Here's Jeff K.:
Reading David Carr's excellent profile of Neil Young in the Times prompted me to spend a good part of Sunday morning
listening to a series of Neil Young bootlegs, highlighting his live
performances and best recordings from 1966 to last year. More than forty
years after they were recorded, his early songs still seem fresh and
interesting to me and I can still feed off the energy of a live
performance of "Sea of Madness" from 1970. Yes, as Carr and everyone
else points out, Young isn't the most consistent writer, but his highs
easily set standards that have rarely been matched or surpassed, and he
is a true artist, willing to put himself out there on a limb and fail,
if it means being true to himself.
Earlier this week, Soundsource sent this to me:
His longtime manager and friend Elliot Roberts describes Young as “always willing to roll the dice and lose” and says: “He has no problem with failure as long as he is doing work he is happy with. Whether it ends up as a win or loss on a consumer level is not as much of an interest to him as one might think.”
Back to Jeff K.:
Earlier this week, Soundsource sent this to me:
His longtime manager and friend Elliot Roberts describes Young as “always willing to roll the dice and lose” and says: “He has no problem with failure as long as he is doing work he is happy with. Whether it ends up as a win or loss on a consumer level is not as much of an interest to him as one might think.”
Back to Jeff K.:
I need some time to weigh in. I'll be back. In the meantime....
Impossible question to answer. I'm not much of a Paul Simon fan. The only album I've owned is "Bridge Over Troubled Water", and it was a gift.
ReplyDeleteThere are times when I would have said Neil, for sure, and you know by now I'm not a devoted fan of Bob. For most of my life I would have cited John Lennon as my preferred half of Lennon-McCartney, but in the last couple of years Paul has emerged as the better of the two. I have a lot of Beatles in the endless playlist that passes for radio in my house, and Paul's overall musicianship, and craft have aged well.
I recently acquired 11 cd's of Macca outtakes and demos. Here is my comment on that:
"I randomly opened up number 9 and listened to half of the first two songs, "The Pound Is Sinking", and "Wanderlust". That's already more good music than can be found on 9 discs of "The Lost Lennon Tapes".
Just sayin'. Thanks again."
Paul is probably not as deep as the others, but neither am I.
God what a hard assignments. I purposefully DIDN'T post on the first couple, looking for the one that struck the bell for me. I don't think I could decide between the four offered. All great and ABOVE classification; unique and unflinching all and lifelong influencfes to this close-follower. I tend to narrow it down to Neil and Bob as tops on my list. but that's as far as I go. Here's my four, out of left field.
ReplyDeleteThses four would be the ones I've come back to again and again and some of the few i've retained vinyl copies of as my space dwindled ad my age increased. Some were tragic but all had magic.
Gene Clark
George Gerdes
Ray Wiley Hubbard
Terry Allen
Gene Clark first got ne with 'Feel A whole Lot Better' in The Byrds but it was his solo trip with The Gosdins that cemented my allegiance. ' I Found You' would probably be my choice. His Stint at A&M includes the Dillard-Clark Expedition and 'Kansas City Soiuthern'. The 'White Heat' LP followed and I can't chose a single. probably because Jesse Ed Davis is there on board. Then he did his Masterpiece, 'No Other'. I'm sorry, not a bad song on it (Jesse's there again); 'Life's Greatest Fool', 'Some Misunderstanding'"No Other' 'The True One' 'Strength OF Strings', "Silver Raven' and on the deluxe version a second take on his Dillard & Clark first LP stand-out 'Train Leaves Here This Morning', also covered by the Eagles. Gene hit a bit of a wall after that, but there are moments that shine again and again throughout the remainder of his LPs ( especially the rumored soon to be reissued with extras follow up to 'No Other', 'Home Run King', which is the impossible to find on RSO Records). Gene WAS a bit of a mess, cranky off stage but shining on. Tragic and magic.
George Gerdes: George was Loudon Wainwright's roomate at Carnegie Tech. They were both studying acting. Loudon dropped out and had a 'career' which even got him on M.A.S.H. for handful of shows as the guitar toting (Dr.) Captain Spaulding (an obvious reference, probably named by Alan Alda, uber-Groucho fan) George quietly put out two rare LPs on United Artists circa 1971-1972...'Obituary' and 'Son Of Obituary'. I've been singing two of his songs ('Hey Packy' the best DOG song of all time and 'Son Of Obituary' a buddhist barrom hymn which sports my favorite second verse of all-time..."Oh God has a halo and the devil has horns, Existential divisions twixt which we are torn, I look at life like a rose with a stem full of thorns, I'm a flesh-colored fish in a sea so forlorn..") since they came out and have wished I could cover at least one more off the first LP, 'Like The Rain'. I've played his records as a Dj for years on radio and in clubs and on mixtapes/discs. 5 or 6 years ago someone came up to me at a festival I was booking on the last day and handed me a brown paper bag after making sure it was me. Inside was a BRAND new CD by George. In the mean time I'd seen him on The X-Files in rerun playing a crazy preacher type from the first seasom...he's the almost- shoulder length blond-haired fry-pan facev guy who apparently is still busy playing weirdos. His last CD blew me away. He's unique and that he's still playing tickles me. I'd like to find him and book him for a home concert if he's game. WELL worth looking up.
part two... Ray Wiley Hubbard: I first discovered Ray through Jerry Jeff Walker doing Ray's 'Up Against The Wall, Redneck Mother' back on Jerry's first MCA disc in 1972. Soon he had an LP he would dis-own, that I loved. Well ahead of it's Americana time, 'Ray Wiley Hubbard & The Cowboy Twinkies' (Warner-Reprise) was loaded with attitude that still shimmers as far as I'm concerned. "Running Cross The Belly Of Texas'KILLS, hard-rocking and country and blues all at once. 'He's The One Who Made Me Number Two' supercedes cliche and is a standard I say. And though he strayed local for a while, he came back gangbusters and now leads a pack of like minded Texas music crazies. 'Try the title song 'Snake Farm' and the rest of THAT CD or 'Choctaw Bingo' or 'Cool As Hell' off Delerium Tremons CD. Ray is for the ages.
ReplyDeleteTerry Allen: Scary. Also an acclaimed painter and sculptor, he seems to be missing an edit button, so raw and real are his songs...and incredibly deliciously dark DARK chocolate funny. "Peggy Leg' a love song between two amputees who be a good intro and example. An intense mix of truth and whimsy that can repel and Attract. Infinitely entertaining.
I realize that all these guys (hey what's up with that? Where are the women?) are fairly obscure sort of, but rhapsodizing over the obvious doesn't really appeal to me. These artists have none been too successful, but they have lasted on my radar and playback machines for 40 years in one way or another. THAT counts for a lot, especially when you realize HOW many artists I have heard since 1955 when I first started to SEROUSLY listen to music at age FOUR ( I shit you not, I would get up at dawn and squat on the Kitchen coubter and turn on that Emerson Abkielite Am Counter Console and listen to the Saturday Morning countdown on WGR (the poor chaser to giant WKBW) in Buffalo NY. 61 years along now and my wife still has to redirect me away from the (now)computer & music section of my life.
I'm hoping a few of you will second my emotions on these guys or spur and stir you to seek them out. you'll know if you like them. Just give a listen...and forgive me my hubris.
No contest. Paul McCartney. What he did in the 6 years from the time they stepped onto the Ed Sullivan is unprecedented and unsurpassed.
ReplyDeleteSomeone once said you can't blame the pear that it isn't an apple.
ReplyDeleteBut if we have to pick one from this list it's gotta be Dylan. Quality, longevity, range, cultural import, impact on other artists, ...
As a Beatle Paul M scores high but you get into the single artist / member of a band argument.
Just one example take a look at the passion and complexity of the posts here the past few weeks (and all over the media with the release of the new record) and you gotta give a big nod to Bob.
Dylan completely dropped off my radar after the mid-70s. Maybe I'm missing something great there, but I really don't care, you know?
ReplyDeletePaul Simon -- just sounds really, really old these days. I really disliked "The Caveman" (or whatever is was) and feel Graceland really was his post-70's peak (and it's such a high peak that it would be impossible to go anywhere from there...)
That leaves Paul & Neil -- both of whom I have their entire catalog (well, I don't have "Arc" -- I'm not obsesssed, you know...)
Both artists -- continue to surprise me. A song like "The End of the End" off Memory Almost Full -- just nailed me when I heard it. Or "Heather" -- what a brilliant mostly-intstrumental off an otherwise lackluster album that I remember stopping the CD the first time I heard the song and immediately replayed it -- which I can't remember doing with anything since then.
And yet, Neil -- follows his muse -- and I think I respect that more than any other artist out there for some reason. Le Noise -- was great. I know Sal hated Americana -- but I've spun that many times and just think it's *fun* and can't wait for Psychedelic Pill.
Considering both are near 70, I'm not surprised Paul is becoming more mellow as an *album artist*. But it floors me that Neil continues to rock out -- and yet can flip on a dime (it seems) to come out with a great acoustic album. So as far as an *artist* -- Neil would get the nod from me.
Of those, I'm going to have to go with McCartney, with Bob and Neil right behind. All three have managed to regain relevance in the September of their years, more or less making music on their own terms, which has made it better.
ReplyDeletePaul Simon is okay, but I'd put him a tier or two below those guys. He simply doesn't have the output.
Over the mysterious arc of time and history, Bob Dylan.
ReplyDeleteAnd I think Paul, Paul, & Neil would agree.
I would like to add Van Morrison for consideration, though he seems to be a sort of forgotten man lately.
I would interpret the question as to which of the 4 is the most vital today: gotta be the Neiler for sure. Paul Simon is always interesting and quite frequently musical. Dylan's work since the mid-70s has bored me to tears when it hasn't irritated the hell out of me. McCartney (post-Ram) can be counted on a great song every 2-3 albums. Neil Young's career, on the other hand, has been like a majestic roller coaster ride, careening around the corners, threatening to jump the rails. His music is never boring, but when it gets close you can bet a reunion with Crazy Horse is just around the corner.
ReplyDeleteTie- Paul McCartney & Bob D
ReplyDeletePaul Mc- most talented/naturally gifted overall (voice, musicianship, songwriting), can write/sing anything (well he could sing anything at one point), greatest melodist, still has that knack for putting the right word with the right note. With Lennon, they'd be number one. Without he's 1b.
Bob D 1a. Shakespeare of our time, musical gadabout and historian (and thief, who cares!), this magic man continues to surprise me (as does Paul).
Neil- For me he's more 70s, and he's just a tiny notch below, I adore him though, a true original with a very unique view of the world, and he's poetic without trying to be Dylan Thomas or thinking he's DT, like the Paul below. Whenever I've had discussions about comparing him to another artist, Bruce is the one that gets bandied about, which makes more sense to me somehow. Perhaps it's the band leading and guitar playing.
Paul Simon- Wonderful song craft, though he's a bit clumsier than the other Paul. And not quite as clever as Bob and Neil. He also suffers from pretension and smugness at times, "for a poet I'm a one man band"...um, no you're not a Poet. The other Paul is accused of laziness lyrically but even at his laziest, the words almost always sail along on the music beautifully they serve the music and when you aspire to be the kind of songwriter Simon has always aspired to be (great American songwriter like Berlin), you need to understand that. "Graceland" is one of my favorite albums though. And I cherish him, and that New York-ness he has, and he did write "Only Living Boy in New York" after all. I must say I like him best when he's got collaborators like on "Graceland", or when Art sang his songs.
They've all enriched my life with their words and music. I must say that I think all four have held up well, and continue to challenge themselves, whether we like what they produce or not.
Wow, this is a hard one. Of course, as for myself and others I'm sure, we like them all. I would narrow it down to two, McCartney and Simon as my personal favorites. Neil wrote some good songs of which I enjoy a half a dozen or so. And Dylan, well, he is who he is, (enough with him already, please). Paul Simon solo and with Garfunkel wrote many faves of mine, very prolific and at an earlier time very productive with great frequency of material. So that leaves me with my final pick, being totally bias as a Beatle fan for soooo many years would have to be Paulie, because of more enjoyable musical writing. Yes, Dylan keeps churning out dribble from time to time over the recent years, but IMHO very uninteresting. And Simon, hasn't done anything to my liking since Graceland. And I know, McCartney hasn't been very consistent over the years either.
ReplyDeleteAlthough, is it quantity or quality, or vice-versa, big question. All four of these guys has set their place in music history. But to me, and for my taste, McCartney out weighs the other three.
Are you being curmudgeonly or do you really think there are only a half a dozen Neil Young songs that are worth listening to?
DeleteHey jeff k. Not being curmudgeonly toward Neil Young. I'm sure there are many more of his songs worth listening to. I'm saying that I really enjoy listening to about a half a dozen of them.
DeleteI nominate Ray Davies instead of Paul Simon. That might have made my answer all different.
ReplyDeleteBoth Pauls, Bob and Neil are all artists unsurpassed in terms of quality of output, influence, longevity and cultural significance. Their work will last well into forever and they will be seen as songwriting giants by future generations for sure.
ReplyDeleteTo give the tip of the hat to only one is hard but I would have to go with McCartney as he set the benchmark for the others to follow. Ask any average Joe on the street to name 4 classic songs by any of these artists. I think most people would be hard pressed to come up with four by Simon and Young. Dylan might be close but McCartney would be a no brainer: Yesterday, Eleanor Rigby, Hey Jude, Let It Be. Case closed.
How about: For No One, Here There And Everywhere, And I Love Her and You Won't See Me.
DeletePart of me says "It shouldn't be a zero-sum game where one of them wins, like in the Olympics!" Which is true. But, since it's fun to do it anyways, here goes...
ReplyDeleteFor me, Bob is always the top of the heap as a songwriter - and as a vocalist. (Dylan's voice is actually his secret weapon, to me. Without his weathered, lived-in intonation - especially since the 90s - his songs wouldn't have as much gravity.) But back to his songwriting.
Bob is the best songwriter because he set the rules that the others follow - especially, of this pack, Neil and Paul Simon. Bob was the first popular songwriter to make put-downs (How does it feeeeel?) and ignoble statements (You got a lotta nerve...) into hit records. He moved songwriting from moon/june (and then, impishly, RETURNED it to it with his country period in the late 60s).
He was the first confessional songwriter (although he'd deny it) - who else had written something like "Ballad In Plain D," like, EVER, before Dylan? He was the first to weave impossibly long wordiness into a stage event. He was the first to blend all that into electric rock. He was the first to embrace what was at the time seen as the corniness of country - basically inventing country-rock. (That does mean he invented the Eagles; sorry.) First non-churchgoer (so Johnny Cash and Sam Cooke don't count b/c the church was in their blood) to later convincingly "go Christian" (I say convinvingly b/c others like Jerry Lee or Little Richard or Al Green did it before him, but who ever listens to the religious records they made??)
Aside from the paths he cut through the woods, he just has the most subtle way with words. He knows when to go simple, when to go far-reaching ("whut... did he just mention Napoleon??"), when to go direct (Standing In The Doorway), when to be objective (Tempest), better than anyone.
Having said all that... I also love the songwriting of the others. I will say Paul Simon is easily the best music-writer of any of them except McCartney; and he might even top McCartney as a writer of rhythm and melody.
I love all four.
- A Walk In The Woods
You can look at them a few ways:
ReplyDeletePaul Simon: probably best songwriter in terms of melody and lyrics, always strong with both. Not as strong as a performing artist, a bit flat in his voice. Best innovator of the bunch, always experimenting successfully with different genres, much like David Byrne.
Paul McCartney: far and away, best songwriter in terms of melody, can write great lyrics at times, but terrible at others. A very solid singer, musician, performing artist. Half of the best songwriting duo in the pop-rock era.
Neil Young: far and away, most prolific. Throws away more than most artists put out. Just saw Rust Never Sleeps last week, and it was amazing, one song after another, how so many were great songs and well-known. More like a country singer than the others, a real humanity about his songs.
Bob Dylan: broke the mold of what it meant to be a folk singer, and then wrote some of the most lyrically wild, imaginative and deep songs of the rock era. In some ways, light years beyond McCartney, in others, light years behind. Affected the most change of all these. Like Young, unafraid to turn on a dime in his career and do something completely different. In his own league.
And lest we forget Ray Davies and Pete Townshend! Let's face it: we'll never see a decade like that again in terms of the raw, lasting talent that came out in all forms of music. It was like a bomb going off, and we're still feeling the after shocks.
I love all of these comments.
ReplyDeleteI need to take Neil & Paul S. out of the Top 4. I love them both, and recently, "Americana" notwithstanding," I had a Neil marathon and rediscovered the brilliance of so much of his work. But it is his inconsistency and the fact that too much of his output is at best "experimental," at worst "worse," that for me, Neil makes the Top 10, not the Top 4. Legendary, hall of famer, genius, one of my all time faves--yes. But....
As for Paul Simon, what's great is beyond great. But too much just isn't. His solo career peaked with "Graceland," though I like "Rhymin' Simon" better, but even before "Graceland" and definitely after, Simon's output has been spotty at best, and as Robin mentioned, "pretentious, clumsy," and smug." Again, a musical hero, but...
The following comment on Macca sums it up for me:
CMEALHA
No contest. Paul McCartney. What he did in the 6 years from the time they stepped onto the Ed Sullivan is unprecedented and unsurpassed.
Not only that, his solo career, even the missteps and laziness, has never felt tossed off. Even Paul's worst moments are sincere. He really believes it when he rhymes "moon" with "June." That shouldn't be criteria for "best" anything, but for me it helps knowing that the joke isn't on us, which is how I feel occasionally abour Neil's records.
But I need to go with Bob Dylan. This comment from A Walk In The Woods nails it:
He was the first confessional songwriter (although he'd deny it) - who else had written something like "Ballad In Plain D," like, EVER, before Dylan? He was the first to weave impossibly long wordiness into a stage event. He was the first to blend all that into electric rock. He was the first to embrace what was at the time seen as the corniness of country - basically inventing country-rock. (That does mean he invented the Eagles; sorry.) First non-churchgoer (so Johnny Cash and Sam Cooke don't count b/c the church was in their blood) to later convincingly "go Christian" (I say convinvingly b/c others like Jerry Lee or Little Richard or Al Green did it before him, but who ever listens to the religious records they made??)
Aside from the paths he cut through the woods, he just has the most subtle way with words. He knows when to go simple, when to go far-reaching ("whut... did he just mention Napoleon??"), when to go direct (Standing In The Doorway), when to be objective (Tempest), better than anyone.
Stu mentioned Van Morrison for consideration and says he seems "like a forgotten man lately." That's exactly why I have a hard time considering Van. His output since 1993 seems like one long forgettable song.
Though I do think both Ray Davies & Pete Townshend deserve more than just a mention.
"His output since 1993 seems like one long forgettable song."
DeleteSounds like a perfect description of smug to me.
So ANON, I'm confused. Are you saying I am being smug because I'm not impressed by Van's work in the last 20 years?
DeleteUsed to be if you threw Van into the conversation, you also had to include Joni Mitchell. Not just for the first four albums - who else has been able to hang with Charles Mingus and Jaco Pastorius?
ReplyDeleteI second the Ray Davies - I suspect if he had continued recording new songs it would have sounded like Nick Lowe's or Elvis Costello's work. And who else got to hang with Chrissie Hynde?
Up through Jerusalem, Steve Earle was my favorite songwriter. He seems to be treading water with his last two albums, but it's still early. And who else gets to go home with Alison Moore?
My personal all time favorite is John Doe. The Kissingsohard/Freedom Is/For the Best of Us trio of albums would be on my desert island list (last year's Keeper was also pretty good), and who else gets to hang with Exene, the Sadies, Jill Sobule (duet album was a hoot), Kathleen Edwards...
for me, it is dylan and it is not even close. his songs are so full of allusion, history, irony, questioning, and an incisive interrogation of individual and community.
ReplyDeletei have a different take on bob's career than a lot of people. i think that his work since 97 has been among the strongest, perhaps even the strongest, work he has done. the early political songs i find simultaneously brilliant and yet not felt. they were a young man feeling above his community, hibbing bob breaking out not just of the midwest, but into and then relatively quickly out of the nyc folk scene by proving he was better than them all. hattie carroll, chimes of freedom, john birch blues, times they are a changing, and blowin' in the wind (and even though it drives me nuts, davey moore)are extremely good, extremely smart. yet i can't escape the sense that dylan wrote these and others because he knew they would impress. they weren't paint by numbers, because he saw way more numbers than the rest of the black/white, good/bad folk scene people, but they were his take on the political song he needed to produce to be accepted and celebrated. that doesn't mean he didn't mean them; i assume he did. it means only that he could do them in his sleep and did them, in part, to succeed, to set himself apart. one hears more of his brilliance, i think, in a hard rain or hollis brown, folk songs in the older sense of tales from the community, often harrowing and without the uplifting or teachable moments of the seeger/baez type. and can i say that i think one of the dumber stories out there is that hollis brown aped the song poor man. listen to them back to back: poor man is a good social folk song; hollis brown is existential, personalized, and haunting. it makes you want to pick up that shotgun. that is art.
if he stopped in 64, he'd have been amazing. he didn't and bringing it all back home, highway 61, and blonde on blonde are all brilliant. no one did this better than bob. no one was better at juxatposing images and ideas that were simultaneously esoteric and resonating and that made one not just think about what the song might be saying but about what you might be thinking and why. the downside, of course, was that this songs unleashed a torrent of drivel from others.
having triumphed and been a brilliant, indivudalistic sob, bob then recorded john wesley harding is a very thoughtful meditation on community. and, as christgau (sorry but it is an excellent point), self-portrait was a fascinating, if not very listenable, attempt to explain what makes up a self, all by showing influences, even unfashionable ones. the divorce albums came next; the first (planet waves) has some songs that put every personal singer-songwriter or the era to shame (dirge, something there is about you), though bob being difficult insists they are just songs. blood on the tracks stands with anything anyone had done. i like desire. i liked slow train (not as much as i likde al green's "the belle ablum"), but after that it was rough for a while, though there are moments that are great.
for me, bob started to turn it around with his cover album of folk songs. and then he did another one. and then he had a muse again. his albums beginning with time out of mind are brilliant. he's resolved his discomfort with being bob dylan by writing as everyman. these are poetic, and yet rooted albums. these are existential, yet community albums. they explore how the individual, limited and finite, lives with himself and those around him. they are not heavy-handed; no pilgrims progress, no pete seeger, no jack-of-all-trades, and they are, i think, wonderful and far more affecting because of that. they don't tell us how to be or which side we should be on, but they tease out where we must end up. robert zimmerman found bob dylan unsustainable, and, i think, unworthy of being sustained. i find a wisdom in the late dylan that exceeds anything else in the rock era. and i llike the sound too.
Totally agree, Big Bad Wolf. Great comments. I'm a fan of Dylan from back in 8-track days when my Dad played him for me - I was raised on it. But I agree that his best stuff has, dare I say, come from the 90s onwards. Well, OK - not "his best stuff" - but his music that I actually play the most. And, the best embodiment of his art.
DeleteWhy? It's because from the very first few songs on his very first album, Dylan always wanted to sound like a grizzled old man. So that he could truly embody the songs, instead of, as you point out, maybe trying on a style because he knew he could do it and it would be popular.
Nowadays, he sounds and writes like an old man. And I listen to the 5 studio albums from "Time Out Of Mind" onward (plus the brilliant "Tell Tale Signs" outtakes box set) more than any of his other music.
And guess what -- I also think his best sustained era of live performance has been during that same period. My favorite Dylan boots are 2000-2005.
One more thing: I agree that the two folk LPs at the start of the 90s were the absolute catalyst for all the good stuff that came later. Those 2 albums reacquainted him with his muse.
- A Walk In The Woods
Some really great responses on this one. I particularly love Big Bad Wolf's mini essay on Dylan above. Me, I can't really pick between Bob and McCartney for ultimate greatness. I also admire the what-the-fuckness of Neil's career. But in pondering all 4, it occurred to me that Simon, to my ears, has released only one truly awful album, One Trick Pony. He's had ups and downs, of course, but again, aside from Pony, nothing I'd rate lower than a B. I can't think of anyone who has had a career longer than, say, Nick Drake's, who has dropped fewer turds on the public. Pretty amazing
ReplyDeleteI'm guessing that even those of you who wouldn't rate his work as highly as I do would still regard him as the most consistent of this quartet. Of course, consistency has its drawbacks too.
Interesting that so many people call out Simon for being smug. Agree with that about him. But come on--Dylan?! He's got a smug streak a mile wide...
Bruce H
PS: Preemptive response: yes, I even liked The Capeman!!! The music, I mean.
I'm with you on this one. It is hard to find an artist as consistant and consistantly interesting as Paul Simon. McCartney is great, but his songs do tend toward the twee (by his own admission). I think he needed Lennon to help pull back on that a bit. If fact his albums are usually helped by a collaborator.
DeleteThis is such a difficult choice because all of the artists are great in their own individual ways, and have all made lasting contributions to music.
Yes, I liked the capeman too. and his worst selling album (hearts and bones) has some pure classics on it such as the late great johnnie ace and Rene and Georgia magritte.
I've been thinking a lot about this the last couple of days and I keep going around in circles. The first one I would eliminate is McCartney. While he was the sole author of so many amazing Beatles songs (and amazing is an understatement), his solo output has too often has been a disappointment, and while there is a lot of great music there, I don't see much that approximates his brilliance with the Beatles.
ReplyDeleteNeil Young on the other hand has been incredible both with groups and on his own. After the Gold Rush, Everyone Knows..., Harvest Tonight's the Night helped define the 70s much like Dylan's albums did the 60s, and then he went on to have that great run in the late 80s and early 90s with Freedom, Harvest Moon and Ragged Glory. I don't think his greatest songs are as defining as Dylan's, but I think his best albums are more interesting than Dylan's and as an artist he's much more willing to reach than Dylan has been. I don't think it's close.
That leaves Simon. His run of albums with Garfunkel and then his early solo albums are also defining. They're incredible, thoughtful, tuneful and really, really well produced. Then moving into the 70s, he maintained that high quality work with Still Crazy, Hearts and Bones (which he thought of as a failure but I always thought was brilliant) and then Graceland. I actually prefer Capeman to Graceland in one way: I think it's a great match of lyrics and music. He captures that milieu perfectly with both. Graceland to me is a lot of Upper West Side neuroses mismatched in (albeit great) South African music. Since then, for me, eh. Some great, a lot boring. But for me, while I don't think he has the hipster/intellectual Dylan credentials nor the same ability to make the grand statement through his music, and as a result he didn't quite ride the massive zeitgeist wave, I think he's ultimately a better songwriter than Dylan and even Neil Young and his greatest albums hold together better as albums.
As an artist, I'd take Neil Young. As a craftsman, I'd take Paul Simon. As Bob Dylan, I'd take Bob Dylan.
I didn't even mention Brian Wilson.
Pete Townsend? Probably not actually my choice, but a name I found missing. (Haven't read the other comments yet.)
ReplyDeleteAce
I think there are a lot of closet Capeman fans out there. I love that album! Granted, hearing Paul slip into the character of an irritable teenage Puerto Rican circa 1958 was a little weird, but the songs are great: Satin Summer Nights, Killer Wants to Go to College, Bernadette, Adios Hermanos. I remember the album playing in the big Virgin store on 45th and Broadway and being blown away hearing it on that huge sound system, bought it on the spot.
ReplyDeleteI'll say this for Simon, Dylan and Young: they've done a much better job of defining and feeling comfortable with adulthood and the ageing process in their music than McCartney (discounting When I'm 64, cough). Again, that's a quality I associate more with country artists, but these guys do a great job of defining what it feel like to be 35, or 40, or 55, or more recently into one's 60s. There's something to said for that in the overall breadth of their careers, as opposed to isolating it to the blockbuster years all these guys had in the 60s and 70s.
And, yes, Brian Wilson, too. John Fogerty. Two writers who captured America the same way Woody Guthrie or Chuck Berry did, and there's something to be said for that, too.
aw come on, Prince Rogers Nelson. (/ducks, shows self out)
ReplyDeletePrince is a genius, as a singer, a guitar player, a band leader. Prince is nearly hopeless as a lyricist, i think, and the problem has gotten worse over the years.
ReplyDeletei think paul simon is brilliant and that he writes great songs. i think he is not smug; smug describes and mars some of dylan's work. for me, the problem with simon, when i have one with him is that his lyrics are a bit too neat and tidy. they seem to think they've have captured something whole, and thus can seem, to me, a bit too much like an understated final word. simon's songs sound to me sometimes like they were written to be murmured over admiringly on NPR. (by contrast, dylan when he declares tends to do so in the role of scourge, and, by implication, undercuts his own declarations). that said, when simon gets it right, wow, does he get it right, and, to his credit, he has gotten it right more and more as he has aged. some of the S & G stuff i find hard to listen to. it sounds so young---self-important, bordering on boastful sometimes, though sincere. all but the sincerity starts to go away with the solo albums, and he becomes more and more aware of the personhood of his characters; they are not just there for paul simon to speak; they start, though they are his creations, to sound like people who might think and feel the way the lyrics go, not just people made to say someone else's lines. the earlier solo albums have some great songs, not least the (to me) devastating slip slidin' away. i agree with those who point to hearts and bones. i think starting then he began to write consistently great and wise songs--the title song from that album is one of my very favorite of his songs.
i love neil young when he is on. i can't begin to understnad him. i would venture only that visceral in a way that the other three aren't. i love fuckin up and change your mind. neither should work. both do.
"simon's songs sound to me sometimes like they were written to be murmured over admiringly on NPR."
DeleteThat sounds like a perfect description of smug to me.
i guess, sal, i see the smugness in the npr murmurs and not in simon's misses. he misses not becuase he is smug, but because he has resolved a situation too easily or completely. the npr group seeing their own bounded view in neat resolution murmurs approvingly. simon, i am willing to think, knows the song is too glib. he may just be stymied and need to let go of a song he knows he hasn't nailed. i am willing to give him that, rather than call it smug on his part in light of his many realized, nuanced songs.
DeleteOne Simon corollary: is there any other artist of his generation who did arguably his/her best work in the lost decade of the 1980s? Certainly not McCartney, Bob, or Neil.
ReplyDeleteBruce H
Fascinating discussion. Neil, Bob, and the Pauls... they're all part of the soundtrack, thank goodness. FWIW, I like Rhythm of the Saints, though I sense that fan club could meet in a phone booth. (Remember phone booths?)
ReplyDeleteOne last rejoinder here. Just got Paul Simon's new live album, Live In New York City, and good gracious it's good. Especially "The Afterlife" - not actually sure many other 60s era songwriters can compare to that type of song here in 2012. Amazing.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.amazon.com/Live-New-York-City-DVD/dp/B008UTV6S8
- A Walk In The Woods
Neil Young - greater artist. Very different artists, tough question to answer. Almost like "Who is your favorite Beatle?" back at Saint John's Villa Academy. (John).
ReplyDeleteI just like who Neil was and became. Very tough - might be over-Dylaned in the last couple of weeks . . .
Loser's Bracket:
Stephen Stills, Ray Davies, Joni Mitchell, Judy Collins!
Gotta go Dylan, although the others are worthy contenders. The depth and breadth of his work is just unequaled in my mind.
ReplyDeleteI like Macca, but he has a formula and sticks to it, for the most part. Nothing wrong with that.
Neil is also excellent, and has a widely varied catalog. Can't go wrong with him.
I love Simon's music, and for those who missed "So Beautiful, and So What", it is a wonderful collection of music built around the theme of life and death. Just beautiful. His reputation of being kind of a dick(especially the Los Lobos stories, who I greatly respect)make me not want to have beer with him, but I still love his music.
Still, gotta be Dylan.
All four are worthy contenders, but Dylan's work simply dwarfs any others. There's just too much monumental achievement there. I think it's virtually inarguable. I don't think the other three would even argue it. Without Dylan, the others wouldn't have even tried as hard, reached as far, or been who they were. Neil and Simon clearly wouldn't have been the writers they were, and would have stayed in conventional songcraft. Macca also woulda stayed in show-tune-ey balladry, with some Elvis mixed in. Bob's influence on Lennon alone served as a huge spur to McCartney to dig deeper.
ReplyDelete