What George said to Art , according to Art
In an interview with Nigel Farndale of the Telegraph [hat tip: Maggie’s Farm], Art Garfunkle relates a story about George Harrison:
…I [Farndale] ask about the Beatles, specifically George, who felt his talents were overshadowed.
“George came up to me at a party once and said ‘my Paul is to me what your Paul is to you.’”
Indeed. The Pauls are pop music giants, the Georges and Arts pretty big but not quite the same.
Did I speak of size? Art Garfunkle speaks of size, as well:
Actually, another question strikes me [Farndale]. I speculate about whether Paul Simon might have a Napoleon complex. Is there a height thing there, between them?
“I think you’re on to something. I would say so, yes.”
He adds that at school he felt sorry for Paul because of his height, and he offered him love and friendship as a compensation. “And that compensation gesture has created a monster. End of interview.”
Why “monster”? Garfunkel—who also says of himself that “I’m not always kind. I’m judgemental and picky”—seems upset that Simon broke up with him when he’s been willing to reconcile for decades. They have gotten together on quite a few occasions over the years, though.
Sums it up:
“A generation is now growing old, which never had anything to say for itself except that it was young. It was the first progressive generation — the first generation that believed in progress and nothing else…. [They believed] simply that the new thing is always better than the old thing; that the young man is always right and the old wrong. And now that they are old men themselves, they have naturally nothing whatever to say or do. Their only business in life was to be the rising generation knocking at the door. Now that they have got into the house, and have been accorded the seat of honour by the hearth, they have completely forgotten why they wanted to come in. The aged younger generation never knew why it knocked at the door; and the truth is that it only knocked at the door because it was shut. It had nothing to say; it had no message; it had no convictions to impart to anybody…. The old generation of rebels was purely negative in its rebellion, and cannot give the new generation of rebels anything positive against which it should not rebel. It is not that the old man cannot convince young people that he is right; it is that he cannot even convince them that he is convinced. And he is not convinced; for he never had any conviction except that he was young, and that is not a conviction that strengthens with years.”
– G.K. Chesterton, Illustrated London News of July 9, 1921
G6loq- that quote is from 1921 so maybe it sums up every generation.
cgloq:
The trouble with that quote is that he was writing in 1921, so he certainly wasn’t describing the boomers. Whatever generation he WAS describing, we would think they did have something to say.
Actually, even the boomers had a few things to say that were good (for example, joining the fight for equality of opportunity for blacks). And they certainly had some great pop music. In addition, not all bloomers by any means subscribed or subscribe to the supposed ethos of their generation. Interestingly enough, it was the boomers who constituted the age groups that voted in the highest percentages against Obama, for example (see this).
My guess is Paul Simon does not like Art. Is Paul Simon a pop giant? I think very few young people know who he is. I suspect most young people know who the Beatles are though.
Steve:
Simon is fairly popular with the younger crew. See this, for example. And he drew a huge crowd of mostly students recently at Princeton.
I always thought the Beatles were ‘likeable enough’, watched their first appearance on Ed Sullivan’s show but was never a big fan. Of the two, Paul and George and strictly in regard to their work after the breakup of the Beatles, I strongly prefer George’s work. He blossomed once independent, Paul (IMO) coasted upon his reputation and… still does.
I firmly subscribe to the notion that Paul Simon is a musical near-genius and Garfunkel merely a fine singer. I think it likely that Simon does have an inferiority complex arising from his diminutive stature and overcompensates by taking excessive pride in his musical talent. Garfunkel’s comments make obvious that even to this day, he is resentful that Simon ended the joy ride. Another example of dependence leading to entitlement.
neo-neocon Says:
May 25th, 2015 at 3:11 pm
cgloq:
… Interestingly enough, it was the boomers who constituted the age groups that voted in the highest percentages against Obama, for example (see this)…
That is one fine link, thanks.
Before, when I thought of Garfunkel, I thought of his beautiful Central Park rendition of BOTW.
After the interview, I think he should not have done the interview.
Paul lives in a simple Simon centric world: everyone that’s on his wavelength (musically) is a uniquely insightful political ‘analyst’ that should be given an even LARGER stage for their views.
{ As if their musical platform is drowning out their insights. }
Lest we all forget: Paul, et. al. are children of the drug era — which is still in full swing — for them.
It’s where they find their muse.
Not surprisingly, the world is best organized/ understood when you’re high or drunk or both.
Art wanted a career in FILM. (Catch 22; Carnal Knowledge…)
That ambit collapsed into a black hole once Simon & Garfunkle hit the skids, for he promptly stopped appearing in A list film productions.
Back in the day I knew a guy in Berserkeley who claimed that in his high school days in Queens he used to jam with Simon and Garfunkel. Maybe he was BSing me, but he was from Queens, he was of a similar age cohort as Simon & Garfunkel [28 in 1970] and he did play the guitar. And my “claim to fame” was sometimes being mistaken in my hometown for the kid brother of someone from my hometown who had his 15 minutes of musical fame. 🙂
Art is still angry at Paul for having dumped him.
I just checked- the guy I knew graduated from Forest Hills High School the same year as Simon and Garfunkel. So maybe what he told me wasn’t a total fiction.
With all due respect, neo-neocon, I’m not convinced your opinion that your generation “had some great pop music” will stand the test of time. I’m pleasantly surprised at the number of young people discovering the Great American Songbook. One of the problems with the music of the ’70s is a lot of it isn’t very “coverable.” The performers and perfomances were a bigger part of the music than the music.
Other artists have covered, “Purple Haze,” but there is no point, and little commercial interest in it. The same will be true for a lot of the output of the ’80s (although Miles Davis’ rendition of Cindy Lauper’s “Time After Time” is very good). I think the reason is both eras were known for experimentation with no instrumentation thanks to electronics. The very early electrical stuff; Jerry Lee Lewis, Elvis, Bill Haley and the Comets, Rockabilly… are still entertaining, even to recently born kids. Then electronic experimentation became prominent, Yes, ELP, Hendrix, Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin… and it was entertaining to teens and twenty year olds when it was new, primarily because it was new, but it’s not particularly good music. Who wants to listen to the Beattle’s “revolution Number 9” after 50 years?
The ’80s got back into mostly shorter length songs and a more “pop” sound, but electronic synthesis reigned supreme, even in drumming. It was innovative at the time, but there is nothing novel about the sound now, and when stripped down to the musical elements most of the songs simply aren’t very good.
We almost always have music playing in the Firefly Household. I’ve noticed that no matter what our kids ages when their friends visit they all seem to enjoy Swing era stuff, Louis Jordan, Gene Kupra… Latin music, especially Latin Jazz… Music from musicals in the ’30s, ’40s and ’50s…
100 years from now bands will still be playing, “Mustang Sally” and “Rock Around the Clock.” Some ballads from the ’70s will still be around, but the pop music? A blip in history.
“no instrumentation” should be “new instrumentation.” Just as it took awhile for Classical composers (the pop artists of their day) to figure out what to do with saxophones, it took rock stars awhile to figure out what to do with synthesizers. Ultimately, it all has to be centerted on a good song or its just silly theater. Jimi Hendrix “playing” behind his back dressed like a pimp? Jimmy Page playing guitar with a bow also dressed like a pimp? More sizzle than steak. Cole Porter and George Gershwin didn’t have to draw attention to themselves. And even artists who liked to put on a show, like Louis Jordan or Kay Kaiser, still understood you had to give them something to tap their toes to.
This is also why High Schools will still be staging, “Guys and Dolls” in 2115, but not, “Sundays in the Park with George.”
Most ’70s pop music was contemporary, not timeless. All pop artists can do contemporary; only a very talented few can do contemporary and timeless. I’m always amazed by the Brubeck quartet’s album, “Time Out.” It is nearly impossible to do art as experimental and cutting edge as that is, yet make it enjoyable to the masses.
Rufus Firefly:
My generation was not the 70s. I don’t even know the music of the 70s all that much.
The pop music of which I speak is that of my youth and teenage years, the 50s and 60s.
I’m pretty old.
Of course, I don’t think all the Beatles music will be played for years—and agree with you that “Revolution No. 9” is not exactly timeless. But some of their songs have had tremendous legs, and I think will continue to have them for quite some time.
“Yesterday” = “Greensleeves.”
Sorry about the ’70s mistake. You’ve mentioned the ’50s here many times. I should have thought that through better. I agree that Lennon and McCartney wrote many, timeless songs. My comment is aimed at Boomers who often over emphasize their cultural output’s significance. many of the musicals of the ’50s will be around for a long time. “Tommy” and “Jesus Christ, Superstar?” Very dated.