A RT I C L E 419

Dalcroze, the body, movement Psychology of Music

Psychology of Music
and musicality Copyright © 
Society for Education, Music
and Psychology Research
vol (): ‒ [-
() :; ‒]
.⁄
www.sagepublications.com

J AY A . S E I T Z
C I T Y U N I V E R S I T Y O F N E W Y O R K A N D N E W S C H O O L U N I V E R S I T Y, U S A

A B S T R A C T What forms the basis of musical expressivity? The Swiss composer

and music educator, Emile Jaques-Dalcroze, believed that bodily processes,
rhythm, and physical motion were the basis of musical expressivity and music
pedagogy. We can rephrase his emphasis on the synergy between bodily and
musical processes into a question: How does the body contribute to thought and
musical understanding, in particular? We review recent theory and research on
the bodily and brain basis of musical expression and find ample support for his
seminal views. It thus appears that Dalcroze was onto something essential to
musical thought and expression.

KEYWORDS: brain, development, Emile Jaques-Dalcroze, embodied mind, musical

expression, musical thought, musical understanding

Dalcroze and musical expression

INTRODUCTION
What forms the basis of musical expressivity? There have been a number of
different responses to this question put forth over the last century or so, but
one approach that remains particularly intriguing is that of the Swiss
composer, conductor, music educator, and writer, Emile Jaques-Dalcroze
(1967[1921], 1930; Abramson, 1980; Abramson and Caldwell, 1992;
Haward and Ring, 2001; Odom, 1998). During the early part of the
20th-century, Dalcroze had become increasingly distraught with traditional
conservatory training in Europe because he believed that it failed to instill
musical expressivity in its students. This was so, according to Dalcroze,
because it stressed music as technical mastery of the classical repertoire and
ignored the importance of rhythm and the body in musical expression. He
likened the consonance and dissonance of musical sounds, instead, to the

sempre :
420 Psychology of Music 33(4)

fluidity and control of human movement by the physical dynamics of the

body as well as to the social interactions of human groups.
No physical movement has any expressive virtue in itself. Expression by gesture
depends on a succession of movements and on a constant care for their
harmonic, dynamic, and static rhythm. The static is the study of the laws of
balance and proportion and the dynamic that of the means of expression . . .
Just as in music there are consonant and dissonant chords, so in mimic art we
find consonant and dissonant gestures. ‘Consonant’ movements are produced
by the perfect co-ordination between limbs, head, and torso, the fundamental
agents of gesture. Exactly the same is the case when it is a question of harmon-
izing different motive elements of a crowd (Jaques-Dalcroze, 1967[1921]:
127).

This statement is a key element of the Dalcroze approach: Musical expressivity

is both embodied – that is, resides in the physical characteristics of the body –
and entails physical and social interaction with others. How do extant theories
of musical expression accord with Dalcroze’s view?

THEORIES OF MUSICAL EXPRESSIVITY

Peter Kivy (2002) has argued for a theory of musical expression that he calls
‘enhanced formalism.’ On this view, expression in music (at least, instrumen-
tal music) is a direct effect of musical form and structure. That is,
musical expression of what he calls the ‘garden-variety emotions,’ for
instance, joy and sorrow, is found in the music itself, in the tension, release,
and resolution intrinsic to the compositional structure of western classical
music. Nonetheless, he maintained in an earlier view now rejected (‘contour
theory’), that human emotional expression was analogous to the sonic shape
of a musical piece, thus arguing that there was a similarity among melody,
the body, and human expressive speech. Recent scientific evidence, however,
tends to support this earlier view (Patel and Daniele, 2003). Studies of con-
temporary English and French speakers and late 19th-century and early
20th-century English and French composers suggest that measures of dura-
tional variability based on sampling of vowels and musical tones (i.e. nPVI:
the difference in duration between pairs of vowels or musical notes relative to
the average length of the pair in a speech or musical sample) occur in the
same general direction for linguistic utterances and music compositions
taken from the same culture. Thus, the authors suggest that vocal prosody or
intonation of a composer’s native language influences the form or structure
of a musical piece. This is so, the authors suggest, because composers most
likely internalize rhythmic patterns of language very early in life or incorpo-
rate rhythms of folk and popular (sung) songs acquired in childhood in their
mature compositions.
In a related study (Collier, 2002), the musical relevance of positive and
negative emotion words to musical expression were evaluated. The study
demonstrated that emotion words that did not have a cognitive object (i.e.
 Seitz: Dalcroze and movement 421

emotions that did not require conscious knowledge of their source) were
most likely to be expressed in a musical piece. These included joyous, happy,
cheerful, and calm positive emotions and sad, depressed, sorrowful, and
gloomy negative emotions. The author reasoned that music accomplishes this
by activating subcortical emotions that are precognitive and intimately tied
to the body and bodily processes and thus do not require conscious access
(see later). Indeed, the results have much in common with the well-known
phenomenon of physiognomic perception or the attributing of emotional
states to inanimate objects whether seen or heard (Seitz and Beilin, 1987).
Such perceptual processes are closely tied to the body (Seitz, under review).
Developmental studies bear out the close relationship between bodily
movement, speech, and musical sounds (Papousek, 1996; Papousek and
Papousek, 1981). For instance, within the first two-and-a-half months of life,
euphonic musical sounds emerge from early vowel-like sounds in the young
infant and possess nearly identical qualities to harmoniously voiced tones. At
one year of age, infants’ sung rhythmic sequences are accompanied by rhyth-
mic movements of the body – including allied breathing patterns as well as
limb and trump movements – and are closely tied to rhythmic speech
patterns. This emerging bodily-linguistic-musical matrix, moreover, is socially
influenced by early parent-to-infant speech as well as cross-modal interac-
tions within the parent-infant relationship linking bodily gesture to emerging
speech and musical sounds (Papousek and Papousek, 1981; Stern et al.,
1985). These musical elements of parent-to-infant speech (e.g. vocal prosody,
pitch range and contour, intensity, and tempo) modulate the infant’s ongoing
behavior and may have evolved in humans because of their adaptive value.
Moreover, even prior to the first year of life young infants encode information
about musical contour, pitch direction arising from small semitone changes,
and beat structure (Trehub, 1987, 2001), and are able to discriminate small
timbral differences (Papousek, 1996).
By the second year, spontaneous songs most frequently incorporate
unisons, seconds, minor thirds, and fourths and may represent universal pitch
classes underlying communication in both music and language (Bernstein,
1976). Later emerging chant-like songs in the third year display both a syn-
chronicity with the child’s motor movements and are frequently performed
with others indicating the social and imitative nature of both emerging
speech and musical sounds including pitch intervals and pitch contour
(Papousek, 1996; Papousek and Papousek, 1981).
Nonetheless, other theorists have suggested that music is expressive in the
sense that it arouses corresponding feelings in the listener (‘arousal theory’),
embodies an agent or musical persona that expresses emotions (‘persona
theory’), has a tendency or predisposition to produce in the listener those
very expressive properties (‘tendency theory’) or that music lacks the capacity
to express or denote anything other than pure musical sounds (musical
‘formalism’) (Kivy, 2002). Even the noted musical theorist, Leonard Meyer
422 Psychology of Music 33(4)

(1956), however, has long maintained that emotions were aroused in the
listener when musical expectations inherent in the musical structure were
either inhibited or blocked. The Gestalt approach upon which Meyer built his
theory of musical expression emphasized parallels between (aural) percep-
tion and the Gestalt principles of perceptual organization (e.g. closure,
proximity, similarity, and good continuation). The latter represented the basic
principles by which the mind/brain organized the external world.
Nevertheless, the body played a subsidiary role in Meyer’s modified Gestalt
theory.
Stephen Davies (1994), however, takes a position similar to Kivy’s earlier
contour theory. Music doesn’t symbolize, describe or represent, according to
Davies (1994), rather emotions are presented directly in the musical work
through dynamic parallels to human movement, behavior, physiognomy, the
human voice, gait, and the like. Like human motion, musical motion is inher-
ent in the work, since the temporal dimension of music revolves around
tension and relaxation and is experienced as felt emotions in the listener.
While Davies’ theory does emphasize the involvement of the body and
human movement in musical expression, the problem with his theory and all
of the aforementioned theories of musical expression is that they leave out
the importance of the centrality of movement and the body in musical
expression (see below). We propose that the Dalcroze approach most clearly
articulates the role of the body in music pedagogy and musical expression.

THE DALCROZE APPROACH TO MUSICAL EXPRESSION

The Dalcroze approach has many ‘embodied’ facets, but it is principally
organized around motor anacruses. Both music and movement involve motor
preparation (anacrusis), action (crusis), and reaction (metacrusis). That is, ‘a
single phase, the first a preparation of the second, the second the inevitable
result of the first’ (Jaques-Dalcroze, 1967[1921]). This is so because the
heart of rhythmic movement is duration (agogism), intensity (dynamics),
and space.
(1) Rhythm is movement, (2) movement is essentially physical, (3) all move-
ment requires space and time, (4) physical experience forms musical conscious-
ness, (5) improvement of physical means results in clearness of perception, (6)
improvement of movements in time ensures the consciousness of musical
rhythm, just as improvement of movements in space ensures consciousness of
plastic rhythm (Jaques-Dalcroze, 1930: 208–9).

This last comment by Dalcroze is intriguing because he was, in essence,

arguing that physical movement formed the basis of musical consciousness,
that is, tonal and rhythmic imagery. Jaques-Dalcroze felt that through the
interplay of the natural rhythm of the body with musical aesthetics, artistic
emotion was created. He believed that the sensations that movements to
music evoked created mental imagery.
 Seitz: Dalcroze and movement 423

The sensations afforded by the natural rhythms of our bodies strengthen our
instinct for rhythm and create rhythmic consciousness. It is through this
instinct and this consciousness, blended with the aesthetic sense, that we
experience complete artistic emotions (Jaques-Dalcroze, 1930: 183).

Insofar as music and movement are inherently social activities, according

to Dalcroze, musicians deepen their understanding and mastery of poly-
rhythm, polymeter, and polyphony through interactive group activities. The
overall goal of the Dalcroze method is to replace arrhythmia and errhythmia
– the inattention to, or misapprehension of, duration and intensity in music,
respectively – with eurhythmia or smooth, uninterrupted, and flowing
sounds (Abramson and Caldwell, 1992). The latter is dependent on the body
and gesture since eurthymia originates in continuous or ‘harmonized ges-
tures.’ The Dalcroze method accomplishes this by harnessing the inherent
rhythm of the body.
Human gesture and its orchestration conform to elementary principles of
nature – dynamic, rhythmic, and agogic (Jaques-Dalcroze, 1967[1921]: 121).

The orchestration of the body involves the concatenation of bodily gestures,

the juxtaposition and opposition of bodily movements in relation to emotional
attitudes, as well as the use of immobility (i.e. rest) and silence. According to
Dalcroze, rhythmic movement underlies solfège (i.e. a solmization system or
syllables sung to pitches) and ear training and both form the musical basis
of instrumentality. There are many ways to accomplish this pedagogically,
however.

The Dalcroze method

RHYTHMICS
At the Dalcroze School in New York, various techniques are used to orches-
trate bodily gestures and engage musical expressivity. For example, early on
students will toss bean bags or balls across the floor in rhythm, respond to
high and low sounds by responding with high and low movements of the
body, tap on the piano to different rhythms in unison, clap their hands together
while making lower leg movements in different meters, sing and move with
the whole body, as well as partner each other in duos and trios. These move-
ment, musical, and dance exercises are collectively called ‘rhythmics.’ Such
exercises assist students in developing a sense of rhythm that infuses the
whole body with rhythmic awareness in their engagement with an instru-
ment or through the voice – not just locally in the hands or feet – and abets
students internalizing the bodily basis of musical understanding, such as the
relation of pitch to height or multiple bodily levels of rhythmic awareness. In
addition, consonant with Dalcroze’s social approach to musical pedagogy,
many of these exercises are done with diverse social configurations and in
multiple interactions with other musicians.
424 Psychology of Music 33(4)

RHYTHMIC SOLFÈGE
Subsequently, students will engage the hands with the voice and then hands
with voice and feet in musical imitation or in reaction to the piano; sing indi-
vidually and then collectively in single and double canons; bounce tennis
balls in different rhythms on the floor and then to each other on the crusis to
music (piano); integrate voice, hands and feet in dance-like movements; and
so on. Collectively, these musical exercises combine rhythmics with solfège or
what Dalcroze called ‘rhythmic solfège.’ Such corporal maneuvers integrate
multiple limb movements with melody and rhythm, integrate physical move-
ment of the body and voice with accent and rhythm, and accomplish this
through assorted group arrangements and social interactions.

HARMONY AND IMPROVISATION

In the last stage of Dalcroze training, students combine rhythm and solfège
with harmony in instrumental improvisation, usually on the piano. Thus,
each of these stages of the Dalcroze method join together rhythm (i.e. patterns
of musical beats), meter (i.e. musical motion or pulse with regularly occur-
ring accents), tempo or beat (e.g. musical pace, accelerando, ritardando),
phrasing (nuances in the articulation of melodic groupings), shading (e.g.
appoggiatura), volume (e.g. diminuendo, crescendo, fortissimo), as well as
musical accent and direction (e.g. legato, staccato). Each of these musical
and bodily exercises serves to connect the hands, voice, limbs, and body with
all of these core elements of music. For instance, accent commingles pitch
space (i.e. pitch relations) with musical duration and volume enabling the
Dalcroze student to bind together motorically many of the major elements of
music.

Criticisms of the Dalcroze method

Dalcroze’s approach, nevertheless, has been faulted for placing too much
emphasis on rhythm and limb movement and ignoring such motor and
perceptible elements as breathing patterns, musculature of the lower back
and torso (e.g. the latissimus dorsi that draws the arms inward, downward,
and backward), vestibular sensitivity (i.e. sensitivity to gravity, vibrational
phenomena, and linear and rotational motion), and synoptic abilities (i.e.
synesthesia between the visual and auditory modalities; see later), among
others (Repp, 1993). Dalcroze was attentive, however, to breathing and its
integration with rhythm and the body and made extensive use of breathing
patterns in his teaching early on (Odom, 1998).
Similarly, dance movement emphasizing the lower back and torso was
incorporated into the Dalcroze approach. Dance-like movement included
walking in rhythm and in accent to the music as well as the use of conduct-
ing gestures and pantomime, skipping, jumping, and running – all inspired
by the early choreography of Isadora Duncan, Loie Fuller, Mary Wigman,
 Seitz: Dalcroze and movement 425

and Grete Wiesenthal. Indeed, Dalcroze and the Dalcroze approach inspired
generations of dancers and musicians, particularly in Europe. Christoph Gluck’s
Orpheus and Eurydice, which was presented at the Hellerau Studio Theater in
Germany in 1912, was motivated by the Dalcroze approach. Many 20th-century
modern choreographers such as Ruth St. Denis, Doris Humphrey, Bessie
Schonberg, and Meredith Monk, among others, were inspired by Dalcroze. His
method has found its way into various theatrical and operatic performances and
over the last 50 years has influenced music education worldwide with over 30
Dalcroze institutes now in existence (Haward and Ring, 2001; Odom, 1998).
Barring Dalcroze’s putative insensitivity to vestibular and synoptic abilities
(see below), there does seem to exist a synchronicity or synergy between bodily
and musical processes. The question is, how does the body contribute to
musical expression? Or, how does the body contribute to thought and musical
understanding, in particular? In this latter sense, it appears that Dalcroze
was onto something essential to musical thought and expression.

The bodily basis of musical expressivity

Repp (1993) maintains that there is a parallelism between musical and bodily
processes, that is, between intensity (dynamics) and duration (agogics). He
suggests that melodic, rhythmic, and harmonic motion arise from different
sources within the brain/body axis and differ both between individuals and
within atypical disease states. For instance, rhythm gives rise to melodic
forms because sequences of tones form natural musical phrases (i.e. meter,
tempo, and timing). A rhythm carried out in ‘threes’ has a different melodic
feel from a rhythm executed in ‘twos.’ More to the point, dividing up the beat
into two quarter notes followed by two eight notes affects the melody differ-
ently from dividing up the measure into two quarter notes separated by two
eight notes or some other combination. In the first case, the melody has the
characteristic of a waltz; in the second case it has a more minuet-like quality.
The essential point is that small changes in meter and rhythm affect the over-
all melodic structure of the music. Indeed Meyer (1956), who otherwise
argued that rhythm was more dependent on mental ability than bodily
processes, accorded some importance to the body in music perception and
production. Scientific studies of the brain support these observations. Recent
evidence indicates that the cerebellum, a motor structure thought to be
involved in rhythm and timing, is also involved in harmony, melody, and in
cognate cognitive domains (Seitz, 2000). For example, musicians who sight
read a musical score while detecting melodic and harmonic errors activated
cerebellar structures (Parsons, 2001).

MELODIC GESTURES
As it turns out, there are optimal temporal shapes for melodic gestures, that
is, brief sequences of notes executed as a single expressive unit (Repp, 1992).
426 Psychology of Music 33(4)

For example, professional pianists invariably provide an expressive temporal

shape to a singular musical motif in Schumann’s ‘Träumerei’ and such an
expressive musical phrase is often defined by a change in tempo – marked off
as action units – as are phonological phrases in speech. Such phrases can be
mathematically modeled as a family of parabolic functions that experienced
musical listeners prefer to musical phrases that don’t possess these expressive
features (Repp, 1992). However, these melodic gestures are flexible and
context-dependent and can be modified through ongoing interaction with
other musicians.

MUSICAL DYNAMICS AND TEMPO

Thus, musical expression and physical motion appear to share similar under-
lying properties. For example, tempo change is governed by analogy to physi-
cal movement – dynamics and tempo are intimately coupled (i.e. ‘The faster
the louder, the slower the softer,’ Todd, 1992: 3540). A typical musical
phrase possesses a crescendo–decrescendo shape and this shape is tightly
yoked to physical movement. The perception and performance of tempo is
linked to physical dynamics and gives rise to an internal sense of motion. This
internal sense of motion, according to Todd (1992), is organized in the same
way as the musical phrase in the performer’s mind – in a hierarchical
manner. Moreover, this internal sense of motion originates in the vestibular
system and induces a sense of self-motion.
Clarke (2001), however, maintains that it is not just internal self-motion
that links motor actions to musical expression, but also relative motion that
inheres in the timbral, temporal, and dynamic aspects of the music itself.
Damasio (1996) has proposed that the bodily basis of emotional expression
originates in both a ‘body loop’ and an ‘as if ’ loop. The former would be mod-
ulated by brain and bodily systems that process actual physical movement
arising in the kinesthetic and vestibular senses, whereas the latter would
arise from one’s memories and experiences of those very same processes.
Kinesthesia or proprioception includes (usually unconscious) knowledge of
activity and position of the joints, muscular force and effort, timing of con-
tractions, as well as body image (Gandevia, 2001). Indeed, Cox (2001) points
out that this process might involve both overt and covert imitation of visual
and auditory sources in what he calls the ‘mimetic hypothesis.’ We thus
understand and relate expressively to music because of our own previous
experiences in making similar sounds and engaging in similar movements as
a result of correspondences (largely unconscious) arising among our kines-
thetic, visual, and auditory experiences. These correspondences, moreover,
are based on cross-domain mappings. Cross-domain mappings, or the ability
to integrate information across different sensory modalities, enable us to
perceive intensity, spatial location, tempo, and rhythmic structure in an
amodal manner. These abilities, moreover, appear to be innate or develop
early and rapidly in human development (Lewkowicz, 2000).
 Seitz: Dalcroze and movement 427

Nonetheless, from a Darwinian perspective our internal sense of self-

motion may have evolved in early hominids to deal with sounds in the envi-
ronment and may have further co-evolved in modern humans to promote the
physical embodiment of elementary physical principles of mechanics (Todd,
1992). Evelyn Glennie, a deaf percussionist, is able to play music through her
ability to feel and adjust to the nuances of vibrations of musical instruments,
the floorscape, and cognate materials (Glennie, 2001). This ability, in fact,
appears to be part of our natural biological makeup. Human fetuses rapidly
habituate to vibroacoustic stimuli at both ten minutes and 24 hours after
presentation (between 20–9000 Hz at 74 dB), suggesting both short-term
and long-term memory in humans for vibroacoustic phenomena (van
Hetersen et al., 2000).

MUSICAL PLATONISM
Some have even claimed that there is a musical Platonism (Grey et al., 2001;
Tramo, 2001). For instance, children as young as three years display a stereo-
typical set of positive emotions to the major scale and a contrary set of negative
emotions to the minor scale (Kastner and Crowder, 1990). These universal
features of music have their origins in the major diatonic triad according to
the conductor and composer, Leonard Bernstein (Bernstein, 1976), and such
analogues as musical pitch and temporal structure may be widespread, if not
universal, across musical cultures (Pressing, 1983). For instance, it has been
suggested that the expressive characteristics of modern jazz personified in the
pentatonic scale arose from its appropriation of the classical western diatonic
one and its attendant musical expressive properties (Hodeir, 1975[1956]).
These universal features of ‘grouping, meter, duration, contour, and timbral
similarity,’ moreover, are shared by both language and music and have been
explicitly recognized in the prosodic structure of modern poetry (Lerdahl,
2001: 337).
Music and musical expression, however, are found in many species,
including birds and whales who communicate with each other through
musical sounds. Such biophony or ‘animal orchestras’ form a unique sound
grouping within a given biome (Grey et al., 2001). Indeed, the authors claim
that the study of humans and other species suggests that there is no explicit
musical center in the brain. Instead, various areas of the brain form a set of
concentric rings that process musical sounds (i.e. core, belt, and parabelt).
While the core is found in the auditory cortex, the belt consists of the thalamus
where lower musical processing areas are found, whereas the parabelt or higher
musical processing areas would include the frontal, parietal, and temporal
cortices. Under this scheme, timing of neural activity in the core would con-
trol musical pitch, timing of successive neural action potentials in the belt
would structure musical consonance (or dissonance), and the processing of
intervallic relationships in the parabelt (i.e. pitch intervals such as the third or
octave) would activate neural excitation maps spread across the higher cortices.
428 Psychology of Music 33(4)

This scheme is somewhat more variegated than the trion model of the
cortex that purportedly underlies the so-called ‘Mozart Effect’ (Leng et al.,
1990). That is, the enhancement of spatial-temporal reasoning abilities by
exposure to music (Rauscher and Shaw, 1998). Although some recent studies
have supported the long-term (but not short-term) enhancement of non-
musical cognitive domains as a result of receiving formal music instruction,
the causal evidence is weak (Schellenberg, 2001). Nonetheless, Mountcastle
originally suggested that the columnar structure of neurons comprising six
orientational minicolumns was the basic neural structure or ‘network’ of the
primate visual cortex (Mountcastle, 1978). Leng et al. (1990) then suggested
that the periodicity in firing patterns of these columnar structures in unison
was the fundamental code of the brain for all higher cortical functions
including music. As the Grey et al. (2001) model indicates, such a simple
rubric of musical cognition is inadequate because musical functions (e.g.
melody, tempo, and harmony) are carried out in different parts of the brain
by diverse cortical and subcortical structures under widely different external
eliciting conditions. For example, children with Williams Syndrome have
preserved musical and rhythmic skills and relatively strong linguistic abilities,
but are poor in most other cognitive areas (e.g. visuospatial abilities), suggest-
ing underlying localization of brain functions (Levitin and Bellugi, 1998).
Moreover, these diverse brain regions are connected to perceptual and motor
systems that provide the foundation for musical expression. Musical correc-
tion and feedback are a case in point.

MUSICAL CORRECTION AND FEEDBACK

Error correction and feedback of ongoing musical playing takes place by way
of the body, occurring through aural, visual, haptic, and proprioceptive feed-
back (Pressing, 1988). Finely tuned motor and perceptual programs underlie
pitch relations; note placement; musical dynamics, articulation, and form; as
well as timbre, musical texture, and musical (emotional) expression. Motor
elements, too, underlie tonal imagery. For instance, Pike (1974) maintains
that musical imagery is kinesthetically based and creates complimentary
feeling states in the individual that include various cognitive and affective
expectations, satisfactions or disappointments, experiences of tension and
release, and so on. Recent evidence indicates that the supplementary motor
area (SMA) may be the cerebral substrate for musical imagery indicating the
close connection between music and movement (Halpern, 2001).
The musician and neuropsychologist Manfred Clynes proposed, moreover,
that movement and musical sounds convey equivalent gestic or ‘sentic’ form
(Clynes, 1989). That is, underlying neural states contribute to gestural and
postural expression and modulate ongoing musical expression such as phases
of acceleration and deceleration and musical length and duration. To be sure,
the American composer, Aaron Copland, contended that rhythm gave shape
to the emotions (Copland, 1952) and Igor Stravinsky, the Russian composer,
 Seitz: Dalcroze and movement 429

suggested that music was essentially a succession of motor impulses that con-
verged towards a state of musical repose (Stravinsky, 1942). Moreover, the
musician’s intimate bodily relation with a musical instrument is instructive
here.

MUSICAL EXPRESSIVITY AND INSTRUMENTALITY

There is a powerful interdependence between the body and its engagement
with a particular musical instrument in musical expression (Sloboda, 1996).
In the act of playing an instrument, expressive devices affect the microstruc-
ture of timing, timbre, loudness, and other musical elements by foreground-
ing musical structure. Expressive devices such as musical shape and location
of rhythmic, harmonic, and melodic-thematic material are stored in the
musical structure by analogy to nonmusical domains, that is, by way of
cross-domain analogies between music and the body (Sloboda, 1996). They
are nonmusical domains because they are external to the music and music
structure itself (see above). These nonmusical domains include bodily and
physical motion; gesture, posture, and facial expression; and speech and
vocal prosody.
For instance, structural parallels occur in musical compositions when the
organization of melody, rhythm or musical form in one musical parameter is
analogous to another. For example, in Stravinsky’s L’Histoire du soldat, the for-
mal and rhythmic organization of contrasting musical sections at the begin-
ning of ‘The Soldier’s March’ parallels the organization of pitch relations and
each element of these musical correspondences arises from nonmusical
domains (see Kielian-Gilbert, 1990 for a detailed analysis). In jazz improvisa-
tion, too, musicians bootstrap expressive characteristics by analogy to bodily
and physical motion (Seitz, 2001). These elemental analogical relations are
constituted by perceptual (i.e. analogies to physical qualities), enactive (i.e.
analogies to physical movement), physiognomic (i.e. analogies to emotions) and
synesthetic (i.e. analogies to the senses) experiences that the improviser draws
in the service of musical expression (Seitz, 1997, under review). These indi-
vidual expressive abilities, however, are shaped by culture and socialization.

CULTURE AND MUSICAL EXPRESSION

Expressive abilities differ according to individual levels of expertise and may
also differ among individuals because of gender and idiosyncratic cultural
preferences in coding the expressive identity and musical location of sonic
qualities (Sloboda, 1996). Intended expressive outcomes are cognitively
monitored by the vocalist or instrumentalist and, as a result, are continually
modified and updated. For instance, in scored music, expressive contour is
fitted to preexisting musical sequences, whereas in improvised music, notes
are chosen in situ along with their expressive contour. Expressive body move-
ments communicate emotion by way of the application of well-developed
emotional reactivity to prevailing aural customs. Conversely, technically
430 Psychology of Music 33(4)

competent performances by computers of the classical repertoire are typically

‘dull and lifeless’ (Sloboda and Davidson, 1996: 173). The use of body in jazz
improvisation wonderfully illustrates this point.
David Sudnow (1978) has captured the growth and development of the
improvising jazz musician: the beginning left-hand control of chordal harmony
followed by coordinated ballistic movements of the arm, hand, and fingers
combines these chords into meaningful sequences. Following these initial
attempts, hand and coordinated ballistic movements are concatenated so as
to bind melodies to their accompanying chordal harmony. In a subsequent
step, the improvising jazz musician selects and anticipates individual notes
thereby coordinating melody with bodily rhythm. That is, ‘Get the time into
the fingers, hands, shoulders, everywhere’ (Sudnow, 1978: 103). In a final
step, the jazz improviser becomes more relaxed and unhurried, recognizing
that almost any note can be used to achieve a musical effect (Sloboda, 1985;
Sudnow, 1978). Yet, importantly, audience members are affected by the
expressive qualities of the musician’s body when viewed from afar.

MUSIC AND VISUAL EXPRESSION

Visual expression by way of the musician’s body conveys expressive effect to
the audience. Indeed, the presence or absence of a communicative context
(i.e. live versus recorded performance) can redound to the musician’s expres-
sive quality (Davidson, 1993, 1995). For instance, bodily movement by
instrumentalists and vocalists adds a layer of musical dimension that permits
multiple interpretative experiences for the listener (Davidson, 2001a,
2001b). Expressive gesture in performance is conveyed, inter alia, by head
nods and shakes, upper body wiggles, and forward and backward surges
of the whole body (Clarke and Davidson, 1998). These movements can be
classified using the criteria of nonverbal communication: ‘Regulators’
(i.e. movements that maintain and regulate audience reactions), ‘adaptors’
(i.e. movements that serve to establish intimacy), ‘illustrators’ (i.e. move-
ments that exemplify the literal content of the music or text), ‘display rules’
(movements that amplify, de-amplify or blend culturally based emotional
responses), and ‘emblems’ (i.e. movements that have a direct spoken analogy)
(Ekman and Friesen, 1969). To be sure, the Englishman, John Curwen, in the
19th century, introduced the tonic sol-fa system in order to teach musical
pitch and rhythm to the musically uneducated in which movement (i.e. hand
signs) was intimately yoked to vocalization (i.e. intoned syllables) (Rainbow,
2001).
Conducting, too, so prominent in the western classical tradition, is used to
considerable expressive effect with regard to both those being conducted as
well as those occupied in listening to a performance. In conducting, the right
hand beats out the time often with the aid of a baton, which serves to clarify
and magnify the gestures of the hand. The left hand cues the entries and exits
of individual musicians, suggests musical line and dynamics, articulates the
 Seitz: Dalcroze and movement 431

ebb and flow of musical volume and duration, as well as shaping the overall
contour of the music (Spitzer et al., 2001). Thus, gestures of the hands and
body convey musical dynamics, integrating one’s bodily experience of music
with one’s thoughts and emotions.

Integrating the musical body and musical mind

The role of the body in musical thought and expression is central to the
essence and effectiveness of the Dalcroze pedagogical method. We reviewed
multiple lines of evidence from the study of music, the body, and the brain
that point to the centrality of movement and the body in musical expression.
Emile Jaques-Dalcroze presaged many of these views in the early 20th-century
in both his methods of teaching and his theoretical approach to music. Musical
dynamics and tempo, melodic ‘gestures,’ musical correction and feedback,
instrumentality, audience effects, and the consequences of socialization and
culture on music acquisition deeply implicate the body in musical expression.
Thought and expression, as we have argued in regard to dance and other
artistic and non-artistic domains, is fundamentally an embodied activity
(Seitz, 2000, 2001, 2002, under review). A number of observers have sug-
gested that movement is predominant in all forms of human intellective
activity (e.g. Rudolf Laban), that thinking is a ‘skilled’ behavior (e.g. Fredrick
Bartlett), that dance as well as many aspects of music originate in a distinct
bodily kinesthetic ‘intelligence’ (e.g. Howard Gardner), that the physical body
is essential to quantitative understanding including comprehension of meter
and rhythm (e.g. George Lakoff), that gesture and speech are inextricably
intertwined (e.g. Michael Corballis), and that mental practice alone improves
physical dexterity – not only in sports – but in all artistic and musical activities
(Seitz, 2000, 2001). Certainly, pedagogical practices such as the Dalcroze,
Kodaly, Orff, and Suzuki methods capitalize on the fact that the basic ele-
ments of music (i.e. rhythm, musical dynamics, pitch and melody, and sonority)
can be most effectively taught through physical motion using such devices as
rhythm, rhythmic solfège, and improvisation (Jaques-Dalcroze, 1930).
In music, all of its major elements – melody, melodic contour, rhythm and
phrasing, cadence points, accents, microvariations in timing and dynamics,
and harmony, among others – are informed by, and draw on, bodily processes.
That is why Dalcroze’s seminal understanding of the role of the body and
movement in music and musical pedagogy is so important to musicians,
musical educators, and psychologists today.

AC K N OW L E D G E M E N T S

The author would like to thank Ms Yana Joseph, Executive Director, and Ms Joy Kane,
Program Coordinator, both of the Dalcroze School of Music in New York City, as well
as numerous students for their kind assistance and support. The author is a member
of the Board of Trustees.
432 Psychology of Music 33(4)

REFERENCES

Abramson, R.M. (1980) ‘Dalcroze-based Improvisation’, Music Educators Journal

66(5): 62–8.
Abramson, R.M. (Director) and Caldwell, T. (Writer) (1992) Dalcroze Eurhythmics.
Videotape, VHS-281. Available from GIA Publications, Inc., Chicago, IL.
Bernstein, L. (1976) The Unanswered Question: Six Talks at Harvard. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Clarke, E. (2001) ‘Meaning and the Specification of Motion in Music’, Musicae
Scientiae 5(2): 213–34.
Clarke, E. and Davidson, J. (1998) ‘The Body in Performance’, in W. Thomas (ed.)
Composition, Performance, Reception: Studies in the Creative Process in Music,
pp. 74–92. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Clynes, M. (1989) Sentics: The Touch of Emotions, rev. edn. Dorset: Prism.
Collier, G.L. (2002) ‘Why Does Music Express Only Some Emotions? A Test of a
Philosophical Theory’, Empirical Studies of the Arts 20(1): 21–31.
Copland, A. (1952) Music and Imagination. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cox, A. (2001) ‘The Mimetic Hypothesis and Embodied Musical Meaning’, Musicae
Scientiae 5(2): 195–212.
Damasio, A.R. (1996) ‘The Somatic Marker Hypothesis and the Possible Functions of
the Prefrontal Cortices’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London
(Series B), 351: 1413–20.
Davidson, J.W. (1993) ‘Visual Perception of Performance Manner in the Movements
of Solo Musicians’, Psychology of Music 21: 103–13.
Davidson, J.W. (1995) ‘What Doesn’t the Visual Information Contained in Music
Performances Offer the Observer? Some Preliminary Thoughts’, in R. Steinberg
(ed.) Music and the Mind Machine: The Psychophysiology and Psychopathology of the
Sense of Music, pp. 105–13. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Davidson, J.W. (2001a) ‘The Role of the Body in the Production and Perception of
Solo Vocal Performance: A Case Study of Annie Lennox’, Musicae Scientiae 5(2):
235–56.
Davidson, J.W. (2001b) ‘Music and the Body’, in C. Blakemore and S. Jennett (eds) The
Oxford Companion to the Body, pp. 482–4. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Davies, S. (1994) Musical Meaning and Expression. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
Press.
Ekman, P. and Friesen, W.V. (1969) ‘The Repertoire of Nonverbal Behavior:
Categories, Origins, Usage, and Coding’, Semiotica 1(1): 49–98.
Gandevia, S. (2001) ‘Proprioception’, in C. Blakemore and S. Jennett (eds) The Oxford
Companion to the Body, pp. 558–9). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Glennie, E. (2001) Evelyn Glennie home page, accessed 9 June 2005. Available:
http://www.evelyn.co.uk/script.htm.
Grey, P.M., Krause, B., Atema, J., Payne, R., Krumhansl, C. and Baptista, L. (2001)
‘The Music of Nature and the Nature of Music’, Science 291: 52–54.
Halpern, A.R. (2001) ‘Cerebral Substrates of Musical Imagery’, in R.J. Zatorre and I.
Peretz (eds) The Biological Foundations of Music, pp. 179–92. New York: Annals of
the New York Academy of Sciences.
Haward, L.W. and Ring, R. (2001) ‘Emile Jaques-Dalcroze’, in S. Sadie and J. Tyrrell
(eds) The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, Vol. 12, pp. 891–3. London:
Macmillan.
Hodeir, A. (1975[1956]) Jazz, Its Evolution and Essence, trans. D. Noakes. New York:
Da Capo Press.
 Seitz: Dalcroze and movement 433

Jaques-Dalcroze, E. (1930) Eurhythmics, Art, and Education, ed. C. Cox, trans. F.

Rothwell. North Stratford, NH: Ayer.
Jaques-Dalcroze, E. (1967[1921]) Rhythm, Music, and Education, rev. edn, trans. H.F.
Rubenstein. London: The Dalcroze Society.
Kastner, M.P. and Crowder, R.G. (1990) ‘Perception of the Major/Minor Distinction:
IV. Emotional Connotations in Young Children’, Music Perception 8(2): 189–202.
Kielian-Gilbert, M. (1990) ‘Interpreting Musical Analogy: From Rhetorical Device to
Perceptual Process’, Music Perception 8(1): 63–94.
Kivy, P. (2002) Introduction to a Philosophy of Music. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Leng, X., Shaw, G.L. and Wright, E.L. (1990) ‘Coding of Musical Structure and the
Trion Model of Cortex’, Music Perception 8(1): 49–62.
Lerdahl, F. (2001) ‘The Sounds of Poetry Viewed as Music’, in R.J. Zatorre and I.
Peretz (eds) The Biological Foundations of Music, pp. 337–54. New York: Annals of
the New York Academy of Sciences.
Levitin, D.J. and Bellugi, U. (1998) ‘Musical Abilities in Individuals with Williams
Syndrome’, Music Perception 15(4): 357–89.
Lewkowicz, D.L. (2000) ‘The Development of Intersensory Temporal Perception: An
Epigenetic Systems/Limitations Approach’, Psychological Bulletin 126(2):
281–308.
Meyer, L.B. (1956) Emotion and Meaning in Music. Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press.
Mountcastle, V.B. (1978) ‘An Organizing Principle for Cerebral Function: The Unit
Module and the Distributed System’, in G.M. Edelman and V.B. Mountcastle (eds)
The Mindful Brain: Cortical Organization and the Group-selective Theory of Higher
Brain Function. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Odom, S.L. (1998) ‘Emile Jaques-Dalcroze’, in S.J. Cohen (ed.) International
Encyclopedia of Dance, Vol. 3, pp. 594–7. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Papousek, H. (1996) ‘Musicality in Infancy Research: Biological and Cultural Origins
of Early Musicality’, in I. Deliege and J. Sloboda (eds) Musical Beginnings: Origins
and Development of Musical Competence, pp. 37–55. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Papousek, M. and Papousek, H. (1981) ‘Musical Elements in the Infant’s Vocalization:
Their Significance for Communication, Cognition, and Creativity’, in L.P. Lipsitt
and C.K. Rovee-Collier (eds) Advances in Infancy Research, Vol. 1, pp. 163–224.
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Parsons, L.M. (2001) ‘Exploring the Functional Neuroanatomy of Music
Performance, Perception, and Comprehension’, in R.J. Zatorre and I. Peretz (eds)
The Biological Foundations of Music, pp. 211–31. New York: Annals of the New
York Academy of Sciences.
Patel, A.D. and Daniele, J.R. (2003) ‘An Empirical Comparison of Rhythm in
Language and Music’, Cognition 87: B35–B45.
Pike, A. (1974) ‘A Phenomenology of Jazz’, Journal of Jazz Studies 2(1): 88–94.
Pressing, J. (1983) ‘Cognitive Isomorphisms between Pitch and Rhythm in World
Musics: West Africa, the Balkans and Western Tonality’, Studies in Music 17:
38–61.
Pressing, J. (1988) ‘Improvisation: Methods and Models’, in J.A. Sloboda (ed.)
Generative Processes in Music: The Psychology of Performance, Improvisation, and
Composition, pp. 129–78. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Rainbow, B. (2001) ‘Tonic Sol-fa’, in S. Sadie (ed.) The New Grove Dictionary of Music
and Musicians, Vol. 25, 2nd edn, pp. 603–7. London: Macmillan.
434 Psychology of Music 33(4)

Rauscher, F.H. and Shaw, G.L. (1998) ‘Key Components of the Mozart Effect’,
Perceptual and Motor Skills 86: 835–41.
Repp, B.H. (1992) ‘A Constraint on the Expressive Timing of a Melodic Gesture:
Evidence from Performance and Aesthetic Judgment’, Music Perception 10(2):
221–42.
Repp, B.H. (1993) ‘Music as Motion: A Synopsis of Alexander Truslit’s (1938)
Gestaltung und Bewegung in der Musik’, Psychology of Music 21: 48–72.
Schellenberg, E.G. (2001) ‘Music and Nonmusical Abilities’, in R.J. Zatorre and I.
Peretz (eds) The Biological Foundations of Music, pp. 355–71. New York: Annals of
the New York Academy of Sciences.
Seitz, J.A. (1997) ‘The Development of Metaphoric Understanding: Implications for a
Theory of Creativity’, Creativity Research Journal 10(4): 347–53.
Seitz, J.A. (2000) ‘The Bodily Basis of Thought’, New Ideas in Psychology: An
International Journal of Innovative Theory in Psychology 18(1): 23–40.
Seitz, J.A. (2001) ‘Mind, Musical Improvisation, and the Body: The Microgenesis of
Jazz Improvisation’, in J. Seitz (Chair) Adaptive and Maladaptive Forms of Embodied
Cognition, paper presented at the Annual Symposium of the Jean Piaget Society,
June, University of California, Berkeley, CA, accessed 9 June 2005. Available
http://www.york.cuny.edu/~seitz/JPS2001paper.htm.
Seitz, J.A. (2002) ‘Mind, Dance, and Pedagogy’, Journal of Aesthetic Education 36(4):
37–42.
Seitz, J.A. (under review) The Neural, Evolutionary, Developmental, and Bodily Basis of
Metaphor. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Seitz, J.A. and Beilin, H. (1987) ‘The Development of Comprehension of
Physiognomic Metaphor in Photographs’, British Journal of Developmental
Psychology 5: 321–31.
Sloboda, J.A. (1985) The Musical Mind: The Cognitive Psychology of Music. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Sloboda, J.A. (1996) ‘The Acquisition of Musical Performance Expertise:
Deconstructing the “Talent” Account of Individual Differences in Musical
Expressivity’, in K.A. Ericsson (ed.) The Road to Excellence: The Acquisition of Expert
Performance in the Arts and Sciences, Sports, and Games, pp. 107–26. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Sloboda, J.A. and Davidson, J. (1996) ‘The Young Performing Musician’, in I. Deliège
and J.A. Sloboda (eds) Musical Beginnings: Origins and Development of Musical
Competence, pp. 171–90. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Spitzer, J., Zaslaw, N., Botstein, L., Barber, C., Bowen, J. and Westrup, J. (2001)
‘Conducting’, in S. Sadie (ed.) The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, Vol.
6, 2nd edn, pp. 261–75. London: Macmillan.
Stern, D.N., Hofer, L., Haft, W. and Dore, J. (1985) ‘Affect Attunement: The Sharing of
Feeling States between Mother and Infant by Means of Inter-modal Fluency’, in T.
Field and N. Fox (eds) Social Perception in Infants, pp. 106–31. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Stravinsky, I. (1942) Poetics of Music: In the Form of Six Lessons, trans. A. Knodel and
I. Dahl. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Sudnow, D. (1978) Ways of the Hand: The Organization of Improvised Conduct. New
York: Harper & Row.
Todd, N.P.M. (1992) ‘The Dynamics of Dynamics: A Model of Musical Expression’,
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 91(6): 3540–50.
Tramo, M.J. (2001) ‘Music and the Hemispheres’, Science 291: 54–6.
 Seitz: Dalcroze and movement 435

Trehub, S.E. (1987) ‘Infants’ Perception of Musical Patterns’, Perception and

Psychophysics 41(6): 635–41.
Trehub, S.E. (2001) ‘Musical Predispositions in Infancy’, in R.J. Zatorre and I. Peretz
(eds) The Biological Foundations of Music, pp. 1–16. New York: Annals of the New
York Academy of Sciences.
Van Hetersen, C.F., Boekkooi, P.F., Jongsma, H.W. and Nijhuis, J.G. (2000) ‘Fetal
Learning and Memory’, The Lancet 356: 1169–70.

JAY A . S E I T Z , PhD, is an Associate Professor of Psychology at City University of New

York and a developmental neuropsychologist by training and practice. His areas of
research include the origins of human creativity and the bodily basis of thought
(embodied cognition).
Address: Department of Political Science & Psychology, AC-4D06, York College/City
University of New York (CUNY), Jamaica, NY 11451, USA. [email: seitz@york.cuny.edu]