Personally, I stan first and foremost for talent and if you can not consistently replicate your vocal performances as well or better than you did in the studio, I won't be impressed and I certainly won't respect that artist as a good singer and certainly not as a vocalist. Hell I can carry half a tune singing and could probably go in the studio and sound good on a song after several takes and processing of my vocals with autotune/pitch correcting. Not here for smoke and mirrors.

And consistency in singing definitely goes hand in hand with skill and technique. Does a bad vocal performance make a singer a bad singer? Of course not; however, if a singer sounds worse than their on-record performances on a regular and recurring basis, then they aren't good, either, IMO. And I certainly won't be stanning and wasting time and money to watch and listen to half-assed performances from mediocre singers with little or no skill that don't take their craft seriously.

If the record is as good as I can expect it to get, I don't see a point in bothering with anything else in the first place. I'll just stream the song online or if I like it enough, shell out my $.99 and keep it moving.

Anyway, that's just the way I feel; different people have different expectations, standards and look for different things in their musical talent. Simple as that.

It saddens me that so many of you are mindless tarts when it comes to music expand your horizons a little. Look I love my fun songs like everyone else but i am also not tone death to talented singers

We're not living in a perfect world, so I'm ok with vocally incapable singers.

They should at the least have a good voice. Not everyone is Mariah Carey and I don't expect every singer to have that kind of talent. If they can't hit a bunch of high notes but they have a nice tone, even with a limited range, I'm ok with it. If they literally cannot stay on tune at all or hit ANY notes than it is not ok. You need to have a bare minimum there. For some singers who don't have the most amazing vocal range, they should try to make up for it in other ways. Like Britney used to be an amazing dancer, so I was ok with it.

First of all: If you are classified as a SINGER, you need to be able to sing in at least a tolerable manner.
Furthermore, to measure an "artist", you have to start with talent. For example, let's use someone who can dance extremely well AKA perform, produces good material, but lacks substantial vocal ability. Most stans would argue that this "artist" is one of great caliber and that they sell out arenas etc. But in music, vocals are incorporated...so if you have to rely on studio mechanics in order to sound decent then I don't consider you so much of an artist. and it's not about being a powerhouse...it's about being well-rounded. as an artist, you NEED to be talented. To say that vocals aren't important is laughable because they are what market the artist before anything else. even though people don't think of it as such today. you could ask ANYONE out on the street would they buy music that had the artist sounding bad? No. That's why artists who lack vocal ability are put through the magic of the studio in order to at least get the public's attention past that and try to place focus on the sound and that person's performance. but I digress.