Went to see GNR last night and they played 31 songs over 3.5 hours. (and ok ticket was "only" $80) I felt like the length itself added weight to the performance, you felt that it was more of an experience (and also you got your money's worth). As great as Stones shows are, and as much as people have defended it, 2 hours and 18-19 songs (with 2 by Keith) makes a difference. Granted, they're now 74 years old but they've been doing this type of show for a long while.

Those GnR shows keep getting longer and longer!

St. Louis, right?
I bet part of that was to make up for the 'short show' the last time they came through!

I went to see guns n roses recently and I thought to myself how great it is that the show was 3 hours they don't have to do that so they must be enjoying playing together again but I don't think any less of a show if it is 2 hours for me it is about what a performer brings into the time they are on stage.

Nate

It's not the length of the show, it's the quality. It never feels like much thought or care goes into a Stones setlist now. You're going to have Sympathy shoved down your throat no matter that you're dying to hear something, anything else by the Stones. There's no freshness to a Stones concert. I remember those four hour Sprinsteen shows in the 70s and 80s and they still felt right. I don't know if a four hour Bruch show would sound as good, because the vitality can't be there at this stage.

I prefer shorter shows.
If it's a club or something, a couple of 45-minutes sets are great.
If it's a theater or indoor venue, then 90 minutes works, and again, I don't mind a short break in the middle.
I saw Springsteen once -- great show, but it went on too long. I don't think you can sustain that feeling for three hours.

Quote
Kurt
Those GnR shows keep getting longer and longer!

St. Louis, right?
I bet part of that was to make up for the 'short show' the last time they came through!

LOL, didn't Axl start a riot in St. Louis in the early '90s?

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
Kurt
Those GnR shows keep getting longer and longer!

St. Louis, right?
I bet part of that was to make up for the 'short show' the last time they came through!

LOL, didn't Axl start a riot in St. Louis in the early '90s?

Yes. Yes he did...><


[www.youtube.com]

Quantity vs quality

Bjornulf

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
Kurt
Those GnR shows keep getting longer and longer!

St. Louis, right?
I bet part of that was to make up for the 'short show' the last time they came through!

LOL, didn't Axl start a riot in St. Louis in the early '90s?

yup and yup

Remember the times when people had to sit through a 20 minute something drum solo by John Bonham or the GD drummers.
Can't imagine that's enjoyable,whenever I isten to a Zep show now that's the part to skip...

The Stones show i saw that clocked in around 70 minutes was the best rock and roll concert I've ever been to, to this day.

quality over quantity any day, but as far are stones are concerned, would prefer to see 30 songs, shorter versions than 19 songs with many that exceed 5 or 6 minutes. the stones could do this as they have the material, do they really need to do 10 minute versions of songs played to death many times.

4 hours of garbage

2 hours of quality

I would go for 2 hours of quality!!!!

Personally, I get restless after 2,5 hours

.^^^^^....^^^ okay then don't bother takin' the kids ta see Star Spangled to Death



ROCKMAN

Quote
Rockman
.^^^^^....^^^ okay then don't bother takin' the kids ta see Star Spangled to Death

Is that "Trump's Boy Scout speech"

It’s not the size of the boat. It’s the motion of the ocean.

Quote
Koen
It’s not the size of the boat. It’s the motion of the ocean.

that's what she said

Quote
buttons67
quality over quantity any day, but as far are stones are concerned, would prefer to see 30 songs, shorter versions than 19 songs with many that exceed 5 or 6 minutes. the stones could do this as they have the material, do they really need to do 10 minute versions of songs played to death many times.

I can listen to them do Midnight Rambler all day long, from 1973. But those days are gone. There's no improvising or ad libs. They're just trying to get through their greatest hits and get paid.

Is that "Trump's Boy Scout speech"


[en.wikipedia.org]


....... 7 hours long ...



ROCKMAN

I think I can stand two, three added songs .
I'm not a musician and imagine that songs like As Tears Go By, Ruby Tuesday or Play With Fire don't take too much energy from the band or crowd.
But: I'm absolutely not complaining, I guess that a show should stop before you're getting full and still wants more.

Gnr tour is quantity and quality. If the stones can top the gnr performance we are in for a great tour

Average GnR fans age may be 40-50 years old. Average Stones fans age may be 40-70 years old. I would like to see Stones fans of age 60-70 queuing to get in for hours and then standing through a set of 32 songs lasting for 3+ hours. There is a reason why seats are more expensive that standing these days. Then add time to get home 1-2 hours and I think most people understand why a Stones show last for 2 hours and not for 3-4 hours.

Bjornulf

Length means nothing for shows. I mean yes, I do think they should be over a CD's length and a headliner should generally be at least an hour and a half. But I've seen excellent 50 minute sets before. I'm sure we all have. But I'll stick to the older guys.

2 hours is the norm and for some that feels like enough. When I go see Bruce, thats short and I may want more, but I also cherish the early show I saw on his Magic tour that was like 2 hours and 20 minutes but perfectly concise. When it gets longer, you might get some better songs, but you're also starting to see a more bloated aimless show. Sometimes a shorter show means a more intense one. I love GNR, seen them multiple times on this tour. The set is almost becoming a chore. Its cool that its so long, and thats great for one time people, but I'm a huge fan and think its on the too long side. Especially since its always the same songs it feels like a wasted opportunity. I saw them a week ago and you're not exactly waiting for it to end but let's just say it very much feels like 3 hours. Whereas I've seen Bruce do shows that length and its awesome. I've seen Rush do shows that length. Sometimes it works if you have a theme and stuff. I saw U2 a month ago. Their 2 hour show was perfect. Anything longer and it would have started to drag. The Stones did a great 2 and half hour show with Mick Taylor. Perfect length. Same with McCartney.

My point being long shows are cool. Pearl Jam do them a lot too now that I'm thinking. But it doesn't always translate into a better show and often I get bored rather than it "elevating the performance". It only works when they have the material, setlist flow, and energy to maintain a show of that length. Otherwise, its just cool that its that long, but it starts to seem like a drag. Is my two cents.

I think the perfect length these days for a stones show is how long the o2 shows 2012 went. They can play all the hits and put 3-4 unknown gems in the set. Everybody is happy, average and hardcore fans. With a two hour show they play all the hits and maybe one more unknown song, which is a bit boring if you have seen them quite often over the last 28 years.

Is length of show important to elevate performance?

No, it is of no importance at all if the show is played at the right time.

Watch this example:

video: [youtu.be]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-07-30 04:10 by RipThisBone.

With the stones I have no problem with the length of the show - 2 hours is plenty. But, I do think they could use that time a little bit better.

For example, if you could take at least one-minute off each of the extended versions of Miss You, Satisfaction, JJ Flash, Tumbling Dice, Sympathy, Gimme Shelter and Brown Sugar they could use that extra time to play two bonus songs... e.g. for this tour a quick rock n roll tribute to chuck berry (3 mins) and an extra blues song from B&L (4 mins).

Then it's still 2 hours but we get 21 songs instead of 19, and still all the big hits

Spingsteen 4 hours !! Whoa he sends me to sleep in 20 minutes, plus i don't want to have to hold my bladder that long thank you very much.

Quote
RollingFreak

My point being long shows are cool. Pearl Jam do them a lot too now that I'm thinking. But it doesn't always translate into a better show and often I get bored rather than it "elevating the performance".

Agreed! Long shows are a relic of the 70's where some bands could play for 3+ hrs cause they took massive amounts of coke between numbers (Led Zep) and audience would stand the 3hrs ordeal cause they were on Quaaludes (Led Zep again).

No need to do this today. A "small" gig should be the same duration as a short film (80 minutes). A "big" show should be he same duration as a long movie (120-130 minutes).

Beyond that... yawn!

Quote
dcba

Quote
RollingFreak

My point being long shows are cool. Pearl Jam do them a lot too now that I'm thinking. But it doesn't always translate into a better show and often I get bored rather than it "elevating the performance".

Agreed! Long shows are a relic of the 70's where some bands could play for 3+ hrs cause they took massive amounts of coke between numbers (Led Zep) and audience would stand the 3hrs ordeal cause they were on Quaaludes (Led Zep again).

No need to do this today. A "small" gig should be the same duration as a short film (80 minutes). A "big" show should be he same duration as a long movie (120-130 minutes).

Beyond that... yawn!

Yup, I largely agree. Again, it works for some. Springsteen I think pulls off 3 hour shows well because he keeps you into it and I'm also a massive fan so the longer the show the more likely it is I hear songs I've never heard. But when he runs 4 hours, which I literally saw him do last year, as a massive fan even I got bored. Its cool in the moment more just for the shock factor and the fact that you can tell people later it was 4 hours on the nose, but it was far from the best show I've seen him do, precisely because it was long winded. I saw GNR in a small club a week ago which was amazing. I know how lucky I was and cherish that experience. On the same note though, it was 3 hours and as someone thats seen them many times before it got very monotonous. I enjoyed it cause of the venue, but its a long show for seemingly no point. Again, cool to say "they played for 3 hours!" but they have many long songs, play many covers, and it gets a bit directionless. As a massive fan, I could construct a 3 hour show from them I want to see but thats not what they do.

Your rules I think are pretty fair. I actually just think any show should be two hours, and if you make it longer just make sure it counts. Paul does a great 2 hour 45 minute show that works. Many other bands do too. But sometimes a band like Fleetwood Mac doing 2 hours, thats perfect FOR THEM.

The length of the show doesn't matter. It's the quality of the performance that matters.

The Ramones played about 65 minutes per show, but the whole show was air tight. They'd crank out about 32-33 songs with unrelenting energy. As someone noted earlier, the best Stones shows (1972) were about 70 minutes.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-07-31 10:34 by ab.