Mumford and Sons / Coldplay

[keeno]

So I was thinking, coldplay and mumford have followed an identical path. Both started on a small stage, progressing the following year to the other stage and then both 2 years later headlining. Wierd coincidence?

Coldplay: new music stage 1999, other stage 2000, headlining 2002. Mumford: John Peel 2010, other stage 2011, headlining 2013. People seem shocked by Mumford headlining, but its been done before.

Edited May 28, 2013 by keeno

[jeffie]

But Coldplay are sort of ok, Mumfords are not....

[PDAD]

Can't stand either of them. Apparently Coldplay are good live...but i have absolutely no desire to find out..

[Matt42]

Mumford and Sons are technically coldplay 2.0...

They are living coldplay's life... What happened to coldplay is happening to them.

[keeno]

But Coldplay are sort of ok, Mumfords are not....

Edited May 28, 2013 by keeno

[PDAD]

Personal taste. But from a bookers perspective, I don't think people should be as shocked as they were, even I was shocked at first. When headlining coldplay had achieved 12x platinum album sales (adding UK, USA and AUS). Mumford has achieved 13x platinum (adding UK, USA, AUS). Maybe i'm clutching straws here.

[GlastoSimon]

Didn't realise that Coldplay had only released one album before headlining in 2002, so Mumford are in a better position in that sense. Unfortunately, the second album from them is pretty shocking, where as Coldplay's second was pretty decent (personal taste of course). It'll be interesting to see if they do pull it off.

On the 'best live band in the world' front, I can categorically state that Coldplay are not that. Lots of lights, flashy laser shows and confetti takes the emphasis completely away from them as live performers, in the same way that it works for Muse.

Edited May 28, 2013 by GlastoSimon

[Chiefski]

Can't see Mumford and Sons getting anywhere near the same level really, though popular, its hard to see where they can expand beyond their current sound, he'll even the second album, as well as it sold, only has a few worthy numbers on it (imo) where as Coldplay, like or not their second pretty much set them into orbit, had songs on constant rotation on radio etc

[ninetyeightytwo]

Despite what most publications insist, Coldplay are really quite adventurous with their sound. I do believe that their longevity owes a lot to their evolution. They could have released Parachutes/A Rush Of Blood To The Head again and again, but no - instead they take risks, they collaborate, they experiment and - to top it all off - when they play live, they truly deliver - making even stadiums filled with hundreds of thousands of people feel wonderfully intimate.

If Mumford are to enjoy similar levels of success, they'll have to move beyond using essentially the same structure for each song, and Markus is going to have to find a different metaphor for ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING than his heart.

Or, at the very least, they'll need to get a drummer.

Edited May 28, 2013 by ninetyeightytwo

[PDAD]

If Mumford are to enjoy similar levels of success, they'll have to move beyond using essentially the same structure for each song, and Markus is going to have to find a different metaphor for ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING than his heart.

Or, at the very least, they'll need to get a drummer.

[keeno]

I agree they need to diversify to maintain their current popularity. However Mumford only have 2 albums at this stage and they sound almost identical, just like Coldplay's first two albums, yellow vs in my place? So really it's easier to look back and see the steps coldplay took to result in them headlining every few years. But Mumford could very easily do the same. Right now i'd agree with GlastoSimon, they're at the same level, 3 appearances, 2 (coldplay only had 1 at their headlining stage) albums sounding almost identical, selling massive numbers. Album 3 is a crucial one for Mumford if we're to compare them to coldplay.

[PDAD]

Album 3 is a crucial one for Mumford if we're to compare them to coldplay.

[Superscally]

Yup. Coldplay are good, M*mford are shit. Two great first albums, two average following, last album was great and Pittchfork rate it as their best. They didn't even bother to review B*bel after giving S*gh N* M*re a 2.

I know Coldplay are hardly Dylan when it comes to lyrics, but Chris Martin is an absolute master of melody, probably the best in the buisness at the moment. Coldplay are also awesome live. I disagree with the comment about their stage effects not working like they do for Muse. They work differently and are far less grandiose than Muse's. If you are impressed by the scale of the pretty lights, then yeah, you'd like Muse more, but Coldplay's are very appropriate for the tunes.

Just want to say I'm not a massive Coldplay fan and have only ever seen them at festivals (including the slot in the New Bands in 1999, where I told my mate they'd never make it...), but I have also seen M*mfords live twice and they were shit. Just because you get the audience singing along does not mean you were good live.

[ninetyeightytwo]

yellow vs in my place?

Edited May 28, 2013 by ninetyeightytwo

[Matt42]

Mumford have already flat out said they are using synths in their next album.

Expect their album to be attempted experimental falling flat on it's face, but still being popular because they use the same lyrics of "I'l give you my heart" or "I'l be waiting my dear" or something to make the girls swoon.

[keeno]

Exactly that. But right now, it's premature to suggest they will follow the same success as Coldplay.

[Superscally]

Hopefully Mumford's 3rd album won't fucking exist.

[ninetyeightytwo]

What is it with Mumford and his HEART?

I actually quite liked them until I noticed they used the same metaphor in every. Single. Song.

I know it's a tad rich for a self-confessed MILITANT Coldplay fan to attack another band on lyrical grounds, but I don't know - Mumford are the sort of band who seem to think that their strength lies in their lyrics. I therefore feel that I'm only judging them on their own terms. And on their own terms, they're painfully trite and lacking.

[PDAD]

It's also premature to count them out. Coldplay took 3 years to release their 3rd album. Also 3 years until they headlined again. Mumford 2015 may be very different to Mumford 2012. So Mumford and sons headlining 2016?

[Gucci Piggy]

Yes, and i am not going to count them out, it's very possible they will remain as massive as they are. But they are a different band to Coldplay. I don't quite understand the point of this thread. If it turns out that they headline in 3 years time after a more experimental album, that has nothing to do with Coldplay. It just turns out they'd have grown at a similar rate.

[the wonderwhy]

I prefer Mumford to Coldplay.

[PDAD]

What is it with Mumford and his HEART?

I actually quite liked them until I noticed they used the same metaphor in every. Single. Song.

I know it's a tad rich for a self-confessed MILITANT Coldplay fan to attack another band on lyrical grounds, but I don't know - Mumford are the sort of band who seem to think that their strength lies in their lyrics. I therefore feel that I'm only judging them on their own terms. And on their own terms, they're painfully trite and lacking.

[ninetyeightytwo]

The point of this thread is that finally - FINALLY - Coldplay seem to have stopped being the go-to band for quasi-baseless criticism.

I've been waiting for this day since at least 2005. It feels magnificent.

I just feel sorry for any Mumford and Sons fans. It's not easy to have your moral fibre questioned by those of "superior taste".

[Gucci Piggy]

The point of this thread is that finally - FINALLY - Coldplay seem to have stopped being the go-to band for quasi-baseless criticism.

I've been waiting for this day since at least 2005. It feels magnificent.

I just feel sorry for any Mumford and Sons fans. It's not easy to have your moral fibre questioned by those of "superior taste".

[PDAD]

I'm pretty sure that's all the thread was saying...?