more of a bluesy feel. No power ballads for them. The band had some musical chops. Warren DiMartini could play. But in the end, they did nothing special or what could even be considered influential or innovative.

The HoF will not recognize Ratt, just like they won't recognize D.L. and M.C. Rolling Stone Magazine will never allow it. The only 80's band from that genre that will be inducted will probably be Bon Jovi. (I am not including Metallica or Anthrax in this conversation). I believe them to be in another genre.

Posted by Dameon on Wednesday, 01.2.08 @ 07:59am


Stop taking yourselves so seriously; it's Rock & Roll. Ratt were a fun band to listen to and we'll all have a great time at the ceremony. I say let 'em in.

Posted by Metalsmith on Tuesday, 01.15.08 @ 16:46pm


so do you

Posted by Brian on Sunday, 12.21.08 @ 20:35pm


But I don't suck as much as you

Posted by Frankophone on Sunday, 12.21.08 @ 21:06pm


Frankophone go kill yourself and eat shit, buddy!

RATT is AWESOME! DEfinately YES for them!

Posted by 80's on Monday, 12.22.08 @ 02:38am


"Go kill yourself and eat shit" - 80's

OK that comment is just like a comment Gitarzan would call "boorish" If you really like Ratt so much, 80's, then you should show them some respect by refraining from using words like "shit" on their discussion board. Because if someone would insult a band I liked, I wouldn't start making threats on that band's discussion!! Anyways just thought I'd comment.

Posted by Keebord on Monday, 12.22.08 @ 11:18am


Keebord, have you and Gitarzan ever been in the same place at the same time?

Posted by Worm on Monday, 12.22.08 @ 12:51pm


Yep....I would not wanna use faul language here...I LOVE RATT!

Posted by Abandoned on Monday, 12.22.08 @ 13:03pm


They should get in! And Round and Round is not their only hit..

Posted by Child in Time 27 on Monday, 12.22.08 @ 14:11pm


Keebord...not unless you've been hanging out in Denver...in some very questionable places...LOL!!!!

Posted by Gitarzan on Monday, 12.22.08 @ 19:19pm


Well I've never been to Denver in my life. So there you go!!

Posted by Keebord on Monday, 12.22.08 @ 20:45pm


Dameon, I disagree. The fact that Mecrapica notes Def Leppard as part of the NWOBHM, the young/clueless voters will induct them. I'm not sure my heroes (MC) will get it, but they did appear on Larry King Live last year. Plus, Aerosmith, Beck (he will get in), Ozzy, Marilyn Manson (maybe), and Hinder have all praised MC. Guns-N-Roses will get in by the "less is more" category (only 3 LPs, 2 EPs). Of course, Ratt/Cinderella/WASP/Poison/Whitesnake/LA Guns/Quiet Riot will not get in. Bon Jovi, probably. Twisted Sister? Maybe to piss of the PRMC.

Posted by pablo on Sunday, 04.5.09 @ 13:50pm


They might not be HoF worthy, but they were one of the better hair metal bands of '80s.

Posted by Dude Man on Friday, 07.17.09 @ 21:35pm


Best melodic hard rock band of the 80's but they have to get behind many better hard rock acts from the 70s.

Posted by on Saturday, 09.26.09 @ 14:27pm


I ducking hate Ratt!. They are not a heavy metal band. They are commercial pop-rock pigshit !. I much prefer the real heavy metal bands like Iron Maiden and Judas Priest.

Posted by Aishah Bowron on Sunday, 12.13.09 @ 05:39am


And I am sure everyone appreciates your support

Posted by Dameon on Sunday, 12.13.09 @ 08:19am


Dameon, who are you talking to?????

Posted by Greg on Sunday, 12.13.09 @ 09:06am


Aishah Bowron

Posted by Dameon on Sunday, 12.13.09 @ 09:11am


Good band, and at the frontlines of the hair band scene. DeMartini really can play. Not really HOF worthy though.

Posted by Sam on Thursday, 02.11.10 @ 15:56pm


Saw them live once they were ok but I wouldn't say they are RARHOF material, having said that they have let all kinds of rubbish in lately.
(I'm not calling Ratt rubbish btw)

Posted by Anna-lee on Friday, 07.16.10 @ 06:31am


no chance

Posted by Dan on Sunday, 08.1.10 @ 15:36pm


Ratt does not suck they had alot of hits they will get in they need to.

Posted by RattFan2011 on Saturday, 01.22.11 @ 18:35pm


They need to? Are you sure?

Posted by Sam on Sunday, 01.30.11 @ 08:49am


Similar to Tesla: a great, kickass rock band, but nothing influential or innovative.

Posted by Jim on Monday, 04.4.11 @ 23:22pm


Oh come on. This is not the hall of fun albums to listen to. This is the hall of FAME. The only place I heard Round & Round was on one of the early Rockband games and even then it gets boring so fast I find it sickening at this point. I didn't even realize when their newest album came out, which by the way was bad.

Posted by Bob on Friday, 07.8.11 @ 16:57pm


OK. Let me come clean. Ratt was my 80s band from the moment Round and Round hit. I was 20, in the gym 6days a week, and Ratt provided all the attitude I needed. Just listen to the lyrics. Pearcy was the 80s version of Roth. Demartini was such a great guitarist. They released Investation about 1.5 to 2yrs ago and after all these years, when I heard the opening riffs to Best of Me, I knew it was him. I also think after R+R, its their best song. Saw them in Phila., Sacramento and Albuquerque. All about the attitude.

Posted by Eddie Dobzanski on Friday, 12.2.11 @ 19:45pm


Had to correct Jason, the first contributor. How can a band be a one hit wonder when your first 4 records are going platinum? And the bands manager was related to Milton Bearle, not the singer. Ratt was a very influential band in that era, one of the only bands with two guitars. Look what happened, they said no more spandex and big hair. What we got was flannel shirts, tuned down guitars and depressing songs. Talent wise, the 80s crushes the 90s.

Posted by Eddie Dobzanski on Friday, 12.9.11 @ 19:00pm


Look what happened, they said no more spandex and big hair. What we got was flannel shirts, tuned down guitars and depressing songs. Talent wise, the 80s crushes the 90s.

Posted by Eddie Dobzanski on Friday, 12.9.11 @ 19:00pm
--------------------------------------------------
Depending upon what you're referring to, you've got that last line backwards.

If you are talking pop, then yes, the 80's really were better.

If you are talking rock, then the 90's obliterates the 80's.

In the 80's, you had pop stars pretending to be rock stars. In the 90's you had genuine article rock bands that happened to get popular.

No more faked canned drums. No more 500-track vocals. In short, the shift from pop (as in "POP-Metal") to rock (as in "Alternative ROCK").

Also, I can never help but laugh whanever anyone mentions the "depressing" songs. Am I the only one who has spotted the staggering Catch-22 in acknowledging that rock comes from the BLUES, but that grunge was "too depressing"?

By that logic, wouldn't this mean that Seattle acts were the greastest bands ever, bar none?

Technically, they'd be the only rock acts in history who were overqualified for their positions! :-)

Posted by Cheesecrop on Saturday, 12.10.11 @ 19:05pm


"Also, I can never help but laugh whanever anyone mentions the "depressing" songs. Am I the only one who has spotted the staggering Catch-22 in acknowledging that rock comes from the BLUES, but that grunge was "too depressing"?"--Cheesecrop

You rang?

Yeah, I'm a bit guilty of this. I can't quite put my finger on why I feel the blues are so much different from grunge in terms of their expression. Maybe blues is more sadness, while grunge is more rage and angst. Maybe it's tonality. While I admit I never was into the grunge scene, I acknowledge its importance, and I'd like to think that I'm open-minded about it overall.

I think ultimately, the problem was saturation. With bands like Nirvana, Pearl Jam, etc., you just got so inundated with it that you couldn't escape it unless you went to country or Madonna. That never really happened with the blues, at least not until R&B came along, and then you got songs like "Rocket 88" and "Sixty Minute Man," etc. Were those songs depressing? Heck no. I think that's the difference. The mainstream CHR never got burned out on blues. I think people did, on the other hand, get burned out on grunge and songs with no joie d'vivre. I mean, look at Andrew W.K. He was hailed as the Savior of Rock'n'Roll when "Party Hard" landed because it was fun and festive. Same thing with Avril Lavigne's "Girlfriend". It was fun, upbeat, rock'n'roll, and the public embraced it. Or "Hey Ya!" which was DEFINITELY rock'n'roll with rapped verse delivery. And most recently, Nickelback's "This Afternoon". The people have expressed the desire for upbeat rock music. Whoever can deliver that consistently will have immense popularity. Whoever can deliver that consistenty and with quality is a shoe-in for the Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame.

Posted by Philip on Saturday, 12.10.11 @ 19:41pm


"Also, I can never help but laugh whanever anyone mentions the "depressing" songs. Am I the only one who has spotted the staggering Catch-22 in acknowledging that rock comes from the BLUES, but that grunge was "too depressing"?"--Cheesecrop

You rang?

Posted by Philip on Saturday, 12.10.11 @ 19:41pm
--------------------------------------------------
HA - HA!

That was awesome! Did not see that coming AT ALL!!!

Truthfully, I wasn't referring to you at all, on a personal level. Still I did not see that coming for a million years.

Just reading those two words, all Im have is Lurch from the Addam's Family running through my head! :)

Posted by Cheesecrop on Sunday, 12.11.11 @ 12:15pm


80s were way better than 90s. Better singers, guitarists, and songs. Look at the big band of the 90s, Nirvana. He couldnt sing and they couldnt play. Yes, the drummer was hugely talented, but we wouldnt know that for years. Alice had raw energy and talent, Pearl was a less talented version of Journey. Motley was more rock n roll than any 90s band could hope for.

Posted by Eddie Dobzanski on Tuesday, 12.20.11 @ 23:04pm


Kurt could play and sing and he could write circles around anyone from Motley.

Posted by GFW on Wednesday, 12.21.11 @ 07:51am


Nirvana doesnt come close to Motley Crue. Your forgetting that edge and attitude count in rock. I couldnt even understand half of Nirvanas lyrics which is hard to imagine coming from a singer with no range. Motley was all about partying, women and the street. Nirvana was all about being depressed coming down from heroin.

Posted by Eddie Dobzanski on Thursday, 12.22.11 @ 23:20pm


"Your forgetting that edge and attitude count in rock."

According to who?

"I couldnt even understand half of Nirvanas lyrics"

Well it's too bad for you that "not understanding lyrics" isn't part of the Rock Hall's induction criteria, isn't it?

"Motley was all about partying, women and the street. Nirvana was all about being depressed"

So I take it you don't endorse Joy Division or the Cure then, but you endorse Nickelback, am I right?

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Friday, 12.23.11 @ 06:25am


Nirvana doesnt come close to Motley Crue. Your forgetting that edge and attitude count in rock. I couldnt even understand half of Nirvanas lyrics which is hard to imagine coming from a singer with no range. Motley was all about partying, women and the street. Nirvana was all about being depressed coming down from heroin.

Posted by Eddie Dobzanski on Thursday, 12.22.11 @ 23:20pm
--------------------------------------------------
First - "Nirvana doesn't come close to Motley Crue"

Absolutely agree. Both are totally diff. kinds of bands. One is rock (Nirvana); one is pop w/rock stylings (Motley).

I'm definitely not forgetting edge and attitude in rock, trust me. What is also true is that edge & attitude don't necessarily have to come from the same places all the time. The edge & attitude in Motley came from the packaging. The edge & attitude in Nirvana came directly from the music. This was the case w/the majority of the acts coming out in the first half of the 90's.

I've no doubt that at some point, you've had to have seen the "History of Rock & Roll" series that Time Life put together in the mid-90's. I know they've shown it on VH1 Classic several times. At one point in the final episode, Elvis Costello makes the most prescient comment about rock should be. While I am aware that he's talking from the mid-90's, & would be inclined to jump on the 80's (after all, every decade gripes about the decade before it) he nails the situation perfectly.

I can't recall his words EXACTLY, but he says something to the effect that just because something looks or sounds like something that was once rock & roll, it doesn't make it rock & roll now.

This was the case here. I think so many people in the 80's thought that because it looked like something from the 70's, sounded like it, and acted like it, then it must've been rock & roll. The reason people were running away in droves from rock to hip-hop in the late 80's/early 90's was because folks saw it as so cliche'd. So many folks forgot that there isn't one set way in proper to rock. When the real stuff showed up, & it had a diff. attitude, I think it threw people for a loop.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Friday, 12.23.11 @ 06:42am


The most important thing in rock (i refuse to add the "A Roll", the muisc of Motley and Nirvana is notthing like that of the 50's pioneers) is good music, not just attitude. The Beatles didn't have much attitude but does that mean Motley Crue was better than them? absolutely not. Same with Nirvana. And I can understand Kurt very well, you just need to listen harder.

(gosh, I've became Nirvana's defender on here, now I know how Brittany felt)

Posted by GFW on Friday, 12.23.11 @ 08:40am


Sorry Cheesecrop, I usually think your opinions are pretty bang on, but Motley Crue is not a pop band with some rock stylings.

They may have morphed into that later in their career similar to Van Halen, Aerosmith, etc. but lumping them in with pop-rock hair metal bands like Bon Jovi, Poison, Warrant, Ratt, etc. or rock/borderline pop bands from the 80's like Journey, Foreigner and REO Speedwagon is selling the band way short.

I think of Motley Crue as a hard rock band that decided to make some garbage power ballads. Similar to Def Leppard, only with a harder sound.

Maybe some of their hits leaned more toward the pop side (what rock band in the 80's didn't), but songs like Shout at the Devil and Kickstart My Heart are hard rock songs that I think are more definitive of their sound and have held up decently well.

Motley Crue is not as important as Nirvana, but they're not a flash in the pan pop 80's band either. They were one of the better bands of the decade as far as I'm concerned and I'm not sure why they consistently get sold short on this site.

Posted by BSLO on Friday, 12.23.11 @ 09:40am


Sorry Cheesecrop, I usually think your opinions are pretty bang on, but Motley Crue is not a pop band with some rock stylings.

Posted by BSLO on Friday, 12.23.11 @ 09:40am
--------------------------------------------------
First off, pardon me for editing portions of your post out for space. I can understand where you're coming from, to a degree. Motley can appear to be more "rock" in some ways, but listen closer, and you'll see where I'm coming from.

Strangely enough, one song you picked, "Kickstart My Heart", fits the bill perfectly. The chorus is so obviously studio-enhanced that it's a claer example of what I mean.

I take it you know about the "Classic Albums" series that VH1 Classic puts on now & again. If you ever get to see the Def Lep & Nirvana episodes, you'll see the diff. in what I mean. The Def Lep episode shows how the band multi-tracked nearly everybody on "Hysteria", while the Nirvana episode shows Butch Vig revealing he only double tracked Kurt & Dave. This is the grand total of 4 voices you're hearing on "Nevermind", 2x2.

Think about this. If you put four people on the stage, if they all sing together, they will naturally sound like 4 people. They can also recreate the sound of 5 people,w/out a live audence really telling the diff. You can even say that if they try hard enough, they might give the impression of sounding like 6 people. At a certain point though, it is impossible to maintain this illusion on a live basis. No matter how hard you try, 4 people cannot sound like 7 or 8 people onstage.

This is the critical diff. between rock & pop, and between the 80's & the 90's. W/Nirvana (and for that matter, ANY rock band) what is there is accurately represented. 3 Men together could roughly sound like 4, and when Pat Smear came in, they could all sing together and still recreate what Vig had recorded. W/pop, you can never really get an accurate representation live (providing you're not lip-synching, of course).

For what it's worth, I think the pop-metal of the 80's should definitely get in, inasmuch as they've already shown they will let pop in. Given my druthers, I would gladly take even the most third-rate, barely-played-the-Sunset-Strip group over Madonna or rap anyday. When the musicians break from the formulated mold and jam (providing they do so), there is always a chance that the muse will overtake them, and you might accidentally hear some rock.

Forgive me for rambling on in such a manner.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Friday, 12.23.11 @ 16:25pm


Interesting discussion. I think Motley Crue was a rock band. Music alway swings back and forth between simple to baroque. In the 70s the first wave punk and new wave bands used more natural production techniques ("air") and that distinguished it from the prevalent rock sound of the time. A better distinction may be between the more theatrical rock of the mid to late 80s and the back to basics sound of the early 90s which parallels the same shift in the 70s. But rock encompases both. Was Queen a rock band if rock is reducible to grunge? What about Pink Floyd? Anyway, if rock automatically means boring production techniques and limited experimentation with sound and instruments and style, then I'll take pop any day, and the world pretty much has.

Posted by astrodog on Friday, 12.23.11 @ 23:26pm


But rock encompases both. Was Queen a rock band if rock is reducible to grunge? What about Pink Floyd? Anyway, if rock automatically means boring production techniques and limited experimentation with sound and instruments and style, then I'll take pop any day, and the world pretty much has.

Posted by astrodog on Friday, 12.23.11 @ 23:26pm
--------------------------------------------------
I'm definitely not saying all rock can be reduced to grunge & only grunge. In addition, there has been plenty of rock that dealt with wide open production techniques and experimentation w/sound. Certainly Pearl Jam's style does not sound like the White Stripes who came after them. Nor does Iron Maiden sound like either of them. Consider all of those bands sounds, & then listen to ZZ Top, & before them Hendrix, Link Wray, Dick Dale, & Little Richard. All are legitamate rock acts, but they all have diff. sounds.

You're right in saying Queen was a rock band, & also Pink Floyd. There's certainly no problem w/adding in a piano, or even strings, so long as they're serving the song, & they're not being willingly used to make a song deliberately slick, for mass consumption. If it's part of the song, & the song happens to be a hit, then more's the better.

BTW, you're right about the world taking pop over rock. Even in the 60's, there were a lot more pop acts, and acts masquerading as rock acts, than anyone wants to admit. The media has done a wonderful job of cutting off the audience from a fair amount of decent rock, though every now & then someone gets through. :)

Posted by Cheesecrop on Saturday, 12.24.11 @ 15:26pm


If the criteria is that any type of song that is deliberately geared toward mass consumption is not truly rock, then you are eliminating an extraordinary amount of music, including the Beatles, Elvis, the Rolling Stones, Phil Spector, etc. In the early stages of rock and roll, rock was pop music. It started to move away from pop in the late 60s to varying degrees, although 70s arena rock and early 80s rock moved back towards a popular direction. It's an obvious correlation between seeing rock as separate from popular music and rock no longer being popular. That wasn't always the case, but if rock is necessarily hostile to pop music than the inevitable result is marginalization and probable extinction.

The problem with the hair metal bands of the 80s was not that they were making music for mass consumption (hopefully that's the point to some extent) or that they weren't rock bands, but that that their music became so formulaic and repetitive that it was frivolous. (The height of the MTV era definitely nurtured some lousy artists). But the music was still rock, just stale and overcommercialized. That shouldn't mean that rock by definition can never try to bridge the gap with pop music or adopt popular sounds or production techniques. (Assuming that ship hasn't already sailed). But in that case it's just popular or commercial rock, not pop bands masquerading as rock bands or rock bands masquerading as pop bands. Obviously a line needs to be drawn to distinguish a pure pop act (Abba for example) with rock acts that have a pop orientation. (Journey for example). But pop and rock are not mutually exclusive and haven't been in rock history.

Posted by astrodog on Saturday, 12.24.11 @ 23:21pm


"80s were way better than 90s. Better singers, guitarists, and songs."

Soundgarden could outplay any band from the Sunset Strip. I think there should be some hair band representation, but perspective please.

Pop music is dead, astrodog. It's gotten stale because nobody's trying to be cutting edge.

Compare "popular" music from the 70's-90's to today. What happened? (The answer is today's popular music is content to be generic, but it's still worth asking the question.

I think Cheesecrop perfectly summed up why 80's rock and 90's rock are different and shouldn't be compared. Oh, and calling Pearl Jam a "poor man's Journey"? Laughable.

Posted by Sam on Monday, 12.26.11 @ 04:40am


Sam-If pop is dead, what does that make rock? Rock has been virtually exiled from radio. Rock songs are non-existent on the charts. And the majority of kids today do not identify themselves as rock fans. I even remember when MTV abandoned rock in the mid 2000s when MTV was still playing music. Whether you or I like pop music is irrelevant. The only question seemingly left for rock is whether life begins posthumously.

Posted by astrodog on Monday, 12.26.11 @ 06:37am


Pop isn't dead sam, because pop can't die. It can become boring and generic, but it can't die. it'll outlast rock and propably Hip Hop (though hip hop has a better chance of surviving, it merged with pop while rock clearly snubbed it and in the process signed it's own death warrant as a comercially relevant genre)

Posted by GFW on Monday, 12.26.11 @ 09:05am


Also: I'd like to see anyone from Motley Crue recreate the solo from "Paranoid Android" well.

Posted by GFW on Monday, 12.26.11 @ 09:57am


"the majority of kids today do not identify themselves as rock fans"

I'm actually not sure if there ever was a time when the majority of a said populace were self-described "rock fans" in the last 40 years. In the 70's I once read Disco was overall more popular than rock, in the 80's pop and dance music, in the 90's more of the same but with the mainstream emergence of rap and in the 00's dance-pop, teen pop, rap and contemporary R&B.

Then there's always the infamous AC floating around, I once heard AC was the most played/requested music style on radio in North America, but I have no idea if this is true or not. (Maybe Philip knows). Not sure how the rest of the world views AC...

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Monday, 12.26.11 @ 12:22pm


That kids no longer identify with rock is admittedly unscientific, but it seems like a fair assertion. I don't recall ever seeing rock this irrelevant, but maybe it's cyclical.
I was thinking: Is Arcade Fire rock or pop? What about Radiohead? I've read that Coldplay doesn't identify itself as a rock band. How about U2?

Posted by astrodog on Monday, 12.26.11 @ 13:49pm


For me at least, Radiohead, Arcade Fire and U2 are all much more rock than pop.

However, I admit that the lines are blurred so often and so inconspicuously that an accurate gauge in what separates rock from pop cannot be determined anymore at this point in time.

"Pop isn't dead sam, because pop can't die. It can become boring and generic, but it can't die. it'll outlast rock and propably Hip Hop" - GFW

Pop will outlast hip-hop/rap. Why? Pop has already outlasted blues and jazz and is well on its way to outlasting rock (if it hasn't already, see my response to astrodog) and country. Most of the modern mainstream country today is in fact pop with the "image" of country anyway.

I think hip-hop/rap will probably last in the mainstream a few more years (maybe a decade or even more) before some "new" style emerges. I have no idea what this new style will sound like at this point, maybe some mutation of electro-pop and contemporary R&B? Though it isn't that, "Dubstep" has recently emerged and is taking its respective course. I know Cheesecrop did a similar speculation once but I don't recall where. Anyway, this is all pure speculation (forgive the redundant use of the word) but I wouldn't be surprised if it holds true.

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Monday, 12.26.11 @ 15:15pm


Hope everybody had a good holiday (or are still enjoying it, as the case may be). Lots of talk about whether rock will be back, whether kids identify themselves as rock fans, rock vs pop, etc. Rock will be back. There are several reasons why, and some of them are not necessarily musical.

First, there is an entire industry devoted to the production of musical instruments. The folks at the Gibson & Fender factories don't want to see themselves in the poorhouse, so to speak. Don't think at some point they won't place pressure on somebody to rectify the situation. If need be, they might just do it themselves, though it will be in a roundabout manner.

A definition of rock vs pop? Well, consider that every band starts off in a garage, theoretically. The sound of the garage is with them at all the local gigs, it's with them at the industry seminars, etc. It ought to be easy to figure out who stayed rock and who went pop now, shouldn't it?

Am I suggesting rock cannot have expanded sonic boundaries? No. What I am saying is, the average band cannot afford the high end technology that a professional studio offers, at least not in the garage, at the beginning. An effects pedal, yes. The sound of a whole studio being played? Not likely.

You need only listen. If it sounds like the whole of Mission Control is running amok, guess what? You probably have a pop record. And yes, rock can be turned into pop - providing the band is willing to surrender itself over to the battery of producers to shape it's sound in ways you couldn't in the garage.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Tuesday, 12.27.11 @ 16:27pm


Hey guys, let me weigh in again. Im guessing im older than you guys. When I was coming up, it was Zepp, Bad Co., Aerosmith, etc. We were used to high energy songs with big chorus and guitar solos. Think Van Halen with Roth. Many 80s bands like Motley, Ratt, Great White, Dokken, etc., continued that tradition. Bands like Poisen and Warrant were bubblegum and hurt the 80s rep. When 1990 hit, I was 25 and only Motley, Aero and Metallica were left standing. Noone I knew my age got Seattle xcept for Alice.

Posted by Eddie Dobzanski on Tuesday, 12.27.11 @ 18:04pm


Well, what a surprise. Just reported, Dave Grohl will be recording with original Ratt members, including guitar virtuoso Warren DeMartini. A single is to be released. Grohl knows a kick ass band when he sees one. Cant wait.

Posted by Eddie Dobzanski on Monday, 01.9.12 @ 18:49pm


Well, what a surprise. Just reported, Dave Grohl will be recording with original Ratt members, including guitar virtuoso Warren DeMartini. A single is to be released. Grohl knows a kick ass band when he sees one. Cant wait.

Posted by Eddie Dobzanski on Monday, 01.9.12 @ 18:49pm
--------------------------------------------------
Nothing to do w/this posting here.

Feel like jumping in on our Song/Album project? It's open to pretty much anyone who shows up. It's a monthly thing, very small, five songs and three albums each month.

We take time at the beginning to nominate two older songs (pre-2011) each, and then take about four or five days to tally up votes. The albums we just launch into w/out any nominations. All the official rules are out there on the Song & Album pages.

Take a look at it, & if you're interested, jump in (though I'm not sure if they'll let you squeeze in anything this month - you'll have to ask Gassman, as he's the person who dreamed this up).

Posted by Cheesecrop on Tuesday, 01.10.12 @ 16:59pm


I love when people talk about 'Hits' Jimi Hendrix's highest charted song was #59. Ratt was a great band & a lot harder than people think. Just listen to the EP & all of Out Of The Cellar. Will they get in. NO b/c Metal is ignored & Hair Metal will be father down the line w/ critics. BTW listen to the first track 'Eat Me Up Alive' on their 2010 album 'Infestation', that's awesome & better than most harder bands could ever do.

Posted by K on Friday, 01.20.12 @ 11:03am


Ratt was harder than most 80s bands, I agree with the last entry. Having the dual guitars and Pearcys voice contributed to that. The only major Hair band I can think of with no power ballads. Pearcy was so cocky with lyrics and attitude. DeMartini was an absolute Guitar God in an era that valued the solo. Loads of great songs, great live act.

Posted by Warrior on Saturday, 02.4.12 @ 19:13pm


The 80s Hair Bands, with the exceptions of Bon Jovi, Motley, and Gunns wont get consideration. The Hair Band Era took the arena rock sound and big hooks of the 70s and injected the guitar solo to the forefront. Ratt was a solid musical band, with DeMartini on lead guitar. In a decade with great guitarists, he was one of the very best. Lots of great songs, attitude and energy.

Posted by Jersey Steve on Thursday, 04.5.12 @ 22:44pm


Great high energy band, solid musianship. Released Infestation a few years back and DeMartini us still better than anyone now. Tour straight platinum records with no power ballads.

Posted by dobbie on Sunday, 09.2.12 @ 20:01pm


I want to say yes they made the 80s fun.
The music was happier have fun music, when the 90s came everything turned to death. I think Motley Crue will get inducted first though

Posted by Steve on Thursday, 12.22.16 @ 01:43am


RATT deserves more momentum for RRHOF in the next 5 years. Out Of The Cellar was an exemplary album. I remember singing Round and Round when I was around 8 or 9. That song and video was everywhere. They have things going for them RATT. RATT was one of the leaders in 80's LA glam rock metal scene and the success of Round & Round song and Out Of The Cellar album probably helped some LA groups get signed.
RATT had a string of Platinum albums and many consider DeMartini as a guitar virtuoso. I liked that RATT stayed away from those ballads. Maybe,this was a conscious decision or Pearcy's raspy voice prevented that type of style.
RATT might not be PROG but they had a strong collection of songs:Round And Round, Way Cool Jr, You're In Love, Dance, etc. I'm curious of the FRL regulars and newer writers. What do you think of RATT's chances for RRHOF? KING

Posted by KING on Friday, 03.10.17 @ 20:30pm


Heck yeah they should and no they weren't a one hit wonder and they didn't suck they deserve it hoping 2019 maybe

Posted by James on Monday, 10.30.17 @ 00:37am


At this point, I think a Ratt tribute band playing in a Dubuque bowling alley is more likely to be considered for the Rock Hall than the genuine article.

Posted by AlexVoltaire on Monday, 10.30.17 @ 02:42am


Maybe they can be jointly inducted with Bret, Bobby, C.C., and Rikki. They can call the induction "Ratt Poison."

Posted by Philip on Tuesday, 10.31.17 @ 00:46am


Leave your comment:

Name:

Email:

Comments:


Security Question:

Which letter is Springsteen's band named after?
 

Note: Emails will not be visible or used in any way, but are required. Please keep comments relevant to the topic. Any content deemed inappropriate or offensive may be edited and/or deleted.

No HTML code is allowed.




This site is not affiliated with the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum.