The BS need of opening acts

[modrevolve]

yes..and The Beach Boys played almost 50 songs..but the backing bands do a lot of the work for them and a lot of those songs are around 3 minutes.
Moz shows were around 60 minutes back in the 90s. Most bands play 90 minutes max nowadays; ever those who have an extensive catalog out. you can tell that the performances really take a lot out of him so I've never been bothered by the set length.

I grabbed some of the Monkees shows off DIME (love them). Didn't they play like 30 songs though? I don't think anyone would complain about not having an opener if he did a 2-2.5 hour set. But going all the way back to The Smiths, he's always played close to 90 minute sets. I don't know why but just always assumed that's all his voice can do and be ready for the next show.

 

[Harsh Truth]

I agree that it comes down to making a full evening of it. Morrissey won't ever do more than 90 minutes - closer to 75-80 this year - and it's hard to charge $75-100 for that. Adding an opening act at least extends the "entertainment" factor.

Though in Boston, the last show of the tour, in the absence of KY for a brief moment I wondered if maybe we'd get another 3-4 songs seeing that it was now billed as "An Evening with Morrissey". But of course not. He just went about his business as normal, walking on stage at 9:00 p.m. as always. I figured he'd at least adjust his set start time to 8:30.

So as a result of a lot people being in the venue for 2 hours with nothing to do, there was a lot of activity in the bar areas. Which I am always in favor of.

 

[Harsh Truth]

Moz shows were around 60 minutes back in the 90s. .

So true, and some people may not realize this.

The Maladjusted tour in 1997 had some shows (not sickness-related) only featuring FOURTEEN songs! The show was BARELY 60 minutes, lights down to lights up. If you got 15 or 16 songs you were extremely lucky. That said, that tour ruled.

In 1999, they started to creep up towards 70-75 minutes, with 16-17 songs.

In 2004, we started seeing shows as long as 80-85 minutes, with 17-19 tunes.

Then, in 2007-2008, there were shows that ran 21-22 songs and as long as 90-95 minutes.

The length has been creeping downwards the last few tours. I believe there was a 15 song set this year.

 

[Chickpea]

yes..and The Beach Boys played almost 50 songs..but the backing bands do a lot of the work for them and a lot of those songs are around 3 minutes.
Moz shows were around 60 minutes back in the 90s. Most bands play 90 minutes max nowadays; ever those who have an extensive catalog out. you can tell that the performances really take a lot out of him so I've never been bothered by the set length.

I've always been curious if the shorter show lengths are/were a throwback thing with Moz, much like his (now less-common) love of shorter pop songs. How long was the average pop concert in the '60s or '70s?

 

[fredkocherpepsi]

http://www.morrissey-solo.com/pollBooth.pl?qid=342&aid=-1

Glad to see it appears the Popes got a lot of love!

 

[modrevolve]

I've always been curious if the shorter show lengths are/were a throwback thing with Moz, much like his (now less-common) love of shorter pop songs. How long was the average pop concert in the '60s or '70s?

I dont think people realize the average Beatles concert ran around 25 minutes even at Shea Stadium.

 

[fredkocherpepsi]

The weirdest opener/headliner combo I've ever seen was Counting Crows opening for Suede, I think in 1993. I have never seen so much booing at a concert before! At one point they threw handfuls of cassingles into the audience, which quickly became ammunition...

Confession: Not only have I never (knowingly) heard Suede (I know, I know!) but I really enjoy Counting Crows, specifically the first two albums.

 

[Harsh Truth]

With regards to the Cure, who I loved when I was 16-20 yrs old but have not followed much since...... 3 hours? Excessive, no? I'm not sure I'd even want to see Morrissey play for 3 hours.

 

[fredkocherpepsi]

I honestly think 90 minutes is an ideal set time for someone like Moz. If it’s a fast punk/hc band I’m obviously fine w/ 30-40 mins but for his stuff...90 mins is plenty. I’m a fan of Bruce Springsteen and Pearl Jam, but not sure I could even handle them live since they each play for over 3 hours sometimes.

 

[Chickpea]

I dont think people realize the average Beatles concert ran around 25 minutes even at Shea Stadium.

Yeah, that's exactly what I was wondering! Based on what you said about the Beatles, I searched and found this:
http://www.thebeatlesrarity.com/2012/05/17/asknat-concerning-setlists-and-more-about-bootlegs/

When Brian Epstein took over as their manager in late 1961, he cleaned up their image and had them wear suits on stage, have a more polished stage presence including a bow after the set was over and, yes, he had them play shorter set lists that were more in line with the “professional” performers of the time.

Typically high profile rock bands of the early sixties had between 8 and 15 songs in their set lists and in those days rock songs lasted usually between two and three minutes. After adding in the stage banter and breaks between performances, the shows usually lasted around a half hour. This was the norm between 1963-1966.

 

[Chickpea]

With regards to the Cure, who I loved when I was 16-20 yrs old but have not followed much since...... 3 hours? Excessive, no? I'm not sure I'd even want to see Morrissey play for 3 hours.

You would think so, but no, not excessive at all when you're there. The time goes really fast, and they are masters at crafting perfect setlists and balancing the pop hits with the longer anthem-y stuff. I honestly haven't really enjoyed anything the Cure have recorded since the early '90s, but I still go to see them live any chance I get. On stage is where they are truly phenomenal.

A long set suits their back catalog and the type of band they are, though. I've never felt like I need Morrissey to do 3hr+ shows. It's different.

 

[fredkocherpepsi]

You would think so, but no, not excessive at all when you're there. The time goes really fast, and they are masters at crafting perfect setlists and balancing the pop hits with the longer anthem-y stuff. I honestly haven't really enjoyed anything the Cure have recorded since the early '90s, but I still go to see them live any chance I get. On stage is where they are truly phenomenal.

A long set suits their back catalog and the type of band they are, though. I've never felt like I need Morrissey to do 3hr+ shows. It's different.

I agree re: the Cure. Their last truly great album IMO is “Wish”. I really liked the s/t when it came out in 2004 but can’t tell you the last time I listened to it. Never heard the one after.

 

[CrystalGeezer]

The opener is for drinking, the headliner is for feeling the buzz.

FYI in case anyone cares, installing a headliner in an automobile is the most complicated and often most expensive part of upholstery.

 

[fredkocherpepsi]

The opener is for drinking, the headliner is for feeling the buzz.

If you don’t drink (like me) the opener is for spacing out and getting a good spot.

 

[Anonymous]

The shows in Japan a couple of years ago were good. No support act. Doors open, rush to the barrier, then after an hour Moz comes on. 90 minutes later, it's all over and we're aout of there. Less hanging around - good for everyone.

So if having no support means less waiting, I'm cool with it.
If it means an extra hour glued to the barrier staring at nothing - f*** that shit. Even a crap band gives you something to moan about.