Guilty as charged.

I don't see much relevance in the age aspect. In my experience people of a wide span of ages are hypnotised by the need to record events rather than take part in them.

In the fifties a whole bunch of music hall performers couldn't make the transition to TV because they only had one act, and it stayed fresh for their audiences because they were always on the road moving from town to town. It could be a couple of years before they swung by the same town again. But on TV once it's been on Opportunity Knocks everyone's seen it and your career is over.

Now say you're a comedian. You spent months writing your act. It's not your first one, you've done this often before and will do it many times again, but it takes time to produce and get it how you want it. You're now touring it. You've done one date. Your entire act is now online.

Which is fine if you're Kate Bush on a greatest hits tour, but...

I actually avoid going on nights out with certain friends because they spend most of their time chatting to people on their phones rather than conversating with the people they have gone out with.

At one of the most recent gigs I was at there was a girl filming bits of it on her iPad. I could have happily smashed it over her head.

why?

because you don't have an IPad?

she has paid to be there, I get annoyed by old people shuffling around supermarkets, but I don't push them out of the way

THE WORLD CHANGES, either get on, or stop participating.

... and yet, she's not there, she's a bystander, recording it instead of experiencing it, without realising.



Now that doesn't surprise me one little bit. How very dare "old people" with some mobility restriction even momentarily inconvenience such a superior human. It is indeed very benevolent of you to deign not to push them aside, in spite of their total lack of consideration in continuing to exist despite having got slow and old, but then pushing them could be dangerous as it could knock you off your high horse.

Paid to be there but still insisted on half heartedly watching the gig while half heartedly filming a multiple number of random half minute clips while waving a screen in the air.

I have a smart phone but chose to keep it in my pocket to enjoy the gig as it happened.

I could have pi$$ed up her back if I'd wanted to, as you say, I paid to be there.

That's a particularly stupid view. It assumes that all change is positive. Smoking became widespread among the population. Your view point would be don't challenge that as it's just how the world is.

For me, it's all about how things affect other people around you. If you want to film a gig/concert etc whatever that's up to you. I don't see the attraction to it to be honest, bar a short clip or a couple of pictures as memories of the event, but if you want to that's up to you. However whatever you do should have in mind other people. Does your filming of the event affect them?
If you're stood directly behind someone holding an IPad or even just a phone above their head the whole time it can be off-putting and affect your enjoyment of the event, not just the physical object in your sight line but they're usually lit in someway whilst recording too.

For me, recording an event in that manner shows a selfishness and lack of respect for other people around you who've also paid the same as you to watch the same event.

Also, when the artist, in this case, hasn't banned and strictly enforced a policy but has just politely asked people to do something that's so minor as to be unremarkable, it would seem to only be polite to comply.

I think if Kate Bush had performed in a couple of her shows and there was an issue with people overdoing it with cameras and phones, to the detriment of the viewing audience, then I would wholeheartedly back Bush in her request.

However, this is Bush's first concert in nearly 30 years, so she has no idea whether there would have been a problem anyway.

The request from Bush was very polite. But the fact St Kate has made this request means that the venue security and her most devoted fans will treat someone getting out their camera for a couple of snaps as close to a capital offence.

This has brought back the memory of videoing the final match at the Boulevard. I didn't bother with recording any of the game, just the post-match celebrations/commiserations. Whilst filming my mate and his daughter, some jobsworth comes along and tells me "you shouldn't be doing that". My reply was, "so ban me from the ground, see if I care". All this came over on the audio and according to my mate, the geezer just shrugged his shoulders and walked off

Polite request my ar5e.

Of course having security patrol the theatre all those times never created a separation between Bush and her fans at all.

However grouchy LGJM gets, the end result seems on most accounts to have been a spectacularly good eveningAccompanied by music ranging from polyphonic choral harmonies to folksy minstrels, it’s quite stunning, undoubtedly the most ambitious, and genuinely moving, piece of theatrical pop ever seen on a British stage.'"

FA - As I've said, this has never been an issue at ANY concert I've ever been to. The nearest thing to an issue I've seen is the argument between security and a woman because she made a call to a friend and was holding the phone up to give the other person a listen. I couldn't GAF about the woman's phone call, but the argument with security was very off-putting. And no, I wasn't immersed in the concert anyway because I was only there for my wife.

So just out of interest how many concerts have you been to that were spoiled by iPhone and iPad wielders?