Paul Simon

You have to be of an age, and have the kind of parents, where it would have been one of five cassettes in the car for years of your childhood. People I know my age (32) and down a few years all love that album, know every word, quote lyrics to each other on Facebook. Bigger than Born in the USA, bigger than any other 80s rock record possibly in this way.

Yeah but I'm talking about teenagers and people in their 20s (coworkers, relatives etc.) who literally have no idea who he is. because I have played his music for them and they are like "never heard of it"

That is interesting/strange, I would believe that his profile has gone down a bit, but I still hear ''Mrs. Robinson'' a lot.

i'm 26 and graceland car trips are indeed practically my first memory but yeah i wouldn't be surprised if i'm on the tail end of that.

honestly I think the only thing they might recognize is "Me & Julio" from Royal Tenenbaums

Are people in their early 20s into the Royal Tenenbaums?

that thing is on cable all the time

it seems to have been canonized pretty quickly afaict

surely some young ppl know him as "very mellow" in Annie Hall

Some young people probably call him "Al".

did Don 'n' Glenn like him?

well, yeah

I'm sure that must have been a long 5 minute wait for you, Al

DON: Paul Simon was one of those game-changing songwriters, someone who really opened the door for their peers to write about anything in poetic terms. Song's like "The Boxer", "At The Zoo" and "Fakin' It" spent hours on my turntable while we where brainstorming our own tracks like "The Sad Cafe" and "Hotel California".

GLENN: Also, if I'm not mistaken, "Fakin' It At The Hotel California" sums up the ol'Donster's sex life...for his girlfriends, of course!

DON: Well, yeah.

I can't even imagine that people do not know who Paul Simon is.

never met anyone who doesn't know who Paul Simon is and his S&G LPs in partic seem vv popular with college aged kids.

I get maybe not knowing Hearts & Bones or something, but at very least it's easy enough to be exposed to Simon & Garfunkel, Graceland and various greatest hits. Paul Simon's best work is Beatles/Stones-level inescapable. You know it even if you're not trying to know it.

fwiw my four-year-old's favorite bedtime song is "Leaves are Green."

Would you say it's inescapable as pizza?

No, pizza might as well be oxygen.

guys I'm just talking about my own personal world of young people

!!!
http://www.vulture.com/2014/04/paul-simon-and-edie-brickell-release-new-duet.html

is that a new record for fastest time between between being arrested for domestic violence and releasing a new track?

first of all, never let it be said that Paul Simon doesn't understand the nature of music publicity in 2014. Secondly, I cannot believe Edie Brickell stole my song a day idea. (Is it just a Dallas thing?)

She's quite aware of a few many things

WTMF is this new song, mofo?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/22/arts/music/paul-simon-stranger-to-stranger-interview.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fmusic&action=click&contentCollection=music®ion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront

The music for “Wristband” grew out of the sliding tones of a West African talking drum track. Mr. Simon asked Carlos Henriquez, from the Lincoln Center Jazz Orchestra, to duplicate them on the bass, and found a stretch that felt like a montuno, a Latin dance vamp. Mr. Simon’s son Adrian pointed him toward the electronic music of an Italian producer, Digi G’Alessio, who calls himself Clap! Clap!; Mr. Simon met with him while touring Europe with Sting and later visited his studio in Sardinia to choose some bubbling electronic syncopation. There are also handclaps from a flamenco group — Mr. Simon recorded the whole group together and isolated the clapping, then slowed it down digitally — along with percussion and horns from Mr. Simon’s touring band. And the whole multitracked assemblage simply jumps.

The album’s sounds also include instruments invented by the composer Harry Partch — among them chromelodeon and cloud-chamber bowls — that divide an octave into 43 steps, which are used to bend the harmonic ambience of “Insomniac’s Lullaby.” And they include the gospel voices of the Golden Gate Quartet, recorded in 1939, pitch-shifted and played forward and backward. Listening to the group’s vocals in reverse, Mr. Simon heard the words, “Street Angel,” giving him a song title and a character mentioned in two of the album’s songs: a homeless, poetry-spouting schizophrenic who ends up in the hospital. “Too much dopamine, and you’re schizophrenic,” Mr. Simon said. “But just over here, and you’re a visionary.”

Who produced this? I can't imagine Simon wanted the Partch stuff, but, like, Hal Wilner would.

Huh, just his usual guys, it looks like.

Yep, usual guys --Andy Smith and Roy Halee

Simon re Partch--

Most of the album was recorded at Simon's home studio in Connecticut, with Clap! Clap! and Simon communicating via e-mail. But in 2013, the sessions briefly moved to Montclair State University where unique, custom-made instruments, such as the Cloud-Chamber Bowls and the Chromelodeon, created by the mid-20 century music theorist Harry Partch, are stored. "Parch said there were 43 tones to an octave and not 12," says Simon. "He had a totally different approach to what music is and had to build his own instruments so he could compose on a microtonal scale. That microtonal thinking pervades this album."

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/inside-paul-simons-genre-bending-new-album-stranger-to-stranger-20160407#ixzz49KDbvkCO

http://www.thesinglesjukebox.com/?p=21380

Put me down with the 5s

Carl Wilson writes the Paul Simon review I've always wanted: a fan grappling with what a smug shithead Simon often comes off as in his lyrics.

I've problems with the review despite my agreeing with most of it. I won't explain now. He's right about The Rhythm of the Saints though.

So far the new album's a bore.

He did "That's Alright(Mama)" as an encore tonight. Only when I got home did I notice that Elvis' guitarist Scotty Moore died, and the song choice was a tribute. Simon also never introduced any of his bandmembers. I liked the show. He only did a few from the new one-- the title track; Wristband; Werewolves

nytimes article suggests that might have been one of his final shows.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/29/nyregion/paul-simon-retirement-stranger-to-stranger.html?_r=0

I understand the general gist, but this sentence is like a wrong stew:

While most stars of his generation, unsurprisingly, are playing greatest hits concerts, if anything, Mr. Simon’s new album is competing with those of Drake and Beyoncé on pop music charts, and with Radiohead and Deerhoof for college radio airtime.

Yo, editor: are you talking about Simon live or Simon's albums? Does he not play his greatest hits plus a few new songs? Is the new album "competing" with Drake and Beyonce just because they share the chart? Are they actually on the same chart? Is that different than when any of Simon's peers, the "stars of his generation," release a new album? Why Radiohead and ... Deerhoof as college radio standards? Doesn't Radiohead compete with Drake and Beyonce on the same charts? Doesn't Radiohead outsell Paul Simon by magnitudes? Does college radio play Paul Simon at all, let alone alongside Radiohead and Deerhoof?

Anyway, no one retires anymore. There's Bill Withers and that's about it. Solo acts otherwise retire when they die. Though hearing Paul Simon needs 15 hours of sleep and can't tell tents from mountains implies more is going on than just getting older. 71 ... that's 5 years older than Springsteen, a year younger than Jagger and Keef, 5 younger than Dylan and (come on) a decade (!) younger than Leonard Cohen.

actually, STS would have debuted at #1 if not for Drake.

When he put on his glasses, he realized the mountains were actually big white tents

He seems awkward onstage. Maybe that's part of it. He works the band hard in rehearsals I see from that article. As I said, wish he would give them credit onstage. They're good and a highlight of the show. Some of his lyrics bug me, but his voice still sounds alright.

actually, STS would have debuted at #1 if not for Drake.

Sure, but with what, 20 copies sold? The charts are no longer a sound measure of standing, imo. Neither Drake nor Paul Simon are operating on the former level of "stars of his generation," and I don't think Simon was ever really some sort of chart juggernaut in the first place, so to even call them competitors is a tad disingenuous, I think. None of that shit matters, because Paul Simon has been around for nearly 50 years. Who the fuck cares about the charts?

I guess what I mean is someone had to be number one on the charts. Whether it is Simon, Drake or Radiohead is pretty moot, since none of those is some indomitable sales force. And even then, if Radiohead is on par with them as chart peers, it's weird to bring up Radiohead in the same sentence as some college rock alternative.

Back to Paul Simon's craft....Here's an excerpt from Chris R*chards in the Washington Post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/the-comforts-and-discomforts-of-paul-simons-american-tunes/2016/06/28/6d03abb4-3d41-11e6-80bc-d06711fd2125_story.html

At Wolf Trap on Monday night, Paul Simon sang a new and indisputable lyric about the mystery of music itself: “Certain melodies tear your heart apart.”

That’s obviously true, but Simon wasn’t instigating much cardiac rippage up there. Has he ever? Even when he’s touching on the anguish of existence, Simon’s song-world often feels like a place where pain can be ameliorated by dry jokes, sympathetic shrugs and knowing nods. As for his sound-world, the melodies are still cozy and the rhythms are still elastic.

So that evening, the man’s steadiness might have been his most valuable asset. Touring behind his 13th solo album, “Stranger to Stranger,” the 74-year-old proved that his growing songbook is well-tailored for the long haul. His cherubic deadpan is still working just fine; he remains fluent in rhythms from around the globe; he’s still tenaciously curious about timbre; and his band still knows how to wiggle, bounce and go boing-boing. What else could you ask for?

Maybe this: For all of its worldly wonderment, Simon’s music is so staunchly pleasant, it rarely even hints at the true wildness of our doomed planet. The songs are pristine and clever. The world he’s reporting on is not.

It’s a minor disjunction, but on Monday night, it was a nagging one — like during “Spirit Voices,” a song about tripping on ayahuasca in the Amazon jungle that felt strangely clear-headed. And again during the handsome lucidity of “Still Crazy After All These Years.” And again during “The Werewolf,” a new ditty where Simon laughs his way toward the approaching collapse of capitalism. “The fact is most obits are mixed reviews,” he sang playfully. “Life is a lottery, a lot of people lose!”

Some of this I can see, some is just too much nitpicking of the lyrics (many of which I am not crazy about but overlook based on strong melodies and/or rhythms). Not sure what Chris wanted from "Still Crazy"...On Simon's 2nd night at Wolf Trap he delivered it with a melancholy melody ala the recording. Did he want it more loose or at a faster tempo?

For all of its worldly wonderment, Simon’s music is so staunchly pleasant, it rarely even hints at the true wildness of our doomed planet. The songs are pristine and clever. The world he’s reporting on is not.

I despair at the literacy and intelligence of writers.

It's a pristine, clever world!

Only when I got home did I notice that Elvis' guitarist Scotty Moore died, and the song choice was a tribute.

Actually, the NYT piece describes him rehearsing it; that preceded Scotty's death.

"it rarely even hints at the true wildness of our doomed planet" is a noxious clause in so many ways: Simon's not as "authentic" as the rhythms he interpolates; he's too "white"; his songs by implication are too polite, hence unable to delineate the "wildness" of our planet; the use of "true"; the use of "our doomed planet."

Ha, I got Simon's age wrong in my age rant.

Sure, but with what, 20 copies sold? . . . I guess what I mean is someone had to be number one on the charts. Whether it is Simon, Drake or Radiohead is pretty moot, since none of those is some indomitable sales force. And even then, if Radiohead is on par with them as chart peers, it's weird to bring up Radiohead in the same sentence as some college rock alternative.

67,000 sold the first week, which made it #1 in terms of actual sales (i.e. not including streaming, which the Billboard Top 200 does, hence Drake on top there). In any case I don't think that sentence is nearly as bad as you're making it out to be -- it's simply saying that Simon is, unlike most of his peers, releasing new music, and that his new music has been relatively well-received among both mainstream and non-mainstream pop/rock audiences. In the context of a NYT article it makes sense to bring up Radiohead and Deerhoof in reference to college radio -- both have new albums on the college radio charts; Radiohead is well-known enough to give the average NYT reader at least a vague idea of the kind of music on college radio charts while Deerhoof is obscure enough to suggest that the chart is very different from the pop chart despite Radiohead appearing on both. It might've been weird to bring up Radiohead if the article were on, say, Pitchfork, but in the Times it helps to give context. If anything it was weirder to use Deerhoof as an example as (at least on the last chart I saw) they were at #459. A better choice might've been Holy Fuck (#13, vs. Simon at #14).

Except that like I noted, Radiohead is rubbing shoulders with Simon on the pop charts, so it's a weird reference point. Yeah, I get why they brought those acts up, and yeah Deerhoof, but it still makes no sense to me. They could have said Sufjan Stevens and Vampire Weekend, to name two acts heavily indebted to Paul Simon and in essence beating him at his own game on college radio (in as much as any of them dominate college radio, any more than Deerhoof), which is a different thing.

And which of Simon's peers no longer release new albums? Which of them only does greatest hits sets? The Stones?

The Who

I don't know how wide a net he's throwing with "stars of his generation" but in terms of people who had big hits in the '60s a quick search shows that members of The Turtles, Cowsills, Paul Revere/Raiders, Spencer Davis Group, and Gary Puckett are all playing near me this summer, and that's just at one club. Donovan too, though it looks like he put something out three years ago. It seems like there's always a supply of these guys playing at amusement parks and town festivals (admittedly not always with any original members -- I think Herman's Hermits are still touring . . . and yes, his argument is maybe a bit weaker if his net only includes people who have remained stars at close to Simon's level over the decades). re: Sufjan and Vampire weekend, the sentence would have less impact if he used examples like that. Seeing Simon in a list with Deerhoof and Radiohead is more surprising than it would've been with those two. If that was the angle the writer wanted to go with he would've picked, I don't know, Mumford and Sons and the Lumineers for his pop chart examples rather than Drake and Beyonce.

It doesn't belong in "Best Music Writing 2016" or anything but I don't think it's that bad.

you're being very hard on a NYT piece from the metro desk, Josh. this is not Pareles or Ratliff edited by Sia Michel or Fletcher Roberts; this is a guy who writes about shit that 60-90 year olds on the upper west side and park slope co-op members care about, and he and his editor probly were at Yale or Princeton when he put out Still Crazy… while I think it would be good for the metro or business desk to have the culture people to look at shit they do if they're not confident, there's a lot of moving parts and only so many hours in the day…