Don't forget that the "leading" or "back-leading" is in the context of a choreographed sequence. Notice how impotent the stars become when they take their final dance before leaving the show each week.

I also notice that most, if not all, the US pros in the show are Latin dancers, and are often less good in the standard/smooth dances (with notable exceptions, of course). Is that the case also with the UK pros?

Clive, you and I obviously would never agree on what constitutes good dancing.

Even in the two finals of DWTS that I watched, the quality of the amateurs' performance was, at best, labored.

Please remember that these "stars" work for several hours a day for a solid week to learn these routines.

Remember Judy Garland, who couldn't dance at all, in those old musicals? Even she could be taught a routine.

jj

Actually, I was being over generous about DWTS. I don't know the US dance scene, and the participating professionals are not known to me. In that context, having watched all but the final (ironically) of the series that was screened here last Autumn, I actually couldn't tell, half the time, which of each couple was the pro and which the celeb.

Here is the UK, in the later programmes, the same was true to an extent, but only because the best celebrities had achieved a marvellous standard, and could really be mistaken for professionals. Two, at least, of last year's finalists could easily earn a living as professional dancers (but not, of course as teachers).

I do stand by by my view that the achievement of ANY of the celebrities did them credit; and the view that most social dancers could NEVER attain that standard, no matter how many lessons they took.

It's first class entertainment: either way.

What? You can't compare Judy Garland to the amateurs on DWTS! Have you not seen her dance with Gene Kelly? I would say she's a talented dancer.

Yeah, but these franchises seem to require you to sign a contract with “X” amount of lessons. It's like they have a set rate that includes all their fluff (the group lessons and Friday parties). Why does it have to cost so much with these franchises?!?! I guess ultimately, if you're willing to pay, it doesn't matter?

We took lessons at a FA studio for 5 1/2 years. The reason they cost more is the overhead and programs. As far as pressure, we established early on, we would take a set of lessons, every 3 weeks. They respected that and did not pressure us much on that point.

In all our contracts, they included lesson hours, a few free lesson hours and free parties. We never paid for parties in our contracts, they were always addons. In the end they just used free lessons to enhance the offer. They also sold us 20 lesson blocks, as we getting to the point were we felt the lessons, were not the best option for us.

FA was expensive, but we always felt we were getting our money's worth. We had very good teachers and left the studio feeling we the time and money, we had spent there, was worthwhile.

I worked at AM for 12mnths. I got a job there with no background dance experience at all~ I now have my own studio and teach salsa. I would never refer a student to AM as they are not qualified teachers mostly don't have dance experience at all and thier prices are through the roof!! They sell lessons to you through feelings and paragraphs of procedures that we had to sit and remember to build your want to do it!! It's all about sales at A.M.