 As mentioned briefly in the section above, there are many problems of identity for dance that arise in analytic aesthetics (cf. Fraleigh 2004 for an alternative usage of the word “identity” for dance). One is that the moment that a dance is composed does not “fix” the dance for all time in that form. Dances are usually known by the name and date of their first performance but subsequent performances and casts can change the structural and other qualitative features that were present in the original performance. Further, as mentioned earlier, many dances have no notated score and, if they are preserved via video or other method, subsequent performances can still deviate from these frameworks in significant and perhaps identity-changing ways. In addition, even where there is a score, it may not result in performances from that score that are experientially identifiable as the “same” work of art. A dance notation might also function as the jumping-off point from which to make a radically new kind of dance rather than a limitation on innovation and changes to which a dance choreographer or set of performers must adhere. There is also the issue that what a dance “is” in practice or for appreciation, in its “essential” features (if there are any), may not be identical with what a dance “is” for purposes of numerical identity and historical preservation. In this way dance is not unlike music (for more on this S. Davies 1991). (See Armelagos and Sirridge 1978; D. Davies 2011b; Goodman 1976; McFee 2011b and 2018 for more on this particular debate. Cf. S. Davies 1991 for a relevant discussion in the philosophy of music and Meskin 1999 for an alternative view of dancework ontology that holds that dance audiences experience three works of art: 1) a choreographic-work, 2) a production-work, and 3) a performance-interpretation work.)