Paul Simon

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…

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.