Rock and Roll and Pop music is not about 2 dozen dancers on stage.
This was said on another thread & I wondered how people feel about this.
Do dancers make a stage performance too Vegas/Broadway?
Or does it add to the show?

thedoorkeeper said:

In the case of James Brown, yes, though his band is tight by today's performance standards. And his dancers might take up the slack for his inability to move like he use to. I think Prince did it effectively with Parade and Diamonds and Pearls shows. If the music is good, the dance routine will always fall back. If your an act that focuses on dance and let's say canned music like Michael Jackson post 95 it's important that the dancing and stage show take more importance, after 25 years with a backing band He didn't transition well from live musicians to canned music. Even though he had an accomplished cheorgarpher like Lavellie Smith the dancing and stage show wasn't stepped up and with the last tour. In fact it was his worst stage show, especially with lose of Jaime King and even Taco.

Real "live" music no matter how many dancers will always trump dancing.
[Edited 12/31/05 17:11pm]

I have always said that the reason people have all these dancers is to take up the space on the stage where the instruments used to be. Without dancers, most of today's entertainers would look totally lonesome on that huge stage with nothing else. Hell, get rid of those damn dancers and get some instruments and start playing them. Also, I don't know what they are dancing for, the music is too damn slow to dance to. Concerts today look like thugged out Broadway shows.
.
.
[Edited 1/1/06 7:44am]

music and dance have always gone hand in hand to me. as a dancer, i enjoy seeing dance as part of a show. and sometimes the dance is just as important or gives life to the song as in Flamenco music. being as dance is one of the least appreciated art forms around, i do see it's importance in shows. music moves people, it makes sense. HOWEVER, i do agree with the previous posts for the most part. sometimes it can be disconcerting to the music/musicians, or the concert goers.

i think part of it, at least for arena/stadium sized shows, is to fill up the stage. part of the 'story telling'. or even because dance is an integral part of that artist's craft/show. (i.e. Madonna, Janet Jackson.) and with the prices of tickets in recent times, they better damn well entertain all my senses.

but i feel you also have to take into account, who you're going to see.
if going to see a Britney Spears show, i'm not expecting to hear anything earth moving or spiritually lifting. i know what i'm going to get.

now. someone who does it right: Tina Turner. each band member was showcased, and never hidden. stage set was incredible without being too Vegas or Broadway like. she had 2 or 3 dancers, who she danced right along with, or complimented the music and Tina. her acoustic sets completely stripped the stage of anything 'extra'. it was her, a guitar player, and sometimes the pianist; and 1 or 2 spotlights. Her opening act was Brian Setzer Orchestra who blew the audience away. He did a little dancing too, but he was no Tina.

it's also a sign of the times. (no pun intended honestly) it is sad that theatrics at times plays a bigger part than the music. sometimes that's why i enjoy shows at smaller venues. when i went to see Belinda Carlisle a couple years ago at the House of Blues, it was one of the best concerts i'd ever seen. she had a 5 piece band. (with Gina on drums) and there was no room for dancers or pyrotechnics on that little stage. lol. allowing the audience to solely focus on the music and Belinda's performance. i think some people were expecting a light pop/dancey show. until she amazed everyone and belted out the songs with a voice that puts any of her recordings to shame. wow
(ok sorry... got a little of track there. )

so, yeah, i think dance should enhance a concert, visually, but not be the main attraction.

my