The New York Times comments on Dance Reality TV

[saludas]

http://nytimes.com/2005/09/09/arts/dance/09kour.html?8hpib=&pagewanted=print

[mamboqueen]

Hmmm..all I got was a rather large Ralph Lauren ad. One of my favorites designers, though :)

Never mind. It worked the second time. that was strange.

[saludas]

Hmmm..all I got was a rather large Ralph Lauren ad. One of my favorites designers, though :)

Never mind. It worked the second time. that was strange.

Er, it's commercial site and the ads come on at the beginning. There is a button to push called 'skip this ad' and all you have to do is push it.

[Joe]

LOL @ "car-wreck appeal."

[Swingolder]

I have never watched "So you think you can dance". Flipped it on the first week and decided it was NOT something I cared about. But I did like the comments in the article on "Dancing with the stars". Being a very beginner ballroom dancer, myself, I thought the writers reasons for liking some participants, and not liking others, were similar to mine. Too bad I could never have said it as well.

[Porfirio Landeros]

I guess the New York Times is a little touchy about there not being enough New York choreographers in the programs, eh?

It seems that there is enough dance talent on this coast due demand from TV and Film.

Also, you can get the best in the world as far as ballroom is concerned from either coast. The guest choreographers are proof of that, having Glenn, Ron, Heather Smith, and Toni & Michael, to name a few. If they chose to tape out there, you could fill the slots with people just as good (I would not say better or worse).

According to the article, I guess San Diego is LA-area :P

[dragon3085]

Ok, I'm back and I couldn't resist commenting. I thought the article was fair in its judgement but maybe a little harsh. I don't thin I could watch the shows as an unbiased observer being a dancer myself. However if what I wanted to see was what was popular, then espn2 or A&E would still be showing the Ballroom events and would have added in the Salsa congresses as well.
But that doesn't sell to the average joe and these two shows listed in the article are what we got. And so far as the judges go, lets face it, american idol has set out the Judge cookbook so far as these shows go- so it doesn't really matter who you get, they are going to fit a certain mold to keep with that style. And my guess is that they are themselves coached on what type of critiques to give to the dancers.

Patrick

[SalsaAmore]

I guess the New York Times is a little touchy about there not being enough New York choreographers in the programs, eh? It seems that there is enough dance talent on this coast due demand from TV and Film.

A little touchy? No kidding. This writer is very out of touch with the dance world and her views are very distorted if she thinks "Dancing with the Stars" is a more superior show. She thinks "So You Think You Can Dance" is a showcase for pretty faces and that is noted. But, she forgets to note that we are watching some of the best and most talented dancers in the country oppose to some celebrities has beens trying to hop and wobble across the stage which she obviously can relate to. If "DWTS" is really about dancing, Kelly Monaco would of been kicked off a long time ago, Rachel Hunter would of stayed and John Hurley would take the grand prize without deliberation. No, but it's also about pretty faces and hot bodies (Kelly Monaco) and bringing in ratings by showcasing celebrities instead of real dancers. I can sense the age of this writer and that she has no dance background or training. Or, she would understand how important the show "So You Think You Can Dance" is for REAL dancers. We haven't had a great show like this to showcase real dancers before. And, FOX, we want more of it! This writer is nothing but another arrogant New Yorker and snooty patron of the arts who looks down her nose on LA film and videography.

[pygmalion]

Hmm. I'm not a "So You Think You Can Dance," watcher. So I don't know whether the comparison of the two shows was fair or not. *shrug*

I do think that this article is just another piece of exposure for the dance world. And exposure for the dance world is a good thing, IMHO. 8)

[swan]

I personally liked So you think you can dance better than Dancing with Stars! And I'm a die hard ballroom dancer.

The columnist probably missed the point of what So you think was all about. It is about dance talent AND versatility. It's interesting about the coment on Nigel passing the Juliard talent. Yes, folks get admitted to Juliard are pretty darn talented. Since I didn't see that particular audition, I couldn't comment on if it's fair to not let this talent be on the show. However, it could be that dancer was not versatile enough.

The article was right about dancing being hard work & would take a lot of desire & effort to succeed. But it's indisputable the talent that's being displayed on So You Think were not just some pretty faces. These folks CAN dance & dance very well! Granted, the ones they picked to be on the show were mostly 'full package' (w/ exception of the big teddy bear Alan).

OK - the judging may not be all that fair & I had disagreed w/ a few before. But it was unfair to say So you think is a 'inferior' show than Stars. It was also uncalled for to put down some of the choreographers whom I think actually were brilliant!

[Porfirio Landeros]

Does anyone remember the FAME reality show from a year or two back? This show was based on the Triple-Threat idea (Sing/Dance/Act), and was based in New York and only the best-of-the-best in the experts opinions (including Debbie Allen's) were passed through to the finals. The show completely flopped, as far as I am concerned. I really wanted it to work, and by the end we stopped watching and just checked on the Internet to see who won.

The formula for SYTYCD is much more agreable to audiences because you really see the dancers get challenged, along with some Simon-esque antics from the judges. My non-dancer friends have picked up the show later in the season... I think the show started off really rough, and once the 16 were picked, it really became entertaining.

Nigel specifically said that he didn't want any celebrities... he wanted real dance talent behind the scenes (judges/choreographers), so the Times writer can continue to complain about the quality of the show, but as we all know, these talented dancers are certainly being tested all-around and are more than pretty faces.

I enjoyed Dancing with the Stars, too, but I didn't get as much dance-wise from watching, and was really disappointed about Mr. O'Hurley losing.

[Genesius Redux]

A little touchy? No kidding. This writer is very out of touch with the dance world and her views are very distorted if she thinks "Dancing with the Stars" is a more superior show. She thinks "So You Think You Can Dance" is a showcase for pretty faces and that is noted. But, she forgets to note that we are watching some of the best and most talented dancers in the country oppose to some celebrities has beens trying to hop and wobble across the stage which she obviously can relate to. If "DWTS" is really about dancing, Kelly Monaco would of been kicked off a long time ago, Rachel Hunter would of stayed and John Hurley would take the grand prize without deliberation.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I have a friend who suggested that it should have been Dancing With the B-List Stars. Two of the judges weren't even ballroom judges!

Re Julliard, I grew up in NY and played jazz trombone professionally, and in my experience the Julliard grads had a lot of attitude and very little in the way of chops. That may not say much about the dancers they put out but I know that when it came to finding cats to play with, nobody really cared too much about where you went to school. Julliard=Talent just ain't automatic, all I'm saying.

GR

[new-ish]

I think that the difference between the two shows is that DWTS came to this country with a proven model to sell to the public, while SYTYCD folks seem to be ad-libbing with their formula.

I like both shows, but to "discover" that America's best dancer is already a working professional is pretty anti-climatic.

The proof of either concept is that DWTS was the top rated show of the summer, while SYTYCD failed to make the top 20 in ratings last week.

[swan]

The proof of either concept is that DWTS was the top rated show of the summer, while SYTYCD failed to make the top 20 in ratings last week.

I guess the B-list celebrities are still worth something...Also the ballroom outfits are more glitzy.

SYTYCD's dancing is probably loads better, but then most people probably think it's just like MTV routines competitions. Naturally, rating is not as good.

However, I did find last week's quickstep (from Jamile & Destiny' ) utmost entertaining - almost as funny as Evander's dancing. I had a great laugh on that one. At least they had an honest attempt. Too bad America did not find this show more worthwhile...

[Waltzer]

I watch SYTYCD show regularly and find it fascinating. I agree with SalsaAmore that there is more 'real' dancing there than in DWTS. The most interesting aspect for me is to watch how people with extensive dance training adopt to different styles of dancing. It seems that Standard is the most challenging style for the dancers who did not dance ballroom before.

The article does sound harsh and unfair to me, but it has some interesting points, e.g. "Movement never lies" (quoting Martha Graham). I think it is true that the dancers' personalities did come accross strongly in DWTS, but part of it IMO was that the celebrities were begginners and could not "hide" behind the technique. Flaws in the movement revealed much more about the person than a polished style would.

[alemana]

um


before one impugns the backround/training of a critic, which is by the way a rather childish way of saying you don't agree with their opinion, one should really use GOOGLE, an amazing tool on the internets, to make sure one's claim about the writer having no backround/training is true. then, when one realizes, aha, this writer has an amazing amount of backround and published work on dance, perhaps one can then move on to a more nuanced argument to dispute the writer's arguments.

[saludas]

I think it is true that the dancers' personalities did come accross strongly in DWTS, but part of it IMO was that the celebrities were begginners and could not "hide" behind the technique. Flaws in the movement revealed much more about the person than a polished style would.

Really? I thouhgt the opposite - the 'stars' showed how little technique they had - and they 'hid' more behind Vegas-y 'moves' than had any real technique.

[Waltzer]

I think it is true that the dancers' personalities did come accross strongly in DWTS, but part of it IMO was that the celebrities were begginners and could not "hide" behind the technique. Flaws in the movement revealed much more about the person than a polished style would.

Really? I thouhgt the opposite - the 'stars' showed how little technique they had - and they 'hid' more behind Vegas-y 'moves' than had any real technique.

Yes, I don't think we disagree on the fact that 'the stars' had little technique. What I was trying to say is that because of that you could "read" their personality easier from how they move. On the other hand, when you watch high-level competitors dancing, their personalities come across in more subtle ways.

[Adwiz]

I think the real differences between the two shows are being missed in critiques like that NYT article.

What makes "Dancing with the Stars" so effective is the "princess" factor, for lack of a better term. People love to see others attempt something new, especially something romantically "dreamy" like dancing. The fact that they are celebrities adds even more drama, because they might fail in their attempt to come out on top, just like ordinary people do. This is incredibly appealing to the audience.

SYTYCD is, in my opinion, a better example of dancing, the years of effort that go into it, the passion behind it, and the beauty of the finished product. But it doesn't have the magic of Stars because most of the audience (including me) can't picture themselves on that stage. But we can picture ourselves on the other stage, working with one of those pros for a few weeks to see what we can do. What I would give to have that opportunity with Charlotte Jorgensen!

[alemana]

one of the vendors at USDSC had a poll question at their booth: who will win the sept 20 dancing with the stars rematch? something like 90% of the respondents said: john and charlotte.

[pygmalion]

one of the vendors at USDSC had a poll question at their booth: who will win the sept 20 dancing with the stars rematch? something like 90% of the respondents said: john and charlotte.

Hmm. How are the judging and audience voting weighed again? Is the rematch supposed to be decided purely by audience vote?