"The Who" vs "Simon and Garfunkel" - A Hearty Go at a Comparison of Unlike Bands

I'm sitting here in my quaint living room in the dregs of comfort. So much I want to do but this darn red chair is way to good. So as I was swiveling about I remembered my blog. Hooray! And now all I have to do is sit in this red chair and think of a topic. Got one! Let's talk about the two great bands, "Simon and Garfunkel" and "The Who."

Before we begin I ask you suffer a brief exposition.

Simon and Garfunkel - Comprised of two core members (vocals-Paul Simon and Art Garfunkel, guitar-Paul Simon) and one core guitar. Renown for harmonious vocal finesse, visceral creativity, precociously reflective lyric, and a beautifully ethereal production of these elements from as little means as possible.
A few of their hits include "Mrs. Robinson," "Sounds of Silence," and "Bridge over Troubled Water."

The Who - Comprised of four members (vocals-Roger Daltry, guitar/harmonies-Pete Townsend, Bass/harmonies-John Entwistle, Drums/harmonies-Keith Moon). Known for creating enormous sound from a relatively small lineup. Specializes in benevolent blues, folk rock (from small town to old world), and hard rock. Presentation is, without fail, very well sung, immeasurably creative, enchantingly unpredictable, and recognizably characteristic. It also needs be said here that John Entwistle is an exceedingly skilled bassist, not only with navigational dexterity but also at unearthing seasonal atmospheric riffs to match seamlessly with the sound of his fellow mates.
A few well known "The Who" hits are "My Generation," "Pinball Wizard", and "Who Are You."

Now that that's out of the way, I'll begin...

Thus far in life, I have acknowledged five bands as my favorite. Regardless of the rest, "Simon and Garfunkel" and "The Who" have been juxtaposed third and fourth on the list, and S&G have had the slight lead. I'll break the bands' musical elements down into categories.

Vocals - It would typically be hard to compete with Daltry's gruff, blues calloused vocals. Nevertheless, Paul Simon's voice is a well of character and emotion, not to mention that it is accompanied by a more or less perfect voice from Garfunkel. If Daltry's voice was unaccompanied in "The Who's" Music, S&G would collect an easy win, however, his voice is accompanied by 3 good (but imperfect) voices, creating an organic, easily recognizable sound, and compensating for the lack of a Garfunkel. At the end of the day, which vocals are better than which probably relies on whether or not your day has put you in a happy go-lucky mood, or a somber, reflective spirit, which leads me to the next category...

Music - While "The Who" and S&G are at least somewhat comparable in the vocal venue, each finds it's forte in starkly different genres. "The Who" writes to please the audience, to unleash sound and effect and cajole the audience into participating in the swaying of the hips. Townsend crafts blues into the heart of every song; Entwistle provides a carrying drive through the medium of unconventional and outspoken bass riffs; Moon sets the volume with selective, dramatic drumming; Daltry sings what Pete writes for him, but it freakin sounds great. Meanwhile Paul Simon writes to make manifest his heart of hearts into highly refined music. S&G are able to conjure up the lord of the dance as well but, unlike "The Who," it is typically into a mellow groove rather than savage gesticulations. Because Simon's music matches his pensive heart, the very sound maintains (with exceptions) a somber feel. This outpouring of the heart procures a sense of connection that few other bands have managed to claim, and adds a layer of depth to Paul Simon's work that seems, at times, incomparable.

Overall Effect - And without further ado we add the elements of each group to ascertain which is superior. Concerning the singing, "The Who" is physically bigger, their options and possibilities are more, and their vocal range is set slightly higher. Their combined voices are clearly recognizable and weigh heavy with character. Concerning the music, "The Who" is bigger, its options and possibilities are more, and it suffers from no syndrome of it's antagonist's minimalist ideology. But is suffer really the right word? How is it that I can admit "The Who" has more singing, more music, even more creative minds (Townsend, Entwistle, and Moon write for "The Who" while Paul Simon is the solitary writer for S&G) than "Simon and Garfunkel," but still find myself partial to the duo? In the end, as far as I go, music is more captivating when it goes deeper rather than bigger, and while I like a happy go-lucky mood, I find heart-work to be the supreme medium with which art, in it's most unadulterated form, can be achieved.