1. Shoot RAW. You are sabotaging your own efforts by shooting JPG.
2. Get off Rockwell's page. Some of his equipment review advice is very helpful. Following his advice on picture taking will walk you off a cliff. There is a reason his name lives in infamy on nearly all photography sites and forums.
3. Camera sensors are at their best when they are exposed to full spectrum light. There is an abundance of red, green, and blue light in natural daylight, and strobed light. In general, sensors are most sensitive to green light and least sensitive to blue light. Therefore, when the light spectrum begins to shift warm (like incandescent), we must add gain to the blue channel to compensate. This is what happens in a white balance. We add gain, and corresponding noise, in the blue channel. If the light goes warm enough, the sensor cannot compensate and we oversaturate a channel. If you shoot RAW, you have a fighting chance to rescue your images. Shooting JPG, it's a lost cause. Imagine shooting outdoor slide film indoors with a red filter on. This is essentially what you are doing to your sensor.
>Issues about stage lighting
>I just looked at my "proofs" (just on this monitor >--- Eizo Flexscan L578, which has a direct setting to sRGB), >no prints). There are (at least) two mistakes: (1) >saturation was set +2 (reading too much Ken Rockwell) , and >(2) the "Save warm colors" WB was ON (I had never >done that before, and was hoping that I would not get too much >warmth. Was that wrong! Other than that, the picture control >was neutral. The result is a bunch of flaming red pictures >(except the blue ones). Joke's on me
>What do I need to know about stage lighting & the D7000 >that I don't know? (I had no trouble with my Leica & >Tri-X in the '60s) I'm sure that's a lot -- but how about a >hint? -- other than to reduce saturation in the camera. >That's obvious.
>Perhaps there was also glare? The images don't look sharp, >even though I had accidentally left sharpening to + 7 (another >Rockwellism)(but same as the outdoor shot.) So this is >strange too. I don't think it is motion blur or hand-held >blur -- generally I am smoothly tracking the action.. I had >thought I might have an inherently soft lens (Nikon 35 mm >f/1.8) But the brush in the forest looks reasonably sharp.
>What is there about that tungsten stage lighting that leads >the camera to (apparently) overexpose? Or am I misled by the >oversaturation? Is that the main thing? Set saturation to a >negative value?