Four ‘American Idols’ join for holiday concert at Easton’s State Theatre
It’ll be “Idols for the Holidays in Concert” come Wednesday at Easton’s State Theatre, but this time around, it won’t be Clay Aiken and his Christmas show.
The current tour, which kicks off Saturday in Pittsburgh, features former Top 10 “American Idol” finalists David Hernandez and Chikezie Eze, both from Season 7, Diana DeGarmo from Season 3, and Kimberley Locke from Season 2.
The four performers will deliver solo, duet and ensemble numbers in the new production led by “Idol” musical director Michael Ormand.
In a recent phone interview from his home in Phoenix, Hernandez says the Christmas tour will stop in 15 cities across the country before it wraps up in Waukegan, Ill., on Dec. 21.
‘Idol’s’ Brooke White to turn on temple lights
A young woman already used to the bright lights will flip the switch Friday night and turn the Mesa Arizona Temple Grounds into a dazzling world of colorful holiday splendor.
Brooke White, 25, who grew up in a Mesa ward of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and is now a recording artist in Van Nuys, Calif., finished in the top five last spring as part of the seventh season of “American Idol” on the Fox network.
White, the daughter of Brad and Kaylene White of Mesa, will turn the switch for the 29th annual temple lights display ceremonies at 7 p.m. on the grounds, 525 E. Main St. The lights will be on daily through Jan. 1, from 5:30 p.m. to 10 p.m. for the public to see as they wander the sprawling grounds.
More Idol Headlines after the JUMP…
Mormon support of gay marriage ban ignites vigil
When Mormons light their massive and colorful Christmas displays tonight on the Mesa Arizona Temple grounds, thousands of candles may burn across the street in a vigil in Pioneer Park.
Vigil organizers call it a demonstration of solidarity for gays and lesbians seeking full civil rights. They say their vigil was precipitated by Mormons’ staunch opposition to same-sex marriage with passage of amendments to constitutions in Arizona, California and Florida in the Nov. 4 general election.
“We are not going to march. It is not a protest. We will have our candles,” said an organizer, Robert Parker, an outspoken gay Mormon from Mesa. Parker hopes to get 5,000 people to assemble in the park “to stand in solidarity with gay Mormons who are stuck in the closet and need to know that we are working to help secure their civil rights.”
All the world on stage
“Kumbaya” is the new mantra at Syracuse Stage for the opening of “Godspell,” the 1970s musical based on the Gospel according to St. Matthew.
“As a storyteller, I often tell the cast there are many paths in the forest, but they all lead to one place, which is peace, love and unity of all people,” says Rajendra Ramoon Maharaj, associate artistic director of Syracuse Stage. “Godspell” is the directorial debut at Syracuse Stage for Maharaj, who joined the staff in August.
Opening night for “Godspell” is Saturday and it continues through Dec. 28. It is a collaboration between Syracuse Stage and Syracuse University’s drama department for their annual holiday production.
‘Tis the season for Locke to lock up another holiday hit
The holiday season is a time packed with tradition.
Hanging the stockings. Wrapping the presents. Watching “A Christmas Story” over and over again on television.
For the last three years, there’s been another tradition to add to the list - Kimberley Locke sitting atop the Billboard adult-contemporary singles chart with a Christmas song.
In 2005, it was “Up on the Housetop”; in 2006, “Jingle Bells”; and the year after that, “Frosty the Snowman.” She’s going for a fourth this year with “We Need a Little Christmas,” which is available as a digital download.
Diana Degarmo Returning to Her Country Roots
Diana DeGarmo, one of the top “American Idol” contestants during the Fox show’s third season, says she is excited and satisfied with the direction her career has taken since her time on the show.
DeGarmo, who will be performing with three other “Idol” finalists at a Christmas show Saturday, says she has been thrilled with her success so far, which includes her smash hit “Dreams,” released after her season on the television show in 2004. Now, DeGarmo is returning to her main love, country music, and hoping to get a record deal soon.
Ex-’Idol’ finalists spread a little cheer
EL PASO — What’s the trick to freshening up familiar Christmas songs?
For Diana DeGarmo, it’s all about tweaking an arrangement or adding a little of your own flavor.
Just as when she performed in Broadway shows “Hairspray” and “Brooklyn: The Musical,” the former “American Idol” contestant doesn’t want to sound bored singing the same songs over and over.
“You have to remember that you have to make it as new as you can for (the audience) each and every time,” she said. “That makes you get excited all over again, keeps it fresh and makes it great.”
Former ‘American Idol’ Chikezie Eze speaks out
Chikezie Eze hasn’t had a moment to breathe since appearing on the most recent season of “American Idol.”
He’s been on the road as part of the “American Idols Live Tour 2008″ and just signed on for a holiday tour with former “AI” contestants Diana DeGarmo, Kimberley Locke and David Hernandez, which brings him to the Lycian Centre on Sunday.
At least he gets to go home for Thanksgiving this year.
“It’s gonna be kind of weird because I’m vegan,” he laughs, “but, there’s tofurkey. And, I will be with my family, finally. Last Thanksgiving was kinda lame because I didn’t get to hang with them, but this year will be much better.”
After this tour, he really wants to get to work on his album because he has a “need to create something.”
Seymour: ‘I Didn’t Ditch Cowell By Phone’
Simon Cowell’s ex Terri Seymour hit out at reports claiming she ditched the music mogul by text message, and she insists that would be too impersonal a way to end such a long-lasting relationship.
The couple dated for more than six years, until Seymour called time on the relationship in September.
Cowell later told a news show he was dumped by text, but Seymour insists that wasn’t the case.
And she is adamant the split had nothing to do with Cowell’s admitted lack of interest in settling down and starting a family.
BTW, I don’t really care what Brooke and David think about Prop 8. It’s their business if they want to speak out on it or not. What they think will have no bearing on what I believe or whether I buy their music or not.
Mj- I did not say the money was not contributed by Mormons, but that it was not raised or contributed by church headquarters as many are claiming. That would violate tax exempt regulations.
Here is an archive of the information put out by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints from the church website, beginning with the newest information with an archive going way back. This newsroom is available and is used by many major news organizations. There is never any statement that asks for members to give money to the church. The church does not teach politics over the pulpit, but once in a while issues a statement about beliefs, and every election, issues a statement about how important it is to vote but does not support any candidates. You can see the statement about voting in news release #27 and you can see other statements about proposition 8 in the archives, available to all news organizations.
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories
I’ll say nothing more about the morman church, anybody can draw whatever conclusions they desire. Everybody will regardless. I try not to speak on this subject because if is certainly volatile and so much depends on your beliefs.I so think you need to follow your heart and your sense of right and wrong on this. If you believe that an eight year old that nobody wants shouldn’t be adopted by somebody who doesn’t share your sense of sexual encounters, so be it…so sad for the eight year old who only wants a family….
Yes…the call-to-arms came from the church, and the faithful responded. It wasn’t that a bunch of individual Mormons gave to the cause independently of church headquarters. As was true for the Catholics and Evangelicals. It just so happened the the Mormon’s were better organized, and really stepped up to the plate when asked to by their church.
My original point, though, had to do with the idea of gays scapegoating Mormons. I don’t believe they are. They’re just following the money, like everyone else.
LK08 - Thanks for the link.
“Yes…the call-to-arms came from the church, and the faithful responded. It wasn’t that a bunch of individual Mormons gave to the cause independently of church headquarters.”
That is everyone’s right- to speak for and to put their money in causes they believe in. I did not contribute to it, and there are members who chose to support the no side with time and money . They have their right to do so and will in no way be treated differently for it by the church.
Those on both sides have the right to support the cause they believe in, but the troubling thing to me is the hateful and criminal reaction from some on the no side since.
Thanks for a civil discussion.
I totally agree LK…our money speaks. So said that nobody speaks for the children nobody wants. From personal (yes, personal) experience, gay people who want to be parents, are so willing to take children that nobody else want.
Having not the normal sexual orientation doesn’t take away their desire to parent…I look at my sister and think she would be a better parent than me but I’m able to parent as many children as possible because I’m heterosexual.
So yeah, I don’t think your sexual orientation has any bearing whatsoever on your ability to parent or parent well.
^^^ Let’s keep the discussion focused on Prop 8 and the Idols. Gay adoption is way off topic for this thread.
Not that I’m aware, unless theirs some fine print that escaped me. Adoption also was not mentioned in the original article I posted.
ummmm ism’t gay adption part of prop 8> maybe I’m confused but I thought everything that goes along with prop 8 matters
OK. I’ll just stop with the fact that I couldn’t find this site after searching. I’
d say MJ’s big blog means nothing in the grand scheme of things. Anybody who thinks that children don’t matter, earns nothing in my scheme of things. My whole focus toward Prop 8 was for children…for families…for people…maybe people don’t get that but I understand that not all families are 2 heterosexual people who may or may not like each other. I have a difficult time believing the fairy tale view of a family. Prop 8 is so much more than many here would believe and it would serve those unbelievers well too in my mind
Members who have the guts to take a stand against the church leadership in SLC on this issue won’t face any backlash and judgment from fellow members or church leaders (especially if they happen to live in Utah)? They wouldn’t be treated any differently? Sorry, I’m not buying it.
If some advocate not supporting a public figure/celebrity simply because they happen to be Mormon, I think that’s scapegoating. It’s their right to do so, but I still think it’s scapegoating.
Shell29 said:
“Members who have the guts to take a stand against the church leadership in SLC on this issue won’t face any backlash and judgment from fellow members or church leaders (especially if they happen to live in Utah)? They wouldn’t be treated any differently? Sorry, I’m not buying it.”
I stand by what I said about “the church” not treating them differently. As far as individual members, they are human, but I would not expect a hateful or criminal act against the person. If they, on the other hand, organize a major assault against the church in which they lead a group in revolt and tear the church apart (not literally), that is a different matter. I would expect any organization to take action if people from inside are trying to tear it apart.
BTW, how do you bold things on this site or quote things like you did?
You have the quicktags at the bottom of your reply box… to quote you copy the text you want to quote and you past it in the text box, you select the text, then you use B-quote
^^ OK. Thanks. I never saw those.
hehe ;D… you are welcome
I wanted to clarify on my statement. I did not buy the music of (unnamed artists, or the movies) because of how they voted or what they stood for. I quit buying their things because of the way the attacked the opposite party. They made it personal. It had nothing to do with their *views*.
I don’t care who or what artists vote for or don’t vote for. It’s really none of my business. When you resort to calling people tacky names or say derogatory blanket statements about the other side of a political party that is going way too OTT.
Even if Brooke & Archie came out and said they stand with the church, I don’t see how that would hurt their record sales. It honestly should not. I don’t see them making any OTT statements.
Both sides of prop 8 have a right to vote for what they believe in. In politics there is always going to be a side that has *more money*, more passionate people sinking money into one side.
No. I’m not talking about individuals not supporting individual Mormons. I’m talking about gay groups protesting outside of Mormon Temples rather than say, Catholic churches. They aren’t scapegoating the Mormon church, or picking on them because it’s easy. These groups are following the money. That was my point.
I don’t see a problem with these protests, btw, as long as they remain non-violent and respectful.
Mj- I agree. A major problem is that many have not been nonviolent and respectful. I think they are hurting their cause.
It is anyone’s right to peacefully protest, just as it is a right of those who went out to educate people about the issue and to vote their conscience.
Maybe is one of this LK08:
Prop. 8 opponents take lead in money race
From Wikipedia:
Calif. gay marriage ban a $73M race
about the violent acts:
Prop. 8 boycott talk spreads to movies and more
And about the “follow the money comment”… I don´t know you guys but I don´t always follow what people tell me to do in the adds on the tv, so no matter how much money they have spend if people were really against the Prop 8 they would have voted that way no matter how much money the parts have spend to support the cause, and this made targeting people for giving their money very irrational… IMHO…
gingerly, I can speak with no authority on the actual reach of Prop 8 but I do believe that other measures have been passed elsewhere prohibiting gay and lesbian adoptions, and I believe we can be fairly concerned that could be the “logical next step” in this effort as well. Since supporters assert that the theory behind Prop 8 is “the sanctity of marriage” and also advocate for the “traditional family,” we may very well be watching the chipping away of various rights for those (many) who fail to fit the mold. It is very concerning to me, too.
My apologies if this is off topic. It is sort of difficult for me to be sure, and I did not want gingerly to go away unclear or misunderstood on this point. Hopefully, I’ve not offended any person or rule. That is not my intent.
I said this yesterday. It still applies.
I will add David Archuleta’s name to that as well since he too is a Mormon, although he could not have voted, and very well at may not have a well formed personal opinion on it yet.
I truly think either way that there are more ways to spend 80 million dollars no matter on what side you fall on. This is a such a divisive topic and will never be hashed out on blogs or the ballot box. We have such a long way to go until we figure out what our priorities are in this country, and if we are truly the progressive, accepting nation we profess to be.
No, the problem about Prop 8 is the majority shouldn’t vote to eliminate the minority’s existing basic rights.
Yes that was the main argument, gay parents couldn’t provide appropriate parenting. That and kids would learn about gay marriage in school. The funny part is kids learned more about gay marriage from Prop 8 ads than they ever will from school.
Arkansas passed a law that you must be a married couple to adopt a child. I seriously don’t think it would hurt a child more to have one parent or gay parents (more than one who can’t be married) than to be living in an orphanage or in and out of foster homes. Maybe that 80 million could be spent to help unwanted, not perfect, children find families. However if you are on the side that is denied human rights, I think you would probably find no amount unreasonable to secure for yourself what everybody else enjoys.
Gay marriage was not a right until it was voted down a few years ago and the court overturned the will of the people making it newly legal.
You may or may not agree with this, but it is worth reading. It is a very divisive issue, so many will not agree.
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/the-divine-institution-of-marriage
Exactly, I think it’s really different from voting for a president.
On the subject of keep supporting an artist if they express a different opinion… I would never stop listening to their music, watching their movies, etc… if they just had a different opinion. But lets say I’m a gay person, and a certain asrtist does actually go his/her way to fight against my rights, vote againts my rights, act against my rights. Would I keep supporting him/her? Most probably not. I wouldn’t be able to forget that artist sees me as an inferior human beeing.
Then the problem is the model that is used to made decisions…
IMO it is not a matter of human rights or seeing someone as inferior. It is a matter of preserving the sacred, God ordained institution of marriage that has been around for Millennia. We can argue until we are blue in the face, but we may just have to agree to disagree, respectfully I hope.
Blacks drinking out of the same drinking fountain wasn’t a right either. People marrying outside of their race wasn’t a right. Minorities having the same educational opportunities as non minorities wasn’t a right. Women being able to vote or to not be the property of her husband wasn’t a right. All of these things were protected by the constitution but denied people…
^Don´t worry LK08, althoug I don´t share your opinion in the matter, I know that the leaders of my Church have the same point of view, I´m catholic,they have said:
I don´t agree with the believes of my Church but I respect the reason why other people don´t want Gay Marriege to be approeve…
Now , since I don´t live in USA I may be a little un informed on the matter but what about the model of civil partnership like the one that Elton Jhon has… do you think that will get pass???
gingerly- The black issue and the gay issue are not all the same. I saw a program where a black lesbian said this is not at all the same. In fact, gays in CA already have the same civil rights and rights in the hospital, etc. They just won’t be able to call it marriage. That is a major reason many African American voted for the Bill to become an ammendment. It IS NOT the same.
cruz- they are already allowed to have civil unions like Elton John.
Nope, the California Supreme Court has agreed to hear lawsuits challenging Prop 8.
Thanks cruz- even though you don’t agree, I feel like you understand the issue, and I respect that.
I have a long-standing loathing for the referendum process. Referenda (regardless of whether they are called propositions, referenda, or something else), are too often poorly written, are often funded by groups hiding in the background that the electorate never see, and, as studies show, are often misunderstood by the voters. I particularly find them to be problematic where, as here, they are aimed at a minority group in society.
I would much prefer for these sort of issues to be put through a legislature, where lobbying dollars would be easier to trace and where votes would be on the record, such that the voters for or against a particular principle would be accountable.
As for whether an entertainer should speak out on such issues, I tend to think that should be up to the entertainer, who (I would hope) would understand the risks of speaking out. For me, I’m okay with an entertainer disagreeing with me, as long as s/he isn’t nasty in the disagreement. There’s a pretty good chance that I’ll give zero credence to the celebrity’s opinion—unless I have reason to believe that the celebrity has special knowledge on an issue, like Bono does with African issues, why should I view the celebrity’s views as worth any more than anyone else’s?—but I probably won’t take against him or her.
That said, I know that for some people, there are issues that they view as so fundamental that their enjoyment of an artist would be compromised if they knew that the artist disagreed with them. I may not feel the same way, but I know that there are those that do.
Folkfan- I never watched the Dixie chicks but I remember when they said something while they were out of the country and people were really mad about it. I guess it wasn’t just disagreeing with something, but it was nasty.
^From Wikipedia
ETA:
I´m posting this just so we all now what are we talking about… sorry I know is really out off the subject and I do not want to address the Irak war….
I am legally married and there was no word of “God” in the marriage ceremony. The fact that I don’t believe in God (and neither does my husband) and our marriage is not sanctified in the least does not change its legality one iota. Not believing in God and not having a religiously-based marriage is my right in a nation founded on the principle that church and state should have a wall between them and the state has no business establishing religion or forcing its citizens into one system of belief (or any system of belief).
I am very uneasy with the idea that gay marriage shouldn’t be legal because other people’s religions don’t allow for it. So let those religions decree no gay marriages may be performed in their churches or temples. Big deal. Let the judges and clerics from the other religions perform the gay marriages.
If a marriage between two men or two women must be called a civil union simply because they’re gay, yet MY (godless) marriage doesn’t have to be called a civil union because I’m female and my husband is male, it seems to me that a specific class of person is not enjoying equal protection under the law.
On the issue of whether celebs should keep their mouths shut… I think they have every right to say whatever they want and we have every right to judge them based on what they say. If they say really stupid things (not talking about conservative or progressive or anything political, just like “I don’t want to be around ugly people because they make me sad.” Things that anyone would agree are stupid.) then I am probably not going to appreciate them much. See: Jessica Simpson. They’re risking turning off a percentage of the population anytime they choose a toothpaste. But they have every right to choose that toothpaste, anyway. Or support or oppose Prop 8. Or run for president (see: Ronald Reagan) or governor of California (see: Arnold Schwarzenegger.) Celebs, stars, artists, actors, musicians — they all have the freedom to speak and to be involved, and the rest of us have the freedom to weigh what they say and decide if it’s important to us.
TDC took much heat, but it gave them a opportunity to grow as great artists who bow to no one.
I never understood why what the Dixie Chicks said caused such a furor, other than their genre. What’s sad is that TDC started me listening to country, but now they can’t be found on country radio.
But that’s what I mean by artists having to weigh the risks. Some may refuse to listen to you in the future because you said something that people end up viewing as too controversial.
Oh, I wouldn’t expect them to carry out hateful or criminal acts against the person either. I just don’t buy that they wouldn’t be treated any differently, but we’ll have to agree to disagree on that.
If it was not a right to begin with, there’d have been no need for it to be “voted down a few years ago,” nor would the “court (have) overturned” the “voted for” unconstitutional prohibition. That’s exactly what the courts are there to do when a law is passed that defies the constitution. I agree with celeste that, assuming the proposition process is commonly used essentially to amend the state constitution, then the process is flawed.
That is the problem here. As others have pointed out, this country, our Constitution, and our Bill of Rights all were built upon the cornerstone principle that the majority not be able to oppress the freedoms and rights of the minority, even if the majority is in a position and has the power to do just that.
No one disputes that a number of religions or interest groups may disapprove. The dispute is whether religions or interest groups whose beliefs differ from others are free to impose those beliefs on other people to deny their freedoms simply because those religions or groups are bigger, stronger, more vocal, or have more money and people. The answer in this country, if we follow our Constitution, is a resounding, “NO.” If we follow the edicts of something or someone else, possibly so, but that is not what this country is supposed to be about and it won’t be constitutional.
Think about it. What if the majority of people in this country believed in astrology and numerology as their religion, and they all got together, organized, campaigned and got out the vote to make those studies the country’s religion to the exclusion of all others — making the others illegal. Would that be ok?
I never purchased a Dixie Chicks cd nor do I ever plan to so what they said or did back in the day was not a loss to me. I could care less about their political views, I have never cared for their music.
I realize we are way OT at this point, but I wanted to chime in. The reason I didn’t support prop 8 is along the same lines as smartcookie’s. It seems to me the major argument being used to NOT put gay marriage on the same footing as heterosexual marriage is a religious one.
But marriage is not a solely religious institution. Otherwise why can you be married in city hall, by a judge, on a boat by the captain, with no religious component at all? What about churches that allow gay marriage? If it’s okay by them, why can’t they perform those unions and have them be valid? And what about atheists? are they “really” married if they don’t sanctify it with some sort of religious blessing?
Marriage under the law is a secular institution which defines family relationships for the purpose of legal and property rights. Adding religion to it is optional and has no business being basis of law in a country where separation of church and state is one of our founding principles. And once you eliminate the religion argument, I don’t see any other objective strong reason to ban gay marriage.
If you are a-ok with civil unions that exactly resemble marriage, then it’s just a question of semantics. Why not just differentiate marriage inside your church as opposed to all other marriage?
And besides, those manipulative ads supporting Prop 8 using kids left a REALLY bad taste in my mouth. As if your kid could “learn” to be gay or as if being gay would be this horrible thing to happen to them. I wonder sometimes, would they stop loving their kids if they were gay?
As for whether LDS was formally involved in the campaign for Prop 8…let’s just say I have a hard time believing they weren’t when so much of the money came from their church members out of state, and the young people I saw staffing the pro-8 rallies around election day were the same kids I would see the rest of the year proselytizing in my neighborhood (I live practically next door to a Mormon temple.)
Attempt to swing back on topic: The Davids and Brooke and whoever else are absolutely free to speak their minds on political issues. I’m sure they’re aware that they risk backlash if they choose to do so. I’m also sure they each have enough of a sense of their respective fanbases to know what sort of opinions will fly and what would be best to keep to themselves.
Michelle- As I said in an earlier post, probably IMO the best way to solve the major problem here is for the government to get out of marriage and just have people get civil unions to begin with. Then they can get married by the church if they choose to.
As for money coming out of state from church members- the only thing that was formally said from the general church out of state was a short blurb read to the congregations one time. You can read it on the link I put in a prior post. I couldn’t have told you what it said. Given that, many people have relatives and friends in California, so information probably spread in that manner, as it has a tendancy to do through e-mail etc.
I have no idea what kids’ adds you are talking about, but I assume the prop 8 commission, or whatever it is called, put those out.
Also, if you look at my earlier post, I never said the church did not get involved. I only said that they did not collect money and pay money to the campaign- that it was individuals. And only missionaries proselytize- not ordinary citizens, so it is not likely you saw the same kids in your neighborhood, unless of course, they had the missionaries manning the prop 8 phoneback. I wouldn’t think they would do that, but I don’t know. I am curious now, so I am going to see if I can find out if the missionaries were manning the phone banks. The missionaries are also there on their own dime entirely, not the churches. My point was about money, since there have been many news stories put out that say the church paid millions. Not true.
wereallinnocent- as pointed out earlier, no one is taking away their rights. They have the same rights that married people have already.
Michelle- I was thinking about the terminology you used. When you use the word proselytize, that is the word normally used for preaching the gospel, so maybe you saw ordinary citizens who chose to go out and talk to people about proposition 8. Also, you say you live by the temple. Do you really mean the temple or do you mean a church building, which is where everyone goes to church? There is a big difference. I am absolutely 100% sure that there was no phone bank at the temple, so I am curious where you saw the phone bank.
In the end, if you really want to know the truth of the matter, you will look into it.
This simply is not so. But, I’m not going to debate the matter here for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that you seem to have your mind completely made up based on information provided to you and that is what you believe, which is fine. I believe it was you who mentioned earlier that just because you read or believe it doesn’t make it so, and respectfully, that sentiment applies.
To be fair, I’m also decorating for the holidays with my 3 year old, and that makes me happier and more joyful than this particular subject. Wishing the same for you as well.
Peace~
I agree that the holidays and family are much more joyful than this subject. Peace to you as well, and I mean that sincerely.
And Fox News has very little credibility in most circles, so maybe we don’t want to go there.
oceana- I suggest you go to nonpartison sites that evaluate places like fox news. It IS fair and balanced. That is why it is #1 among all cable stations. Try going to Pew research center, which is nonpartison for an evaluation.
And by the way, I brought up the New York Times because MJ quoted it. Why you brought up fox news- not sure.
But, but Sarah Palin quotes NYT so very often.