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 get the point you're trying to make, but to me this just reads like gatekeeping.

Cell phones are useful and they can make people safer. In a world with cell phones not having timely access to one is riskier. In a world without cell phones it's a moot point.

The more interesting issue -- which others in this thread are discussing -- is whether the benefits of having a cell phone outweigh the harms people can cause with them, and whether policy can help strike an appropriate balance.

Plenty of other live events have policies against recording and cell phone use and don't seem to have any serious problems enforcing those policies (or, indeed, need to do much "enforcement" at all). Perhaps rock concerts are different because of the type of crowd.

Sure, cell phones can contribute to personal safety; whether it actually does in a standing-room-only rock concert given the distribution of risks one is likely to encounter in that context is another matter. I have a hard time imagining one, except a medical emergency, maybe? Except that having people find security might truly be more expedient.

Besides, I cam imagine real harm. Everyone simultaneously receiving a false alarm that a ballistic missile is headed there way might actually cause Widespread Panic to come out and play an encore.

Someone mentioned above that, in the event of a fire alarm and being separated from your group, being able to reconnect with them is important. Particularly for vulnerable people (whether due to age, health reasons, or being someone who might be targeted for violence or harassment), being separated from your group for a long time can be a safety issue.

  being able to reconnect with them is important

As I mentioned in another comment, it's possible you've never taken someone with a disability or social dysfunction to their first-ever concert, knowing that it's partly enabled by the fact that you can easily reconnect if you get separated (by the crowd, bathroom lines, a fire alarm, etc.) Take away that extra measure of safety and security, and the majority of people can "just deal with it", but people with certain disabilities or vulnerabilities are going to have to opt out.

Personally, I'd rather work to be inclusive. Use social norms, not technological lockouts, to get people to put their phones away.

In one case, I leave the facility, get to safety, and then _go home_ (eventually), at which point I have my phone.

In the other case, I leave the facility, get to safety, but my phone is either destroyed, or in a pile with 900 other concert-goers' phones, and I need to either wait around (in a place where emergency services probably don't want extra people), or _replace my destroyed phone_.

No thanks, I'll keep my phone in my pocket or backpack, and have it with me when I leave with no extra effort. If necessary, this will mean skipping any concerts or similar where that's an issue.

You should check out how Yondr works: https://www.overyondr.com/howitworks/

The phone stays with you.

There are many situations where a cell phone can allow you to send or receive information that could tip the scales in your favor.

Does it still sound like hollywood?

Or, perhaps, some people are truly terrified to be away from their smartphones. That is itself a scary thought.

If a person's smartphone is removed from the picture for some reason, how would they be able to function? If the cell network went down, would the crowd descend into mindless chaos? There are no more pay phones, no more cozy landlines, so how would people manage if there were an emergency?

But some of the comments here that make it sound like going out with no way for anyone to reach you was an invitation to mortal peril akin to jumping off a cliff in a wingsuit make me want to either laugh or cry.

There have always been people with (physical and mental) health concerns or disabilities who need to be able to get hold of a caregiver on short notice.

In the age of cell phones, it's much safer for them to go someplace crowded with their caregiver even if there's risk of being separated.

While eating some lovely fermented fish dish out of a bento box is completely acceptable using your phone to make calls is definitely not.

My understanding was (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that in the Shinkansen you can move out of the car to make a call, in local public transport it's an absolute no!no! (well, probably the bento box is also not that hot an idea in public transport).

With very, very few exceptions (mostly by foreigners) I've experienced this rule as respected.

I had a hard time adapting back in Europe with all the noise and chatter going on permanently.

Which is why Janis Joplin would famously yell at the audience that they better get up and dance in the aisles, or so I've been told by people old enough to be there.

Thousands of unaccompanied teenagers subjected to a bomb attack. Without access to their phones, this could've been so much worse.

> If they've run away from the venue without first unlocking their phone, they end up wandering around outside, at night, alone after a significant event such as this.

Only if their responsible adults don't take reasonable precautions. What happens when a child loses a phone or has one stolen? They should have a plan before going, whether phones are restricted or not.

What makes comment sections toxic TO ME is people on their soapbox scolding others and distracting from the topic at hand.

Subjective experience and all that.

Sarcasm has existed in human discourse for centuries.

Gonna need more than your take on it to accept it's as damaging as you claim.

I don't think it adds anything to an online comments board / discussion. And in some cases, it detracts. It often just comes across as hostility.

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.

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

Imagine your teenage child attends a concert and needs to call you to escape a dangerous situation. There are so many situations of nuance that a blanket ban disrupts in a negative way.

This is a very shallow way to deal with a complicated issue.

Can you describe a scenario for me? Because I'm having a very hard time imagining one where the teenager is immediate peril (otherwise they could just unlock the phone in the next room) yet the best person to help them is not in the building. Maybe it's unfair, but it just sounds like helicopter parenting to me.

If I have my phone, they can text me with some pre-arranged message ("x"), and I will feign an emergency and get them out of the situation ASAP (or arrange for a friend to do similarly).

Sure, they could just leave (or get a taxi?), but having a GTFO script lets them exit a situation without the social losses of having been perceived as "too scared" to cave to peer pressure. They can say, "My dad just called and said something major just came up, and he's on his way to get me. Yeah, I know, parents, right? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯"

If their phone is locked up (or mine) there's a lot more friction to that interaction.

0: https://bertfulks.com/2017/02/23/x-plan-giving-your-kids-a-w...

Going to an event where you won't have access to your phone is maybe something you can't do while having kids of a certain age. But they'll grow up and then you can again.

It's kind of selfish to ask that no musician have this policy because you want to be able to attend any concert you wish while having young children.

Seems like bad parenting if you're knowingly putting in situations where such horrors exist that they'd need to escape them.

In that case, I would imagine the child's parents failed in teaching the values of both honesty and courage. Lying is often easier in the short term, but it leads to worse outcomes over time in all but the rarest of situations (e.g. you're hiding Anne Frank and soldiers knock at the door).

Having a great excuse is useful today, but having a spine is useful for all one's days.

Mark Twain, On the Decay of the Art of Lying (http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/2572/pg2572.html)

> Surely a teenager telling white lies to pushy peers is preferable.

That's not sure by any means. In fact, the habit of telling "white lies" is almost certainly harmful in the long run. The same is true for caving to pushy peers.

If it's something that's just announced at the door, after you've bought the (generally non-refundable) tickets, no.

And before it was cell phones, he berated people for coughing.