As I've been listening to many albums that are totally new to me, I find myself marveling at how often Simon & Garfunkel come to mind. Now I can't help but feel/wonder that S & G might have had some profound effect on the Folk and Prog Folk musics appearing and developing across The Pond (in both the British Isles and Europa). 

So, has there ever been a discussion as to whether Simon and Garfunkel deserve a place in the PA database--in proto-prog (follk) if not in the mainframe of the sub-genre?

I grew up with S & G playing almost daily around me as my mother and her brother were huge fans.

Now as I listen to their five albums I do hear many elements that would qualify them as proggy: organs, drums, fuzzy electric guitars ("A Simple Desultory Philippic," "Somewhere They Can't Find Me"), Psychedelic Folk Rock arrangements ("A Simple Desultory Philippic," "Blessed," "Somewhere They Can't Find Me," "Richard Cory," "A Most Peculiar Man," "A Hazy Shade of Winter," "The Boxer") incorporation of strings and orchestral instruments and arrangements ("Dangling Conversation"--before The Beatles) (and Mellotron in "The Boxer") as well as harpsichord, celestina, and other anachronistic instruments, aggressive vocals ("I Am a Rock," "Mrs. Robinson," "A Hazy Shade of Winter"), bombastic drums ("Homeward Bound," "The Boxer"), effects, multiple motifs in songs, great electric bass lines, incorporation of theatric and television voice samples ("7 O'clock News/Silent Night"), very poetic and often politically-motivated lyrics (some quite acerbic like "A Simple Desultory Philippic," "7 O'clock News/Silent Night"), coverage of old/ancient/anarchronistic songs ("de Lessus' "Benedictus"), aggressive vocal and instrumental performances reminiscent of Comus and Martin Cockerham, as well as incredible guitar and vocal musicianship (including groundbreaking vocal and instrumental arrangements of "Scarborough Fair/Canticle")--often of the most angelic kind. Plus, the fact that the band definitely "progressed" over the course of their seven years on the map: from covers of traditional American folk songs (a trend that was soon paralleled in Britain, Ireland, France, and Germany) .

The existence of many songs that have been covered by progressive pop and rock bands is another reason to consider them for inclusion. "America," "Sound of Silence," "A Hazy Shade of Winter," "The Boxer," et al.

Anyway, just opening a discussion. I imagine that this will resonate more with American readers, but when I look at the dates of S & G's output (1964-1970) and compare the sounds and patterns of sourcing/inspiration, I find them ahead of, if not comparable to, British bands of the same era. What think you, People of the ProgArchives?

Anyway, I enjoy S&G but I'm not familiar enough with their music to know if they are considered prog folk or not. My opinion based on what I know would be to say no they aren't. 

There are some songs that could have something prog in some way, but I don't think they should be on the site. Neither Prog-related.

 

However, the answer to the main question is no, they do not belong here by any stretch of the imagination. Simon & Garfunkel started off, as Tom & Jerry, as a rock n' roll outfit hugely influenced by The Everley Brothers. When they reunited as S&G, they were regarded as being in the vanguard of the folk/Americana movement of the 60's, mentioned in the same breath as the likes of Dylan. Those political songs? Well, most of them, if you study Simon's lyrics, were deeply political - the generational songs of a protest movement which literally changed American politics and society.

They influenced a whole generation of poets, musicians, politicians - the list goes on and on. That list includes artists who are listed on Prog Archives. But, proto-prog? 

Nope - about as prog as Marilyn Monroe's bottom. 

I guess this reassignment of a discussion thread is about as definitive of a response to my initial query. At the same time, I think it sad that a group of Progressive Rock-oriented people is being denied the rather salacious opportunity of discussing the various prog elements and influences of this very interesting artist. As a "prog" discussion it has the advantages of being easily seen and responded to by the majority; as a "general" item, it will probably only reach a minority of eyes. BUT, I am already encouraged by the responses (except for the "not even remotely") to an important band--one of America's equivalents to England's The Jam.

So be it! The High Council has spoken! RESPECT! (Life goes on.)

Logan wrote: No, they do not belong here in a Prog Folk, or in Prog Related, nor do they belong in the Progressive Music Lounge. Moving this to the General Music Discussions forum. At this site, that’s where S&G most belong..

They were discussed/considered for a (very) short while by the PF team at one point - if memory serves, when discussing the Magna Carta case - and turned down.

Ditto.

Gordy wrote: Logan wrote: No, they do not belong here in a Prog Folk, or in Prog Related[...]

Nor in Proto-Prog.

S&G was merely a splendid but fairly conventional folk duo with a large studio budget. They are Bob Dylan, with the same lyrical profundity, but with vastly superior vocal accomplishment and orchestral arrangements here and there. When the song "Sounds of Silence" didn't sell, they swapped the acoustic arrangement for an electric guitar track a la His Bobness.

Logan wrote: ^ OH interesting, thanks. I wouldn't have expected S&G to even get that far, unlike, say, contemporaries like Donovan or contemporaries and fellow countrymen like Crosby, Stills, and Nash. I'm not suggesting those, or opening up more cans of worms, just thinking of some other big names from around the same time that are out that have more merit to me (most of the 60s to 70 folk that I think of with a Prog Folk relation tends to have a psychedelic quality to me). And I think of Nick Drake as more Prog Folk related than S&G. Actually, I can see some relation with Bookends particularly, but no.

I think the slight discussion about S&G was because clearly Magna Carta inspired themselves on the duo's songwriting to compose their music.

Yes, we've considered Nick Drake (his shadow is still around - it is tempting to reassess) & Donovan.

We even looked into Gordon Lightfoot's case at one point.

With CSN&Y, then we're partly opening the can of worm to country music (as opposed to folk).

TBH, I wonder just how much S&G are "folk" at all.

They're certainly not sounding Celtic/European folk, and I'm not sure I detect anything either from the Appalachian mountain range folk music forms (hillbilly, bluegrass, etc) and beyond: from Acadian area in New Brunswick to Cajun area in Louisiana.

To me, I'd also say that S&G are more of (a splendid, indeed) Singer/songwriter duo (even if we know only Paul Simon composed) that played acoustic guitars when needed.

I'll go on a stretch, as I'm not all that familiar with Joan Baez's catalogue, but I'd consider her more of a protest singer/songwriter with an acoustic guitar before considering her as folk artiste.

in other words, acoustic guitar =/= folk automatically

.

You could make a cogent argument that the type of progressive music played by Genesis certainly in the Gabriel period was an English pastoral folk music, much of it talking about particularly English tradition.

S&G, Baez, Dylan, CSN, CSN&Y were all born of a deep Americana tradition which could also be called folk music, and much of their music, incidentally, very much influenced what we call “traditional” progressive rock artists.

In reality, music is a spectrum, and the differing types of music are themselves on a spectrum. This is one of the reasons I have such an issue with the arcane way PÅ classifies its artists, or worse, the way it rejects artists.

I wrote a review this week for a wonderful “folk rock” band from Wigan named Merry Hell, which has attracted a lot of interest. In my review, I referenced Barclay James Harvest as coming from the same Northern UK working class tradition. Guess what? It turns out the band are huge fans of BJH and acknowledge their influence.

The artists are far wiser when it comes to such matters than us.

Hmm.....Interesting, I think I see your point(s). Not that it would make me think S&G are prog folk, but for me in 'Merica thinking that Genesis is more prog because they sung about English ways/traditions does have a more prog feel. So is that what y'all across the pond feel about S&G singing about 'Merica things? Or say Marvin Gaye, Stevie Wonder singing about the life in the US ghetto's?

I think artists could give a rats a$$ what we call their music, as long as we buy it.

Well, yes, but PA has this ambiguity of being both a database and a review site. Reviews, generally, don't need - or shouldn't need - a framework or "genre justification" to exist. A database, however, needs criteria to set its rules of classification and/or of inclusion and exclusion.

no thanks

Yes, Simon & Garfunkel was a folk act. They are in the same vein of folk as Dylan, Pete Seeger, Woody Guthrie and Lead Belly. In your overview of American folk you skipped over that entire aspect of folk-as-protest-music that rose from union and civil right movements which started in the late 19th century and throve in the 30s, 40s and 50s. (in fact, Joan Baez sang an old union protest song "Joe Hill", about a union organizer killed by the copper bosses in 1915, during her Woodstock performance).

Simon & Garfunkel was part of the 20th Century Folk Revival that coalesced under Seeger, Guthrie and the Weavers in the late 50s/early 60s of whom Bob Dylan was the greatest proponent, but included the Kingston Trio, Judy Collins, Gordon Lightfoot, Joan Baez, Peter, Paul & Mary, Phil Ochs and Simon & Garfunkel. 

If you listen to S & G's first album, they covered a multitude of traditional folk songs: "Last Night I had the Strangest Dream" (also sung by Johnny Cash), "Benedictus", "Peggy-O",  "Go Tell It On the Mountain", "The Times They Are a-Changin (a Dylan tune), but by the time their 2nd album Sounds of Silence was released , they had enough material to compose all their own songs (just like Bob Dylan before them). And all the songs are firmly rooted in the American Folk genre, with the addition of rock elements.

Logan wrote: jamesbaldwin wrote: They could be proto-prog (years 1963-1971).[/QUOTE Gordy wrote: [QUOTE=Logan] No, they do not belong here in a Prog Folk, or in Prog Related[...] Nor in Proto-Prog.

Don't confuse clever and innovative pop music for progressive folk.   And frankly the "One Prog Album" rule/non-rule can be abused, so let's not let it be.

^ I respect your passion --

This is, by far, one of the saddest things I have ever seen and read.

There has been for hundreds of years, and even millenia, a lot of music, and arts that we have never heard or enjoyed or could possibly appreciate, and to decide if they deserve to be "progressive" somewhere in PA, or elsewhere, is scary ... how can such wonderful material and music, be ignored? By people that are so star struck by the the electric components and definition of "progressive music", that something original and completely different can not even be appreciate and the best many of us here can do is say ... NO ... 

Perhaps PA or someone else needs a new genre ... "quasi progressive" and it could/should include a lot of things that were pop music, mostly, but they had their expressive qualities that gave them a better artistic quota than simple pop music. A&G fit in places a lot more than just pop music ... but they also "stretched" things like Bob Dylan had done a few years just before!

I just don't want to see excellent albums of music, not get a listen by new fans, because they can not get a "progressive" vote in this board, and you already know that metal fans will immediately say that S&G is crap, not progressive, and not worthy of it, as if they had heard more than 5 minutes worth of it, to be able to even determine how good they really were opposite the carbon copy of the metal format!

Just to be contrarian, yes, I would like to see S&G on PA ... because great music deserves to be mentioned and noticed ... not forgotten into the scrap heap of your local FM station playing tapes of music they own.

Nobody ignores Simon & Garfunkel, they are one if the greatest bands to have ever existed. So, your assessment is wrong there. 

I have also never seen a metalhead insult Simon & Garfunkel. I have listened to all sorts of metal music/subgenres all my life, i have always loved the music of Simon & Garfunkel. So you are wrong again (and kinda insulting to fans & listeners of metal music). 

I also don't think their music will be forgotten, I don't know where you got this idea from. 

Hi,

The very nature of "progressive" is being different and making the work be/sound not a regular part of the main stream of what has happened to pop music over the years. Thus, the very definition of several areas, is limiting, and it probably should be to help identify some work ... but in the process, it leaves behind a lot of work that ... crosses/bridges the very details that we thought made this designation, or that designation.

I'm not sure there is a proper answer, since the minute we find one, something will come along and give us another view or interpretation.

There is one thing that bothers me ... and it is the idea that a lot of the "progressive" definitions are designed towards the British side of things, and this hurts many American bands and artists, because the ideas where many of them came from is completely different and it's almost like saying that the era of American folks described by DE is not important, but the one that is visible in the British Isles is all that the definition adheres to ... and this is sad.

I think that we have to make these definitions cleaner and more appropriate to the work of a lot of musicians ... we are basically saying that any folk music that has progressive elements in China and Japan can not possibly stand up, because it is not English, or even (heaven forbid!) American. And the work by Japanese and Chinese folks in the folk are is quite visible ... but not always heard ... at least the use of traditional instruments is there along more modern electric stuff.

All it really says, is that the definitions of various areas, is not clean, and was not properly defined, and we should/could (maybe!) start cleaning that up, in the hopes that we can strengthen the work that we love that is called "progressive" ... before we kill it with really poor "un-musical" definitions that make no sense ... my feeling for stuff that is defined by "sound" and not its music! You take the electricity out, and the music has not enough ... to be anywhere near "progressive".

Pedro wants to make the case that the 'English definition' is a lot of what is called progressive rock but then it's still widely accepted (even here) that the first full blown recognised prog album is King Crimson's debut. After that Yes, ELP and Genesis made it what it was. Take those away and this forum doesn't exist and we don't have this discussion. We could reasonably go back earlier to Zappa and The MOI or early Floyd but then I still don't see how the helps the argument that S&G should be in. We need to be careful about not just rewriting history. A lot of that goes on around here as it is!

I love S&G (Paul Simon more), but I don't think they can fit in any prog or even related category. 

Hi,

I think you misinterpret the comment. Our house had all the S&G albums, and I am not sure there wasn't one of them I did not like.

What bothers me, is that we have a "definition" for various parts of what we consider "progressive", but we intentionally leave out some folks ... because they do not fit. 

I'm not sure about the idea that if we leave out KC, Yes, Genesis and JT that "progressive" would not exist ... I find that thinking ethnocentric and not quite fair to the rest of the world ... China is far bigger than the rest and they likely have a lot more music, for example, that transcends the definitions of "progressive" but they do not have the media that listens or discusses this at all ... otherwise, we likely would have the idea that England invented the world and the cups of tea ... to show us something else. 

The only thing I do not agree to, is the sense of "boundaries" in regards to England, or America, or in the next century China, that makes it look like the imperialistic world of 1000 years ago ... and then Portugal and Spain owned the world, and then the English Navy owned the world, then a few bands in England owned the world. It's become a false history since we now know and understand that there was a lot more that we were not aware at the time ... America had just as much "progressive" music, that we consistently ignore and do not appreciate, and the story of the "folk" music in America was huge in the 20th century here in America, although it has a lot less historical stories than England, or Ireland, for example ... and even Europe, where at the VERY LEAST there is an appreciation for the ART, and the ARTS, something that America has not respected much in its history at all ... something that finally hit the "big time" with movies, and then the media in America ... who (likely) was too big a place to have a "scene" ... and instead it ended up with 3 or 4 scenes (I joke north, south, east and west!!!) ... that a media could have discussed properly. 

S&G, when placed in a "staff" of the history of music in America in the 20th century, would be progressive, and much stronger than many other more conventional folk artists, whose voicings were their art, not the actual music that accompanied the words, and this finally hit the airwaves in America loud and clear when Bob Dylan went electric ... a perfect example that did not bother the English when it's music became more modernized ... which we accept as "progressive", but the relative same thing in America is not acceptable.

America had many bands that could/should have had the chance, but the problem is that there is East, West, Central, and South ... and we have not been able to come up with a DECENT history of them all and their value in order to present something that shows the progressive nature of all the arts and specially music. But we can take 4 or 5 bands in England and say they invented the world.

S&G probably deserve better ... if we take a serious look at history, instead of 5 bands!

If Simon had a fence knob

He'd be fencing in the morning

He'd be fencing in the evening

All over this land

It's a fence knob of danger

It's a fence knob of warning

It's a fence knob of love

Between my brothers and my sisters

All over this land.

Ummm...sorry. Was feeling a bit folky this morning. 

Cracked me up!!! 

I totally agree. I've never considered Simon & Garfunkel to be Prog Folk either. Their style of Folk Rock is far more orthodox, although their religion shouldn't even come into it.