Jozsef
Apr-06-2009, 10:41 GMT
Romania
 | The duo was also the expression of musical friendship and they eventually became extremely successful in commercial terms, too. Though PS stated in several occasion that his early music wasn´t part of the "Hippy Era", he also acknowledged that their success was due (partly) to the fact that they were synchronous with the "Zeitgeist" of the sixties and seventies. (He´s now outside of this Zeitgeist and he do not mind this.)
My question basically was whether the S and G phenomenon (60´s, 70´s) is in an inherent contradiction with the PS phenomenon (let´s say 80´s and 90´s). Musically speaking, of course...
My "theory" is that - though there IS a contradiction between the way PS and AG thinks of music and performs music -, there´s no contradiction at all (along with his multifaceted metamorphosis) WITHIN Paul Simon´s musical "eras". With other words, he "remains the same", in a way, within the course of the contemporary history. Simon and Garfunkel IS Paul Simon - he is the author of S and G: and his thriving for "camouflage" with regards to Simon and Garfunkel is not quite "healthy", nor "rational". As Proof of this, for quite a time, he feels the urge to make peace with his "darker" (or more sentimental) part, which is AG.
Personally I value PS´s solo music and performance as being 100 times "more real" as compared to what he did together with AG, but this does not mean the music he composed in the sixties is of less worth than those done in the nineties.
Hope I made a bit clearer what I meant. |
Scaaty
Apr-06-2009, 10:56 GMT
Ireland
 | very interesting concept, and those of us who are PS fans sometimes (esp me) try to ignore or dismiss the S&G years, that they are not Paul Simon. but you are right they are. Arts contribution? apart from the voice and sweetning of the music? well Paul Simon wrote many of the songs to fit Arts voice, so Art was an inspiration or muse if you like similar to the African or Latin American or doo-wop musicians in later years. |
