Kate Bush has asked fans attending her comeback concerts not to film them with their mobile devices.

She said"I have a request for all of you who are coming to the shows. We have purposefully chosen an intimate theatre setting rather than a large venue or stadium. It would mean a great deal to me if you would please refrain from taking photos or filming during the shows.

"I very much want to have contact with you as an audience, not with iPhones, iPads or cameras. I know it's a lot to ask but it would allow us to all share in the experience together."'"

It seems that there are people out there who just cannot do anything or go anywhere without their phones and feel left out ( maybe ) and I agree that going to a concert and seeing a load of phones being held aloft is bloody annoying. Use your eyes to see the concert !!! Kate Bush is correct and so is Roger Daltrey.

I'm not a regular concert goer, but it hasn't been an issue in any of the concerts I've been to.

I'm not buying it that Bush wants the "intimate" experience. I think it's more she wants to control her image in case she falls on her face during a concert.

I can understand why people would get annoyed by being behind someone videoing the whole concert and spoiling their view, but Bush is also wanting people not to photograph her? She wants people to pay her 150 quid plus to watch her in concert but not got a pic of her while doing it?



If no one at the concert takes any footage then how in hell does it get on youtube?

And the prize for the first conspiracy theory goes to ...


Well, yes, what she wants is people not to spoil the event by endless imaging, and asks that they just watch instead.

You are paying to watch the gig. You are not paying to be given a photo opportunity as the price is the same whether you take a camera or not.


The same reason your conspiracy theory falls at the first hurdlebanning[/i people from imaging. She just [iasked politely[/i that they refrain from doing it. I have no doubt that she is at the same time well aware that very many in the audience with equally as bad an attitude as you will bristle with indignation at the very thought of their inalienable rights being infringed and will ignore any such request. Even from you, if you are behind them and their camera spends the night in front of your face.

You can't even make a polite request in 2014 without the legions of media arrseholes turning the whole thing into a cynical, badmouthing shiitfest, as inevitable posts like yours illustrate.

But anyway, the thread is actually about why the hell the modern generation seems to prefer to record a live event, instead of immersing themselves in participating in it.

It is just as bad at museums, art galleries and photographic exhibitions. I watch people taking a photograph of an exhibited photograph rather than looking at it themselves. The photo taker also wants everyone else to stay out of the way while they do it.
What's the point?

What is worse is that those people filming events on their mobiles then can't refrain from speaking in the background, usually to a mate in a voice that reminds you of Beavis & Butthead.


The root of these requests from the artists being copyright of course and the inevitable paranoia that if you can find a 3 minute badly filmed, shaky, out of focus, extremely poor audio, Beavis and Butthead narrated video on YouTube then you probably won't want to purchase the 60 minute professional dvd later, they've obviously seen the drop in sales and some marketing geek at the publishing company has asked them to say it.

On a (broadly) related theme: Shane Warne recently commented that it was nearly two years since he'd been asked for an autograph. His fans all want to take selfies with him.

Not an issue for me, my phone can make calls and texts, it doesnt have a camera

anybody here under 50 posting?

What has any arbitrary age got to do with the topic of immersing yourself in an experience as opposed to acting as a cameraperson? If the person holding their phone aloft is 15 or 150 the point remains just the same, but I do wonder whether the younger generation simply feel obliged to record, cos everyone does, and don't quite get what they are missing out on.

I also made the point that I reckon the phenomenon began when relatively portable camcorders became available, and indisputably the people spoiling their holidays in that case were predominantly middle-aged dads, not their kids, who were usually embarrassed by any recording.

I can understand why dads started doing this - they had just learned that they could do it, and aimed to create a permanent record of the holiday, but two pennies had not yet dropped:
(a) that you can't both record all the holiday AND fully participate in it; and
(b) that no fscker will ever want to watch your 20 hours of holiday video, ever, so you're actually wasting your time.

Both points are, with suitable adjustments, I think equally valid to recording concerts.

Prince does the same - his current band came out before he did at recent gigs and spoke to the crowd about it, asking them politely not to take pictures on phones etc. Prince doesn't like it but there's the image thing he tries to control too.

During the gig anyone who was spotted with a camera/phone had a security guy shine a torch right at the lens to spoil the pic. There was much less of it last time in Leeds than there had been in Manchester earlier in the year, so maybe the message is getting through a little

You are either a celebrity, subject to the public demands, or you are not.

These people make millions by "being seen", it isn't their choice as to what the audience do, IMHO.

If the don't like it, stop performing.

I'm not sure Prince considers himself a "celebrity" and Kate Bush is pretty reclusive, but would being photographed walking down the street be acceptable if you asked someone not to do it, just because you're well known?

You're an old basstard yourself though, yet you are displaying in that response the sort of ignorant and selfish attitude that is regrettable - at ANY age.

I would suggest it is better for people to respect other people before deciding whether it is fair to "do as they wish". Also "let" is the wrong word, as I am suggesting that people exercise their own self-control, not that they be physically prevented from recording.

Second, - and this may surprise you - I am not Kate Bush. It is she (admittedly over 50) who politely asked people to choose to participate rather than film. To reasonably respect her wishes seems polite to me, if I was attending. To say "fsck you Bush, I am paying for a ticket and so I will do whatever the fsck I like" is an unattractive and regrettable attitude, to me. If not to you.


Great straw man. But I don't think my opinion that it is preferrable not to be rude, selfish or inconsiderate is actually capable of being wrong. Do you? I would also say that my opinion you will get much more from an event if you immerse yourself in it, rather than being a cameraman, is capable of much sensible counter-argument either, nor that the thousands of shaky phone recordings are in fact largely pointless.

In the case in point, Kate Bush - whose gig it is - is entitled to the opinion she expressed. As is Roger Daltrey. I have great respect for both of their opinions on this issue.

But the way she expressed her point is from the same angle as me: I am asking people to THINK about it - they probably don't really GET the point. I don't see there is anything wrong in therefore making the point. It would be ironic if the recording masses said to Kate Bush, "Fsck you, I'm gonna film it on my phone, if you don't like it, don't attend" - and she didn't attend.