Foos and 3 hour set

[Harry49]

Imo 3 hours is fine to an audience made up of your own fans, but at a festival unless you are one of the following, 2 hours is max you can hold audience.

Mccartney, Wonder, Stones at a push!

 

[Hugh Jass]

9 minutes ago, Harry49 said:

Imo 3 hours is fine to an audience made up of your own fans, but at a festival unless you are one of the following, 2 hours is max you can hold audience.

Mccartney, Wonder, Stones at a push!

 

They're not being held hostage.

I'd imagine a pretty steady bleed from the crowd as it goes on.

[Justiceforcedave]

_{I reckon it's gonna be guests ahoy.}

[FloorFiller]

If it happens I doubt there'll be tons of people leaving throughout or anything like that and imagine they'll hold a pretty huge crowd. They definitely have enough big songs to last it anyway, and fingers crossed they don't decide to waste some of that 3 hours with a stupid covers medley. 

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

1 hour ago, CaledonianGonzo said:

Last time I saw El Jefe, when he went off after 4 odd hours I was there shouting with everyone else “Come back on Bruuuuuuuuuce, and carry on playing".

I've had some pretty late night sessions myself...

[zero000]

33 minutes ago, Justiceforcedave said:

_{I reckon it's gonna be guests ahoy.}

[chatty]

Not a fan of overly long sets. Maybes for bands like The Stones who you arent gonna get to see again but Foo fighters tour constantly, its not really needed and I think a large chunk of the crowd will be just waiting for it to finish from about two hours in. 

[Madyaker]

3 hours of songs that all sound the same?

[simian_mobile_mushrooms]

would defo need a colostomy bag for a three hour set

[zero000]

4 minutes ago, simian_mobile_mushrooms said:

would defo need a colostomy bag for a three hour set

Do you really need to shit that often?

[Superscally]

GUYS. It was a joke he made about the length of the Frome set. Can we end this thread right now? There will not be a three hour set at Glasto. 

[simian_mobile_mushrooms]

3 minutes ago, zero000 said:

Do you really need to shit that often?

ha, meant urostomy bag

[Glastocat]

I was there for the Bruce Springsteen set and stayed till the end. As a casual fan who only knew his classic songs I definitely felt it was too long and couldn't of saw it out by myself and then for him not to play born in the USA at the end for a sing along was sacrilege.

37 minutes ago, chatty said:

Not a fan of overly long sets. Maybes for bands like The Stones who you arent gonna get to see again but Foo fighters tour constantly, its not really needed and I think a large chunk of the crowd will be just waiting for it to finish from about two hours in. 

If it happens to be a 3 hour set we'll just turn up for the last hour and a half or so. Unless there's something else we would rather see of course.

[MrZigster]

When he said it, I also initially thought he was talking about that nights gig. Then realised he could have meant the festival.

About two and a half would be about right (unless the lots of guests thing). They're not Rush! (However much they'd like to be).

I also think Radiohead better deserve a three hour set. Way more variety.

 

[Dave_c]

10 hours ago, bennyhana22 said:

I'm a ridiculous music obsessive and enthusiast.

I can bore people to death talking about certain bands etc.

I am also a goldfish, regarding attention span.

I don't think that there's any band current or previous that I would want to watch for three hours.

Especially not at a festival.

That's just mental.

Ben

Agreed, 2 hours max!

[siweltrebor]

I'm fairly sure the Foo Fighters set at Reading 2012 was two and a half hours.

I thought they were great that night, surprised how anyone didn't enjoy it, the mix of the new and really old songs and the favourites, clearly Reading is special to them, just look at the Leeds setlist for comparison, think Reading got 6 extra songs and ones that hadn't been performed anywhere especially in the uk for years.

It was a great afternoon especially that the Black Keys were on right before them too.

3 hours does sound long, but if I was watching RHCP and got a chance to hear three hours over the usual 1.5 to 1.75 length set, i'd be all for it.

My only concern is the Foo's songs might start to blend into one, but a good setlist, maybe some surprises or special guests like they enjoy doing generally in the uk, bringing out the rock legends and yeah they will smash it.

[Nobody Interesting]

17 hours ago, Superscally said:

GUYS. It was a joke he made about the length of the Frome set. Can we end this thread right now? There will not be a three hour set at Glasto. 

Correct.

In 2015 they were down for 2.5 hours and that will be the most they get. I hope they get 2 hours max though I will be at West Holts most of the day so it does not really bother me.

[Hugh Jass]

1 hour ago, siweltrebor said:

 

3 hours does sound long, but if I was watching RHCP and got a chance to hear three hours over the usual 1.5 to 1.75 length set, i'd be all for it.

Dear God!

[CaledonianGonzo]

3 hours, 4 cocksocks

[little_jim]

Dave loves a drum off with Taylor, that will waste an hour or so.!

[guypjfreak]

11 hours ago, Nobody Interesting said:

Correct.

In 2015 they were down for 2.5 hours and that will be the most they get. I hope they get 2 hours max though I will be at West Holts most of the day so it does not really bother me.

Yea 2 hours is about OK.. Some one said about if it were just FOO fans and that true. If it was say a FOOs concert then of course you would want 3 hours even expect it but a festival is a busy place people to meet other bands to see 3 hours is a LONG time at a festival lol. 

[verrymerry]

I couldn't last that long.  I'm not a huge FF fan, but I'm convinced they'll be brilliant so I do want to see them, but I think there will be loads of songs I don't know, so a 3 hour set just adds to that for me.

 

I once saw Broken Social Scene do a 3 hour set in Leeds.  I had to leave before they finished, so god knows how long they actually played for!

[MrZigster]

I have to acknowledge that this whole Foos thing has got me stupidly excited, stupidly early for the festival this year. It's been a long time since I've been this excited this early.

I keep getting approached by people who know I go, telling me how lucky I am, and how they wish they were going, and how much I will love The Foos. It's usually me wanting to talk about Glasto. Not the other way 'round.

Is anyone else experiencing this?

I still haven't even decided if I'll be seeing them yet.

 

Edited March 5, 2017 by MrZigster

[Nobody Interesting]

8 hours ago, MrZigster said:

I have to acknowledge that this whole Foos thing has got me stupidly excited, stupidly early for the festival this year. It's been a long time since I've been this excited this early.

I keep getting approached by people who know I go, telling me how lucky I am, and how they wish they were going, and how much I will love The Foos. It's usually me wanting to talk about Glasto. Not the other way 'round.

Is anyone else experiencing this?

I still haven't even decided if I'll be seeing them yet.

 

Yes.

""Best band ever" and comments like that. I do not dislike them but find that their music, for me, blends into one long tune apart from their covers album obviously.

[Watergirl]

On 3/3/2017 at 3:03 PM, Glastocat said:

I was there for the Bruce Springsteen set and stayed till the end. As a casual fan who only knew his classic songs I definitely felt it was too long and couldn't of saw it out by myself and then for him not to play born in the USA at the end for a sing along was sacrilege.

That Bruce set was actually curtailed for festival purposes. He generally plays longer. It's a matter of personal taste but I'm never someone who needs to hear the hits. If an artist wants to present something new they can do so, as far as I'm concerned (even if that's 'Outlaw Pete'...).

Having said that, at the time he played Glastonbury Bruce was genuinely quite new to playing festivals. He had always avoided them. My theory is that he always wanted 100% control, but that Steve Van Zandt talked him into giving festivals a go, as he is a fan of them. But that is just speculation.

If you were to see Bruce at a festival now you'd get your Greatest Hits set. He's come around to the fact that this is what works best with a festival crowd. I saw him at Roskilde in 2012 and that was much more of festival set (and he did play 'Born in the U.S.A.', which excited all the kids around me).  It was longer show too though.

As far as I know Glastonbury always has curtailed sets. Roskilde seems to give acts as long as they want. Both Bruce and the Cure played three hours at Roskilde 2012. I have the stamina for it and loved it.  At the same festival Jack White headlined and played an hour and 20 minutes. Much as I like Jack, it made him seem like a bit of a light weightl