Well ec, body type has a lot to do with whether you are a good dancer or not. You're right when you say Chris Brown doesn't have the body to dance as well as Michael. It doesn't come down to the different forms of dance though. Dancing to me is defined by the movement between poses. Popping to me isn't dancing, that's muscle and joint control, acrobatics isn't dancing, etc...
When I see Chris dance, he has talent, I never said he didn't, but it isn't exceptional. Talent is talent, no amount of work will create it. Kids that go and audition for ballet schools are either accepted or rejected based on the natural talent they display. And they DO display it at a very young age.
Watching Chris dance, I look for one thing, how well does he move from one position to the next. And making that determination is based on several factors. Is he light and easy with his movement, is he tight and controlled, does he have good speed, is he clean with no excess movement. Now this may seem like an over the top analysis, but I don't think about it, you can just see all that for yourself, if you're really watching. The answer is, watching Chris, he has okay speed, he's sloppy however, he isn't very graceful, and he has okay fluidity. That says to me, at his age, that he's just an okay dancer, not a good dancer and not a great dancer. That's all. He's too tall, he's too big. The older he gets, the more he will fill out, and the harder it will be for him to move with as much ease and fluidity as he does now, which isn't much to begin with. You ever see Michael when he was 18? He was unreal. His speed and ease were out of this world.
Chris they say has been singing and performing professionally since he was 12. Now I assume that means he's been doing this in front of audiences such as school crowds, etc... So its not as if he just started yesterday.
Now I'll admit, Chris is better then Usher or Timberlake in the dancing department. He isn't as good of a singer though. And he'll improve before he gets worse. But he won't improve to exceptional quality. Because you display that potential at a far younger age then Chris is at now. If what that author is saying is correct, then why is Chris Brown a pop star? He should be part of some dance troop in LA. If he can't sing and he can't write, then why is he being called the next Michael Jackson? Michael is as much a singer as he is anything, and he is as much of a composer as he is anything. He displays equal ability in all three areas. Which brings us of course to what you said about today’s acts being expected to do it all.
Michael made that happen. But it was unintentional.
Michael hit the scene, and here you had a kid who could sing at the highest level, who could dance at the highest level (there's a reason Fred Astaire and Gene Kelly talked about how great Michael was and not others before him, such as James Brown and Jackie Wilson), and he could compose at the highest level in modern day music. Of course, the industry saw this, they saw Michael raise the standard, but at the same time, they realized that someone of Michael's talent level only comes along once in probably forever. So what do they do? They start producing people who, on appearance, can do everything Michael does. Sing, dance, write, blah, blah. But if you look more closely, they actually are only a shell of what Michael is. They can do all those things, sing, dance, write, but at an only passable level, and its this way in all areas. They are jacks of all trades, masters of none. You used to have people who were masterful in one area or maybe two, and if they were okay at another, great. But it was usually one area where they focused and one area where they thrived, one area they were recognized in as having great talent, and that was accepted as the standard. When Michael came along, that changed, and in order to compete, now you have a bunch of people who are okay at a bunch of things, but not good and certainly not great at anything. The overall standard has dropped because of Michael. Weird, but true.
Michael is one of a kind. You had Fred Astaire, who was a brilliant dancer. That's what he was. He would sing too. But no one thought of him as a singer like Frank Sinatra or Nat King Cole. You had James Brown. He was more of a singer then a dancer, imo. He was a really good dancer, but his strength above all else was his voice. You had Sammy Davis Jr. A brilliant dancer, with an average voice. He was seen more as a dancer then a singer.
Michael's the only person in history to be equally gifted in all three areas. That's something. You won't see that again.
So when I see today’s acts, Chris Brown, Justin Timberlake, Usher, Omarion, so on and so forth, I see a lot that are passable in each area they call their talents, but not special in either one. I would rather have someone who is exceptional in one area then someone who is just okay in a bunch. Quality over quantity, always.