Are Simon and Garfunkel hip? I really don’t know, and I think I’ve been trying to figure it out for years.
On one hand, I think that the poetic lyrics / critical acclaim / connection with The Graduate etc. would push their hipster worth up a few notches, yet I find that whenever I’m listening to them, at least one person mocks me (or them) and makes me feel decidedly lame for doing so.
Now, I truly couldn’t care less about my being hip (in this case, anyway). I dig Simon and Garfunkel, and know enough people who do as well to not make me feel like a total Asia fan. (The band, not the country).
But… I think I hit upon the two things that make them un-hip, and it really lies in their "Art", so to speak.
It’s the name “Garfunkel”.
And it’s his hair.
A couple of months back, I was talking on the phone with my girlfriend. She heard music in the background, and asked what I was listening to. When I told her that it was Simon and Garfunkel, she just chuckled and said “Garfunkel”. I asked (hungrily at this point, after what seems like years of mock-age) what the problem with S&G was. She replied, “Nothing”.
I think that’s exactly the point. It’s not the band that people mock, it’s his fucking name. Could it be that his name is so phoenetically bad that it’s like the “Cellar Door” of shitty names? Has his name caused generations to dismiss their music in a knee-jerk reaction?
“Garfunkel” invites laughter. It’s probably the word “funk”.
I don’t know….
I don’t think we’d have Iron & Wine or Elliott Smith without Paul n’ Art. I think a lot of people would agree with that. Were they always mocked? Were they un-hip in the 60’s? Were they the Jack Johnson to Dylan’s M. Ward, or something? I’d ask my parents, but they had better things to do in their youth than pore over the bullshit minutia of popular music.
They were probably surfing or fighting greasers.
Anyway, after S & G’s first album tanked, they broke up. Paul Simon moved to England and released a solo album called the Paul Simon Songbook.
Paul Simon – April Come She Will
After some suit re-mixed “The Sounds of Silence” and it became a hit, they quickly reformed and re-recorded a lot of songs from Simon’s solo effort.
I think he should have just stayed solo.
Then there’d be no “Garfunkel” (point “a”). and there’d be only slightly objectionable hair on the album covers (point “b”).
And it would have made my shabby life a little bit easier (point “c”).
-kevin
Comments (7)
I think more mocking comes from the hair.
Posted by Laura | November 27, 2006 10:30 PM
Posted on November 27, 2006 22:30
But if his name is the "cellar door" of shitty names, wouldn't that make it a nice name? Like the most beautiful of all shitty name?
I like thinking of your mom fighting greasers. Wicked.
Posted by S | November 28, 2006 2:35 PM
Posted on November 28, 2006 14:35
I really think fans are now immune to ridiculous names... now that the 80s are over.
Now excuse me while I file my newly acquired Oingo Boingo vinyls.
Posted by kam | November 28, 2006 11:10 PM
Posted on November 28, 2006 23:10
Well, it's the "Cellar Door", in that "Cellar Door" is the most beautiful, while "Garfunkel is the same on a negative scale.
My mom did fight greasers until her friend Bob died after a kid named Johnny and Ponyboy stabbed him....wait, that was the Outsiders.
See, the hair is scenery. The Garfunkel is the core of the problem.
And true, fans are immune to ridiculous names, perfect examples: "Mushaboom", "Hoobastank", "Weezer", and "Binaural".
Oh.
Snap?
Posted by Kevin | November 29, 2006 11:45 AM
Posted on November 29, 2006 11:45
Well played.
But the correct answer was "Abbruzzese".
Posted by kam | November 30, 2006 2:08 AM
Posted on November 30, 2006 02:08
You had to be a little surprised I hadn't chimed in yet, eh? [smirk]
A couple things - one, they had some success before their first Simon & Garfunkel stuff recording under the name Tom & Jerry - they actually had a top 50 hit (which they recently started performing again - a pleasant surprise when I saw them).
Secondly - being (I assume) the only one in the room who has seen both solo Paul Simon and Simon & Garfunkel in concert I can safely say the duo is FAR superior to the solo.
I like Simon's solo output (and Garfunkel's solo releases have been underwhelming to say the least) - but to think he'd have been better off if he'd "stayed solo" - wow, I couldn't disagree more.
There's a quality to Garfunkel's voice - the texture of the harmonies - that Simon's solo output has never had. Paul became a better songwriter because of the contributions of Art... and at this stage in the game (strangely), Garfunkel's voice has actually held up better than Simon's...
My 2¢ anyways...
Regardless, this post has made me pull the S&G catalogue off the shelf... that'll be next week's "complete discography" listening at work LOL!
Posted by Scott | December 1, 2006 8:22 AM
Posted on December 1, 2006 08:22
See, I think Wednesday Morning 3A.M is a mediocre album album, save for a couple of tracks. Simon's original solo work, to me is much better. Also G-Funk's voice, while great, isn't a reason I listen much to S&G. I truly don't like "Bridge Over Troubled Water" (sue me), which if I'm not mistaken is usually considered his "finest hour".
You can't judge Simon's more recent solo stuff as what would have necessarily taken place if he hadn't returned to Simon & Garfunkel, because it's in direct correlation with the success he experienced with his former duo. It would have been interesting if his success was a slower build, how his career would have turned out.
I am also aware of the Tom & Jerry stuff, and I just think it's mediocre at best, much like WM3AM.
Posted by Kevin | December 6, 2006 1:20 PM
Posted on December 6, 2006 13:20