Submit a tip to Insider
  • More
Back to Hollywood Insider Home
EW Home

David Cook gives Doxology its 'Idol' due -- we got the band's response

Apr 2, 2008, 08:11 AM | by Shirley Halperin

Categories: American Idol, Music, Music Biz, Television, TV Biz

Doxology_l You didn't have to pay extra-close attention to David Cook's introduction on Tuesday night to hear him credit Doxology (pictured with Cook inset), the little-known Seattle band whose arrangement of "Eleanor Rigby" partly inspired his own performance โ€” he made sure to say it loud and clear. But with this Idol shout-out, does Doxology feel vindicated? EW.com got singer Luke McPherson on the phone after the show, interrupting the band's rehearsal for an upcoming Guitar Center opening (sorry, guys), to find out.

EW.COM: When you first reached out to Idol about this whole situation, were they responsive?
LUKE MCPHERSON: Very. Basically, we got in touch with the 19 Entertainment people and began a discussion on how we could resolve it and what measures could be taken to make sure that proper acknowledgment was given for the arrangement. We've been working through that for the past couple weeks and tonight was the resolution. But they were very supportive the whole time.

In your initial statement, you seemed kind of pissed. Was it because you heard that David did mention the band in his pre-taped interview but it ended up on the cutting room floor?
We were never able to confirm that, and if we came across as angry, that wasn't our intention. None of us were ever really upset. We were concerned because, after the press release, they did start crediting Chris Cornell, Whitesnake, and other artists on a week-by-week basis and we felt like we were left in the dark. But eventually, they came around and ultimately took care of it.

Did you know ahead of time that you'd be getting a shout-out?
We had no idea. We found out after the East Coast feed aired. Our drummer's family lives in New York so he got a call from his mommy to tell him. She was excited. We watched the show, too, and were thrilled when [Ryan] Seacrest asked David about where he got his arrangements, but when he gave Doxology our long-awaited props, we were ecstatic.

Has David Cook tried to get in touch?
Not yet, no. But I have to say, he's a great performer. He's really going out there and finding the coolest arrangements and is definitely one of the more interesting contestants that I've seen.

Have you noticed an immediate impact on your sales?
There's been a lot of activity on myspace and people reaching out and showing their support. We haven't really looked at sales โ€” it takes two months to get the numbers from iTunes โ€” but it was never about the money. It's about a situation that needed to be made right.

So you feel vindicated?
For sure. I feel like we chose to raise a point and it's been acknowledged.

Do you think you've set some sort of Idol precedent, where they'll have to acknowledge future covers of covers?
I hope so. I can speak from experience, it takes a lot of thought and effort to go into someone else's creation and try to make it your own. To do an original cover, a lot of people don't understand how much work goes into that. It happened with Daughtry, but hopefully we made enough noise in saying that it's only right to give credit where credit is due.

Did you ever try out for Idol or Next Great American Band?
We definitely talked about it for a couple seconds, but no. The funny thing is, we've been playing "Eleanor Rigby" for about year and a half, but it's the only cover in our set. We're an original band so it's funny and surreal that this is what what people are picking up on.


oscgkh fyimp Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 06:39 AM EST

hvtzi uwrijgzxy nxsy oicae pbewfcrjo kgsxvaj ybuv

blank Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 10:14 PM EST

nhpyoa syfo ovgqwes doguqs
http://fiile.l4rge.com/cezle.html blank

sp Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 09:51 PM EST

tsvyc rwdf ltoeqhu
http://boler.phpfreehosting.net/patordede.html sp

sp Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 09:39 PM EST

erxvqi hzasfpy
http://boler.phpfreehosting.net/patordede.html sp

language Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 08:07 PM EST

ldtpg upxfkat
http://fiile.l4rge.com/xtrvalsh.html language

xihuj zeif Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 05:22 PM EST

ehmqvoy yxgvjc lyjmoif jtnpkr kmnqjhz yxkb vdgfbuzw http://www.mdeozfsyb.oduewapk.com

ljaqpvbs rvqio Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 05:21 PM EST

giqsco mtohiw iohtpwq tjiqbh wanzxh buwqvx glndxujq

tczbxuhd xjdfyo Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 03:50 PM EST

uqntv mpksbget vugejxw yxmn xdkto puhqlodav tyovsc

Benigna Mako Sun, May 18, 2008 at 11:29 PM EST

David Cook you an incredible voice. My husband picked you as the Idol winner from day one. And, here you are reaching that goal. You are our number one idol. Simon is once again correct, you rock and you most certainly are the Idol champion. Good luck.

Vader Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 04:54 AM EST

Oh and I like how the pompous lawyers on these boards are claiming to be the ultimate authority when it comes to the legal points. There are many grey areas in law, and many ways to interpret certain laws. Otherwise we would never need to go to court. What one lawyer says, another can disagree with. And if the case you're speaking of is not directly handled by you (as in this case obviously), then stop pretending that you know everything about it.

Vader Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 04:42 AM EST

Let's keep it simple. Firstly, David Cook's version was NOT a copy of Douchelogy's. It's a combination of 2 arrangements by 2 bands. Secondly, Doxology's version itself wasn't even original. It's essentially the same tune played with different instruments. The above 2 points I've raised should be enough to quash any more silly arguments, unless you're stubborn and want to make wild assumptions about Douchelogy being entitled to royalties. You don't get royalties for someone using half of your arrangement, morons. I could also 'assume' that if Douchelogy had such a compelling case against AI, they would have sued for big money. That they didn't, speaks volumes about their lack of a legal case. They also knew that the publicity they would receive from being credited might help their pathetic careers. Bottomline: Douchelogy are whiners and hypocrites.

m faisal abbasi Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 02:18 AM EST

hot &cute picture

Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 01:54 PM EST

Next season only singers who write their own music need apply. That'll be an idol! Case closed.

pinkyyy Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 04:28 PM EST

i totally agreee with liz

pinkyyy Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 04:27 PM EST

he is a song thief!!!!
booo hooo!!!!

pinkyyy Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 04:17 PM EST

i hate DAVID COOK
He is goin next week 4 sure!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Liz Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 02:44 PM EST

Doxology isn't any good and David Cook is beyond overrated. I don't want to hear anything from either of them.

MOI Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 07:29 AM EST

The last anonomous poster said it all..... "Rock on, Doxology. Rock on, David Cook. Screw AMERICAN IDOL."

Thank you.

Shel Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 02:12 AM EST

To the one (or two) people now responding to me as if we have been talking all along: The Doxology thing went big for the masses in the week before "Little Sparrow". It can feel like forever to us battering it around on these boards, but it is the most recent of the "accusations" so I do not think they sat on it for a long time. They hoped it was going to go away, I think, and then decided they had to help it go away. When the media is willing to burn a fake story on & on, like Cornell NOT getting credit when he did actually get credit, then you can see why they would finally just want to see if they could do something to have this be over & done, once & for all. And for the last poster with no name, what you said might make sense if David Cook himself didn't also cite other influences for his version of Eleanor Rigby. As for Cornell's quote, it shows him as having not watched the show himself, but buying into what some fan TOLD him was said on the show.

Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 07:36 PM EST

I've never listened to Doxology before this and I'm not necessarily a David Cook fan.

However, I don't think either artist is to blame here. Doxology did a cover version that they spent hard work on carving out. David Cook liked it and brought it to the masses. So far, no harm no foul.

HERE'S where the harm comes in:

IDOL'S JUDGES AND PRODUCERS manipulate the TV-hypnotized public into thinking that their singers are these "brilliant" arrangers and that they are coming up with hot arrangements weekly "by themselves."

Chris Cornell, whose cover of "Billie Jean" was performed by Cook, said it best in PEOPLE when interviewed on this topic:

Says Cornell, "I'm not really mad at Cook; I view him as being a fan... but I would expect that the judges would be a little less ignorant about where these songs came from."

Rock on, Doxology. Rock on, David Cook. Screw AMERICAN IDOL.

To Shel Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 07:14 PM EST

I've actually never posted here with a name. My wife was flipping through the boards and thought Lawyer Cathy was pretty funny, so I thought I'd add my two cents. But you are cordially invited to believe what you wish on that front. I'm starting to realize that some of the people who post on here are simply too huffy, overly emotional, hostile and self-involved to have any meaningful discussion about this. So, think what you want, post what you will. You're entitled to your opinions, but you're simply wrong on the legal points. If you don't care, I don't either. Good day.

"First thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers!" Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 07:07 PM EST

That a better name for ya, Shel? Anyway, your theory that they made this concession on Tuesday's show to somehow "protect" David Cook could be true, but that doesn't make sense for several reasons. The timing, for one. They waited long enough for this to simmer to know that public opinion was predominantly in favor of David Cook (with the Doxology claim, anyway). Additionally, "Idol" has been notorious in the music industry for their reluctance to credit musicians with anything. The first mentors on the show were widely derided by their industry peers for selling out by doing the show, but ratings got so good that people quickly forgot they cared. My assumption, therefore, went along those lines: for a show to go from refusing to "go there," attribution-wise, for so long, and to then do a complete 180 on the subject, something must've changed. It was really only a matter of time before somebody sued, and perhaps with ratings down, they figured now wasn't the time to be stubborn.

Shel Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 06:53 PM EST

To to to to to to to Shel. Ever hear of a made-up name? Puhleeze. I just want to know when I'm talking to someone I have spoken to before. You could call yourself a number for all I care. Do I think you never post here with a name? Nope, but, whatever is right. I stand by what I said. Pull out any dictionary you want. It is disingenous of him to be oh so ironic (if you will) that the song he whined about is the song his band is now known for. (insert the rest of what I said about how ridiculous it is to be thinking it is surreal that a song by one of the greatest bands of all time turns out to be what they are known for too) I will freely admit that I do not know the legality of royalties, etc., but - basically - in my memory, David Cook never said he did their version. He said he listened to it, listened to Zaza, then did his thing. As far as I could tell, he cited it as an influence. I don't believe influences get royalties. Just a gut feeling.

Shel Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 06:43 PM EST

To Lily: So, you are claiming to have liked David Cook's rendition of "Billie Jean" when you thought it was original. I guess that means you DIDN'T hear Ryan credit Chris Cornell during the introduction? Perhaps people need to simply WATCH the show better. And the question here on the board is not whether Doxology should have gotten credit for a cover (since it seems most believe the Cornell credit was appropriate), but whether this "cover" Doxology is claiming is so original really is all that original. Seems like most think it is not (including Cook himself, who credited another source also, something Doxology seems all-too-happy to overlook), and the ones yammering over & over that he should always give credit probably haven't gone to listen to anything.

To Shel Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 06:39 PM EST

I don't think "funny" and "surreal" are all that different from "surprised." Webster does. Can't take credit for that one. As for the posting moniker, I can't think of anything all that clever, and I don't want to use my own name. Sorry if that mightily offends you. I personally didn't think it was that big a deal, but, whatever. The reason I made the assumption regarding A.I. basically caving to the demands of a nondescript band nobody's ever heard from is because there are larger legal ramifications to them doing so, beyond just "making it go away," as you hypothesized. Even acknowledging that Doxology MAY have contributed original musical content to David Cook's interpretation of "Eleanor Rigby" opens up the door for the band to press for a royalty share from the show's advertising revenue from that episode, from iTunes sales, and from any future performances Cook may do. I'm ASSUMING (is that better?) they wouldn't have opened that door if they didn't feel somehow compelled to.

Jordan Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 05:38 PM EST

I know the issue is with the fact that Doxology was not credited but they are not the first band to cover that song or put a new spin on it anyone remember Godhead's version?

lily Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 04:53 PM EST

I am glad that David C. had to acknowledge his use of covers on the show. I liked his performances of Eleanor Rigby and Billie Jean, mostly because I had never heard those arrangements. They sounded unique and original. When I found out that they were covers, the performances weren't as good for me. I still think he has talent, but he is not the most original contestant to ever be on Idol. I think a bunch of the other contestants have stepped out of the box a lot more than David C. And quite a few are just better vocally. It is pretty easy to grumble through a rock song as opposed to delivering a truly stunning vocal.

Shel Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 03:45 PM EST

To Squeegee: thanks for the info!

To "To Shel" (God, I hate when Peeps don't sign their opinions with anything else but MY name): So sorry that you think that "funny" & "surreal" are that different from "surprised". His irony is misplaced, since - again - my original point stands: THEY called the attn down on themselves - their music hasn't done that and still hasn't. Cook gave credit to ZaZa also - amazing how that is never mentioned in Doxology's commentary, nor the other versions that are so similiar to their own. So, Doxology believes in RECEIVING credit but not GIVING it apparently. Lovely double standard. And I disagree with YOUR basic premise that Idol would have only done this if Doxology had some legal standing. You make many assumptions which have not be proven as fact - not a good thing. I believe Idol did this simply to make this go away, period. To stop some minor, extremely minor, band from possibly messing with the results for one of their contestants.

squeegee Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 02:26 PM EST

Isn't it interesting to find out that Cook's Eleanor Rigby is actually a COMBINATION of Doxology AND Neil Zaza's version? Check it out, they're thrilled at the Neil Zaza website about the shout-out. You can also listen to Zaza's ER version from there: http://www.neilzaza.com/news/news.html

To Shel Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 12:09 PM EST

The band never said they were "surprised" that the only cover they actually do is getting them all this attention. He used the words "funny" and "surreal." You know, kinda like... irony. And Vader, as for whether American Idol did anything "illegal" or not, that's not really the point. David Cook's version of Eleanor Rigby is for sale on iTunes. It is making unknown sums of money for several entities. Doxology may have compelling proof for a future lawsuit that significant musical aspects of Cook's version coincide with their original material contribution in their version. If they could prove that, they would be entitled to receive royalties from the show. They apparently waived their rights to profit share in lieu of on-air credit for their work. A.I. would never have given them that consideration if they didn't have a leg - however shaky - to stand on legally with their claim. They would've said, "pssshhhtt...who the hell are you? Go away, you're bothering me."

UGH Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 07:21 AM EST

The last few posters need some anger management. Very negative vibes. We don't need any more lectures. Shut it already and move on!

dabreez Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 03:01 AM EST

David Cook is the one who benefits from all this trash talk. He doesn't look like a star, nor sing like a star, nor dress like a star. He has limited talent and is only bluffing his way thru.

dabreez Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 02:52 AM EST

David Cook is the one who benefits from all this. He is the one wearing his heart on his sleeve...and is using his BP to get the sympathy vote. Out of the top eight he should be 6th or 7th. He gets the praise, but still can't sing like a pro.

Vader Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 12:26 AM EST

Lest we forget, David Cook's arrangement of Eleanor Rigby was put together from TWO different bands (not just Doucheology). Heaven forbid he never has to take ideas from 3 or 4 bands, otherwise he'd be giving credits out till his tongue dries up. Singers have been doing this all along, taking ideas from different sources and putting them together. Douchelogy barely deserved any credit, because the final David Cook version isn't even close to a carbon copy. I'm sure if you look hard enough, David C's version is going to sound similar to at least 4 or 5 other bands, because let's face it, how different can the arrangements be when there are dozens of them for such a popular song?

Vader Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 12:14 AM EST

Yeah I always stock a few boxes of cookies, for myself and also for the whiners like you. Come up with a solid argument, otherwise stfu and stop looking stupid. As has been mentioned painstakingly, it's not illegal to use someone's arrangement without publically giving credit, so AI didn't do anything unlawful. In other words, if tomorrow I drag a few of my pals down to the bar to perform Douchelogy's version, no one can arrest me (well they could, for assaulting their ears). Also, Douchelogy only made minor changes to the Beatles version, and had the nerve to then call it their own. Fair enough, but I could argue that David Cook made minor changes to the Doucheo version, so it's his own too. Question is where do we draw the line? If I took an arrangement and changed 5 bars, and threw an extra drum in, does that make it my own? The 'work' they did to the song is nothing compared to true rearragements like Cornell's Billie Jean, yet they're begging for cookies like the whiners they are.

Shel Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 11:31 PM EST

The most ridiculous I have read in this whole situation (and that's saying alot, considering what I've seen) is the lead singer being "surprised" that their COVER of Eleanor Rigby is the song getting them noticed, considering that it is the ONLY cover they do - they are an original music band, dontcha know. I'll give you a moment to let it sink in. I know, it hurts the brain. Duh. Dear Luke, it could be that THIS is the song that is getting you attention because it is a freakn BEATLES SONG, one of the most creative, talented, influential bands to ever be; it was a song sung on BEATLES WEEK on a HUGE show; and YOU WHINED ABOUT being ripped off, when - in fact - no one had been talking about your version of this song before. Perhaps if IDOL ever does a theme week on Deluded-Artists-with-an-overinflated-opinion-of-themselves your original music MIGHT be noticed - but I really wouldn't count on it.

Shel Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 11:25 PM EST

I have skimmed thru most of these posts and it seems many of you Doxology-supporters bashing so-called robbers-of-artistic-credit neanderthals fail to acknowledge that we don't think Doxology did anything worth getting credit for. In this whole board, there is maybe 2 mentions of the OTHER band Cook gave credit for, for "Eleanor Rigby." Has Doxology given THEM a shout-out? Whose came first? The fact is, as others have stated, there have been HUNDREDS of cases of Eleanor Rigby covers and Doxology's just is not that different from the original to deserve all this hoopla. The fact that David listened to two versions and then did his own may have something to do with the possible lack of any shout-out at all. They were after their 2 seconds of fame, they got it, let's hope we can move on. (cont)

To Tickles Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 08:31 PM EST

You've made an excellent point. Musicians and singers do not have to "announce" beforehand when they are performing a cover of someone else's song. A company who owns the publishing rights over a catalog of songs cannot, under existing U.S. law, prohibit cover bands, talent show contestants, you and me in the shower, etc., from performing those songs. They can, however, insist upon receiving royalty shares of any profit that results (believe me, nobody would pay to hear me sing in the shower!). There is no fantasy "cease and desist letter," as Cathy alludes to, because there is no legal process to force them to comply. And you're right that there are no "bad guys" here. But "American Idol" might want to consider spanking a few recorded-footage editors, because they're ultimately responsible for attribution being lost to the cutting room floor. I'm sure their attorneys were all OVER this issue, and that's why they corrected themselves Tuesday night.

tickles Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 06:38 PM EST

No-one ever answered my original question...if there is anyone here who has actually seen Doxology perform
Eleanor Rigby in concert do they first announce that it is a cover of a song originally written and performed by the Beatles? That is my whole point!!
And to all the purists out there did you miss the part where it has been made known that David did and has acknowledged all of the bands who's covers he was inspired by...due to time constraints of the show it was cut out.
No one is the bad guy here...it just seems like some people (bands with limited exposure perhaps?) are taking themselves way too seriously.

THanks! Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 06:13 PM EST


Yeah... nice rebuttal....stick it to Cathy!

To Cathy Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 06:04 PM EST

Maybe your attorney buddies can tell you it can be considered libelous to assert (or even insinuate) in an open forum that specific people are breaking the law, when you have no knowledge of illegal activity and cannot prove your claims. Might be actionable, even, under the right circumstances...

To Cathy Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 05:59 PM EST

How, praytell, do you know that Doxology has NOT been paying royalties for the right to cover "Eleanor Rigby?" It would be a huge mistake to take on a megalith like American Idol when you don't have your own legal backyard in order. Were that the case, no law firm (since you somehow know this was resolved by lawyers) would ever take it on. Also, if the band were violating the performing rights held over that song by its publisher, iTunes would no longer offer Doxology's version. iTunes has pretty big pockets for the rightsholder to go after if they're offering illegal content for sale and the rightsholder is not getting their share of the profit. Finally, A.I. would never have kowtowed to an unknown band like that if they had no legal leg to stand on in their claim of original content. Their legal department would've blown 'em off so fast... So, how do you know? Short answer: you don't. So please keep the wannabe legalese to yourself. You may work for a lawyer, but I actually AM one.

Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 05:08 PM EST

Blah....shut up already!

Cathy Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 04:46 PM EST

And Doxology should be thankful that they haven't been served with a "cease and desist" lawsuit from Sony denying them performance rights to Eleanor Rigby for nonpayment of royalties. My guess is that the amount of money Doxology has made of ER is just too much small potatoes for Sony to get their lawyers involved.

Wagamama Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 03:58 PM EST

Honestly, the only person who deserves credit for a song is the person who wrote it and composed it. Last time I checked, that was Paul McCartney. Doxology should thank its lucky stars that Sir Paul hasn't put a public hate out on them for stealing his work...

Cathy Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 02:15 PM EST

I should have added: Did it ever become a consideration for Doxology that they were opening themselves up for a Sony/MJ to come after them for non-payment of performance rights when they went national with this criticism of AI and David Cook not giving them credit? Even if you only make $5 off a gig, you still have to pay something in performance rights for a cover song LEGALLY.

If Sony/MJs lawyers want to come after them, they can, and they could end up having to pay back royalties for every performacne, as well as damages and attorneys fee.

This is just something about the music business people aren't really considering when it comes to getting "credit". Complaining in public has its price!

If McCartney owned the rights to this song, I have no doubt he'd have had something to say about this controversy and may have even gone after Doxology for the money. He still gets some songwriter's royalties as far as I know, but the majority of the money is in the publishing rights.

Cathy Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 02:08 PM EST

OK, here's a question for Marcus: Has Doxology given the proper royalties to Sony/Michael Jackson music (owners of the publishing rights for Lennon/McCartney's Northern Songs [pre-1968] for all the live performances of Eleanor Rigby they've done? Because you know, legally they are supposed to PAY for the right to perform the song for profit. And of course, on any downloads, Sony/MJ are supposed to be getting paid too.

Credit don't mean jack to the big guy. Money is what matters. So tell me, just WHO has been ripping off WHO all this time (and may continue to rip them off). Just because Sony/MJ are rich, credit and payment are due for the loan of the song.

What's your answer?

Duh Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 01:00 PM EST

Mr. Vader, sorry but I DO like to know who arranged these songs. I love listening to cover songs that have been tweaked. I wouldn't have heard Cornell's version if it hadn't been mentioned. From what I've been reading for the past few days it does matter to people, so please don't make assumptions.
And the 'Doucheology' thing is really lame and childish by the way.

To Vader Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 12:07 PM EST

I think you need a cookie, or two, my friend. You have a serious case of arrogant pr!ck-itis that may benefit from a bit of sugar.

Vader Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 10:48 AM EST

By making the 40-hours-without-pay analogy, he's implying that this is part and parcel of a musician's life (the crappy ones anyway, like him and Doucheology). I haven't misunderstood his post, I sympathize with him and think he deserves a cookie. If I were to live his life, I'd be sad too. Boohoo. It doesn't matter to the people watching AI where this or that arrangement came from, we just want to hear the contestants sing. They could sing their grandma's version and we wouldn't care, as long as they sing it well. The last thing we want is some small-time band trying grab a piece of the AI limelight. Well they got what they wanted, which is to boost their sales by riding on David Cook's coat-tails. They've also alerted many people to the fact that they're whining crybabies. Defend them all you want, but you can't change the fact that their actions have pissed off a lot of AI fans. Time will tell if their whining was worth it for the 10 seconds of fame they got out of it.

Duh Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 10:42 AM EST

If David Cook thought Doxology's version was good enough for him to copy, then it can't be that bad.
The issue shouldn't be about how 'popular' Doxology is.
Such arrogant music critics here! I don't see you making any albums.

Eli Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 10:34 AM EST

Give credit where credit is due, The Beatles wrote a classic in Eleanor Rigby that I hear covered by bands all the time in NYC. There's better cover versions than Doxology's out there. can we cut Dox's 15 minutes to the 2 and a half they currently got and call it a day... this is such a non story.

Milisha M Bryant Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 09:35 AM EST

I think that it took a lot of guts for David to sit on that stage and shout out, weather he was in the wrong or it the right.. Cant everyone just leave him alone &let him shine....

Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 09:22 AM EST

I listened to the Doxology version of Eleanor Rigby, and it sounded just like the Beatles version, but with different instruments. I didn't hear a radical departure from the original, a totally new re-interpretation, or anything like Chris Cornell did with Billie Jean. Doxology did nothing more than cover the original song, and I'm sure they aren't the only band who has ever done that. I didn't hear a lot of similarity between their cover of a cover and David Cook's version, so how can they say he ripped off their arrangement? Does anyone performing that song now have to credit Doxology because they did a cover of it first? The whole furor seems ridiculous to me. Anyone can do a cover and then claim someone else ripped off their arrangement even if it sounds nothing alike, I guess. Doxology comes off as being tacky and desperate in this case, especially in contrast to Chris Cornell who was very classy about the whole thing.

To sim Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 09:22 AM EST

Very good point.

Hey tickles Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 09:20 AM EST

"Unless you write the music and the lyrics...you are just doing someone else's song." It's not that simple. While the lyrics do stay the same (or relatively so), arrangers DO write the music. Sometimes the reworked music is a complete departure from the original. Musicians should get credit for the music they write.

sim Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 09:15 AM EST

It is great when AI acknowledges cover versions inspiring the performances. That way the audience gets turned on to Doxology and Eva Cassidy and Chris Cornell, etc. Seems like only good can come of it. Why get mad?

To Vader Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 09:13 AM EST

Wow. The point of Marcus's post is waving to you out the back window as it rolls down the block, and you're still standing at the bus stop. Marcus never said anything about musicians not getting paid for working 40 hours. He was saying, do YOUR job without pay or recognition, and see how YOU like it. Arranging music is time-consuming, difficult work, especially when it's a vastly different take, and doubly so when it's an already familiar piece. I really don't see the need to be so hateful and dismissive of others' opinions. You say, "Instead of going out there and winning people over with their performances, they need 10 seconds on AI to alert people that they even exist." Doesn't that pretty much decribe EVERYBODY on American Idol? They wanted credit for their work, it's just that simple.

Seabreeze Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 09:08 AM EST

TO SAM LIM ---- I am in the music business. Doxology will not be soon!!! No real talent there and now no class !!!

Seabreeze Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 09:05 AM EST

I love the "we are an original band and the only song that is getting attention is our only cover". Well wake up boys, you are not that great at music, but excellent at pathetic. You should be paying David Cook royalties.

MOI Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 07:05 AM EST

Paul, Vader, Allie and all you other haters get this straight.... If you were in this situation and it was your arrangement, you'd be 'whining' too. Dig down deep and admit that you are hypocrites. It's easy, just say it.
Ahhhhhhhh, didn't that feel good?

Mel Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 06:55 AM EST

This is all water under the bridge. It's not affecting Cook or his star stuatus on Idol. Let's all just shut it and sit back and watch the rest of the show, huh?

tickles Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 04:36 AM EST

I don't think there is a person in America who watches American Idol expecting to hear something original. Every single song is a cover. Unless you write the music and the lyrics...you are just doing someone else's song. I wonder if everytime Doxology sings their "version" of Eleanor Rigby do they give a shout out to the Beatles? Do they give a detailed itemized list of which verse or combination of musical notes came from Paul or John?
Or do they assume that since everyone knows that Eleanor Rigby is a Beatles song there's no reason to acknowledge the Beatles? I don't know how it works but I kind of think that any royalties that come from David Cook singing Eleanor Rigby go to the Beatles (or whoever owns that catalog.) I don't think Doxology or any artist that is covered by a contestant on American Idol has any reason to be upset...after all, they are only covering a cover of a song.

Vader Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 11:42 PM EST

To Marcus, lol the fact that you're a friend of Luke McFearsome's says a lot about how unbiased you are eh? Would your good friends have tried to claim credit if David Cook had made a complete mess of the song? I thought I've heard enough whining, but then you went ahead and told me how tough it is that musicians work 40 hours for no paycheck. Shall I give you a cookie for that? Or shall I point out that you suck at your job? If their attitude is to make an arrangement, and then when someone famous uses it, pounce on the chance to milk some airtime, then it's no wonder that they're still nobodies. Instead of going out there and winning people over with their performances, they need 10 seconds on AI to alert people that they even exist. And then they have the cheek to deny that the whole purpose of this whole ruckus was to promote themselves. Hypocrites + Whiners = Doucheology.

Paul Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 11:28 PM EST

To Marcus - Explain to me how non-struggling-musician-types "don't have a life" in your scenario. Struggling musicians think it's superior to not make any money and struggle along for years trying to get their "big break." Did it ever occur to any of your strugglers that the reason your big break hasn't come is because you aren't any good? It baffles me that all struggling musicians think it's just a "matter of time." Please. And your scenario about working 40 hours a week without making money...yeah, that's why I work for "the man." Get a real job and you won't be so frustrated!

Allie Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 11:13 PM EST

The reason I get irritated with the band (and it's only irritation - not hate) is because they admit that American Idol was very receptive when they spoke with 19 Entertainment by the phone. So if they were so receptive and if your goal was just to get credit and not do any harm to AI or David Cook, why the press release IN ADVANCE of the show this week demanding credit. That's not a "friendly" maneuver. The whole thing reeked of desperation and seemed a lot more "politically" motivated than simply artistically motivated. They seemed to be a lot more interested in "how long" they could stay in the limelight as opposed to simply receiving their "due credit" (which it turns out was negligible at best given the differences in the versions).

Vader Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 11:13 PM EST

"Hey genius, I think a mesh of 3 arrangements would be a completely different arrangement." - Hey moron, I think if all 3 bands were as retarded as Doucheology, they would all try to claim credit? Or are you saying that taking the arrangement from ONE band is copying, and combining from TWO bands is not? Or changing 20% of one band's arrangement is no longer copying? The point being, where do you draw the line? If you don't know, then stfu and don't drop silly one-liner arguments that make you look daft.

Allie Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 11:13 PM EST

The reason I get irritated with the band (and it's only irritation - not hate) is because they admit that American Idol was very receptive when they spoke with 19 Entertainment by the phone. So if they were so receptive and if your goal was just to get credit and not do any harm to AI or David Cook, why the press release IN ADVANCE of the show this week demanding credit. That's not a "friendly" maneuver. The whole thing reeked of desperation and seemed a lot more "politically" motivated than simply artistically motivated. They seemed to be a lot more interested in "how long" they could stay in the limelight as opposed to simply receiving their "due credit" (which it turns out was negligible at best given the differences in the versions).

Kristin Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 10:58 PM EST

Seriously--these bands should be THANKING David Cook for singing their NOT very well known cover songs. Give me a break. OH and by the way--David's arranged some of his own stuff. His arrangement of "Hello" is still his best in my opinion. I really do hope after his little interview this week that this BS will be laid to rest.

Marcus Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 09:41 PM EST

Allow me to put this in perspective for all you ignorant, "I don't have a life and know nothing about music" bloggers who are saying Doxology is just whining. If you think they shouldn't get credit for the WORK THEY did for THEIR arrangment of the song, try this: Go to work for a week. Work your full 40 hours. When the paychecks come around and you don't get one. Don't cry about it. Just continue you working in hopes that one day, someone will eventually decide to give your due withouth you telling them, and then come back and comment on this article. I am a musician and I know that it takes a lot of work to write, produce or arrange a song. Especially if you are trying to rearrange another's song. Furthermore, I am a friend of the front man Luke Mcpherson. I have known him since high school and I can guarantee you, that it was not about money. I know that too much work was put into it to just watch someone else get credit for it on TV.

Sam Lim Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 08:12 PM EST

I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH DOXOLOGY A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T UNDERSTAND IT UNLESS YOU ARE IN THE MUSIC INDUSTRY BUSINESS OR YOUR LIVELIHOOD IS MAKING MUSIC THEN YOU WOULD KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT. DOING AN ARRANGEMENT ITS ALL HARD WORK YOU DON'T JUST PICK THAT UP IN THE STREET. THESE ARE FOR ALL ARTIST NOT JUST THEM - THEY SHOULD BE ACKNOWLEDGE WHEN CREDIT IS DUE IT'S JUST MAKE SENSE AND IT'S JUST FAIR FOR THE ARTIST. GOD BLESS!

justin Castillo Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 07:28 PM EST

Congrats, Doxology.

Cameron Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 07:27 PM EST

I don't think the band ever really had an issue with Cook himself. Their issue was with the show, and they stated as much. And I see the point with the Chris Cornell thing, as well. Ryan mentioned his name before the performance, yes. For my own personal "druthers," it would've been nice if Cook had, while basking in the glow of being called "brave" and "original" by the judges, taken just the merest second to give a shout-out to the artist who made his performance possible. Like I said, that's just me. He wasn't doing a cover that sounds like everybody else's cover - he was doing something completely off-the-wall different, which made the entire situation different. Chris Cornell created such a radical departure from that song, and David C. followed him down that road. Shouldn't Cornell get some credit for paving it?

Mo Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 05:21 PM EST

Well, I'm glad they got the recognition they wanted. However, while I have liked the other arrangements that David Cook has performed, this one was pretty bad, so I won't be looking for Doxology stuff any time soon.

Cathy Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 05:13 PM EST

Cameron, Chris Cornell was given credit before David sang Billie Jean! Don't tell me you missed it?

Doxology should've handled this differently from the beginning. If they'd said "David did a wonderful job covering our arrangement" and acted positively right off instead of "we deserve the credit we didn't get," acting negatively, they wouldn't have gotten the negative reaction from AI and Cook fans.

And the poster above who said this is a big legal thing -- you bet. Doxology isn't saying what it cost them to pay for their attorney, but it took their lawyer 3 weeks to get what they were after. And that's not cheap. Let's hope it pays off for them down the road. I feel confident they signed a waiver that entitles them to NOTHING in terms of profit for their credit.

Why would David Cook want to talk to these people after they inadvertently helped contribute to the stress he has in his life right now, when he did the right thing to begin with by giving them credit?

nathan Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 05:02 PM EST

Who in the hell is Doxology? Stupid name for a band.

Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 04:43 PM EST

I'm happy for Doxology, and their 3 or 4 fans. Now everyone can rest easy. Doxology should know their 15 min. of fame was over a long time ago. Stop whining. Go suck on a binky and get back to singing your lame music to your 4 fans. This whole controversy was such a pile of crap. They should be only lucky that their so-called version was on "AI." Now, go back to singing in your basement, dreaming of the day you'll actually make it big. Don't forget to get that BIG FAT cookie David provided for you last night. Seems all whiners like a good cookie once in awhile.

Poop For Sale Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 03:46 PM EST

1) David Cook is a great artist... He has done a fantastic job through out the weeks. His "OWN VERSION" of Little Sparrow last night was great and it showed that he "REALLY IS A TRUE ARTIST"
2) Way to go DOXOLOGY for setting a precedence for the bands that are really trying to make it in the world of music. Your effort and the energy that you put forth really will help those bands see that they to can actually stand up to a huge giant like A.I and defeat it...
3) I saved a lot of money on my car insurance by switching to GEICO...

ort Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 03:28 PM EST

Good lord. You anti-Doxology people are true idiots.

Fan Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 03:24 PM EST

This band is just trying to stretch its 15 SECONDS...yes SECONDS..of "fame"...no one ever HEARD of these guys before David Cook! They should THANK HIM!!

Jamie Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 02:11 PM EST

At least all 2 or 3 of Doxology's fans will be happy now.

Jacobi Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 01:56 PM EST

"And I gotta say, I don't really get all this hostility toward the musicians and their fans who are taking issue with not getting credit for their creations"

There is not much to get, actually Idol fans are a bunch of mindless fantards. And it seems David Cook's are the fantardiest of them all.

Cameron Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 01:44 PM EST

And I gotta say, I don't really get all this hostility toward the musicians and their fans who are taking issue with not getting credit for their creations. American Idol has been stomping all over musicians' credit rights for years now, and it's not surprising to me at all that the issue has finally come to a head. Chris Cornell is a musical powerhouse, and for AI to try and pull that with one of his pieces of music was either really, really arrogant, or just plain stupid. Probably a mixture of both, but let's all hope they've learned their lesson.

Cameron Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 01:39 PM EST

Are there faceless arrangers out there, toiling away on famous people's music and never getting recognition? Of course. Loads of 'em. Whitney Houston - to use so many of you guys' example - completely reworked Dolly P.'s "I Will Always Love You," but did the poor guy who arranged that music on the page for her in exactly that way ever get credit? Not to my knowledge. You talk about it like it's HER song, when all she did was sing it. This whole thing with David Cook really took on a life of it's own with the Chris Cornell thing, and here's why it's different: When an artist takes a well-known song and does a complete 180 with it musically, to the point where people barely recognize it anymore, that's different. Because a whole lot of people had never heard that musical arrangement before, there was the natural presumption that it originated with the guy they just heard sing it. That's understandably frustrating as hell for someone who has sweated over an original arrangment of music.

Leila Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 01:34 PM EST

It was funny to see Ryan interview Cook about where he got the versions from. It felt so contrived... David looked embarrassed.

dominique Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 01:31 PM EST

People are just a bit reactive because they (and I too) feel bad for David C that he's gotten all this negative attention, unfairly for the most part, when it's AI itself that is responsible. They knew after this issue came up with Daughtry that it should be addressed properly. But I don't blame Doxology, they had a right to be acknowledged. It's the producers who should know better.

Musicfan5 Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 01:31 PM EST

I'm befuddled by the Doxology haters. When the judges praise contestants for their "innovative arrangements" and "making it their own"...then it's important to acknowledge that a contestant--in this David Cook--is doing the Doxology version of Eleanor Rigby. The band was simply owed their due. David Cook is not to blame as he apparently gave the band credit in his pre-performance interview. The problem is Nigel Lythgoe and AI. Hopefully they learned a lesson from this and will not try to pull a fast one over people. I partly wonder if this latest "controversy" is welcomed by the producers. It gets everyone talking about the show. I would prefer, however, if they established protocol and simply acknowledged the artist on-air when a contestant performs a radical reworking of a song.

Pete Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 01:26 PM EST

I suspect Doxology could use the money/royalties for their iTunes downloads (when name is mentioned?). They are not a huge band.

My understanding (unconfirmed, as Doxology mentioned) is that credit was given before the performance, but it ended on the cutting room floor. As such, the judges would know about the cover version.

I think most people who have heard both versions prefer David Cook's versions to Whitesnake, Chris Cornell, and Doxology. I don't know about Doxology, but favorable comparisons to the others could be a positive sign for things to come.

I hope David Cook is doing well. I know that I prefer his new haircut, BTW, on a totally superficial note.

Hannah Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 01:21 PM EST

It's obvious now that A.I. carries some sort of liability regarding this issue, or they wouldn't have fallen all over themselves to address the issue last night. A.I. lawyers and producers would've told Cook to ignore it, Doxology to take a hike, and laughed all the way to the ratings bank. Make no mistake about it, they weren't throwing Doxology a bone just to "be nice," as people keep mentioning. My money's on a team of lawyers telling them they'd better just get proper attribution out there, or have to deal with it later. There's more going on behind the scenes with this issue than we'll probably ever know. The musical community does get very annoyed and dismissive of A.I., and their habit of ripping off arrangers is a huge issue in that particular community. So how does A.I. fix this? One way would be for them to open their songbook choices way wider than they are now. Unless and until that happens, they're just going to have get permission and give credit song-by-song.

JD Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 01:18 PM EST

You guys attacking Doxology are going to turn me off from David Cook with your crazy fan behavior. The band didn't criticize Cook - they said nice things about him - and you're lashing out at them! Why shouldn't they get credit for their work? David Cook still gets all the credit for the performance, but he is the first to admit that others did the arrangements (except for last night).

pai Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 01:02 PM EST

It's good that was done, they of course deserve the credit. Having said that, I prefer David Cook's vocal.

jds Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 01:02 PM EST

I'm just amazed at people's anger towards Doxology, as if asking (politely, so far as I can tell) for credit is so utterly reprehensible. Credit that David Cook himself felt they were owed. Cook borrowed from their arrangement, as he's entitled to do. They asked if they could get credited for it. They got the credit. Nobody was mean to anybody, and everybody's happy -- except some Internet posters.

Generally, when an artist covers a song by someone else, it's assumed that everything that is on the new version that was not in the original is the work of the current artist. On rare occasions, you actually see someone credit a prior arranger. For instance, a guy named Buzzy Linhart wrote a song called "The Love's Still Growing," which Carly Simon covered on her first album (crediting her own arranger for coming up with the version she sang). When The Roches recorded it, they did Simon's version rather than Linhart's, and credited her. It would be nice if that were done more often.

vw Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 12:59 PM EST

this story is past done. move on please!!

ANTM Freak Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 12:54 PM EST

"It's also debatable whether one arrangement is identical to another. If a contestant took ideas from 3 different arrangements and meshed them together, does he then credit all 3 bands?"

Hey genius, I think a mesh of 3 arrangements would be a completely different arrangement.

MissGirl Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 12:48 PM EST

If people are just now realizing that the judges don't know ANYTHING about music, well...

my opinion only Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 12:44 PM EST

Wow, a lot of anger at the band here. The truth is, people have been getting ripped off by AI for years (let's not talk about poor Eva Cassidy,her arangements have been covered by multiple contestants without a mention - lol). I'm surprised no one pushed the issue sooner. I don't blame the contestants for that. AI should have corrected that situation a while back.

Vader Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 12:21 PM EST

This is a singing contest, not a concert. In a contest like AI, it is implicitly understood that the song you choose to sing is not your own. It's also debatable whether one arrangement is identical to another. If a contestant took ideas from 3 different arrangements and meshed them together, does he then credit all 3 bands? Where do we draw the line? You're said that it's only natural that Doucheology wanted to ride David Cook's coat-tails; well thanks for proving my point that they're hypocrites, because they flat-out denied that in 2 separate interviews. You also need to re-examine your 'logic' that viewers naturally assume an arrangement is original if nothing is stated otherwise. Most of us with a working brain know that contestants usually have to rely on other singers' arrangements. They may tweak it a bit or even on the rare occasion create an entirely new one, but they're not obliged to do so. Calling it a 'lie by omission' is more than a little daft.

Sandi Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 12:20 PM EST

I'm glad that all this is settled for Davids sake. Beside all the stress this has given him, and with his brother so sick it's a no-wonder he went to the hospital last night. TO DAVID: I hope your brother is feeling better, I'll say a prayer for him." Now....PLEASE, about the front stage hands waving and clapping in the air above their heads. It's driving me CRAZY!!!!! How can the contestants keep the beat right when these kids are NOT clapping in sync with the music??? I thought AI was going to put a stop to this distraction. PLEASE DO!!!!!

ANTM Freak Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 12:17 PM EST

I have no problem with them trying to get credit. For a struggling unknown band like them, this is a huge boost of publicity. They were very complimentary of Watermelon Head too, so all you overcaffeinated groupies get a damn grip on yourselves.

Cathy Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 12:12 PM EST

Ah, I forgot to think like a lawyer. You CAN'T sue American Idol or ITunes or anyone else now, because I'm sure American Idol made you sign a waiver that in exchange for credit on the air you would waive your right to sue and collect. That was the deal your attorney worked out, I would bet my life on it.

So forget my earlier post.

I work for lawyers, by the way!


advertisement

Add Your Comments

The rules: Keep it clean, and stay on the subject — or we may delete your comment. If you see inappropriate language, e-mail us. An asterisk (*) indicates a required field.



  • 1000 characters remaining
    • When you click on the "Post Comment" button above to submit your comments, you are indicating your acceptance of and are agreeing to the Terms of Service. You can also read our Privacy Policy.
Latest Comments
Advertisement
Top Categories

All Categories

Reporters
Blog Roll
Recent Posts
Archive
July 2009
S M T W T F S
      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  

Complete Archive