Jack White bans phones at gigs for “100% human experience”
nme.com
nme.com
From a practical standpoint, it took a lot longer to get into and out of the venue when phones had to be locked up. Checking your phone when you pop out to the toilet meant waiting in a queue to have your phone unlocked, and being kept in a small penned off area. There have been a number of times when I’ve been split up from friends at large venues - not being able to text each other to meet up is inconvenient.
It doesn’t work. Unless stewards are doing a thorough search (which would be offputting in itself), people will manage to bring phones in. They did last night. Mine got locked up, my fiancées didn’t.
In the event of an emergency, this is a really bad idea. At the extreme end, you’ve got things like the Manchester bombing, where access to a phone would be a useful thing. But more likely it’s a fire alarm and subsequent evacuation, where you end up separated from your group. The venue last night (the SSE Hydro in Glasgow) said that in the event of an evacuation you should not attempt to have your phone unlocked but should leave immediately - sensible but if phones weren’t locked up, it wouldn’t even be a concern.
I think the solution is to simply enforce a strict “no phones during the performance” policy. Treat people like adults. If they break the rules, ask them to leave. Last night we were sitting in front of a very drunken, obnoxious heckler. After several people complained, she was asked to leave. This is how many venues handle it.
Interestingly, all of the venue stewards last night were wearing Yondr hi vis vests. They seem to be on a major marketing push. I really hope it doesn’t become commonplace.
The venue seemed to want to distance themselves from the decision, making announcements along the lines of “At Chris Rock’s request, phones will not be allowed at tonight’s show and will be locked in Yondr cases and given back you you. Consequently, Apple Pay will not be available tonight.”
A _very_ strict code of conduct for attendees is something that can (and does) work.
Jazz pianist, Keith Jarrett has been known to stop his 4-hour long improvisation sessions in some of the world's most prestigous venues mid-flow to dress down an attendee trying to film him. People don't make that mistake twice. https://www.theguardian.com/music/musicblog/2007/aug/09/keit...
Unrelated, but I'd be way more on board with this if the DVD of the show wasn't £30 afterwards.
My guess is that if you put your phone away you're less likely to hurt from, you know, other people doing the stupid stuff they do at concerts.
I understand that people want video, so they can post it, and get their dopa-soc on Facebook, or wherever, but seriously, musical artists (especially the ones who don't lipsync their concerts) feed off the audience's vibe. Its a two-way, not a one-way. Jack White isn't feeling the energy and is doing something about it.
I say, Jack should just take out his phone and sit there recording the audience, until the get the hint.
But some of the comments here that make it sound like going out with no way for anyone to reach you was an invitation to mortal peril akin to jumping off a cliff in a wingsuit make me want to either laugh or cry.
There have always been people with (physical and mental) health concerns or disabilities who need to be able to get hold of a caregiver on short notice.
In the age of cell phones, it's much safer for them to go someplace crowded with their caregiver even if there's risk of being separated.
I get the point you're trying to make, but to me this just reads like gatekeeping.
Cell phones are useful and they can make people safer. In a world with cell phones not having timely access to one is riskier. In a world without cell phones it's a moot point.
The more interesting issue -- which others in this thread are discussing -- is whether the benefits of having a cell phone outweigh the harms people can cause with them, and whether policy can help strike an appropriate balance.
Plenty of other live events have policies against recording and cell phone use and don't seem to have any serious problems enforcing those policies (or, indeed, need to do much "enforcement" at all). Perhaps rock concerts are different because of the type of crowd.
There are many situations where a cell phone can allow you to send or receive information that could tip the scales in your favor.
Does it still sound like hollywood?
Or, perhaps, some people are truly terrified to be away from their smartphones. That is itself a scary thought.
If a person's smartphone is removed from the picture for some reason, how would they be able to function? If the cell network went down, would the crowd descend into mindless chaos? There are no more pay phones, no more cozy landlines, so how would people manage if there were an emergency?
Sure, cell phones can contribute to personal safety; whether it actually does in a standing-room-only rock concert given the distribution of risks one is likely to encounter in that context is another matter. I have a hard time imagining one, except a medical emergency, maybe? Except that having people find security might truly be more expedient.
Besides, I cam imagine real harm. Everyone simultaneously receiving a false alarm that a ballistic missile is headed there way might actually cause Widespread Panic to come out and play an encore.
Someone mentioned above that, in the event of a fire alarm and being separated from your group, being able to reconnect with them is important. Particularly for vulnerable people (whether due to age, health reasons, or being someone who might be targeted for violence or harassment), being separated from your group for a long time can be a safety issue.
being able to reconnect with them is important
As I mentioned in another comment, it's possible you've never taken someone with a disability or social dysfunction to their first-ever concert, knowing that it's partly enabled by the fact that you can easily reconnect if you get separated (by the crowd, bathroom lines, a fire alarm, etc.) Take away that extra measure of safety and security, and the majority of people can "just deal with it", but people with certain disabilities or vulnerabilities are going to have to opt out.
Personally, I'd rather work to be inclusive. Use social norms, not technological lockouts, to get people to put their phones away.
In one case, I leave the facility, get to safety, and then _go home_ (eventually), at which point I have my phone.
In the other case, I leave the facility, get to safety, but my phone is either destroyed, or in a pile with 900 other concert-goers' phones, and I need to either wait around (in a place where emergency services probably don't want extra people), or _replace my destroyed phone_.
No thanks, I'll keep my phone in my pocket or backpack, and have it with me when I leave with no extra effort. If necessary, this will mean skipping any concerts or similar where that's an issue.
You should check out how Yondr works: https://www.overyondr.com/howitworks/
The phone stays with you.
What makes comment sections toxic TO ME is people on their soapbox scolding others and distracting from the topic at hand.
Subjective experience and all that.
Sarcasm has existed in human discourse for centuries.
Gonna need more than your take on it to accept it's as damaging as you claim.
I don't think it adds anything to an online comments board / discussion. And in some cases, it detracts. It often just comes across as hostility.
Which is why Janis Joplin would famously yell at the audience that they better get up and dance in the aisles, or so I've been told by people old enough to be there.
While eating some lovely fermented fish dish out of a bento box is completely acceptable using your phone to make calls is definitely not.
My understanding was (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that in the Shinkansen you can move out of the car to make a call, in local public transport it's an absolute no!no! (well, probably the bento box is also not that hot an idea in public transport).
With very, very few exceptions (mostly by foreigners) I've experienced this rule as respected.
I had a hard time adapting back in Europe with all the noise and chatter going on permanently.
Thousands of unaccompanied teenagers subjected to a bomb attack. Without access to their phones, this could've been so much worse.
> If they've run away from the venue without first unlocking their phone, they end up wandering around outside, at night, alone after a significant event such as this.
Only if their responsible adults don't take reasonable precautions. What happens when a child loses a phone or has one stolen? They should have a plan before going, whether phones are restricted or not.
Imagine your teenage child attends a concert and needs to call you to escape a dangerous situation. There are so many situations of nuance that a blanket ban disrupts in a negative way.
This is a very shallow way to deal with a complicated issue.
Can you describe a scenario for me? Because I'm having a very hard time imagining one where the teenager is immediate peril (otherwise they could just unlock the phone in the next room) yet the best person to help them is not in the building. Maybe it's unfair, but it just sounds like helicopter parenting to me.
If I have my phone, they can text me with some pre-arranged message ("x"), and I will feign an emergency and get them out of the situation ASAP (or arrange for a friend to do similarly).
Sure, they could just leave (or get a taxi?), but having a GTFO script lets them exit a situation without the social losses of having been perceived as "too scared" to cave to peer pressure. They can say, "My dad just called and said something major just came up, and he's on his way to get me. Yeah, I know, parents, right? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯"
If their phone is locked up (or mine) there's a lot more friction to that interaction.
0: https://bertfulks.com/2017/02/23/x-plan-giving-your-kids-a-w...
In that case, I would imagine the child's parents failed in teaching the values of both honesty and courage. Lying is often easier in the short term, but it leads to worse outcomes over time in all but the rarest of situations (e.g. you're hiding Anne Frank and soldiers knock at the door).
Having a great excuse is useful today, but having a spine is useful for all one's days.
Mark Twain, On the Decay of the Art of Lying (http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/2572/pg2572.html)
> Surely a teenager telling white lies to pushy peers is preferable.
That's not sure by any means. In fact, the habit of telling "white lies" is almost certainly harmful in the long run. The same is true for caving to pushy peers.
Going to an event where you won't have access to your phone is maybe something you can't do while having kids of a certain age. But they'll grow up and then you can again.
It's kind of selfish to ask that no musician have this policy because you want to be able to attend any concert you wish while having young children.
Seems like bad parenting if you're knowingly putting in situations where such horrors exist that they'd need to escape them.
If it's something that's just announced at the door, after you've bought the (generally non-refundable) tickets, no.
http://futureisfiction.com/blog/father-john-misty-at-hardly-...
It's harder with larger crowds, but I think a policy with clear expectations that can result in you losing your privilege of attending is a better choice than asking people to check valuable (and useful) property at the door.
And before it was cell phones, he berated people for coughing.
I hadn't thought of that aspect, but that presents an interesting problem. As more things get centralized on phones, this will become less & less feasible.
OT, but the centralization of things on smartphones also means you're increasingly SOL if you lose your smartphone or it dies for some reason. Today, I generally still have a wallet with various things in it which likely help me to not be totally screwed without my smartphone. But as more and more of those things are replaced by the phone and what few physical artifacts there are may just be tucked into the phone it starts to become a concern.
Intel had a really funny video of someone losing their phone and what happened to them a few years back. Sadly, I think it was just internal and, when I last looked, I couldn't find it anywhere online.
You don't need to have your phone out. Apple Pay works on the watch.
The only relevant exception are professionals on call (i.e. doctors, police etc) - and they'll make the conscious decision to not attend such a concert unless explicitly exempted from the phone ban.
Everybody else may vote with their wallet. Personally, I'd pay a premium for concerts that enforce a no-phone policy.
> Treat people like adults. If they break the rules, ask them to leave.
Isn't that what we've been trying for the past 10 years? Clearly, it's not working. A significant percentage of people are not acting like adults. And you can't deal with 1/4 of the audience intentionally misbehaving like you do with a single drunken heckler.
Have we? I've only been to one show in the past decade where a performer called someone out in the crowd for being a jerk with a camera. They wouldn't turn the flash off, so the artist asked them to stop, then they took another flashy picture, so the artist mocked them until they put the camera away for the rest of the show.
I'm not in the "lock away phones" camp because they're an essential part of everyday life now. But I'm saddened by the social norm of them being in the air obscuring views now. Harumph.
And I never said that I was worried about terrorism. Only that having ready access to my phone in any emergency situation (again, I pointed out it would be more likely a fire alarm than a terrorists) is helpful.
I don’t think concert venues do anything to enforce any sort of phone etiquette. I dislike that they’ve went for such an inconvenient option when there are softer, policy based alternatives in between doing nothing and locking up phones. Cinemas manage to enforce phone etiquette with much fewer staff per guest. Of course it’s common to see someone light up their row by checking their phone, but if it’s persistent (like the drunken heckler), cinema staff would eject them.
Most times when babysitters are hired, now or a generation ago, they're trusted to make reasonable decisions so the parents don't have to worry.
No one questioned the babysitter's competence. They're your children -- you're going to want to call and check to see how things are going.
The vast majority of the time consumed in that process is simply getting out from where you sit/stand and back, which is the same in the "unjailed" phone scenario.
Unless, of course, you were just going to go ahead and conduct that call right there in the venue anyway.
It all reminds me of DRM causing problems for legitimate, paying customers when the DRM should only be targeting those who go outside of the rules. That's where someone else's comment about treating everyone like adults and kicking people out who break the rules seems like the best bet, although they also admitted (and I agree) that this system just doesn't work as needed, either.
A lot of the time your mates aren't looking at the phone at the right time, or there are so many people that you don't get good reception. Looking up and just finding people works pretty well.
Surely not every time you go to the loo, if it's just the once it's hardly much inconvenience.
Yes. If you suffer from high levels of anxiety and don't trust your own decisions about who to trust, this is true. Many people, particularly Americans, are this way. It is not true for every parent, however.
Trust the babysitter to make wise choices. This is actully really tough as cell phones end up lowering the standard expected of babysitters, like the whole GPS/map thing.
I used to sit for my nieces and nephews before mobiles were in common usage. My sister would give me the number of the place they were going in case there was a problem.
Of course, this was useless if they had gone to somewhere where there may be more than a couple of dozen people?
So, in reality, people used to hire baby sitters and just trust them to be able to cope. It's not as if you could do much from the other end of a phone if there actually was an emergency?
The main difference is that you tend to plan less up front. When our children were younger, and we had babysitters, we'd point out where the obvious stuff was but if they needed something, they'd just text. You just don't bother with the 15 min tour that I'd have got when I was doing the babysitting.
As a tangential, vaguely amusing, anecdote. A few years ago, my eldest's phone was a bit dodgy and kept cutting out. He was going to meet up with my wife in town but was meeting friends first. The two of them, my wife and son, spent about 5 minutes trying to work out how they could contact each other.
I, genius that I am, proposed a radical solution. I suggested that they arrange to meet at an agreed time and place. It had been such a long time since this was necessary that it hadn't even occurred to my wife (for which I still won't let her forget). My son had never, in his 15 odd years at the time, needed to do this.
Yes, they did; before ubiquitous cellphones killed demand for them, basically every public place of any size (and many small ones, and even just public streets) had banks of payphones, and for many kinds of outings people would leave the phone number of the restaurant or other establishment that they were going to for emergency contact in the other direction.
The last generation that didn't have that “luxury” was whichever one was before landlines were ubiquitous.
checking how the babysitter is doing with the kids
Meanwhile, the deal the kids struck with the babysitter was a simple one - they could stay up as late as they wanted just so long as they pretended to be asleep if mummy and daddy come back early. The next morning the kids sleep in and everyone is happy.
So you have to let go. Trust the babysitter. Trust your seven year old daughter to try and stay up extra late by showing the babysitter daddy's secret porn collection, hidden behind the antiquarian book collection but all too easy to find for an adventurous child. Of course none of these things or the strange noises the parents make in bed get to be an issue, you just pay babysitter and make them feel welcome and all is good.
So Jack White is right.
Sorry but you talk about checking in on the babysitter as if it's some universal law. It's not you don't have to, and if you feel like you can't go out and enjoy a show without checking in then don't go to the show.
And yes I have kids.
It's perfectly fine if you don't want to take that chance but it's hardly an argument for why someone shouldn't do a show where they ban cellphones.
edit- I really don't understand why this is downvote worthy...
I work freelance film production. I get calls for work at random hours and if I don't respond quickly that offer can expire. I also work on high-pressure, quick turnaround jobs a lot, and part of the deal as a freelancer is that I'm always available. As a result, I keep my phone with me.
I'm sorry that my earning a living is pathetic to you.
I say let's remove that from our experience.
My feeling is that this is a valid choice for artists to make, and if you disagree then avoid shows where this is the policy.
Or part of why. There are several motivators:
1) use of the recording that could cost paying attendance in the future (e.g. copyright issues)
2) damage control of statements that they regret later (e.g. Michael Richards' racist rant)
3) Protection of the interests of all the attendees positioned behind and around you. When anybody is recording, view from directly behind is outright obscured, and the experience of everybody behind you, where you are in their field of view at all, is impaired by this lit-up screen facing them. People who are recording are inflicting their choice on all others behind them.
I don't think it is socially accepted to use your phone in the cinema/opera/theatre either, so why should concerts be any different?
Why not give your full attention to the music.
Social media should have a health warning, we will look back at this era in the same way as we look at the pervasiveness of smoking in the 1950s.
Also, let's not let this "human" experience stuff slide, what it really means is "a late 1990's to early 2000's experience". It's not like pyrotechnics, large screens and giant electronic speakers are anything you would experience prior to 100 years ago.
If you don't want people doing certain things with their phones, then make it clear what is and isn't acceptable and combat it directly. For example, give everyone a wristband, and explain exactly what it's for. It's your one warning/get out of etiquette jail free card. If they have to come and tell you to stop doing something you were already warned about, they take the wristband. If they have to tell you again, you're out.
A comment higher up says treat people like adults. Adults are not adult adults. They are more like monkeys that compulsively do things and then maybe, only maybe think if what they did was appropriate or not.
It basically boils down to: if you want to go to the concert, you set aside the smartphone for a while. If not, don't go.
> what it really means is "a late 1990's to early 2000's experience"
Calling it a 'human experience' seems rather apt. When you're plugged into your smartphone frequently, you're not plugged into now; when you're playing on your computer instead of experiencing your immediate surroundings, it'd be more apt that to say that you're not partaking in the human experience, but an internet experience.
'Human experience' is apt, just like 'internet experience' would be apt for those that choose computer interaction.
Depending on what you're doing on your phone, I would say it's the ultimate human experience, an almost constant connection to a global community. What's more human than being part of a community?
I think the problem is that people assume that more human is better, when any extreme generally has some downsides. Constant connection to the group has its problems. Being spread between many groups and streaming to keep up to date with their news can spread people thin and stress them out.
> You cannot expect hardened smartphone addicts to follow directives that crossgrain their addiction. The only reason harsh policies like this are being enacted is because wrist-slaps and pleas do not work.
I think couching it in terms of addiction and people's inability to control themselves is taking it too far and brushing any problems under the rug. Establish norms. Enforce compliance. Once someone gets kicked out of a concert they spent $100 or more on, they'll think about it before doing it again, and likely do will anyone they tell the story too.
I can understand him checking every couple of rows in each stand or something. For example, every 100 seats but not each seat.
I went to a movie a few weeks ago where a woman actually took a call and wouldn't shut up for 30-40 seconds while others heckled her. That's the worst incident I can remember in the past decade or so. It doesn't annoy me if someone wants to video a concert on their phone. That's their choice to have a crappy experience.
What OP is proposing is to make phones prohibited at a concert. Then it will be misbehaving, and you can eject people who are breaking the rule. I think this would be a fine idea.
No. No it isn't. It's selfish and shows an egregious lack of courtesy to other attendees/the performer. The fact that most people do it just reveals most people are arseholes, not that it's 'fine and accepted'.
I'm pretty sure those are the apps one would use during a terrorist attack. But I've never been involved in one, so I could be wrong.
It should be pretty obvious that a terrorist attack is simply one example of many possible emergencies. There are plenty of things that could happen where having instant access to a phone could save someone's life.
Obviously remember we're talking about a public event here with organisers/security and infrastructure so I'd be interested to hear in what cases only the existence of a mobile phone would save someones life.
http://www.ent13.com/entertainment/movies/alamo-drafthouse-m...
Cell phone use = kicked out, banned forever. No oddly spelled startup needed.
If significant percentage of adults acts certain way, then it is acting like adults by definition. Maybe you are just using "adult" as word of approval and "kid" as insult :).
If you want to be antagonistic about the threat of a bombing, how about a more commonplace example: you're a very drunk young girl who's been separated from her friends at the concert and a pushy, aggressive guy you don't know is trying to get you into his car to go home with him. You can't text your friends that you need help because your phone is locked.
Or how about this? You're a parent and you've lost track of your kid in the sea of people. You can't text or call them, because your phone is locked.
Or how about this? You're alone and you have a medical condition and something goes wrong, and you need immediate attention, but you can't call 911 because your phone is locked. Your only option now to hope someone else in the crowd notices that you're passed out on the ground not from drunkenness, but from something much more urgent.
Don't act like cellphones have no practical use and are just social media machines. How absurd. They save lives every day and this policy is insanely dangerous for everyone. People here saying "How did people survive before cellphones," well, guess what, in many cases they probably didn't.
I'm only half joking. I've given up my phone for a DIY LTE project that barely works but is fun and I'm off social media for 4 years. Sure there is safety and stuff, but if you wanna watch the white stripes shred or some other exclusive art, maybe that's a thing you can deal with. You can also just not go and buy the Mp3s to load on your precious digital leash.
I'm gonna go walk to the grocery store repeatedly hitting refresh on HN on my kludge phone just to prove how much I don't need it.
sigh Humans have survived for hundreds of thousands of years without cellphones. For any new tech, you can continually imagine scenarios where survival "absolutely depends on" having this tech.
How about this? You're sitting in your ISS sleep capsule and suddenly the station starts to depressurize. You hop into your reentry-safe spacesuit and exit the station, set the suit to auto-reentry and then aero-brake from Mach 18 to 0 and touch down safely in your backyard with your parachute. See? A reentry safe single-person spacesuit is absolute essential to survival.
Your example is that you pass out at a concert with literally thousands of people around and no one helps you. Or you are drunk and a guy is hitting on you. Or your kid is missing.
And you call the person you are responding to ridiculous.
Cellphones have made people into helpless, scared sheep.
You can't simply brush aside the parent's comments because you don't agree with them. A potential rape situation, or a lost and frightened child are very valid, and very real examples of how having a phone could help.
> Cellphones have made people into helpless, scared sheep.
You realise that people can be scared and helpless without being sheep, right? You also realise that simply being able to contact someone can remove the fear and helpnessness?
A lot of things could help too. Like a gun or an epipen. My point is that cellphones have become people's #1 indispensable safety blankets to the point that being without fills them with fear. Why are we so afraid of everything? If you've got ID, keys, and a little bit of money, you're mostly golden. And even taking away one or all of those, you won't die instantly.
> You realise that people can be scared and helpless without being sheep, right?
The fact that people become so uncomfortable and literally afraid when they are separated from their devices that didn't even exist 10-15 years ago is not a good sign.
I wish everyone would just stop pedaling fear like this. You'll be fine without your phone for a few minutes. There aren't rapists, terrorists around every corner; aliens aren't abducting people, and you probably aren't going to have a brain aneurysm and be unable to call for help.
When it comes to safety, I want to set the bar somewhat above “this will not literally drive the species to extinction.”
Don't you think that's a bit if a neurotic and control freak way to look at it?
Humans survive splendidly on oxygen and agreeable temperature for days and are really hard to kill.
If we lived in a Syrianesque dystopia all around I would get your anxiety but any above median income metropolis should be just fine for supporting a humanoid lifeform for brief excursions out of ones home environment.
Phones are fantastic for public surveillance, but that's another thing entirely.
I'm a parent and I get the anxiety but worrying too much and helicoptering the children out of all rough spots is really not a skillfull way to worry through ones life.
Shows are for the audience, not the artist, so if 1/4 of the audience are using their phones then perhaps the artist should be less pretentious.
"Hey guys, let's stick together, if we get separated meet at the bar. Cool? cool"
And an interesting one you can't easily do anymore without a cell phone (because people don't wear wrist watches):
"Hey, i'm going to checkout X. Meet at the bar in 30 minutes?"
Of course we got by OK before mobile phones, but to suggest we give up the considerable benefits because an artist or venue opts for a heavy handed ban over a strictly enforced etiquette policy seems unreasonable.
Perhaps you have never had the experience of taking a close friend or relative with a disability, social dysfunction, etc. to their first ever concert and knowing it's partly enabled by the fact that if you somehow become separated you are both carrying electronic devices that will let you reconnect easily. (I find many people evaluate situations based on a default expectation that everyone involved is able-bodied, of sound mind, and socially adept, and then get defensive about "hypothetical" situations that are realistic considerations for a lot of us.)
- Save docs of maps for later. - Save docs of the names of place you want to go (translated into the local language and in your own language) - Similar for a few key locations (ok - mostly the hotel).
Makes a big difference when you can't read the local language... but yeah, being connected, not needed - and I could have done all that with bits of paper.
Secondly, these events have security, crowd control, management, etc, all with their own phones. Emergency services doesn't need a thousand simultaneous calls. In a genuine mass emergency there is a lot more important needs for network access than providing people the opportunity Instagram/Facebook about their experience.
If friends and family have to wait a little while longer to hear from you in an extremely rare emergency, that's a small price to pay for the large benefit. You can't fully experience a concert or show when you are distracted by your or someone else phones.
This technology makes the "no phones" policy work. I don't have to be made to feel like an a-hole calling for an usher to deal with phone users, or worry about them or their friends harassing or assaulting me for doing it. It makes the experience better for everyone.
A few weeks ago Joe Rogan spoke about how he's now using Yondr at all of his shows, because despite how expensive it is for him, it has significantly improved the show dynamics for his entire audience.
The situation of the Bataclan, the emergency services does need to know whats going on inside, and at multiple points of the building. For Manchester, they needed to know what exit was being targeted, and which other ones that popped up as well (there could have been more than one attacker)
I emphitise and understand where you're at with the usher part, it sucks and they're going to try to guilt trip you over it. However, that's the right process to go through. (You're esclating). MLB solves this issue by putting a short code to text about bad behavior on the backs of seats. (Again you have to use your phone with this)
Yondr means less (or at least less rapid) social media publicity for a terrorist act, so one could argue that it deters terrorists.
Even with cell phone annoyances, I prefer the cell phone world over the pre-cell phone world.
HN has experienced a palpable drop in quality recently.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15913342
> Having lived through the horrors of the pre-smartphone days
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15913665
> I remember life before smartphones. I remember boredom. It sucked. I would never go back to the agonizing pain of sitting in the DMV for three ours or standing in line at a grocery store just for some "missed moment" where I study the shitty tabloids in line or DoT pamphlets.
> Romanticising the past is not new. Whether it's television, hot showers, or smartphones, there will always be cynics who wish a simpler life on the rest of us.
How difficult is it to defeat the Yondr cases with mechanical force? I'd normally suggest a pocketknife, but places like that probably search for and confiscate those as well.
It doesn't look like the locking mechanism on those cases would be all that strong, such that most people could pull it apart with their hands if they made a real effort.
They’ll probably shake their heads and wonder how people ever got along without neural implants.
What did people do when bad things happened at stadia before there were cell phones? Mass casualty incidents at arenas aren't exactly a new thing. (Who concert in Cincinnati, Disco Demolition in Chicago, etc...)
I don't know why such walls are not more common in schools too. A lot of parents would be happy to pay for such walls if the learning experience improves substantially.
Edit: about the emergency and possible bomber attack: if the block-signal-mecanism is active (create some sort of interference) then it becomes easy to deactivate the mechanism automatically when the fire alarm or other emergency is triggered: simy cut the power source.
If your venue just happens to block all signals as an effect of its design (working like a Faraday cage), it could legally have repeaters that are powered off during the performance proper.
Meeting your friends: You made plans to meet at a certain time and place and you showed up when you were supposed to or you carpooled.
In an Emergency: you'll find out what happened to your friends eventually when you meet at school or call each other then next day. You aren't emergency service personnel. You just need to evacuate.
Going to the bathroom: you go to the bathroom and get out of the stall in an expeditious fashion to let others use it instead of looking at your phone while people wait in line. If you were a real jerk, you read the newspaper on the toilet, but this was rare.
Seeing a show: you watched the show, danced, or crowd surfed if it was a punk show. You never had to wory about your phone falling out of your pocket or getting broken. The place was dark. Someone might kneel on the speaker with a lit cigarette lighter in one hand if it was a special moment.
How did the world even work before cell phones?
Going anywhere without a phone is about the whole experience, not just the watching the artist but all the time inbetween too. You don't get to escape the world to a phone, even for a moment, and when things get boring you have to find interest in what's around you.
Your phone is a mental portal to all other things in your life and by having it within reach your mind likes to weasel out of wherever it currently is into those other spaces, even when you don't pick the phone up. It is an interspatial, intertemporal hyper distraction machine and it robs people of being engaged for long periods of time without interruption. Those moments inbetween sets where you have to just be with your friends, that is part of it, when you have to organise how to find eachother after a toilet break, also part of it.
Keep in mind, some people are way better at managing their phones interruption than others, and it doesn't affect them like that. So perhaps the no phone thing isn't 100% for your benefit, but you still have to endure the troubles it takes.
I get the feeling this will be a divisive topic. I am willing to endure the pains because I really really don't want a phone or anyone else to have theirs at the venue. Some people don't feel that way, so the logical pros and cons we can both describe will matter differently and we will find it hard to agree!
I totally agree about emergencies, but for me that's a risk I am willing to take on. Just like I would go hiking with no phone and you perhaps might not.
This is precisely how it's done every night at Output in Brooklyn.
From the videos I've seen online, it seems like you could do so "fairly" easily.
It's hard to even comment on the fact that if the phone is locked, you can't safely leave the building during the alam because you are afraid that something will happen to him... or your contacts in cloud. :)
Now the majority will not survive 5 days without a telephone because someone will surely die, someone will get lost, a terrorist attack will happen, or world will be hit by the meteorite...
Yes, I have a phone, but I do not take it with me, and I do not use it when I do not have to... and it's not a smartphone. :)
If this is your normal way of thinking the terrorists have beaten you already.
>> At the extreme end...
> If this is your normal way of thinking...
Yondr feels patronising, almost like we are being treated like children.
That being said, I generally don't go to gigs anymore because its getting more like flying. Expensive tickets with hidden fees, being forced to queue neatly like school children, searches, and then the overpriced food and drink. This is just one more thing to add to the list.
This is not about not treating people like adults but about what experience you want to give them.
I fail to see what terrorist attacks have to do with anything.
Dude.
What do you think people did at Rolling Stones or Zeppelin concerts in the 60-70's?
What do you think people did at Michael Jackson concerts in the 80's?
What do you think people did at Nirvana and Pearl Jam concerts in the 90's?
People have lived without text messaging far longer that we've had it. If this is your chief complaint, I think you need to think harder about the problem space.
Dude.
What do you think people did in the middle ages?
(I'm probably older than you, but putting myself into the place of someone who has had a smart phone most of their adult life)
Nobody said anything about not being able to live.
But if people attending your 3 random examples had known a mobile phone, perhaps they'd have chosen the convenience over (worst case) spending some of the concert trying to find their friends. We can't know.
He's the artist, it's his gig, if you can't respect the reasonable wishes of the person who you paid to go see what are you doing there?
I have no idea why someone would want to watch a performance from behind a screen.
Although I'm somewhat glad for the tourist "gotta take my own shitty photo" attitude, because I saw a really nifty research project once that took thousands of tourist photos (of the Trevi Fountain IIRC) and combined them to generate a high-res 3d image without any people in it. That was pretty cool.
If I could change anything about my Machu Picchu experience, though, it would have been to find some way to shut up that blathering loudmouth moron in front of me who barely paused for breath for the entire duration of the morning hike to the nearby summit. Jesus christ lady, I couldn't hear a single nature sound, and I did NOT need to know about what a slut your cousin is.
To this day though the best picture I ever took was in Hakone with a really shitty point-and-shoot and none of the photographic training (hobbyist level) I have now.
That's a standard service at Disneyland.[1] Costs $169.
I actually prefer candid home video infinitely more -- most pictures on social networks are as authentic as pornography stills.
Especially if she's not, ya'know, there...
I recently went on an alaskan cruise with my family. While they all took pictures, I left my camera home and my phone locked up and just enjoyed myself.
Not once have I regretted not taking pictures. Like others have posted, you can get better quality shots from the same views, and the handful of pictures we did get of the family were shared out to everyone.
I enjoyed stepping away from technology and experiencing everything directly rather than looking for great pictures and lugging equipment around.
For example seeing a random picture of Tokyo Tower that I took with no one recognizable in it, invokes about the same connection as a random Google Image search for Tokyo Tower. However the picture of me standing in front of it, seeing my clothes, my umbrella, and all the other details puts me right back into that day. I remember more vividly the details before the picture and after the picture as well. It took me quite a few trips to realize this, but its pretty apparent now when I find myself skipping over random scenery pictures in my albums. Sometimes it can't be helped that no one is included, but I make an effort to minimize these pictures.
As an amateur photographer, looking for creative shots that I can't just find online lead me to see/find much more interesting areas when hiking/traveling/sight seeing.
I know for sure that a pro photo of the same location wouldn't be the same. Maybe it has something to do with my visual/spacial memory.
An example is at a football game where the a team is imminently going to score. Up come the phones. Especially if the game is being shown on TV and you can watch the highlight over and over and over, why not just enjoy the moment? Same with concerts, just enjoy the music and show, your video is completely worthless to even yourself.
it's when people take photos or videos of something and miss a moment
Sometimes people like to film or take pictures of things that are really cool to remember them by or show their friends
I'd rather see everyone bored and talking. At least that's a genuine response.
I feel it's quite disrespectful to be looking at your cellphone and recording while a performer is on stage. The performer is there for you, and you presumably went there to see them. Sometimes we make eye contact, and sometimes we look out to measure how we are doing. No feedback results breaks the uh... feedback loop.
No big deal to do it for a few seconds, but a few seconds just doesn't happen. Besides, my purpose is to give you a few minutes to escape life, leave all your concerns, and be in a moment. Snap a pic, but turn off the flash and don't film. The recording quality sucks so it isn't like anyone is going to look at it understand half the experience anyways.
Video: A few seconds, once or twice, is ok.
Photos: No flash photography
Audio: Record the whole show if you want. Isn't that how most Phish music is distributed?
I am fine with artists putting hard limits on their audience. If they believe it will improve their art, let's give them the benefit of the doubt. It might help or hurt them financially, in terms of fanbase, whatever. It's the artist who is taking the risk here, I say let him.
Incidentally, I went to a local symphony concert recently and I got some serious evil-out-of-the-corner-of-the-eye from one of the patrons 3 rows in front of me, wearing a tweed coat. Apparently my hushed comment to my wife annoyed him. And then when the piece was over, right before the moment of applause, he let out a "mmm" like he had just consumed a great piece of chocolate cake or something. Now that was bad manners.
It's the general crowd who isn't really there for the music that are the types to record an entire show. I veer towards snobbery saying it like that, obviously, but it's like seeing two people at an art gallery. The one snapping pics of everything and running to the next piece isn't really there for the art.
It's a tough balance since they are paying for whatever experience defines the experience for them.
I guess it wouldn't be surprising to find that it'd be the people who are most interested in doing something or going somewhere so they could tell people about it, rather than for the experience itself.
Given the improbability of anyone learning etiquette for anything, maybe what we need is something like the Total Perspective Vortex from HHGTTG: show these people their place in the crow, the impact on their fellow man, topped with a hefty dash of reality on how 'aint nobody got time' for your blurry concert photos.
Can't or won't?
I think it's interesting that those with the poorest etiquette are actually older generations who have abandoned it almost entirely simply because portions of it became outdated.
The younger generations who actually understand all of the new technology, social issues surrounding LGBTQ..., and the #MeToo banner wavers are, to me, the best people to establish new etiquette and to push for it's adoption.
Etiquette is about decency and treating each other with respect and fairness. What better way to make your mark on history than to be the generation who chose mutual respect and fairness over greed and self indulgence.
And, yes, it's true that 'no smoking' often has local law to help drive the idea home, but it's not like there's a cop monitoring the smoking situation in every public venue. Shame, ridicule, side-eye and public opinion are really what keep behavior in line.
It's not hard to do. I remember long ago that the famous Alamo Drafthouse movie theater, which serves beer and booze, had problems with people talking. They started playing a stock reel of people getting their asses kicked overlaid with "if you talk we'll kick your ass out" before the movie started. Now it's just accepted fact that you keep quiet no matter how many Lone Star tallboys you've had.
They can have a moment in the show for everyone who "needs" a picture or a brief video can take one. And just let everyone know that the whole show will be on YouTube in good quality later-- no need to take your own.
Um, it increases costs a lot to film a show, you realize this, right?
And if the show was available on YouTube for free, don't you think it would potentially impact sales?
about how you paid all this money to be here
Phones are clearly some step on the road to handing off part of our memory and socializing to a device that helps us, but it has completely changed our perspective. I remember reading a blog post by Charlie Stross a few years back about the idea of never being lost again (because of GPS + phones) and it seemed like a nice step in human innovation, but what I've come to realize is there's a negative to every positive phones bring: now I am liable to soil myself when I lose GPS in a strange place. And I'm at least old enough to know about road atlases.
I have a four year old and I can only imagine what kind of complex we are going to give her with the idea you always need to be able to reach them, the babysitter, the venue they're at, whomever. My wife and I have agreed to try hard not to do that; I assume if we succeed we will get in trouble with child protective services or her school at some point.
I noticed at the Mark Twain wards for David Letterman when my hero Bill fucking Murray came out a woman was literally watching him through her phone. And I was watching the whole thing on youtube at a much better angle and quality.
Of course my video was probably uploaded much later than her visual phone proxy experience but it occurred to me that these events should make the recordings available.
The ticket stub could have a url that will become active after the event with the video. Or if they're feeling generous, put it on youtube for everyone.
Funnily enough, the only reason I went to that show was having watched their previous acoustic tour on YouTube. The quality obviously blows a phone recording out of the water, I wish more concerts did this.
Above and Beyond Acoustic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNUTlKqSO-I
If anyone finds an Acoustic II concert video around, let me know.
EDIT: well timed, just looked again and I guess it's more of a documentary with showings starting next week: http://www.aboveandbeyond.nu/acousticfilm/
Bit of a slow turnaround from a show in May 2016.
Side note, Lane 8 experimented with phone-less concerts that went well enough that he does that for his tours now, even naming his new record label "This Never Happened". My friends and I joke that it started with a Mixmag set where a crowd member in the front kept recording video and flash photos, whereas Lane 8 is usually very much enveloped in the music he's playing (https://youtu.be/sWa7GdYiYUQ?t=15m2s).
I've enjoyed his phone-less concerts a lot - it's just tape over the camera, so you can send/receive a quick message if needed, and step off to the back or side if you need to use it longer.
“For those looking to do some social media postings, let us help you with that. Our official tour photographer will be posting photos and videos after the show at jackwhiteiii.com and the new Jack White Live Instagram account @officialjackwhitelive. Repost our photos & videos as much as you want and enjoy a phone-free, 100% human experience.”
More info: http://phish.com/faq/#taping-guidelines
I take a lot of home videos. A new hobby of mine. I actually watch them. I use a handheld gopro and hold it at eye level.
At a venue the other day they recorded the event and put it somewhere online, but I have no intention on downloading it and still recorded 2 acts myself with my gopro (5 minutes of footage of the 2 hr show).
Why? Workflow, convenience, control. Recording on my camera means the video is automatically chronological with all my other videos and will be processed like all the others. Downloading their video means finding it online, editing it down to the parts I wanted to begin with, and figuring out the correct time stamp for each video I export. It goes from a automatic processes to a 20 minute long processes. That's not worth the trade off for me for 5 minutes of footage.
On top of that I lose my vantage point and the ability to point the camera back at ourselves too.
Social Media is definitely at the point where TV was in around 2012. There were the early 'adopters' who cast out their sets and proclaimed the virtues, but they weren't shunned and understanding was attempted... what's a DVR? what's streaming? Silly questions a few years later, right.
Cell phones are wonderful, apps are useful, don't get me wrong. So is self awareness and presence. It's a huge waste of effort to go to a party/concert just to use a device for non-urgent activity. I used to be on PagerDuty for 7on/7off and I forewent my normal life during those days to ensure I could respond. Sometimes I'd go to a bar with my backpack and sip with coworkers/acquaintances, but it obviously disturbed the vibe not keeping up so eventually I stopped.
I wouldn't go to a concert if I had urgent stuff that could happen. Family emergency? Shit, we'll we've managed until now, life happens. The external cost to social skills and ambiance are so great, as we can all observe, that that one act of nature edge case isn't worth the external costs (we can agree to disagree).
and also - Pearl Jam has released information on their upcoming tour - the tickets themselves will be SmartPhone only (from their Fan Club site, Ten Club):
Ten Club Mobile Tickets: No will call. No physical tickets. In order to distribute tickets more efficiently, Ten Club will be delivering all Ten Club tickets directly to your smart phone. Mobile ticket delivery requires an iPhone or Android smart phone. Instead of scanning a physical ticket at the gate, members will access tickets through their smartphone and scan directly from the screen of your mobile device. Step-by-step instructions on how to access your ticket on your phone will be sent to all Ten Club ticket holders via email when they are ready for mobile distribution. We plan to have this delivered to you by early July.
When I used the mobile ticket with the The Killers at the UC, they gave me a paper copy of the ticket for the seat info.
Don't get me wrong. I've seen several shows, including Jack White, that politely ask the audience to keep their phones away for part or all of the show. That's fine with me and it basically works.
But as much as I'd like to see Jack White again, I really don't enjoy being treated like a child.
In your analogy, the park is doing what the commentor says. Politely asking you not to do that.
Your state park would indicate "no vehicles beyond this point" and I assume if anyone starting driving on the hiking trail they'd be asked to follow the rules or leave.
That's different than insisting you hand over your keys in order to enter the park. That wouldn't feel quite right, would it?
Sorry, I'm aware that yelling is not appreciated, but this is a really cool idea.
There's hardly anything more annoying at gigs than those dunces in front of you recording some ultra-shitty video that nobody ever looks at.
Those small screens are a real distraction and phones also don't really serve as substitutes for lighters used, when Led Zeppelin started with Stairway to Heaven.
A rant about this specific song is reserved for another comment.
Au contraire. The people on either side having a conversation about their weekend dinner party whilst Lisa Gerrard does a quiet solo piece are infinitely more annoying than any camera phone. Or a lady with big hair in the first 3 rows sitting on someone's shoulders and blocking out half the stage for half the crowd.
I've been to triple-digit number of gigs and that has never happened. Not once. Perhaps it's peculiar to the UK but still.
It's BS - people just have a hard-on for punishing new social behaviours in others, that they don't partake in themselves. The old disruptions are 'well, what can you do?', while the new disruption are all 'think of the children!'
Otherwise, they would be trying to accomodate cell phone users, and arrange things so their behaviour was less disruptive to others, rather than fighting them outright. Cell phone usage at concerts is the equivalent of taping, and people have set up dedicated taping sections at music events in the past.
For example, a lot of concerts at SAP Arena are literally called "Zero Enforcement" where ushers are disallowed to intervene in any inter-patron situation outside of medical emergency.
It ends up being a Lord of the Flies situation where the fittest do (or stop) what they want.
Why not ask people not to talk disruptively and disallow people from sitting on someone's shoulders in addition to the phone ban?
Then the usher has to be willing to do something.
Then the person and their friends have to be adult enough not to start harassing you for it.
And if they try to assault you, you need to be able to defend yourself and your date/friends.
That's why most people do nothing and concerts get worse.
I perform with a couple groups you've never heard of, and I hate seeing cell phones at performances. I'm just trying to perform, not be discovered.
While I agree with your comment I do watch a lot of these. In electronic music "IDs" are a big thing and it's a big culture around identifying new tracks DJs play, which you mostly get from these kind of clips.
"For those looking to do some social media postings, let us help you with that. Our official tour photographer will be posting photos and videos after the show at jackwhiteiii.com and the new Jack White Live Instagram account @officialjackwhitelive. Repost our photos & videos as much as you want and enjoy a phone-free, 100% human experience.”
So you won't only get your memento, you'll get it professionally produced and in much better quality, without being a pain to all those who really hate that.
That the media is freely distributable is a nice touch too.
Sometimes, the best memories you have are the ones that you can't perfectly recall. You get to keep it as perfect as you'd like to remember it.
Sometimes, the best memories you have are the ones that you can't perfectly recall. You get to keep it as perfect as you'd like to remember it.
Thank you for this comment. I can't quite explain it, but it touched something deep down inside
If people are openly bored at your shows then it's probably time to reevaluate how you're running things, rather than getting into shouting matches on Twitter.
When? The tickets usually don't say "oh yeah, the show scheduled for 20:00 actually starts 22:13".
From my observations (lived 100m from a stage bar for a few years), 90% of the shows don't. But then an odd artist shows up and they're too cool to have an opening act and they actually start on time and boom you've missed half the show. :(
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_in_Praha_(Radiohead_video...
But here's the rub (or actually a very good thing):
"Radiohead contributed their own audio masters of the show."
That's really amazing, but also indicates (not necessarily, I grant that. The article doesn't say) that the project was actually planned and that the band and audience were in for it from the start.
But in any case I really thank you for the links.
It's great when shit like that gets real. And probably not only the fans that were at the gig, but a ton of other people will have a pleasurable experience with the result (and respect that band even more).
> The group allowed a show in Prague in August last year to be filmed from a variety of angles throughout, and then provided soundboard masters for the film’s soundtrack.
> And for a final and unhoped-for touch, Radiohead themselves accept to join this project by providing their audio mixes.
I remember finding it really fascinating and strange, and now such a thing is so normal. I completely agree that no one ever watches those videos, but it appears that capturing the experience has become in many cases more important than the experience itself.
I needed one or two in situ pictures of me doing computer stuff from past times and I had almost nothing I could pull out.
It's simple (thick cloth pouch with a powerful magnet lock), allows you to remain in physical custody of your device (which wasn't clear from the article) and creates a forcing function for people who need to use their phone to simply exit the venue and get it unlocked at a kiosk.
- Don't disclose your phone
- Put a cheap ringer in your pocket
- Cut through the package in the parking lot and re-enter
Source: Me. (I'm not going to accept the whole phone defacement ordeal)
If phone-free events are something there is demand for, Yondr feels like the terribly inelegant solution that precedes the elegant one... But, as generations grow up in a world where mobile phones are omnipresent, I have my doubts about how badly anyone will want this...
However, I would never support an artist/performer who tries to prevent me from using my own things. It's not their right to tell me that I can't pull out my phone if I choose to do so. It belongs to me. So while I would never actually have my phone out during a show like it, I would never actually go to a show that would prevent me from doing so.
On the other hand, you have every right to not go to the event.
I also don't like these phone pouches for many reasons. As I said earlier under this post, Eddie Vedder also forbids phones. He'll just stop doing whatever is he doing and wait until everyone puts it away. And that's his right, your statement that he can't do it because the phone is yours is wrong.
Maybe phones should have a feature to take pics with the screen off, more like a disposable camera. They should have that feature anyway.
Except when it doesn't. I can't remember the last time I went to see a movie where somebody didn't light up the place with their phone at least once during the film.
> phones should have a feature to take pics with the screen off
This quickly gets into a creepy territory. I realize there are already ways to do this and there are hidden cameras, but we should probably maintain some barrier to entry.
This has never happened to me in Europe, ever. It's an American thing. Also, in the US I can never properly enjoy a movie at the cinema because people are always talking or laughing.
The behavior of people at venues is largely dictated by the local culture.
Wholly supported.
Found the article on the Detroit one: http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/dave-chappelle-fans...
I could have sworn he had issues at a PA show as well, but that was recorded.
Hannibal Burress doesn't like it because he said some unverified bits about Cosby and got caught. (Unsubstiated at the time)
Comedians tell jokes, they aren't news organizations that need to do fact checking.
And even if they did hold to that standard, what a crazy bad example to pick. He was correct. So you think he got 'caught' telling a joke that had true facts that hadn't been verified yet?
Before the show one of his crewmen said to all the people to keep their phones in the pockets, that the show will be profesionally photographed and the photos will be on the official Jack White site for everyone to download.
This helped immensely, and I'd guess 95 % of the people kept heir phones hidden and enjoyed the show. Yes, there still were some who recorded alllllll the songs, but that's their apparently their thing afterall, isn't it? I think this approach was nice, human, and worked very well.
worked very well
Mister White attended a few more Jack White concerts than you did, and appears to disagree.
A particular thing I find very unnerving, is the playing of media on a phone or tablet with the audio on in a crowded public space, typically, but far from exclusively, for the benefit of a child. A close runner up is people keeping audible notifications on their phones or laptops while using it - the sound grabs everybody else's attention, too.
EDIT: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Children-Headband-Headphone-Comfort...
Isn't it actually simpler than this?
To me, it's just about being aware of your surroundings, and acting appropriately.
The people who are disruptive at live events, movies, airplanes and other public places seem very focused on "what I want to do" and are ignorant of the fact that there are other people are around whose experience could be negatively impacted by their behavior.
Because its the exact opposite of what he's trying to do here? Music is an inherently human experience, why do we need to bring computers in to all aspects of our life?
...and hold your phone up there so the person behind you can't see me with their actual eyes!
People who record phone video at concerts are the worst. If you want to re-live your experience later, a lot of promoters now do a professional recording from the floor and on stage with multiple cameras, and they sell download authorization keys at the merchandise booths. Buy one of those. If you can't enjoy the thing you're at right now, please don't ruin it for the people around you.
I think it's fine for people to snap a photo or two and be able to check their messages during the show, but when half the crowd is holding up phones to film, it's super annoying.
If I found out a venue was going to take my phone as I came in, that would be a HARD no for me ever going to that venue. And if I didn't know about it beforehand, I would be extremely irate.
Maybe I'm just weird, but a lot of the time at concerts I just close my eyes because I find the visual stimulation of the entire thing to be too distracting from the music.
"Time to put the silicon obsession down"
Personally, I'm also sick of trying to watch concerts through someone's screen in front of me.
While I can understand certain environments should curb cell use (Where lights and flashes are distracting to performers and the audience), or the desire to maintain mystery or quality by controlling bootlegs... a rock concert has distractions-a-plenty, between flying beer cups, weed smoke, people gabbing loudly about their recent gossip, crowd surfers... a phone is really not a big deal.
Curbing phone use might be nostalgic (why not also hand out cigarette lighters for the ballads?) but doesn’t make the experience any more human.
By bypassing our minds and instead offloading experiences directly to the digital middleman we reduce our powers of memory and lose respect for ourselves as witnesses; we begin to feel that only what is digital is real.
Can you not see that we become less human by separating ourselves from the intimacy of experience? We demote ourselves to mediators evaporating reality to the cloud.
What musician wants to perform to a crowd of cloud-zombies? That's equivalent to a crowd of no one. And they really don't care about the experiences of those who "aren't physically present"; that's what recorded albums are for.
A phone is also an intimate device for many, it carries our most intimate thoughts, our photos - often nude! - and possibly even sexual videos, along with our banking information and every password to every app or site we touch. Using our phones during art performances does not separate ourselves from intimacy but rather embraces it and allows us to share it with our friends and family and lovers.
Just wait until augmented reality really starts taking off!
I really don’t think a musician performing has any business whether I share my experiences with others - that’s my prerogative. We’ve moved past the tired arguments for copyright and bouncers yanking cameras - it doesn’t fly anymore, and people won’t accept it. They can request no phones as part of the experience, and check ahead, though I doubt it will become a trend . most tickets are moving to phones as it is, and most rock music fans will rightly look at bans as nostalgia, just like paying for recorded music once was a thing (and still is for people over 40, but will eventually fade away).
Other venues like live theatre warrant less light and sound distraction and I think still deserve etiquette of keeping phones down to between acts or sets, though that may evolve.
To quote Simone Weil: "The world is the closed door. It is a barrier. And at the same time it is the way through. Two prisoners whose cells adjoin communicate with each other by knocking on the wall. The wall is the thing which separates them but it is also their means of communication."
A concert is a really special thing. Music is the only popular art form where we can really be there and connect to the artist. When you're at a show where the band and the crowd connect you can tell it's something special. Read any interview with a popular musician and they'll tell you the same.
So let's put our phones down and listen.
A side note: this is made much better when artists offer video/audio recordings of their shows after the fact. I honestly don't get why every single artist doesn't offer to sell soundboard recordings. Jam bands (notably Phish) have been making tons of money this way. You can give everyone who came to the show a free download and let those who couldn't be there oay for it. That removes one major need people have for their phones.
It was really great to have only the concert's lighting without the distraction of a sea of screens. Many people even pulled out their lighters for one song, when at other shows I've often seen them defaulting to waving their phones instead.
I did a bit of Googling and apparently they cost about $10 each, so fairly cheap too.
As long as such restrictions are transparent to the ticket-buyer, I'll allow them to vote with their cash. This initiative seems to be an attempt by Mr. White to sculpt the environment and experience at his shows, which is his prerogative. Other bands routinely impose restrictions (Metallica won't allow alcohol to be served while they're on-stage; Morrissey won't allow any meat to be served at his shows).
So, what about writing a song about it in which the artist ridicules them? Or in extreme cases stopping the performance until enough people put the phones away?
I believe this may not even be possible due to privacy issues, hidden cameras / recording without consent is enough of a problem already!
It has terrible video and audio recording capabilities, people know how to use them already, and there's nothing on that tiny screen worth distracting yourself/alienating yourself. Other than an SMS, and that's cool.
That's all the pro's of no-phones, without any of the cons of having to drop off the grid for a few hours.
If I pay for a concert ticket I don't want to be forced to watch it through the phone camera of the person in front of me.
It was a glorious time when you couldn't get connectivity in flight or in national parks. The tether has never been tighter.
But, yes, as you see on this thread people are growing up today who find the idea of not being able to be reached or to reach someone (even for a few hours) as unsettling. And, if I'm being honest, I've also thought to myself that if I were going off on any extended solo hiking/backpacking these days I'd start seriously thinking about getting one of those satellite messaging systems.
ADDED: My concern is that there seems to be an increasing expectation that, if "they" don't make cellular coverage available everywhere they're creating an unsafe environment and something needs to be done about that. (And conversely, if I'm not always available, I'm being somehow irresponsible.)
We were without mandatory seat belts for decades but no one's suggesting we go back to that.
I just don't find the argument that there was a time where we did without something as a compelling counter argument to the perceived utility something serves today.
Again, while I agree that it would eschew security for the sake of immersion, not wearing a seatbelt or not getting antibiotics could be a certain death sentence in many everyday life circumstances. Not having a mobile phone would not constitute such a dire situation in my eyes.
And, as I pointed out downthread... when's the last time someone actually had to reach you via cell phone for an actual emergency? Particularly when it's something you need to act on rather than just be informed? Virtually all the use of our cell phones falls into "urgent but not important"... the notifications alerting us that Someone Is Wrong On The Internet.
I always thought that was just a private joke I had with myself, but now that I think of it I can't remember ever seeing a fellow tall person doing the camera thing. There might be a grain of truth to it.
(Now I hope nobody starts calling out Jack White as a sizeist for not allowing electric periscopes)
I'm reminded of this xkcd comic: https://xkcd.com/1314/
Are you really that easily bothered by other people that them enjoying something in a different way than you detracts from your experience?
Taking a photo to commemorate a once-in-a-lifetime experience, recording video to show friends, checking the time because you can't stay until the very end, checking the babysitter hasn't called to say the kids are in hospital, ... there are many reasons I can think of that, whilst they may be annoying, and may to a very small extent detract from your experience, are still 'valid' and necessary from the other's point of view.
> If someone is talking over the concert or spilling beer on me I'm going to ask them to stop, too.
Right. I must admit, I wouldn't do that in the same situation, partly because I'm conflict-averse but also because it wouldn't bother me that much. However, I wouldn't argue that beer can't be served at the event or no-one's allowed to talk at all. I have no problem with you politely asking someone else to take their cell phone out of your face, but I see no reason why that has to result in a blanket ban.
Not okay at the expense of others. Professional photographers and videographers are likely recording the event for you.
>checking the time because you can't stay until the very end
Plan better or buy a watch
>checking the babysitter hasn't called to say the kids are in hospital
What are you going to do other than worry if you go to the hospital? What do you think people did before cell phones? It's OKAY to disconnect for a bit.
Also people acting like this is a safety issue are being ridiculous. Does anyone really think that no stage manager or security guard has a phone they can access in the event of an emergency?
But here it's AFAIK more for the reason of selling a exclusive concert DVD after the event is over.
White suggested that he is “wasting time” performing for people who “can’t even clap” because they have a phone in one hand and a drink in the other."
I'd opt to avoid a band that enforced or suggested this.
Playing for fun is playing professionally, as long as it has passion.
> there are only 20 people there and the only reward you get is the chance to play for them.
I'm not going preachy here, but playing in front of people something you wrote is an invaluable reward.
A showcase user for https://www.overyondr.com , probably getting the service at a reduced rate, free or maybe even for some reverse payment in exchange for the publicly.
Cost for yondr should be pretty much proportional to audience size (physical pouches), and Jack White might offer a very good cost/visibility ratio for them. (I don't know anything about his typical audience size, but it might lean towards the smaller end of the spectrum relative to his indisputable fame)
If you don't like that trade, don't make it! But don't deny those who wish to engage in that transaction the right to do so by forcing them to have a "cell phones are welcome" policy.
This is a rock concert. There is no coercion to attend whatsoever. You are absolutely, 100% free to decline this transaction.
Yes, I'm being facetious, but if he REALLY wants a 100% human experience, shrink the room, go full acoustic and play only to small crowds and encourage interaction rather than observation.
I actually love sets like that with artists, especially when you see spontaneous collaborations between artistic minds and talents. I'll go to one of those intimate, acoustic sets and pay 5x what I'd pay to go to any large concert.
Heck, he's got a refurbished 1940's Voice-O-Matic at his Third Man Records, an old time vinyl recording booth which lets you go in and records 2.5 minutes of audio onto one unique vinyl.
He's very much about eschewing as much technology as possible and getting people as close as possible to the sound itself.
If he's at the point where he can focus his career on what matters to him as an artist and not what the fans want in order to find financial success, then all the power to him. I think its great and if it increases creativity, connection and makes him and others happy, its the right thing to do.
Why is it wasting time playing to people who don't clap. Is he doing it for the claps? Why do I have to pay then?
Can I pay extra to get a ticket which allows me not to clap?
You can't clap with just a drink in your hand either, will he be banning drinking at his gigs?
Is he using amplifiers or are they banned as part of this "human experience" too?
I hate phone use at gigs but Jack White isn't really expressing how I feel about them.
I have a similar problem with people who dress up their criticism of other's behaviour as something "moral".
As much as I don't like the TSA, they're a lot better than venue security. Going on your anaology, if something happened in an airport past security, the airport isn't blocking your ability to call for help.
Bringing it back: What benefit is removing people's abilities to use phones and smart watches going to give you? (Yes, they remove both of those including fitbits)
Sorry people are downvoting you just because they disagree with your opinion!
I don't really go to this type of concert so I don't know, but if people are asked to silence their phones and put them in their pocket for something like this, do many of them just ignore that? It's not really a problem at live theater, classical music concerts, etc. but obviously the audience and atmosphere differs a lot.