I know how he feels. I'm a musician too, and it's really demoralizing when you're up on stage rocking your heart out for people, and you look out and see people's noses in their phones rather than listening to you. (It's probably more demoralizing when you're a tiny indie band playing for fun rather than professionally, and there are only 20 people there and the only reward you get is the chance to play for them.)
I know. I mean, I do this. I go to a lot of effort and expense to play music for small audiences, solely for the pleasure that they're there to listen to my songs. Which is why it's so sad when someone is busy reading social media rather than listening.
Though technically the authentic experience is to be around phones as that's what is naturally happening. He just doesn't want that experience so is changing it.
I don't think this is about bootlegs. It's about all those idiots in front of you flashing out their phones and completely spoil an immersive concert experience.
It's mostly because they want to use their jokes for a special down the road, but if someone records them during a smaller venue with the same jokes, it'll ruin the special.
Not to mention it could be a bit they're still working on and fleshing out, so not only will it be out there already but it will be a potentially subpar version of the bit.
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?
I'd believe it. I love Chappelle's show and specials. I won't go see him live again though. I saw him once about 10 years ago and it was a big disappointment. He was very stoned, and the only interesting part was when he dressed down an audience member who kept yelling at him about Rick James.
That's great for them. But I won't be buying a ticket for any of his shows. After seeing what happened at the bataclan that makes this a stupid and dangerous idea.
You're comparing apples and oranges there. There is nothing preventing you from filming or using your electronic devices (outside FAA regulations, and they're pretty clear when and when you cannot use the electronics, heck they don't even take your device away from you or deface it)
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)
It doesn't prevent it. But it does give insight into what is going on in their baracaded situation, and signals for help+information on where it's safe to exit.
The pouch thing also just seems as if it would have a lot of overhead getting in and out.
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.
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.
I disagree. I often watch and enjoy crummy-quality bootlegs of bands I could never see live. Sometimes bootlegs even capture of the intensity of a live performance better than a professional multi-camera setup ever can.
I too enjoy crummy-quality bootlegs of bands occasionally, but there are already enough of those videos of Jack White. He’s at the point in his career where he can ban phones without noticeably affecting the amount of bootleg videos of his performances.
> 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.
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.
Which is why they also have ushers whose job it is to move those conversations out of the concert hall. I'm not sure why you disagree with someone talking about Led Zeppelin based on your experience with Lisa Gerrard...
And you'd complain if an artist insisted on ushers doing that? I get the feeling you're just trying to drop how many non-mainstream music events you go to.
I've never seen it either, at triple-digit gigs in the US.
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.
It depends on policy of the venue and artist and can vary.
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.
Because they will break any rule you set. People at concerts are inebriated and uninhibited. That's the point. So you do actually have to physically enforce any rules you want to exist at a rock show.
Well it's a chicken and egg thing. If rules are never enforced at concerts, people will continue to break the rules thinking nothing will happen to them. If rules tend to be consistently enforced and people know they run the risk of being ejected from a concert, people might be more likely to behave a little more.
It doesn't (although I don't agree with the phone ban anyway) but GP specifically made a point of claiming there was hardly anything more annoying and, in my experience, that's just not true. Consider it an Anecdata Pebble.
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.
If you have the context of having been there then those ultra-shitty videos are more like a trigger for your own memory of that moment to help you relive a really good time. It's a phenomenon similar to how certain smells bring people right back to some moment. It might not be for you but I wouldn't get too indignant about it if others indulge.
"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.
This makes sense and is an unfortunate loss for those individuals that would've gotten something out of the video. However, it seems like phone presence is still doing more harm than good.
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.
Maybe it'd be reasonable if the show actually started at the posted time, rather than first spending multiple hours on horrible-to-mediocre opening acts and breaks.
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.
i dont know, an hour, two hours late? what do you expect, push notifications when the headlining band is tuning their instruments? show up an hour or two late and at worst see a little bit more of the opening band or a little less of the main act.
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. :(
If this policy were blanket, we wouldn't have things like this [1][2], a crowd-sourced film, pieced together from many individual audience recordings, which won a Live Production of The Year award.
Thanks for that, I didn't know that and will certainly check it out.
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.
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 NME article [0] referenced by Wikipedia makes it sound like the band was aware of the project before the concert:
> 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.
I remember maybe 20 or so years ago, reading about how Japanese tourists visiting America would tend to look at landmarks through their camera lens rather than looking at it for real. It was considered a bizarre phenomenon at the time and the theory was that they found it more 'real' to look at through their technology than seeing it with their own eyes.
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 don't know the psychology but, yeah, everyone has turned into the (virtual) shutter button clicking fanatics that was a Japanese peculiarity 20 years ago. And it wasn't just vacation pictures. There would be photos at all sorts of work events and day to day activities that Americans rarely photographed.
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.
I have been tempted to do a website along the lines of "guess the concert". Seriously, when people post this crap on facebook it all looks the same, a stage, some lights figures too small to make out who they are and some crap quality sound. Posting this shit is utterly pointless.
Personally, I'd kinda like to see venues Faraday-cage the concert areas, so people can't get online from them. That way, people could still take photos and video, but wouldn't spend the entire concert on Facebook. (Thinking of this due to a favorite venue of mine, the Cedar Cultural Center in Minneapolis, that has basically zero cell phone reception from the floor.)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but would this not be a massive security concern? No calls in or out in the case of an emergency seems pretty frightening to me.
A very good point, my age is showing. Personally, I can't imagine a world that isn't connected (even when I was a young kid, my dad had a pager and my mother had a brick cellphone for work).
In all fairness, cell phone coverage is still pretty spotty in national parks, wilderness areas, etc. And I, for one, don't buy WiFi on planes, in part because I appreciate the time as an opportunity to read books and watch things I often don't have uninterrupted time to.
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.
People should learn to not be anxious of having no connectivity. Self-reliance used to be a thing, and while its inconvenient when you don't have connectivity, it should not cause anxiety.
I think there are circumstances where it's prudent, when reasonably practical, to have the means to summon assistance if things go sideways. However, you should be as prepared as possible to fend for yourself and, as you say, I find it almost bizarre to be anxious/fearful/freaked out just because you're separated from your smartphone.
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.)
Though there is a difference between intentionally blocking something and never having it at all. Airbags didn't exist for most of the time we've been driving cars, but it would be unsafe if you got a modern car and removed the airbag.
We were without antibiotics for hundreds of years but no one's suggesting we go back to that.
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.
I would like to see the impact mobile phones and had on health and safety against the two items you've put forward.
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.
Given the impact cell phones have had on auto accidents (someone using their phone in the car is about as dangerous as a drunk driver, statistically), I'd say overall, society is less safe due to cell phones.
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.
When was the last time someone contacted you by phone or text for an actual emergency? The stuff that comes via our cell phones is mostly urgent, rather than important... a zillion versions of "Someone is wrong on the internet!" that "need" a response, texts of cat videos, etc.
As a tall person, I tell myself that the small person in front of me is just trying to use the camera as an improvised periscope to get a glimpse at the stage.
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)
As a short person. This is something I've done at almost every concert or show I've gone to. I'm there to enjoy the music. Usually will snap a couple pics so I can at least see the stage for a moment instead of heads and shoulders.
Some relatively new music enthusiasts see this as a stupid idea. Personally I think is part of the experience to "disconnect" yourself from the rutine of your daily activities.
I've seen tool and apc in the past couple of years and even though it was officially no phones, there were still a lot of people with phones recording a good majority of the show. It is quite annoying standing behind someone shining a screen into your face. I can understand recording a short video, like capturing the curtain drop. I really just don't even get why you would want to pay to stand there holding your phone the entire time. The video won't be worth watching and no one wants to see your crappy video!
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.
In a dark venue the light could easily bother you from someone texting, but the main issue is people who hold their phones up in front of your face to record the event.
This isn't an abstract issue of diverse ways of living. The smartphone zombie specifically is a real thing that's observable in society all day every day.
Having several bright screens in front of you recording or taking pictures without letting you watch the real thing. And yes texting can be really distracting too if you are in a theater, or if they decide to turn the lights off for a second as part of the performance.
Went to a concert this summer where the woman in front of me was taking pictures/videos and posting them during the concert to Facebook. It was a blacked out arena and she had the brightness near full. Saying it was distracting is an understatement and thankfully someone told her to quit the shit after a few songs.
We're talking about going to a gig here: there are many ways that people "enjoy the experience" which might detract from the experience of others: talking, singing badly, moving around too much, jumping up and spilling beer everywhere. If you try to eliminate all behaviour that might adversely affect others, we'll all end up strapped into a seat — no-one really wants that.
Playing with your cell phone is a lot less easily justified than singing bladly or dancing too wildly. If someone is talking over the concert or spilling beer on me I'm going to ask them to stop, too.
> Playing with your cell phone is a lot less easily justified than singing bladly or dancing too wildly
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.
How is me having my phone in my pocket and in my possession at all times and leaving promptly after the event is over detracting from the experience of those around me?
why not just kick out people who use their phones? that's what the AMC where I live does and it seems to work well AFAI can tell. I used my phone to text and got kicked out (I underestimated their resolve) once but now I know better and haven't done it since. If I had to wait in a second line before and after a movie, I just wouldn't bother seeing the movie.
A suggestion. If entertainers ban phones at events they should at least record the event themselves and publish the video for the participants or everyone.
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.
I went to a show a couple years ago that politely asked you to put your phones away and said they would put a video up from one of the shows on the tour. Unfortunately the video never happened, as far as I can tell. It's a nice idea.
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.
I'm also hoping the A&B Acoustic II video is similar to the Acoustic I video; the first Acoustic concert video also drew me to go in person.
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.”
I'm a little surprised that so few artists seem to obsessively record their every performance. Seems like it's just Phish and similar bands, and Pearl Jam. It's the kind of thing I would do, for posterity and for the sake of fans who are equally obsessive.
For anyone unaware, Phish allows fans to record their live shows. Consequently, you can find nearly recordings of most of their live shows at http://phish.in going all the way back to the early 80s. It's not uncommon to see an array of high fidelity audio recorders in the front row at Phish concerts.
Recording the show and putting it online is not a 100% solution. Though I agree it's a good start and good enough for some people.
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.
On a similar note, the band OK Go (when I've seen them, at least) would let you buy a burned CD of the show immediately after. IIRC you also got a code to download the post-mixed version online.
I've heard of a few artists doing this over the past year or so. I think the banning is ultimately useless and enforcing it adds more invasiveness to the already overly invasive process of getting into a venue. A simple reminder before the concert starts that you're an asshole if hold your phone up is as far as this should go, works fine in movie theaters.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
Mobile tickets; There are a few ways that they handle this. They may have a seperate line for mobile tickets, and then hand you a printed out reciept and then they deface your phone.
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.
This is almost universal at live theater. (Some exceptions but not many.) Which is mostly a good thing. Although on Broadway, I've seen ushers get IMO overly aggressive just because someone snaps a shot at the end of a performance or whatever.
...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.
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.
re the video - surely the call would have ceased ringing by the time you managed to get the pouch unlocked? Seems more like they should get you to put the phone off or into silent mode before it goes in the pouch.
At shows you usually go through a metal detector, which will find the phone. The venue will "ban you from going in" if you refuse to allow them to deface the phone.
Source: Me. (I'm not going to accept the whole phone defacement ordeal)
Metal detectors?? At shows?? Luckily I have never seen such a thing in Europe, but undoubtedly we will copy the US in a few years. I can't believe how much we've degenerated.
Really? I actually think it's incredibly unimpressive. A ridiculous physical pouch that requires security to manage? All to avoid something that is arguably not as bad as many other disruptive activities at an event?
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...
I think his statement "If they can’t give me that energy back? Maybe I’m wasting my time." is thoughtful. Jack is old enough to have gone to and performed shows in his youth where cells phone were rare if there were any. He performs not only for the music but for the energy of the crowd. A crowd that's now placed a screen between themselves and the performer taking away that energy or removing that sense of connection. Even in a large venue!
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?
> ...if you can't respect the reasonable wishes of the person who you paid to go see what are you doing there?
Why the false dichotomy? A person could easily lack all respect for an entertainer and still want to go see them... Heck, I've gone to concerts before just to make fun of the band and its fans with my friends. One could be there doing a lot of things but the blindingly obvious answer in this case is that people like to record stuff.
Jack sounds like a vampire. It my energy that he's feeding off of isn't it? Seems like Jack should respect his audiences' wishes.
Furthermore, if the concert venue can't go out of their way to provide a measly fucking digital video and picture download for people, then I say fuck 'em.
If they don't respect my wishes why should I respect
theirs???
It's kinda like how HN asks you not to treat the downvote button as a disagree button and to just post your disagreement - but just about everybody ignores that rule because thinking is hard. Hmmmmm
Oh thank you! I corrected that caps now but I wasn't even talking about the guidelines. I was talking about how the vast majority of HN users don't want anyone to use the downvote button as a disagree button, which is quite evident when you search for: downvote disagree site:ycombinator.com
Also, I didn't comment about the downvotes on my comment. I said "it's kinda like X".
Anyway, you completely ignored the bulk of my comment. So, I'll continue to rest assured that my logic is sound and that nobody can really argue against it. Thanks!
> Anyway, you completely ignored the bulk of my comment. So, I'll continue to rest assured that my logic is sound and that nobody can really argue against it. Thanks!
If you want to really feel right, go to a mall and start blurting out whatever opinions you have to everyone. Everyone will just avoid you and walk on by because they agree with you so much.
I wish there was even the tiniest bit of public accountability! Even user profile totals of upvotes, downvotes, comments, and flags would be a usable signal. Maybe one of the perks of being a YC company is seeing which accounts downvoted yours... ;)
Many of us old enough remember that cameras were often banned from venues, even non professional ones. It wasn't until camera enabled phones became popular that this rule was dropped.
I have no idea why someone would want to watch a performance from behind a screen.
Why do people drop buttloads of money getting to the Grand Canyon and then spend their time behind a viewfinder taking landscape pictures that are infinitely worse than you'll find online or purchased from pros, ensuring they spend less (and sometimes no), time enjoying the scenery and environment?
I actually tested this theory recently; when I went to Machu Picchu, I took several pictures with my wife in them, and absolutely zero pics of the scenery or the monument. When I got home, I inserted some random high-res professional pics from recognizable vantage points into an album and called it a day. I don't feel shortchanged.
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.
For me it's an opportunity to practice and improve my photographic skills on something a bit more interesting than the regular shit I photograph all the time and am well bored with. Plus it's cool to get a nice picture of your friend / yourself with a dope thing in the background. Makes for great tinder pics ;)
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.
I took several pictures with my wife in them, and absolutely zero pics of the scenery or the monument. When I got home, I inserted some random high-res professional pics from recognizable vantage points into an album and called it a day. I don't feel shortchanged.
That's a standard service at Disneyland.[1] Costs $169.
My perspective grows stronger every time someone close to me dies: the true value in photos is the faces.
As a tech person, that is where I try to maximize my pixel budget.
I actually prefer candid home video infinitely more -- most pictures on social networks are as authentic as pornography stills.
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.
I've found that looking back at old photos that feature me, my friends, or some interesting unique person, bring back way more powerful memories of the event.
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.
I don't know the time to hike down and back up at the Grand Canyon, but I can assure you there is plenty of time to take photos and take in the scenery.
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 don't think still photos are the problem, it's when people take photos or videos of something and miss a moment.
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.
But he's the entertainer, whom the audience is paying. People should be able to use their phones if they are not doing it in a disruptive manner, or jeopardizing the quality of anyone else's experience. They should be able to look around, too. And stand with poor posture if that's what they like. And even not dance if they must.
People use their phones to have human experiences and connect to others that aren’t physically present.
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.
About these people who "use their phones to have human experiences and connect to others that aren’t physically present". How is the sender anything more than a human tripod for a webcam that happens to be in a concert? Nothing is being shared because nothing is being experienced in the first place. If anything, the camera is doing the experiencing.
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.
I'm not a recorder (in general, not just in concerts), but I'm pretty sure I can hold my phone up while I pay attention to the concert. The dichotomy you're painting rings false to me.
A person holding a camera is peresent at the concert and doing the experiencing. I don’t understand how holding s camera at all detracts from that experience any more than people at a ballgame watching it partially through the
jumbotron. It’s a personal preference, it’s not up to you to decide for others what is preferable.
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.
Great to tell people to put away their phones and not record because that really is obnoxious, but to actually confiscate phones is fascistic and shouldn’t be tolerated IMO. I mean who does he think he is?
Depends on how they do it. From what I've seen, they use a company called "yondr" which basically defaces your phone for the duration of the show, or until you walk out and they unlock it for you.
They don't confiscate the phones. They put them in a locked bag and hand the bag back to you. There are places throughout the venue that you can get the back unlocked to use your phone.
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)
I don't think it's fascistic at all. Think about it this way - I would like to trade my right to bring a cell phone into group event in exchange for the benefits I receive from participating in a group event without cell phones.
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.
I suppose. Venues won’t go for this nonsense anyway, it’s a potential legal liability, they don’t care what you do with your phone and they have all the power, not the band.
I was at the first day of Carolina Rebellion this past year. A band I had never heard of before, Highly Suspect, played and during it, the singer (politely) called out a female fan who was using her phone (in what manner, I'm not sure). Basically for similar reasons (experience the intimacy of the moment sort of thing). I thought it was pretty cool.
I did it to mock his justification of his ban, which isn't at all clear. Wish he'd just say "I've banned phoned because I don't like them". Fine by me, I don't like them either.
I'd just like a bit more precision and perhaps more honesty. He says it's about being a more human experience but I don't know what that means and he makes no effort to explain it clearly, instead muddying the waters.
I have a similar problem with people who dress up their criticism of other's behaviour as something "moral".
Good. I do this at my personal parties, I have a phone bowl by the door. Few arguments are solved by Google, and creative things happen.
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).
A better solution would be to give out the password to the WiFi then throttle it to slow enough to be unpleasant to use, but fast enough that no one gives up and disconnects.
Perhaps an outright ban is a bit heavy-handed, but we do need to come to terms with what the appropriate etiquette for the usage of personal electronics is. I guess I could care less is someone wants to spend a show checking Facebook, but it's rude to other guests if their screen grabs your attention or it blocks your view. This ties into general camera usage -- wanting to take a picture (or 50) does not entitle you to squeeze in front, or otherwise monopolise the path/area in front of the painting/sculpture/view, nor does it excuse bumping into people while you scuttle around for the right angle.
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.
The tablet to child thing is often done for benefit of those around - so that child is not noisy, does not atempt to run around etc. Of course you can also entertain the small child by playing with it and constantly telling it how to behave, but that tends to be even noisier that tablet. (Bigger child can have headphones and is able to sit calmly longer)
>> but we do need to come to terms with what the appropriate etiquette for the usage of personal electronics is.
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.
For those that are curious, he's going to be using Yondr pouches, which are thick cloth pouches with a lock on them that can only be removed by the venue employees.
I did a bit of Googling and apparently they cost about $10 each, so fairly cheap too.
543 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 337 ms ] threadPlaying 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.
Wholly supported.
Relevant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRf36vRAWF8
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?
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.
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.
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...
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzKHJkA8keg
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.
[0] http://www.nme.com/news/music/radiohead-317-1302641
> And for a final and unhoped-for touch, Radiohead themselves accept to join this project by providing their audio mixes.
[1] http://radiohead-prague.nataly.fr/Thanks.html
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.
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)
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"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u05S9cq2bLY
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.
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.
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.
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.
...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.
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...
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?
Why the false dichotomy? A person could easily lack all respect for an entertainer and still want to go see them... Heck, I've gone to concerts before just to make fun of the band and its fans with my friends. One could be there doing a lot of things but the blindingly obvious answer in this case is that people like to record stuff.
Jack sounds like a vampire. It my energy that he's feeding off of isn't it? Seems like Jack should respect his audiences' wishes.
Furthermore, if the concert venue can't go out of their way to provide a measly fucking digital video and picture download for people, then I say fuck 'em.
If they don't respect my wishes why should I respect theirs???
It's kinda like how HN asks you not to treat the downvote button as a disagree button and to just post your disagreement - but just about everybody ignores that rule because thinking is hard. Hmmmmm
That's not a complaint, thank you very much :)
Sounds like you're the vampire here.
HN asks you not to treat the DOWNVOTE button as a DISAGREE
Things that are in the guidelines:
Please don't use uppercase for emphasis. If you want to emphasize a word or phrase, put asterisks around it and it will get italicized.*
Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.
Also, I didn't comment about the downvotes on my comment. I said "it's kinda like X".
Anyway, you completely ignored the bulk of my comment. So, I'll continue to rest assured that my logic is sound and that nobody can really argue against it. Thanks!
If you want to really feel right, go to a mall and start blurting out whatever opinions you have to everyone. Everyone will just avoid you and walk on by because they agree with you so much.
That's something that the average person needs, so you must be one of those since you suggested it.
Do you think the world is full of smart people? Bwahahahahaha! Nope.
I wish there was even the tiniest bit of public accountability! Even user profile totals of upvotes, downvotes, comments, and flags would be a usable signal. Maybe one of the perks of being a YC company is seeing which accounts downvoted yours... ;)
What.
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.
[1] https://disneyworld.disney.go.com/memory-maker/
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.
Sometimes people like to film or take pictures of things that are really cool to remember them by or show their friends
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.
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.
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".
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).
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.
I did a bit of Googling and apparently they cost about $10 each, so fairly cheap too.