[geodeticman.5]

RM,
I have heard, and read (among innumerable other attempts at defining genius) that genius is in asking the right questions. Explaining that philosophical precept to those who disagree would be out of the pervue of this thread, and would take one better qualified than I to answer.

The reason I mention this is that I believe Ron has asked a brilliant question, because among many other factors, he has have given us cause to pause, and reflect upon what are indeed the qualities we DO attribute strongly to Lightfoot's music, perhaps more so the man, than the music, in so far as this question he's astutely posed to us. They seem inextricably linked, what with so much of his music being a mirror, perhaps a shadow- so pervasive in his songs - even when in metaphor, of his life. He has said this is quite true, but we know how much he enjoys topical songs as well. I have read that Lightfoot, when asked, has said he wished to "be" the Stephen Foster of his century.(no cite, but still noteworthy in good-faith)

POINT BEING - to get right down to it - my answer- Stephen Foster. Realizing of course that he is not a contemporary, but THAT was not in the question. It would seem to me that to compare Foster, a man 'known as the "father of American music," that was the pre-eminent songwriter in the United States of the 19th century.' - Wikipedia- to Lightfoot would be appropriate. I honestly cannot think of an American writer that "is to America what Lighfoot is to Canada" more so than Foster.

The following is perhaps the strongest statement of why, but unfortunately is anecdotal; I am still searching for this perported on-line international poll of the following: "Who do you feel is the best singer/songwriter of the 20th century" - Dylan was in the top 10, as was Johnny Cash, John Denver was #2, and the "#1 "Best singer songwriter of the 20th century" was: Gordon Lightfoot."

I realize this assertion is virtually worthless without being able to cite the origin and substantiate it, but it was of some news in early 2000, not long after the '99 Holidays, as the Media prepared for not only their Best and Worst of '99, but also their Millenium review editions/specials that this ort came out of. According to the story on TV, Lightfoot had considerable pull internationaly, much more so per capita than in the United States; Canada was a hands-down, as one would suspect ! I offer this in good-faith, and acordingly let my case rest on everything in my post BUT this, as it is an unsubstantiated quote.

A quote -"Stephen Foster is amazing. Some of his tunes are so ubiquitous and pervasive, you don't even realize they are songs that someone wrote, they're just part of the American cultural fabric. On top of that, they're beautiful. How many things can claim to be both ubiquitous and beautiful? Coca-Cola is ubiquitous, but you wouldn't call it beautiful. Cole Porter's songs are beautiful, but he's far from ubiquitous. Stephen Foster's songs are both beautiful and ubiquitous, and nobody knows who he is!" -Kevin M. Goess: - Sound like some people speaking of Lightfoot, doesn't it. Substitute Lightfoot with Foster and re-read it..... I realize the 'ubiquitous' is moreso true in Canada currently on radio play, but still.....

A few similarities - "Foster's education included one month at college (Washington & Jefferson College) but little formal music training. Despite this, he published several songs before the age of twenty. His first piece appeared when he was 18.-"Wikipedia". This reminded me of Lightfoot's mentor-based musical training in singing, primarily, versus Foster's, in songwriting per se, but both were writing significant songs prior to adulthood. Also, Lightfoot attended Westlake College of Music in LA, took a handful of key courses in what he knew he needed, and took off blazing to writing/painting songs on a broader pallette.

In Wikipedia - Foster is said to have had a childhood preoccupation with songwriting; like Lightfoot, and was described by some also as a troubadour of the day, and a jonglier too, and minstrel. One must note the minstrel context in pre-civil war days was that of the travelling entertainment /one notch above circus, and most definately was an absolute atrocity in terms of the blackface and other shameful, pejorative sterotypes of African American's in song and dance during this time period that Foster did not hold with, it is said - fortunately - that he felt these (minstrel shows) were tasteless and cruel portrayals, and their accompaying music was of thoughtless prejudice, and yet he was able blend two primary mentors - the German formal music instructor's fundamentals of classic musical structure and reading/writing of music, and a minstrel songwriter's melody and pace - whose songs were - atrocities aside, a bit more zippy and toe-tapping.

Wikipedia also states that, along with Goess, that these two rather glaring dichotomies were a source of friction for the 'soul' of Foster's adolescent learning from the two men; but he was able to extract his own style that became household words and whistled in every kitchen for the last 150 years.
It was said on both articles that people , more often than not, know a large volume of Foster's work by hum and whistle, while very few could name the source. Being in the public domain as well has given to considerable seperation and dissemination of melody and lyric, many songs subsequently "written" were simply new lyrics added to existing Foster melodies !

One other similarity - at times - both Lightfoot and Foster's music were occassionally described as either sad or "'maudlin" - terms. at times ? Lightfoot also writes happy tunes, "mood" pieces, "ethereal" songs, - just as Foster was described by penny-rags of the day that he wrote sad and maudlin tunes as well, but neglected to mention his plethora of happy and "Zippier" tunes - camptown races et al.

Knowing few readers need to hear duplicitously the information on Lightfoot's early mentoring primarily in his Church in singing et al, I would add
a corollary to Foster who apprenticed under two incongrous but equally valuable mentors that ultimately blended into his style:

"Foster was greatly influenced by two men during his teenage years: Henry Kleber (1816-1897) and Dan Rice. The former was a classically trained musician who immigrated from the German city of Darmstadt and opened a music store in Pittsburgh, and who was among Stephen Foster’s few formal music instructors. The latter was an entertainer –- a clown and blackface singer, making his living in traveling circuses. These two very different musical worlds created a tension for the teenage Foster. Although respectful of the more civilized parlor songs of the day, he and his friends would often sit at a piano, writing and singing minstrel songs through the night. Eventually, Foster would learn to blend the two genres to write some of his best work. - Wikipedia

Mr. Foster favoured tasteful, compasionate wording in his music, and encouraged it amongst his contemporaries (pre civil-war), as well , during a period of music (pre-civil war) where minstrelsy was given to "trashy", l "Many of Foster's songs were of the blackface minstrel show tradition popular at the time. Foster sought, in his own words, to "build up taste...among refined people by making words suitable to their taste, instead of the trashy and really offensive words which belong to some songs of that order." He instructed white performers of his songs not to mock slaves but to get their audiences to feel compassion for them.

One note of apology - that of the comparison to Foster. Foster was raised in pre-civil-war south, where the dominant culture taught the....'norms' of the day - now of course known by all but the most ignorant, or callous idiots to be racial stereotyping atrocities. It is said in both sources that Foster was painfully aware of the cruel portrayal as a norm, and he attempted to improve upon, and greatly lessen, the racial stereotyping of the day, despite admittedly some inclusion thereof.

I think both tried to write a vision of a more beautiful, and more humanistic, compassionate world around them; depite the sadness and times of toil and tears and pain. Ultimately - I think they both wound up artistically with a slightly rosey lens to look through - as well songs should lighten the heart in the end.

Maybe a few good reasons to have compared him conceptualy, versus a bevy of 'quotable' likenings between the two, would be that I feel it now grows to a time period in Lightfoot's life and career where we may, in good taste, pay an "amidst-life" homage to his stature. And THAT "Ain't" (sic) no small task. Notably, IMO- in how he may be looked upon post-humously, generations from now - I am inclined, as would come to no one's surprise that has read this far ..lol... to think it will be akin to Stephen Foster in many - not all- ways, most certainly in stature.

Whatever the etylmological and conceptual opposite is of "flash-in-the pan" -musician is what I think Lightfoot will be looked back upon as, in generations to come, much as Stephen Foster's is considered now. Historically, I firmly believe that Lightfoot's "stature" - will do nothing but grow larger and of significantly greater footprints on our cultural ground. That 'cultural footprint' of both men will be seen IMO to have had, and still have, lasting significant impact upon the arts, music, and the people who pay them the attention that is their due.