Last tour the band played about 24 songs for about 2 hours, now i see 19ish songs and an hour and a half of playing time, why have they shortened it? I am not pleased, for 150$ a ticket i think 2 hours is fair.

I cannot confirm or deny that their older concerts were longer, but if any band does it right, its Coldplay. Their energy onsatge is a joy to watch and it never gets old. I wouldn't be too upset that they shortened their concerts. There are many things that Coldplay have done that has divided the fanbase, but I think everyone can agree that their concerts are outstanding.

I think their set has always fluctuated between 20 and 24 songs. But what is strange is that the set length fluctuates from these two numbers within a tour. If I recall, the VLV tour started out with 20 song sets and eventually grew to 24 song sets. However, when you compare Coldplay to other big name live acts out there, the main act of comparison being U2, Coldplay's sets have always been on the shorter side.

 

While Coldplay obviously has the right to play however long they choose, it is strange for them to be playing shorter sets, especially since they have the capability and the material to play the typical 24 song set. One thing to note is that they are playing in arenas, which lets them somewhat get away with it, but if they decide to tour stadiums while keeping a short set in addition to their rather light tour load (again, compared to other tours from a scheduling standpoint), fans will be asking questions.

Last tour the band played about 24 songs for about 2 hours, now i see 19ish songs and an hour and a half of playing time, why have they shortened it? I am not pleased, for 150$ a ticket i think 2 hours is fair.

 

they haven't shortened the playlist (at least not appreciably). While it is true that the Euro stadium gigs and a handful of shows at the very end of the north american tour had 22-24 songs, most of the arena dates had 19-20 (and that counts Lit which the band didn't really play as well as extremely short songs like Postcards from far away. I really don't think even their longer sets were actually that much longer time wise though. There's a Youtube video of the full concert from one of the 2009 stadium gigs that runs about 1:45 start to finish. As to whether the length of the concert is worth the money, only you can answer that for yourself.

As to whether the length of the concert is worth the money, only you can answer that for yourself.

 

Considering the fact that I bought a GA ticket for a U2 concert over the summer for $120, found myself so close to the band that I could literally give Bono a high-five (24 song set) and the fact that Coldplay tickets seem so much more expensive than U2 tickets were, I think it's fair to have some expectations for the band. I know they typically go for around $200 and that's not exactly pocket change for a college student...

The concert does feel pretty short! I just went to the Vancouver shows and they started right on time at 9:00pm and practically finished at 10:30pm. I loved how outstanding the show was, but it still felt a bit off... like it could have gone longer with a few songs.

 

Their song set on the C-stage was definitely too short!

Considering the fact that I bought a GA ticket for a U2 concert over the summer for $120, found myself so close to the band that I could literally give Bono a high-five (24 song set) and the fact that Coldplay tickets seem so much more expensive than U2 tickets were, I think it's fair to have some expectations for the band. I know they typically go for around $200 and that's not exactly pocket change for a college student...

 

 

Again though, those expecations are personal, and no one can say with certainty if it will be "worth it" to someone else. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just that it's hard to put a universal set of expectations on something like this. What's worth the money to me, may not be worth it to you. By all means, have whatever expecations you want, just keep in mind they're your expectations.

 

As I've said before, anyone who posts here should have a real clear idea of what a Coldplay show is like (many of the critisisms have been longstanding) and factor that infomation in when deciding if it's worth it, to them, to buy tickets.

I still think it would be totally worth it if their tour schedule could sync up with my school schedule.

 

But I feel the general sentiment is that some (or many) fans are simply wondering why they don't play 24 song sets on a regular basis or (in this particular tour) why they don't up their venues from arenas to stadiums. While the arena vs. stadium question has no real finite answer since both types of venues have their advantages and disadvantages, the issue with their set length is definitely a question worth asking.

 

Ignoring the whole "Coldplay tickets are expensive and I want my money's worth" argument, the main point is that the band is way overqualified to be playing what is essentially a festival set at a full gig. They've got the material, they've got the experience, and they've got the crowd. The question fans ask and will most likely keep asking is "what's holding them back?"

I still think it would be totally worth it if their tour schedule could sync up with my school schedule.

 

But I feel the general sentiment is that some (or many) fans are simply wondering why they don't play 24 song sets on a regular basis or (in this particular tour) why they don't up their venues from arenas to stadiums. While the arena vs. stadium question has no real finite answer since both types of venues have their advantages and disadvantages, the issue with their set length is definitely a question worth asking.

 

Ignoring the whole "Coldplay tickets are expensive and I want my money's worth" argument, the main point is that the band is way overqualified to be playing what is essentially a festival set at a full gig. They've got the material, they've got the experience, and they've got the crowd. The question fans ask and will most likely keep asking is "what's holding them back?"

 

Except that still doesn't resolve your grievence. Since you can't actually do anything to make the band play longer/different sets etc., the only recourse you have as a disappointed fan (imperfect as it may be) is not to go if those things are going to significantly impair your enjoyment. As to what's holding them back, I'd say only themselves at this point.

I, like all you others would love a longer setlist. But just stop to think how tiring it would be every night or other night for the best part of the year, especially with all the running around Chris does, it must kill him!

I, like all you others would love a longer setlist. But just stop to think how tiring it would be every night or other night for the best part of the year, especially with all the running around Chris does, it must kill him!

 

 

I'm not sure I'd buy that.:dozey: Chris is energetic, but no more so than a lot of frontmen.

Except that still doesn't resolve your grievence. Since you can't actually do anything to make the band play longer/different sets etc., the only recourse you have as a disappointed fan (imperfect as it may be) is not to go if those things are going to significantly impair your enjoyment. As to what's holding them back, I'd say only themselves at this point.

 

This is also true. Not much a fan can do about the setlist.

 

Either way, they put on a great show. Furthermore, we can speculate why they play shorter sets all we want, but only the band knows the truth.

This is also true. Not much a fan can do about the setlist.

 

Either way, they put on a great show. Furthermore, we can speculate why they play shorter sets all we want, but only the band knows the truth.

 

 

That's the thing, I don't think their sets have changed all that much time-wise. I've seen them 8 or 9 times now (starting in 2003 and going to last summer) and every show I've ever seen them do hovers right around the 90-95 minute mark. I know when I saw them in 2009 (when they were supposedly playing longer), the gig I attended was still only 95 minutes.

Considering the huge cost of a ticket and the fact they make MILLIONS out of it, it is shocking that it isn't longer.

 

But Chris's voice has gone downhill in the last few years so maybe he's just not up to it anymore.

Considering the huge cost of a ticket and the fact they make MILLIONS out of it, it is shocking that it isn't longer.

 

But Chris's voice has gone downhill in the last few years so maybe he's just not up to it anymore.

 

Chris' voice has gone downhill?

 

wat

Considering the huge cost of a ticket and the fact they make MILLIONS out of it, it is shocking that it isn't longer.

 

But Chris's voice has gone downhill in the last few years so maybe he's just not up to it anymore.

 

Wait Chris's voice has been great though....

IMO... Chris's voice has gotten better, especially live.

Wait Chris's voice has been great though....

 

IMO... Chris's voice has gotten better, especially live.

 

:nod:

But Chris's voice has gone downhill in the last few years so maybe he's just not up to it anymore.

 

I don't know where you got that. His voice was not so good during the Viva Tour but it's been REALLY GOOD on this one so far !

 

But I do agree on the fact that they could play 5 songs more ! Coldplay shows are amazing and complete with all kinds of great stuff, but they're also SUPER EXPENSIVE. For me a 2 hours show just seems more appropriate for such a price.

Considering the huge cost of a ticket and the fact they make MILLIONS out of it, it is shocking that it isn't longer.

 

But Chris's voice has gone downhill in the last few years so maybe he's just not up to it anymore.

 

IDK, I think his voice is in a lot better shape this tour than it was on VIVA a few years ago.

I don't know where you got that. His voice was not so good during the Viva Tour but it's been REALLY GOOD on this one so far !

 

But I do agree on the fact that they could play 5 songs more ! Coldplay shows are amazing and complete with all kinds of great stuff, but they're also SUPER EXPENSIVE. For me a 2 hours show just seems more appropriate for such a price.

 

I'm not saying Coldplay tickets aren't expensive, but honestly they're still towards the low end for a band at their commercial level. (at least in my area.) A lot of the major tours that come through have top price tickets that are 2 or 3X the price of the top price tickets for this tour.

I didn't say it was BAD, but IMHO definitely not as good as it used to be 4-5-6 years ago. I guess it is like most things though, it was always better back in the day...........

I didn't say it was BAD, but IMHO definitely not as good as it used to be 4-5-6 years ago. I guess it is like most things though, it was always better back in the day...........

 

To be fair, he is in his mid 30's now which is a point where a lot of singers begin to show signs of strain to their voice. I still say his biggest issue is that he doesn't get proper breath support when he's "dancing".

To be fair, he is in his mid 30's now which is a point where a lot of singers begin to show signs of strain to their voice. I still say his biggest issue is that he doesn't get proper breath support when he's "dancing".

 

Age is just a number. U2 is at least 10 years older and they're still rocking.

 

The "dancing" is a possible reason, but it's part of their live show. Furthermore, Chris hasn't shown any sign of strain on his voice this tour.

Age is just a number. U2 is at least 10 years older and they're still rocking.

 

The "dancing" is a possible reason, but it's part of their live show. Furthermore, Chris hasn't shown any sign of strain on his voice this tour.

 

U2 is still an awesome live band, but Bono's voice does show serious signs of strain in recent years. This isn't a knock on either guy, even singers who take care of their voice face these issues as they age.