how long is too long?

[samsara]

As far as all-local band shows go, I've seen absolutely no one, but I've also seen Heaven at the Masquerade close to full when we played with a band called Morionor a couple of years ago.
.

who else played?? not to sound like a dick but there is no possible way in hell that heaven at the masquerade was close to full for a morioner show.....

I'm not entirely sure who else was playing, but it was an all-local show with that much of a crowd. I can show you the shitty video if you don't believe me...haha.

well if it was an all local show and there was non metal bands playing i can believe it, but to pack the masq its like 950 people, and morioner doesnt draw that

Like I said I'm not sure who else was playing, though I'm relatively sure everything was somewhere close to metal. Morionor is simply the only name I can remember, the show that I'm talking about was a few years ago, and I was in eighth grade at the time and it was a school night so I had to leave right after our set, we played first.

[BlazeTSU]

I went to a show last night at the Last Great Watering Hole to see a buddy's band. His band was scheduled to go on at 11pm. The band before his didn't get off the stage till like 11:30. That's not cool. I had to leave in the middle of my friend's band's set because I was so freaking tired...I had my boyfriend with me and he was even more tired since he had been up since 4am (because of the police academy).

I still stand with what I said earlier...let them have a longer set if they're good but the schedule should be arranged and put together before the show starts. It's not cool when another band cuts into someone else's set.

this is case and point here. locals ruin themselves and other local bands by playing too damn long.

and about the "if they're good" statment......like mike alluded to, most bands think that they are awesome. if they didn't they probably wouldn't be playing out. the problem this leads to is this.....

A. the band think that they are the total shit and argue for a 45-60 min. set and/or complain when they don't get it........or.........get it and think they are badass.

B. the majority of people who book shows at most places have no clue how good a band actually is. they base opinions on word of mouth and things like myspace friends lists and whatnot. this being the case, promoters have no clue how to schedule the line-ups and the time slots.



ontop of that, local bands play fairly often and do so for what? $5-7? its not like you need to "get your fix" b/c they won't be around for another 6 months to a year.

personally i'd rather go to a local show and watch 4 bands play in 2.5-3 hours including setup and teardown times. its a horrid night when you go to a local show that starts at 7:30 and doesn't end until about 1 am when only 4 or 5 bands play.


and MattParsons........

if you don't have an album or two out and you are playing to 200+ you should still restrict your set to 30-40 minutes. you'd rather play your best songs and leave all 200 people loving you and wanting more than boring them to death. there is nothing worse in music then starting a show with 200 people and ended it to 50. take my word for it man, you would rather too little than too long.

[BlazeTSU]

and just to be clear, i'm not bashing all locals. i think that we have some seriously good locals around atlanta but i just feel that the 30 minute rule applies across the board.


if a band is really good and people like them then they will soon take the next step and eventually have more music, more recognizable music and warrant extending their set a little bit.


and i'm no authority, obviously, this is purely my opinion.

[MikeLindgren]

I would definitely agree with Pearson's statements 100%.

As far as local bashing, Blaze could just as well apply this to a lot of national acts. I remember having to sit through a Fear Factory set far longer than I could have ever wanted to tolerate to hear Lamb of God thrash my face off.

Non-headlining acts should be restricted to a MAXIMUM of 25 minutes per set. Headliners shouldn't burn for more than an hour unless they are filming a DVD or playing the Budokon or Madison Square Gardens. I don't think Opeth played more than an hour the two times I saw them. They could've easily burned two, but they were pretty tasteful about it.

[Pat]

I think locals opening should get about 30 minutes give or take a bit. They do a lot of work hauling their own shit, and to go up there and play 3 songs fucking sucks. 30 minutes is not very long to begin with. Since music is so subjective, some people are going to want a band to play 5 minutes and others for an hour. 30 minutes i'd say should be about right. That gives bands time to show people what they are about and their songs. It also isn't so long to where it becomes torment listening to song after song.

Fuck locals only being able to play 15 minutes and shit like that. It takes a while to set up and shit. I want to hear some fucking music when I'm at a venue. I don't want half the time to be setting up and shit.

30 minutes is a good starting point. I'd say depending on the night, crowd, and number of bands this can be adjusted accordingly.

[Pat]

Non-headlining acts should be restricted to a MAXIMUM of 25 minutes per set. Headliners shouldn't burn for more than an hour unless they are filming a DVD or playing the Budokon or Madison Square Gardens. I don't think Opeth played more than an hour the two times I saw them. They could've easily burned two, but they were pretty tasteful about it.

Fuck that. Maximum 25 minutes isn't shit.

When I go see a band, the headliner better play at least an hour assuming its a touring act. Sometimes these shows don't come cheap so I want to hear a lot of kick ass tunes when I'm at a show. I don't want to just go, hear their few most popular songs and then leave. I'm paying the cash, I want to hear lots of kick ass metal, not just some gay sample shit.

[Blarg!]

25 minutes for a non-headliner sounds good.

[Metalfreak]

Non-headlining acts should be restricted to a MAXIMUM of 25 minutes per set. Headliners shouldn't burn for more than an hour unless they are filming a DVD or playing the Budokon or Madison Square Gardens. I don't think Opeth played more than an hour the two times I saw them. They could've easily burned two, but they were pretty tasteful about it.

Fuck that. Maximum 25 minutes isn't shit.

When I go see a band, the headliner better play at least an hour assuming its a touring act. Sometimes these shows don't come cheap so I want to hear a lot of kick ass tunes when I'm at a show. I don't want to just go, hear their few most popular songs and then leave. I'm paying the cash, I want to hear lots of kick ass metal, not just some gay sample shit.

I'm with Pat here! I saw the Rolling Stones at Turner Field in 2002, I paid $100 for that ticket and I got my money's worth! They played for about 4 hours or so and no, I didn't get tired of it either. I fucking loved it! They played hit after hit (they have so many) It was great! I wish all my favorite bands could do that! I know that takes some serious stamina though.

But yes, touring acts should play at least an hour. Alot of the time, even that isn't enough.

[Matt]

Non-headlining acts should be restricted to a MAXIMUM of 25 minutes per set. Headliners shouldn't burn for more than an hour unless they are filming a DVD or playing the Budokon or Madison Square Gardens. I don't think Opeth played more than an hour the two times I saw them. They could've easily burned two, but they were pretty tasteful about it.

Fuck that. Maximum 25 minutes isn't shit.

When I go see a band, the headliner better play at least an hour assuming its a touring act. Sometimes these shows don't come cheap so I want to hear a lot of kick ass tunes when I'm at a show. I don't want to just go, hear their few most popular songs and then leave. I'm paying the cash, I want to hear lots of kick ass metal, not just some gay sample shit.

I'm with Pat here! I saw the Rolling Stones at Turner Field in 2002, I paid $100 for that ticket and I got my money's worth! They played for about 4 hours or so and no, I didn't get tired of it either. I fucking loved it! They played hit after hit (they have so many) It was great! I wish all my favorite bands could do that! I know that takes some serious stamina though.

But yes, touring acts should play at least an hour. Alot of the time, even that isn't enough.

its ideal that the touring headlining act plays for an hour, but what if they only have one cd out and they play the whole thing, and its only 35 minutes, deal with it!!! this thread is getting a little silly imo

[Brian]

Non-headlining acts should be restricted to a MAXIMUM of 25 minutes per set. Headliners shouldn't burn for more than an hour unless they are filming a DVD or playing the Budokon or Madison Square Gardens. I don't think Opeth played more than an hour the two times I saw them. They could've easily burned two, but they were pretty tasteful about it.

Fuck that. Maximum 25 minutes isn't shit.

When I go see a band, the headliner better play at least an hour assuming its a touring act. Sometimes these shows don't come cheap so I want to hear a lot of kick ass tunes when I'm at a show. I don't want to just go, hear their few most popular songs and then leave. I'm paying the cash, I want to hear lots of kick ass metal, not just some gay sample shit.

I'm with Pat here! I saw the Rolling Stones at Turner Field in 2002, I paid $100 for that ticket and I got my money's worth! They played for about 4 hours or so and no, I didn't get tired of it either. I fucking loved it! They played hit after hit (they have so many) It was great! I wish all my favorite bands could do that! I know that takes some serious stamina though.

But yes, touring acts should play at least an hour. Alot of the time, even that isn't enough.

its ideal that the touring headlining act plays for an hour, but what if they only have one cd out and they play the whole thing, and its only 35 minutes, deal with it!!! this thread is getting a little silly imo

Yeah but how many bands with only one album out are able to do headlining tours?

If a headlining band only plays for an hour I would be pissed. 75-90 minutes is ideal for me. I don't mind letting the national touring acts have 30-45 minutes because a lot of times I want to see them more than the headliner.

[BlazeTSU]

Non-headlining acts should be restricted to a MAXIMUM of 25 minutes per set. Headliners shouldn't burn for more than an hour unless they are filming a DVD or playing the Budokon or Madison Square Gardens. I don't think Opeth played more than an hour the two times I saw them. They could've easily burned two, but they were pretty tasteful about it.

Fuck that. Maximum 25 minutes isn't shit.

When I go see a band, the headliner better play at least an hour assuming its a touring act. Sometimes these shows don't come cheap so I want to hear a lot of kick ass tunes when I'm at a show. I don't want to just go, hear their few most popular songs and then leave. I'm paying the cash, I want to hear lots of kick ass metal, not just some gay sample shit.

I'm with Pat here! I saw the Rolling Stones at Turner Field in 2002, I paid $100 for that ticket and I got my money's worth! They played for about 4 hours or so and no, I didn't get tired of it either. I fucking loved it! They played hit after hit (they have so many) It was great! I wish all my favorite bands could do that! I know that takes some serious stamina though.

But yes, touring acts should play at least an hour. Alot of the time, even that isn't enough.

ok, no one has called into question the length of a Stones concert. we are talking local metal bands and national metal bands. The Stones could play all night long if they so please and i'd dare say that most everyone, fan or not would agree.

there are plenty of exceptions here. I'd be pissed if bands like Metallica, Slayer, Iron Maiden, Black Sabbath, AC/DC, Led Zepplin...etc....didn't play for hours on end. but those bands have all been around and have double digit album releases and tons of badass tunes to play. These bands have hours on end of quality music to offer and not 20 minutes of quality mixed with 45 minutes of filler and 15 minutes of mindless babble.

[Mitch]

For some reason it usually turns out that I want to see supporting acts more than the headliner. But I'd expect the headliner usually to play for a little over an hour.

This is only somewhat related, but I remember when Dark Tranquillity and The Haunted came several months ago, Haunted went on WAY too long. I wanted to shoot myself in the face after two songs. Granted, they were co-headlining with DT, but they were more boring than the Sugar bowl.

[RichOfSilence]

Since I don't know the locals around here (for the most part), I usually go to shows for the headliners and touring bands. Back home, it was usually the opposite.

No local, except for a headlining gig or an all local show, should play for more than 30 minutes

[RichOfSilence]

Unfortunately, most local bands in ANY area are not on par with the big boys. Less is better. I pay to see the touring bands and friends' bands, not Joe Shmoe's new band (unless they are totally awesome).

-Rich

Why do you keep using holly's account? I expect something completely ridiculous but instead I get a regular post.

Anyways,This all depends on whether the band sucks or not.

Why do you have to take a stab at holly out of the blue? Let's keep this to local bands, thanks.

[Blarg!]

Unfortunately, most local bands in ANY area are not on par with the big boys. Less is better. I pay to see the touring bands and friends' bands, not Joe Shmoe's new band (unless they are totally awesome).

-Rich

Why do you keep using holly's account? I expect something completely ridiculous but instead I get a regular post.

Anyways,This all depends on whether the band sucks or not.

Why do you have to take a stab at holly out of the blue? Let's keep this to local bands, thanks.

Because she would do the same for me

And,All and all,a band should Know themselfs how long to play judging on how many fans that are attending the show?