幾乎所有的「民俗表演」都逐漸變成「觀光表演」，所出現的問題是：在地人民的經濟基礎動搖，以及民俗表演的逐逐漸被都會中樞、學者和媒體等殖民化，而不再是傳統的由地區人民呈現出他們信仰以及操作的活動。 兩個表演：一個是在中相當程度然由農夫主導的地戲；另一個是在日本已經脫離它民俗和儀式關連逐漸成為觀光表演的柴燈祭。 學者稱地戲和類似形式是「古代形式的活化石」，結果是在那些表演中地戲像是「即將滅絕的物種」，值得研究和觀察。 柴燈祭仍維持著業餘的質地，但是會逐漸成為商業追逐下的籌碼。 政府當局與學者應該考量維護所付出的代價。「活化石」是不可能的；一旦「被發現」，就會出現物種改變。「發展」常意味著完全改變，甚至是滅絕。參與其中的每一個人都應該質疑將被保存下來的是什麼以及為了什麼。 對於類似地戲和柴燈祭的形式，最好準確研表演作的是什麼，表演知如何被傳達，表和眾間的關係如何，等問題。

Almost everywhere in the world what was “folk performance” has become, or becoming, “tourist performance.” The question arises concerning on what economic base will the former farming communities stand? And the whole category “folk performance” is thrown into doubt even as it is revealed as a category that makes sense only within a colonial or neo-colonial context (where the “colonizers” may be from the metropolitan centers, scholars, and the media). Two Performances: one Chinese and still relatively in the hands of farmers; the other Japanese and cut loose from its folk and ritual moorings and more and more surviving as a tourist performance. Chinese scholar Yu Quiyu says that dixi and like forms are “ancient forms closely connected with religious ritual that have been preserved in certain remote regions as living fossils.” Dixi is among those performances felt to be like “endangered species,” worthy of study and observation. Namahage maintains its amateur qualities. At the same time, advertising distributed by Oga authorities, show Namahage processions in torchlight that are, actually staged intensifications of the actual festival. It ought to warn officials and scholars alike concerning the price paid for preservation. “Living fossils” are not possible; once “discovered,” genres change. Often enough “development” means total change, even extinction. Everyone involved ought to ask what will be preserved and for what purpose. We might better investigate precisely what the performance practices are, how performance knowledge is transmitted, what the relationships between performers and spectators are, and so on.