Waaaa, waaa, waaaa. Brandon Flowers looks like a woman. I can't understand the lyrics. Limp Bizkit 4eva!

Bottom line: The Killers rule, OK? They rule. Period. End of story. If you had ever seen them live, you would know. Plus, 150,000 Brits at every Glastonbury and Reading Festival pogoing to The Killers for 90 minutes can't be wrong.

Since when are we overanalyzing the grammar of song lyrics?

I'm sure today's rap/hip-hop would have something to say about that

to "Are we human? Yes, and we also a bit ignorant about the arts!": Jesus, relax. it's just a song.

The controversy this song sparks is not the singular grammatical treatment of the word "dancer" (anyone with a relatively average grasp of college level English Literature, with an IQ over 100, should not be fretting too much over Flowers' usage and play on, this word. Perhaps, though he could have underscored his intention to use the word dancer as an alternate sort of "being" by capitalizing it. Other than simple modifications like capitalization (this served Emily Dickinson quite well, as you might recall) to "heighten" & elevate the meaning of the word, there is not much more to do with this particular lyrical phrasing--in sum, any debate or "fuss"--hot or not--further about it, is just much ado about NOTHING!

However, what I do find controversial (and I imagine many thoughtful people with a deep knowledge of the arts would find this controversial as well) is the ignorance about the art of dance evident in statements made by:

1. Hunter S. Thompson (who made an ignorant remark, using "dancers" as a metaphor for "puppets" or "machines". Anyone who knows anything about the art of dance, its rich global history, and how "following steps" has very little to do with being a dancer. Sure if we take the more insipid American (primarily) understanding of what a "dancer" is and does, then we get something of the like of the "dance" routines we see on MTV, or on Oscar night. That says nothing of dance as an ART form, and dancers as artists, who have used the complex movement and composition of dance to achieve a higher level of creative expression--indeed a higher level of *human* expression. Anyone who knows anything about the art of dance, and what an artist-dancer does, knows that unbenownst to Thompson and Flowers, "dancer"--as compared to "human" can only IMPROVE upon it!

2. Brandon Flowers (foolish enough to be inspired by Hunter S. Thompson quote) Note to Flowers: go read up on it before you write a damn pop song, do us all a favor, and stop promoting ignorance, by writing pseudo-philosophical clap-trap, that actually undermines the very point you're trying to make!!)

3. And people who write posts like this:
"Dancers - meaningless purposeless beings, consumed with life's more shallow concerns. Dancing to the music, so to speak, and going through life unaware of oneself"

Although let's forgive the silly person who wrote that, for after all they were "puppet-like" (ahhh ironies upon ironies!) in the way they were fed this notion of what dance is, and what "dancers" are like, from the "very formidable" authority of an undereducated overrated 20-something punk from Utah, who albeit has some talent for catchy melodies. That and the drugged-out-of-his-mind-for-most-of-his-ill-fated-life late Hunter S. Thompson. Perhaps he was resistant to use a more apt metaphor such as, "are we raising a generation of junkies" (junkies: those who rely on chemical substances to escape the responsibility of their full human potential, and cause enormous self-destruction and often self-inflicted death--but perhaps that metaphor would have been a little too close to Thompson's casa!)

So the controversy remains: America raising generations and generations of ignorant masses when it comes to understanding the arts (Oh, I weep for you NEA!) particularly the powerful art of the dance. Perhaps this is due to too much crappy television--and dare I say it?--a reliance on reductive and shallow pop lyrics---that can reel us in with their candy-like melodic sweetness--only to miseducate us about our very own humanity!

Yours truly,

An Aspiring Member of Dancerkind

I am an Irish dancer and sometimes I think it's like we are a completely different species from human. We have a different vocabulary (cut two three step step kick one two three step birdie hop step kick around one two). Can you understand that? We also use words like feis and oirachtas.

...oops.. i meant beauty not beauties

So would you say "Are we not Man? We are Devos"?

It means wake up and smell the injustice in this world. Don't take orders because you're told to. Don't believe the mainstream news media, question the motives of corporations, question consumption. Or...will you simply follow the normal, repititive steps.

Your choice.

I don't think that the grammar of the song is relevant because it blows in the first place.

"Are we human" (means "are we wankers")
"or are we dancer" (means "are we free spritis")

Why the grammar debate? Is there no room for creativity any more?

Whether the lyrics as written specified "...or are we dancer" or whether this is the singer's doing doesn't matter. Composition and singing are both forms of artistic expression. You probably wouldn't say to an artist "the shadow from one fence post in your painting isn't long enough". You either like a painting or you don't. If you like this song, don't worry about the grammer. If you don't like it, switch stations when it comes on.

Are we duncer?

How cute these comments trying to justify the singer are! So many people here trying to judge grammar, but they have no clue about grammar.

It's clear that the singer generated the problem. He must have heard somewhere (on TV?) the word "human" and ignored the fact that it may be both a noun AND an adjective. If he meant to use the noun, he should have sung "Are we humans" (the species). As he sings "Are we human", he clearly uses the word as an adjective, as it has already been explained.

While we can tolerate the use of this adjectival form to refer to the species (like saying "Are we canine"), in the next verse, no matter how poetically misunderstood it is, "dancer" cannot be used as an adjective. There's no such adjective in the English language! Any attempt to say he wanted to name a "species" using a noun in singular is stupid. Can you say "Are we dolphin", "Are we elephant"?

Indeed, such stupid things happen very frequently in music. See the famous Romanian dance hit "Dragoste din tei". The title is plain stupid: "The love in the linden tree". Most likely, they meant
"Dragostea dintîi" ("The first love"), which makes more sense.

But this singer has some nerve :)

Are you human....
or are you WANKERS

Where did the Hunter S Thompson quote appear and in what context? Thought Rolling Stone would be able to answer that one.

why dont u just put an s at the end dumbass

THE SONG IS PROBABLY THE BEST SONG I HAVE EVER HEARD. THE PREMISE OF THE SONG IS PERFECT. THE QUESTION IS DO WE REALLY CARE ABOUT LIFE, PEOPLE, GOODNESS, OR ARE JUST PROGRAMED TO REACT AS TO THE POPULAR MORES OF THE TIME? REMEMBER DANCERS ARE PROGRAMED TO WHAT EVER THE MUSIC HAPPENS TO BE. THINK ABOUT YOUR LIFE, IS IT REALLY WAT YOU WANT OR ARE YOU DOING WHAT YOU THINK PEOPLE EXPECT OF YOU?

With my mother tongue not being English, I haven't paid much attention to the lyrics yet. I've only been hearing the song on the radio about a dozen times a day for a few weeks now, and kept thinking, "Why do they keep laying that boring tune? Must be by someone famous, or they wouldn't play it on the radio."
I agree wholeheartedly with John who said
"With all due respect, the song is crap. Not because of the lyrics but because of the music. Just so lame. Like a bad 80s euro track."

Jed and people like Jed are pure dancer.

If you think it should be "Dancers", it's because your brain is ignoring the word "Dancer" and trying to automatically replace it with what you expect to hear, "Dancers". Stop for one moment and contemplate the meaning of the entire phrase with "Dancer" at the end. It takes on a completely new meaning.

"Dancers": this could describe the subject as human, and as a subset of humanity, a dancer.

"Dancer": this implies something entirely different, but on the same level as human. Dancer could be analagous to a different species. I'm not Human. I'm Dancer. Also, it is more important to note that "Human" is singular, so pairing it with singular "Dancer" further adds to the appeal.

In short, the writer of this song is using a METAPHOR, something I'm sure this generation is not used to hearing. If you read the words to these songs, and not just the chorus, you'll find they communicate amazing and bizzare ideas. It's of my opinion, the lyricist of "The Killers" is amazing, almost (but not quite) on par with that of "Led Zeppelin".

Of course, nowadays, most people consider a band's hairstyle and use of repetitive chords as the most important point of critiquing, so I would understand if most do not agree with me.

Personal opinion aside, the word 'dancer' is not grammatically incorrect, since it is being used as an adjective.

Are we human, or do we smoke pawt? I think the killers smoke crack

I do love this song, both sound and lyric wise, especially the iconic chorus.
So far my theory on it's 'meaning' is that it is artificial controversy, specifically crafted to sound symbolic in a nigh infinite number of ways, but actually mean nothing, to generate publicity. In other words, I think it's either cynical marketing, or a lyrical koan. Or maybe both.
Still, I love it anyway.

If it was "dancers", it would make much more sense and wouldn't get on grammatical nerves.

my interpretation it that it means are we a different species when we are doing something like a dancer or singer or are we still human but u can take it was u want.

With all due respect, the song is crap. Not because of the lyrics but because of the music. Just so lame. Like a bad 80s euro track.

I will fight all of you who don't like this song... you talk a big game little girls but I bet you won't like my elbow in your throat.

I think we can think and get our opinnion about the lyrics but we shouldn't say that a thing is incorrect if the autor has written it like this, it's just like we were reading a, for example, Eliot's poem and we saw a grammaticaly incorrect line: DO YOU THINK THAT WE WOULD SAY IT'S INCORRECT, OR WE WOULD TRY TO GET THE MEANING AND
BELIEVE IT ANYWAY??

that's my opinion about this silly thing, well, i have to say i don't like the song, it's so bad after all

THIS SONG SUCKS, IT SHOULD NOT BE PLAYED ON ANY TRUE ROCK N ROLL RADIO STATIONS...IT JUST DOESNT BELONG...ITS SOOOOOOOOOOOOO POP.
I HATE IT
KROQ SHOULD NEVER PLAY IT !! DAMN IT !

IMG You people are NUTS!!

With so many horrible gramatical mistakes being made in so MANY songs these days, a little bit of POETRY brings out the english teacher in in allaya.

I read the lyrics (like some posters have) in that "dancer" is a whole nother species, much like "human" only "dancier". He doesn't ask are we humans? Which would also be correct no? I like it. Makes me think of a SciFi movie with some crazy purple dude asking. Are you Human or are you Dancer?

Dance, when you're broken up.
Dance, if you've torn the bandage off.
Dance in the middle of the fighting.
Dance in your blood.
Dance, when you're perfectly free

Are we cancer would make more sense but would be pretty insensitive

its crap.
are we dancer? (Crap)
are we danzig? (a bit of eighties pseudo referencing would be far better)

are we cumin or coriander !

He sure is making you all think quite a bit about what he's saying, and isn't that really the point!

I mean the dude is not appying for a job to write an updated version of Webster's dictionary.

When I noticed it myself, it made me examine the lyrics more closely ad in the end I just said, 'Cool!' and now I sing along and have fun, which is the other half of the point.

this just goes to show who are dancer

I think everyone is reading a bit too much into this to be honest. Everyone seems to be desperately searching for deeper meaning when in-fact there may be none at all. If you look hard enough at any lyric, phrase, saying etc then you'll see whatever you want to see! Example:

"Aga do-do-do, push pineapples, shake the tree"

Obviously the use of "Aga doo do do" is reminiscent of the speech pattern of infants and is used to indicate that with all our technological advancements we are still children within the universe.

"Push Pinapples" uses fruit to indicate the fruits of our labour but that if we put in the effort then we can break off the harsh outer skin of life and sample the succulence held within. The use of the word "push" also refers to the endless push and pull of modern day life.

Finally, "Shake the tree" represents questioning our existence, fighting for our rights and not settling for second best. The tree also represents the growth of the human race.

It's all bollocks I'm afraid people. If the lyrics fit then somebody will use them. The words used often mean no more than the actual meaning of those words! These songs aren't cryptic crosswords afterall!

Until song writers provide a detailed essay with each track to explain the hidden meaning then I will wait to be proven wrong. Until then, try not to look into it too much or provide your own interpretations... religion anyone?!

Now, when Brandon Flowers sings, "Are we human or are we dancer?" I automatically think of him as referring to another species; a structured being, without the liberty to engage in free thought, free function; a limited existence, whose purpose is almost predetermined? Though, initially, listening to this tune, -- I felt perplexed. I did not bother to pay attention to the lyrics of "Human" other than opening my ear canal to this comparison between human and dancer. I said to myself: "Dance is a rhythmic art form; dance is a product of humanism, isn't it?" And thus, I was quite stupefied, I will admit. There are many signs throughout the lyrics that point to it's deeper significance where meaning is concerned, however.. CUT THE CORD. "And so long to devotion.. you've gotta' let me go.." Humans possess consciousness, self-awareness, and a mind, which corresponds roughly to the mental processes of thought; now, do we choose to act via a strict guideline, or do we accept our humanism and act out of impulse?

As humans we have flaws we make mistakes, but we live, are living and function with a level of independance. As Dancer(s) the routine is set, we move to the music but in a way that's predefined, choreographed, our freedom of expression to the music is limited to the steps. Music is essentially the most liberal of art as you physically react, in your own way, if we are dancer then the moves are preconditioned and contrived the expression is limited. The reaction to the song on this message board is ironic, I hear people question the meaning, say it is stupid, they react to the lyrics without engaging with them; they are dancer and these responces are preconditioned. At the same time however, the question resonates 'Are we human or are we Dancer?" The very fact we have this discussion is testament to our humanity. By removing the plural, he has provoked the question further. I don't know his motives, or if this is what he intends; but the fact is this is more than a simple lyric, it is the essence of poetry, the core of philosophy, a socially provoking idiom. A ballad.

Come on guys, this is not even profound. And this is not anywhere close to Paul Simon. Sorry.

or are we ted danson?

are we human, or are we just a shite by the numbers 'indie' band with no tunes and designer lampshades for haircuts?

not crazy about this tune. not really crazy about the band but reading some of the replys and post's iv personally come to the conclusion that its really not worth the bother your all putting into it. this band will not be around in 2 years. think about that when you all chew the fat over what there underlying meaning of this song is

No, they are wanker.

This song is supporetd by an outstanding melody, but Hell!.........these guys are american! Don't expect them to understand English grammar, idiom or orthography for heavens sake......they come from a culture which spells "Colour" with out a "u" and Programme without the "me" !

why do people care so much about one word. If it upsets people that much then dont listen to the song. There is obviously a reason he used Dancer instead of Dancers

What a load of cr*p. I always find that if the artist has to translate his lyrics to the public, then he's done something wrong, because by then you're no longer using your brain to think and you need a guide to help you out.
This shouldn't mean that you can't be artistic and write songs that make people think, but you fail as an artist if you can't make the public think for themselves.
This song is too pretentious. Written by someone who is trying to be clever but failing miserably.
Shame, because the song isn't too bad, but the lyrics make me shudder every time I hear it. Brrrr.

It's annoying pop crap and shouldn't be played again ever.

The following is a quote that someone else wrote on another blog but, I agree and could not have said it better myself: "Hunter S. Thompson meant that the US was making people afraid of stepping out of place and following their own beat. He was saying that people were only following the steps they were taught, and were also taught not to change them. In the song "Human" one of the lines is "Some times I get nervous when I see an open door". By this he meant that he is afraid to take different opportunities when they are presented to him, because living in the US has made us all afraid to go against what we've thought for all our lives. That is what Thompson meant."

keep it up dancer whatever just brill

You got it right, Brandon... just for
inspiring this silly dialogue. Keep
it up - excellent album.

It should be "Are we human? Tiny Dancer"... because it makes about as much sense as the actual lyric and well, that's what I've been singing anyway!

Now don't even get me started on about walking primroses... ;)

rhymes with answer, simple as

Katie, by public are you referring to private? If yes, then I agree.

These lyrics have no meaning. The chap started a sentence with "That sucks a bit". Superb Brandon, superb.

Take it for what it is, pop music.

A lazy, untalented, pseudo-rock band just got lazier.

i can't believe this mag is even debating these crap lyrics. (or can i?) there's better music out there, and...it's not covered here.

CHOP CHOP! get on the case! LOL.

I've philosophised this lyric, in an attempt to make sense of what does at face value seem to be a totally nonsensical if somewhat self-indulgent quib! not to mention the inherent grammatical flaws posed by such rhyming! After numerous hearings of this track, lending to it my fullest quotient of experimental/imaginative decifering, I conclude Flowers is in fact spouting a complete load of bollocks, and would therefore advise those confused by such twaddle that their suspicions were correct, Shite tune, Shite lyrics!

Are we human?/ Or are we Damn sure?

Should have been "Are we human/Or are we damned, sir?"

That's what I hoped it was for a while.

I find it quite funny. If you take it serious, I think you've missed the point.

dancer, prancer or blitzen.sounds lame to me.the rest of the song is ok.

is rad, yes. brandon should stick up for his work and not get pushed around.