Amy Lawn Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 You can't even describe them as a flash in the pan, there was nothing flashy about them. Truly, the worst band. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dentalplan Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 Musical equivalent of Kony 2012. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zero000 Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 The worst thing to happen to banjos since the deliverance soundtrack. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arcade fireman Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, FloorFiller said: Credible and critical acclaim goes out of the window when you're as big as Mumfords were at the time of them headlining. Seems odd looking back now but for a short period in 2013 they were the hottest band in the world, and Glastonbury got them at perfect time (or worst, depending on how you look at it, as I doubt they would've been booked in any of the following years or will be ever again) Mumfords were big for sure, but not big enough to get a headline slot off the back of essentially one album, since the second one they were touring and clearly wasn't anything like as successful. They've never had a no1 single, the highest charting single from the debut got to no5. I think Glastonbury headliner slots should be (and usually have been) about something a little more substantial than just a flash in the pan. Usually bands that headline on their second album tour don't do very well - even the Arctics weren't a particularly strong booking in '07 and they'd been much bigger - when you've essentially got one huge album and another which people don't like as much you will struggle for material in a Glasto headline spot. Edited January 7, 2017 by arcade fireman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubenz Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 1 hour ago, GETOFFAMYLAWN said: You can't even describe them as a flash in the pan, there was nothing flashy about them. Truly, the worst band. Turd in the pan would be a more realistic description Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amy Lawn Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 15 minutes ago, zero000 said: The worst thing to happen to banjos since the deliverance soundtrack. The worst thing to happen to banjo strings since... never mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amy Lawn Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 3 minutes ago, arcade fireman said: Mumfords were big for sure, but not big enough to get a headline slot off the back of essentially one album, since the second one they were touring and clearly wasn't anything like as successful. They've never had a no1 single, the highest charting single from the debut got to no5. Lots of bands like Kasabian, Muse, and Metallica have headlined without ever having a number 1 single, singles aren't a big deal. Mumford & Sons sold colossal amount of those two albums, they couldn't have done anything but headline. And they had the whole "friends of the festival" thing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
addicted2noise Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 5 hours ago, dentalplan said: I think it was the fact that it wasn't unique and was no longer a selling point that they abandoned it. I suppose they at least made a fist of being a stadium rock band instead of going down with the heycore thing. In hindsight, it's impressive that Glastonbury took the chance on the only year they were an appropriate, contemporary headliner. Same might end up happening to Sheeran but at this point he's definitely a 2013 Mumfords rather than a 2015 one. I think another part of the reason for the change was that their sound ended up becoming pretty ubiquitous with many similar sounding acts in the chart, it might not of worked but i give them credit for trying as they could've very easyly ran it into the ground. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rose-Colored Boy Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 2 hours ago, arcade fireman said: Second single from the album didn't even make the top 100. Wonderfully selective reading of the facts there I Will Wait is statistically their most successful song ever, even more so than The Cave and Little Lion Man Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woffy Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 7 minutes ago, Zac Quinn said: Wonderfully selective reading of the facts there I Will Wait is statistically their most successful song ever, even more so than The Cave and Little Lion Man Christ. Arguing almost semantically over Mumfucks singles is actually a thing! Banjantics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arcade fireman Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Zac Quinn said: Wonderfully selective reading of the facts there I Will Wait is statistically their most successful song ever, even more so than The Cave and Little Lion Man But if the second album was truly a successful one, surely the other singles would've done a bit better than top 100? It's hardly a high bar. Of course the first single after a big debut is going to chart highly - anticipation is always big at that point. But look at the Arctic's second album - Fluorescent Adolescent the second single still got to 5 and even the third single got to number 20. Mumford's second album sold only a bit over half what the first album did in the UK with the majority of sales being in the first week. I don't think there's any arguing their second album was a bit of a flop. Which was a big reason why they were such a weak booking. Edited January 7, 2017 by arcade fireman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloorFiller Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 1 minute ago, arcade fireman said: But if the second album was truly a successful one, surely the other singles would've done a bit better than top 100? It's hardly a high bar. Of course the first single after a big debut is going to chart highly - anticipation is always big at that point. But look at the Arctic's second album - Fluorescent Adolescent the second single still got to 5 and even the third single got to number 20. Mumford's second album sold only a bit over half what the first album did in the UK with the majority of sales being in the first week. I don't think there's any arguing their second album was a bit of a flop. Think you're going too far down the rabbit hole here. There second album was in every aspect a humongous success. It didnt matter that the singles didn't break the charts - if I remember correctly more than half the album placed in the singles chart(s) purely through album sales alone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Superscally Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 It doesn't change the fact they're fucking SHITE. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rose-Colored Boy Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 23 minutes ago, Woffy said: Christ. Arguing almost semantically over Mumfucks singles is actually a thing! Banjantics. 16 minutes ago, FloorFiller said: Think you're going too far down the rabbit hole here. There second album was in every aspect a humongous success. It didnt matter that the singles didn't break the charts - if I remember correctly more than half the album placed in the singles chart(s) purely through album sales alone Quite Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
addicted2noise Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 16 minutes ago, arcade fireman said: But if the second album was truly a successful one, surely the other singles would've done a bit better than top 100? It's hardly a high bar. Of course the first single after a big debut is going to chart highly - anticipation is always big at that point. But look at the Arctic's second album - Fluorescent Adolescent the second single still got to 5 and even the third single got to number 20. Mumford's second album sold only a bit over half what the first album did in the UK with the majority of sales being in the first week. I don't think there's any arguing their second album was a bit of a flop. Which was a big reason why they were such a weak booking. Yeah I know what you mean, I think many people who liked their debut felt the 2nd album was just more of the same and got bored of it which tends to happen when following up a massively successful album. I think maybe the same could've happened with Adele's last album (although to a far lesser extent) and it'll be interesting to see if Ed Sheeran can avoid a similar fate with his new one (I have seen one or two comments saying his new songs aren't on a par with his previous stuff although I'm not sure that means anything). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuartbert two hats Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 20 minutes ago, addicted2noise said: Yeah I know what you mean, I think many people who liked their debut felt the 2nd album was just more of the same and got bored of it which tends to happen when following up a massively successful album. I think maybe the same could've happened with Adele's last album (although to a far lesser extent) and it'll be interesting to see if Ed Sheeran can avoid a similar fate with his new one (I have seen one or two comments saying his new songs aren't on a par with his previous stuff although I'm not sure that means anything). I've come to the conclusion that a great new album should still sound like the band, yet should somehow not sound like any of their old music. Mumfords managed to get it wrong both times. The second album literally sounded like a continuation of the debut and the third album had no recognisable identity as the same band. In fact they pulled off a hell of a trick on the third album if you think of it - sounding nothing like their old work, but quite similar to lots of other people's. Landfill Stadium Rock. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dentalplan Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 (edited) The 2nd Mumfords album was the one that won the Best Album Grammy wasn't it? I know that's just an accolade at an American award ceremony but its the one award at the one ceremony that record labels seem to care the most dearly about. Probably won't have lost too much sleep that the album only stayed in the top 40 for one year rather than two with that under their belt. Edited January 7, 2017 by dentalplan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaledonianGonzo Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 Sales aside, they lost the zeitgeist - and in a world where no one really buys albums any more there's a lot to be said for merely capturing- and continuing to hold - the curiosity of the wider public. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eldest200 Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 (edited) Is it just me or does Ed Sheeran write the same songs all the time? They always seem to be about a girl. Especially the new songs that are just released. Edited January 7, 2017 by eldest200 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaledonianGonzo Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 Isn't Castle On The Hill about class divides and the housing crisis? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaledonianGonzo Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 And hills? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eldest200 Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 1 minute ago, CaledonianGonzo said: Isn't Castle On The Hill about class divides and the housing crisis? and the speed limit so thats something different Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amy Lawn Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 53 minutes ago, CaledonianGonzo said: Sales aside, they lost the zeitgeist - and in a world where no one really buys albums any more there's a lot to be said for merely capturing- and continuing to hold - the curiosity of the wider public. Aha, so you're thinking the fact that Lentil Soup and the lads were a bunch of boring boarding school tosspots and no good for the tabloids brought about their fast demise? I'd say you might be onto something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
henry bear Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 40 minutes ago, CaledonianGonzo said: Isn't Castle On The Hill about class divides and the housing crisis? And singing along to Elton John at 90mph. 'Shape of You' however seems to be about the joy of objectifying women. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amy Lawn Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 1 minute ago, play it cool said: 'Shape of You' however seems to be about the joy of objectifying women. It's a crap song like, but you can't exactly get at him for saying he finds a woman physically attractive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.