Dunno man, felt like saying something even though I have no feelings towards this band whatsoever.

Your points definitely make sense

Metalstyles and Crysis commenting in a Mumford & Sons thread, much less a Knott thread in general. Interesting.

I typically read reviews of most staff and contribs but generally don't comment on them. I have a lot of free time at work so I just read reviews.

What a pack of presumptive nonsense. It reeks of youthful know it all arrogance.

The album is repetitive sure, lyrics are quite poor, songs all sound similar. But the review only really addresses the short comings of the album in the penultimate 2 paragraphs, what's written there while being harsh is pretty much spot on.

However the rest of the review is made up mainly about the crumbling merits of music, and what reads like a conspiracy theory of how the band deliberately set out to pull the wool over everyone's eyes and undermine song writing.

In the final paragraph you complain about how poor music is gradually lowering the standards of listeners (and also compare M&S to Satan because apparently there's no such thing as too much hyperbole). But wouldn't you rather bands at least attempted to write meaningful music, regardless of how bad at it they were? Which is something I don't think many people could strongly argue Katy Perry does.

Album Rating: 2.5

Adam Knott, stirring the pot.

Album Rating: 2.0

I can see why everyone is attacking the review, but this put into words what had I had been sort of thinking since I heard this.

Album Rating: 1.0 | Sound Off

This is just mumbo-jumbo that leads to nowhere and proves nothing simply because a) There is no certain proof that these people don't like their music b) Contrary, I would say that many of the so-called "deep and substantial music" listeners are much more likely to lie about what they like simply because they go to sites like the one we're on and are much more worried and aware of musical cred. Most pop music lovers that I know (I'm excluding AtavanHalen here) really don't give a damn and c) I'm fairly certain that when they listen to Gaga and Westlife instead of The National and Burial then they just don't know about the latter two or don't enjoy them as much (in a certain situation or in general, doesn't matter).

While I do agree with the general point you're trying to make, music is both relative and subjective, meaning that this "substance" that you mention is also relative in this case.

Album Rating: 2.5

who is Westlife

Album Rating: 1.0 | Sound Off

OK, so in summary, I think I might neg this review myself because people don't get what I was saying at all, even though reading it back, it's hardly ambiguous.



My point is nothing to do with Mumford 'deliberately pulling the wool over people's eyes' - this isn't why I hate this record. My point is that whether it's deliberate or accidental or just unfortunate, they appear to have conflated the idea of depth with the device of ambiguity, the idea of folk with the device of banjos, the idea of inspiration with the device of a fast and loud final lift.



As for whether I'd rather bands try and write meaningful music, obviously, yes, but that doesn't mean they're always going to pull it off. As I just said, I don't know if it was a conscious process or just naivety, but through some sequence of events this album wears the clothes of meaningful when it's nothing of the sort.



To make it abundantly clear: I am not siding with the idiots I detail in the opening paragraph of this review. If the review seems to do that, then it's my fault, but I'm not saying that "people who are raising their fists to M&S would rather be raising their fists to Frank Turner". I'm saying that M&S are another step towards simplifying music to the point where you can tag everything neatly and simplistically on last.fm, I'm saying that's a bad thing, and I'm saying - yes - that it's more dangerous than overtly empty pop music because it's learnt the art of disguise. And I don't give a fuck if you think Satan is hyperbole because it's not supposed to be a realistic analogy.

Album Rating: 1.0 | Sound Off

But in any case my point in this review wasn't that INDIE IS BETTER THAN POP or that POP IS BETTER THAN INDIE or that INDIE IS BECOMING POP it's that Mumford & Sons are the next step on the road to people actually using those vague genre descriptions and the adjectives I threw out there in the review as strict categories by way of simplifying what it means to be folk. This is not a problem with poppy folk, it is a problem with pretend-folk, it is the same thing that happened to pop-punk, and it is dangerous. It doesn't mean real folk doesn't still exist, but it's cool if you eventually want folk to become the 'next cool thing' because they diluted and colour-coded it enough to do so then hey fight the power.

Album Rating: 2.5

you should edit the review and just make the review all the stupid comments from this thread

Album Rating: 1.0 | Sound Off

Are you talking about my comments or other people's? Lol

Album Rating: 2.5

i prefer vague genre descriptions to five-word-hyphenated genres

future-chillwave-dub-techno-funk-folk

Album Rating: 1.0 | Sound Off

Me too, Rudy! But if bands like Mumford & Sons go without criticism then that's what I think we'll end up with. There'll be an algorithm for deciding what genre something is and it will go something like ARE THERE GUITARS? If yes, indie. ARE THERE BANJOS? If yes, folk. ARE THERE UPLIFTING END SECTIONS? If yes, inspirational. YOUR GENRE IS: inspirational indie-folk.

This review reads like a conspiracy theory.

why all the negs? jesus sputnikers are cruel beings

sonic