This is an interesting one - generally i love live performance but am less inclined to buy live albums unless they are by an artist I am quite obsessive about which would possibly narrow it down to Elvis Costello, Richard Thompson, Eels and maybe a couple of others. Given the enjoyment I get from live performances I cannot rationally explain this preference other than to say a live recording rarely catches the moment in the same way as actually being there.
Also, If I am honest bonus live dvd's that come with cd purchases rarely get played in my house. I once recall a folk singer (I think Michael Chapman) taking the piss out of an audience member photographing him - 'ooh look, this guy is trying to photograph music!!'
I was recently on the verge of buying a Joe Zawinul double cd with quite a number of his more famous compositions - I declined to buy it because it was live and for all I know I may have missed out on a very good purchase. Guess I will never know

I usually feel I must also get the lastest CD so I know the songs. Unless it's someone who no longer records anything I am likely to want to hear, like The Stones, in which case I wouldn't bother. But I hardly ever see an act like them. I think the last one was The Stooges and I certainly felt no wish to get the latest disc in that case. That performance was something exceptional - not many could put on such a show.

To answer the main point I would say much as I want to see bands live, there is often something that makes the experience not entirely satisfactory - be it other people in the audience invading my space and generally being irritating, the sound quality being distorted etc. I can have a good time but really I do prefer to listen to the CD.

Putting more emphasis on playing live could well make the recorded music better though. Most could benefit from recording in the studio as live in the room, as it were. But I still want certain kinds of bands to exist that experiment in the studio. Poncing about in the studio can be a good thing for some artists. Doesn't have to be either/or. Radiohead, dare I say it, seem to do it right. They use new technology in the studio with creative freedom but also try out new songs live and can do all their songs live, adapted specially for the purpose if necessary.

Neil Young had an interesting approach on some of his 'studio' albums where he put on live tracks next to studio recorded songs, but it wasn't a live album. He kept the spontaneity. Then again he produced proper all live albums also, which worked just as well too.

I do find the live performance a great art to experience - but maybe best enjoyed on film for me. I love to watch live music on TV! But to me the album is still really the 'art' that counts most.

I probably only go to a couple of gigs by expensive megastars in a year - I am going to see Springsteen in May but dont have any other gigs of this magnitude lined up. I do intend to get tickets in next week or so for Alabama 3 and Tom Russell - both of these gigs will cost in region of £17.00 which is considerably less than the cost of a premiership football match but arguably more exciting (substantially more exciting for me as I am a Birmingham City fan).I probably go to around 10 concerts per year (my visit to SXSW this month was an exception).
The cost is substantially less than I spend on cd's - If I am honest cd's give me more pleasure but I wouldnt be without the live experience.