I experienced the Yondr phone prison last night for the first time (at a Chris Rock show). While I detest people being disruptive with their phones, I don’t think this is the right solution.
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.”
I think the viscerality of this response is fascinating. Putting your phone in a case is a "prison", and you must check it every time you go to the toilet, and you're concerned about a terrorist attack -- enough to want your phone, but not enough to stay home, as if your apps could somehow save you.
> 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.
I didn’t say that I must check my phone every time I go to the toilet. Only that being able to check my phone (for example, to check if I have any messages from people I care for at home) is a useful thing.
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.
I think the counterpoint is that for some people, the more human experience is not a selling point, and actually a fairly large negative. Beyond the points laid out before, I have multiple children and multiple pets, and I'm the some person responsible for the technology stack at my small company which (means I'm on call for somewhat infrequent but not unheard of issues). Not being allowed my phone might just mean "eh, it's irresponsible of me to go" depending on the situation, and that's with my phone safely ensconced in my pocket except for an emergency.
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.
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.
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.
> '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.
The most annoying thing with phones is that they distract other people. You might be kind enough to not use your phone during a collective event, but other people are not. Frankly I don't care about it in a concert as you go there for the music most of the time, but I've seen people have use phones in every single movie I saw at a cinema and at every single theatre play I've been to, even in post-modern shows in tiny venues with much less than 50 seats. There are lots of idiots that can't look at something interesting without capturing it in photo and video, distracting everybody including the performers, who may indeed not want the performance recorded.
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.
Part of my human experience may include checking how the babysitter is doing with the kids. I'm not going to do that in a way that disrupts the show, but I still want that access.
I spent my whole teenage babysitting, half a dozen regular gigs and also for families in holiday homes. Not once was there a situation where I needed to call the parents or vice-versa. I suppose they have guns in America so maybe you do need to worry about the kids being SWAT raided or kidnapped. However, the general idea is that the parents go out, drink loads of alcohol and come back around 3 a.m. to be hungover the next morning.
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.
It's interesting they didn't have confidence in the babysitter's ability to take care of you for an evening but still chose to hire them and then monitored them via payphone.
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.
> It's interesting they didn't have confidence in the babysitter's ability to take care of you for an evening but still chose to hire them and then monitored them via payphone.
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.
> you're going to want to call and check to see how things are going
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.
I’m not the above poster, but I did babysit for several families in my grad school years a few years ago. The parents would not generally communicate with me when they were out. If they did, it would be to let me know they’d be early or late, and suggestions for food or activity if they were late. There wasn’t a routine check to make sure their kids were alive & well.
No, not really. If someone goes out for drinks, then dinner, then a show and the night is going really well maybe the parents want to call and check in. They want to see how the nights going for the babysitter and kid. Are the kids asleep? Is the babysitter content to make some more money for a few extra hours? I think that's all entirely reasonable. It really has little to do with the matter at hand but having to wait in a line to submit or retrieve your phone, be sequestered to a penned in area to use your phone, and then to have to wait in line again to put your phone back into that "prison" system again seems like overkill. I know that's the only way we've been able to identify that works but I don't think there is any surefire method that will not only please the artists / performers and keep the viewers / fans / people in attendance happy.
"...having to wait in a line to submit or retrieve your phone, be sequestered to a penned in area to use your phone, and then to have to wait in line again to put your phone back into that "prison" system again..."
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.
I'm thinking about how annoying this would be at any sort of venue or music event. Someone said prior the main reason they'd use their phone in that situation is to group up with others they came with or met there if they get split up. I can empathize with that 150% and feel that, as someone who will never do more than snap a quick photo of a musical act for nostalgic purposes, the system in place to leave your phone locked up like coat check is mostly just annoying.
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.
Phones aren't even that good in gigs for grouping up, vs just walking around.
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.
'How did people do that before there were cell phones?
reply'
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?
Babysitting probably isn't a great example, but cellphones affect the process of communicating so, unless you're expecting not to have the phone on you, it can actually be detrimental when you don't.
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.
>How did people do that before there were cell phones?
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.
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.
Yes, they really did. Both when I was the baby-sat and, years later, when I was the baby sitter. Though more likely about an unexpected delay or need that was omitted in prior communication than just a check-in, IME.
Umm, yea, yea they did. All the time. It was extremely common during those days for an adult at a public gathering or social function to excuse themselves while saying "I've got to go call and check on the kids" -- it was expected and understood.
Except for all the cases in which things didn't turn out fine, but would have if a cellphone had existed, and that you never really heard about. (minor grammar edit)
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.
Because any leisure is a personal choice which you can choose to do or not if you really are worried that you can't get in contact with your nanny then don't go to the concert where they require you to not bring it, don't go to the movies, don't go anywhere you can loose connection and don't go flying.
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.
In this context, the collective experience of the concert, engaging with it as your immediate world, cutting off the outside as would a cult, this is the cult of music, let it consume you as you consume it
Of course it's not quite that simple. People using phones at a concert affects everyone's experience. This is a godsend for some of us. It absolutely detracts from my experience in theaters, concerts, shows, etc when everyone has a phone out.
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.
This is exactly why performers seek to stop video recording in the first place.
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.
You've never worked a job where you might be called in during an emergency? We're in a forum full of sysadmins and devops people and this idea is foreign?
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.
It worked at a Nine Inch Nails concert. I saw a couple people get escorted out for refusing to put their phones away, and that pretty much sent the message that they were not fucking around about it.
I was lucky enough to win tickets to a NIN concert from a radio station call-in in the late 1990's or early 2000's (it was around the time the "God is dead and no one cares" song was all the rage). These tickets included access to the soundcheck. I went and saw Trent Reznor with a walkie-talkie going seat-to-seat-to-seat in the venue (and this was a 6k+ seat venue, not counting standing-only areas which he visited as well). At each seat he would have his audio techs play ~15 seconds of a test track (i think it was the Dolby sound samples) and then radio in and have his crew adjust whatever sounded off to him then immediately move on to the next seat. Quite some time later I saw Bono from U2 getting some press for doing the same thing at his shows and always wondered if he learned that from Nine Inch Nails. That show was fucking bonkers too, NIN had a really cool light/laser show going on during the show.
Well, I was at the soundcheck in the morning (not super early, if memory serves me, this was a while ago). The concert was that evening. And yea, he was doing each seat individually, at least while I was hovering around watching everything. I can't say what he did before I got there, but yea for the 3 hours or so that I can remember he was doing each seat. I'm sure he skipped a few rows here and there, he would have to just because of time. Also, it was probably less than 15 seconds of the test track, I'm most likely exaggerating that fact subconsciously because it's a fond memory of mine.
Don't be ridiculous. Fear of terrorism is not the only factor. Cellphones are one of the past century's greatest contributions to public safety.
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.
> Or how about this?
> Or how about this?
> Don't act like cellphones have no practical use
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.
I find this argument supremely unconvincing. It’s true that humanity survived, but people died in all sorts of awful and now preventable ways. This argument could be used to argue against vaccines, sanitation, or good nutrition. Is that where you want to be?
When it comes to safety, I want to set the bar somewhat above “this will not literally drive the species to extinction.”
sigh, you are not the Human race. Yes, Humans as a race have survived without cellphones, but that doesn't mean for an instance that the same applies to individuals.
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?
> 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.
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.
There should be some sort of public phone that people can use, perhaps in booth format. Or maybe some sort of minimal electronic device where text messages can be passed, where you could, in essence, 'page' someone. Hmmm.
"Cellphones are one of the past century's greatest contributions to public safety."
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.
Lets all just bury all of our light up rectangles and move to the woods. Twitter has brought us so much pain it's time to go back to dirt farming.
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.
But you have a choice. Just don't go to the show. If you think 2 hours without your phone puts your life at risk, simply do not put yourself in these dangerous situations. Let other people enjoy the experience.
> Isn't that what we've been trying for the past 10 years? Clearly, it's not working.
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.
It just depends on your definition of not being a jerk. I've been attending concerts since 1980mumble. Trust me, it's a big difference having absolutely zero devices in the air versus a sea of bright screens and waving arms obscuring everyone's view. That might be the norm for some people but to me everyone's being inconsiderate. And really to what end? Those tinny, wobbly videos will never garner more than a few random views on youtube and quickly be forgotten.
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.
Post "no recording" or "no phone use during performance", have security remove them with no refund. After a few removals, most will keep it in their pocket.
Every show I've been to that does this has successfully kept people from using their phones. I don't think checking in your phone is a very good solution from a practical standpoint, considering the downsides.
I saw Lou Reed do this in 2003. It might have even been about cameras at that point and the issue was the flash, not audience experience. But he was not. Having. It. Stopped playing both times and really was about to walk off. It seemed a little too much at the time. But now I get it, and I feel a little bad that the current generation, at least the phone addicted ones, are never going to experience the level of emotion you get with fuller engagement. This is even more acutely real in the theater and it will probably wither in the current... attention economy.
I recently attended a Joey Alexander concert at SFJazz. Aside from a clear "no photograph" policy, there are also attendants watching people and reminding them if they took their phones out. It's working but definitely didn't cover all high-profile concerts like the ones featuring Jack White.
>you're concerned about a terrorist attack -- enough to want your phone, but not enough to stay home, as if your apps could somehow save you.
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.
Taking your phone out at a concern is not misbehaving. It's fine and accepted.
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.
> Taking your phone out at a concern is not misbehaving. It's fine and accepted.
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'.
Acting like adults is working just fine, unless you get irrationally annoyed at everything that doesn't go 100% the way you want it to.
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.
Having 5% of the audience holding their phones up as high as they can to video tape the concert at any given time makes it harder for everybody to see. Then it's my crappy experience.
I do not have to check my phone every time I go to toilet, but in case performance turns out boring, I like to stay on toilet longer and read on the phone there.
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 :).
LOL using the Manchester bombing as reason. First terrorist incidents are so rare you might as well argue that you need your phone in case of a plane crash.
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 Manchester and Bataclan incidents are perfect examples. That's the whole point of terrorism. The groups are not effective enough to influence who they want without fear tacits. They're going to target large groups of people, and events tend to do that.
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)
I'm more likely to get killed by a fall in the tub than by a terrorist, yet I don't fear going into the shower without my phone. Fearing terrorism is a consequence of innumeracy. Do you carry your cellphone in case you or a nearby person get struck by lightning too? More US citizens get struck (and killed) by lightning every year than die in terrorist attacks since 2001.
Actually, yes, that’s exactly why I carry my phone: for contacting emergency services when something goes awry. Your lightning analogy sort of falls down a bit here (even though I agree with your overall point of not fearing terrorist attacks)
The fact that the risk is comparatively low is no excuse to disregard it. Furthermore, any number of emergencies can be exacerbated by a lack of phone access - medical emergencies, fires, or any other major problem might have significantly higher fatality rates in the absence of telecommunications.
First, let me say that I'm not panicking about the probability of this actually happening, but: "I'm more likely to get killed by a fall in the tub than by a terrorist" is only true of an _arbitrary_ attack at an _arbitrary_ venue and time (and an _arbitrary_ bathtub :)). Events that use Yondr announce it ahead of time, waving a big flag that says "no one here will be able to call for help." The probability of an attack at such an event would be much higher compared to an arbitrary one (although, definitely still small, which is why I'm not exactly panicking...)
Your entire premise is incorrect. Even with Yondr hundreds of people will be able to call for help. Such as ushers, security, ticket takers, concession workers, event management, etc, etc, etc.
Yondr means less (or at least less rapid) social media publicity for a terrorist act, so one could argue that it deters terrorists.
I agree, the safety aspects of this are shocking and the 'be free of phones' puritanism is a bit dull.
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 goodness, all those people who went to concerts before cell phones must have been so hardcore, taking risks like that.
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.
> My goodness, all those people who went to concerts before cell phones must have been so hardcore, taking risks like that.
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.
I'd argue it's more comfort that you can be reached or reach someone than actual safety. But I don't really disagree with your broader point. This system doesn't seem very practical for a whole range of issues.
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.
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.
in the context of having to leave the building due to a fire alarm, no, you're not meeting them back inside the building at the phone re-collection point (or in this case one of the phone unlock mechanisms). At least not immediately.
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.
Do you think maybe the security guards and other personnel at the venue might have access to phones? Do you think that you in particular are going to be the last resort that manages to reach 911 when nobody else can? It's a weird train of thought to me. Venues are required to have their ducks in a row - emergency plans in place, etc. You not having your phone during the show is not a safety concern.
If a fire breaks out and I have to evacuate a venue, there is a _distinct_ difference in the effect on me if I have to have had my phone locked up.
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.
> 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_.
"Hey throwaway43532, [PERSON] just found out you're at [PLACE] and is on their way with a weapon. I contacted the authorities, but you need to get out of there now!" might be a severe example.
There are many situations where a cell phone can allow you to send or receive information that could tip the scales in your favor.
The possibility of me ever getting a message remotely like that is so remote that the very idea could power the infinite improbability drive and take me to the restaurant at the end of the universe.
Translation: I'm unwilling to put down my phone, and I will conjure any number of nightmare scenarios to justify my addiction.
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?
It's one thing to say that I like to be reachable by children, babysitter, aged mother, etc. if there's an issue. And OK, I get it. Norms and expectations have shifted with respect to how contactable people should be under many circumstances.
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.
Here in Japan, most concerts have a strict no-photos policy. In smaller venues, I've seen this enforced by guards shining bright focused flashlights at you if you try to take a photo/video. Seems to work well. Some artists stop to do a "ok let's all take a photo together now" bit near the end for those who want a memory.
What I really loved about phone use (or better: not use) in Japan is the rules on trains.
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.
>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.
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.
They allow children to get hold of their parents, order transport home, etc. 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.
When I was a child, I managed to go events largely unsupervised and without a phone. I would already be told what to do in the event of getting separated in an emergency, such as having pre-arranged rendezvous points unique to my group.
> 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.
Sarcasm is one of the things which makes comment sections toxic. It's rude, dismissive, and, worst of all, leads to people retroactively claiming a comment which didn't go down well was sarcastic and that everyone who called them out for it was too stupid to notice.
Sarcasm is an ok thing in mediums where there are side channel cues that the user is being sarcastic. Unfortunately, it doesn't carry well in writing, unless you're extremely clear about it.
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.
I've seen the code of conduct thing work even before smartphones were ubiquitous -- even the open mic night at Eddie's Attic in Georgia was an event where the manager made it very clear that the venue was a Listening Room, not a place for talking over the performance, and if you wanted to use your phone in any noticeable way, you needed to step outside. And I saw him dress down and kick out a customer that decided to ignore the rule.
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.
Agreed. This should be a policy and etiquette issue not a forcible restriction of human communication.
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.
Let's imagine that my child is at a party or other social engagement and they want deniable reason to escape. [0] There may be excessive peer pressure, illegal activity, or any other pre-arranged reason they may need to bail on something without incurring the loss of face that could be socially devastating.
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.
I don't get the perspective of people who want to have kids and ask the world to accommodate them so that they don't have to make any sacrifices along the way.
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.
So, during those times when you're "on call" and need to be responsive to such events, you have to make the decision not to go on camping trips or flights or no-phone events like this one. Right?
So your position is that with kids at home, you can't be doing things that cause you to be unavailable/unreachable for durations of time longer than some threshold. Nothing wrong with that. The kinds of recreational events that conflict with that restriction are generally easy to spot ahead of time, and no one's compelling you to participate in them.
> "Let's imagine that my child is at a party or other social engagement and they want deniable reason to escape. [0] There may be excessive peer pressure, illegal activity, or any other pre-arranged reason they may need to bail on something without incurring the loss of face that could be socially devastating."
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.
"(...) None of us could live with an habitual truth-teller; but thank goodness none of us has to. An habitual truth-teller is simply an impossible creature; he does not exist; he never has existed. Of course there are people who think they never lie, but it is not so—and this ignorance is one of the very things that shame our so-called civilization. Everybody lies—every day; every hour; awake; asleep; in his dreams; in his joy; in his mourning; if he keeps his tongue still, his hands, his feet, his eyes, his attitude, will convey deception—and purposely. (...)"
Doesn't Kant go against your example of Anne Frank? ("To be truthful (honest) in all declarations is therefore a sacred command of reason prescribing unconditionally, one not to be restricted by any conveniences"). Surely a teenager telling white lies to pushy peers is preferable.
Yes, Kant does. I'm not an absolute Kantian by any means, but I do prefer Kant to Twain. This isn't to say I dislike Twain, though.
> 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.
I don't think Jarrett is generally considered the voice of reason. In fact, some promoters have gotten so tired of his histrionics that they've ruled out ever booking him again.
And before it was cell phones, he berated people for coughing.
In case of an emergency people should follow staff's directions; preferably without being glued to their phones and without disrupting any ongoing rescue attempts by trying to take a good video...
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.
> 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.
"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?"
When it’s a venue you don’t know too well and there are 8 bars on each floor, that completely breaks down. Sticking together doesn’t always work, especially when queues are split between men and women for pat downs (as is usually the case in the type of venue that would force you to put your phone in a locked pouch).
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.
frequently, these situations are not so much hypothetical as simply explanations of situations some of us have found ourselves in.
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.)
I'm anti phones in gigs, but spent a while overseas and the phone was really helpful... as an offline device.
- 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.
Your selfish benefit hurts everyones experience. So they aren't "considerable", and you have a choice not to go to events with Yondr. People at events without Yondr have to deal with mobile phones making everyones experience worse, and there is little they can do about it.
Of course it is inconvenient, that is kind of the point. To make it harder to use you get to forget about using it. That comes with trade offs, some of them pretty serious.
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.
> Consequently, Apple Pay will not be available tonight.
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.
>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.
> 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.
You don't need to have your phone out. Apple Pay works on the watch.
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.
Turns out life also worked before electricity, but for some reason, if you were to advocate for people to live without it, most people would consider you a lunatic and luddite.
I went to a concert in Mannheim about 8 years ago. They had quite a few fairly reasonable rules, but they also had security guards to enforce them. If you broke any of the rules and refused to get your shit together they would pick your ass up and carry you out. You wouldn't even get a chance to leave. I think good security and enforcement of the rules would be a better solution than taking peoples' phones.
I wonder if, some number of years in the future, when 95% of humans have neural implants that let them connect to the Internet and send telepathic messages to their friends and babysitter, there will be people too afraid to turn them off for the duration of a music concert, because of a possible terrorist attack or a fire?
They’ll probably shake their heads and wonder how people ever got along without neural implants.
Addicted people will always look for excuses and fight with stupid arguments for them. In the '70s and '80s people somehow found themselves at concerts, they were not afraid of security, they did not have to check what "important loved ones" were and any of that shit and they lived happily.
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. :)
You underestimate the impact that people using their phones - as cameras in particular - has in a performance setting. To say nothing about ringers going off. It ruins the experience for everyone, so some inconvenience is well worth it in my book.
Same here, but it had its own set of annoyances. Sitting at home waiting for a phone call, or trying to coordinate meeting up, particularly spur of the moment, was a huge PITA.
Even with cell phone annoyances, I prefer the cell phone world over the pre-cell phone world.
I have to laugh at some these posts. I also lived in a world without cell phones and I (and the rest of the world) did just fine. Turning off your phones at a concert is not a big deal at all.
The irony, despite my prior comments, I don't have an issue with turning my phone off and keeping it with me. I do have an issue with being locked away from it or have it taken away by someone you can't trust.
> 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.
A simple zero-hassle solutions is to have walls that block any cellular and wifi signals. It solves the problems you mention.
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.
Some big companies in Europe have such walls for their headquarters, probably for productivity. I guess that their solution is fairly legal, although it may not involve jamming.
> In the event of an emergency, this is a really bad idea.
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.
It appears that how Yondr works is you put your phone in a locking pouch, which you then keep with you. Looking at photographs of said pouch, I think most people could forcibly defeat the latch mechanism with their bare hands.
> In the event of an emergency, this is a really bad idea.
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 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.
This is precisely how it's done every night at Output in Brooklyn.
"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."
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.
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.
I agree. I'm an adult, if you ask me to not use my phone I will comply. If other adults can't do the same, then simply ask them to leave.
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.
Agreed ... I mean, this is basically the same as the cinema. You're told not to use your phone. People are asked not to be noisy, and turn off their phones, etc. The majority are civil and there's the occasional bad egg, but hey ... it's a gathering of people - there's always going to be a level of compromise.
Last year I went to a King Crimson concert. There were no "phone prisons", but they repeatedly informed the audience to keep their phones pocketed until the end of the show. This seemed to work wonders, as I didn't see a single phone for the duration of the show.
Now, naturally this was a somewhat different audience than e.g. a Chris Rock show, but it does prove that it's possible. Maybe it all comes down to respect?
Have you ever wondered if they just want you to have a different experience? There are restaurants that require you to eat in pitch black, restaurants where you cant wear sandals, there are shows where you get polaroid cameras and so on.
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.
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?
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.
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 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.
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'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 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 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.
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... ;)
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.
Man, I can stand behind this. You have no idea how distracting it is to the musicians on stage when they look at the crowd and see a bunch of cell phones facing them.
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.
We need a new etiquette and I'm not sure our culture can support one right now.
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.
I find it really depends on the venue and the audience. If you are playing to an audience of mostly musicians and music appreciation types, the cell phones are hardly seen.
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.
>It's the general crowd who isn't really there for the music
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.
> We need a new etiquette and I'm not sure our culture can support one right now.
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.
> We need a new etiquette and I'm not sure our culture can support one right now.
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.
While I'm definitely on Jack's side spiritually, Yondr is not an efficient solution. We need to consciously and intentionally establish a norm of 'no phones' in certain group situations, just like how many areas have established a norm of 'no smoking'.
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.
Except it is hard to do because in this case where it's not an obvious problem to the people around you (like smoking), everyone agrees with the rule of no cellphones but thinks they're a special case. I was at a Bill Burr show where he caught a woman on her phone. She was checking her home security camera. For her dog. Twice.
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.
Yeah, I think a similar video played before the start of the show, about how you paid all this money to be here, why see it through a small screen as if you were on YouTube, combined with a few people actually getting kicked out, would work wonders.
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.
This is a reaction I've heard from self-important attendees who insist on recording despite posted rules: "I paid good money to be here, so I get to do what I want."
"Why bother going to the live show when I can sit at home watching a Youtube video instead?" is something I don't think many people think. The video doesn't replace the experience.
It does increase costs, and not everyone will want to do it or have the means. But it doesn't have to be a full on video production. It can just be a phone mounted near the soundboard, plugged into the soundboard, so you can actually get great sound. I love listening to "live" music on YouTube, but it's not a replacement for actually attending a show.
Well, I think YouTube for stage acts is just like Streaming is to musicians. Most of them make the majority of their income by live performances, but the streaming is where its at otherwise.
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.”
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.
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.
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 recently saw a preview of a Pixar movie before the public release, and their solution was to make us put our phones in an extremely crinkly bag that would make noise if we tried to open it to surreptitiously video the screen. But we could still access them in an emergency. It wouldn't work at a loud concert, of course.
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.
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.
I was about to buy Jack White tickets today and... I think I'll pass.
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.
Not at all. I also go to all sorts of concerts that don't allow cameras. It's the "how" that rubs me the wrong way.
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?
That's a totally wrong analogy. A more accurate one would be when you go to the park, they boot your car and any motorized vehicles you brought on it, and you have to find someone to un-boot them when you're done.
In your analogy, the park is doing what the commentor says. Politely asking you not to do that.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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. :(
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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 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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
I despise the fact that people think they need to have their phones in front of them the entire time, taking shitty pics and videos that they'll never look at again.
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.
The venue is not yours. The owner (and thus the performer) sets the rules. If they want you to come in pink clothes, they have every right to not let you in if you're not entirely clothed in pink.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Mister White follows up on his ideas, but this seems to be unnecessary, at least from what I saw at his concert in Prague, Czech Republic, last year.
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.
> Mister White follows up on his ideas, but this seems to be unnecessary, at least from what I saw at his concert in Prague, Czech Republic, last year.
Mister White attended a few more Jack White concerts than you did, and appears to disagree.
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.
>> 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.
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)
I don't know, how about we embrace mobile phones in gigs instead? Arcade Fire, for instance, asked the audience to turn their flash light on during their last song (don't remember which one it was) last time I saw them. It was beautiful from where I was standing at that moment.
And there's also a video of Win Butler taking a mobile phone from someone in the audience and recording himself for a few seconds (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wpgyv6naF3M).
I'm sure that someone with more creativity than I have could come up with an idea how to use mobile phones to enhance the experience to the audience and the performer, rather than just viewing them as an annoyance.
>I don't know, how about we embrace mobile phones in gigs instead?
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?
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.
This is a pretty good idea. Dave Chappelle does it before all of his comedy shows. But I'm not going to be part of some sort of rally against phones. The guy on his phone not talking to the person sitting next to him is just the new guy with his head in a newspaper.
I went to a Prince concert where phones were banned, and it was the greatest experience ever.
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.
For me, as an introvert, having my phone to play a game on has changed everything for me. Instead of not going to a social event at all, or leaving early when I'm feeling drained, I can take out my phone for a few minutes here and there to zone out and recharge my batteries.
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.
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.
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.
While this solution is extreme, I do think we need a cultural shift that discourages filming/photos at shows. I think of the College Football Championship halftime show. 75% of the attendees were more focused on adding Kendrick Lamar to their snap story rather than actually watching him.
Personally, I'm also sick of trying to watch concerts through someone's screen in front of me.
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.
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.
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.
Technology were created by humans. Language was created by humans. Both are abstractions that keep us from experiencing each other and reality in its true form. Let's not trick ourselves into thinking that we're somehow getting a true unambiguous connection with each other by removing technology.
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."
Why don't people enjoy the thing the way I want them to enjoy the thing!? What is it with people having their own preferences that don't align with mine!?
I honestly hope every single concert goes this way. I go to a lot of concerts (~15 concerts and a big festival in a normal year). I have noticed that there is so little real connection between the musician and the audience anymore. Everyone is just talking to their friends (over the music) and waiting for the one big hit to come on so they can fill their Snapchat story.
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.
People enjoy concerts for different reasons and in different ways. I don’t see why we should deny them the freedom just because you appreciate events different.
The thing is, when you create a sea of people looking at the concert through their phones, you have already ruined the concert for the people who want to live in the moment and just experience the concert as is. The phone ban is created exactly for that reason: so that people can enjoy the concert without having other people decide for you that the concert is much better enjoyed when 20 phones are blocking your view.
I recently went to see A Perfect Circle who have instituted a no phones policy. It seemed to work pretty well, even without these phone lockers. I saw a handful of people escorted out by security.
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.
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.
I don't see any harm in artists running this experiment, for many younger audience members, it could be the first time they experience a show without phones.
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).
I also don't like people playing with their phones during a concert, especially those blocking my sight because they need to share a shitty vertical video with friends just to climb the social ladder, but banning phones tout court doesn't seem the right way to go.
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?
Is there any phone app that purposely records video in the background without turning on the screen? I wouldn't care as much if people holding up their phones weren't shining back at me. I assume this is possible with audio, though concert audio is usually way too loud to record on a phone without additional equipment.
I believe this may not even be possible due to privacy issues, hidden cameras / recording without consent is enough of a problem already!
How about we let flip phones with the speaker visibly ripped out still be carried?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
>Taking a photo to commemorate a once-in-a-lifetime experience, recording video to show friends
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.
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.
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.
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.
Don't like giving up your phone? Don't go to the show. I am one of the people who are more likely to attend a show if devices are banned.
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?
In Asia (Japan) it is very normal that phones are forbidden at concerts. You are being warned first and if you take it out again to snap a picture for example, they'll boot you out.
But here it's AFAIK more for the reason of selling a exclusive concert DVD after the event is over.
As alternative, somebody in the crew could record the concert for then with a crappy phone and let them download it for the next 24 hours using as password some number or barcode printed in the ticket. The "see what you missed last night" experience.
The most human experience involves free will. This is doublespeak designed to enhance the social media properties of the band and protect what they view as their intellectual property.
I'd opt to avoid a band that enforced or suggested this.
Why not just kick people out that raise their phones? Seems like a waste of time and resources to me. I'd much rather have to deal with the occasional camera blocking my view than having to wait in yet ANOTHER line before and after the show.
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.
I think this is fine but maybe attendees should be given a complementary recording of the concert as a substitute. These concerts are not every weekend down the pub type events, they are once in a lifetime for many people.
In Seattle Jack asked us to put our phones away; to connect with his media team later for free hi def. photos if we wanted them. Everyone was cool; made the show better.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
He says signing into an electric microphone while playing an electric or acoustic-electric guitar and standing on a stage in front of the crowd with the sound projected from speakers.
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.
Agreed. I don't have an issue with this, I think what he's doing is great. I'm just a sarcastic twat.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”