From Jack White’s Instagram page:

"Been hearing a lot of chatter throughout the year of this glorious electric touring about how long our sets are "supposed to be" on stage. As if the length of a show determines how "good" it is. I know that we're living in a current era where people like to say "so and so played for 3 hours last night!", and brag about it the next day hahaha, I'll let our fans know now that my mind has no intention of "impressing" y'all in that context. The Beatles and Ramones played 30 minute (ish) sets, and If I could, I would do the same at this moment in my performing life. That's actually the kind of show I'd like to put on right now. But there becomes this chatter that the cost of a ticket "entitles" people to some kind of extra long show...uh...ok (hahaha) so I'm bridging the gap. I'm not sure y'all are knowing (or maybe remembering?) what a real rock or punk show is like though if you're thinking that way, I think you're talking about an arena laser light show with pyro, huge screens with premade videos, singers flying over the crowd, t shirt cannons, etc, that's not the kind of shows we're performing. I've seen a plethora of rock and roll gigs that lasted 45 minutes and blew my mind and inspired me beyond belief. Read the room, leave everyone exhausted and inspired (hopefully) and most of all wanting more, without needing 3 hours to do it. That's like saying a film is supposed to be better cause they spent 300 trillion making it, well I've never seen that movie. Love to all of our fans, I see your faces every night and you can be assured I've never phoned it in in my life, whether its 20 minutes or 2 hours, I'm giving the room what the room is prompting me to do and share and that doesn't mean if people cheer louder its going to be longer either! haha. There's no setlist, and it's not a marvel movie, or a Vegas residency, it's rock and roll and it's a living breathing organism. See you in the hall tonight friends, love you all so much and thank you for coming to these shows, standing in line and paying your hard earned money to help this train keep rolling. And the crew and the boys in the band are loving y'all as much as me, we are grateful, thank you." -III

[www.instagram.com]

Can't agree more!

C

If I paid $600 to see the Stones and they played 45 minutes, I wouldn't be happy, NGL

Quote
Send It To me
If I paid $600 to see the Stones and they played 45 minutes, I wouldn't be happy, NGL

Likewise; nor would I be happy forking-out any amount for a concert that clocks-in at only 30 minutes.

Quote
Big Al

Quote
Send It To me
If I paid $600 to see the Stones and they played 45 minutes, I wouldn't be happy, NGL

Likewise; nor would I be happy forking-out any amount for a concert that clocks-in at only 30 minutes.

Well, maybe if the setlist was consisted of Highwire, Star Star, Coming Down Again, Let It Loose, One Hit to the Body, Hand of Fate, Mother's Little Helper, and Hang Fire I'd pay it lol

The entire industry has evolved and is obviously much more sophisticated than it was, performers make no money for selling their recorded music and must make it up through touring and shows.

But White asks the wrong question, "we're supposed to like a movie because they spend 300 trillion making it?".

The question is, would you traipse down to your local theatre to watch a 30 minute movie, that you're charging full price for? Some would, but not many I suspect.

I don't disagree with him that you can have a very meaningful 30 minute set, and that may work in a club, but even a club has to have other entertainment - additional acts - then to attract and keep patrons at their establishment.

To say nothing of the fact that if you're charging exorbitant amounts of money for tickets, people do have a right to expect some value for their money.

It's his right to play a 30 minute show, but if only half the people show up then he has some decisions to make.

I think there is a difference between a club show and a stadium dito. What's the point building a huge stage with big screens and then play for 45 minutes?

reminds me of the encore paradoxon.
People going to shows expect encores and feel pis*ed off if there aren't any.
The same people are happy if an artist does 14 songs andcome back twice to play 5 encore songs. But if they get a 22 song setlist with no encores they feel betrayed – although they got three songs more than at the other show with 14+5 songs

beside that: Playing for less than 90 minutes is an impertinence – given today’s ticket prices



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2025-02-10 19:56 by slewan.

I've seen shows that for the first 45 minutes or so were fascinating, then the next hour starts to feel like more of the same and gets kinda boring, so I see his point somewhat.

Concerts have gotten so expensive that I get that its a hard line to find. IMO: I'd rather a shorter BETTER tighter show, than a long one that just meanders. That doesn't mean "better". The best Bruce shows I've seen haven't been the ones where he plays 4 hours, its the one where he plays a great set. Similar with GNR. They play 3 hours, I'm a huge fan, and its too long. The only reason I'm ok with it is because it means they will do some deeper stuff, and if they cut the set to just hits, it would be two hours and the same show every night. So its a give and take, but its never a tight show. But I've seen Neil Young solo acoustic do 90 minutes and while I'd have loved longer, I didn't feel cheated at all.

Overall, I would say a headliner should be longer than 80 minutes. My old thing was if your whole set fits on one CD that feels a little short. But depends on the act. Blink 182 famously don't play more than 90 minutes. The bass player has said he doesn't think people want to hear them longer than that. I think he's wrong, but its a decision. Then again, if I saw the Replacements, I might not expect more than 75 minutes or so. Varies on a number of factors. With Jack White, when I saw the Raconteurs they locked up people's phones and I didn't know how long the show was but it was one of the best experiences I've ever had. People were into it and that's what I want. The band wanted to be there and the audience did too. In that way, overall, I agree with his thoughts. He mentions price but then kind of never revisits it, and I do think its missing some context there. Yes, punk sets used to be 45 minutes, but tickets cost $10? That's very different than paying $100, and usually closer to $150 for anything of note these days and it being less than an hour. At a certain point, money does become something. So Taylor Swift charges whatever she does, but gives you a 3 and a half hour so, and that feels fair. Hard to judge what the right in between is.

I like his idea about the spirit and I like the idea that its not autopilot. But there's a whole other side of money and songs people expect. I'd be happy to see Jack regularly for $50, not worry about show length, what he's gonna play, etc. But if he's charging $100 or more and every night was gonna be the same, I'd say that's lazy. I think he's somewhere in the middle. He doesn't charge a ton, but when he's playing smallish places its not cheap, but its also gonna be whatever he's feeling. Probably the best you could ask for these days, but one size doesn't fit all. The Stones can't charge $300-$500 and only play an hour. Or even 90 minutes. The question is are the shows in their youth like Ya Yas and Brussels that were like 70 minutes worthy of $300? And if not, what is the right price for that show but off the charts energy?

I love Jack and what he’s saying, but to me it’s more about the intensity than the time of the show. He does deliver and doesn’t phone it in.

I’m no expert, but it seems like it’d cost a band the same playing 60 minutes or 180 minutes because they’re already there and set up. Ticket prices are significant and I’m guessing they play longer than they want to so they can justify the prices. It’s common for me to go to a show and feel like they could’ve cut out the middle 30 minutes to make it tighter and more impactful. The biggest drag for me now is that it is more of a business than ever. So many bands play identical, lifeless sets from night to night. That’s not rock n roll. That’s corporate shit.

Quote
NashvilleBlues
The biggest drag for me now is that it is more of a business than ever. So many bands play identical, lifeless sets from night to night. That’s not rock n roll. That’s corporate shit.

I don't disagree, but in fairness a lot of bands have always done that, we just didn't know about it as much, or it wasn't as frowned upon. We have the internet and YouTube, but forever touring on a big scale was "there's a show, and we want you all to see it and you're gonna all get the same thing." The Stones did that forever. The Beatles knew how to play but they rehearsed a very specific 30 minute set and they weren't deviating from that. Yes, there were always outliers, but I feel for the most part a band has a setlist for a tour and that's that. Whether its lifeless or not is the question. A band like Rush ALWAYS played the same set all tour, but they did give their all. To her credit, I feel Taylor Swift does the same. Its more we just know about it now than other way around, though I agree there are many lifeless elements about the business these days.

Yes, I guess internet and cellphones have killed a lot of the joy with live music. In 1982, or even 1990, you didn't care so much about setlists because you only got one chance to listen to them live.
Unless you preferred hard to get and expensive bootlegs instead...

Quote
Stoneage
Yes, I guess internet and cellphones have killed a lot of the joy with live music. In 1982, or even 1990, you didn't care so much about setlists because you only got one chance to listen to them live.
Unless you preferred hard to get and expensive bootlegs instead...

I feel like there were always those bands like The Grateful Dead that you went to see BECAUSE they changed their setlist. Or Bruce Springsteen. Though if you look back, Bruce changed his set a lot less than you'd think. He threw a few things in here and there, but by and large it was a similar show night to night. He just had the energy that it didn't feel like he was going through the motions. The setlist changes in the 2000s though with him are so different than anything he'd truly ever done.

But you look at most of the classic bands: Pink Floyd, The Who, Led Zeppelin, etc, it was the same set every night. They had a show and that's what they were gonna do. Especially a band like Pink Floyd or something that you think as jamming, its pretty much identical night to night. And no one cared. There is something that's spoiled about even the most anticipated shows these days. It gets old SO quick, and its unfortunate. Hell, even the Zep reunion I remember in 07 or whenever it was there was so little video for awhile that there was still a mystery around it. Now the whole thing would be out there in hours and it would be like "ok, even if they tour I feel I've seen the show." Everyone's collective impatience has definitely ruined a bit of that magic that used to be out there. Hell, imagine Bruce Springsteen's audience knowing to sing the first verse of Hungry Heart. That's something that happened organically, over time. He didn't call for it and there wasn't the internet. It grew through word of mouth. That doesn't happen anymore.

Ideal set time is probably 90 minutes. Play your biggest hit last then walk off.
If the audience doesn't leave and they are very loud and still clapping, come on back out for an unscripted off setlist encore.

Bam.
I don't like Jack White these days but he has an excellent point here.

Quote
Kurt
Ideal set time is probably 90 minutes. Play your biggest hit last then walk off.
If the audience doesn't leave and they are very loud and still clapping, come on back out for an unscripted off setlist encore.

Bam.
(…)

DON'T play your greatest hits and walk off. If people are still cheering – come back and play one of your hits.

Quote
Stoneage
I think there is a difference between a club show and a stadium dito. What's the point building a huge stage with big screens and then play for 45 minutes?

I agree, but I think that's part of the point he's making. He doesn't play stadiums, have huge stage sets, etc., that's not the kind of show he plays. He plays smaller very intense shows that always leave me exhausted after 90 minutes, which is what he usually plays. A big stadium show, costing hundreds of dollars to attend--sure, I'd probably expect longer.

But basically, quality over quantity all the time.

Quote
RollingFreak

Quote
Stoneage
Yes, I guess internet and cellphones have killed a lot of the joy with live music. In 1982, or even 1990, you didn't care so much about setlists because you only got one chance to listen to them live.
Unless you preferred hard to get and expensive bootlegs instead...

I feel like there were always those bands like The Grateful Dead that you went to see BECAUSE they changed their setlist. Or Bruce Springsteen. Though if you look back, Bruce changed his set a lot less than you'd think. He threw a few things in here and there, but by and large it was a similar show night to night. He just had the energy that it didn't feel like he was going through the motions. The setlist changes in the 2000s though with him are so different than anything he'd truly ever done.

But you look at most of the classic bands: Pink Floyd, The Who, Led Zeppelin, etc, it was the same set every night. They had a show and that's what they were gonna do. Especially a band like Pink Floyd or something that you think as jamming, its pretty much identical night to night. And no one cared. There is something that's spoiled about even the most anticipated shows these days. It gets old SO quick, and its unfortunate. Hell, even the Zep reunion I remember in 07 or whenever it was there was so little video for awhile that there was still a mystery around it. Now the whole thing would be out there in hours and it would be like "ok, even if they tour I feel I've seen the show." Everyone's collective impatience has definitely ruined a bit of that magic that used to be out there. Hell, imagine Bruce Springsteen's audience knowing to sing the first verse of Hungry Heart. That's something that happened organically, over time. He didn't call for it and there wasn't the internet. It grew through word of mouth. That doesn't happen anymore.

I started going to shows at age 15 in 1994. The bands I went to go see in 1994, like Pearl Jam and the Smashing Pumpkins, mixed up their set lists back then (when looking at setlist.fm). They didn’t have to worry about syncing up to any videos either. Just a light show or generic backdrop, nothing fancy, and the performances carried the show and captured my complete attention. Still two of the best shows I’ve seen out of my roughly 300 shows. That Pearl Jam show was just over 90 minutes and I think the Smashing Pumpkins one was also.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2025-02-11 03:23 by NashvilleBlues.

I saw Nirvana in 1993. Chicago. 2nd show. They didn't play Teen Spirit. I loved it.

Great show. It was just long enough "great show". I don't know how long it was - I didn't care.

The ideal set length is perhaps one song shorter than you'd like .

Quote
Spud
The ideal set length is perhaps one song shorter than you'd like .

True that.

I would take the 90 minutes Fonda Theatre 2015 set over any two hours regular stadium show with The Stones.

There is quantity and quality.

Like Macca at Coachella 2016 played a bunch of snippet songs in a «best off» run, but he did not play «Long And Winding Road», so a lot of short songs is not the same as a great show.

Bjornulf

Quote
slewan
reminds me of the encore paradoxon.
People going to shows expect encores and feel pis*ed off if there aren't any.
The same people are happy if an artist does 14 songs andcome back twice to play 5 encore songs. But if they get a 22 song setlist with no encores they feel betrayed – although they got three songs more than at the other show with 14+5 songs

beside that: Playing for less than 90 minutes is an impertinence – given today’s ticket prices

I hate to say it (though maybe we're on the same page!), Jack White was one of those that was awesome...for a while, then at close to the 1 hour mark I felt I'd seen about all I needed plus some. Blues Traveler was another. Santana too.

Now the Allman Brothers...I could listen to them all night.

Guess it depends on your tastes.

Good question
Depends where an artist is at career wise too - I saw both The Strokes and Arctic Monkeys touring their debut albums in the uk and neither was over 50m. Both were excellent and didn’t feel the need for a longer gig with covers etc.

Also the age question. Longest pearl jam gig I ever saw was nudging 3.5 hours, latest tour was nearer 2 hr. Could I have done with another 90m? Yeah sure but they’re like 60 now

It also very much feels like a today issue with phones and everything. The same way phones are out for instagram photos to "say you were there", people also want to brag the show was super long. Everything is bragging rights these days. I love Bruce, and admittedly when I saw him in 2016 and he did 4 hours (the only time I've actually seen him do that much) I felt it was too long and unfocused and at a certain point felt like he wanted people to leave saying he did that long.

I saw Taylor Swifts movie, and admittedly it was good. She's the biggest thing ever right now, so if there was ever a time for her to do a long show and "give the people what they want", its now. And she is. Seeing the film, I did think it could be shorter, and something like Talking Heads Stop Making Sense is a preferred 80 minutes to the 3 and half hour fest that is Taylor, but again at her level and popularity right now I can understand THIS is the time she should do a long show. People want anything she'll give.

I saw Pearl Jam on this tour and I've seen them previously. They were good here, but I've seen them do longer in the past. They could have done an hour more here but I don't think that would have made it "better". Like you said, they're just older. They could do an hour but if its not the same energy as before its still just gonna be what it is. Do what feels right. Its weird that things would be kept on a timeclock. Does feel hyper specific to these days than 40 years ago. Count me as someone that doesn't need to hear all your hits, cause then I have a reason to come back!