Is So You Think You can Dance better than American Idol?

Yes

1 of 5

by Les Jacobs

• 

Write now Print Invite a writer™ Add to Favorites RSS Feed Contact this writer

I have watched both "American Idol" and "So You Think You Can Dance" for several years now and I find myself growing more bored of the former and more riveted by the latter. Here are 10 reasons why:

1. "So You Think You Can Dance" has better stage performances than "American Idol." The reason for this is simple: there is music plus dancing on "So You Think You Can Dance," while there's only music (singing) on "American Idol." It's true that some "Idol" contestants put on a decent show while they sing, but the worst of "Dance's" top 10 put on better stage performances than any "Idol" winners have to date. There's simply more going on on stage in "So You Think You Can Dance."

2. "So You Think You Can Dance" has better music than "American Idol." It's odd that this is true, as "Idol" is all about singing, but it is. The music on "Idol" is limited by the vocal capabilities of the contestants, while dancers can pretty much dance to anything. As a result, there's a much greater range of music on "So You Think You Can Dance" than on "American Idol."

3. "So You Think You Can Dance" is more educational than "American Idol." This is what makes me look forward to watching each episode and each season of "So You Think You Can Dance." There is so much about dance I don't know that each episode is a true learning experience. You're shown different forms and styles of dance and you're exposed to different types of music you wouldn't normally listen to. "American Idol" seems to repeat the same old songs again and again. Yes, there are a few new and original songs every year, but they are rarely very good or even interesting. (At least to my ears.)

4. "So You Think You Can Dance" contestants are more talented. In order to make the top 20, competitors have to prove they are both exceptional dancers and able to learn complicated choreography in one hour. On "American Idol," all contestants have to do is demonstrate that they can sing and learn a few new songs overnight. Granted, singing is a talent (I should know, I am one and I get paid), and I'm not poo-pooing that. But it's much harder to dance at the level "So You Think You Can Dance" competitors dance at in the top 20 than sing at the level "American Idol" contestants sing at in its top 20.

5. "So You Think You Can Dance" contestants know more. It's impossible to make the top 20 in "So You Think You Can Dance" without having taken dance classes. There simply is no way untrained dancers can learn complicated choreography in short order without some formal training. Contestants on "American Idol" can certainly make the top 20 without formal voice lessons, however. They may have sung in choirs and school musicals, maybe even local theater productions (like Clay Aiken), but they need not have had vocal training with a voice instructor. As a result, "So You Think You Can Dance" contestants know more about how to use their bodies than "American Idol" competitors know how to use their voices.

6. "So You Think You Can Dance" contestants are healthier. You won't find any "So You Think You Can Dance" contestants looking like "American Idol"'s Ruben Studdard. I'm not criticizing the man-I like him and enjoy hearing him sing-but I think you'll agree that he simply doesn't look as healthy as "So You Think You Can Dance" contestants. Dancers have to exercise hard virtually every day to stay at the top of their game; singers don't. Even when "So You Think You Can Dance" contestants are on the heavy side, they're muscular and glowing with health.

7. "So You Think You Can Dance" contestants are more attractive. This is admittedly subjective, but there's nothing like a combination of good looks and a physically fit body to bring out the true beauty of a person. Yes, on "American Idol" contestants can look stunning, but this is often more the result of a clever stylist and talented makeup artist than anything else.

8. The judges on "So You Think You Can Dance" are more intelligent and helpful than those on "American Idol." On "So You Think You Can Dance" every single judge has something insightful and relevant to say about a performance. Mary Murphy can get carried away sometimes, it's true, but when she does (usually by screaming with enthusiasm) it's always for good reason; she knows her stuff and is, by any measure, an expert-all "So You Think You Can Dance" judges are. Meanwhile, on "American Idol," you have Paula Abdul.

9. "So You Think You Can Dance" is rarely boring, "American Idol" often is. How many times can you listen to renditions of the same song? How about unenthusiastic renditions of old, boring songs? On "So You Think You Can Dance" each performance offers up something new and different, whether it be music or movement. I hate to miss a single performance on "So You Think You Can Dance." I have come to care less and less whether I miss any on "American Idol."

10. While "American Idol" is growing stale, "So You Think You Can Dance" gets more exciting and fresh each season. "American Idol" seems to be running out of good songs for its contestants to sing. This is the only explanation I can find as to why they keep going further back in history for material each season. It's gotten to the point where critics are saying "American Idol" is now more popular among seniors than teens.

"So You Think You Can Dance," on the other hand, is attracting a greater number of viewers of all ages each season. This is because, as noted above, the music is more interesting and diverse, there is so much more one can do in dance than in song, and better dancers are competing to get on the show.

"American Idol" is far from dead, and I'm not trying to write its obituary. I found the latest season to be one of the best. But while "American Idol" can be entertaining, "So You Think You Can Dance" is truly must-see TV. For me, anyway.

Learn more about this author, Les Jacobs.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.