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

511–520 of 545 posts

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

#511

Post by bryanrasmussen »

danesparza wrote: post #509
davb wrote: post #87

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 bein…

"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…

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)

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

#513

Post by ThomPete »

Mithaldu wrote: post #503
ThomPete wrote: post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then you don't go to the show. Sorry but you talk about checking in on the babysitter as if it's some universal law. It's not you don't have to, and if you feel like you can't go out and enjoy a show without checking in then don't go to the show. And yes I have kids.

Why do you believe FYGM is an appropriate response?

Because any leisure is a personal choice which you can choose to do or not if you really are worried that you can't get in contact with your nanny then don't go to the concert where they require you to not bring it, don't go to the movies, don't go anywhere you can loose connection and don't go flying.

It's perfectly fine if you don't want to take that chance but it's hardly an argument for why someone shouldn't do a show where they ban cellphones.

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

#514

Post by kingosticks »

danesparza wrote: post #509
davb wrote: post #87

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 bein…

"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…

> 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.

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

#515

Post by lucozade »

ManuelKiessling wrote: post #276
CUViper wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of my human experience may include checking how the babysitter is doing with the kids. I'm not going to do that in a way that disrupts the show, but I still want that access.

How did people do that before there were cell phones?

Babysitting probably isn't a great example, but cellphones affect the process of communicating so, unless you're expecting not to have the phone on you, it can actually be detrimental when you don't.

The main difference is that you tend to plan less up front. When our children were younger, and we had babysitters, we'd point out where the obvious stuff was but if they needed something, they'd just text. You just don't bother with the 15 min tour that I'd have got when I was doing the babysitting.

As a tangential, vaguely amusing, anecdote. A few years ago, my eldest's phone was a bit dodgy and kept cutting out. He was going to meet up with my wife in town but was meeting friends first. The two of them, my wife and son, spent about 5 minutes trying to work out how they could contact each other.

I, genius that I am, proposed a radical solution. I suggested that they arrange to meet at an agreed time and place. It had been such a long time since this was necessary that it hadn't even occurred to my wife (for which I still won't let her forget). My son had never, in his 15 odd years at the time, needed to do this.

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

#516

Post by rovek »

ken wrote: post #189
davb wrote: post #87

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 bein…

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…

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.

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

#517

Post by mikeash »

titzer wrote: post #467
aerovistae wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wit…

> Or how about this? > Or how about this? > Don't act like cellphones have no practical use sigh Humans have survived for hundreds of thousands of years without cellphones. For any new tech, you can continually imagine scenarios where survival "absolutely depends on" having this tech. How about this? You're sitting in your ISS sleep capsule and suddenly the station starts to depressurize. You hop into your reentry-sa…

I find this argument supremely unconvincing. It’s true that humanity survived, but people died in all sorts of awful and now preventable ways. This argument could be used to argue against vaccines, sanitation, or good nutrition. Is that where you want to be?

When it comes to safety, I want to set the bar somewhat above “this will not literally drive the species to extinction.”

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

#518

Post by beat »

pythonaut_16 wrote: post #271
Posibyte wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Given the impact cell phones have had on auto accidents (someone using their phone in the car is about as dangerous as a drunk driver, statistically), I'd say overall, society is less safe due to cell phones.

And, as I pointed out downthread... when's the last time someone actually had to reach you via cell phone for an actual emergency? Particularly when it's something you need to act on rather than just be informed? Virtually all the use of our cell phones falls into "urgent but not important"... the notifications alerting us that Someone Is Wrong On The Internet.

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

#519

Post by aerovistae »

mikeash wrote: post #517
titzer wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Or how about this? > Or how about this? > Don't act like cellphones have no practical use sigh Humans have survived for hundreds of thousands of years without cellphones. For any new tech, you can continually imagine scenarios where survival "absolutely depends on" having this tech. How about this? You're sitting in your ISS sleep capsule and suddenly the station starts to depressurize. You hop into your reentry-sa…

I find this argument supremely unconvincing. It’s true that humanity survived, but people died in all sorts of awful and now preventable ways. This argument could be used to argue against vaccines, sanitation, or good nutrition. Is that where you want to be? When it comes to safety, I want to set the bar somewhat above “this will not literally drive the species to extinction.”

Thank you.

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

#520

Post by stryk »

aembleton wrote: post #479
stryk wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was lucky enough to win tickets to a NIN concert from a radio station call-in in the late 1990's or early 2000's (it was around the time the "God is dead and no one cares" song was all the rage). These tickets included access to the soundcheck. I went and saw Trent Reznor with a walkie-talkie going seat-to-seat-to-seat in the venue (and this was a 6k+ seat venue, not counting standing-only areas which he visited as…

6000*15s = 25 hours. Really? I can understand him checking every couple of rows in each stand or something. For example, every 100 seats but not each seat.

Well, I was at the soundcheck in the morning (not super early, if memory serves me, this was a while ago). The concert was that evening. And yea, he was doing each seat individually, at least while I was hovering around watching everything. I can't say what he did before I got there, but yea for the 3 hours or so that I can remember he was doing each seat. I'm sure he skipped a few rows here and there, he would have to just because of time. Also, it was probably less than 15 seconds of the test track, I'm most likely exaggerating that fact subconsciously because it's a fond memory of mine.
Post reply on HN