Mumford and Sons / Coldplay

[wilko8]

Music for people who don't really like music.

You can add Elbow to that list as well.

[ian_sw]

"Music for people who don't really like music"

A phrase I really dispise !!!

I love debating music and different bands merits and people's opinions but this self righteous cun*y phrase from people who see themselves as superior. They like a band who no one has heard of until they become popular then drop them like a stone, smacks of a 'look at me I'm so individual and above you' !!

* personal gripe

[MEGABOWL]

Have to say, having gone to one of the (Coldplay) stadium shows on the last tour, the focus was taken away from the band and onto the 'spectacle' - on that tour specifically. People staring at confetti flying out of a cannon at the start, 'ooh' and 'ah' at the lasers, and the wristbands as well were what captured people. But when they performed on a B-stage, just them and no flashy gimmicks, no one was that bothered. The same can be said for Muse, they get lost in the 'stadium show spectacle' sometimes, I seem to remember their 2010 Wembley shows exemplifying that. Personal opinion though I guess!

For me, a truly GREAT live act are able to hold the attention of an audience without the need for massive light shows, UFOs, lasers and confetti overload. It's a shame there aren't many out there who can do it.

[wilko8]

"Music for people who don't really like music"

A phrase I really dispise !!!

I love debating music and different bands merits and people's opinions but this self righteous cun*y phrase from people who see themselves as superior. They like a band who no one has heard of until they become popular then drop them like a stone, smacks of a 'look at me I'm so individual and above you' !!

* personal gripe

[russycarps]

stadium gigs need to have a bit of a spectacle about them dont they? I cant say I've seen many bands at a stadium, but I'm going to see roger waters at wembley in september. Should he be criticised for not just coming on stage and playing the guitar with his band?

As for coldplay/muse/elbow/mumfords, I think the first album or two for coldplay/muse/elbow were not bad, then they started writing songs with playing at arenas in mind (elbow even admitted this!) and it all went to shit. But then that music is what appeals to the masses and makes them money, so they carry on churning out more of the same.

Having money and fame I guess are a greater lure to a lot of people than sticking to their original ethos. And why not?

I bet elbow much prefer playing one day like this to a packed arena than powder blue to a thousand fans at shepherds bush empire. And getting a million quid to do so.

mumfords are different in so far as they have written and had their songs produced purely to become famous. I bet they hate the music they perform.

There is a reason a lot of the older fans go off bands when they become famous, it's not snobbery, its because they have to leave their old sound behind in order to be come famous. And shit sells.

[ian_sw]

Fair enough ...

It's just that phrase, seen it used on here so many times by people trying to belittle someone's taste in music. Whilst boosting their own ego about some band they caught in the Dublin Castle back room last night.

Think you may have been the recipient of my long boiling rage at that phrase finally boiling over, sorry if was a bit OTT.

[jimmyt]

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.

[MEGABOWL]

stadium gigs need to have a bit of a spectacle about them dont they? I cant say I've seen many bands at a stadium, but I'm going to see roger waters at wembley in september. Should he be criticised for not just coming on stage and playing the guitar with his band?

As for coldplay/muse/elbow/mumfords, I think the first album or two for coldplay/muse/elbow were not bad, then they started writing songs with playing at arenas in mind (elbow even admitted this!) and it all went to shit. But then that music is what appeals to the masses and makes them money, so they carry on churning out more of the same.

Having money and fame I guess are a greater lure to a lot of people than sticking to their original ethos. And why not?

I bet elbow much prefer playing one day like this to a packed arena than powder blue to a thousand fans at shepherds bush empire. And getting a million quid to do so.

mumfords are different in so far as they have written and had their songs produced purely to become famous. I bet they hate the music they perform.

There is a reason a lot of the older fans go off bands when they become famous, it's not snobbery, its because they have to leave their old sound behind in order to be come famous. And shit sells.

[James Bolivar]

Music for people who don't really like music.

You can add Elbow to that list as well.

[James Bolivar]

There is a reason a lot of the older fans go off bands when they become famous, it's not snobbery, its because they have to leave their old sound behind in order to be come famous. And shit sells.

[keeno]

^ cool story everyone.

But this is about mumford following an identical trajectory to Coldplay, in regards to Glastonbury appearances.

[FloorFiller]

interesting thread, and i can definitely see what the OP means.

both took off absolutely massively upon formation and release of first couple of albums (Coldplay did it over here first, Mumfords managed to break the US first).

both are fairly radio friendly fodder that your mum probably enjoys - whilst Coldplay's first two (even three) albums may not have been the most experimental, they were miles ahead of Mumfords, who, as everybody else has said, will need to make some kind of step up for their third album as everybody's now cottoned on that their second is a rehash of their first (and why wouldn't it be? their first did them wonders)

both became whipping boys for everybody who considers themselves 'a music fan' - Coldplay, unfairly so i think, and Mumfords... imo, rightly so. Coldplay get a lot of flack for what they do but they write fantastic songs and always have. they've had their high and low points, and i can't really abide by a Rihanna collaboration (although these days it seems more effort to NOT have Rihanna on your album) but for the most part they've got a pretty solid back catalogue and with their last two albums have done their best to shed their 'mope rock' tag. bit too early to say if Mumfords will fair quite as well but... probably not. they've somewhat put themselves into a corner where they've established a key sound, and i doubt they'll vary from it very much

Edited May 29, 2013 by FloorFiller

[Guest]

Altogether now

[Mardy]

it's interesting this, I'm not sure progressing and developing is the be all and end all. Different for different bands. I love the fact that Blur changed and progressd and redefined themselves between each album. It's the great muscial narrative of my generation. That said, some bands, it suits them to stay yhte same all the way through. The Ramones, for example, fucking wonderful and no way I want them to start pissing about with their new Prog-Rock dimension. 'There's always been a dance element to our music'. If Mumfords can get 80000 people in the Pyramid field to bello along to 'Little Lion Man' or whatever, that's a hell of a fucking thing, and by refusing to acknowledge it, you mark yourself out, not as a music fan, but as a fan of certain bands. Which in itself is fine, we all are. Just don't give me that 'I love music' bollocks. What you mean is 'I like music that I like, and I don't like music I don't like'. Essentially meaningless.

I'm no fan of Mumfords, and it's easy for me to spout bile about them, but you know what, it's a cheap gag. They believe in Glasonbury, they support it and their hearts in the right place. I got no problem with them headlining. Or playing wherever they fucking want on the bill. Rather them than (*insert name of band/act here*)

[russycarps]

I cant really remember, but I dont really remember there being huge amounts of dislike for coldplay after their first album.

Everything about mumfords is wrong. The phoney music, the phoney clothes, the phoney name of the band. It's awful.

You cant compare mumfords to coldplay. It's nonsense

[PDAD]

Altogether now

[MEGABOWL]

interesting thread, and i can definitely see what the OP means.

both took off absolutely massively upon formation and release of first couple of albums (Coldplay did it over here first, Mumfords managed to break the US first).

both are fairly radio friendly fodder that your mum probably enjoys - whilst Coldplay's first two (even three) albums may not have been the most experimental, they were miles ahead of Mumfords, who, as everybody else has said, will need to make some kind of step up for their third album as everybody's now cottoned on that their second is a rehash of their first (and why wouldn't it be? their first did them wonders)

both became whipping boys for everybody who considers themselves 'a music fan' - Coldplay, unfairly so i think, and Mumfords... imo, rightly so. Coldplay get a lot of flack for what they do but they write fantastic songs and always have. they've had their high and low points, and i can't really abide by a Rihanna collaboration (although these days it seems more effort to NOT have Rihanna on your album) but for the most part they've got a pretty solid back catalogue and with their last two albums have done their best to shed their 'mope rock' tag. bit too early to say if Mumfords will fair quite as well but... probably not. they've somewhat put themselves into a corner where they've established a key sound, and i doubt they'll vary from it very much

[PDAD]

Everything about mumfords is wrong. The phoney music, the phoney clothes, the phoney name of the band. It's awful.

[Guest]

Shit loads of people love McDonalds and KFC, they're so immensely popular that they have to be great yes? And any foodie who says they're food for people who don't really like food is just being a snob.

[keeno]

I cant really remember, but I dont really remember there being huge amounts of dislike for coldplay after their first album.

Everything about mumfords is wrong. The phoney music, the phoney clothes, the phoney name of the band. It's awful.

You cant compare mumfords to coldplay. It's nonsense

[Guest]

Just because it doesn't appeal to you doesn't make it phoney. Their music doesn't appeal to you, but it's still music - they're not faking it? They can play an instrument and sing better than I can.

[russycarps]

Just because it doesn't appeal to you doesn't make it phoney. Their music doesn't appeal to you, but it's still music - they're not faking it? They can play an instrument and sing better than I can.

[Mardy]

The main thing that annoys me about the X-Factor generation is that people think the ability to sing is a talent worthy of note. It's not. Thousands of people can sing, but they're not Nina Simone, thousands of people can play guitar, they are most certainly not Chuck Berry. Ability is just the basic rudimentary foundations, if you've got nothing to contribute or nothing to say then you're another useless wetbag, like Marcus Mumford.

[James Bolivar]

Shit loads of people love McDonalds and KFC, they're so immensely popular that they have to be great yes? And any foodie who says they're food for people who don't really like food is just being a snob.

[Mardy]

Snobbish or not it is true - fuck awful food made to not be disliked, on a budget. There are better alternatives, but that involves searching and, frequently, being disappointed. Worse, what do you do when your friends don't like your favourite food?