This is what I was going to say.

An album is just a medium in which to deliver the artists work. And while Marshall McLuhan may contend that the medium is the message I don't think this is the case and nor do I think that the album format is 'sacred.' What is sacred is seeing the artist perform their work in a live setting. Nothing beats it.

depends on the artist. i love smashing pumpkins, but they have kinda been known to blow live. soundtribe are meant to be heard live...their studio stuff in no way comes close to the experience of their music.

I consider art sacred.

The word 'album' has become synonymous with a grouping of songs arranged in a certain way and with intent, whether it be grouped by a concept or simply arranged in the most aesthetically pleasing way, at least in my mind. I don't consider the technology with which that is achieved to be sacred, but the concept of arranging your songs in a certain order to produce an effect on the listener, that is art, and whether or not it is performed live is secondary. It's the piece of media as a whole which is art, and yes, that is sacred.

Maybe we're talking about different things here.

Sorry for wasting space, bros. Never pop 'n post.

Yeah, see that's the thing. For me personally, I can't entirely love and respect a band if they just can't play live. Performing live is an integral part to being a musician!

Yes but is it an integral part of being an artist?

And what's more admirable, being an artist or a musician?

i can see where you are coming from, but i do make exceptions. the smashing pumpkins' studio work is so layered and intricate that it becomes near impossible to reproduce live short of hiring a boatload of extra musicians (which i have respect for them not doing). it is a huge debate about whether someone can be considered a musician if all they are good at is studio work...like...can they really play? i think the musical vision is what counts, the studio has just made it easier for everyone to get their vision across.

Sorry if I'm playing devil's advocate here, but why?

What makes a finished piece of art so special that could not otherwise be improved by an added word, a new song, or an appended verse? It's one thing to associate notions of romanticism to completed works of art, it's another thing entirely to place them on some unreachable pedestal.

A musician is an artist, and music I think is an art that should be appreciated in a live setting - don't get me wrong, music can definitely be appreciated when it is recorded as well, but playing music live I think is more 'sacred' than the album format.

I see live music and recorded music as essentially two different forms of art, kind of like theater and film. I don't know if either is "sacred" per se, but they're apples and oranges to me.