Quote:
Originally posted by lonnie
and before the 90s? and I wouldn't call Paula and Jlo the biggest popstars from the 90s.
Dancing is meant to be a complementary tool alongside singing during perfomances, I don't think it's an essential gift every popstar should have. People need to understand that, popstars release songs and hence are singers before dancers, if this was based on vocal ability then it would be understandable.
In short, it's great if a popstar can dance great and even better if he/she can dance and sing great as well but dancing isn't really all that important
|
If you don't think they are two of the biggest 90s popstars, then who is bigger who did not dance? Granted, they are not the top popstars, and a lot of Paula's success was in the late 1980s and J.Lo's in the early 2000s, but the point still stands unless we want to make this exclusively about the 1990s.
Before the 1990s, there were no bigger female popstars than Madonna, Janet and Paula, all of them dancing, all fitting into that MJ popstar mould of a singing and dancing performer. Other big stars like Cyndi Lauper or Pat Benetar didn't really dance but their legacy hasn't carried over the way the other's mentioned have.
I agree a popstar doesn't need to dance, but I think it's definitely preferred. Singing and dancing has long gone hand-in-hand in the entertainment industry. Like I said, musicals were hugely popular in the 1930s-1950s and they all sung and danced (or if they couldn't sing, they were dubbed, but it still was a singing-and-dancing performance). Prior to this was vaudeville which also used singing and dancing.
The real issue is that we have mediocre-to-good singers as our popstars, who cannot even dance. Thus, we're getting C-grade performances when there are other brilliant stage performers like Nicole Scherzinger who somehow does not have the success. It's a simple question:
would you rather watch a pitchy, off-key vocal performance with stiff dance moves or vocal slayage with on-point dance moves?