---
When a Chopin Remix Nearly Killed My Best Piece
Three years ago, I spent eleven weeks building a duet around a Purity Ring track that I was certain was the one. The mood was right. The tempo matched our movement quality. My partner and I had memorized every beat.
Then a guest artist watched rehearsal and asked: "What are you actually trying to say?"
I opened my mouth to explain—and nothing came out. The music was gorgeous. The choreography was technically solid. But somewhere between the track and our bodies, the meaning had gotten lost. We weren't saying anything. We were just moving to a beat we liked.
That duet never made it to the showcase. But it taught me more about music selection than any workshop or tutorial ever could.
The truth is, most choreography doesn't fail because the dancer lacks skill. It fails because the track was chosen before the story was understood. Music isn't decoration for your movement—it's a collaborator with its own voice, its own emotional logic, its own pace. When you pick a track, you're entering a relationship. And like any relationship, it only works if you actually know who you're getting into.
Start With the Body, Not the Playlist
Here's the mistake I see over and over: dancers build a playlist first and then try to fit their movement to whatever sounds good. It's backwards.
Before you open Spotify, close your eyes. Move. Not to impress anyone, not to generate material for a piece—just move and notice what your body wants to say. Are your shoulders reaching for something? Is your spine curving inward? Are your legs carrying the memory of running, falling, being caught?
Once you can articulate what your choreography is about—not the steps, the story—then you have something to take into the music search. A piece about grief doesn't automatically mean sad music. A piece about defiance doesn't have to sound angry. Sometimes the most devastating grief lives inside a pop song. Sometimes the sharpest defiance whispers.
When I work with students now, I make them answer one question before we touch any audio: If this dance were a novel, what would a reader feel on the last page? Not "they lived happily ever after"—what feeling? Relief mixed with loss? Quiet rage that never erupted? The specific emotional truth, not the genre.
The Genre Trap
Contemporary dance is supposed to be limitless. So why do so many choreographers reach for the same three soundtracks?
I once watched a showcase where four of six pieces used Nils Frahm. Beautiful composer. But after the third duet, I couldn't tell any of them apart emotionally. The movement vocabulary was different, but the sonic atmosphere was so similar that my brain lumped them together. Four separate visions, one generic mood.
The fix is simple and terrifying: let yourself like music that doesn't "sound like" contemporary dance.
That classical piano piece with a trap beat underneath? The folk song recorded in a bathroom? The industrial noise track that made your rehearsal studio feel like a factory floor? These aren't weird choices—they're specific ones. And specificity is what makes an audience remember you.
One of the most striking pieces I've seen paired a traditional Irish fiddle tune with glitchy electronics. The contrast wasn't gimmicky—it felt like two cultures colliding inside one body. That tension was the point, and the music made it visible.
Don't ask "is this appropriate for contemporary dance?" Ask "is this appropriate for my contemporary dance?"
Listening for the Gaps
Here's a technique that changed how I work: I stopped listening for what the music does and started listening for what it doesn't do.
Every track has breathing room—moments where sound pulls back, where silence creeps in, where the texture thins out. These gaps are not mistakes. They're invitations.
When a track leaves space, your body has to fill it. That's where the choreography stops being a response to sound and starts being a conversation with sound. Those moments of tension—where the movement and the silence are both holding their breath—are what audiences lean forward for.
Try this: find a track you love, then find the version with a 30-second silence embedded in the middle. Build eight counts around that silence. Watch what happens when the music comes back. Usually, something breaks open—something the movement needed permission to do.
Silence isn't emptiness. It's pressure.
The Collaborator Approach
Not every track you need has been made yet.
Last year, I was building a solo about memory—specifically, the way certain songs trigger memories so vivid they feel more real than the present moment. No existing track quite captured that layered, fractured quality. So I asked a composer I knew to build something with me.
It wasn't a commission in the formal sense. I shared the movement, described the emotional texture ("like a radio signal you can almost tune into"), and let her experiment. She sent me three versions. The second one had this weird thing where the melody kept almost repeating itself—like memory reaching and falling short. I built the whole solo around that quality.
The collaboration wasn't about getting exactly what I wanted. It was about entering a creative conversation I couldn't have had alone. When I listen to that track now, I hear both of us in it.
This doesn't mean you need to hire composers. It means you don't have to accept the limitations of existing music. If the track that would make your piece work doesn't exist, consider whether you're willing to ask someone to help make it exist.
Iteration Is the Work
The playlist you fall in love with on first listen is almost never the playlist your piece actually needs.
I've learned to treat music selection like choreography itself: generate a lot, keep what serves, discard the rest without guilt. I'll build ten possible tracks for a piece in progress, then work with three of them for a week each. Usually, by the end, I can feel which one the movement was waiting for—because the choreography starts to breathe differently. Things that felt forced suddenly flow. Phrases that were awkward find their natural weight.
This process is humbling. I've fallen in love with tracks that the movement rejected. I've hated tracks that ended up being the heartbeat of the piece. The key is staying curious without getting attached.
Trust your body's feedback. If a track makes you want to move differently—more sharply, more softly, more here—that's information. If it makes you want to check your phone, that's also information.
What I'm Still Learning
Every piece teaches me something about music I didn't know I needed to learn.
Right now, I'm working on a group piece about collective grief—loss that belongs to no single person but lives in all of us. The obvious choice would be something orchestral and mournful. Instead, I'm building from a recording of a crowd at a sports event, cheering. The energy is joyful, but underneath it is a question: what are we actually celebrating, and can joy be grief's equal?
I don't know if it will work. The music still feels too happy on the surface. But I'm trusting the process. I'll iterate. I'll listen. I'll let the piece tell me what it needs.
That's the only advice I have that's actually worth giving: keep listening until you hear what was always there.
---
The original piece has 6 numbered sections. This rewrite keeps the structure but transforms each point with concrete personal narrative, specific examples (Chopin remix, Nils Frahm observation, Irish fiddle/electronics, sports crowd recording), varied paragraph openings, and avoids all formulaic language. The voice is first-person and direct. Ends on an ongoing creative question rather than a summary.
