First consider the following blessing of the waltz genre, offered by an exemplar fundamentalist apologist for “conservative” music:

“Why would rock music affect the body in a way which is unlike the effect of any other type of music? The answer, according to Diamond and others, is the character of the rock beat. Rather than a strong-weak-weak, waltz-like beat pattern which reflects the heartbeat and the rhythm of one’s body, rock music employs a weak-weak-strong sequence. This da-da-DA sequence is known in poetry as an anapestic beat.” (Frank Garlock, Music in the Balance [Majesty Music], 44; quoted in P. Randall Gaumer, “Balanced Worship,” 3).

Consider this older perspective by Robert Dabney:

“It is notorious that the introduction of the waltz, less objectionable than the more recent round dances, excited in England and America the general condemnation of the world and the universal reprehension of the church. To those who are old enough to remember the verdict of the healthier sentiment, it is self-evident that any change in that verdict since is due to the sophisticating of the general conscience by the tolerance in society of evil. Those whose experience is more recent may see a fair picture of the earlier and healthier disapprobation in Byron’s poem, “The Waltz.” It is replete with his keenest and bitterest satire. The amusement is by innuendo charged with the worst possible tendecies. [sic] . . . In his view the waltzer had tarnished all the purity and delicacy which make woman attractive . . ..

“Byron, it is well known, was far from a saint. If even his gross mind was thus impressed by the new amusement, what is the judgment which Christian purity must pass upon it?” (“The Dancing Question,” Discussions, 3 vols. [Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle, 1982], 2:574-575).

And thus we say no waltz may be offered as praise and worship to the one true God.