Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

nme.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 545 posts

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

#61

Post by tuxracer »

CaptainZapp wrote: post #9

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…

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.

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

#62

Post by elboru »

problems wrote: post #30
Sir_Cmpwn wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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?

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.

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

#63

Post by comice »

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.

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

#64

Post by monksy »

hellbanTHIS wrote: post #51

Great to tell people to put away their phones and not record because that really is obnoxious, but to actually confiscate phones is fascistic and shouldn’t be tolerated IMO. I mean who does he think he is?

Depends on how they do it. From what I've seen, they use a company called "yondr" which basically defaces your phone for the duration of the show, or until you walk out and they unlock it for you.

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

#66

Post by frou_dh »

olivierlacan wrote: post #40

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.

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.

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

#67

Post by ghaff »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #52
k1ns wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

> I can't imagine a world that isn't connected It was a glorious time when you couldn't get connectivity in flight or in national parks. The tether has never been tighter.

In all fairness, cell phone coverage is still pretty spotty in national parks, wilderness areas, etc. And I, for one, don't buy WiFi on planes, in part because I appreciate the time as an opportunity to read books and watch things I often don't have uninterrupted time to.

But, yes, as you see on this thread people are growing up today who find the idea of not being able to be reached or to reach someone (even for a few hours) as unsettling. And, if I'm being honest, I've also thought to myself that if I were going off on any extended solo hiking/backpacking these days I'd start seriously thinking about getting one of those satellite messaging systems.

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

#68

Post by hungerstrike »

illegalsmile wrote: post #46

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 connectio…

> ...if you can't respect the reasonable wishes of the person who you paid to go see what are you doing there?

Why the false dichotomy? A person could easily lack all respect for an entertainer and still want to go see them... Heck, I've gone to concerts before just to make fun of the band and its fans with my friends. One could be there doing a lot of things but the blindingly obvious answer in this case is that people like to record stuff.

Jack sounds like a vampire. It my energy that he's feeding off of isn't it? Seems like Jack should respect his audiences' wishes.

Furthermore, if the concert venue can't go out of their way to provide a measly fucking digital video and picture download for people, then I say fuck 'em.

If they don't respect my wishes why should I respect theirs???

It's kinda like how HN asks you not to treat the downvote button as a disagree button and to just post your disagreement - but just about everybody ignores that rule because thinking is hard. Hmmmmm

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

#69

Post by beat »

pecg wrote: post #49
beat wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I know. I mean, I do this. I go to a lot of effort and expense to play music for small audiences, solely for the pleasure that they're there to listen to my songs. Which is why it's so sad when someone is busy reading social media rather than listening.

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

#70

Post by unethical_ban »

comice wrote: post #63

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 phon…

I think you're taking that statement a bit too far toward its logical conclusion.
Post reply on HN