Anybody else at that concert tonight? They are incredible live.
Amazing show! Never heard the amphitheater so quiet and so loud in the same show.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: jesmu84 on September 04, 2013, 09:37:51 AM
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.
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
Quote from: elephantraker on September 04, 2013, 10:02:52 AM
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.
Quote from: wadesworld on September 04, 2013, 10:04:14 AM
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.
Quote from: jesmu84 on September 04, 2013, 09:37:51 AM
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.
Quote from: jesmu84 on September 04, 2013, 09:08:58 AM
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.
Mumford & Sons = the new Dave Matthews Band. Music for bland white suburbanites.
Quote from: Jajuannaman on September 04, 2013, 02:12:19 PM
Mumford & Sons = the new Dave Matthews Band. Music for bland white suburbanites.
Thank you.
Quote from: Jajuannaman on September 04, 2013, 02:12:19 PM
Mumford & Sons = the new Dave Matthews Band. Music for bland white suburbanites.
But Mumford & Sons have a banjo!!!
Quote from: Jajuannaman on September 04, 2013, 02:12:19 PM
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
Quote from: jesmu84 on September 04, 2013, 02:45:50 PM
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.
Quote from: JWags85 on September 04, 2013, 03:17:52 PM
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.
Quote from: JWags85 on September 04, 2013, 03:17:52 PM
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.
Quote from: mu03eng on September 04, 2013, 03:43:10 PM
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).
Quote from: Guns n Ammo on September 04, 2013, 03:51:13 PM
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.
Quote from: wadesworld on September 04, 2013, 03:29:51 PM
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)
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.
Quote from: Red Stripe on September 04, 2013, 04:15:38 PM
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.
Quote from: wadesworld on September 04, 2013, 03:29:51 PM
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.
If you guys like live music and are in Milwaukee around Halloween check out Umphreys McGee at the Riverside. They're playing 3 nights and they can throw down.
Quote from: wadesworld on September 04, 2013, 04:28:53 PM
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.
You need to see more shows if you think bands can't sound like their studio albums live. Usually, there are places where sound is better or worse. Arenas are terrible. Outdoor venues will ALWAYS sound better.
Quote from: mu03eng on September 04, 2013, 03:43:10 PM
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.
Tim Reynolds is who you're going for? Come on there's OAR(beyond love and memories and crazy game of poker) there's dispatch/state radio there's umphreys McGee etc i don't think Tim Reynolds make or breaks a jam fan. And Avett Bros are pretty big (saw em with violent femmes at summerfest) I'd go for lumineers or something.
Regaurding the similarities and differences are easily seen in Philip Phillips that guy crosses between sounding like mumford and sons to DMB seemlessly.
the Mumford show in Milwaukee is available for download as FLAC, DVD and even Blu-ray at the Dime
Quote from: Red Stripe on September 09, 2013, 02:01:40 PM
the Mumford show in Milwaukee is available for download as FLAC, DVD and even Blu-ray at the Dime
Link?
Quote from: swoopem on September 04, 2013, 04:52:50 PM
If you guys like live music and are in Milwaukee around Halloween check out Umphreys McGee at the Riverside. They're playing 3 nights and they can throw down.
IMO, UM is currently the best live music band there is.
Quote from: jesmu84 on September 09, 2013, 02:18:02 PM
Link?
Dime requires joining (free) and if you get a message that no new memberships are available try, try again as they do add new members daily as old ones are pruned
AUD shot Blu-ray: http://www.dimeadozen.org/torrents-details.php?id=464010
AUD shot dvd: http://www.dimeadozen.org/torrents-details.php?id=464006
AUD recorded audio FLAC: http://www.dimeadozen.org/torrents-details.php?id=463992
Quote from: MarsupialMadness on September 09, 2013, 02:35:37 PM
IMO, UM is currently the best live music band there is.
+1 Umphreys McGee is amazing.
Quote from: BagpipingBoxer on September 09, 2013, 12:44:07 PM
Tim Reynolds is who you're going for? Come on there's OAR(beyond love and memories and crazy game of poker) there's dispatch/state radio there's umphreys McGee etc i don't think Tim Reynolds make or breaks a jam fan. And Avett Bros are pretty big (saw em with violent femmes at summerfest) I'd go for lumineers or something.
Regarding the similarities and differences are easily seen in Philip Phillips that guy crosses between sounding like mumford and sons to DMB seemlessly.
It wasn't an exhaustive list, the whole point was that "fans" of the band who have no idea of bands/artists in the same genre come off as idiots which starts the backlash against a particular band.
Anyone going to the Widespread Panic shows at the Riverside this weekend? I'll be there Saturday night, should be a good time.
Quote from: swoopem on September 24, 2013, 12:49:30 PM
Anyone going to the Widespread Panic shows at the Riverside this weekend? I'll be there Saturday night, should be a good time.
After Parties with Jerry Joseph & Jackmormans all three nights at Mo's downtown
http://pabsttheater.org/show/jerryjosephafterparty2013
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dW6SkvErFEE
Mumford...or Coldplay?
Quote from: jesmu84 on September 04, 2013, 09:37:51 AM
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.
Completely agree.
Love the grittier live sound as opposed to the clean over-produced stuff we usually get.
Quote from: wadesworld on March 28, 2015, 03:49:59 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dW6SkvErFEE
Mumford...or Coldplay?
Well, good to know that adding electric guitars doesn't change how much they suck
Quote from: JuniorCardigan on March 28, 2015, 06:36:42 PM
Well, good to know that adding electric guitars doesn't change how much they suck
http://en.mediamass.net/people/marcus-mumford/highest-paid.html
Yup. You usually nearly triple the 2nd highest paid musician in the world in a given year by sucking.
Quote from: wadesworld on March 28, 2015, 07:07:33 PM
http://en.mediamass.net/people/marcus-mumford/highest-paid.html
Yup. You usually nearly triple the 2nd highest paid musician in the world in a given year by sucking.
Do we really need to go into about how the amount of money a band makes and the quality of their music aren't really all that related? Album sales mean very little today. That discussion has been done to death.
I just can't stand them and their sort of folk/pop music. There are an immense amount of pretty popular folk bands out there that make much better music than them. To each his own, but I'll take Fleet Foxes or Sufjan Stevens over Mumford and Sons any day of the week.
Quote from: wadesworld on March 28, 2015, 07:07:33 PM
http://en.mediamass.net/people/marcus-mumford/highest-paid.html
Yup. You usually nearly triple the 2nd highest paid musician in the world in a given year by sucking.
I like Mumford and Sons, but you do realize that article is absolute satire, correct? Did you read it? He created the "Fat Mumford Burger" and his own perfume?
Mediamass is known for doing these type of outrageous articles.