The overall question is:

I spent the last month learning the foxtrot and waltz from a Social point of view (Very Layback,) which they did to get me interested I guess. Now I have been switch with a new teacher who show me a the technical way of dancing the foxtrot and waltz which consist of my feet pattern being changed. Now I understand that you will have to change a few things to sharpen your skills but I feel like the first teacher instructed me wrong and I have been practicing and developing incorrect muscle memory.
It now make me wonder how many other step am I going to have to relearn because I was taught a "layback" version of it?

I,m guessing that you were taught a " social " style of F/trot , resembling a Q/S , and then shown the more extreme variety of the comp. style.

They both have their uses and value, as you will begin to see.. if you are learning as a beginner, the Social standard was modified for those who were not interested in Medal tests or comp. style, and it is currently the most popular style in many countries.

The W.. T..and Q/S do not deviate nearly as much at the social level.

Yes, the social style is how they are teaching me and I am getting very frustrated with it. It does not have the technical desire that I am after. I know I am a beginner with less than two month training. But I am very much interested in the medal test or comp. style however they claim that I have to learn the social style first.

Then when they turn around and teach me a little of the comp. style that where my frustration come in. I not sure why I am putting in the extra hours of practice to find out that my pattern are incorrect to my goals.

I would think teaching me the comp. style would be more interesting and I can always tone it down if I was to teach someone else aka Social style.

So is it really best to learn the social style first or the comp. style?

Actually, this is a very interesting thread.
I've lectured first year, third year and final year students over a long period of time . During that time I've also been through the dancing learning phase (from beginner up to competition pre-champ level)and i 've leant a lot about my teaching/lecturing skills from my experiences learning to dance.
I've thought about this 'un-learning' situation a lot because i've had the same thoughts as drscience.
The way i currently view this is as follows:
1)You can't teach 4th-year material to 1st-year students
2)Understanding of new information is built on previous knowledge and experience, and the better this previous knowledge, the faster you will learn new material. So very good basics are important.
3)Never knowingly teach anything which is wrong or bad technique.
So for example, you would go to some trouble to make sure a beginner closes feet correctly in slow waltz (where it's needed of course), keeps good timing and avoids poor posture. These are serious fundamentals.
Competition dancing is an adaptation of good social dancing but the basics are the same.

Social " basics " have little in common structurally with for.e.g. F/Trot in the Intern social style ( American standards apart )

The reason the International style is more adaptable, is primarily because we may use the basic bronze/ silver format at a social AND competitive level with little change in concepts other than the variety. We do not however, use the " social " standard as a comp. division, wherein the Americans do.

having worked with both levels for multi yrs, as a teacher, coach and examiner, I must confess ,that my personal belief is the Amer. standards, socially, are superior in content and design, to their english counterpart..

The social levels of both Amer. and Intern style have many similarites.. the major difference is the departure that Amer. Silver takes., thru re structuring of the "open " footwork approach .

My overall response to your overall question...

It sounds like you are taking lessons at a chain. They have rules and other things about what they will and won't teach you and usually when you first walk in you get the bottom of the barrel teachers. Dancers that sometimes hardly know the material themselves so they aren't really qualified to teach any technique.

Then you move up and up and up and sometimes you get someone who knows what they are doing and sometimes you don't. Depends on where you live.

You should never be learning bad technique. However what I have learned in my own dance education is that there are things you just aren't ready for on day one. SO perhaps they got you moving around the floor and picking up rhythm. Then the next thing they should be doing is refining. Then refine some more. This is very different than teaching bad technique that has to be corrected and you'll spend the majority of your dancing life refining until you have something pure and beautiful.

So make the distinction in your own mind. Did they teach you something wrong or did they show it to you and let you do it a couple of times until you picked up something of importance and than began to tweak that piece?

If they are teaching you the wrong thing, find someplace else because if the low level people have it wrong then your higher upper instructors probably do as well. This might be overall good advice if you are looking for a competition driven dance instructor. They are very different animals and will work on very different things then you usually expect at a chain.

I have had both experiences...refiners and complete idiots. It is tragic to have someone build into your muscles a bad habit and tell you its right. I have a three-step Alemana that kills me because I had a lousy instructor teach it to me in the first place. If I make a major error where do you think I make it? Same with my cha cha basic. They taught me some backwards piece of garbage at the local dance chain and reinforced it until I had the thing burned into memory. Two years later...still trying to get rid of it...

Make sure your teacher is good. Hell you wouldn't put up with this from a gardner or house keeper or cook. Make them work for what you pay them to do and be clear in your own mind that you aren't confused about the difference between learning and mastering a concept.

I agree with Phil, this is a very interesting/educational thread.

I wonder if someone could clarify for me: where does the social/competitive aspect fit in with that of the various syllabi levels (e.g., bronze/silver/gold, or student teacher/associate/licentiate/fellow, and beyond).

Or is it simply a question of degree, e.g., closing of feet in waltz or cha cha chasses, wherein a "laid back" social instruction would tolerate a wide range of "closure."

Thank you in advance.

Simply put.. the "social " levels in the 2 different standards ( American and Intern.styles ) are predicated on a Br.. Silv.and Gold, etc, levels

The major differnces are.. the Amer. standard ( in many schools ) was structured thus way..

Bronze .. 8 dances , 3 smooth and 5 rhythm ...this has been refined by both chains.

In Silver and Gold, new dances are introduced replacing some of the Bronze selections ( P.Doble and VW for e.g. )

The variety of dances in the Amer. style was very diverse, and at one time included in its rhythm dances..Balboa, Guaracha , Peabody and an Amer. version of V.W. .. in later yrs , Hustle and Lamabada were added by many schools.

As to comparisons between the prof. exams and the student levels, a rough guide might be BR. Silv and Gold

Assoc ,,Members and Fellow.

There is obviously much more to the pro exams, from a technical and theoretical aspect.

Intern style ,, 4 dances in the smooth side and 4 in the latin .
The Intern. style, has also now adopted exams on a 1 dance basis.

The Q on passing the feet in waltz would apply only to the Amer style waltz at silver level and up ( passing in Intern. style is used for more specific figures, altho the current style of Comp. Q/step has become much more "open "with much foot non closure )

Lastly, comparing Intern. style latin and Amer.style is a topic unto its self... they are quite diametrically opposed in many of their concepts.. and, ironically, they are both founded on the same core principles..

Thank you, Terence.

If I understand correctly, the various syllabus levels (bronze, silver, gold, etc.) can be taught at both the "social" and exam-oriented levels.

Going with your descriptions of various dances that have been included, I see on the Learning Center of this website that ECS, WCS, Lindy Hop, and Salsa are grouped under "Social & Nightclub Dances." Interestingly, ECS is also listed under "American Style Rhythm Dances."

In addition, especially in the foxtrot, there is what is sometimes called the slow/quick "rhythm" variety, with steps resembling the quickstep (e.g., quarter turns), as pointed out in the response to the initial post.

Furthermore, as I gather from the initial question by drscience, what passes as social dancing is simply a sloppy presentation of all figures, with no regard at all for correct footwork, etc.

Could it be that there is more than one meaning attached to the word "social" at play here?

First.. ALL dance is supposed to be " social ".. we have elected, as man is wont to do.. to lay down the "challenge " to prove our superiority ,in any and everything ..

The comp. side of dance, is sometimes ( make that many ) times a charachature of its self.

The "social", in and of itself, can be danced equally as well ( and should be ), but the in depth technqiue, and laborious hrs of practice,are not on the majority of students agenda.. Thats OK..one should always enjoy the dances for what they bring to you NOT what they do to please others ( other than your partner ).. and.. how well you wish to perform them, is a standard only you can set.

As to teaching "social" and Comp. dances of the same level in either standard, its always important to have good technique... however.. the clientele one teachers may depend on how much is given.. all my social students are well over 40, and they are only interested in having a good time..so.. I tread lightly ( thats why they are still with me after 3 yrs ).

dance inclusion.. how one categorises a specific dance is purely subjective.. Hustle and Salsa are classic e.g... they have both now been included in the Eng. Soc. "test" system , when they are still considered by many, as street style dances ( werent many at one time ? )and were ignored by soc. for many yrs( The Eng. STILL dont recognise Mambo ! ) and most American studios have them on their list..
The UK schools are just starting to include some Amer.style smooth dances ( W and FT ) and Sq. rumba, was the dance that I grew up with, and still teach here socially.

last.. the style of F/T that you are learning at bronze level, has many of the same components that we include in our basic social style, and yes, the turning basic is the quarter turn from Q/step ... this system we use was adapted from something that used to be called " crush " dancing and was required ( still is ) for prof. exams..it was introduced during war time in the U.K., as many public dance halls would be packed to the " ceiling ", so movement was limited ( I think we honestly took the idea from the states !..as we did for most of our dancing !! )

So, the F/T you are learning is the most suitable for good social dance anywhere in the U.S. ... it still may teach you good technique , balance and frame.. IF taught correctly.. hope this helps..