Banning Mobile Phones At Gigs

[5944]

On 20/07/2024 at 21:04, Dagworth said:

As someone who makes almost all of his income from live music (I'm a lighting engineer for gigs) I have to disagree. It's the way people consume their events these days. The important bit is getting people through the doors.

 

The far more important thing to ban would be the ticket touts scalping a huge amount of money out of the industry.

 

Andi

I'd rather see the Ticketmaster/Live Nation's monopoly broken up. Feels like they're taking the mick a bit when they're basically adding on 20% to the ticket price to cover their costs.

[admiles]

5 minutes ago, Reorte said:

Make whatever assumptions you like, but it's attacking the person and not the argument.

 

I'm not attacking anyone. If you're not a parent you won't understand quite why you'd want to be contactable. Most parents will.  That's all.

[Reorte]

4 minutes ago, admiles said:

 

I'm not attacking anyone. If you're not a parent you won't understand quite why you'd want to be contactable. Most parents will.  That's all.

I do understand why parents want to be contactable, but I think it's wound up circular, just added to the anxiety of not being contactable; it stems from an expectation of always being contactable. I've noticed people seeming anxious in all sorts of situations without their phone, always worrying "what if", and whilst you can certainly point out that they're less of a concern than what might be happening with your children it still speaks of the same sort of thing. Yet never having had a mobile phone (not strictly true to be honest but close enough) I've simply never been constantly contactable, or with the means to contact, so it's never become a mental safety line I'm uncomfortable without.

 

The only times I would've felt happier with one is when I took part in a bit of mine exploration, and they don't work terribly well underground anyway.

 

We need to be careful about what we feel we want right now (the size of my belly is another example of the perils of giving in to that!)

Edited July 22 by Reorte

[admiles]

53 minutes ago, Reorte said:

I do understand why parents want to be contactable, but I think it's wound up circular, just added to the anxiety of not being contactable; it stems from an expectation of always being contactable. I've noticed people seeming anxious in all sorts of situations without their phone, always worrying "what if", and whilst you can certainly point out that they're less of a concern than what might be happening with your children it still speaks of the same sort of thing. Yet never having had a mobile phone (not strictly true to be honest but close enough) I've simply never been constantly contactable, or with the means to contact, so it's never become a mental safety line I'm uncomfortable without.

 

The only times I would've felt happier with one is when I took part in a bit of mine exploration, and they don't work terribly well underground anyway.

 

We need to be careful about what we feel we want right now (the size of my belly is another example of the perils of giving in to that!)

You answer tells me you aren't a parent. It's absolutely nothing to do with anxiety or worrying about "what if".  It's more that if "if" happens the person caring for your children needs a way to contact you. You really don't have the luxury of not being contactable.

 

Another case in point where a mobile phone makes sense. My, at the time 18 year old daughter (now 19) lives in a rural part of Suffolk. She works early and late shifts. Coming home from a late shift recently she hit a pothole in the dark that shattered the alloy wheel of her car.  Because she had a phone she could call me and tell me exactly where she was (using what three words).  Without a phone she faced a minimum five mile walk, alone, in the dark on national speed limit roads without a footpath, to get help.

[Reorte]

Scratch that, on second thoughts I think we best draw a line under this one, it feels like it's starting to get unpleasant.

Edited July 22 by Reorte

[57xx]

6 hours ago, tigerburnie said:

Trouble is how many bands are actually any good live,

 

Well, of all the ones I went to see (too many to recall the exact number), I never once came out thinking "oh they were rubbish, I much prefer the studio versions". 

[AY Mod]

11 minutes ago, 57xx said:

I never once came out thinking "oh they were rubbish, I much prefer the studio versions". 

 

You've never had to go to a Paul McCartney concert then.

[adb968008]

I remember seeing Lemmy play the Ace of Spades live and being deaf for a few days afterwards.

[spamcan61]

7 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

I remember seeing Lemmy play the Ace of Spades live and being deaf for a few days afterwards.

My record for ear ringing was 3 days after Iron Maiden on Killers tour. Yes I do have tinnitus to a degree...

I only saw Motorhead when Brian Robertson was on guitar, not much of a gig as Lemmy was obviously seriously peed off with him. Not that loud either.

[spamcan61]

1 hour ago, 57xx said:

 

Well, of all the ones I went to see (too many to recall the exact number), I never once came out thinking "oh they were rubbish, I much prefer the studio versions". 

I once saw Dumpy's Rusty Nuts at Oxford Pennyfarthing, the main main took exception to a heckler, jumped off the meagre stage and had a fight with him. Kinda entertaining but the studio version would've sounded better that day.

Edited July 22 by spamcan61

[PaulRhB]

On 21/07/2024 at 15:04, Reorte said:

extremely weird that people don't simply leave them at home unless there's a likely need for them.

The Foos gig I went to last month the only way to get in was having an app on the phone. If you had a screenshot that wasn’t good enough it had to have the animated icon to be valid. Plus as said above a large proportion now pay using the phone as it’s safer than get pickpocketed if you only have one thing to hang onto. 
My phone is on silent in any gig, but with ill family I wouldn’t switch it off completely at present no matter how much I agree they shouldn’t disturb a performance. 

[Classsix T]

I recorded Public Enemy coming on-stage as it was something I felt worth recording, otherwise I'll take some snaps during songs I don't know or like as a momento of the gig only. The rest of the time the mobile stays put away.

 

I'd gladly buy some merchandise as a further souvenir of the concert too, but I'm afraid the prices one particular artist I've supported live more than once is frankly taking the p!ss...so I'm gonna have my digital memories.

 

As for Bob, his perogative I guess.

 

C6T.

Edited July 22 by Classsix T

[big jim]

33 minutes ago, Classsix T said:

I'd gladly buy some merchandise as a further souvenir of the concert too, but I'm afraid the prices one particular artist I've supported live more than once is frankly taking the p!ss with the prices...so I'm gonna have my digital memories.

yep, the PSB gig merchandise was eye watering, and nothing would fit me anyway! 

[PaulRhB]

10 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

Most music I listen to is orchestral, and the dynamic range of a symphony orchestra is remarkable. If you experience a performance live you receive something unique, even if recorded or broadcast it will not replicate the experience of being in the concert hall.

Absolutely and you feel the music in your chest in a different way to speakers pumping it at you too. Having played in orchestras when I was young as well as gone to many concerts, including the Dvorak Hall in Prague, I would say listening to a decent orchestra live is better than many recordings. 

 

11 hours ago, tigerburnie said:

Trouble is how many bands are actually any good live, I worked in the industry, very few were any good, a lot were stoned out of their minds and thought they were great, few were.

Foo Fighters, Gin Wigmore, Alabama3 (equally I’ve heard them play off the boil due to a punishing tour schedule they apologised for), Lissie, Urban Voodoo, Guns n Roses although the sound was crap at White Hart Lane, the list goes on. 
 

Rarely can I pump up the home stereo to get the same effect. Feeling the bass and drums makes a big difference. I was curious how the Foos would change with Josh now on drums, it was different but very good.  Thing is one of the support bands was just a mash of sound, yet you could hear all the layers of sound with the Foos and my ears weren’t ringing for days this time either. Often the recorded versions have been polished to perfection and lack some of the feeling. 
Dave Grohl noted that Taylor Swift was doing the Eras tour so they were calling theirs the Errors tour! 😁 Sounded magnificent to me. 

[Classsix T]

Best gig I went to acoustically was probably Jungle Brothers at the Ipswich Corn Exchange back in the late Eighties. Massive venue though with not very many in attendance, also my first outing as a gig goer so probably rose tinted.

But the PA was awesome!

 

I'm wary now about tribute bands. I've seen Aussie Pink Floyd twice, similarly Rumours of Fleetwood Mac and I don't think the excitement of seeing them first time is replicated again. Although I'm not entirely sure these aren't franchises now, I may have heard there's multiple line-ups touring under the same act?

 

The Eagles tribute I saw at the Apex in Bury St Edmunds were fantastic though, I'd gladly see them again.

 

C6T.

[tigerburnie]

I guess the thing is are we looking for musical excellence or entertainment? I have seen the Rolling Stones a few times over the years, they have never sounded good, but they sure are a very entertaining band to see live. Pink Floyd were always excellent live, a bit rough in the mid '60's but then so was everybody else. Jimi Hendrix was another who was a great entertainer, but poor musically live. Musically I think the original Spirit line up were excellent, so were Poco and Toto, struggling to think of many English bands who were good live musically, Free were good, Jon Hisemans Colosseum and the Keef Hartley Band, most of the others fell into the ok and entertaining, but musically not too hot category. All of course under the category of "taste is a personal thing"

[GrumpyPenguin]

3 hours ago, tigerburnie said:

I guess the thing is are we looking for musical excellence or entertainment? I have seen the Rolling Stones a few times over the years, they have never sounded good, but they sure are a very entertaining band to see live. Pink Floyd were always excellent live, a bit rough in the mid '60's but then so was everybody else. Jimi Hendrix was another who was a great entertainer, but poor musically live. Musically I think the original Spirit line up were excellent, so were Poco and Toto, struggling to think of many English bands who were good live musically, Free were good, Jon Hisemans Colosseum and the Keef Hartley Band, most of the others fell into the ok and entertaining, but musically not too hot category. All of course under the category of "taste is a personal thing"

I used to be dissapointed when I saw (& heard) bands live, mainly because I was used to hearing the studio versions that had of course been tweaked. Once I changed my mindset to realising that it would always be a differnt experience then I enjoyed live bands more.

[MJI]

I have videoed gigs, and I was pretty obvious.

 

Large 2nd generation home camera, separate VCR, tripod, on top mic, running on mains adapter, done a few.

[tigerburnie]

4 hours ago, GrumpyPenguin said:

I used to be dissapointed when I saw (& heard) bands live, mainly because I was used to hearing the studio versions that had of course been tweaked. Once I changed my mindset to realising that it would always be a differnt experience then I enjoyed live bands more.

Equipment certainly changed the game, decent stereo pa systems with a decent desk made mixing on the road a lot more "studioified". The early days with Charlie Watkins WEM 4 channel "desks" and a copycat echo unit didn't give you a lot of scope, later desks with upwards of 20 channels in stereo with decent foldback so the band could what the audience could hear improved things(a lot less singers with a finger in their ear to hear if they were in tune). Some bands really weren't that fussed what they sounded like, sound checks were often declined, that was the sound engineers job some thought, however you could not make a lousy performance sound good, you could however make a good performance sound bad quite easily.