Quality Over Quantity. One Hour Slots

[shepnic]

Going through the lineup I'm always slightly annoyed that well established bands and DJs only play for an hour. Personally, I would love another half an hour added to those, with the headliners getting two hours. It's great to have so many acts at Glastonbury, but with the size of the place, it can sometimes be a trek to see someone for just 60 minutes.

Quality or quantity?

[Alcatraz]

It might be the years of festivaling, but I much prefer short sets. When I go to a gig the rest of the year I do tend to notice that extra half hour, particularly if it's an act I'm not too familiar

The idea of the likes of the Foos or Springsteen playing for 3 hours plus immediately puts me off ever seeing them

[Mattty]

One hour seems like a lot to me sometimes if it's someone I want to check out but don't know much about them. I don't want to watch Shaggy for an hour. 

[russycarps]

If I'm watching a band I like then yes I wish they were on for longer. But then sometimes I'm stood there watching a band I dont know and thinking 60 mins is far too long....overall, I think they have got it about right.

I agree with the chap above though, why some headliners think they are super special and should play for 3hours at a festival baffles me. Especially when it always seems to be the bands who's songs all sound the same too. Watching that bruce springsteen set was a bigger endurance challenge than running back to back london marathons. Awful.

 

 

[CaledonianGonzo]

Anna Meredith had an hour opening WH on the Saturday of last year and - while I very much enjoyed it - an hour felt far too long.

[liamium]

glastonbury is variety. short sets, lots of them. get a little taste of something then move on, catch something else. 

[popcornmaster]

I'll go against the grain. I agree with the OP I'd rather have longer sets overall. 

Whilst I agree that if it's an act I don't know then an hour can be a long time but equally nothing is compelling me to watch it all. If it's a band I love then I'd rather they play 90 mins +, I always find 90 minute sets on tours to be a bit of a cop out (assuming the band has 3+ albums). 

[stuartbert two hats]

Longer is better.  Those who want longer sets can stay, those who don't can just move on.

[CaledonianGonzo]

No point forcing bands to pad out their set if they don't have the material.

I note in astonishment that Royal Blood have been allocated an hour, which beggars belief given that their riff only lasts 10 seconds or so.

[not worthy]

21 minutes ago, Mattty said:

One hour seems like a lot to me sometimes if it's someone I want to check out but don't know much about them. I don't want to watch Shaggy for an hour. 

If only there was a way to watch someone for only the amount of time you wanted to ...... 

[Tommy101]

There are some acts that would struggle to play all their hits in an hour. Foo's marathon might be taking the piss but they could easily play for 90 mins with casual fans knowing every song and still missing a few. 

If the bands want to play a lengthy set then why not? I assume they get paid the same, people can come and go if they clash with other nearby acts or they get bored. 

[Odessa]

1 minute ago, not worthy said:

If only there was a way to watch someone for only the amount of time you wanted to ...... 

Watching the first half of a set isn't the same as watching a set that's been condensed to say 40 mins. 

Personally think an hour is perfect for the daytime acts, I defo notice the extra time compared to your standard ~45 minute sets at somewhere like Leeds, and it's not so long that it gets tedious if you're only a casual fan of an act (provided they're good live). Headliners should all get at least an hour and a half if they want to play for that long, though. 75 mins for some other headliners seems a bit low to me, I'd have been a bit annoyed if that's all LCD had been given last year.

[Mattty]

23 minutes ago, not worthy said:

If only there was a way to watch someone for only the amount of time you wanted to ...... 

Yeah but if Shaggy gets an hour you might end up waiting 45 minutes to see him play It Wasn't Me

[Simpo]

I think Glastonbury gets it spot on with set length. An hour is enough to get a flow going in your set, not too long that you overstay your welcome. And then John Peel bands tend to get a bit less, which makes sense as they will generally have less material.

Looking back to Leeds Festival, it's ridiculous really, they pack so many bands on each stage that you end up with established bands like The Courteeners playing a 40 minute set in a prominent main stage slot.

Edited June 19, 2017 by Simpo

[popcornmaster]

Just now, Mattty said:

Yeah but if Shaggy gets an hour you might end up waiting 45 minutes to see him play It Wasn't Me

If Shaggy is anything like he was at LIMF a couple of years ago then you'd just get a 30 second introduction to his songs before he switches over. It was like his DJ had a demo account for V-DJ and couldn't play whole songs*. It was the most embarrassing thing I've seen on stage (and I've seen a man stick a beer mat up his arse on stage). 

*(The anecdotal word on the street was that he no longer had the rights to his song and couldn't play them in their entirety.)

[Avalon_Fields]

Longer sets means fewer bands, if I really love a band I'll go see then in a proper gig, the festival has a decent balance overall in my opinion. 

At least shorter sets usually results in more focus on what the crowd really want to hear, without padding!

[nikkic]

Set times are just about perfect IMO. Shorter sets = more bangers, which is perfect for casual fans. 

[Mattty]

1 minute ago, nikkic said:

Set times are just about perfect IMO. Shorter sets = more bangers, which is perfect for casual fans. 

This is the point I'm badly trying to make

[Mattty]

The bands I like should play longer sets and the bands I don't like shouldn't play at all

[nikkic]

1 minute ago, Mattty said:

The bands I like should play longer sets and the bands I don't like shouldn't play at all

Then you need tickets for MatttyFest 2018. 

[Tuna]

I think it's more of an issue for DJs than artists, a lot of the time. No reputable DJ wants to be playing an hour long set, but 2+ to be able to create their own atmosphere. 

[shepnic]

I agree if bands don't have the material, then they should be on for 45mins or so. It's more of an issue for me when watching a DJ as a single hour doesn't allow them to really do what they would do in a smaller venue. Especially if the music then stops to get the next DJ on.

[Watergirl]

Glastonbury is what it is. Enormous variety and greatest hits sets.  My favourite, Bruce Springsteen, got it slightly wrong. He was new to festivals at the time and more or less played his regular set. When I saw him at Roskilde Festival a few years later he had changed his approach and did a greatest hits set which was much better received.

The shorter sets are great if you want to sample acts that you wouldn't normally go to see, but I agree with the OP that it can be a bit frustrating how short sets earlier in the day can be. I certainly feel it is noth worthwhile trekking up to the Park unless it's a major must-see for me.

Roskilde Festival is different in this sense. They seem to give more generous slots, also earlier on in the day.

Edited June 19, 2017 by Watergirl

[Porcelina]

Glasto gives daytime bands much longer sets than most festivals, where a main stage slot is often 40 mins.

[eastynh]

It really depends who it is. 1 hour sets for dj's is utterly pointless. They all come on, play the big tunes and go off. There is no flow to it and nights don't build any more. The art of warm up DJing is dead.

In respect to band and live music again it depends on the situation. One hour is fine for Liam Gallagher or Dua Lipa as they don't have enough material yet. It would also be OK for someone like Black Grape. They could play an hours worth of bangers without having to pad the set out. My bone of contention is with established bands with extensive back catalogues of quality tunes behind them. The set length for New Order last year was scandalous.