Do beginners need a high profile instructor?

[standardgirl]

it is MUCH more satisfying to learn technique, as this makes dancing feel entirely different and (IMHO) much more enjoyable.

Totally agree.
When I first started in FA, I had a lot of fun, at least that's how I thought at that time. I learned a lot of steps, patterns and combinations, and I was able to pick them up pretty fast. The most fun thing at that time was when a leader would lead me through all kinds of variations and moves.

Now, although it's still fun when leader leads me through new/fun variation, there is definitely more than that that makes dancing so much fun. It's the connection between the two, it's the fact that the leader can do so little and I can totally understand and response, it's when the two people are in harmony with each other that we are dancing together as one, and we are "in love" during the 3 min of the dance. That is just beautiful, and you can flow so freely across the floor. Of course, I would never experience any of these if I never dance beyound the social level.

 

[robin]

I don't think that the titles an instructor has won are the most important qualification. There are plenty of great dancers out there who are terrible teachers, especially for beginners. This might be due to a lack of interest in teaching beginners, a lack of skill at communicating, or even a lack of knowledge about dancing (you can be a great dancer without understanding the first thing about it...).

Conversely, there are some teachers who were themselves only mediocre dancers (compared to the top professionals that is..., they're still bloody good) but are very good teachers. Like in all other sports, the best athletes are not always the best coaches.

If you're looking for a good, competitive teacher, I'd look at the current good competitive dancers and see who teaches them. Alternatively just try out a number of teachers and see if they can communicate with you and whether what they say makes sense to you. Of course as a beginner that can be hard to tell, which is why it is great to talk to other dancers and other teachers, go to the occasional "masterclass", lectures or dance-camp. That way you soon notice if your chosen teacher is just talking rubbish .

 

[pygmalion]

If you're looking for a good, competitive teacher, I'd look at the current good competitive dancers and see who teaches them.

Wow. That's a good suggestion, robin. 8)

 

[Genesius Redux]

i agree there's no difference technically between a social & competitive dancer - i think the problem sometimes is in how a instructor chooses to teach the two. I've often find that social dance instructors choose to teach the "friendly" side of dancing - lots of variations, patterns, but not so much technique whereas competitive instructors are the opposite. I'm saying this is right or wrong, just perhaps the difference in teaching style arises because of different goals and needs.

Oh--I see what you're saying now....

Yeah, I agree that especially from the standpoint of the teacher, it's important to keep the interest level there by getting people to actually dance. A teacher can lose students by not introducing enough new patterns.

On the other hand, when you dance with someone who has learned a lot of patterns but not much technique, you often can't dance with them--they either can't lead or they can't follow. The technical aspects of dancing are not merely for the sake of sharpening the dancing or making it look "competitive"--they are central to lead and follow.

Yet for some reason, and maybe--I'll go out on a limb here--it has to do with general American laziness, there's a feeling that technical work takes the "fun" out of dancing. I find this puzzling, as there's nothing to me that is less fun than dancing with a partner who is not connected to you, who has to be forcibly nudged and shoved all around. And many women have told me there's nothing less fun than a guy who is going all over the place with mixed signals or in some cases no signals whatsoever.

When I used to show in dog agility, there was this madate that we all had to keep it "fun" for the dog. And while that sounds pretty inoffensive, the bottom line implication was that those of us who had taken the trouble to train our dogs well so that they knew what they were doing on course had somehow taken the "fun" out of it. But at the same time, there was this ironic kind of praise that you'd throw out to a dog-handler team that was just hopeless b/c the dog was all over the place with this goofy lost expression. "They looked they were having fun!" Which is the dog agility version of that great old southern standby comment, "Well, bless her heart!"

Again, I never saw the "fun" in dogs who are lost on the course. When I used to train, I would sometimes show people how to run a sequence, and I'd take their dog and all of a sudden the dog was, in fact, having fun.

Likewise, at the many social dances I've been at, judging from the pained look on some of the faces, the "fun" that one might be having from doing all those different patterns is really not in evidence. At best, I've seen a few couples have "fun" for a few weeks, and eventually disappear, never to return.

In short, IMO, better to have just a few patterns you dance well than a whole mess of patterns you dance poorly--and what will teach you to dance those patterns well is good technique. So social or competitive, I think you're best off with someone who will emphasize technique and not just introduce a lot of patterns.

I say this mostly for the sake of lurkers and first-time dancers who are looking to see how to find a teacher and what to look for. In the long run, [/i]more people will dance with you if you have solid technique than if you know a lot of patterns.

Cheers,

GR

 

[saludas]

i agree there's no difference technically between a social & competitive dancer - i think the problem sometimes is in how a instructor chooses to teach the two. I've often find that social dance instructors choose to teach the "friendly" side of dancing - lots of variations, patterns, but not so much technique whereas competitive instructors are the opposite. I'm saying this is right or wrong, just perhaps the difference in teaching style arises because of different goals and needs.

Oh--I see what you're saying now....

Yeah, I agree that especially from the standpoint of the teacher, it's important to keep the interest level there by getting people to actually dance. A teacher can lose students by not introducing enough new patterns.

On the other hand, when you dance with someone who has learned a lot of patterns but not much technique, you often can't dance with them--they either can't lead or they can't follow. The technical aspects of dancing are not merely for the sake of sharpening the dancing or making it look "competitive"--they are central to lead and follow.

Yet for some reason, and maybe--I'll go out on a limb here--it has to do with general American laziness, there's a feeling that technical work takes the "fun" out of dancing. I find this puzzling, as there's nothing to me that is less fun than dancing with a partner who is not connected to you, who has to be forcibly nudged and shoved all around. And many women have told me there's nothing less fun than a guy who is going all over the place with mixed signals or in some cases no signals whatsoever.

When I used to show in dog agility, there was this madate that we all had to keep it "fun" for the dog. And while that sounds pretty inoffensive, the bottom line implication was that those of us who had taken the trouble to train our dogs well so that they knew what they were doing on course had somehow taken the "fun" out of it. But at the same time, there was this ironic kind of praise that you'd throw out to a dog-handler team that was just hopeless b/c the dog was all over the place with this goofy lost expression. "They looked they were having fun!" Which is the dog agility version of that great old southern standby comment, "Well, bless her heart!"

Again, I never saw the "fun" in dogs who are lost on the course. When I used to train, I would sometimes show people how to run a sequence, and I'd take their dog and all of a sudden the dog was, in fact, having fun.

Likewise, at the many social dances I've been at, judging from the pained look on some of the faces, the "fun" that one might be having from doing all those different patterns is really not in evidence. At best, I've seen a few couples have "fun" for a few weeks, and eventually disappear, never to return.

In short, IMO, better to have just a few patterns you dance well than a whole mess of patterns you dance poorly--and what will teach you to dance those patterns well is good technique. So social or competitive, I think you're best off with someone who will emphasize technique and not just introduce a lot of patterns.

I say this mostly for the sake of lurkers and first-time dancers who are looking to see how to find a teacher and what to look for. In the long run, [/i]more people will dance with you if you have solid technique than if you know a lot of patterns.

Cheers,

GR

Well put!!

People go ballistic here in the USA if you tell them that technique is the basis for the enjoyable part of dance.

There are, however, too many folks who take the (as I call it) "adult ed" approach to an artform like dance - in other words, you pay a fee, show up for 4 weeks, and you can do it/make it/fix it/ etc. Candidly, it ain't gonna happen.

Men are usually the worst at this (hey - I'm a male, FYI) because they have such fragile egos that they are totally intimidated by anything they can't do or control immediately (back off everyone I'm a guy remember). However, women also have this 'anti knowledge' gene as well, as I often hear 'I just follow' or some such blanket reasoning as to why THEY don't learn technique.

Now that I've alienated 100% of the readership here (males and females) I think that before everyone flames me they should take a look at what they want out of dance. Any one who wants more than that 'social shove and respond' would be well advised to learn technique.

 

[lynn]

OK, I just booked my lesson with my new instructor, wish me luck !

I'm hoping she'll take me seriously eventhough comps are not in my agenda in the impending future.

saludas, i doubt anyone will flame you for your comment - we say what we feel based on our experience, sometimes people agree with you, other times we agree to disagree, that's all. I think we can all tell an honest opinion from something that's intentionally malicious.

 

[fascination]

actually saludas, I think this is one of the first times I have found your posts to be not only unoffensive but humble and dead on :wink:

 

[lynn]

In another thread, a follow DFer mentioned the training program @ franchised studios which comprises of full bronze training. I know a franchise locally that operates the same way - as soon as "teachers" complete the bronze program (maybe it's teacher's bronze program which is a little different than the students'??) they are able to teach. My question is this: is that really enough training to start teaching??

I'm not talking about the familiarity with syllabus steps, rather I mean the overall experience/ technicality associated with dancing. I've taken a class with a fairly young/inexperienced instructor. Granted, he was an excellent dancer (to my untrained eye) but he had difficulty explaining even simple technical concepts.

The "qualification/experience of instructor" discussion falls in the grey zone and newbies usually do not need world class coaches to teach them how to do a box step. My primary concern is this: if the instructor only has bronze training, wouldn't it be a little risky if the student happens to be a fast learner and could very well surpass the instructor in a matter of months?

Any thoughts?

 

[fascination]

In another thread, a follow DFer mentioned the training program @ franchised studios which comprises of full bronze training. I know a franchise locally that operates the same way - as soon as "teachers" complete the bronze program (maybe it's teacher's bronze program which is a little different than the students'??) they are able to teach. My question is this: is that really enough training to start teaching??

I'm not talking about the familiarity with syllabus steps, rather I mean the overall experience/ technicality associated with dancing. I've taken a class with a fairly young/inexperienced instructor. Granted, he was an excellent dancer (to my untrained eye) but he had difficulty explaining even simple technical concepts.

The "qualification/experience of instructor" discussion falls in the grey zone and newbies usually do not need world class coaches to teach them how to do a box step. My primary concern is this: if the instructor only has bronze training, wouldn't it be a little risky if the student happens to be a fast learner and could very well surpass the instructor in a matter of months?

Any thoughts?

completely right on lynn...we have a young kid going through this right now...young , cute, but doesnt know his fanny from a hole in the gound...I've only been dancing a year and would NEVER consider taking a lesson from him and the only people who wouldn't notice this are people fresh off the curb....now maybe as long as he sticks w/ newcomer groups and people with only social aspirations it will be fine but there is no way that he should be doing anything more than that

 

[lynn]

fascination, i was actually thinking about you when i thought of this :lol: !

You've taken a lot of lessons & made vast improvement in the past year - now if i were in your shoes, i'd be really uncomfortable going through bronze and knowing my teacher had "just" the qualification of teaching bronze! He might not be able to see far ahead enough to realize all the mistakes i'm making!

 

[fascination]

fascination, i was actually thinking about you when i thought of this :lol: !

You've taken a lot of lessons & made vast improvement in the past year - now if i were in your shoes, i'd be really uncomfortable going through bronze and knowing my teacher had "just" the qualification of teaching bronze! He might not be able to see far ahead enough to realize all the mistakes i'm making!

yes, If I had inadvertantly stumbled in with no one telling me who to pick, I could have ended up in really mediocre shape...especially b/c I didn't KNOW how much I would love it or how I could progress...fortunately my boss is a dancer and she insisted that I book with my teacher who is the best :lol: sometimes a buttpain...but the best...btw...neither my current teacher nor myself miss the mistakes I'm making geez it's always something...but doggone I am making progress 8)

 

[Chris Stratton]

Considering how many bad habits that will take years to break are developed in the first five minutes, having a really expert teacher from the start could be quite important. Or at least having the first person who has 'teacher authority' behind their words be really expert...

 

[lynn]

true, but the biggest problem is that majority of the ppl walking into the studio have no idea how far they want to go or how good they want to be do not realize that - why hire a world class coach for hobbyists? It's usually after we get better (and maybe after picking up a couple of bad habits :wink: ??) do we realize the need for improvement and better instructors.

 

[swan]

Those newbie trainee - hopefully people will only leave the wedding special couples for them to teach.

It's scary to see that they crank out & herd out these 'trained' teachers who perhaps never danced a step in their life & only learned for a few months & onto teaching!

I know some big named Franchise, they charged so much for a private lesson & most of the so-called 'teachers' were from these training programs.

But then when you know nothing about dancing, it's really hard to gauge!

I now remembered years ago, when I first started dancing. My husband & I actually signed up for 4 privates w/ this guy. We went thru FOUR hustle lessons (those were my days w/o STANDARD!) We thought he's great! Ai yai yai...He was charging the same price that I eventually paid Jon Roberts for my 1st private lesson in Standard

 

[Indiana_Jay]

My wife and I are beginning dancers at an Arthur Murray studio. Neither of us have considered competing.

We took advantage of the standard "free lesson" at AM and at two independent studios before we decided where to study. We considered the "free lessons" to be instructor auditions.

We both have degrees in music education. We used that knowledge to evaulate the teaching abilities of each instructor and chose the one who, in our opinion, was the best teacher.

It happens that the instructor we choose is a former professional competitor and the studio owners are still top-level professional competitors. Their knowledge of the art form is impressive, but what's even more impressive and important to us is the strength of their teaching skills.

As music majors in college, we saw too many virtuoso performers who could not teach their way out of a paper bag, yet they were assigned to teach students like us how to sing or play instruments.

As a beginning dancer, I can't begin to opine on whether a top-level comeptitor who is also a great teacher is better than a non-competitor who is also a great teacher. As others have written, it might depend upon your goals.

But no matter your goals, it makes no sense to me to hire a competitor if he/she is not also a great teacher.

-Jay