Do you consider dancing as a gimmick for Pop/R&B singers to hide their limited singing ability?

Dancing has nothing to do with the presentation of the actual music, so yeah, it's a gimmick. However, I do think people felt like it was a more integral part to pop music performances in the 80s and early 90s (people we're still talking about things like "who's the best dancer in the world?"). After that it shortly fell from fashion for a while - at least the choreographed end of it - only to return to music videos along with boybands and Britney Spears, at the end of the decade. Strangely enough, those am. projects started employing that style of presentation just at the moment when it was considered globally quite tasteless and definitely outdated. Mind you, not even Michael Jackson did a typical "dancing-in-lines" video for his HIStory album, it was considered so out of touch at the time. So I'm actually quite surprised to see how comfortable people feel about it these days again, choreographed videos have become a stable again.
[Edited 5/31/06 2:25am]

In music today, yes.

Dancing is a natural part of music, but you see some "artists" whose choreography seems to have absolutely nothing to do with the song they're singing, and it looks pretty ridiculous.

Everyone should move to the music, but yes, some people have taken the dancing way too far.

In general, I prefer dancing that appears to be more spontaneous than choreographed.


tA

Tribal Disorder

http://www.soundclick.com...dID=182431

minneapolisgenius said:

Yes, I totally agree. This is why people like Usher, Janet, Madonna and Britney are so popular. They look great and the dancing and the sexy clothes helps to hide the fact that they can't really sing.

NDRU said:

Excactly , it might be called a gimmick , but in certain tracks it's an essential element .
It adjusts to the whole and can be infectious and adrenaline pumpin' , like raw streetdance-moves which can lift up the visual aspect .
Besides that , it's a worthy bonus if one's as talented with dancing as with singing .
.
.
.
[Edited 5/31/06 13:23pm]

100MPH said:

Watching people stand still and play music can be pretty boring. Even Kurt Cobain danced in his own way. All the great performers have some way of moving, from Michael's true dance to Bruce Springsteen's very animated way playing of a guitar & singing.

Novabreaker said:

Go back to the African Roots way before the 80's and early 90's .
Communities were presenting their music combined with tribal dancemoves .
In some cases even for religious reasons ... so yeah , dancing CAN have a lot to do with presenting music .
I said " can " because there are also different musicstyles which don't need dance-moves . But that's not a reason to state that it's not an essential element .

NDRU said:

I remember a tv-special about the Seattle-scene .
There was this dude who had followed Nirvana's career from scratch and ( i believe ) he showed this photo or another amazing shot of Kurt doing a headspin .

NDRU said:

Oh, well now you guys are getting all deep about it. Sure, I love when a performer has their own way of moving onstage. Definitely. Hell, I'm a professional dancer for godssake so I can really appreciate it.

I just thought this thread was about dancing in videos, and having hugely choreographed tours with back-up dancers and all that.

minneapolisgenius said:

Hey , i've seen some solid choreography in the videos-past

minneapolisgenius said:

So I guess dancing in and of itself is okay with you then?

Yes, what comes to mind when the question is asked is B2K, N' Stink, or even Janet Jackson, who seem to be thinking about their next step much more than the actual creation of music.

100MPH said:

Sure, the Beat It video was exciting when it happened, it just inspired some crappy imitations.

I think Hammer took it to its most ridiculous extreme. he had like 100 people onstage all doing the same moves.

Krytonite said:

When in the right hands there's nothing better than a great dancer tearing it up on stage. Just watch P in Housequake, or JB, MJ, or even Hammer back in the day. Sadly, the vast majority of the dancing we see in music now is simply a ploy to hide the performer's weakness. Janet Jackson started it. She was desperate to emulate her brother's magic, but not being the genius he was, she took what was only one aspect of his work, the line dancing, and made it her whole act. She was a choreographer's toy. Britney and a whole generation of video stars were cast in this mold.

NDRU said:

yeah , that was like the Ringling Barnum & Bailey of Soul

But besides these 2 big commercial ones , i've seen some other great unfamiliar stuff back then on music-channels which i can't excactly recall right now .

And when it comes to breakdance & electric boogie , dancing is umissable to music .

I've seen Cameo live doing some powerful choreography .

And i still dig some specific moves from the newjack-era ... those are on point !
.
.
.
[Edited 5/31/06 14:12pm]

100MPH said:

Oh, no doubt, but I'm just really sick of it now I guess. It all looks the same to me now (sort of like how the music starts all sounding the same ) and I'm over it.

Nowdays, I find a video interesting if there are NO dancers in them I know that must sound weird coming from a dancer, but it's true.

too much use of the word "now" edit
[Edited 5/31/06 14:24pm]

100MPH said:

Actual music. There are no valid ontological connections to be found between sound recognized as a musical composition and making irrational spastic movements. That's a mere sociological construction, and is transmitted through the use of symbolic systems. Dance is a language and dance movements are signs - it just happens to be that they are empty sings. Furthermore, why dance should be seen as detached in totality from the music itself is because it clearly contributes nothing to what we hear (if we don't count in the sounds made by body movements, clapping and so on in tribal gatherings). The only way you can "present" music through dance is to recognize the two as a "synthetic" unity, but in that case you are not really presenting a musical piece, but rather an event. A musical piece isn't a spatial phenomenon, whilst physical activities certainly are. Music's mimetic character is defined by the fact that it doesn't have any sort of finite, recognizeable physiological appearance. It can only be heard, the rest is something else and inescapably auxiliary and complementary by nature. Therefore the only means to present music itself to others is to "present" it through the usage musical instruments or recordings. For one cannot have any definitive idea what some musical piece "presented" through dance would sound like if we wouldn't get to hear the sound but would just see the dance performance. Thus it should be clear that dancing has absolutely nothing to do with the artform of music itself - it's a communal interpretation of an aesthetic piece. Not communication through the aesthetic piece itself. In other words, the effort made at communication is solely through the expression of a sentiment derived from the original presentation, not through the form of the original object (which is what is an essential to an artform, the sovereignty of form). I think that should be quite clear to everybody.

Novabreaker said:

Bodies don't naturally respond and move (and by that I mean dance) to silence. If there were no music ever, there would have been no development of dancing throughout history. The whole history of dance is synonymous with music.

Now of course, it's the trend in the dance world to dance in total silence, or dance to a loud monotonous buzzing noise for example, but I hardly think early tribal people were turning and jumping around to the sound of silence.
[Edited 5/31/06 14:32pm]

Novabreaker said:

Crystal clear!

whoknows said:

Not to me.

eh, there are musicians and there are perfomers. And sometimes, when you get really lucky, someone can be both.
I'm not so sure I'd call it a 'gimmick', just a different kinda show.

Music is meant to be heard not seen!
When the dance moves draws ones attention away from the artist's lack of his/her singing ability then yes it has become a gimmick. But when asked if he used gimmicks [setting guitar's a blaze] Jimi responded "yeah, I use gimmicks". So even the greats used gimmicks.
[Edited 5/31/06 14:42pm]

minneapolisgenius said:

I get what he's saying, just don't agree.

I think seeing a performance of say Madonna or Janet on tour is a completely different experience than if you were listening to a live recording of the same show. It's a combination of the two that makes it so damn special. And if they were doing the same movements in utter silence, well, that's a whole nother story there as well. They go hand in hand.

Again, peformers, musicians. No gimmick, just a different experience.

Krytonite said:

I would consider it that if dancing were something just anybody could do well.

Novabreaker said:

whaeva

what about tap dancing, huh, what about that, huh?

Doesn't music make you want to dance or move! Why can't the performer do so? Why can't most Rappers dance?

lilgish said:

Music does make people want to dance or move but do you think singers today are using dancing to cover up thier weak singing ability?

can someone show me how to do the Sugarfoot?

well James Brown wasn't a great singer so he used an ear splitting band, and his great dancing to get by.

Prince isn't a great singer but he uses his incredible musicianship skills and quirky dance skills

Bobby Brown and New Edition aren't great singers(except JG) and they are still touring and are called one of the great touring performance giving people in the world.

Mariah Carey, Whitney Houston,Boyz To Men, and Brian Mcknight can sing circles around all these artist, but they can't outperform none of those artist onstage,