72-note ear-training class in NY

Boston Microtonal Society Presents:

Course in Microtonal Ear-training and Performance
Instructor: Judith Berkson

An hour long class meeting once a week beginning the last week of February
and running for 8 weeks.
Time and day will be determined
Classes will meet at Progressive Studios in midtown Manhattan
$8 per class plus $20 for the textbook
scholarships available

We'll focus on learning to hear, sing, write, play and improvise microtones
using the textbook "Preliminary Studies in the Virtual Pitch Continuum"
co-written by Joe Maneri and Scott Van Duyne (Boston Microtonal Society
1989). The book teaches 72-note-to-the-octave equal temperament. After an
introduction to the notation, subsequent assignments will guide us through
playing and writing melody, harmony, and by the end of the book up to 6-part
counterpoint. Our examples will be played and sung by the class, developing
our ability to hear and discern these unique intervals.
The class is inspired by and modeled after the "Microtonal Composition and
Theory" class taught by Joe Maneri at The New England Conservatory. The
class is open to all instrumentalists, singers, composers and theorists from
jazz, classical and any other stylistic background. Students should have a
background in basic music theory. For more information on microtones,
72-note equal temperament, recordings, performers and composers of
microtones visit: www.bostonmicrotonalsociety.org
<http://www.bostonmicrotonalsociety.org>

Please let us know which one of these possibilities works best for you:
Weekdays 12pm-1pm
Weeknights 8pm-9pm
Saturday 12pm-1pm or any other time
Wednesday anytime between 5pm and 9pm

A SPECIAL NOTE TO SINGERS: a microtonal choir (the first, I believe, to be
in existence on these shores) will begin shortly after this course gets
underway. Along with microtonal choral repetoire we will perform early music
and 20th century works.

About the instructor:
Judith Berkson's holds a voice performance degree from the New England
Conservatory. In addition, she studied Schoenberg's theory and counterpoint
courses, 20th century vocal repetoire and microtones with Joe Maneri. From
1999-2000 she co-taught the Microtonal Theory and Composition course at NEC.
She has premiered two microtonal works for voice and saxophone by Maneri,
has performed with the Boston Microtonal Collective and at the American
Festival of Microtonal Music.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "jwerntz2002 <juliawerntz@a...>"
<juliawerntz@a...> wrote:

> About the instructor:
> Judith Berkson's holds a voice performance degree from the New
England
> Conservatory. In addition, she studied Schoenberg's theory and
counterpoint
> courses, 20th century vocal repetoire and microtones with Joe
Maneri. From
> 1999-2000 she co-taught the Microtonal Theory and Composition
course at NEC.
> She has premiered two microtonal works for voice and saxophone by
Maneri,
> has performed with the Boston Microtonal Collective and at the
American
> Festival of Microtonal Music.

joseph pehrson and i remember this last performance very fondly. good
luck with the class!!

>A SPECIAL NOTE TO SINGERS: a microtonal choir (the first, I
>believe, to be in existence on these shores) will begin shortly
>after this course gets underway. Along with microtonal choral
>repetoire we will perform early music and 20th century works.

That's almost enough to make me want to move back to NY!

-C.

this is really great! makes me sad to be
so far from New York and Boston now.

(but i certainly am enjoying the weather...)

(... and i already have a copy of the book.)

-monz

----- Original Message -----
From: <juliawerntz@attbi.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 1:25 PM
Subject: [tuning] 72-note ear-training class in NY

> Boston Microtonal Society Presents:
>
> Course in Microtonal Ear-training and Performance
> Instructor: Judith Berkson
>
> An hour long class meeting once a week beginning
> the last week of February and running for 8 weeks.
> Time and day will be determined
> Classes will meet at Progressive Studios in midtown Manhattan
> $8 per class plus $20 for the textbook
> scholarships available
>
> We'll focus on learning to hear, sing, write, play
> and improvise microtones using the textbook
> "Preliminary Studies in the Virtual Pitch Continuum"
> co-written by Joe Maneri and Scott Van Duyne
> (Boston Microtonal Society 1989). The book teaches
> 72-note-to-the-octave equal temperament.
> <snip ... etc.>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma <clumma@y...>" <clumma@y...> wrote:

> >A SPECIAL NOTE TO SINGERS: a microtonal choir (the first, I
> >believe, to be in existence on these shores) will begin shortly
> >after this course gets underway. Along with microtonal choral
> >repetoire we will perform early music and 20th century works.
>
> That's almost enough to make me want to move back to NY!

It makes me wonder if they are going to want any 21st century microtonal choral works to perform.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "jwerntz2002 <juliawerntz@a...>"

/tuning/topicId_42151.html#42151

***I very much applaud Julia and the Bostonians for arranging these
classes. Hopefully, they will contribute to enthusiasm for 72-tET in
the New York area.

Being a person involved in 72-tET and who uses the Sims notation, I
will naturally be interested in these developments. I'm not certain,
at this point, whether I will attend the full 8-week sessions, but,
certainly, I am interested in finding out what is going on. And, I
already have the text.

As a composer, I have rather ambivalent feelings toward "ear
training." I had *conventional* "ear training" up the wazoo and I
must confess that almost none of it contributed to my composing in
the least. In fact, if anything it *inhibited* it.

One thing "ear training" never takes into consideration is *context*
which means *everything* from a compositional standpoint. Microtonal
chorales and exercises may help people listen and identify the
intervals, but, in my experience the *best* microtonal ear training
for composers is to WRITE MUSIC, and lots of it.

It also helps to have an accurately tuned synthesizer, an acute ear
and, hopefully, some talent.

I've been working to establish a nice rapport with Julia Werntz, so I
don't want to disrupt that in any way, but I must confess there were
a few items on her PARIS microtonal article with which I would take
issue:

The slant of the article meant to show that since certain composers
used lower-integer harmonic intervals, those really *weren't*
microtonality. A student who couldn't hear microtonality in the work
of Harry Partch was cited as an example.

In the first place, anybody who can't hear microtonality in Harry
Partch is *really, seriously* in need of "ear training." That's not
much substantiation, right there...

In the second place, again *context* means everything and while it is
true that Just Intonation intervals approximate our "conventional"
ones to a great degree, I would say that 1)they still sound quite a
bit different and, even more importantly 2) due to the nature of the
scales that are used, the *harmonic progressions* are totally
different from our "standard practice" harmonic music.

Take Blackjack, for example. The "progressions" while *harmonic* are
nothing like conventional common practice. They are mostly
constructed by going around the Blackjack lattice and while they may
be vaguely emulated by 12-tET, the *impetus* for the succession of
chords has nothing to do with 12-equal or conventional theory.

In addition, the use of *small* intervals in Blackjack gives it a
*thoroughly* microtonal cast. I find the use of these, in
*combination* with harmonic intervals to be the particular interest
of the scale and something that can create music that has a bit of
the past (although with "improved" and slightly strange intervals)
with small "added note" pitches that are a totally new vocabulary.

So, different people have different ways of working and, personally,
I would never for a moment try to define what "real microtonality" is
or is not for anybody.

That's work for the "critics" anyway. They've been proven over time
to be always right... :)

cordially,

Joe Pehrson

Joseph Pehrson wrote:

> One thing "ear training" never takes into consideration is *context* > which means *everything* from a compositional standpoint. Microtonal > chorales and exercises may help people listen and identify the > intervals, but, in my experience the *best* microtonal ear training > for composers is to WRITE MUSIC, and lots of it.

Great! I was wondering if I should get some conventional ear training, seeing as we don't get these classes over here. But now you tell me I don't need it, although I have to do some other work instead. Oh well, it's a swings and roundabouts thing.

> It also helps to have an accurately tuned synthesizer, an acute ear > and, hopefully, some talent.

I've got the synthesizer!

Graham

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <graham@m...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_42151.html#42168

>
> Great! I was wondering if I should get some conventional ear
training,

***Hi Graham,

Well, certainly I don't want to discourage you. I had *plenty* of
it, myself. The most "distinguished" class in ear training was one I
had at the Eastman School of Music taught by one David Beach from
Yale...

I ended up doing quite well in the class, but it was actually
physically *painful* to the ear.

In fact, I stopped writing music for several months after that,
reduced to dibbling along on the piano with some dippy pop tunes.

So, I guess it really did something for me, alright! :)

J. Pehrson

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <graham@m...> wrote:
> Joseph Pehrson wrote:
>
> > One thing "ear training" never takes into consideration is
*context*
> > which means *everything* from a compositional standpoint.
Microtonal
> > chorales and exercises may help people listen and identify the
> > intervals, but, in my experience the *best* microtonal ear
training
> > for composers is to WRITE MUSIC, and lots of it.
>
> Great! I was wondering if I should get some conventional ear
training,
> seeing as we don't get these classes over here. But now you tell
me I
> don't need it, although I have to do some other work instead. Oh
well,
> it's a swings and roundabouts thing.

i have no idea why joseph is saying what he is saying. ear training
never takes context into consideration? well, then, let's hear a
proposal for a more context-considerate ear training program. because
the point of ear training in the first place is to be able to connect
sounds heard in the ear or in the imagination with the notes on a
page or on an instrument -- and i can't think of any ability more
important for a musician/composer to have.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus

/tuning/topicId_42151.html#42175

>
> i have no idea why joseph is saying what he is saying. ear training
> never takes context into consideration? well, then, let's hear a
> proposal for a more context-considerate ear training program.
because the point of ear training in the first place is to be able to
connect sounds heard in the ear or in the imagination with the notes
on a page or on an instrument -- and i can't think of any ability
more important for a musician/composer to have.

***Conventional "ear training" is almost entirely "chorale-based." I
don't know of any composer whose main output is chorales and, if I
did, I doubt seriously that I would listen to it for any length of
time... :)

A more "contemporary" ear training course that really featured
*composition* would be difficult to develop and there was very
*little* of that when I went to school, anyway.

Ross Lee Finney at the University of Michigan tried it a bit, when he
would play chords and then we would determine if they
involved "stasis" or required "resolution", etc. Now *that* was
real "ear training" related to composition... but it's rare.

Now maybe the Maneri method takes *composition* more into account,
but it looks rather like "microtonal chorales" to me... I'm looking
at it right now...

J. Pehrson

>>Great! I was wondering if I should get some conventional ear
>>training,...
//
>i have no idea why joseph is saying what he is saying. ear
>training never takes context into consideration? well, then,
>let's hear a proposal for a more context-considerate ear
>training program. because the point of ear training in the
>first place is to be able to connect sounds heard in the ear
>or in the imagination with the notes on a page or on an
>instrument -- and i can't think of any ability more important
>for a musician/composer to have.

I have to agree with Paul here. But it seems that context-
considerate training is the only sort that Joseph could
object to! In my experience, context-sensitive stuff has
made it easier for me to write music with the same context
as the training (ie tonal diatonic music), but slightly
harder for me to write anything else. But just plain practice
hearing and identifying and singing intervals and pitches,
utterly without context, has been the most useful thing I've
ever done in music.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@r...>"
<jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus
>
> /tuning/topicId_42151.html#42175
>
> >
> > i have no idea why joseph is saying what he is saying. ear
training
> > never takes context into consideration? well, then, let's hear a
> > proposal for a more context-considerate ear training program.
> because the point of ear training in the first place is to be able
to
> connect sounds heard in the ear or in the imagination with the
notes
> on a page or on an instrument -- and i can't think of any ability
> more important for a musician/composer to have.
>
>
> ***Conventional "ear training" is almost entirely "chorale-based."
I
> don't know of any composer whose main output is chorales and, if I
> did, I doubt seriously that I would listen to it for any length of
> time... :)

chorales or not, the point is to be able to hear intervals and chords
reliably, right?

> A more "contemporary" ear training course that really featured
> *composition* would be difficult to develop and there was very
> *little* of that when I went to school, anyway.
>
> Ross Lee Finney at the University of Michigan tried it a bit, when
he
> would play chords and then we would determine if they
> involved "stasis" or required "resolution", etc. Now *that* was
> real "ear training" related to composition... but it's rare.
>
> Now maybe the Maneri method takes *composition* more into account,
> but it looks rather like "microtonal chorales" to me... I'm looking
> at it right now...
>
> J. Pehrson

why not address the compositional questions (possibly for yourself,
independently of any course) *after* you've learned to reliably hear
the intervals and chords?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma <clumma@y...>"

/tuning/topicId_42151.html#42181

>
> I have to agree with Paul here. But it seems that context-
> considerate training is the only sort that Joseph could
> object to! In my experience, context-sensitive stuff has
> made it easier for me to write music with the same context
> as the training (ie tonal diatonic music), but slightly
> harder for me to write anything else. But just plain practice
> hearing and identifying and singing intervals and pitches,
> utterly without context, has been the most useful thing I've
> ever done in music.
>
> -Carl

***Maybe I should have "defined" my terms more... The "context" that
I would be looking for in pitch study would be something related to
the kind of music I would intend to be writing... That's why I
probably can do it best on my own...

Perhaps also, after being a student for so many years, I *now*
somewhat object to the "regimentation" of a class... I would much
rather practice intervals and pitches on my own...

J. Pehrson

>***Conventional "ear training" is almost entirely
>"chorale-based." I don't know of any composer whose
>main output is chorales and, if I did, I doubt
>seriously that I would listen to it for any length of
>time... :)

Don't like chorales? Well, then, there's nothing to be
done for you! :):):):):)

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma <clumma@y...>"
<clumma@y...> wrote:
> >***Conventional "ear training" is almost entirely
> >"chorale-based." I don't know of any composer whose
> >main output is chorales and, if I did, I doubt
> >seriously that I would listen to it for any length of
> >time... :)
>
> Don't like chorales? Well, then, there's nothing to be
> done for you! :):):):):)
>
> -Carl

carl and all, you may enjoy this fine article:

http://www.music-cog.ohio-
state.edu/Huron/Publications/huron.voice.leading.html

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus

/tuning/topicId_42151.html#42183

>
> chorales or not, the point is to be able to hear intervals and
chords reliably, right?
>

***Well, I'm thinking more of "harmonic dictation." For *me* it was
a separate skill from composing entirely. It's a little like a
monkey riding on a bicycle: it *can* be learned but the direct
application is a bit questionable. I ended up doing quite well in
the classes, but it was *painful* to my ear, for some reason and I
never found any application to it whatsoever. Now, maybe there was
something accomplished in my subconscious with this that I don't know
about. That I can only hope, since I paid good $ for the
courses... :)

I can assure you that traditional dictation/ear training has very
little to do with composition for me and you will find, if you
canvass composers generally, most agree with this.

The only people really interested in this kind of thing are the
*theorists.* They have a "vested interest" in the topic, since it's
something to teach... :)

J. Pehrson

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@r...>"
<jpehrson@r...> wrote:

> I can assure you that traditional dictation/ear training has very
> little to do with composition for me and you will find, if you
> canvass composers generally, most agree with this.
>
> The only people really interested in this kind of thing are the
> *theorists.* They have a "vested interest" in the topic, since
it's
> something to teach... :)
>
> J. Pehrson

i find this contention, at least if extended to ear training in
general, a little absurd. as a musician who performs on a nearly
nightly basis, my ability to hear pitches, intervals, and chords
reliably is absolutely indispensible. this has nothing to do with any
theoretical activity i may engage in in the daytime :)

similarly, for joe maneri, an obvious prerequisite to having students
composing, performing, and improvising in 72-tone equal temperament
is an ear training course. without it, the entire endeavor simply
becomes meaningless. i know you value the ability to reliably produce
and comprehend the intervals of 72-tone equal temperament. since you
seem to object to this kind of ear training so strongly, i'd love to
hear your suggestion for a substitute.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus

/tuning/topicId_42151.html#42190

since you seem to object to this kind of ear training so strongly,
i'd love to hear your suggestion for a substitute.

***For composers, I would say now "be autodidact..." It gets right
to the matter more quickly, and one learns what one needs when one
needs to learn it!

For *performers* maybe it's a different matter. I wasn't speaking
for them at all...

J. Pehrson

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@r...>"
<jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus
>
> /tuning/topicId_42151.html#42190
>
> since you seem to object to this kind of ear training so strongly,
> i'd love to hear your suggestion for a substitute.
>
>
> ***For composers, I would say now "be autodidact..." It gets right
> to the matter more quickly, and one learns what one needs when one
> needs to learn it!
>
> For *performers* maybe it's a different matter. I wasn't speaking
> for them at all...
>
> J. Pehrson

in either case i think the situation is the same. you may be able to
teach yourself ear training. this is what i did, at a young age, with
the piano (such that all the dictation exercises in college were a
snooze) and also, microtonally (22- and 31-equal), with a commodore
64. on the other hand, a class environment can really benefit most
kinds of people when it comes to learning -- there are many reasons
for this -- and you'll be tested in ways that will almost certainly
expand your horizons beyond what you could acheive on your own --
speaking, especially, compositionally!

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus

/tuning/topicId_42151.html#42192

> in either case i think the situation is the same. you may be able
to
> teach yourself ear training. this is what i did, at a young age,
with
> the piano (such that all the dictation exercises in college were a
> snooze) and also, microtonally (22- and 31-equal), with a commodore
> 64. on the other hand, a class environment can really benefit most
> kinds of people when it comes to learning -- there are many reasons
> for this -- and you'll be tested in ways that will almost certainly
> expand your horizons beyond what you could acheive on your own --
> speaking, especially, compositionally!

***I'm not sure, Paul, that at this stage of my life I feel like
being "tested" in a class...

I just found out from ASCAP that I've had many European performances
that I wasn't even aware of... That's the *test* in *my* book!

J. Pehrson

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@r...>"
<jpehrson@r...> wrote:

> ***I'm not sure, Paul, that at this stage of my life I feel like
> being "tested" in a class...

let's not get "testy" . . . i was not referring to the usual school-
exam kind of testing, which, if you're familiar with maneri and his
circle, is almost diametrically opposed to their approach . . .

anyway, i think this thread needs to die now . . .

> ***Maybe I should have "defined" my terms more... The "context"
> that I would be looking for in pitch study would be something
> related to the kind of music I would intend to be writing...
> That's why I probably can do it best on my own...
>
> Perhaps also, after being a student for so many years, I *now*
> somewhat object to the "regimentation" of a class... I would
> much rather practice intervals and pitches on my own...

For sure. I'm not quite at that point, alas...

-C.

In a message dated 2/7/03 4:49:11 PM Eastern Standard Time,
wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com writes:

> on the other hand, a class environment can really benefit most
> kinds of people when it comes to learning

I was not most kinds of people. I did not learn ear training in classrooms
well. All the teachers had perfect pitch and tried not at all to understand
how I was experiencing pitch. It wasn't until I finished classroom ear
training that I learned how to train myself autodidactically. People do
learn differently, but teachers don't always try to work with those
differences.

best, Johnny Reinhard

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus

/tuning/topicId_42151.html#42194

<wallyesterpaulrus@y...>" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@r...>"
> <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
>
> > ***I'm not sure, Paul, that at this stage of my life I feel like
> > being "tested" in a class...
>
> let's not get "testy" . . . i was not referring to the usual school-
> exam kind of testing, which, if you're familiar with maneri and his
> circle, is almost diametrically opposed to their approach . . .
>
> anyway, i think this thread needs to die now . . .

***Yes, it's been "fun..." :)

JP

hi Joe,

> From: <jpehrson@rcn.com>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 1:04 PM
> Subject: [tuning] Re: 72-note ear-training class in NY
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma <clumma@y...>"
>
> /tuning/topicId_42151.html#42181
>
> >
> > I have to agree with Paul here. But it seems that context-
> > considerate training is the only sort that Joseph could
> > object to! In my experience, context-sensitive stuff has
> > made it easier for me to write music with the same context
> > as the training (ie tonal diatonic music), but slightly
> > harder for me to write anything else. But just plain practice
> > hearing and identifying and singing intervals and pitches,
> > utterly without context, has been the most useful thing I've
> > ever done in music.
> >
> > -Carl
>
>
> ***Maybe I should have "defined" my terms more... The "context" that
> I would be looking for in pitch study would be something related to
> the kind of music I would intend to be writing... That's why I
> probably can do it best on my own...

this is interesting to me ... it resonates strongly with
Schoenberg's approach to teaching harmony. he felt that
harmonizing chorales, etc., as in the traditional harmony
books of his day, was stupid, because a composer is not
going to have his melody and bass line already done for him.
he insisted that his students study his precepts of
haromonic progression, and then compose examples of
their own illustrating those precepts.

man, i wish could attend those 72-tone ear-training
classes! i have the Manieri/Van Duyne book and have
read it, but haven't taken the time to work my way
thru the exercises comprehensively.

can i submit a microtonal choral piece for performance too?

-monz

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_42151.html#42221

>
> this is interesting to me ... it resonates strongly with
> Schoenberg's approach to teaching harmony. he felt that
> harmonizing chorales, etc., as in the traditional harmony
> books of his day, was stupid, because a composer is not
> going to have his melody and bass line already done for him.
> he insisted that his students study his precepts of
> haromonic progression, and then compose examples of
> their own illustrating those precepts.
>

***Hi Monz,

Well, it's nice to hear that I'm not *entirely* "off base..."
(literally :) There have been *many* theory and analysis courses
that I took in school that I enjoyed immensely, and I took quite a
few of them. This approach would be *much* more interesting than
the "harmonic dictation" courses I have been "complaining" about,
which is, essentially, what Schoenberg is complaining about above.

Curiously enough, I *did* do some harmonic dictation using a computer
room at the University of Delaware, where I would indicate pitches on
a "touch screen" and I was totally captivated with the process, and
worked with it hours upon hours. Same with my little studies on an
old Commodore 64: like Paul, I used one with some rudimentary ear-
training programs back when... (just 12-tET).

So, it seems the *approach* to these studies means everything,
echoing, I guess, Johnny Reinhard again...

best to you!

Joe P.

Graham Breed wrote:

> Joseph Pehrson wrote:
>
> > One thing "ear training" never takes into consideration is *context*
> > which means *everything* from a compositional standpoint. Microtonal
> > chorales and exercises may help people listen and identify the
> > intervals, but, in my experience the *best* microtonal ear training
> > for composers is to WRITE MUSIC, and lots of it.
>
> Great! I was wondering if I should get some conventional ear training,
> seeing as we don't get these classes over here. But now you tell me I
> don't need it, although I have to do some other work instead. Oh well,
> it's a swings and roundabouts thing.
>
> > It also helps to have an accurately tuned synthesizer, an acute ear
> > and, hopefully, some talent.
>
> I've got the synthesizer!
>
> Graham

Might I recommend joining a choir? To my mind this is the best ear-training you will get with the
possible exception of singing raga with a good teacher.

Regards
a.m.

> Might I recommend joining a choir? To my mind this is the best ear-training you will get with the
> possible exception of singing raga with a good teacher.

I just met someone I used to know in the supermarket. He's in a choir, but it's in Weston and attached to a church.

Isn't it useful to be able to sing *before* you join a choir? I'll get plenty of practice with my Thomas Hardy songs. If I weren't so lazy, I'd think seriously about getting lessons.

Graham Breed wrote:

> > Might I recommend joining a choir? To my mind this is the best ear-training you will get with the
> > possible exception of singing raga with a good teacher.
>
> I just met someone I used to know in the supermarket. He's in a choir,
> but it's in Weston and attached to a church.
>
> Isn't it useful to be able to sing *before* you join a choir? I'll get
> plenty of practice with my Thomas Hardy songs. If I weren't so lazy,
> I'd think seriously about getting lessons.
>

I'd say that a couple of lessons would be of immense benefit, to find out your range and register and
get your lungs going, then try to find a community choir and stick with it for a few months. Most
community (and church) choirs are usually looking for a bit of effort and some ability which you'll
have already or can get from a teacher. It's a quicker and more direct way of getting yourself tuned
up "from within" than, say, learning piano from scratch. And you don't have to carry your baby grand
around on the back of your bicycle.

Kind Regards
a.m.