POLL: IS IT BETTER TO MAKE GREAT ALBUMS AND SUCK LIVE, OR TO BE GREAT LIVE BUT PUT OUT SUCKY ALBUMS?

We’ve spoken many times here on MetalSucks about the disappointment of being really into a band’s album, going to see them live, and realizing that there was some in-studio chicanery involved in terms of making it sound like the band has certain capabilities which, really, they do not; conversely, we’ve also discussed how some bands are incredible live, but, for whatever reason, just can’t seem to release an album to match the awesomeness of their concerts. And I was thinking about this recently while engaging in a friendly debate with our old pal, Tommy Wee. Tommy thinks that making a great record is an artform unto itself — which is certainly true — and that, ultimately, it doesn’t really matter if the band or artist can’t do it live; the fact that they made a great album means they deserve kudos for that album, regardless of any other factors. (Tommy also argued that many of the modern production techniques I so loathe, like excessive use of autotune, are aesthetic choices, and not attempts to fool the listener into thinking the musicians have skills that they do not actually posses. This might be true, although I have a hard time believing you’ll ever read an interview where Katy Perry admits that she’s not a very good singer.)

So, I want to know what you think, beloved readers. Is it more important to be able to put out a terrific record, or to be able to put on a great show? Or is failure to be able to do both completely unacceptable? (‘Cause, of course, there are bands who can do both.) Answer in the poll below. I’ll be curious to see the results.

-AR