I am very dissapointed about the running time...I think that after four albums, 90 minutes is too short...The X & Y tour concerts also lasted 90 minutes, so at least this tour should last 110 minutes..

 

What do you think?

 

VOTE! And demand for a longer concert!!!

90 mins is pretty standard

90 mins is pretty standard

 

for coldplay maybe? for the amount of money you are spending on these guys you'd think they'd play more than 20 songs. when i was at a radiohead concert last month i believe they played nearly 2 hrs, around 25 songs. 1 encore.. pfui

I need more than 90 min. hopefully they will realize this by the time they get to Jersey:rolleyes:

I need more than 90 min. hopefully they will realize this by the time they get to Jersey:rolleyes:

 

they probably won't, because guy needs his beauty sleep and will and jonny must get back to their video game

hahahahahahah:rolleyes:

90 mins is not standard.... maybe for a bar band but not an arena show. I think it's a real shame... they are charging $100/ticket..... cmon, if you want to be the next U2, then act like them.....although much older, U2 can still bang out a 2 hr show

Agreed - 90 minutes is too short. For the price that you pay to go to a Coldplay show, you should get two hours at least. They play almost all of their songs at the exact running length of the album tracks (which are short to begin with), play less than 20 songs, and they ignore the pleas of fans to come out for additional encores no matter how crazy and loud they get. They seem absolutely shackled to their playlist, which is frustrating because I'm sure they could play Trouble or Shiver in their sleep.

 

90 Minutes is not standard for a headlining rock band. Maybe at a festival, but not at an arena tour. Pearl Jam plays 150 minutes almost every show. U2 about that. Radiohead over two hours. Coldplay has the catalog to play for two hours easily, so that is not an excuse.

 

I won't even get into my other complaints (expanding use of pre-recorded music, set lists that never change by more than 1 or 2 songs, and of course "they didn't play my favorite song").

 

I will note, however, that the addition of colored magic balls, lasers, confetti, side stages, and "in-crowd performances" actually makes the length of the concert more frustrating to me. I would trade all of those things for an extra half hour of music. Anyone with me on that?

 

Guys - I love you but please start acting like a rock band and not a coreographed boy band.

You guys got 90 minutes? I got 80! I didnt even get a good festival time.

 

Coldplay can pound out 120 easily! They should be playing Viva La Vida(album) in full every night, except reign of love.

 

Throw more classic crowd pleasers (we all know what im talking about)! drop the gimics. U2, Pearl Jam and Radiohead dont have these gimics where they run into the audience. U2 mastered that already, they created the B-Stage and then made it their regular stage. Look at the last two tours stage design! Brilliant!

 

Coldplay you guys need to beef it up!

90 mins is not standard.... maybe for a bar band but not an arena show. I think it's a real shame... they are charging $100/ticket..... cmon, if you want to be the next U2, then act like them.....although much older, U2 can still bang out a 2 hr show

 

Coldplay will never top U2,in any way. Live ? We are talkin about two different universes

Man, you guys are hard to please. I went to one of their concerts a while ago, and it didn't seem too short at all...a few more songs might have been nice, but it didn't seem like a rip-off or anything.

 

Also, these concerts are pretty close together, and they've been cramming other shows (like the Tonight Show one) in between concerts. It's surprising they aren't exhausted as it is; 2+ hours for every concert might be a bit much.

 

Though I really need to learn to stop reading when everyone starts digging out U2/Radiohead comparisons; it usually means no one's saying anything new or meaningful. :dozey:

The show is 90 mintes. If you don't like it or think that's too short, DON'T GO. No one is putting a gun to your head and forcing you to pay $100. The show is great and worth the price IMO.

Man, you guys are hard to please. I went to one of their concerts a while ago, and it didn't seem too short at all...a few more songs might have been nice, but it didn't seem like a rip-off or anything.

 

Also, these concerts are pretty close together, and they've been cramming other shows (like the Tonight Show one) in between concerts. It's surprising they aren't exhausted as it is; 2+ hours for every concert might be a bit much.

 

Though I really need to learn to stop reading when everyone starts digging out U2/Radiohead comparisons; it usually means no one's saying anything new or meaningful. :dozey:

 

 

You said what was on my mind from the start guyy, thanks!

 

Having just seen them in Boston and watching the energy, heart and soul that goes into a Coldplay live performance I'm inclined to think they'd physically crash and burn if they lengthened the show by much.

 

Fans bitch when the tour hits the road and the band doesn't hit their state, country, continent, what ever. This looks to be a long tour, lots of dates with more dates to come no doubt. I'm glad they are hitting some places they skipped on the Twisted Logic tour. More fans will get their chance to see them play live.

 

Leave off the whinging and just savor the show.

Yeah, we all want longer shows, but they are only human. Longer shows equals less shows. So would you rather see them for 90 minutes, or get a 110 minute show but risk them shortening the tour and not coming to your area?

Well I agree with some of you... 90 minutes is too short, especially if you pay 65€ for a ticket.

 

I don't need a big stage, I don't need butterflies coming from above, I don't need a big screen at the background... I just want to see them live and listen to their music! I think this is the most important thing at a concert. They should rather minimize the things mentioned above and play some more songs, especially from Parachutes. People would be more content with the show then IMO.

 

Well that's my opinion. ;)

Man, you guys are hard to please. I went to one of their concerts a while ago, and it didn't seem too short at all...a few more songs might have been nice, but it didn't seem like a rip-off or anything.

 

Also, these concerts are pretty close together, and they've been cramming other shows (like the Tonight Show one) in between concerts. It's surprising they aren't exhausted as it is; 2+ hours for every concert might be a bit much.

 

Though I really need to learn to stop reading when everyone starts digging out U2/Radiohead comparisons; it usually means no one's saying anything new or meaningful. :dozey:

 

I love this excuse..as if coldplay is the only band who plays consecutive nights, puts their heart into it, etc. They are the weakest of the supposed "big" bands around...shortest shows, no expansion of setlist, no surprises ever. There is zero spontaneity in their performances, its textbook show to show

90 minutes does sound a little short considering the huge back catalogue of music they have. I think if you are paying £38.50 a ticket, you should expect a longer setlist. On the other hand they are playing several shows and don't want to make themselves too tired. Also they probably want to put the least amount of effort in whilst still earning quite a lot of money. However, I'm still looking forward to seeing them in December, can't wait!!!! I am a HUGE fan!!!

Since moving to Toronto a few years ago, I've been to a TON of concerts. I've paid various amounts for all of them ranging from twenty to hundreds of dollars, and you know what? I couldn't tell you how long ANY of them lasted, well except this one, since people can't seem to stop talking about it. It's all about the experience, and what Coldplay gives you live is one hell of an experience. In 2006, as a broke university student, I paid over $140 (ebay) to see Coldplay from the nose bleeds, and never once did I question how long that concert lasted, if it was worth the money, etc. I don't understand how people can equate concert running time to dollars spent, etc. You know full well going into it that Coldplay typically play a 90min set list. If you don't agree with it, don't go. It's simple. I paid hundreds of dollars to see them last week, and there were people there who spent double what I did. Even if they played for an hour, I would have spent the same thing, and enjoyed it equally as much. The experience is everything. I know that whenever I see Coldplay, or any other artist for that matter, I am going to have to have an amazing, unforgettable evening, regardless of how many songs they play. Sure, they COULD play more, but they don't. Big deal. It's important to see the experience as a whole. If you saw them, had an amazing time, and left with a year's worth of smiles... Isn't that priceless?

 

btw - The U2 comparisons are old and tired... Kind of like U2... (Just MY opinion.. Don't hate me for that, lol)

I have to agree paying 100$ per ticket and only getting 90 minutes is a huge rip off they have the catalog to do more they should be doing 2 hours plus at that price.

 

:angry:

 

Like i said in my boston post prolly my first and last show at that price for them.

Yes, I agree. To pay 100.00/ticket, the show should be atleast 2 hours...Wait, it was nearly 2 hours for us that saw them for the second show in Chicago.

 

Haha

For me it isn't a money issue, (though if the ticket prices go any higher it could become one.) more a catalog issue. As I see it, the Twisted Logic Tour worked out really well at 90 min because we got about 7 songs from the two more current albums at the time, and at least 3 from the first along with a b-side or two. I was more than happy with that arrangement. But with four albums out now, and the guys wanting to play at least 10 from the new record, that shaves the list of old favorites down considerably, not to mention the fact that being aware of that they seem to be choosing only the biggest singles, which is great if your a newer fan but for anybody who's been around it would be nice to hear a few songs that might have had a bit more underground appeal.

 

When your talking about getting no more than 1-3 songs from each of the other albums, it starts to get a little annoying especially since they are only 4 albums in. I expected to have to deal with that kind of skimping 8 albums in, not this soon though. And on a personal not of annoyance, I don't really enjoy the fact that to fit even that many songs in they seem to be rushing through the classics, unlike the previous tour where they took their time and tinkered with songs, and really made it feel like they were proud to play each and every one, not something they were obliged to get through to get on to the new music.

 

On one final not, the guys are great performers, and I enjoyed the concert immensely, and will be going to more next year if they come back to California, but I'm going to call it like I see it, and the last tour was a little more polished.

I think 90 minutes is pretty standard for a concert. It's not ridiculously short and it's not extremely long. I have seen one of the recent shows and I didn't feel short changed at all.

 

Chris is a really energetic front man, singing but also jumping around. He goes from each side of the stage, dancing and mucking around the other boys the whole way through. Personally, I'd rather have 90 minutes of high energy and fun than have him seated or standing on the spot most of the way through so he can play a few extra songs.

 

I think people underestimate how difficult it is to maintain that level of energy and sing night after night. In order to play a much longer set I think he's have to cut back on his physical presence on stage, and to me that would be more of a disappointment.

 

Also Boston was one of an unusual three in a row (usually they only do two nights on, one night off). Plus apparently Chris hasn't been so well recently so maybe that is why that one was unusually short...

I love this excuse..as if coldplay is the only band who plays consecutive nights, puts their heart into it, etc. They are the weakest of the supposed "big" bands around...shortest shows, no expansion of setlist, no surprises ever. There is zero spontaneity in their performances, its textbook show to show

 

Well, it wasn't really an excuse because, like I said, I didn't think the show was too short at all; and there was no encore at the one I went to. But given all the untrue statements and hyperbole in this post, it's pretty obvious that you're beyond convincing.

 

For an even more insulting-but-accurate response, go here.

I only went to brixtin and felt like it was longer than the Twisted logic show in Arnhem, but I don't remember exact times

I'm satisfied...

I'm satisfied...

 

i guess some people here are very Easy to Please. try seeing other bands in the same league (or above) as coldplay, without the confetti.