Let’s say you’ve made it through Ticketmaster’s seven circles of hell and actually secured tickets to see your favorite artist in concert. How many songs would you have to hear to feel like you got your money’s worth?
Jack White raised the issue over the weekend after hearing “chatter” about concert length, calling out fans who feel entitled to a certain set length. “I know that we’re living in a current era where people like to say ‘so and so played for 3 hours last night!’, and brag about it the next day hahaha, I’ll let our fans know now that my mind has no intention of ‘impressing’ y’all in that context,” he wrote on Instagram. “The Beatles and Ramones played 30 minute (ish) sets, and If I could, I would do the same at this moment in my performing life. That’s actually the kind of show I’d like to put on right now.”
White also pointed out that fans should temper their expectations based on what type of show they’re seeing; not every concert takes place in a massive arena, and as he wrote, “it’s not a Marvel movie or a Vegas residency.” “I’m not sure y’all are knowing (or maybe remembering?) what a real rock or punk show is like though if you’re thinking that way, I think you’re talking about an arena laser light show with pyro, huge screens with premade videos, singers flying over the crowd, t shirt cannons, etc, that’s not the kind of shows we’re performing,” he added. “I’ve seen a plethora of rock and roll gigs that lasted 45 minutes and blew my mind and inspired me beyond belief. Read the room, leave everyone exhausted and inspired (hopefully) and most of all wanting more, without needing 3 hours to do it.”
It begs the question: what is the appropriate concert length? Is there a point at which a show becomes a ripoff, and if so, what is it? White is right: it depends on what type of show it is. If it’s a giant arena show that you’ve shelled out hundreds or thousands of dollars for, you have a right to be pissed if it’s over in less than 90 minutes. If it’s a local band playing a small club, you should have no expectations, especially if it’s multiple artists sharing a bill.
Another factor to consider is the context in which you’re seeing them play. If it’s a festival set, for example, you already know exactly how long each artist is slated to play. So if they run short, it’s more noticeable. (I’ll never get over Bonnaroo 2015, when Billy Joel ended his Sunday night headlining slot a whopping 40 minutes early.) Of course, a festival performance running too long can also be a problem, as it messes with the next artist’s ability to set up and throws the whole schedule out of whack.
But if you’re not at a festival, there are still a number of things to consider before you start complaining. As White alluded to, genre comes into play here; a punk band with a bunch of two-minute songs playing for 45 minutes should be just as satisfying as a jam band meandering through a bunch of 12-minute tracks for a few hours. Perhaps we should be focusing more on the number of songs performed instead of the time it took to perform them.
Depth of catalogue also has to be considered. If a band just released their debut album, they may only have 10 or 12 songs in their repertoire. People underestimate how much material you need to fill two hours. And let’s not forget the physical stamina it requires to move around a stage for that long. It’s one thing for a young pop star to prance around for three hours, but should we expect it of, say, an aging classic rock star? That’s basically what killed Tom Petty.
Ticket prices are out of control, and concert tickets are a much more significant expense than they were pre-COVID, so it’s understandable that fans would feel frustrated if they didn’t get their money’s worth. But to hold every single artist to the same standard is, as White pointed out, ridiculous and entitled. Just enjoy the show you get instead of watching the clock.
More Like This
This article was featured in the InsideHook newsletter. Sign up now.
