Log In

Username:

Password:

   Stay logged in?

Forgot Password?

User Status

 

Attention

 

Recover Password

Username or Email:

Loading...
Change Image
Enter the code in the photo at left:

Before We Continue...

Are you absolutely sure you want
to delete this message?

Premium Membership

Upgrade to
Premium Membership!

Renew Your
Premium Membership!

$99
$79
PER YEAR

Premium Membership includes the following benefits:

Don't let your Premium Membership expire, or you'll miss out on:

  • Exclusive access to over 1,400 video demonstrations of patterns in the full bronze, silver and gold levels.
  • Access to all previous variations of the week, including full video instruction of man's and lady's parts.
  • Over twice as many videos as basic membership.
  • A completely ad-free experience!

 

Sponsored Ad

+ View Older Messages

Re: Arthur Murray difficulties
Posted by terence2
2/13/2017  1:05:00 AM

Interesting.. you know nothing about Amer. style and yet, you have critiqued it !!..


What you witnessed, was the Comp style, NOT the " Social " style ( which was my reference and point ) and that was my comparison.

The Silver/Gold levels, were designed to be different from Intern. style, ya know, it's called CHOICE..

Both chain schools do teach Intern style and, both have turned out world class dancers ( one, 3rd at Blackpool ) the other, 8th in the world in Latin .

In case you do not know, the variety in the " Smooth and Rhythm" (as they are called ), give more types of dance as choices, thereby giving appeal to a wider audience, and after all, is that not what "dance " is all about? .

Just for your info, I am a dual Fellow in 2 English Soc.in Ballroom and latin( English trained ) and same, in the American style , and a former Examiner .

I do respect your opinion, but I think you need to research the other style before you come to a full conclusion ( there are ex. on this site in the vid section ).

By the way, I do hope you realise that EVERY dance we teach in the Intern. style , was NOT originated in the UK, and "we " subsequently changed them, some for the better and otherwise, some may say not !!

Re: Arthur Murray difficulties
Posted by Guest
2/14/2017  6:16:00 AM
The first World Ballroom Championship was in December 1922. The first National Championship in American Smooth was 1984 ?. I think it is safe to say that every possible way of performing lets say a Natural Spin Turn had been tried and tested. I doubt if anything is completely new its just accepted as being current.
Re: Arthur Murray difficulties
Posted by Guest
2/14/2017  6:18:00 PM
American Smooth in Blackpool. Its worth watching this special presentation at the Blackpool Championship Especially as there is an explanation regarding the differences between it and the International style. As all the couples, after their solos, are recalled to the floor we are told to imagine this is the Grand Final of a Competition.
Re: Arthur Murray difficulties
Posted by terence2
2/15/2017  12:37:00 AM
The U.S. " Smooth " championship, I believe, dates before that .

The 1st "world's" , was in 1919...Not in all the current standard dances .



Re: Arthur Murray difficulties
Posted by Guest
2/15/2017  7:01:00 PM
Dec 1922 Victor Silvester in London at the Worlds Introduced the full Natural Turn. On that day the Modern Waltz was born as it is danced today. The Reverse Turn in those days they crossed the feet on the first part and a Heel Pivot on the second part. That was soon to go. They evidently were n't big on closing the feet as we do today. This information is by the the man himself who on that day won the event. He goes on to say that in the Waltz on a few occasions many dancers used Foxtrot steps untii those feet came together on three
Re: Arthur Murray difficulties
Posted by Former AM Instructor
2/26/2017  10:30:00 AM
I taught for Arthur Murray for a year, and would not recommend it. If you're not happy, find another studio.

Every Arthur Murray studio is a little different, so it really depends on the franchisee owner on what kind of quality you're going to get. The advantage of going to an Arthur Murray or Fred Astaire is that you know that your instruction will have to meet certain standards in order to be accredited. When you're first starting and don't know how to judge dance quality this is a big deal. The studio I was at trained us really well on how to teach in a simple way and break everything down so that any beginner could easily learn no matter how awkward they were.

That being said, Arthur Murray is good for beginning students, but most Arthur Murray's will not progress you to more than just a decent social dancer. Even our "gold" students could barely lead and follow.

Arthur Murray hires instructors based on friendly personalities and looks. No prior dance experience is necessary. They train them pretty intensively before they are allowed to teach, so again, for teaching beginners they are pretty good. However, at the studio I worked at, once they receive their initial training, the amount of training they receive afterwords is minimal. We had a dance session once a week where a senior teacher would teach a group class to the rest of the staff. Also, coaches come into town around once a month, and give group class instruction to the teachers. You had the option of getting a private coaching, but it was extremely expensive and the instructors don't get paid enough to be able to easily afford it. At my studio, all the instructors were either living at home, had some other source of income, or were on food stamps to make ends meet.

I left because I wasn't progressing in my dance, was making next to nothing, and I was tired of being manipulated by our studio manager. In order to get us to stay, management would often publicly humiliate us in order to shame us and tear our confidence down. They would also tell us that "some day" we could make management, and then we'd be making more than "engineers". Somehow the staff bought into it, and some of them had been there for over 7 years and were still struggling as teachers. I also did not feel that we were being trained on how to give the students what they wanted; we were being trained on how to convince the students to want what we had. To an extent, I understand that, but we definitely were being trained on using manipulative tactics to get students to do buy into doing more, and I was uncomfortable with that.

Teachers were required to tell everything students told them to the studio owner and other staff that would be working with them. One of the things we often did during our daily meetings was a simulation where one instructor would pretend to be a student and the other staff would take turns asking personal questions to the "student." We would get chastised if we did not know the answers to these questions. I once refused to pose as a student because I felt very uncomfortable breaching their confidence in this way, and I got into HUGE trouble for it. I left shortly after. If you tell something to one teacher, you're telling it to them all.

Again, I want to emphasize that not all Arthur Murray studios are the same. The studio I was at was particularly bad. Other ones are MUCH better than that.
Re: Arthur Murray difficulties
Posted by terence2
2/28/2017  7:23:00 AM

The downside ( and it's a big one ) is the common belief that. new teachers are OK for new students. Nothing could be farther from the truth !

The foundation principles taught at the beginning, set the stage for all that is to come, and newer teachers are normally ill equipped to provide them .
Re: Arthur Murray difficulties
Posted by Guest
3/3/2017  2:46:00 PM
The two letters above hit the nail right on the head. I know a teacher who runs a studio who has no idea how to use his sides. CBM and CBMP. You cant imagine what a Quickstep looks like at that studio.And the position of the heads is deplorable. Those poor pupils have no idea of how they are throwing their money down a never ending drain.
Copyright  ©  1997-2017 BallroomDancers.com
Loading...