Do shows start too late? Would clubs and bars be better off starting earlier-- especially on weeknights?

Even on weeknights, local shows often start at 9:30 or 10pm. Why?! Doesn't this alienate a huge number of potential patrons? Why don't shows start at 8 or 8:30, so people don't end up getting home at 12:30 or 1am? Is there a good reason for the enduring consistency of this practice? When shows should start on weeknights?

cuz bands are unwashed heathen

start too early - empty room.

start to late - empty room as people need to get home without using a taxi.

With the curfew for pubs at 11, along with the hour remaining on the underground means that almost all London gigs are timed to finish at 11.

So you get the headliners on at 09:30ish, and the earlier bands whenever but never before 8.

There are sound level issues after 11 as well, as well as overtime payments for big stadium gigs..

and paying an entire stadium of crew time and a half isn't something to mess with...

Orchestras are the worst... go a minute over their expected finish time and its thousands and thousands of pounds....

Mostly talking about local shows here. I think bigger shows start earlier. Local shows start really late, which I find perplexing.

agreed, but it's so hard to get people to show up early (because they're conditioned to shows starting late no matter what time it's listed, i guess?).

We have the opposite problem in London tbh - I end up going to so many gigs at venues that have a club night on afterwards so they need everyone cleared about by 10:30, so the gig starts at 6:30pm.

I would love that problem. A big reason why I've cut back on shows lately is that it's really hard to get back from a show at 1 in the morning and then be up when my two year-old gets up at 6:30.

With the curfew for pubs at 11, along with the hour remaining on the underground means that almost all London gigs are timed to finish at 11

Contrast this with the SF Bay Area that has a midnight-ish underground curfew, and club shows still end at 1 am. Alcohol sales legally have to end by 2 am, with last call being 15 - 30 minutes before that. In places that have a later alcohol curfew, do shows go later ... or?

couple months ago I booked an oakland band and when I told my contact the show would prolly start around 11pm he was kinda freaked out

yeah i gotta agree w/ the premise of this thread. even if shows were just earlier on weeknights, that would be pretty cool -- i mean obviously if you started a show at or 5 or 6 most people would be just leaving work or having dinner, but any later than that, what's the hold up? i'm playing a show tomorrow night, and my band is last -- we should be done before midnight, which is relatively early to be playing last, but it's still kinda ridiculous to tell most people "hey come see up at 11 o'clock on a weeknight."

I have noticed a trend towards shows starting earlier, but early usually means 10pm. when the scene happens in warehouses and the crowd is mostly students and food service workers, the concept of "late" is relative.

when it comes to clubs, things are timed to end a little before last call. makes sense. the assumption is if your entertainment runs from 8-11, you will have a window of 11-1 where ppl will leave yr club and go somewhere else to drink.

You are all old.

Alcohol has one of the highest mark-ups of any food/beverage cost.
Most bars are in the business of making money.

You are all old.

― emil.y, Tuesday, December 10, 2013 9:02 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

if anything i'm nostalgic for being a teenager and playing shows for friends or seeing friends' bands and things would always get done really early!

Ha, I was being somewhat facetious there.

But I hate early shows - the 8:30 for 9:00 start that's common here is good by me, it gives me time to actually eat something, maybe have a beer before I have to attempt to socialise. I'd be highly unlikely to catch any support bands if music started at 7:00. I can understand not wanting shows to start so late you can't get home, though I'm in walking distance of most venues in this town and would be happy for things to move a little later.

getting home isn't really the problem for me so much as getting to the venue on time, especially if you live/work somewhere like queens or upper manhattan where it's more or less a guaranteed 45-60+ minutes to the door

yeah i wouldn't really push for the first band starting earlier than 8 even if i could call the shots on this kind of thing, 8 is pretty ideal.

last call in Baltimore is 2am and a lot of places push the end of the show as close to that as they can, which is always annoying.

yeah i hate early shows too

i understand & sympathize with the plight of rock dad though. still, i would be pissed if someone asked me to play at 8 pm

Some venues and scenes work having stuff go way late, but I always kind of dug it around here when bars closed at midnight as you could go out see bands and party then go home and get totally smashed. Playing at 8pm might suck, but so does playing most gigs if you are last and starting at 1am or later. There are exceptions of course. You got to be on some good shit to throw full energy into a death metal band at 2am.

the 8:30 for 9:00 start that's common here is good by me, it gives me time to actually eat something, maybe have a beer before I have to attempt to socialise.

this is my ideal time window too! Though I get annoyed with shows that say they are going to start at that time, and then don't start for another hour or so, and everyone is just awkwardly standing around -- the bands, the audience that showed up on time, the venue ppl and promoters.

Bit annoying personally speaking having more weekend shows starting earlier due to club nights compared to weeknights.

reading this thread i realise that london's 11pm curfew makes our gig timing pretty spot-on, not often i get to say that about london

bands should just play their whole set on rotation for 24 hours and then you could just drop by at whatever time suits you and then fuck off home to bed

systems thinking, i like it

The other weekend we saw Dismemberment Plan and Melt Yourself Down on Friday and Saturday respectively in Bristol, which is an 80-mile drive. Dplan went onstage at 8:30pm, were off by 9:45pm, and we were home before midnight; perfect, and all because there was a clubnight afterwards and the band had to drive to Camber Sands for ATP too.

Melt Yourself Down, by contrast, didn't go onstage until 11:15pm, and we were so shattered after a busy couple of days that we left at midnight, even though they were awesome, just so we could get home before 2am.

8-9pm as a stage time for a headliner seems about right to me. But I'm a fogey.

When would you have the first support play?

Dplan's played at 7:30pm, doors were at 7. That seemed reasonable to me.

not really - people want to eat after work and before the show. most people can't guarantee getting out of work before 6pm, often afterwards, then factor in travel time to venue, eating etc.

Most people who work in London, maybe. If I'm going to a show in Exeter, I can go home, get changed, eat, and be at the venue by 7:30pm easily. If we're going further afield we have to make arrangements, take leave, etcetera. That's part of life.

If you go to the opera or the theatre it usually starts at 7.30 or so and can run until 11, there's nothing wrong with that. Classical concerts often finish around 11 as well. Given the pubs are still open at that time it doesn't strike me as excessively late. Going on after 11 on a Saturday is fine as well, because, well, it's a Saturday.

If it went to a gig and it finished at 9.45 I'd feel cheated, even if it started early.

9.30-11 is pretty much the ideal gig running time for me, unless it's someone with a massive back catalogue.

It takes some sort of weird miracle to get me to a show that starts at 10 or later these days. Just too much of a disruptive pain in the ass (and too much time of me getting comfortable at home). Not one of the handful of shows I've seen that kept going until 3am (Prince at a club, GNR at a club, Drive-By Truckers at a club, I want to say Del the Funkee Homosapien) was worth it. Band on at 8:30 and done by 10:30 or 11 or 11:30 is ideal. Though there is something to be said for really earlier shows, which happen here with some frequency for all ages reasons. It's nice when it's done and there's still time to get a post-show bite somewhere with a friend.

I love in We Jam Econo, where the Minutemen explain they always play early, so the working men can get home and get a good night's sleep before going to work the next day. I always wondered what proportion of their crowd actually were horny handed sons of toil.

working men are pissed hungover

Dplan's played at 7:30pm, doors were at 7. That seemed reasonable to me.

How do you fit two supports and two stage changeovers into 30 minutes (if the start time is 8pm)?

Who wants to see two supports?

People who want to enable a scene and artists to develop?

People who like music and want to find out about stuff?

Nick with the pvmic

Man, far too often the "support" is stuck in there like some challenge to navigate.

Me: What time does the show start?
Venue: Doors open at 8pm.
Me: But what time does the first band go on?
Venue: 9pm.
Me: OK. So what time does the band I'm paying to see go on?
Venue: 10pm.
Me: Thanks!

save for Springsteeny exceptional circumstances I feel like a good rule of thumb would be a max of two hours of actual music - so with arena/big university circuit bands who can fill out 90-minute sets, one support act is probly fine. smaller quote-unquote grassroots shows, three or four bands is cool but woe betide anyone who goes much past 30 minutes

xp what is the specific complaint there, that there's a gap of an hour between doors and anyone coming on? otherwise idgi

Nobody should ever play a 90-minute set. If you're MASSIVE, then maybe an hour.

The complaint is that often there is the band and the time printed on the ticket, but if you show up, not only are there one or two not-announced support bands, but they go on well after the posted time. If you have a babysitter, or someplace to be early the next morning, it's a real PIA to show up to something you think starts at 7 or 8 and find out that the act you want to see actually does not go on until 10 or 11.

You are all old.

― emil.y, Wednesday, December 11, 2013 2:02 AM (14 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Totally old! Which means, you know, I have kids, and I have to wake up early the next morning, and I'm tired at the end of the day, etc. Don't want to be arsed with standing around for 3 hours before a band plays.

nah i've never understood why stage times aren't made known to tkt-holders ahead of time, that's not an old vs young thing. it's the young people who have more exciting things they could be doing instead of waiting around for an hour

To be fair, I do agree that places should be more accurate in the times they give out. But who doesn't want a support band? What kind of insane world do you live in?

(Also, I hope people realise that my 'you are all old' thing is mostly a joke, seeing as I too am old.)

depends on the support act! some you want to catch...many you want to avoid

The number of times I have seen a support act who surprised me by being particularly good or memorable - that is, an unknown quantity, not some act I already know about and/or like - have been few and far between. I wish it were otherwise.

I remember seeing a Tortoise/Dub Syndicate show here years back, and it was like this:

8pm hour long dub DJ
9pm hour of boring Tortoise
10pm another hour or so of dub
11pm or so Dub Syndicate

By the time Dub Syndicate started playing, I just wanted to leave. And I was much younger then.

(Lex and I in rare agreement here!)

Nobody should ever play a 90-minute set. If you're MASSIVE, then maybe an hour.

There are loads of acts who could easily fill a 90min set. Pretty much anyone with more than one good album for one.

not sure if this is UK-US difference no. 50,000,000 but if I was going to a gig only interested in seeing the headliner, I'd take it as read that they wouldn't be coming on within, at the very least, an hour of doors opening, and more likely two to three. again, unless it was some epically indulgent thing where they were the sole entertainment for the evening

There are loads of acts who could easily fill a 90min set. Pretty much anyone with more than one good album for one.

― Matt DC, Wednesday, December 11, 2013 4:19 PM (3 minutes ago)

Nope. Doesn't matter if you have way more than 90 minutes of good material, 90 minutes is TOO LONG for a live show.

not sure if this is UK-US difference no. 50,000,000 but if I was going to a gig only interested in seeing the headliner, I'd take it as read that they wouldn't be coming on within, at the very least, an hour of doors opening, and more likely two to three.

This is pretty obvious to most, however one reason why I agree that venues/promoters should be more accurate is that I have been caught out by this assumption and completely missed support bands/almost missed headline bands due to shows starting foolishly promptly. Mostly happens at bigger venues, but you can't always rely on a rule-of-thumb for gig timings.

Nope. Doesn't matter if you have way more than 90 minutes of good material, 90 minutes is TOO LONG for a live show.

― emil.y, Wednesday, December 11, 2013 8:23 AM

Seriously? I'm sure glad the last Swans show I saw didn't get that memo

xp No, how long the show should be depends entirely on the act. Matt's right.

Band with a couple of singles? 30 mins is fine

Band with a good album and some good singles? Hour is fine.

Band with several good albums? 90 mins should be doable.

Band with several moderate albums, but a great live show? 90 mins might be doable.

Band with several good albums, bags of charisma and stagecraft? Play all night if you want.

I've never seen a three-hour set that wasn't great

well then you my friend haven't seen the band my morning jacket

i am old and i enjoy seeing opening local bands because usually they're really good! i don't remember the last time i went just to see a headliner.

my challenge is finding anyone to accompany me (mr has marginal interest, friends are all see above except for a couple), but i've been working on that. usually it's ok to go alone but i usually wind up leaving a little early just because coming home after 1am alone just makes me feel weird. i guess if shows started earlier, more loners might feel comfortable going, thereby increasing attendance? i dunno.

this question is impossible to answer anyway because there are so many kinds of shows/audiences/venues.

ya, true. obv i wouldn't gaf if bruce springsteen started his set at 7 pm

well then you my friend haven't seen the band my morning jacket

― mitch hedberg and kevin hart (sleepingbag), Wednesday, December 11, 2013 12:24 PM (22 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

ughhhhh i remember a friend bringing me to see them in 2003 or so and feeling like it was the longest fucking night of my life

i feel like 90 min sets are more acceptable for shows that involve dancing.

also i pretty much never go to shows for the very reason that they are late and parking sucks and i have job and a kid etc etc but maybe for that very reason i really love opening bands? b/c it's like 2 for the price of one, i know it'll be months or years before i get to another show so pack em in while i'm there

I saw George Clinton and the P-Funk allstars in New Orleans one time and he didn't get onstage until 2AM. By 3 I had at the funkiest headache ever.

I would have gotten the funk out of there.

Onstage at 2am? Funk that.

I remember my horror after spunking a fortune to go over to NYC to see the GBV farewell tour, getting a shocking stomach bug on the way, then bunging myself full of Immodium before the show … and getting to Irving Plaza to discover GBV weren't going to be on till nearly midnight. I knew it would be a three-and-a-half hour show, but I wasn't anticipating it being one that ended at 3 in the morning. Nor was I anticipating it being the night they chose to play a "connoiseur's" set, relatively free of all the "hits" I really wanted to hear …

Ramones were pretty much perfect sets – every song you wanted to hear, but done in less than hour. Though by the end of their career, they were so fast Joey could only manage about three lines in each song.

Onstage at 2am? Funk that.

same, i tried to go see P-Funk in high school and had to leave before they even went on (curfew!).

Yes! GBV were notorious for this. I saw them one time in the 90s when they brought out as a very special guest, the Strapping Fieldhands who played an interminable 90 minute opener. GBV didn't get on til midnight, and this was a Tuesday.

onstage at 2am was like par for the course when i went to shows in miami. now i'm in denver and it feels like shows are all early as hell here, i love it.

at an Outkast show in Miami that was supposed to start at 9:30 p.m. they didn't get onstage until shortly before 3 a.m. Fortunately I was home and snuggled in long before.

all shows should start at 11, no one should ever play for more than 30 minutes

I saw George Clinton and the P-Funk allstars in New Orleans one time and he didn't get onstage until 2AM. By 3 I had at the funkiest headache ever.

― kornrulez6969, Wednesday, December 11, 2013 1:21 PM (40 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Saw them in 1989. Four hours. Felt like 20 minutes.

Support bands suck as a concept. Let them play their own headlining shows if they want to "develop". Some of my favourite artists e.g. Peter Hammill will not have support bands at all because they detract from the main event.

If I'm going to a show w/reserved seats and an opening act then I will always just turn up in time for the act I've paid to see. If my timing is awry I'll wait outside in the bar in preference to sitting through some hopeless support act. For standing gigs I like getting there early to get a good spot down front so in these circs I am unfortunately doomed to endure the opening act.

a lot of the places in Milwaukee and Chicago are purposely vague telling you the time that the headliners are going to be on. for lesser known acts they don't really announce what the support act is going to be so you show up at the posted time of 8 and then dick around and drink $8 Miller Lites for two and a half hours. obviously this is exactly what the club wants but still, fuck that.

also the whole "shows should be 90 minutes max" thing strikes me as being a really bad idea...it's hard for me to think of an act that I wanted to play a shorter set (outside of supporting ones), unless the noise was too out of control. long shows rule!!

Support bands suck as a concept. Let them play their own headlining shows if they want to "develop".

where are they going to play these

small venues

Definitely in favor of:

• shows starting at 8 PM if not earlier
• sets lasting no longer than 60 minutes, 45 is preferable
• no more than two opening bands

Frankly, I wish rock clubs would go back to having early and late shows like they did in the 60s and early 70s.

I find my mind start to wander in and around the 90 minute mark usually

Band with a million hits that they play over 90 mins vs. a band who plays nothing but new or album tracks for the 90 minutes

Big or small, most headliners in this city go on at 9pm. That works perfectly for me. An earlier show would be more hassle.

why are these small venues going to book a headline show from a band who has never played in public before

hey everyone's gotta have a first time!

maybe we should focus on legislating a 30-hour work week so nobody has go in until 10am.

i found out about so many bands i love because they were an opening act at a show. it's totally stupid to NOT have multiple bands at most concerts, unless maybe the headliner plays a really long time. what's the harm? the headliners go on later? you gotta hear unfamiliar songs before the stuff you know? fuck outta here.

i found out about so many bands i love

Names names. I can think of only a handful of acts - like, three or four, maybe - I'd never heard of before a show that I became a fan of.

I can think of only a handful of acts - like, three or four, maybe - I'd never heard of before a show that I became a fan of.

Same here. I can think of exactly two: Amon Amarth and Thinking Fellers Union Local 282.

most of the shows I go to are because of the opening and supporting bands -- because they are my friends -- like I'm trying to think of the last time I went to a show where I wasn't friends with anyone playing.

^^

are most of the opening bands people see awful? because even if i don't totally get into a band via seeing them open, i like seeing folks play music if it doesn't suck.

Oh, I think it was Swans in 2011, though the opening act was someone I had booked a few years before but wouldn't consider a friend

And actually, we left mid-way through Swans' set because the friend I went with thought it sucked to the point she was vitriolic and another friend was having an emotional meltdown and I spent the majority of the time texting with him.

2 p.m. Saturday-afternoon in-stores are my favorites.

just thinkin of openers i like i hadnt heard of b4

Music tapes
Bruno pronsato
gang gang dance
los lobos
The beta band

Ymmv

by heard of i simply mean heard