Popularity does not put a show - or anything for that matter - above criticism.

I cannot imagine that you believe that DWTS owes its fame to the quality of the dancing. Take away the attractive, scantily clad young bodies and see how much of the audience stays around to admire some has-been entertainer's telemarks.

jj

what it on the web and you can fast forward past the filler. You're right it makes about a 20 min show.

I mean watch

if you want to see a popularity contest talk to the women who watch the show it was not kristi yamaguchi that won it was mark ballas' chest. once tony was gone and his chest was not longer bare it was the natural choice why else have men one for the past five seasons it is not so much a popularity contest as it is a chippendale show at least this season someone with a mininium of technique won even if the vote where placed more for his chest than for her dancing.

Where on earth did you get the idea that women are voting for a "bare chest"? Give us some credit. I and all of my friends, male and female, watched the dancing. Having good looking men and women dancing was icing on the cake. Kristi had more than "a minimum of technique" IMO.

This season's Dancing With the Stars winning couple had the benefit of a solicitation of support at the top center of the BallroomDancers.com home page. Advertising on this web page may be highly effective.

Dancing With the Stars meets the need of the financially pressed networks for shows that are economical to produce yet draw a large number of viewers, especially viewers with the demographics that advertisers want.
Beyond that, Dancing With the Stars may well have made ballroom dancing more visible and interesting to many Americans. On the other hand, the feedback that I've obtained about the dancing on the show from a small and selective sample is that it is not what these viewers feel that they could learn to do in the time that they have available, and even more serious, they don't see that kind of dancing as fun.

I recall about three decades ago when I began to get involved with dancing. Why? Because it looked like fun, and my "toe in to the water" of ballroom dancing was, indeed, fun. But then there was learning some 10 dances. Daunting. Not fun. Fortunately, I got into square dancing, which was fun almost every time, and confirmed that I could be successful in learning to dance. Then I moved laterally into contras, a variation of square dancing, which was really great fun (and still is -- I look forward with keen anticipation to a full evening of Contra dancing for my 69th birthday in which I will dance many much younger persons "under the table"). At contra dances there were usually several couple dances, e.g., a waltz, a hambo. There were lessons before dances and more experienced dancers were helpful to new dancers. So, if not always immediately, then soon there was fun in doing the couple dances. The dancers may not meet the criteria for competition ballroom dancers, but they usually enjoyed and often loved their dancing. When I intersected with Country Western dancing, I found that these dancers also liked that they could quickly learn to do at least the basics of the dancing and have fun doing it (and while wearing typical clothing).
With this foundation of success and enjoyment, I was better positioned to tackle the ballroom dances.

To wrap up: I hope that it will not be a surprise that I would like to see TV shows that show dancers HAVING FUN while doing steps that viewers can imagine learning to do in a brief amount of time, and wearing that which could be worn elsewhere than on the dance floor, and, if not drawn from the closet, is affordable. I propose that this would draw a great many persons to dancing. Perhaps I should promote a concept for such a show. What comes immediately to mind is "Underground Dancing" -- a show that would present dancing that has developed and flourished among the people, without benefit of studios. Canjun and Salsa dancing are two of a number of examples that come immediately to mind.

Enough of this writing. It's time for some FUN anticipating that birthday Contra dance and what fun it's going to be balancing and swinging with hundreds of partners who enjoy if not love this moving to music. Isn't that the ultimate bottom line?

jpbdance. A competition Dancer enjoys the training ,and the training sesions as well as the lessons as well as anything else that is neccesary to be a competitor. It is no difference to the Swimmer or the Athelete who spend hours on the track or in the pool. They do enjoy it and have fun othererwise why would they have done it in the first place.

The more serious watcher has plenty of excellent ballroom championship programming to get their fix. Dancing with the Stars is about watching stars from all fields you are familiar with trying to do something they don't normally do. But what has happened in the meantime? The dancers have become stars as well. Many more people know who Tony D. and Cheryl B. and Julianne H. are now. Without ths show, many people would not know they existed. Instead, they have been entertained by a show that delivers just sheer joy. Looking at the other junk TV offers, it's pretty hard to argue that this isn't pleasant fare that all ages can enjoy. I'll watch America's Ballroom Challenge without fail, but it would be dumb for me to say DWTS doesn't interest me because the dancing really isn't that good. That would just announce to the world that I don't really understand what the show is all about.
From where I was sitting, the final three couples were plenty good enough, even though they wouldn't come close in America's Ballroom Challenge.

". . . but it would be dumb for me to say DWTS doesn't interest me because the dancing really isn't that good. That would just announce to the world that I don't really understand what the show is all about."

Whether you can understand the concept or not, it is more than a bit churlish to refuse to accept that opinions whch differ from your own may be equally valid.

DWTS, like any other program on US TV, is about ratings: getting the largest possible number of people to tune in to the show. DWTS does so by packaging attractive and athletic young dancers in skimpy outfits with familiar faces who have their own audience appeal. This strategy has worked well for the show's producers.

I don't like DWTS because it exploits a very distorted view of a wonderfully enjoyable and rewarding activity. You can claim that it has drawn many more people to ballroom dancing when in truth it has lured folks into dance studios with a false impression of ballroom and latin. Ever since this show first aired, I've watched their enthusiasm evaporate in the face of dancing's physical and mental demands. I would be amazed if more than 5% of them keep at it, even socially.

I'll have to take your word for the quality of performance of the final contestants. Instead of watching this show, I was in the studio, dancing.

jj

I would have to agree with the 5 percent or less theory. It seems like the studios haven't taken full advantage of this new-found interest, or at least more couples giving it a first try. I've noticed that those who realize that you have to practice and don't mind that, will stick with it -- if they can afford it during these rocky economic times.
But it's similar to the golf craze when Tiger Woods first came on the scene, along with the newer, more forgiving equipment. Tons of people were playing golf and hacking around all over the place. And then they faded away, leaving behind maybe that 5 percent that stuck with it.
As for sticking with dancing socially, there are not enough venues that market and advertise ballroom to keep people's interest level up. They go to a special event of some sort -- wedding, reunion, fund-raiser, etc. and they do the few steps they learned and that's it. There are not enough weekly or even monthly dances in a lot of places these days.
By the way, when I am at a rehearsal, practice or lesson and a dance show that I want to see is on TV at the same time, recording the program is a workable alternative.