Rock concerts; is there an acceptable minimum time?

Blue in Munich

Crocked Professional Yeti Impersonator
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
14,099
Location
Worcester Park
Visit site
Been to a few this year, by and large 2 hours seems to be about the norm, which was what we got from Rod Stewart & Mark Knopfler. Bon Jovi managed 2 hours and 45 minutes on one occasion and 3 hours on another :) and the pick of the bunch in terms of time was Bruce Springsteen who did 3 hours and 15 minutes :D And then there was last night......

Nickelback, the O2, The Greatest Hits tour, a grand total of 18 tracks and that rather generously includes Daniel Adair's drum solo at the end of when When We Stand Together as a track in it's own right, and if you are generous with the timekeeping they just about made 90 minutes :angry:.

Can't say on the basis of that I would be rushing back. Have I been spoilt by The Boss, or did Nickelback short change us?
 
I'm a Bruce fan and have seen him countless times - so I'm spoilt!

I'd settle for 2 hours from lesser performers (!!) but less than that seems short changing for the cost of tickets.
 
I would say 2hrs is a fair deal especially as the price isn't cheap, 90 mins is very poor
 
Depends on their body of work, I'm not a Nickleback fan so do not know how long they have been around/ How many albums they have but a rock band doing an hour and half is a decent time to perform live IMHO. I do not think you were short changed. An hour and half must take it out on you.
 
Depends on their body of work, I'm not a Nickleback fan so do not know how long they have been around/ How many albums they have but a rock band doing an hour and half is a decent time to perform live IMHO. I do not think you were short changed. An hour and half must take it out on you.

Long enough for 7 albums, no difficulty in choosing another 6 - 8 numbers that would fit and if Rod Stewart can manage 2 hours at nearly 70 then I think that Chad & the boys, all under 40, could manage at least 2 hours. Bruce, Roy Bittan, & Max Weinburg must all be in their 60's but if a 60-something can pound the drum kit for over 3 hours then I don't think there's any excuse for the youngsters.
 
Saw RHCP at Don Valley Stadium in 2006, they were superb but were on stage for a disappointing 1 hour 20 mins. Sixteen tracks on the set list and then a two song encore. Not really acceptable.

Radiohead at Glasgow Green in 2008 were on stage for around 2 1/4 - 2 1/2 hours. Eighteen song main set list and then two encores of five and then three tracks. Horrendous rain most of the night but totally brilliant.
 
The missus is a big Nickelback fan and the few times at Manchester ive seen them with her they have been on for a good 2 hours iirc.

Seems strange, although when i saw them it was before Kroeger married that utter knob Avril Lavigne. Id blame her :D
 
The gigs I have been to are normal around the 2 hour mark...the bands could easily do more though! I guess a lot of the time constraints are put on by the venue themselves rather than the band
 
2 minutes is too long for a Nickelback concert!

If you couldn't tell I'm not a fan haha.

It all depends what type of band they are, The Ramones gigs back in the day were lucky to last more than 40 mins and they would get in over a dozen songs but that's what worked best for that type of band.
 
I expect 90 minutes from a headline act at a festival so expect at least 2 hours for a solo show. Longest gig I went to was the Foo Fighters at Milton Keynes. Must have got 3 hours out of them and felt that they would have kept going if they could.
 
I've done loads of gigs and would feel short changed at 90 minutes, especially if I travelled up to the o2. My last gig was an Alison Moyet one and she managed 1.75 hours with the encore
 
Top