Hate to be cynical but who are Simon & Garfunkel kidding

bambooneedle · Post by **bambooneedle** » Wed Sep 17, 2003 4:15 am

They clearly aren't friends and are just cashing in. I like some of their old stuff, but it's just so meaningless to play that stuff now and have all this sentimentality about it, and it makes me puke... they're just taking something that was once pure and original, and are exploiting it and their past fame for all they can. Saw them on Letterman and could barely watch them go through the whole ridiculous charade.

Just felt like calling a spade a spade, that's all. There should be open outrage about stuff like this.

Post by **BlueChair** » Wed Sep 17, 2003 6:48 am

If it was for real they'd be playing smaller venues. What's an acoustic duo doing playing arenas?

With that said, I'll probably go see them if they come to Toronto. But I agree with you.

laughingcrow · Post by **laughingcrow** » Wed Sep 17, 2003 12:36 pm

Not sure I totally agree. They are after all musicians by trade, and (although Paul's not short of a quid or two) still need/like to make money. Not all musicians are like Frank Black or the like, and say 'I'm not playing songs from our most successful period 'cos they mean nothing to me now' (saying this, just read the Pixies are reforming..lol), and I never though of Simon and Garfunkel's songs were ever very deep and meaningful to them personally?

If you went to a S&G concert, and they didn't bang out a few favourites, even their most ardent fan would be a little dissapointed!

bobster · Post by **bobster** » Wed Sep 17, 2003 3:03 pm

On the one hand, I'm tempted to say that anything that gets Art Garfunkel's voice back on those wonderful songs is okay with me.

On the other hand, it was pretty obvious that they could barely stand to look at each other during their Grammy performance. (One of the least sincere male hugs on view this side of the Carson Daly show!)

But, on the other hand, where is it written that they have to love each other to perform together? Abbot and Costello supposedly hated each other. Sam & Dave, I understand, didn't talk through most/a lot of their career.

I guess the trick is that, if they hate each other, they should try to perform so well together that people watching would never know. Obviously, they're failing!

bambooneedle · Post by **bambooneedle** » Wed Sep 17, 2003 3:23 pm

bobster wrote:But, on the other hand, where is it written that they have to love each other to perform together?

They're calling it "Old Friends: The 2003 Concert Tour"

See http://www.msnbc.com/news/963996.asp?0sl=-21&cp1=1

Post by **BlueChair** » Wed Sep 17, 2003 3:25 pm

"Old Friends" is a song from Bookends though.

El Vez · Post by **El Vez** » Wed Sep 17, 2003 4:25 pm

Color me indifferent. I put Simon & Garfunkel in the same league as Crosby, Stills & Nash; empty headed, bubblegum folk music. Paul Simon's work as a solo artist tends to grate on me after a few listens as being hopeless navel gazing. Plus, I can never get over how completely Bob Dylan blew him off the stage in Atlanta when they toured together.

Post by **BlueChair** » Wed Sep 17, 2003 4:33 pm

El Vez wrote:Color me indifferent. I put Simon & Garfunkel in the same league as Crosby, Stills & Nash; empty headed, bubblegum folk music. Paul Simon's work as a solo artist tends to grate on me after a few listens as being hopeless navel gazing. Plus, I can never get over how completely Bob Dylan blew him off the stage in Atlanta when they toured together.

I think a lot of the point of Simon & Garfunkel was to create a lighter shade of folk music, even if some of it is pseudo-dark. "The Sounds Of Silence" is a song that will be sung 100 years from now. I'd argue that some of Simon's lyrics and melodies are as good as Dylan's. "America" may have become a cliche, but lyrically, it's pretty astounding. Unfortunately for Simon has been on a rapid decline for almost 20 years or more.

As for Crosby, Stills & Nash, I think they have gotten to the point where they make fools of themselves more often than not, but before the bullshit hit the fan, that first album they made was phenomenal. Crosby had already proved with The Byrds (see Fifth Dimension, Younger Than Yesterday, and The Notorious Byrds Brothers) that he was capable of HEAVY stuff, lyrically and musically. Maybe it was the drugs. Then again, maybe he's just more talented than he lets on. But that was a long time ago.

Elvis agrees with me, having put CSNY's Deja Vu, Simon & Garfunkel's Bookends, and two early Paul Simon albums on his list of 500 Albums You Need. You'll argue that there is also a lot of crap on there as well. And you're right. But I rest my case

noiseradio · Post by **noiseradio** » Wed Sep 17, 2003 4:52 pm

I thik Paul Simon is one of my favorite songwriters of all time, and I rejoice at any excuse for Paul and Arty to blend their voices. The title is a good one. They're old friends. That doesn't mean current friends.

A rope leash · Post by **A rope leash** » Wed Sep 17, 2003 4:54 pm

I don't know if it's the drugs or not, either. It does seem that a lot of musicians who appeared to be very talented and inventive in thier younger days wind up producing what sounds like crap in ther older years. I think it could have something to do with staying stagnant in thier particular genre. By branching out musically, Elvis has avoided this fate.

Maybe El Vez feels the same macho-disgust I do when I hear or see Simon and Garfunkle, or CSNY. I'm sorry, and I know it ain't right to feel this way, but these guys are pop sissies.

I prefer The Smothers Brothers. At least they can pretend to be passionate.

El Vez · Post by **El Vez** » Wed Sep 17, 2003 5:36 pm

I think I was misinterpreted about Crosby, Stills and Nash. I did not refer at all to Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young in my previous swipe because Neil Young's participation has almost always meant a quantum leap in the quality of songwriting on their albums. CSN&Y have some pretty inspired moments thanks to a genius like Neil Young being on board. Crosby, Stills and Nash when they are without Neil tend to have a lot less bite and focus. Ultimately, I think there is something very insincere and mannered about CS&N and Simon & Garfunkel. There's no realy mystery or depth to their recordings and a lot of the time I think that they either don't believe what they are singing or are flat-out hypocrites.....the latter being more the case with Crosby, Stills & Nash. David Crosby and Stephen Stills both have a lot of work from the 1960's that they can be proud of but I think that they are minor artists at best when all is said and done.

Post by **BlueChair** » Wed Sep 17, 2003 5:41 pm

Alright, I see what you're saying there, and agree with you completely.

Boy With A Problem · Post by **Boy With A Problem** » Wed Sep 17, 2003 9:19 pm

I wouldn't go as far to call S&G, "bubblegum" - nor would I go far to see them - as Chair said, this kind of music is really wouldn't do it for me in an arena. My folks had the albums and we grew up on them - so I guess I sort have a soft spot - and I like most of the hits (Bob Dylan covered The Boxer on the vastly underappreciated Self Portait record - both the S&G version and the Dylan version were released in 1970) - and I like a lot of the Simon solo stuff (especially Graceland).

I'm also an absolute sucker for early Hollies, and consequently I end up giving Nash the benefit of the doubt.

Post by **BlueChair** » Wed Sep 17, 2003 9:26 pm

I love "King Midas In Reverse", even if it makes no sense

Copenhagen Fan · Post by **Copenhagen Fan** » Thu Sep 18, 2003 2:33 am

Don't be musical snobs....S & G are great 60's icons....their shows are actually fun as hell and with a lot of ambiance. Everyone gets back together, The Who, Jimmy Page and Robert Plant...even the DOORS, with Ian Asbury! It's all cool because they are artists..........an artist's job is to work their craft....even if it's lame or outdated.

CSN&Y are incredible musicians, innovative (they created a unique sound that was often copied) and are just plain great........nuf' said........

All music can be used for different objectives...dancing, introspection, mood......anger management........

Pov · Post by **Pov** » Thu Sep 18, 2003 7:27 am

$250 per ticket, with a "presale" for American Express. Smells like a cash-in to me! I don't begrudge them the opportunity to make money. I'm not going to pay to see them, though, and I actually grew up with and like most of their music. Plus, they are from Queens, like me!

Post by **spooky girlfriend** » Thu Sep 18, 2003 3:57 pm

I have fond memories of S&G playing on the old 8-track when I was in third grade, while my parents dragged my brother and I around in a camper on family trips.

I still feel something when I hear those songs - it's some of the few good memories I have from childhood, since it wasn't a great one. But somehow I connect good thoughts with that greatest hits collection and I can still sing every word to every song. I have to be in a certain mood to listen to them now, and Bridge Over Troubled Water still makes me emotional sometimes. But I will probably always have a soft spot for that music and I guess I always had a feeling they would get back together for a tour.

But I wouldn't pay that to see them live.

Does anyone remember this Saturday Night Live episode a few years back? Paul was the host and they did a skit where Paul remembered all these various obscure people, like someone who had checked him out at a supermarket, but when Art made a cameo in the skit, Paul looked at him and "couldn't place him"?

pophead2k · Post by **pophead2k** » Thu Sep 18, 2003 4:07 pm

I like Simon and Garfunkel. I think their stuff was the epitome of that sensitive-nerdy-guy-in-a-black-turtleneck-who-didn't-understand-why-the-jocks-got-the-girls kind of guy. Plus Paul Simon has managed to show a vivid self-deprecating sort of wit, especially on SNL. Besides, whether anyone thinks its sappy or not, Bridge Over Troubled Water is one of the most beautifully written and sung songs of this or any generation, IMHO.

bobster · Post by **bobster** » Thu Sep 18, 2003 4:11 pm

"Old Friends"...hmmm.

Oh, well, all I'm going to say that is that I love S&G, particularly the album "Bridge Over Troubled Water", but have no interest whatsoever in CSN, though Y is another matter.

And, yeah, the Hollies we're cool,so maybe N gets a pass too. (I most recently heard "King Midas" in Steve Soderbergh's "The Limey" where it provides the backdrop for this sort of rock video like introduction of Peter Fonda's character. Actually kinda sorta makes sense in that context.)

oily slick · Post by **oily slick** » Thu Sep 18, 2003 4:40 pm

well, you know they pretty much bored the hell out me when i was a little kid though we still had sounds of silence, greatest hits and i don't remember what all in the collection. i was more interested in the stones, beatles, animals, hollies, etc. you wanted to slap 'em awake really. now when you're old it is curious. and now i root for the old guys. i knew this had to be coming for years cause they can make a fortune, though they still seem really uneasy with each other. the harmony on letterman was improved over the grammys, so they been workin' on it. i wouldn't pay 250 or 100 to see them. you're just gonna watch them stand still on a jumbotron. i swear someone on here said they were a lotta fun in concert

, but i can't find it now. how would you know that? all that said, arty has such a beautiful voice...

bambooneedle · Post by **bambooneedle** » Fri Sep 19, 2003 8:02 am

"Old Friends"..... Well at least they're old. I wouldn't see them for free, no matter what everyone else was paying. I just wouldn't want to be part of it. This isn't sanctimony, I just think it would be crap, and I don't think I could handle being among such a gullible and sentimental crowd.

I went on a football trip to the Riverina (country New South Wales) when I was 13 and Simon and Garfunkel played in the car as I stared out the window there and back and it makes me remember that trip.

When I saw them sing The Boxer on tv I could just feel the lack of chemistry in my bones (eg. definite lack of vigor in the lai-da-dai's), and then when they sat down, with Letterman trying to pump up the crowd all along to get a good interview, they just sat there stiffly hardly looking at each other. Simon, ultra-cautious, edgy, and furtive. Garfunkel, looking apologetically uncomfortable and sad between thin embarrassed smiles.

I don't think "Old friends" just means that they were once friends, it clearly implies that they're friends now. Otherwise, it's a very misleading title. When Letterman inquired about the reunion AG offered something like, "well, after the grammys we got a chance to put a lot of the past behind......". I see... And Simon has made similar comments in the press.

I got the feeling that they don't even talk -- just turned up for the show. They should at least discuss their scamming a bit, then as Bobster suggested, they might be able to act it all out that much more convincingly.

HungupStrungup · Post by **HungupStrungup** » Fri Sep 19, 2003 10:23 am

Excuse me?

Hate to be cynical but who are Simon & Garfunkel kidding

You're not hating this at all. You're quite gleefully trashing these guys as though you know just what's in their heads. You could "just feel the lack of chemistry" indeed!

Who's scamming again?

bambooneedle · Post by **bambooneedle** » Sat Sep 20, 2003 6:35 pm

You misunderstand or something. I hate to be cynical; I don't go trying to be that, and don't like looking as if I am. But, given the feeling I have reason to be "cynical"/skeptical about something, I will be. And I'll take any measure of glee in expressing it as I so see fit. So what? It doesn't alter the sincerity of my point of view, or the impressions which led to it.

I don't feel like trading insults with members of this board now.

Yes I think it's a scam, but who knows what effect an outpouring of fan love and truckloads of cash will have on how they feel from now on...

Jackson Monk · Post by **Jackson Monk** » Sat Sep 20, 2003 7:49 pm

1. The Hollies were great. Bus Stop a fantastic song.
2. Stephen Stills was/is a 'Steel nose'
3. 'America' is a great tune - one that makes me yearn to visit the place.
4. Art Garfunkel looks like the Devil
5. Everything Spooks said I agree with

cosmos · Post by **cosmos** » Sat Sep 20, 2003 8:50 pm

You know, S & G actually broke up before they became famous. They recorded an acoustic version of "Sounds of Silence" for their first record, and it went nowhere. So Art decided to go to grad school in America (Columbia University), and Paul moved to England. A radio station in Boston started playing "Sounds of Silence", and Columbia decided to "electrify" it hoping it would become a big folk-rock hit. Producer Tom Wilson was in the studio recording "Like a Rolling Stone" with Dylan, and after that session he asked some of the musicians to stick around and overdub parts on to the acoustic version of "Silence." It went to number one, and S & G got back together. So they probably never even liked each other at all in the 60's either.

Elvis Costello Fan Forum

Hate to be cynical but who are Simon & Garfunkel kidding

Hate to be cynical but who are Simon & Garfunkel kidding

I like that one song, though...

don't fuck with the needle