All right, damn it. We were halfway there with two recent threads. Now it’s time to have a serious discussion about (for my money) the two greatest musical groups of their era.
The Beatles. Simon and Garfunkel. Not much more to say, really. Go.
Paul Simon is one of rock’s greatest songwriters, but Lennon and McCartne are #1 and #2.
It’s still The Beatles.
I love S&G so much, but the Beatles still rule. They were paradigm changing.
It’s The Beatles. For one thing, they put out 16 albums, three times the output of S&G. And they transformed all of music, so much so that the entire rock/pop world of the day keep tacking and moving to keep up with them. Not just once, but in 1964 AND 1965 AND 1966 AND 1967. (And 1963 in England before they hit America.) Other than Dylan, nobody ever did that multiple times. S&G certainly didn’t. They had some following but the music world didn’t change because of their brilliance in forging new paths. S&G were brilliant in their field. Wonderful, and life-fulfilling for most people. But not the same.
That’s why the answer to this question is always The Beatles. In the other thread Chronos said that Beatles vs. Stones would be a true test. The Stones did hit a peak in their late 60s blitz that was higher than even what The Beatles could manage, and they lasted obviously many times longer. But they were Beatles followers for most of the 60s until they found they true voice.
No, the only true competitor to The Beatles is Bob Dylan. He had the music, the brilliance, the leadership, the changing styles, and more great songs after the 60s. (Elvis was a singer of others’ songs, Chuck Berry and Led Zeppelin had one great style but couldn’t get past it, Brian Wilson wasn’t part of a band as good as Lennon & McCartney.) I think The Beatles still win, but that one makes me think. None of the others do.
Perhaps if we did S&G versus Oasis we would begin to be making some sense.
No, it’s actually a legitimate question. Both groups are in the very top tier.
Persoanally, I think that Paul Simon, as a songwriter, is the equal of either Lennon or MacCartney; it’s just that there’s two of them (plus George) and only one of him. So the Beatles it is.
You have to admit, though, that Simon did much better work post-breakup.
Simon & Garfunkel by far.
The Beatles had press coverage; S&G had talent.
Seeing as it’s The Beatles in a landslide so far I’ll defend my question.
I think The Beatles would win this one for me too but it’s very close. First of all, from a musicality standpoint Paul Simon might be the only pop songwriter of the 20th century that is in Lennon and McCartney’s league. My ex-wife was pretty handy at the piano and had little trouble knocking out Debussy or Beethoven’s tunes but she never felt she quite mastered “Bridge Over Troubled Water.” “That’s the hardest one of all to get right,” she said once: getting all the notes right was hard enough, but getting it to flow together was so difficult. (The mere fact that she, who idolized Vladimir Ashkenazy and Chopin, also thought so highly of Simon and Garfunkel also speaks volumes, I think.) I think from complexity of melody alone, Paul Simon might just be ahead of Lennon/McCartney/Harrison. Don’t get me wrong, they were amazing. But Simon’s best work feels like just a bit more to me.
And, really, The Beatles and Simon and Garfunkel were able to express their era in such a timeless way. Their music doesn’t feel like an artifact of the 60’s. And both groups worked so well as musicians as well as songwriters. Expano Mapcase mentioned Dylan, and you’ve got to respect him as a songwriter, but I don’t think there’s much question that Art Garfunkel outpaced him dramatically as a singer.
It’s too bad that Garfunkel didn’t feel comfortable going in the same musical direction as Paul Simon. Within a few years Simon was putting out material that successfully borrowed from African music and other cultures where American folk hadn’t looked hard enough at before. Maybe if the two had set aside their differences for longer, they could have pulled ahead of The Beatles; of course, they just wouldn’t have been Simon and Garfunkel then, would they? The musical tension between them was a part of what they were.
S&G didn’t really have much range, as quickly became obvious once Simon was separated from Garfunkel’s altogether-too-pretty voice, and really came into his own.
There are a whole lot of weak songs on the S&G albums.
They had very little stage presence. Still have very little stage presence.
S&G became big on the strength of Simon’s songs, but a lot of his lyrics were quite labored. He never completely got over that.
Overall, Simon is a top-tier songwriter, but there are others of equal or considerably greater talent (why hasn’t anyone mentioned Dylan, btw?). As a duo, S&G rate well below the Everly Brothers as performers.
A comparison with The Beatles does not compute.
It is hard to imagine. :rolleyes:
QFT. IMO, S&G are, hands down, the best that era has to offer. I think the Beatles owe their success as much to luck as anything else; had they not been the ones to rise to be the darlings of the media, someone else would have, and we’d be talking about them now instead.
IMO, the Beatles are the Brett Favre of pop music. They’re so ridiculously over-covered by the media and so fondly remembered through the rosy-glasses of nostalgia, that no one can really make an honest comparison because they either bought all the hype and think they’re the greatest band ever or are so sick of hearing about them that they hate them. I can’t seem to state and honest opinion, that they really do nothing for me, without either being told I have no taste in music, either because I don’t recognize their self-evident musical brilliance or, on the opposing side, that I recognize them as music at all.
Even though Paul Simon writes ten times better lyrics than Lenon/McCartney, The Beatles rule.
The Beach Boys would have been a “true competitor” if Brian Wilson had retained his sanity and creativity past Pet Sounds. If you’re going to penalize Brian for relying on outside musicians, it seems only fair to penalize the Beatles for relying on an “outside” producer.
See, I’d disagree with that in the case of Simon/Garfunkel. To me their stuff is completely reflective of that time. Song after song about alienation! Gritty urban images from guys who weren’t even black! I listen to it and I think, Relic of an Era, and not in a oh-yeah-I-associate-this-song-with-such-and-such-a-memory-from-back-in-the-day. (I was a young kid at the time, anyway, too young to associate their music with much of anything while they were making it). IMO, S/G’s music is a VERY strong artifact of the sixties. Interesting that your opinion is the opposite.
I voted for the Beatles. Now if Elvis had been a choice–
Personally, I like Simon & Gar better, but I voted for the Beatles. Their influence was far greater, orders of magnitude greater. Simon is a good songwriter but not the giant that Dylan is. His minor works are minor indeed, and when you get down to it he was not very prolific at all.
Garfunkel may have a better voice than any of the Liverpool chaps, but let’s be serious he is just a vocalist. (That being said, I liked his Breakaway LP).
I can’t believe anyone would say the Beatles don’t have talent.
Anyhow, lyrically, I far prefer Simon and Garfunkel. The poetry of their words have always spoken to me much more than anything the Beatles have ever penned.
However, musically, while I appreciate what Simon and Garfunkel have done, it’s the Beatles in a landslide for me. There’s really no comparison between these two bands. In my opinion, the Beatles were every bit as talented as Simon and Garfunkel, and I personally think more talented. I find them more musically interesting, with a better ear for melody, and for subverting pop structure than Simon and Garfunkel were. This is not to say that Simon and Garfunkel weren’t musically interesting–they were. I’ve always been a big fan of the rhythms of their music and the way they intertwined various folk traditions. But the Beatles always struck me as much more musically expansive, playful, and memorable.
…and it’s a special day, because I agree with Clothahump 100%.
I realize this is very imho, but I know which of the two I would personally prefer to listen to. Although I do like some of their songs, I find the Beatles generally bland and boring. Lyrically speaking, S&G are miles better.
I do lurves me some Simon and Garfunkel. That said, their catalogue contains considerably more filler than does that of the Beatles. Plus, the songs of the Beatles, by and large, tower over those of S&G.
Maybe. Maybe not.
He never wrote anything as haunting and trenchant as this, did he?