I've been to far more gigs which I thought were too long than I have ones which I reckoned too short. About 90 minutes including encore is fine by me.

And that ideal gig would run from 8:30 till 10. I know I'm probably just getting old, but it's really nice to get home at a reasonable hour!

Here here. I finished work at 5 and had to kill a lot of time. Why 9:45? They could have started at 9:00 and I would have got in a bit earlier than 20 to 1!

Can I also got the other way? I went to see Badly Drawn Boy in Manchester several years ago and he did more than 2 hours of material - "a" sides, "b" sides the lot. It was interminable. I'd rather see 60 mins of good stuff than an extra hour of dross.

First off I was at the very same gig, and Delays were indeed splendid. New tracks sounded particularly good.

I thought the set list was just the right length. All too easy for bands to outstay their welcome. 45 minutes plus encore felt fine to me, even if they had dropped one or two live favourites.

Also, the later start suits some people fine. I know of people that travelled from as far as Birmingham for the show. The start time allowed me to get up from Oxford, check into a hotel en route, meet the wife, have a bite to eat and still arrive with half an hour to spare. Don't forget this was a mini-tour. Just six dates meant some people were travelling long distances to catch the shows.

Yeah I'm with the sharpish start and 90 minutes, although some of the bands I've seen in the past would've got four toons into that time.

I saw The Ramones in the late seventies and they did about 52 minutes (but played about 26 songs in that time).

Surely its the quality not the quantity? As per the Ramones gigs. Half an hour of a great band is worth 90 or 120 mins of an interminable, non melodic, egotistical nonsense of a band while your standing on a sticky floor in East London nursing a really expensive and watered down pint of lager.

The Delays sound as though they were pretty good and probably don't have the material for a 90 min set...unless like BDB they decide to play all their B sides, C sides and D sides....

Isn't everything too long these days? Well Movies and CDs anyway.

(Take that Eagles CD being discussed elsewhere on this site. Its a double! Thats must be over 2 hours of pompous country rock - every fart a meaningful fart. Really give us a break. You will never get those two hours back.)

As far as I'm concerned, most bands are overstaying their welcome if they play over 30 minutes.

I would make an exception for Neil Young and Teenage Fanclub, whose unimpeachable back catalogues mean they'e only just getting going at the 30-minute mark.

tops for me usually. I saw the Undertones recently who did an excellent set of said length, only to mar it with an encore of B sides and new stuff. Not bad, I admit, but lacking the pristine clarity of the main set. As I get older and lose concentration spa....oh look a butterfly....span, I find harder to sit through sets of 30-mins-plus duration. The obverse of this is that festival sets are usually the requisite length.
Tho, as Martin avers above, there are exceptions. I could watch much of Bob Mould's incarnations for 2hrs plus, as with prime-form Primals, Underworld or Ryan Adams. I love Weller, but he ruined a great platform at V with teeth-itchingly obscurantist stuff from his solo back catalogue replete with interminable soloing. There's summat to be said for the Ramonic wanchewthreefowah 30min sets of sheer hellfire.
ps the above is obviously merelt an adumbration as the irritating Amis Jr would have it. I'm sure there's a gazillion bands worth an hour and three-quarters. I just can't conjure 'em up right now.

Last night (Sunday 18th Nov) Lu played 1 hr 55 mins at Indigo and it didn't seem a moment too long. If anything we'd have been happy with another half hour.

Added bonus, she arrived on stage, on time and was in a very good mood.

When I saw the legendary Byrd he did about an hour including encore, which was pathetic given the size of his back catalogue and the cost of tickets. I did know in advance about his short sets but that didn't soften the blow. However, I was home early!

Last time I saw Neil Young solo, I had booked my £50 ticket before I knew what he was going to be playing. He played Greendale. And talked about it. God, it was dull. Very dull. That's a fortnight I'll never get back.

Outstanding, they supported Embrace a while ago (the only reason I got a ticket was the support)so their set was only short as expected.

Myself, an hour is just not enough, 8.45pm- 10.30pm including encores is pretty good for an established band. KOL were just a bit cheeky last time I saw them. It was ok when they had only 1 album out, but last time I saw them they'd just released the third & just over 1 hour is just too short! Hope their next gig I go to in Dec is longer.

REM was one of the longest gigs I went to in Manchester a good few years ago, over 2 1/2 hours - just too long!

Elvis Costello in Ipswich, 1980s. Two and a half hours. He played fifty songs. (I wasn't counting, but the Evening Star reporter did.) Utterly magnificent. Longer would've been fine.

Saw him twice on the North tour - both great sets and around 2 and a half hours - gigs were 2 weeks apart and he played 15 songs in Birmingham that he didnt play in Manchester - he always changes his setlist and it makes for pleasant surprises. However saw him this year with Allen Touissaint at Tower of London and dont know if he was pissed off with something or someone but his setlist was cut short by about 10 songs and we were short changed by 45 minutes. When you have paid £120 for 2 tickets plus a hotel stay this aint particularly funny.
I note his comments about not being bothered with playing in UK in future and not releasing any new material on cd. Is he just being a grumpy old arse or what?? I still rate him as probably our best songwriter and a great live performer but someone please put some sugar in his coffee.

Everyone should do twenty minutes. All the hits. No encores. Maybe a good vent act as support. Or poodles jumping through hoops.

Saw the oft acclaimed Fire Engines play one of their legendary 15 minute sets at The Limit club in Sheffield in the early 80's. My recollection is of 5 minutes of music, 10 minutes of tuning up. I've seen Delays a couple of times and thought they played long enough. Anyone here moaning about people playing too long - going to the bar / pub / bus / home is always an option.

Saw Rilo Kiley at Leeds Cockpit last night. They'd already started when I arrived at 8.45, their main set was over by 9.30ish, couple of encores and they're gone. Aside from being a tad early, it's the way to go in my book. Cut the filler, leave the crowd wanting more.

Having said that Super Furries played massive set followed by massive encore at Leeds Town Hall a couple of weeks back, and I was glad of it.

45 mins to an hour is fine by me

Julian Cope - 2hrs, never a dull moment, it was some time ago mind
Robert Palmer - I walked out at the 2hr mark as I got bored
Nine Inch Nails - 1hr 35 on the Downward Spiral tour, band walk of to a howl of feedback, house lights up. It was brilliant, they came, they did the business then fecked off.
I did eventually get to see The Jesus and Mary Chain and I really wished they were still playing 15min sets.

I saw the Flaming Lips in Paris in 2003 and they played all the great tracks off "Soft bulletin" and "Yoshimi", fantastic stage show with back projection, Wayne Coyne's hand held camera, weird animal suits, big balloons into the audience, hand held spotlights - and after an hour they were gone...perfect!