Concert - value for money ?

[To be a Rock and not a Roll]

What do think is a reasonable length of time for a concert to make you feel you have had value for money, bearing in mind the cost of concerts these days..... ?

Do always want a Foo Fighters 3 hours
Or
Elton John Las Vagas show of an hour ( Van Morrison could also be considered here )

[billzab]

I have seen Bruce Springsteen 11 times and will be at the Stadium of Light in a few weeks time for No. 12. Always get value for money with The Boss and believe he is still going over the 2 hour mark on this tour. Personally think anything less than 2 hours is a rip off.

[mickc]

I'm more in favour of quality over quantity - I'd rather an hour long gig that's good, than any length mediocre-to-bad one. A good 2 hour one's better though!

Mick

[To be a Rock and not a Roll]

(2012-06-03 18:24)mickc Wrote:  I'm more in favour of quality over quantity - I'd rather an hour long gig that's good, than any length mediocre-to-bad one. A good 2 hour one's better though!

Mick

Hi Mick,
Good point as ever
Quality is assumed

Last night my brother was saying that Dave Grohl was infact the Ken Dodd of Rock, you really can't him off the stage, he just loves being up there.
Better than going through the motions

[mickc]

Ok, if quality's assumed, I'm happy with anything over ninety minutes. Personally, though, there is a limit. A friend of mine was a huge fan of The Grateful Dead and he saw them perform several shows in excess of four hours. I'm not sure there's anyone out there I'd want to spend four bum-numbing hours with!

Mick

PS I've been going to gigs since '74 or so, and they've never been worse value in my opinion. Tickets were always much cheaper than albums until the late 'eighties or so, but now, at many large gigs, we're expected to fork out £70, £80, £90 or more.

[To be a Rock and not a Roll]

Hi Mick,
Intestering PS....
But is it true ?
Personally I would have said yes but here is my conclusion on how to fix this debate once and for all -
I'm going to get all my gig tickets from the last 35 years log the prices, then you map the average salaries from the same period, to allow for differing artists I'll allocate an ABC definition to each gig.

When I have completed the exercise, I'll publish the results on the forum and you can all piss yourself laughing at what sado I am

Go on admit it, it would be interesting

[SaltyDog]

The ticket sellers were not part of the equation back in the day and tickets were sold for face value.

When we saw Paul McCartney last year it was so hot that just standing to applaud had be rationed as a part of survival. The show he put on in those conditions - got to hand it to him and the band.

All too often the seats are what determine how long I'd like the show to go on.

[starman62]

(2012-06-03 15:59)billzab Wrote:  I have seen Bruce Springsteen 11 times and will be at the Stadium of Light in a few weeks time for No. 12. Always get value for money with The Boss and believe he is still going over the 2 hour mark on this tour. Personally think anything less than 2 hours is a rip off.

+1 Would agree to that. A week ago i have seen the Boss in Cologne.
A 3 hours 20 minutes earth shaking performance!!!
I payed 107 Euros, got a complete value for money back.
But that is the Boss's performance.
Normaly you should get at least a 2 hours show for youe money.
Cheers
Jo

[billzab]

(2012-06-04 04:20)SaltyDog Wrote:  All too often the seats are what determine how long I'd like the show to go on.

I may be getting on a bit, but if I am still in my seat after the third song it usually means its a shit gig.

[tonys]

Went to see Mr Springsteen and the E Street Band in Manchester on 22 June , they came on stage at 7.15 and the concert finished at 10.40 . They didn't take any break's during the entire show , they just played great music throughout the 3 hours 25 minutes they were on stage.
Now that's what i call value for money.