Seriously I don't get what the deal is these days with bands playing such short shows. It's almost insulting when a younger band goes out there and only plays 10-15 songs as a headlining act but then you have old folks like Rush and Van Halen playing 30 songs a night. It seems about 10 years ago it'd be the norm for most bands to play about 2 to 2 and half hours a night??? Does anybody else agree with me on this one or am I just getting to damn picky?
No, I think you are right. I think that lots of bands though would loose steam playing two hours or more. there are only certain bands who can pull this off. I think the main reason is it is the clubs and tour packages itself. Lots of clubs in th city have the shows end at 10 on the dot and with over inflated package tours with 4 or 5 bands, they need to shorten everything. The best tour package I saw recently was when it was Leaves Eyes and Blind Guardian. No locals, Leaves Eyes got a good amount of time and them Blind Guardian got thier full run. I think for a lot of bands out there that they would just be filling time to make thier set really long. Only bands with a huge discograpghy would be able to pull it off like Helloween, Edguy, Gamma Ray, Sonata, and so on. bands who are newer and popular would be doing tons of cover songs to fill 2 hours.
Well yeah I do realize that newer bands would not be able to fill a 2 hour set and obviously it's still quality of quantity. I see what you're saying on the clubs but these shows I remember from back in the 90's were held at the same clubs with the same curfews but then again you didn't have these 3 or 4 band packages on every tour, you had an opener and a headliner. I guess maybe the concert going experience has changed a lot over the last 10 years and not for the better IMO.
That is absolutley the reason for having local bands.
Most clubs don't give a rat's ass about a "scene" or anything like that.