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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
And if the question then becomes Bach vs. Beatles, well, sorry Fab 4.
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.
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.)
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 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).
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.
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.
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! 
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.
See, we clearly are in agreement. 
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.