Jeff Slate, you're no Paul Simon
The golden rule of artists is speak no unnecessary ill of others.
Note: This column originally appeared in the Idaho State Journal during April 2021. I noticed that the Howlin’ at the Moon rant that accompanied this piece is the most viewed video on the Howlin’ YouTube channel. Though I wish no more disrespect to Jeff Slate than necessary, “humiliations galore” seems appropriate.
Last week I came across an intensely mean-spirited bit of musical criticism on NBC news online by Jeff Slate, whose byline describes him as a “New York City-based songwriter and journalist.” This piece, “Paul Simon sold his catalog to Sony for millions. He’ll still end up a historical footnote to Dylan” is so brazenly over the top that I was certain that it was an April Fool’s joke until I checked the date in the byline: April 2.
I was stunned.
Don’t get me going on the career path of becoming famous as a critic, rather than a creator — of art, music or literature or really anything else. You show me an angry critic ripping a prominent musical work and I’ll show you a frustrated musician, at best, or a basement guitar player.
If you look up the aphorism “those who can’t do, become critics” you’ll see Slate, Robert Christgau and 75 percent of the sportswriters in the world waving at you from the photo.
The reaction to Mr. Slate’s piece was swift — and almost uniformly brutal. I had to get in line to craft a response. I recommend Rick Beato’s YouTube retort and Dan Epstein’s response as two of the best. Mr. Beato, in particular, has great insights into all things musical as an educator, multi-instrumental performer, producer and engineer.
Mr. Slate’s central thesis is that Paul Simon is an “also-ran ’60s icon” whose best day ever was the day, late last year, that he sold the rights to his entire song catalog to Universal Music Publishing Group (something that I doubt). Mr. Slate further opines that 200 years from now Simon (along with Neil Young, Joni Mitchell and Bruce Springsteen) will be a mere footnote to Dylan and the Beatles. From Slate’s piece, “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.”
Damn. Two centuries to go, and I’m the last to know.
The fact of the matter is that no one alive right now knows, with anything approaching certainty, what parts of 20th and 21st century music will be considered relevant in the year 2221. It’s within the realm of possibility that Mr. Slate is absolutely right. It’s equally within the realm of possibility that someone alive right now that hardly anyone currently knows about will be the most studied musician and/or composer of our time. Classical music is filled with examples of this.
It is also within the realm of possibility that the Monkees are the most studied musical artists of the year 2121 — an outcome that would have the advantage of causing Rolling Stone’s Jan Wenner to roll over in his grave.
Bob Dylan is a brilliant songwriter and a tremendous, ground-breaking performing artist. I’m not a huge fan, but I have nothing but respect for him. His influence over pop music for more than five decades is undeniable. I agree that he’ll be relevant in the future.
But the others for whom Mr. Slate expresses so much disdain are no slouches either. And his disdain smirks of jealousy.
Springsteen and Young, though currently beyond their peak popularity, are still well-know — even among millennials. I’m reasonably certain that they won’t be footnotes to anyone, anytime soon. Young, especially, is a ubiquitous presence among the kitschy cool set — kind of a one-man Grateful Dead.
I try not to wax rhapsodic about any musical artist more than I have to, but when it comes to Joni Mitchell, I can’t help myself. Her albums — “Hejira,” “Court and Spark,” “Don Juan’s Reckless Daughter” and “Mingus,” among others — are gigantic and incredibly notable musical accomplishments. Joni Mitchell played with, and had the respect of, some of the greatest musicians, across several genres, of her day. Her legacy isn’t going anywhere.
Why Slate dragged Ms. Mitchell into his tantrum is simply beyond me. She’s the goods, and all of his betters know this.
But the bulk of Mr. Slate’s invective is directed at Mr. Simon. Again, the reasons for this make no sense. Mr. Simon has written, performed and produced immensely popular works for actually a few years longer than Mr. Dylan. Where Mr. Dylan is brilliant as a lyricist and performer, Mr. Simon is arguably equally accomplished at both, but also capable of composing works of great musical complexity and harmonic sophistication. It’s three simple yet elegant chords vs a harmonic freight train when it comes to comparing the two musically.
So, Mr. Slate, I must beg to differ. My guess is that everyone you slagged in your rant is going to be just fine — as well as Bob Dylan and the Beatles. And all of them are have a greater chance of being remembered and studied than a mean-spirited 21st century critic way beyond their depth.
Jeff Slate, you’re no Paul Simon.
Associated Press and Idaho Club award-winning columnist Martin Hackworth of Pocatello is a physicist, writer and retired Idaho State University faculty member who now spends his time with family, riding mountain bikes and motorcycles and playing guitars. His commentary may be found on Substack (martinhackworth.substack.com) and his video blog: “Howlin' at the Moon in ii-V-I” may be found at https://www.facebook.com/HowlinattheMoonin251/ and https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6C9D1ueAe_7HB55uhdPDhg