This question is for people who’ve had some significant amount of dance training. I’m not trying to exclude people whose idea of dancing mostly involves shaking one’s booty. However, I’m working based on the assumption that people with some kind of dance training can answer this question in a well informed manner.
Some folks were talking about dance and how it can interpret the music. Some folks said that most people (your typical club-style dancer, for example) don’t really interpret the music when they move. That is, they may move around (hopefully to the beat) and have a good time, but that doesn’t mean that they are interpreting the music as they dance.
One person was offended by those remarks, though. She said, “Dance, at its very core, is moving to the beat. As long as you’re moving to the beat of the music, you are interpreting it. People need to stop making these value judgments about the way other people dance! If they’re having a good time, that’s all that matters.”
Now, I think those last two sentences are both overly PC red herrings. After all, one can acknowledge that some dancing (or even most of it) isn’t truly interpretive without denying that people are free to just have a good time. Similarly, the notion that one shouldn’t make value judgments is simply foolish; after all, reasonable people routinely form opinions about somebody’s dance skill or lack thereof. None of this is a judgment on their worth as a person or whether they should be dancing or not.
However, this does raise a valid question. What does it mean to interpret the music as you dance? Personally, I think that it involves far more than just moving to the beat. If that were all it amount to, then one could simply sway back and forth like a metronome and claim that this amounts to a terpsichorean interpretation.
I have some thoughts on this matter, but I’d like to see what other people have to say first.
Interpreting music is just that, interpreting - it is subjective and unique to each person. In my mind, interpreting equals inspiration. However you are inspired to move to a piece of music is how you interpret it. That could mean just swaying to a beat (I’ve seen some very spartan modern pieces that could qualify along those lines as well as the “prom sway”) or it could mean doing movement based on the lyrics, melody, style/period or emotional quality of a song. That may be what people think of as being different - following/“interpreting” the beat, as opposed to the other elements. I personally think it is both. As a dancer you could choose to focus any of those elements, or all of them, and that is valid.
Some people do not have a large artistic range, however. For some, stepping on the beat and swaying is as much as they are capable of. Others may have more training, experience or even natural talent, which allows them to move in more sophisticated, subtle or athletic ways. Neither are better or worse, but some may be considered more aesthetically pleasing depending on the viewer.
[Qualifications: I have 15 years of dance training in a broad range of styles include folk, ballroom and classical/performance dance.]
Why do you say that neither one is better or worse? It seems to me that moving in a more artistic or athletic way is generally better than just swaying to the beat. It would certainly be a lot less monotonous. (Note: This is entirely different from the issue of how much enjoyment people derive. I’m not saying that people can’t enjoy just swaying to the beat, but I don’t think this means that it is equally as “good” as moving with more grace or style.)
You raised an interesting point about how some spartan modern music that could be “interpreted” by just swaying to the beat. I can’t think of any such music off-hand, but I can imagine that they exist. However – and I’m not trying to argue with you here – it seems like a stretch to say that swaying to the beat alone constitutes an “interpretation” in any meaningful sense. If I saw somebody swaying or wiggling to the beat – essentially executing the same move over and over – then I would be hard-pressed to think of it as an interpretation.
It seems to me that dance interpretation should attempt to capture some other element beyond just the beat – perhaps the rhythm or mood, and preferably both. I also think that an element of personal touch is involved. After all, if somebody is doing the Macarena alongside a hundred other people, and if you’re just doing the same old basic steps as everyone else, then I’d have a hard time thinking of that as an interpretation either.
And naturally, there’s a continuum. Some less skilled dancers might just interpret the music at a very low level, whereas more experienced people could offer more thorough and advanced interpretations via dance.
Like I said, I’m not trying to argue with you here. Think of it as voicing some thoughts out and bouncing them off of somebody else.
I’m not a dancer. However, I’m currently working on a book on play and performance.
Interpretation is something you do for an audience. If you’re just dancing for yourself – dancing to have fun and enjoy the feeling of moving your body – then you’re not interpreting anything. Your dance is your dance and you do it in a way that satisfies yourself without thinking about what it means to others.
But if you’re dancing for others, things change. Now the primary point isn’t to entertain yourself, but to entertain the audience. Sometimes a move that’s fun to do might also be fun for the audience to see, but often the opposite is true. And the needs of the audience take precedence.
The audience is listening to the music, and watching the dancer. So the dancer’s goal is to create a performance that works in conjunction with the music. Maybe she amplifies the emotion of the music, or struggles against it, or refines it, or changes the way the audience hears it. Or maybe she uses the music as a backdrop for a story or tableau that she’s trying to create. The point is that the dancer has some effect that she’s trying to evoke in the people watching her dance. And in order to create that effect she needs to respond to the music, to interact with it, allowing it to shape her movements so that both music and dance work effectively.
That interaction during a performance is interpretation.
I think that’s true in a sense. However, I’ve often heard skilled dancers speak about interpreting the music, even in a social dance setting. Thus, I think that what you said is true in a way, but it’s not the only sense in which this term is used.
However, I do like what you said about responding to the music and letting it shape one’s motions. I think that is (ideally, at least) part of interpretation as well, even in a social dance context.
I have to give a +1 to **The Hamster King **. JThunder, some dancers are always on stage.
Think of it as the difference between reading something aloud and acting it out. If you don’t understand that, try comparing a professionally made audiobook to a Libravox audiobook sometime.
As a belly dancer, I have a couple of different approaches to interpretation. The first is simply that I have music that I enjoy dancing to, and want to make sure that my audience is enjoying my dancing while I am.
The second approach that I take is that I have a mental tableau that I want to convey with my dance, that the music is a part of. I may or may not let people know what my mental imagery is, but I hope that they “get” at least some of it.
