Outraged at Gig length!

Associate
Joined
3 Oct 2006
Posts
2,304
Location
London
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?
 
I really can't see why people think that 40mins isn't short.

Keane played for an hour when I saw them.
Stereophonics for almost two.
Red hot chili peppers for almost two.
Muse played for a good hour and three quarters.
Feeder played for around an hour and a half.
Ash (which I payed less to see) played for an hour and a half.

...the list goes on!
 
Surely a gig being too long though is dependent on how much you like them? I could jump about listening to the Chili's, Muse or the Stereophonics until they had played their entire collections each! (Assuming they were still putting the same kind of energy into each track ;) )
 
Yeah I guess. I still stand with my original point though. 40 minutes, one album or not, is a tad short for me!
 
Back
Top Bottom