Ah yes, the 'routine' or 'pattern' dancers as we call them. We have one couple at our studio who comes to every Friday night party.They always start in the same corner and if they make a mistake in their routine, they stop dancing and walk back to the corner - against the LOD - to start again. We all take a perverse and childish pleasure in cutting them off whenever we can. Just as they set up to start off again, one of us steps in, in front of them and makes them wait for us to start. As you say, they are absolutely incapable of any improvisation.

I have studied with several different dance instructors. As with any subject matter, teaching styles and methods will vary from one individual to the next, but Clive does have a valid point. My first experience was much like what Clive described. It wasn't until I took a lesson from another instructor that I realized how badly I was being "milked" by the first one. I would reccomend to anyone interested in learning to dance to do a little research prior to signing up for lessons. I have discovered the hard way that the highest priced studios don't necessarily mean the highest quality.

Yes, perhaps I overstated the idea of a routine. My main rant is about instructors that are completely disorganized. Frankly, I've yet to find even one where I have an understanding of where they are progressing.

That's why I suggest some structure is needed. A framework from which both the instructor and the student both understand the path toward, at the very least, whatever immediate goals are in front of them.

It rather bothers me when I come to my expensive lesson and the instructor is asking me if I have any idea what we should cover today. Does he not have a plan??? Apparently not. Yet, through two studios and 7 instructors (plus all the ones that were not "my" instructor), I've yet to meet one that really does have a plan.

There's a syllabus, but that's mostly just a step list, and there's no structure for moving through that syllabus.

If I might just give an example of what I mean. In my first studio, an Arthur Murray, we took just over a year to complete our bronze 1 program in six dances. Still, we actually learned the last step the DAY OF the checkout for the last dance, just in case we were asked to demonstrate that particular step.

Well, we had a fairly new instructor, so I wrote my own syllabus for bronze 2, and made him follow it. We finished bronze 2 in 5 months, and we always new where things were going. That would not have happened if I had not taken the bull by the horns, as it were.

Instructors disorganised ?

Welcome to the world of dance !!--

There are organised and dis-- people in the world-- little to do with capability or knowledge .

ALL my teachers ( when I had schools ) were given a lesson plan ( all chains do this as well )

Even today, when I teach my social groups , I have a format and a sequence of events that seldom vary .

If one were trained in the Medal test system ( as in the UK ) then very strict rules applied .

BUT-- even if social is the name of the game--- one should apply the same or like, rules .

I can assure you- not ALL teachers are that haphazard in their approach .

"Anonymous. Mainly nobody would be able to say that that person allowed us to do the basics incorrectly. The instructions would be spoken and the pupils directed to the clearly stated instructions for all to see either on a print out, or better still on the wall. And also ask questions like on a Whisk in the Waltz. Is there any turn for the man on step three. Is there turn for the lady. This they would have been told the first time the Whisk was introduced. I've heard so many times before, Its only a Social class. We don't bother about footwork. What they do bother about is taking the money at the door though."

It's not that teachers shouldn't make reference to reference materials, recite book details as they walk the class through a figure, or even post charts or use handouts.

It's that real teachers know that these things on their own do not capture what it means to dance. They are supplements alone, and if they replace real live instruction as the source of authority the result is not dancing. If given more attention than their due, the absoluteness of these incomplete written descriptions is harmful rather than helpful.

But used as a supplement or memory or organizational aid for what's presented in class - that's great.

The Basic Technique must be learnt first. It repeats its self continuously throughout the dance you are doing. The person who if they make a mistake and have difficulty starting again. If the had learnt their groups in eight bar sequences they would have no difficulty starting into either there first group or there third group
or and so on.
And ask questions on the simple things they have been told. Like explain in 8 words the rise and fall in the Waltz on the first step of a Natural Turn for the person going forward. And then ask in two words on the same step for the person going backwards. Made you stop and think didn't it. That's what is needed. Think and know what you are doing.

You couldnt be farther from the truth.

The 2 things most important to an absolute beginner ?-- Direction and Speed.

It is impossible to add techn. to movement that does not exist .


If it were ( as I have said ) a medal test class, then yes, break it down to an acceptable level .

The majority of " older " students are more interested in negotiating a dance floor, than being concerned with techn. in the early stages of development .( have tried all methods over the last 50 yrs-- this ALWAYS works best )

I am of course refering to Social style .

Terence. Without wheels you can't have direction and speed neither can you with a flat tyre or tyres. Its like painting a surface. If you put the wrong paint on everything that goes over it afterwards is doomed to failure. Get that Basic footwork correct from the beginning.
I wonder what might happen if you hung a sign outside your studio saying come inside and learn to Waltz. If it could be proved that you were able to teach correctly and didn't bother. If this went to court. I wonder how the judge would rule. What do you think. Is it too much.
If the majority of older students are more interested in negotiating a dance floor than being concerned with technique in the early stages of developement ( your words ). Surely a Heel. Toe. Toe Heel isn't too much for even the older student, and for the younger also.

I think you missed my point-- being an examiner, of course I realise the importance-- but -- like all things-- you must consider context.

Rudimentary footwork such as heels and toes is always mentioned -- but that is hardly " technique " .

And--- I still disagree with your analogy-- just because someone does NOT have correct techn., it does not imply that they are unable to get around a dance floor-- even if in very poor fashion.
Even tho I am now in the UK, I still teach the Amer. social style for ALL latin and smooth .I get immediate results ( with few exceptions ) and thats why they keep coming back !!