« If sports were reported the way some critics review opera ... | Main | Loaded language »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Wow! Thank you for being a totally pretentious cunt.


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


Some of the criticisms you raise are valid. Yet, while you try to display impartiality by giving some comments an "A+" or whatever, ultimately you get on your superiority complex driven high horse and take apart everything. Why is there a need to do that, Cindy?


And clearly, like most of your ilk, you don't respond to constructive criticism thus I am justified in employing manners you perceive to be distasteful: obviously incapable of understanding meta-humor! BITCH


"Let me know how much I know and pick apart an article that may be a first persons only foray into the musical world!"


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.


**Correction: you use my so called "sexist name-calling" as an excuse to justify your bad behavior. Shameful.


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.


I think I made it exceedingly clear in my opening gambit that your article as very pretentious, subsequent volleys variously noted your bad behavior which included an air of superiority and a noted desire to tear apart another authors generally constructive article only to replace it with this drivel.


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.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where's Cindy Singing Next?

  • The Marquise de Berkenfield, La fille du regiment, Austin Opera 2017

Cindy on Stage

  • Mrs. Quickly, Sir John in Love, Boston
    I play dress-up for a living.

December 2016

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Blog powered by Typepad

Become a Fan