|
| Headline | s and g or paul |
|
Page:
[1] [2] |
| Author | Comment |
k-man
Sep-26-2004, 05:22 GMT
IP:
USA - United Staates America
 | i mean really, the poeple who think paul was better by himself are wrong. art was a great singer and paul was a great wrighter. i think hes good by himself but im just not thinkni hes better. |
| | |
Lekornee
Sep-26-2004, 06:07 GMT
IP:
USA - United Staates America
| I like Simon & Garfunkel but ever since I started listening to more Simon solo stuff I like him a lot better. It just depends what kind of music you like. I think S & G and Paul alone are totally different. For one, S & G were primarily in the ´60s whereas Paul´s CDs were produced in the ´70s, ´80s, ´90s, and 2000, so his musical style had a huge amount of room to grow. Also with S & G the songs tend to be slightly more conservative and "top 40" and Paul alone likes to experiment with different world music styles and I don´t think he really cares if they conform to most pop music anymore. So it´s actually pretty hard to compare the two. |
| | |
mikey
Sep-26-2004, 06:11 GMT
IP:
USA - United Staates America
| I say simon and garfunkel because i feel pauls writing was better back then, he can sing as well as garfunkel, i just like the older writing...mabey because im young...Pauls great though and a genius |
| | |
Thomas
Sep-26-2004, 12:29 GMT
IP:
Netherlands
 | Paul Simon can sing as well as Garfunkel COULD! If I listen to records of this new tour, Art has "a few" false notes in it. (I think). It´s a lot "relaxer" to listen to Paul´s voice then Art his voice (I think). BTW, in this topic Nobody will agree with eachother because we all have other tastes of music, but it´s nice to hear other opinions. |
| | |
Ans
Sep-26-2004, 12:39 GMT
IP:
Netherlands
| You´re right Thomas, it´s a matter of taste and there were a lot of fights about it in the past.
Nice try k-man, but we won´t fall for it this time ;-) |
| | |
Marieno
Sep-26-2004, 14:27 GMT
IP:
France
 | Oh no!!!! it will be my only comment about this new and very original thread... |
| | |
Bodo
Sep-26-2004, 18:20 GMT
IP:
Austria
 | what does that mean?
"was"
and
"wrighter" ?
have you actually ever listened to s&g or Paul Simon? if you listen carefully to s&g you maybe will realize that most 1th voice parts are sung by - paul simon |
| | |
curlycaza
Sep-26-2004, 18:50 GMT
IP:
United Kingdom
 | It´s Paul all the way for me. He has come so far musically, and taken us so far. The guy has no peers! |
| | |
Turkey
Sep-26-2004, 19:17 GMT
IP:
United Kingdom
| i Love anything paul is involved in |
| | |
Marieno
Sep-26-2004, 21:03 GMT
IP:
France
| Sorry, after all, i´ll make another comment (i can´t resist): K-man, you should listen Paul´s song "Some folks´lives roll easy", you´d discover that Paul is a great singer, maybe not Pavarotti, but very emotional...
And Bodo is right: in most of the S&G´s songs, Paul sang the first voice... |
| | |
mikey
Sep-27-2004, 04:40 GMT
IP:
USA - United Staates America
| paul can sing, i just like the older writing, lyrically |
| | |
Bodo
Sep-27-2004, 14:36 GMT
IP:
Austria
| Pauls music (not the lyrics) at the S&G were more than easy... not to say cheap ok.
He only played his guitar doing "Travis pickin" (thats always the same pattern on every song in different variations), and he rarely used more than 4 chords at one song. (the simple chords you learn in your first guitar lessons..) Really, I don´t count it as very imprehensive.
He improved his guitar and writting skills after S&G split... and reached his best during Hearts And Bones. Graceland was easy music...and most of it´s music has been taken from other african songs or groups.
Lyrically for me his best album will always be Rhythm Of The Saints. I like it when he describes something using ´images´. |
| | |
Isa
Sep-27-2004, 15:41 GMT
IP:
USA - United Staates America
| I like all aspects of Paul´s musical evolution. It is really hard to compare Paul´s music in terms of "years" per say, because Paul´s music is always evolving. If you listen to Wednesday Morning at 3A.M. and then listen to say, Bookends, or even The Sounds Of Silence album, you can hear the growth right away.
Paul wrote in The Paul Simon Songbook liner notes that his musical growth was already changing. He said that his songs today would not be his tomorrow and that he no longer believed in them as he once did, that they were just a part of his transition. Well, in some ways I agree with him. To me at least Paul´s music, all of it, is great because it shows the changes and influences that occured as he evolved musically. There are some things I like more than others sure, but over all, I think it is just impossible to compare the different transitions of Paul´s music because that is just what it is....not bad or better, just different.
I am sure with this topic, it can get into a heated debate! |
| | |
Micky
Sep-27-2004, 15:58 GMT
IP:
United Kingdom
| *Eye´s Roll*
I know what you mean Marieno....
But just for the reacord, although I´m sure it´s somewhere if you look. S&G are great, but I prefer Paul.
The less said the better.
Hugs
Me
Marieno wrote on Sep-26 at 14:27
Oh no!!!! it will be my only comment about this new and very original thread...
|
| | |
Lekornee
Sep-30-2004, 07:08 GMT
IP:
USA - United Staates America
| I Love how he tells stories in so many songs. I don´t know how he can possibly think of so many stories and specific incidents that he has to fit into four or five minutes´ worth of time. It´s incredible. |
| | |
|
Page:
[1] [2]
|