Do you agree or disagree with the new "no cameras" rule?

[Jaffa]

It really doesn't affect me much.  I wouldn't take pictures anyway, because it takes my focus away from the music.  But I understand that other people feel differently, and they don't generally bother me.  In fact, at the show tonight, someone got thrown out by security for taking pictures.  The fan in question had been warned three times, mind you, but still: the security interference was definitely more distracting to me than the guy's phone. 

[KevShmev]

It really doesn't affect me much.  I wouldn't take pictures anyway, because it takes my focus away from the music.  But I understand that other people feel differently, and they don't generally bother me.  In fact, at the show tonight, someone got thrown out by security for taking pictures.  The fan in question had been warned three times, mind you, but still: the security interference was definitely more distracting to me than the guy's phone.

In that situation, I don't see how anybody can feel sorry for that fan.  If he was warned three times and still kept doing it, then his stupidity is too blame, not overly aggressive tactics.

[cramx3]

From the new music video for Our New World

https://youtu.be/JnLdx2FyNqg?t=1m23s

A bit hypocritcal?  I posted a while back about the similar shot from the Score show, but that was before camera phones were a big thing and before they had the policy and whatnot.... but this is now and during this tour so 

[bosk1]

A bit hypocritcal? 

No, not really.

[cramx3]

A bit hypocritcal? 

No, not really.

Explain?  I don't care that someone got away from using a camera during the performance, but the band picked and chose to use that in the video clip yet they are against it.

[bosk1]

A bit hypocritcal? 

No, not really.

Explain?  I don't care that someone got away from using a camera during the performance, but the band picked and chose to use that in the video clip yet they are against it.

First, "hypocrisy" defined:

the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.

a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.

Hypocrisy is the contrivance of a false appearance of virtue or goodness, while concealing real character or inclinations, esp. with respect to religious and moral beliefs

Etc.
The band has never at any point in time said or implied that they have a moral issue with filming the live performances or that it is even an issue of morality, or virtue, or character.  They have never said that filming or taking a picture of part of the show makes someone a bad person.  That has nothing to do with why they don't want the performances filmed or photographed.  So it doesn't even fit the definition of hypocrisy.

Second, to your point that the band "picked" that shot, I highly doubt that they picked any shot for that video.  They didn't shoot any shots for that video, and it is highly unlikely that they chose any of the shots that went into it.  In fact, I would be surprised if they even had any ability to approve or decline any particular shots at all.  Do you have evidence to the contrary?

[cramx3]

band picked is poor wording on my part and not correct, because they probably had not done that themselves, but did they sign off on approving the video?  Did they have any input?  I would imagine so.

Hypocrisy in this case is obviously not a moral issue, but it is the belief of the band that using a phone is not appropriate for their show.  But you are going after semantics with this and stretching my words without actually explaining anything.

Band says no cameras or phones used during performance.... same band then releases music video including a shot of a person using their camera phone to take picture of the band from the same performance that you are not allowed and the band has actively sought to not allow.  Did that not happen?

[bosk1]

band picked is poor wording on my part and not correct, because they probably had not done that themselves, but did they sign off on approving the video?  Did they have any input? 

As to individual shots?  Probably not.

Hypocrisy in this case is obviously not a moral issue, but it is the belief of the band that using a phone is not appropriate for their show.  But you are going after semantics with this and stretching my words without actually explaining anything.

It isn't semantics.  The word means what it means.  This does not fit the definition of hypocrisy, and "hypocrisy" was the word you chose. 

Band says no cameras or phones used during performance.... same band then releases music video including a shot of a person using their camera phone to take picture of the band from the same performance that you are not allowed and the band has actively sought to not allow.  Did that not happen?

Yes, that happened.  That is not hypocrisy.

[Jaffa]

It really doesn't affect me much.  I wouldn't take pictures anyway, because it takes my focus away from the music.  But I understand that other people feel differently, and they don't generally bother me.  In fact, at the show tonight, someone got thrown out by security for taking pictures.  The fan in question had been warned three times, mind you, but still: the security interference was definitely more distracting to me than the guy's phone.

In that situation, I don't see how anybody can feel sorry for that fan.  If he was warned three times and still kept doing it, then his stupidity is too blame, not overly aggressive tactics.

Right.  I don't feel sorry for the guy at all.  I'm just saying that him getting thrown out distracted me a lot more than the initial presence of the phone.  I feel like the general sentiment behind 'no phones allowed' policies is to prevent people with phones from ruining the show for other fans.  Which is kind of pointless if the enforcement of the policy is more distracting than the offense itself. 

Of course, the policy may not have anything to do with trying to minimize distractions.  Maybe the band simply don't want pictures of their shows appearing online.  I don't know.  It's their prerogative, at any rate. 

[Madman Shepherd]

band picked is poor wording on my part and not correct, because they probably had not done that themselves, but did they sign off on approving the video?  Did they have any input? 

As to individual shots?  Probably not.

It isn't an all or nothing thing.  If they saw something about the edit they didn't like, they could have had it taken out.  They aren't small potatoes anymore.  Pull Me Under video?  No say. This one.  A lot of say.

 I would bet money on it that they could have had it removed if they wanted and it would have only delayed any sort of finished product by a day at most. 

[bosk1]

band picked is poor wording on my part and not correct, because they probably had not done that themselves, but did they sign off on approving the video?  Did they have any input? 

As to individual shots?  Probably not.

It isn't an all or nothing thing.  If they saw something about the edit they didn't like, they could have had it taken out.  They aren't small potatoes anymore.  Pull Me Under video?  No say. This one.  A lot of say.

 I would bet money on it that they could have had it removed if they wanted and it would have only delayed any sort of finished product by a day at most. 

I doubt it.

[The J-Man]

I don't have a problem with the policy.

The reasons are irrelevant to me. If they don't want us taking pictures, I respect that and don't take any pictures.

I was actually more than annoyed at how many people at our show (Baltimore, MD) chose to do it anyway. It was pretty distracting to the rest of us who were trying to enjoy the show. Not only was the light from the cell phones themselves annoying, but the constant shuffling and shouting of ushers (getting on people for using their phones) during the show sucked too.

[IDontNotDoThings]

Hypocrisy in this case is obviously not a moral issue, but it is the belief of the band that using a phone is not appropriate for their show.  But you are going after semantics with this and stretching my words without actually explaining anything.

It isn't semantics.  The word means what it means.

semantics
sɪˈmantɪks
noun
the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning.

[cramx3]

yea yea yea, my wording was terrible, but my point was not.

I think contradictory is the word better suited

band picked is poor wording on my part and not correct, because they probably had not done that themselves, but did they sign off on approving the video?  Did they have any input? 

As to individual shots?  Probably not.

It isn't an all or nothing thing.  If they saw something about the edit they didn't like, they could have had it taken out.  They aren't small potatoes anymore.  Pull Me Under video?  No say. This one.  A lot of say.

 I would bet money on it that they could have had it removed if they wanted and it would have only delayed any sort of finished product by a day at most. 

I doubt it.

Considering it was only a few frames, probably would have been a really quick and easy fix.  But who knows how much say DT has on this (I would assume enough say to get it removed), but that should not have been in the video given the policy.

[IDontNotDoThings]

I was agreeing with you tho

[Madman Shepherd]

band picked is poor wording on my part and not correct, because they probably had not done that themselves, but did they sign off on approving the video?  Did they have any input? 

As to individual shots?  Probably not.

It isn't an all or nothing thing.  If they saw something about the edit they didn't like, they could have had it taken out.  They aren't small potatoes anymore.  Pull Me Under video?  No say. This one.  A lot of say.

 I would bet money on it that they could have had it removed if they wanted and it would have only delayed any sort of finished product by a day at most. 

I doubt it.

 

So DT doesn't have any creative control? 

[King Postwhore]

Took a few pictures at RoSfest tonight and was told it was ok.

[Ben_Jamin]

Took a few pictures at RoSfest tonight and was told it was ok.

I asked the usher closest if it was OK before, during intermission, and after. They said it was alright.

[King Postwhore]

Took a few pictures at RoSfest tonight and was told it was ok.

I asked the usher closest if it was OK before, during intermission, and after. They said it was alright.

Your show was the minority then. 


If a band puts out the no camera edict,  it's the band's policy. Sorry bosk1 but it's just bad business these days.

[KevShmev]

If a band puts out the no camera edict,  it's the band's policy. Sorry bosk1 but it's just bad business these days.

On the one hand, it can certainly be argued that the horse is already out of the barn, in the sense of most fans feeling like they are entitled to take as many pics and videos as they want at any show, so fighting against that is like shoveling shit against the tide, but on the flip side, I still think you have to give them props for taking a stand against today's collective entitled society.

Note: I am not saying that everyone who wants to take a pic or video is entitled, just that the vast majority have that sense of entitlement now.

[cramx3]

I still think it has everything to do with the theater presentation of this tour and when they do their next normal tour, they may still have the policy, but won't be actively enforcing it. 

[ReaPsTA]

Being against photography at shows is a strange stance from a band whose popularity has been helped a lot by the aggressive bootlegging of their shows.

But then again, it's been known that Petrucci doesn't like bootlegging for a long time, and his argument has always been that it's a distraction from the show.

One one hand, I get it. I hate cell phones at shows/movies with a passion. All I see is a bright blue light distracting me. But the fact people couldn't even take pictures before the show felt bizarre. It didn't affect my enjoyment of the show, and it was fewer opportunities for their fans to market for them on social media by posting "At the DT concert in Baltimore!!! #Astonished!" on Facebook/Twitter/Instagram/whatever people use.

[RaiseTheKnife]

It was kinda refreshing not to have cameras waving around at last night's show.

[King Postwhore]

It's been refreshing to be allowed to take pictures, talk to the people around you, share the pictures on Facebook with the band's and the band responds in kind today.  It makes the experience much better.

[IdoSC]

I'd say that DT banning cameras is comparable to Nintendo banning (monetization of) Youtube videos of their games; Each has good reasons to do it, both have a much better reason not to, and by moving forward with it both show a tremendous misunderstanding of good business practices in the 21st century. Like some other people pointed out, they're missing out both hype and just people who are on the fence about this album and show by not letting fans take short poor quality videos of their night-to-night performances, they're missing out brand recognition on Facebook, etc.

They're still my favorite band and game publisher respectively, but dude, get over yourselves.

[BelichickFan]

Non issue for me, I was worried about pre-show and intermission for general phone usage. Zero problems unless you were taking pictures so I'm ambivalent. Not sure it's a great business decision but for attendees I liked it instead of having to see over an ocean of phones.

[bosk1]

After the show last night, I have a new appreciation for the rule.  Having way fewer phones/cameras out during the show actually DID make for a much better experience.  And security at our venue did it right, IMO.  They were letting people know at the doors that no pictures were allowed inside the main auditorium during the performance itself, but were pretty lax otherwise.  During the show itself, there were a total of three occasions I noticed where they busted someone for taking pics during the show.  Two of them were guys that were just getting quick shots, and the security guy quickly came over to them to told them it wasn't allowed, and he was firm but not obnoxious about it.  The third guy was displaying an "I don't really care what the rules are, I'm going to do what I want to do" attitude (not just about pics; he was being a jerk to those around him in general), and the security guy laid into him pretty hard and I think was on the verge of tossing him if he would have done it again.  But I can definitely say the policy made the show better, and nobody that I saw seemed to have any problem with it.  I again have to side with the majority who are in the "non-issue" to "good policy" range as opposed to the few who don't like it.