Two perhaps interesting historical-canonical points about the 1916 condemnation to keep in mind:
1. It does not condemn dancing per se (although it was taken for granted by the moralists that certain dances by their very form were immoral as a rule or tended easily to become occasions of sin) but specifically what was condemned were church fundraising dinners/celebrations that include ball dancing (convivia cuм choreis), especially when they go late into the night and typically alcohol is involved.
The condemnation specifies the priest and a parish's public relation to dances, viz, he (representing the church) can't promote or foster/support (promoveant et foveant) dances, nor can he attend any dance organized by laity. This condemnation was directed towards North America specifically to support the warnings promulgated by the Baltimore Council Fathers.
A series of articles in the Ecclesiastical Review following the condemnation clarify these points (and more), and that journal tended to the more rigorist interpretation of morals. It had more to do with what a pastor was supposed to do or refrain from rather than dancing itself:
"The decree positively forbids the promotion and encouragement of such entertainments on the part of members of the clergy, religious or diocesan: 'quonimus memoratas choreas promoveant et foveant'."
Remember that laws restricting rights must be read narrowly and strictly.
2. The canonists also noted that the 1916 decree still applied after the 1917 Code went into effect and wasn't nullified by it because it was a specific condemnation of a moral abuse that was occurring, not a mere disciplinary law. So it stands to reason that it still has moral force today (similar to how Ratzinger said the Index still has moral force).
That being said, even the moralists who took a more lax view to the 1916 condemnation still tended to be strict on the dangers of dancing as a strong occasion of sin for young, unmarried people. But in my experience, not a few traditional priests are completely unaware of the 1916 decree and the discussions of the moralists that followed it.