# The Beatles vs. Simon and Garfunkel **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [July 13, 2010, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-beatles-vs-simon-and-garfunkel/546518 "2010-07-13T13:01:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![straight\_man](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/straight_man/32/3027_2.png) [@straight\_man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/straight_man)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2010, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-beatles-vs-simon-and-garfunkel/546518/81 "2010-07-14T22:54:45Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > I’m not a big fan of trenchant, and as for haunting… I’ll take [this song](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AE3kKUEY5WU&feature=related) over it any day. Sometimes I think that the post-Beatles Lennon should have just got the fuck over himself. I’ll try to write a more complete post of my thoughts later, but yah, comparing those two songs, Paul Simon’s is so much better it’s embarrassing. And I also agree that post-breakup Lennon was a bit much. Actually, I kind of think that the Beatles in general went downhill when they really started taking themselves seriously. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2010, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-beatles-vs-simon-and-garfunkel/546518/82 "2010-07-14T23:06:07Z")
> [@Kyla](#): > > Well, that’s a bit of a philosophical question, don’t you think? I mean, people like all kinds of things that I don’t. Apparently, a lot of people like Ke$ha. I think she’s beyond awful. Can I dismiss their opinions as meaningless because I disgree? IMVHO, I think that all it proves is that my tastes diverge from whoever put “Yesterday” on that Rolling Stone Greatest Songs List. And that’s okay - but I still feel okay about saying that I think it’s a terrible song. I’m not going to say “this is a great song because so many people like it even though it makes me want to jab my eardrums out.” It does boil down to a philosophical question in the end, yes. I, too, think Ke$ha is a pretty substandard artist. However, if I started seeing musicians praise her work, along with critics, and listeners, I would have to come to the conclusion that there’s probably just something I’m missing about her work, unless I have a reason to believe there is some mass conspiracy out there to over-represent Ke$ha’s worth as an artist. So, yeah, it all boils down to philosophy. I may be attempting the impossible, but I do try to approach art criticism from as much a non-solipsistic point of view as possible. Which may be an idiotic thing to do, given the subjective nature of art, but that’s what I do. ---
**Author:** ![Biffy\_the\_Elephant\_Shrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e47c2d/32.png) [@Biffy\_the\_Elephant\_Shrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biffy_the_Elephant_Shrew)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2010, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-beatles-vs-simon-and-garfunkel/546518/83 "2010-07-14T23:32:32Z")
> [@straight\_man](#): > > I’ll try to write a more complete post of my thoughts later, but yah, comparing those two songs, Paul Simon’s is so much better it’s embarrassing. But you can’t give Simon full points for “American Tune,” since the tune is neither American nor Simon’s. He nicked that one from an old German hymn, also used by Bach in the St. Matthew Passion. ---
**Author:** ![Eonwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eonwe/32/240_2.png) [@Eonwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eonwe)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2010, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-beatles-vs-simon-and-garfunkel/546518/84 "2010-07-15T01:17:14Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > Agreed. Eleanor Rigby is about as perfect a two-minute pop song as anyone can ever hope to write. It boggles my mind to hear it referred to as a “mountain of suckitude” (from a Beatles fan, no less) or as a “very dull song.” I guess mileage varies and all but, really? It’s one of the most covered songs in the Beatles catalog–musicians from all sorts of genres have mined this tune for inspiration. My issue with _Eleanor Rigby_ is the arrangement. It sounds to me like any ‘pops’ concert with pop or rock music arranged orchestrally; cheesy, empty, and a shadow of what the song ought to sound like. Also, the “aaaah, look at all the lonely people” refrain grates on me. ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2010, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-beatles-vs-simon-and-garfunkel/546518/85 "2010-07-15T01:28:15Z")
> [@Kyla](#): > > I don’t know that that’s odd. There are artists out there that I don’t really connect with that I nonetheless recognize are talented. But I simply cannot take the opinion that “Yesterday” is a good song very seriously. The lyrics are like something a twelve-year-old aspiring songwriter would write. Musically it’s okay, I guess, but not particularly special. Oh, I wouldn’t say that. Most melodies in pop songs follow the traditional 4 or 8 bar structure, but Yesterday doesn’t - its melody is 7 bars long, not 8. And McCartney has a little fun with it… in the first verse, after singing “I believe in yesterday” (bar 7) a lesser composer would have the strings to repeat the last bit in bar 8, which is what the listener would expect to hear. But instead of the strings repeating the last bar as expected in bar 8, McCartney breaks in with the next verse… with the word “Suddenly”, which is kind of funny, in a _seriously_ geeky way. ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2010, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-beatles-vs-simon-and-garfunkel/546518/86 "2010-07-15T01:31:47Z")
> [@Biffy\_the\_Elephant\_Shrew](#): > > But you can’t give Simon full points for “American Tune,” since the tune is neither American nor Simon’s. He nicked that one from an old German hymn, also used by Bach in the St. Matthew Passion. And if the question then becomes Bach vs. Beatles, well, sorry Fab 4. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2010, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-beatles-vs-simon-and-garfunkel/546518/87 "2010-07-15T01:50:37Z")
> [@Eonwe](#): > > My issue with _Eleanor Rigby_ is the arrangement. It sounds to me like any ‘pops’ concert with pop or rock music arranged orchestrally; cheesy, empty, and a shadow of what the song ought to sound like. > > Also, the “aaaah, look at all the lonely people” refrain grates on me. Really? The arrangement is a big part of the character of the song. George Martin deserves a good portion of the writing credit for it. The insistent percussive nature of the string arrangement, the purposeful lack of vibrato, the counterpoint, the interplay with the vocals, the way it builds from verse to verse–it’s such a tense, haunting arrangement. I’m not exactly sure how one could improve on it. ---
**Author:** ![straight\_man](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/straight_man/32/3027_2.png) [@straight\_man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/straight_man)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2010, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-beatles-vs-simon-and-garfunkel/546518/88 "2010-07-15T02:43:20Z")
> [@Biffy\_the\_Elephant\_Shrew](#): > > But you can’t give Simon full points for “American Tune,” since the tune is neither American nor Simon’s. He nicked that one from an old German hymn, also used by Bach in the St. Matthew Passion. I didn’t even notice, but you’re right,it’s “Oh Sacred Head now Wounded”. But that’s one of the things I like about Paul Simon —he has a definite appeal to classical music. Anyway, if we want to decide which group’s the “greatest”, we have to ask what all that means. I think the answer depends on what criteria you use to judge. So I’ll make a list, and vaguely order it by importance from least to greatest (in my very subjective opinion.) Also keep in mind that S&G and the Beatles were very different, so it’s a bit of an apples-to-oranges comparison. Lyrical versatility: Simon and Garfunkel, by far. The Beatles portfolio has always struck me as being dominated by love songs and drug songs, though I can think of lots of exceptions, and S&G sang about everything under the sun. Catchiness: Beatles —although Simon and Garfunkel do have some seriously catchy tunes (“Me and Julio”, surprisingly “The Boxer”). But the pop success of the Beatles was plainly because every single song they write is catchier than any song anyone else has ever written. Pardon the hyperbole, but it’s still the Beatles in a walk. Musical influence: Beatles. Duh. Versatility: Everyone is saying Beatles, but I’m not as sure. Their early and late periods were very different from each other, sure, but within those periods, I don’t think their songs were _all_ that different — and Simon and Garfunkel do have a range from pop music, through folk to classical-ish. Both groups wrote songs that showed pretty significant influence from other musical traditions. I’d call it a tie. Lyrics: Simon and Garfunkel. I don’t think there’s that much room for debate her. And if anyone objects, well, I love you (yah yah yah), but you’re still wrong. Voices: I personally love a British accent in song, but I would say that Paul Simon was better than any Beatle, and Art Garfunkel was miles better than him. Beauty: Simon and Garfunkel, no question. A number of their songs are just extraordinarily beautiful —“The Only Living Boy in New York” and “Scarborough Fair” come to mind. Emotion: this is seriously subjective, I know. The Beatles win on consistency, and S&G win on their best songs. Does that make sense? Another tie. Musical quality: Simon and Garfunkel. As best I can tell, their songs have much more sophistication. Paul Simon is, well, the kind of guy who would use old German hymns for his melody, as in the days of old. Did I miss anything? I call it for Simon and Garfunkel. But even if you agree with everything I said, you might disagree with the outcome — what you prioritize will determine what you think. And if you like pop music and not folk, you’ll choose Beatles every time. (Although S&G did write some nice pop songs, too.) ---
**Author:** ![pepperlandgirl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f17d59/32.png) [@pepperlandgirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pepperlandgirl)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2010, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-beatles-vs-simon-and-garfunkel/546518/89 "2010-07-15T03:02:49Z")
> [@straight\_man](#): > > Versatility: Everyone is saying Beatles, but I’m not as sure. Their early and late periods were very different from each other, sure, but within those periods, I don’t think their songs were _all_ that different — and Simon and Garfunkel do have a range from pop music, through folk to classical-ish. Both groups wrote songs that showed pretty significant influence from other musical traditions. I’d call it a tie. So you’re saying that if you listened to **Beatles For Sale** and **Rubber Soul** back to back, or **Help!** and **Revolver** back to back, all of the songs would sound basically the same to you? Shoot, you don’t even need to make the effort to choose albums that are separated by a different release. Compare and contrast the songs on **Rubber Soul** and **Revolver** and you’ll hear plenty of differences. _Drive My Car_ is pretty different from _For No One_. > [@](#): > > Musical quality: Simon and Garfunkel. As best I can tell, their songs have much more sophistication. Paul Simon is, well, the kind of guy who would use old German hymns for his melody, as in the days of old. I find it far more impressive that four boys who barely had any musical education, who couldn’t even read music, managed to create albums like **Revolver** , **The White Album** and **Abbey Road**. I think the medley is far more clever and sophisticated than appropriating traditional melodies or old poems (Richard Cory, Scarborough Fair, Cecilia, American Tune). > [@](#): > > Beauty: Simon and Garfunkel, no question. A number of their songs are just extraordinarily beautiful —“The Only Living Boy in New York” and “Scarborough Fair” come to mind. S&G did have beautiful songs, but I’m not sure why “beauty” is criteria. For my money, McCartney’s voice and acoustic guitar on _Blackbird_ is just as beautiful as _The Only Living Boy in New York_. One is simplicity itself, the other is quite heavily produced. Clearly there’s been some disagreement in this thread on the quality of _Yesterday_, but I had a powerful emotional response last night when I actually got to hear it performed live. But this criteria is where the difference in genre really becomes an issue. I find _I Wanna Hold Your Hand_ endlessly beautiful because it is a perfectly constructed pop song. It might be the epitome of the genre. The very definition of what a pop song should be. But it’s clearly trying to accomplish something that _America_ was not. ---
**Author:** ![straight\_man](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/straight_man/32/3027_2.png) [@straight\_man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/straight_man)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2010, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-beatles-vs-simon-and-garfunkel/546518/90 "2010-07-15T03:38:17Z")
> [@pepperlandgirl](#): > > So you’re saying that if you listened to **Beatles For Sale** and **Rubber Soul** back to back, or **Help!** and **Revolver** back to back, all of the songs would sound basically the same to you? Shoot, you don’t even need to make the effort to choose albums that are separated by a different release. Compare and contrast the songs on **Rubber Soul** and **Revolver** and you’ll hear plenty of differences. _Drive My Car_ is pretty different from _For No One_. I’m not saying they aren’t varied —this is comparative, not absolute, right? Anyway, I didn’t say they would sound “basically the same”, just that the differences shouldn’t be overstated. > [@](#): > > I find it far more impressive that four boys who barely had any musical education, who couldn’t even read music, managed to create albums like **Revolver** , **The White Album** and **Abbey Road**. I think the medley is far more clever and sophisticated than appropriating traditional melodies or old poems (Richard Cory, Scarborough Fair, Cecilia, American Tune). Well, okay, by these criteria, I may be a better F1 driver than Jenson Button. But again, it’s comparative, and there’s nothing wrong with appropriating old materials. In fact, the pantheon of great composers (of which both Paul Simon and Lennon/McCartney are members) is filled to the brim with appropriation. And regardless, the details of the songs are a major criterion. And I love Paul Simon’s intricate guitar lines, the way he adds variety within his songs, the creativity of chords and chord progressions… This does remind me, though — to what extent were other producers involved in the arrangement of the Beatles’ works? I honestly don’t know —I listen to these people, I don’t study them! 😃 > [@](#): > > S&G did have beautiful songs, but I’m not sure why “beauty” is criteria. For my money, McCartney’s voice and acoustic guitar on _Blackbird_ is just as beautiful as _The Only Living Boy in New York_. One is simplicity itself, the other is quite heavily produced. Clearly there’s been some disagreement in this thread on the quality of _Yesterday_, but I had a powerful emotional response last night when I actually got to hear it performed live. Ooh, yah, I love “Blackbird” (and “Yesterday”). No complaints. But YMMV, and I do prefer “The Only Living Boy in New York”, and there are a number more just as beautiful. > [@](#): > > But this criteria is where the difference in genre really becomes an issue. I find _I Wanna Hold Your Hand_ endlessly beautiful because it is a perfectly constructed pop song. It might be the epitome of the genre. The very definition of what a pop song should be. But it’s clearly trying to accomplish something that _America_ was not. See, we clearly are in agreement. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![pepperlandgirl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f17d59/32.png) [@pepperlandgirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pepperlandgirl)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2010, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-beatles-vs-simon-and-garfunkel/546518/91 "2010-07-15T03:48:57Z")
> [@straight\_man](#): > > This does remind me, though — to what extent were other producers involved in the arrangement of the Beatles’ works? I honestly don’t know —I listen to these people, I don’t study them! 😃 > > ) George Martin produced every single album, except **Let It Be** (though he might get credit for Let It Be…Naked, I’m not sure). He worked very closely with the Beatles from **Love Me Do** to the last note on **Abbey Road** (and continued to work with them in their solo careers, especially Paul). Essentially, John and Paul would tell George Martin what they wanted and how the songs should sound, and George Martin would find a way to make it happen. His stories on **The Beatles Anthology** and in various books are quite fascinating, especially since they asked him to do the impossible once or twice (though they always found a way). Also, I realized my mistake just now re: appropriating old tunes. **Golden Slumbers** was an old lullaby that Paul used to sing to his younger half-sister. He just made up the tune himself because he couldn’t read the music in the piano book. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-beatles-vs-simon-and-garfunkel/546518.md?page=4)