Sha Na Na: Satirical Parody, Ernest Tribute, or Pure Cheese?

[ftg]

@RealityChuck

I saw them in that era. That was pure schtick.

They loved 50s music and were pretending – acting in character as greasers from the time. My friends and I were hippies and laughed loudly when the did that bit. (And they didn’t spit at the audience – they spit on the stage).

Your alternative newspaper was clearly humor impaired.

The group rapidly evolved in the first couple years. At first, if they thought you weren’t taking them seriously and you were in range …

[tomcar]

The funny thing is they would have fit better in a show with the Ramones, Rockpile or NY Dolls than Hendrix and CSN&Y. My vote is that they were proto-pub rockin hipsters.

[TBG]

@Revtim

My mom loved their songs non-ironically when they had their show in the 70s and/or 80s.

I used to like to watch that show, but was young enough that I pretty much remember jack about it. Other than Bowser being nearly as cool as Fonzie, that is.

[ftg]

One term the OP doesn’t give that I think applied for most of their heyday (sans TV show) is “camp”. Note that a performer can be considered camp by others, while not striving to be camp themselves. (In fact, trying too hard to be camp is very uncamp.)

[nearwildheaven]

@E-DUB

D. All of the above. They managed to walk the fine line between tribute and satire in a manner not seen again until Utopia’s “Deface the Music”. While not at Woodstock, I would think that the reaction would have been to regard them as satirical. Gave a whole new meaning to the words “acid flashback”.

One of the strangest double bills I’ve ever heard of featured Sha Na Na as the headliners, and a fledgling power trio from Toronto called Rush as the opening act.

Rush were booed offstage.