I recently stumbled upon something that I thought all us Nitpicking types might like to ruminate over. The item in question was a critical review which stated that once Simon and Garfunkel split up, Paul Simon's songwriting improved, because he was no longer writing specifically for Garfunkel's voice. I think this is bogus, for the following reasons:

1) So what songs are we talking about, exactly? Well, there are two songs that I can name right off the top of my head that were Garfunkel-specific, "Bridge Over Troubled Water," and "For Emily, Wherever I May Find Her." Are these bad songs? No! They're probably among the best in the entire S&G catalog, though most people don't know "Emily," as it was never a hit single (I think). So if this was supposed to be a weak spot in the Simon armor, we have two rosy contradictions.

2) What happened to the songs after their initial releases? The only person I can think of off the top of my head who ever covered "Emily," is David Essex, and I've never heard his version of the song. "Bridge Over Troubled Water," being suge a huge hit, was a big part of both artists' solo careers. Now, with Garfunkel, that's fine- no one can sing that song like he can. But Simon was forced to tinker with the song to get it to work, with varied results. The more jazz-oriented version that he did during his Central Park concert is pretty good. The version he did as a part of last year's PBS televised concert is... strange. The point here is that both songs can get along all right without Garfunkel.

3) Not all of the S&G albums have "Garfunkel" songs on them. "Emily" was on Parsely, Sage, Rosemary, and Thyme, "Bridge" was on Bridge Over Troubled Water. There are three other S&G albums with a distinct lack of Garfunkel-only numbers. So obviously this wasn't a huge part of Simon's work, making the critical statement equivalent to saying that each Beatles album would be better by removing the songs that Ringo sings. It just ain't true.

I would argue instead that the reason Simon's songwriting improved is through sheer maturity. Over the years, he has steadily improved his product, a sign that his skill is increasing with age. Also, it's not like he entirely abandoned Garfunkel in his solo career; "My LIttle Town" was originally conceived as a Garfunkel solo number until he turned it into a collaboration, and the song turned out to be one of those forgotten classics. Without Garfunkel, Simon's skill as a songwriter was not significantly altered.

Okay! Agree? Disagree? Have fun!

"For Emily, Wherever I May Find Her" is one of my five or ten favorite songs. Period. And I don't think that it had anything to do with whether Garfunkel was there or not.

I think the way he plays with words is still fantastic...I agree that some improvement comes from maturity, but "writing for Garfunkel's voice" has nothing to do with lyrics, just melodies. And I don't think those have changed as far as quality goes.

I borrowed the Paul Simon box set and a triple disc set of Simon and Garfunkel (it contains the albums Wednesday Morning, 3 A.M., Sounds of Silence, Parsley, Sage, Rosemary and Thyme, Bookends and Bridge Over Troubled Waters) from a buddy of mine. Just so I could see if my initial thoughts on this question were valid.

My thoughts on the subject? I don't think it was Art Garfunkel that held back Paul Simon as a songwriter so much as Simon and Garfunkel. Thing is Simon and Garfunkel were a folk-rock act. I think they were pretty well locked into that, too. There doesn't seem to be much stylistic variation until the ...Troubled Waters album. On that album, Paul began to stretch the group's musical boundaries with tracks like "Cecelia". Even on Bookends, there was "Mrs. Robinson" and "Hazy Shade of Winter". But these are records at the end of Simon and Garfunkel's career.

Now, admittedly, many of Paul Simon's solo stuff could have been recorded and performed by Simon and Garfunkel. "Mother and Child Reunion", "Kodachrome" and "50 Ways to Leave Your Lover" to name but three songs. But "Mother and Child Reunion" is a reggae based tune, a style Simon and Garfunkel did not engage in. (Okay, that's unfair. Reggae was still in the process of development in the 60s.)

The point is Simon and Garfunkel hardly deviated from their folk-rock sound. On his own, Paul Simon slowly began to explore other musical avenues. "Mother and Child..." was the first indication of this. "Late In the Evening" would further solidify this direction which would ultimtely result in the albums Graceland and Rhythm of the Saints.

Interesting idea! I'm not sure I totally agree, though. My argument is that by the time Bookends was released, the label of "folk-rock" was no longer valid for Simon and Garfunkel. To understand why, look at their previous three albums. All three were taken from Paul's backlong of songs, mostly from his extensive stays in England. Bookends was the first album of their to exhibit truly new material, and there they showed that they could move with the best of them. None of the material on that album sounds like the kind of things that would have gone on their earlier albums, though "America" comes close. The theme continues on Bridge Over Troubled Water, where you do get the odd "Bye Bye Love" cover, but I think that was more due to the splintering partnership than any reversion in form.

So while I think this bears some consideration, I think Simon could have just as easily found those directions that he did in his solo work if Garfunkel was stil tagging along.

And on a somewhat unrelated note, could we please dispense with the pluralizaton of "Water" in that album's title? It just ain't right. I know, pick, pick, pick... but then again, that's what we do!

I think the last two Simon and Garfunkel albums still had enough elements in them to qualify as folk-rock. But, as I said, Paul Simon was begining a musical shift on those last two albums. And I also said that many of Paul's solo tunes could've easily been performed by Simon and Garfunkel.

I discussed this thread with my friend from whom I had borrowed the CDs. He mentioned one thing to me that might be the key difference - Art Garfunkel. According to my buddy, Artie's solo career consisted primarily of love songs. This isn't something Paul wrote a lot of. He did write love songs, yes. But Paul was interested in exploring other topics, however. Garfunkel had apparently developed more of a pop-ish, love song style in his solo career. This may be another place where the divergence in styles lie - Garfunkel wanted to go in a direction unsuited for the Simon and Garfunkel style.

And, oh, yeah I'll drop the ess out of Water from here on out.

Hmmmmmmm... while I see your point, I think a further definition of the "Simon and Garfunkel style" is needed. Would the "pop-ish, love song style" approach nessecarily be outside of the S&G boundaries? I think that depends on who was running the show. I don't know how much influence Garfunkel had in the creative process, but I do believe the majority of it rested with Simon. Without Simon, Garfunkel was unable to really achieve that much sucess. Now, had the duo remianed together, Simon could have lent assistance to Garfunkel's style, resulting in a superior product that would have been uniquely Simon and Garfunkel.

There's a parallel here to The Beatles. As each member started exploring different styles and approaches to music, it was the group contributions that really made it work. The whole of The Beatles, in other words, was greater than the sum of each individual Beatle... does that make sense?

And in a completely unrelated rant, is there a more annoying name to have to repeat several times in a post than Garfunkel?

"There's a parallel here to The Beatles. As each member started exploring different styles and approaches to music, it was the group contributions that really made it work. The whole of The Beatles, in other words, was greater than the sum of each individual Beatle... does that make sense?"

Yeah, except by the end of their career, the Beatles were clearly fragmenting. The cohesion, the unity of purpose that was there on the earlier albums was virtually gone by "The White Album". Those last few albums nonetheless still have great songs on them, but the Fab Four's individuality was showing.

Even after the break up, many of their solo songs would have quite at home on a Beatles l.p. But there's an awful lot ("Silly Love Songs") that would've been drastically altered had they been presented as demos for Beatles songs in the band's prime. (On "Getting Better", John contributed the line "Can't get much worse." It's kinda fun to think of what Lennon might've added to "Silly Love Songs.")

"Hmmmmmmm... while I see your point, I think a further definition of the "Simon and Garfunkel style" is needed."

Tentatively, I would say it's "Folk-rock highlighted by Everly Brothersesque vocal harmonies". But seeing as that's an extremely off-the-cuff definition, it's one that's very likely seriously flawed.

"Would the "pop-ish, love song style" approach nessecarily be outside of the S&G boundaries?"

No. "Cecilia", at the very least, proves that. My friend has one of Artie's discs. I should borrow it and listen to see exactly where along the pop spectrum Garfunkel lies. That would probably help tremendously.

"I don't know how much influence Garfunkel had in the creative process, but I do believe the majority of it rested with Simon."

Good question. Certainly I suspect that Artie's vocal range had quite a lot to do with the S&G sound. Paul could broaden the range of his songs through it. However, I don't think Garfunkel's choirboy voice would have lent itself too easily to the darker side of Simon's later songs. It would would worked against them I think. (Although it worked just fine for "The Sounds of Silence".)

"Now, had the duo remianed together, Simon could have lent assistance to Garfunkel's style, resulting in a superior product that would have been uniquely Simon and Garfunkel."

Well, the two did do some songs together in the late Seventies. I'm not sure if they really measure up to the duo's earlier work. But, you are, I take it, refering to a continuing collaboration between the two. That might have made a difference.

But it does leave open the question of whether they could have pulled it off in the climate of the late Seventies without changing their sounds. Plus, a continuos collaboration may have prevented such Paul Simon classics as "Late In the Evenning" and "Fifty Ways to Leave Your Lover".

Yeah, except by the end of their career, the Beatles were clearly fragmenting. The cohesion, the unity of purpose that was there on the earlier albums was virtually gone by "The White Album". Those last few albums nonetheless still have great songs on them, but the Fab Four's individuality was showing.

Even after the break up, many of their solo songs would have quite at home on a Beatles l.p. But there's an awful lot ("Silly Love Songs") that would've been drastically altered had they been presented as demos for Beatles songs in the band's prime.

I'm not sure you fully got my point, although that's probably my fault. What I was trying to get across was the fact that none of the Beatles, after the breakup, could ever gain the musical success that they had while still together. Their partnership created something unique, something that was greater than could have been expected from just throwing any four musicians into a band.

So had they presented those later songs as demos, yes the songs would have been altered from what we have, but I believe they would also be better. The same applies to Simon and Garfunkel.

Tentatively, I would say it's "Folk-rock highlighted by Everly Brothersesque vocal harmonies". But seeing as that's an extremely off-the-cuff definition, it's one that's very likely seriously flawed.

Perhaps "progressive Folk-rock"?

Good question. Certainly I suspect that Artie's vocal range had quite a lot to do with the S&G sound. Paul could broaden the range of his songs through it. However, I don't think Garfunkel's choirboy voice would have lent itself too easily to the darker side of Simon's later songs. It would would worked against them I think. (Although it worked just fine for "The Sounds of Silence".)

I'm not quite sure what "darker" songs you're referring to. Also remember that for the Sounds of Silence and Parsely, Sage, Rosemary and Thyme, albums, much of the material was dark in nature, and Garfunkel never proved a hinderance there.

Good question. Certainly I suspect that Artie's vocal range had quite a lot to do with the S&G sound. Paul could broaden the range of his songs through it. However, I don't think Garfunkel's choirboy voice would have lent itself too easily to the darker side of Simon's later songs. It would would worked against them I think. (Although it worked just fine for "The Sounds of Silence".)

I was, indeed, referring to a continuing collaboration. However, I wasn't aware that they had done anything else in the 70's, besides "My Little Town," which, as I believe I noted above, is a very good song (coincidentally it also came up in my playlist as I was typing. Cosmic).

Plus, a continuos collaboration may have prevented such Paul Simon classics as "Late In the Evenning" and "Fifty Ways to Leave Your Lover".

I dunno about this. Maybe "Late in the Evening," although that came as part of a film, right? I think "50 Ways" would still had surfaced, as it got its genesis from a rhyme Simon wrote for his son.