I'm chalking this one up to 'manufactured controversy':
Art Garfunkel 'created a monster' in Paul Simon, singer tells The Telegraph
Listening to what Art had to say about it in concert, it seemed pretty clear that Art did (and still does) have a lot of hope for the duo. He said that if they had gotten back together, that they could sell out arenas just as fast as the Rolling Stones. And, you know -- maybe they could.
He was in no way denying that the breakup was a difficult one. But following that, they made their peace years ago.
To hear these quotes now -- including suggestions made by the interviewer which Art adopted -- I'm thinking Art wasn't as angry or bitter as he was made out to be.
Art is a pretty happy, relaxed guy. He's a hippie. He's a total in-the-sky-with-diamonds hippie. He doesn't hold onto bitterness.
And even if he weren't -- he would still have a legitimate gripe. Yes, Simon contributed the songs. But Garfunkel created the voices. He taught himself how to sing, and then he taught Simon how to sing. Garfunkel created Simon, and Simon created Garfunkel. They are completely intertwined with each other, and will always be.
And Christ Almighty -- how many bands broke up under that insane kind of pressure? That's no-one's fault. It's human beings put into situations which human beings cannot survive in.
Simon and Garfunkel broke up, made their peace, but never really got back together. The Beatles broke up, made their peace, and also never really got back together. Was that anyone's fault? Yes and no. The insane circumstances of high fame more than anything else, I'd say.
But they're all mates to the end, even if they're not together.