Mumford & Sons

[Farmer John]

I really don't care one way or the other about this band.

[Jorge]

I find it hard to muster up hate for this band. They seem pretty harmless. Maybe because I don't live somewhere where they're very ubiquitous.

[Wendy Carlos's Twin]

They're like a modern day Hootie & The Blowfish.

Except nobody falls for that fake Southern twang anymore, so they had to add a banjo to make it "unique".

[BDB]

Sign No More is a great album.
Babel is the exact same ablum though.

They put on a very good live show.
Generally they dont seem like THAT big of douce bags. maybe because i dont follow every interview or news article, but as someone else said they seem harmless.

confession: i have seen them twice (once at bridge school), and seeing them again later this summer.

[dissident32]

People who rail against this band tend to lose my attention towards their other opinions. Like them, don't like them, hate them. Valid responses to someone making music. Obsess about how they're the worst thing in the world, however, and make a campaign of telling everyone so, and I feel like you don't have much to say about music.

This article is a good example of that stupidity: http://noisey.vice.com/blog/dont-let-mu ... iking-them

[epilogue]

Sign No More is a great album.
Babel is the exact same ablum though.

Yep.

But since I love Sigh No More, I appreciate Babel as well. I wish it took more chances, but whatever. Their music still moves me. I'm excited to see if there is any shifting of gears on their third release. If not, I'll probably walk away; happy to have gotten two solid albums, and thrilled to have Sigh No More.

[BDB]

There's a lot of hilarious moments in this video, but Jason Bateman at the 4:33 mark made me choke on my drink.

just watching this now, and it is fucking hilarious. i like that they can make fun of themselves.

[harmless]

Sign No More is a great album.
Babel is the exact same ablum though, except not as good.

This, except for the fact that seeing them live on TV too many times has turned me off them quite a bit. They're too U2 to be a folk band.

[epilogue]

There's a lot of hilarious moments in this video, but Jason Bateman at the 4:33 mark made me choke on my drink.

just watching this now, and it is fucking hilarious. i like that they can make fun of themselves.

So glad someone actually watched the video. Feelin' good about OB, team. Feelin' real good.

[lefty]

My opinion of Mumford & Sons is that they're not as good as people who love them think they are, and not as bad as people who hate them think they are.

</USELESS POST>

This is basically how I feel. Their music is okay, but there's little variety between songs, let alone their two albums. At the same time, I don't see how a band of their style could manage to be so hated. It's not like they are bunch of Scott Stapps and Justin Biebers.

[psychobain]

[Chris B 2414]

I like this band. I really like Sigh No More- my students introduced it/them to me. And Babel is an logical and solid follow up. (Aren't most acts' 2nd albums an extension of their 1st?) We look for original sounds, things that change pop music and inspire a new sound- like R.E.M. did or the Beastie Boys did, whatever. I think some of you have taken a quick scan listen and dismissed them. "Matchbox 20 with a banjo" ? Come on!! To me, they are part, and in some ways, the first breakthrough of a pretty interesting new sound with the Avett Bros. etc. The songwriting and musicianship is terrific, there are no gimmicks or bullshit, and any Pearl Jam music snob would appreciate how hard they bring it live.

I've learned the hard way that no one convinces anyone of anything on this board...but I disagree with the out and out dismissal of them as a good, original sounding band.

[harmless]

I love their first album. Their second one is OK, but shows no progression really. They are a good band, but original and without gimmicks they are not.

[Chris B 2414]

Yes, because there are 100s of pop bands using banjos, violins, big bass and single drums out there. Oh, wait....
And their gimmick is flannel shirts, boots, short hair and jeans...holy shit, they are like the NY Dolls!

Alright, sorry for the snarky reply...but in your response is exactly that unsubstantiated, hand waving dismissal that I disagree with.

[Jorge]

Yes, because there are 100s of pop bands using banjos, violins, big bass and single drums out there.

Well, there are hundreds of thousands of string bands with that setup. That they appropriate the instrumentation to write pop songs isn't particularly impressive.

[harmless]

Yes, because there are 100s of pop bands using banjos, violins, big bass and single drums out there. Oh, wait....

There are, and there have been for decades.

And their gimmick is flannel shirts, boots, short hair and jeans...holy shit, they are like the NY Dolls!

Their gimmick is a superficial 'folk' sound without much knowledge of, or interest in, the history of genuine folk music. They are a mixture of 'emotional-crescendo' rock music a la Coldplay, and folk. They also arose out of a London / Home Counties Indie scene which is notably middle-class, and just as immersed in British Indie rock and electro.

Alright, sorry for the snarky reply...but in your response is exactly that unsubstantiated, hand waving dismissal that I disagree with.

You can disagree all you want. As I say, I enjoy them for what they are and the first album means quite a lot to me lyrically and musically. I'm attached to their folk sound, superficial or not. But I wonder whether they'll stick to it when it doesn't work for them, or become electro. They remind me of Kings of Leon in the fact that there is a good band there, potentially a great one, but they will do what works commercially. While 'folk' is in, they'll be 'folk'.

[wilkins]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/arts/story/2013/ ... imcoe.html

[harmless]

That's a pretty cool thing to do.

[Chris B 2414]

Yes, because there are 100s of pop bands using banjos, violins, big bass and single drums out there. Oh, wait....

There are, and there have been for decades.

And their gimmick is flannel shirts, boots, short hair and jeans...holy shit, they are like the NY Dolls!

Their gimmick is a superficial 'folk' sound without much knowledge of, or interest in, the history of genuine folk music. They are a mixture of 'emotional-crescendo' rock music a la Coldplay, and folk. They also arose out of a London / Home Counties Indie scene which is notably middle-class, and just as immersed in British Indie rock and electro.

Alright, sorry for the snarky reply...but in your response is exactly that unsubstantiated, hand waving dismissal that I disagree with.

You can disagree all you want. As I say, I enjoy them for what they are and the first album means quite a lot to me lyrically and musically. I'm attached to their folk sound, superficial or not. But I wonder whether they'll stick to it when it doesn't work for them, or become electro. They remind me of Kings of Leon in the fact that there is a good band there, potentially a great one, but they will do what works commercially. While 'folk' is in, they'll be 'folk'.

Ok...I need to retract the word "unsubstantiated" Everything you said was substantiated.
You are definitely not who my ire is directed towards- actually, most of the posts here are solid. My paradigm is this: I have friends that roughly share my music taste and like basically every band I like, except Mumford. Their reasoning for that pisses me off. I don't usually care about what my friends listen to...except in this particular case, they have dismissed them quickly simply because they got popular. The old "too cool for school" attitude. Most good bands are or will be the "flavor of the month" for a bit...the ones who survive that and stick around become great. They have a chance.

[harmless]

Yes, because there are 100s of pop bands using banjos, violins, big bass and single drums out there. Oh, wait....

There are, and there have been for decades.

And their gimmick is flannel shirts, boots, short hair and jeans...holy shit, they are like the NY Dolls!

Their gimmick is a superficial 'folk' sound without much knowledge of, or interest in, the history of genuine folk music. They are a mixture of 'emotional-crescendo' rock music a la Coldplay, and folk. They also arose out of a London / Home Counties Indie scene which is notably middle-class, and just as immersed in British Indie rock and electro.

Alright, sorry for the snarky reply...but in your response is exactly that unsubstantiated, hand waving dismissal that I disagree with.

You can disagree all you want. As I say, I enjoy them for what they are and the first album means quite a lot to me lyrically and musically. I'm attached to their folk sound, superficial or not. But I wonder whether they'll stick to it when it doesn't work for them, or become electro. They remind me of Kings of Leon in the fact that there is a good band there, potentially a great one, but they will do what works commercially. While 'folk' is in, they'll be 'folk'.

Ok...I need to retract the word "unsubstantiated" Everything you said was substantiated.
You are definitely not who my ire is directed towards- actually, most of the posts here are solid. My paradigm is this: I have friends that roughly share my music taste and like basically every band I like, except Mumford. Their reasoning for that pisses me off. I don't usually care about what my friends listen to...except in this particular case, they have dismissed them quickly simply because they got popular. The old "too cool for school" attitude. Most good bands are or will be the "flavor of the month" for a bit...the ones who survive that and stick around become great. They have a chance.

I agree with that. I think they're young, a bit cocky, but they have a lot of potential if they remember to keep growing and don't just give up when their London scene collapses. I hope they become something. Like Jorge says, they're better than their detractors give them credit for and not quite as good as their uber-fans say they are.