Not really. But if it's less than 60 min., it's a rip-off, UNLESS the artist is so old that anything longer would be a serious strain.

at todays prices they should be 2 plus hours...if they don't have enouygh material to sustain, I typically would not be seeing them to begin with...

Yes....unless an artist's set is part of a festival.

Definitely. Like Charles said, if it's part of a festival and they're not headlining than I'm just happy to see them. But if they're the main act and do a short set I'll be disappointed, especially at today's prices.

If I'm paying 50 bucks or more, you'd better give me 2 hours at the minimum. If I can get a 60-70 minute CD for like ten bucks...

In most cases, yes. Some opening acts are better off only playing 10 minutes though!

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Absolutely. I saw Ozzy on the Ultimate Sin tour, and he only played 75 minutes, so I said never again. Haven't seen him since. I could forgive that on the Diary tour because he only had the two solo albums, but not after four.

Alan

Talk about ultimate sins!

I'm going to sound like a total wimp here, but 90 minutes is about all I'm looking for these days. I start to look at my watch. Part of it is having 5 kids and running a company--I just don't have the stamina I used to have. Part of it may be seeing the same bands too often. I love Bruce Cockburn, but after seeing him 15 times, what can he do that I haven't already seen?

That said, I saw Wilco last week, they played over 3 hours, and I could have stayed another hour.

One big YES!

The way I remember it, Bowie's MSG show from the "Thin White Duke" tour lasted exactly one hour.

Chuck Berry generally doesn't play longer than an hour.

Old-timers are excused. Chuck Berry is 82 this year. And Jerry Lee Lewis is in his seventies, he sometimes plays for only 45 min., plus an approx. 15 min. intro set by his band, so you still get an hour. I'd rather have 45 intense min. of the Killer, than 90 min. of a tired performance.

Agreed. And I've always given Chuck Berry a pass because he's Chuck Berry... although when I first saw him in 1990, when he was "only" in his sixties, he was doing 60-minute shows back then.

Nevertheless, I mention it primarily for the historical record... and for accuracy's sake, Chuck is now 83, will turn 84 on October 18, and he's still performing (anyone interested in his current touring schedule can check out Chuck's official website).

Now back to your regularly scheduled topic.

YES!!!

Has anyone here ever seen Rockpile? These guys blasted through their repertoire with nary a break between songs. A 75 minute set from Dave, Nick & Co. was the equivalent of a 2 hour show by any other act.

The more I think of it, I kind of make an exception for punk. I try to see X alot (5 times on the east coast last year) - they usualy only play about 70-75 minutes, but with 20+ high energy songs, it feels like a whole show.

I feel the same way listening to early live Ramones recordings. The It's Alive album (New Years 1977) is 28 songs over 53 minutes and feels like a ful concert.

Rockpile isn't punk, but it's probably the same sort of energy thing.

Well, alrighty, then...!!

Depends a lot on the act I think......I saw George Thoroughgood way back in the 80's and the dude played for over 2&1/2 hours - it was ALL TOO MUCH. Like a bloody endurance test! And that was when I still considered myself a "young" man.

On the other hand, 3 years ago I saw Cheap Trick at Casino Niagara, and they barely did 60 minutes - I swear you could see Rick Neilson looking at his watch at the end of every song. I'm afraid it was one of those "just give me the money and we'll be on our way" shows. A real disappointment, especially considering they still make some pretty damn good music, that NOBODY hears.......

I can't imagine 2.5 hours of that.