Michael Jackson was a lyrical/expressive dancer, not a technical dancer.
Fair statement.
Technical dancer is a dancer with technical skills (i.e., skills that have to do more with the position of the body, accuracy, precision, alignment, balance, posture, flexibility, etc).
Technical dance even has to do more with mental capacity.
Also, being a technical dancer almost always requires dance training and lessons.
Agreed although I would say a technical dancer
always needs intensive training, over many years.
A technical dancer tends to have less emotion and free expression in his/her dance moves, as compared to a lyrical/expressive dancer who dances with more emotion and free expression.
Disagree with this entirely. A technical dancer tends to have less emotion? Hm, tell that to Lynn Seymour, Sylvie Guillem, Misty Copeland, Zizi Jeanmaire, Viviana Durante, Tamara Rojo, Galina Ulanova, Natalia Makarova, Leslie Caron. How about Carlos Acosta, Adam Cooper, Michael Clark, Rudolf Nureyev, Stephen Petronio, Cesar Corrales, Roland Petit?
From Hollywood there was Cyd Charisse, Ann Miller, Donald O'Connor.
Can't let this go without mentioning Martha Graham, celebrated American choreographer who pioneered lyrical expression, fluidity of movement not to mention freedom from the somewhat rigid demands of
classical ballet that dominated the 19th and early 20th centuries.
A trained dancer will always have more freedom of expression and better ability to convey emotion bc they have the training, the technique and a much wider dance vocabulary than the untrained dancer.
Years ago, I stumbled across and article of dancer outside the entertainment business that didn't think MJ was a "technical" dancer like the likes of Astaire, Kelly or Baryshnikov.
What I didn't understand was he never once defined what he meant by "technical?"
Can't really respond bc I'd want to see the article first. I def would want to know what he means by 'technical'. Michael was an untrained dancer with a somewhat limited dance vocabulary. But he was astonishingly brilliant at what he did, combining grace, athleticism, creativity, fluidity not to mention storytelling and badass groove. His dancing was physically rigourous and beautifully artistic, also. So I'm just confused, not really understanding the point this writer is trying to make.
As for Gene Kelly? Good dancer but I would rather watch Donald O'Connor any day.