Is Bon Jovi already a "nostalgia act" ?

Jon goes on and on that once they become a nostalgia act, he's finished. I personally think they already are and have been for a long, long time. Vast majority of casual fans come to hear Living On a Prayer and Wanted, they have little or no knowledge of the new material. I noticed that all the radio adverts over here for the new tour, feature only the old songs in order to get people interested.

I have no problem with them being a nostalgia band, because its the older material that makes me go to the concerts. I love seeing bands like Journey and Foreigner, who bring their A game and play those songs I love. Its not that I don't want to hear new material but I feel the band shouldn't be under any illusions about why they're selling out arenas all over the world still.

I wouldn't say completely as there are some songs from Lost Highway and The Circle that casual fans know like Who Says and WWBTF. However, if they keep releasing mediocre albums, and I wouldn't even go so far as to rate WAB that high, they will not make any new fans, lose old ones and yes, be performing for thousands of people who want to hear Crossroads. Jon is pretty much lying to himself that they are touring to support a new album. I suppose I will hold out hope that he will have an epiphany and get his butt in gear.

The answer is Yes.

They are. Anyone who says differently is in complete and utter denial.

Any band of their status and longevity is in many ways going to be a nostalgia act. No-one goes to hear U2 for the songs from their last record, or Metallica or any band whose been around as long as Jovi have. I mentioned the Foo Fighters before - and quite a few said actually they did go to see the foo's because of their recent songs - which is fair enough but that band is a decade behind Bon Jovi in terms of longevity.

but...I'd say their too big to ever be a simple "nostalgia" act - Bon Jovi songs are more than just eighties songs like Poison or Whitesnake. Their absolutely ingrained into popular culture. I read a book today where it had a simple throw away Bon Jovi reference, just like they've been referenced in hundreds of other books and TV shows, and not necessarily just in terms of their eighties output though that's the one that will always grab the most attention.

As a fan I go to hear all their songs, but of course casuals don't have a clue, but I'd call a band who are only known for eighties hits or nineties hits a nostalgia band, Jovi have had hit songs in the eighties, nineties, and beyond. That's bigger than nostalgia. That's a legacy.

Define Nostalgia and I'll let you know.

I disagree with you, How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb was a huge success and people purchased tickets to see Vertigo, Sometimes You Can't Make It On Your Own and other stuff live.

I'd say NO, but there's no right or wrong answer here, because there's not a explicit definition of what is considered to be a nostalgia act.

First, I'm pretty sure when Jon said it, he meant nostalgia as a forgotten greatest hits band, whose only fans are those from 80s, a band that actually tries to look like back in their heyday, that hasn't had a new song on the radio in the last 20 years, plays the same 'greatest hits' setlist for 10 years, and has members participating in those pathetic celebrity rehab reality shows, etc. You get my point. Plenty of examples, Guns N' Roses, Kiss, Motley Crue, Whitesnake, Journey, Poison, Cinderella, etc. Even Def Leppard, a good band, off course, but when I saw them alive, I didn't want to hear any songs that were released later than '95 and I'm no 80s kid or even a big fan of the 80s era. Bon Jovi is not one of those bands.

Second, we're talking about a band that still sells out big venues (or sells majority of tickets if they play big stadiums). How many other bands are still that big in 2013? I think I have more fingers on my both hands. We're talking about a band whose newest album went number 1 in US, Australia; no.2 in UK. With album sales being on a steep decline, total sales is not a good indication. Every veteran artists sells less and less with every record, obviously. But chart positions show their actual popularity in comparison with other artists, not in comparison with previous albums. These are not chart position of a nostalgia act.

Thirdly, an argument I have heard several times is "people don't go to Jovi shows to hear new songs". Yes, that's true. However, when people go to see Bruce Springsteen (who is a 'good example' in pretty much every Jovi-related discussion), do they pay to hear stuff off Wrecking Ball and Working On A Dream? No, they wanna hear stuff in the rage from Born To Run until Born In The USA. Do average U2 fans go to hear songs fron No Line On The Horizon. Off course not. Are they nostalgia acts as well? If yes, then which artist that has been in this business as long as Bon Jovi is NOT a nostalgia act. 50 year olds just don't gave number 1 singles. Rock bands don't have number 1 singles anymore. So if every old artist is a nostalgia act, does this label makes any sense? Are Linkin Park or Nickelback nostalgia acts as well? I really doubt people pay to hear stuff of their new albums.

I'm not arguing the quality of later releases, because for me that is not relevant to how I understand what is a nostalgia act. If one can come up with a definition of it we all could agree upon, it would make it a lot easier.

EDIT: God damn it, I wrote my response for too long and some people have made the same points. I should have seen this thread later, would have saved some of my time, oh well. Great post crashed!

Any time a band has massive success, anything they do afterwards is going to have elements of nostalgia-bandness to it, Bon Jovi included. The bottom line is that as new records have come and gone (with some staying) the shows have been built around the SWW and NJ hits from the late 80's until right now. However, I don't think Bon Jovi is a nostalgia band, as much as they are a legacy band. I brought up my concept of a Legacy Band in a thread a few days ago, so I'm going to quote it instead of typing essentially the same thing again, then add more:

Basically, the concept is similar to a Nostalgia Band, but there are some key differences. To me, a nostalgia band's appeal is based around a very specific period of time, with a specific target audience that only cares about said period of time, and only have hits from that period, (see Poison, etc.) Not that these bands don't have their die hards, but they get by solely on their original appeal, mostly on smaller touring circuits and package tours. The band's I mentioned as legacy bands tend to be viewed very differently. First off, while they might not have "hits" currently, and a majority of the audience isn't there to hear new tracks, they have hits and known songs that span a much longer period of time than the just the years they were at their peak. For example, Jovi's biggest songs are the 80's classics, but they're are at least 5-6 90's and 00's songs that casuals will know. Beyond that, these bands have tremendous live drawing power that transcends their chart-power.I'm hoping this concept is getting across, because I'm having a bit of a hard time putting it into words.

Yes.

And I love nostalgia. Bring it on.

Walleris and others have already explained it quite well I think and I agree with their assessment.

One point though mentioned in the original post - this charade of ''touring a new album to promote it''. Jon does kid himself with this justification to get back out on the road and he uses this as a defence to deflect the 'nostalgia' attacks from the critics.. he/they throw out a mediocre record and use as an excuse to tour, even though we're now down to, what, only 3 new songs in the setlist? Hardly promoting the album much is it. They know most want the older stuff.

If this 'touring to promote' actually worked for Bon Jovi, they would be selling a shit load more copies of WAN, but they are not. If even a fraction of the audiences from this world tour they are currently playing to actually *owned* the new album as a result of actually being interested in the new output from the band, then they would by definition be considered more current and relevant, as well as riding high in the charts for more prolonged periods like they used to.

But a lot of older acts are like this. Every act has its glory days, so in a funny way, anything after that highpoint could be considered nostalgic when they revisit it.

Andi