ALEX LIFESON: "What's With All These Young Bands Who Play For An Hour And 10 Minutes"

[EvilCheeseWedge]

Originally Posted by ravenheart

um... duh! They have no support BECAUSE they play for that long. Not the other way around!

The band who have 2 or more opening acts do so because they don't play long enough themselves and need someone else to fill the time.

That's just bullshit plain and simple.

Most bands aren't known enough and simply can't sell enough tickets to be the only band on the bill.

Originally Posted by ravenheart

Otherwise, if you're the headliner of a tour, you play two hours and select support accordingly. Maiden do it night after night, and no one puts more energy into a show than them.

[EvilCheeseWedge]

Originally Posted by ravenheart

As far as I'm concerned, if Ronnie James Dio can put in 2+ hours a night, anyone can.

Heh, when I saw him with Dio in 2004, he played 90 minutes. With Heaven And Hell... 90 minutes. Hey, isn't that only 20 minutes longer then what Lifeson is talking about?

[ravenheart]

Originally Posted by EvilCheeseWedge

Heh, when I saw him with Dio in 2004, he played 90 minutes. With Heaven And Hell... 90 minutes. Hey, isn't that only 20 minutes longer then what Lifeson is talking about?

I've never seen him play less than 2 hours with Dio (three times) or Heaven And Hell...

[ravenheart]

Originally Posted by EvilCheeseWedge

That's just bullshit plain and simple.

Most bands aren't known enough and simply can't sell enough tickets to be the only band on the bill.

I didn't say only. I'm talking about the ones with "minimum 2 support bands". Bands who play 2 hours have maximum 2 support bands, usually one. The reason? Because they play two hours and to have loads of support would mean starting the show at 3pm.

Gov't Mule, for instance. They play 3 hours, so have no support. On the tours where they play 2 hours they have a support band. These facts are not unrelated.

Bands with 3 support bands (or even four I've seen sometimes, which is freakin' ridiculous) barely play for one hour. That's why they have all those support bands. If they stopped fucking around and played a proper 2 hour set then they simply wouldn't have time to have all those support bands.

Set length dictates support. Not vice versa. Co-headlining tours and package tours (which we never get here) are the only exceptions because set lengths have to be fair to all the bands.

[EvilCheeseWedge]

I think most bands here would love to be able to tour across America and play as long as they want, but that's hardly economically viable. Tours are expensive to run, and you'll get a better draw and be more cost effective if costs are being split more ways.

Oh and here's the math: more tickets = more time. It's seriously that simple. But good luck being able to do that here. Acts like Queensryche and Alice Cooper only pack in about 1,000 when they headline solo here. And bands like Dio can't even get a crowd to play solo here.

Also, by the way, when I saw Dio in 2004. He brought two support bands with him (this is not including the local opener from the venue.) This was a headlining tour for him. His opening bands played for over and hour and a half, and he played 90 minutes, and somehow I don't think less of him because Rush manages to play more.

I mean seriously, when your songs are all six minutes long and you don't move, your three hour sets pretty much take care of themselves

I think Lifeson needs to lay off the New Years booze binging. It's not about quantity, it's about quality. I've walked away from plenty of 90 minute headlining shows, or less, and been completely satisfied.

[powerslave_85]

Originally Posted by powerslave_85

I mean, it's one thing for Rush to kind of stand there and play 7-minute songs...

Originally Posted by EvilCheeseWedge

I mean seriously, when your songs are all six minutes long and you don't move, your three hour sets pretty much take care of themselves

[es156]

Originally Posted by EvilCheeseWedge

I mean seriously, when your songs are all six minutes long and you don't move, your three hour sets pretty much take care of themselves

That is total crap and you know it. They may not jump around like a bunch of 6-year-olds, but they put forth the effort.

I do agree with the quality over quantity comment, but when you have as many albums as some bands do, they can play a quality 3-hour set. Maiden could play for 3 hours and not run out of good songs, but they choose not to.

[JRA]

Except Rush doesn't exactly stand there. I mean they don't run around like Iron Maiden, but they also don't stand still like Tony Iommi.

[EvilCheeseWedge]

Moving != effort, and I never said that. Nor did I say anything about Iommi. The guy literally doesn't move. And I've never seen him play much longer then 90 minutes, would I say otherwise?

Still, when you have hours and hours and hours worth of material, and you don't put much physical energy into your live peformance, I don't find it shocking that you would tend to play longer sets.

[es156]

Originally Posted by EvilCheeseWedge

Moving != effort, and I never said that. Nor did I say anything about Iommi. The guy literally doesn't move. And I've never seen him play much longer then 90 minutes, would I say otherwise?

Still, when you have hours and hours and hours worth of material, and you don't put much physical energy into your live peformance, I don't find it shocking that you would tend to play longer sets.

Actually, both times I saw Heaven And Hell they played real close to 2 hours.

And why don't you ask Neil Peart how much physical energy he puts into his live performance?