[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]
Paul Simon — Another Galaxy
Album: Surprise
Avg rating:
6.7

Your rating:
Total ratings: 665









Released: 2006
Length: 5:10
Plays (last 30 days): 0
On the morning of her wedding day
when no one was awake
she drove across the border
Leaving all the yellow roses
on her wedding cake
Her mother's tears, her breakfast order
She's gone, gone, gone

There is a moment
a chip in time
when leaving home
is the lesser crime
When your eyes are blind with tears
but your heart can see:
another life
another galaxy

That night her dreams are storm-tossed as a willow
She hears the clouds, she sees the eye of a hurricane
as it sweeps across her island pillow
But she's gone, gone, gone

There is a moment
a chip in time
when leaving home
is the lesser crime
When your eyes are blind with tears
but your heart can see:
Another life
another galaxy
Comments (178)add comment
Rather cruel to have tattooed the bridge of that poor kid's nose.
Watched "A Serious Man" last night. While it probably wouldn't have "fit" on the soundtrack, this song seems appropriate in theme. 
Eno's contributions make this tune more creative and interesting than it would be with just Simon.
I know this is excellent – thus the 8 – I wish Simon’s sole work grabbed me more than it does – somehow it leaves me cold – perhaps that oddly milquetoasty voice (that strangely, went so well with Garfunkel’s ethereal tenor) just doesn’t meld that well with this astounding lyrics and music – I’m glad others enjoy Paul Simon more.
 Stingray wrote:
Paul Simon smokes Pot!
This song proofs the fact! 
 
OMG!! I'm shocked!! No, really. This is an outrage! I mean, who'd have thought Simon pure would have done such a thing. What's the world coming to? {#Rolleyes}

 ruthless wrote:
So what?
  ...isn't it against the law?
I believe SIMON is a genius!
 spigolli wrote:
A brilliant lyricist but I sure miss the finger picking of the early days. 
 

And here i was enjoying the guitar work... :)

 Stingray wrote:
Paul Simon smokes Pot!
This song proofs the fact! 
 
I can't figure if you're implying that's a good thing, or a bad thing?

 Stingray wrote:
Paul Simon smokes Pot!
This song proofs the fact! 
 

So what?
Paul Simon smokes Pot!
This song proofs the fact! 
Just read the lyrics! 6 - 7
this sounded good at the coffeeshop —-i need to check this out—-heard another song i really liked from this and was listening to some of the album once but forgot about it. Eno is on this? Interesting.
A brilliant lyricist but I sure miss the finger picking of the early days. 
 boober wrote:

Do you "Lizards" know each other?

 
No. However, you should read planet_lizard's profile. Far more interesting guy...

Brian Eno...
{#Notworthy}
I absolutely love this whole album. A masterpiece!
the man is a genius - enough said
Awwww, heck, I like it just 'cause of Eno's work on the piece.
The beginning 20 seconds makes me think this song's going to suck...and then comes the light strum of the guitar followed by the man himself.

I'm counting back on the bars in the rating dist: 10, 9, 8, 7...there's a lot of  6, 7, 8. I'll go with crowd I guess.

 djengs wrote:
OK, I love the sound of this, and I like the lyrics- but they seem lost in this melody. Not the first time he's done that, but just wish it flowed a little better. Keep trying, Paul. You'll get it right some day...
 
He has gotten it right so many, many times—most song writers could only wish to be half as good.

Guitar sounds a lot like something from Summers and Fripps "I Advance Masked" album, especially in the intro.
Love this song.
 jagdriver wrote:
I'll take this over S & G any day.
 

I'll have to agree...you gotta give it to the guy
 Kokoloco53 wrote:
Paul Simon (and Garfunkel) recorded some pretty good stuff over the years, and like most pop culture artists, they do seem to sound like themselves, over and over and over again. So what, get over it. Eddie Vedder? Always seems to sound like Eddie Vedder, same boring crap. Aw shucks music lovers, get a life. This tune is one of Simon's better ones in recent years in my opinion. Melodic, nice harmonies, even if they're dubbed harmonies.
 
What this guy said.


Thank you. This is exactly what I needed now.

 Mandible wrote:
wasn't he married to linda rondstat and she broke his heart?
 
Peggy Harper, then Carrie Fisher, then Edie Brickell.


That baby has some intense eyes!  {#Eek}
I'll take this over S & G any day.
wasn't he married to linda rondstat and she broke his heart?
PS = trite
OK, I love the sound of this, and I like the lyrics- but they seem lost in this melody. Not the first time he's done that, but just wish it flowed a little better. Keep trying, Paul. You'll get it right some day...
 planet_lizard wrote:
heard PS being interviewed once and he explained how he usually wrote the music first including the melody and then came up with the lyrics - and now it's so obvious whenever I listen to him that it irritates me a bit - the words always sound shoe-horned and clunky - unlike the music which feels so much more natural
 
Words are so one dimensionel, if that. Just mind-food. Waves on the sea. It´s more what´s underneath, that makes a song good/magical, to me.

She's leaving home
After living alone
For so many years

I love this CD.! {#Roflol}
 WonderLizard wrote:

I'm tempted to think that Simon was being a tad disingenuous. Some of his lyrics, regardless of their stage in the songmaking process, are genius: "The Boxer," "Bookends," "Me and Julio Down by the Schoolyard," and others. Then there's some stuff (Songs from The Capeman, One Trick Pony) which is, well, less than stellar (IMHO Capeman is unlistenable). My guess is that his process is all over the place. Regardless, I'm thankful that he keeps producing. Even this CD, uneven as it is, has its transcendent moments.

Sorta wish that Artie was still around...

 
Do you "Lizards" know each other?

Bought this CD after hearing this cut on RP. I must say, Simon and Eno may seem an unlikely team, but it WORKS. An exceptional effort all the way through. First-rate studio talent (Steve Gadd, etc.) make it even better. Thanks again RP!

This to me makes an interesting contrast/comparison with Mr Dylan.
Both are human, but are they in the same company?

 planet_lizard wrote:
heard PS being interviewed once and he explained how he usually wrote the music first including the melody and then came up with the lyrics - and now it's so obvious whenever I listen to him that it irritates me a bit - the words always sound shoe-horned and clunky - unlike the music which feels so much more natural

 
I'm tempted to think that Simon was being a tad disingenuous. Some of his lyrics, regardless of their stage in the songmaking process, are genius: "The Boxer," "Bookends," "Me and Julio Down by the Schoolyard," and others. Then there's some stuff (Songs from The Capeman, One Trick Pony) which is, well, less than stellar (IMHO Capeman is unlistenable). My guess is that his process is all over the place. Regardless, I'm thankful that he keeps producing. Even this CD, uneven as it is, has its transcendent moments.

Sorta wish that Artie was still around...

 planet_lizard wrote:
heard PS being interviewed once and he explained how he usually wrote the music first including the melody and then came up with the lyrics - and now it's so obvious whenever I listen to him that it irritates me a bit - the words always sound shoe-horned and clunky - unlike the music which feels so much more natural

 
My feelings are entirely contrary to this sentiment. The opposite in fact. It makes me want to celebrate that his songs are so poignant - and I think this is because of how he "dances" with muse.

In the manner he spoke of at that interview.

hippiechick wrote:
I just can't STAND this album!
You've heard the whole album? I've only heard this one song, and while I love S&G, I also love Paul Simon, in all his incarnations. Guessing that you've got a favorite Paul Simon album (well, who doesn't?) *g* Gotta say, though - this particular song doesn't really thrill me. As others have said, Mr. Simon has done better work. Still, I'm glad to be hearing it at all, considering the state of "radio" these days...
planet_lizard wrote: heard PS being interviewed once and he explained how he usually wrote the music first including the melody and then came up with the lyrics - and now it's so obvious whenever I listen to him that it irritates me a bit - the words always sound shoe-horned and clunky - unlike the music which feels so much more natural coyote620 wrote:
I heard that same interview, and couldn't agree with you more!
The lesson here is never listen to interviews on how they make their music! ...Or, don't let it influence you so much. (actually I have to confess it made me find his music irritating for about 3 months after that interview... must be human nature... finally I did get over it and prevent myself from thinking about it).
cattail321 wrote:
u r boring
ulibcn wrote:
really boring! I've heard better things from PS
Paul Simon (and Garfunkel) recorded some pretty good stuff over the years, and like most pop culture artists, they do seem to sound like themselves, over and over and over again. So what, get over it. Eddie Vedder? Always seems to sound like Eddie Vedder, same boring crap. Aw shucks music lovers, get a life. This tune is one of Simon's better ones in recent years in my opinion. Melodic, nice harmonies, even if they're dubbed harmonies.
really boring! I've heard better things from PS
ndad47 wrote:
i am thinking of my step-daughter who is getting married this week-end. they better leave this song off the turn table at the reception.
Is she getting married in 1979?
slartibart_O wrote:
Nope, nope, nope. A merkin is a specific appliance with a storied historical past that is indeed related to the same general area of discussion but not referring to the naughty bits themselves. A muff muffler so to speak. A patootie toupee. Look it up.
"My fellow merkins"...as Bush puts it
I just can't STAND this album!
:frown: :arrowd:
ThePoose wrote:
Yes, and both names refer to the human female pudendum: ''Merkin'' is archaic slang for those bits, and ''muff'', well, we all know that one.
Nope, nope, nope. A merkin is a specific appliance with a storied historical past that is indeed related to the same general area of discussion but not referring to the naughty bits themselves. A muff muffler so to speak. A patootie toupee. Look it up.
planet_lizard wrote:
heard PS being interviewed once and he explained how he usually wrote the music first including the melody and then came up with the lyrics - and now it's so obvious whenever I listen to him that it irritates me a bit - the words always sound shoe-horned and clunky - unlike the music which feels so much more natural
I heard that same interview, and couldn't agree with you more!
Opus 67 - Paul Simon - Relentlessly Similar Sonata in C minor :shifty: :arrowd: 3 :yawn:
heard PS being interviewed once and he explained how he usually wrote the music first including the melody and then came up with the lyrics - and now it's so obvious whenever I listen to him that it irritates me a bit - the words always sound shoe-horned and clunky - unlike the music which feels so much more natural
Love the beginning!
the melodies are beautiful like an ancient japanese elm. :roflol:
Still underwhelmed. It seems like after S&G he just sings to pass the time. Not that that's a bad thing...
What's this? A Paul Simon song that didn't make me want to barf and hit the mute button? A solid 4. I'll call it "schmaltz-lite" LOL.
Hmmm. The end of this sounded a lot like the beginning of Depeche Mode's Precious.
omg this sucks
Pyro wrote:
Ya think? OMG, I looked the name up in wikipedia(click here)
Yes, and both names refer to the human female pudendum: ''Merkin'' is archaic slang for those bits, and ''muff'', well, we all know that one.
crazy wrote:
booooooooring :sleep:
agreed! Paul can do better.
ThePoose wrote:
Merkin Muffley, eh? Ever seen Dr. Strangelove?
Greatest film ever made.
Paul Simon is just brilliant. Love the layers in the song. And what a lyricist, the best :yes:
Great selection these last few songs, just what my horrible hangover needs.
booooooooring :sleep:
Love this album... fantastic music
i am thinking of my step-daughter who is getting married this week-end. they better leave this song off the turn table at the reception.
aaah, SO my favorite!
Occasionally, I think Paul receives inspiration from another galaxy!
ThePoose wrote:
Merkin Muffley, eh? Ever seen Dr. Strangelove?
Ya think? OMG, I looked the name up in wikipedia(click here)
Another great example of why I love RP. I would never have heard one single cut off of this lovely CD on terrestrial radio. Like previous posts indicate, I loved the IDEA of Eno and Simon. Not so sure the execution was as good as what I had hoped for, but GOOD nonetheless.
merkin_muffley wrote:
The actual music to this is very good. Great on headphones while i'm working. Love the beginning and it ends very well. Gotta say though that his voice is annoying.
Merkin Muffley, eh? Ever seen Dr. Strangelove?
This is really quite lovely. Good lyric too.
skdenfeld wrote:
Get's a bit of a groove on at the end, eh?
that IS the best part.......nice that you speak Canadian too.
fredriley wrote:
Pretty good instrumentals worth a 7 at least, then the singing started and knocked a point off. Not bad, and at least it doesn't sound like a S&G retread as other Paul Simon numbers I've heard played here do.
:eek: :hand: :snooty:
merkin_muffley wrote:
The actual music to this is very good. Great on headphones while i'm working. Love the beginning and it ends very well. Gotta say though that his voice is annoying.
Wow, how different we all are, I think his voice is very soothing. Go figure.
Pretty good instrumentals worth a 7 at least, then the singing started and knocked a point off. Not bad, and at least it doesn't sound like a S&G retread as other Paul Simon numbers I've heard played here do.
Quite a nice surprise indeed!
Get's a bit of a groove on at the end, eh?
this is pretty cool
not bad, not bad at all...curious take on PS, so it's all good
for the first time in a loooooong time I have to admit to not hating a paul simon song this is definitely one that did NOT need brian eno "producing," which here seems to have meant pouring on a bunch of distracting synth sounds like lumpy gravy
dionysius wrote:
Paul Simon + Brian Eno = Good idea, one worth exploring, yet more interesting in theory than in application.
Yah, I thought it was a great idea too (hell, Eno producing anybody is a great idea), but the result didn't live up to my expectation. Ain't life just like that sometimes?
Paul Simon + Brian Eno = Good idea, one worth exploring, yet more interesting in theory than in application.
that's funny - I have the volume pretty low on my computer - when this started I thought it was peter gabriel - go figure...
7 to 9 This album continues to grow into me. Historical context, or the hear and now, another PS masterwork. C.
Marr wrote:
I do agree with this overall. Shocking since PG and I usually don't agree on much. There are some exceptions. I would probably not enjoy 12th century church music if it was played here on RP (though I would credit Bill for going WAY outside the box). If I'm standing in a 12th century chapel it might actually move me pretty deeply. The context CAN be important. However it cannot/should not be forced.
Exactly. My iPod has 5000+ tunes. Ten of them are traditional Irish songs. I'll listen to them rarely, and never would subject others to them. But when I DO listen I get moved by a profound feeling of nostalgia, pride, what have you. Music has the ability to touch us on many levels. Listen and enjoy. But STOP RAGGING ON KNOPFLER, PG!!
I find a great deal of Paul's music moving, and well isn't that the true test of music? If you always break things down to the pixels, bytes, or whatever you will never see or hear the whole.
The actual music to this is very good. Great on headphones while i'm working. Love the beginning and it ends very well. Gotta say though that his voice is annoying.
physicsgenius wrote:
That's BS. It is definitely one valid method of criticism to put things in their historical context. However, it is also valid to judge them by today's standards. For instance, the theory that the Sun orbits the Earth. That's a great theory if you put it in the context of prehistory (as opposed to, say, just plain magic). But it's a terrible theory today. You can judge it by either standard depending on what you are talking about. In the case of music, the primary context is the here and now. If a piece of music fails to move a person, it isn't a failure of the person to put it into context--it is a failure of the music to be relevant to them. You can judge it by some academic historical merits if you want, but it still won't make them get up and dance.
I do agree with this overall. Shocking since PG and I usually don't agree on much. There are some exceptions. I would probably not enjoy 12th century church music if it was played here on RP (though I would credit Bill for going WAY outside the box). If I'm standing in a 12th century chapel it might actually move me pretty deeply. The context CAN be important. However it cannot/should not be forced.
I find it amazing how consistent Paul's voice has stayed over all these decades. Still instantly recognizable. :bounce:
I love how Paul Simon evolves while remaining true to his core. I hope he plays forever. Is that his and Edie Brickell's baby on the cover?
quite interesting, very nice production, melody, sonic qualities...
physicsgenius wrote:
That's BS. It is definitely one valid method of criticism to put things in their historical context. However, it is also valid to judge them by today's standards. For instance, the theory that the Sun orbits the Earth. That's a great theory if you put it in the context of prehistory (as opposed to, say, just plain magic). But it's a terrible theory today. You can judge it by either standard depending on what you are talking about. In the case of music, the primary context is the here and now. If a piece of music fails to move a person, it isn't a failure of the person to put it into context--it is a failure of the music to be relevant to them. You can judge it by some academic historical merits if you want, but it still won't make them get up and dance.
I tend to disagree with what much of physicsgenius posts on here (as much as 90% of it, I'd say :-) -- but IMHO what he writes here is totally right on, and very well put.
Whatever.... Enosification grows on me. P.S. vocals are an unanticipated combination. Must listen more before contributing uninformed criticism. so it goes...
Wow! From the intro, I would *never* have guessed this was PS. I'm so sad that I was out of town during his Vancouver show last month.
xkolibuul wrote:
No. The point was, if you're critiquing Bach today without making SOME attempt to understand the historical-cultural context of his music 300 yrs ago, then you're doing a piss-poor job and wasting everyone's time.
That's BS. It is definitely one valid method of criticism to put things in their historical context. However, it is also valid to judge them by today's standards. For instance, the theory that the Sun orbits the Earth. That's a great theory if you put it in the context of prehistory (as opposed to, say, just plain magic). But it's a terrible theory today. You can judge it by either standard depending on what you are talking about. In the case of music, the primary context is the here and now. If a piece of music fails to move a person, it isn't a failure of the person to put it into context--it is a failure of the music to be relevant to them. You can judge it by some academic historical merits if you want, but it still won't make them get up and dance.
Saw PS Monday night. I was pleasantly surprised. He mixed new and old, but updated the old so it didn't feel like an oldies show. Came out in jeans, sneakers and a baseball cap. Didn't say a word, just played for a solid 2 hrs, with 3 encores.
stevesaw wrote:
Well I was around back then and really didn't like his solo stuff at all (and still don't). But, dang, I like what I've heard from this new release. Surprise indeed!
That's all fine and good. Actually I like both his old stuff and this new stuff. My point was that the only way Simon will receive the sort of (semi)eternal fame that some of his more serious fans expect is if it continues to touch people long after we're all gone. Many artists of all stripe have gone through their season of popularity only to fade away with the passing of time. Saliere (sp?) was popular but its Mozart that we all now. Bacon wrote some great plays, but its Shakespeare we all know. So the question is, how will Simon be regarded in 100 years?
Paul contines to ROCK!
Rainman1975 wrote:
Is it bad that I only like the last minute or so of the song? The Paul Simon singing part is of no interest to me (although I love Rhythm of the Saints) but I really love the way the song ends. It always reminds me a little of Depeche Mode.
Nyergh, as I was going about my business last night the last minute of this song kept ringing in my head. It's either going to grow on me or kill me.
Is it bad that I only like the last minute or so of the song? The Paul Simon singing part is of no interest to me (although I love Rhythm of the Saints) but I really love the way the song ends. It always reminds me a little of Depeche Mode. Now, before all you Depeche Mode fans start stoning me for saying that a Paul Simon song sounds a little like Depeche Mode, remember that I said a little!
Eh. A pretty song ruined by obnoxious effects. The first minute or so makes my head hurt.
LOVE. IT.
No. The point was, if you're critiquing Bach today without making SOME attempt to understand the historical-cultural context of his music 300 yrs ago, then you're doing a piss-poor job and wasting everyone's time. But since you mentioned it: GET OFF MY LAWN! That's for Mark Knopfler... physicsgenius wrote:
So nobody today is equipped to critique, say, Bach because everyone alive today was born post-1750? Or maybe what you meant to say was "GET OFF MY LAWN!"
Though I cant say that I am a big fan of PS, this is quite good. this is a suprise. :music:
love it love it love it!
Beautiful song!
Marr wrote:
Someday all of those of us who were around when Paul Simon was in his formative years will be dead and gone. If his songs cannot stand up to modern reviewers/listeners then who will be there to defend him? Music that lasts lasts because it has appeal beyond the generation that first heard and loved it.
Well I was around back then and really didn't like his solo stuff at all (and still don't). But, dang, I like what I've heard from this new release. Surprise indeed!
luin wrote:
well said
Like my soul.
bschena wrote:
Terrible, trite song. Terrible, trite album. If every copy in the universe suddenly burst into flame it would not be missed. Time for Paul to give up and retire...
Funny how tastes differ. I heard from a trusted source with good taste that his new album is excellent. I've yet to listen to it.
physicsgenius wrote:
So nobody today is equipped to critique, say, Bach because everyone alive today was born post-1750? Or maybe what you meant to say was "GET OFF MY LAWN!"
nicely put
hmm...surprise. this isn't all that bad. simon's definitely one that goes in the category of love the early work, don't connect so well with the more recent (springsteen, dylan, stones...come to think of it, quite a large category). This is the best tune i've heard off this album so far. The jam at the end is funky. 7.
Man -- I really, really like this song. I think the couple of very different sounds it put together play off each other very nicely; it's definitely not your run of the mill pop song. I'm nervous about checking out the album though; I've heard the rest doesn't live up. . .
bschena wrote:
Terrible, trite song. Terrible, trite album. If every copy in the universe suddenly burst into flame it would not be missed. Time for Paul to give up and retire...
I'd miss it. I've been playing this album quite often since I got it. It's really subtle material, I keep hearing more nuance than the previous listen. But I think at a younger age--when I was full of angst--I would have had a tendency to tune it out. So it goes.
my take is that it's boring.
physicsgenius wrote:
So nobody today is equipped to critique, say, Bach because everyone alive today was born post-1750? Or maybe what you meant to say was "GET OFF MY LAWN!"
Funniest comment I've seen on RP yet.