It may feel as though he's saying "screw you" to all the folk-loving fans who grew up with him (who are no doubt listening to his recordings on Spotify — which pays him pennies, of course — in their Audis), but Simon has never worried about what anyone thinks of him. Remember, this is the guy who, when the mood struck him, broke Art Garfunkel's heart countless times over the last 60 years, who has unrepentantly taken from up-and-coming artists, who acted like an imperialist conqueror if it suited his artistic needs and who, of course, was allegedly to have shoved his wife of then more than 20 years. (Both were arrested on domestic violence charges after that fight in 2014; prosecutors dropped the charges in both cases.)And let's face it: Simon hasn't had any kind of hit in more than a decade, and he is hardly part of the cultural firmament anymore. At his age, looking down the barrel of his dwindling ability to perform, not to mention the unrelenting march of time and history that has already begun to make his music into little more than a period curio, it's probably the smart move to take the money and run.
So in the space of two paragraphs, Slate has called Simon a thief, "an imperialist conqueror" and a wife beater who hasn't had a hit in more than a decade. These are the words of a man who holds a personal grudge against Simon. Consider:
It's hard to imagine that in 200 years or more — when historians dig into the culture of the late 20th century — anyone but the Beatles and Bob Dylan will be worth more than a passing mention.
Could Slate being saying this because he's written liner notes for The Beatles and Dylan? Perhaps Slate was supposed to write liner notes for Simon and Simon put the kibosh on it. Whatever it is, Slate is sure mad at Simon about something.
Whatever Slate's motivations, I think it is safe to say Bob Dylan doesn't believe Paul Simon is an also-ran.
When it is all said and done, people are going to remember Paul Simon's songs a lot more than Jeff Slate's songs.
No comments:
Post a Comment