Jack White bans phones at gigs for “100% human experience” | Hacker News Reader

Jack White bans phones at gigs for “100% human experience”

nme.com

330 pointslnguyen519 comments

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.

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.

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.

Alamo Drafthouse does this consistently without a problem.

http://www.ent13.com/entertainment/movies/alamo-drafthouse-m...

Cell phone use = kicked out, banned forever. No oddly spelled startup needed.

> 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.

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.

Taking away people's agency because it's perceived they can't look after themselves is rarely well-received, with good reason.

Shows are for the audience, not the artist, so if 1/4 of the audience are using their phones then perhaps the artist should be less pretentious.

>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.

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.

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.

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 :).

There are a couple of cool apps on phones called "Telephone" and "Messages" and you can call or text people in an emergency situation.

I'm pretty sure those are the apps one would use during a terrorist attack. But I've never been involved in one, so I could be wrong.

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 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.

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.

Father John Misty performs some songs in a giant iPhone looking picture frame. The meta-irony is pretty delicious.

http://futureisfiction.com/blog/father-john-misty-at-hardly-...

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.

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.

Why do the musician has to do vigilante work interrupting what everybody came there for? Tell off idiots in the audience instead of playing his gig?

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.

To be fair, an abduction won't really have any staff guidance

> 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.

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.

How did the world even work before cell phones?

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.

  How did the world even work before cell phones?

A lot of Seinfeld story arcs involve miscommunication that would not happen if they all had cellphones.

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.

Nah, they won't be able to wonder anything anymore. The spaces where human personality might develop will all be filled and sealed shut.

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.

i survived the era before mobile.. it wasn't that scary :)

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.

You probably also survived an era without baby monitors. Doesn't mean life isn't unconditionally better with them.

Of course. The ones who didn't aren't able to comment here.

Speaking of scary, check out this breed:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15913342

> Having lived through the horrors of the pre-smartphone days

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15913665

> I remember life before smartphones. I remember boredom. It sucked. I would never go back to the agonizing pain of sitting in the DMV for three ours or standing in line at a grocery store just for some "missed moment" where I study the shitty tabloids in line or DoT pamphlets.

> Romanticising the past is not new. Whether it's television, hot showers, or smartphones, there will always be cynics who wish a simpler life on the rest of us.

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.

Jamming legal signals, even in private property, is very very illegal.

> 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.

After they all gather their locked phones from a small confined area in an emergency?

> 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.

'At the extreme end, you’ve got things like the Manchester bombing, where access to a phone would be a useful thing.'

If this is your normal way of thinking the terrorists have beaten you already.

emphasis mine:

>> At the extreme end...

> If this is your normal way of thinking...

"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.

> inconvenient

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.

If you were to complain that doing without your car was inconvenient do you think a reasonable response would be

Dude.

What do you think people did in the middle ages?

(I'm probably older than you, but putting myself into the place of someone who has had a smart phone most of their adult life)

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'm curious how hard do you think it would have been to break your phone out of the Yondr prison?

From the videos I've seen online, it seems like you could do so "fairly" easily.

Wow. I guess you really became a slave to this tool. Do you remember a few years back none of us were using one :)

Just make the whole theater a Faraday cage.

Doesn't prevent people from spending the concert recording it.

FCC does not allow this, I think.

20 years ago we all managed without phones.

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.

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.

Completely this.

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.

Specific weather/sky conditions? I'm not sure why I want my own photos, maybe it just helps me remember the moment of snapping it.

I know for sure that a pro photo of the same location wouldn't be the same. Maybe it has something to do with my visual/spacial memory.

The Grand Canyon is there all the time, won't go home after 2 am, and won't be distracted by photographers.

>I have no idea why someone would want to watch a performance from behind a screen.

Sometimes people like to film or take pictures of things that are really cool to remember them by or show their friends

The other reason it was dropped is that having "organic" social media sharing became the norm.

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.

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.

  about how you paid all this money to be here

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."

>> And just let everyone know that the whole show will be on YouTube in good quality later-- no need to take your own.

Um, it increases costs a lot to film a show, you realize this, right?

And if the show was available on YouTube for free, don't you think it would potentially impact sales?

"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.

Above and Beyond Acoustic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNUTlKqSO-I

If anyone finds an Acoustic II concert video around, let me know.

EDIT: well timed, just looked again and I guess it's more of a documentary with showings starting next week: http://www.aboveandbeyond.nu/acousticfilm/

Bit of a slow turnaround from a show in May 2016.

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.

The post mentions doing exactly that:

“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.

More info: http://phish.com/faq/#taping-guidelines

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).

That may work for you as a single individual but in general it's just not realistic. Times have changed. The world has moved on.

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.

Interestingly, Boston Calling won't enforce this rule: http://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/names/2018/01/24/going-...

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.

As much as I enjoy being treated like a child, I really don't want to see Jack White.

That's fine it is your choice not to attend no-phone shows.

I don't get your response; would you not go to a state park because there's a rule against operating motorized vehicles on the hiking trails?

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.

FAN! FUCKING! TASTIC!

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.

Why does it have to be either/or?

Why not ask people not to talk disruptively and disallow people from sitting on someone's shoulders in addition to the phone ban?

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...

plus 1 for mentioning Lisa Gerrard.

DCD!

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.

He's talking about people recording the gig on their phone, not playing angry birds.

You go in late. Shows never start at posted times. That's always how it's always worked and always will.

just show up later? the person you're trying to see was one of those opening acts once

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.

Just one of the many ways that Japan is just America 20 years in the future.

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.

Ok, I can appreciate that, but, from the article:

"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.

> that nobody ever looks at

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.

Thanks, I didn't know that.

I'm sorry you choose to be annoyed at this. Most/many of us simply don't care about things that don't impact us.

And don’t even get me started about folks taking pictures from 100 feet away with their effing strobes turned on.

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.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_in_Praha_(Radiohead_video...

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzKHJkA8keg

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.

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.

Musicians need all the coverage they can get and we can probably only expect this from big name artists like Jack White.

This seems to be common knowledge, somehow, but I've never seen it myself. Maybe it depends on the type of music, or musician.

I perform with a couple groups you've never heard of, and I hate seeing cell phones at performances. I'm just trying to perform, not be discovered.

Stairway to the Burn Unit

The Yondr demo is quite impressive: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2A38Nxz8sc

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...

Some possible circumvention:

- Don't disclose your phone

- Put a cheap ringer in your pocket

- Cut through the package in the parking lot and re-enter

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.

Why the phone specifically? What if they prohibit air horns? Mine belongs to me as well!

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.

> works fine in movie theaters.

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.

Comics are doing this as well (Dave Chapelle, Joe Rogan, etc).

Wholly supported.

Relevant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRf36vRAWF8

One of the reasons a comic might do that is to avoid being the target of a Twitter outrage mob over a recording of them doing an insensitive joke.

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.

Or they do it because because they don't want to be called out on a bad set. (I've heard a venue guy from Detroit pointing out Chappel for that)

Found the article on the Detroit one: http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/dave-chappelle-fans...

I could have sworn he had issues at a PA show as well, but that was recorded.

Hannibal Burress doesn't like it because he said some unverified bits about Cosby and got caught. (Unsubstiated at the time)

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.

'unverified bit'... is not a thing.

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.

  worked very well

... except for those who were behind the recorders.

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.

Exactly. There are always going to be a few people who don't care if they ruin it for the rest. To them, they are the only ones that matter.

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 was thinking of headphones.

They don't stick on small kids heads or in ears. With bigger kids, absolutely.

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?

The Killers embraced it as well.

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.

Just throw your hands in the air...

...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.

Tool has been doing this same thing for years. The show I attended this past summer couldn't have been more immersive.

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.

"Time to put the silicon obsession down"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u05S9cq2bLY

Someone at a ROCK SHOW blocking your view with a phone? just push them out of the way and stand in front of them.

They were in stadiums with assigned seating. Which is also a reason why I don't go to those kinds of shows very often. They feel so sanitized.

Same here re closing eyes to properly listen!

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."

the dude uses an electric guitar, an electronic communication device.

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!?

Are asking why rules exist in general or

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.

Lane 8 has been doing this for just over a year now with his "This Never Happened" tour: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/could-you-handle-a-phon...

Came here to say the same thing, glad to see others know about him:)

Hopefully see you at a show soon! I'm looking forward to his new album tour

Eddie Vedder does this as well (not full on with pouches, just asking people personally to put it away and waiting until they do).

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.)

I think photos and video are way more distracting than someone not paying attention.

If I pay for a concert ticket I don't want to be forced to watch it through the phone camera of the person in front of me.

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.

While I wholeheartedly agree, the devil's advocate within me likes to remind that we had been mobile phone-less for years with no major concern.

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.

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).

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.

The problem with this is that many people have that thing out every other song, recording video, and blinding me.

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.

What's with the incessant need to tell other people how to enjoy an experience?

I'm reminded of this xkcd comic: https://xkcd.com/1314/

The main problem is that your way of "enjoying the experience" is detracting from the experience of those around you.

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.

How so? Texting someone isn't distracting to anyone around you... unless I'm missing something?

Are you really that easily bothered by other people that them enjoying something in a different way than you detracts from your experience?

If you're texting someone in a dark room you're annoying everyone around you

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?

The last time I saw him play, I got so bored during his solos I was beyond grateful to have had my phone with me.

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.

OK maybe Thom Yorke and Jack White should do shows together and charge $1000000 and call it real art.

"2014, Jack White criticised people at gigs who spend more time on their mobile phones than watching the artist perform.

White suggested that he is “wasting time” performing for people who “can’t even clap” because they have a phone in one hand and a drink in the other."

A lot of techno clubs have been doing it for years – makes the whole scene feel much more human.

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.

I want this for movie theaters too.

This is one of the reasons I love places like the Alamo Drafthouse, which will outright kick you out if you use your phone during the show.

Holy shit. I haven't been to the movies in about 5 years. Back then we had Facebook but I don't remember ever seeing anyone on a phone during a 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.

Simple economics. People will weigh the value of being able to use their phones and/or record the performance versus their want to attend.

ok, people are going to carry 2 phones on them going to shows: the actual phone and a decoy one

Well, OK, but the performance had better start on time. And no crappy warm-up bands.

Looks like a “100% human experience” weeds out parents with young children.

Why? Is it really that impossible to spend a few hours without being able to communicate with whoever is taking care of ones kids? I don't think so.

Great opportunity for Snapchat Spectacles to become relevant again.

Sounds good in theory, but is this really jut about stopping bootlegs?

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.

Knowing Jack White, not necessarily. He's all about authenticity, and being in the moment. Mobiles (for me) tend to ruin this at a live show.

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.)

> when you're a tiny indie band playing for fun rather than professionally

Playing for fun is playing professionally, as long as it has passion.

> there are only 20 people there and the only reward you get is the chance to play for them.

I'm not going preachy here, but playing in front of people something you wrote is an invaluable reward.

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.

Is it just me, or is the NME site completely broken?

Works fine for me with Firefox and Privacy Badger

Cyborgs please cry your eyes out, you will get them back, afterwards good as new- no spam i promise.

hells yeah, jack white; }={ell$fucking yeah...

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?

> 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.

Pretty sure they can just require the band/attendees to sign away their liability.

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.

In other words, they don't confiscate, they deface the phones.

You've used the word 'deface' throughout this thread and I don't understand it. How is putting a phone in a bag defacing it?

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.

To be fair, Jack does tons of that too.

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.

If you think people wouldn't have their phones out in that intimate, acoustic setting you're fooling yourself.

So is clapping part of the agreement when I go to a gig?

Why is it wasting time playing to people who don't clap. Is he doing it for the claps? Why do I have to pay then?

Can I pay extra to get a ticket which allows me not to clap?

You can't clap with just a drink in your hand either, will he be banning drinking at his gigs?

Is he using amplifiers or are they banned as part of this "human experience" too?

I hate phone use at gigs but Jack White isn't really expressing how I feel about them.

You're trying too hard to find problems. I'm guessing White would be okay if you stayed home.

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 think you're taking that statement a bit too far toward its logical conclusion.

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.

Same here. Kick people out if they're violating your event's policy. This pouch thing is just weird and big brother-ish.

Sorry people are downvoting you just because they disagree with your opinion!

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.

The funny thing is that this policy assumes that the ushers are bad. (Otherwise, why do you need this if it's something that the ushers can handle)

terrorist win

I guess you don't use planes either? After 9/11 it's a stupid and dangerous idea.

You're comparing apples and oranges there. There is nothing preventing you from filming or using your electronic devices (outside FAA regulations, and they're pretty clear when and when you cannot use the electronics, heck they don't even take your device away from you or deface it)

As much as I don't like the TSA, they're a lot better than venue security. Going on your anaology, if something happened in an airport past security, the airport isn't blocking your ability to call for help.

Bringing it back: What benefit is removing people's abilities to use phones and smart watches going to give you? (Yes, they remove both of those including fitbits)

Dude, you missed the point. OP is scared of terrorists.

Is there a greater cost in utility to not flying in planes vs not attending Jack White concerts? If so this may be a false equivalence.

how exactly would having your cell phone handy prevent another bataclan?

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.

it would primarily be helpful for cross-checking (dont kill me) "fake news" stories against.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com