from the springsteen review thread. seems to me a lot of people are impressed with a 3 hour show. and i guess they should be. but i'd much rather see a band have super solid 90 minute set than stand/sit through a 3 hour journey, 60+ minutes of which is either weak material or stage blather.

i guess it depends though. on a good night a good band can do a great long show. otherwise a band is just shooting themselves in the foot when they don't know when to get off.

The answer is a resounding "not necessarily".

It depends. If I have to work the next day, I'll usually be saying, "Jesus Christ, when are they gonna be done?" after about two hours. But if I've got the time, it's a band I love, and I'm drunk, let those fuckers play all night.

Or this.

i can't take more than 45 minutes of any given band

many times, less

It all depends.

I'm sure there is some exact science to figuring out how some artists can seem to go forever and it'll be amazing, while others can't.. but I think "it just depends" will just have to work.

I saw a 3 1/2 hour twilight singers show where Dulli was drunk and babbled for most of it, while the band just jammed behind him....I was fixated....but that may have been my heterosexual crush...

the Marah christmas show always seems to go about an hour too long, where at the end there are about ten people left. But those of us that are still there are usually ripped and "woo'ing" for every song they play.

i haven't really been to a show where the headliner played more than 90 minutes in quite awhile. i mean, i guess it's good that for the money you're paying you're getting 3+ hours. do these big shows usually have opening bands too?

Bruce has enough good-to-great material to make for one helluva 3.5 hour show. But (as pertains to above comments) is that what he played for that time?

All depends on the quality of he 3 hours. I think it can be impressive in a sense that there are not many bands with the catalog and the energy to crank out 3 high quality hours. So yeah, 3 hours of top quality music is impressive. But, I don't think it is at all necessary and really most bands even if they are sounding great, I'm done with after maybe an hour or 2 at most.

it should depend on how much I paid...

25 bucks for a 45 minute show...no fucking thanks...

It depends on the band.

same here.
even my favorites.

long shows is straight up dumb.

If you're watching a truly great band you don't want the show to ever end. Condolences to those of you who have never experienced such an event - but I figured as much.

as much as I like live music, I can't fucking stand there forever...at some point the knee pain overcomes the pleasure of the music. however, concert length has very little to do with quality. or what yail bloor said.

i like a show to end when it's still exciting. i find it hard to believe that you don't have a cut-off point.... i mean... how about 5 hours? 10? 20?

truth.

i really dislike when it's an opener who doesn't know how to get offstage. sometimes you're just not on your game and you have to pack it up. i don't think there's anything wrong with an opener admitting it's not their night and finishing after 20-25 minutes. headliners are a little different, but it's still pretty obvious when a band forces themselves to complete a set list just because that's the set they've played in every other town.

Agreed with a few exceptions, like if there are no openers or if it's an old-timer with decades of material at a sit-down venue. Any place that expects you to stand should keep it under an hour.

If only every discussion were this easy to break down.

yeah, but if opening bands got off the stage when they didn't feel welcome anymore, 75% of them wouldn't make it past 2 songs. I've had some great experiences where I HATE an opener after a few songs, but by the end of it I want another song or two out of them. It's all relative.

just like every single aspect of this thread.

If its a bad band, it doesn't matter how long the concert is.

For good bands though, concert length is a good indication of a good show. You can't have a 3 hour concert without at least two encores. The first one may be obligatory, but the others aren't.

Best show I ever saw was SRV at Detriot in '84 or so. After 3 hours and 2 encores they turned on the lights, but the crowd refused to leave. He came out a third time and did an extended version of "Little Wing."

I remember the tour Neil Young did with Social Distortion and Sonic youth. I went as much to see the opening bands than Neil, but the crowd just about rioted--booing and throwing shit. Sonic got in 2 songs, Social Distortion made it through 3 or 4. I was disgusted and pissed.

Its great if an opening band gets an encore, but its bullshit when they get booed off the stage before completing their set (at least on a big tour, obviously its different for local clubs)--I find it hard to imagine that a band would tour with an opener that they didn't like.

I would agree now.
But I remember a handful of D4 shows that went on for about an hour and a half and I was definitely ready to puke for another song.

3 hour show is way too long for me.