Simon and Garfunkel; generation gap

Subject: Simon and garfunkel;generation gap
From: harvey andrews
Date: 17 Jul 04 - 06:57 AM

Last night on "Newsnight Review" BBC TV, four critics gave their assesment of S+G's concert in the UK. Two of them were of the generation that grew up on S+G the other two were under 30 I think.It was very interesting to hear what they said. The older two talked about lyrics plus nostalgia of course, and enjoyed the concert. The younger two made no comment on content, but only talked about presentation and participation. They called the audience "polite", bemoaning a lack of energy and the fact that they were listening quietly and seemed happy to just be there rather than being part of the show and noisy. One also complained that Art "did nothing" except stand and sing!
It was fascinating to see what these two different generations wanted from the concert. The older two represented a generation happy to just listen and appreciate the craft of songwriting and singing alone, the younger two appeared to demand something visual and participatory with content coming a bad third.
Interesting differences I thought.

Subject: RE: Simon and garfunkel;generation gap
From: harvey andrews
Date: 17 Jul 04 - 07:00 AM

Oh, and perhaps one of the reasons for the much bemoaned lack of young people coming to "folk" gigs, even to see young performers.

Subject: RE: Simon and garfunkel;generation gap
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 17 Jul 04 - 07:09 AM

Art "did nothing" except stand and sing

When did he ever do anything else?

Subject: RE: Simon and garfunkel;generation gap
From: GUEST,Henryp
Date: 17 Jul 04 - 07:33 AM

Looking forward to your new light show and special effects, Harvey!

Subject: RE: Simon and garfunkel;generation gap
From: harvey andrews
Date: 17 Jul 04 - 07:56 AM

I'm actually thinking of forming "The standing still whilst singing and playing at the same time" society.It'll be a whole new concept of performance.

Subject: RE: Simon and garfunkel;generation gap
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 17 Jul 04 - 08:13 AM

So stepdancing's out of the question then...

Subject: RE: Simon and garfunkel;generation gap
From: DonMeixner
Date: 17 Jul 04 - 08:16 AM

With a voice like Art's why would he do anything else but stand still and sing?

Subject: RE: Simon and garfunkel;generation gap
From: Mooh
Date: 17 Jul 04 - 08:20 AM

So, what about recognition for those who SIT still whilst singing and playing? Mooh.

Subject: RE: Simon and garfunkel;generation gap
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Jul 04 - 09:19 AM

Too right Don.

I got my wife tickets to see Art in concert last year as she's a fan but I could take it or leave it. Until I heard the guy sing and wow, what a voice.

I was stunned by the quality, clarity and tone of his voice. Not a note wrong all night, power, sublty, the lot. I can reccomend anyone to go and see him live.

If young people aren't impressed by that, then it really is their loss. Shame.

Subject: RE: Simon and garfunkel;generation gap
From: saulgoldie
Date: 17 Jul 04 - 09:28 AM

From what I have heard of the current music, musicality is not necessarily required. No surprise that large numbers of the young would not appreciate Garfunkel's voice.

Subject: RE: Simon and garfunkel;generation gap
From: Maryrrf
Date: 17 Jul 04 - 09:54 AM

I don't think, with younger people, a concert is ever really just a concert. They expect a show with theatric, dancers, sound and light etc... Considering many of the current crop of popular touring artists (not counting folk, obviously - what few of them there are) if you took away the theatrics they wouldn't stand a chance because they wouldn't make it as singers or musicians. Case in point...Madonna.

Subject: RE: Simon and garfunkel;generation gap
From: Jeri
Date: 17 Jul 04 - 10:50 AM

It depends which young people you talk to. Pop music today usually includes a lot of theatrics, but not necessarily. Music with insightful lyrics and beautiful music, or just damned good songs, have always been somewhat separate from 'flash' music. (I am NOT going to use the 'F' word! It's not the genre, it's the presentation.) There is music around today which is about the music, not the show. There were also people around 'back in the day' who wanted theatrics. I seem to recall a friend talking about convincing another friend to go see Simon & Garfunkel back in the 70's. I heard the review - something like: "The music was ok, I guess, but they just stood there. I saw the Rolling Stones last month, and now THAT was a show! Nobody, but NOBODY is better than Mick Jagger!" Does this sound familiar to anybody?

There's going to be a problem when anyone who just doesn't like a certain type of thing, whether it's music, a movie, a book, etc., winds up reviewing it. There are kids around who would have liked it.

Subject: RE: Simon and garfunkel;generation gap
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 17 Jul 04 - 11:50 AM

Why ever make it an "either/or" thing? There's music just for listening to and music that's part of a multimedia experience and that's scarcely a new concept. In the youth of many of those posting (and mine too, as it goes), there were song/dance/light/film performances - remember UFO, Incredible String Band, Exploding Galaxy?...I used to go to that one night then Paul Simon or Harvey Andrews the next. I'm not especially brain damaged as a result.

Not that it all started with Joe Boyd.    Tschaikovsky's 1812? Handel's Royal Fireworks? Appalachian step/frail/singing? Mediaeval mystery and mumming plays? Morris, clog and molly...?

And Madonna is a trained and experienced dancer. You may not like her act but it's impossible to deny the effort and skill of the choreography that goes into it. The Stones put on a performance of total excitement, high energy and great songs while in total contrast, Dylan comes on, plays and sings and rarely even acknowledges the audience. Are the many thousands the world over who continue to flock to both sorts of concert indiscriminate or schizophrenic? I don't think so. Like me, they love music so long as it's good.

This forum is always very keen to give Jim Moray a kicking. Why? Because of his versatility? This is someone who can perform on his own with an acoustic guitar in a small room or on a mainstage or theatre with electric guitar and piano, as a traditional duo with his sister, as a trio/quartet or whatever combination with or without multimedia effects as a "nu-folk/techno" or whatever pseudo label you choose to give it in venues across (so far) three continents.

Art Garfunkel, however, just stands and sings. Granted, extremely well (so long as you can keep all those rabbits out of your mind). It's not a criticism, just a statement of fact.

Subject: RE: Simon and garfunkel;generation gap
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 17 Jul 04 - 02:10 PM

Da Beats Da thing. Paul & Artie don't got THE BEAT. And where are all the scantily clad babes clutching their crotches? You call that entertainment?

I heard Paul eight or nine years ago when he had most of the musicians from Graceland and Rhythm of the Saints with him, AND Ladysmith Black Mombazo. When he invited Artie up, it was a surprise to everyone, as he wasn't listed as one of the performers. I really enjoyed the short set he did with Artie, but it's a different kind of music, without a lot of energy. Shifting gears from Ladysmith Black Mombazo dancing on stage in rhythm, singing, to Artie standing next to the piano with his hands in his pockets took some doing on my part, and I LOVED it. I give Paul a lot of credit that he can go from pensive ans wistful to rocking. Artie is more of a one trick pony... wonderful pony that he is.

Jerry

Subject: RE: Simon and garfunkel;generation gap
From: harvey andrews
Date: 17 Jul 04 - 02:16 PM

What I was trying to draw attention to I suppose was the inevitability of the two young critics being negative in their response. I really hoped otherwise but basically told my wife what I was sure they were going to say before they said it, and I was right. These people really shouldn't be getting these TV opportunities if all they can do is parrot the "fashionable" mantra of the day. It's too easy and it's lazy. A good critic should have a sense of history and no baggage of "cool".When you're watching two 62 year olds you should know where they came from, what they've achieved, and approach them with respect for what they have to offer. The "let's knock them 'cause they're old and they don't do what we do" school of criticism is far too prevalent in modernmedia.It's the same no- think that dresses us all in Arran sweaters and sticks our fingers in our ears.

Subject: RE: Simon and garfunkel;generation gap
From: freightdawg
Date: 17 Jul 04 - 02:48 PM

Harvey, you are very insightful and accurate, but it's not just in music. Just to take modern music as an example though, you have a generation that has grown up with nothing but MTV and its clones. When I grew up (I was born in 19mumble,mumble) all we had was radio, and the occasional concert. Music was written and recorded more to be heard than experienced. Concerts were different, but still I think the music was the focus, not the theatrics. Now, with MTV and its clones, you come up with a great set of theatrics and the lyrics are secondary, if not tertiary. Younger afficiandos expect to have a tremendous visual experience, and the aural experience is just not as important (in my opinion, others would disagree I'm sure.) By the way, I would say the same thing about country music as well. Long gone are the days Johnny Cash or Loretta Lynn could hold court just standing in front of a microphone. Now its all about body baring black leather and guitar-smashing morons running all over the stage.

But, think of movies as well. Compare the first "Star Wars" to the last chapter. The latest has all the greatest computer driven light shows and whiz bang details, and the story was dreadful. Go back even further. Just think what Alfred Hitchcock could do with just shadows and camera angle compared to this generation's blood and gore and 8,000 gigawatt pyrotechnic show.

We have just come to expect flash and glitter, and substance and true artistry seems to have taken a back seat. There are still a lot of old pros out there, and it is so refreshing to see and hear them perform.

(By the way, we had an Eagles concert here in Alb. not too long ago with a review in the local paper that mirrored the review you mentioned almost word for word. The reviewer (a young woman) panned the whole evening because of the "lackluster" performance of the Eagles. I later talked to someone who actually attended. He said the crowd (aging baby boomers) went absolutely nuts the whole night. Go figure.)

Freightdawg

Subject: RE: Simon and garfunkel;generation gap
From: Ed.
Date: 17 Jul 04 - 03:04 PM

I'm sorry, but all I'm getting here, is a "when I was a lad..."

as if that means that the past was better. This has been happening for hundreds of years. Every generation thinks that they know best, and the previous generation mutters...

Subject: RE: Simon and garfunkel;generation gap
From: Mark Cohen
Date: 17 Jul 04 - 03:33 PM

Well, Ed, it may have been happening for hundreds of years, but when I was growing up it wasn't like that at all.

Aloha,
Mark

Subject: RE: Simon and garfunkel;generation gap
From: Ed.
Date: 17 Jul 04 - 03:35 PM

Of course it wasn't Mark.

I think that you may be missing my point (not that I made it particularly well)

Subject: RE: Simon and garfunkel;generation gap
From: harvey andrews
Date: 17 Jul 04 - 04:07 PM

Frieghtdog says it right! And Ed, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm not saying anything is better or worse, I'm merely saying that critics should not approach it with the reverse attitude to the one you think you're getting.I expect from most people the attitude you say has been with us for a hundred years, but not from paid critics of artistic endeavour.I think we should all expect more from them, particularly a knowledge of time and place and context.

Subject: RE: Simon and garfunkel;generation gap
From: YOR
Date: 17 Jul 04 - 04:53 PM

I'll have to test my teenage son with Simon & Garfunkel. I'm guessing it will go over about as well as James Taylor did a few months back-NOT! He's pretty open with his music tastes, but some of the old stuff like Taylor, Joni Mitchell, Joan Baez, Neil Young, Jackson Browne, Dan Fogelberg, Karla Bonoff, Blood Sweat & Tears and Jethro Tull he just can't listen to. He has hit my CD collection pretty hard over the last few years. He likes The Beatles, The Who, Pink Floyd, Eric Clapton, and The Eagles.

I hit his collection every once in a while for a select few.

Enjoy, Roy

Subject: RE: Simon and garfunkel;generation gap
From: Benjamin
Date: 17 Jul 04 - 05:01 PM

Harvey, I'm a guy under 30 and I must say that I absolutly love Simon and Garfunkel, there duo stuff as well both of their solo stuff. One thing I don't think those younger critics understand is the art of performance. They are both exceptional performers, even without the dancers and theaterics. A good example would be there Concert in Central Park album. In my oppinion, that's the best version of Bridge Over Troubled Water. Even with a great voice like Art has, you can't think that it would be easy to get up in front of 50 thousand people in Central Park of all places and deliver the song like that.
The same thing happens with Sports critics. To this day I come a cross criticisms of how John MacEnroe was too much of a weiner written by a guy who has never played the sport and looks like he hasn't made it off his couch in a decade or so. He clearly doesn't understand the competition MacEnroe faced, or what that might bring out of you. It's the same thing here. I don't think it's that these critics are young, but they probably don't spend much time in front of an audience (especially of that size) and they just don't understand what's going on.

Subject: RE: Simon and garfunkel;generation gap
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 17 Jul 04 - 05:09 PM

I was just thinking. Isn't it nice that a great artist like Harvey Andrews wants to share his thoughts with us.

Subject: RE: Simon and garfunkel;generation gap
From: Scabby Douglas
Date: 17 Jul 04 - 05:50 PM

I was at the Manchester Arena Simon and Garfunkel concert on Wednesday evening.

I suspect that if the people who were critiquing the concert had been at that event, rather than (as I assume) the Hyde Park London gig, that they would have had a different vire not only of the audience, but also of Simon and Garfunkel.

If you want to read what a reviewer of that concert thought, look here :

Manchester Online

and what the rest of the audience thought have a look here.:

reader comments

Here's what I said there:

"With over-the-odds tickets from Ebay, we drove down in the afternoon from Glasgow. I had misgivings that this would be a perfunctory rehash of old and tired material, delivered in an off-hand way. Not only should I not have worried, I could not have been further from the truth. I've read the phrase "soundtrack of their lives" before, but it was never more apt than last night.

The arena was packed with people of a "certain age", and we had a blast. But the songs were fresh, with revisited arrangements, and the subtle re-phrasing that comes when a performer has known and delivered a song for may years. It was not music-by-numbers.

"Old Friends", it said. Well, they are certainly getting on a bit, and I don't know if they are friends now, or not. But they made me like their music all over again. They made me remember what I liked about them when I was growing up, and washed away the dullness of ear that comes with the years of listening to the same original versions. I hope to hell they have recorded some of this tour...

The best concert I've ever been too? Yes, I'd go along with that. At any rate if I ever go to a better one, I'll be sure to come back and tell you...
Steven Clark, Glasgow
15/07/2004 at 16:32"

I don't know what the Hyde Park concert was like. But it could not have been better than Manchester...

Subject: RE: Simon and garfunkel;generation gap
From: Scabby Douglas
Date: 17 Jul 04 - 05:53 PM

sorry - I'd love to claim that "vire" is a Glasgow dialect word, but it's only a typo- should have been "view"

Subject: RE: Simon and garfunkel;generation gap
From: GUEST,Art Thieme
Date: 17 Jul 04 - 08:15 PM

Art Garfunkel's doing of "Barbara Allen" is one of the most beautiful I've ever heard---even though one of the orchestral instruments plays a devastatingly BAD note near the end of the song. I suspect they left it on that album because otherwise it was a perfect take.

That "Barbara Allen" is bested only by the rendition recorded by Jo Stafford with her husband, Paul Weston's lush orchestrations.

Still, a sparse and very straightforward version of the song done a-capella and recorded by the folksong collector Helene Stratman Thomas in Wisconsin is my absolute favorite performance of the song. (I do wish I could recall the woman's name.)

BACK TO THE TOPIC AT HAND and the comments in this thread:

How in God's name can CONTENT ever be of less importance than in-yo-face screaming and noise that keeps real content and, indeed, the story within the song, from being brought forth clearly and succinctly with metaphoric strength and intellect?? The answer is that it cannot.

This is the difference between Roosevelt and Bush. It is the reason that THE BEAT GENERATION produced book after book, insightful poem after poem, valuable literary thought after valuable thought-----while the Hippy thing led to numbness and the Woodstock generation romping in the mud and merde of a New York cow pasture.

The generation gaps all along the timeline represent the dumbing down steps on a ladder that brought us from then to now. And there is very little any of us can do about it. Not bad. Not good. Just is. And rather sad.

Art Thieme
(who probably should know better than to post at the end of the day.)

Subject: RE: Simon and Garfunkel; generation gap
From: Nerd
Date: 17 Jul 04 - 10:32 PM

One thing I find amusing is that the old fogies above (meaning no disrespect) refer to "content" when they mean lyrics and melody. In fact, dancers, in-your-face-screaming, pyrotechnics, multimedia and the lot ARE content. You may happen to think they're crap, but they're still content, and they're part of what people pay to go to concerts for. I happen to be in my mid 30s, so I may be at the age where one is most likely to be a a Simon and Garfunkel fan, and at the same time recognize that the other stuff counts as content too. But surely people considerably older than me have gone to concerts for "content" that wasn't pure music. The Who were busting up guitars on stage back when Simon and Garfunkel were young, and Chubby Checker encouraged his audiences to "Do the Twist" before that. People went to see Elvis for the pelvis.

I do like the pure music, by the way, and it results in an interesting fact: most of the time, I'd rather listen to a CD, even in folk music. At concerts, there's too much distraction, be it smoke, noise, uncomfortable seats, etc. In addition, the music is usually not as good, due usually to poorer sound than in a studio. Finally, most concerts cost as much as a CD or more, and the CD lasts for years. So in the end, for me the main reason to go to a concert IS the visual part. I happen to be happy if the only dancing is Martin Simpson's fingers on a fretboard, but it's still the visual stuff that gets me into a venue.

By the way, I don't necessarily agree with what Harvey said about "those whippersnappers shouldn't be allowed to criticize S & G unless they have a sense of history, perspective, etc. etc." Or rather, I think it would be nice in an ideal world but it doesn't sound like THIS world. Since when has TV cared about that stuff? The kids' function is to say whether they liked the concert. The reason that a TV station employs them (as opposed to The Times or Folk Roots or whatever) is that their views are seen as likely to correspond with that of a segment of the program's audience. In other words, the under 30s who are watching TV as their source for music criticism are likely to appreciate and agree with these kids.

It is actually quite rare (at least in the US; I'll admit I only get to watch drama and comedy from the UK, not news) for a TV-based critic to be of any use to me. Few of them have any sense of history or perspective, and they all say the latest crapfest action movie is "PERFECT! A NON STOP SUMMER THRILL RIDE!!!" For that reason, for criticism of music or films, I read. (I will say that there are SOME thoughtful film critics on US TV, including Roger Ebert. But I'd rather read his reviews than watch him on the tube.)

I hope there are a lot of under 30s who are smarter than the TV program's "target audience," and go read reviews of music in newspapers and music magazines. In pop music, I think Mojo is generally an excellent magazine, and unlikely to pick a 25 year old wanker to review Simon and Garfunkel.

Subject: RE: Simon and Garfunkel; generation gap
From: Mark Cohen
Date: 17 Jul 04 - 10:53 PM

Ed: that was supposed to be a joke. Guess I was too subtle for my own good! You made your point very well, and I agree completely.

Aloha,
Mark

Subject: RE: Simon and Garfunkel; generation gap
From: Ethereal Purple
Date: 17 Jul 04 - 11:19 PM

"some of the old stuff like Taylor, Joni Mitchell, Joan Baez, Neil Young, Jackson Browne, Dan Fogelberg, Karla Bonoff, Blood Sweat & Tears and Jethro Tull he just can't listen to"

So strange... I'm 17... and most of those artists are my absolute favourites! Joan Baez, Joni Mitchell and James Taylor are definitely RIGHT on top, along with simon & garfunkel... and so many other 'old' artists. I have a LOT of friends who really enjoy simon and garfunkel... and a few who like baez and the like. So, there are still some of us :).

Thing is, though, I don't like a lot of the newer stuff.

Subject: RE: Simon and Garfunkel; generation gap
From: iamjohnne
Date: 18 Jul 04 - 12:22 AM

Back in nineteen sixty-something a boy I dated literally sold his blood to take me to see Simon and Garfunkle. I was mesmerized then and prolly would be now if I saw them in person.I can appreciate and enjoy many different types of song styling. but I defy anyone to find anyone who sings better than Art GArfunle

Subject: RE: Simon and Garfunkel; generation gap
From: GUEST,Art Thieme
Date: 18 Jul 04 - 01:14 AM

Nerd,

Good points. I do understand. I meant it when I said it was too late for me to post coherently. The kind of fatigue that goes with being double your age, and from other various infirmities, is like hitting a wall--and I ought to've known better than to try to sound profound given these realities.

And I appreciate that you meant no disrespect.

Art

Subject: RE: Simon and Garfunkel; generation gap
From: Matt_R
Date: 18 Jul 04 - 02:05 AM

I'm a 25-year-old wanker who enjoys S&G.

Subject: RE: Simon and Garfunkel; generation gap
From: Nerd
Date: 18 Jul 04 - 02:22 AM

Art,

I still mean no disrespect! You and Harvey are definitely people I hold in high esteem.

Subject: RE: Simon and Garfunkel; generation gap
From: open mike
Date: 18 Jul 04 - 02:50 AM

I heard Art and Paul on Morning Edition (or All Things Considered?)
one of the NPR in depth shows...it was great to hear the inter views
and i was gld to see they were performing, touring and recording again!
I think i heard them on the show that is hosted by Neil Simon, they were joking as to whether they were related. They introduced a new song on the radio. If you go to that web site you can see pictures...

Subject: RE: Simon and Garfunkel; generation gap
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 18 Jul 04 - 06:24 AM

I think it's horses for courses.

The best metal band, despite strong tunes and lyrics, would not deliver effectively without a good dollop of stage posing. But it's not what what S+G are for!

However, one of the best metal singers I know surreptitiously leads a double life (he's well under 30) doing morris dancing and folk singing (a huge fan of a local 65 year old woman unaccompanied singer, but she is really rather special) and has just borrowed my spare-est mandolin and dammit was getting music out of it in about 5 minutes! In that persona the stage posing is not where it's at.

What the start of the thread indicates is that a reviewer needs to understand the genre - compare Japanese No plays, or Haiku, or sean-nos singers. The reviewer complained of was no better than the caricature's "I may not know much about art but I know what I like" ignoramus. What might she have made of Schoenberg?

Subject: RE: Simon and Garfunkel; generation gap
From: jack halyard
Date: 18 Jul 04 - 07:03 AM

I sang "Poem on the underground wall" at one of our Tuesday night pub sessions about a month ago. I was powerfully re-impressed with Paul Simon as a writer. I've not heard many to compare with them as harmony singers. If they just stand and sing, I'll just stand and watch.

                                    Jack Halyard.

Subject: RE: Simon and Garfunkel; generation gap
From: harvey andrews
Date: 18 Jul 04 - 07:45 AM

To continue the discussion with nerd as to "Content". I agree that this is an area of serious generation gap.
If I can use the analogy of cigarettes. They are a vehicle for the delivery of nicotine. The nicotine is in the tobacco, which is wrapped in a paper tube and then sold in a pack.
To us "old fogeys" as you call us..(there we go again, lazy labelling, I'll just go and get me arran sweater!).. a song is a vehicle for the the delivery of ideas and imagery contained in words and wrapped in music. When you quite rightly say that pyrotechnics, lights, dancing, visuals etc are what people now go for it seems to me that the pack is now the object of desire and not the cigarettes it contains.
It's the same as people who collect books for the dustwrappers.
It gives them pleasure and harms no one, but it's just not really what books are for.
Still, films used to be about plot and character.
"Change and decay all around I see"
Oh dear, what's an old fogey look like?

Subject: RE: Simon and Garfunkel; generation gap
From: Ross
Date: 18 Jul 04 - 08:27 AM

My sister was a big fan in the late 60's and early 70's and it was a requirement to buy her the latest album for a Christmas present

I must admit I thought that the two of them had a more equal status in playing, writing and singing

I was a bit stunned when reading the notes on the back of the 'Bridge over' album, how much was credited to Paul Simon

I went to a gig that night to see Stackridge and nobody would believe me

I'm surprised that Paul Simon didn't cut Art's hair

How strange, that he got jealous of Art's acting career

Subject: RE: Simon and Garfunkel; generation gap
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 18 Jul 04 - 09:33 AM

Hey, Harv:

Music is for all kinds of experiences... even songs. Songs aren't just about lyrics. Or messages. Folk songs are about words, stories and messages. But, not even all folk music... sometimes lyrics are just silly or fun... which I know you know. But music is also for dancing, and I'm not just talking about contra dancing or morris dancing. For people who like to dance to music, the words aren't the primary interest... it's the sound and the rhythm. Nobody listened to Wooly Bully or Louie, Louie to hear the words, or get the message. These days, the beat drives everything, and having three left feet, it doesn't get me up on the dance floor. That's true not only in pop music and country, but in gospel. Everything now seems to be mass choirs and multiple synthesizers, drums and guitars. I don't like that kind of gospel.   The key word in that last sentence is "I." Why can't everybody be like me? Dang!

For me, there's room for all kinds of music, including music I don't like that does nothing for me. That makes room for folk music, which the general public finds uninteresting, and jazz which is just about as unpopular as folk music. Loving folk music and jazz, which have such a limited appeal to the general public wasn't enough for me. I've fallen in love with old black gospel quartet music, which is equally limited in appeal. Maybe it's something about us folkies.

Last year, my quartet opened for the Dixie Hummingbirds... a fine, nationally know black gospel group celebrating their 74th Anniversary!
It was well publicized in the black community and churches and the promoter rented a large auditorium. The concert drew about 50 people.
A lousy, loud rap group would have filled the place. So be it. Music speaks to people. Folk music speaks to a little circle of friends. Rap and hip hop speaks to millions. At least people are getting up off their duffs and dancing now... certainly there are at least as many people on the floor dancing as there were in the 40's with the big bands.

If folkies bemoan the lack of appreciation for folk music, lighten up. You could be a poet. :-)

Jerry

Subject: RE: Simon and Garfunkel; generation gap
From: harvey andrews
Date: 18 Jul 04 - 11:15 AM

I can't disagree Jerry, I am just addressing the issue of "song" as Mudcat generally knows it. However, I'm still doing my doctorate on the hidden meanings of "woe-oo, woe-oo, yea, yea"

Subject: RE: Simon and Garfunkel; generation gap
From: Once Famous
Date: 18 Jul 04 - 11:22 AM

I've enjoyed reading this thread.

It's very hard and scary to imagine the world of music 25-30 years from now. I want to be positive and say that things then will go retro and music and thought again will be synonomous.

Subject: RE: Simon and Garfunkel; generation gap
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 18 Jul 04 - 01:38 PM

Dip, dip, dip, dip, dip, dip, dip, dip, nume, nume, nume, nume, nume, nume, get a job..

Your original post is still right on, though, Harvey. Using the same reasoning, I guess us folkies shouldn't be judging hip hop artists except in the context of that form of musical expression... :-)

Good thread..

Jerry

Subject: RE: Simon and Garfunkel; generation gap
From: burntstump
Date: 18 Jul 04 - 01:47 PM

The two so called critics who knocked S & G must have had their heads up their buts, no wonder they talked so much crap!

Subject: RE: Simon and Garfunkel; generation gap
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 18 Jul 04 - 02:37 PM

Harvey, "Woe Woe Yea Yea" means drapes and DA's, brothel creepers, drains, girls in tight sweaters, ponytails, the Waltzers at the fair, hotdogs and candyfloss, going for a haircut and daring to ask the barber for a packet of three but not daring to use them, and most of all, wonderful wonderful good-time music by Buddy, Jerry Lee, Elvis, Gene, The Bopper, The Platters et many al, which my dad heaped scorn on but which has stood the test of time - just like S&G.

Maybe the judgment on quality is something that can't be made when the music's new, maybe like good wine it needs time to mature and develop body and nose? And maybe good taste develops as we ourselves grow older? Just my thoughts (albeit not as eloquently put as yours!).
Johnny :0)

Subject: RE: Simon and Garfunkel; generation gap
From: Nerd
Date: 18 Jul 04 - 02:38 PM

Yes, Harvey, i was just kidding with the "Old Fogey" thing. I don't really think of anyone that way!

I would agree with your cigarette analogy. The fact is, if nicotine is the "content," the main difference between brands IS the packs. That would suggest that people buy the brand they buy because of the pack and its artwork/graphics/slogans etc. And so they do. This is well recognized within industry, and is not really a "generation gap" issue when it comes to consumer goods, except perhaps between 110 year olds and 100 year olds, because industry recognized this in the 1910s, when a currently 100 year old person was only about 6.

(By the way, there are now many people who collect such things as potato crisp bags and soft drink bottles. They have conventions along with the equally loony people who collect equally ephemeral things like song broadsides.)

As far as music is concerned, the packaging did begin later. But as I said, Elvis, the Beatles, Chubby Checker, etc., were as revered for what went along with the music as for the music itself. As Jerry says, no one ever listened to Louie Louie primarily for the lyrics or the music. Beyond that, there were always genres such as the Music Hall and eventually musical theatre itself, where it was not always true that "a song is a vehicle for the the delivery of ideas and imagery contained in words and wrapped in music." Sometimes the point WAS audience participation, or a wacky dance routine in the middle of a song, or ethnic humor in the accent/behavior/clothing of the performer, or a pie in the face, or even a line of leggy chorus girls.

I think your attitude to what a song "is" is primarily applicable to the singer/songwriter genre, whether we mean by that folk or rock (Leon Rosselson or Bruce Springsteen). It has generally been less applicable to many other styles, such as music hall, heavy metal, punk (where "attitude" takes the place of stage drama) and a lot of what is now known as "Classic Rock." I'm not sure this is purely a generation gap, although it may have generational overtones. I think it's as much of a "genre gap" as anything.

Subject: RE: Simon and Garfunkel; generation gap
From: harvey andrews
Date: 18 Jul 04 - 03:04 PM

I suppose I always hear the lyrics first. it started with Buddy Holly
for me;
Drunk man, street car
Foot slip,(drum rim shot)
There you are.....
Well I'm looking for someone to love..

probably the most succinct piece of lyric writing in popular music. It's a film, a book, a play...
"Strollin", my friend, as you know Sonny Curtis wrote "More than I can say". I worked with him once and when I got back to the dressing room he asked me who'd written a song I sang.
"I did, Sonny"
"Fine song man." he said.
It's never got better than that!
I got into songwriting through the tradition as I heard it, ie the telling of stories with music, and that's still what I listen for, although it's harder to find these days in the welter of "me" writers who don't have much of a story to tell.
it's interesting. looking back, that I was the first person in the world to record a Paul Simon song except Paul. It was "Most peculiar man" a direct piece of storytelling, and not one of his more "poetic" lyrics. Then I heard Harry Chapin....but that's another story

Subject: RE: Simon and Garfunkel; generation gap
From: GUEST,Art Thieme
Date: 18 Jul 04 - 03:25 PM

I will sing you a song it will be a sad one,
Of trials and troubles and how they begun,
I left my dear kindred, my friends and my home
To cross the wide beech creeks and the mountains to roam.

-----------Alex Moore ( first verse of the song "Sioux Indians" on an early L. of C. recording)

Just an example of what I mean when I say "content".

Art Thieme

Subject: RE: Simon and Garfunkel; generation gap
From: harvey andrews
Date: 18 Jul 04 - 04:21 PM

I think that's what we all agree on Art!

Subject: RE: Simon and Garfunkel; generation gap
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Jul 04 - 04:27 PM

Art,

great song- just got the rest off DT...

8-{E

Subject: RE: Simon and Garfunkel; generation gap
From: Nerd
Date: 18 Jul 04 - 05:12 PM

Agreed, great song. And it doesn't need anything but a voice, though I've heard it sung with an accordion!