Mumfords - you doubters.

[Morse Code]

I see your point but lets be fair, there are way to progress your sound without genre hopping. Springsteen did change it up on his latest album to be fair too.

See the national as case in point, no album is the same but with each one their sound has evolved. Mumford literally put out the exact same album as their first.

[stokelad84]

I thought they were superb (but I was a fan before seeing them)

I don't get the 'back catalogue' arguement. Plenty of festivals are headlined by people with on their first or second album these days. Including the Friday night headliner some years ago.

[tumbles]

The type of people who walked around singing their guff music confirmed to me it's music for the easily pleased. Bland samey shite.

[elias]

If something isn't broken then why fix it? Their music is their music - could you see Iron Maiden changing to disco as their second album? Can you see Bruce Springsteen changing the style of his next album from boring American rock to reggae?

[Riggins]

That's your first sensible post of the day and you're absolutely right. Whether they build on their current success or not will depend on them now evolving their sound. They don't need to change completely but they can't churn out the same record for a third time.

I'm a fan by the way and even I can see this!

[mandolin]

Out of interest, anyone see Bobby Womack? Any good?

[TaBoosh]

Not a fan of them but even so, I don't think they deserved a hand-line slot at Glastonbury.

That said, the atmosphere was great and the police laughing and bopping along at the top was a great sight.

I can picture the Eavis conversation during booking something along the lines of "They're not really a headline act, but we can probably book them on the cheap and get away with it".

[Cockney_Jesus]

I thought they were amazing, absolutely loved it but I do wish they'd been 2nd or 3rd down (even though they're big enough to headline)

[Matt42]

They were fantastic in my opinion, I think they are a headliner.

It might just be because I don't mind them, but they really REALLY nailed that slot.

[Poppydog]

From The Guardian blog (as 'The Mumfords' were playing) making a fair point:

Anyway, I'm going Pic'n'Mix. I know BW is better but I've gone back to Mumfords. I agree with you all about everything they do sounding so samey. And there not being many huge melodies. So why do so many – and it is millions of people – love them? Lots of people love them, they don't just casually buy the records. And please don't say it's because they're all stupid. Mumfords touch something powerfully in these people: you're not there for the sex or the glamour or the spectacular stage show. What is that thing? I don't feel it either, even if I don't imagine myself ever loving them? Or is the problem our own cynicism? I was madly cynical about Springsteen until less than 10 years ago – I left an hour early because I hated everything about the gig the first time I saw him – but I made a leap of faith. I deliberately cast aside all the restraints that my stupid self-conditioning as a "music person" had put in me – the stupid dogmatism about what was "right" or "wrong" that fit in my with my self-image. I jumped: that's what it was. I don't think Marcus Mumford is a Springsteen, but there has to be something there. I don't believe they'd be this popular if there wasn't.

[Morse Code]

From The Guardian blog (as 'The Mumfords' were playing) making a fair point:

Anyway, I'm going Pic'n'Mix. I know BW is better but I've gone back to Mumfords. I agree with you all about everything they do sounding so samey. And there not being many huge melodies. So why do so many and it is millions of people love them? Lots of people love them, they don't just casually buy the records. And please don't say it's because they're all stupid. Mumfords touch something powerfully in these people: you're not there for the sex or the glamour or the spectacular stage show. What is that thing? I don't feel it either, even if I don't imagine myself ever loving them? Or is the problem our own cynicism? I was madly cynical about Springsteen until less than 10 years ago I left an hour early because I hated everything about the gig the first time I saw him but I made a leap of faith. I deliberately cast aside all the restraints that my stupid self-conditioning as a "music person" had put in me the stupid dogmatism about what was "right" or "wrong" that fit in my with my self-image. I jumped: that's what it was. I don't think Marcus Mumford is a Springsteen, but there has to be something there. I don't believe they'd be this popular if there wasn't.

[Somersetsun]

They're 'acceptable' folk. For the consumer masses. People dance to them, in that ironic silly dancing swing your pants country dancing kind of way. But the thing is, they love it. The riffs are happy even when the words are not, sometimes, and they're drinking songs, the ones you sing just the verse of all the way home because that's all you can remember.

We watched, we early left, we nearly didn't leave Pumpkins but I'm glad we did, it was a happy joyous exuberant place to be and it was a lovely way to end the 'main' programming.

I agree too soon though.

[Morse Code]

I'm tired and probably not putting my points across very well!

I was a fan when the debut came out but was very disappointed with Babel. I'll listen to the next one but if I don't see anything from that I think I'll give up on them.

[thesecretingredientiscrime]

From The Guardian blog (as 'The Mumfords' were playing) making a fair point:

Anyway, I'm going Pic'n'Mix. I know BW is better but I've gone back to Mumfords. I agree with you all about everything they do sounding so samey. And there not being many huge melodies. So why do so many – and it is millions of people – love them? Lots of people love them, they don't just casually buy the records. And please don't say it's because they're all stupid. Mumfords touch something powerfully in these people: you're not there for the sex or the glamour or the spectacular stage show. What is that thing? I don't feel it either, even if I don't imagine myself ever loving them? Or is the problem our own cynicism? I was madly cynical about Springsteen until less than 10 years ago – I left an hour early because I hated everything about the gig the first time I saw him – but I made a leap of faith. I deliberately cast aside all the restraints that my stupid self-conditioning as a "music person" had put in me – the stupid dogmatism about what was "right" or "wrong" that fit in my with my self-image. I jumped: that's what it was. I don't think Marcus Mumford is a Springsteen, but there has to be something there. I don't believe they'd be this popular if there wasn't.

[alframsey]

I personally thought they were one of the least interesting acts I have ever had the displeasure of watching, we stayed for about 6 songs then left for some reggae tunes in Silver Hayes (which was brilliant I might add). Really really underwhelmed by Mumford & Sons, definitely don't have the songs to do a proper headliners set.

[scrippit]

I didn't see the Mumfords having seen them twice already. First time was with 150 peeps at the Glee Club in Birmingham and they were raw and quite brilliant. Second time at Wolverhampton Civic Hall, great but it was clear that they had beefed up their sound for larger audiences. We decided we had seen them at their best and enjoyed Cat Power instead.

I agree second album doesn't match the first, and it will be interesting to see if they can step it up for the third. Not sure why they create so much polarised opinion though. Is it cause they're posh?

[GuitarManDan15]

I detected a lot of 'hatred' for Mumfords as a headline booking on these boards over recent months.

2 years ago I 'predicted' to friends that they would headline within 2 glastos ie '13 or '14 and low and behold. They'd done their dues by Glasto and frankly were big enough.

So, I was right in the centre for their set (even though I was ambivalent before Glasto as to whether I would be at their set or elsewhere).

The crowd reception there was absolutely PHENOMENAL, and I cannot recall seeing so much 'shoulder climbing' for a headliner as I did here.

The crowd down there loved it. I though the set was great.

The festival cannot survive just on 'old crusties' as headliners and will need to continue to 'move with the kids'. We oldies (I'm 60+) don't own the festival and are certainly not the v. long term future of it - the 'kids' are.

A big up for the Mumfords set and for those of you who said they didn't deserve it

YA BOOO SUCKS!!!!!!!!!

[Cockney_Jesus]

You're the first person I've come across who has had anything good to say about that set. Everyone I've chatted to who watched it there on or tv have said it was dull as dishwater and utter dogshite!

[Guest]

From The Guardian blog (as 'The Mumfords' were playing) making a fair point:

Anyway, I'm going Pic'n'Mix. I know BW is better but I've gone back to Mumfords. I agree with you all about everything they do sounding so samey. And there not being many huge melodies. So why do so many – and it is millions of people – love them? Lots of people love them, they don't just casually buy the records. And please don't say it's because they're all stupid. Mumfords touch something powerfully in these people: you're not there for the sex or the glamour or the spectacular stage show. What is that thing? I don't feel it either, even if I don't imagine myself ever loving them? Or is the problem our own cynicism? I was madly cynical about Springsteen until less than 10 years ago – I left an hour early because I hated everything about the gig the first time I saw him – but I made a leap of faith. I deliberately cast aside all the restraints that my stupid self-conditioning as a "music person" had put in me – the stupid dogmatism about what was "right" or "wrong" that fit in my with my self-image. I jumped: that's what it was. I don't think Marcus Mumford is a Springsteen, but there has to be something there. I don't believe they'd be this popular if there wasn't.

[showmethestones]

Most of the hate on this forum is down to the fact they are posh boys

[Morse Code]

You're the first person I've come across who has had anything good to say about that set. Everyone I've chatted to who watched it there on or tv have said it was dull as dishwater and utter dogshite!

[Morse Code]

They're massively popular because a bunch of dumb broads like their Twilight lyrics. Marcus Mumford is the older girls' Edward Cullen, he's crafted an image for himself that's a cliched romantic old timey stable boy from Mills & Boone, throw in a couple of "my dear"s and the ladies swoon for it. The boys that like it, well they are just stupid.

[MEGABOWL]

All I heard last night was people moaning about them. Only positive comments was 2 girls camped near me.

[abu hamster]

Did the fans manage to clap in time to this set? The John Peel set in 2011 was ruined by people unable tp clap in time.

[GuitarManDan15]

I also enjoyed it if you saw my previous comment...

Edited July 1, 2013 by GuitarManDan15