Is a 1H20 set "acceptable" for a headlining band (regular show, not on a festival)?

[labrekk]

I just saw VOLBEAT live in Montreal on Tuesday night. I'm a big fan, the show was killer, as I expected. However, these guys are in their late 30s and the total lenght of the show (including the encores) was 19 tracks, but only 1H20-1H25 (most of their songs are 3-4 minutes). I saw ACCEPT 2 days in a row last week in Montreal and Quebec City, and these old dudes played 1H45 at least on each show. Other old guys like SAXON often play 2 hours, MAIDEN usually play 2 hours, SCORPIONS are often close to 2 hours as well, RUSH played at least 2H30 last summer. I heard that GREEN DAY played a 3-hour set on their last tour. Even HEAVEN & HELL, with a frontman in his mid 60s, played at least 1H30 sets, and sometimes 2 hours on the 2007 reunion tour.

How come a "young" band like VOLBEAT is not wanting to give at least 1H30 sets to their fans, or even 2 hours? They have 4 CDs to pick stuff from. That's a bit weird. Guys, get back on the stage and give us 4 or 5 more songs at least.

The shortest set I saw by a headlining band was ZZ TOP at an outdoor festival in Quebec City 7 or 8 years ago. After 55-60 minutes only, it was already bye-bye and they were gone. That was quite disappointing...

What do you think?

Guillaume

 

[AngraRULES]

I guess the bottom line is, you got 19-20 songs out of the show. I guess I wouldn't be complaining. I think 1h20min is good enough, it's just 10 minutes short of a "normal" headlining slot.

 

[Diabolik]

The Dwarves used to headline with a 15 minute set. I saw them once and knew what I was getting....most of the crowd did not and people we very mad.

 

[AeonicSlumber]

It's not an a marathon, nor is it a competition. It's a show. And yes, an hour 15, hour 20, hour 30 is the norm. Most bands do not play for 2 hours. It gets boring after 1:30. I saw Dream Theater play for 3 hours twice, it was a good time. Not sure if I'd do it again though.

 

[AngraRULES]

It's not an a marathon, nor is it a competition. It's a show.

This. It's amazing how metal fans in general (especially prog and power metal) tend to forget that. I guess that happens when people get spoiled with 8+ minute songs...

 

[drmetal8]

I saw Accept too a few weeks ago and they kicked serious ass for 2 hours (20 song set + 3 song encore). I used to think where they played had something to do with how long they played (like a club setting they feel they don't have to play as long or something) but Accept played at a club. (The Accept show is the best show I've seen in years, better than both of the Iron Maiden shows here in Florida this month.) I agree Volbeat should have given you more, but 19 songs is a lot of songs, so that is probably all you're going to get. I think it depends on how much good material the band has to be honest. Personally I would rather get a killer 90 minute show than a 2 hour show with boring solos in it.

 

[labrekk]

It's not an a marathon, nor is it a competition. It's a show. And yes, an hour 15, hour 20, hour 30 is the norm. Most bands do not play for 2 hours. It gets boring after 1:30. I saw Dream Theater play for 3 hours twice, it was a good time. Not sure if I'd do it again though.

I'm not bored after 1H30 if the songs are good...3 hours is indeed too long, but 1H45-2H00 is the best IMO.

 

[labrekk]

I saw Accept too a few weeks ago and they kicked serious ass for 2 hours (20 song set + 3 song encore). I used to think where they played had something to do with how long they played (like a club setting they feel they don't have to play as long or something) but Accept played at a club. (The Accept show is the best show I've seen in years, better than both of the Iron Maiden shows here in Florida this month.) I agree Volbeat should have given you more, but 19 songs is a lot of songs, so that is probably all you're going to get. I think it depends on how much good material the band has to be honest. Personally I would rather get a killer 90 minute show than a 2 hour show with boring solos in it.

Volbeat had several songs I love that were not played. To their credit, there were no boring solos or "singing contests". I'm happy I got a great show, it's just that I feel it was a bit on the short side...

And yes, Accept were just great. They're the finest "old" band I saw live (along with Saxon, which also rule big time live). Yes, better than Maiden, better than Priest, and much better than Metallica, which tend to be a bit sloppy live IMO.

 

[Justin G]

Volbeat's sets are just long enough. They don't have that deep a back catalogue, and given the high energy of their show I couldn't have handled much more than what they delivered. I had almost no voice left the next day.

 

[Jasonic]

I think it depends on the band / genre too.

A band like VOLBEAT who you state have 3 to 4 minute songs, probably packed in a solid set in an hour and 20 minutes.

Take Maiden for example. Considering the focus on newer and longer songs, a 1 hour 20 minute set would not do their quality of live performance justice. Same would go for a band like Dream Theater, as Aeonic Slumber mentioned.

Bob mentioned the Dwarves. For a higher energy band with shorter songs, anything over 60 minutes would be too much.

Also, I think you have to think about the intensity at which the band plays. A band like Dream Theater isn't exactly drenched in sweat throughout their performance. They aren't jumping all over the stage. Neither is RUSH. Therefore, a 2 1/2 to 3 hour set with a short encore may be more feasible than a band like VOLBEAT.

 

[adaher]

Depends on what the band has to offer the audience. I think songs are more important than set time, because a lot of bands pad the time with drum solos or spend 10 minutes on a 5 minute song. 19 songs sounds pretty good. Helloween I think is a big offender, they play less songs in a set than they have albums. Didn't they play like 9 songs on the last US tour? As a headliner?

One other example that bugged me. Symphony X dropped out of a Fort Lauderdale show on the Blind Guardian tour, 2004 I believe. So that left Blind Guardian and the local opening act. Guess who got 3 hrs stage time? If you guessed Blind Guardian, you'd be mistaken. Can't give the fans a special treat to make up for Symphony X not being there. The fans must be punished!

 

[AngraRULES]

One other example that bugged me. Symphony X dropped out of a Fort Lauderdale show on the Blind Guardian tour, 2004 I believe. So that left Blind Guardian and the local opening act. Guess who got 3 hrs stage time? If you guessed Blind Guardian, you'd be mistaken. Can't give the fans a special treat to make up for Symphony X not being there. The fans must be punished!

That was 2002. Wasn't Avenged Sevenfold the opener?

 

[dcowboys311]

That was 2002. Wasn't Avenged Sevenfold the opener?

LMAO, what??
I don't like them much, but man that band has always done some weird tours.

 

[drmetal8]

Depends on what the band has to offer the audience. I think songs are more important than set time, because a lot of bands pad the time with drum solos or spend 10 minutes on a 5 minute song.

I totally agree. What matters most is the songs, the catalog. Accept are a perfect example of that. That's not Udo fronting the band anymore, but it doesn't matter because the songs are the star of the show.

 

[Metal_Camden]

I think its honestly all in the set list. Ive seen bands play for an hour as a "local/regional show headliner" with maybe 8-10 songs and they were all their best songs. Where as if some big band like Accept comes through and plays like 2.30 hours and people like me ( still, sadly ) aren't familiar with all their older stuff makes it kinda drag.

then again I could totally take 3 hours of Blind Guardian easily, whatever the song.

Guess just depends on the band, fans, show, and time slot.....

 

[Fire breath]

1 hr 20m is plenty enough for me. Anything past the 60-75 min mark is actually enough personally speaking especially if the support bands have also played 45min or so.. I tend to get bored a little bit towards the end of gigs and my mind seems to wander unless I'm really loving the gig. The only long gig which I recalled really kicking ass was when Iced Earth played for around 2hr 45m with no support. That was amazing especially as there was a 15min break in between to give us a break.

 

[sccaldwell]

Personally, I kinda expect about 90 minutes out of a headliner. I'm probably not going to be *upset* unless it drops under an hour, but I'll be disappointed if it's under 1:15.

A lot of it depends on the price, too. If I paid $85 or more to see a show (not festival), such as bigger bands like Aerosmith, The Eagles, etc, they damn well better give me an hour and a half *minimum*, or better yet, two hours. I don't care HOW big a name they are...anything less than 90 minutes is insulting when they're charging that much.

But, for example, if I paid $30 to see Symphony X and they only played for 1:15, I'd be OK with what I got for my money (just mildly disappointed)...though I still maintain that 90 should be the minimum for a headliner.

Craig

 

[Metal_Camden]

But, for example, if I paid $30 to see Symphony X and they only played for 1:15, I'd be OK with what I got for my money (just mildly disappointed)...though I still maintain that 90 should be the minimum for a headliner.

Craig

But what about an 1:15 hour set with all your favorite songs? EDIT*****For sake of topic.

 

[Jasonic]

LMAO, what??
I don't like them much, but man that band has always done some weird tours.

Wow, that vaguely sounds familiar.
Avenged Sevenfold were not on the actual tour.
I think they may have played just a date or two.

Especially in those days, they must have gone over as well as when I saw SONIC YOUTH open for NEIL YOUNG.

 

[AngraRULES]

LMAO, what??
I don't like them much, but man that band has always done some weird tours.

It was the first time I ever heard of the band... and we pretty much ignored their set.

Fit the tour "like a glove" huh? I don't know if they did the whole tour or the NY show only ... or whatever...