Paul Simon

"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…

I was being hard, but only in passing, because I was mostly making fun of that single sentence. I know all about writing for broad daily paper audiences, but that was just weird (to me, I guess) on several levels. OK, so Paul Simon is not just doing the hits, and ... neither are most/many of his peers (whoever they are). And again, Simon's not "competing" with Drake and Beyonce any more than he's competing with anyone on the charts, let alone as a "pop" act. For those who care about the charts, James Taylor (a peer? close enough) just got his first No. 1 record ever on the top 200. If number one means anything to anyone anymore, then I'd say that, yeah, that actually makes musicians of Simon's ilk/stature/whatever perfectly "competitive."

And then beyond that, it's strange that Radiohead is brought up as the alternative, because iirc Radiohead and Drake were literally bracketing Simon's new album on the charts. Is Radiohead the alternative or ... Simon's pop peer? Is it any weirder that Simon should (allegedly) get college radio play alongside Radiohead than see Radiohead get "pop" chart action alongside Drake and Simon? And the Deerhoof stuff, it rubbed me the wrong way that the band was dropped as a lazy college rock signifier, because I never got the impression Deerhoof was a particularly dominant college rock act, and certainly less so lately than the likes of Sufjan or even Vampire Weekend, who, sure, would have changed the bent of the piece a little, but mostly because Simon on college radio alongside a band like Vampire Weekend, which is overtly indebted to him, isn't that weird at all. And of course even then, Vampire Weekend has spent its own fair share of time on the erstwhile pop charts.

Anyway, long story short, charts are stupid and pretty irrelevant these days, and to even debate whether Simon is "competitive" with pop acts is equally irrelevant, given his 5 decade tenure, most of those years spent as a reliable "pop" (as in "popular") act. He's not any more "competitive" with Drake than Drake is "competitive" with him as a septuagenarian legacy artist. It's apples and oranges, and I felt inserted into the piece for some awkwardly unnecessary contemporary references.

guys, the album's good

really good

I like the album a lot! I think I liked the last one more, though.

There is a funny symmetry to Clap! Clap! producing on this, since he makes his music by sampling/re-contextualizing West African music. Like, if Simon was going to work with a young electronic music producer, who else would it be? But he's also dope, and I really like the album.

West African? I thought he was just ripping off Harry Parch. That was he says in the liner notes, anyway

Ah never mind I should shut up

simon’s song-world often feels like a place where pain can be ameliorated by dry jokes, sympathetic shrugs and knowing nods

betrays a lack of close listening

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/music_box/2016/06/paul_simon_s_new_album_stranger_to_stranger_reviewed.html

Carl Wilson in Slate:

Simon has written loads of songs that make me flash like a strobe light or puddle like sweet custard. But as I’ve been reminded by many moments on his impressive new album, Stranger to Stranger, others turn me sour and wary. It’s the voice and lyrics—almost never the reliable sonics, beats, and melodies. It’s been true from the sententious poetry smushed into “Sounds of Silence” and the feel-good flim-flammery of the “feelin’ groovy” song on to today, though he’s a much more able and subtle writer now than he was during the Simon and Garfunkel era.

I like Carl's closing paragraph too:

Alternatively, we Simon skeptics might simply say he inclines to smugness. Or that, for all his talent, he is more clever than he is wise. As the worst great songwriter himself sang on Hearts and Bones, “Maybe I think too much for my own good … Other people say, ‘No no/ The fact is/ You don’t think as much as you could.’ ”

The heart of the album rests with "The Riverbank" and "Papa Bell" imo.

Surprise is the only dud album in his catalog. You're The One should be rediscovered.

^Agreed. Altho I'm still not too keen on most of Capeman. YTO much better than I gave it credit for at the time.

I love Paul Simon but most of Hearts & Bones, nearly all of Still Crazy, Capeman... all duds.

It's hard to get past the lyrics of Still Crazy - it has a self-pitying, self-justifying tone. Wouldn't say dud, but there's a big dropoff after the singles. One Trick Pony is kind of boring, and I don't enjoy the doo-wop of Capeman. Everything post Capeman is pretty solid for an old guy.

Remember refusing to believe the critics and buying tickets for The Capeman -"how could something with all that talent go wrong?" - and in the middle of the first act thinking "what a waste of all the various talents!" Crossed paths with Quincy Jones at the intermission, overhearing that he didn't like it (but he also said he didn't like Graceland!). As I recall, the music is mostly uninspired pastiche of various styles Simon had done better with before, with "Shoplifting Clothes" being particularly memorably offensive and indefensible - a song based on a bad joke on the title and concept of an excellent Coasters song- and I'm afraid I don't have the Alfred-like ability and instinct to relisten, reevaluate and recuperate.

Old time conveniently located West Village destination:

Jimmy Day's/ Boxer's, 190 W 4th, Corner Barrow, therefore lots of windows.

Seems to have recently been something called Oliver's City Tavern which is also closed.

Ha sorry, wrong thread

most of side B of hearts and bones is pretty damn good IMO

H&B is a perfect example of a flawed record that one can love to bits. Christgau's description ("a finely wrought dead end") is one of his pithiest.

I have been listening to his latest album lately, due to this thread and I really like it, surprisingly.
I didn't expect anything from him and am quite impressed (maybe because I haven't listened to any album from him past Graceland).
The voice doesn't seem to age and could have been recorded in the 80s or even 70s which is very weird (when you compare to McCartney's, for instance).
Even the production has a classic aspect to it but with a touch of modernity without sounding forced or cheap.
I'm not familiar enough with the material yet but it also seem quite strong.
Overall it seems up there with any album he's released.

it doesn't seem as melodically generous as some of his other albums, but it's quite good.

i liked carl wilson's review a lot, but i do think that there's a sort of trap for songwriters of simon's ilk. if he tries to write about "social"/"political" phenomena that are supposed to be outside of his own experience, he can be accused of being opportunistic, naive, or touristic. but write solely about his own life and experiences and he'd be accused of being solipsistic. some songwriters choose to end-run this dilemma by just being impressionistic and/or inscrutable (someone like scott walker) but i think it's not in simon's nature to do that exclusively. i think he strikes a pretty decent balance b/t the various options.

It's true that I haven't noticed a track that really stands out.

Man, there are definitely some dud tracks and cheese on Still Crazy/One-Trick Pony/H&B, but the good stuff is so good. This probably reads like challops but I actually think OTP is one of his strongest records, if you just lop off the forced "Ace in the Hole" and maybe the title track. More consistent than H&B (though the top-drawer stuff there is really essential Simon) and just more memorable, lyrically and melodically, than most of Still Crazy. (I will admit that side two of that one is super forgettable - can't hum most of the songs, looking at the titles, and why on earth he left "Slip Slidin' Away" off of that I cannot fathom.)

Tried halfheartedly to like Capeman, never could.

i saw Capeman for free... he needed a dramturg or somethin'

i listened to the new album on a plane last week, on shitty plane headphones. Had some decent stuff.

hard to get past the lyrics of Still Crazy - it has a self-pitying, self-justifying tone

p sure he was going for a Dostoevskian thing here

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/30/books/review/rock-lives-this-seasons-pop-music-biographies-and-memoirs.html?_r=0

Alan Light reviews a bio done on Paul Simon, without any cooperation from Simon

HOMEWARD BOUND: The Life of Paul Simon (Holt, $32), Peter Ames Carlin’s biography of Paul Simon, presents the portrait of an artist with a much greater compulsion to keep his eyes on the prize. Carlin — who has chronicled the lives of Brian Wilson, Paul McCartney and Bruce Springsteen — received no cooperation from Simon; the closest he got to the singer was getting glared at from the stage of a 2013 lecture at Emory University. But the thoroughly researched and solidly told “Homeward Bound” reveals many sides of a complicated, ambitious, insecure figure.

The most newsworthy element of this story is Simon’s ruthlessness. Carlin explains that at the heart of the fraught, almost comically competitive relationship between Simon and his on-again-off-again partner/rival, Art Garfunkel, is a solo deal that a teenage Simon secretly made with a record company during the duo’s early, brief moment of pop success under the name Tom and Jerry. It’s a pattern that seems to play out repeatedly in his career as described by those who have known Simon — according to one of the legendary Muscle Shoals session musicians, he promises them royalties on 1973’s “There Goes Rhymin’ Simon” album, but they never see the money; he borrows a tape of South African music from a musician acquaintance, then, she says, blows her off and turns her idea to use the irresistible rhythms into the basis for the “Graceland” album — only to record two songs for the project that Los Lobos and Rockin’ Dopsie and the Twisters say were largely created by them without giving them songwriting credit or revenue.

But Carlin isn’t out to do a hatchet job; his love for Simon’s towering accomplishments as a songwriter is clear. He’s especially insightful examining the colossal Broadway flop of “The Capeman” and the “Rhythm of the Saints” album, inevitably overshadowed as the follow-up to the “Graceland” juggernaut. Unfortunately, “Homeward Bound” breezes over Simon’s fascinating latter-day work, sprinting through the last 20 years (a new family with the singer Edie Brickell, and new music that stands up to the best of his catalog) in about 20 pages.

Um, who cares about lending someone an inspirational tape, really, as long as the South African musicians he recorded with got paid (?).

as long as the South African musicians he recorded with got paid (?).

That is the question. Did not realize earlier musicians had also grumbled about him not paying :

according to one of the legendary Muscle Shoals session musicians, he promises them royalties on 1973’s “There Goes Rhymin’ Simon” album, but they never see the money

When I saw him on tour this summer, he didn't ever introduce the band (but I assume they got paid).

Maybe they got paid in exposure, a la nu-economy interns.

Carlin did a pretty good biog of Springsteen (albeit with Bruce's co-operation). I trust him to do a decent job here.

Would read if only for, but of course not only for, The Capeman material.

I have no problem believing Simon is something of a cagey asshole professionally and personally. great songwriter though.

i guess simon probably won't write an autobio? i can see it being kinda feisty.

I saw Paul Simon on the Graceland tour - it was one of the first concerts I ever saw. I have strong memories of his bass player from that show. When I saw him again a couple years ago, that bass player was still in the group. For what it's worth. Assuming the guy gets paid.

I love this guy's work, but have no doubt at all that his autobiography would be insufferable self-serving crap.

I'm under the impression that the core of Simon's backing band these days have been with him for quite a while, including a few South African musicians dating back to Graceland and Vincent Nguini (whose Cameroonian) who's played with him since early '90s as main guitar dude.

If Simon can't be honest enough about going bald to not try to hide it for 40 years, I doubt he would hold his own feet over the flame in a memoir.

Put it this way, I love Simon & Garfunkel as much as anyone and I spin The Rhythm of the Saints frequently, but I've never read or watched an interview with the guy where I haven't felt like dozing off.

maybe garfunkel should just make a documentary about him and simon a la Herzog's My Best Fiend

I've just had to throw on The Rhythm of the Saints briefly just to listen to 'The Coast', which is probably my answer to the question "what is your favourite song from Paul Simon's solo career?"

ba ba ba Ba Ba Ba PROUST!

Okay, I'm leaving this LP on for lil while.