Simon & Garfunkel

[METALMAN]

Think about Simon & Garfunkel, and how they are perceived. Obviously, they are one of the most well known acts from the 60s nowadays, along with the likes of Bob Dylan, the Beach Boys, Pink Floyd and so on. However, Simon & Garfunkel don't seem to be as "credible" (i.e. cool) as these other bands.

This could well be because they weren't lunatics like Brian Wilson or Syd Barrett, didn't top themselves like Nick Drake, didn't overdose like Jim Morrison, weren't as good looking as the Beatles or maybe even because they didn't look as cool in sunglasses as Bob Dylan. Maybe it was even that they were a bit religious - never a good thing for credibility, as demonstrated most notably by Bob Dylan and Cat Stevens.

I really don't think it is because of any weakness in their music - the last four albums are in my opinion are four of the finest from that decade, and Paul Simon had a way with a tune that was really only rivalled by Paul McCartney during that period. Regardless of this, it is often swept under the carpet as easy listening along with the Daniel O'Donnells and Engelbert Humperdincks of this world. Which is an awful shame.

I also think it proves what a sham this whole idea of "credibility" is. If you go back to the early 70s you'd struggle to find a band better regarded than Emerson, Lake & Palmer or Yes. At the same time, the Stooges and Black Sabbath were getting savaged by the music press. Obviously, modern perceptions are the complete opposite of this. For all we know Keith Emerson could blow his brains out in ten years time. Would that make his band cool again? Is that really all it takes?

It all happens so fast nowadays too. Mark Linkous is a virtual nobody. Then he tops himself and suddenly NME are going on about how great he is. His previously untouched albums have been flying off the shelves at HMV recently.

Further example - Keith Richards followed a self-destructive path of drugs and booze. He's cool. Mick Jagger doesn't. So he's just a businessman.

It's an awful shame that the only ways to guarantee "credibility" and a good legacy in music(or indeed any form of entertainment as Van Gogh and James Dean can testify) involve suicide, manic depression, hedonism or insanity. Simply being good at music isn't enough. Then you're just a businessman. Or in the easy-listening section at HMV.

[Skummy]

I think Simon & Garfunkel, while they wrote good tunes, were seen as pretty light and airy-fairy at the time, it's not a retrospective thing. But Paul Simon nowadays is still seen as one of your token music veterans, he's respected to a certain degree, and while I don't think Simon & Garfunkel are seen as "cool", I'm pretty sure they never were. There's nothing intrinsically "cool" about them. But they're not like a Daniel O'Donnell or a Val Doonican in that they'd completely change somebody's perception of your musical taste, I wouldn't think.

And, yes, the music press gets it wrong sometimes. But that's largely because the music press goes through the same phases as the rest of the music industry, bar very few exceptions. When the entire staff of a magazine got there through writing about the emerging prog rock scene, and being a part of that, then of course they're not going to look favourably on bands that do the exact opposite and that were, certainly in Sabbath's case, essentially retrogressive - Sabbath at the time were just seen as a low-rent Cream rip-off, until they started to really explore their own sound. Same goes for The Stooges - the majority of the music journalists came from a background of treating rock music as something intellectual, and through "peace and love", they're not going to enjoy three chords or clumsy garage rock guitar solos while a deranged madman slices himself up on stage.

I don't think suicide, indulgence or any of that is quite the be-all and end-all of it. It's mostly down to savvy management - Keith Richards is a good example. He's as much the businessman as Jagger, but he presented himself in a different way - if he'd actually done half the drugs people think he has, he'd have been dead years ago. Of course, it's all about public perception, so whether he actually did it or not is barely relevant. But at the same time, if you look at all the artists you mentioned - Barrett, Wilson, Richards, Drake - they were, or are, bloody good, created some of the best music of their generation. You could name a thousand more artists who followed the path of self-destruction and never amounted to anything, or artists who committed suicide and faded into obscurity. Vic Chesnutt killed himself last year, it was barely an afterthought in the music press.

It's easy to look at Mark Linkous and say that suicide's helped his career - but the thing is, you could apply the logic to anyone. He dies, he gets coverage in the music press. He gets coverage in the music press, shops start stocking his records. He gets coverage in the music press, people had maybe only vaguely heard the name, or never heard of him at all, read a glowing eulogy and think "this guy sounds pretty good", and buy the albums. All it means is that he's done something noteworthy, people hear his name, so people go and buy his music. You have to hear of an artist somehow. I'd be very surprised if it turns into a long-term critical deification of Linkous, though.