Bon Iver are already pretty big aren't they?

Album Rating: 4.0

Didn't read



It's not 2009 anymore, move on

Depends where you are. In the UK all this nu-folk is all over the radio and in the charts and selling bucket loads. To be fair Bon Iver's new album did pretty well, but on nowhere near the same scale.

I recall Bon Iver having a featured article in Rolling Stone a while ago. So I would assume they're pretty popular in the US. I'm not really sure though since I don't listen to the radio or actually give two shits.

Album Rating: 3.5

This review is one of the most well-written reviews I've ever read on this site...but I can't pos it.



For me, the reasoning doesn't quite reach the rating. I liken it to MJ's criticism about 'Jane Doe' -- not that I disagree with it at all (I absolutely agree with you on some points), but you rated it a "1" for reasons beyond the music. I get that you're disappointed in Mumford & Sons because they seem almost trying too hard to push this pseudo-neo-folk onto the masses, and that you feel that their songs ring hollow because there's a motive behind them that stinks commercial a bit, but all the criticism should fall on Mumford & Sons as artists, not on this album as a collection of music. The songs are pleasant enough to listen to, the banjo work is commendable...I can't imagine that there's something so wrong with the music on this album that would put it on par with Soulja Boy. The band? Maybe...but not the music.



That being said...the songs ARE very formulaic, and they do layer it on thick throughout the entire thing. It's very much like they're crooning so hard just to be taken seriously: "Behold! Look upon our banjo and count us folk singers!" I don't think I've rated it, but it's somewhere between a 2.5 and a 3.5 (and if I could call it a 3, I would...but I can't).



"i'd much rather everyone be listening to this than to T. Swift or Kanye."



Coincidentally enough, Taylor's M&F cover is the best song I've ever heard her sing.

I barely listen to the radio either, but here you literally cant escape these bands, especially mumford

wait isn't Bon Iver from the US anyway? hahah

Album Rating: 1.5 | Sound Off

Bon Iver's second album sold pretty well in its first few weeks here in the US.



but Mumford play on top 40 radio and headline small stadiums...different league.

Album Rating: 1.0 | Sound Off

I was, in fairness, waiting for someone to make the argument you just did Masochist, about my criticizing the overall point of the band instead of their debut album and the songs on it. The trouble is, I find it difficult to split the two. I can't deny that when I first heard 'Winter Winds' I adored the song; I think it's entirely fair to assume that anybody and everybody who has heard this record can tolerate at least a couple of songs off it. But I think that in the context I've placed it in here - which is the context obviously that I feel it should be placed in - ultimately those benefits are too shallow to overcome the blatant formula on display - and by formula I don't mean that they're not a prog band, I don't mean their structure, I mean their mission statement.



Remember that it works both ways; you can argue that this is a review of Mumford as a band but this is their debut album. It's the only thing of theirs that I'm aware of, so it is, essentially, and crucially, the sum total of their music to date. And I think that within those bounds, within the walls of this album - also the walls of the band, as I see it - they are as I just said to Ali, pseudo-folk, and what's wrong with that isn't that they're ruining the genre or blah blah, but that they're the embodiment of facade-driven music, the epitome of pretending to say lots and actually saying practically nothing.



Obviously, I also extrapolated from that and that leaves me open to being wrong, because if their next album is a record full of direct and honest and not-retarded songs then I'll clearly have been shown to be wrong, but I'm willing to go out on a limb and say that's never, ever going to happen. I'd love it to, but in 5 years time they'll be playing to huge crowds with the same platitudes as they possess now.

Album Rating: 1.0 | Sound Off

tl;dr the point is basically the summary and given that this is their only album i think it's fair to generalize

I agree with absolutely everything you're saying. Still doesn't deserve a 1 though.

Album Rating: 1.0 | Sound Off

My personal 1 has long since been a bit of a whatever. The review is a 1.5.

Album Rating: 2.5

what the fuck is with people writing reviews that don't agree with their personal rating. no offense to you knottt

Album Rating: 1.0 | Sound Off

no like i say i changed my rating for this to a 1 with no real rationale a while ago when i started fucking hating it

I kinda like Young the Giant and they're basically the same thing but whereas YtG tend to lack a sort of personality, Mumford tries to force some "quirky" personality onto their stale songwriting.

Album Rating: 2.5

Really can't stand this band. To be completely honest, I think I'd be more able to tolerate them if they weren't so popular.

hey man don't bring young the giant into this

Didn't read

It's not 2009 anymore, move on

I will never understand how someone could give this a 1/5, and that's not even because I thoroughly enjoy it, because it's lost its luster after a couple of years. I reserve 1s for the greatest atrocities known to man, and this debut LP seems harmless. At worst I would call it average or boring.

Album Rating: 4.0 | Sound Off

Ha. Ever since this mumford debacle started, I watched my 4.5 review go from 8/8 say its well written to 3/4. Indie fags.