theblueangel said:

We should all take high power tourches next time & shine them right back in HIS face!

Stingray60 said:

We should all take high power tourches next time & shine them right back in HIS face!

What do you think is hidden in my coat?

A Fenix E11. Google for the spex. But plenty of light for its size....

MissMarySharon said:

It is not much to ask when musicians are putting their hearts and souls into a performance. Why not just relax, dance, have a drink, and watch the gig with your eyes only, god knows we've all paid enough to see it.

Yes. We paid enough for it. So I want to keep more than fading memories. I want to keep mementos. Pictures and videos. And anyone saying he is not interested in bootlegs and doesn't watch good quality Youtube clips is a fucking hypocrite. So I say fuck the phone police. And fuck some 20 year old girls telling me how to best enjoy a show I paid a shitload of money to enjoy. Prince really should get over himself or restrict his shows to Paisly Park shows, there he can say "No pics". No artist is as anal about this issue as Prince.

I saw Meshell Ndegeocello last week, and she is another artist adament about prohibiting flash photography at her shows (there were signs everywhere). I've seen her at least once a year since '03 and this has been the norm at every show I've attended of hers. For Meshell, I think I read somewhere she suffers from epilepsy, which would explain not wanting flashing lights going off (and why her shows are dimly lit).

In Prince's defense, flash photography is annoying when you're onstage performing and attempting an exercise in mindfulness (existing in the moment). When you're on a large stage, all that's visible is a sea of darkness (except for when the house lights come on), so imagine how challenging it must be to exist in the moment when you see nothing but tiny red lights (before the flash) and the actual flash, while simulatenously managing in realtime:

music cues

performance cues

band cues

light cues (which sync with the aforementioned cues)

song structure (studio version Vs. live version Vs. not burning out from playing the same song the same way for x number of dates on any given tour)

lyrics (which ties in with song structure)

I could be wrong on the above (stranger things have happened)

Robert3rd said:

In Prince's defense, flash photography is annoying when you're onstage performing and attempting an exercise in mindfulness (existing in the moment). When you're on a large stage, all that's visible is a sea of darkness (except for when the house lights come on), so imagine how challenging it must be to exist in the moment when you see nothing but tiny red lights (before the flash) and the actual flash, while simulatenously managing in realtime:

Yes. But only a fool takes a picture using a flashlight at a concert, as the only thing that gets illuminated are the people standing right next to you, whatever happens on stage gets even more dark then when not using a flash. Most people are wise enough to have realized that a flash is useless in that environment, so the flash excuse is not really a valid one.

Only idiots use flash in concert photography...

My tip for light:

Will be interesting to see how Prince deals with new technologies like Google Glass, you can stand there and just record a 2 hour concert, are people going to be asked to remove glasses as they will not be sure which record and which do not ?????

[Edited 6/20/14 13:04pm]

ecnirp98 said:

philmoreliz said:

At least google glass will not obstruct my view of the concert.

Are we at the technological euphoric monent yet where a proper brand X handicam performance can be implemented in a minimalist -first ever- eyewear thingie?

udo said:

philmoreliz said:

At least google glass will not obstruct my view of the concert.

Are we at the technological euphoric monent yet where a proper brand X handicam performance can be implemented in a minimalist -first ever- eyewear thingie?

Not at the camcorder level yet, but from demo's i've seen, they are good quality, photos are good quality as well, they are more designed to capture 'the moment' with short videos of events, than recording a concert.

The big thing is you wear them and don't have to take out a camera/phone/point etc, so the security cannot even see if you are wearing normal glasses or google glass, so they can't point their torches and blind everyone who is just wearing glasses !!!

Google Glass are the first generation, so in time there will be better quality/other manufacturers, so I cannot see how security at concerts will be able to stop photos being taken. I can see big problems at the cinemas and events like that with pirating, will be interesting.

Well, once Google glasses are en vogue, Prince probably will have his girls advise the spectators to take off their glasses and wear contacts instead to fully enjoy the show. "Wear something purple and your contacts" will be the new slogan.

PatrickS77 said:

MissMarySharon said:

It is not much to ask when musicians are putting their hearts and souls into a performance. Why not just relax, dance, have a drink, and watch the gig with your eyes only, god knows we've all paid enough to see it.

Yes. We paid enough for it. So I want to keep more than fading memories. I want to keep mementos. Pictures and videos. And anyone saying he is not interested in bootlegs and doesn't watch good quality Youtube clips is a fucking hypocrite. So I say fuck the phone police. And fuck some 20 year old girls telling me how to best enjoy a show I paid a shitload of money to enjoy. Prince really should get over himself or restrict his shows to Paisly Park shows, there he can say "No pics". No artist is as anal about this issue as Prince.

I'm interested in your perspective because I've often wondered about concertgoers who just flat ignore the no photo rule. If you buy a ticket with the knowledge that these are the rules, why do you feel you have the right to flaut them? I'm on the side of finding cameras at concerts incredibly annoying because it blocks the view and ruins the mood, but I understand most artists do allow it. If a peformer explicitly bans them, and concert pictures are your thing, why follow that artist and where does this strong sense of entitlement to photos come from? Again, very curious and not looking for an argument.

Why?? Because, like I said, I'm paying a shitload of money and contribute to these artists outrageous salaries and want more for my buck than fading memories. Most artists got with the times and do not object to pictures and short videos anymore, as long as you don't profit of them. It's really petty of an artist to still make a fuss of it. And why should I base my decision on whether I like an artist's performance or whether I want to see him on whether I can take pictures or not?? I might be annoyed at his stance and his henchmen constantly flashing his light into our direction (which was more annoying than some random people taking pictures or videos... and not every person doing so is blocking anyone's view.... and since we're talking about blocking people's views... there are people, who have to raise their fucking hands for 2 hours straight... that is also blocking people's view and you don't have the benefit of that producing a video that might end up on youtube.... nobody objects to that.... when I raise a hand, a video gets produced that might end up on youtube.... so people are benefitting, more than from pointlessly raising your arms), but I still want to see him in concert.

[Edited 6/22/14 7:25am]

limoncello said:

PatrickS77 said:

Yes. We paid enough for it. So I want to keep more than fading memories. I want to keep mementos. Pictures and videos. And anyone saying he is not interested in bootlegs and doesn't watch good quality Youtube clips is a fucking hypocrite. So I say fuck the phone police. And fuck some 20 year old girls telling me how to best enjoy a show I paid a shitload of money to enjoy. Prince really should get over himself or restrict his shows to Paisly Park shows, there he can say "No pics". No artist is as anal about this issue as Prince.

I'm interested in your perspective because I've often wondered about concertgoers who just flat ignore the no photo rule. If you buy a ticket with the knowledge that these are the rules, why do you feel you have the right to flaut them? I'm on the side of finding cameras at concerts incredibly annoying because it blocks the view and ruins the mood, but I understand most artists do allow it. If a peformer explicitly bans them, and concert pictures are your thing, why follow that artist and where does this strong sense of entitlement to photos come from? Again, very curious and not looking for an argument.

It baffles me too. They say it is their right to hurt my concert experience because they want a few photos for memories? I have such amazing memories of great shows I have attended that are far more interesting than some iphone photo. Memories differ from documentation and are far more complex than a digital snapshot.

[Edited 6/22/14 16:13pm]

philmoreliz said:

limoncello said:

I'm interested in your perspective because I've often wondered about concertgoers who just flat ignore the no photo rule. If you buy a ticket with the knowledge that these are the rules, why do you feel you have the right to flaut them? I'm on the side of finding cameras at concerts incredibly annoying because it blocks the view and ruins the mood, but I understand most artists do allow it. If a peformer explicitly bans them, and concert pictures are your thing, why follow that artist and where does this strong sense of entitlement to photos come from? Again, very curious and not looking for an argument.

It baffles me too. They say it is their right to hurt my concert experience because they want a few photos for memories? I have such amazing memories of great shows I have attended that are far more interesting than some iphone photo. Memories differ from documentation and are far more complex than a digital snapshot.

[Edited 6/22/14 16:13pm]

When I take a picture, it has nothing to do with you. It's totally none of your business and won't affect you at all. You can't really take pictures without being able to watch thru the lens/monitor and holding that camera steady. As for taking videos, whether somebody has to raise their fucking hands in the air because he's an idiot and can't enjoy concerts otherwise (and hand or armraising obviously is accepted) or wether somebody raises their arm and has a camera at the end of their arm, also is totally the same to you, except you might be lucky to catch some of the videos produced with that raised arm, whileas just raising your hand in the air produces nothing, other than obstructing the views of the people behind.

And really, when going to a concert and you're not at the front, having someone obstruct your view is part of the deal for most people. There's usually always someone who's taller and obstructs your view. And if you are taller yourself, then you obstruct somebody else's view, but that's okay, I guess and doesn't bother that taller person. But damned be someone who obstructs someone's view because he/she wants to take a picture/video?? Unless it's not seated, you can always move somewhere else, in case you don't see.

[Edited 6/22/14 17:08pm]

PatrickS77 said:

philmoreliz said:

It baffles me too. They say it is their right to hurt my concert experience because they want a few photos for memories? I have such amazing memories of great shows I have attended that are far more interesting than some iphone photo. Memories differ from documentation and are far more complex than a digital snapshot.

[Edited 6/22/14 16:13pm]

When I take a picture, it has nothing to do with you. It's totally none of your business and won't affect you at all. You can't really take pictures without being able to watch thru the lens/monitor and holding that camera steady. As for taking videos, whether somebody has to raise their fucking hands in the air because he's an idiot and can't enjoy concerts otherwise (and hand or armraising obviously is accepted) or wether somebody raises their arm and has a camera at the end of their arm, also is totally the same to you, except you might be lucky to catch some of the videos produced with that raised arm, whileas just raising your hand in the air produces nothing, other than obstructing the views of the people behind.

And really, when going to a concert and you're not at the front, having someone obstruct your view is part of the deal for most people. There's usually always someone who's taller and obstructs your view. And if you are taller yourself, then you obstruct somebody else's view, but that's okay, I guess and doesn't bother that taller person. But damned be someone who obstructs someone's view because he/she wants to take a picture/video?? Unless it's not seated, you can always move somewhere else, in case you don't see.

[Edited 6/22/14 17:08pm]

It as everything to do with me. It blocks my view if there is a bright cell phone in front of me. It differs from a hairdo or a tall person in that those lights on phones are powerful and impossible to ignore. I do not expect an unobstructed view but, when someone wags a bright light right on front of me, it is annoying.

Plus I wonder why, if someone loves an artist enough to pay a lot to see them, they disregard the artist's express wishes.

But I am running off to a concert so I will stop reading this thread now.

PatrickS77 said:

philmoreliz said:

It baffles me too. They say it is their right to hurt my concert experience because they want a few photos for memories? I have such amazing memories of great shows I have attended that are far more interesting than some iphone photo. Memories differ from documentation and are far more complex than a digital snapshot.

[Edited 6/22/14 16:13pm]

When I take a picture, it has nothing to do with you. It's totally none of your business and won't affect you at all. You can't really take pictures without being able to watch thru the lens/monitor and holding that camera steady. As for taking videos, whether somebody has to raise their fucking hands in the air because he's an idiot and can't enjoy concerts otherwise (and hand or armraising obviously is accepted) or wether somebody raises their arm and has a camera at the end of their arm, also is totally the same to you, except you might be lucky to catch some of the videos produced with that raised arm, whileas just raising your hand in the air produces nothing, other than obstructing the views of the people behind.

And really, when going to a concert and you're not at the front, having someone obstruct your view is part of the deal for most people. There's usually always someone who's taller and obstructs your view. And if you are taller yourself, then you obstruct somebody else's view, but that's okay, I guess and doesn't bother that taller person. But damned be someone who obstructs someone's view because he/she wants to take a picture/video?? Unless it's not seated, you can always move somewhere else, in case you don't see.

[Edited 6/22/14 17:08pm]

That's the thing. It does affect me. Camera blocking the view + phone cops disturbing the mood. Which is why I find the sense of entitlement to pictures (most of which are, let's be honest, not good) so odd.

PatrickS77 said:

Why?? Because, like I said, I'm paying a shitload of money and contribute to these artists outrageous salaries and want more for my buck than fading memories. Most artists got with the times and do not object to pictures and short videos anymore, as long as you don't profit of them. It's really petty of an artist to still make a fuss of it. And why should I base my decision on whether I like an artist's performance or whether I want to see him on whether I can take pictures or not?? I might be annoyed at his stance and his henchmen constantly flashing his light into our direction (which was more annoying than some random people taking pictures or videos... and not every person doing so is blocking anyone's view.... and since we're talking about blocking people's views... there are people, who have to raise their fucking hands for 2 hours straight... that is also blocking people's view and you don't have the benefit of that producing a video that might end up on youtube.... nobody objects to that.... when I raise a hand, a video gets produced that might end up on youtube.... so people are benefitting, more than from pointlessly raising your arms), but I still want to see him in concert.

[Edited 6/22/14 7:25am]

I hope they ban you from concerts

limoncello said:

honer said:

I hope they ban you from concerts

Wow! Now you told me off. Congrats.

philmoreliz said:

limoncello said:

That's the thing. It does affect me. Camera blocking the view + phone cops disturbing the mood. Which is why I find the sense of entitlement to pictures (most of which are, let's be honest, not good) so odd.

I would be happy to stand behind limoncello at a concert.

Why, thanks and same to you!

Last 2 years have been insane, but even in the state's i have been pushed/elbow'd by security just pushing there way thru people ruining many people's expierence's. I never had my phone out at any gig so i wouldn't think i'd get treated like this.

I get it if u take a pic/vid u get thrown out, fine. But FOR THOSE OF US WHO AREN'T AND PAID GOOD MONEY TO HAVE FUN , PLEASE DON'T TREAT US LIKE WE DID HAVE OUR PHONES OUT!!!I'm just trying to dance.

God i miss the 80s/90s before all this technology cell phone bs...it was never this bad in the past