There is a belief that attending a live performance is unnecessary because seeing it at home on television offers a better experience. Personally, I firmly disagree for some reasons, as now will be discussed.
To commence with, television is acknowledged to be a better way to experience a show thanks to its affordability. In support of this, one might consider the fact that while live performance is extravagant, watching performance from a distance avoids fees such as travelling as well as payment for entrance. By that way, such shows display its cost-effectiveness while still offering chances for people to attend the identical show, leading to an alleviation of financial burden.
Economical as watching performance on TV could be, there are numerous reasons why viewing live performance is cited to be superior. The primary reason is the electric atmosphere that only such performances can provide. An explanation for this is the fact that the excitement of the crowds, expressed via applause, laughter and so on is never absent in such events. In other words, live shows offer audiences the real human, authentic feelings as well as experiences. Another reason why the performances shown on the television can not replace the position of that at a live venue is inevitable technical issues. For example, moments could be refined before being aired and the show may be disrupted due to problems of signal transmission. Such problems, albeit minor, would decrease the quality of the scenes in some aspects.
In conclusion, compared to live venues, the small screen provides people with the same performance affordably by eliminating the expenses for transportation and tickets. However, such shows can not offer the electric atmosphere and the lack of minor problems such as disruption of signal transmission which will increase the experiences of audiences as a live performance. Therefore, it goes without saying that offline shows indicate superiority over the ones aired on TV.