Not Paying - I don't think people do view pay-to-sings as "companies" in the same way they do other producing organizations. However, the singers who run these programs are certainly producers. In the case of Spotlight, we're a bit of a hybrid --- we have a summer training program which is most definitely a pay-to-sing, but at other times of the year we produce a variety of concerts (often semi-staged) using both professional and developing artists, and are working towards being able to pay singers for these consistently. Fachless Wonder - if you have an ax to grind, perhaps the classy thing to do would be to contact Ms. Wright directly with your complaints, rather than leave anonymous, unsubstantiated rumors on blog posts. Or if you prefer to hash it out publicly, have the courage of your convictions, use your real name, and substantiate your claims.

I personally have been asked for fees by Knoxville and Wichita Grand, and a number of AGMA soloists who sing at both regional and A house levels have given me other names for the list. Although I have no reason to doubt their veracity, I am not publishing this list until I've had a chance to research it myself. I reject your characterization of this post as whining. Just because fees didn't happen to you doesn't mean they don't happen, and the material has been presented in a fair manner and tone. The mere expression of an opinion you disagree with does not constitute whining.

Hi BN, I have quite a list of regional companies --- not all small --- based on the reports of various singers. You might be surprised at some of the names on it. However, these names have not yet been independently verified and I wouldn't feel comfortable publishing them until they are. Cindy

Your "opening gambit" was to call me a pretentious cunt, Connor. However, since you appear to be trying to be civil, I'll be true to my word and respond to your criticisms. I disagree that my article is pretentious. It would be pretentious if I didn't know what I was talking about. My credentials in this field are solid, unlike the writers of the Wiki-How article, who demonstrated via their article that they do NOT have a good grip on either vocal technique or the business, and yet are setting themselves up as experts. They are also terrible writers, a criticism I made in the article and stand by. By presenting themselves as experts and writing such a terrible piece full of misinformation, incomplete information, and downright bad advice, they invited ridicule. So I reject your assertion that my article is pretentious. It is, however, snarky, in a way which is intended to be humorous. Admittedly, humor is subjective,and there are many people who don't enjoy that type of humor --- which is fine. There's plenty of free reading material out there and if you don't like someone's style, the smart thing to do is not read them anymore and go find someone you do like. I further reject your assertion that the WikiHow article is constructive. It may have been *intended* as a constructive article, but because it contains so much bad, wrong advice, wrong terminology, and incomplete information, it is actually destructive. Rather than helping someone who wants to learn how to sing or hopes to pursue a career as an opera singer, it repeatedly sends them down the wrong path. For someone who is sincere about learning to sing, bad vocal and business advice can be extremely damaging and expensive, and take many years and dollars to repair --- if it can be repaired at all. The Wikihow piece is a terrible article that real voice teachers and opera professionals ridicule, and rightly so. Regarding my "air of superiority", that's subjective --- you don't like the tone of my article or the fact that I do assert my expertise in the field, so you see it as being superior. I guess I'll have to agree with you in the sense that, in regards to my knowledge of the subject matter, I am superior to the writers of the WikiHow article. I don't apologize for this. Regarding your assertion that my article is "drivel", again I refer to my extensive credentials in this field and remind you that in a logical argument, assertions must be supported by evidence, or else they are worthless as points of debate. I did this in my article --- I gave solid reasons for every criticism I offered. When there was good advice, I acknowledged it (this was not, however, as you mistakenly assumed, an attempt to be impartial. I simply called it as I saw it). In this case, while you're certainly entitled to your personal opinion, you have yourself offered no evidence of any knowledge, let alone expertise, in the field, so I can't really give your opinion any weight.

More constructive suggestions for you, Connor: while you're looking up "constructive criticism", also look up "justification". I haven't justified anything. One set of bad behaviors -- such as your use of sexist and obscene names --- does not justify another. Look, it's clear that you're really taking my article personally. I don't know why that is, but I don't mind criticism, I stand by what I wrote, and I'm glad to have a civil discussion. If you have genuine questions about why I wrote what I did and you can manage to be polite and logical, I'll be happy to engage further with you. But if all you're here for is to spout outrage and call names, this conversation is over.

You may want to look up the definition of "constructive criticism", Connor. I'll give you an example: it's hard to be taken seriously when your opening and subsequent conversational gambits include sexist name-calling.

And thank *you*, Connor, for being a totally sexist troll.

Alas, Ellen, it's true. It's kind of shocking to me that a VOCAL competition would treat you so badly, though!