Does Graceland Overshadow The Rest Of Paul Simon's Solo Work?

Just scored an mint O.P.

 

No.
It is just one of his many highlights.
Not the best, but certainly not the worst.

 

It's a brilliant album. Simon was playing with African poly-rhythms as early as 1970.

 

After reading all these posts I have a thought. I think we all generally agree that Graceland is a brilliant, groundbreaking and incredibly creative album. This from a guy that already had an amazing string of brilliant, smart but still fun music, impeccably produced. I still crack up every time I hear the intro to Kodachrome, probably because now that I'm in my 50's, I realize how true that line about the crap we learned from high school is so true.

So, isn't it amazing that we are having a sideline conversation about which of albums we think are best, when we all generally agree how brilliant Graceland is? What artist wouldn't die just to have one album of that stature? That would, without a doubt, be the pinncacle album of 95% of just about any other artist out there. Yet a lot of us disagree about which Paul Simon album really is best, with Graceland being amazing in and of itself. Just, wow! And, I'm a fan of his last two albums as well. I just don't know how people come up with brilliance in the way they see the world how they do, and how they can articulate it in a few lines of music. I'm gushing, yes, but the guy is brilliant. And here is the amazing thing: I liked him my whole life, but didn't really start "hearing" his music, and appreciating it, until a few years ago. Before then it was just fun listening to his hits because the music was cool. If there is one of a few artistis where listening to the lyrics is essential, Simon is one of them for sure. I now own all his ablums on vinyl and they all get played. Even found a rare copy of Rhythm Of The Saints on vinyl recently. Neat thread.

 

Maybe, but I would argue that all of it is good, and nothing overshadows any of his work. He was good in all periods, and even if you didn't like some of the times he stepped out and experimented with new sounds or styles from time to time, you could still see he was brilliant, even if you didn't appreciate the music itself. He was not a "lazy" artist and he never phoned in an album. I have found that I have had to "catch up" with some of his work. I didn't "get" Graceland when it came out. I was around 25 then. I was around 40 before it kicked in for me. And it's one of my favorite all time albums now. I wasn't a S&G fan until I was in my 30's. But his fun top 40 hits I always liked, even if I didn't always understand his lyrics. Now, I enjoy it all, and I feel like I get him as an artist, no matter what period, so nothing overshadows his work for me personally.

I wish I could "get" Dylan! I keep trying.

 

Pick up Dylan's Oh Mercy (1989)...it's incredible from start to finish and has Political World, Everything Is Broken, Most of the Time, Man In The Long Black Coat...every song is a hit on that album, then pick up Time Out Of Mind...these two are easy to love! I can also related to your Graceland story...I was 20 when it came out, but didn't get it until it won the Grammy for Album of the Year, then I got the cassette to see what all the fuss was about? As soon as I heard the first two tracks...Boy In The Bubble and Graceland, I knew this was going to be great. It did beat out SO and BACK IN THE HIGH LIFE...two other stellar albums in 1986.

 

I will pick those up...thank you! I just got the recently issued Essentials on vinyl and I like some of it, especially his newer material.

 

Also, try and listen to Dylan's "Series of Dreams" on YT...this was an outtake from Oh Mercy (1989) and it's on his first Columbia Bootleg Vol.1-3 set (1991) and it's absolutely KILLER...it's probably my favorite outtake of all-time.

 

Oh dear. I've thought about it, and the truth is thee are only two albums with Paul Simon that have made any mark on me, and yes, they're the predictable two: Bridge, and Graceland. Beyond that I've just never really listened to it - so can't say whether I truly like it or not. I did buy the follow-up to Graceland, but for me that didn't really work as well.

 

I've come to appreciate his solo stuff more in recent years, Graceland and Rhythm Of The Saints being favourite albums, with Obvious Child being a long time favourite mainly because of the drums in it which blew me away when I first heard it. Other than those two it was a greatest hits comp that I picked up on his other solo work on all of which I liked so I must now get the actual other albums and give them a full listen. Not so keen on his latest 'single' release (Wristband?) tbh sounded like something he phoned in IMO, maybe i should give the album a chance or was the best of the offering?

As for his S&G stuff, have been a fan of these since I was a kid, mainly due to The Graduate film, Sound Of Silence being one of my all time favourites, a tune I could never tire of.

 

Don't "try".

 

How does one get Simon but not Dylan, that i don't "get".

 

My theory is you had to be into music during the period he started, though I realize that line of thinking is ridiculous for most other artists. He does have a very distinct style, but so does Paul. But I think Paul is more accessible as far as the actual music, and I just wasn't a lyrics guy then. My favorites as a teen were ABBA and the Bee Gees. Until ABBA's last couple of albums, and the Bee Gees during the 70's (well, might as well say it...most of their songs period) if you liked the music, you could have spoken Greek and still enjoyed them. They didn't have anything earthshattering to say in their lyrics, they just wrote "fun" songs for the most part. And that was what I listened to in the 70's...all the stuff we would now say is pretty schmuck...but I still like it. With Paul, enjoying and getting the lyrics adds a ton more, but one can enjoy just the music as well. With Dylan, I don't know. Obviously you can, but I think his music appeals to a much smaller type of listener. I have to think it's the way he views the world, and writed about it, that is his huge appeal. I had a thread about that here a while back, and that is what I got from reading all the posts. And some said if you didn't grow up with him, you may never understand. Maybe album sales bear this out. I am willing to bet most of Dylan's albums did not sell in the quantities that most of Paul's did, though I do remember at least one of them (I think, Blood on the Tracks) being a number one in the US. So, that's clearly an assumption but I just don't remember hearing much of Dylan on top 40 radio. No offense to those that almost worship his music...I know he is very popular in these parts. And it's only fair to say, I'm a very casual Beatles fan at best. Yikes...I'm running for the hills now.

 

Don't think so , never liked it very much to be honest , but I like most of his early albums , especially the Live Rhymin' album

 

Last Dylan post...I know that is not the subject of the post. I have discovered a lot of artitsts hanging out here. A few are revered. Those are the one's where I will go out and buy some of their material and try and play it repeatedly if it doesn't resonate with me. I have bought Dylan's Greatest Hits from the 60's, his new on vinyl Essentials 2 disc set, Blood On The Tracks and a couple othre 70's releases that I remember were popular. I keep playing them from time to time and find them interesting, but not albums I "want" to play again. But I keep playing them anyway. I'm sure all of us do this with certain artists that are respected. That is what I mean't.

 

What I meant was to not go trying to get into an artist. Don't go chasing... play some Dylan while you're busy with something, to the point you're not going to change the music...let it happen naturally

 

Okay! Just put Blood On the Tracks on while I work....

 

I got into Dylan pretty late also, but I think a lot earlier than you. I liked his Traveling Wilbury's material from 1988...great stuff, then picked up Oh Mercy in 1989, which is a gem of an album and has very heavy Daniel Lanois production on it...it all works beautifully with those songs! Oddly, I didn't pick up another Dylan album until Time Out Of Mind in 1997, but I did buy that 1998? UK The Best of Bob Dylan GH CD...it has that SBM remastering process and I also picked up a Victoria's Secret exclusive Lovesick comp on Sony Music...it has a special Love Sick (Remix) that comes close to sounding like his live version always sounded...my favorite version of Love Sick is not the original on Time Out Of Mind though, it's his Grammy performance which you should try and find.

I also own the 1991 Bootleg Vol.1-3 promo sampler CD, but that's all the Dylan I own on CD...not too much either, I am a much bigger Paul Simon fan.

 

i find paul simon's solo work to be grossly over-rated.

'graceland' was very good, but other than that he was a singles artist and no more. his work with garfunkel is classic and masterful, but as a solo artist...i just don't get it at all.

i said in another thread about warren zevon, compare simon's solo stuff with zevon's and zevon puts simon to shame.

 

Maybe he should think about re-releasing H&B with both versions--with and without Artie---included. I'd like to hear them, although I love H&B as it is. I think I like it more than I do Graceland, actually.

 

I like it, but it doesn't overshadow any of the solo albums that he released before it.

 

Is there a version of Graceland without the sibilant vocals.? I have the anniversary edition and the vocals in places are piercing.

 

My favorite is Hearts and Bones - beautifully written, splendid and sophisticated chord movement, great band as always, mounds of melancholy and does not even pretend to crave commercial acclaim - just a brilliant artist pure and unrestrained.

 

CD or vinyl?

 

CD