Mumford & Sons

[wadesworld]

Anybody else at that concert tonight?  They are incredible live.

[21Jumpstreet]

Amazing show!  Never heard the amphitheater so quiet and so loud in the same show.

[mu03eng]

It was ridiculously awesome, their performance and the fact that I was in the pit 30 feet away has ruined concerts for me forever.  Looked like the whole place was standing the whole time.

[jesmu84]

It was an outstanding concert. I'm a frequent concert-goer and it was an impressive performance. My only disappointment was length of the show. About 1:45 total. When they put out a third album, hopefully they'll go beyond 2 hours.

Edit: I was at the show in Indianapolis, not Milwaukee.

[wadesworld]

They're so good live because none of their music is the digitally enhanced crap everyone else makes. The music they make comes right from the indtruments they have on stage, so there's no difference between them sitting in a studio and them jamming on a stage in front of 25,000 people, other than the crowd, volume, and putting on a show. They sound incredible live and it's really cool to see all their different instruments and how in sync they are together. Amazing how little they use the drums as well. Also amazing how talented Marcus Mumford is, being their lead singer, their drummer, and a guitarist.

For all those in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area tonight, get on stubhub and do yourself a favor by buying some tickets. They're a must see. Cheap tickets for the St. Paul show tonight too. I literally was tempted to buy some and just go again but have taken off too much work lately.

[jesmu84]

My only (if I have one) complaint is that I like live music better than studio music because it is typically more organic and original and spontaneous. Mumford, along with other groups, play almost identically to the same notes, etc that are on the album. I'd like it if they changed some of the solos, interludes, etc up a bit to make their live shows special.

[wadesworld]

My only (if I have one) complaint is that I like live music better than studio music because it is typically more organic and original and spontaneous. Mumford, along with other groups, play almost identically to the same notes, etc that are on the album. I'd like it if they changed some of the solos, interludes, etc up a bit to make their live shows special.

Agreed I thought the same thing about them really not changing anything.  I personally like that better, but understand what you mean.

[WellsstreetWanderer]

Heard them live on Sirius and parked the car to enjoy. Couldn't believe how much the crowd was enjoying their antics between songs. Can't wait to see them live

[wadesworld]

Heard them live on Sirius and parked the car to enjoy. Couldn't believe how much the crowd was enjoying their antics between songs. Can't wait to see them live

They were pretty funny.  I think their accent alone makes everything they say seem funny.

[mu03eng]

They were pretty funny.  I think their accent alone makes everything they say seem funny.

Only a British male can get away with admitting to having the giggles.  I also enjoyed the "Milwaukee, America's drunkest city" bumper sticker on the steel guitar.

[mu03eng]

My only (if I have one) complaint is that I like live music better than studio music because it is typically more organic and original and spontaneous. Mumford, along with other groups, play almost identically to the same notes, etc that are on the album. I'd like it if they changed some of the solos, interludes, etc up a bit to make their live shows special.

I tend to agree with this concept, and they did do some cadence changes etc, but at the end of the day they are a band made to sing along with...and if they are changing things up it throws off the crowd and they want the crowd engaged.

[mu03eng]

It was an outstanding concert. I'm a frequent concert-goer and it was an impressive performance. My only disappointment was length of the show. About 1:45 total. When they put out a third album, hopefully they'll go beyond 2 hours.

Edit: I was at the show in Indianapolis, not Milwaukee.

I'd have loved for them to play a couple more songs(especially their Boxer cover), but if you think about it, the first 30 minutes was almost straight music, with very little pause and almost no banter.  Had they talked a little more in the first half they could have easily gotten to two hours and most bands do that.  So I look at it as I got all the music I would have gotten from a two hour show in a little less time.

[Silkk the Shaka]

Mumford & Sons = the new Dave Matthews Band.  Music for bland white suburbanites.

[BrewCity83]

Mumford & Sons = the new Dave Matthews Band.  Music for bland white suburbanites.

Thank you. 

[Bieberhole69]

Mumford & Sons = the new Dave Matthews Band.  Music for bland white suburbanites.

But Mumford & Sons have a banjo!!!

[jesmu84]

Mumford & Sons = the new Dave Matthews Band.  Music for bland white suburbanites.

From a musical standpoint, they are VERY different. Not that there aren't some similarities, but they fall into different musical categories. Both in their target audience, and especially in their live music

[JWags85]

From a musical standpoint, they are VERY different. Not that there aren't some similarities, but they fall into different musical categories. Both in their target audience, and especially in their live music

I think the similarities are enough to compare though.  Seemingly overnight, Mumford went from a well respected band to this summer, seemingly 80% of the people I knew were like "OMG I HAAAAVVVEEE TO SEE MUMFORD LIVE".  People I never knew to be into music before.  I knew kids in HS that didn't listen to much music but had everyone DMB album/live cd.  I wouldn't say their target audiences are as different as you may believe.  And that's not a knock on either band.  I think DMB got a bad rap for the frat bro-ness of it all, but those same dudes are all about Mumford now.

[wadesworld]

I think the similarities are enough to compare though.  Seemingly overnight, Mumford went from a well respected band to this summer, seemingly 80% of the people I knew were like "OMG I HAAAAVVVEEE TO SEE MUMFORD LIVE".  People I never knew to be into music before.  I knew kids in HS that didn't listen to much music but had everyone DMB album/live cd.  I wouldn't say their target audiences are as different as you may believe.  And that's not a knock on either band.  I think DMB got a bad rap for the frat bro-ness of it all, but those same dudes are all about Mumford now.

Ehh.  Mumford blew up before the summer.  They won Album of the Year at the Grammy's back in February.  That's the biggest award a band can win really.

[mu03eng]

I think the similarities are enough to compare though.  Seemingly overnight, Mumford went from a well respected band to this summer, seemingly 80% of the people I knew were like "OMG I HAAAAVVVEEE TO SEE MUMFORD LIVE".  People I never knew to be into music before.  I knew kids in HS that didn't listen to much music but had everyone DMB album/live cd.  I wouldn't say their target audiences are as different as you may believe.  And that's not a knock on either band.  I think DMB got a bad rap for the frat bro-ness of it all, but those same dudes are all about Mumford now.

Mumford's debut album put them on the map and they went over the top in February with the Grammy win.  They are on the leading edge of a folk rock revival, they are much more Dylan than they are DMB.  DMB was all about the jam band/party set, thats not Mumford's demo.

If you are purely talking from a band wagon perspective, there are some similarities and I would expect some backlash within the next three years, but that it pretty true of a lot of borderline superstar groups that get hot fast.  DMB was one, Nickelback was another.  When you get the backlash is when you have "fans" that love the band and the music but don't know anything else and come off as typical pop-trend followers.  These "fans" then leave a bad impression with non-fans and then there is push back.  You get fans that claim they are the biggest Mumford fans, but have never heard of the Avett Brothers, not saying you have to be a fan of both bands but to be a fan you'd have to at least be aware.  That be like claiming to be the biggest DMB fan and not knowing who Tim Reynolds is or who Theory of a Deadman is if your the last remaining Nickelback fan.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Mumford's debut album put them on the map and they went over the top in February with the Grammy win.  They are on the leading edge of a folk rock revival, they are much more Dylan than they are DMB.  DMB was all about the jam band/party set, thats not Mumford's demo.

If you are purely talking from a band wagon perspective, there are some similarities and I would expect some backlash within the next three years, but that it pretty true of a lot of borderline superstar groups that get hot fast.  DMB was one, Nickelback was another.  When you get the backlash is when you have "fans" that love the band and the music but don't know anything else and come off as typical pop-trend followers.  These "fans" then leave a bad impression with non-fans and then there is push back.  You get fans that claim they are the biggest Mumford fans, but have never heard of the Avett Brothers, not saying you have to be a fan of both bands but to be a fan you'd have to at least be aware.  That be like claiming to be the biggest DMB fan and not knowing who Tim Reynolds is or who Theory of a Deadman is if your the last remaining Nickelback fan.

It happened to Pearl Jam as well. They've stuck together long enough and are talented enough that now they are a legacy.

The really talented bands/acts can usually weather the storm of pop-trends and come out the other side. The posers just fade away, or are relegated to the casino circuit (I'm looking at you, Rick Springfield).

[mu03eng]

It happened to Pearl Jam as well. They've stuck together long enough and are talented enough that now they are a legacy.

The really talented bands/acts can usually weather the storm of pop-trends and come out the other side. The posers just fade away, or are relegated to the casino circuit (I'm looking at you, Rick Springfield).

Very true about Pearl Jam, I forgot about them.  Nirvana would have been the same way had Cobain lived.

[Spotcheck Billy]

Ehh.  Mumford blew up before the summer.  They won Album of the Year at the Grammy's back in February.  That's the biggest award a band can win really.

The Grammy's have always been a joke though (especially Jethro Tull winning one for Best Hard Rock/Metal Performance in 1989 over Metallica)

[StillAWarrior]

I can't say that I've ever really been a "fan" of M&S, but what I've heard I thought was good.  I've never been a fan of DMB.  That said, based on this thread, I used M&S to create a Pandora station and it's been pretty good.  I tend to prefer acoustic guitar, but often tend toward the signer/songwriter genre as opposed to bands.

[wadesworld]

The Grammy's have always been a joke though (especially Jethro Tull winning one for Best Hard Rock/Metal Performance in 1989 over Metallica)

Fair enough.  I guess my point was that Sigh No More (2009 release) had already been a huge hit, and then Babel (September 2012 release) completely blew up.  It wasn't just all of a sudden this summer everyone figured out who they were.

I just think it's a refreshing change of pace when a band that has such a diverse instrument selection (various horns and trumpets, various string instruments, banjos, guitars, upright bass, etc.) and doesn't need all the digital enhancements that all modern bigtime bands seem to need.  How many bands are big enough to be put into the Marcus Amphitheater and sound exactly like they do on their studio CDs as they do singing live?  I'm no musician or musical expert, but I'd guess it's far more common nowadays to see a lead singer lip singing because they truly can't sing without digital enhancements (not to mention the instruments) than it is to see a band like Mumford who sounds exactly the same live because they don't do the whole digital enhancement.

And as far as the fanbase being the same as Dave Matthews, if that's true then Mumford not only draws DMB's fans but also a whole new group that are not DMB fans.  Unless myself and almost my entire group of friends are complete outliers and not a representative of the Mumford fan group at all, almost all of us don't necessarily dislike DMB, but we certainly aren't diehard DMB fans.

[Pakuni]

Ehh.  Mumford blew up before the summer.  They won Album of the Year at the Grammy's back in February.  That's the biggest award a band can win really.

I'm a fan of Mumford, but the Grammys are the worst and should never be used as evidence of musical talent.
This is the organization that gave Album of the Year to Steely Dan over Radiohead and Natalie Cole over Nirvana, not to mention giving it to the likes of Alanis Morrisette and Toto.

Then again, they did see fit to recognize the Be Sharps as new artist of the year, so they can't be all bad.