What constitutes a nostalgia band?  How are they defined?   I have to borrow a few lines from a blog that I saw on this subject called, "Aging Hip Replacement."    (very funny)

There are several types of nostalgia acts (text taken from the blog):

There’s The Stones and Aerosmith. You know, bands that continue to put out albums and when you go and see them live will play one or two cuts from their latest, but let’s be honest, you’re there to see “Start Me Up” and “Walk This Way” and they better play it and they better play it the way you want to hear it!  
    NOTE: I'm sure you know some concert goers in the crowd.

The next type is--  let’s use the Guess Who or Kansas (sorry guys). These are the acts rock has been good to but not as good. They’re still out there, still have a fairly large cult following, still record albums but are playing rib fests and baseball games.

The difference in ticket price is about $75.    Most of these bands only have one or two original members and are clearly doing what they do because either they love the music or planned extremely poorly when younger and now, not knowing a decent trade, still have to play the festivals to make ends meet.   
   NOTE:  You could probably fill in loads of other bands that fit this description.

Finally there are the super acts, the Led Zeppelins, Genesis and Police of the world. You know, the acts that get back together for a tour here or there, make millions and millions of dollars and then don’t play again for another 10 years.  There’s no new music here, there’s just nostalgia.
    NOTE: You could probably fill in a few more bands in this category, too.  

Just wondering ... do you think a band that has all of its original members fits into a unique and ELITE classification of nostalgia act, by virtue of their longevity together?   Completely and utterly different from a band that reunites for the sole purpose of touring and replenishing their bank accounts?  

How about a band that has only one original member?  Or is it all the same -- in the end.  ??  Is "nostalgia" vs. "reunion" in the eye of the beholder?   

The guy on the blog went into great detail about U2 being a nostalgia band.   His thoughts were that no one who goes to their concerts wants to hear anything that was done since Achtung, Baby in 1991.   So that means, all of the songs they do in concert are *at least* 20 years old.   U2 might well be one of the premier nostalgia acts going, in fact, because none of their fans want anything to do with Zooropa or newer.   The show will be powerful, but the play list could have been written in 1988. 

Nostalgia acts make people happy; they get people off their feet.  They will not lead a revolution, that's not what they are meant to do.   Although nostalgia acts might be revolutionary to a youngster who wasn't even born when the band was at the height of popularity.  :)

Mostly for fun.   Any thoughts?

I reserve the label of "nostalgia acts" for tribute bands.......a band with all or some of its original members is still "the band". - IMHO

The Stones are still the Stones, Aerosmith is still Aerosmith and a Led Zep reunion with 3 of the 4 original band members would STILL be Led Zepplin...

I think the real hardcore nostalgia circuit is the casinos.  I actually saw Herman's Hermits play at the casino here a few years ago (free tickets).  Peter Noone still looked about the same in the face as he did in the Sixties.  He stuck around to sign CD's after the show.  Pretty hilarious.  The late Davy Jones also did a show at the casino that I didn't see.  My wife saw the Temptations there. 

Blue Oyster Cult also played there so I'd say they are squarely in the category you have Kansas in.  BOC's tour schedule on their website says it all.  County fairs, biker meets, the only thing that's missing (for Spinal Tap fans) is the puppet show.

U2 and Zeppelin are just too big to be nostalgia acts.  That heads more in the direction of 'what classic rock is'.

Yoga wrote:

The guy on the blog went into great detail about U2 being a nostalgia band. His thoughts were that no one who goes to their concerts wants to hear anything that was done since Achtung, Baby in 1991. So that means, all of the songs they do in concert are *at least* 20 years old. U2 might well be one of the premier nostalgia acts going, in fact, because none of their fans want anything to do with Zooropa or newer. The show will be powerful, but the play list could have been written in 1988

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dirty Day from Zooropa, Walk On from All That You Cant Leave Behind(brilliant album), and Ceders of Lebanon from No Line on the Horizon -- three of my favorite U2 songs, and all written after 1991. I don't really consider U2 a nostalgia act. They are still one the bigger bands, still creating and have their original lineup.  A lot of bands fall into this catagory.     Definately eye of the beholder and a fun topic.

To me bands like Alice in Chains without Layne Staley, and Queen without Mercury are nostalgia acts. The songs are there, but the voice that made the band special is gone.  But I stlll might buy a ticket to see both. 

And speaking of nostalgia, one of my favorite bands from the 90's is touring again, King's X. opening for-- Kansas.

 

And then we have the older solo acts who have left their old band behind, but are still making music and touring, albeit maybe not as often.  Robert Plant, Steve Winwood, for instance.  Some of these people have been solo acts for much longer than they were with their original bands.

The advantage there is that they can tour and record with anyone they wish and still maintain their status.  I might reserve the term for artists/bands who decidedly are not making new and interesting music even though they still perform live.

The remaining Dead members fit somewhat.  Allman Brothers.  Rod Stewart. Lynyrd Skynyrd, perhaps.

To me, nostalgia implies a lesser sort of iconic popularity - smaller but consistent crowds...maybe paired up with another such act, i.e. Styx/REO, Journey/Foreigner.  Fleetwood Mac is on the bubble.

 

This post has been removed.

In response to RogerTaylor's comment:

Very succinct definition, and to the point.    There is no clear cut definition of a nostalgia band, which is why it's fun to toss the concept around.   However, a "real" band that still exists, such as the Stones or Aerosmith, may be considered nostalgia acts at this point in time by *some* concert-goers.    Matter of opinion and interpretation, of course.   To me, it isn't dissing a band at all.  It's not derisive.    

In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

Your examples of Peter Noone and the late Davy Jones are spot on; that's probably (formerly) the type of act that was the sole definition of a nostalgia act.     I'm sure there are loads of others that are cut out of the same fabric, that would fit that model.  

I liked the blogger's categories -- they're not entirely fleshed out, but they're entertaining to read and make sense, that second category is especially descriptive.  :)  

The example of U2 that the blogger used was the first time I've ever seen them referred to as a nostalgia act.   The blogger was *very* liberal with his definition.    You stop writing, you have no "original or fresh" material even if you're still writing, you break up and get back together (and so on)... you're a nostalgia act.   He even thought out loud, "Is Soundgarden a nostalgia act?"   Not sure many would agree with that.  

The blogger was going to see U2 and had paid $$$ for the tickets.  He was going to attend the concert, and then decide if they were a nostalgia act for sure afterwards.   He was looking for opinions and most of the people who commented agreed with him.    He stated clearly that all he wanted was to hear ALL of U2's major hits from the height of their popularity, and had NO interest in anything remotely on the new-side of the past 20 years.  He knew concisely what he wanted to them to play.  

There is nothing wrong with Nostalgia.

The word has become somewhat of a dirty word when referring to bands, especially bands from the Classic Rock era.

I get nostalgic all the time. I watch DVDs of old movies like Death Wish 1-5, Dirty Harry, old Mission Impossible t.v. shows, I listen to mostly music that is at least 20 years old, I even reread old books I read years back. I can't stand to watch hockey anymore, but I was thrilled while watching old footage of The Bruins history on a special that NESN ran while the current lockout was still in effect , back in November, I think...it made me nostalic for the days when Bucyk, Orr , Esposito , O'Reilly and Bourque fascinated me with their desir to win ( something that is lacking with many athletes today). I will always watch documentries about the 60s , hippies, Woodstock , civil rights marches, Bobby Kennedy, MLK, Vietnam ...these were things that happened when I was a little kid, I have a thirst for knowledge about that era that has not been quenched even after countless books, movies and shows.

I wish I had saved all my old Mad magazines and comic books, I get nostalgic for that stuff from time to time. Do I live in the past?...hell , no !...but I like to visit it on occasion.

Any band that is no longer relevant to the general public is basically playing to their oldtime fans. Is there a point where a band becomes a "nostalia act?"....well it's a large grey area, if you ask me. The Doobie Brothers enjoyed most of their success in the 70s,  still made quite an impact in the 80s, but by the late 80s, they were becoming less relevant to the charts and the younger music fans ( in favor of Rap, Hip Hop, New Wave, etc.).They started to fade, and by the 90s you could classify then as a nostalia act....I'm sure they didn't think so , but find me 4 people under 40 years old who consider themselves Doobie Brothers fans...I dare you. Some bands like Aeroamith, the Stones and even dead artists like Jimi Hendrix , still have a following among younger people....marketing?, exposure or just too much talent to fade away?...who knows, but as anything becomes part of the past , it becomes something to be nostalic about.

When I was in my 30s the 1950s seemed like old times, part of the previous generation's past...I don't remember the 50s, I was only a baby....people who were born in the 70s don't embrace the decade like we do ( by we, I mean the people who were teenagers and young adults). This was a fun decade to grow up in....I am nostalic for the 70s almost every day. And some time ago I figured out why so many people who were teenagers in the 50s, are nostalgic for the decade, they probably loved every minute of growing up during that decade as I do about growing up in the 60s and 70s.

In response to polar123's comment:

Hi.  :)    If it hadn't been for this blogger's contention and pre-occuption with U2, I might not have given the topic more thought, but I'd never seen anyone with such strong opinions about nostalgia bands.   It never did (nor would it) occur to me to think of U2 as a nostalgia act -- but there it was.  

Another part of the blogger's thinking is that despite more recent albums, the *average* person who attends the concerts is going for the major works, the HITS, the songs that were radio-friendly that have been heard thousands of times.   He claimed that's what people want to hear.   TOO funny.   A band like U2 can play their hits and sound perfect ever time; they perform and deliver because they have played their songs thousands of times.   They know what people want to hear.  

Another example of a nostalgia act, not that she wants to think of herself this way, is Madonna.   I read that one of her concerts last year was rated not only one of her worst concerts, but one of the worst of any last year, because (get ready for it) -- she sang too many songs from her recent album.  Too much new material.   No one was interested.   People go to her concerts so they can sing and dance and party to all the songs that made her famous and harken backwards  -- not forward.   Even if she sells out an arena -- which is to her credit -- if she does not address the audience's desire to hear all of her OLD hits, the concert will be a flop.   

Seeing Kansas with another old favorite band would be lots of fun, actually -- if it works out for you to get tkts.  

In response to MattyScornD's comment:

I was thinking of FWM myself.   As much as I dislike her, no Stevie Nicks, no FWM concert.   And yet, she goes out on solo concerts (she was in Boston last year with Rod Stewart, ugh, I think) and if that isn't nostalgia, I don't know what is.   So as a solo act, Nicks is nostalgia all the way as far as I'm concerned.  

The *reasons* people go to see certain bands might be because the music of the band conjurs up lots of nostalgia for the concert-goer -- and I think that's where the blogger got hung up -- but there's a fine line between why a person attends a concert, and defining the band as a nostalgia band.   From that standpoint, I have a bit of a hard time calling FWM a nostalgia band just yet.  

It occurs to me that "nostalgia acts" probably used to be called "oldies bands"...

...and that maybe political correctness has struck again.

 

In response to yogafriend's comment:

I would say when a band like Aerosmith or Rolling Stones "stop" making new music and just tour to play the hits....then they are headed - towards - nostalgia....but at this point both are still putting out music and as a result I wouldn't consider them a nostalgia act - IMHO ;)

In response to ZILLAGOD's comment:

Zilla, been meaning to mention that I like your change in avatar(s) recently.   Almost didn't recognize you.   :)

It is a grey area.   Part of the change and elasticity in definition is also attributable to the number of bands that are still performing and making albums, well into their 3rd, 4th or even 5th decade in their careers as rock musicians.    The landscape keeps changing.

Everything does go in cycles. 

We live in a disposable society, and for some people, if it's not up to the minute, they have no use for it, whether it's some useless gadget or the hot new music.    I think you said it well in stating that if the music becomes part of the past, it veers into nostalgia territory.   And from that standpoint, the Stones (for one) are certainly not part of the past.   

And BTW, I haven't noticed if the radio station(s) that I listen to are now termed "classic rock" as opposed to "oldies"; I personally, have never used the term "oldies" to refer to classic rock songs.   That term might have become "irrelevant" by now.  :)

In response to RogerTaylor's comment:

 

I would say when a band like Aerosmith or Rolling Stones "stop" making new music and just tour to play the hits....then they are headed - towards - nostalgia....but at this point both are still putting out music and as a result I wouldn't consider them a nostalgia act - IMHO ;)

 

 That is exactly correct, Roger.  The only wiggle room I can see is one's personal opinion on "putting out music" vs "putting out meaningful music".  But no new music of any type means you are a cabaret act.

 

nos·tal·gia [no-stal-juh, -jee-uh, nuh-] Show IPA noun 1. a wistful desire to return in thought or in fact to a former time in one's life, to one's home or homeland, or to one's family and friends; a sentimental yearning for the  happiness  of a former placeor time:  a nostalgia for his college days.

 

This just in:

The new term for nostalgia band is:  Heritage band. 

:)

 

In response to RogerTaylor's comment:

And if they do originals based on the nostalgia they become 'Retro', which is way cooler.

The King is back, I thought he got banned. He's a magician.

In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars's comment:

I agree with this.  Cabaret act really nails it...it's what I meant when I referred to the casino circuit.

If the band's audience is too big to fit in that kind of room, they're still an oversized cabaret act.