Tuesday, November 24, 2009


I want to say here and now that I am not a prude.
I mentioned in yesterday’s post that I watched and loved the AMA show.
And I love performances that “push the envelope” with choreography and costuming.
But does “pushing the envelope” always have to include sexual “in bed” moves?
OK, when Michael Jackson grabbed his crotch the first time, the country gasped.
And then Madonna did her version.
And then everyone else has.
And it was effective those first few years.
But you know what?
The shock value is over.
All that’s left are crude, in your face gyrations that don’t promote . . .
Songs, singers, or CDs.
So can we move on? 
I mean, why aren’t the music & lyrics and the singer singing them enough?
Yes, it’s wonderful that some singers can also dance.
But I can’t imagine that if Diana Ross had writhed and wiggled on stage as if she was in bed, it would have made her songs more effective.
Or Donna Summers
Or Frank Sinatra
Or Whitney Houston
They didn’t/don’t have to.
And I can’t help but chuckle when I see many choreographed routines. They remind me of my grandkids who are going through a phase where they think their private parts are so cool.
“Look grandma.”
“Yes, I see your underpants. Now put your dress down.”
“Want to see my butt, grandma?”
 “No thanks. Grandma’s already seen your butt a hundred times when you were a baby.”
Yes, choreographers, we all know what it looks like to move and groove in bed.
So it’s really not shocking.
It’s just unnecessary.
I, and the rest of the world, know how to shake our booty.
And singers shaking their booty doesn't make a song better or make me want to buy it. OK?
Just last night while watching Dancing With the Star, it occurred to me that while these dancers and the dances they perform are sexy . . .
They're not raunchy.
So, please choreographers . . .
Take all those gyrating, pulsing moves and use them in your bedroom.
Maybe if you shake your own booty enough times, you'll get over the novelty of it.
And perhaps choreograph something really new and different.
Always, Em-Musing

No comments: