  |
 The "Perfect" Concert Length |
| Track this thread | Email this thread | Print this thread | Download this thread | Subscribe to this forum |
  28th May 2024, 12:05 PM
Post
#1
|
|
 I found the love, I found the love in me
Pronouns: He/Him
Joined: 13 December 2007 Posts: 87,636 User: 5,042 
         |
Inspired by recent Billie Eilish comments (I don't want this thread to become about her beef with Taylor... it's a genuine discussion thread that I'd be interested to see comments from by other members here who frequent gigs and concerts a lot - instead of having to sift through Stan Twitter (so any comments on that or alluding to stan wars WILL be deleted - repeat offences will be warned - keep that shit on Twitter, thanks x)
Billie said: "Doing a 3 hour show.. that's literally psychotic. Nobody wants that. I don't want that. I don't even want that as a fan. Even my favourite artists I'm not trying to hear them for 3 hours. That's far too long. That's literally psychotic." Do you agree or disagree with Billie and think 3 hours+ is TOO much for a concert? Or are you of the belief that you're there to see your favourite artist and would love a 3+ hour concert by them? What to YOU is the "perfect" concert length? Artists who have played around 3 hours+ for their fans: - Taylor Swift - The Grateful Dead - Foo Fighters - Sir Paul McCartney - Guns N Roses - Bruce Springsteen - Elton John - Eagles - Rush |
 |
 
|
|
28th May 2024, 12:19 PM
Post
#2
|
|
|
I found the love, I found the love in me
Pronouns: He/Him
Joined: 13 December 2007 Posts: 87,636 User: 5,042
|
As long as the concert is at *least* 90 minutes, I don't think I care how long it goes on for. I do from a "oh I need to get the last train home" kind of perspective, but for the sake of this argument lets pretend 24 hour travel is available
 but depending on how deep their catalogue of hits is, I really don't mind whether it's 90 minutes, 2 hours or 4 hours. ESPECIALLY when concerts cost so much now, why would you not want to experience your favourite artists live for as long as they're willing to perform for?I think it does depend on the artist and how deep their catalogue goes, but I absolutely would not begrudge the idea of an artist performing for 3 hours or more if they wanted to. I'm there to see them after all. It's almost like a festival of sorts - except you get to skip the filler and see your favourite artist.
|
|
|
|
|
28th May 2024, 01:24 PM
Post
#3
|
|
 BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 13 November 2015
Posts: 33,641 User: 22,665
 |
for me 3-4 is waaaaaaay too much
actually don't think I've even been, i'm mostly into little known artists that never play stadium never been to a stadium gig, which are the long ones I guess ideal concert is 1h30min max 1:45-2hours |
|
|
|
|
28th May 2024, 01:39 PM
Post
#4
|
|
|
I found the love, I found the love in me
Pronouns: He/Him
Joined: 13 December 2007 Posts: 87,636 User: 5,042
|
I'd absolutely max out though at like bang on 4 hours or something
I mean I'm in the venue for 3+ hours anyway! |
|
|
|
|
28th May 2024, 01:43 PM
Post
#5
|
|
 BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 22 December 2009
Posts: 30,773 User: 10,275
   |
2 hours works the best and there should be at least some kind of storyline if not a GH tour.
In Taylor's case, most of the audience seemed to be really tired by the time they had sat through the new album era and she did 7 songs of Midnights which is mostly mid tempo. It really fell flat in the end. So, it depends on how the concert is built I think. This post has been edited by Sour Candy: 28th May 2024, 01:52 PM |
|
|
|
|
28th May 2024, 02:53 PM
Post
#6
|
|
|
Mansonette
Joined: 3 November 2009
Posts: 7,031 User: 9,872
     |
There's no definitive answer for this.
3 hours of Springsteen or Prince works because they have the breadth and diversity in their catalogue of great songs to justify it and keep the interest up for fans, but a 3 hour show by someone like Slaughter to Prevail wouldn't work as the intensity of the performance would be unsustainable and the singers voice would be destroyed very quickly. The only 3+ hour concert I've ever seen was on The Cure's Disintegration tour in 1989. They played 19 tracks, they left, returning for a 4 song encore before departing again. They returned for a further 3 encores totalling 12 more songs in all. Now, I've never been the biggest Cure fan but they were on top form that night and clearly enjoying it. The audience lapped it up and even I have to admit it felt pretty special when they dug out pretty much every song I could have expected them to play and a whole bunch of the more niche favourites of mine. |
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, 08:42 AM
Post
#7
|
|
 BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 18 July 2012
Posts: 23,048 User: 17,376
  |
Long concerts should have no support acts and have a break, if only for the sake of my bladder - or at least announce to the audience that they are going to do 2 or 3 tracks off the new album halfway through so you can piss off to the loo. That would work for seating concerts, but standing gigs it's a no-no - there's no way you can get your place back if you've got there early to get a decent view and/or sound level.
I'll be honest, if any act does a lot of stuff I don't know my attention wanders and I start thinking about other things, so hits packages might work for 2 and a half or 3 hours but I really resent paying to see an act who just plays the whole of the new album. Either let us know beforehand (and I won't turn up unless I've bought it, because YOU are expecting US to pay to plug your new product) or sprinkle a healthy number of back catalogue greats throughout to relieve the boredom a bit. And definitely don't criticise the audience for not moving much (cos they dont know any of the songs). A quick hello to Paul Weller for no reason.... 
|
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, 11:19 AM
Post
#8
|
|
|
former insolent era FM11
Pronouns: he
Joined: 25 November 2008 Posts: 15,725 User: 7,795
  |
I don't think I have been in shows 3 hours or longer so I can't say much about it.
The perfect length may depend on when the show starts, set lists and how the intermissions are handled. Satisfaction is perhaps more important than length. |
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, 03:01 PM
Post
#9
|
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 13 November 2015
Posts: 33,641 User: 22,665
|
coincidentally people are accusing Avril Lavigne of having a too short setlist on her current tour cos it's only 15 songs
even thought it does include all her hits there's been a lot of backlash and she's even had to add songs lol |
|
|
|
|
Thursday, 05:38 PM
Post
#10
|
|
|
Mansonette
Joined: 3 November 2009
Posts: 7,031 User: 9,872
|
Seems rather harsh on Avril. Her show runs to an hour and a half which is perfectly normal, even if she could probably squeeze in a few more songs if she wanted. I guess because Swift and Beyonce have gone for the 3 hour length people are starting to feel entitled to it, when in reality shows of that kind of length are normally very rare and few artists could really pull it off.
And as McCartney said, it's all Springsteen's fault. |
|
|
|
|
Thursday, 08:19 PM
Post
#11
|
|
 you never forget your first time...
Pronouns: he/him
Joined: 19 April 2011 Posts: 123,125 User: 13,530 
           |
It totally depends on the artist and their back catalogue, and what the tour promises to be I think. I have no issues with Taylor's Eras Tour, and I think it *has* to be a lengthy setlist to really tick the boxes of what it's promising to be. Not only is the Eras Tour touching on (almost) every album Taylor's released to touch on the hits *and* fan favourites, but it's also now making up for the lack of tour for FIVE albums, with covid blocking the planned Lover shows and any chance of folklore/evermore shows. I don't think most artists could justify or pull off such a long show, and I do wish there would be an interlude halfway through, but otherwise, no issues with it for a show that covers highlights from her entire career!
Generally speaking, I think somewhere between 18 and 25 songs feels like a good amount, less than that for a newer artist who might not have the back catalogue yet of course, but I agree that time feels a bit more important - about an hour and a half feels optimum for a regular show. I've enjoyed plenty of shows that were both longer and shorter though, a particularly short one I attended being glaive's London show in 2022, where he played 22 songs and had a chat between some of them but was only on stage for about 45-50 minutes in total because the songs are so short! I didn't feel short-changed though as it touched on all the essentials (and meant I got home at a sensible time for bed x)Typically I find for hits tours, I'm usually more open to a longer setlist. Without mentioning spoilers for those yet to attend, and whilst they absolutely didn't NEED to because the show is phenomenal as it is, I'd have happily heard even more songs from Girls Aloud on their current tour! S Club probably had room for a couple more album tracks on their last one, but it could've risked alienating some of the casuals and all of the singles were present (except Say Goodbye) so it probably wasn't a priority, even with the runtime being about an hour and 20 mins max. Avril's is probably in a similar boat - it covers all the bases it *needs* to, but perhaps, for a show that's celebrating her career, a couple more fan favourites could be present? That's the only thing it lacks in comparison to the aforementioned Girls Aloud and S Club setlists (as well as other celebratory shows I've been to recently from the likes of Anastacia, Delta Goodrem, Natalie Imbruglia, Louise and Sugababes who catered for the hardcore fans just as much as the casuals). I've got no issue with an artist performing most or all of their current album on tour, especially if the tour's announced in conjunction with an album. For example, I'd have been more shocked if Benson Boone's Fireworks & Rollerblades Tour setlist wasn't mostly made up of songs from the Fireworks & Rollerblades album, and sure enough, he sang the entirety of it. Of course, it's his debut album, and it includes two of his earliest hits present on his debut EP as well, so it's hard to feel short-changed (and he sang a couple of tracks from his other EP which weren't on the album too). Even for more established artists, I always make sure I've given the new album at least a couple of spins before I see them live, because more often than not, there'll be at least a sizeable chunk of the setlist that comes from the new album. Zara Larsson is a recent example of how to mix it together well - nine out of twelve songs on the VENUS album were performed on its corresponding tour, four of which were the singles, but the whole setlist being 18 songs meant there was plenty of room for hits too, and she performed all of her significant hits, mixed in throughout the setlist (e.g. she opened with the album's title track, before going into classic hit I Would Like). That said, I've definitely been in the position where I've felt the absence of one or two big hits at a gig! Benjamin Ingrosso's recent tour is an example of that - it wasn't without any of his hits, but it did notably lack Dance You Off (particularly for his first London headline show where he's only known by the majority for his Eurovision performance, and this was before he was a special guest on this year's semi-final) and a couple of older songs. Even more noticeable when he went off stage and I was expecting an encore for Dance You Off, but the lights came back on! I still enjoyed the show and his new material is strong, but I'd definitely hoped for one or two more songs that I already knew to help balance out the songs he performed that aren't yet released.Wrote more than I expected to here but basically, really depends on the artist and type of tour as to what I'd expect and hope for! But either way, without really knowing the context, I don't particularly like that Billie quote. Sharing her opinion is one thing but shaming another artist for how they connect with their fans through their art is another, and I think the reception to Taylor's tour speaks for itself as to how successful the 3+ hour set has been! |
|
|
|
|
Friday, 11:22 PM
Post
#12
|
|
|
Mansonette
Joined: 3 November 2009
Posts: 7,031 User: 9,872
|
QUOTE(JosephBoone @ 30th May 2024, 09:19 PM)  But either way, without really knowing the context, I don't particularly like that Billie quote. Sharing her opinion is one thing but shaming another artist for how they connect with their fans through their art is another, and I think the reception to Taylor's tour speaks for itself as to how successful the 3+ hour set has been! Billie hasn't shamed anyone though. Think you're taking the quote far too literally |
|
|
|
|
Friday, 11:37 PM
Post
#13
|
|
|
you never forget your first time...
Pronouns: he/him
Joined: 19 April 2011 Posts: 123,125 User: 13,530
|
QUOTE(Severin @ 31st May 2024, 12:22 AM) Billie hasn't shamed anyone though. Think you're taking the quote far too literally Perhaps so, though I did say that I don't really know the context as I'd not heard/read the surrounding interview, and if it's jokey/sarcastic then it's not very easy for that to come through in quote form...! I see it's from here: Perhaps she's just commenting from an artist/performer's perspective and how she'd hate to do that herself, but equally knowing how there's been at least one other subtle dig at Taylor (or rather, her release strategy) recently, plus the tactics Taylor's team have deployed to block Billie from the US #1 album, it wouldn't shock me if it was meant quite literally. Either way, I think the point of the Eras Tour has been missed in her comments which goes back to my general point of how it really depends on what the show is. For the record, I don't think 3 hours should ever be the norm for a concert anyway. |
|
|
|
|
Friday, 11:48 PM
Post
#14
|
|
|
nabad
Pronouns: he/him
Joined: 13 February 2013 Posts: 28,555 User: 18,316
      |
I don't 100% disagree with Billie's sentiment in that 3 hours can be an excessive length for any concert whether justified by the content or not, but I think when you look at her choice of language ('psychotic', really?) it's difficult to say that she's not deliberately shaming her peers (Taylor in particular being in direct competition with her recently). Whether it's just unfortunate timing, we'll never know.
Sure, get your point across, but just say it's not something you'd personally do and move on. |
|
|
|
|
Friday, 10:32 AM
Post
#15
|
|
|
Mansonette
Joined: 3 November 2009
Posts: 7,031 User: 9,872
|
I think it's just a varying interpretation of how people use the language. I wouldn't think twice about calling somebody psychotic in lieu of saying ridiculous, just to make a point but it wouldn't be meant in a purely literal way and not as an insult at all, but then I'm from a generation where that kind of use of language is commonplace and accepted. Younger generations tend to be a lot more sensitive to that kind of thing, I think Billie has a attitude more akin to the way the older generations talk and wouldn't have expected this much of a reaction at all.
|
|
|
|
|
| Time is now: 5th June 2024, 08:29 AM |
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 BuzzJack.com
About | Contact | Advertise | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
