Simon vs Garfunkel

Somewhere online the someone was wondering why Paul Simon had a successful career where as Art Garfunkel’s career wasn’t quite as successful. I wasn’t going to answer that question, but since I’m bored and trying to kill about 35 minutes, here I go anyway.

I don’t think it really comes down to their (different) talents or how talented they are. I think it rather comes down to their attitudes in combination with their personalities.

Paul is the kind of person who derives his self-worth from what other people think of him versus Art’s confidence coming out of himself. This means Paul cares about what people think about him (what he puts out) while Art laments that everyone got it wrong while Paul seeks fault with himself even when it isn’t his fault. Also Art developes his own style and tastes completely ignoring what the masses are interested in where as Paul is alwaylooking for a new hook that people might find interesting.

Paul is a go getter, ambitious and always in motion to discover, master and put out the next new thing versus Art being laid back and content with eating a peach and more readily accepting when people are not that interested in what he’s doing. Unlike Paul, Art doesn’t feel he needs to prove that he can do certain things.

That’s why Paul was more successful in his career than Art.

Because Paul was always busy getting better, trying to proof he could do it, while Art was simply making the music he loved.

Because Paul was trying new things with old cultures and music forms creating interesting new music that appealed to a broader audience, while Art was doing the same thing album after album and which has been done by other musicians before him for a specific (western) audience.

Because Paul was always looking for what the masses found interesting while Art completely engulfed himself with the sappy, romantic, overwhelming sweetness that he loves which is simply too much for the masses.

There, I killed another five mintues.

It has also been noted that Paul’s songwriting was better after Simon & Garfunkel, which means his solo stuff is much more interesting to listen to, yet still Simon & Garfunkel is what he’s known for and most widely loved for. So how does that work then?

Well, I think it has a lot to do with the balance the two gentlemen kept between them. Their differences play a big role here. So to speak, Paul was the sour to Art’s sweetness and Art was the light to Paul’s darkness. Together they found the middle ground balancing all their individual extremes out and massaging it to a perfect result. Because they were so different they brought a great palet of skills, talents and characteristics to their art. Their shared goal made sure all these differences came together in the right balance, like ingredients and cooking making a meal. That’s why their music is so rich yet managed or produced.

Also they created magic together. (People always say that when they can’t explain it. I think it has something to do with those personalities forming one bigger personality to create the music. I don’t know)

When Paul was solo, all that balance, and the magic of the two of them together, was gone. That’s why it’s Simon and Garfunkel we want to hear over just Paul Simon. Though his solo music is really good, even his later less known ones. 

To be fair, I really love Artie's album Everything Waits to be Noticed.