Art Institute of Pittsburgh student high up in song contest
A student at the Art Institute of Pittsburgh could be on the verge of winning an international online music competition, and hopes for votes from Pittsburghers to help him do it.
Billy Pennington, 21, an Uptown singer and songwriter, currently holds the sixth place in Artist Signal's monthly online video contest with his song “I Don't Want to Go.” He had more than 14,000 votes as of Oct. 24. Artist Signal is an online community for more than 1,500 unsigned, new and emerging artists. At the end of each month, the singer with the most votes wins $10,000 to put toward his music career.
“It's for up-and-coming artists who aren't known yet,” says the native of New Wilmington, Lawrence County. “It's just a way for them to connect with fans and help market themselves.”
In his Artist Signal profile, Pennington also uploaded two self-penned songs: “Blankstares” and “We've Had Some Good Times.” His sings while playing an acoustic guitar.
If Pennington wins the $10,000, he plans to record an album, likely at Mr. Small's Recording Studios in the North Side. He also would schedule more shows. Currently, Pennington performs at open-mic nights around the city and plays on the street.
Pennington says he is surprised and thrilled to have made it to No. 6 so far.
“I didn't expect to get that high,” he says. “There are a lot of people who deserve it, so it feels good for sure.”
To vote, visit artistsignal.com. You must have a Facebook account to vote.
Kellie B. Gormly is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. She can be reached at email@example.com or 412-320-7824.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.