The war on phones at gigs: a necessary evil or signs of a dystopian music industry?
Live music is entering a period of mass transformation. As the industry struggles to meet demand, issues like dynamic pricing are creeping in while smaller venues fight to pay their teams fairly. This widening divide among major players also impacts audience experience, safety, and the growing debate over phones at gigs—leading some to ban them entirely. Are these measures too much or not enough?
For the most part, pulling your phone out during a concert to snap some photos and videos is entirely harmless. In fact, there are many benefits to doing so that improve the overall experience. The next day, for instance, is there really any better way to continue the excitement or nurse the post-gig blues than to revisit some of your footage from the night before? Not really. Capturing moments is in our nature, and it’s one of the many reasons phones were advanced with good cameras.
One of the first major instances of an artist leading the no-phones charge was Kate Bush back in 2014. At the time, she acknowledged that it was a lot to ask but reiterated that she felt it was right to make sure everyone would “share in the experience together”. As expected, the decision resulted in a better emotional connection among audiences, sparking a handful of artists attempting to follow suit.
Since this tester, many acts, like Jack White, Bob Dylan, and Mitski, have imposed a no-phone rule in an effort to chase the same atmosphere despite the broader advantages of allowing fans to use their own devices throughout the entire setlist. For many, it’s about having something to return to when the final song ends, a small yet effective memoir made even better for those who don’t have the money to spend on lasting merchandise. An explicit badge of “I was there”, if you will.
However, that isn’t all that phones at gigs are good for. In many ways, it does the one thing audiences have always been good for—a means of free marketing. After all, the principle is basic: if videos gain traction on social media, or even on a smaller scale among a handful of friends on Instagram, it draws attention to said artist or concert, urging others to join the movement. Our basic appetite for avoiding FOMO becomes more appeased when we feel we’re a part of something bigger, not missing out on all of the fun.
That said, there is something inexplicably sinister about the entire thing, especially when you’re at a gig or if you pull up a video on YouTube, and all that you can see in the immediate surroundings is a sea of iPhone screens hoisted to solidify the moment. Harmless in principle but strangely sobering in reality, there’s nothing inherently bad about doing so, but the implications are there: Does it reduce engagement if you’re watching something through a screen, even though you’re right there in the moment?
Moreover, what must it feel like for an artist to gaze out into their blanket of adoring fans, expecting human faces, only to be met with what seems like an episode of Black Mirror? Even drawing such comparisons seems dated by today’s measures, considering how many of the show’s concepts have proven to be prophetic, but still—does that make it OK? But is a blanket ban the way to go, given the accessibility concerns?
When Ghost announced that their upcoming tour would enforce a complete phone ban—something they previously trialled on their last tour—fans on social media reacted with mixed opinions. Some argued that the decision enhances the overall concert experience, while others saw it as problematic for two main reasons: first, it creates significant accessibility issues, and second, it alienates fans in countries where the band doesn’t tour.
For those two reasons alone, it’s easy to side with the “don’t ban phones at gigs” debate. While they are undeniably a significant nuisance, especially when they seem excessive, some rely on phones as accessibility tools. This doesn’t just mean using their phones in cases of emergency; it can also mean using them for support when it comes to things like brightness or real-time capture if, for example, a fan has a visual or hearing impairment.
Some artists are implementing a complete ban on phones at their gigs, meaning the devices must be put into lockable pouches to prevent them from being used during the entire setlist. Granted, there may be grounds for exceptions, but this move is in its infancy, meaning some venues might not even entertain the idea of someone reaching out with accessibility requirements—not to mention the fact they might also have to gain approval from the artist to do so.
One of the only obvious remedies for the situation seems to be a more flexible model with more control, but people still have access to their phones if needed. Artists could also tier their approach with rules like only using cameras on phones during certain songs (like some already do with fan-made signage) to prevent the entire in-the-moment appeal from diminishing. This allows people to do what they want to do—capture the moment—while enabling the freedom to use phones for more serious or emergency-related reasons.
Ultimately, it all boils down to enhancing the experience without compromising safety. It’s easy to call the mass phone usage at gigs an annoyance—a disease symptomatic of our obsession with fake realities—but is it worth it when weighing up all the reasons why someone might want to use one in the first place? More to the point, is it pushing down the inevitable while misinterpreting what modern audiences deem “living in the moment?”
