Tell Me :
Talk
Its good they're long only because they have so much they HAVE to play and they are all such long songs that if you cut it down then its literally all casual fan material. So while I think the sets are uninspired and too long, I'd still prefer that to one thats only the well known songs. Its kind of an untenable position, because songs like Estranged, Rocket Queen, Civil War, Sweet Child O Mine (with Godfather solo), November Rain, Knockin' On Heaven's Door and Paradise City are all 10 minutes. Thats literally over an hour of the show right there, not to mention all the other well known songs they have to play. I'm glad its a long show I just wish they changed it up more. And if they cut it down I wish they'd rotate some of those long songs out to still keep room for a few deep cuts.
That sounds like there's a band of granddads and great-granddads who thoughtfully tune in the length of their shows to what they consider fit and reasonable for their audience of oh so advanced age oldies. I don't think so. I cannot imagine the Stones wasting time on such reflections. Honey, honey, honey! Do it for the money!
But I don't doubt that if it paid off they would not hesitate to put up easychairs in the stadiums or any other facilities suitable to relief gouts tormented pops, as long as their sufficient financial strength is provided.
d.f
As has the lead singer
"No Anchovies, Please"
That's funny.
(Not that I have any room to talk - 25+ years later my waistline looks a bit different than it did in 1991 as well)
Peace,
Mr DJA
Would this include a time machine for the musicians so they could assume their 1972 selves?
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Is length of show important to elevate performance?
Posted by:
The Stones
()
Date: August 2, 2017 18:16
I saw Guns N' Roses in Stockholm and I thought they were great, but the show was way too long.
They should cut down on all those stupid and totally unnecessary solos they insist on playing that don't really add anything to an otherwise excellent show.
As far as I'm concerned, 2,5 hours would be more than enough.
They should cut down on all those stupid and totally unnecessary solos they insist on playing that don't really add anything to an otherwise excellent show.
As far as I'm concerned, 2,5 hours would be more than enough.
Re: Is length of show important to elevate performance?
Posted by:
Rocky Dijon
()
Date: August 2, 2017 18:30
The only performance that makes it, that makes it all the way, is the one that achieves madness.
Re: Is length of show important to elevate performance?
Posted by:
RollingFreak
()
Date: August 2, 2017 18:56
Quote
The Stones
I saw Guns N' Roses in Stockholm and I thought they were great, but the show was way too long.
They should cut down on all those stupid and totally unnecessary solos they insist on playing that don't really add anything to an otherwise excellent show.
As far as I'm concerned, 2,5 hours would be more than enough.
Its good they're long only because they have so much they HAVE to play and they are all such long songs that if you cut it down then its literally all casual fan material. So while I think the sets are uninspired and too long, I'd still prefer that to one thats only the well known songs. Its kind of an untenable position, because songs like Estranged, Rocket Queen, Civil War, Sweet Child O Mine (with Godfather solo), November Rain, Knockin' On Heaven's Door and Paradise City are all 10 minutes. Thats literally over an hour of the show right there, not to mention all the other well known songs they have to play. I'm glad its a long show I just wish they changed it up more. And if they cut it down I wish they'd rotate some of those long songs out to still keep room for a few deep cuts.
Re: Is length of show important to elevate performance?
Posted by:
likecats
()
Date: August 2, 2017 23:02
Quote
Rocky Dijon
The only performance that makes it, that makes it all the way, is the one that achieves madness.
Re: Is length of show important to elevate performance?
Posted by:
likecats
()
Date: August 2, 2017 23:15
I've seen some headlining sets that clocked in around 80-90 minutes and were great yet I still left thinking about songs that were omitted.
So, I guess two hours-ish is a good length although I've enjoyed much longer shows. I don't think I've ever been to a concert that I thought was dragging and too long.
So, I guess two hours-ish is a good length although I've enjoyed much longer shows. I don't think I've ever been to a concert that I thought was dragging and too long.
Re: Is length of show important to elevate performance?
Posted by:
NICOS
()
Date: August 3, 2017 01:36
Ask the the girls........
Re: Is length of show important to elevate performance?
Posted by:
dead.flowers
()
Date: August 3, 2017 18:57
Quote
bv
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.
That sounds like there's a band of granddads and great-granddads who thoughtfully tune in the length of their shows to what they consider fit and reasonable for their audience of oh so advanced age oldies. I don't think so. I cannot imagine the Stones wasting time on such reflections. Honey, honey, honey! Do it for the money!
But I don't doubt that if it paid off they would not hesitate to put up easychairs in the stadiums or any other facilities suitable to relief gouts tormented pops, as long as their sufficient financial strength is provided.
d.f
Re: Is length of show important to elevate performance?
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: August 4, 2017 15:25
<Is length of show important to elevate performance?>
Not at all.
Not at all.
Re: Is length of show important to elevate performance?
Posted by:
superglen
()
Date: August 4, 2017 18:06
I am a die hard Springsteen fan, but some of his ESB shows are way too long.
I saw him last year at Milan, San Siro: 3 hours and 45 minutes, 35 songs.
that's far too much.
the best show of his I ever saw, Paris 2007, was 2 hours and 25 minutes, 24 songs. sheer perfection.
I saw him last year at Milan, San Siro: 3 hours and 45 minutes, 35 songs.
that's far too much.
the best show of his I ever saw, Paris 2007, was 2 hours and 25 minutes, 24 songs. sheer perfection.
Re: Is length of show important to elevate performance?
Posted by:
Dan
()
Date: August 4, 2017 19:13
Guns N Roses shows have been ridiculously bloated since about 1991.
Re: Is length of show important to elevate performance?
Posted by:
Elmo Lewis
()
Date: August 4, 2017 19:51
Quote
Dan
Guns N Roses shows have been ridiculously bloated since about 1991.
As has the lead singer
"No Anchovies, Please"
Re: Is length of show important to elevate performance?
Posted by:
mr_dja
()
Date: August 4, 2017 20:38
Quote
Elmo LewisQuote
Dan
Guns N Roses shows have been ridiculously bloated since about 1991.
As has the lead singer
That's funny.
(Not that I have any room to talk - 25+ years later my waistline looks a bit different than it did in 1991 as well)
Peace,
Mr DJA
Re: Is length of show important to elevate performance?
Posted by:
LongBeachArena72
()
Date: August 5, 2017 02:59
I would say that, no, it's probably not important. It depends a little, though, on the type of band/music being discussed.
The Stones were best at the 60-80 mins per set from 69-73. (Of course that was in large part due to the quality, urgency, and freshness of that material.) Bands that are super-rehearsed and have a every-night-the-same-setlist approach do not generally profit from a longer show. It just means they're vamping the same old shit.
Improvisatory music, however, can sometimes reveal hidden depths in longer explorations. There are plenty of examples of this, of course, in jazz; in pop, perhaps the best one is the Grateful Dead. While the Dead were eminently capable of using longer jams to go absolutely nowhere, there were magical nights when the stars aligned and the players were so tuned in to each other that the extensions happened organically and the songs -- and the set -- just had to be longer in order to contain the vibe. On those nights, with that kind of band, then, yes, length of show could def elevate performance.
The Stones were best at the 60-80 mins per set from 69-73. (Of course that was in large part due to the quality, urgency, and freshness of that material.) Bands that are super-rehearsed and have a every-night-the-same-setlist approach do not generally profit from a longer show. It just means they're vamping the same old shit.
Improvisatory music, however, can sometimes reveal hidden depths in longer explorations. There are plenty of examples of this, of course, in jazz; in pop, perhaps the best one is the Grateful Dead. While the Dead were eminently capable of using longer jams to go absolutely nowhere, there were magical nights when the stars aligned and the players were so tuned in to each other that the extensions happened organically and the songs -- and the set -- just had to be longer in order to contain the vibe. On those nights, with that kind of band, then, yes, length of show could def elevate performance.
Re: Is length of show important to elevate performance?
Posted by:
J.J.Flash
()
Date: August 5, 2017 03:47
They could knock out Exile in an hour twenty(With intros) and throw three encores in. Not thinkin anyone on here would complain about the quantity of of songs or shortness.
Re: Is length of show important to elevate performance?
Posted by:
LongBeachArena72
()
Date: August 5, 2017 03:56
Quote
J.J.Flash
They could knock out Exile in an hour twenty(With intros) and throw three encores in. Not thinkin anyone on here would complain about the quantity of of songs or shortness.
Would this include a time machine for the musicians so they could assume their 1972 selves?
Re: Is length of show important to elevate performance?
Posted by:
hopkins
()
Date: August 5, 2017 04:30
I think it's probably the width of the show.that would really make it work. No. It's the Depth.
Re: Is length of show important to elevate performance?
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: August 5, 2017 19:10
The Cult have always not played enough, which is probably perfect, really. They come out, they clear yer head, they leave.
Re: Is length of show important to elevate performance?
Posted by:
vertigojoe
()
Date: August 5, 2017 21:19
Guns n Roses. Appetite for Destruction tour Manchester Apollo. 60 mins one of the best shows I've ever seen.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Guests:
1824
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10