Lets Define Nostalgia

Rdkopper · #1 07-21-2013, 08:11 AM

I'm creating a separate topic on this because I see this term getting thrown around here all the time and feel people constantly use it incorrectly. As a community I want to get it straight going forward because nothing frustrates me more then people who do not know what they are talking about.

When I hear the term Nostalgic referenced to bands like Bon Jovi, I think of all the 80's hair bands like Poison, Def Leppard, Whitsnake, etc. These bands have done nothing relevant since the 80s (or early 90's before music switched over) and everything released after their time have flopped on all levels.

The albums they release peak at #78, sell 10K copies, and their die-hards don't even know the new material. They are not even worthy of getting national TV air time to promote their new material, radio and/or TV.

Looking at the past 10 years, Bon Jovi albums still peak at #1 in multiple countries, they manage to crank out a couple million copies, their music gets played on national radio, and they are worthy of national TV promotion. They might not be getting the radio hit but they do get a lot of award nominations for their songs.

As far as their new material goes, people out there do like it and want to hear it live. I read it on here all the time. If people could like music by Michael Bolton and David Hasseloff, they could definitely get behind new material from Bon Jovi (That was a joke)....

Flipping back to the nostalgic bands, because of the above they have to rely on their back greatest hits catalog when performing / promoting live shows.

Bon Jovi on the other hand play new songs along with random songs from other albums that were never hits... This is nothing new or a surprise to people. It's always been that way.

Nostalgic bands need other acts to support their tour and even with that, they are lucky to sell out a 10 thousand seat amphitheater.

Bon Jovi are headlining #1 stadiums around the world. Enough Said!!!!!

The day Bon Jovi releases an album that doesn't crack the top 20, Simon Cowell tells him he's not worthy of promoting it on national TV, and they need to rely on Poison as a supporting act to sell out a 10K amphitheater, are the day that they could be considered nostalgic.

A Rock Band failing to produce a hit in this industry today doesn't make them irrelevant. The same goes for record sales.... Yes, as a die-hard I want different / better music but that does mean they suck. They are just not giving me what I want.

Bon Jovi are no different than any legendary band out there. Every negative thing you say about Bon Jovi could be applied to every legendary act below. And I think Bon Jovi has got one up on each of them.

Paul McCartney, Springsteen, Pink Floyd, AC/DC, Metallica, Tom Petty, Etc, Etc, Etc. It's an endless list.

Their voices aren't as good as they once were, their album sales suck, they haven't had a recent hit, Etc, Etc, Etc. It's an endless list.

This is a business and Jon knows what he's doing. If the touring thing dried up for them, Jon would find the next avenue to explore.

I think Jon knows how to write a song and throw in a basic hook. That's what you get. There are probably 3 songs on the more current albums that he actually gives a shit about and the rest are fillers... but strategic fillers geared towards his fans. Until the industry changes, doesn't expect too much out of the albums because that's not where the money is.

TwinFan · #2 07-21-2013, 08:19 AM

Of course, everybody has different definitions of the term, but I believe (as I said in the other thread) that a nostalgia band is one who tours just greatest hits sets with no album to support it.

I do believe that in the public eye, they are verging on irrelevant, in the fact that they haven't had a hit in a long time. #1 albums are pointless if they drop like a rock down the charts immediately afterword. It's much better to have a #10 album for 10 weeks than a number #1 for one week followed by a massive drop.

When Bon Jovi start co-headlining, playing loads of fairs, festivals, etc., and doing 20 show tours every year with no supporting album, THEN I will consider them a nostalgia act. But until then, I can't call them as such.

Rdkopper · #3 07-21-2013, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TwinFan

Of course, everybody has different definitions of the term, but I believe (as I said in the other thread) that a nostalgia band is one who tours just greatest hits sets with no album to support it.

I do believe that in the public eye, they are verging on irrelevant, in the fact that they haven't had a hit in a long time. #1 albums are pointless if they drop like a rock down the charts immediately afterword. It's much better to have a #10 album for 10 weeks than a number #1 for one week followed by a massive drop.

When Bon Jovi start co-headlining, playing loads of fairs, festivals, etc., and doing 20 show tours every year with no supporting album, THEN I will consider them a nostalgia act. But until then, I can't call them as such.

Everything you said is true and a matter of your opinion but here is the problem I have which is what I sort of stated above. Based on your beliefs, every legendary act would be considered nostalgic. Are The Stones nostalgic? Is McCartney nostalgic relying on his past Beatles and Wings catalog? If so, I have a problem grouping them in the same category as Poison & Motley Crue.

I think Sir Paul has nothing to prove to anyone and should be able release whatever he wants without a label. The same with Bruce. IMO Bon Jovi are right behind them. They've had huge successes in 3 generations. To call them nostalgic after a stadium headline is a joke.

And the albums do drop quickly but to currently hold the #65 spot on albums sold isn't that bad especially for a rock act. There is a huge hole in the music industry right now and a bigger one for rock bands.

Captain_jovi · #4 07-21-2013, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rdkopper

Everything you said is true and a matter of your opinion but here is the problem I have which is what I sort of stated above. Based on your beliefs, every legendary act would be considered nostalgic. Are The Stones nostalgic? Is McCartney nostalgic relying on his past Beatles and Wings catalog? If so, I have a problem grouping them in the same category as Poison & Motley Crue.

I think Sir Paul has nothing to prove to anyone and should be able release whatever he wants without a label. The same with Bruce. IMO Bon Jovi are right behind them. They've had huge successes in 3 generations. To call them nostalgic after a stadium headline is a joke.

And the albums do drop quickly but to currently hold the #65 spot on albums sold isn't that bad especially for a rock act. There is a huge hole in the music industry right now and a bigger one for rock bands.

While true, Bruce, The Stones, and Paul are releasing music they see fit regardless of trends. Bon Jovi are relying far too heavily on the current musical climate with what they record.

PanosBonJovi · #5 07-21-2013, 09:31 AM

Amen! Big +1 from myside. Well said dude

united17 · #6 07-21-2013, 10:34 AM

I don't feel the band/Jon puts their hearts into every new song they release. I feel like new junk albums are only released so that the band can tour again without being called a nostalgia act.

IMO there's no real difference between not releasing anything and touring and releasing junk and touring - it's for the same purpose as Panda mentioned in the other thread. 40,000 people don't flock to Soldier Field to hear Water Made Me, Because We Can or What About Now. To me - this makes the band a nostalgia act.

Their last big hit was It's My Life which was released THIRTEEN years ago. Was 'Who Says' even popular outside the US? Even that song is what...8 years old? <- That's nostalgia.

For the record my top 4 Bon Jovi albums are HAND, WAN, TC and LH. (I don't think the new stuff is junk but I know I'm in a tiny minority.)

Rdkopper · #7 07-21-2013, 04:27 PM

Responding to the last 2 comments....

Bon Jovi not coming up with songs good enough to become hits does not necessarily make them nostalgic. If that was the case, they would have been considered nostalgic 5 times over in the US by now.

There are 2 main reasons not to get radio play. 1. Because your song sucks 2. Because no one give a shit about you.

I think 2 is the case for a lot of the acts I mentioned prior which would cross them over into the nostalgic category. Poison, The Crue, The Stones. But I think people are routing for Bon Jovi with every release. I think the radio stations want the new song to blow the roof off. With songs that sound dated like WWBTF, WTYG, BWC, how could any radio back it up?

To sum it up, if you COULD have a hit, then you are not nostalgic and I think Bon Jovi COULD still have a hit in 2013.

And as far as the point of Springsteen making the music he wants while Jon goes after the commercial audience, Bon Jovi are a commercial band. It's who they are... Jon has stated multiple times that he is not 19 anymore and can't write a song like he is. He his writing socially conscience songs so in essence he is putting out the music he wants but with his commercial spin.

If Jon was that desperate, he'd collaborate with younger songwriters and producers which is something I think he should do.

There is no doubt Bon Jovi loses a little with each generation but I think they still have some relevance. Younger kids do know the music but couldn't name one song from The Stones and probably never even heard on Poison.

I still have a problem lumping The Stones and Poison into the same "nostalgic" definition. Bon Jovi will never be a Poison. They might be heading in the Stones direction but are not there yet.

Rdkopper · #8 07-21-2013, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by united17

it's for the same purpose as Panda mentioned in the other thread. 40,000 people don't flock to Soldier Field to hear Water Made Me, Because We Can or What About Now. To me - this makes the band a nostalgia act.

The first problem here is, you are listening to Panda.

No one flocks to any concert to hear unfamiliar material or just 1 particular song. People want to hear the body & collection of work. It all meshes together. One of the purposes of touring is to promote the new music. I for one, love to hear the new music. Even if I wasn't crazy about the album, I still love to hear them all live. It's a totally different vibe. I'd rather hear the new music verses Jon screeching out Bad Name. Even casual fans could appreciate the new music live. Don't let the same 10 bitter people here cloud your mind or sway you into thinking that the vast majority think like them.

I don't care what anyone says, most people go to concerts to hear the songs they are familiar with (hit or not). If I was going to see Katie Perry tomorrow, I would want to hear the songs I know and that's it. I wouldn't mind a new song or 2 but it's not really what I want to hear or why I'm going. Does that make her nostalgic? No!!! So Panda's comment with your backing is completely off scope from defining "nostalgia"

#becausewecan · #9 07-21-2013, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rdkopper

I'm creating a separate topic on this because I see this term getting thrown around here all the time and feel people constantly use it incorrectly. As a community I want to get it straight going forward because nothing frustrates me more then people who do not know what they are talking about.

When I hear the term Nostalgic referenced to bands like Bon Jovi, I think of all the 80's hair bands like Poison, Def Leppard, Whitsnake, etc. These bands have done nothing relevant since the 80s (or early 90's before music switched over) and everything released after their time have flopped on all levels.

The albums they release peak at #78, sell 10K copies, and their die-hards don't even know the new material. They are not even worthy of getting national TV air time to promote their new material, radio and/or TV.

Looking at the past 10 years, Bon Jovi albums still peak at #1 in multiple countries, they manage to crank out a couple million copies, their music gets played on national radio, and they are worthy of national TV promotion. They might not be getting the radio hit but they do get a lot of award nominations for their songs.

As far as their new material goes, people out there do like it and want to hear it live. I read it on here all the time. If people could like music by Michael Bolton and David Hasseloff, they could definitely get behind new material from Bon Jovi (That was a joke)....

Flipping back to the nostalgic bands, because of the above they have to rely on their back greatest hits catalog when performing / promoting live shows.

Bon Jovi on the other hand play new songs along with random songs from other albums that were never hits... This is nothing new or a surprise to people. It's always been that way.

Nostalgic bands need other acts to support their tour and even with that, they are lucky to sell out a 10 thousand seat amphitheater.

Bon Jovi are headlining #1 stadiums around the world. Enough Said!!!!!

The day Bon Jovi releases an album that doesn't crack the top 20, Simon Cowell tells him he's not worthy of promoting it on national TV, and they need to rely on Poison as a supporting act to sell out a 10K amphitheater, are the day that they could be considered nostalgic.

A Rock Band failing to produce a hit in this industry today doesn't make them irrelevant. The same goes for record sales.... Yes, as a die-hard I want different / better music but that does mean they suck. They are just not giving me what I want.

Bon Jovi are no different than any legendary band out there. Every negative thing you say about Bon Jovi could be applied to every legendary act below. And I think Bon Jovi has got one up on each of them.

Paul McCartney, Springsteen, Pink Floyd, AC/DC, Metallica, Tom Petty, Etc, Etc, Etc. It's an endless list.

Their voices aren't as good as they once were, their album sales suck, they haven't had a recent hit, Etc, Etc, Etc. It's an endless list.

This is a business and Jon knows what he's doing. If the touring thing dried up for them, Jon would find the next avenue to explore.

I think Jon knows how to write a song and throw in a basic hook. That's what you get. There are probably 3 songs on the more current albums that he actually gives a shit about and the rest are fillers... but strategic fillers geared towards his fans. Until the industry changes, doesn't expect too much out of the albums because that's not where the money is.

Well said, completely agree with this. The new album is great, but coz the sales dnt match the others everyone has a negative attitude towards it... It's sold just shy of a million, more than what most acts sell now

JOvisoul01 · #10 07-21-2013, 08:35 PM

A nostalgic band is the one that with no new albums in awhile, survive doing "reunion tours", and playing in less and less capacity venues. Those going from stadiums to amphitheaters, to festivals, to big city fairs, to county fairs.

Bon Jovi with bigger or less record sales, still fill huge stadiums and are far from being nostalgic, no matter if those going prefer the classic hits to newer stuff. JMO

Lets Define Nostalgia

General BJ Discussion