Outraged at Gig length!

JonB · 12 May 2007 at 11:52

So I went to see the Klaxons in Leeds, taking the short trip from Manchester. (As I couldn't get tickets for the Manchester show). The support acts were nothing great, but played for around 45 minutes each. Great I thought. Then came on the Klaxons. 40minutes and no encore later, the whole thing was over. Now for £12.50 you might agree that it was a pretty good night out. But surely you goto a gig and pay your money for the headline act? I know I do.

They barely even played their own album and some songs were shorter on stage than they are on the album. Some instrumentals would have been nice, or even a cover or two. Hell they could have played their better songs for a second time in the encore...I wouldn't have minded, but 40 minutes and no encore is taking the biscuit a little, no?

Has anyone else been sold out by their favorite artists by them not being on stage for nearly not enough time?

Docaroo · 12 May 2007 at 12:00

that sounds well crap... my band would struggle to play less than 40 minutes and we only play around 6 songs lol!!

Can't say I've ever seen that, all the bands I see play monster sets (heavy/power metal bands) such as Helloween - saw them in Glasgow and they were on for hours, was awesome!

I think this confirms my suspicions that the Klaxons are simply gay

penski · 12 May 2007 at 12:10

unsigned bands should never play more than 15 minutes...twenty if they're exceptional.

support acts to headliners shouldn't play for more than half an hour.

headliners...depends on the band, how much material they have and the nature of the band/music.

some of the best sets I've seen have been under 45 minutes and left the entire place in tatters.

I've only seen one ban keep an entire venue on their feet for a long time...miocene circa 2002, an EP and mini albums worth of material stretched into 'live versions' with a couple of covers...they played from 8.30 until 10.30 and it felt like twenty minutes.

*n

Lysander · 12 May 2007 at 12:18

penski said:
unsigned bands should never play more than 15 minutes...twenty if they're exceptional.

support acts to headliners shouldn't play for more than half an hour.

*n

Dunno where you get this idea from!! It's totally dependant on the nature of the band ~~and their popularity. If I were a band I wouldn't go with you as a promoter!~~

Sweetloaf · 12 May 2007 at 12:22

penski said:
unsigned bands should never play more than 15 minutes...twenty if they're exceptional.

Why not?

THMRK · 12 May 2007 at 12:35

I've seen bands play for a shorter length of time and flatten the place.

What did you expect from a band with one album?

I hate planned encores anyway.

Andelusion · 12 May 2007 at 13:08

penski said:
unsigned bands should never play more than 15 minutes...twenty if they're exceptional.

I can sort of see what you mean in some situations, but that's a bit of a bizarre comment. If there's a band night with several bands on, then fair enough. They should attempt to play their best songs in the space of the 15 minutes to use the most of their time. But if an unsigned band have got a local gig then obviously they're going to be playing for fans who actually want to hear the music.

15 minutes may not be enough time for some bands to give a proper representation of what they can do.

SexyGreyFox · 12 May 2007 at 13:14

In the 70's headlining bands used to play for one hour and no more.
You could set your watch when a band came on and you knew when they were going to finish.
It was around the late 80's when I was going a concert at the Bingley Hall, Stafford and it actually said 'No support act' on the ticket.
I forget who the band was now but it was somebody like Genesis, Pink Floyd, Rush or Yes and they played for over 2 hours.
That seemed to be the start of bands going out on their own and playing long sets.
The longest set I saw was Bruce Springsteen in 1980 which lasted 3.5 hours.

penski · 12 May 2007 at 13:21

Lysander said:
Dunno where you get this idea from!!

seeing literally hundreds of bands since the age of about 8...

any decent live act should be able to leave an entire audience gasping after a handful of tracks.

trust me, there is nothing worse than an uppity 'local band' stretching out their demo tape and rehearsal noodlings to an hour plus.

I'm sure that most of the people on here who have been to more than say fifty gigs will agree that the best live acts are those who come out, grab everyone by the collar and leave them battered a short while later...completely exhausted and not knowing what hit them.

to give an example, rewind about 6 years and two bands you could see somewhere in the uk almost any night of the year were king prawn and spunge...

both played roughly the same music but had different live acts...COMPLETELY different live acts.

spunge would come out, play forever and never really get the place going.

king prawn would come out, play for half an hour and have the entire venue bouncing.

I'd much rather see a short, focused, energetic set than a long, drawn-out set.

*n

Lysander · 12 May 2007 at 13:28

penski said:
seeing literally hundreds of bands since the age of about 8...

any decent live act should be able to leave an entire audience gasping after a handful of tracks.

trust me, there is nothing worse than an uppity 'local band' stretching out their demo tape and rehearsal noodlings to an hour plus.

I'm sure that most of the people on here who have been to more than say fifty gigs will agree that the best live acts are those who come out, grab everyone by the collar and leave them battered a short while later...completely exhausted and not knowing what hit them.

to give an example, rewind about 6 years and two bands you could see somewhere in the uk almost any night of the year were king prawn and spunge...

both played roughly the same music but had different live acts...COMPLETELY different live acts.

spunge would come out, play forever and never really get the place going.

king prawn would come out, play for half an hour and have the entire venue bouncing.

I'd much rather see a short, focused, energetic set than a long, drawn-out set.

*n

Right, but your original comment that unsigned bands should never play for more than fifteen minutes doesn't work all across the board. If you're talking about local bands in small venues then there's a point there, but at the larger venues it just isn't the case. I promote gigs at a number of major London venues and we have had unsigned bands play for over 30 mins in support and the audience has loved it. I think it's all relative, there are many factors.

Will_3rd · 12 May 2007 at 13:32

40 mins tis a bit short

a mate of mine went to a Staind concert in Glasgow a couple of years ago that only lasted an hour.

penski · 12 May 2007 at 13:56

Lysander said:
Right, but your original comment that unsigned bands should never play for more than fifteen minutes doesn't work all across the board. If you're talking about local bands in small venues then there's a point there, but at the larger venues it just isn't the case. I promote gigs at a number of major London venues and we have had unsigned bands play for over 30 mins in support and the audience has loved it. I think it's all relative, there are many factors.

which ones and in what capacity do you operate? we may have a few mutual aquaintances.

I (and many a&r types...although I'm usually loathe to associate with them...) feel that, as with a demo, an unsigned act's set should be brief, succinct and impressive.

*n

Nitefly · 12 May 2007 at 14:02

When I saw Prodigy they played for just short of an hour, and I was gutted (On the edge of heartbroken).

"andy" · 12 May 2007 at 14:49

don't think ive ever seen a band play for more than 40 mins :s , djs yea but not bands

when i seen the klaxons last year they only played 30 mins , admittedly they probably had **** all material to play back then

JonB said:
Has anyone else been sold out by their favorite artists by them not being on stage for nearly not enough time?

well i was gutted that daft punk only played for an hour when i seen them last year but didnt feel they sold out because it was the best thing id ever seen

if your a big fan then of course you want them to play longer

Lysander · 12 May 2007 at 14:52

penski said:
which ones and in what capacity do you operate? we may have a few mutual aquaintances.

I (and many a&r types...although I'm usually loathe to associate with them...) feel that, as with a demo, an unsigned act's set should be brief, succinct and impressive.

*n

Haha you'd probably loathe me then, I just started doing A&R for a record label. I mostly do the Underworld, Mean Fiddler and the Garage.. well, when it was around anyway. It's gone down the pan now.

penski · 12 May 2007 at 15:15

Lysander said:
Haha you'd probably loathe me then, I just started doing A&R for a record label. I mostly do the Underworld, Mean Fiddler and the Garage.. well, when it was around anyway. It's gone down the pan now.

ooh...who?

or was it you asking for names for a goth label?

I can never remember.

actually, being that you're down that way, what are interlock up to these days? is hal still with them?

*n

Lysander · 12 May 2007 at 15:30

penski said:
ooh...who?

or was it you asking for names for a goth label?

Yes it was me... it's not strictly Goth, it's more progressive. It's not actually a new label though, we just need a new print name for an already existing label. I won't say the name, but think Opeth and Emperor.

As for Interlock, I saw them at the Barfly a few weeks ago. Their set wasn't bad but they didn't excite me that much. I had a chat with the female singer but she seemed quite wrapped up in herself which, for such a small band, bores me. So I went back to the bar.

Dave · 12 May 2007 at 15:31

40 mins is a bit on the short side. Last gig I went to was Toto earlier on this year who had no supports, and they played just over 2 hours

Docaroo · 12 May 2007 at 17:06

well penski I dunno about you but 15/20 mins is rubbish!! one of our songs (although we don't always play it) is 14 MINUTES LONG!

Up in Aberdeen it is VERY RARE for all bands to play such a short setlist, I would say the shortest set is around 30minute mark, with most venues having around 40minutes for a set

penski · 12 May 2007 at 17:20

Docaroo said:
well penski I dunno about you but 15/20 mins is rubbish!!

I don't like to get bored at gigs...least of all by the kind of bands who bring their fans (all half-dozen of them) to a gig, take twenty minutes to set up, **** about at soundcheck then play an overly long set...not laying that accusation at you (

) just having a rant...

one of our songs (although we don't always play it) is 14 MINUTES LONG!

is it actually a good song or is it self-indulgent tripe? got a download link?

Up in Aberdeen it is VERY RARE for all bands to play such a short setlist, I would say the shortest set is around 30minute mark, with most venues having around 40minutes for a set

whenever I've been involved in a gig (be it organising or performing), I've always used 20 minute blocks for sets.

small bands get a couple of minutes to get on and get ready then about 15 minutes to play...then about 35 mins for more established bands and 'big' bands get just under an hour..

on stage, five songs, 12-3 mins, bugger off.

but, I'm sure dave will agree here: everything goes out the window with covers bands...

*n

Outraged at Gig length!

Capodecina

Capodecina

Capodecina

Capodecina