David Cook Reveals Possible Band Name: The Anthemic

Does that fit on his back?

David Cook and The Anthemic.

I like it, it suits his style, and he started talking about his music being “anthemic” within a couple of weeks of his win last year.

So much for the careful roll out of the band name that some have been insisting we’d see. They decided it was time and he started mentioning it in interviews. No big deal, no major “brand” issues.

Does that fit on his back?

Depends on the font size…

I have way too much education, kind of guessed the meaning but still had to look it up. I don’t know.. just don’t get it or particularly like it. He should have just stuck with his name (IMHO) but it’s his band…..

so that’s kinda dumb.

Well, David, I do love YOU, but I really don’t like that name (at all.) Sorry.

Not really a doomsdayer where Cook is concerned, but I gotta be honest, I don’t see it growing on me either. Maybe the fact that it’s an adjective, now used as a noun, bothers me. LOL

But really, upon first reading, what struck me was that it looks like (and will be too often read, and/or predictably used in a critical review as) “anemic.” :-(

Hopefully he’s still as tentative about the name as those quotes above suggest, and there is still hope… for something else, please?

what? I never get how bands get their names. I had to look it up too. Sounds like too much deep thinking after a night of heavy drinking.

are they renaming the band and if so what was the old name or was it never named?.

are they renaming the band and if so what was the old name or was it never named?.

The fan-given name was The EEB — The Easy on the Eyes Band.

There was not an official name.

I hope this means they’re planning a 180 for the next record, since there’s nothing epic or anthemic about his music so far.

I hope this means they’re planning a 180 for the next record, since there’s nothing epic or anthemic about his music so far.

Cook’s signature closing song is a song he wrote called A Daily AntheM. The initials ADAM here are for his brother who died in the spring after a decade battle with brain cancer.

Um, no.

What was wrong with “David Cook?”

Sorry but…I’m not ‘feeling’ this name.

It’s okay. I mean, band names rarely make sense. Thriving Ivory?

It does sound a bit pretentious though.

and Heroes is kind of anthemic (Cook’s song, not the TV show)

also, I find his concerts anthemic

ETA: video is on youtube now
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfpd89o7Y5Q

The band name kind of reminds me of “KC and the Sunshine Band” ….and “Huey Lewis and The NEWs”

Anthemic –is a word not at all describing his music sort of sounds like whats out there .Hey it sells and gets your name out there..

Hmm. Kinda hope they change that. Glad Cookie’s on twitter now!

Cook’s signature closing song is a song he wrote called A Daily AntheM. The initials ADAM here are for his brother who died in the spring after a decade battle with brain cancer.

ADAM’s intro is the only thing on the album that deserves to be called epic, the rest is mostly generic pop/rock.

Hopefully the label won’t approve something this dumb *fingers crossed*

I’m a fan but I don’t think I like this. It’s too hard to say and figure out what it means. And it is an adjective used as a noun, which is disconcerting. I hope they reconsider. I understand the concept, but I don’t know that this word works.

It does sound a bit pretentious though.

If the shoe fits, lol.

And it is an adjective used as a noun, which is disconcerting.

So annoying. But it’s all the rage these days, ya know.

More than the name, which I think is ok, I’m fine with it, I’m more interested to see if in the future we’ll see it mentioned.
The artist is David Cook, and I think it will be till at least till they release the new album. What I wanna know is if the band’s name will be part of the new album. Or if we’ll see the band’s name in future tours. I’d like it to be that way.

Sounds like too much deep thinking after a night of heavy drinking.

LOL.

I just watched the video- the one MJ posted wouldn’t open for me. And to me, it sounds like pandemic.

it is a dumb name, though. anthemic just sounds like something you “have.” “Oh, I can’t eat that. I’m anthemic.”

Well, he does like to write a Daily AntheMs where people sing along. It fits David to a T.

Better than Fire Tornados. Heh.

ETA: Besides, “David Cook” the brand isn’t going anywhere. They are still peddling DCTR. The tour is the David Cook Declaration Tour. I’m thinking that the signage will still say David Cook and that Anthemic or whatever band name will not be featured on any printed / advertising material. Having a band name won’t change that, at this point, and even on the second album, I’m sure it will still read David Cook pretty prominently.

I don’t dislike it, but it does demand some tongue gymnastics to get it out.

I wonder how Regis will butcher that one?

I think the name is fine. He’s mentioned wanting his music to be anthemic many times so it fits with Cook. I don’t see anything pretentious in it. I have one question though….is that really how it’s pronounced? I’ve always pronounced it differently.

Meh, sounds too much like “anemic”
And some people may not understand what the word means, especially as used in that context. I suppose he wants to challenge his fans?

Now I know the band’s name won’t make or break Cook’s career, but I think something else would be better.

edit: DO YOU LIKE THE NAME? Then let us know. Sarcastic remarks about what the other posters think? Doesn’t belong in this thread

Oh lordy no wonder Cookie makes me go THUD every time……………

His band name is very Greek! :clap_tb:

Just keep on delivering David Cook!!!!

anthemic just sounds like something you ‘have.’  ‘Oh, I can’t eat that. I’m anthemic.’ 

LOLOLOLOL. That is funny.

Nevertheless, it is just a name. Parents give their children weird ass names all the time. And bands. It’ll still have “David Cook” attached to it.

I would have gone with David Cook and the Comb Overs.

Eh…. Shrugs.

Coming up with a great band name has to be tough, but this one just doesn’t work.

Band names are random by themselves: Cake, Korn, Tonic, The Killers. Seriously.

At least he didn’t name them Cookies. Hee.

I wasnt aware the band didnt have a name or had to be named to begin with.Sounds alright..Anthemic,Anaemic,pandemic….just bring on the music

hwc
Aug 23rd, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Does that fit on his back?

Heh! :laugh_tb:

I’ve never been privy to a band naming before, feels wrong, like a reversal of the normal order. Interesting first experience really.

It’s Fascinating that they chose to use an adjective “The” followed by another adjective “anthemic” for the name. Again, it sounds a bit discordant, linguistically speaking, to my ear. A noun somewhere in there would have been good.

At this point, I’m not really liking the name.

How ’bout “The Importance of being David Cook?”

Heh.

The Killers got their name from a New Order music video. they were called the Genius Sex Poets. I prefer the Killers. They also sing songs about killing people.. so.. it fits.

Hmmmm…Not lovin’ it, at first listen. But why do I get the feeling that it will grow on me?

Some names of artists who have songs on the iTunes top 100 songs:

Boys Like Girls
Young Money
Cobra Starship
Cascada
LMFAO
New Boyz
Fabolous
3OH!3
Theory of a Deadman
Third Eye Blind
Flo Rida
Soulja Boy Tell ‘Em

Hopefully I managed to spell these the way the artists want them spelled/capitalized/punctuated/spaced. Clearly, artist names do not have to pass the scrutiny of a high school English teacher.

David Cook and The Anthemic will fit right in on the iTunes best-selling charts. :smile2_ee:

The setting for the video interview looks hideous. Looks like someone’s basement and an old couch. A garbage bag covering whatever is on the wall. Pipes in the back. Not a very fitting way to reveal the possible new band name.

Seriously, who cares if we like the name. For most people it’s still just going to be David Cook. It’s better than “unnamed guitarist”. He can actually introduce his band now. They were nameless.

From Urban Dictionary

Anthemic: The term anthemic is not strictly a word, yet is used to describe music that has a particular presence to it/atmospheric feel.

In hardcore/punk an anthemic band would be one who have plentiful singalongs and a tight, melodic, and often heavy rhythm section.

Mr. Cook, I think, given the definition above, that your name for the band fits it to a T.

ETA: to change dictionary name, since Wikipedia is not the same as Urban Dictionary

It’s Fascinating that they chose to use an adjective ‘The’  followed by another adjective ‘anthemic’  for the name. Again, it sounds a bit discordant, linguistically speaking, to my ear. A noun somewhere in there would have been good.

Isn’t “the” an article?

And no, no nouns. Anything but The Adjective Nouns.

I don’t love it, but I don’t hate it, either.

I like it. It suits him. It’s not overly complicated and is how he’s described his goals for his music. It works for me.

“David Cook and the Athemic”, hmmmm.

David Cook and the Anthemic ________. Athemic what? Anthemic band?

Doesn’t flow, (to me). Too limiting. I’m pretty sure all of his songs and sounds won’t be “anthemic” anyway, so why set up the expectation by using that word in a band name? So, as for my 2 cents….Don’t like.

it is weird that people didn’t know what anthemic was. I don’t think it’s actually a word, but “anthem” stood out.

I just think it’s weird. It’s contrived- trying to be something. i always thought of band names as totally arbitrary and don’t have sentimental meaning or whatever to the members.

I’m huge Cook fan and I’m not liking it. At all. I hate it when he’s so literal like that. Yuck.

I kind of wish they had just named the band after his song, “A Daily Anthem.” Shorten it to “Daily Anthem” or change it to “The Daily Anthem,” whatever.

I was sure they were going to go with RockFlagEagle, what with the matching tattoos and all. Hmm. Oh well, I still love them. :)

Isn’t ‘the’  an article?

Articles are adjectives. The is a “definite article”.

http://www.ucalgary.ca/UofC/eduweb/grammar/course/speech/1_4a.htm

http://www.ucalgary.ca/UofC/eduweb/grammar/course/speech/1_4a.htm#articles

I like Anthemic. It’s very David!

D_Ferreira : U all R incredible fans. David was a real pleasure 2 talk with.U R fans of a really nice & talented man I’ve even become a bigger fan of his

Awww

Joey’s twitter response to Andy about the band name.

“andyskib yes. I liked it two months ago. Just copywright it already! Or I will! “Neaha!”

I’ll believe it when I hear it’s official from David’s own mouth.

Doesn’t do a whole lot for me. I’d much prefer “Pandemic,” frankly, and, yeah, it looks a lot like “Anemic,” not to mention it is kind of pretentious, but at least it’s not “Etheral”!

And for the record, I love David in all his “word-nerdiness,” but, clearly, an English major he was not. ;-)

From the Urban Dictionary:

1. anthemic 23 up, 12 down
The term anthemic is not strictly a word, yet is used to describe music that has a particular presence to it/atmospheric feel.

In hardcore/punk an anthemic band would be one who have plentiful singalongs and a tight, melodic, and often heavy rhythm section. Bands such as Bane and With Honor are a good example of this.

Statement: “Woah this band are amazing, every song is really anthemic”

Reply: “Yeah, they’re incredible.”

The setting for the video interview looks hideous. Looks like someone’s basement and an old couch. A garbage bag covering whatever is on the wall. Pipes in the back. Not a very fitting way to reveal the possible new band name.

^
Were you expecting trumpets and red carpet? Heh. David shared that he was working with Rob Cavallo in a CHUM radio interview last year. I’m not surprised he did this casually or off the cuff. I thought he’d announce it at his concert. Again, nothing’s really changing at this juncture. It’s still all David Cook. Thankfully, his fans can drop the ridiculous EEB placeholder. Thanks, David, just for that. I hated EEB. Anything was better than EEB.

I don’t like that name at all!

Let’s be honest, many people on the internet (in general) would have hated any name Dave would have picked.

I’m of the opinion that likes the name, especially compared to some of the trash names that are so popular right now. David Cook and The Anthemic is solid, to the point and not overly ridiculous. I think it flows well and definitely isn’t hard to say.

So it has my (irrelevant) approval.

David is living up to his wordnerd nickname. Someone needs to whisper in his ear to “keep it simple”. I love him and am so glad that everything is coming together for him post-Idol but David Cook and the Anthemic doesn’t reach out and grab me the way he surely wants it to.

Were you expecting trumpets and red carpet?

I guess I was expecting something more,uh,….well, something more ANTHEMIC. :king_tb:

I think he likes the letter “A”. His first band, for about 8 years? was Axiom. Actually I like Axiom better. I think. “The Anthemic” might grow on me, if I don’t think about the grammar of it, or the association with medical terms.

I’m a big Cook fan but I am really not loving this name, for a lot of the reasons others have mentioned. Conceptually, I get it, and it fits as an adjective to describe their sound and what they’re aiming for. But it seriously sounds strange used as a noun and in the “David Cook and The This Is My Favorite Word” format. Visually, it really does read as “Anemic” the first time you see it, too. Sigh. Oh well. I would buy his next album even if his band name was David Cook and The Magic Rainbows.

Bwah! I hear what you’re sayiing, Happy Daisy. Hee.

Seriously, who cares if we like the name. For most people it’s still just going to be David Cook.

Really? I don’t know. If the next cd is by “David Cook & The Anthemics” that is what will show up everywhere, on charts, on itunes, on the VH-1 countdown, and it’s what dj’s will have to say on air when they mention his future singles.

I want to like it but man. The meaning is cool, but the word won’t suggest “atmospheric” to most listeners. I guess I’ll let it sink in for a few days and see how it feels.

I’m huge Cook fan and I’m not liking it. At all. I hate it when he’s so literal like that. Yuck.

Exactly. If you want an Anthemic sound you should make Anthemic music.
Don’t tell us what to think about your music. It’s pretentious.

I guess it beats David Cook and the EPIC!! band.

Joey sounds bitter.

I always consider the grammar and part of speech that the bands that I like get their names from. Yeah not really.

The name is great. Easy to say but not a simple word. Describes exactly the sound and vibe David is going for. Irrelevant if people think he achieves that or not. From a branding perspective it is great, a word that not only describes the band but also the product.

Really, what would be a better name? Something made up? A word nobody has ever heard before? Something that sounds like another band that is out there? Anthemic works for me.

Really, what would be a better name? Something made up? A word nobody has ever heard before? Something that sounds like another band that is out there?

I was curious by this too. Was there a specific name people were hoping for when Dave first made mention he was naming the band?

Again, anything with David Cook and the…. sounds a bit off. Think of all the band names out there. We have no idea if “Anthemic” is even going to be featured or how they will play it or roll it out for their next album. We just got a band name today. I’m with BootStar, though. It could also be David Cook and Anthemic. Who knows? But there are some ridiculous band names. If David is happy with it, that’s fine by me.

I bought music from Crash Kings and Green River Ordinance. IMO, not the best band names out there. I actually LIKE their music and sound. Same goes for Pink and U2. I didn’t buy it based on their names. Seriously, I don’t let the “packaging” or the name stop me from trying out an artist. If I hear them or someone refers them, I’ll actually listen to it first. Safety Suit and Parachute are rather odd names, but it doesn’t seem to be hurting them.

Hmm…I’m not loving it immediately. It looks nice in print but it doesn’t roll off the tongue easily. Maybe it will be different in a few days.

I guess they didn’t find a tanning salon in Alaska with the same name :)

I like cookie but don’t like this at all. Especially since it’s David cook and the anthemic. IMO it should just be the anthemic if they like that. But I get that David has name recognition but still I don’t like it :/

I like Anthemic. David Cook and The Anthemic not so much.

I think a name with a little humor and less heaviness might be good.

It’s fun to think of names. They’ve been thinking about it for months, I was expecting something better. Sorry, I love him, love the band, but hope they re-think the name.

I know I’ll love his music no matter what they call themselves, might even come to like the name, because that’s just how fans are, but will it work for him in attracting people and meaning to them what he wants it to mean? Will it work for him, or against him? I don’t know the answer lol.

Let’s be honest, many people on the internet (in general) would have hated any name Dave would have picked.

I don’t think that’s fair to say, since most of the posts here today have been from fans.

I always consider the grammar and part of speech that the bands that I like get their names from. Yeah not really.

For myself, I didn’t consciously try to think about the grammar. It just struck me as wrong instantly.

Actually, when David said it, I couldn’t even understand the word or what he said. I don’t think that bodes well. Necessarily.

I really like Cook, but I don’t like that name either. It’s too literal and does not roll off the tongue.

oceana

If the next cd is by ‘David Cook & The Anthemics’  that is what will show up everywhere,

I’m a bit confused now about the name, Is it:

The Anthemic?

David Cook and The Anthemic?

Or

David Cook and The Anthemics?

You don’t have to like his band name. And I respect that it’s not everyone’cs cuppeh. Some people don’t like his hair either or his clothes. Heh.

But if you’re already buy his album why does he need to change the band name that he and his band came up with? It’s a personal decision – how to name oneself. David can’t be responsible for meeting every fan expecation out there — especially on a name. Musically? I think that’s a fair expectation, in some respects. But a band name? That’s like naming your child, IMO. He can call his band whatever he wants. We can make fun of it in perpetuity, but ultimately, it’s his call.

I agree alxsavage, using “and Anthemic” sounds better than “and the Anthemic.” Maybe using this word in the band name just needs some tweaking?

Really, what would be a better name?

David Cook and the Chefs? Nah. :biggrin_wp:

Don’t mind me, I’m being silly now.

David is living up to his wordnerd nickname.

No, he’s not. A true “wordnerd” wouldn’t dare utter such an ungrammatical, nonsensical contrivance.

And I’ve always maintained that his vocabulary is only “large” relative to that of his fans.

David Cook and Too Many Chefs

David Cook and the Broth

nah – though I kind of like the last one

I don’t think there was another name that people wanted, though some thought about Anodyne … another A.

At first, I was like, that’s not even a word! I was doing all kind of tongue twisting trying to say it. Then the lightbulb came on and I saw he was adding ic to anthem.

Now I kind of like it, since I figured out how to say it. :lol_tb:

I don’t know about this – MJ says “may finally have a name” and “The name he is strongly considering ”

Did he spill this to see what the reaction might be?

I hope so, because yark. I am not a huge DC fan anyway but it really is terrible.

I also wondered if they are putting it out to see the reaction.

But if you’re already buy his album why does he need to change the band name that he and his band came up with? It’s a personal decision – how to name oneself. David can’t be responsible for meeting every fan expecation out there ‘” especially on a name. Musically? I think that’s a fair expectation, in some respects. But a band name? That’s like naming your child, IMO. He can call his band whatever he wants. We can make fun of it in perpetuity, but ultimately, it’s his call.

I completely agree with this. The name, in the long run, really doesn’t matter. 3Oh!3 anyone? It’s all about the music.

Articles are adjectives. The is a ‘definite article’ .

Fair enough, but I still don’t think it’s that unusual to have a definite article next to a descriptive adjective.

And there have been bands named as a plural adjective before (The Copacetics and the Klezmatics come to mind first). I can’t necessarily think of single adjective band names, but I’m sure there have been some.

Were you expecting trumpets and red carpet?

I would prefer David Cook and the Red Carpet Trumpets, actually.

I love David Cook, would give his album a solid B (maybe even B ) and HAAAATE The Anthemics. It just sounds silly and adolescent. I said in the other thread that it made me think of an anemic version of Anthrax, and that Athletic, Acidic, Asthmatic, Pedantic, Pandemic and Pathetic all come to mind.

NO. LIKE.

My hope is that this interview was a trial balloon, and they will see that the reaction is crappy and pick something better.

The Red Carpet Trumpets. The No Mustard Band. The Eight Hairs. David Cook and the Daily Anthems is wayyyyy better. Or just the Dailies. Or just the Anthems. But Anthemics is nonsense. It sounds like something they study somewhere, where most of the students have their heads up their asses all day.

“What’s your major?”

“Well, I started out with Creative Solipsism, but now I’m just in Anthemics.”

“Hokay, then. That sounds like a barrel of fun.” (Backing away slowly.)

Looks too much like “Anemic” as you glance at the headlines.

What’s in a name?

I’m sure it will be fine whatever they end up with. Sure we love to analyze (and personally I’m just being playful with words) but in the end, the name will take on its own meaning over time (hopefully).

Yet I do think there is validity in knowing what people’s instant reaction to the name is.

David Cook and the Daily Anthems is wayyyyy better. Or just the Dailies. Or just the Anthems.

yup, yup, I agree. I think. After awhile I don’t know anymore.

And there have been bands named as a plural adjective before (The Copacetics and the Klezmatics come to mind first). I can’t necessarily think of single adjective band names, but I’m sure there have been some.

Eurythmics?

Am I the only one who thinks that “The Anthems” sounds like a 60s girl group? Even farther from the mark, IMO.

I think for a band name the meaning and the pronunciation is not the important thing.

The name come alive with the music that is associated with the name in the future.

No. Just no.

I kind of like “the Broth” … as in cooking up something tasty … I like short words like that easy to say and very metaphorical. And it suggests brothers, which they almost are.

ETA: Is that a tv show? Now I feel embarrassed.

David Cook and the Sugar Cookies? :biggrin_wp:

Even fake bands need names?

No, he’s not. A true ‘wordnerd’  wouldn’t dare utter such an ungrammatical, nonsensical contrivance.

I don’t care much for the name either, but I’ve seen the term “anthemic” used in a lot of music articles, so I don’t think that’s really a fair criticism. And it’s in Merriam-Webster too!

And his vocabulary is only ‘large’  relative to that of his fans.

His vocabularly, like it or not, is “large” relative to the average American’s:

Nearly 50% of the Americans surveyed cannot read well enough to find a single piece of information in a short publication, nor can they make low level inferences based on what they read.

Source: The National Adult Literacy Survey, National Center for Education Statistics (1992)

It’s not a fake band. They’ve been playing together for years. They were together in MidWestKings previously. They are good friends, and they’ve written lots of songs together before and after Idol.

The name come alive with the music that is associated with the name in the future.

That’s why using an adjective that describes that music (as a band name) before it was even created is a bad idea.

Seriously, it took them 2 months? They’d be better off using this time to write good music.

I like the name, not love it. But it really doesn’t matter. There were some amazing bands with stupid names ( Pearl Jam, REM…). David s problem is that they have to name the band before the eyes of fans and it’s normal that there will be no consensus about it.
I think that the most important thing was to name the band, so the public will start to perceive them as a group. If he wanted to stay a solo artist that would be ok but I prefer him in a group with people he gets along with, shares some burdens with and most important, from what I heard from some bonus tracks and songs from MWK, – writes some amazing music with.
If they stay successful and together the name will stick and everybody will get used to it otherwise it will be one more name on the forgotten cemetery, so no harm done.

Ychhhh. I like Cookie, but sometimes his vocab is not his friend IMO.

How about David Cook and the Anthlers -heh still sounds yucky to me.

David Cook & the Sweets :wub_tb:

No, he’s not. A true ‘wordnerd’  wouldn’t dare utter such an ungrammatical, nonsensical contrivance.

And I’ve always maintained that his vocabulary is only ‘large’  relative to that of his fans.

:surprised_tb:

What’s in a name?

Evidently not much, I think there’s a punk’d episode in the making, at least I hope…. :lol_tb:

I like your idea sassycatz… I think “Daily Anthem” sounds cool, and so completely different (in a good way) than David Cook and the Anthemics.

Also agree that Anthemic seems too much like anemic.

It’s probably like when one of your friends names their child something odd/different and you think “what,” but then after awhile you can’t imagine the kid having any different name.

I’m sure if he goes with “Anthemic” it will grow on everyone.

Prefacing this by noting I am a HEE-OOGE Cook fan. Borderline “tard” if you will.

Immediate, gut, visceral reaction? Do not like.

Looked again, listened to the interview again? Still, no like.

Made a sandwich, played with cats, read a chapter of Bruce Feldman’s “Meat Market” just purchased yesterday and came back just to be sure?

ME NO LIKEY. AT ALL.

ETA: just wanted to add, it’s been long enough I don’t think they SHOULD name the band. He’s David Cook, it’s established. Want a band name? Go with “The David Cook Band” and leave it at that. It worked for Dave Matthews…

And there have been bands named as a plural adjective before (The Copacetics and the Klezmatics come to mind first). I can’t necessarily think of single adjective band names, but I’m sure there have been some.

This is turning into a grammar discussion and somewhat OT, so this will be my last comment on this matter of adjectives.

Adjectives are never plural. Once you add an “s” to the end of an adjective it technically becomes a noun. So in Cook’s case, if the name is “The Anthemics” it is a an adjective followed by a noun. “The Anthemic” however, is an adjective followed by another adjective.

Why not just leave the name at David Cook? His is the name that carries the band so they should leave it at that.

Doesn’t do a whole lot for me. I’d much prefer ‘Pandemic,’  frankly, and, yeah, it looks a lot like ‘Anemic,’  not to mention it is kind of pretentious, but at least it’s not ‘Etheral’ !

And for the record, I love David in all his ‘word-nerdiness,’  but, clearly, an English major he was not. ;-)

Personally, “pandemic” sounds more pretentious to me but of course YMMV.

Visually, it really does read as ‘Anemic’  the first time you see it, too.

Actually it doesn’t really, and I’m in the medical field. Two totally different sounding words.

Basically, they’re taking an adjective and using it as a name (i.e. a proper noun). I suppose fans of the EEB moniker might have preferred “David Cook and the Aesthetic” but the most important thing is for the band to be happy with the name and apparently they are.

No, he’s not. A true ‘wordnerd’  wouldn’t dare utter such an ungrammatical, nonsensical contrivance.

He’s naming his rock band, not writing an English term paper. I think he’s allowed to be contrived, ungrammatical, even nonsensical.

Are you kidding? Cook’s band is accompanying band just like Archie or Kelly’s band. They just replaced one of the musician and it doesn’t have any effect on Cook the artist. It’s not a ‘band’  band, it’s accompanying musicians.

No. They really have been a real band long before Idol became a part of it. In fact, Idol is the interloper here. David played in MWK with Andy and Neal. Monty, the “new” bass player, played on some of avid’s tracks for his indie work. Kyle, the drummer, is the newbie at the moment. Furthermore, Neal was in the studio working on Cook’s post-Idol album, playing on it and representing David when he wasn’t there. He co-wrote “Kiss on the Neck” with David. Futhermore, — I believe — they’ve been performing some of the old MWK songs that Andy used to sing lead on.

‘The David Cook Band’ 

I like it.

David s problem is that they have to name the band before the eyes of fans

Very important point.

Eurythmics……yes, I guess the word Anthemics with the “s” would maybe work. Hey, worked for Annie Lennox, lol.

David Cook and the Hash Slingers?

David Cook and the Pork Beans? :laugh_tb:

And I’ve always maintained that his vocabulary is only ‘large’  relative to that of his fans.

Based on how they write, I think a lot of Cook’s fans are very intelligent and well-educated. Nonetheless, I’ve seen enough interviews with David to know that his vocabulary is better than the average person even if he misuses a few words. .

The Red Carpet Trumpets. The No Mustard Band. The Eight Hairs. David Cook and the Daily Anthems is wayyyyy better. Or just the Dailies. Or just the Anthems. But Anthemics is nonsense. It sounds like something they study somewhere, where most of the students have their heads up their asses all day.

I would have liked the name “David Cook and a Daily Anthem” . I don’t want to offend anyone, but I saw a lot of the names that people were suggesting on certain forums and they seemed even more ridiculous to me. I’m kind of relieved he came up with his own thing. And I’m very happy that there was no reference to his hair in the band name.

No, he’s not. A true ‘wordnerd’  wouldn’t dare utter such an ungrammatical, nonsensical contrivance.

Personally I think that a band can exercise whatever poetic license they want when naming themselves. Secondly, anthemic is frequently used to describe a type of music. You might not like the name but I don’t see how that makes it “ungrammatical, nonsensical contrivance”…seems a bit extreme. The name is a bit literal, but if I’m being honest…I rarely pay attention to band names…I notice names that I like..otherwise I generally notice the music and the artist.

ETA: For those hoping that we are being punked..be careful what you wish for. The alternative could be worse!

Are you kidding? Cook’s band is accompanying band just like Archie or Kelly’s band. They just replaced one of the musician and it doesn’t have any effect on Cook the artist. It’s not a ‘band’  band, it’s accompanying musicians.

The difference is Kelly or Archie could shove their “band” into an orchestra pit and it wouldn’t make a difference. Sure the band members at this point are a bit interchangeable and the public doesn’t know David’s “band” as an entity but the difference is he actually fronts a band. David interacts with them and the sound is formed and evolving over time as they play with and experiment with arrangements and sounds. The sound is organic and changes over time.

Real rock music comes from an actual band, it doesn’t come from something that could just as easily be recorded on a track and pumped out night after night.

No. They really have been a real band long before Idol became a part of it. In fact, Idol is the interloper here. David played in MWK with Andy and Neal. Monty, the ‘new’  bass player, played on some David’s tracks for his indie work. Kyle, the drummer, is the newbie at the moment. Furthermore, Neal was in the studio working on Cook’s post-Idol album, playing on it and representing David when he wasn’t there. He co-wrote ‘Kiss on the Neck’  with David. Futhermore, ‘” I believe ‘” they’ve been performing some of the old MWK songs that Andy used to sing lead on.

Is it really important Cook knew these musicians before his album came out? There’s no “band” identity like you’d see in a “band” band. Cook’s music is the solo artist, and who is his accompanying band doesn’t make an impact in his identity or consumers’ choice when coming to buy the music. If all of them are replaced today there is no impact on Cook’s album sales. That’s what I am getting at.

‘The David Cook Band’  and leave it at that. It worked for Dave Matthews’ ¦

What a novel idea……

That’s why using an adjective that describes that music (as a band name) before it was even created is a bad idea.

^THIS is what my gut reaction is too, well besides the word having too much proximity to a combination of ‘anemic’ and ‘epidemic’ – two words you don’t really want associated with mind-blowing rock music.

I think it can be creative to use an adjective as a band name. It can be used to great effect. But to use a word that you’ve used to describe your band’s music – that is… Well, that is the music’s job to do the convincing. It’s like you’re spelling out to people exactly how to respond to your music. “Hey people, this is the ‘Anthemics’ and we’re making anthemic music, ok?” Not creative, not subtle, unless you’re into being hit on the head.

If David and band want to evoke an anthemic energy, there are umpteen ways to do that with a band name. We did learn that there are two bands named ‘Eta Carinae’, the name that David dropped as wanting to call his first album. I wonder if that was their first choice and they fell back to this. Whatever, I say keep trying. I really do think those bright minds can come up with a much better name than this. Band names? They are a lifetime statement, no fleeting thing.

I love David Cook, and I’m really flummoxed about this development. I’m still wondering if we’re being punk’d. Or, if David is throwing us a curve. Or, if it’s a trial balloon – in which case, puncture it now. Unfortunately, many DC fans see their job to be thrilled at whatever DC puts out. So, the twitter is ablaze with “That is the most incredible, perfect name, David!”s. Gag. Constructive criticism, people. Be not afraid of it.

Are you kidding? Cook’s band is accompanying band just like Archie or Kelly’s band. They just replaced one of the musician and it doesn’t have any effect on Cook the artist. It’s not a ‘band’  band, it’s accompanying musicians.

–
I see where you are coming from. Normally rock bands write an album and then gain cred for the album et al. But David and his bandmate, Neal, worked on DCTR together. Sure the other bandmembers were not involved. So I see your point. However, they are touring together and creating sounds now. They performed a re-worked cover of “Little Lies” which they performed on GMA – there was a terrific guitar riff by his lead guitarist, Neal Tieman. That was a band performance, not solo act. Same goes for their covers of “I Died in Your Arms Tonight”. They also perform “Souvenir” and “We’re Only Honest When We’re Sleeping” – songs that David wrote on their live tour. So is that accompaying musicians then? So while DCTR started as a solo project, the sound and music is developing more into a band sound — on tour. Not on radio.

ETA: But you’re right, David Cook is the name brand. Regular people will only know and care about David Cook. Consumers will buy David Cook’s solo album. His singles on radio are that of a solo artist. Absolutely.

Lastly, Come Back to Me, Light On, and Magic Rainbow were not given rock radio ads. So it’s not surprising they wouldn’t get spinned.

Daughtry’s second album was a full band effort. So yeah, I could see David Cook and the Anthemics moving in that same direction.

David, I still love you but as far as the band name, me no likey.

HappyDaisy-You are just too funny. :laugh_tb:

movin2thabeet, brilliant post, and I agree wholeheartedly.

And I’ve always maintained that his vocabulary is only ‘large’  relative to that of his fans.

Ouch. Do we need to do an IQ competition for the fan bases?

Is it really important Cook knew these musicians before his album came out? There’s no ‘band’  identity like you’d see in a ‘band’  band. Cook’s music is the solo artist, and who is his accompanying band doesn’t make an impact in his identity or consumers’ choice when coming to buy the music. If all of them are replaced today there is no impact on Cook’s album sales. That’s what I am getting at.

I know what you’re getting at, but the members of this band are having an impact on Cook’s sound. That’s why people are talking about how the music is evolving on tour and they want a tour album because they are actually sounding better than the CD itself. Furthermore, Neal, of all people, has definitely had an impact on David’s sound as a “solo” artist since he played on the CD and wrote some of the music. In addition they are playing songs from their old band days which are becoming, for lack of a better term, part of Cook’s catalogue.

Is it really important Cook knew these musicians before his album came out? There’s no ‘band’  identity like you’d see in a ‘band’  band. Cook’s music is the solo artist, and who is his accompanying band doesn’t make an impact in his identity or consumers’ choice when coming to buy the music. If all of them are replaced today there is no impact on Cook’s album sales. That’s what I am getting at.

Well, he didn’t just “know” them, he was in a band with them in Tulsa. They were a team, he, Neal, and Andy. They were together before Idol and after Idol. There is definitely a band identity in their minds, in the fan’s minds, and on their tour. The next cd will doubtless be a band project. David has pushed for them to stay together and tour together.

David became known as a solo artist on Idol, but he was part of a band before Idol and has emphasized being part of a band ever since. Sure casual fans might not know that yet, but they will.

He did put out a solo cd before Idol, and had a 2nd ready to go. So while he was in the band MWK, he was still working on his solo music. I think Andy and Neal played on his solo cd also, and Neal produced it.

Even during Idol the show, David would talk to Neal and Andy for feedback and suggestions about what songs he should sing. They were a team all through it, I believe.

I believe that Chris Daughtry’s band came together after Idol, not before. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

Is it really important Cook knew these musicians before his album came out? There’s no ‘band’  identity like you’d see in a ‘band’  band. Cook’s music is the solo artist, and who is his accompanying band doesn’t make an impact in his identity or consumers’ choice when coming to buy the music. If all of them are replaced today there is no impact on Cook’s album sales. That’s what I am getting at.

That’s true as far this album is concerned. So here comes the question why even naming the band. My logical answer to that would be – and of course I might be wrong – that they want to work on the next album together. That means writing music, recording it. Surely David will keep some final decisions. I’m no music business expert but I’d guess that if the same people intend to play together for a longer period than one tour, write and record music together it’s only logical that they name themselves. And as far as I could read from some posts on this board they’re already working on some new songs. It’s good that they knew each other from before but not crucial, since every band starts somewhere and here is where David and the Anthemic start:).

Well it’s not a great name for the band, but it won’t have any impact on Cook’s success one way or the other. It just doesn’t roll off the tongue very easily. Imagine asking the dude at the record store where to find the CD…you: “excuse me, but I’m looking for David Cook and the Anthemics”…store dude: “what?”. You want to just say you’re looking for David Cook right? So they either need to come up with something better or they might as well drop the band name.

Is it really important Cook knew these musicians before his album came out? There’s no ‘band’  identity like you’d see in a ‘band’  band. Cook’s music is the solo artist, and who is his accompanying band doesn’t make an impact in his identity or consumers’ choice when coming to buy the music. If all of them are replaced today there is no impact on Cook’s album sales. That’s what I am getting at.

In most bands, you could replace everyone except the lead singer and the listening public wouldn’t know the difference.

i’m waiting for noctem to weigh in… he’s the one i’m waiting to hear from… i’m not sure how i feel… i’m not invested in them, so how important really is the name… just asking…..

Yes Daughtry’s band came together after his first cd was recorded.

My logical answer to that would be – and of course I might be wrong – that they want to work on the next album together. That means writing music, recording it. Surely David will keep some final decisions. I’m no music business expert but I’d guess that if the same people intend to play together for a longer period than one tour, write and record music together it’s only logical that they name themselves. And as far as I could read from some posts on this board they’re already working on some new songs.

Absolutely, they want to work on the next cd together. Write it, record it, yes. That is my understanding.

In most bands, you could replace everyone except the lead singer and the listening public wouldn’t know the difference.

I don’t think that’s the point. First, his fans would definitely know the difference, as the band members have a following already. Second, they think of themselves as a band, as a cohesive unit, regardless of what the public thinks. They have talked for months about naming their band.

I like it. It fits. I can’t imagine the responses that would have accompanied any other band name out there today had they been named after being heard. “U2?? What kind of stupid name is that? It isn’t even a word!” “The Beatles?? Are you kidding? A bug, that’s not even spelled right?” heh.

And just no to The David Cook Band. Could that be any blander?

David Cook and The Anthemic. Good.

Don’t like. But then again I’m just ‘eh’ about Cook anyway. I hope his fans embrace it.

Sounds like a combo of anemic and pandemic. Both very bad words.
I don’t like it. Shrug, but if Cook and the band dig it…

If David Cook likes it he should use it. Or he could on the lines of just using his last name for the band (Cook), see(Daughtry) :thumbup_tb:

If he wants the Anthemics to be the name of the band and he wants to include them as an integral part of the act…why not…

DCA

Personally, I’m not a fan of first name, last name, and the band name….i’ll always drop the singer’s name then and just use the band name…so

ANTHEMIC it would be and that’s just a no, no. And I think the anemic reference is exactly what pops up.

So its David Cook when he is solo or acoustic and DCA when he wants to hightlight the band.

Ok then…all figured out…your welcome, no problem.

Maybe it will grow on me but right now it just sounds weird.

Reminder:

1. Dropping in from DCO? Please remember my guidelines.

http://mjsbigblog.com/?page_id=1172

2. Fans of Other Idols? Don’t even ATTEMPT to hijack this thread.

I’ve deleted and edited posts to keep this post on track and fan warring at a minimum.

Ooh, yeah, no. Bad name. Hope he didn’t have t-shirts made up yet.

I don’t think that’s the point. First, his fans would definitely know the difference, as the band members have a following already. Second, they think of themselves as a band, as a cohesive unit, regardless of what the public thinks. They have talked for months about naming their band.

Just look how upset fans got when Joey left!? Monty is growing on me a lot. He’s a sweetie and a trooper. But he is temporary. When Joey left, we lost that jumping Kangeroo that hopped all over the stage and goofed off with David, unlike too-cool-for-school Neal or taciturn Andy. However, I must say, in the absence of Joey, Andy has really exerted himself and become much more active. I love that about him. Plus, I love his tweets. He’s becoming my new favorite! (I’m blushing a little here.)

The Anthemic.

Hmmm. I kind of like it. It’s unusual.

Daughtry’s sound was a band from the get go.

Daughtry recorded his debut CD with session players just like everyone coming out of Idol and rushing to get their CD out by the holidays. His band was formed AFTER the Cd was recorded

Do not like- “A” is for awkward.

Really, what would be a better name?

For me, almost anything would be better. Off the top of my head David Cook and the Guys in His Band.

I think there are a number of “bands” that aren’t technically even signed with their label – only the lead name and singer is. Bon Jovi, Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers. Bruce Springsteen and The E Street Band. It doesn’t make them less of a band in their own right.

“David Cook” has to be in the name. That leaves you with “David Cook and __________” .

Almost no band name sound good without associating it with the music.
Neil Young and Crazy Horse, Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band? Aerosmith? The Pixies? Erasure? The White Stripes? Wings? OAR? Blind Melon? Third Eye Blind? Four Non Blondes? Nine Inch Nails? Alice In Chains?

Any name they pick will work fine once it’s in place and people get used to it.

As a huge Cook fan, somehow I do not care about this. At all. LOL. Am I the only one?

I don’t love the name. I would prefer Anthemic or The Anthemics (no “David Cook and the” attached) if they insist on using that word. But together it is a little odd.

But I still don’t really care either way.

The anthemic is okay. David cook and the anthemic? Me.no.likey.

I don’t think that’s the point. First, his fans would definitely know the difference, as the band members have a following already. Second, they think of themselves as a band, as a cohesive unit, regardless of what the public thinks. They have talked for months about naming their band.

Agreed, however I was merely addressing the point that the instrumentalists of many bands can be replaced by those of similar ability since in most bands, the songs are all written by the lead singer. For DCatA to become a full band in every sense of the term, all of the members have to participate in songwriting. In addition, if Neal Tiemann were to establish a very recognizable guitar style and Andy Skib were to take some turns on lead vocals, that would help to solidify the band as a truly cohesive, non-interchangeable entity.

tinawina
Aug 23rd, 2009 at 6:11 pm
As a huge Cook fan, somehow I do not care about this. At all. LOL. Am I the only one?

I don’t love the name. I would prefer Anthemic or The Anthemics (no ‘David Cook and the’  attached) if they insist on using that word. But together it is a little odd.

I agree. Having conjoined names makes Cook and the band sound too retro. For people who are unfamiliar with Cook, yes they do exist, it makes the band sound boring.
I’m not a fan of Cook particularly, but I still would hate to see him choose a name that would be counterproductive to his, and the band’s image.

If we’re voting, also put me down for like. But I agree it doesn’t much matter if people ‘like’ a band name – does anybody think about whether they like the name of a band when they listen to or buy the music? They only think about whether they like the music.

Also, how many other times do fans get to watch the ‘birth’ of the band name? I would think it’s usually all done and over with by the time most fans discover the music. So they don’t get much of a say whether they ‘like’ it or not. In that sense, it is kind of exciting to watch the beginning.

In addition, if Neal Tiemann were to establish a very recognizable guitar style and Andy Skib were to take some turns on lead vocals, that would help to solidify the band as a truly cohesive, non-interchangeable entity.

I am all for this and look forward to this, if 19 management and RCA doesn’t object. 19 and RCA are the main obstacles. The fans are already there. Just sayin.’

Anthemic by itself sounds pretty cool. But when you couple it with David Cook and the…it sounds ridiculous, IMO.

As a huge Cook fan, somehow I don’t care about this. At All. LOL. Am I the only one?

^^
This. Thank you Tinawina. I could not agree more. The phrase “tempest in a teapot” comes to mind. Love David, love the band. A name is unnecessary for me as fan. RCA will continue to market the David Cook brand. The boys will go about writing, performing and playing music as a creative entity. IT’S ALL GOOD FOR THIS FANGIRL.

I think DWEEB works for me. Simple and easy!
I’ll buy his music regardless. It’s the talent that drew me in, not the name.

I’ve been lurking on this site since AI7 and it’s taken DC’s band naming to drive me out of the dark corner I’ve been lurking in.

I’m a dedicated fan of Cook (though reading this thread I must be a fraud, having a degree in English Literature – goodness knows how I managed the vocabulary in all those books :lol)…

Anyhow – I don’t particularly like the band name, but I’ll live with it. Funnily enough, every single other name associated with these guys is great: love Axium; like the Mid West Kings and To Have Heroes. So, I’m not too sure what happened here. I’m especially not sure how the man who wrote all those excellent Axium lyrics – hence the user name – ended up with such an unpoetic label.

Anyhow – re: the band. I think it was always their intention to be a ‘real’ band, but they had to deal with contractual limitations arising from winning AI for the first album, before they could become one. If the next album is not a proper band album, I’ll eat my hat…everything about the way Cook speaks about what he wants for that album indicates it. He seems to be following the Daughtry model of gradually morphing from post- idol contestant into fully fledged band.

Can’t wait to see what the second album will be like.

Edited the last bit after reading MJ’s comments upthread.

I could have this TOTALLY wrong but it reminds m of Motown smokey Robinson and the miracles, David cook and the anthemic. still no likey

I don’t like the name. It’s a little too unimaginative.

Yeah, tinawina, I’m just glad we won’t be seeing EEB anymore or DWEEB. I’d even prefer DCA over DWEEB. DWEEB was and is a ridiculous place holder name.

–
Just look how upset fans got when Joey left!?
–
^
To be honest, I was not the least bit upset when Joey Clement left. Didn’t notice much in the bass line. I do like his new bass guitarist, Monty Anderson, who did work with David in Tulsa pre-Idol. And frankly, the band has never sounded better. They have wickedly reworked “I Did It For You”.

Frankly many of Cook’s fans didn’t know who Joey Clement was, and they don’t care now that he’s no longer in David’s band — except some of the diehards and regulars. And frankly, ask regular David Cook fans who attended his concerts, not on the internets, and they probably don’t know the names of his bandmates — even Neal. Fans bought tickets for the David Cook Declaration Tour. My sister is huge Cook fan, couldn’t be bothered to know his band’s name. But at least they have a name now – so it’s not just David Cook’s band, but again, that’s what they are. People are going to see David Cook. The fact that his band is kick ass makes for a great concert and will probably get them back. But it’s still all David. How this evolves and changes in the future, is still to be determined. But nothing’s changing circa now in the years to come? Who knows. But I’d still buy a ticket to see David Cook – even if he was playing with his hummingbird.

I’m a moderate Cook fan.I dont even know the name of his bandmates or what they look like…arent they all like long haired craggy types?. I wasn’t aware the band membershad that much prominence in his fandome? oh welll…I’ll look up a bit more

I agree with those that say David Cook and the Anthemics is awkward. To me, it’s very ’60s band name (Gladys Knight and the Pips, Tommy James and the Shondells, etc.).

David Cook and Anthemic is not quite as bad.
The Anthemics is not good.
Anthemic isn’t too bad.

It all depends on how they decide to phrase it. And I can’t foresee them dropping David’s name, unless they do it gradually (i.e. start with David Cook and Anthemic, then later drop David Cook and just use Anthemic, or Anthemic featuring David Cook, or something like that).

I dunno. It’s making my head hurt right now.

Anyhow – I don’t particularly like the band name, but I’ll live with it. Funnily enough, every single other name associated with these guys is great: love Axium; like the Mid West Kings and To Have Heroes. So, I’m not too sure what happened here. I’m especially not sure how the man who wrote all those excellent Axium lyrics – hence the user name – ended up with such an unpoetic label.

Glad you delurked, fadetowhite. This is how I’m feeling too. I can’t see how that creative mind of David’s would settle on ‘The Anthemic’ for a band name. It has about as much subtlety as a brick. All I can conclude is it was a fallback name after endless bouts with the label, or we’ve been punk’d. When I let the concept loose in my head, all kinds of names come wafting through. And I know the guys have even more interesting cultural references. Maybe their ideas were all too obscure for RCA. So they said, jokingly, let’s just go completely literal, let’s go ‘Anthemic’.

I’m a moderate Cook fan.I dont even know the name of his bandmates or what they look like’ ¦arent they all like long haired craggy types?. I wasn’t aware the band membershad that much prominence in his fandome? oh welll’ ¦I’ll look up a bit more

Ah man, after Idol, when Cook would go off to do little acoustic performances, like with the TV show “Eat Bulaga” in the Philippines, he would often bring Neal who did the heavy guitar lifting, while Cook strummed along and concentrated on singing. Andy and Kyle are back up vocalists, although Andy was a lead singer and could relieve Cook when they do longer shows. I see him taking on more lead singing in the future. Andy also appears to be a master videographer. He’s going to be of great value to the band online. I look forward to finding out who they get for bass, but Monty’s become such a rock back there.

Not a great name. Don’t think it matters.

Anthemic?

Not the best word for the masses. Sounds like a cross between anemic and pathetic, also not good.

I like the name. I have two big reasons. First, it furthers his (accurate) image as an authentic rocker, not a label creation or a product of an Idol machine. I say it reflects authenticity because it is so “him”. He has used the word a lot. It is in the title of one song he wrote himself (A Daily AntheM) and one by a band he was in (Circles Anthem). Second, it reflects both his music history and that of his band for the same reason. It is descriptive of his music. I lied, I love the name.

LOL, what an ugly band name, sorry. But I think all his albums will continue to go under the name David Cook so it doesn’t matter. But yeah, what a dumb choice for a name… it’s not easy to say and it’s just… ugly.

A true ‘wordnerd’  wouldn’t dare utter such an ungrammatical, nonsensical contrivance.

LOL I agree. Sometimes I think he uses “deep” words just for the sake of using them. And what’s worse, sometimes, he gets the meaning wrong. True wordnerd, he is not.

FWIW I hope the guys get honest feedback. Andy tweeted asking if everyone likes the name so I hope both good and bad opinions are given. Considering it still sounds like they’re a little on the fence about it I think its important they hear what fans are really feeling.

Don’t post here often but lurk alot and love this site precisely because it isn’t a fan site. I am a pretty big Cook fan, the one and only time I have completely descended into total Idol fandom. Don’t love or hate the new band name and agree it really doesn’t matter in the long run to the success of David Cook. I just have to say that the folks who become famous through Idol take more from fans–criticism, angst, expectations, embarrasment, just plain bullshit than seems fair. I think Cook would say, the chance to make a living doing what he loves, makes the ongoing Idol fan over-analysis of every f’ing move worth it.
Sometimes it surely gets on my last nerve, and I am not the subject of the scrutiny.

Just want to add–while the branding is still David Cook–he is totally evolving into a band act which is where he excels. I have seen this band live twice and even in 30 days, the improvement and evolution of their sound was remarkable. While the big draw for me and will continue to be David Cook, he will produce his greatest music in the setting of a band of great fellow musicians.

He should just go by “David Cook” or go by a band name. Not “David Cook and The ________’s”.

I understand that he wants to acknowledge his band members, but right now his brand is still in his name, and going halfway with “David Cook and The Anthemic” just seems… awkward. Like David is the ringmaster of a circus (first imagery that comes to mind).

@SassyCats, thanks for the heads up.

Apart from watching quite a few snippets and clips of his concerts on youtube, I haven’t paid much attention to the make up of his band

LYDIA

Word to your entire post, wish I could post it on every David Cook fan board.

Cook’s over-sized brain casing is working against him on this one. I think he should save anthemic for his N.Y. Times crossword puzzle.

As a huge Cook fan, somehow I don’t care about this. At All. LOL. Am I the only one?

I don’t really care much about the name either, and I don’t care if he goes by David Cook or David Cook and The Anthemic.
But I’m curious to see how official this will be. How will the name be used in the future.
Still, I believe it’s always nice to aknowledge the band and the people playing with him, and in that respect I like that they have a name, even if most people won’t know who they are. It makes them more than just some guys playings instruments. And if David is going to keep using the “we” and “our”, maybe it makes more sense to name the band.

I like the name. Its not the Anthemics. Its David Cook and anTheMic. Get it, David Cook an(d) The MIC.
Yes, he is a word nerd as am I.

Its not the Anthemics. Its David Cook and anTheMic. Get it, David Cook an(d) The MIC.

Damn Pattycake, we’re sharing a brain right now. I was just returning to note the same thing!

Great minds, same gutter. :-)

I’ve also reflected and it’s not the word that kills the deal for me (well, except for that whole “anemic” thing) it’s the phrase. But, oh well…

I’m also going to give him a little more credit than the literal interpretation. Not only do we have A Daily AntheM and Adam, his brother, we also have the notion that it’s not a word but a sound. So, he’s naming the band with a sound, not a word. (And, yes, I know it appears in the dictionary, but others have quoted the contrary, so I’m running with it. :-))

I’m now thinking this turns out well, if ever it turns out at all.

‘The David Cook Band’  and leave it at that. It worked for Dave Matthews’ ¦

What a novel idea’ ¦’ ¦

And done before. Me no likey. Yawn. Orr…

I like it. It fits. I can’t imagine the responses that would have accompanied any other band name out there today had they been named after being heard. ‘U2?? What kind of stupid name is that? It isn’t even a word!’  ‘The Beatles?? Are you kidding? A bug, that’s not even spelled right?’  heh.

And just no to The David Cook Band. Could that be any blander?

David Cook and The Anthemic. Good.

This. The Anthemic just seems very Cook. A Daily AntheM has become the band’s signature concert closer. Anthemic to me has all the connotations of anthems: unity, brotherhood, loyalty to a team/country/cause/common bond, that kind of thing, and all of that reminds me of the tightknit group of Tulsa musicians from whence Cook and his band were birthed. And of course there’s also the obvious reference to David’s songwriting style and the lofty aspirations. Plus it sounded cool to me. Whatevs. If the sneak peak serves as a test market, I guess he’ll go with something else now, but for the record, I like it, minority opinion and all.

He should just go by ‘David Cook’  or go by a band name. Not ‘David Cook and The ________’s’ .

Eh, I don’t get think it’s a big deal. Isn’t “so and so and the so and so” a common thing when a singer/songwriter carries the branding and name recognition but is heavily reliant on a band for musical collaboration? Ryan Adams and the Cardinals…Prince and the Revolution…Prince and the New Power Generation…Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers… Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band…Huey Lewis and the News (muwah!)

Andy and Kyle are back up vocalists, although Andy was a lead singer and could relieve Cook when they do longer shows. I see him taking on more lead singing in the future.

–
While it is the wish of a very small but vocal group in the DC internet fandom for this to happen, I do not see this happening anytime in the near future. Again, we are still on David Cook’s Declaration Tour. People are paying to see David Cook. And they are selling DCTR. LOL at the rush for some people to get ten steps ahead and read into the future – especially at this stage. They just got a band name, yeesh. Heh. Nothing has changed.

Why don’t we wait until an EP or at least some new product comes out – and for people to even know the band name let alone other players, before this pony gets floated around again. Cuz I’m thinking RCA / 19E aren’t right there yet – and neither are the bulk majority of David Cook fans.

ETA: Yeah, and David wants to act and do a ton of other initiatives, too. There’s a lot this guy wants to do. There’s a ton of time.

Yeah, Sunchick, I agree.

“Ryan Adams and the Cardinals’ ¦Prince and the Revolution’ ¦Prince and the New Power Generation’ ¦Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers’ ¦ Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band’ ¦Huey Lewis and the News,” David Cook and the Anthemic.

Music Teacher: Now class, when you say each of the names above out loud, which one stands out as being the most awkward to pronounce? :ponder_tb:

Please be sure to recite the names out loud, not simply read the names.

Who has the correct answer?

i’m waiting for noctem to weigh in’ ¦ he’s the one i’m waiting to hear from’ ¦ i’m not sure how i feel’ ¦ i’m not invested in them, so how important really is the name’ ¦ just asking’ ¦..

Ask and ye shall receive…. My gut feeling is the “David Cook” part will be dropped before the “and the…” part. I can see the trajectory going from “David Cook” to (if the name holds) “David Cook and the Anthemic” to “The Anthemic”. I don’t think David Cook wants to be “David Cook” forever. I think he wants to be a music “star” for a few years, and then start making music in a bit more obscurity– the kind of music that could get him played on the radio stations that he wants to be played on– if he can just get rid of the “David Cook” portion of the band’s name.

As for the name, it’s all right. Much better than what I’m reading people seem to think it is — The Anthemics. THAT would be stupid, and would evoke thoughts of “The Eurythmics”. But, the name is NOT plural. It’s “The Anthemic”.

Also, I think that ” David Cook and The Anthemic” is a little better too than “David Cook and Anthemic”– dropping the “the”, in other words. But, both are much better than “The Anthemics”, pluralized.

The major negative as I see it what others have addressed– the name is far too “mockable” by Idol-hating reviewers. Any critic who doesn’t like a show, song, or album can (and will) taunt somthing like, “David Cook and The Anthemic?” More like “David Cook and the Anemic!”

As for whether or not DC’s music actually is “anthemic”, if you don’t care for commercial grunge/ post-grunge pop, then you won’t think so. But, Light On is an extremely anthemic song, and obviously, so is A Daily Anthem. Any music that can be classified as arena-friendly and prone-to-induce-cellphone-waving fits the criteria for “anthemic”.

Also, I’m surprised about how much consternation there is about the King’s English being used here. Many bands– and sports teams, for that matter– take full avail of Shakesperean License in naming themselves by doing things such as using one part of speech for another (such as an adjective used as a noun) or playing around with singular/ plural word agreement.
—————————————————————————————————-

The other thing I have to comment on is the notion that the band that may heretofore be called “The Anthemic” is no different than Archie or Kelly’s bands. Uh, no– not even close. Archie and Kelly’s bands are essentially touring session players.

Cook’s band, first, I presume is much more well-compensated. Second, they actively shape “David Cook’s” musical direction. Unless, I’ve totally misread this, those guys are in every sense of the word a “band”. If you’ve never been in a real band before, it’s actually a very spiritual (not in the religious sense) thing.

I would argue that “The Anthemic” is more of a band even than “the other guys in DAUGHTRY”. Cook’s band members have several times themselves been singled out by name in show reviews even in his first year of touring. I can’t recall seeing a DAUGHTRY review in which the other guys in the group got ink. There’s a reason for this– the talent that surrounds David Cook. His guitarist could play for any rock band in the world, and his drummer isn’t that far behind.

As a huge Cook fan, somehow I don’t care about this. At All. LOL. Am I the only one?

Nah, I’m in the same boat. I don’t care about it, it doesn’t change anything for me. It’ll take some getting used to, and too bad they couldn’t just have a name from the beginning, but everything is definitely all turned around b/c of Idol. They ARE, BTW, a real band and if you see their live show you’ll see that. I suspect they’d be even more “band-ish” without the constraints that they have because he’s the American Idol guy and his name is what’s needed right now for brand recognition. We’ll see where things go but… not worth angsting over, I don’t think. (BTW, I’m an English major and pretty darn literate and I think David’s a smart guy and have never understood the implication that he’s not and just tries to use big words to seem smarter. God knows I misuse a word or two now and then, and I’m a proofreader by trade!)

My gut feeling is the ‘David Cook’  part will be dropped before the ‘and the’ ¦’  part. I can see the trajectory going from ‘David Cook’  to (if the name holds) ‘David Cook and the Anthemic’  to ‘The Anthemic’ . I don’t think ‘David Cook wants to be ‘David Cook’  forever. I think he wants to be a music ‘star’  for a few years, and then start making music in a bit more obscurity’“ the kind of music that could get him played on the radio stations that he wants to be played on’“ if he can just get rid of the ‘David Cook’  portion of the band’s name.

noctem… this was my thought, too. And I like “The Anthemic” just fine.

LOL at all the complaints about grammar/spelling issues… Since when has being a word or grammatically correct been a prerequisite for band names? In fact, tons of bands make it a point to name their bands as non-words so it’s easier to google, register websites, etc. DC even changed his HS band from Axiom, a word, to Axium, possibly for that reason. Anyway, I was pretty excited about a band name being revealed but now I’m like meh, whatev I don’t love or hate it. It’ll grow on me I’m sure if this indeed sticks. This whole ass backwards way of naming a known band is new to me so I don’t even know how to react. I’m used to just accepting a band good name or not , rather than feel like I need to analyze it or form an opinion about it.

Oh and btw I think actually, using adjectives as nouns is kind of the thing to do in colloquial speak these days, my friends and I have been doing it so much I didn’t even think much if it at all. And David Cook and the Anthemic sounds betts to me than other variations without the artical, plural, etc.

Oh my gosh, Noctem, I agree with everything you said. It MUST be a good name, for that to happen! LOL

Many bands’“ and sports teams, for that matter’“ take full avail of Shakesperean License in naming themselves by doing things such as using one part of speech for another (such as an adjective used as a noun) or playing around with singular/ plural word agreement.

And, what was it Shakespeare said, something about a rose? Oh yeah:

What’s in a name? That which we call a rose, By any other name would smell as sweet.

I could just as easily say, “That which we call an Anthemic, or an MWK, or an Axium…”

Adore David but definitely not liking this name. Sounds pretentious, doesn’t flow well, is certainly an easy target for nonfans and reviewers. And will all their music be anthemic? Hope not.

Here’s the thing. David is absolutely not unique in the rock world for shooting for an ‘anthemic’ sound. Some of the fans keep on saying its a good description of the sound he’s going for, therefore they like it. Hello! You could say the same thing for maybe a quarter of the rock bands out there. Going for an anthemic rock sound is not a unique identity for a rock musician. So if he was spoofing on the name, I could understand that. Of course, An The Mic, helps that theory out some, but that’s more of an in joke for fans.

This name will be the platform that the band uses to go forth in the world and make some serious rock waves, in a rock world that is full of anthemic music. (Think U2, for example). I don’t want David to be the source of mockery from that world. Therefore, I’m still wearing the hat that says ‘Punk’d’ or ‘We only told you half of the name’. Crossing my fingers, here.

I like ‘The Anthemic’  just fine.

Same here.

As oceana (I believe) noted, it’s not that we’re consciously being legalistic about band names and the King’s English. It’s more how it feels on first reading (for me, for you…) You know, the gut, the visceral, the flow; as Sunn noted, it’s discordant — as in, disagreeable to the ear, inharmonic . . . not musical. :-) At first…

But, it’s totally growing on me, and I predicted it wouldn’t… Heh.

Yet, as noted by so many, it is easily “mockable” and will be mocked.

And, what was it Shakespeare said, something about a rose? Oh yeah:

What’s in a name? That which we call a rose, By any other name would smell as sweet.

I think The Anthemic smells a whole lot like a cow pie of a name but ultimately it is about the support the label gives, the music and the fan response to them. Anthemic is better than The Midwest Kings, I’ll grant that.

About the name sounding pretentious… Tons of band names can be said to sound pretentious if you think about it enough. I mean point of fact I liked MWK because it was 3 letters which made it more interesting in my mind, but I’m kinda glad they didn’t choose yet another band name having to do with royalty because that is getting to be so overused. What is it about boys in rock bands and their obsession with being kings of things anyway? Heh.

Cook fancies himself a word nerd so maybe the band’s name should be Thesaurus. Anthemic does sound like a medical condition.

The name feels a bit odd because it isn’t a normal noun like what you would normally expect (like Joan Jett and the Blackhearts, Frankie Valli and The Four Seasons, Ian Dury and the Blockheads or Bruce Hornsby and the Range). It also doesn’t look quite right (and my thought when first saw it was “anaemic” as well), but the thing about this is that bands often have odd names (The Smashing Pumpkins, Infected Mushroom, The Teardrops Explodes, Wang Chung, Yeah Yeah Yeahs, The The, Them, Ozric Tentacles, etc.), so there is nothing unusual having a band name that’s a bit odd. I should just leave it for a while and see if I like it better once I have gotten used to the idea (in fact it doesn’t look as unappealing now as when I first saw it, warming up to it just a little). The last thing I would worry about is how other non-fans would see it.

I think it is essential that “David Cook” should be in the name of the band, at least for now. Cool band names – Nick Cave and The Bad Seeds, George Thorogood and the Destroyers, not sure if David Cook and The Anthemic would be quite in the same league though. Perhaps he can use Cook in the same way as Bla Fleck and The Flecktones or Patti Labelle and The Blue Belles. David Cook and the Cookistas anyone?

(Feeling slightly jealous that the “smelly fans” thread managed to garner over 1000 post, surely Cook fans can get worked up over this “anaemic” all-important issue of the band’s name to add a few hundred more posts? Or at least pretend to be outraged at the aspersions cast over the “fake” band or his fans’ vocabulary?)

“The major negative as I see it what others have addressed’“ the name is far too ‘mockable’  by Idol-hating reviewers. Any critic who doesn’t like a show, song, or album can (and will) taunt somthing like, ‘David Cook and The Anthemic?’  More like ‘David Cook and the Anemic!’  ” — noctem seizure

I was thinking the same exact thing. Not good to give them the ammunition … But, really, if they are Idol-hating reviewers, they will mock — name or no name. And I also agree, making Anthemic plural does make it sound silly. David Cook and the Anthemic sounds pretty cool. I think it suits him.

I was under the impression that Andy and Neal were temporary members of the band. I hope they stay together as a band, having played together well before AI.

I was listening to DCTR and Lie, my favorite, started playing. I am totally convinced that this song will be a HIT. The lyrics, the vocals — it all works.

(Feeling slightly jealous that the ‘smelly fans’  thread managed to garner over 1000 post, surely Cook fans can get worked up over this ‘anaemic’  all-important issue of the band’s name to add a few hundred more posts? Or at least pretend to be outraged at the aspersions cast over the ‘fake’  band or his fans’ vocabulary?)

Heh. I’ll try. OMG Cook’s band is the bestest band ever neil is a rock god i know plenty of big words i am educated you h8ter!!!!

Nope. Still don’t care. LOL.

Shoulda gone with Pandemic. PAN = Peek, Andy, Neil, with a M for Monty and a C for Cook at the end. Although DANK would’ve worked without Monty.

Staind, Mudvayne, Garbage, Skid Row… Dank would fit right in.

Ha Lovin it! Never a dull moment. Love it or Hate it but never ignored. Yeah David Cook and the Anthemic. Not bad. I have no hate towards it. I love that Andy is on Twitter posting videos. It makes it easier on DC. Not all the focus is on him.

But NO critic would ever say DC’s band is anemic cud they ROCK so hard! Hahaha /crazy fan voice. But in seriousness, props to the guys if they realize the name could invite mockery and chose it anyway because they don’t give a fuck. I mean, that’s rock, right? Haha. TBH presenting it as a possible name and asking some feedback is cool but I hope they don’t get too swayed by fans if it’s what they really want, cuz we haven’t sat with it for 2 months like they have and we’re not the ones who will be living with/living up to it. Fans.. Well let’s just say no name could satisfy everyone. I don’t feel like these guys are spineless people pleasers that bend to fans demands when it comes to their creativity, though, so it should be fine ;)..

Music Teacher: Now class, when you say each of the names above out loud, which one stands out as being the most awkward to pronounce?

Please be sure to recite the names out loud, not simply read the names.

Who has the correct answer?

I do! I believe the correct answer is Prince and the New Power Generation. It suffers from lack of brevity…. For serious. What?

Hey, if Cook and the boys were gonna draw inspiration from their collective song catalogue, I’m just happy they went with tunes I like, and it’s not, you know, David Cook and the Wind In His Hair.

Heh. I’ll try. OMG Cook’s band is the bestest band ever neil is a rock god i know plenty of big words i am educated you h8ter!!!!

Nope. Still don’t care. LOL.
–

LMAO. ZOMG, tinawina, never ever leave.

Seriously, it’s still all about David Cook. A known band name changes nothing at this point. When DJ’s spin LO and CBTM, they will say it’s from David Cook. No mention of band – whatever the name. And David has a concert tonight – nothing changed with regard to tour name, or banners, or tickets. And when David’s next single is dropped, it’ll go for adds as David Cook. Not David Cook and The Anthemic.

ETA: David Cook and the Windies. Hee. Just hee.

Sunchick, nice to see you, too. Bwah!

I was listening to DCTR and Lie, my favorite, started playing. I am totally convinced that this song will be a HIT. The lyrics, the vocals ‘” it all works.

I agree with you and it’s a sore subject for me. I always “wondered why” the first two singles released — after Time of My Life which obviously wasn’t written by Cook — were Light On and Come Back to Me — also not written by Cook or anyone in his band. (I have my theory.)

Meanwhile, perfectly wonderful songs — better than the two singles released –which *were* co-written by David and represent him and his band so much better are left to be discovered by those who buy his CD or go to the concerts.

On the radio or special TV performances, the casual listener gets none of what the band is really about. They get Light On or Come Back to Me! It’s so frustrating!

I’ve been a follower of mjs for a while and finally thought it was time for me to de-lurk to give my 2 cents on the band name. I don’t hate it but I don’t love it either. It just doesn’t feel right to me. I’m not sure why……perhaps (like many of you have already stated) it’s because Anthemic is an adjective and the name feels unfinished wthout a noun at the end.
David Cook and the Anthemic _________?
Over at DCO someone was inserting different words and I thought this sounded good……David Cook and the Anthemic Truth. I think it has a nice ring to it.
Whatever name they choose, I’m sure we’ll all get used to it over time. David and his band will continue to gain new fans if they continue to make great music, regardless of their name.

(I have my theory.)

Elaborate please? I love theories. ;)

On the radio or special TV performances, the casual listener gets none of what the band is really about. They get Light On or Come Back to Me! It’s so frustrating!

–
Yes, but David wrote Lie and the other songs with co-writers that were not in his band. Kiss on The Neck will not get radio adds and cannot be purchased separately from iTunes – and that was the song Dave and Neal Tiemann wrote together. So again, when David’s next single goes for radio adds, it will be with the recorded studio musicians and Neal Tiemann, who was the only current band member who was recorded on DCTR. So I’m not getting the distinction. Yes, David wrote the other songs – and it’s still DCTR that they are promoting.

ETA: And again with the theories about why Light On and CBTM? *eyeroll* I’m with noctem, I think Light On is a great anthemic rock song. It’s great how DC ends his concert with either Ligh On or A Daily AntheM.

And live CBTM sounds very different from when it was recorded back in the fall of 2008. So yeah, concert attendees get a much more rocked out version. The band’s reworking of Lie and IDIFY that they’d done on tour will not be evident to a radio listener’s ear, if either of thsoe are the next single, because the studio recorded (08) version will be on radio. Not the reworked band versions.

I just actually watched the video for the first time now and listening to him identify the category of “epic” as the goal for which they are shooting, it hit me that what would be even MORE pretentious would be the name “David Cook and The Epic”. But, it rolls off of the tongue so much easier!

So, put me down as voting for a moderate change to “David Cook and The Epic”. But, I’m sure some band out there has already taken “The Epic”, though….

But I think all his albums will continue to go under the name David Cook so it doesn’t matter.

I’m not sure about that. I would think that if the name change becomes official, the new name will be on all future releases from here on out.

I always ‘wondered why’  the first two singles released ‘” after Time of My Life which obviously wasn’t written by Cook ‘” were Light On and Come Back to Me ‘” also not written by Cook or anyone in his band. (I have my theory.)

Oh, I so feel your pain. Theory- hell, I’m pretty sure I have a ten page thesis on the topic lying around here somewhere. Annotated and everything. But que sera, sera, I suppose.

Feeling slightly jealous that the ‘smelly fans’  thread managed to garner over 1000 post, surely Cook fans can get worked up over this ‘anaemic’  all-important issue of the band’s name to add a few hundred more posts?

Maybe he should change it to David Cook and the Smelly Fans?

David Cook and the Windies.

David Cook and the Smelly Band?

‘David Cook and The Epic’ 

Oh, I like that one. Course, I also dig David Cook and the Fucking Epic Band of Mindblowing Anthemic Awesomeness, Huzzah…so maybe I’m not the best person to give you feedback, noctem.

(Feeling slightly jealous that the ‘smelly fans’  thread managed to garner over 1000 post, surely Cook fans can get worked up over this ‘anaemic’  all-important issue of the band’s name to add a few hundred more posts? Or at least pretend to be outraged at the aspersions cast over the ‘fake’  band or his fans’ vocabulary?)

Finally, a good reason to post! Whoot!!
OK RCA interns, mark me down in the “I don’t really care and I seriously doubt the name matters at all, but I am glad he got to pick something that he liked and that meant something to him instead of getting some manufactured name crammed down his throats by the suits” column. Thx

it’s not, you know, David Cook and the Wind In His Hair

David Cook and the Sensitives? I for one would pay real cash money to see the band play a gig with that name.

Speaking as an invested fan: not loving the name right now, but you know what? I’m sooooooooooooo relieved and happy that he’s FINALLY NAMING THE BAND! LOL. Having delved into David’s pre-Idol music catalogue and understanding the history he shares with Neal, Andy, and now Monty (I don’t mind if Monty sticks around. He’s not the livewire Joey was, but having seen him live – I think he’s really good for the band. The boys love him), I’ve been chewing my nails hoping that they’ll all formally be on board this crazy ride with David. In particular because:

His guitarist could play for any rock band in the world, and his drummer isn’t that far behind.

YES. And I’m skeered that once the world wakes up to that, someone might just “steal” Neal or Kyle (or Andy) away from him. It can still happen of course, but I just love it that Neal and Andy have his back to give him the right start at the postIdol “birth”. LOL, sorry if that came across as OTT, but I luuuuuuuurve this band. Why?

a. They’re great musicians in their own right. All of them write music.
b. 2 of them have outstanding vocals (there might even be 3, I’m dying to hear Neal sing a full song).
c. 3 of them have played with David looooooong before Idol
d. 2 of them know David well enough to knock him on his ass if he gets outa line (per David Cook LOL)
e. At least 2 of them play more than 1 instrument (3 if you count David), and finally:
f. All of them are guys that he hasn’t wanted to strangle in week 2 of the tour – massive understatement here, especially in view of the fact that they’ve shared a cramped bathroom on a bus for the better part of the year LOL.

For the amount of music these people collectively (more than 200 songs and counting) have given me this past year and a half, I’m willing to roll with any WTF! name (though I won’t complain if they drop it: go for irony or whimsy Dave. Works every time). Did I say that I’m thrilled they’ve all agreed to do this together – FORMALLY? Yay! *cartwheels*! Hee.

About the band name, while I agree with what noctem sez, my favourite bandnames tend to be ironic or whimsical or deeeeeeep (haha!), but it aint my band.

I’ll leave the branding and the grammatical issues to the experts.

David’s never mentioned smelly fans, though. He’s too diplomatic. [winky] Maybe David Cook and the Huggables? Hee. Since he’s always giving hugs.

Seriously, the man named his Scottish Terrier Dublin. WTF? Heh, talk about identity issues. Poor Dublin will need doggy therapy.

Yup, David Cook and the Epic. Me likey.

At the end of the day, though, I’m sure the fandom will come up with an acronym or nick name. It’ll be David Cook and the Anthies or some such cutesims. I’m just bracing myself for the homemade shirts. Heh. Just heh.

ETA: I saw Monty at Nokia and GMA. They sound fantastic. For all the concern of one band member leaving, Monty slid right in without missing a heart beat. But for the record, I hope Neal and Kyle stay with David. They are wickedly talented and the drumming is excellent. Even the Idol Chatter’s Pinella commented on Kyle’s drumming at the Sacramento concert as standout. So I hope they all stay.

I just reread my response to Haehzel and realized it could be read like I was snarking on her. That was not my intention, so I’m sorry! I’m just goofing around.

I do think the band name helps set an image and as such it is important, though not more important than the music. I don’t know what the name says about the band to the uninitiated. Pretentious? Will it be taken literally? Not too stressed though.

Maybe I’ll care more when/if it become official.

With that, I’m gonna go to bed now. Have fun y’all!

I always ‘wondered why’  the first two singles released ‘” after Time of My Life which obviously wasn’t written by Cook ‘” were Light On and Come Back to Me ‘” also not written by Cook or anyone in his band. (I have my theory.)

Me too – they’re a bunch of morons at RCA :guns_tb: Between how they showcased ADAM on AI multiple times and then and helped get him that songwriters publishing deal I’ve thought for a while the people at 19 had a tad more respect for his songwriting than RCA.

I haven’t read the rest of the comments, but– The… Anthemic?

I love you Dave, but… bwah!

About par for the course for a 26 year-old with a thesaurus fixation I suppose. (Yes, I know it’s not a word you’ll find in any thesaurus, because it’s not a real word, but that’s a whole *other* issue.)

Eh. I’d still love the music if they were Dave Cook and the Crickets, so bring it on boys. The music is what counts in the end.

ETA (reading backwards) daenarys:

I’ve been chewing my nails hoping that they’ll all formally be on board this crazy ride with David.

You know, that’s a good point, and apart from the lulz, I do agree. I want *this* configuration — Neal, Dave, Andy and Kyle — to stick together. They make awesome music together and I selfishly want them to keep doing it for a long time. It definitely matters if *they* like the name.

If so? I’m good.

“The band’s reworking of Lie and IDIFY that they’d done on tour will not be evident to a radio listener’s ear, if either of thsoe are the next single, because the studio recorded (08) version will be on radio. Not the reworked band versions.” — SashaB

Actually I love both, in concert and on DCTR. I, also, love Breathe Tonight, though I’m aware it won’t be a single being a Wal-mart bonus track. My son used it for the background music on my niece’s school project. A class full of 14 year-olds exposed to David Cook in one fell swoop. Permanent is very moving on the CD, but I love how the band reworked it. They rocked it out more, but still kept it quite moving, actually making it more intense.

I think with all names, band or otherwise, takes time to get use to them. Naming my kids was a project unto itself, going over baby names morning, noon and night. They’re not cursing me, other kids aren’t teasing them, so I think it turned out okay.

We shall soon see how it fares for The Anthemic.

Like a lot of things David Cook, the name is growing on me. Funny how that happens with him. It’s always like WTF?? And then, after listening/thinking/pondering it for a while, it’s like it dawns on you that it is actually cool. How does he always do that?

I for one hope that eventually they will go from David Cook and the Anthemic to just The Anthemic. Works for me.

Side question: Who is the woman (off-camera) that David was asking if it was OK if he shared the name? Is that the blond woman I see with him on occasion (she was in that video that Andy just posted of their trip to Iraq). Is she his publicist or what? (I’ve been wondering this for a while, ‘cuz I’ve seen her multiple times in various videos.)

^^

The blonde woman who is often with David is his manager Michelle ( who in turn works for Simon Fuller).

Side question: Who is the woman (off-camera) that David was asking if it was OK if he shared the name? Is that the blond woman I see with him on occasion (she was in that video that Andy just posted of their trip to Iraq). Is she his publicist or what? (I’ve been wondering this for a while, ‘cuz I’ve seen her multiple times in various videos.)

I believe she’s his manager — tour manager? I think her name is Michelle (or something with an “M.”) I know that Simon Fuller manages David, but obviously he isn’t hands-on on a daily basis, so this woman does that.

If someone knows different, jump in.

However, I must say, in the absence of Joey, Andy has really exerted himself and become much more active. I love that about him. Plus, I love his tweets. He’s becoming my new favorite! (I’m blushing a little here.)

Me too! I didn’t warm up to Andy before because he always stood there so passively and hardly seemed to move onstage, but lately he has come alive. I wonder if he was trying to hold back before and now has realized that he should give it his all and let us see his passion. Anyway, my friend loved him all along but I’ve just lately begun to notice how cute he is and it’s fun to watch him now.

Thanks for the info, Fergie and Sassycatz. I seem to know everything else DC but that bit of info was eluding me. :)

Agreed, however I was merely addressing the point that the instrumentalists of many bands can be replaced by those of similar ability since in most bands, the songs are all written by the lead singer. For DCatA to become a full band in every sense of the term, all of the members have to participate in songwriting. In addition, if Neal Tiemann were to establish a very recognizable guitar style and Andy Skib were to take some turns on lead vocals, that would help to solidify the band as a truly cohesive, non-interchangeable entity.

I don’t agree that all members have to help write songs in order to be a real band. Some are drummers, bassists, etc., and not songwriters. Of course they will contribute to the music, and probably some words, but it’s not a requirement. Any band that plays together and is committed to the band is, to me, a real band. I really don’t think it’s for the world to define what a real band is, it’s for the band members.

In David Cook’s case, Neal and Andy wrote songs for their band before David joined them. Neal and David at least have written together. On tour they are singing songs from Neal & Andy’s previous group, MWK. At any rate, they aren’t studio musicians provided by AI. They are band members with a history together. But like any band they are fluid. Members come and go, or go off and work on their own projects.

I have never thought so rigidly about bands. Eric Clapton, Neal Young, Bob Dylan, formed and reformed bands with various names. Dylan’s band at one point was just called The Band, which is a cool name really. Clapton played in several bands, Cream, Derek and the Dominos, Yardbirds, etc. Tom Petty went off and played with other bands at times (his band didn’t always like that).

I get what you’re saying about studio musicians but I think it’s clear that that isn’t the case with David Cook and his band. David knew Neal for six years before Idol. They have formed organically and weren’t assigned to each other by the label. Of course 19 didn’t allow them to do the first cd together, which was probably a good decision as it was so rushed, and I would say that the band has improved a lot just in the past few months and become much tighter. Like any band they are always evolving. I think Neal is developing his own sound and also he is playing more instrumentals at the show lately, which is cool.

This is good timing for the name as they move forward into their next phase together. It’s kind of weird thinking we already know this band, but now they can have a name. However, it makes it more tangible.

I do think David Cook and the Anthemic will grow on me pretty quickly. I also agree with Noctem’s theory that eventually the David Cook part will be dropped. The Anthemic, sounds good. I’d imagine if DC had his way The Anthemic would somehow stand out more than David Cook on the next CD. I’m not so sure 19 would allow that though.

I hope that now that this ‘announcement’ has been made, it will quickly become “official”.

This is the word it keeps reminding me of

anathema – 5 dictionary results
Use anathema in a Sentence
‘“noun, plural -mas. 1. a person or thing detested or loathed: That subject is anathema to him.
2. a person or thing accursed or consigned to damnation or destruction.
3. a formal ecclesiastical curse involving excommunication.
4. any imprecation of divine punishment.
5. a curse; execration.

——————————————————————————–

“Anathema” makes “anemic” look like a compliment. Arrr, I just don’t think it’s a good name. Of course it goes without saying that it’s the music that counts and we wouldn’t stop liking a band because of their name, but it’s still okay to express opinions on it, especially now before it’s written in stone. David put it out there as a probability, not as definite, and Andy invited opinions (is how I took it) so if it is a trial balloon, honesty is important at this time imo.

(the other word it reminds me of is “asthmatic.”)

Anyway, my friend loved him all along but I’ve just lately begun to notice how cute he is and it’s fun to watch him now.

oceana, my mother will be glad to hear that, lol. I’ve taken her to two shows with me and while she thinks David is awesome… she always ends up talking about that “cute brown haired boy” (Andy). I have a soft spot for Andy… back I think right after Idol when I first found my way to his To Have Heroes stuff I bought his EP and shot him a note on MySpace that I loved it — have a habit of doing that since I figure if I like it I might as well tell the artist, whether they read my note or not. Anyway, he wrote back, was really sweet… and I used him as an example to my brother who I was managing at the time of how to treat your fans. Hee! My brother learned quickly not to have family manage you… we’s mean ;)

I think I’m really starting to like The Anthemic. The “David Cook and…” sounds a little wordy (worthy?) but tolerable. But The Anthemic alone, I likey.

I don’t think Anthemic is that hard a word. It has a clear meaning. It is not hard to spell. Base word is anthem, one that David loves, ie A Daily Anthem. People complain about David touting himself as the “word nerd” but he’s shown his vocabulary is at least above average (forgive me, but some of the comments here support that hypotheis as I don’t see how it can be mixed up with other words).

While I did not immediately love it, I have no problem with that name for the band.

Haven’t had a chance to read the comments yet. At least it is much better than “David Cook and MWK”. I am relieved.

The ‘David Cook and’ ¦’  sounds a little wordy (worthy?) but tolerable.

So, that got me thinking about shortening it to DC and the Anthemic…and then *ding* just realized if you go with the A Daily AntheM capitalization thingy….DC and the AnthemiC….DC and AC, in which case, awww.

Annnd with that, I’m off to bed.

Okay, when I first read it, I thought it was supposed to be pronounced “Anthemike” and yeah I can’t remember who said it, but I saw the whole “And The Mic” too. And I thought David had just purposely made up this word. lol.

Anyways, I don’t really like it either, but The Anthemic is fine just as it is.

The name…this is tough because so many of us are invested in David, and to varying degrees, to the boys in the band. It will take a while to get used to any name, but what about:

David Cook and the Anthem

David Cook’s Anthem???

Cook is a little superstitious, and has a connection to A’s (I know it is because of both brothers) so I can see one of the reason he chose Anthemic.
Love Cook I don’t care what he names the band. It is all good.

I’m a little disappointed with this choice. I kinda think of them in my mind as David Cook and the Midwest Kings II. But I’m still a fan of this band all the way. Really want to see DC, Andy, Neal, Kyle stay together for a while (and Monty too, if he fits). If this name helps that then I’m all for it.

YES. And I’m skeered that once the world wakes up to that, someone might just ‘steal’  Neal or Kyle (or Andy) away from him. It can still happen of course, but I just love it that Neal and Andy have his back to give him the right start at the postIdol ‘birth’ .

I’m not that prone to hyperbole. I’m known around here as, for lack of a more precise one-word label, a fan of Cook. But, I’ve mentioned on more than one occasion that I consider his singing very-good-but-not-great, and I’ve also openly questioned the sales prospects for his second record.

Having established this premise, let me tell you that, for myself, I’m not exaggerating when I say Neal has motherfucking CHOPS. Kyle is outstanding as well, but I think he draws more praise from live reviewers because he is the only one who is showcased on every song (other than Cook, obviously).

Neal only gets a few showcases, though. And Andy gets none. I’m one of those who could see him sharing a bit of vocal duties with DC in the future, the way say Blink 182 splits up the responsibilities, only not trading off as much and as often as Travis and Mark do.

The bassist, whoever that is, also gets no showcase, incidentally. One thing I thought that would be interesting during the instrumental portion of Barbasol would be to incorporate kind of a round-the-world jam aspect, where each guy gets a spotlight. But, they didn’t ask me….

I’ve kind of gotten on a tangent here, but not completely, because this discussion is relevant to Cook being able to hang on to his incredibly talented ensemble. He’s got to keep them happy, and so one of the ways he’s been able to do that is to sell them on the idea that they will eventually evolve from a solo-act into a group-act, give them a voice in creative decisions, (and, I strongly suspect, pay them quite a bit better than an average touring band).

I think Neal is more into showcase his skill and coolness. He plays music from his brain not from his heart. IMO David, Kyle and Andy are more genuine than Neal.

It is really wordy, but Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers did okay. But then, I know what a heartbreaker is. What’s an anthemic?

At David’s concert tonight he announced the band name, and then he introduced each of the band members (he doesn’t always do that).

So I guess it’s becoming more official.

Did I say that I’m thrilled they’ve all agreed to do this together – FORMALLY? Yay! *cartwheels*! Hee.

Word. And I can’t wait to see the merch.

I like it, but it should not be called ‘David Cook and the Anthemic,’ that’s so stupid and cheesy. he should just call his band The Anthemic.

RemusL:

In most bands, you could replace everyone except the lead singer and the listening public wouldn’t know the difference.

Most ordinary bands maybe. And that’s true only for ordinary listeners, IMO.

You take Jimmy Page out, it’s not Led Zeppelin. You take Edge, Adam Clayton and Larry Mullen out it isn’t U2.

It may be that for people who listen only for melody or for certain singers the lead singer is the only one who matters. For people who listen to music that’s not the case.

DC’s band has moved way beyond what’s on his album and are making music as a band right now that is, in David’s words, a progression. They have a distinctive sound and need a name for that.

…David Cook and the Progression?

Yeah, never mind. This is harder than it looks.

gigglesmo3:

At David’s concert tonight he announced the band name, and then he introduced each of the band members (he doesn’t always do that).

That’s interesting — I wondered if he’d do that. It’s bothered me for a long time that he has rarely introduced the band members by name during this tour. I wonder if this is what he’s been waiting for — if some sort of pact for staying together (handshake or otherwise) came along with the name pick and the announcement.

Ugh. Shoot me now. The name is at once overly earnest and pretentious. It’s one thesaurus choice away from the band calling themselves epic. How lame. The name also condescends to his fans by acting like they need to be spoonfed the vibe of the music as opposed to just getting it; it’s about as subtle as a sign with flashing lights and arrows. I may be slow but I’m not that stupid.

Also, the name sounds like something that a not-so-smart person would think is fancy, which makes him sound kinda stupid. That aspect is almost as cringe-inducing as his infamous “word nerd” intro video from Top 20(?) night when they edited him saying his supposedly big! complicated! super smarty pants! high brow! words . . . that any semi-literate 9th grader would know.

Also, highly, highly mockable. And gives the band no opportunity to underpromise and overdeliver. Just terrible.

That said, I still can’t wait for their concert here on Sept. 8th! Whooo Cook and Band!

Hmmm . . . I’m gonna tweet this to Andy.

Mmmmmm – after a night’s sleep, I’ve kind of adjusted to the name, but agree with those who prefer it just as The Anthemic. And again, ITA that it will be the music that matters, not the name, so long as album 2 is good.

Just wanted to also ITA with those who don’t love the single choices from DCTR mark one. Light On is OK as a song and it’s done pretty well, even if it has got there slowly.

Come Back To Me is the only song that I don’t like on the entire album: it’s got no core strength to it at all. It’s kind of wimpy and I can see no lyrical connection to any other song that Cook has written. Most of his abandoned/ended love songs have an edge to them. Souvenir seems to me to be far more refelective of the typical stance than CBTM (I wish that has been on the record instead. Even The Truth, which starts out kind of purist has a twist that turns the perspective around and makes the song interesting.

The interesting thing about DCTR, to me, is that it is such a solid record, for something put together in such a rush, as all post idol albums are. I really, genuinely like a lot of the songs, especially Kiss On The Neck, My Last Request, Breathe Tonight (all the ‘hard to get’ ones) Permenant, A Daily Anthem, Mr Sensitive (which has grown on me) and Heroes (which is just upbeat and fun). I like the three middle ballads (Lie, Avalanche and I Did It For You) but think that they all just go on a bit too long, without progressing or twisting the message and because of that, become a bit monotone.

The problem, IMO, is not that DCTR is not a good record, but that it doesn’t have that one stand out track that will make a hit single. The one where the music hooks you straight away when you hear it and makes you want to buy the album. The songs are all good, I like them, but none of them are outstanding in that way…

I’m hoping that DCTR (and The Anthemic) mark 2 manage to get that trademark song, but I’ll carry on loving their stuff regardless.

(PS – sorry if I’m being a bit rambly: one of the main reasons I lurk rather than post. I’d never manage on Twitter!)

LOL at all the complaints about grammar/spelling issues’ ¦ Since when has being a word or grammatically correct been a prerequisite for band names?

It’s not that his name needs to be grammatically correct but since one DC fan mentioned that DC was proving himself to be a word nerd with this name, then I would have to beg to disagree. Being a word nerd isn’t just about knowing some words, it’s also knowing the proper meaning and proper usage. Therefore, to me, he is doing a lot of things with this name, but proving himself a true word nerd is not one of them.

Sorry for thread spamming but it’s late and hopefully no one will care.

sunchick:

DC and the AnthemiC’ ¦.DC and AC, in which case, awww.

Aww is right and so is the fact that it fits with A Daily AntheM. I’m still not sold, but for this sadly, entirely sentimental reason, I don’t mind as much.

Besides, DC owes AC something for that tremendous twitter face dunk the other day. Remember Omaha? *ouch* Poor AC.

The name is at once overly earnest and pretentious. It’s one thesaurus choice away from the band calling themselves epic. How lame.

THIS. Chris Daughtry naming his band DAUGHTRY (and having it tattooed across his back) seems more kickass than this stupidity.

Oh Tina, no worry, I didn’t take your post as anything but just a bit of fun, I’m still disappointed though by the anaemic effort of David Cook’s fan to raise a storm over this. Can’t squeak past 250 posts? That’s sad.

Therefore, to me, he is doing a lot of things with this name, but proving himself a true word nerd is not one of them.

As a fellow wordnerd I must protest at this attempt to slight David Cook’s wordnerdiness. Anthemic is a word –

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anthemic

‘” an ·the ·mic \ËŒan(t)-ˈthÄ“-mik, -ˈthe-\ adjective

If Merriam-Webster lists it as a word, then it is a word. I’m shocked that anyone would take the word of a web dictionary written by ordinary unqualified folks over the wisdom and judgement of the mighty MW. And there is nothing wrong with turning an adjective into a noun, that’s just show some creativity. We celebrate the munificent effulgence emanating from your Brobdingnagian cranial cavity that illuminate the crepuscular recesses of the minds of ignoramuses, David, and worship the majestic sublimity that is your wordnerdiness. We bow to your boundless anthemicity.
(Doing my best to work myself up into a lather here.)

As a fellow wordnerd I must protest at this attempt to slight David Cook’s wordnerdiness. Anthemic is a word –

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anthemic

‘” an ·the ·mic \ËŒan(t)-ˈthÄ“-mik, -ˈthe-\ adjective

If Merriam-Webster lists it as a word, then it is a word.

Just saying, irregardless is also listed as a word, but a bad one and one that really shouldn’t be used. Though anthemic is certainly a better word than that, I’ll totally grant you. I thought the question was using “the,” before it. More importantly and keeping it on point, using “the,” before Anthemic as part of the band name, does make it clunkier sounding to me. I didn’t even notice that part the first time I read about this, but upon seeing it, I’m even less of a fan of the name.

Still think it doesn’t matter in the larger scheme of things.

Anthemic isn’t too bad.

I’ve decided I just hate the word itself. I could get on board with “Anthem” (with no ‘the’)- that’s a band name. But “Anthemic” is just not a good word.

I thought the question was using ‘the,’  before it.

Using “the” with an adjective is a time-honoured practice. For example, the Clint Eastwood film The Good, The Bad And The Ugly, countless movie theatres named The Majestic (it would be The Majestic Theatre in full, but the point is that the “theatre” bit can be dropped), nothing unusual about that. Using Anthemic on its own would sound really strange. David Cook and Anthemic? Now that would be weird, although bands can use very funny name to catch people’s attention. David Cook and The Anthem? Now that would sound like a David Cook song, not a band.

Re the band name – if it’s David’s dream and what David and the band aspire to be, why not? I think the name is earnest, but not pretentious. (I think it’s more pretentious adopting your name for a band name, because then what now happens to the other members of the band? But YMMV.)

David wears his heart on his sleeve, so I see why he chose a name that shouts to the world what he wants to be known for. It’s actually a pretty courageous thing to do. I don’t love the band name yet, but I’m starting to like it.

And, has anyone commented on MJ’s screencap? It’s YummyDave!

I thought the question was using ‘the,’  before it.

Using ‘the’  with an adjective is a time-honoured practice. For example, the Clint Eastwood film The Good, The Bad And The Ugly, countless movie theatres named The Majestic (it would be The Majestic Theatre in full, but the point is that the ‘theatre’  bit can be dropped), nothing unusual about that. Using Anthemic on its own would sound really strange. David Cook and Anthemic? Now that would be weird, although bands can use very funny name to catch people’s attention. David Cook and The Anthem? Now that would sound like a David Cook song, not a band.

I don’t know, I haven’t really been paying attention to the whole discussion about whether it’s a word or not. I was just going by what I thought I remembered from scrolling through the pages. Mostly because I don’t care.

I still think it’s just a bad name. It’s obvious in it’s imagery and clunky sounding overall, but especially with that “the,” before it. Which I agree, it needs the “the,” to make sense, but it certainly doesn’t help it’s meter.

Although I’m pretty much of one mind with Keel, as it now appears to be official, I will defer to this wisdom from sma11ie:

But in seriousness, props to the guys if they realize the name could invite mockery and chose it anyway because they don’t give a fuck. I mean, that’s rock, right?

Nonetheless, I must add that, if they were going to pick a semi-obscure, commonly-mispronounced word (that sounds faintly like a medical condition) for their band’s name, I personally would have preferred the infinitely more controversial David Cook and The Angina. Now, there’s a name that could elicit some eyebrow raising! :)

As a fellow wordnerd I must protest at this attempt to slight David Cook’s wordnerdiness. Anthemic is a word –

Umm, I never said it wasn’t a word :/ As I said, being a “true” word nerd isn’t just about knowing all the ~big~ words in the dictionary, it’s about knowing how to use them properly.

It doesn’t roll off the tongue.

As much as I love DC’s music, this name totally blows. WTF is he thinking?

At David’s concert tonight he announced the band name, and then he introduced each of the band members (he doesn’t always do that).

Ohhh, now that’s interesting. Does this mean Monty is sticking around? :jittery_tb: Joey was fun and I was sad to see him go, but I have been kinda secretly pulling for Monty, he who was pining for Scandeliers, to join the band permanently. Another person who was around for Analog Heart and the super sekrit mystery album involved in the creative process as The AnthemiC (memo to Dave: if the name is gonna stick, I’m running with the capitalization of the C) moves forward can not be a bad thing, if it works out that way.

Umm, I never said it wasn’t a word :/ As I said, being a ‘true’  word nerd isn’t just about knowing all the ~big~ words in the dictionary, it’s about knowing how to use them properly.

Aha! And I said there is nothing wrong or unusual with using an adjective as a noun. Plenty of good nouns comes from adjectives. People have done it all through history, that it annoys the linguistically tight-assed pedants would be one more reason to do it. It’s creative, and we like the creative, it’s how the English language gets as rich as it is. All true wordnerds know that.

How are we doing on the controversy front?

On the other perhaps not-so-controversial subject – does anyone knows if David Cook is holding any audition for another bass player to replace Joey? Monty seems quite competent and has no problem fitting in with rest of the band, but he looks somewhat out of place age-wise, and doesn’t quite fit the image of an up-and-coming new rock band. (Ah, an ageist statement, perhaps it might be controversial after all.)

DC and the AnthemiC’ ¦.DC and AC, in which case, awww.

Too bad AC/DC’s already taken, but DC/AC isn’t. Heh.

If David’s announcing the name on stage like it’s a done deal, then why bother asking his fans what we think? Shrug. (I guess they were just being polite.;-)

****

As for Monty’s permanence, I thought DC had “borrowed” him from Phil Marshall, another musician friend of David’s who Monty works with. There may be primary obligations there. Besides that, Monty, being a little older might have family ties that would make him less eager to spend so much time on the road for very long. Granted, DC’s gonna have to slow down for a moment or two to make more music.

****

Elaborate please? I love theories. ;)

Okay, my theory on why Light On and Come Back to Me were the first singles out — for which I was totally lambasted on a fan web site:

Well, music is a business. It’s not just about a group of sympatico people who work with you out of art and brotherly love and the goodness of their hearts. So, I think Cornell and whoever wrote CBtM were promised that their songs would be the first singles out as part of their participation. When I mentioned this theory — and its only my uninformed theory — elsewhere, people accused me of saying that RCA had to “bribe them” to work on the album and that just wasn’t the case! Really? Bribe? It’s not a bribe to pay someone for their work and payment can come in all kinds of packages, especially in the entertainment business, where movie stars get producer credits and people get their names on work for all kinds of reasons. Then, those arguing with me asked, “what about DC’s co-writers for his other songs?” And I said yes, they are *co-writers* and so those songs are DC’s songs. Less input, less advantage.

This might be all bumpkus, but I don’t think it’s an outrage! (I guess I’m still smarting from this debate after all this time.)

Aha! And I said there is nothing wrong or unusual with using an adjective as a noun. Plenty of good nouns comes from adjectives. People have done it all through history, that it annoys the linguistically tight-assed pedants would be one more reason to do it. It’s creative, and we like the creative, it’s how the English language gets as rich as it is. All true wordnerds know that.

Yes, there is such a thing as artistic license, but it only works if what you are creating is indeed poetry or art. There is nothing poetic or artistic with calling your band “The Anthemic” – to me, it’s just bad and poor choice of words. Any true word nerd would know how to name their band better. But, YMMV. My apologies if I am not impressed with DC’s word skills as much as you are :)

I lurk that “fan board” thread, and I don’t remember anyone talking about bribes.

Zac Maloy and Espionage wrote CBTM. They co-wrote LOTM and Lie as well. How much less advantage do they possibly have because they split the credit among four people instead of three? They would have still gotten royalties from either one of those songs. And since a lot of people seem to think that Lie would be a bigger hit, wouldn’t it have been to their advantage to push for that one? Better to have 1/4 the credit of a monster song than 1/3 the credit of a moderate one.

I don’t necessarily agree with the choices for the leadoff singles, although I don’t mind LO, but I don’t think there’s anything more there than the label trying to pick up the BJ fans with the first and the ABMB fans with the second.

On an unrelated note, I’m amused at the word association games around here. An adjective that comes from a Greek root word reminds people of other adjectives that come from Greek root words! I could just as easily say that it reminds me of aesthetic, emphatic, or elegiac.

I’m kind of meh about the name, but Cook IS a pretty literal guy. They may as well let people know that up front.

I am not sure David had all the dictionary definitions in mind, when he choose the name.

The fact that he has used that expression, before in interviews, could indicate that is one of the words he use and where is has his own interpretation of its meaning.

I lurk that ‘fan board’  thread, and I don’t remember anyone talking about bribes.

It was directed straight at me, so I remember the word. Funny thing was, I was just innocently throwing my thoughts out there, not saying THIS IS THE TRUTH, and was absolutely gobsmacked to be so ganged up on. Made me less eager to participate there again.

It just really bothers me that not one of the songs DC is known for with the casual public was either written by him or represents who he is at all. Not Time of My Life, not Light On, and not Come Back to Me. It’s utterly ridiculous!

In any event, I have always hated the term “grow the economy.” That sounds like poor grammar to me.

I love David Cook and I hate that he’s considering (or did) name his band The Anthemic. It sounds like Anemic and I don’t think any performer would like their work to be called anemic.

The fact that he use that expression, before in interviews, could indicate that is one of the words he use and where is has his own interpretation of its meaning.

Sort of like brevity.

It’s creative, and we like the creative, it’s how the English language gets as rich as it is. All true wordnerds know that.

Absolutely. Some of my favorite authors like to use that kind of creative license a lot, using words in an unusual sense, etc. I loved the Shakespeare quote someone used above. Also, DC is naming a band, not a Pulitzer Prize winning book. Using an adjective as a noun is really common in colloquial speak. I like that it’s not plural– sounds more unique that way.

Monty seems quite competent and has no problem fitting in with rest of the band, but he looks somewhat out of place age-wise, and doesn’t quite fit the image of an up-and-coming new rock band. (Ah, an ageist statement, perhaps it might be controversial after all.)

I think he’s quite competent as well, but the (paraphrased) reaction of a few casual DC fans who saw David Cook and the Anthemic (heh) recently, either at a concert or on GMA, “David Cook’s band is pretty cool, but what’s with the random old guy playing the bass?” So… yeah, it may be ageism, but I don’t think Monty fits visually and that could be a problem if he stays on, I dunno. YMMV.

In any event, I have always hated the term ‘grow the economy.’  That sounds like poor grammar to me.

Heh. Me too. The corn grows. You do not grow corn. (Yes, I know people do, but it just sounds awkward.)

I don’t mind this particular grammatical construction though. Didn’t mind Mos Def naming his album “The Ecstatic” either.

Anyway, after some of the fan boards I’ve seen (which are in no way connected to Idols), I’m beyond being gobsmacked by anything. Which is why I usually lurk. :confused_wp:

All of those concerns about not hitting 250 posts in this thread have been put to rest, heh.

As an initial matter:

tinawina Aug 23rd, 2009 at 6:11 pm

As a huge Cook fan, somehow I do not care about this. At all. LOL. Am I the only one?

Nope. Not the only one. It isn’t one that I would have selected, but it does seem consistent with DC and the guys in the band, so whatever. Most people outside of the Cook/Idol fandom world won’t care about the name.

Second, I do think that there is a perception of this band as a “real” band, because of the past association with Andy and Neal, Neal playing on the record, and the quality of the musicianship. I do think that they will continue to do more to establish that concept—creating more instrumental solos (such as in IDIFY and IJDIYAT), having the band members participate in the crafting of the next CD, etc. However, I disagree that there is any need to have DC share lead singing duties with Andy (or anyone else). To be sure, there are a few bands that share lead singing duties, but most bands do not, particularly early in their life cycles. And then you have the fact that Andy has a very distinctive voice that, while some people really like it, plenty of us don’t. I, for one, am fine with Andy as a blending/harmonizing voice, but I don’t like it as a lead voice, and that is why I don’t listen to the MWK songs that I bought.

Finally, please put me down in the camp that believes that rejects the concept that RCA selected CBTM for anything other than a good faith belief that it was the song most likely to be a success and to continue to sell the record. Some who do not like the song have suggested that RCA promised that CBTM would be the second single off of the record—regardless of whether, at that time, it looked like the song that radio would be most likely to play. I see no reason to believe that RCA would purposefully injure the prospects of someone who looked likely to be and in fact turned out to be one of its top sellers of the year with such a promise. Simple fact is, if you look around the internet, every song, whether it be CBTM, LO, IDIFY, or even Mr. Sensitive, has been advocated by someone as the best possible single off of DCTR. And every song has its detractors, as well. Now, CBTM is not the single that I would have selected. [That would be Lie, co-written by the same folks as CBTM, including DC's good friend Zac Maloy.] And I’m not saying that RCA could not have made a mistake—labels aren’t perfect, or all albums and singles would go multi-platinum. But I’ve seen no proof to support the claim that RCA was not trying in good faith to maximize DC’s sales and radio airplay when it chose CBTM.

Any true word nerd would know how to name their band better. But, YMMV. My apologies if I am not impressed with DC’s word skills as much as you are :)

What is a “true wordnerd”? Can you define that? What does M-W say? Hee.

I find it interesting when fans have these high expectations of DC’s eloquence and vocabulary just because he self-deprecatingly (sorry, that was awkward phrasing) called himself “kind of a wordnerd” in a pre-performance video package. He called himself a “wordnerd” basically to make fun of himself for liking word puzzles and crosswords, liking words, and being a “geek for vocab”. I can love Sudoku and number games or be a “geek for brainteasers” because I love doing them, but that doesn’t necessarily mean I am great at them. I have a friend who loves meterology and weather-related things. She has this hilarious weather map shower curtain, and likes to buy cute weather-related items like that to put in her place. She calls herself a “weather-nerd” cuz she geeks out everytime she sees or hears some weather-related things… but in truth she doesn’t know all that much about meteorology beyond naming clouds and some high-pressure low-pressure terms or whatever. I mean, at the end of the day, this is just in good fun and she’s not an expert. Nor did she claim to be.

Anyway, my point is, DC called himself a wordnerd because he likes words, likes word games; he never claimed to know a lot of words or even be that great at solving crosswords. He never called himself a walking dictionary so it’s weird to me when people hold him to a higher standard. I’m not “impressed with his word skills”, but I do think it’s adorable that he likes words, and at least tries to spell, write properly in his blogs, which is more than I can say for a LOT of other artists. I do, too- like words, and try to spell and write properly, that is.

All that said, I think it’s fair that people don’t like the band name cuz they think it sounds awkward, or does not roll off their tongue. I think it sounds fine (not great, but fine), but that’s pretty subjective.

Aaww, don’t diss Monty. He stepped up to the plate right when they needed him and seamlessly fit their sound. He also did some of the bass work on Analog Heart back in 2006, so David’s known him for a while. He may be a little salty but his smile lights up the room.

They’re not just The Anthemic. The Hot, The Sweet, The Pretty, The Sexy, and The Wicked LOL. Their musicianship gets to me everytime *coughs*.

I think he’s quite competent as well, but the (paraphrased) reaction of a few casual DC fans who saw David Cook and the Anthemic (heh) recently, either at a concert or on GMA, ‘David Cook’s band is pretty cool, but what’s with the random old guy playing the bass?’  So’ ¦ yeah, it may be ageism, but I don’t think Monty fits visually and that could be a problem if he stays on, I dunno. YMMV.

When I first saw Monty, I jokingly said to myself, maybe David’s trying to find a date for his older fans. You know, Monty, meet the ladies; ladies meet Monty. And, believe me, this is totally self-deprecating on my part.

It just really bothers me that not one of the songs DC is known for with the casual public was either written by him or represents who he is at all. Not Time of My Life, not Light On, and not Come Back to Me.

I agree, it also bothers me that none of David’s singles were written by him, but I would disagree that Light On or Come Back to Me do not represent who he is. Just because he didn’t write it doesn’t mean it can’t represent him. I wasn’t a huge fan of Light On when I first heard it, but that was just because of how over-produced the recording is. I prefer the acoustic versions much more. I was always a fan of Come Back to Me, but I never wanted it to be a single because I think there are much better songs on the album. I consider DC versatile & eclectic, as well as his album, so I don’t think one song can represent all that he is, but only one of his many layers.

As for the band name, I neither love it nor hate it. I was excited for its announcement because I like the band as a whole and they deserve to be recognized for their wonderful talents, and not be considered just an accompanying band.

I think Monty’s really cute and sweet, and I’d love it if he stayed. David does have older fans too. :)

David did call himself a word nerd on Idol, in a humble kind of way, half-apologizing for liking to work crossword puzzles and word games, and Simon put him down for it, saying the fans wouldn’t like him for it, but how wrong he was. We love David’s wordnerd side.

He has a fascination with words and he writes interesting and thoughtful lyrics, just listen to his solo cd, Analog Heart, to hear some of them (if you can get a copy). It doesn’t mean that he has a huge vocabulary and he never claimed that he did. He experiments with using new words and sometimes he uses them wrong, nobody denies it, least of all his fans, but we love him with his idiosyncracies.

I don’t see how calling himself a “nerd” is boastful. Sometimes he does set himself up for ridicule when he says he wants to make “important” music and that’s a habit he should curb imo, but nobody’s perfect. He seems to be a mixture of humble and confident, rather intriguing to many.

I agree about the singles the label has put out so far, and I submit that David Cook’s real abilities are yet to be shown to the world, but all in good time. I would just like some of his own songs that he wrote to be put out there. And it’s past time for a new single. It’s been almost a year since Light On premiered last September, and there have only been 2 singles, and all the justification in the world won’t change my feelings that he should be on his 3rd single by now.

The Hot, The Sweet, The Pretty, The Sexy, and The Wicked LOL.

Whoa, that band pic is awesome!! Someone tweet it to guys!

Aww, I’m not dissing Monty. He seems great. But I stand by the comment that he does stand out as a random old guy in the band haha. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. Just depends what The Anthemic were going for, image wise. Paolo Nutini’s band is called the Vipers, and he has this random old guy with white hair and this curled mustache playing the harmonica. The rest of the Vipers is young. The old guy is quite endearing, actually.

Btw, the Vipers play on, and are credited on Paolo’s current album (Sunny Side Up), but the CD cover just says “Paolo Nutini”, no “Paolo Nutini and the Vipers”. I dunno, this may be the case for DC’s second album? On the other hand, it could be like Ryan Adams’ albums with The Cardinals, where it’s clearly billed as “Ryan Adams & The Cardinals”. Who knows. Just thinking aloud :).

I like The Anthemic, but some have said it sounds to much like anemic. Now I kinda like that for a band name.

Welcome to the stage, Anemic! I don’t know, I guess it’s hard to come up with something different and original. My brother was in a band before called “Rubber band” I really kidded him about that.

So to me, The Anthemic, not so bad.

I always thought the reasoning behind LO being the first single was pretty simple. Chris Cornell pitched the song to RCA, RCA grabbed it thinking not only might CC’s name help get DC some ‘cred’ but it would also make for an interesting hook story wise considering the history between DC & CC with Billie Jean. I’ve actually come to appreciate LO in a way. I still think it was the wrong first single but the boy sings the shit out of it. When he sang it on Jimmy Kimmell I remember a friend of mine who wasn’t all that familiar since she never watched Idol seeing that and calling me saying ‘WOW he can SING” and she bought the CD that week.

Aww yeah I like Monty too. He does stick out a little but more than anything they found a good bass player who managed to fit in so last minute. Plus I keep him tons of credit for jumping in on the Twitter thing. I figured Andy, and possibly Monty got on there to sort of help ease DC into it a little. Not sure if he’s sticking around but FWIW the meet & greets he’s been doing he includes all the band members even when it comes to taking pics with the fans but Monty hasn’t been included. That could be for a number of reasons though I suppose.

Not sure if he’s sticking around but FWIW the meet & greets he’s been doing he includes all the band members even when it comes to taking pics with the fans but Monty hasn’t been included.

Really? Ver-ry interesting. Hm. Especially since I saw pics of Monty at the Hard Rock signing. When is Monty’s 6 weeks up, btw?

I think he’s quite competent as well, but the (paraphrased) reaction of a few casual DC fans who saw David Cook and the Anthemic (heh) recently, either at a concert or on GMA, ‘David Cook’s band is pretty cool, but what’s with the random old guy playing the bass?’  So’ ¦ yeah, it may be ageism, but I don’t think Monty fits visually and that could be a problem if he stays on, I dunno. YMMV.

^^
Random old guy? For realz? Wow. So the fact that he’s talented and worked with David means nothing. But I guess some people are looking for a boy band with eye candy? Okay then. Let’s just throw him out and see what new pretty they can find. And people worry about cred. I’m sure David and his band will not consider “pretty” when they audition a permanent bassist. LMAO.

Frankly, I’m sure some people who saw the former bass guitarist wondered WTF with the jumping kangaroo kicks and the purple hair?

What is a ‘true wordnerd’ ? Can you define that? What does M-W say? Hee.

It’s not David Cook, I can tell you that much :) By my own definition at least, you are free to your own.

I find it interesting when fans have these high expectations of DC’s eloquence and vocabulary just because he self-deprecatingly (sorry, that was awkward phrasing) called himself ‘kind of a wordnerd’  in a pre-performance video package.

I don’t believe it was quite so self-deprecating, but again, YMMV.

Love DC, not loving the name. It doesn’t roll off the tongue and is, too quote Simon, a little “worthy.” Is it official? Maybe after getting some feedback they will reconsider. The band is great, but I kind of wish it could just stay “David Cook.”

Why not just David Cook and The Midwest Kings? Or is that not a popular idea with fans—I don’t really know, haven’t been following DC as closely lately.

Really? Ver-ry interesting. Hm. Especially since I saw pics of Monty at the Hard Rock signing. When is Monty’s 6 weeks up, btw?

I believe I heard that Monty will be with them until the end of this tour (or year). No sense in trying to — yet again — get another bass player up to speed for only a few weeks before they take a break.

Why would David Cook pick another name’s band as his new band’s name? It’s a new frontier. David’s said over and over that he’s about progression. Why go back to a band name that he was in pre-Idol? Besides, he already has 2 former MWK bandmates in his current band.

And frankly, David’s mad talented drummer is from LA. Not sure many Angelinos want to be considered a midwesterner. Heh.

David Cook and The Anthemic is DC Dreaming Big. Watching the video of the unveiling of the band name, it’s unmistakable that David is proud of the name. I think he feels the name best represents him and the direction his band is headed. His excitement is palpable. Who’s to deny him his vision and mission? I admit, I found the name strange at first, but hearing David say it out loud – it’s growing on me. :)

It’s not David Cook, I can tell you that much :) By my own definition at least, you are free to your own.

Defining a “word” (okay, “wordnerd” is not a word but we are taking creative license, here, haha), by describing what it is not, rather than what it is… well that’s not very word-nerdy of you :). Yes, of course we’re all free to our own interpretations of what a “wordnerd” is, since it’s a made-up term. I was just curious what you thought, and gave you my definition, but I guess I’m not getting a real answer. Oh well.

About whether or not DC was being self-deprecating in the wordnerd clip… that’s subjective, I guess, but it’s pretty clear to me– he cracks up at himself right when he first says it, then has his dorky face on when he says, “geek for vocab”. Heh, can you tell I’ve watched it a few times? I always felt that earlier on in the competition (when the clip took place) DC seemed looser, and dorkier (i.e. more himself), which is the way I think he was to his fellow cast mates, but after the Simon smack-down, and the pressure of making Top12, etc., he got more serious, at least on camera. There was this early Top24 interview where he was with Brooke, and he called himself some entry-level renaissance man or something? And he was good at eating and sleeping? Anyway, he was a dork.

Random old guy? For realz? Wow. So the fact that he’s talented and worked with David means nothing. But I guess some people are looking for a boy band with eye candy?

Haha yes and no, I guess. I can’t really speak for a nebulous term like “some people”, but I was just citing anecdotal samplings of some real world reactions. Most casual fans or concert goers seeing a DC show for the first time won’t know or care that Monty has worked with David, and as for being talented, well no one said he wasn’t, or that it doesn’t count. But yes, casual reactions can often be a little mean. Just tellin’ it like it is. I don’t think people expect eye candy, cuz most current bands I follow don’t have more than a couple cuties, but the bandmates tend to be of a similar age. I dunno, personally, if Monty is staying, it could turn out to be kinda neat that The Anthemic has a “random old guy” (aww, the term can be affectionate, no?). It could make the band more interesting. Who knows. I am having lots of fun asstalking today ;)

I always thought the reasoning behind LO being the first single was pretty simple. Chris Cornell pitched the song to RCA

Actually I listened to an interview with Chris Cornell last fall where he said RCA came to him looking for a song to give to DC. He had Light On which he didn’t have any plans for at the moment because the solo cd he was wokring on was going for a different sound. So I think no matter what song CC gave RCA for DC, RCA had every intention of using at as DC’s first single. But that’s just my theory.

Do we know how you pronounce it? “Anth-em-ic” or “Anth-eem-ic?”

“Antheemic” seems easier to pronounce and more mellifluous sort of, but it also sounds more like a medical condition, as somebody mentioned above.

Actually, I generally like weird band names. But I think it could be a bit of a problem if somebody looks at it and doesn’t know how to say it.

I caught Monty in one of his early gigs with The Anthemic (heh, it’s growing on me!), and he did kind of stick out as An Old Guy (and, for the record, I’m An Old Gal), but I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing. The fact that David, Andy and Neal trust the guy, and they’ve worked together in the past, is a big plus in my mind. He seems to fit right in too.

Whatever the final decision with regard to Monty, I hope it’s based on what works best for all of them musically and personally and not whether or not he “looks” the part. “Casting” the bass player is just wrong in every way, IMHO.

Defining a ‘word’  (okay, ‘wordnerd’  is not a word but we are taking creative license, here, haha), by describing what it is not, rather than what it is’ ¦ well that’s not very word-nerdy of you :)

Well, that’s okay since I never claimed to be a word nerd :) And I don’t have lots of fans who crown me as a word nerd just coz I use ~big~ words.

And if you want my definition of what it is then for me – it’s someone who knows words very well. Ergo, not David Cook. Again, you may have your own definition of it and that’s fine too. To each his/her own.

it’s someone who knows words very well.

Just dropping in to note how odd that sounds.

Sort of sounds like: “Well, sir, I know words very well, while you just met them yesterday.” ;-)

I hope it’s based on what works best for all of them musically and personally and not whether or not he ‘looks’  the part. ‘Casting’  the bass player is just wrong in every way, IMHO.
–

Seriously.

And who knew being 38 was considered old. Monty better get his AARP card, soon.

And I don’t have lots of fans who crown me as a word nerd just coz I use ~big~ words.

I’m confused, are we talking about David Cook or are we talking his fans, now? (The latter is off-topic, IIRC.) So he’s being penalized because supposedly, his fans crowned him something, or something?

Omg, I’m such a post-ho today, but I just thought of a possible reason why I had such a non-reaction to The Anthemic. I recently started listening to these two new bands that I discovered from music festivals, The Gaslight Anthem and The Low Anthem, AND I recently downloaded some music by The Almost… so I guess The Anthemic wasn’t a very jarring name announcement for me because my brain was already filled with these anthem-related, adjective as noun band names! Okay, sorry, this stream-of-conscious revelation probably doesn’t make much sense to anyone but I felt I had to share :).

ETA: wereallinnocent, LMAO ;)

Just dropping in to note how odd that sounds.

Sort of sounds like: ‘Well, sir, I know words very well, while you just met them yesterday.’  ;-)

Ok noted :) I’m sure you can phrase it better, good for you.

I’m confused, are we talking about David Cook or are we talking his fans, now? (The latter is off-topic, IIRC.) So he’s being penalized because supposedly, his fans crowned him something, or something?

Umm if you would track back to where the conversation started, I was just disagreeing with someone who said David Cook is proving himself to be a true word nerd with naming the band The Anthemic. I’m not penalizing him for anything his fans did, I’m just saying that for me, he is not a true word nerd – and certainly naming your band The Anthemic is not a good exhibition of being good with words. Since when is that penalizing? LOL. So yeah, in my opinion, by my own definition, it’s just what I think and I am in no way imposing it as the absolute truth, he is not a true word nerd.

Bootstar, you summed up my thoughts re: Random Old Dude pretty well. I get that Monty is older, and how that might be a negative. I will even admit to occasionally calling him Uncle Monty in my head. I haven’t had the chance to see Monty live with The AnthemiC to determine first hand if the age difference is really that jarring in a concert setting. (Speaking of, if they play another Florida gig, they can call themselves David Cook and the Unfortunate Hair Brevity and I will still be there with bells on, dammit. Come back to Florida, boys….) But to be honest, in the grand scheme of things, I don’t much give a crap about the aesthetics or appearances or whatever. The fact that he shares all this cool musical history with Dave, Neal, and Andy is a major plus…especially if he contributes in a positive way to their creative energy. If Monty is a temp and they audition a new band member eventually, I hope they can find someone who fits in as well as Monty does and Joey did.

Poor choice for a band name. For one thing, my eye goes completely past anthem to anemic on first glance. Who wants an “anemic” rocker band?
If you do notice the anthem part, the ic on the end kills it. Most people aren’t going to get the “message” David wants anthemic to give without some thought. He needs a catchy, memorable name for his band. Not anthemic and can’t believe the band wants it either.

Oh, sma11ie , I flove the couple songs I’ve heard from The Low Anthem, too, and, to be completely honest, I’ve never thought for a second about their name. Of course, that might be because they have such a provocative (in my mind anyway) album title, Oh My God, Charlie Darwin.

So yeah, in my opinion, by my own definition, it’s just what I think and I am in no way imposing it as the absolute truth, he is not a true word nerd.

LOL, poor David. Not a true word nerd. Please break it to him gently!

Umm if you would track back to where the conversation started, I was just disagreeing with someone who said David Cook is proving himself to be a true word nerd with naming the band The Anthemic. I’m not penalizing him for anything his fans did, I’m just saying that for me, he is not a true word nerd – and certainly naming your band The Anthemic is not a good exhibition of being good with words.

Okay, that’s fair. I missed the part where you were responding to someone who thinks The Anthemic proved DC’s word-nerdiness. FWIW, I agree with you on that. From what I can tell, naming the band was a group exercise, besides which, I think “The Anthemic” neither proves nor disproves that DC is good or bad with words. I get that you think it proves the latter, while I don’t but that’s cool. Glad we reached an understanding, haha. Moving on!

LOL, poor David. Not a true word nerd. Please break it to him gently!

I’ll try. But I’m sure he’ll just break down and cry knowing that a teeny tiny person like me on the Internetz is not impressed with his word skills.

My apologies if I am not impressed with DC’s word skills as much as you are :)

Can I let you in on a secret? David Cook’s word skills we something we David Cook fans make snarky remarks about, quite adamant about his brevity, we are. (You don’t understand? Nevermind, we don’t either.) But we are quite happy to for him to be a self-described wordnerd, and will happily defend our favorite wordnerd, and you just happen to be wrong in so many ways about words and wordnerds in general, and Anthemic specifically.

can’t believe the band wants it either.

Oh, I’m sure the band wants the name — I’m sure it was a band decision, not a David Cook as dictator decision. I love that wordy/worthy David Cook, whatever his English-major-worth may be :) . (And I am adamant about his etheral brevity, dammit!)

I love that wordy/worthy David Cook, whatever his English-major-worth may be :)

Oh, just for the record, in case there are those who aren’t sure of it, it’s “worthy”, a British way of describing something (say, an essay, a performance, a film, etc) that is done quite earnestly, has some merit but is actually quite boring. Comes from shortening of the phrase “worthy but dull”, dull being the unspoken word and the real meaning. Simon thought David boring at the audition.

Oh David, please go back to the drawing board for the name.

Can I let you in on a secret? David Cook’s word skills we something we David Cook fans make snarky remarks about, quite adamant about his brevity, we are. (You don’t understand? Nevermind, we don’t either.)

No, it’s just the ambiguity of the brevity was so etheral that we decided to wear something mutual.

David reminds me of Norm Crosby sometimes. The younger of you may not know who that is. He’s a comic who made his name on malapropisms.

Here’s a commercial from 1987 I found on Youtube, utilizing Norm’s special talent. (When that Skechers thing ends, DC might look into this. Hee.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oMDNc54eHw

Here’s his wikipedia page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norm_Crosby

Reminder:

Can we not pile on the newbie please?

He/She is entitled to his/her opinion without having to endure the 3rd degree.

Thank you.

ETA: Nevermind. Thanks MJ :)

…it’s ‘worthy’ , a British way of describing something (say, an essay, a performance, a film, etc) that is done quite earnestly, has some merit but is actually quite boring…

Thanx for that. English isn’t my native language and I never quite understood what Simon meant with this.

Listening to KHOP now, he’s so happy he’s talking about himself in the third person! Hee, love it…

Just dropping in to note how odd that sounds.

Sort of sounds like: ‘Well, sir, I know words very well, while you just met them yesterday.’  ;-)

Ok noted :) I’m sure you can phrase it better, good for you.

Oops, sorry, not at all intended as a criticism of you, fearbear, just how funny it sounded to me — someone who admittedly has an odd sense of humor sometimes (as does sma11ie, apparently. lol and thx) BTW, I had no idea you were a newbie, so welcome! May you always have a way with words, with humor, without needing to fear (or (for)bear?) ;-)

As a word nerd, clearly, David Cook is a charlatan.

zoya Aug 24th, 2009 at 3:12 pm

‘ ¦it’s ‘worthy’ , a British way of describing something (say, an essay, a performance, a film, etc) that is done quite earnestly, has some merit but is actually quite boring’ ¦

Thanx for that. English isn’t my native language and I never quite understood what Simon meant with this.

English is my first language and you can add “wet” to the list of Simonisms that leave me clueless.

English is my first language and you can add ‘wet’  to the list of Simonisms that leave me clueless

“Wet” first come to the attention of the general British public when it was used by Mrs Thatcher, the then Prime Minister, in the 1980s to describe some of her cabinet members who were concerned about the radical nature of her economic policy and voiced their opposition (those described as such then came to be called the Wets, meaning those who are more liberal in their economic philosophy than the hard-line Thatcherite monetarism). The word means weak, limp, sissy, soppy and drippy (you can see where the “wet” idea comes from), was previously largely used by British public school boys, but became part of the British popular parlance after Mrs Thatcher used it.

And I’m not saying that RCA could not have made a mistake’”labels aren’t perfect, or all albums and singles would go multi-platinum. But I’ve seen no proof to support the claim that RCA was not trying in good faith to maximize DC’s sales and radio airplay when it chose CBTM.

Oh they definitely “made a mistake.” Heros, Declaration, Kiss on the Neck, Bar-ba-sol, A Daily Anthem are all better than Light On.

As for Come Back to Me, I also think Lie is better as is Avalanche. What I find interesting is, during the Walmart soundcheck in conjunction with the release of the album, they did nice videos, to represent the CD, of Heroes, Declaration, Light On, Bar-ba-sol, and … Lie. No Come Back to Me video. To me that said, Lie was their favored ballad which made a lot of sense as it tended to get the most raves from fans. Now maybe they did some additional research later. I don’t know. But I’m beginning to think their focus group was two tween girls from the Dairy Queen.

And most of us those songs that Sassycatz just endorsed I view as good songs but not good radio songs, thus proving the point that people have very different perspectives on what is the best choice for a single.

All of those songs are not good radio songs?! I can see where Bar-ba-sol might not be — and oddly enough THAT’S the one they release but not promote in any way — but not the others? I mean if we’re going for insipid, I agree the rest of the songs do not measure up to the vacuity that is Come Back to Me. Even David dosen’t seem that enthusiastic about it. He looks dead in the eyes everytime he mentions that it’s his latest single.

I just can’t buy that 19/RCA put together an album for the American Idol where only two songs were suitable for release to radio. They’re not artistes. None of this stuff is Stairway to Heaven. They’re definitely in it for promotion, play, and money.

With all respect, if you think David Cook a genius, you obviously haven’t had all that much experience with geniuses.

I haven’t had the chance to see Monty live with The AnthemiC to determine first hand if the age difference is really that jarring in a concert setting.

I had the pleasure of seeing Monty play at the Birchmere, and while YMMV, I really enjoyed him. He interacted well with the other band members, looked like he was happy to be there and was having a lot of fun. And if the band is having fun, the audience usually is having more fun too. The fact that he raises the average age of the band to a bit wider margin above the age of consent is an added bonus. I’m not personally expecting him to stay, but would be happy to see him do so.

As far as singles go, that water has not only flown under the bridge, it’s down the river and out to the ocean. Can’t wait to see what they do with DCTR#2 though.

Yea for over 300 posts!

Not really loving the band name but am sort of ambivalent about it. Saw Monty performing with the guys at Foxwood. Thought he was a great fit with the rest of the band.

I could maybe see Declaration doing as well on CHR as Light On did if it had been released as the first single. But the other songs that you mentioned? Nope. I can’t see ADAM on the radio at all. It’s great for what it is—end of the CD/end of the concert anthem/singalong, but given its structure, etc., I don’t see it as a radio song for any format. KotN is one of my favorite songs on the CD, but I don’t particularly see it as a radio song, either. Ditto for BBS. I’d have liked to have seen what it would do on HAC, and if it could have somehow caught on at CHR, but it would have been a risky call for RCA. Heroes is an interesting one—I never really saw it as a radio song, until that ESPN football montage last season, but I still have my doubts as to how it would do on the radio. That still leaves a healthy chunk of the record as potential singles in my book. And again, this just demonstrates that different people have different views as to what would are the best radio songs from this CD. [So, thanks for proving my point.]

I do think that a lot of music fans mistake “song I like” for “song that would do well on the radio.” Sometimes those categories coincide, but often not.

I think the name is a joke. Dave Cook “and the mic”. Did he just punk everyone?

I agree the rest of the songs do not measure up to the vacuity that is Come Back to Me. Even David dosen’t seem that enthusiastic about it. He looks dead in the eyes everytime he mentions that it’s his latest single.

Not true. He was soooooooo excited about the video and talked it up in practically every radio interview a month and a half on its release. He conceptualised it with the Director and really got into the “acting” LOL. Apart from that I remember how excited he was when it hit #1 on VH1 – he announced it at a concert stop (can’t remember which and too lazy to go dig that vid now), and has mentioned it at every concert stop since with enthusiasm (again too lazy to go dig the vids, but they’re there). And as usual, he and the band have taken time to re-work the live version, by among others bringing in Andy and Kyle more prominently into the vox. The best version (for me) is the Jimmy Fallon version. I’ve never seen David “dead in the eyes” but if he looks that way to you, probably it’s coz he lacks sleep as he’s repeatedly claimed LOL.

I know that song is not popular here at MJs, but it gets great scores at itunes, Rate The Music, and even on DCO (relative to other songs on the record). After 3 months out, it’s still climbing on HAC and AC (yeah, not CHR, but I think it still reaches a few million ears?). As long as it’s climbing, I don’t think they’ll pull the plug on it.

I think if there is a next single, it will either be Lie or Life On The Moon (more likely since it hasn’t been played a lot live and feels more like an autumn-winter song LOL), because along with LO and CBTM, all are mentioned on the sticker of the first release of the record by the label. And the label picks the singles.

readon: “and the mic” is not the name of the band.
David Cook and The Anthemic is the name. And he annoucned it last night in concert, so I think he is sticking with it.

as for “and the mic” that’s just fans joking around.

I know that song is not popular here at MJs

Hey now, let’s not blame it on mj’s folks. The song isn’t that popular with a lot of fans on the official webpage either, let’s be honest, and also, a lot of David’s fans post here too (raises hand). A lot of us like the song okay, but don’t think it was the best choice for a single. It’s an opinion, fans are allowed to have them, and there is nothing wrong with disagreeing with the label’s choices.

By the way, being excited about the video isn’t the same as being excited about the single choice. I don’t think he was excited about the single selection either. I think he would have rather had a different song. That’s my belief and how I’ve interpreted things he’s said and done. I think he would have preferred a different single (have no idea which one). I could be totally wrong but it’s what I think. ymmv.

I do think that a lot of music fans mistake ‘song I like’  for ‘song that would do well on the radio.’  Sometimes those categories coincide, but often not.

I think you greatly underestimate fans. I think we know the difference between personal preference and what we think would do well on the radio. I say *think* because let’s face it, nobody knows. The experts don’t know and neither does the label. If they knew, every song they put out would be a hit. Which often is not the case. It’s an educated guess.

Personally, I think KOTN and Breathe Tonight would make killer radio hits. Absolutely. I also think IDIFY might be a hit. We’ll probably never find out but I can see those songs on the radio and they would fit in well with many songs out there now. IMO.

I don’t think the label are all-knowing and all-wise.

because along with LO and CBTM, all are mentioned on the sticker of the first release of the record by the label.

That cd cover was created last autumn, it’s probably not written in stone. It was their plan or best guess at the time, but they could change their mind I think.

I, for one, am fine with Andy as a blending/harmonizing voice, but I don’t like it as a lead voice, and that is why I don’t listen to the MWK songs that I bought.

I agree. I don’t like Andy’s voice for lead, didn’t like it on MWK, but do like his harmonies, and I don’t think David needs to share the lead singing with anyone. I wouldn’t mind Andy singing lead on one song per show, but I think they need to add 3-4 more songs first (which I think they should do anyway). I do think Andy is cute now though and I like him and his videotaping and twittering and everything else except singing lead. (Maybe the MWK recordings didn’t do his voice justice, as I do like his current harmonies. But, his voice cannot compare with David’s and would never have achieved the kind of success they are having now, I do not believe. I hope that David, even though he has a “band” self identity, never forgets or fails to know that he is the voice that fans want, he is the reason for the fame and adulation. No matter how much we might like the band members, for virtually all fans, it is David that brought us here and who keeps us here.)

Finally, please put me down in the camp that believes that rejects the concept that RCA selected CBTM for anything other than a good faith belief that it was the song most likely to be a success and to continue to sell the record.

Agree again. I think they probably thought it would be the most successful 2nd single. Even if I would have preferred they chose something else. It has done well. I think other songs would do at least as well, and are better songs, not to mention that David co-wrote them. But I don’t think the label wanted the song to fail. A part of me does wonder though if they did promise the writers (or someone) it would be the 1st or 2nd single. That is possible and doesn’t even require one to believe in conspiracies to think it.

I thought that Simon meant by “worthy” that it was overly-earnest.

With all respect, if you think David Cook a genius, you obviously haven’t had all that much experience with geniuses.

I have been around so-called geniuses, some noble prize winners, and many of them don’t know how to make coffee! So … no great shakes.

As far as singles go, that water has not only flown under the bridge, it’s down the river and out to the ocean. Can’t wait to see what they do with DCTR#2 though.

I think, as long as they are working this album — and they are — then the issue of singles is very valid. Plus … I gotta hope they learned something from this and that is, trust DC and his talent, because I believe they didn’t. (One exception: do NOT let him name any bands.)

Not true. He was soooooooo excited about the video and talked it up in practically every radio interview a month and a half on its release.

I’m talking about the song, not the video. When he introduces the song, he does not look enthusiastic to me. If it had been up to David, I would bet my life he’d have chosen another song.

I do think that a lot of music fans mistake ‘song I like’  for ‘song that would do well on the radio.’  Sometimes those categories coincide, but often not.

I like a lot of the other songs. I can’t believe none of them are radio ready. Seriously, fans are the public — aren’t we? We’re not some alien species. Since we are the buying and listening public, I have got to believe we matter and many fans prefer the other songs. When Light On came out and then Come Back to Me, there was a great deal of disappointment — and not just among fans. That means something. They should take note!

By the way, I don’t mean to sound hostile or anything. This is something that just simmers under the surface with me and, every once in a while, it just lets loose.

I hope that David, even though he has a ‘band’  self identity, never forgets or fails to know that he is the voice that fans want, he is the reason for the fame and adulation. No matter how much we might like the band members, for virtually all fans, it is David that brought us here and who keeps us here

I totally agree with you. I was at Cal State Fair last Fri for David Cook’s concert. Thousands of fans patiently waited around the bus just want to have a glimpse of David. The other band members come in and out the bus or walk around but nobody cares. I am very impressed about how popular David is. David Cook is a brand.

True, fans are part of the public. But my point is that the “best” songs on a CD—the songs that may be the highest quality songs or the ones that best express something about the artist—may not be the most radio-friendly. To me, the best quality song on DCTR is Permanent, and I absolutely adore that it got a high-profile spotlight at the AI Finale. But I don’t see it as a radio song and was not surprised that it did not get even token spins from more than a small handful of stations after the finale. I may listen to A Daily AntheM and say, wow, that is so DC—but that doesn’t mean that a song that essentially only has one verse ( bridge and lots of chorus) and is wholly different from what I’m hearing on CHR would get any CHR play, or even have a shot at HAC play. Obviously, MMV—I’ve seen fans champion both of those songs as the best choice for a DC single. Similarly, I have long wanted to see Lie have the chance to strut its stuff as a single—but I’ve seen other fans say “anything but Lie!” So, yeah: mileage does vary.

And I don’t think that I’m dissing DCTR at all to say that some of the songs don’t strike me, personally, as radio songs. Few, if any CDs, are made up entirely of songs that would get radio play, and I actually think that it’s a plus that so many of the songs on DCTR that I don’t view as potential singles are good- to excellent-quality songs. For so many CDs, the “non-singles” are filler, and that’s not true here.

Anyway, we’ll probably get a new single at some point in September, and then the portion of the Cook fandom that thinks that it was the best choice for the next single can fight with the various portions of the Cook fandom that prefer different songs. Cuz we all know that there will be disagreement on that, right? [smile]

David looks really cute in that picture by the way. :)

I always thought the reasoning behind LO being the first single was pretty simple. Chris Cornell pitched the song to RCA

Actually I listened to an interview with Chris Cornell last fall where he said RCA came to him looking for a song to give to DC. He had Light On which he didn’t have any plans for at the moment because the solo cd he was wokring on was going for a different sound. So I think no matter what song CC gave RCA for DC, RCA had every intention of using at as DC’s first single. But that’s just my theory.

This is from about 12 hours ago, but it stuck in my head because I’ve heard Chris Cornell tell that story about David’s A&R asking CC for a song, and I’ve heard David say that his A&R guy brought him a song submitted by CC. Because of that, it seems pretty clear to me that RCA engineered the use of a CC song and most probably did intend for it to be the single right from the start. I’m sure David was thrilled to be given a song by one of his Idols, but nothing will ever convince me that it was the best choice for his first single. Just the fact that he still can’t really sing it live without getting help from the audience (either singing part of the song for him or cheering during opportune moments while he catches his breathe) makes it a stupid choice in my mind. I’ve also noticed that neither he nor the rest of The Anthemic (heh) are anywhere near as enthusiastic when they perform CBTM as they are when they perform I Did It for You, for example, as others have pointed out. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if he stops singing them live once he’s got another 2 or 3 hits that he can sing instead. Heck, he stopped singing TOML as soon as he had another song he could sing, and he doesn’t always do either LO or CBTM even now (see- HRD).

Sassycatz and Oceana, it’s like you’re in my head today. ITA with everything you’ve said.

Cathy, same to you (and Sassy) sharing a brain today.

I tried to read as many comments as possible, but couldn’t. Apologies if what I’m saying has been said before.

I was at the Sacramento concert where this interview took place. The interviews took place in a portable building – like where they stick classes when schools are too crowded. That’s why it looks so drab.

I met the DJ that did the interview – he was really nice, and he really did take a lot of advice from some die-hard Cook fans, so he asked a lot of stuff that people want to know. I was sitting next to this mother/daughter pair who were coaching him on what to ask. They knew so much! They are the ones who told the DJ to ask about the band name – they said he would get a lot of response over it. I guess they knew what they were talking about! I love DC’s music, but dang, I know nowhere near as much about him as some people do.

Also, I managed to win meet and greet passes and took a picture with David and the band. The new guy wasn’t in the picture, so I am guessing that means he’s just a hired hand until they get someone permanent. He didn’t end with “A Daily AntheM.” When he came out for the encore, he said that they usually come up with a set list beforehand, but sometimes they will switch it up based on what they’re feeling. So the encore was “I Just Died In Your Arms Tonight” and “Light On.”

As far as the band name – I like the spirit behind it, but not necessarily the execution. I don’t care, as long as they still sound good. :)

I thought that Simon meant by ‘worthy’  that it was overly-earnest.

This is how the “boring” meaning seems to have come about, from my perspective anyway – in the past, people tended to soften a criticism by saying something like – “well, what you are doing is is very worthy, but….”, usually the “but” is followed by “it is a bit dull”, or “it’s not very well done”, i.e. trying to say something positive when what you want to say is something negative. The “worthy but….” usage then became more common. Some time in I think the late 80s I started hearing people dropping the “but” part – “this is just a bit worthy – you know, a bit boring” and just as quickly they dropped the bit that explained what they meant, and it ended up as “this is just a bit worthy”. The full change in meaning from the positive to the negative seems to have happened within a year or two

But the problem with a word that doesn’t mean what it says is that many people don’t know its exact meaning, so you get a number of possible answers, especially for the word that implies a lot of things. Being earnest is certainly part of this idea of “worthy”, but the point is that there is a “but” missing, and what comes after the “but” is what the speaker wanted to say but didn’t (which may be “your earnestness is boring the hell out of people”). Of course a word like that can morph easily because its precise meaning isn’t spelt out, so who knows, you could be right as to what Simon intended it to mean.

I’m not really liking the name. IA with those that said it reminded them too much of anemic. That’s what I read at first. As Mj said “anthemic” doesn’t roll off the tongue.

I love David Cook but I’m not liking that name at all. I have been reading snatches of blogs here and there and that word popped up out of context and I couldn’t figure out what the heck everyone was talking about. Now I google it and find out that is what DC wants to call his band.

I don’t even know why he needs to name the band at all. It’s all about him, his voice, his sound, etc., not about the band. Band members are replaceable but David Cook is not. He put out his platinum selling debut album without his band, so….If he had to have a name for them, how about EEB being what the fans called it to begin with. The term anthemic describes the feel (atmosphere)of the music. As I said, It’s about David Cook not his back up band. I don’t go to see Cook in concert/tour to be moved by the music . Though they are a good band, they don’t have a particular “presence.” David Cook has that “presence.”

I don’t go to see Cook in concert/tour to be moved by the music

You are of course entitled to buy a ticket for whatever reason you choose.

But if I were a working musician, that statement would depress me unutterably.

I think it is very important to him to be seen as someone who has value beyond his voice and personal charisma, or he wouldn’t be interested in writing for other people as well as himself.

And I fundamentally disagree that the band does not have a presence. They are all clearly talented and engaging in their own right, and I would at least give an ear to any projects with which they chose to get involved in the future. I have no intention of following them if I don’t like the music, but I won’t continue to follow Cook if I don’t care for his future direction, either.

He values and respects their contributions, so he is giving them a name. That speaks both about his character and about how he sees things progressing in the future.