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

She said:

Roger Daltrey has it right when he describes this behaviour as "weird", we have raised a generation who have their iPhones glued to their hand and compulsively film anything and everything, and each to his own but I first noted this phenomenon many years ago, when the early portable camcorders became numerous. It was the same thing - someone - usually "Dad" - being WITH the family on holiday, but not actually PARTICIPATING in the holiday, instead effectively being the video recordist of the holiday.

Why does the sea of people all with mobiles aloft prefer to film rather than switch the phone off and just be at the bloody event? Your recording will be shiit anyway, and you can either buy a prof. qual. DVD or else if you want moby footage, download yourself any one of the zillion that will be up on YouTube just as good or better than your effort within an hour.What is wrong with people?

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 hurdle: she is not banning people from imaging. She just asked politely 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.