There is a prevailing notion that experiencing a live performance such as a play, concert, or athletic event is more thrilling than viewing the same thing on digital television. From my perspective, I partially agree with this stance analyzed in the subsequent paragraphs.
Admittedly, witnessing a live performance fuels a favorable moment for audiences by the following explanation. When individuals view the events in person, they have a feeling of vivid atmosphere in the grandstand which is incapable of surviving of watching on television. In addition, people in a live event can have a general horizon compared with the small screen of television, thereby promoting live-following spectators to have more detail scenes in the live occasion. To exemplify, audiences who experience the ongoing performance are able to listen to the enthusiastic screams from supporters or gaze at their idols in reality. This creates a static emotion for them that will never be present for viewers through television. Clearly, passionate screams and an overzealous atmosphere increase the excitement of audiences in a live performance.
Conversely, attending a live performance at home also has merits and one of the benefits is financial saving. The ticket cost of live programs is not affordable, as there is which is gathered various renowned artists, not taking into account the fame and reputations of the performance, then the cost is roaring more than two or three times. For instance, a tournament experienced enthusiastically is Europe soccer, and buyers need to pay approximately 60 euros for a live match. Therefore, by watching performances on digital television; even though individuals have inability to enjoy the real atmosphere, they can save their own money effectively.
In conclusion, I claim that the intriguing and thrilling air of the live event is undeniable to the audience; however, everyone has their reasons for staying -at home and watching television at the same, typically for money-saving.