The Technology Challenged

[Rune Bivrin]

If he can answer a text later, he can answer a voicemail message later........right?

Probably. If the guy on the other end has voice mail - AND actually checks it. Not everybody does. I have voice mail on my cell, and the majority of messages consist of either two seconds of silence followed by a click or two minutes of incoherent rambling. And I'm pretty sure I perform no better myself...

Texting works well enough for near real time communication, particularly when it's a five-part conversation that needs to be conducted somewhat quickly.

 

[bongomania]

FWIW, the AT&T plan I'm on does not include texting. To add texting would cost an additional $17/month. Instead I use a free web-based text service, so I do my texting only when in range of wifi. So far that has not been any sort of limitation--if somebody needs me while I'm not at a wifi spot, we can talk on the phone.

I have to say too, the ability to tell my wife in advance that I'll be a little late, rather than just "being late" and having to apologize afterward, makes life for me much better than in the pre-cellphone days.

 

[Gaius46]

You see your singer as demanding that you conform to her preferred method of communication. I see you as doing the same. 6 to one..........

I'm actually not asking her or anyone else to do anything other than to realize that their decision to not employ a particular piece of common technology comes at a cost to others who have to adapt to them.

If he can answer a text later, he can answer a voicemail message later........right?

Listening to and answering a voicemail takes more time than answering a text.

"Hey are you free next Friday for a gig at xxxx at 830?"

"Yep"


Takes about 20 seconds total for both of us via text. Toss in listening to voicemails and playing telephone tag and conveying that same message can take significantly longer. And then multiply that 3 to cover the rest of the band and it's clearly an inefficient means of communication.

 

[guy n. cognito]

Just teasing.

As noted below, there are 3 leading edge communicators in the house. I actually found if I posted on their Facebook wall to clean their room or messaged via FB, (across the house) I would get a positive response. Easier than yelling (smoke signals).
.

See, in my mind, communicating with your kids in your own house via Facebook is technology gone way too far.

 

[Factor88]

How do you guys deal with a band member who refuses to embrace technology.

Have you ever had to deal with a member that didn't have a cell phone or internet access?

If yes, how did you deal with him?

Blue, I never had this situation, so I a guess I am not answering the exact question you put, but I would evaluate every situation different. For example, say I was the BL in a band were we had a great female lead singer, total package, not a diva, and we were getting great gigs mostly because of her; the only downside was that she was very hard to get a hold of to arrange rehersals and contact regarding gigs. What I would do is ask myself if the hassle of getting in touch with her, and the amount of gigs lost because of it, were significantly more (or less) than the gigs we are getting maybe because of her. I realize that that is an extreme example, and usually the decision would not be so simple, but I would still do it this way.


Also on this topic, the band I have been with in the last ten years does not play full time (we do maybe 4-5 gigs per month), so perhaps my experience is not like those who are playing for a living..... but: I just have not run into a situation yet where a bar or wedding or other venue called us for a gig and because we couldn't answer them in one or two hours we lost the gig. In fact, it seems the quickest reply we've ever had to give was after 24 hours. I'm not disputing that some of you must be losing gigs because a member can't answer a text in 10 minutes......I just have not run into that situation.

 

[guy n. cognito]

To be honest, the issue isn't so much about band members who don't have cell phones or e-mail. The dividing line is ultimately between those who like to stay à jour and keep in touch, and those who like to disappear from the radar and fail to respond in a timely fashion. Somehow these individuals will be equally unreliable over smoke signals, physical mail, telex, phone, e-mail, text messaging or Facebook. Either you accept what they are and how they work or you don't.

Exactly. Good communicators will be responsive via any means.

 

[Gaius46]

You can get cell phone plans with no text messaging now? What's that all about?

Yes most carriers in the US charge more of texting - I think I pay $10/month for unlimited texting on the three phones on my plan. It's more efficient than voice from a bandwidth perspective so I don't understand why they charge more other than it's an easy way to generate revenue. In any case it's well worth the cost to me.

Additionally AT&T at least charges more for texting internationally - which doesn't make sense to me but I don't know what's involved in sending texts (from a technology and cost standpoint) across national boundaries.

 

[lfmn16]

If someone inconveniences you by not owning a cell phone then good. I'm proud of them and I hope it really pisses you off because you need to wake up and think about this.

It must be a real treat being in a band with you.

 

[bluewine]

Exactly. Good communicators will be responsive via any means.

I agree, if the band is busy and if there are always booking and book related issues that need a timely response from members it doesn't matter how you respond as long as you respond and respond timely.

For me texting or email works best, I can execute either application from my phone.

Keep in mind there are some responses that require a call.

 

[bluewine]

Blue, I never had this situation, so I a guess I am not answering the exact question you put, but I would evaluate every situation different. For example, say I was the BL in a band were we had a great female lead singer, total package, not a diva, and we were getting great gigs mostly because of her; the only downside was that she was very hard to get a hold of to arrange rehersals and contact regarding gigs. What I would do is ask myself if the hassle of getting in touch with her, and the amount of gigs lost because of it, were significantly more (or less) than the gigs we are getting maybe because of her. I realize that that is an extreme example, and usually the decision would not be so simple, but I would still do it this way.

Also on this topic, the band I have been with in the last ten years does not play full time (we do maybe 4-5 gigs per month), so perhaps my experience is not like those who are playing for a living..... but: I just have not run into a situation yet where a bar or wedding or other venue called us for a gig and because we couldn't answer them in one or two hours we lost the gig. In fact, it seems the quickest reply we've ever had to give was after 24 hours. I'm not disputing that some of you must be losing gigs because a member can't answer a text in 10 minutes......I just have not run into that situation.

I am on board with you regarding the female lead Singer scenario. There will always be exceptions.

 

[BassyBill]

Yes most carriers in the US charge more of texting - I think I pay $10/month for unlimited texting on the three phones on my plan. It's more efficient than voice from a bandwidth perspective so I don't understand why they charge more other than it's an easy way to generate revenue. In any case it's well worth the cost to me.

Additionally AT&T at least charges more for texting internationally - which doesn't make sense to me but I don't know what's involved in sending texts (from a technology and cost standpoint) across national boundaries.

Hmmm, that's interesting. I don't know of any cell phone plans over here that don't include texting. I wonder why that's offered in the US but not here? I assume it's based on demand differences between the two countries, but I really can't think why people here would expect text as an integral part of any service plan (even the lowest in cost) but some people in the US like the option of taking the phone without the text. Very odd, especially when one considers there are definite advantages to texting in some situations, when compared to a call or voicemail (or email).

Maybe our phone companies think nobody would buy texting over here if it cost extra. I dunno.

Anyway, back to your regularly scheduled thread...

 

[bluewine]

I'm actually not asking her or anyone else to do anything other than to realize that their decision to not employ a particular piece of common technology comes at a cost to others who have to adapt to them.

Listening to and answering a voicemail takes more time than answering a text.

"Hey are you free next Friday for a gig at xxxx at 830?"

"Yep"

Takes about 20 seconds total for both of us via text. Toss in listening to voicemails and playing telephone tag and conveying that same message can take significantly longer. And then multiply that 3 to cover the rest of the band and it's clearly an inefficient means of communication.

More like 3 seconds for me to text that response.

New Gigs:

"We have a new date, 12/9, 9-1 at The Ale House, is everyone on board?"

My response:

"I'm good for for the date."

 

[Gaius46]

One other thing. As a 40 year old, I can remember the time before we all had cell phones. Life was better then. It was slower and more... human. Is that the right word? I dunno. But we had actual conversations with people with actual complete words and authentic tones of voice and facial expressions. Even the introverts did this!

These things have reduced that to staring at a 2" screen with acronyms, misspelled words, emoticons and incorrect autocorrect.

Look around you. We are getting dumber as a species. I won't go as far as to blame all that on technology, but it certainly does not appear to be helping.

If someone inconveniences you by not owning a cell phone then good. I'm proud of them and I hope it really pisses you off because you need to wake up and think about this.

We should not all conform to the same digital routine for the sake of convenience. Convenience is making us lazy, not more practical and not more efficient. Human life and communication should not operate like that.

First of all we're talking - or at least I'm talking - about texting as an efficient means to transmit information. Not as a replacement for conversation. They are different things. If I want to have an extended conversation with one my bandmates I'll call them up or chat before or after rehearsal and preferably over a couple of beers. If I want to transmit some factual information - date and time of next rehearsal for example - texting is by the far the most efficient means currently available to do that and I see absolutely nothing wrong with using it for that purpose. It is the best tool available to meet that need.



I'm sure people bemoaned the death of conversation when the phone was invented too.

 

[Bredian]

See, in my mind, communicating with your kids in your own house via Facebook is technology gone way too far.

I'll reserve comment on that for another thread.

 

[bluewine]

I'll reserve comment on that for another thread.

Every family is different, Facebook communication for some families is probably fine, for some families it might not be a match.

It all depends on the relationship and inner dynamics of individual families.

 

[RustyAxe]

I have to say too, the ability to tell my wife in advance that I'll be a little late, rather than just "being late" and having to apologize afterward, makes life for me much better than in the pre-cellphone days.

Reminds me of this: Guy comes home at 3 am, and the wife confronts him, "Why didn't you call?". He replies, "I didn't want to fight TWICE".

 

[jive1]

To be honest, the issue isn't so much about band members who don't have cell phones or e-mail. The dividing line is ultimately between those who like to stay à jour and keep in touch, and those who like to disappear from the radar and fail to respond in a timely fashion. Somehow these individuals will be equally unreliable over smoke signals, physical mail, telex, phone, e-mail, text messaging or Facebook. Either you accept what they are and how they work or you don't.

I agree. It's more about availability and reachability moreso than technology.

For me, I love technology. It's my line of work, and it's crucial that I embrace it. But, I'm not a doctor, network administrator, social worker, or someone that needs to be available 24/7. I also don't want to be available 24/7, even though I literally get 100s of emails, calls, texts, and various notifications daily. Sure there is that big gig I could miss out on, but I don't want to live 100% of my life for something with a 1% chance of happening. And for every one big event that you missed out on for not answering your phone, there are 100s of others that could wait a little and not be affected adversely.

If I'm in the middle of a conversation, I won't answer the phone unless we're wrapping it up. If I'm out eating dinner, at church, in class, or anyplace where talking on a phone is inappropriate, the phone is on vibrate, and if it's not an emergency I will wait till the event is over to get back to you. I don't text during rehearsal, while driving, while talking to someone, or otherwise occupied. I will wait until I have an answer for you before I answer an email, if I don't have one right away. I will always do my best to get back to you in a timely fashion, and answer when available. But that doesn't mean 24/7 is the standard I operate on, because it's not sustainable and not fair to the other people in my life. Just because the technology is there for me to do that, doesn't mean I want it to. Technology works for me, not the other way around.

 

[bluewine]

not fair to the other people in my life.

That's understandable.

Me, I don't have any other people in my life.

 

[jive1]

Everytime I book a gig I am not calling members of my band. They are expected to put on a band calendar if they have any issues. If they have nothing marked, I'll book it. I do make some exceptions. Last week a bar wanted to know if we could do the Sat after thanksgivng. Given it was only 2 weeks away and a holiday weekend I emaled everybody and had an I'm on vacation in 10 minutes.

I do something very similar.

If I'm doing the booking, people will send me their blackout dates in advance. If a gig offer comes, and no-one has a conflict, I will book it. I will call band-members if the price range or travel required is not within our norm, otherwise I will just book. And even if others can't make it, as long as the singer or any key members can make it, I will still book it and then look for a sub.

If I'm not doing the booking, I will send the band leader a list of my available dates and they are free to book those dates without having to ask me. Since I work with multiple bands, the dates are a first come-first-serve basis. If I have a date booked, I will notify the bandleader so they can be aware of it, and act accordingly. And if I can't make it and they need someone, I am always happy to provide them with a list of subs they can contact.

 

[MatticusMania]

What a cold, impersonal society we have. Thanks tech, thanks for nothing.

Our society was cold and impersonal long before the tech came along that catered to that mindset.