You TOTALLY missed the point of the " " chain " school phenomenon.. its purpose was to provide a SOCIAL activity, built around dance,, a different concept to the English traditional system ( I learned in that and have taught in both for multi yrs ).

And, as to both making it difficult, on the contrary, they simplified a basic social structure, that the English have since adopted, in some of the dances ( there is even a Syl.in the Silver level being taught here ) .

In return, "they " took on board the Medal system back in the late 40s early 50s..

In addition to all of this.. you dont even understand the significance and impact that the A/M studio had on the world of dance.. with their weekly TV show in the states,that ran for several yrs ( lawrence Welk also contributed to this dance scene )that the english copied at a later date .

Also to realise, ALL the dance we teach and dance are imports.. " we " the english, took other peoples ideas in dance, and structured them to suit our purposes, and, along the way, as many would say, changed them beyond recognition of their original intent.. and with the advent of Comps, frightened many people away !

Lastly ,"They" were the ones who popularised Mambo and Cha Cha , to name but 2... and they were also largely responsible, for getting people back onto the dance floor and in nite clubs, after the war .

Yours is a typical dillettante statement.. research your subject matter before commenting..

You know it is perhaps best to interject here that not everyone has the same learning style. Many of the best athletes and dancers are kinesthetic learners. If you tried to teach them from Alex Moore's book most of them would be scratching their heads and never be the dancers that they are today.

Some people are verbal learners, some people are visual, some are logical, others are linear, kinesthetic, global, etc.

Pivotingfool, you should be keenly aware as you have often discussed the influence of friends and family on teaching dance, rather than standardized structured methodology.

I bought Alex Moore's book, many others, tons of DVD's and dance music when I began. None of it can touch what a human being can do for me by illustrating physically what it looks like and then problem solving the points where my brain and body disconnect. I am a visual learner, with a secondary logical component in my knowledge acquisition. For the first two years I could dance choreography I had seen, I could follow, but if you said something as simple as do a natural turn, my eyebrow would raise and I was lost. I won't even begin to pretend that the Alex Moore book did anything but make me doubt the universe. Today, four hard long years later I can open the book and I understand. What it doesn't do for me is build the artistic integrity of dance. What is dance without that???

How many people can really learn at a basic level with those charts and abbreviations and technical discussions? It's like reading stereo instructions. Yes you should have them but it helps to understand what a stereo actually is and what you are looking for before you try and read the book.

A tertiary point, as I was practicing about a week ago another couple was dancing, the man had his manual in his hand and he was trying to read off a step in tango, and he did it about twelve times and it wasn't right any of the times and he was stumbling and his partner was frustrated. All he had to do was tell us the name, we illustrated, showed him three alternate sequences leading into other steps and magically he could understand the step.

Books are good, information is great but people should not underestimate the impact of human interaction in terms of teaching a specialized skill.

I think we need to understand WHY the Techn. book was written.. its original intent was to " standardise " the dances being danced in that time period.

It was not written for the student, per se, but as a GUIDE for exam purposes ( still is )..

Any teacher ,with a strong dance background, soon comes to realise, that the book gives an easy entry into the standard 4.

The theoretical side , and nuances, were left to the interpretation of the teacher.

Changes have occured, in techn. and continue to do so from time to time.. some were long overdue, and others, are newer concepts. But, one has to admit, it has stood the test of time, by and large .

remember... Books dont teach you HOW to dance.. they teach you ( in most cases ) WHAT to dance..

( we are still arguing over V.W. after eons !! )

Some real good points have been made. This has been a good discussion to read. Where I live, the "certified" instructors whom I started with could only take me so far. My curiosity reached past the "certifications" which after years, I still haven't seen. (Just 3 hours away from me lies a studio run by a fully certified, 5 time US champion (The trophy case is awsome to look at.). Visiting there is like visiting a holy place. ) So, books and DVDs lead me down the path of greater knowledge and understanding, but more was and is needed. I am now blessed to have great teacher who knows her stuff, and the human interaction that Belle mentioned is irreplaceable. It helps with the visual, kinetic, and overall comprehension of learning. Having someone frown at you when you moving backwack in CBMP, OP and your left or right side isn't leading properly is is a good thing. I also wish I had more people like those of you who respond here for face-to-face discussions because I learn a good deal this way, too.

Standardization was indeed a large part of the reason for the book.

Sadly, that part has worked too well. Now we have a situation where every dance form is moving toward the International version of what dancing is.

For me personally, Alex Moore made things that I was told by other dancers more clear.

I have often heard debates about a given figure. Many times, when I checked the book, I found that neither side was right. (Alex was seldom wrong.)

My point was that if you protect your product, (Like Sony did with the Betamax Vidieo Recorder, and the other guy gives licence to his product at a reasonable cost, (Like the VCR.), the other guy will run you out of business. He will make less per unit, but more overall.

And I agree about following. Most of the great followers do not know the names of the figures they are following.

Of course, for me, the great follower is the lady who follows my mistakes so well, that everyone thinks that I have just made up a new figure.

Pivotingfool wrote: " Sadly, that part has worked too well. Now we have a situation where every dance form is moving toward the International version of what dancing is."

Well I admit I don't know if that is true or not, but I would like to see that data from which you made that conclusion. Or did you just make it up?

Smoothgeezer,

If you go to a Country Western Competition, you will see the influence. Most of their top teachers take lessons from International Ballroom Instructors.

Many of the better American Style leaders are now taking lessons from International Coach's.

Check out Round Dancing, and Sequence Dancing. Both of which have moved very close to International Ballroom because again, their leaders take lessons from the top International folks.

Many of the easier dance forms are dying a slow death. Check out the Folk Dancers.

Twenty years ago I could find many different Europien Folk Dance groups. They are all gone now.

The Computer has hurt dancing, as it has many other social activities. (Write to your local Bridge Club and ask them about attendence.)

If you did West Coast Swing, wouldn't you go to a top Ballroom perosn for your styling?

We are losing the simple dance forms. (Vine eight, vine back eight, ect.)

Things are fine for those who want to put a lot of effort into their dancing. However, the person who just wants to have fun, has few options.

I think people who just want to have fun dancing have few opinions on how it should be done..

Thats what I thought. Its just your impression.

You cant determine if country western instructors take International lessons by just going to a competition. Many American instructors take International lessons, as they always have, just to improve teaching ability. Round dance isnt close to either International or American styles, and they are moving further away because they continue to make up steps, modify existing standard steps, and include steps from several different types of dance. Folk dance may be dying out but it isnt because they are converting to International. Bridge has nothing to do with dancing. The best place to go for west coast swing is to a Country Western instructor or to some of the American instructors, not to an International instructor.

None of your comments support your conclusion.

Most of the International pros I know don't know how to dance West Coast.

I don't think it is the competitors that are hurting ballroom. It is my solemn belief that it is television and the internet. Makes it possible to get social interaction without leaving the house or taking risks. Is this my opinion? Yes. Am I the only one who thinks so....no.

You want all of the old social acitivites to make a resurgance...kill media. Or let it continue to disintegrate to boring reality etc. and voila, people will have to leave their houses to be entertained.