The Mumfarts

[Mardy]

I don't really understand the hate, they're not my cup of tea, but they clearly 'get' glastonbury and they seem like decent people, done fundraisers for AFC wimbledon etc. They're not the most thrilling band but there's a fuck of a lot worse out there, both musically and in other ways.

Russy is right, I'd not be there, but far rather they headlined than the Stones.

[Wooderson]

Theyre a bit plummy Mardy. Bit "Songs of 'king Praise with a banjo". Hooring themselves around the US as plucky Brits.

To me (urbane Dubliner as I am) this is England:

This is most certainly not:

[fatyeti24]

Theyre a bit plummy Mardy. Bit "Songs of 'king Praise with a banjo". Hooring themselves around the US as plucky Brits.

To me (urbane Dubliner as I am) this is England:

This is most certainly not:

[Wooderson]

Who would you prefer to represent you?

I'll stop you there - its the geez in the yellow hat at the Grammy Awards right?

Gotcha.

[LondonTom]

have you not been here in 30 years?

Edited January 18, 2013 by LondonTom

[fatyeti24]

Who would you prefer to represent you?

I'll stop you there - its the geez in the yellow hat at the Grammy Awards right?

Gotcha.

[thesecretingredientiscrime]

The laughable thing about them is im fairly certain none of them have been near a farm in their lives.

But as I said, no different to any other act packaging themselves.

[Ted Dansons Wig]

I thought they were Irish...

I'll get me coat

[Purple aki squat]

Dapper chaps they are.

Does Bono represent the Irish? Just a thought.

[MEGABOWL]

I didn't mean to sound precious, apologies if that was the case. I just find it a bit tiresome that whenever some bands get mentioned there's almost an involuntary reaction from some stating that they're shit and nobody has any right to an alternative view.

The point I was trying to make was that there are huge numbers of people who feel otherwise and regardless of what I, or you, think, their enjoyment is just as valid as your disdain.

And if anyone thinks that if they were to headline there would be anything other than a huge Pyramid field crowd having a fantastic time, I think they're the ones who are deluded.

Love them or hate them, they are perfect for the current Glastonbury demographic (insert different argument about current demographic here!)

[Morse Code]

Yeah sorry. Missed a smiley there after 'orecious'. Like I say, I'd be happy for them to headline, and I'd be equally happy to see a brief clip after of everyone having a great time and read that they nailed it. I'd rather see an upcoming hungry band who want to play than money-obsessed old-timers who don't know where they are. Fine with me. I just wouldn't be there.

[russycarps]

I think we just need to reassert the point that they ARE shite though. Cynical shite too.

Their old england farmer image, or whatever on earth you could call it, is just as calculated as someone like rhianna doing a video with her tits out.

It's manufactured shite designed solely to shift records and make buckets of cash.

It's really awful stuff musically, but brilliant from a marketing perspective. Of course though, the band can take no credit for this. There is a clever business man behind all this, whispering in the background "wear this, make the chorus go all shouty like this, put a banjo in here" etc etc

I dont think you can compare them to the actic monkeys at all

Edited January 18, 2013 by russycarps

[Wooderson]

Dapper chaps they are.

Does Bono represent the Irish? Just a thought.

[Guest]

Right, who here is trying to argue that Mumford aren't shit? Ban the buggers, Neil, you know it makes sense. People these days.

[thesecretingredientiscrime]

Right, who here is trying to argue that Mumford aren't shit? Ban the buggers, Neil, you know it makes sense. People these days.

[Guest]

The same as your friend with the Johnny Marr theory!

[dancelittleliar]

I don't think they're that bad

The second is quite obviously a money grab, they even said themselves it was an "advert for the live show" (which for the record is very good)

But the first album was excellent, and considering it was released in 2009, it wasn't hopping on a bandwagon or anything, really. It was actually quite innovative. Maybe innovative in a direction you don't like (that much is obvious) but still something new.

The lyrical content of the first album is above and beyond anything in the charts, and to be frank, most rock music. Yeah it may be more self indulgent, sentimental but it's not plain bad. Pretentious does not equal bad.

And musically, the first album really isn't as samey as any other album. Career wise, as soon as the managers got to them it was all about money, I'd admit that. But that doesn't make them shit per se.

I don't really get the hate. Dislike them, fine, but surely when there're bands like You Me At Six, One Direction and The Script in this world, the hate could be a little better directed

[thesecretingredientiscrime]

But the first album was excellent, and considering it was released in 2009, it wasn't hopping on a bandwagon or anything, really. It was actually quite innovative. Maybe innovative in a direction you don't

like (that much is obvious) but still something new.

[MEGABOWL]

Mumford and Sons sound *uncannily* like the Avett Brothers from what I've heard

[Guest]

I don't think they're that bad

The second is quite obviously a money grab, they even said themselves it was an "advert for the live show" (which for the record is very good)

But the first album was excellent, and considering it was released in 2009, it wasn't hopping on a bandwagon or anything, really. It was actually quite innovative. Maybe innovative in a direction you don't like (that much is obvious) but still something new.

[dancelittleliar]

Maybe you should look at the set they came out of. People like Johnny Flynn, Laura Marling, Jay Jay Pistolet etc etc were doing what Mumfords do years before (and I don't need to point out The Wurzels were doing exactly what Mumfords do, years ago.)

Are they any different from any of them? Manufactured pop?

[abdoujaparov]

Mumfords are just pretend folk music, without any of the passion or belief of good folk music. It's like a "paint by numbers" version of the Mona Lisa - it looks a bit like the real thing, but requires none of the inspiration...

[Ted Dansons Wig]

Mumford and Sons sound *uncannily* like the Avett Brothers from what I've heard

[Spider43]

Mumfords are just pretend folk music, without any of the passion or belief of good folk music. It's like a "paint by numbers" version of the Mona Lisa - it looks a bit like the real thing, but requires none of the inspiration...

Edited January 19, 2013 by Spider43

[salvador wali]

COME ON PEOPLE BE STRONG we can fight the believers