FEATURE:
The Show Must Go On…and On and On…
Will Longer Sets Be Beneficial for Fans But Damaging to Artists?
_________
IN a recent feature…
PHOTO CREDIT: Drazen Zigic via Freepik
Dave Simpson was writing for The Guardian reacting to the fact artists such as Taylor Swift (whose current Eras Tour is sweeping across the U.S.) are performing epic sets. It is understandable that fans are looking to get to gigs more regularly. When they do go and see any live gigs, it is almost like they are making up for lost time after the lockdowns. When seeing smaller acts, maybe cost is not such an issue. If you go and see a major/mainstream artist, it can cost an awful lot of money! Because of that, few are going to object to a longer set than normal. Decades ago, bands and artists would play for hours and hours. Legends like Paul McCartney still do. When Madonna takes her Celebration Tour around the world later in the year, one wonders how long the set will be. I can appreciate that fans want value for money if they are paying that much. Post-lockdown and through the worst of COVID-19, artists are still recalibrating and getting used to being back on the road. The article from The Guardian explains how longer gigs and bigger sets might become more nominalised for major artists. Few fans who shell out a lot of money would object to it:
“Get ready to double the babysitter’s shift: pop concerts are getting longer. Taylor Swift’s current Eras tour of the US finds the American superstar singing and playing for more than three hours every night, but she’s not the only one: veteran British goth giants the Cure, already fond of long gigs, performed 88 songs over three nights at Wembley Arena last December, averaging just under three hours every show. Other acts putting in unusually long stints on stage lately include K-pop stars Ateez (two and a half hours) and Aussie psych-rockers King Gizzard & the Lizard Wizard, who will play a three-hour marathon at Los Angeles Hollywood Bowl in June.
Lengthy shows aren’t new. The Grateful Dead played five-hour sets in the 1970s and Bruce Springsteen’s live epics are legendary (the longest, in Helsinki in 2012, lasted four hours and six minutes). The Boss’s current tour – arriving in the UK later this year – is averaging just under three hours. But newer artists have also shifted towards longer shows to showcase increasingly large back catalogues. Swift’s 44-song Eras setlist culls from 10 albums – 17 years of music. King Gizzard and the Lizard Wizard’s 23 long-players since 2010 provide a labyrinthine songbook that can’t be represented in a gig of even 120 minutes.
We’ve done a bunch of marathon shows now and our fans seem to dig it
“Playing long shows felt like a challenge and a way of digging deeper into the discography,” explains frontman Stu Mackenzie, whose recent set lists have represented about a dozen of their albums. “We’ve done a bunch of marathon shows now and our fans seem to dig it.”
Another aspect is value for money. With controversy over rocketing ticket prices (about which the Cure are very vocal) amid a cost of living crisis, there seems to be a collective recognition of the need for lots of bang – or band – for your buck.
PHOTO CREDIT: MART PRODUCTION/Pexels
“I go to a lot of shows, and seeing a longer one feels more worth the money,” says Charlotte Giese, a 28-year-old Chicago-based compliance analyst who watched Swift’s Eras tour last week in Glendale, Arizona. “I flew from Chicago, paid $144 (£117) for my ticket and parking and wouldn’t change a thing,” she said. “I got three hours plus of Taylor Swift and a great set of opening acts.” Supports in Glendale were Gayle and Paramore, who along with Beabadoobee, Phoebe Bridgers, Girl in Red, Muna, Haim, Gracie Abrams and Owenn are being rotated as Swift’s opening act.
Lengthy shows go against prevailing wisdom that the internet has lessened our attention span: TikTok, YouTube and the like are geared to short formats. However, the desire for more enduring cultural experiences clearly remains, among devoted fans at least. Giese found Taylor Swift’s three-hour epic “enrapturing”, but admitted that the more casual fans were “bored and sitting on their phones for chunks of time. Which sucks because there are thousands who would have loved to have been there as opposed to someone who has gone because they like a couple of songs”.
There is that contrast and complexity when it comes to meeting fans’ needs. If they are paying a lot for a ticket and have to travel far to get to a venue, then providing a long and comprehensive set seems fair. That said, attention spans are quite short among many. They may not want album tracks. I think that it is hard to give that longer set and keep fans’ focus. I am not sure there is an easy answer, but I feel a three-hour set for example is not a great deal of time. If there was a break or chance to refresh half-way through, it would be more sustainable. If the fans would get more and it would justify a higher ticket price, there is an obvious question: What is the impact on the artists? There are a couple of effects and potential issues. Although artists like Taylor Swift have endurance and are seasoned touring performers, delivering a long and quite intense set obviously is physically and emotionally draining. Last year, when so many artists were touring as much as possible to catch up from lost gigs, they were getting struck and having to pull out of dates. Wet Leg, Sam Fender and Arlo Parks were among those that had to cancel gigs to focus on their mental health. It is something that could inflict artists that extend their sets and do these marathon sets. Even if the longer set was more normal years ago, the culture and situation is different now. Any artist is going to feel the strain doing a string of exhausting gigs with very little time to rest and recharge between dates. With all the travelling and to and fro, that is also going to take a toll.
IN THIS PHOTO: Sam Fender, who was forced to cancel gigs last year to focus on his mental health
Another problem comes in the form of gigs in general. If they do feel they have to cancel dates because of physical exhaustion, loss of voice or mental health concerns, that then means thousands of fans will miss out. Rather than play longer sets, maybe a more economical approach is to scale down the setlist and try to reduce the chances of early exhaustion. It does seem like these big artists love the performances and reaching the fans. That chance to connect with them directly and see the joy and feel that energy is infectious! It is a case of weighing up the pros and cons, but with ticket prices for major artists’ shows costing more and more and many fans paying over the odds on various ticket websites, will providing this longer show have a really detrimental impact on the wellbeing of many artists? I hope not! It is great that things have reopened. Even if more endurance is needed and it may be more normal to do extended sets, musicians are still human. It is going to be noticeable. With long travel and more physical performances, there is that real worry and possibility. As much as we love live music and the chance to see incredible musicians on the stage, their mental and physical health is of the utmost importance. The priority now and always is to ensure that they are…
HEALTHY and happy.