Cameras, Phones, and More at Concerts

[Julie in the rv mirror]

Since it's been pretty quiet here lately, I thought I might try to get a little discussion going. :-)

There has been some discussion in the news recently regarding cameras and cell phones at concerts. Peter Frampton had an incident a little while back in which he became so frustrated with a couple that he took the guy's cell phone and flung it across the room (word was the phone was fine and the owner got it back after the show, with pictures deleted). Here is an account from a fan who attended the show:
http://www.onstagemagazine.com/frampton-personally-enforces-camera-policy1/

A statement from Frampton:
http://www.visaliatimesdelta.com/media/cinematic/video/14308063/peter-frampton-throws-phone-i-was-making-a-statement/

A few years ago, Bono notoriously chastised a fan from the stage for using her phone: http://youtube.com/watch?v=jpR9t4ZZfAo

Worse than that, I remember reading an account of Nils Lofgren actually smashing a fan's phone at one of his solo gigs a few years ago. :shock:

On the other hand, I've also seen some performers stop fighting the trend, even posing for "selfies" with fans during shows. (Of course, that could also easily get waaaay out of hand- starts about 4:25: :lol: http://youtube.com/watch?v=lpJPJ-B-yV8 )

That last video actually brings up a different, but related topic- that of the trend (I say "trend" because I've seen more than one artist do something similar) of performers bringing audience members up on stage to dance, sing, even play instruments.

I've seen some instances where these "guest" performers have actually been somewhat talented, to the point where it makes you wonder if they are a "plant". Keith Urban has gone so far as to "audition" guest singers via YouTube prior to his shows.

Back to cameras at shows: I know of fans who love to take pictures at concerts; I've heard of cases where people come home with literally HUNDREDS of photos. :shock: I myself enjoy taking pics at shows, but I've drastically cut back after I realized I felt I missed a lot of one particular show.

So- my question is multiple parts (didn't we all love getting these types of questions in school? ;) ), and I mean concerts in general, not Meat shows specifically, though including Meat shows:

1) Cameras/pictures: What do people personally do/feel about taking pics at shows? Do people feel that since they have paid to see a show (and concerts can be quite expensive) that they have a right to take photos, provided they aren't being disruptive? Are people more interested in what they are going to put on their Facebook pages than the performers? (I'm referring to "personal use"- aside from "bootleg" video, which is a separate issue). For instance, this girl literally had the BEST seat in the house, and chose to watch through her phone: :roll: http://youtube.com/watch?v=m2O0Ujumkrs

2) Do performers have a right to request no cameras/pictures at shows? Further, what recourse do you think they should be able to take? Is it OK to take or even damage a concert-goer's property, or publicly call them out? Have the "offender" removed?

3) What do you think about audience members on stage? Love it or hate it? Further, do you think it's become a "Look at Me!" society? I've seen plenty of posts from fans who say, "I got up on stage- does anyone have pictures/video?" as opposed to "Wow, how great to interact with my favorite perfomer!"

Once again, I don't have any agenda posting this topic, I'm only hoping to stimulate a little discussion. There are no right or wrong answers- all opinions are welcome! :-)

[JennaG]

1) Cameras/pictures: What do people personally do/feel about taking pics at shows? Do people feel that since they have paid to see a show (and concerts can be quite expensive) that they have a right to take photos, provided they aren't being disruptive? Are people more interested in what they are going to put on their Facebook pages than the performers? (I'm referring to "personal use"- aside from "bootleg" video, which is a separate issue). For instance, this girl literally had the BEST seat in the house, and chose to watch through her phone: :roll: http://youtube.com/watch?v=m2O0Ujumkrs 2) Do performers have a right to request no cameras/pictures at shows? Further, what recourse do you think they should be able to take? Is it OK to take or even damage a concert-goer's property, or publicly call them out? Have the "offender" removed? 3) What do you think about audience members on stage? Love it or hate it? Further, do you think it's become a "Look at Me!" society? I've seen plenty of posts from fans who say, "I got up on stage- does anyone have pictures/video?" as opposed to "Wow, how great to interact with my favorite perfomer!" Once again, I don't have any agenda posting this topic, I'm only hoping to stimulate a little discussion. There are no right or wrong answers- all opinions are welcome! :-)

I'll try and answer your points as best I can. ;)

Firstly, I enjoy taking photographs. I like to looking back on them to remind myself of the moments I have enjoyed and because of that I will take photos during shows where this is permitted. I'm not someone who will try to capture everything because after all I don't want to have paid good money to watch a show through a small LCD screen on my camera. My mobile in comparison, has a terrible camera so why would I use that when I've got a perfectly good camera to use?

I have been to several concerts/shows where photography has been prohibited and I tend to have the belief that is the right of the person putting on the show, after all it's THEIR work on show and by purchasing a ticket I think that we've really only got the right to expect to see the show that was advertised. It doesn't give us the 'right' to take photographs or to expect the artist to want to meet us and sign autographs after the show. I know it is a bit disappointing when you've got nothing to look back on when the show is over but as someone who would call themselves a 'fan' of that artist, I feel that it is my duty to respect their wishes.

As to what recourse that they can take, I don't think that they should be allowed to damage other people's property. At most I think they should confiscate the camera after a warning and request that the user deletes the material. I guess if the offender is particularly persistent then they'd have grounds to ask for them to be removed but throwing someone's phone is totally out of the question.

The last point you ask about is audience members on stage and whilst I think it is nice for that person to have had that 'something special' to remember from the show, I also think it's a little bit unfair on everyone else in the audience who didn't get a special favour. We all know how jealous fan communities can be at times and whilst I don't think artists should stop doing nice things for their fans, those sort of things feed that jealousy.

[Vickip]

1). I honestly have no problem with people taking pictures (or videos even) at shows as long as they don't cause a scene and interfere with my enjoyment of the show :-) I do have to admit when I went to see Terry Fator in Lancaster recently, I took my camera out to take a picture. The woman sitting next to me gave me a hard time, saying that it was against the rules. I politely told her that it was fine because I had turned off the flash ... but then I realized it wasn't worth the risk of her possibly calling over security if I tried it again. So I quietly put my camera away and really enjoyed the show because I wasn't watching it through a camera lens :D

2). Yes they do ... when I saw Sheryl Crow in Lancaster, she had requested NO cameras and there were signs posted on the door as you walked into the theater. Harry Connick, Jr. had made the same request, and the audience was warned before the show started. One of the ushers that night told us that he would stop the show and publicly call someone out if he saw them with a camera ... in both cases I didn't see anyone using a camera and there were no problems. IMHO we were clearly warned, so if someone didn't follow the rules they should be removed (and hopefully not disrupt the show).

3). Hate it ... IMHO if I paid good money to see a show, I want to see the actual performer, not an amateur (no matter how good they may be). It's definitely turned into a "look at me" society, and fans like that should stick with trying out for American Idol or The Voice ;) :D

[CarylB]

1. I like to be able to take photos at shows, they are great souvenirs. However I have no problem with being told I may not. I bring a truckload of memories home which stay with me forever, and do not want to see the show through a viewfinder anyway. I do not like people waving their phones around in front of me.

2. I do not consider I have a right to take photos though. The law, in this country anyway, prohibits the taking of photos or any form of recording in a public venue without permission. It is printed on the ticket I buy, and that ticket is to see a show, not to take photos/record. If the artists gives permission, fine. If he/she chooses not to, that is fine also imo .. there is no reason why they should have to give permission. The default position is surely the law, so it isn't a matter of whether they have the right to ban photos/recordings, but whether they choose to allow it. I think this is probably true in the USA as well, as I'm sure I have seen the prohibition of photos/recording printed on the back of tickets for shows there.

If people choose to ignore signs reminding them that the performer expects the law to be observed, then the venue has every right to have that person removed, just as they would if someone was disrupting the show or doing something else that is illegal. The fan's ticket has made it clear. If they then choose to flaut the conditions, they forfeit the right to stay.

If photos are allowed, I think "selfies" with the performer in the background are discourteous to the performer and to other fans. The "look at me" culture starts here, long before trying to crowbar your way into the stage imo.

3. Personally, like Vicky, I have paid to see the performer, not anyone from the audience, however talented they may be. Luckily at arenas the "exclusion zone" usually prevents the possibility. Meat's shows are carefully choreographed down to the last detail, and it would be wholly out of place.

To me it's not about unfairness to other fans who don't get the opportunity, but more about unfairness to those who paid to see the artist. Many performers would not invite anyone onto the stage anyway .. there are legal implications, particularly in today's sue-happy culture. I remember Meat saying he was once sued by someone who fell down the stairs when leaving a venue after a show. It matters not at all whether the idiot was successful or not ... it costs to have to deal with that. Some parents shoved their way to the front during the encore set in Philadelphia during the MMW tour, and put a very young child (wearing ear defenders for heaven's sake!) onto the stage in Philadelphia. I thought it intrusive .. Meat was wholly engrossed in singing .. and I could see by his expression he did not welcome it. And if that child had suffered some accident while on stage .. do you think those parents would have accepted it as their fault? Or would Meat have been forced to pay the lawyers again?

[tonyloaf]

I like taking photos , and having something to keep . Let's face it the amount of lighting that goes on with the production of the show I can't really see how cameras effect the artist , But I can understand that an artist wants you to buy the picture / poster on the merch stall

[Julie in the rv mirror]

First, I'd like to say thank you to those who have responded so far! Some very good points have been made, and I hope we can continue to get more! ;)

As to what recourse that they can take, I don't think that they should be allowed to damage other people's property. At most I think they should confiscate the camera after a warning and request that the user deletes the material. I guess if the offender is particularly persistent then they'd have grounds to ask for them to be removed but throwing someone's phone is totally out of the question.
I think that's reasonable. However (for discussion's sake), in the case of the Frampton show I mentioned above, the offenders were asked repeatedly both by security, and by Frampton himself, to stop being disruptive, yet they continued. It seemed security was being ineffective, in this case, thus the artist took it upon himself to deal with the situation. It sounds like the rest of the audience was appreciative in this case, since the two were ruining the show for others, in addition to annoying those on stage. (I'd also guesstimate that 95% of the comments I saw online after the fact were in Frampton's favor.) One could argue that he had an obligation to the rest of the paying audience to do something. What do you think he should have done instead?

The last point you ask about is audience members on stage and whilst I think it is nice for that person to have had that 'something special' to remember from the show, I also think it's a little bit unfair on everyone else in the audience who didn't get a special favour. We all know how jealous fan communities can be at times and whilst I don't think artists should stop doing nice things for their fans, those sort of things feed that jealousy.
I agree on some of your points, and I think it's easy for artists to have the best intentions of doing something fun for the fans, and inadvertently creating a monster- more on that later. ;)

1). I honestly have no problem with people taking pictures (or videos even) at shows as long as they don't cause a scene and interfere with my enjoyment of the show :-) I do have to admit when I went to see Terry Fator in Lancaster recently, I took my camera out to take a picture. The woman sitting next to me gave me a hard time, saying that it was against the rules. I politely told her that it was fine because I had turned off the flash ... but then I realized it wasn't worth the risk of her possibly calling over security if I tried it again. So I quietly put my camera away and really enjoyed the show because I wasn't watching it through a camera lens :D
Good points, Vicki! I agree with you- I don't mind if people take photos either, provided they aren't disrupting my enjoyment of the show. Seeing as how you turned off your flash, I don't see the harm, but I don't think it's worth causing a scene over, either. Btw- I'm glad you enjoyed the show- I think Terry Fator is hilarious! :lol:

One of the ushers that night told us that he would stop the show and publicly call someone out if he saw them with a camera ... in both cases I didn't see anyone using a camera and there were no problems. IMHO we were clearly warned, so if someone didn't follow the rules they should be removed (and hopefully not disrupt the show).
Question- when you say "he would stop the show", I assume the "he" would be Harry? I agree that as the performer, he would have the right to do so. However, in a large venue, this is often difficult to enforce, or enforce fairly. For example, I know someone who was removed from a show for filming on his phone (he was actually live streaming, but they didn't know that :lol:). He wasn't even angry, and admitted he was in the wrong, yet he was ejected, while dozens of others were also filming/taking pics around him. IMO, that wasn't very fair. Knowing him, I'm sure he wasn't disturbing those around him.

3). Hate it ... IMHO if I paid good money to see a show, I want to see the actual performer, not an amateur (no matter how good they may be). It's definitely turned into a "look at me" society, and fans like that should stick with trying out for American Idol or The Voice ;) :D
Fair enough; I can't say I hate it- it's usually a fun part of the show, IMO, and sometimes it's apparent the fans are just having the time of their lives, so it's hard not to enjoy it vicariously through them. :-) Admittedly, though, sometimes it can get a little old, especially if you see more than one show by the artist (though I guess that's my fault for seeing multiple shows).

2. I do not consider I have a right to take photos though. The law, in this country anyway, prohibits the taking of photos or any form of recording in a public venue without permission. It is printed on the ticket I buy, and that ticket is to see a show, not to take photos/record. If the artists gives permission, fine. If he/she chooses not to, that is fine also imo .. there is no reason why they should have to give permission. The default position is surely the law, so it isn't a matter of whether they have the right to ban photos/recordings, but whether they choose to allow it. I think this is probably true in the USA as well, as I'm sure I have seen the prohibition of photos/recording printed on the back of tickets for shows there.
You are correct that the no photos/recording is usually printed on the back of the tickets in the U.S.; however, I honestly don't know if it is the law, or simply the rules of the venue in question.

I agree that it should be up to the performer (and not the venue, IMO) to decide whether or not he/she permits photos, video, or recordings; I've seen different permissions all across the board. I'd like to note that in the Frampton case I mentioned above, the venue actually prohibited photography of any kind, however, Frampton himself chose to allow still photos, provided no flash was used. The offenders in this case, having arrived late, didn't manage to hear the announcement that was made prior to the show. Not that they would have abided by it if they had :roll:

I actually saw Frampton live about a week after this incident, after he instituted his "first three songs only" rule, which as far as I could tell, most people abided by. I was a bit disappointed, though, because I had killer seats, and I was hoping to get at least one really great shot of him. :lol: I got a couple of decent ones, but nothing stellar. (My current goal is to get one really good shot of each of my favorite artists to hang on my wall, and that's it)

If photos are allowed, I think "selfies" with the performer in the background are discourteous to the performer and to other fans. The "look at me" culture starts here, long before trying to crowbar your way into the stage imo.
I actually agree regarding taking "selfies" being rude, though I know many people who enjoy doing so. The "best" example I've seen of this was at a Springsteen show: Bruce had hopped down into the audience to sing, and sat down on the rail that separates the audience from the stage. A woman creeps up, slaps her hand on his knee, and stands there while her friend takes a picture, and the whole time she's looking at the camera instead of at Bruce. :roll: I think some artists are adopting the attitude of, "If you can't beat them, join them". Besides, they get publicity when said fan posts those selfies on Facebook. Of course, this can become a slippery slope...

In full disclosure, I have a couple of pics that people took of me at shows, but I'd never "pose" for one (not during the show, anyway).

Personally, like Vicky, I have paid to see the performer, not anyone from the audience, however talented they may be. Luckily at arenas the "exclusion zone" usually prevents the possibility.
I was mostly referring to cases where the performer actually invited the fans onstage, though sometimes they do "sneak" on. I don't know about in the UK, but here in the States, the presence/size of the "exclusion zone" seems to vary according to the artist's wishes (even in arenas), so in many cases, it's not that hard for fans to get up on stage if they really want to. (How long they stay is another matter) If you add an artist who often invites fans onstage, you can see how people can begin to think it's OK, hence one of the the things I meant about creating a monster.

To me it's not about unfairness to other fans who don't get the opportunity, but more about unfairness to those who paid to see the artist.
People are divided on that opinion. As I said earlier, I've mostly liked it the times I've seen it happen. One example, Bruce has gotten into the routine of bringing a kid up from the audience to sing a couple of lines during one of the songs (which is an audience sing-along anyway); personally, I think it's cute (usually), it only "takes up" a couple of minutes out of a three-hour show, and the audience seems to love it, which is why I'm sure he continues to do it. However, some fans really hate it, and it becomes another example of him creating a monster, when I hear stories about some parents who will do just about anything in order to get their kid up on stage. :roll:

Many performers would not invite anyone onto the stage anyway .. there are legal implications, particularly in today's sue-happy culture.
That's a good point; I recall an incident at a Springsteen show I saw where he invited a fan up to sing, and at the end of the song, the fan decided to do a stage dive into the audience. :shock: Thankfully, no one was hurt, and the fan himself admitted later that it was extremely stupid, but he got caught up in the moment and wasn't thinking clearly. (In fairness, the guy didn't look to be the stage-diving type :lol:)

I remember Meat saying he was once sued by someone who fell down the stairs when leaving a venue after a show. It matters not at all whether the idiot was successful or not ... it costs to have to deal with that.
Also true; although, I imagine the artists are protected by the tiny print on the ticket which states that the ticketholder assumes all risks associated with attending the event. Still a pain, I imagine.

Some parents shoved their way to the front during the encore set in Philadelphia during the MMW tour, and put a very young child (wearing ear defenders for heaven's sake!) onto the stage in Philadelphia. I thought it intrusive .. Meat was wholly engrossed in singing .. and I could see by his expression he did not welcome it. And if that child had suffered some accident while on stage .. do you think those parents would have accepted it as their fault? Or would Meat have been forced to pay the lawyers again?
Actually, the ear defenders were probably the smartest thing they did, aside from leaving the child at home. My personal opinion on bringing kids to concerts is that younger than 7 or 8 is definitely too young; after that, it really depends on the kid. If the kid truly likes the music and wants to be there, then I'm all for it, provided that the kid is mature enough to handle it. I don't believe in forcing kids to go to shows they have no interest in, so that the parents can get a thrill.

I read online that a woman was asked to leave a Brad Paisley concert after she refused to leave the pit area with her 8-year old and her 4-month-old :shock: baby. (She was offered seats elsewhere in the arena) She claims she was asked to leave because she was breastfeeding in public. :nuts: The concert organizers maintain that they were concerned about the safety of the infant. Personally, I couldn't fathom bringing a baby with me to a concert, if for no other reason than I wanted to have a good time myself.

I like taking photos , and having something to keep . Let's face it the amount of lighting that goes on with the production of the show I can't really see how cameras effect the artist , But I can understand that an artist wants you to buy the picture / poster on the merch stall
Actually, I can imagine that having tons of flashes going off in the audience would distract/annoy the performers onstage, regardless of the lights; not to mention, it bothers the people around you in the audience. It's good etiquette to turn the flash off. ;) Besides, at concert distances, the flash is pretty useless anyway, and stage lighting has gotten pretty bright these days, so that you don't really need it.

Since we're talking about bad audience behavior, what do people think about performers calling fans out/retaliating towards fans? Nobody really commented on Mr. Hewson's rant in the video I posted in the OP.

Tim McGraw was recently in the news after he slapped a fan who pulled on his jeans (supposedly ripping them); do people think he was justified, and was simply defending himself, as his management claimed? Or, can it be argued McGraw invited the situation by getting so close to the audience in the first place (creating the monster)? In case people didn't see or hear about the incident, here's video: http://tasteofcountry.com/tim-mcgraw-fan-spanked-slap-reaction/

It looks to me as if the fan was looking for a hand slap, and when he didn't respond, she grabbed his jeans to get his attention. Behaving badly, somewhat, but probably excited and not meaning any real harm (she was then removed). In fact, the fan was reportedly hiring a lawyer to sue McGraw, but the incident was settled: http://tasteofcountry.com/tim-mcgraw-slaps-fan-incident-settle/

Thoughts?

[Julie in the rv mirror]

OK, for those who say they dislike seeing fans on stage (and everybody else, too), just please watch this- it's an example of the kind of thing I'm talking about when I say I like these moments. (I'm not pushing anything, I swear, I just think it's plain adorable :-)) I don't know how anybody couldn't be thrilled for this lady. I wasn't there, but I heard there wasn't a dry eye in sight:

EmDriVeghj4

[JennaG]

I think that's reasonable. However (for discussion's sake), in the case of the Frampton show I mentioned above, the offenders were asked repeatedly both by security, and by Frampton himself, to stop being disruptive, yet they continued. It seemed security was being ineffective, in this case, thus the artist took it upon himself to deal with the situation.

I think the artist probably should have called out to security to just remove the offenders if they couldn't adhere to the warnings they'd have been given. From my personal point of view, I don't think anyone has the right to deliberately damage someone else's property even if they were in the wrong. With regards to the person you mention who was removed from the show for the video, I can see why others were allowed to keep on taking photos around him when he was thrown out. I think artists generally are more concerned about video because of people's obsession about putting it on YouTube rather than keeping it to themselves and so rather than having to try to work out who will YouTube it and who won't, they probably feeel it's better to try to put a stop to the videos being taken.

I think it's easy for artists to have the best intentions of doing something fun for the fans, and inadvertently creating a monster- more on that later.

I think that whilst there will be some who will be delighted for that fan, there's going to be several that are going to be asking "what makes them so special?" and "why didn't I get picked?". I think it's perfectly possible for people to be happy for someone but at the same time feel a little bit jealous about it. They probably won't admit it if asked but I think it's more common that some artists think. I personally feel that singling anyone out where you've got a large amount of witnesses who don't have any personal connection is a difficult one anyway.

Last year I went to a M&G where the artist had focused on a particular couple who wanted to get engaged. Should they have been allowed to take up the artist's time that people have paid quite a lot of money for with something that was really only relevant to themselves?

I actually agree regarding taking "selfies" being rude, though I know many people who enjoy doing so.

I'd love a 'selfie' with Meat but I wouldn't dream of taking one whilst he was performing. It's disrespectful to the artist and is annoying to other audience members who might have been pushed out of the way so you could get your perfect selfie. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't even get away with taking a selfie at a M&G either because there are so many rules about what you're not allowed to do and the use of cameras and mobile phones was one of them. Whether you're more likely to get away with it at a M&G where you're allowed to bring your own camera, I don't know?

[Julie in the rv mirror]

I think the artist probably should have called out to security to just remove the offenders if they couldn't adhere to the warnings they'd have been given. From my personal point of view, I don't think anyone has the right to deliberately damage someone else's property even if they were in the wrong.
I see your view, and I agree that security should have dealt with the issue; in this case, though, they failed. I don't know what the answer is- perhaps the other fans should have dealt with it by calling the usher? The problem with that, though IMO, is that you wind up missing even more of the show due to the inevitable altercation. It sometimes just isn't worth it.

With regards to the person you mention who was removed from the show for the video, I can see why others were allowed to keep on taking photos around him when he was thrown out. I think artists generally are more concerned about video because of people's obsession about putting it on YouTube rather than keeping it to themselves and so rather than having to try to work out who will YouTube it and who won't, they probably feeel it's better to try to put a stop to the videos being taken.
See, that's the odd thing in this situation- this particular artist doesn't seem to have an issue with YouTube videos. And even though there's technically a "no camera" policy, it isn't enforced uniformly- it seems to depend on the venue. In my friend's case, it was venue security who busted him, not the artist.

I think that whilst there will be some who will be delighted for that fan, there's going to be several that are going to be asking "what makes them so special?" and "why didn't I get picked?". I think it's perfectly possible for people to be happy for someone but at the same time feel a little bit jealous about it. They probably won't admit it if asked but I think it's more common that some artists think.
I totally understand where you're coming from, Jenna, even if I don't necessarily agree. I've seen first hand what you mean about jealousy within fan communities. Last year or so, Keith Urban started a surprise "100 Club" to reward the "superfans" who had been to at least 100 shows, and could prove it via ticket stubs, receipts, or the like. Some of those who weren't picked became very angry, saying it wasn't fair, either because they couldn't prove how many shows they'd seen, or they didn't have the means or opportunity to have seen that many shows. Instead of being happy for fellow fans (many fans were), they turned on them, and even on Keith. (I'm nowhere close to 100 shows, so it didn't bother me a bit)

I think it's a Catch-22 for artists; on the one hand, they want to reward their most loyal fans (and should, IMO), but they run the risk of upsetting some others. Fortunately, I think most fans understand that everyone can't possibly get picked, and I don't think artists shouldn't ever do special things for their fans because of it. For example, the lady in the above video- I can honestly say that I wouldn't have felt the slightest twinge of jealousy towards her. :-)

Other times, there might be situations going on with the fans that the artist is aware of, but most of the rest of the audience isn't privy to. I know of at least one kid who got onstage to sing because it was his "Make-a-Wish"; could anyone really begrudge him that? There have been song dedications (and more) that have happened because the fan community worked to make it happen.

I personally feel that singling anyone out where you've got a large amount of witnesses who don't have any personal connection is a difficult one anyway.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this- can you elaborate?

Last year I went to a M&G where the artist had focused on a particular couple who wanted to get engaged. Should they have been allowed to take up the artist's time that people have paid quite a lot of money for with something that was really only relevant to themselves?
Do you mean they wanted to get engaged during the M&G? I guess that wouldn't have been fair to the others, unless the artist still gave each other fan their time and attention in addition to the time spent with the couple.

There was a couple last year who were on a campaign to get married onstage at a Springsteen show last year; thank goodness he didn't agree to that! Talk about "Look at Me!" (or, in this case, us) :shock:

[Vickip]

Good points, Vicki! I agree with you- I don't mind if people take photos either, provided they aren't disrupting my enjoyment of the show. Seeing as how you turned off your flash, I don't see the harm, but I don't think it's worth causing a scene over, either. Btw- I'm glad you enjoyed the show- I think Terry Fator is hilarious! :lol:



Exactly ;) Thanks ! I love Terry .... he really is hilarious :lol: Not only a great ventriloquist but also a great overall entertainer :D I'd love to fly out to see his show in Vegas some day :D


Question- when you say "he would stop the show", I assume the "he" would be Harry? I agree that as the performer, he would have the right to do so. However, in a large venue, this is often difficult to enforce, or enforce fairly. For example, I know someone who was removed from a show for filming on his phone (he was actually live streaming, but they didn't know that :lol:). He wasn't even angry, and admitted he was in the wrong, yet he was ejected, while dozens of others were also filming/taking pics around him. IMO, that wasn't very fair. Knowing him, I'm sure he wasn't disturbing those around him.


Yes ... the "he" was Harry. It was in a small intimate theater (1600 people) so it probably would have been easier to enforce. I honestly don't think that was fair either. When I saw Trace Adkins in Atlantic City this past July, security told me there were no pictures allowed and to put my camera away ... and yet after the show started I think I was the only one NOT using their camera or cell phone to take pictures ! What's good for one should be good for everyone else ;)



Fair enough; I can't say I hate it- it's usually a fun part of the show, IMO, and sometimes it's apparent the fans are just having the time of their lives, so it's hard not to enjoy it vicariously through them. :-) Admittedly, though, sometimes it can get a little old, especially if you see more than one show by the artist (though I guess that's my fault for seeing multiple shows).


Good point.


Tim McGraw was recently in the news after he slapped a fan who pulled on his jeans (supposedly ripping them); do people think he was justified, and was simply defending himself, as his management claimed? Or, can it be argued McGraw invited the situation by getting so close to the audience in the first place (creating the monster)? In case people didn't see or hear about the incident, here's video: http://tasteofcountry.com/tim-mcgraw-fan-spanked-slap-reaction/

It looks to me as if the fan was looking for a hand slap, and when he didn't respond, she grabbed his jeans to get his attention. Behaving badly, somewhat, but probably excited and not meaning any real harm (she was then removed). In fact, the fan was reportedly hiring a lawyer to sue McGraw, but the incident was settled: http://tasteofcountry.com/tim-mcgraw-slaps-fan-incident-settle/

Thoughts?

I remember that .... IMHO it was instinct and he had every right to react the way he did. Yes in a way he invited the situation, but if he had fallen off stage (like Luke Bryan recently), Tim could have been severely injured. Thankfully nothing serious happened ... she should have been removed, and I'm glad they were able to settle it as adults before getting the lawyers involved. Of course the media hype didn't help very much either !

[CarylB]

However (for discussion's sake), in the case of the Frampton show I mentioned above, the offenders were asked repeatedly both by security, and by Frampton himself, to stop being disruptive, yet they continued. It seemed security was being ineffective, in this case, thus the artist took it upon himself to deal with the situation.

If you are doing something that has been expressly forbidden, and persistently continue, I think you deserve what you get frankly. It is also very disruptive to have security continually having to wade in to remonstrate with people like this, both the audience and the performer

I know someone who was removed from a show for filming on his phone (he was actually live streaming, but they didn't know that :lol:). He wasn't even angry, and admitted he was in the wrong, yet he was ejected, while dozens of others were also filming/taking pics around him. IMO, that wasn't very fair. Knowing him, I'm sure he wasn't disturbing those around him.

If you flout the restrictions legally imposed you can cry "unfair" if you are caught others get away with it, but such is life, just as not everyone gets done for speeding. And whether it disturbs others around you is really as irrelevant as whether your speeding actually causes an accident. The limits are clear .. you get caught, you pay the penalty

You are correct that the no photos/recording is usually printed on the back of the tickets in the U.S.; however, I honestly don't know if it is the law, or simply the rules of the venue in question.

Here it is the law, which is why it is always printed on the back of the tickets. I'd hazard a guess it's the same in the USA. The law covers all public buildings, so backs up any reasonable action these take to enforce it .. for eg in museums and art galleries, photography is not normally allowed either. It is becoming a real issue in the theatres here as well, where people try and take photos during the performance of plays, which is hugely intrusive, both for the actors, and for the audience .. an audience the actors want to be come wholly immersed in believing what is unfolding on stage. Same with idiots loudly talking on their phones .. there have been several incidents where actors have stopped the show until this has been dealt with.

I agree that it should be up to the performer (and not the venue, IMO) to decide whether or not he/she permits photos, video, or recordings; I've seen different permissions all across the board. I'd like to note that in the Frampton case I mentioned above, the venue actually prohibited photography of any kind, however, Frampton himself chose to allow still photos, provided no flash was used. The offenders in this case, having arrived late, didn't manage to hear the announcement that was made prior to the show. Not that they would have abided by it if they had :roll:

I think most venues simply go with the law, and respect the artist's right to make exceptions. In the case you detail, it seems they had been asked repeatedly to stop, so whatever announcement might have been made and missed, the venue was still within their legal right to ask them to desist.

You mentioned in your first post the high cost of tickets for some shows, linked to some people's sense of entitlement. The ticket gives you the right to see and hear the show, nothing more .. just as road tax, insurance and a licence give you the right to drive on the roads, but not to disobey the restrictions placed on you. If you feel it is unreasonable to not be allowed to use your phone while driving, exceed the speed limit, ignore signs, tuck into a burger while driving, drive whilst legally intoxicated, better to save your money and not drive .. for you will have no defence from being fined and eventually banned from driving

I actually saw Frampton live about a week after this incident, after he instituted his "first three songs only" rule ..

That is the rule Meat imposes on the press, which is good because they too can block your view when you have great seats. When for a time Meat withdrew permission for fans to take photos (which btw whilst a little saddened, I accepted without question as his right) there were always press at the show, and always photos on line from every show which one could keep as a souvenir :)

I actually agree regarding taking "selfies" being rude, though I know many people who enjoy doing so
..............

Allowing this ..can become a slippery slope...

I don't know about in the UK, but here in the States, the presence/size of the "exclusion zone" seems to vary according to the artist's wishes (even in arenas), so in many cases, it's not that hard for fans to get up on stage if they really want to. (How long they stay is another matter) If you add an artist who often invites fans onstage, you can see how people can begin to think it's OK, hence one of the the things I meant about creating a monster.

Yes.

In the big arenas here there is a deep exclusion zone (which is scattered with cables and equipment) and a high metal barrier. When one tour Meat tried to offer something more exciting for fans and created the "Bat caves" which enabled a limited number of fans to be in a special area within the zone and right by the stage, there were huge H&S issues to be dealt with. Of course, the minute I first saw the set-up I realised it was not for me ;) The stage is so high that I'd have spent the night looking up his nostrils and would have had difficulty seeing the show as a whole :lol:

One example, Bruce has gotten into the routine of bringing a kid up from the audience to sing a couple of lines during one of the songs (which is an audience sing-along anyway); personally, I think it's cute (usually), it only "takes up" a couple of minutes out of a three-hour show, and the audience seems to love it, which is why I'm sure he continues to do it. However, some fans really hate it, and it becomes another example of him creating a monster, when I hear stories about some parents who will do just about anything in order to get their kid up on stage. :roll:

Indeed .. and as I said, if the show is carefully choreographed, as Meat's are, to provide a carefully planned evening of musical theatre (for he does not come on and deliver a set list of songs) it would always be disruptive to the integrity of that show. Just a personal view .. to me it's never "cute" ;)

Also true; although, I imagine the artists are protected by the tiny print on the ticket which states that the ticketholder assumes all risks associated with attending the event. Still a pain, I imagine.

Generally yes, although even then it involves them in some cost. If they invite someone on-stage though the small print may be less robust as a defence. One reason why if you attend a M&G you are asked to sign an additional indemnity, so if you fall over your own feet, or anything else while back stage, the artist is not liable. Just as audience members on the Storytellers tour had submitted questions before the show, I'd hazard a guess that those who were invited on sage for Paradise might have been identified before the show and asked to sign a waiver .. it would have been prudent anyway ;)

Actually, the ear defenders were probably the smartest thing they did, aside from leaving the child at home.

Oh yes, I only referred to it to emphasise how young she was, and how entirely unsuitable imo it was hat she was even IN the audience. What's the point in attending a concert if you need to wear ear defenders anyway? As bizarre as LiveNation putting earplugs in the M&G packages :roll:

My personal opinion on bringing kids to concerts is that younger than 7 or 8 is definitely too young; after that, it really depends on the kid. If the kid truly likes the music and wants to be there, then I'm all for it, provided that the kid is mature enough to handle it. I don't believe in forcing kids to go to shows they have no interest in, so that the parents can get a thrill.

Agreed. Plus (and I return to Meat here) the show may be designed for an adult audience .. it drives me mad when I see parents complaining that Meat used "bad language" which offended their child's ears .. the show is not designed for children, which the parents should surely know. Take them to see Mother Goose, or Kitties on Ice for heaven's sake ;)

Personally, I couldn't fathom bringing a baby with me to a concert, if for no other reason than I wanted to have a good time myself.

Nor me .. ridiculous. If a child needs to be breastfed it should not be there .. and if you need to breastfeed it rather than express some milk before you leave for your evening out, then accept this tour is not for you!

Since we're talking about bad audience behavior, what do people think about performers calling fans out/retaliating towards fans?

There is of course a difference between calling out hecklers, or in smaller venues latecomers who disturb the audience and performer by making a meal of their entrance, rather than waiting for a suitable moment. Both are fair game for comment and a little ridicule and fun at their expense imo ;)

Retaliation to really poor or persistent bad behaviour is a more vexed question, though I have every sympathy with the provoked artist who is incensed.

If someone is repeatedly asked to put away their phone, persistently refuses, and finally the artist grabs it and throws it into the distance .. frankly I think they deserved it.

The situation you refer to with Tim McGraw, sure he probably went too far .. but so did she. There is an inherent danger "walking into" an audience in that way, but still there is no reason at all why people should consider it appropriate to grab at or clutch the clothing or person of any artist. If you did that in the street it would be assault. In this case I suppose it was a case of assault on both sides, and for her to leave crying and "wounded" elicits no sympathy from me. I'd say it was "knock for knock", to use another motoring analogy ;) Fault in both sides.

I have noticed in the USA where in many theatres you can stand right at the stage, women trying to clutch at Meat's trousers/legs. He always has that awareness of what is happening .. and neatly steps back instantly without breaking rhythm, stride or note ;) It may well be a dream to leave saying you "touched" the performer you follow .. but really it is outrageously invasive when you think about it. If, for eg, an artist leans down and offers his hand to be slapped there is an invitation, which if you are lucky enough to be in the right position you can accept. Grabbing and pawing at him or her is simply not acceptable, however excited you are. It goes way beyond bad manners .. it's an assault on their person. That the artist comes down into the audience does not mean you are entitled to be one of those who get a hand-slap or hand-shake. We're back to entitlement again, rather than accepting you may or may not be one of the lucky ones. There is no excuse for grabbing at an artist's clothing .. however excited you may be .. behave like an adult with some common respect for another adult

Two wrongs don't make a right .. but I can understand the hard-pressed artist who simply snaps. So she got the slap she didn't want? She brought it on herself to a large extent imo. And to over-step any line of common courtesy as this woman did, and many others do, will simply make artists think they are better to stay safely distant from their fans. It's one reason why we have the wide exclusion zones in arenas here .. we are all assumed to be dippy fangirls at a Bros concert ;)

[JennaG]

I totally understand where you're coming from, Jenna, even if I don't necessarily agree. I've seen first hand what you mean about jealousy within fan communities. Last year or so, Keith Urban started a surprise "100 Club" to reward the "superfans" who had been to at least 100 shows, and could prove it via ticket stubs, receipts, or the like. Some of those who weren't picked became very angry, saying it wasn't fair, either because they couldn't prove how many shows they'd seen, or they didn't have the means or opportunity to have seen that many shows. Instead of being happy for fellow fans (many fans were), they turned on them, and even on Keith. (I'm nowhere close to 100 shows, so it didn't bother me a bit)

I think it's a Catch-22 for artists; on the one hand, they want to reward their most loyal fans (and should, IMO), but they run the risk of upsetting some others.

How do artists define loyal? Is it the fan that has been able to go to loads of concerts but can feel disillusioned when the artist does something that they don't like or is loyalty that fan who either scrimps and saves to be able to afford just one show or cannot go for whatever reason but has always shown their support and loyalty towards the artist in other ways?

I agree, it's a difficult situation to handle and I certainly wouldn't know what to do if I were the artist. I certainly don't like the idea of the '100 Club' and I can see why people would turn on Keith Urban. I can't say that I'd stick around if Meat Loaf was to introduce something like that because as someone who is relatively new to the community and someone who simply does not earn enough to be able to go to lots of shows, I'd be thinking that he didn't value the support of the ordinary fans any more.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this- can you elaborate?

Sorry, my brain wasn't working all that well before work. What I basically meant is that if it's your friends who have been the ones to have been on the receiving end of these 'special moments' then you're less likely to feel a bit jealous about it but if it's someone who you don't know (and granted, you don't know their situation either) you're more likely to be thinking 'I paid to see X artist, not some random person I've never met being invited up on stage'.

The story about the M&G was supposed to have illustrated that a bit and the guy who had wanted to propose to his girlfriend had arranged with the artist prior to that M&G to propose at the event. After the artist had walked around the group briefly speaking to each person there, they moved to focus all their attention on this couple instead of entertaining the rest of the group who had also paid to be there. In other M&Gs this time would usually have been used to entertain the group on a whole.

[melon]

I love taking photos. It's part of the enjoyment for me, but also I'm not as fortunate as some to be able to say I'll have everything in my memories. Some day in the future photographs will be the only memories I'll have, unless they find a cure for alzheimers/dementia. Then I'll just be sat there saying "Who the heck is that?" and "What is that tw*t doing?"

So where I can, I'll take all the photos I can.

Sent from my GT-I9197 using Forum Runner

[Leanne79]

I love taking picture of shows I go to for my own enjoyment I also respect the artist right to request no cameras even if I am a little bummed that I have to rely on my poor memory rather than photos

but I do not like people taking photos when they have been asked not to and I don't like bootleggers who try to make money off said bootlegging

[Julie in the rv mirror]

When I saw Trace Adkins in Atlantic City this past July, security told me there were no pictures allowed and to put my camera away ... and yet after the show started I think I was the only one NOT using their camera or cell phone to take pictures ! What's good for one should be good for everyone else ;)
Exactly! And in large venues, in all fairness, it becomes nearly impossible to enforce. Which is why I think some artists have resigned themselves to the fact that they will be photographed/filmed regardless, and just roll with it.

I remember that .... IMHO it was instinct and he had every right to react the way he did. Yes in a way he invited the situation, but if he had fallen off stage (like Luke Bryan recently), Tim could have been severely injured. Thankfully nothing serious happened ... she should have been removed, and I'm glad they were able to settle it as adults before getting the lawyers involved. Of course the media hype didn't help very much either !
I'll admit, it's hard to tell from the videos I've seen, but IMO, Tim crossed the line when he put his hand on that woman's head. By the looks of it, her hands were already off of him when he did that. Media hype can be a horrible thing, though. I felt terrible for Keith Urban over the situation that happened at his concert in Mansfield recently. The artist has absolutely no control over what audience members will do, especially before a show (such as underage drinking in the parking lot), yet some in the media made it seem that his concerts are some drunken, rowdy affair. Having been to several, I can attest that that is far from the normal case.

I think performers do take a risk when they put themselves out there. I'm sure Bruce must give his security severe headaches, :lol: but he trusts his fans (though he's not stupid, and I suspect security is far more present than they appear to be), and rarely have I seen a fan do something that I would consider crossing a line. Although, he did nearly get dropped on his head while crowd surfing a few months ago- my friend who witnessed the incident (but was too far away to intervene) told me that people were so busy trying to take pics on their phones that nobody was holding him up. :roll:

If you are doing something that has been expressly forbidden, and persistently continue, I think you deserve what you get frankly. It is also very disruptive to have security continually having to wade in to remonstrate with people like this, both the audience and the performer
I agree, and I have no sympathy for the phone owner in the Frampton case. However, I do think venue security dropped the ball on this one- and, as the performer, he was in effect paying for their services that night. IMO, it shouldn't have gotten to the point where the artist had to take matters into his own hands (literally, in this case :lol:).

If you flout the restrictions legally imposed you can cry "unfair" if you are caught others get away with it, but such is life, just as not everyone gets done for speeding. And whether it disturbs others around you is really as irrelevant as whether your speeding actually causes an accident. The limits are clear .. you get caught, you pay the penalty
You're right, and as I said, my friend admits he was in the wrong. However, I don't think it was just his bad luck that night, I suspect he was singled out for some reason, but I won't go into that here.

In the case you detail, it seems they had been asked repeatedly to stop, so whatever announcement might have been made and missed, the venue was still within their legal right to ask them to desist.
Oh, definitely, and they should have.

You mentioned in your first post the high cost of tickets for some shows, linked to some people's sense of entitlement. The ticket gives you the right to see and hear the show, nothing more ..
I think some people feel they payed for their ticket, thus they have a right to behave any way they please (I'm not saying I agree).

Indeed .. and as I said, if the show is carefully choreographed, as Meat's are, to provide a carefully planned evening of musical theatre (for he does not come on and deliver a set list of songs) it would always be disruptive to the integrity of that show.
Fair enough, as that is how Meat structures his shows. Some other artists structure their shows differently, and the audience participation is often worked in as part of the show. Bruce is great at making many aspects of his show appear "spontaneous" that sometimes aren't so much. ;) For example, he doesn't just "deliver a set list of songs"; he changes many of the songs night to night, but the show still follows a basic structure (even some of the "requests" are pre-planned, via various methods :lol:). He is, however, also great at reading his audience and will change a song mid-stream if he thinks it will work better. I'm not saying it's better than any other performer, but it's his method, and I enjoy it. ;)

Just a personal view .. to me it's never "cute" ;)
A number of fans share that view; in fact, some really hate it. However, the vast majority of the the audience seems to love it, so... it stays. ;) Much to the chagrin of the aforementioned fans, or even possibly, because of it! :lol:

If they invite someone on-stage though the small print may be less robust as a defence.
Possibly. In the stage-diver's case, though, he had thousands of witnesses (not to mention YouTube video) to testify that he acted purely out of his own stupidity. :lol:

Oh yes, I only referred to it to emphasise how young she was, and how entirely unsuitable imo it was hat she was even IN the audience. What's the point in attending a concert if you need to wear ear defenders anyway? As bizarre as LiveNation putting earplugs in the M&G packages :roll:
Actually, I do know of people who wear earplugs at concerts (I'm not one of them). Some do it because they have sensitive hearing; some others because they want to preserve whatever hearing they have left after years of loud rock shows. A few have said that shows actually sound better with the plugs in- I've never tested that theory myself.

I've seen a lot of debate online whether kids should be brought to concerts, or at what age- perhaps some others here can weigh in with their opinions?

Plus (and I return to Meat here) the show may be designed for an adult audience .. it drives me mad when I see parents complaining that Meat used "bad language" which offended their child's ears .. the show is not designed for children, which the parents should surely know. Take them to see Mother Goose, or Kitties on Ice for heaven's sake ;)
Oh, I agree. People complain about Bruce swearing, too, which I honestly don't think he does all that much. My niece (she's an adult) told me how shocked she was to see many young kids at a Lady Gaga show (which I've heard can be pretty risque). Don't parents do a little research?

If a child needs to be breastfed it should not be there .. and if you need to breastfeed it rather than express some milk before you leave for your evening out, then accept this tour is not for you!
I agree; when my son was young, I either got a babysitter, or, more usually, I stayed home.

There is of course a difference between calling out hecklers, or in smaller venues latecomers who disturb the audience and performer by making a meal of their entrance, rather than waiting for a suitable moment. Both are fair game for comment and a little ridicule and fun at their expense imo ;)
A little fun is fine, IMO; however, Bono, in the example I gave, "yelled" at a fan for taking pictures (according to her) on her phone during the show. And not because of a camera ban, he chastised her for not "being in the moment". She probably felt embarrassed and likely a little hurt by his actions, regardless of what his actual intentions were (U2 fan opinions seemed divided on the matter). Do people here think what he did was OK?

Retaliation to really poor or persistent bad behaviour is a more vexed question, though I have every sympathy with the provoked artist who is incensed.
I do, too, to a point. I understand, they are human, but, I think they should also be held to certain standard of behavior as well.

If someone is repeatedly asked to put away their phone, persistently refuses, and finally the artist grabs it and throws it into the distance .. frankly I think they deserved it.
Actually, it seems Frampton asked for the phone (in order to "see the pictures" :lol:), and the guy handed it over; but same result.

The situation you refer to with Tim McGraw, sure he probably went too far .. but so did she. There is an inherent danger "walking into" an audience in that way, but still there is no reason at all why people should consider it appropriate to grab at or clutch the clothing or person of any artist. If you did that in the street it would be assault.
This is an interesting observation. In most cases, you would be correct. However, there are some artists (two of whom I follow, I'm sure there are others) who allow, and I'd almost say encourage, physical contact from their fans. Pulling on clothes is probably discouraged, but certainly handshakes, hugs, taps, pats, etc. are all fair game.

I'll use Bruce as the example because he is the one I'm most familiar with, and the most "physical" artist I know of. As I said, he places a lot of trust in his fans, and for the most part, people are pretty respectful when he goes into the crowd. Most will pat his arm, or his back, possibly a leg. Certainly he gets touched when he crowd-surfs. Anyway, there was one incident, when a woman decided she needed a souvenir, so she managed to tear the sleeve completely off of his shirt. :shock: (According to witnesses, she was pretty proud of herself, too :roll:) Now, IMO, she most definitely crossed the line, and he would have been justified in chastising her or even having her removed. However, he did neither- he made a joke about it (I saw it on YouTube), though people who were close said he was clearly pissed about it, as he should have been. Having said that, though, I'm not sure it would have been totally fair to "punish" the fan (wrong as she was), when the artist set the boundaries (or lack thereof) as he did.

In this case I suppose it was a case of assault on both sides, and for her to leave crying and "wounded" elicits no sympathy from me. I'd say it was "knock for knock", to use another motoring analogy ;) Fault in both sides.
I'd suspect a court would have seen it that way as well, if it had come to that.

It may well be a dream to leave saying you "touched" the performer you follow ..
I've done it- respectfully. ;) It's funny, I was talking with another fan, and we agreed that having Bruce's sweat on your hands is cool for about a split second until you realize, "Ewww, I've got his sweat on my hands!" :lol: (Believe me, I've seen people do some strange things. Lol)

but really it is outrageously invasive when you think about it. If, for eg, an artist leans down and offers his hand to be slapped there is an invitation, which if you are lucky enough to be in the right position you can accept. Grabbing and pawing at him or her is simply not acceptable, however excited you are. It goes way beyond bad manners .. it's an assault on their person.
Believe me, Caryl, when I first started following Bruce, I felt the same way. But I soon realized that if he wasn't OK with it, he wouldn't go out into the audience or allow them to touch him to begin with. (Within reason, of course) Once again, I think it is up to the artist to set the boundaries.

And to over-step any line of common courtesy as this woman did, and many others do, will simply make artists think they are better to stay safely distant from their fans.
True (I think many feel that way already), and I honestly think that would be a shame.

[Julie in the rv mirror]

Sorry, I had to cut my post, it was too long! :oops: :lol:

How do artists define loyal? Is it the fan that has been able to go to loads of concerts but can feel disillusioned when the artist does something that they don't like or is loyalty that fan who either scrimps and saves to be able to afford just one show or cannot go for whatever reason but has always shown their support and loyalty towards the artist in other ways?
Completely valid question- one I have asked myself. And I would say both situations are equally valid as "loyalty". Those fans who are lucky enough to be able to attend multiple shows are usually known to the artist (by virtue of them seeing the same faces night after night), whereas those in the other category unfortunately aren't.

As an example (because it's what I know), Bruce will often reward the fans who follow him all over by playing their song requests. On the one hand, you can say it isn't fair- everyone would like his or her requests played. On the other hand, I think it's nice of him to make the gesture to acknowledge the fans who have made the effort (and let's face it, spent the money) to follow him all over. I also know that many fans would love to follow their favorite artists, if only the could. Even one-show fans have a chance to get a request played if their sign gets picked, so they still have a chance. I've seen first-time show-goers who are casual fans at best end up elbows on the stage, due to the way the pit lottery works; I've never been there- is that fair?

I certainly don't like the idea of the '100 Club' and I can see why people would turn on Keith Urban. I can't say that I'd stick around if Meat Loaf was to introduce something like that because as someone who is relatively new to the community and someone who simply does not earn enough to be able to go to lots of shows, I'd be thinking that he didn't value the support of the ordinary fans any more.
Again, a perfectly understandable emotion, and one that I know many fans share. Keith's good intentions to reward his fans (which I think was a great gesture on his part) unfortunately backfired on him, and caused a lot of grief within the fan community.

What I basically meant is that if it's your friends who have been the ones to have been on the receiving end of these 'special moments' then you're less likely to feel a bit jealous about it but if it's someone who you don't know (and granted, you don't know their situation either) you're more likely to be thinking 'I paid to see X artist, not some random person I've never met being invited up on stage'.
Ah- that makes sense- I think it's human nature. I guess I've never felt jealous, particularly in a situation where it truly appears to be a fan who was lucky to get picked, and seems thrilled to be there. What I do have an issue with is people who will scheme and act obnoxious to other fans in order to get there (it happens), though the emotion I feel in that case is something other than jealousy. :?

The story about the M&G was supposed to have illustrated that a bit and the guy who had wanted to propose to his girlfriend had arranged with the artist prior to that M&G to propose at the event. After the artist had walked around the group briefly speaking to each person there, they moved to focus all their attention on this couple instead of entertaining the rest of the group who had also paid to be there. In other M&Gs this time would usually have been used to entertain the group on a whole.
I see; I don't know the situation, so I can't say, but perhaps the artist could have honored the fan's request in a different manner? In any case, I don't think artists should not do nice things for their fans simply because they can't do it for all.

I love taking photos. It's part of the enjoyment for me, but also I'm not as fortunate as some to be able to say I'll have everything in my memories. Some day in the future photographs will be the only memories I'll have, unless they find a cure fAor alzheimers/dementia. Then I'll just be sat there saying "Who the heck is that?" and "What is that tw*t doing?"

So where I can, I'll take all the photos I can.
Thanks for joining in, Mel. ;) I enjoy taking pictures, too, and like you, I don't remember everything either. I will tell you this, though- I realized through experience that I remember more about a show when I choose to be "in the moment" (as St. Bono would say ;) ) while watching it. :D

Once again, thank you to all for the interesting conversation! Let's keep it going! :-)

I love taking picture of shows I go to for my own enjoyment I also respect the artist right to request no cameras even if I am a little bummed that I have to rely on my poor memory rather than photos

but I do not like people taking photos when they have been asked not to and I don't like bootleggers who try to make money off said bootlegging
Hi Leanne, thanks for you input! :-) How do you feel about some of the other issues we have been discussing?

[CarylB]

Exactly! And in large venues, in all fairness, it becomes nearly impossible to enforce. Which is why I think some artists have resigned themselves to the fact that they will be photographed/filmed regardless, and just roll with it.

It's become a much bigger problem because of mobile phones .. but nonetheless, if the artist chooses not to give permission, it is security's job to enforce it as best they can (the most irritating to the artist will I suspect be those close to the stage and easier to spot) and when they do the individual has no reasonable recourse in law

I think some people feel they payed for their ticket, thus they have a right to behave any way they please (I'm not saying I agree).

Shame they don't read the words printed on the ticket they paid for then ;) The point is, whatever they may wish to feel, they are not entitled to anything more than the show they paid to see, access to the venues facilities .. and the dubious opportunity to pay the venue vastly over the odds for food and drink

Possibly. In the stage-diver's case, though, he had thousands of witnesses (not to mention YouTube video) to testify that he acted purely out of his own stupidity. :lol:

Nonetheless it costs in time and money to respond to these things, even when you have plenty of witnesses and/or evidence on your side

I've seen a lot of debate online whether kids should be brought to concerts, or at what age- perhaps some others here can weigh in with their opinions?

I'm staggered at the amount of time and money parents invest in getting young children to Bieber shows .. lol As far as adult entertainers go, I think it depends to an extent on the performer, some are more anodyne than others ;) .. but I wouldn't take a child under 12 to Meat's shows, and probably would not take one not yet in their teens.

Oh, I agree. People complain about Bruce swearing, too, which I honestly don't think he does all that much. My niece (she's an adult) told me how shocked she was to see many young kids at a Lady Gaga show (which I've heard can be pretty risque). Don't parents do a little research?

It would appear not .. particularly when they take children to a show and then complain because it's pitched at an adult audience

A little fun is fine, IMO; however, Bono, in the example I gave, "yelled" at a fan for taking pictures (according to her) on her phone during the show. And not because of a camera ban, he chastised her for not "being in the moment". She probably felt embarrassed and likely a little hurt by his actions, regardless of what his actual intentions were (U2 fan opinions seemed divided on the matter). Do people here think what he did was OK?

Probably not .. but I was referring to hecklers and late-comers when I said a little fun at their expense was warranted. It must be frustrating to any artist if they feel their audience is more concerned with taking photos than enjoying the show .. but if you have given permission for photography that's the risk you take, and better probably to bite back your irritation

I do, too, to a point. I understand, they are human, but, I think they should also be held to certain standard of behavior as well.

...................

This is an interesting observation. In most cases, you would be correct. However, there are some artists (two of whom I follow, I'm sure there are others) who allow, and I'd almost say encourage, physical contact from their fans. Pulling on clothes is probably discouraged, but certainly handshakes, hugs, taps, pats, etc. are all fair game.

That's the risk when they do encourage it. You go to say Bruce places a lot of trust in his fans. But some will cross the line, and it's difficult to set clear boundaries at a rock show. and even then to be sure that all those in the audience will respect them, particularly today when so many have such an extraordinary sense of entitlement

I'll use Bruce as the example because he is the one I'm most familiar with, and the most "physical" artist I know of. As I said, he places a lot of trust in his fans, and for the most part, people are pretty respectful when he goes into the crowd. Most will pat his arm, or his back, possibly a leg. Certainly he gets touched when he crowd-surfs. Anyway, there was one incident, when a woman decided she needed a souvenir, so she managed to tear the sleeve completely off of his shirt. :shock: (According to witnesses, she was pretty proud of herself, too :roll:) Now, IMO, she most definitely crossed the line, and he would have been justified in chastising her or even having her removed. However, he did neither- he made a joke about it (I saw it on YouTube), though people who were close said he was clearly pissed about it, as he should have been. Having said that, though, I'm not sure it would have been totally fair to "punish" the fan (wrong as she was), when the artist set the boundaries (or lack thereof) as he did. You say

Believe me, Caryl, when I first started following Bruce, I felt the same way. But I soon realized that if he wasn't OK with it, he wouldn't go out into the audience or allow them to touch him to begin with. (Within reason, of course) Once again, I think it is up to the artist to set the boundaries.

Indeed .. and they will sometimes inherit a whirlwind ;) It's less of an issue in our arenas .. Bruce would have to grow wings to crowd surf here ;) More of an issue when audiences can get right up to the stage. Meat is pretty clear, and as I said moves smartly back as soon as hands reach up to grab him. I have seen him walk along the front of the stage at the end of a show touching hands with fans standing there .. even come down from the stage into the exclusion zone here and do the same, and he doesn't seem to experience any real trouble as a result. The other thing of course is the throwing of flowers or other things on the stage .. which actually present potential for an accident when the artist is in the moment and moving round the stage as Meat does .. or people waving record covers and pens for autographs, which can also be rather intrusive if you're standing next to them.

If you encourage it, participate in it, then I guess as an artist you have to exercise great forbearance, because now and again people will go too far.

[CarylB]

Last year I went to a M&G where the artist had focused on a particular couple who wanted to get engaged. Should they have been allowed to take up the artist's time that people have paid quite a lot of money for with something that was really only relevant to themselves?

It was just a few minutes though, and Meat spent a lot of time talking to the group as a whole .. even brought us in on the proposal .. It's not the first time I've seen this happen, and I honestly can't think that many of those there either time felt any level of resentment

I'd love a 'selfie' with Meat but I wouldn't dream of taking one whilst he was performing. It's disrespectful to the artist and is annoying to other audience members who might have been pushed out of the way so you could get your perfect selfie. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't even get away with taking a selfie at a M&G either because there are so many rules about what you're not allowed to do and the use of cameras and mobile phones was one of them. Whether you're more likely to get away with it at a M&G where you're allowed to bring your own camera, I don't know?

No, I think not. When you are asked to bring your camera with you it is usually so they can use it to take your photo .. so you won't have it with you when you go up to the artist .. and I think it would be hugely intrusive and rude to grab him as he was walking round saying hello to people.

Most "selfies" I've seen make both parties look moon-faced as through a fishbowl anyway :lol: I'd much rather have one taken of us both at a M&G by someone else rather than a "selfie", on the basis that at least I know he'll look good in it .. :lol:

I certainly don't like the idea of the '100 Club' and I can see why people would turn on Keith Urban. I can't say that I'd stick around if Meat Loaf was to introduce something like that because as someone who is relatively new to the community and someone who simply does not earn enough to be able to go to lots of shows, I'd be thinking that he didn't value the support of the ordinary fans any more.

Can't say I was grabbed by the 100 Club concept either. Loyalty is demonstrated in many ways, and 100 fans are a very miniscule slice of any fanbase of an established artist, who should value all fans. I wouldn't not stick around were Meat to introduce something like that, but I cannot see him ever doing it. For those fans who go to many shows and become recognisable, there are many other small ways of showing appreciation that they can treasure ;) I don't particularly like the term "superfan" anyway .. and any artist who expects me to save proof of attendance wouldn't be seeing me in the club .. no doubt when I fall off the perch a careful house clearance might uncover the odd cache I've shoved somewhere and forgotten about, most go in the bin, and the only ones I have ever consciously saved were those for a show which was reschdeuled!

[Julie in the rv mirror]

It's become a much bigger problem because of mobile phones .. but nonetheless, if the artist chooses not to give permission, it is security's job to enforce it as best they can (the most irritating to the artist will I suspect be those close to the stage and easier to spot) and when they do the individual has no reasonable recourse in law
That is true, re. phones; banning cameras is one thing, but I think it would be close to impossible for any venue to enforce a ban on mobile phones. Also true that those upfront are easier to spot- my friend was in the pit when he got nabbed. But then again, so were all the other folks around him...

Shame they don't read the words printed on the ticket they paid for then ;)
Doesn't surprise me; it's amazing the things people I've seen people fail to read- far more important things than concert tickets!

I'm staggered at the amount of time and money parents invest in getting young children to Bieber shows .. lol
Yep, and Miley Cyrus (amongst others) before him. :lol: I suppose I should consider myself lucky that I don't have a daughter, in that respect. Although, I've taken my niece to concerts when she was a teen, but they were mostly metal shows :cool: ;)

Speaking of the Beebs, though, he's gotten some bad press (justified, IMO) for starting concerts hours late, which is very unprofessional, IMO, especially given the average age of his fanbase.

It must be frustrating to any artist if they feel their audience is more concerned with taking photos than enjoying the show...
I can imagine; they work hard to put on a show, they of course want (and, I think deserve) the audience's attention. But, I have seen many people post the attitude of, "I paid for my ticket, I'll spend my time the way I choose".

That's the risk when they do encourage it. You go to say Bruce places a lot of trust in his fans. But some will cross the line, and it's difficult to set clear boundaries at a rock show. and even then to be sure that all those in the audience will respect them, particularly today when so many have such an extraordinary sense of entitlement
He does trust the fans, and I think, for the most part, he is rewarded with their respect. And you're right- a few people will cross the line; as they say, "Give them an inch, and they'll take a mile". I've often said, I wish he wouldn't (inadvertently) reward bad behavior. As you say, it is a risk, but it's one I think he has decided he's willing to assume., and I think handles well.

It's less of an issue in our arenas .. Bruce would have to grow wings to crowd surf here ;) More of an issue when audiences can get right up to the stage.
Well, as a matter of fact, he has! :lol: And I don't see any wings. ;) Leeds Arena, last year: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5DfNsAdQIQ Further, the audience is right up against the stage, as they are in the States. This video happens to actually be a perfect illustration of everything I've been talking about.

The other thing of course is the throwing of flowers or other things on the stage .. which actually present potential for an accident when the artist is in the moment and moving round the stage as Meat does .. or people waving record covers and pens for autographs, which can also be rather intrusive if you're standing next to them.
Now, Bruce does draw the line at objects being thrown on stage. He especially hates beach balls- woe to the beach ball that is unfortunate enough to be tossed within his reach by clueless fans! :lol: It seriously is a hazard, and he has been known to get angry, justifiably so. Most of the time, fans try to deal with the situation before it gets to the stage. Flowers might get by, though it's better if the fan hands them to him. I honestly don't see it very often, though, neither record covers/pens.

Can't say I was grabbed by the 100 Club concept either. Loyalty is demonstrated in many ways, and 100 fans are a very miniscule slice of any fanbase of an established artist, who should value all fans.
True- if I remember correctly, the initial group consisted of ten fans. I think Keith does value all of his fans; I think his intention was not to exclude the majority, but rather to thank a small minority.

I don't particularly like the term "superfan" anyway .. and any artist who expects me to save proof of attendance wouldn't be seeing me in the club .. no doubt when I fall off the perch a careful house clearance might uncover the odd cache I've shoved somewhere and forgotten about, most go in the bin, and the only ones I have ever consciously saved were those for a show which was reschdeuled!
"Superfan" was the term I used, one that's used around the boards to indicate the globe-trotting multiple show-goers as opposed to the average fan. It's not meant to be derogatory. ;)

Anyway, the "proof" requirement was one that was a huge sticking point for many people (and I can understand why). I save most of my ticket stubs, just because I like to keep them, and they don't take up much room; however, I don't save every one. However, I guess they needed some manner to qualify for membership in the "club". I think this requirement has subsequently been relaxed somewhat, but since I'm so far from even being considered, I don't concern myself with it.

I might point out, this was started purely as a surprise to fans- no one had a clue it was happening until the initial group was notified, and even then, those who were chosen were asked to not tell anyone until after the official announcement (such as it was) was made. My first hearing of it was at a show that I just happened to attend- Keith had flown the group to Chicago for the weekend, put them up in a hotel, and gave them tickets to the show, where he just happened to mention, "The 100 Club is here". (They also got a private M&G and some other souvenirs). Needless to say, many fans had no clue what the 100 Club even was, and were pretty angry when they found out, even at their friends who had been chosen, but didn't tell them, since they had been sworn to secrecy. People complained that they never saw the initial solicitation, which I vaguely remember was a question posted on the fan board (and on Facebook, I think), which said something like, "How many shows have you been to? Can you prove it?" I didn't bother to answer, and even fans who did and subsequently became "members" didn't think much of the initial posting.

Bottom line, best intentions (I believe), but possibly poor execution. Keith does do other things for his fans; every fanclub member is eligible to win a M&G, with the only requirement being that they have to have purchased a ticket to the show. That was only instituted after it was discovered that some fans would register for the M&G drawing for ALL the shows of the tour, and then only buy tickets if they had won the M&G. :roll: Not at all in the spirit of the thing.

Goes to show- all fanbases have their problems! :lol:

[tonyloaf]

did someone say selfie :)

[JennaG]

I see; I don't know the situation, so I can't say, but perhaps the artist could have honored the fan's request in a different manner? In any case, I don't think artists should not do nice things for their fans simply because they can't do it for all.

I agree that they shouldn't stop doing nice things for people and in the situation that I mentioned at the M&G, I felt that perhaps the couple could have had a few minutes on their own with the artist instead of doing the 'look at us' thing at an event where people were there to see the artist.

It was just a few minutes though, and Meat spent a lot of time talking to the group as a whole .. even brought us in on the proposal .. It's not the first time I've seen this happen, and I honestly can't think that many of those there either time felt any level of resentment

Perhaps there wasn't much resentment, I don't know. People don't tend to admit to an emotion like jealousy because it seems to be seen as one of the worst emotions out there. I don't really remember much of a conversation with the group on a whole at that particular M&G but I guess that goes to show that you can't always rely on your memories. :shrug:

No, I think not. When you are asked to bring your camera with you it is usually so they can use it to take your photo .. so you won't have it with you when you go up to the artist .. and I think it would be hugely intrusive and rude to grab him as he was walking round saying hello to people.

I agree that grabbing the artist as they're walking around talking to the group but perhaps using your photo time to take the selfie, let people have the choice between the 'professional' photo or taking a selfie perhaps.

...and that's just me being unrealistic. ;)

[Vickip]

did someone say selfie :)

I'm still trying to figure out how to take a good selfie :shock: :lol:

[tonyloaf]

You need a good selfie pole :)

[GDW]

WOW!!! :-)
You guys must love typing!!!:!:

[JennaG]

Most "selfies" I've seen make both parties look moon-faced as through a fishbowl anyway :lol:

I've looked pretty moon-faced for about a year ;) but I agree, selfies can make it look worse. At least if you've taken the selfie and you don't like it, you can't blame anyone else for it.

[chairboys]

WOW!!! :-)
You guys must love typing!!!:!:

Funny you should say that. I was only saying to Mrs. Chairboys yesterday how the school lessons have changed over the years. She remembers how the girls at her establishment would sit at a typewriter for a whole period in readiness for a career as a secretary!

[Julie in the rv mirror]

did someone say selfie :)
Selfies, selfies, selfies! :lol:

WOW!!! :-)
You guys must love typing!!!:!:
:lol: Not especially, I just had a lot to say! ;)

Funny you should say that. I was only saying to Mrs. Chairboys yesterday how the school lessons have changed over the years. She remembers how the girls at her establishment would sit at a typewriter for a whole period in readiness for a career as a secretary!
I wanted to take a typing class in high school, and the nuns made me take math instead. So now, it takes me forever to type anything!

I'm really enjoying the responses, everyone! Let's hear some more! :-)

[tonyloaf]

It's all about the selfies caryl , you have to be a professional to make them look good :)

[tonyloaf]

I think Julie has come to the end of Springsteen box set hense the long post

[Julie in the rv mirror]

I think Julie has come to the end of Springsteen box set hense the long post
:lol: Guess that means it's time for a new box set! ;)

[Vickip]

You need a good selfie pole :)

:lol:

[Dave]

I am a fan of the selfie. It is all personal taste though.

[Julie in the rv mirror]

It's all about the selfies caryl , you have to be a professional to make them look good :)
I've got a guy! :mrgreen: (Don't click if easily offended/NSFW)

http://youtu.be/PQMMOvD1Bp8


I am a fan of the selfie. It is all personal taste though.
In general, or do you take them at concerts also?

[JennaG]

I am a fan of the selfie. It is all personal taste though.

I agree. I like some of the selfies I've taken far more than I've liked some other photos and that unfortunately includes two of my M&G photos from last year.

However, I think there's a time and a place for them and I don't feel that during a concert whilst the artist is on stage is the right time.

[melon]

Selfies can be fun, particularly with a group of people

Sent from my GT-I9197 using Forum Runner

[Julie in the rv mirror]

I just saw this come up- Rod Stewart is being sued by a concertgoer who says he was injured by a soccer ball that Stewart kicked into the audience: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/11119759/Rod-Stewart-sued-by-fan-who-claims-he-broke-his-nose-on-a-flying-football.html

What do people think? Do you think the fan should collect?

[CarylB]

Not knowing exactly what type of balls (for I doubt they were the heavier real footballs) were kicked into the audience, nor whether the guy genuinely had a broken nose, it's difficult to say .. also how they were kicked. I would have thought Stewart would have lofted them high into the air to give fans a chance to catch them, not aimed them at some daft sod's nose as if it were a goal.

Meat has for some time now been shooting wrapped Tshirts into the audience at the end of a show .. fans love it, and he and the others with the guns aim upwards, so they arc and fall into outstretched hands. I would have thought Stewart would have done something similar.

People are so ready to rush to sue these days. My initial reaction is .. shame the plaintiff seems to have had such a slow one and didn't manage to either catch it or duck ;) My suspicion, that he's aiming for an out of court settlement. My feeling, how glad I am that here I'd just take a bloodied nose to an ER at no cost ;)

[Julie in the rv mirror]

Not knowing exactly what type of balls (for I doubt they were the heavier real footballs) were kicked into the audience, nor whether the guy genuinely had a broken nose, it's difficult to say .. also how they were kicked. I would have thought Stewart would have lofted them high into the air to give fans a chance to catch them, not aimed them at some daft sod's nose as if it were a goal.
That's a good point- I've never seen Rod Stewart live (the impersonator I saw in Vegas doesn't count ;)), so I don't know what his method is. It sounds as if he's been doing it for years, though, so I doubt there have been any major mishaps until this point. I assume the plaintiff would be required to produce medical bills at the minimum, so I'm sure he must have some proof of injury.

My suspicion, that he's aiming for an out of court settlement. My feeling, how glad I am that here I'd just take a bloodied nose to an ER at no cost ;)
The articles I saw were just basically retreads of the same story, and none of them mentioned what, if any compensation he may have already received. In my opinion, even though it's no doubt an accident, Stewart should have at least offered to pay the fan's medical bills (assuming he was actually injured) as a gesture of goodwill, even if he isn't technically legally responsible. (That's typically what happens here when fans are accidentally injured at sporting events.) So, it's hard to say without more information. For me, it's the "pain and suffering" claim two years after the fact that makes this sound a little fishy to me.

[CarylB]

For me, it's the "pain and suffering" claim two years after the fact that makes this sound a little fishy to me.

Yes .. and the "ongoing treatment still required" two years on .. perhaps he's still in grief counselling? Ambulance chaser speak :roll: Given he's also laid suit against the venue and the promoter, milking the last drop comes to mind.

You say
In my opinion, even though it's no doubt an accident, Stewart should have at least offered to pay the fan's medical bills (assuming he was actually injured) as a gesture of goodwill, even if he isn't technically legally responsible. (That's typically what happens here when fans are accidentally injured at sporting events.)

One would have thought his first port of call would have been the venue, who presumably hold some kind of public liability insurance against this kind of thing .. when spectators are injured at sporting events it's not usually the player they sue surely? So as he is also suing both venue and promoter some two years on I'd surmise he has had no ex-gratia payment from either of them, which in itself lends little credibility to the whole thing.

Does sound like the result of one of those "Have you or anyone in your household suffered injury as a result of ....." unsolicited phone calls or TV ads ;)

[tonyloaf]

selfies at gigs are great :)