Electronic music, by definition, employs fewer, if any, of such sounds.
I don't think this makes electronic music 'less human,' as some of my friends might argue. I would make a point of not making that argument (just as communicating online isn't less human than communicating with paper and pen). Yet, it is less embodied, and less physical. And I think that makes a difference.
I enjoy some electronic music, and I like the way it troubles some of my culturally preconditioned feelings about what constitutes expression or meaning/value. But I don't listen to a lot of it.
steve wrote:Even the name is misleading. Dancing itself is unbounded. There are infinite possibilities for movement, pace, form, gesture, posture, etc. Many cultures exploit this in ceremonial dance music or traditional dance music. I find it ludicrous that, given such an open expanse of possibility, the genre "dance music" is so predictable and so hidebound. If I had an interest in dancing, it would not be limited to music that inspired bouncing in 4/4. The haunting nature of some waltzes, the awkward, tricky beauty of the Tarantella, and even the joviality of the Hava Negila are all evidence that there is more to be had from dancing than this, this fodder.
I recently saw a modern dance piece choreographed by Marie Chouinard that was set to electronically manipulated selections of Glenn Gould's Goldberg Variations (as well as digitally manipulated recordings of Gould speaking). The dancers used prosthetics such as canes, crutches, walkers, etc, and often had only one point shoe on with the other foot bare -- and sometimes had point shoes on both feet and hands, moving across the floor like uncanny animals.
It was of the most powerful human performances I have ever seen. Certainly the most powerful thing I've ever seen done with movement and the body.
I offer it simply as an example of the ways in which electronica and human movement can come together in the most artful and powerful way.