I was too young to care about Simon and Garfunkel, they'd split and reformed some three times before I was born, and I still thought Sesame Street was the height of musical achievement when they had their first historical reunion in NYC in 1981.
I naturally despise Folk Music, which is the genre most often ascribed to S&G, though I have no idea why. I pretty much hate Bob Dylan, though I don't mind a few of his songs when done by others... like Hendrix. I can't put this one on my parents or my environment. I'm pretty sure I could unpack the loathing I have for folk music in a way that would make sense of my abiding love for truly classic folk tunes, but another day.
Regardless: This dislike meant I actively avoided any Simon and Garfunkel music as a young man. I'd sneer at the old tapes and records my parents had, tune out their music on the radio and generally dismiss them off hand.
As a result, I knew very little about the duo, musically or otherwise, so I somehow formed an odd opinion that Garfunkel was some goofy looking motherfucker who was the luckiest, leechiest sonofabitch to ever work Music, a no-talent hack who'd ridden Paul Simon's coattails to stardom.
I blame 'Me And Julio' for that.
No seriously. In 1986, after a few failed attempts to hit it big as a solo artist*, Paul Simon released Graceland, which made him a verifiable musical giant, a song writing powerhouse. He used the return of his fame, his big solo break-out (mind you that S&G had been official kaput since 1970), to produce a music video for this song he'd produced back in 1972.
In 1988, when I was a young teenager, this song was getting radio play like no one's business, and even a Rock Snob like me couldn't miss all the hype around how great Paul Simon was as a songwriter. And since he was getting all that Hype without Art Garfunkel around, well... you can see why my opinion on Garfunkel's relative talents seemed justified.
Anyway: I've been on a classic rock kick for the last six or so years, the sweet spot being the early seventies or so. I've finally gotten over Mr Roboto and given Styx a chance to impress me, got over my irrational dislike of The Who, and recognized their absolute brilliance (its the name, see...), and yes, pushed down Van Halen and AC/DC to somewhat more realistic recognition of their worth. You could say I've matured, if you happen to think the classic rock songs of the late sixties and early seventies were better than the hair-metal of the eighties, but that's just a different sort of snobbery, now ain't it?
But a curious thing happens when you do that: You start listening to music you would normally have overlooked, and I started listening, really listening to Simon and Garfunkel, hearing songs that had hooked their way deep into my subconscious when I was a wee nipper and never let go, and finally realizing that, yes, I did in fact like some of their music.
I am ashamed. I denounce myself.
But seriously, there was a reason they were a massive success in their day.
Of course, the easiest way for me to listen to their music is via the magic of Youtube, and I noticed something that confounded my earlier prejudice... aside from the fact that Garfunkel in the sixties wasn't half so goofy looking as he was in the eighties... the truth of the matter is that the success of Simon & Garfunkel rested at least as much, if not more, on Garfunkel's voice than Simon's songwriting and guitar work. Oh, they harmonized, its not like Simon was a silent partner. And truthfully? Simon didn't even write all of their hits. No, I'm not saying Garfunkel wrote anything... but you think Paul Simon wrote "Are You Going to Scarborough Faire"???**
Art Garfunkel is THE voice you hear when you listen to Simon & Garfunkel, and he was something that is largely absent from the music I generally prefer: A well trained, talented singer with an amazing voice. Without Garfunkel, Paul Simon was just a rather weird, trollish little man picking up chicks with his shitty guitar*** down at the local bar.
To clarify, Art Garfunkel's voice never changed (not until he was in his fifties, and that was from smoking, not delayed puberty), and unlike Michael Jackson, who may have been accidentally (or.. you know... not) chemically castrated, he actually used his voice. There are at least two hits from the duo that pretty much lead with Art going solo.
In terms of raw musicianship, I'd suggest that Garfunkel's ability to use his voice, aside from the natural talent it represented, was miles beyond Paul Simon's guitar playing, or his guitar and singing combined. Folk Music simply isn't that instrumentally demanding, which is one reason it remains so very popular with would be musicians. I'll go out on a limb and further suggest that its not terribly hard to write folk songs, either. We can argue about the way Sound of Silence resonated with most of a generation of young people, a bit like how Linkin Park managed to resonate with another generation, as a deep meditative look at alienation or what have you, but listen to it again and imagine, say, David Draiman singing it and tell me it works the same. No. You need that clear as a bell, angelic (not my word for it, but it is descriptive and reasonably accurate) voice carrying it to really make the sentiment hit home.
Can you imagine Me&Julio singing Sound of Silence solo and pulling it off? I can't, which is why I state, categorically, that I had it absolutely backwards way back. Maybe Paul Simon might have had a successful songwriting and musical career without Art Garfunkel, maybe he wouldn't have... but he was the one leeching off his more talented neighbor... and in retrospect, he was always the goofy looking one (they both had poor choices of barbers throughout their career, so that's a wash...). Maybe Art Garfunkel would never have been half as huge as the duo was, but with his voice and ability he would have had a long and successful musical career, somewhere.
Which brings me to my close: Synergy. See, the biggest mistake I made wasn't dismissing the folk music duo for the honest mistake of, well, its fucking folk music... and it wasn't misunderstanding their relationship as artists. We can argue what-ifs all day long, about who was the heart and soul of the 'band', but its missing the point. Some things are greater than the sum of their parts. If Art Garfunkel had taken up Opera, and Paul Simon went and stayed Solo from the beginning, the world would have missed out on some great music, it would have been diminished in some small way. Given the success of their last collaboration, we can say that we did lose out when they split, even if you aren't a particular fan (as I am not, even now. I'd rather spend my money on a classic Journey album than S&G, just to pick a random, well known, band from a hat), though I've clearly overcome my reflexive distaste. Maybe their theoretical next album would have been ass, up and down, maybe they split just before they utterly changed the face of music forever (maybe they could have killed disco in its crib!!!); we'll never know.
Its never so easy to point to that 'one key element' of success. Jason Newstead never got to write a note for Metallica, but when he left they produced their worst album ever, and the one after that was only marginally better. Was his constant, failed, efforts to get songwriting credit actually holding the band's feet to the fire to produce consistently enjoyable music (regardless of your opinion on their short-hair turn in Load/Reload, their music never grated on the ears until Saint Anger)? Or was it mere coincidence that his replacement played on the worst-rock-album-ever! We can suggest social dynamics, the idea that the power-duo of Hetfield-Ulrich only felt more egotistical, more cocksure after ousting the one guy telling them that there are four members of the band may have led to a 'we can do no wrong' mentality, to overconfidence... or maybe Newstead left because he saw the shitstorm coming, and on top of his long running feud with his bandmates over creative differences, he didn't feel like it was worth being a part of it anymore? ****
We can never say, but therein lies a peril in trying to parse a band, in picking the truly important members out of any social group. Often the facts are less obvious than they appear. And yet, this was something I 'got', back when I was a teen... long after I'd already written my fellow ginger off as a no-talent hack.
* Not that Paul Simon had no success between 1970 and 1986, he had three successful albums in a row, but aside from Me&Julio, how many songs from those three albums can YOU name without looking? Compared to the success of Simon & Garfunkel together, it a bit underwhelming... less successful than Solo David Lee Roth!
** Now, on the off chance that someone challenges me that this is a S&G hit, I note that if you look up Simon and Garfunkel on youtube, this is one of six songs that pops up right away, and by that measure alone suggests it is one of their six most popular songs, up with with the Sound of Silence. Cecilia and The Boxer.
*** No, seriously. Aside from being only 5'3", Paul Simon pretty much just looked weird until he got old enough that he stopped looking anything but 'old'. In the sixties he seemed a little pudgy and off, like he has a pet rat or something, and when you look at him in the eighties, when he's lost all that weight he looks dead, sallow. On the other hand, he banged Princess Leia, back when Carrie Fischer actually LOOKED like Princess Leia, and he married Edie Brickell (of 'What I Am' ah... "fame"), in a picture perfect display of feminine hypergamy in action when he was 51, though he'd been banging her for four years at that point. Plus: Folk Music.
**** Just to keep up the footnoting, I will point out that a fine and dandy example of this, far better than Metallica, is probably the Beatles. All four of them had successful Solo careers, and while Ringo often gets mocked as the 'no talent' one, I believe he has a distinction the other four lacked in awards or something (sadly, I can't remember the source for this tidbit, so I can't pin it down...), and for all the mockery he got from old beatles fans (I know... fuck do I know...), he is currently listed as the fifth best drummer of all time, not bad for the 'and also Ringo' guy. The point being, not one member of the band can be isolated and pointed to as the cause of their success. Not the old Modern Jesus-Lennon (as compared to the New Modern Jesus-Cobain), not 'will he fucking die already' McCartney, not the 'Damn, he died already?', under appreciated Harrison... not even Ringo, bloody-fucking Starr.
All facts sourced to Wikipedia, since they are legendary for their accuracy and lack of bias. All Opinions are opinions, either mine or someone else's I'm repeating to make a point.
No comments:
Post a Comment