I think these are totally fair points, and that is why to me, the singing and dancing was less alarming than some of the other "abuses".
As for the singing and dancing, I think it's dumb, for lack of a better word, and it's catering to a segment of worshipers, and to a set of desires, that should not be catered to. There are 2 points about this issue that really stuck out to me, and played a major part in my starting to head East:
1)To me, like I said in my earlier post, things like "Extraordinary Ministers", and the overall liturgical reforms of Vatican II, which did come from Rome, are totally untenable practices. When I joined the RC Church years ago, as a teenager, things like this didn't occur to me, coming from an entirely atheistic/ancestrally American Protestant background. I had no reason to question the modern practices of the church, but I also had the luxury of coming into the church in my first year in college, while living in a very, very small town in upstate NY, in a very small parish that just so happened to have a Latin Mass, and a totally no-nonsense Novus Ordo Mass, in a very old, traditional-looking church. When I transferred to school in Boston, and experienced places like the Paulist Center, or even just run of the mill parishes, and then returned home to Brooklyn, and saw things that went on in churches in NYC, I was fairly shocked, and the more I researched it, the less sense it made to me that any of these reforms were ever allowed. Obviously, the directive to sing John Denver songs about God while a Harvard Professor of Feminist Studies reads the Epistle does not come from Rome, but the Novus Ordo did, and I had a lot of trouble with this.
2) Even though I acknowledge that all that other nonsense does not come from Rome, I would echo what some of the earlier posters said, which is that when a church makes such claims about its head as the RC church does about the pope (much as I happen to admire Benedict XVI, and John Paul II, memory eternal), and such claims about the efficacy of said approach, things like we are seeing should not be allowed. That is to say, of course, in any church comprised of mere mortals there wills be chaos, the type of which was seen with Iconoclasts and all the other First Millennium heresies, with liturgical abuse, with sexual abuse, etc., but when a church puts so much authority and faith in its leader, it should follow that if its claims were true, there would not be such chaos. Case in point, the Russian Tsar: though the Orthodox Church never officially designated it (which is hugely important), plenty of Russians thought of him as almost God on Earth. I can recall seeing an icon illustrating God's kingdoms in heaven and on earth, each with the Tsar at center. This idea has almost completely disappeared, because the things that occurred under his rule show us quite clearly that the Tsar did not possess these special qualities that were often attributed to him.