Set Lengths on Wall of Mouths

Set Lengths

I was at the gig at the Garage on Friday night an the boys were in fine form as usual. BUT why were they only on the stage for under an hour INCLUDING an encore??

i hung around for a few mins after the gig an most people were a bit pissed off to say the least and felt a bit ripped off, myself included!

T? are the only pro band i have ever seen to play for this abismal amount of time.

What do the masses think about this??
And the band…If you’re reading??

Dont get me wrong I loved the gig but was just a bit disappointed.

(Before changing the message boards’ software in August 2007 this discussion contained a poll, which may return in the future)

Posted on Sun, 18 May 2003 at 21:52

You’re viewing replies 1–30 of 33 by 16 people

Page: First | Previous | Next | Last

Ronald wrote:

Hm, a bit strange indeed. did you check the batttery of your watch? No, just kiddin, maybe they had a good reason for such a short gig, but I must say under an hour is short indeed, so I am with you…

Posted on Sun, 18 May 2003 at 22:16

Ronald wrote:

good score up to now mate;)

Posted on Sun, 18 May 2003 at 22:17

up_in_flames (Tom) wrote:

I have to say I was a bit disappointed with the setlist - regarding the choice of songs AND the gig length. the list has 17 songs on it (including the encore…) and each song lasts for approx. 3 mins, so this totals not even 60 mins. for the whole gig!! what’s that supposed to mean?
at least the tickes are priced very low, 17 here in austria. BUT that doesn’t justify the length of the set.

rip off alert!!!

Posted on Mon, 19 May 2003 at 08:06

opalmantra wrote:

If it’s a festival. An hour is qutie good. :D
Otherwise, I think 1,5 hours is the standard.
An hour is way to short. Yes.

Some bands play three hours. :D

Posted on Mon, 19 May 2003 at 08:07

Alan wrote:

One band I can reference, is Soundgarden. They used play a near 2 hour set each night. When you consider that, you kinda think “yeah, an hour is too short”

Posted on Mon, 19 May 2003 at 08:19

prburrows wrote:

Title: length of gig

looking at your replys i dont think i was being harsh. and when i said under an houtr it was just a few mins uner the hour mark.

the only reason i could thik that they might be on a time limit was so they could get the garage ready to be a night club again as it was a friday night. but i saw them last year at the in edinburgh an thy pleyed for about 1 hr 10 mins…slightly more acceptable but still under par.

and about the ticket prices…
therapy? i feel are all about the music so you dont need to pay for expensive stage show and the like which hike ticket prices. They just turn up, play a bit an go. The prices are kept low due aswell to the venues they play. It cost me £25 for 2 tickets for fri night…bargain…usually!

Posted on Mon, 19 May 2003 at 11:32

Superunknown wrote:

Alan wrote:
One band I can reference, is Soundgarden. They used play a near 2 hour set each night.

Holy shit! I wish I had seen them at least once!

Posted on Mon, 19 May 2003 at 12:29

Shra-Mee wrote:

Well 1 hour is very short. But perhaps Andy had to catch some fresh air and needed a break…
;)
:D

Posted on Mon, 19 May 2003 at 12:31

smurftastic wrote:

I kind of agree with you about the set length. I was a bit suprised they had two support acts. They could easily have ditched one of them and then played for a bit longer.

However, I’ve noticed that most of the bands I’ve seen recently have only been playing for about 1 hour. It seems that they plan to get the gigs finished by 10.30. With two support acts (which also seems to be the standard these days) that doesn’t really leave a lot of time for any of the bands. And it seemed that there was an awful lot of faffing around by roadies before T? took to the stage.

And although the ticket price wasn’t the most expensive (especially considering you’re paying for 3 bands), it wasn’t exactly the cheapest either.

Posted on Mon, 19 May 2003 at 12:48

#10

opalmantra wrote:

Recently Dream Theater rocked for a bit less than three(!) hours. The Cure does…Tool always plays 2 hours.

But a one hour gig can be just as much fan than a boring 2-hour show. Zzzzzzzzzz. Right?

Posted on Mon, 19 May 2003 at 13:54

#11

Alan wrote:

I wouldn’t expect T? to play for 2 hours, but under 60 minutes is just not enough. If people have to travel a long way for the gig, it might put them off.

I think 80 minutes is definately reasonable.

Posted on Mon, 19 May 2003 at 13:59

#12

donVutz wrote:

under 60 minute is way to short. i think it should be at least 80-90 minutes, as 10 min. are spent for breaks and talking shite between the songs.

Posted on Mon, 19 May 2003 at 15:05

#13

up_in_flames (Tom) wrote:

you name it. let’s wait and see… *fingers crossed* :rolleyes:

Posted on Mon, 19 May 2003 at 15:56

#14

Kill_Hill (Brendan) wrote:

I don’t think 17 songs is enought for a band like Therapy?, they do have a big back catalogue too choose from so they should be on for nearly 90 mins.

Posted on Mon, 19 May 2003 at 16:34

#15

Karl wrote:

I was at Manchester, and I think T? were on for about 1 hr 10, I could see the setlist, and know they missed out Diane, but they came on stage late as well, I would have fucked the first support band off, kept Miss Black America, and T? on for 2hours, that would have been nice, perhaps 1hr of their set, and the rest could have been by audience request:D

Posted on Mon, 19 May 2003 at 17:56

#16

prburrows wrote:

Title: support act

yeah i agree with that. should have only had 1 support band. Us people in glasgow got hit with utter pish. the second band were, appropriately named Three Stages of Pain…they were like just one though. The first support were ok an should have been the second support.
Couldnt see the set list in glasgow as i had to behave myself as i was there with my girlfriend who was a complete T? virgin all but a few weeks ago…needless to say after seeing them in the flesh she is now a fan!! :D
Anyway the point i WAS gonna make was that they didnt play diane here either and NOTHING off of Shameless

Posted on Mon, 19 May 2003 at 19:38

#17

White Psycho wrote:

With the poll am I agreeing that the gig was too short, or that there shouldn’t be set lengths?

Posted on Mon, 19 May 2003 at 20:58

#18

LunacyBooth wrote:

Title: Glasgow gig length

I must admit I thought the gig length was spot on. Of course there were songs that I’d love to have heard but I went home wanting more which is always a good thing after a gig. I remember seeing Megadeth play for over 2.5 hrs (Metallica as well) and too be honest I was getting really fed up towards the end. I much prefer shorter gigs which hit the mark!

I agree with the point about support bands. One would be enough. By the time 3 Stages of Pain had finished I’d forgotten which stage of pain I was going through. They were utter shite!

Last tour we got Defenestration! How the hell a band that sucked that badly got a T? support slot is beyond me? The last decent support T? had were the Yo-Yo’s which is a good while back now (Oh! and Nerve!).

Overall though the Garage rocked and despite a short set was a brilliant night. Roll on the next leg.

Posted on Tue, 20 May 2003 at 09:16

#19

White Psycho wrote:

Title: Re: Glasgow gig length

LunacyBooth wrote:
The last decent support T? had were the Yo-Yo’s which is a good while back now (Oh! and Nerve!).

Nerve got my mate out of the crowd to sing Fuck Off And Die, the singer was a bit annoyed because my mate was a better singer than he was!

Posted on Tue, 20 May 2003 at 12:29

#20

Kill_Hill (Brendan) wrote:

Title: ???????????

I haven’t a clue what this pole is askin.

Posted on Tue, 20 May 2003 at 16:04

#21

Alan wrote:

Title: Re: ???????????

Kill_Hill wrote:
I haven’t a clue what this pole is askin.

Basically he’s asking do you agree (yes!) that the set is too short, or do you disagree (no!)

Posted on Tue, 20 May 2003 at 16:24

#22

prburrows wrote:

Title: the poll

thanks for clearin that up there Alan.
I mean how fuckin dense are some people in this world??

Posted on Tue, 20 May 2003 at 18:57

#23

prburrows wrote:

And its not a POLE either!!!!!!!!

POLL

Posted on Tue, 20 May 2003 at 18:58

#24

hoochalobster (Sarah) Super Moderator wrote:

I didn’t understand what you meant straight away either. And please don’t insult people here, it’s not nice and it’s against the guidelines. Cheers :)

Posted on Tue, 20 May 2003 at 19:38

#25

Kill_Hill (Brendan) wrote:

Title: Re: the poll

prburrows wrote:
thanks for clearin that up there Alan.
I mean how fuckin dense are some people in this world??

Sorry about being so ‘stupid’ but in your post you asked 3 questions and then you ask the question ‘Do you agree?’. So the only reason I seem to be dence is because of your badly thought out poll.

Posted on Wed, 21 May 2003 at 11:05

#26

Alan wrote:

Ambiguity is a bad thing

Posted on Wed, 21 May 2003 at 11:07