Hello,

Most certainly there is a difference between body music and head/mind music.  Both can be spiritual yet the audiences are quite different.

Some people are kinesthetic and are motivated by body feelings, some are more visual, others auditive,  etc.. or a mix of all.

Interesting thing about classical not being body music.

I think this is mostly true.  It is not good manners to refer to the body,  draw attention to it, use physical communication or violence in high western culture.

... and yet.. classical music used to have a lot MORE body to it in the 1800's and before.

If you listen to early recordings there is quite a visceral quality to the music.. expressed in the phrasing and rhythm

I think the biggest difference is that there was grace imposed on the body.. a way of living that was natural yet exclusively aristocratic... not popular or vulgar.

Today  IMO classical music in comparison is castrated, stiff and has very little body to speak of.. speaking in general terms..

why is there such a huge difference? .... especially post WW II

...But when I think of body feelings in the music recordings 1800's I am more inclined to think of motherly love, a party in good company, friendship, nature or a court dance.. physical yet not to an excess.. not a dominant characteristic  ..... in a word: wholesome.

Life for the aristocrats and the rich was never too physical.. 

Rock'n'roll has a physical aspect to it, on the other hand.. and it caters to an entirely different audience.

but I can't listen to music which is too physical for very long.. like repetitive dance music with an emphasis on bass.. too much for me..drives me batty.

...some people love it, on the other hand.

excuse my rambling..

A few years ago I went to hear the Glenn Miller Orchestra at Benaroya Hall.
I love Big Band and swing music from the '30's and '40's.
There we were, an entire Hall full of us packed into every seat listening to this wonderful music and---nowhere to dance.
No way to even move, for heaven's sake.  Foot tapping couldn't cut it. 
Swing or Latin or '50's/'60's rock'n'roll needs space.
It's sacrilege to play that music when there's nowhere to dance.
So I only go classical at Benaroya. 

I think of primal music and pop music as dionysian and classical music as apollonian. I'm no expert on this, but I think classical music is reflective, formal, abstract and spiritual with an affinity with mathematics. It also has a strong relationship with the Church, prayer, religion, death. While there is dancing associated with certain classical genres, these dances tend to be very formalized and regulated by society, with lots of clothes and supervision. The purpose of the dances seems to be social rather than sexual intercourse.

But pop music is all about sex, Elvis being perhaps the best example. Pop music is often seen as a threat, a kind of pied piper. These genres are usually inseparable from dance, courtship and sex. Look at tango, hip-hop or modern Latin for instance. And one genre is even called Dance. The puritans in Scotland banned dancing for this reason. Composers, singers and musicians are often sex symbols - even Sade and Madonna continue to exude a sexual presence, despite the dominance of our youth culture, and old men like Mick Jagger try to. Despite being called "the Voice," Sinatra was known, admired and feared as much for his charisma, his earthy strength and power. And what about all the androgynous stars, like Michael Jackson, David Bowie, Elton John, Sinead O'Connor? In this sense I believe modern Western music has more in common with the traditional music and dance of Africa, India and South America than it does with Christian Europe.

PS: Edna, apropos your post on fitness, I would add dance, especially ballet, to my list of physical activities worth trying.