A Question About ''Gordon Lightfoot Sings Every Song Ever Written''
leocit...@hotmail.com
part of it made me a little confused:
''I had done, for example, a parody of Canadian Content where I'd re-
written a song of Gordon Lightfoot's. [Cast member] Dave [Thomas] did
all these bogus K-Tel commercials, so we came up with the sketch
'Gordon Lightfoot Sings Every Song Ever Written.' Then, they had the
budget to get a local country-sounding band in Edmonton to do a few
bars from every single one of these songs I wanted. When I read that
at the table, it was very clear what it was. It was a bit everybody
could understand. That's the way things happened, doing a post-
production show like that.''
Well, i got confused, because this particular sketch has always been
one of my favorites, but i've always tought it was supposed to be a
take on Lightfoot's singing and musical style (In fact, waht Jeff
Robbins wrote on his book about the sketch, is very similar to what i
first tought of it.). Bu according to Rick, it was supposed to be a
parody of Canadian Content. So, i want to know what in the sketch
relates to canadian content? The fact that Gordie would sing every
song ever written would automatically make it canadian content? I'm
sorry about my ignorance on the subject, but being a non-canadian
that's kind of hard to understand. Other thing that bugged me is the
part he says that ''It was very clear what it was, and everybody could
understand it.'' What the hell was so incredibly obvious about this
sketch, other than, no matter how diverse the song that appears in the
sketch are, Rick's impression of Lightfoot, interprets them pretty
much in the same way? It makes me feel particularly dumb, since i've
originally loved the sketch, and apparently not for the reason it was
intented to be funny.
One more time, i'm really sorry about my ignorance., but can anyone
please explain me, how this sketch qualifies as a Canadian-content
parody?
e-y...@hotmail.com
Up until the early 1970s, Canadian radio was monopolized primarily by
American and British artists. Because of this, Canadian performers
usually had to leave their homeland in order to strike it rich in the
music business. (Paul Anka is someone who comes to mind.)
In (I think) 1971, a bill was passed whereby Canadian radio stations
(with some exceptions) had to have at least 25% Canadian content in
their programming. Unfortunately, because there weren't many Canadian
artists known on a national scale, this meant for a loooooooong time
people like Anne Murray and Gordon Lightfoot received extensive
airplay, especially Lightfoot since he had an extensive repertoire
dating back to the early 1960s. (He was also a master of "Canadiana,"
with such tunes as "Canadian Railroad Trilogy."
Therefore, although Gordon Lightfoot never recorded every song ever
written, it just seemed that way at that time because of the frequency
with which his tunes were played.
Incidentally, the Cancon ruling ended up helping many Canadian artists
achieve success internationally during the 1980s, '90s, and even to
this day. Nevertheless, controversy exists as to the extent and nature
of the ruling.
kitsc...@gmail.com
Without checking my sources, something can also count as Canadian
content without being wholly Canadian. That is too say that the
artist, the director, the writer, producer, location, etc. may (may)
qualify it as Canadian Content. Or perhaps a combinations of these
things. Maybe, I'll look up the CC rules later. They also have
likely changed over time. I believe this is why certain movies seem
to be on heavy rotation on CBC TV.
For example, "Moonstruck" (director Norman Jewison is Canadian), and
the Christopher Guest parodies (Catherine O'Hara and Eugene Levey are
Canadians) seem to be shown at least a couple times each year.
Thus, the parody being about Canadian Content makes sense in that they
could fill the Canadian content quota simply by having Gordon
Lightfoot as the singer no matter what the song. The fact that he
released a lot of material and best of albums in the 70s (including K-
Tel ones I believe) makes the every song every written layer work and
adds length to the sketch. The parody of his singing style is icing
on the cake whether Rick M. referred to it or not.
So, in that sense one can see how Rick M. could have viewed the sketch
like he would have viewed an early Great White North (K.K.) - as an
easy way to fulfill Canadian Content and mock it at the same time.
TS
Paul Morris
<kitsc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6dcb1771-c362-4f61...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
TS
--
Yes, they had vey odd rules. I remember being at CJSR Radio (in Edmonton
for those who may not know) and the rules were something like:
1) Music and lyrics by Canadians = 100 %
2) Cover song released by a Canadian band (cover song could be from anybody
in the known universe) = 100%
3) Cover song released by a band from anywhere in known universe which was
originally Canadian = 50% (The Golden Palaminos doing some Moby Grape song
comes to mind)
4) Anything else - 0%
Any regular show needed to hit 33%.
Seems like I was on air 1996 - 1999 or so, and had to abid by those rules.
The only exception was what were referred to as "specialty shows" - those
from particularly foreign climes. For example: we had a fine West African
music show, but it's pretty tough to find many musicians who play 'le sound
Afrique' with dual Canadian and Ivory Coast passports.
Personally, I found it massively frustating as all that happened that word
got round that any shinola band could get airplay - fact that it was just
because they were Canadian did not matter. What was amusing was that it all
went on the sheer number of songs, NOT the duration. On many occasion I
would just find the 10 or so Canadian Content songs under 30 seconds to meet
my requirements then happily carry on playing decent music. I would do them
all in a row and make non-so subtle commennts about it on air.
Well, that's my recollection - TS may disagree. He needs to as I am non CC
at this point.
PM
Jim Bennie
news:6127247b-729d-483a...@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> One more time, i'm really sorry about my ignorance., but can anyone
> please explain me, how this sketch qualifies as a Canadian-content
> parody?
Geez, that sketch is even more clever than I thought.
When I first started jocking in 1975, the Canadian content rule had been in
full swing for a few years .. stations had to play 30% Cancon. About that
time, some B-list Canadian pop artists got the idea .. because people were
finally sick of Ann Murray and Gordon Lightfoot and wanted different Cancon
.. to cover current American songs. That way, they got airplay.
My fuzzy memory is telling me Charity Brown was one of them but I've tried
to block all that stuff.
Jim
e-y...@hotmail.com
> <kitschys...@gmail.com> wrote in message
I'm not sure how many Canadian artists recorded tunes lasting under 30
seconds, but one "trick" program directors and jocks initially used
was to play their quota of Canadian music between midnight and five
a.m.
Jim, you're right about the Canadian covers of international hits: I
recall "Love Is In The Air" by Martin somebody getting more airplay
than the original, not to mention "I'm Easy" from the movie Nashville,
which was covered by a New Brunswick singer named Ken Tobias. Although
this wasn't what the Cancon ruling intended to have happen, it was the
next logical step in the creation of a viable Canadian recording
industry, which really started to pick up by the mid-1980s.
That being said, I agree that at the time the Cancon ruling seemed
rather stupid and arbitrary. However, the truth is without Canadian
artists getting airplay, they weren't going to sell records, which
meant they weren't going to get the kind of exposure that would
justify the investment necessary to help bring them into bigger
markets. The ruling would also eventually lead to a broader music
business base, for example, more recording studios with more "state-of-
the art" equipment.
Incidentally, for those who are interested, the MAPL formula was (is?)
what constituted Canadian content: M(usic), A(rtist), P(roduction),
and L(yrics). So if Lawrence Welk had recorded a version of "Stairway
To Heaven" in a Toronto recording studio (assuming he was given
permission by the song's copyright holders), it would be classified as
50% Canadian content.
Another aspect regarding Canadian artists not getting airplay on
Canadian radio was the long-held Canuck inferiority complex that was
prevalent at the time. You had to make it outside the country in order
to be accepted at home.
In fact, I was just as biased as everyone else; one reason I never
watched SCTV for the longest time was that I considered it shite
solely on the basis of it being Canadian, especially because of its
(at the time) cheesy sets and lack of name performers.
Ironically, it was the demand for Cancon that led to the creation of
(arguably) the show's most popular characters: the McKenzie brothers,
which, in my opinion, was one the worst byproducts of Cancon.
Trevor Stenson
"Jim Bennie" <jg.stopsp...@vcn.bc.ca> wrote:
I'll post after the latest post in this thread, but I'm mainly
responding to the last few, mostly PM's.
I very much remember you're loopholes for CanCon. They were most
amusing and necessary as you were playing an interesting mix of eclectic
'alternative', punk, jazz and avantgarde music during those years.
There just wasn't all that Canadian Content that was good in those
genres to fit the bill. I think it would be a bit easier if you did
pop, rock or country music as there we more artists in that vein that
could take advantage of the CC rules on Commercial Radio. Certainly,
not all of them were good though.
Sometimes P.M. would find a song that was both CC and short and that he
actually liked. I think a few songs off the first couple of releases by
NoMeansNo, a Canadian Punk Band, got heavy rotation.
Anyway, I don't know if this applied to CJSR, which was part of a
government funded University and did get at least some pubic/Univ.
Money, but I thought that CBC and other government-funded programming
had somewhat more restrictive CC rules. Anyway, those you know more
about it can correct me if I'm wrong and I'll eat a bug.
Now, I think my feeling toward CanCon may surprise PM, as I probably
played devil's advocate on the issue on more than one occasion.
In fact, I've always had mixed feelings about CanCon. It seemed to me
that the best Canadian artists just went down in the 60s to where the
music scene was the hottest and made it big on their own without any
benefit from CanCon - or in fact before its inception. This includes
the Band, Oscar Peterson (who continued to live in Canada), Joni
Mitchell and Neil Young.
I think on rare occasions for music artists the CanCon rules might have
helped their careers in their early years. k.d. lang or "The Barenaked
Ladies" come to mind. Actually, barenaked ladies probably come to k.d
lang's mind (two, three, four . . . Is this thing on?). But with their
determination these artists probably would have made it on own
eventually anyway.
In addition to the lameness that has already been mentioned, the CC
rules later on would spawn a bunch of artists who seemed to be 'Canadian
Versions of Successful US Bands' that got popular here (and sometimes
abroad) with the help of CanCon. I always thought 'the tragically hip'
were a pale R.E.M., and that Bryan Adams and others were sad Canadian
versions of Bruce Springsteen.
I think the CanCon rules were a decade or two late. They may have been
more helpful when Canada was more isolated in a sense, and had a much
smaller population than the US (by sheer numbers - it still is of course
smaller by population at a 1/10 ratio). And now, especially with the
better means of promotion and distribution the CC rules - especially in
relation to music - are really antiquated. They do more harm than good
I think. The same is true of TV these days. I think in some industries
they did pump some money into production and building infrastructure
(say in film). But overall I was never a big fan of CanCon.
For one thing it was probably the only thing that kept 'Smith and Smith'
on the air (which often was on instead of SCTV in Canada during its
first few seasons).
-TS
--
SCTV Locations:
http://members.shaw.ca/pumpkin27/iwebber2
feed://members.shaw.ca/kitschy/iwebber/TheStenonsNewDigs/Blog/rss.xml
Trevor Stenson
"Jim Bennie" <jg.stopsp...@vcn.bc.ca> wrote:
I'll post after the latest post in this thread, but I'm mainly
Jim Bennie
news:4b33e2dd-439e-4fe7...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> I'm not sure how many Canadian artists recorded tunes lasting under 30
> seconds, but one "trick" program directors and jocks initially used
> was to play their quota of Canadian music between midnight and five
> a.m.
Didn't they eventually take overnights off any Cancon restrictions? I
remember it being dumped into mid-days.
Unless it was production music, I don't think anybody recorded actual songs
that were 30 seconds, let alone ones that would count toward a MAPL quota.
> Jim, you're right about the Canadian covers of international hits: I
> recall "Love Is In The Air" by Martin somebody getting more airplay
> than the original, not to mention "I'm Easy" from the movie Nashville,
> which was covered by a New Brunswick singer named Ken Tobias.
Ron Negrini covered it, too. That's the version I played anyway.
Damn you! I thought I buried all this stuff!
> That being said, I agree that at the time the Cancon ruling seemed
> rather stupid and arbitrary.
Walt Grelis seemed to like it.
> Ironically, it was the demand for Cancon that led to the creation of
> (arguably) the show's most popular characters: the McKenzie brothers,
> which, in my opinion, was one the worst byproducts of Cancon.
I like the two-minute sketches because I think people could identify with
the characters as they likely knew someone like the McKenzies. What happened
was the characters and catch-phrases got run into the ground -- which SCTV
managed to satirise as well. What a brilliant show.
Jim
leocit...@hotmail.com
Thank you guys.
So, in a way, this sketch is similar to Moranis's take on Mike
McDonald's omnipresence in the early 80's, on that Gerry Todd sketch.
e-y...@hotmail.com
> <e-y...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4b33e2dd-439e-4fe7...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > I'm not sure how many Canadian artists recorded tunes lasting under 30
> > seconds, but one "trick" program directors and jocks initially used
> > was to play their quota of Canadian music between midnight and five
> > a.m.
>
> Didn't they eventually take overnights off any Cancon restrictions? I
> remember it being dumped into mid-days.
They have to feature Cancon during peak hours now.
> Ron Negrini covered it, too. That's the version I played anyway.
>
> Damn you! I thought I buried all this stuff!
You're right, it was Ron Nigrini. Funny, though, that you never saw
Ron Nigrini and Ken Tobias on the same stage together.
>
> > Ironically, it was the demand for Cancon that led to the creation of
> > (arguably) the show's most popular characters: the McKenzie brothers,
> > which, in my opinion, was one the worst byproducts of Cancon.
>
> I like the two-minute sketches because I think people could identify with
> the characters as they likely knew someone like the McKenzies. What happened
> was the characters and catch-phrases got run into the ground -- which SCTV
> managed to satirise as well. What a brilliant show.
>
The McKenzies stopped being funny for me after about the 3rd
installment.
Trevor Stenson
<16f727d8-2625-4a53...@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
e-y...@hotmail.com wrote:
>Funny, though, that you never saw
>Ron Nigrini and Ken Tobias on the same stage together.
Maybe it is a slight age or region difference - but my formative years
were in the 70s. And I also listened to a fair amount of AOR and pop
radio in my day. But I keep asking myself, who are these people"?
> The McKenzies stopped being funny for me after about the 3rd
> installment.
I think the GWN had moments of brilliance - but could be uneven (it was
of course heavily improvised). I found the Ian Thomas wraparound to be
self-indulgent but the GWN palace to be quite perceptive and fun.
The problem with enjoying Bob & Doug, I agree, was the over-saturation
that eventually occurred & their popularity with a lot of people who
didn't really care that much for SCTV itself.
I remember in grade-8 (?) during SCTV's third season, the first time I
heard other kids (aside from a few friends) talking about SCTV. Someone
was doing the hoser imitation of Darth Vader. I was pretty excited, but
when I tried to talk to any of these new fans, I found out that the
where pretty much only GWN fans.
Any attempt at talking about the brilliance of say "All the long-leggedy
beasties" was met with blank stares and disinterest.
Cheers,
Jim Bennie
news:kitschy-A75675.12285327012008@shawnews...
> In article
> <16f727d8-2625-4a53...@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> e-y...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>Funny, though, that you never saw
>>Ron Nigrini and Ken Tobias on the same stage together.
>
> Maybe it is a slight age or region difference - but my formative years
> were in the 70s. And I also listened to a fair amount of AOR and pop
> radio in my day. But I keep asking myself, who are these people"?
They're Canadian! It's a fact!
I was a teenaged disc jockey at an MOR station (from the movie of the same
name) when these songs came out and, thus, I had to play them for an
unsuspecting public. They were there to fill Cancon regs, nothing more, and
I'm sure no one rushed out to buy them.
> I found the Ian Thomas wraparound to be
> self-indulgent but the GWN palace to be quite perceptive and fun.
Agreed and agreed. The Ian Thomas one just seemed forced, but the Palace had
lots of great moments and a plot structure. I love the scene of Guy and Lola
in the office with Tony Bennett. And I liked the fact they were satirising
their own unwarranted popularity.
Jim
leocit...@hotmail.com
> "Trevor Stenson" <kits...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
>
> news:kitschy-A75675.12285327012008@shawnews...
>
> > In article
> > <16f727d8-2625-4a53-b528-3a912ddfa...@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> > e-y...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>Funny, though, that you never saw
> >>Ron Nigrini and Ken Tobias on the same stage together.
>
> > Maybe it is a slight age or region difference - but my formative years
> > were in the 70s. And I also listened to a fair amount of AOR and pop
> > radio in my day. But I keep asking myself, who are these people"?
>
> They're Canadian! It's a fact!
>
> I was a teenaged disc jockey at an MOR station (from the movie of the same
> name) when these songs came out and, thus, I had to play them for an
> unsuspecting public. They were there to fill Cancon regs, nothing more, and
> I'm sure no one rushed out to buy them.
>
> > I found the Ian Thomas wraparound to be
> > self-indulgent but the GWN palace to be quite perceptive and fun.
>
> Agreed and agreed. The Ian Thomas one just seemed forced, but the Palace had
> lots of great moments and a plot structure. I love the scene of Guy and Lola
> in the office with Tony Bennett. And I liked the fact they were satirising
> their own unwarranted popularity.
>
> Jim
Yes, certainly the GWN Palace was miles above the Ian Thomas
wraparound (The spoof of the Festrunk Brotherd, was particularly
inspired. ''Hey i'm Steve Martin and he's Conehead, eh?''). But it was
nice to see the great Brian Johns in a wraparound, though.
e-y...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> "Trevor Stenson" <kits...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
>
> news:kitschy-A75675.12285327012008@shawnews...
>
> > In article
> > <16f727d8-2625-4a53-b528-3a912ddfa...@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> > e-y...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>Funny, though, that you never saw
> >>Ron Nigrini and Ken Tobias on the same stage together.
>
> > Maybe it is a slight age or region difference - but my formative years
> > were in the 70s. And I also listened to a fair amount of AOR and pop
> > radio in my day. But I keep asking myself, who are these people"?
>
> They're Canadian! It's a fact!
>
> I was a teenaged disc jockey at an MOR station (from the movie of the same
> name) when these songs came out and, thus, I had to play them for an
> unsuspecting public. They were there to fill Cancon regs, nothing more, and
> I'm sure no one rushed out to buy them.
>
> > I found the Ian Thomas wraparound to be
> > self-indulgent but the GWN palace to be quite perceptive and fun.
>
> Agreed and agreed. The Ian Thomas one just seemed forced, but the Palace had
> lots of great moments and a plot structure. I love the scene of Guy and Lola
> in the office with Tony Bennett. And I liked the fact they were satirising
> their own unwarranted popularity.
>
> Jim
I suppose there's a bit of resentment on my part because with all the
classic
material presented over the years, it took the McKenzies to give SCTV
the highest profile it had ever attained.
That being said, I agree, Trevor, that the GWN Palace show did have
its moments, especially the scene with Guy, Lola, and Tony Bennet.
Even the Ian Thomas wraparound provided a few chuckles. I guess I just
didn't like the redundancy of those 2-minute bits.