I've just re-read an article I listened to as a pod-gram from Stephen Fry concerning his views on dance as it relates to music. It's a great read in my opinion, although not particularly serious and dealing more with his own personal dislike of the art, it did however raise a few thoughts in me about the very nature of the human impulses in regards to how we listen to music.
You can have a read of it if you like:
Bored of the Dance
There is for a start, a distinction here between music. Not a distinction between classical and contemporary, since for example Vivaldi is famous for some of his waltzes, as are many other classical composers, and I defy people to attempt to dance to ambient or drone music.
The point is, some kinds of music are clearly designed to
harness the urges we have to express music in movements, and others set out not to arouse these urges at all.
Both classical and modern music have both kinds, we have the music of romantics with varying rhythm and tempo, clearly not requiring the listener to dance to help facilitate listening experience, but also gavottes and waltzes which are quite the opposite, specifically designed for dancing.
Contemporary music is the same: obviously anyone going to a LMFAO concert will be expecting to be doing some "shufflin'", since there is the strong beat that will always incite the listener to move somehow, but also the music without this kind of texture, such as (as previously mentioned), ambient, drone and even post-rock. You just can't dance to it.
Now comes the question: what's the significance of this distinction? Does the fact that we feel the need to dance facilitate or enhance our listening experience, or is music more enjoyable when we are? I know this varies from person to person, but there must be something that separates the two kinds.
Perhaps different mediums stimulate different parts of our brains?
Any thoughts?