Banning phones at gigs: Have we thought this through?
Last year, Blur frontman Damon Albarn weighed in on the banning phones at gigs debate. “If you start banning things, where does it end?” he argued, suggesting that the real issue isn’t the devices, it’s the performers. “People won’t want to be on their phone if you’re engaging with them correctly,” he said.
His comments came in response to Bob Dylan’s announcement of a brief UK tour that November. On arrival, fans were required to place their phones in a pouch—items left with the attendee at all times but cannot be accessed for the duration of the show unless taken to a designated area outside of the venue’s main room, where staff can open them.
Artists and entertainers had rolled out this approach before Dylan’s announcement and Albarn’s gripe, with some comedians opting for phone-free performances to protect their material from being spoiled. In the music world, however, artists like Kate Bush have backed the idea for a different reason: to protect the shared, in-the-moment magic of a live performance. Or, as Bush put it, to make sure everyone “shares in the experience together”.
When artists decide to implement a phone ban at their gigs, the typical partner is Yondr, the developer of the restricted pouches that prevent access to phones unless unlocked by a special tool. Initially, these were implemented by schools predominantly in America to curb the disturbance of phone use in educational settings, but they have since branched out into entertainment spaces as a means to improve the gig-going experience among fans.
However, not everyone is convinced. While some view the experience positively and enjoy their newfound attachment to the present, others remain attuned to the benefits of capturing moments indefinitely, or see banning phones as a risk posed to accessibility and safety. As the debate continues, therefore, one question remains: Does banning phones reinstate the magic of live music, or is it more hassle than it’s worth?
Scrambling for reconnection
In recent weeks, the debate around banning phones at gigs has intensified in the wake of the latest tour run of Swedish hard rock band Ghost. Hotwiring off the success of a previous phone ban at two of their shows at the Kia Forum in California, band leader Tobias Forge opted for an entire tour-length ban to replicate the magic of the previous shows. His decision was met with mixed reactions, including from his daughter, who had told him “no one’s gonna buy a ticket”.
Explaining the decision to Blabbermouth, Forge doubled down on the view that phones distract from real connection, saying, “If you have 10,000 people at a concert and 8,000 of them are holding a phone, there’s something deeply disconnected.” He added, “My reason for being there is the connection between myself and everybody that I brought with me that are working in tandem to give you an experience, that experience is completely decocked if everybody’s just filming.”
Few are placed to dispute such reasoning, especially as it’s hard to argue with artists who want to create the best possible experience for their fans. However, comparing two crucial Ghost live shows—one in Malmö during Ghost’s 2022 Imperatour and another in Manchester during their current Skeletour, where phones were allowed at one and banned at the other—it’s difficult to ignore the growing weight of the cons against the pros.
“Phones have fundamentally changed live performances,” a Yondr spokesperson tells Far Out. “Artists look out on a sea of smartphones instead of faces, and audiences are busy recording rather than truly engaging.” Reflecting on the feedback over the years, the Yondr spokesperson covers all expected bases, from performers feeling “more connected to audiences and more comfortable taking risks” to audiences engaging “more with each other” and creating “a stronger shared experience”.
However, the consensus among sceptics mainly centres around accessibility and control, and whether it removes a vital component for those who might be neurodivergent or have a disability. According to Yondr, however, these are all taken into consideration prior to shows, with staff briefed on anyone who may need specific requirements.
“We accommodate medical exemptions on-site,” says Yondr. “Upon arrival, guests notify Yondr or venue staff they require immediate access to their device for medical purposes. We always offer alternative options for attendees with medical or other needs that would mean they would need quick access to their phones, most often with designated wristbands.”
This suggests that any specific exemptions or other requirements are easily met so long as the attendee contacts or notifies Yondr or the venue staff, creating the initial dialogue that enables them to access their phones should they need to at any moment. This certainly sounds like an easy fix, but it also runs the risk of frustrating attendees who suddenly feel the need to support themselves in an environment that should already feel safe without question, not to mention those who may encounter difficulty advocating for themselves when those requirements shouldn’t have to be fought for.
Considering accessibility, safety, and inclusion
On the subject of ease, it’s also difficult to ignore how much these details feel absent at the concert itself. At Ghost’s Manchester show—a show most would be experiencing without their phone for the first time—these designated areas weren’t clear to all, nor was the potential for needing access to their device for matters likely considered less “serious”, like someone needing to contact their babysitter or vice versa.
And, while finding an area to use their phone outside of the main room might sound straightforward for these circumstances, this effort also removes the ability to deal with matters momentarily and quickly, introducing a layer of stress that clashes with the very escapism such a concert is meant to provide. At a venue like the Manchester Arena, where the idea of a safe space holds particular weight, this feels especially poignant, and the same could be said for many other stops on the tour with similarly significant contexts.
According to Harry Leckstein, Deputy Managing Director at LCCM, while the reasons for banning phones are understandable, consideration needs to be given to those who might need their phones for varied reasons. “Removing phones can absolutely enhance the atmosphere and deepen the connection between performer and crowd, but it’s important to strike a balance, particularly when it comes to accessibility, safety, and inclusion,” he argues.
Adding, “I think phone bans, like the one introduced on the recent Ghost tour, can feel divisive if they’re applied too rigidly. For some fans, phones are a vital accessibility tool, whether for health, safety, or communication needs. For emerging artists, especially, phones in the crowd can be a powerful way to organically build buzz and reach new audiences.” From a business and marketing standpoint, he also notes that phones at gigs “allow fans to capture and share content, which can help fuel an artist’s growth and visibility.”
While Tobias Forge also observed the irony of his phone ban in the context of the band’s MySpace upbringing and the nature of Ghost’s growth following its unexpected ‘Mary On A Cross’ virality, the main push still seems placed on what Leckstein called the “unfiltered connection” when “phones are down and the audience is truly immersed.” But does it incite the kind of control bands like Ghost claim to oppose? And why limit phone use, when it’s free marketing, as Leckstein argues?
According to marketing firm fatjoe’s Head of Content Joe Davies, banning phones is “a double-edged sword” as “fan-shot content serves as organic promotion”. When they capture moments at gigs, he says, “clips go viral, hashtags trend, and the artist benefits from real-time visibility. Removing phones can stifle that reach.” At the same time, there’s also something to be said about the redistribution of finances without a pouch developer, and how bands and acts could work with phones and social media to create their own experiences—engaging directly with phones while steering their own narratives.
“It really comes down to intentionality,” adds Leckstein, who claims, “Artists are brands, and performances are content as much as they are craft.” He continues: “If phone restrictions are introduced thoughtfully, with consideration for audience needs and clear communication, they can absolutely enhance the experience. However, we shouldn’t forget the wider value of grassroots live music. This is where future headliners learn their craft, test their sound, and connect with their communities.”
Harrison Alley, founder of Student of Guitar, shares a similar view. In Alley’s mind, while the intentions with banning phones are clear, there needs to be more established flexibility that not only enables people to do what they need to do, when they need to do it, but that doesn’t immediately remove that layer of safety that most people feel whenever they don’t have any access to their phones.
“I really understand the pull of a no‑phones policy,” Alley states, “When that sea of glowing screens disappears, attention swings back to the musicians; subtle dynamics, spur‑of‑the‑moment riffs, and even the room’s collective breath become palpable. Performers often play looser and a little riskier when they know every mistake won’t be immortalised online, and many fans (myself included) relish an atmosphere that feels unrepeatable and fully live.”
Considering the risks and potential complications, Alley continues, “Still, the benefits can’t override accessibility: deaf or hard‑of‑hearing attendees who rely on captioning apps, neurodivergent fans who use phones to manage sensory overload, or anyone who simply needs to stay reachable shouldn’t be shut out. A sensible compromise, such as sealed‑pouch systems like Yondr or small phone zones, preserves immersion while keeping essential tech close.”
Unexpected queueing times and stress for staff
Another drawback could be the additional strain it places on venue staff. At Ghost’s recent concert in Birmingham, some fans recalled the “absolute shit show” of queuing from the arena towards the Library of Birmingham, a delay caused by staff placing hundreds of phones in Yondr pouches at entry. “It’s almost like Utilita Birmingham forgot there’s 16 thousand people to seat,” one person wrote on social media.
At the same time, staff who may not be properly equipped to handle specific emergencies or situations could be faced with unexpected challenges within designated areas—again adding an avoidable layer of worry, even in cases that could otherwise be handled with relative ease. This is also something Harrison Alley notes, saying, “From the venue’s perspective, things are clearly more complicated. Staff must collect and pouch phones, monitor for breaches, and police the policy, extra work that can cause friction at both entry and exit.”
Continuing, “Some artists feel the payoff of a freer on‑stage vibe is worth it; others quietly drop the idea after one tour when merch sales (driven by fan‑shot posts) dip and queues balloon. Fans are split as well; the device that distracts one listener is a lifeline to another, coordinating rides or capturing memories for friends who couldn’t attend. I lean toward limited, opt‑in restrictions that keep the magic without penalising anyone who needs their phone. Music thrives when inclusion and spontaneity share the spotlight, banish distraction, not the people who make the scene vibrant.”
Joe Davies echoes this, saying, “Operationally, enforcing such bans adds pressure to venue staff, who now become the ‘phone police’. It risks confrontation and diverts focus from ensuring safety and enjoyment.” On what might remedy the potential ramifications, he adds, “Ultimately, a hybrid approach, like locked phone pouches or designated phone zones, might strike the right balance. It allows artists to protect the sanctity of their show while acknowledging the digital habits of modern audiences.”
Policing basic enjoyment
When it comes to basic enjoyment, is it really worth it? Potential risks aside, what do audiences actually prefer? According to Holly Quinn, Content Team Leader at Skiddle, most people enjoy “capturing videos and photos from gigs on their phones so they’re able to relive it once they’re home, especially for bigger gigs that they may have been waiting years for.” As a result, phone bans stop them from “being able to relive that experience over and over again.”
Most concertgoers thrive on the afterglow of having just seen their favourite artist, keeping the thrill alive by rewatching content captured on their phones, like a memoir from an event they may not have been able to afford any other keepsake from. While it’s easy to compare this to the past, when people attended gigs without phones or cameras, that argument now feels almost redundant, because this is simply how things are now, and in many ways, artists can actually use phones to their advantage more than if they didn’t exist at all.
“Not only do fans like to experience the event again through photos and videos, but some artists, especially emerging artists, like the hype that can come from people sharing their videos and photos on social media,” says Quinn, mirroring the earlier observations about phone usage and marketing benefits. “This can help boost ticket sales or potentially introduce artists to a new audience, so a ban could potentially hinder new artists from growing as quickly as they may have prior to the ban.”
Dr Chris Anderton, Associate Professor in Cultural Economy at Southampton Solent University, also shares this view. “What works for some artists will not work for others, but in a world where most people attending a live show will be carrying a phone, it makes sense to find interesting and interactive ways to incorporate them into the planning of the gig, or to perhaps create specific times where it is allowed, while also encouraging gig-goers to keep their phones away for the rest of the time – to get truly engaged in the live experience and lose themselves in the music.”
“Content gathered through phones at gigs can be a vital tool for artists to grow their fanbase through social media,” adds Will Franklin, Director of Music and Events at Round Group. “Fans can capture the raw emotion and magic of a live show in a way a paid ad video never could. But when everyone has their phone out, the atmosphere suffers, and so does the content. What actually travels best online are those clips where the crowd is visibly engaged, reacting, dancing and being present. That contrast, between one person capturing a moment and the rest of the room living it, is what makes content feel real, emotional, and shareable.”
Considering the implications for accessibility, inclusivity, control, and safety, it’s clear there needs to be some additional clarity around banning phones at gigs, more than just a simple explanation concerning designated areas or pre-agreed conversations. And, with limited marketing opportunities, scarce enjoyment post-gig, and additional concerns about alienating entire groups of fans who may never be able to attend a show, is banning phones altogether really worth the hassle? Is it worth one theoretically perfect moment of connection, all things considered?
Perhaps then, as we’ve seen, it’s less about strict enforcement and more about gentle requests. As Dr Chris Anderton suggested, artists could ask that phones only be used during a specific segment, or politely encourage audiences to limit their use more generally. This would help ensure that those who don’t need constant phone access stay present and engaged, while still allowing people who rely on their phones for emergencies, accessibility, or other important reasons to use them when necessary.
“Phones can be a great reference point for gathering memories and nostalgic feelings,” says Eloise Skinner, author and psychotherapist. But being without them can also offer “a more direct, immersive connection to the present moment”. However, assuming the nature of everybody’s experience will always leave some by the wayside, unintentionally excluding those who desire to feel safe, connected, and able to capture the joy of being somewhere that makes them feel alive.
