That Lightfoot Sound

Yuri · 09-29-2006, 02:38 PM

Ok Gordos and Gordettes, what is your favorite Lightfoot sound mix. By that I mean do you like the music "bare bones" with guitars, bass and drums or do you prefer the more elaborate productions such as in 'East of Midnight' with elaborate soundscapes. What would be your ultimate Lightfoot band. Red Shea or Terry, or both? Rick Haynes or John Stockfish? Pee Wee or Mike Heffernan? Barry Keene or say Ken Buttrey or the incarcerated Jim Gordon? Add Daniel Lanois or David Foster or the multitude of other musicians who have contributed to our favorite albums. Tour with violins (string section)? Banjo? Any musicians that Gord has not played with that would compliment Gord's sound?
So, it is wide open. Leave things as they have evolved or tweek the sound?
We all love Gord so this is not an attempt to second guess his creative choices, only an exercise in having some fun.

Yuri

Borderstone · 09-29-2006, 04:15 PM

Yuri,first of all (and I mean this in the nicest way)your message would be easier to read if done in sperate paragraphs.
I used to do the same thing but I realized that,even with punctuation and good spelling,it still looked like one big run-on sentence.

(Paragraph 2 > )Anyhow,to answer your question. I'm a music purest at heart,so,while there are things I like about Gordon's later albums,I'll always prefer 1966 through 1976 the most.

I'll take the simplicity of songs like,"Early Morning Rain" & "The Way I Feel" over the "more produced" works of the later years.

Best of early:Lightfoot! to IYCRMM / middle SSOL to Summertime D.

(Endless Wire has just a few good ones.)

Later:Most of Dream Street Rose.

All of Shadows (except Blackberry Wine).

Salute:Only a few tunes I really like.

EOM:Good songs that would be better if done acoustic like "I'll Tag Along".

Waiting For You:I like over 90% of it.

Painter:Some good songs,some just okay.

Harmony:Seems like all of his best LP's,w/ different decades,all in one.

Kelly Davis · 09-29-2006, 04:24 PM

I would take all present band members, throw in Red Shea and Pee Wee Charles, and you would have the ultimate Lightfoot band.

Pee Wee Charles really gave Gord his "trademark sound" in the 70's, but I like Gord at any stage of his career sound. It just shows you what staying power a good songwriter can have.

RM · 09-29-2006, 05:09 PM

Yuri,

I would say the Lenny Waronker, Nick DeCaro years. The musicians can be interchanged, but the subtle use of strings was stirring. The basic sound was easily heard, but man, was she gorgeous.

Auburn Annie · 09-29-2006, 05:59 PM

I second that, RMD.

johnfowles · 09-29-2006, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Yuri:
Red Shea or Terry, or both? Rick Haynes or John Stockfish? Pee Wee or Mike Heffernan?
Yuri

Quote:

Originally posted by Kelly Davis:
I would take all present band members, throw in Red Shea and Pee Wee Charles, and you would have the ultimate Lightfoot band.
Pee Wee Charles really gave Gord his "trademark sound" in the 70's,

Wow Yuri and Kelly you reminded me:-
of a recent Newsgroup thread
"Terry Clements Or Red Shea?" at:-
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.music.lightfoot/browse_frm/thread/326141cb16212839/50c8875947d7f22a?hl=en#50c8875947d7f22ahttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.music.lightfoot/brow se_frm/thread/326141cb16212839/50c8875947d7f22a?hl=en#50c8875947d7f22a
which has amongst a discussion of the perceived merits of Red Shea compared to Terry Clements some speculation on when Terry joined the Lightfoot Orchestra, and whether they did indeed ever play together.
The thread included some interesting musings by Richard Harrison and I was able eventually to state quite categorically that
"I HAVE now unearthed conclusive evidence that at that June 10 1972 concert both Red and Terry played (the latter as second lead guitar) but not
necessarily at the same time. In a similar vein it is also a fact as confirmed by Mike after the concert at New Jersey's Red Bank concert on
April 13 2002 that the May 18, 1981 Royal Albert Hall concert featured both Mike and Pee Wee"

I have now refound a copy of the souvenir programme from that June 10th 1972 Royal Albert Hall London concert

My London University College (Imperial) is just off this screenshot at the bottom
and that was the best aerial view I could make using windows local live a few weeks back (no birds eye view yet available)
TNe programe which is almost identical to the earlier 1969 and probably the 1970 programmes displayed on corfid at:-
http://www.corfid.com/gl/frank.htm
But it has one vital difference, this being that on the opening page it quite unequivicably lists the musicians as
Red Shea Guitar
note decidedly not the Irish interloper Red O'Shea (sic) that is shown in the 1969 issue!!
Terry Clements Guitar
Rick Haynes Bass

As soon as I get my scanner programme to reload I wiil scan that page and report back here.
see you
John

BILLW · 09-30-2006, 06:51 AM

Yuri,

I really love it all and I would keep the current band as is. My favorite of all time is the Don Quixote album so I agree with RMD re: Lenny & Nick.

On the other hand there is just something wonderful about East Of Midnight and it's 'elaborate soundscapes'. A great 'evening' album.

Bill

(spelling)

[ October 07, 2006, 04:10: Message edited by: BILLW ]

Jesse Joe · 09-30-2006, 08:22 AM

Yuri, Gordos and Gordettes, I like the sound of that.

To reply to your question, Guitars & Bass, would be enough for me. The "Back Here On Earth", and "Sunday Concert" albums are simply awesome.

But through the years the addition of band members, has also been delightful to the ears.

He's got a real good tight band, as they say. Always in perfect tune.

A Lightfoot concert sounds as good, as the recordings. Perfectionists... Gordo fan, ~Jesse-Joe~

johnfowles · 10-02-2006, 03:59 PM

I am surprised to see absolutely zero comments on my earlier posting aboot Red and Terry playing at the same time, which I thought was a wonderful piece of Lightfoot trivia.Both Bru/silverheels and I were in the Royal Albert Hall in London on June 10th 1972 to see a total of four guitarists on stage together.regardless of the indifference here I am determined to present the unarguable evidence:-

Scan of the souvenir programme/brochure

geodeticman · 10-04-2006, 06:40 AM

Yuri,

Like BILLW, I like the Don Quixote arrangements and whole album mixes of talent, and any other album with Nick DeCaro string arrangements, as well as others in the IYCRMM through COTS time period, which varied a bit I know.

SSOL stood seperately out of context imho. It was more "Pat Boonish" mixed with "Jim Reeves" as Gord spoke of his very first recordings pre-Lightfoot! I know there are aome killer-good songs on it, but the sound is different, background singers, etc. It sounded so different than the album before and after, is all. But viva la difference ! Not my cup of tea, is all.

Sundown was certainly a bigger production imho as an album than the just about last and best I agree of his simpler times music such as DQ, but I'd add ODR and COTS to that end of simple.

But simple to me for Gord still includes lavish strings - real strings - where he thanks local union string players. and often collaboration between Nick and Gord on string arrangements and mixing. It showed Gord's Westlake College training in orchestration and composing to great advantage.

I guess easier said for me is what his "simpler" arrangements for me are NOT - over- produced like EOM - though I love "I'll Tag Along", and loved the song EOM sung solo and acoustic, on his knee, in concert ! Excellent !

Arguably Sundown had a lot more money pured in it, but it let Gord flex his talent muscles more completely and utilize his education much more, with the addition subtly of some electric guitar - such as Sundown the song. Also, the synthesizer on Seven Island Suite - incredible song.

I've always loved the soaring string sections in songs in that roughly '70 - '76 time period, songs that illustrated my taste best include "Is There Anyone Home" , "Beautiful", "That Same Old Obsession", "Looking at the Rain", 'It's Too Late for Prayin",and "Now and Then", etc.

I've come to recognize the thing that makes me look right thru the wall off into music landscapes painted by Gord are set to strong advantage by primarily the strings, Gord's controlled vibrato period where he used it with discression, but could still do soaring vocals.

Also, can't get 'em out of your head melodies (for us "airhead" whistler/hummers LOL Sydney Steve

}, and interesting lyrics as well.

I could if I had to live with just '69 - '76 releases of Gord's for the above reasons, but what I would miss of the gems all to come, and the ambitious and purist folk that preceeded.
Just did not like the sound, nor apparently did Gord as he has said. More precisely, he said I believe "I do not like to listen to that time period [60's]".

I cringed the most in the Salute/EOM time period, when he began (comparitively) "rocking"
(I had the Eagles, Van Halen, and Aerosmith for that back in the 70's, but Lightfoot was Lightfoot!) How 'bout that for begging the question !

But with incredible albums like DSR, and Shadows mixed in there, I still could not live without a given time period. Closest would be his 60's era.

I know his voice was, while immature in the 60's compared to his so-called by pundits speaking highly of his 73-75 "Broadbrimmed period", strong and clear with admirable vibrato, but it lacks for me (the 60's) what I consider to be "my" "Lightfoot sound" characteristics of the type you ask, Yuri.

Even then, I'd forever regret not having CRT, Crossroads (underrated working man's song) Softly, and SFAWN in their original form from the 60's, along with others, but my consolation would be the re-recorded versions I admit I lke better on GGI.

So the variable but identifiable sound of '70 - '76, less SSOL (sorry folks) [covering head], mixes, hallmark for me being incredible orchestration/string sections with Nick DeCaro was my favourite.

One last thought Yuri (I have the impression you don't mind reading longer pieces like mine, please tell me if you do). Regarding the kind and well-meant comment above on the breaking up of writing into paragraphs, and breaking up of chain sentences for others reading ease. Good thread !
geo Steve
p.s. see note immediately following explaining the following below....

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The following below is a matter in which I may be able to share notes with Yuri, but is not germaine to any music, or GL. Thought I'd spare y'all from old news below, whereas Yuri might not have ever come across my old.. EVEN LONGER LOL pieces of work in posts - I must explain to him below.

Yuri - (continuing)

May I share a personal thought with you if this is difficult (the typing and structuring of your posts) for physical or other reasons for you:

My first 2 months or so..+/-, I wrote posts that were page-long single-space, i.e. 8 x 11 page ! And also they were considerably long run-on sentences. While my unchecked (literally) faculties as I am told are SOMEWHAT varying to noteably better ( per PM's to me in kindness) in this writing regard, I still struggle with this every day when I write anything.

Some days it flows better, with less effort and re-checking. But usually, as a courtesy to other corfid readers who were kind enough to gently (in most cases LOL) point this out to me, such as the courteous manner Borderstone did above as ameans of help.

Cathy coached me through a lot of things, as she had shared a similar-in-some-ways medical event as did I, and I know you most certainly have. She valiantly ran interference for me while I listened to her in PM's and posts as to how MY particular typing could be easier read. I had not used a TYPEWRITER OR PC IN ABOUT 5 YEARS !

This was due to a mountaineering accident followed by a car accident with a long list of double-digit surgeries, leg, hip, neck, eyes/head, and back surgeries and procedures.

Noteably, my head and brain injury, caught too late in severity. I re-learned a large amount of almost everything, but thankfully, my memory loss was short-term ( in some regards) but I also have total blanks of some years in the last ten or so. My education is in tact, thank God, at least so say my old prof's and a co-author.

The only reason I bring this up, while I know you've been hit with far worse and more difficult injury/illness (the extent and nature of being none of my business) is that I listened to well-meaning suggestions of how to type more "easy to read" too - and ultimately I benefitted from them, as they aided in my rehabilitation (and re-learning social skills as I took umbrage at first). Then worked though, but not without hurting some people inadvertantly.

Many were not at all courteous like Borderstone's. Brink and others besides Cathy helped me a lot. I still have a long way to go - long-windedness (LOLRH) and chain sentences, and non-sequiter subjects. I do not suggest your difficulties are in any way similar to my old and present challenges, but you can count on Borderstone to be thoughtful and well-meaning.

Many did not know of my "disability" (I hated that!!!) and I tried to not let it preceed me. I'd just burst it out passivley/aggressiveley (only sorta, not formally LOL) when I got mad about suggestions from people that simply did not know of my physical and mental limitations as I started into the room around January. They never would have said what they did if they had known, at least not that way. But all meant well.

Well - if I can help with any small talk, thoughts, or observations, or vice-versa if you wish to point out my hard-to-read for you things, do not hesitate. As far as I am concerned, biased as I am, I have no trouble reading your posts, and enjoy them a lot.

I just feel for you, as I continue. If your physical state is non-germaine and private to you - I will respect that and not mention again.
Also, if any discourse you'd prefer in PM's - OK.
Keep your great posts and threads coming - I enjoyed this one - too much ! (as the peanut gallery groans) LOL

-geo Steve

P.S. - it just occurred to me, if you would be so kind as to point out anything in my writing style (where to begin A HAHAHAHA), please do not hesitate, as I certainly do not wish to presume that the fact that I have improved some... though clearly not above...LOL, that reading my work is any "easier" than yours.

I'd welcome your critique, openly or PM. And I do NOT feel you "need" MY input. always interesting posts of yours Yuri, -
"geo" Steve Dunbar

[ October 04, 2006, 08:06: Message edited by: geodeticman ]

Cathy · 10-04-2006, 10:14 AM

Geo, believe it or not, my short term memory loss has improved over the past two months. Part of the problem was my blood sugar, up in the 400 range! I had no idea that I had sugar diabetes, or that it often causes a feeling of confusion, and now that I have my blood sugar down to normal levels, my memory is coming back. I've also learned that some of the memories I have of therapy in Bangor are actually of my month long stay at Mass. Medical in Boston, almost like part of my brain is finally thawing out!

I think, considering your injury, you are doing great. Your posts, (while still quite long

) are much more readable. I'm quite lucky, because I didn't suffer from any written communication problems, but there are a lot of people at therapy who are going through the same thing you went through. I'm sure, like you, some of them will improve, but it saddens me to know that many of them will not.

Well, it's fiddling night in Canada. I've got to get my gear together!

Cathy

Don Quixote · 10-04-2006, 11:07 AM

Hi, Geo. Without directly answering the original question (too hard to decide, and it changes according to mood, season, degree of sobriety and perhaps the phase of the moon; sometimes a song will come into my head that I hadn't thought of, and that'll set off a period when I'll listen over and over to songs of the same period), I'm glad you mentioned the strings. Perhaps it's just my prejudice (my wife is a violinist), but the synthed string parts of the later years just do not offer the same sound as the real thing in the early 70s. I'm well-aware of the added expense (I'm not suggesting he should take the London Symphony on tour with him), but in-studio it would be nice if he included some authentic strings.
DQ

RM · 10-04-2006, 01:03 PM

Just wondering.....

Why is this thread so wide ? I truly wish to read the thoughts of others, but scrolling back and forth makes it a tedious task. Continuity is lost.

charlene · 10-04-2006, 02:55 PM

The long link posted by John is why the page is wider...this was one thing Florian was trying to work on with the new site I believe...

Char

Steve and Yuri - While it may be 'difficult' to read posts that are one paragraph it can be done. I don't find it troublesome at all. I read the content and always find interesting and thought provoking posts worth the 'difficulty.'

It's reading stuff that is a waste of my time that irks me. Not to say that the same thing would be thought provoking to others...
I speak for myself only.

Keep 'em coming any way you can get it posted...

Char

Hey Cathy - fabulous news about the memory! What an amazing thing the brain is..!
Enjoy the Canadian fiddlers!
It's also Hockey Night in Canada - Toronto vs. Ottawa....

go Leafs go...
now THAT is funny - right Yuri????

Cathy · 10-05-2006, 09:53 AM

This thread is normal width for me. Maybe it's an option I have selected, although, I don't know which one it is.

I agree, Char. The brain is an amazing thing. I suppose I wouldn't be quite so agreeable if things had turned out differently... If I had a lot of brain damage that wasn't reversible.

charlene · 10-05-2006, 10:23 AM

It's normal width for me too Cathy...some folks get the 'wide' version tho!
lol

sometimes I do get the wide screen view of some threads with the long links or really large pics....hit and miss it seems...

vlmagee · 10-05-2006, 10:45 AM

No, this thread is not "normal" width, where normal is as it appears on the Discussion Forum page. Click back to that and you'll see the the inside area (inside the black) is narrower there.

This site and the forum screens are designed to run at 800x600, or a width of 800 pixels. In fact, most web sites are designed to run nicely at 800 width because a good percentage of the population either runs that way by choice (to allow multiple windows on the screen), or has an older monitor.

This thread, with the long URL and the too wide images exceeds 800. Even for people who have monitors that run at higher resolutions, as I do, it is most comfortable to have windows that are only about 800 wide. Cathy and Char are probably running full screen at 1024, and in that format the thread fits without horizontal scrolling. But it would be nicer if people tried to keep their postings narrow enough to be comfortable for everyone. For those who can run at 1024, there is an alternative. For those with very old monitors, there is not.

RM · 10-05-2006, 11:28 AM

Well, I was able to get the same result as Charlene and Cathy by switching browsers : from Mozilla Firefox to Internet Explorer.

My screen resolution is set at 1024.

Yuri · 10-05-2006, 01:20 PM

Thanks to Geo-Steve for his comments and kind advice in posting format. Thanks to all for giving their thoughts on the subject of the post.

I guess I was trying to be concise and save space without even realizing it. Thought the content was more important than the expression of it but I shall attempt to mend my ways.

As for myself, I would like to see the band as it is today but with Red Shea thrown in for good measure. A tour with a string section would be nice also.

Having grown up in the 60's, I am very fond of Gord's music from that era. In particular the songs Gord refers to as his "Ballad Salad".

One of my favorite albums is 'Summer Side of Life' because it IS Gord, yet different. More melencholy that most works.

Then again, there are fantastic gems post 60's and 70's and I certainly don't want to miss what is coming next.

I find less production suits Gord's music best.

Thanks Gordos and Gordettes!

Yuri

johnfowles · 10-05-2006, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by charlene:
The long link posted by John is why the page is wider...this was one thing Florian was trying
to work on with the new site I believe...
Char

Oops
Actually I do not think it has anything to do with long links as the format as far as I can tell automatically breaks up long links into shorter pieces to keep within the width that the
brower has adjusted to to display the largest object on the page in this topic's case that is my first displayed picture. Sorry folks.
For myself viewing at 800 pixels wide this topic's width is compromised by my two pictures, both of which I had already resized: the upper one of the Royal Albert Hall is actually only 750 pixels wide and the lower one only 700. so Valerie' theoretical 800 to suit lower resolution monitors seems a tad optimistic.
I had indeed carried out some experiments earler at:-
http://www.corfid.com/ubb/ultimatebb...=000153#000000
on acceptable picture maximum sizes in order to furnish information to insert in tutorials
on both displaying pictures here and resizing them if necessary or at the very least using a
thumbnail as a link.
My tests indicated that at a monitor resolution of 1024 a picture resized to 640 pixel width was
looking rather small but it pretty well filled the width at a resolution of 800.
Interestingly whilst drafting this reply I realised that my monitor was probably set at 800, and a quick check (right click anywhere on your desktop then select "properties" then "settings" to find a slider for adjusting your monitor's resolution if it is possible that is). and sure enough it was.
I quickly realised that the reason for this was that I was temporarily using a new Hard Drive on
which I had newly installed Windows XP Home Edition and obviously the default seting is 800 by 600 so I have now reset it to 1024 by 768.It is therefore possible that Ron's Mozilla
Firefox came on at only 800 but his Internet Exploder setting was a reset 1024.
Anyway the picture size is therefore as important as the actual file size as I think that in round numbers any picture file
one may wish to display should be a maximum of say 100 Kilobytes else those of us like me with dial up connections will be grumbling.Plus as eviednced here a pixel width of 640 mxaximum should please all viewers (except those looking at palm sized devices of course)
If to show some fine detail you wish to let your aiudience see a larger version then you will have to upload it to for example http://www.imageshack.us which will create a thumbnail for you then give you a choice of UBB codes to display the thumbnail as a clickable link to your full sized version.Then test it it or at least preview to check that you get your intended result.
It is also worth pointing out that if you try to find a picture using Google Image Search the results very conveniently show not only the full sized picture size in pixels but also the file size in KB
So yes thank you Ron for bringing this matter up
John
P.S. If you are contemplating displaying a picture and are not sure how it will appear, try at the preview stage viewing the
result in both 800 and 1024 widths.
Finally anybody having a "megapixel" digital camera must realize that at the larger settings
the files become quite large and must be resized before being of any use here, fortunately there are several nice freeware program(me)s out there
Aslo,image shack has a fairly small maxinmum file upload size
allowed: jpg jpeg png gif bmp tif tiff swf < 1.5 megabytes.
and in addition I just realised has a checkable box to resize your image to various preset sizes including 640x480: for message boards
As they say "Bingo"!!!

charlene · 10-05-2006, 04:37 PM

John, I am going only by what Florian has said to me and Val who is also a professional webmaster/designer guru also now says about it.

The reason is long links and the fix is to change to 1024 if possible. For those who can't change their screen they will still have wonky pages when long links are posted.

thanks Val.
Char

Florian stated to me:
>""I also hope the new forum will alleviate some of the problems - for
>example, I really disklike how posting long links disturb the whole
>formatting of a topic - similar to the effect a large picture has - the
>left and right margins all get scrambled.""

Cathy · 10-05-2006, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RMD:
Well, I was able to get the same result as Charlene and Cathy by switching browsers : from Mozilla Firefox to Internet Explorer.

My screen resolution is set at 1024.

Mine's at 1024, too.
Did you have problems with Mozilla? I know people who run it and only have good things to say.

RM · 10-05-2006, 06:17 PM

Cathy,

I have had no problems with Firefox (which is a browser developed under the Mozilla open-source umbrella). I'm not computer-savvy enough to know why so many are disgruntled with Internet Explorer, except that it is more susceptible to security breaches. Firefox is safer...or so I'm told.

I did a little "Googling" on this text formatting issue and it sounds like Valerie, Florian, and Charlene are correct.

The only reason Internet Explorer displays it in a more readable manner than Firefox is the way it handles wrap-around text, which would be required because of the super long link and/or picture.

[ October 06, 2006, 08:36: Message edited by: RMD ]

geodeticman · 10-06-2006, 11:24 AM

Yuri -

Your writing is excellent. I guess I am so used to reading textbooks, novels, articles, etc., that my predeliction towards single spaced writing is automatic, and by no means difficult for me to read.

I wished only to assist in what I had no idea anyone had difficulty with by sharing some memories of similar input I'd recieved many moons ago. Borderstone's was among the kindest constructive critique, too

Back to your subject, and may I suggest that as a courtesy from us to you on the thread topic - an apparently common note I think I struck from DQ and others input above is the strings (real) section, or in any event at recording time.

I agree with DQ - the synth does not do it for me, except rarely, as in 7 Island. And, that is great stuff, one of my all-time favourites. But the commonality we seem to share amongst several of the above postings in topic, was indeed the strings.

While at this stage of his career, touring with a string section is likely not at all practical, but it is a hallmark of what I enjoy most of Lightfoot's 1970 - 76 period.

Interesetingly I find is that as most know Gord toured with a violinist in the 70's as an opener. Perhaps another progeny under his wings, with a few union locals, would give their eye teeth to tour with him. just a dream.

Just think of the expansive CRT as Gord LIKES it as he has said, as of GG1's re-recording of it for full orchestrated sound he felt missing on the first album recording, and wanted then in GG1 to be more like the CBC (?) TV show with the whole TV Orchestra and extras - a vision of his.

Seems a thing he MIGHT cotton to - the strings, in simple fashion. Think of IYCRMM, and all the recordings that caught us with the rich strings, like Is Anyone Home, too.

Thanks for the great thread Yuri, and worry not as Char said - your writing is great, and YES, resoundingly, I agree with you that the CONTENT is vastly more important. In this case, if I may, I think ALL is well !

Do you think its even possible for Gord to tour with a small contracted string section, or union locals ? I sure hope he at least returns to it if only in recording.
Regards, geo Steve

-

talbot10 · 10-06-2006, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by geodeticman:
Yuri -

Do you think its even possible for Gord to tour with a small contracted string section, or union locals ? I sure hope he at least returns to it if only in recording.
Regards, geo Steve

-

HI Steve,
You are right about that being a great wish. I would love to see Gord with a string section as well as Rick with a microphone and maybe one other good vocalist to help out Rick. I find myself filling in those background vocals mentally when at a Gord concert.
Bill Hall