The Afterword

Musings on the byways of popular culture

Menu

Navigation

You are here: Home / Forum / Lily Allen not doing Springsteenesque Live Shows

Lily Allen not doing Springsteenesque Live Shows

by 43 Comments

Go all the way to the O2 for 50 minutes! My daughter wants to see her over here, buyer beware!

1

Comments

  3. Do any British artists do Springsteen-length shows?
    Generally its two 45 minute-1hour sets and that’s yer lot folks. Or just one 90minute set.
    Support acts sometimes only get about 30 minutes.

    • I would think most popular acts should be doing around 90 minutes to 2 hours, at big concerts, sometimes preceded by a support act doing 30-40 minutes. I think Muse do long sets, seen Elvis Costello do almost 3 hours when he was younger. Paul McCartney is still doing around 2.5 hrs in his mid eighties. Oasis were doing 2 hours last year, Radiohead a little more

  5. Reminds me of a conversation I had years ago with an old mate.

    I’m going to see Bruce Springsteen.
    Nah not really my thing.
    Yeah but he plays for four hours.

    Insert Lily Allen and 55 minutes.

  6. The show has been well-publicised, so I don’t get all the shock-horror surprise after people have attended.

    Note: I wouldn’t go at those prices, but I do think it’s an interesting way of presenting the complete WEG album, which is unsurprisingly very theatre-coded.

    • Yeah I have no problem with that and my daughter loves the album. But a 30 minute “hits” set afterwards would be nice. Neil Young did that with Greendale, sometimes stretching that “encore” to more than an hour

      • I guess the feeling is that doing the hits would dissipate the dramatic impact of the production (and it is A Statement Production). Either that or she’s just a lazy git.

        • Unless what they’re trying to promote it as is a “Theatrical Production” rather than a gig, which would put it in a different category of show, it’s a pretty poor offering from Lily in my view.

          Generally, when performers do a full-album show, it’s followed by a “hits” set or a selection of hits in the form of encores.

          A full-production first set of the album is certainly a guaranteed crowd-pleaser. To say a second set of hits without costume changes would “dissipate the dramatic impact” of the show is just nonsense. I suspect her fans would love it.

          Smacks of “can’t be bothered” to me.
          Or “artwank”, which is almost as bad.

  7. I’m sitting on the fence. Anyone who goes to a show that will play an entire album and expects it to be longer than the album is missing the point. But an artist charging £80 plus to see a show (not including the likely travel expenses on top) that lasts less than a hour is likely to annoy their fans.

  9. I don’t have any quibble with her choosing to present her show in the way she’s doing – and I understand that the nature of the show has been well publicised, akin to a theatre event. But I don’t understand why anyone anywhere would pay more than around £50 for ANY sort of stage based entertainment. OOAA

    • With respect, Colin, the costs associated with putting on concerts from even medium-sized venues upwards have rocketed, and as of course you well know, an artist’s main income will come from playing live rather than selling albums these days.
      The costs I really begrudge with buying tickets are of course the many and varied fees.

      • I’m aware of the rising costs around even medium-sized shows, BT. I raised my instinctive ‘£35’ to ‘£50’ for that reason. I’ve attended a handful of shows at 400-seater places in the past couple of years and the ticket prices have been between £35-40. It feels like a lot to me, as an infrequent attender of shows above bar room level, but I get that a lot of unseen costs have risen in the past 5-6 years.

        I recall feeling a tad surprised at the advertising in 2005 for a show in January this year – which I bought three tickets for in the end (me, Mrs H and a pal) – at a 100-seater venue. Tickets were £25 for a solo troubadour and I thought ‘Wow, that feels like it should be £20’. So I had to adjust my thinking around the costs / prices for even shows at that level – and that’s fine, I’ve now done that.

        Purely as a punter, though, I’m being more selective as a result of these prices – particularly the 400-seater type venues – simply because two times £40 for one evening’s fun is not an outlay that I’m happy to spend more than very occasionally. And no amount of ‘Yeah, but this or that cost in putting the show on has gone up…’ matters in that decision. All that matters is ‘Can I justify spending £40 or twice that (if Mrs H comes along) on this?’ Where in the past I might have taken a punt at price X, I no longer do so at price Y.

        • I am nudging in your direction Colin.
          If I get value for money to see Elvis Costello at £84 I am fine because he is my favourite artist but if on the night he is a moody fucker, his voice is off and the sound is awful then I ain’t gonna be pleased( putting it mildly). Paul Heaton is playing the Utilita and the tickets are £44.00.
          If he can do it why can’t other artists? Greedy bastards.

          • Yes, I hear you. I think these days, by and large, if we’re paying price X for a ticket, we have a greater expectation of ‘value for money’ in the performance and a lower tolerance for a poor performance or an artist being petulent than in the past – no matter how ‘legendary’ they may be.

            I saw a car-crash performance at a medium-sized venue by a legendary Irish artist around four years back – he had decided to do some deep catalogue items but was forgetting words and becoming increasingly annoyed with himself. The atmosphere became very tense and people were calling up ‘Play something you know’ – not as an insult, but as desperate encouragement. But it did no good. It was an increasingly bad-tempered, shoddy performance and – legendness aside – not a ‘professional’ performance. If people had asked for their money back, the promoter could hardly have refused – though I’m sure no one did, because there’s a lot of love for the man and respect for his longevity. Against better judgement, I decided to see him again two years later – I was initially of the view that I wouldn’t, for fear (a) that the artistry was decaying and (b) that it would be, frankly, a poor use of money. Happily, it was a much better performance. But still, I may never chose to see that artist again – better to quit while ahead.

          • Paul Heaton is probably fairly comfortable because he made money when people still bought records, and he will get lots of songwriting royalties . Credit to him for keeping prices down.

            Of course Elvis C probably made decent money too, although a few of his biggest selling singles were covers and I don’t think he ever had an album like Carry On Up the Charts that sold in very high quantities

            But I think in these days if you have a top price of 50 quid then you are going to be quite limited in who you see, at least for name acts. Depends how much you like live music I suppose and how often you go to concerts. I go to quite a few, but many punters may opt for only 1 or 2 a year and will then be prepared to shell out more for that experience.

            I think concerts in North America tend to cost more (especially the US), I recently paid $100 Canadian to see Echo and the Bunnymen, that’s about 60 quid. I thought that was just about a reasonable price, my friend visiting from Michigan thought it was a bargain. St Vincent with an orchestra was absolutely a bargain at $80, I got tickets to see The Guess Who and many other acts at a festival for $25! Also Deep Purple for $30. These were special promotions. Then I have Peter Hook at $75 (borderline) and a 5 day festival in September for $125, will probably only go 3 nights but that is excellent value.

            So I am doing pretty well this year, spent much more last few years, maybe prices are coming down a bit?

            • I do like live music, but for me that also includes shows that happen at bar level and small/medium sized venue level. I’ve seen any number of amazingly visceral rock, amazingly exciting jazz and amazingly affecting music in the sing-songwriter / folk sphere in 80-100 capacity venues in recent years. For me, that’s a connection and experience that doesn’t happen in sports fields and arenas.

              Maybe I’m lucky in that very, very few people I want to see – actually, I can think of none at all just now – are in the arena/outdoor field sphere. So realistically, at the moment, ticket prices I have to consider are below £40 (for 400-seater places).

              I wanted to see the Who in 2016 and had to go to an arena to do so, but I’d have no interest in seeing them again given the decline in performance (in my view). I think I caught them at just about the last time when there was any real power or vestige of jeopardy in Pete’s contribution.

              I suppose I’d quite like to see U2 at some point – I never have – and I accept that that would have to be an arena. But I keep waiting for them to ditch all the ‘production’ gubbins and just be four people playing music on a stage.

              • Friend of mine saw U2 at Brunel University ca. 1980. Was probably about a fiver. I guess I have paid around 40 quid to see them but that was 30 years ago. Times have changed.

                But, yes, it is great to see live music you love at reasonable prices in small venues. It’s good that you are able to do that

                The Who cost me about 6 quid in 1981, last year I refused to pay their very high prices, I will pay it for a few acts like Neil Young, Springsteen, Radiohead or The Stones, My last Stones ticket was a “Lucky Dip” though costing only $45 US, there were significant travel costs too though, as it was in Cleveland, but I made it a mini vacation.

                Paul McCartney would be in that list too, but his prices last year were too much for me and I passed, don’t think I will see him again

    • I agree, with Colin, £50 is about my cut off. (When I saw Elvis Costello at Hampton Court last month I only went because it was given to me as a birthday present. The price had been putting me off for months.) Paul Heaton manages to do these type of arena shows for around £43. It’s a conscious decision made by the artist and/or their management. Doesn’t matter who it is, or how they justify it in terms of what their “stage presentation” is…I couldn’t care less what the fripperies and trimmings are, I just want to see songs I like played well, whilst sat in the same postcode.

  10. St Vincent did a cracking show based on her 70s-soul Daddy’s Home album. She played the album in full, interspersed with favourites done in the style of the album, think Young Americans rather than the usual Angular Robot Shredding. About 2 hours, I loved it.

  12. The Grateful Dead show at RFK Stadium, Washington DC on 10 June 1973 was 4 hours and 40 minutes long.

    Set 1: Morning Dew, Beat It On Down the Line, Ramble On Rose, Jack Straw, Wave That Flag, Looks Like Rain, Box Of Rain, They Love Each Other, The Race Is On, Row Jimmy, El Paso, Bird Song, Playing in the Band

    Set 2: Eyes Of The World > Stella Blue, Big River, Here Comes Sunshine, Around And Around, Dark Star > He’s Gone > Wharf Rat > Truckin’, Sugar Magnolia

    Set 3: It Takes A Lot To Laugh It Takes A Train To Cry, That’s All Right, Mama, The Promised Land, Not Fade Away > Goin’ Down The Road Feeling Bad > Drums > Not Fade Away, Johnny B. Goode

    Now … THAT’S a Dead show.

    • It’s horses for courses. A 45 minute Dead show would be too much for me, have seen Springsteen do close to 4 hours and I wanted more. Of course Lily Allen isn’t going to do such shows but paying $200 to see her do 50 minutes in Toronto from a half decent seat in a 20,000 capacity venue, is nothing like value for money even if it is an “artistic experience”. I paid more than that to see Neil Young at the same venue last year and it was absolutely worth it!

  13. I saw John Hiatt this week and he did about one hour forty minutes – which involved a few minutes of having to retune his guitar – and I think I paid £65 (bought the ticket months ago). I’ll pay that for someone I really like, but for most I’d think about how else I could spend the money.

    Also, there’s a rough correlation that the bigger the name the bigger the venue and the more they are going to charge. I just don’t fancy arena or stadium gigs any more, and no way am I shelling out close to £100 for an experience that leaves me feeling “Meh!”

  14. Over on fb I see @kaisfatdad has just seen Lily Allen at Roskilde festival. It sounds her show is ideal for the limitations of shorter festival sets! (Mind you, David Byrne also she-horned his show successfully into the same challenge.)

  15. There are a handful of local venues that I’m reluctant to buy tickets for, because they are more expensive than my limited budget allows. Expensive no matter who is performing. All are fully-staffed council-owned places and obviously all of the overheads are being directly integrated into the prices.
    If there’s a choice between a band playing a pub gig for £10-15 and the same outfit playing a theatre gig a few weeks later for £30-35, I’ll go for the pub gig.

  16. I went to the AO (or MEN as we call it) with my wife, son and his girlfriend. We loved it. (son and girlfriend are at My Chemical Romance tonight so they are maybe not what you would expect).
    The “hits” element is the Karaoke to a string heptet (if I counted right) – the mostly female audience sang heartily.
    Then cheered Lily and sang along to WEG – especially the “he done me wrong” elements. (which is most of it).
    Tickets for theatrical events in London seem to be £65+ so even if you see this as a theatre event the price is not excessive. It is well staged and interesting so I felt it money well spent.

    Mind you I once saw the Jesus and Mary Chain play for 15 minutes and call it a set. “Better 15 minutes of excitement than an hour of boredom” I think they said.
    Didnt Robert Forster of the Go-Betweens once say “no one does anything interesting on stage after 30 minutes”?

    I suspect Afterword readers are mostly not Lily’s target audience.

    (Human League and ABC for me tomorrow night – about the same price – then David Byrne at the wonder that is the Piece Hall in Halifax).

    • I think ABC must be supporting everyone this year; they’re the middle act in the Holly Johnson/ABC/Heaven 17 triumvirate coming to an outdoor venue near you this summer, and also the ‘Malcolms’ in the Culture Club/ABC/Haircut 100 nostalgia-fest over the Autumn/Winter period.

      • Yup, Johnson/ABC/17 appearing at the Piece Hall in August.
        ABC must have to work hard to pay for all the people on stage. I counted 11.
        They were fine. Human League were great. A 2 Keytar attack – never seen the like.

        Anyway, apparently I have seen ABC before – on a previous nostalgia tour with Human League and Culture Club. The fact that I didnt remember says a lot.

Leave a Reply