Forum Mainpage

Start a new Thread

Bottom

Page: [1] [2] [3] [4]

BingFrisby
Oct-19-2004, 19:51 GMT
IP:
United Kingdom

There is NO DOUBT that Simon owes it ALL to the Rutles!!...they were, after all, the inspiration for Simon & Garfunkel!!

BingFrisby
Oct-19-2004, 19:57 GMT
IP:
United Kingdom

Seriously, it isn´t the best thing to do to compare or prefer when it comes to music. There is a place and a time and a mood for everything.The very fact that it is important to listen to a wide range of music has made Paul Simon what he is today.I don´t suppose he prefers the music of peru to the doo wop of the fifties or the ska or gospel, rock ´n´ roll or folk stuff that influenced him.Besides, listening to Simon ALL the time would drive you mad...you need a bit of Elgar or Emmylou Harris or Tom Baxter from time to time.

BingFrisby
Oct-19-2004, 20:02 GMT
IP:
United Kingdom

Tom Baxter....now there is a new name for you to seek out.From Suffolk, England.Give him a listen.Like Simon, a new singer/songwriter who sounds different.(I had to add Simon to this posting, Bodo, as you might have taken it to be advertising);)

BingFrisby
Oct-19-2004, 20:07 GMT
IP:
United Kingdom

Oh, Sensimean, in what respect do you know Paul Simon personally?Have you met him, got an autograph, are on his Christmas card list, are a near neighbour, re-string his guitars, serve him at the local store, or are you a member of the Walter Mitty club?

Micky
Oct-20-2004, 14:05 GMT
IP:
United Kingdom

Somebody asked why sensimean would be here if they know Paul personally and that some doubted what they said.

Well, at NaLS we had a member who knew Paul personally. She was a cast member of Capeman and sang on a couple of albums. She was also a fan and enjoyed talking with us all and sharing her experiences. And we didn´t doubt her at all, she knew too much.

As for Paul and The Beatles.....I prefer Paul more, but I´m biased. But I also Love The Beatles stuff too.

If you wanted me to compare the two Paul´s, now that´s different.

Although Paul Simon is less prolific, I feel his work is by far the better in all. IMO McCartney, although he´s written a greater catalogue than Paul; He´s written more duffers.

Paul Simon´s work has much more to say about life, has more depth and is never cheesy....Watch someone pull a cheesy song from the hat...lol!

They say less is more and I feel that most definitely is the case between Simon and McCartney. There is no doubt that McCartney writes more easily, but I feel a lot of what he writes is fluff and cheesy e.g The Frog Song, and Ebony and Ivory...please! *eye´s roll*

Now according to Paul Simon Cecilia is fluff...That´s damn fine fluff IMO. And yet Paul Simon feels let down sometimes by this fact he is not very prolific and wishes he could write as easily as McCartney.

If being prolific like McCartney means writing bad fluff, then I´d rather wait five years for a great album from the less prolific Simon.

When McCartney wrote alongside Lennon, he wrote some amazing stuff. I don´t feel he works as well alone. And yes there were songs he wrote alone then, but he still had Lennons drive and enthusiasm. Even after the split, Lennon wrote some great songs, better songs than McCarney´s outcrop of the time.

Now I´ve run out of comparisons...lol.

But hey...what do I know. I´m biased...lol

Huggies

Me

Bodo 
Oct-20-2004, 14:07 GMT
IP:
Austria

Very well said Micky.

Micky
Oct-20-2004, 14:10 GMT
IP:
United Kingdom

Phew...thank you :-D I always worry when I write on that scale on wether or not it makes sense...lol

Huggies

Me XXX

Bodo
Oct-20-2004, 14:16 GMT
IP:
Austria

I like it, because it´s absolute the same way I think :-)

The Beatles are too cheesy for me, to much yeah yeah yeah and happy happy day songs.

Mc Cartney didn´t have a lot of good songs after the Beatles broke up. And on his world tour now he is doing a Beatles show (at least for around 70%)

Micky
Oct-20-2004, 14:30 GMT
IP:
United Kingdom

Ye gods...70%?! That´s abit much IMO....

I prefer The Beatles later stuff...Revolver is a good album...but most of it is cheesy.

Huggies

Me XXX

Bodo
Oct-20-2004, 16:46 GMT
IP:
Austria

Hm, from what I counted he played around 35 songs on his last tour and ~25 of these songs are from the Beatles.

BingFrisby
Oct-20-2004, 20:22 GMT
IP:
United Kingdom

Bodo, you might try looking up McCartney´s back catalogue, post Beatles.Best stick to Simon for opinions....until you have listened McCartney´s long, prolific, hit producing albums....then come back!

Micky
Oct-21-2004, 00:49 GMT
IP:
United Kingdom

BingFrisby, I have listened to a lot of McCartneys prolific hit albums.....I stick by my first opinion..not keen.

Huggies

Me

Kath
Oct-21-2004, 03:23 GMT
IP:
Canada

I agree 100% with Micky on this issue. :D

You read my mind!! lol

Lekornee
Oct-21-2004, 07:05 GMT
IP:
USA - United Staates America

"The very fact that it is important to listen to a wide range of music has made Paul Simon what he is today."

I agree with this! It´s definitely good to listen to a wide variety of music. I went into writer´s block once (I used to write A LOT but after spitting out a novel last year I kind of had a "writer´s breakdown", so now I´m taking it more slowly, but anyhow) because I was only listening to Alanis Morissette music. Granted, I listen to very few artists, three of whom are Simon & Garfunkel, Paul Simon, and Edie Brickell; however, my music taste does vary over the generations (Beatles, Alanis, other random stuff from iTunes shared playlists) so I try to get a good variety in there. Stagnation in music is bad because for me, music fuels my life.

Bodo
Oct-21-2004, 09:41 GMT
IP:
Austria

Bing I wonder - what made you believe I didn´t already listen to Mc Cartneys pre-Beatles songs?

I think it´s clear that Mc Cartney wasn´t that big songwriter without Lennon (and Lennon wasn´t too)
While Paul Simon became a better songwriter every year (no matter if with or without Garfunkel)

So he lost a lot when the Bealtes broke up, Simon won a lot.

Page: [1] [2] [3] [4]

Forum Mainpage

Start a new Thread

Top