The ’90s Nostalgia Rock Tour: Awesome or Lazy?

Weezer's Rivers CuomoWikimedia Commons

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Last year, beloved geek-rock band Weezer hit the road with a “Memories Tour,” playing The Blue Album (1994) and Pinkerton (1996) in their entirety over two nights. Front man Rivers Cuomo told MTV that the tour was an “emotional, cathartic experience” and that “to see 5,500 people singing along to every last word through every song on the album, even the really difficult ones, was incredibly validating for me.”

Similarly, in 2005 the Lemonheads regrouped after a nine-year hiatus and are now touring exclusively to the tunes of their 19-year-old It’s A Shame About Ray. Likewise, after a 12-year breakup, the Pixies reunited in 2004, and have spent parts of the past two years on the road celebrating their 1989 release, Doolittle, by playing the 15-song album in its entirety. All of these bands are selling out shows. But are they also, well, selling out?

The answer lies somewhere between rock and a hard place. There’s a reason why certain albums are described as timeless. (Not gonna lie—just reading reviews of the Memories Tour made me want to break out The Blue Album, and I haven’t listened to Weezer in years. Say it ain’t so, whoa-oh!) It’s not unusual for touring bands to focus on the hits that made them legendary, and indeed, if one is going to have a decades-long career, it’s practically a necessity to revert to the classics from time to time. But a time-travel tour also feels a bit like the band has given up, or that they’ve become, as MoJo editor Mike Mechanic puts it, “the antithesis of RAWK.”

The flashback tour isn’t just about boosting rock star egos or tickling fans’ wistfulness for times gone by. It’s also about making money, of course. With music sales declining, artists are making more of their moolah by touring. Concert sales are on the rise, despite rising ticket prices. Part of this uptick in concert-going involves the nostalgia-industrial complex. Jimmy Buffett perhaps encapsulates this best. No one goes to a Buffett concert to hear new music. They go to don Hawaiian shirts, get wasted, and sing and dance like no one’s watching. I will never forget the day I was heading home on the El in Chicago after a Jimmy Buffet concert. It was like entering a menopause-themed karaoke bar the size of a walk-in closet. These people were enthralled. They were serenading the world, regardless of whether anyone actually wanted to hear it. The average ticket price for a Jimmy Buffett concert this summer is $216. Two hundred sixteen dollars! He’s clearly not wasting away in Margaritaville anymore. (Journey tickets are selling for a pretty penny as well, clocking in at $148.)

On the flip side, it’s not a new phenomenon for bands to shun their hits in favor of playing only new music. Kate Nash, MGMT, and Radiohead come to mind. Refusing to play songs that fans have paid oodles to hear smacks of egotism, but is the same true of seasoned bands only playing oldies? I mean, you didn’t often hear anyone complaining about the set lists of Dead concerts, and don’t say it’s because they were too stoned to care.

The concert experience, unlike endlessly playing your iTunes tracks on repeat, is one that never ages. This is especially refreshing in the heyday of Auto-Tune, where even Rebecca Black can be made to sound halfway decent. For this reason, nothing beats the unique, however blemished, familiarity of a live show from a favored musician or band. Case in point: Bob Dylan sounds like he’s been eating asphalt for a quarter century when he sings now, but still—it’s Dylan! I will gladly raise my cemen-tini glass to salute him.

I took the reunion tour question to Facebook. My fellow music fans seemed pretty on the fence. One friend said, “I went to see Weezer in ’02 and they pretty much only played songs from The Green Album. Needless to say, I was disappointed. I think the fact that they’re touring with their old songs says that they’ve realized their new music is crap, but do the fans even care anymore? I don’t.” Another put it this way, “Profitable though it may be, I can never get behind the dinosaur act tour model. I was thrilled when I saw Soundgarden reunite at Lollapalooza last year and found their set to be spiced up with several deep cuts and early tracks. I also give Paul McCartney much respect for playing Wrigley Field last week and still having the gall to play his 1980 travesty ‘Temporary Secretary.'” Another friend was more favorable, noting, “Sometimes it’s a nice treat, like when They Might Be Giants posed as their own opening band to play Flood all the way through.” Another was less forgiving: “Pure laziness.”

Whether old bands performing exclusively old tunes is a gimmick, a validation tool, or a genuine desire to appease reminiscing fans, the staying power of music relies on so much more than its usefulness as a commodity. Isn’t the tried and true marker of rock legacy the ability to play something written years ago and still be able to blow someone’s mind?

Get More: MTV Shows

Click here for more music features from Mother Jones.

AN IMPORTANT UPDATE ON MOTHER JONES' FINANCES

We need to start being more upfront about how hard it is keeping a newsroom like Mother Jones afloat these days.

Because it is, and because we're fresh off finishing a fiscal year, on June 30, that came up a bit short of where we needed to be. And this next one simply has to be a year of growth—particularly for donations from online readers to help counter the brutal economics of journalism right now.

Straight up: We need this pitch, what you're reading right now, to start earning significantly more donations than normal. We need people who care enough about Mother Jones’ journalism to be reading a blurb like this to decide to pitch in and support it if you can right now.

Urgent, for sure. But it's not all doom and gloom!

Because over the challenging last year, and thanks to feedback from readers, we've started to see a better way to go about asking you to support our work: Level-headedly communicating the urgency of hitting our fundraising goals, being transparent about our finances, challenges, and opportunities, and explaining how being funded primarily by donations big and small, from ordinary (and extraordinary!) people like you, is the thing that lets us do the type of journalism you look to Mother Jones for—that is so very much needed right now.

And it's really been resonating with folks! Thankfully. Because corporations, powerful people with deep pockets, and market forces will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. Only people like you will.

There's more about our finances in "News Never Pays," or "It's Not a Crisis. This Is the New Normal," and we'll have details about the year ahead for you soon. But we already know this: The fundraising for our next deadline, $350,000 by the time September 30 rolls around, has to start now, and it has to be stronger than normal so that we don't fall behind and risk coming up short again.

Please consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

—Monika Bauerlein, CEO, and Brian Hiatt, Online Membership Director

payment methods

AN IMPORTANT UPDATE ON MOTHER JONES' FINANCES

We need to start being more upfront about how hard it is keeping a newsroom like Mother Jones afloat these days.

Because it is, and because we're fresh off finishing a fiscal year, on June 30, that came up a bit short of where we needed to be. And this next one simply has to be a year of growth—particularly for donations from online readers to help counter the brutal economics of journalism right now.

Straight up: We need this pitch, what you're reading right now, to start earning significantly more donations than normal. We need people who care enough about Mother Jones’ journalism to be reading a blurb like this to decide to pitch in and support it if you can right now.

Urgent, for sure. But it's not all doom and gloom!

Because over the challenging last year, and thanks to feedback from readers, we've started to see a better way to go about asking you to support our work: Level-headedly communicating the urgency of hitting our fundraising goals, being transparent about our finances, challenges, and opportunities, and explaining how being funded primarily by donations big and small, from ordinary (and extraordinary!) people like you, is the thing that lets us do the type of journalism you look to Mother Jones for—that is so very much needed right now.

And it's really been resonating with folks! Thankfully. Because corporations, powerful people with deep pockets, and market forces will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. Only people like you will.

There's more about our finances in "News Never Pays," or "It's Not a Crisis. This Is the New Normal," and we'll have details about the year ahead for you soon. But we already know this: The fundraising for our next deadline, $350,000 by the time September 30 rolls around, has to start now, and it has to be stronger than normal so that we don't fall behind and risk coming up short again.

Please consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

—Monika Bauerlein, CEO, and Brian Hiatt, Online Membership Director

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate