This looks like it was done for a TV taping, it is typical to record the song 3 or more times and yes they sing over a track. This allows the cameras to catch crowd shots and what not. it might not be that, but it wouldn't surprise me.
BUT - This seems a lot worse than that - I really like the tune, but he asked the crowd to sing, and they all instantly get out their phones... that's what is lame. People don't know how to have fun anymore.
This was really, really bad... I'm a HUGE fan but everything from: reading off the teleprompter, to wearing your own t-shirt, to singing off key (more than normal), to the lame studio crowd (apart from the one dude), to the "dancing"... it was just off. Hooky not being there makes everything all the worse, makes the money grab even more slime covered.
I don't dislike Mumford, but you acuse those who do because it the "indie cool thing to do" that is wrong. Also no one is saying you cant like those other bands you mentioned.... What one CAN say is those bands are no where as big as Mumford, and those bands are far more deserving just from a wider variety of music they can/do play.
Any song that is overplayed is less fun - fact.
They're not shittier than Lana Del Rey or Bieber.
However, the blind fan devotion of those rivals the ones of M&S, that shit is on equal footing.
You also brought up Danity Kane - you should be slapped for that. Mainly because they should even register.
THIS!
It's simple really, people who worship at the church of Mumford - do not know any better, and do not care to know any better. That's one of THE reasons why people dislike them.
Nail on head.
Coldplay gets a horrid rap in the big scheme of things. That last album was complete watered down garbage, but some of the earlier NON-SINGLE things, esp with Eno, were very interesting. At least they change things up from time to time.
I've seen M&S a few times, and the last one it really dawned on me their formula/spoonfed nature of the tunes overall. That's not really a bad thing until you look out and see 10,000 people going ape-shit over it.
If they were still playing small-ish clubs, people would like them and that would be that. But the world is a silly bitch, and I've stopped trying to figure her out.
I kinda agree with what you say, BUT you give the masses too much credit, in the day and age of sheep like musical taste and behavior, I'd guess the majority of M&S converts would never spend the time with a album like Yankee Hotel Foxtrot (which is lightyears better in every way btw). The chain reaction you speak of is nestled right next to the I'll but the record if I like what I downloaded for free.
Of course M&S is better than pop garbage like Pitbull and Kesha, unfortunately this article doesn't really talk about that. it does however mention Zeppelin, which again, was stupid. I'm glad they made it, but I don't put up with garbage out there, so I'm not sure who that lesson is for? Are you glad masses of spoonfed music fans, in need of their newest "hip" band since Dave Matthews or RHCP, have something, then great I guess. I'm just saying imo M&S require little attention and make music for people who give about as much.
This article is whacked from the start. You can't paint a Zeppelin comp and then say they aren't anything like the galaxy that Zeppelin is in. That is just stupid.
I like them, but even I can see the shortcomings musically. Apart from the F bomb or two, they are about as safe as music gets, nothing wrong with that, but they shouldn't be praised (or talked about) at this level. There are just too many talented bands, both indie and non-indie that play and write batter, more interesting stuff. Want proof? Well, it's crazy to think that Phillip Phillips did Mumford & Sons better than they ever have, but he did.
Again, I have no problem with M&S, certainly not in an elitest snob way, but as with a lot of bands that get this big, majority of their fans have no depth in musical appreciation. Should they be a successful band with a great loyal following - absolutely. Should they be this big. No way in hell.
People who are saying how this song is great... please explain? Seriously.
This is not about indie cred, a band as big as The Killers are throws that out the window. Even my mom knows who they are.
So, what is great about it? Is it the stupid lyrics that sound like a bad meatloaf out take? The Springsteen-lite act that Flowers has yet to drop since Sam's Town? The bland, 80's made-for-radio production? The lack of a hook? The uninspired synth-lines and sounds? The lack of originality?
Not trying to be mean, but I seriously don't understand why this song is good in any way. The only thing it has going for it is initial interest.
This is probably one of the lamest "anticipated" tracks I've heard in a long while. Lame chorus??? Try lame everything. Who wrote this Bonnie Tyler? I liked the Killers at one point, but the jig is up.
Liz Phair is a joke who sold any credibility she had for any top 40 success. Having her in your corner isn't such a great thing.
Yes she got knocked for singing bad (she did), but her writing was pretty good early on, then something really terrible happened with her songs and she stopped caring.
By the way she's pretty much wrong about everything concerning Lana Del Rey.
This is stupid of No Age...
The gradient on the KOL one is trying to match their album art. The typeface is different, the gradient is different, this arguement (on No Age's part) is very stupid.
Comments