The most celebrated track on the biggest-selling album of the 1970s in Britain, “Bridge Over Troubled Water” has become a marbled standard and it’s hard to step back from that and listen to the thing. Maybe it’s useful to leave it in its immediate context and compare it to “Wan’drin Star”, especially as I’m about to give it the same mark.
Both are carefully arranged showcases for their singer. Both are slow, thoughtful records that work to capture a particular emotional frame of mind. Both dramatise that frame of mind using their arrangement: in “Star”, Lee Marvin sounds uncomfortable and impatient, keen to saddle up and be off down the trail again. In “Bridge”, the structure and arrangement hark back to earlier and ancient ways of religious comfort-giving, lending the recording the feel of a secular hymn. Oh, and both records botch it towards the end – Lee’s vocal goes completely off-track, and Simon and Garfunkel bring in the drums and love poetry, threatening to turn their austere statement of devotion into a particularly high-handed, passive-aggressive come-on.
There’s no question that “Bridge”, like “Sugar, Sugar”, is a supremely well-crafted record. The Archies track hides its craft, though, using it for the – perhaps sinister – purposes of getting you hooked on a dumb pop choon. “Bridge”‘s craft is obvious in every bar. The gradual introduction, interplay and build of piano, voice bass and drum is beat-perfect, with even Garfunkel’s (yes, very beautiful) voice ultimately another component to be precisely tweezerdropped into place. If I find this delicacy wearying, or oppressive, or even cold, that’s a reflection of the gap between what the record asks of its listener – concentration and solemnity – and what I’m prepared to give it. I never liked real hymns much, either.
Score: 5
[Logged in users can award their own score]
Tom in soul-hating shocker!
Never my favorite S&G tune, but it’s continually grown on me since I bought the LP a couple years back and gave it more of a chance. Now I think it’s positively lovely, although somewhat lacking for pop in that there’s no hope of singing along with it, not even badly. To rate it below “Sugar, Sugar” is just cruel though – if “Bridge”‘s craft is more transparent, surely it’s to a better purpose! Of course these are records/commodities, and they’re not going to save the world, but I can’t help but think that a record that makes people feel comforted and hopeful in a time of troubles has some greater moral value than one that just carries on about sugar and honey. (This is a line of thinking that will inevitably bite me in the ass later on, especially once we get to the 80s) but what I think it comes down to is that S&G ride the line between between being rockist artistes, popist craftsmen, and folkist traditionalism. You get the sense of them in the studio, painstakingly working this thing out…but not just because they knew they had a hit on their hands, but because, goshdarnit, Paul Simon knew he had something to say here, and one last chance to use his greatest weapon (Garfunkel) to do it.
But a record doesn’t have to say “FEEL COMFORTED AND HOPEFUL” in its lyrics to make someone feel comforted and hopeful! Anyway, clearly “Sugar Sugar” made people feel things too.
S&G are the last big 60s act (aside from the Doors) who I don’t enjoy at all, really, “Mrs Robinson” maybe aside but I’ve not heard it in ages. The last bit of my review is meant to suggest that maybe I’ll still ‘grow into’ them.
here is a bigger issue about changing attitudes to craft and technique which i want to erm quadrangulate between this, sugar sugar, wandrin star and joe cocker!
however i am superbusy with crufts listings this afternoon so you will have to wait! (or write it yrself) (not hard surely — you all know what i think by now!)
P^nk you should also maybe include “Bright Eyes”!!!
Also behind the “hating soul” running gag, it’s true that I do have a major blankspot about stately quasi-abstract big statement appeal-to-the-good-in-mankind rock/pop (this, “Hey Jude”, “Imagine”, most Coldplay, most U2) – I can sometimes dig it on a “whoa feel the manipulation” level, and as here can admire its prettiness, but in general it represents something I simply do not look to music to provide me with, so I turn away from it.
and indeed Bright Eyes!! (except luckily they have not yet had a #1)
(what this lacks which hymns* that i like have lots of, is very concrete imagery)
(*proper church hymns i mean, by eg mrs c.f.alexander et al)
Is “Bridge Over Troubled Water” the first number one where at least part of the credited act does not actually appear on the record?
Paul Simon wrote it but plays no part on the record. The harmonies in the final verse are multitracked Art. Larry Knetchel plays the piano and indeed got a label credit on the single. Ironically, given the song’s intended aim, Simon and Garfunkel couldn’t actually bear to be in the same studio as each other at this time.
Personally I think the grandiose ending slightly unnecessary – how much more impressive it would have been if they’d kept it quiet all the way through – and gives it an “Unchained Melody” tendency (Righteous Brothers natch) which doesn’t really suit the song’s emotional tenor – but I think of the parent album as a kind of male equivalent of New York Tendaberry (same producer and arranger, mostly the same musicians) and I am moved by the song and performance.
And in terms of consolation in times of trouble it knocks “Let It Be” (which IIRC it kept at number two) clean out of the yard.
Also, in terms of recent life developments I find the song speaks to me personally, as music often does when it matters, and even though I can clearly see the strings being pulled (or bowed)…yes, I identify with the message, one to one.
No argument AT ALL about “Let It Be”.
And I agree about the ending too, obviously.
This is probably my least favourite S&G song ever. It’s hard to tell how much of that dislike is just form hearing the damned thing *played* so often, and how much stems from the rub-ness of the song. It’s overblown and clinical and sentimental.
Marcello – first number one where at least part of the credited act doesn’t appear on the record? – “John and Yoko”, for one…
Tom – I’ve always admired your iconoclastic approach to commenting on and marking the acknowledged “classic” records, and it’ll be fascinating to see you on your home turf in a couple of decades’ time (a pause here to note the nifty way the “Popular” logo switched from the Beatles to Bolan the minute you reached the 70s). Of course, to each his or her own – but I have to say that giving lower marks to the Beatles, Stones, Creedence and this, then awarding 8 to the Archies for having more hooks than a Peter Pan fancy dress party, is a bit like picking faults with Jamie Oliver and Gordon Ramsay then giving an 8 to McDonalds and praising their clever deployment of addictive ingredients.
But I can’t deny it makes for a bloody good read.
I’m honestly not trying to be iconoclastic Erithian – I’d say in my defense that several Stones and Beatles records outscored “Sugar Sugar” (and other Creedence singles WOULD have at least equalled it).
(Also I reckon “Sugar Sugar” IS an acknowledged classic canonical record!)
“(a pause here to note the nifty way the “Popular” logo switched from the Beatles to Bolan the minute you reached the 70s)”
eagle-eyed viewers may also note that the Beatles picture was initially replaced by Jimi Hendrix for about half an hour too, before editorial overlords pushed fwd their bulshy Bolanist agenda!
The Hendrix picture was in fact kewler than the somewhat grinny Marc B but whatever you think of the fella Jimi H does not really epitomise the pop charts of ’70-’72!
hendrix is of the 60s (very) young man!
Hendrix was mooted in the pub the other night, because he does enjoy his sole #1 this year obv. – but using Bolan means we won’t have to change it again for a few years 😉
I doubt he enjoyed it that much, considering 🙂
“John And Yoko” was of course part of a song title and not the artist(s).
I expect that Tom’s being completely honest in his opinions. This sort of being the point of the whole exercise.
Yep. Honest as I can be at the time of writing – there may well be some kind of “wrongest entries” round-up in the future!
(The phrasing of said opinions is very occasionally designed to tweak, of course.)
I don’t think that’s Marc, I think it’s “Two Ronnies” era Barbara Dickson, witha photoshopped guitar.
I’m not a fan of the Simon and Garfunkle version of this song. I’d say it’s a combination of Art’s voice, the arrangement, and the lyrics to the third verse.
Art has a lovely voice, but the prettiness of ethereal choir boy voices has never appealed to me. That’s simply a personal quirk of taste and doesn’t really say anything about the quality of the record. Perhaps more to the point in analysing the singer’s performance, I’m put off by what I sense to be Art’s own regard for his voice: for too many parts of this song, the emotion I hear is Art’s wonder at the stained-glass beauty of his own singing.
Hal Blaine is my favorite drummer, but his work here and on “The Boxer” isn’t among my favorites in his catalogue. I’m sure he gave Garfunkle and Roy Halee, the producer, exactly what they wanted, but I always feel as if Hal were striking me on my head with those timpani mallets, shouting, “AWE!! Be AWEstruck, dammit!!” It’s never enjoyable to feel an artist poking you in the chest with his finger, while he tells you how to feel.
I’ve heard that Garfunkle added the lyrics to the third verse. I can believe that’s true because they don’t make any sense, and they also have that sophomoric stretching for profundity that new songwriters often suffer from. (The rumor at the time was that the “silver girl” was a reference to needles, meaning drugs – yes, this is pretty far-fetched, even for Sixties lyrical interpretation).
In the early years of “Saturday Night Live,” Paul Simon, appearing as the musical guest, sang “Bridge Over Troubled Water.” He used only his acoustic guitar as accompaniment and he dropped the third verse entirely (lending credence to the idea that he didn’t write it). Sung in Simon’s warm, modest, conversational voice, absent all the bombast, instrumental and lyrical, I for the first time found it a moving expression of emotional support for a loved one.
I, too have “a major blankspot about stately quasi-abstract big statement appeal-to-the-good-in-mankind rock/pop.” Nice to hear it defined so well.
“John And Yoko” was of course part of a song title and not the artist(s).
Right, but the idea is that it’s credited to The Beatles, when in fact only John and Paul play on the recording.
tom stand fast – this type of gooey uselessness is good for figuring skating routines, nip/tuck finales, and not much else. a defense could be mustered on the grounds of ‘the power ballad is being born here’ (as with beatles’ ‘hey jude’) or that here specifically it represents a bridge between hymnal and power ballad (‘bridge’ as midpoint between ‘how great thou art’ and ‘beautiful’ maybe) but that doesn’t make listening to it any easier. simon and garfunkel were good at a few things (they probably did have more good songs than the archies if nothing better than ‘sugar sugar’) but they were generally worthless without a chugga-chugga-chugga and percussion. i will say this is probably the best version of this song i’ve heard, i’ve heard singers i like alot more than art cover it and always come away thinking ‘wow you couldn’t come up with anything to save it either huh?’, the thing seems very well built to art’s strengths, enough so to possibly hint at why people for the longest time kept hoping for a s&g reunion even though the best work by far paul (or art even amazingly!) ever did was afterwards. someone could probably do carmody treatment with this song as harbinger/turning point into ‘me decade’ as well.
also tom you may want to check that date
Yikes ! Thats Marc Bolan ? I thought it was Peter Frampton !!!
HOWEVAH: while ‘some’ are bitching that one of the best (and most canonized) pop songs of the time ‘beat’ this piece of turgid agnostic white gospel NO WAY is said white gospel better than ‘crying in the chapel’! ie. tom hates souls etc.
And where were three-quarters of the Beatles on Eleanor Rigby?
“will say this is probably the best version of this song i’ve heard, i’ve heard singers i like alot more than art cover it and always come away thinking ‘wow you couldn’t come up with anything to save it either huh?’” – even the Elvis version?
yeah, i think by and large that whole 60s class of rock songs that instantly entered the standards songbook (with the half-exception of ‘yesterday’) leave a really really bad taste in my mouth. they seem to completely lack any of the things that make rock (nevermind rock n roll) worth a damn in the first place and fall incredibly short of the standards of, um, standards (can you imagine ira gershwin writing anything as insipid as ‘sail on silver girl’?). i wonder how much of the ‘good deeds/lo it has lifted many a spirit’ justification even holds up here really – has anyone here ‘turned to’ this song in a dark, lonely hour? it seems to me (‘imho’ obv) far too hysterical and overwrought and more about ‘hey I’M here for you! look at ME – here for you!’ than about actually providing comfort/respite. something like ‘everybody hurts’ which has a much gentler manner AND still yields more catharsis at the climax beats it on that score (if perhaps not any others).
1. I agree with Tom and blount–stand fast, the initial critique is bloody well accurate!
2. “Sail on silver girl“! Ach! Back then I thought it might say that, but as that was too insipid (as Blount says) and the song seemed to appeal to all the smug pseudo-literati around me–I had to wait some years to get a college education, so I was feeling left out at the time–so I think I transferred the line in my mind to “silver bird” (i.e., an airliner) which made a bit more sense. (And, anyway, the eastbound flights out of LAX flew over our house after making their 350-degree turn over Santa Monica Bay, so I saw quite a lot of them. And the image–within the histrionic political context of the song–recalled for me the day in June 1968 when I stood in back of the house watching the plane carrying the body of RFK to Washington DC for burial.) Granted, a “silver bird” has little to do with the rest of the song, but I’m not sure that a “silver girl” makes much sense either.
3. S&G were one of the groups I wanted to like out of a shared political sentiment but couldn’t out of aesthetic sensibilities. As I have said in another thread (when I apparently trod on someone else’s sensibilities) what we like or dislike really boils down to a matter of taste, and many, if not most, of our critical perspectives are subjective. Nonetheless, I had the same divided response not only to Simon and Garfunkel as I did to Creedence Clearwater Revival–I agreed politically but found them aesthetically offputting. Now two groups couldn’t have been more different than those two. And if I simply can’t stand listening to Art Garfunkel, it’s because. . . .
4. I SIMPLY CAN’T ABIDE MALE HYSTERIA! I don’t like the female variety either. I won’t go into the sport of my mad father, but let us just say that while I thoroughly support the idea, a la Virginia Woolf, that every individual should try to cultivate the best traits of the opposite sex if we are ever to have a civilized society, I find it unpleasant, to say the very least, when they acquire the worst.
5. “Crying in the Chapel” is a better record, in my opinion, even if not a great one. As a poor white Southerner, Elvis had imbued a lot of genuine gospel. The song is about private religious experience–it doesn’t pretend to have any huge political or social import.
6. Aretha Franklin–who knows the difference between soul and hysteria–recorded what is probably the best cover of “Bridge.”
A few hit songs on which the attributed artist(s) did not appear:
1. “Unchained Melody”–The Righteous Brothers. Only Bobby Hatfield sings, not Bill Medley.
2. “Someday We’ll Be Together”–Diana Ross and the Supremes. More like Diana Ross, Luther Vandross, and the Andantes. Even the title was a lie.
3. Most of Herman’s Hermits’ recordings were Peter Noone and session players.
And the greatest of all–
4. “He’s a Rebel”–The Crystals. None of the Crystals sang on the record, which was performed by Darlene Love and the Blossoms. It was, ironically, the Crystals’ biggest hit.
i knew that about “he’s a rebel” and “unchained melody” but never knew that about the supremes hit. i was going to say that it’s odd the supremes drama and disintegration doesn’t get nearly the attention the beatles concurrent bitchfest does (esp since the supremes were #2 stateside to the beatles during the 60s in hits/sales/something i forget) but then i gather that’s what dreamgirls is about? coming to theaters this xmas as oscar fodder with beyonce cast (by the gods in their wisdom) in the diana ross role.
I’m with Doc Casino (right up there in comment number 1) on this one. Didn’t like it much at the time; gradually found it wormed its way under my skin; studied it a little and realised what I was missing; finally got to the stage where the ‘sail on silvergirl’ line sends a cold shiver of anticipation down my spine every time I hear it.
Paul Simon has always been desperately unfashionable. People take against him for some unaccountable reason (as in some of the comments that did the rounds when he made the Graceland record in the 80s). His biggest problem is his defensiveness, I suspect: he isn’t Dylan, and he knows it. But he is one great songwriter all the same, with one of the strongest back catalogues in the history of the industry. This is one of his most commercial moments, and it deserved its position at number one, as it deserves the constant and repeated plays on our radios ever since. It’s not the greatest track on the album – ‘The Boxer’ is sublime songwriting, and sublime production – and I wouldn’t give it a 10, but it IS a genuine grade A poular music classic.
Sorry Tom, but any comparisons to Sugar Sugar and the Lee Marvin drivel just don’t stand up to critical scrutiny.
PS to Tom – I think I may have started this ‘hating soul’ thing. I apologise: I know your tastes are catholic.
PPS to everybody – before you all start, I KNOW ‘Sail on silvergirl’ is a crap lyric. It’s the music it’s set against that sends the shiver down my spine.
It’s too late Mark! It’s become a meme! (Seriously, I don’t mind).
I like “The Boxer”, or at least I like its hook. If it’s the one I’m thinking of.
You’re right that Paul Simon is unfashionable (so is Art Garfunkel!), but this postdates Graceland I reckon – when that came out he was inescapable. I was 13 and all the more serious-minded boys a year or two above me at school owned that record and played it incessantly.
when i was c.14 or 15 (=1974-75) i told my most rockin pal — sabbath fan, v.early to pick up on punk — that i liked S&G (my tastes being VERY conditioned by nice records my parents owned) (for some reason i entirely lacked the teen oedipal gene) and he said “normally your taste is excellent mark!”
i think they ran into a critical catch-22 — on the one hand, simon WAS respected within rock for his ear; on the other, he was somewhat spurned for his fashionable quasi-literary cachet (viz the NEW YORK TIMES treating his lyrics as “rock poetry” but not eg — and pace bob dylan — smokey robinson’s)
(oh! writing this reminds me of my long-ago FT piece on this VERY SUBJECT = me, my parents, xgau and S&G: forgive self-celebratory link but it seems pertinent)
1. Re self-promotion: Giles Smith says in one of the best bits of the ace book Lives Of The Great Songs: “If you go through the song substituting “He” for “I” (‘When tears are in your eyes, He will dry them all’; ‘He’s on your side when times get rough’), you end up with something closer to gospel.”. While I personally feel more likely to get help from a loved one than an ethereal one, the piece did help me put my finger on what I find creepy about the record.
2. My mission to work out why I find Paul Simon such an odious creep has been an ongoing project for years. Still not there: abusing the Commons and being a “class act” are part of it. “Keep the customer satisfied” is pretty fun, though, and I liked the first track off Capeman.
3. b>Resurrection Watch: Fucking where to start? The Jones brothers (Tom and Aled) both had a pop, though sadly not together. Church-aware ones include Aretha, the Five Blind Boys Of Alabama, Wanda Jackson, some Mormons and some Gregorian Chanters, though sadly not together. Big names like Stevie, Elvis, Smokey Robinson, the Jackson Five. Countryish versions include Johnny Cash, Willie Nelson and Waylon Jennings. Smooth versions include Andy Williams, Richard Clayderman, Nana Maskouri, James Last. Lunged versions include Peggy Lee, Shirley Bassey, Judy Collins, Bonnie Tyler and Gladys Knight. Recent versions include Hear’Say, Clay Aiken, LeAnn Rimes and Charlotte Church. Others include Chet Atkins, Quincy Jones, Acker Bilk, Jimmy Smith, King Curtis and Aaron Neville, though sadly not together. It was in the movie Intolerable Cruelty, and I feel certain it’ll be used in ad ad for Halifax or the AA soon if it hasn’t been already.
4. A solo acoustic guitar version is on some Paul Simon compilations.
5. Giles Smith also says that the string arranger misheard and wrote “Like A Pitcher Of Water” on the charts.
6. NO WAY is said white gospel better than ‘crying in the chapel’! – OMG the dub version of that just came on shuffle in the background AS I WAS TYPING. My iPod is READING WHAT WE’RE SAYING.
A couple more great examples of hits without half of the named artistes:
Around half of the recordings credited to Marvin Gaye and Tammi Terrell don’t have Tammi on at all. She had a horrible life in all kinds of ways, and when she didn’t make it to the studio Valerie Simpson (of Ashford And later fame) filled in.
Apparently Ike Turner is not on River Deep Mountain High at all – Spector (notorious for this – He’s A Rebel isn’t the only Crystals single without a Crystal anywhere near it) knew that another veteran producer and control freak in the studio would be a recipe for disaster.
I would probably have given this 6 rather than 5, but by and large I agree. I am disappointed to have somehow missed 13 years of entries, however.
Tom – when Graceland came out, there was a LOT of sniping in the music industry that suggested he was somehow exploiting black african musicians to his own ends. Which of course was nonsense, in the light of the added exposure the record gave them. It probably wasn’t the musicians doing the sniping, mind you – any more than Muddy Waters complained when The Stones covered him.
Tom – when Graceland came out, there was a LOT of sniping in the music industry that suggested he was somehow exploiting black african musicians to his own ends. Which of course was nonsense, in the light of the added exposure the record gave them. It probably wasn’t the musicians doing the sniping, mind you – any more than Muddy Waters complained when The Stones covered him.
Paul Simon’s new album is pretty good, by the way. I haven’t noticed any great product from Lee Marvin, Dana, the Archies, Edison Lighthouse, or Bobbie Gentry in the last two or three decades. I believe Rolf Harris had another novelty hit, but he only does that stuff to draw attention to his painting.
Alan Connor–
Re: point 1: Thank you. This thought occurred to me a long time ago (when I was 19), that Garfunkel (as “I”) was taking on the identity of God (oh no!), but I brushed it off as just too weird and decided I must be wrong. Aretha’s far more spiritual version did raise that idea again for me, but if I were shown two pictures (Aretha and Art) and asked to chose which one was “God,” while I’m not too sure about Aretha, she’d probably win by process of elimination.
Re: point 2: When you find out, let me know. I’ve been wondering the same myself, but I suspect it has something to do with why I find some of the other professors (all male and very self-serious) insufferably creepy.
Re: point 3: Love it–“though sadly not together”!
Correction:
I suspect it has something to do with why I find some of the other professors (all male and very self-serious) insufferably creepy.
Should have read: ” I suspect it has something to do with why I find some of the other professors (all male and very self-serious) in my own department insufferably creepy.”
The big annual list of academic job openings is now out, so I suppose that my plans to find another job are lurking behind the sentiment. My subconscious is showing. Enough said.
i covered the graceland issue for nme at the time so i know ALL TOO MUCH about this tangled story — well, haha, i would do if i hadn’t forgotten a lot of it (we even tried to get a quote off harry belafonte, but only reached his BUTLER!):
simon’s mistake was very specifically the breaching of the ANC’s cultural boycott — his defence was that he was helping specific black musicians get an exposure they would not otherwise get (which was true) — and the comeback attack was that there was an element of egocentric popstar patronage (also true) which was so large it undermined simon’s defence (i think false, unless you took an ABSOLUTE position on the boycott) (which e.g. jerry dammers — who spearheaded the attack — did) (i have long planned to write a two-prong review which compares and contrasts the politics, overt and implied, in graceland and in “in the studio” by the special aka, dammers’ last recorded work i believe) (like many of my “long planned projects” i have done nothing whatever about it)
it’s interesting that mark g’s summary has pretty much become the residue position on the graceland argybargy — bcz the story as it unfolded was quite confusing, and bcz history has since trapped the particulars of the START of the story in a past time which is hard to access accurately (ie there are few ppl today able or willing to take a POLITICAL position defending the precise form the cultural boycott took in 1985-86 — the line changed a bit as a result of the fallout in this case, and then mandela was freed and everything changed and the details WEREN’T that important so much — as i say i only remember them well bcz i wz specifically covering the story at the time
as i posted above, rock “attitude” towards simon definitely predates the graceland episode by a decade and more — tho graceland allowed this attitude to coalesce into something new and pointed (i wonder if he hadn’t also subsequently got (unfairly) caught up in the backwash against singer-songwriters, esp.james taylor, which was a specfic loudmouthed strand in early punk — he was pilloried as a de facto “old fart” at a time when ideology insisted that punk and post-punk morality was sweeping the board) (reality has since rather proved that what went before was every bit as resilient as what came after)
aretha has never made a film as creepy — or as great — as BAD TIMING: hence art is god (but in a very bad way)
Mark – what kind of madness would make me give a higher mark to a record just because the artist in question has kept making other records?!
it is the LAW OF THE OLD LAG tom
Bad Timing!?! Oh No!!!! I think I’ve tried to eradicate that one from my mind altogether. It’s not the story that disturbs me so much as the idea of a sex scene involving Art Garfunkel. Don’t start me on a rant about why I find Art Garfunkel even more insufferable than Paul Simon. But since you’ve recalled it to my memory (AG=professor/shrink), I know fully realize why I need to find a new job! I’m surrounded by bargain-basement knock-offs of Simon and Garfunkel, with a faux Woody Allen thrown in for bad measure.
If I were shown two pictures (Simon and Garfunkel) and asked to chose which one was “God,” I’d declare myself an atheist.
Aretha’s film career is, thankfully, limited to the role of Mrs Murphy in The Blues Brothers.
Actually, there are probably any number of artistes that I might like a lot better if they’d stopped making other records.
in that case you also wouldn’t want to be reminded of art’s other top starring role — in CARNAL KNOWLEDGE
But now you’ve reminded me…..
Time to take an anti-depressant and go back to bed, but it’s only 11:20 am here.