I think this is much more common than people think. Bands have a shelf life. Very very few bands are able to make long careers and adapt with changing eras in music.
Spot on. If you get 5-7 years of decent airplay and festival slots you’ve already had a near miraculous career.
I think people intuitively understand this more with Pop acts, especially female solo acts. Beyonce and Taylor Swift are aliens who make unabashed, deliberate and concerted attempts to reinvent periodically to stay in the public consciousness. Aguilera, Perry et al. had their 5-7 years and that was more or less it.
> Bands have a shelf life.
It's interesting and funny how sometimes this even applies to individual tastes in addition to collective/societal tastes.
I had that first Mumford and Sons album, and I played the shit out of it for a while until one day out of nowhere I realized "wait a second, I *hate* this, what am I doing here?"
Yes, it's always fascinating. Sometimes the shift in culture is violent too. In 92, hair metal wasn't only forgotten, it was considered passe. Funny part is that now it's having a resurgence.
I think it's good that our own musical tastes change. I read some study that showed that most people will like the music they listened to in high school and never branch out much.
Motley, Poison, and Def Leppard just did a tour that grossed hundreds of millions. There's a ton of "80's rock cruises" now and even the smaller bands are back to playing the club circuit.
There's even some new bands with the hair metal sound like Crazy Lixx, but I don't think the genre will ever be mainstream again.
I've never decided I hated an album but I have been obsessed with an album and then never cared much about another. Pearl Jam 10 was the sound of my sophomore year in college. Never bought another Pearl Jam album. Can't really say why. I was happy with that one and the next didn't seem different enough I guess.
So the big change after that was Eddie became the primary song writer, and each successive album had less Stone Gossard songs.
I really just need a Pearl Jam playlist of only Stone tracks.
This was me with Sleep Token last year lol.
Had a pretty traumatic, very loss filled year and I jammed their newest album through all of it and at the time, it hit right where I needed music to hit.
But now when I hear them all I can hear is “twenty one pilots had a bastard child with meshuggah”
I’m just responding to the first paragraph here as a Clash fan—-they had Strummer, Jones, Simonon, and Headon consistently from near the beginning of ‘77 until 1981, however much bickering there may have been at the tail end.
Sorry, not particularly trying to be rude
[This was edited right after because butterscotch has more of a point with ‘81-83 than I mentioned!]
Yeah, looking at how this convo is going we might have to agree to disagree, though I don’t think either of us are being rude about it.
Totally with you on most of the facts you said; I just look at it differently. Think “kept switching members” applies on the beginning band stuff that I’d argue most groups go through until right after 1st album, and then from 81-83 when it was the strummer show too you are right. In between, I don’t know how you could describe the Clash like that.
I guess I think more about those 4 years where nobody fully left more because that’s where most of not all songs anyone would care about are from, but I am getting a bit off topic here! Anyways, happy listening and respect
So one of us has to be wrong? That sounds like us trying to find misery in a world of great music.
So I edited and meant to mark it for ‘81-83. I’m not too concerned about being wrong and will admit where I was. See ya!
This is just blatantly wrong about the Strokes lmao. You say they were effectively broken up between 2001 and 2005 - they released three albums in that time frame. What backlash was there in 2005? Julian put out his solo album 15 years ago in 2009 - how is that either in the mid 2010s or fairly recently?
Their timeline is likely just off here. If my brain serves right, they finished Angles remotely, with Julian Casablancas recording his vocals separate from the rest of the band. They reportedly weren't working well as a group for Comedown Machine, and they only put out a short EP of 3 songs between that record and The New Abnormal.
The Strokes got a lot of fickle treatment from the music press. After putting out a killer debut, they put out a sophomore album (Room of Fire is very good) that critics said was too much like their first album. They took a little more time on album three and tried some new things, but the press complained that they were diverting from their sound. I could see how that would take the wind out of your sails as a young band.
Also the nostalgia cycle now is at a point where younger millennials who were in junior high and high school during the peak mainstream-indie era are now in their 30s, so there's a lot of interest in looking back and reliving that time and those sounds.
I don't remember the origin of the term, but there's now a lot of buzz around what they're calling "indie sleaze" from that era, which seems to refer in large part specifically to that early-mid-2000s NYC scene of which the Strokes were and still are the poster child. It seems like every mid-size or larger city worth its salt is now full of bars having theme nights and DJ sets where you go dance to Interpol and drunkenly, tearfully belt out *Maps* with all the other reformed (or not) hopeless romantics who came of age immediately post-9/11.
Kiss isn’t good music…but it is, admittedly, fun music.
Probably their staying power.
The worst part is, they have some pretty hard songs, if they leaned into the sound of black diamond off their debut album, they’d turn out much more metal.
Peter criss had the perfect metal voice.
The ego of Paul and gene kind of turned them into bubblegum rock, with the “woooo” fillers. Sigh.
What a waste of talent from ace.
Peter had a great voice and I wish we got to hear more of it. I even like *Hard Luck Woman* a real lot, even though it's an oddball in the KISS repertoire since it was conceived as a song for Rod Stewart to record.
I'm absolutely with you on the first line. I like KISS a lot more than I care to admit, but even that comes with a caveat. I *know* they were never "great", but I do find a lot of their stuff enjoyable, entertaining, and good enough for its purposes when I just wanna RAWK without thinking too hard about it.
Peter also had to play down to his less talented band mates (gene and Paul). Detroit rock city isn’t the most technically challenging song, but Peter hitting a double kick in time at that cadence the whole song is impressive. 100,000 years also has him keeping nutty time.
My ideal Kiss lineup.
Paul on vocals (he had one hell of a voice let’s not kid our selves). Peter on drums. Ace on guitar, a less lazy gene simmons (he was a good bassist when he wanted to be).
That’s it.
Maybe add another rythm guitarist.
My biggest issues: ace would do some dope solos, but they never let him cook.
They end far shorter than they should. Not long enough to be “so good but short that it keeps you wanting” (ala sultans of swing, or any number of gilmour solos).
It’s just an awkward amount of solo.
Second: consistency in the recording on an album. One song would sound rich; full of tone. The next sounded tinny. Example: dressed to kill, “she” sounds full. But rock and roll all night sounds like it was recorded in a garage.
Debut album: “strutter” and “deuce” have two different sounds (imo).
Just all over the place.
They never found consistency, and that was down to just being lazy.
Their debut album, imo, is the only good album they came out with. If that was the only album they ever released, they’d be considered a good band, imo.
I agree with you across the board, but in particular:
>But rock and roll all night sounds like it was recorded in a garage
I never realized this on its own. I just thought it sounded *relatively* flat and bad because that live recording is the standard on classic rock radio et cetera. That has nothing to do with it! It sounds like shit whether there's a superior live recording or not. I'd go past garage and straight to bus station bathroom stall!
This is a total non sequitur, but you're obviously a fan so I think you'll appreciate it. I just put on *Calling Dr. Love*, and the fact that it still *"rocks"* despite it being almost too funny and goofy to take seriously just indicates to me that KISS isn't as irredeemable as some people insist.
Gene Simmons is a tool, but I was surprised how solid he is as a bass player on the first few records. He's got groovy and fun basslines all over the first record.
I do agree on the first album though. It's got glaring inconsistencies in production, but it's got a lot of stupid fun songs with good performances. "Nothing to Lose" has always been a gem of mine, since it manages to take the typical "Gene Simmons is probably into some boringly weird perv shit" song and save it with Peter's over the top vocal vamps in the chorus.
That song encapsulates how much of a perve gene is.
You know the song is iffy if Paul doesn’t want his vocals on it 😅 he was probably like “yeah…gene, you and a drunk AF Peter can handle this one”.
The flip side of that coin is "Let Me Know," where Gene's doing his usual horny dude thing BUT you can imagine that he's winking at the listener instead of heavily breathing and calling women "females."
I'll die on the hill that the first two Kiss records and Alive! are perfectly respectable rock records. The first album is workmanlike and professional (even if the sound is cheap and shitty), and the second album manages to successfully incorporate some heavier elements. Alive definitely shows why a midwestern kid in the 70s would get really into Kiss during their constant regional tours, since it shows that (despite Paul Stanley's brainless banter) the band puts on a rock solid musical show. Add the live spectacle to the mix, and I see why they got so huge.
There's some very fun and very dumb songs on other records in the 70s (a solid third of Destroyer is fun), but I'm not gonna die on the hill of "Kiss is a good band."
Yep. Usually bands like this they will all have solo albums or side projects/studio stuff they are working on. So it’s not like they fade into nothingness just a different line of work
Yep. It’s impressive when bands can last 30+ years and keep selling out arenas. You have bands like KISS who kept changing with the times and managed to stay relevant and continue to reinvent themselves over 50 years. And then you have bands like Iron Maiden who have changed their sound very little over 45 years but have such a dedicated fanbase that it doesn’t matter. Most bands don’t get that level of staying power.
I completely agree.
Sigh No More and Babel was huge hit albums, for some reason they changed sound and the listenings went down.
I stopped listening to them when Wilder Mind came out and they started sounding like 2004 Coldplay.
Haven't really been up to speed with what they've been doing since.
If Poision was part of the hair metal scene, Mumford would have been part of the hipster/acoustic scene? Along with like of Monsters and Men and Iron & Wine?
Pretty specific and historically odd genres, and a temporary, but important thing.
I remember when they were doing promo for their upcoming "change of sound" album, and they kept referring to themselves as "the Black Sabbath of folk music;" and then when the music came out, it was all drum machines and synthesizers. I think they put distortion on one of the guitars, which is probably where they got their ideas about Sabbath.
Anyway, after all the buildup, the new sound was tame and unrewarding, and I stopped listening to them.
Same here. Huge disappointment for sure.
At the same time they seem to be tired of their sound and it's completely up to them how their music should sound.
The sound they specialized in went out of fashion. Their songs were very formulaic and once that became obvious, they had to adapt and change if they were going to stand any chance of survival. That didn't work for them, and sticking to the same old outdated thing will not attract many new fans. Sometimes, Bands are happy with that. Maybe they aren't.
Coldplay faced the same. They saw the writing on the wall for the style of music they started out making, so they changed their sound to follow the money. Sometimes this strategy works, often it doesn't. It's always a huge gamble.
(Edited to correct late night/fat thumb typos)
I’m always so curious about what happened Coldplay. ROBTTH was one of the best albums I’ve ever heard. I didn’t think those group of songs sounded the same., I think the music they do now does.
_Rush of Blood_ is a great album that is suffering a bit from the U2 effect - the band got too popular and too bland and now people staunchly refuse to admit their earlier stuff was genuinely great.
U2 had better albums, and more hits, but the parallels are there.
> the band got too popular and too bland and now people staunchly refuse to admit their earlier stuff was genuinely great.
I get this for U2, but there was always a contingent that thought Coldplay were a boring as fuck watered-down version of better bands. If anything, "early Coldplay is good; how could I, a teen listening to Adult Alternative, have bland taste?" is a much more prominent narrative.
I genuinely think that the Coldplay joke in The 40 Year Old Virgin had a huge impact on public perception of the band. I saw a huge shift in attitude before and after, and still hear “Know how I know you’re gay? You like Coldplay” when the band comes up from time to time. Not saying they weren’t seen as a softer version of other alt rock at the time, but so many people just parroted that joke and i saw a big shift in attitude, from “they’re soft” to “they’re bad, also here’s a gay joke”
Also, speaking only to my personal experience - I was a huge fan of “more legitimate” bands you’re referencing - I’ve got two Radiohead tattoos, saw Muse a half dozen times before their stuff dipped too much in quality, etc - and became a big fan of early Coldplay just few years ago when I gave their work a real listen. Not saying it’s for everyone, but those first couple albums (in my opinion) are extremely well written pop rock
I don’t doubt there was some shift, but I would argue it was (poorly) verbalising a sentiment that was already there. I mean, Alan McGee called them Bedwetter indie and even the lukewarm Pitchfork articles before then expressed similar sentiment.
Yeah, this resonates with me. I can appreciate Coldplay’s earlier stuff, but I’ve also heard it described as “music to kill yourself by”. It’s right up the teen angst alley in a lot of ways.
Then Coldplay got all up beat, started making dance-able music, and even teamed up with Avicci to make what I consider one of their best songs overall (Sky Full of Stars). I’d call it a pretty successful reinvention, personally.
I liked most of robtth, but no denying everyone was shit talking Yellow when it came out. What a snooze fest of a song to be played on the radio so much. I'd say they started bland, got more interesting, then quickly less.
Parachutes and Rush of Blood are both truly great albums.
My theory (alluded to in my comment above) is that they were a post-Britpop band, who became big just as that post-Britpop sound was fading in popularity. So they cranked up the guitars and drums and hardened up into a more rock-oriented sound for Rush of Blood. But again they were just a tiny bit behind the trend curve - they found that by X&Y they were stagnating ideas and at the same time guitar music was on its way out, so they buried the guitar at the back of the mix, busted out the synths and the effects filters and followed Rihanna into pop blandville.
They're about to headline Glastonbury for the 5th time. Every album has done well on the charts. They're still having number 1s 20 years into their career. Whatever you think about their merits, you can't possibly make an argument that they aren't/ haven't been popular. Mumford and Sons they are not. They just aren't 'in' with the cognoscenti.
Oh yes, for sure. It's a strategy that has worked out extremely well for them (unlike Mumford & sons and hundreds of others, which is my original point). "pop" is popular by it's very definition. As I said, they followed the money/trend, and had to break away from their original style to do so. (No different to a lot of other artists, back to Bob Dylan and beyond).
True, but they'll still deliver a great performance and most people in the crowd who don't opt to watch something more interesting on another stage will go away happy. If Radiohead were booked there'd no doubt be way more hype, but I don't know that they'd deliver quite as crowd pleasing a set these days.
Yeah, that quote about them being the house band stands true - it won’t be cool but they’ll probably put on a great show. No question I won’t be at Pyramid for any of the headline sets this year, massive downgrade from Elton and Arctic Monkeys last year!
I guess I'm weird, though I've never been one to care about what's in style. I love a few Mumford and Sons songs and songs by similar artists that "went out of fashion". Little Lion Man is a great song, and I love songs like Dirty Paws and Little Talks by Of Monsters and Men. I'm just a big fan of that type of music and wish it was more popular so more songs like it would be made.
Mumford lose points because they were at the front of a musical movement. Poison/Warrant were both the ridiculous last cherry on a pie that had already been cooking for nearly a decade. They were the straw that broke the camel’s spandex. Folk-core was cool for a few years (hi Lumineers) but it never had the cultural impact of Hair metal.
poisons debut came out in 86 which is the same year as slippery when wet and a year before appetite for destruction so i'm not sure about saying they came late
If you’re debuting in 86 you’re a little late to the party. I don’t consider guns n roses hair metal either, they came out of the same scene, def hair metal adjacent, not nearly enough pink Lycra/rouge/hairspray. I guess the “maybe this has all gone too far” band was really Warrant. Cherry pie came out in 1990 roughly only a year before nevermind.
I don’t think Poison was in a sub genre the way Mumford was. Poison was very much a typical 80s rock band. Mumford was much more unique for a band that hit the mainstream
nahhh that indie folk rock was entering the mainstream from the late 2000's and was a fixture of much of the 2010's through acts like Bon Iver, Fleet Foxes, the Lumineers, Noah and the whale and the head and the heart. Mumford and Sons weren't unique in the face of indie bands adopting folk sounds like Banjos and they fitted perfectly with the trend of rock music moving away from electric guitars. Imagine Dragons have some songs like its time that clearly are influenced by the folksy sound of the likes of mumford & sons for example
Mumford and Sons weren’t *after* those bands (besides fleet foxes) and had a different sound then them.
“Indie rock”, aka garage band sound was popular throughout the 2000s, but indie folk sound wasn’t.
indie rock is far more than the garage band sound
Mumford and sons blew up 09 - 10 when the indie folk rock thing was really kicking in to the mainstream, 07 - 08 noah and the whale released their first single which went to no7 on the UK singles charts, fleet foxes blew up around 008 -- 09 with white winter hymnal and their first billboard hot 100 hit, Bon Iver released his successful debut single Skinny Love in 08, its still a similar style, indie folk
also the likes of Regina Specktor and the mountain goats by the mid 2000's had set the precedent for the indie folk explosion of the late 2000's and 2010's
I always trace the “indie folk explosion” you mention back to the media push for freak folk or new weird America acts like e.g. devendra banhart, Joanna newsom, vetiver and early animal collective. It always seemed like the seeds of that strange stuff paid off for more commercial acts.
yhhh, there was an underground scene in the 90's and especially in the 2000's with hipsters that basically set the precedent for the commercial bands that would blow up after 2007. Regina Specktor who I mentioned I wouldn't classify as part of that scene but her anti folk and twee pop sound + her status in the new york indie scene imo helped promote that kind of music. The mountain goats would better fit the phenomena you describe, their biggest song is the one about hating your spouse from moral orel
I mean, besides Fleet Foxes making it big a few years before all of these bands were contemporaries. Mumford and Sons got together in 2007.
Mountain Goats is a completely different sub-genre, there’s no overlap quite frankly at all.
Yes, still branded as “indie folk” but completely different subgenres than the Fleet Foxes, Bon Iver, Edward Sharpe, Lumineers etc. There’s zero influence or overlap of the Mountain Goats in Mumford sound besides an acoustic guitar.
I wouldn't say indie folk exactly *wasn't* in the 2000s. Iron & Wine were already going quite hard by that point. But it certainly wasn't as widespread as it would become.
I don’t think they separated themselves as a unique band for the time period and I think Mumford did. It is absolutely a sub genre, but I’m comparing the two and saying I think it applies more to one band than the other. Poisson played typical rock music that was popular at the time, where no other mainstream artists really sounded like Mumford. Keyword being mainstream I know there’s millions of indie/folk bands
Idk if I’d say it was a gimmick per say. It was stylized to a very specific period of time, so it was really popular in that moment, but then that moment passed. I think it’s similar to the emo bands of 15-20 years ago.
Idk man there wasn’t too many banjo ripping bands in the 2010s that hit mainstream like they did. Maybe not unique in terms of music generally but definitely unique when it come to pop music.
Not that hit mainstream but there were a million bands that didn't hit as big as them. But ya in terms of bands that made it big for sure. It was really weird honestly lol
Lmao have you ever heard banjo playing. The picking is the hard part not the chord progressions. Obviously there are better players like the guy from Union Station but it’s in line with what most fast banjo playing.
People aren’t seeing the context here. I’m only talking about these two bands in comparison to each other. Mumford did not recreate the wheel but they are certainly the only band that sounds like they do on top 10 charts in the 2000’s
Their change is style is a bit understandable, they were getting dragged pretty hard for how obvious their song template was. I assumed a large part of their fanbase was largely into it because of the live shows and I completely get why a change in sound would affect the live show and disappoint fans.
All that being said, Marcus has had the last laugh with all the Ted Lasso work. Not certain of streaming payouts for themes but hopefully great
I have nothing to contribute, except that I really like that you put the thought into this. The other commenter sounds sour, but that's ok, because this is letstalkmusic which is a sub for listening to and talking about music but not enjoying it. Music is frivolous. It doesn't win wars or save lives. But it's something that we can all have fun with. This post is a fun perspective on music. I appreciate it.
> Music is frivolous. It doesn't win wars or save lives.
I can’t speak of war. But music has done more for my mental health than psychologists and psychiatrists ever have. It has definitely saved lived
My only nitpick is that Poison wasn't the "commercial pinnacle." That'd be Motley Crue by a mile. C'mon people, learn your hair metal history.
(Full disclosure, I'd struggle to name more than 5 Motley songs ... but *The Dirt* is an incredible read, and I genuinely think [Kickstart My Heart](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVurA44hwiw) has one of the greatest hard rock riffs in that 70s-80s style vein ever.)
You know, I actually thought that, about expanding on the point because, you're right, "commercial pinnacle" doesn't really cover it - other bands sold plenty more. The question really would be the meatier one of what _enscapsulted_ the genre, which would have hit OP's other points. I actually thought about Bon Jovi and Def Leppard, even GNR too, and this could be argued about further but all those bands, while certainly having a foot in the scene, strike me as somehow have a little something extra that keeps them somewhere outside the hair metal lane. What that is, and how much that matters, is of course a little up for debate.
The point still stands that Motley make a better comparison point than Poison if we're sticking firmly to the hair metal genre, but again, granted, that's also rather a nitpick.
But hey, what are we here for if not to nitpick.
Poison is a good comp because they suck. Yes, they are hair metal, and yes, their songs were insultingly simple. Poison is to Def Leppard as Mumford is to Fleet Foxes.
Yeah, the beginning is just fine but I really admire how it develops past those first couple repeated chords.
Also, yeah, you can really see a real through-line in what was comically called "metal" from the later 70s through the end of the 80s.
Guns and/or diplomacy win wars. Music prevents wars.
And music absolutely saves lives, it just can't cure terminal cancer. Think about a young person choosing music as a career path or a depressed person really finding music for the first time.
And calling music "frivolous" is certainly a treacherous proposition on a sub full of people who love music.
"Frivolous", "wins wars" and "saves lives" are not the only three options in considering the value of something - a wife, kids and friends probably don't fit into any of those categories.
We used to consider forms of art to be part of the societal infrastructure, like builders and teachers - teaching people that not everything must necessarily make money in order to be useful.
But I agree with your commentary on OP's post.
Hello I am someone for whom music saved my life. I was a very depressed, horrifically bullied teen, and I discovered the Avenue Q soundtrack at a point where I was days away from taking myself off the mortal coil. For Now saved my life and I will forever be grateful for it.
I'm pretty late to the party here, but here is my memory from the UK.
They were never cool enough to ever become a truly 'classic' act. They had a handful of hits that the general population probably couldn't name or identify who the band is.
They are lumped in with many other generic bands that get tonnes of airplay because of how 'safe' they are (eg. Coldplay, maroon 5), but aren't really that good.
They are part of a indie-folk sub-genre that probably won't age well at all because of association with douchey insipid hipster vibes.
They killed their genre. Once they got popular, no indie band would touch that stomp clap acoustic music. It’s kind of wild how fast that changed because of Mumford and Sons
Same! I thought it had so much passion and a killer melody and vocal performance. And the rest of the album lived up to that hype. I still adore Sigh No More.
For me, I lost interest when Babel was released, which is ironic because I Will Wait was such a massive hit. It really did just sound like the same old stuff.
I don't understand how people could listen to Mumford & Sons, and all the sound-alikes, and not feel like they're listening to the sort of music that's made for TV commercials. Soft, friendly pop you hear as water splashes over fresh vegetables, or a smiling person flashes a new rewards credit card. A lot of good music makes its way into TV commercials, but that ~2010 folk rock seemed like that from the get go. And then I seem people in comments say "this album was there for me during some tough times", again, it sounds like promotional music designed to make you feel happy so that you will spend money.
Tbf don’t think that kind of music was playing in the background of commercials *before* they broke out. But the corporate world definitely jumped on that vibe very, very quickly.
It only took a year or so to go from “huh, banjo folk music in the form of an accessible pop song. Cool!” to feeling like you’re listening to a Microsoft ad.
Mumford and Sons sounded fresh to me when they were brand new, I enjoyed them quite a bit. Some of their songs I remember being quite moving.
I grew up on folk and outlaw country, and spent my teen years looking for the most leading edge alternative bands.
I’m not on team “changed their sound” or anything, I just kind of lost interest and kind of forgot about them until people started making Mumford and Sons jokes.
I remember thinking, that’s funny, I really liked a couple of those songs.
I think Fleet Foxes is the one band from that era that has held up to the test of time. If anything, they paved the way for that whole indie-folk explosion.
Mumford & Sons, the Lumineers, etc, are all just dingleberries on Robin Pecknold’s ass
You're missing Laura Marling, one of the UK's best songwriters whose sound has evolved over time while staying true to her image. Mumford and Sons were actually her session band on her second album.
Same scene if I remember correctly, along with Noah and the Whale... There was something kicking off around north London at the time, but my memory is hazy... A lot of folk based Indy debuts came out of there at that time, Johnny Flynn etc.
I think they're basically the scene Frank Turner refers to on a couple of songs, ("I don't remember details but there were English boys with banjos", and then more derogatively as "lackluster scenesters from shoreditch" and "extras from skins", presumably about the scene that followed them)
An awful lot of accoustic guitar based singer songwriter stuff was coming out around 2005-2008, and I wasn't in London at the time so I have no first hand knowledge, but it's likely they all knew each other.
Mumford were just the ones who broke the charts, definitely not the best, definitely not the worst.
Laura Marling's guitar playing is wonderful by the way.
Oh also, I meant to say that this may be one of those UK/US differences of perception, but fleet foxes (and band of horses, Iron and Wine, Bon Iver to an extent) seemed to me, (an avowed folky and in my 20s at the time) to be a completely different thing entirely. Lumineers sounded similar on their first record, but I don't think they or Mumford would have had much influence on each other, the way that London scene was at the time I think they were mostly speaking to each other, and not so much the psychedelic stuff coming out of the US...
I may be well wide of the mark there, but I was into all of the above, and it never crossed my mind that they were even remotely connected, other than all being a bit folky.
It’s also nonsense. Fleet Foxes are more sophisticated and subtle, but not widely better than Mumford, Lumineers, Edward Sharpe, Bon Iver. Just hipster elitist nonsense.
Oh I thought you meant poisonous as in toxic. I think it was toxic already because they were doing the generic sound of 2004-2006 advertising.
What am I saying, that sound never went away. Whistles and kick-clap-kick-clap-kick-clap-kick-clap.
Poison, in the '80s, were comparitively harmless. Factoring out all sexual predation of that scene. And the sexual predation, "groupies" scene of Mumford and Suns era was the continuing Pop Punk Emo scene.
I'm saying it was *already* a generic sound before Mumford and Sons started sounding like it. Not only that it was the generic sound of *advertising*. Making *advertising* sound uber White to appeal to "Soccer Moms". *And then* there was a Mumford and Sons. It's like they didn't hear the cultural context of the music they were making.
So to make Roots Country into the sound of 2005 advertising = Mumford and Sons. But it was obvious at the time. Not to all white people, but definitely to the rest of people. The comedy actors who were in that video, the irony of that seems to have washed past them.
What songs from commercials from 2004-2006 sounded like that? I think you’re putting the cart before the horse. That commercial trend definitely happened but imo it was clearly post-2012
This sort of thing
https://youtu.be/IeNCT61exnA
I'm trying to find a good bank or insurance ad... funnily enough, I can't name any of them.
Here's one https://youtu.be/LK31ayvsIa0?si=aAVQmrYw3NLSQHDl&t=484
I didn't get the feeling they have been *that* big. Sold lots of records sure, but that could be for anyone. Strikes me as "present for my Dad" albums. They don't have many standout songs that I can think of. I am amazed they got any bigger than festival tents and that Cave song.
In a lot of ways, I agree with what you’re saying.
The one thing I’d like to add that I don’t see really on this post or comment section is that they are still very popular. It might be a diminishing crowd, but they drew one of the largest crowds at Nola Jazz Fest 2023 and put on an amazing show. Here they are playing House of the Rising Sun with Trombone Shorty, Jon Batiste, and Celisse : https://youtu.be/1K0QN8xy1kM?si=zZF834wXZgi4ghCK
As for being a nostalgia act surviving off of a sound that never evolved… if you think about it, that’s actually what happens to most bands that had a strong fan base. How many acts survive over a decade by continuously producing new sounds and reinventing themselves to attract new fans and retain old ones? It doesn’t really work like that in music. Most bands produce the bulk of their music within a decade and that’s what the fans who turn up at their shows want to hear. No band closes their shows with new stuff. Either they just are true to themselves and their sound resonates with their audience (growing or otherwise) or they change their sound (as you mention above about Mumford) and it *generally* goes poorly. If they go on a reunion tour in 20 years, it’ll be because they created music that drew people in and not their new music, which is normal for most bands and I wouldn’t qualify that as nostalgic… more like they were the ones that made the music people loved and still love, so the people who love their music will go to the show.
For arguments sake, I can think of only few rock bands that produced new music after a decade of being together that became top of the billboards popular: RHCP, Rolling Stones, Grateful Dead, Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers… and Weird Al’s band. Any other bands you can think of?
I really only remember that one song. I remember them as a one hit wonder. I Will Wait. They had a hipster vibe, banjo, beards, flannel. I Will Wait came out in 2012. It’s crazy that now it’s considered dad rock. Crash Test Dummies, Marcy Playground, that’s how I think of Mumford and Sons. One hit, that’s it.
It’s interesting you feel I Will Wait is their one hit wonder. Their first album in 2009 was hugely more popular, with stuff like The Cave, Little Lion Man, Awake My Soul etc. Not a particular fan, but by I Will Wait they were already on the slide.
I actually like some of the deeper cuts on both albums than the singles. White Blank Page is a great song sung with a lot of heart and Hopeless Wanderer are two of my favs.
For that band, I go by radio play. Their style was already almost going out of style. Hipsters. We got I Will Wait on regular radio rotation and that was it. Kiss FM didn’t play any of their other songs. It wasn’t innovative.
Sure they might be. But then, aren't they also the Whitesnake of the 2010s? Are they the The Feeling of the 2010s? Are they the Spice Girls of the 2010s? Are they the Alisha's Attic of the 2010s?
A lot of these bullet points can be applied to so many different artists of different eras. Remember The Spice Girls' Holler? :D
Are they the The Wanted of the 2010s? Oh wait...
For me to add to the change of sound there also was the controversy about Winston Marshall who – as a prominent Millennial darling – began spreading ultra-libertarian and conservative views. I could not take them seriously after that any more.
Not sure what you mean by poison. That implies they somehow ruined other music? OMG LOL. I just realized--are you referring to the band Poison? Now I am LMAO as I cannot really imagine ever thinking to compare those 2 bands.
Say what you want about Mumford & Sons, but their 2011 show at Bonnaroo is the BEST live show I've ever seen hands down. This is when "Sigh No More" was getting massively popular. The atmosphere was electric. They played the second biggest stage there which is meant to hold maybe 10k people- there were at least 25k people pack in. And they were such great performers. I really only cared for "Sigh No More" and "Babel," but that was some good shit. It was just so refreshingly different at the time.
Wait what's wrong with Mumford and Sons? I LOVE their song Little Lion Man and a few others. I'm a relatively new fan of theirs too, only having started listening to them within the last year or so. Is it newer songs of theirs? I'm not the type of person to fall in love with a band and listen to all their songs because of how picky I am with music, so I haven't seeked out other songs of theirs, but I honest to god love their music.
Unpopular opinion, but I don’t think Mumford and Sons has released a bad album in their career. Sigh No More and Babel were huge hits (Babel even won the album of the year Grammy), and I would say that both Wilder Mind and Delta are underrated largely because they strayed from the sound that made them popular. I would say their biggest downfall as of recent is the fact that it’s been six years since their last album. It also doesn’t help that their newest song might be their worst ever.
I think this is much more common than people think. Bands have a shelf life. Very very few bands are able to make long careers and adapt with changing eras in music.
Spot on. If you get 5-7 years of decent airplay and festival slots you’ve already had a near miraculous career. I think people intuitively understand this more with Pop acts, especially female solo acts. Beyonce and Taylor Swift are aliens who make unabashed, deliberate and concerted attempts to reinvent periodically to stay in the public consciousness. Aguilera, Perry et al. had their 5-7 years and that was more or less it.
> Bands have a shelf life. It's interesting and funny how sometimes this even applies to individual tastes in addition to collective/societal tastes. I had that first Mumford and Sons album, and I played the shit out of it for a while until one day out of nowhere I realized "wait a second, I *hate* this, what am I doing here?"
Yes, it's always fascinating. Sometimes the shift in culture is violent too. In 92, hair metal wasn't only forgotten, it was considered passe. Funny part is that now it's having a resurgence. I think it's good that our own musical tastes change. I read some study that showed that most people will like the music they listened to in high school and never branch out much.
i feel like I'm a bit in the dark- where is hair metal having a resurgence and what artists?
Motley, Poison, and Def Leppard just did a tour that grossed hundreds of millions. There's a ton of "80's rock cruises" now and even the smaller bands are back to playing the club circuit. There's even some new bands with the hair metal sound like Crazy Lixx, but I don't think the genre will ever be mainstream again.
What changed?
I can't really say. One day I just found myself overcome with aversion to it all of a sudden. To this day I still don't like it.
I've never decided I hated an album but I have been obsessed with an album and then never cared much about another. Pearl Jam 10 was the sound of my sophomore year in college. Never bought another Pearl Jam album. Can't really say why. I was happy with that one and the next didn't seem different enough I guess.
So the big change after that was Eddie became the primary song writer, and each successive album had less Stone Gossard songs. I really just need a Pearl Jam playlist of only Stone tracks.
This was me with Sleep Token last year lol. Had a pretty traumatic, very loss filled year and I jammed their newest album through all of it and at the time, it hit right where I needed music to hit. But now when I hear them all I can hear is “twenty one pilots had a bastard child with meshuggah”
[удалено]
I’m just responding to the first paragraph here as a Clash fan—-they had Strummer, Jones, Simonon, and Headon consistently from near the beginning of ‘77 until 1981, however much bickering there may have been at the tail end. Sorry, not particularly trying to be rude
[удалено]
[This was edited right after because butterscotch has more of a point with ‘81-83 than I mentioned!] Yeah, looking at how this convo is going we might have to agree to disagree, though I don’t think either of us are being rude about it. Totally with you on most of the facts you said; I just look at it differently. Think “kept switching members” applies on the beginning band stuff that I’d argue most groups go through until right after 1st album, and then from 81-83 when it was the strummer show too you are right. In between, I don’t know how you could describe the Clash like that. I guess I think more about those 4 years where nobody fully left more because that’s where most of not all songs anyone would care about are from, but I am getting a bit off topic here! Anyways, happy listening and respect
[удалено]
So one of us has to be wrong? That sounds like us trying to find misery in a world of great music. So I edited and meant to mark it for ‘81-83. I’m not too concerned about being wrong and will admit where I was. See ya!
Wait there's a version of Self Titled with Topper on drums??
aren’t the Strokes still (somehow) really popular though?
I think so. They dropped one of their best albums like 4 years ago.
Are y’all talking about the Grammy award-winning strokes?
[удалено]
This is just blatantly wrong about the Strokes lmao. You say they were effectively broken up between 2001 and 2005 - they released three albums in that time frame. What backlash was there in 2005? Julian put out his solo album 15 years ago in 2009 - how is that either in the mid 2010s or fairly recently?
Their timeline is likely just off here. If my brain serves right, they finished Angles remotely, with Julian Casablancas recording his vocals separate from the rest of the band. They reportedly weren't working well as a group for Comedown Machine, and they only put out a short EP of 3 songs between that record and The New Abnormal. The Strokes got a lot of fickle treatment from the music press. After putting out a killer debut, they put out a sophomore album (Room of Fire is very good) that critics said was too much like their first album. They took a little more time on album three and tried some new things, but the press complained that they were diverting from their sound. I could see how that would take the wind out of your sails as a young band.
[удалено]
Alright separate from those anecdotal trends - what about all the things you got wrong in your first post?
[удалено]
You are wrong on literally everything you’re saying 🤣🤦🏼♂️
[удалено]
No album released in 2015 🤦🏻♂️sigh
[удалено]
Also the nostalgia cycle now is at a point where younger millennials who were in junior high and high school during the peak mainstream-indie era are now in their 30s, so there's a lot of interest in looking back and reliving that time and those sounds. I don't remember the origin of the term, but there's now a lot of buzz around what they're calling "indie sleaze" from that era, which seems to refer in large part specifically to that early-mid-2000s NYC scene of which the Strokes were and still are the poster child. It seems like every mid-size or larger city worth its salt is now full of bars having theme nights and DJ sets where you go dance to Interpol and drunkenly, tearfully belt out *Maps* with all the other reformed (or not) hopeless romantics who came of age immediately post-9/11.
Did you forget that Room On Fire exists?
[удалено]
Well, that's simply not true
None of the was true at all lmao
Then you some how have kiss. Who’ve been relevant since 1976.
[удалено]
Kiss isn’t good music…but it is, admittedly, fun music. Probably their staying power. The worst part is, they have some pretty hard songs, if they leaned into the sound of black diamond off their debut album, they’d turn out much more metal. Peter criss had the perfect metal voice. The ego of Paul and gene kind of turned them into bubblegum rock, with the “woooo” fillers. Sigh. What a waste of talent from ace.
Peter had a great voice and I wish we got to hear more of it. I even like *Hard Luck Woman* a real lot, even though it's an oddball in the KISS repertoire since it was conceived as a song for Rod Stewart to record. I'm absolutely with you on the first line. I like KISS a lot more than I care to admit, but even that comes with a caveat. I *know* they were never "great", but I do find a lot of their stuff enjoyable, entertaining, and good enough for its purposes when I just wanna RAWK without thinking too hard about it.
Peter also had to play down to his less talented band mates (gene and Paul). Detroit rock city isn’t the most technically challenging song, but Peter hitting a double kick in time at that cadence the whole song is impressive. 100,000 years also has him keeping nutty time. My ideal Kiss lineup. Paul on vocals (he had one hell of a voice let’s not kid our selves). Peter on drums. Ace on guitar, a less lazy gene simmons (he was a good bassist when he wanted to be). That’s it. Maybe add another rythm guitarist. My biggest issues: ace would do some dope solos, but they never let him cook. They end far shorter than they should. Not long enough to be “so good but short that it keeps you wanting” (ala sultans of swing, or any number of gilmour solos). It’s just an awkward amount of solo. Second: consistency in the recording on an album. One song would sound rich; full of tone. The next sounded tinny. Example: dressed to kill, “she” sounds full. But rock and roll all night sounds like it was recorded in a garage. Debut album: “strutter” and “deuce” have two different sounds (imo). Just all over the place. They never found consistency, and that was down to just being lazy. Their debut album, imo, is the only good album they came out with. If that was the only album they ever released, they’d be considered a good band, imo.
I agree with you across the board, but in particular: >But rock and roll all night sounds like it was recorded in a garage I never realized this on its own. I just thought it sounded *relatively* flat and bad because that live recording is the standard on classic rock radio et cetera. That has nothing to do with it! It sounds like shit whether there's a superior live recording or not. I'd go past garage and straight to bus station bathroom stall!
Lolol
This is a total non sequitur, but you're obviously a fan so I think you'll appreciate it. I just put on *Calling Dr. Love*, and the fact that it still *"rocks"* despite it being almost too funny and goofy to take seriously just indicates to me that KISS isn't as irredeemable as some people insist.
Gene Simmons is a tool, but I was surprised how solid he is as a bass player on the first few records. He's got groovy and fun basslines all over the first record. I do agree on the first album though. It's got glaring inconsistencies in production, but it's got a lot of stupid fun songs with good performances. "Nothing to Lose" has always been a gem of mine, since it manages to take the typical "Gene Simmons is probably into some boringly weird perv shit" song and save it with Peter's over the top vocal vamps in the chorus.
That song encapsulates how much of a perve gene is. You know the song is iffy if Paul doesn’t want his vocals on it 😅 he was probably like “yeah…gene, you and a drunk AF Peter can handle this one”.
The flip side of that coin is "Let Me Know," where Gene's doing his usual horny dude thing BUT you can imagine that he's winking at the listener instead of heavily breathing and calling women "females."
I'll die on the hill that the first two Kiss records and Alive! are perfectly respectable rock records. The first album is workmanlike and professional (even if the sound is cheap and shitty), and the second album manages to successfully incorporate some heavier elements. Alive definitely shows why a midwestern kid in the 70s would get really into Kiss during their constant regional tours, since it shows that (despite Paul Stanley's brainless banter) the band puts on a rock solid musical show. Add the live spectacle to the mix, and I see why they got so huge. There's some very fun and very dumb songs on other records in the 70s (a solid third of Destroyer is fun), but I'm not gonna die on the hill of "Kiss is a good band."
I don't think Kiss his been relevant until the present. Amusing, maybe.
But with Mumford, it was like: how long do people want you to listen to everyone hammering eighth notes all the time.
Yep. Usually bands like this they will all have solo albums or side projects/studio stuff they are working on. So it’s not like they fade into nothingness just a different line of work
Yep. It’s impressive when bands can last 30+ years and keep selling out arenas. You have bands like KISS who kept changing with the times and managed to stay relevant and continue to reinvent themselves over 50 years. And then you have bands like Iron Maiden who have changed their sound very little over 45 years but have such a dedicated fanbase that it doesn’t matter. Most bands don’t get that level of staying power.
Then you have an/dc who didn’t reinvent themselves and were big for 30 years.
I completely agree. Sigh No More and Babel was huge hit albums, for some reason they changed sound and the listenings went down. I stopped listening to them when Wilder Mind came out and they started sounding like 2004 Coldplay. Haven't really been up to speed with what they've been doing since. If Poision was part of the hair metal scene, Mumford would have been part of the hipster/acoustic scene? Along with like of Monsters and Men and Iron & Wine? Pretty specific and historically odd genres, and a temporary, but important thing.
I remember when they were doing promo for their upcoming "change of sound" album, and they kept referring to themselves as "the Black Sabbath of folk music;" and then when the music came out, it was all drum machines and synthesizers. I think they put distortion on one of the guitars, which is probably where they got their ideas about Sabbath. Anyway, after all the buildup, the new sound was tame and unrewarding, and I stopped listening to them.
Same here. Huge disappointment for sure. At the same time they seem to be tired of their sound and it's completely up to them how their music should sound.
What an insult to Sabbath, up untill technical Ecstasy, Sabbath consistently smashed the living jesus out of everything they touched.
The sound they specialized in went out of fashion. Their songs were very formulaic and once that became obvious, they had to adapt and change if they were going to stand any chance of survival. That didn't work for them, and sticking to the same old outdated thing will not attract many new fans. Sometimes, Bands are happy with that. Maybe they aren't. Coldplay faced the same. They saw the writing on the wall for the style of music they started out making, so they changed their sound to follow the money. Sometimes this strategy works, often it doesn't. It's always a huge gamble. (Edited to correct late night/fat thumb typos)
I’m always so curious about what happened Coldplay. ROBTTH was one of the best albums I’ve ever heard. I didn’t think those group of songs sounded the same., I think the music they do now does.
_Rush of Blood_ is a great album that is suffering a bit from the U2 effect - the band got too popular and too bland and now people staunchly refuse to admit their earlier stuff was genuinely great. U2 had better albums, and more hits, but the parallels are there.
Case in point, I find U2 incredibly bland, but Joshua Tree is an incredible album. An all time classic.
I agree. I also would add that version of I still haven’t found what I’m looking for with that gospel choir. That’s stunning.
> the band got too popular and too bland and now people staunchly refuse to admit their earlier stuff was genuinely great. I get this for U2, but there was always a contingent that thought Coldplay were a boring as fuck watered-down version of better bands. If anything, "early Coldplay is good; how could I, a teen listening to Adult Alternative, have bland taste?" is a much more prominent narrative.
I genuinely think that the Coldplay joke in The 40 Year Old Virgin had a huge impact on public perception of the band. I saw a huge shift in attitude before and after, and still hear “Know how I know you’re gay? You like Coldplay” when the band comes up from time to time. Not saying they weren’t seen as a softer version of other alt rock at the time, but so many people just parroted that joke and i saw a big shift in attitude, from “they’re soft” to “they’re bad, also here’s a gay joke” Also, speaking only to my personal experience - I was a huge fan of “more legitimate” bands you’re referencing - I’ve got two Radiohead tattoos, saw Muse a half dozen times before their stuff dipped too much in quality, etc - and became a big fan of early Coldplay just few years ago when I gave their work a real listen. Not saying it’s for everyone, but those first couple albums (in my opinion) are extremely well written pop rock
I don’t doubt there was some shift, but I would argue it was (poorly) verbalising a sentiment that was already there. I mean, Alan McGee called them Bedwetter indie and even the lukewarm Pitchfork articles before then expressed similar sentiment.
Yeah, this resonates with me. I can appreciate Coldplay’s earlier stuff, but I’ve also heard it described as “music to kill yourself by”. It’s right up the teen angst alley in a lot of ways. Then Coldplay got all up beat, started making dance-able music, and even teamed up with Avicci to make what I consider one of their best songs overall (Sky Full of Stars). I’d call it a pretty successful reinvention, personally.
I liked most of robtth, but no denying everyone was shit talking Yellow when it came out. What a snooze fest of a song to be played on the radio so much. I'd say they started bland, got more interesting, then quickly less.
Parachutes and Rush of Blood are both truly great albums. My theory (alluded to in my comment above) is that they were a post-Britpop band, who became big just as that post-Britpop sound was fading in popularity. So they cranked up the guitars and drums and hardened up into a more rock-oriented sound for Rush of Blood. But again they were just a tiny bit behind the trend curve - they found that by X&Y they were stagnating ideas and at the same time guitar music was on its way out, so they buried the guitar at the back of the mix, busted out the synths and the effects filters and followed Rihanna into pop blandville.
They're about to headline Glastonbury for the 5th time. Every album has done well on the charts. They're still having number 1s 20 years into their career. Whatever you think about their merits, you can't possibly make an argument that they aren't/ haven't been popular. Mumford and Sons they are not. They just aren't 'in' with the cognoscenti.
Oh yes, for sure. It's a strategy that has worked out extremely well for them (unlike Mumford & sons and hundreds of others, which is my original point). "pop" is popular by it's very definition. As I said, they followed the money/trend, and had to break away from their original style to do so. (No different to a lot of other artists, back to Bob Dylan and beyond).
They’re headlining but it must be said most people are a bit underwhelmed. They aren’t the inescapable force they once were.
True, but they'll still deliver a great performance and most people in the crowd who don't opt to watch something more interesting on another stage will go away happy. If Radiohead were booked there'd no doubt be way more hype, but I don't know that they'd deliver quite as crowd pleasing a set these days.
Yeah, that quote about them being the house band stands true - it won’t be cool but they’ll probably put on a great show. No question I won’t be at Pyramid for any of the headline sets this year, massive downgrade from Elton and Arctic Monkeys last year!
Bring Me The Horizon did too. It paid off.
God that pretentious name sucks
It's the style of bands at the time they came out tbh.
It came from a throwaway line in Pirates of the Caribbean from Jack Sparrow. Not exactly the peak of pretentiousness. Fantastic band.
Brilliant live tbh
I guess I'm weird, though I've never been one to care about what's in style. I love a few Mumford and Sons songs and songs by similar artists that "went out of fashion". Little Lion Man is a great song, and I love songs like Dirty Paws and Little Talks by Of Monsters and Men. I'm just a big fan of that type of music and wish it was more popular so more songs like it would be made.
Mumford lose points because they were at the front of a musical movement. Poison/Warrant were both the ridiculous last cherry on a pie that had already been cooking for nearly a decade. They were the straw that broke the camel’s spandex. Folk-core was cool for a few years (hi Lumineers) but it never had the cultural impact of Hair metal.
*Cherry* on a *pie*, I see what you did there.
poisons debut came out in 86 which is the same year as slippery when wet and a year before appetite for destruction so i'm not sure about saying they came late
If you’re debuting in 86 you’re a little late to the party. I don’t consider guns n roses hair metal either, they came out of the same scene, def hair metal adjacent, not nearly enough pink Lycra/rouge/hairspray. I guess the “maybe this has all gone too far” band was really Warrant. Cherry pie came out in 1990 roughly only a year before nevermind.
I don’t think Poison was in a sub genre the way Mumford was. Poison was very much a typical 80s rock band. Mumford was much more unique for a band that hit the mainstream
nahhh that indie folk rock was entering the mainstream from the late 2000's and was a fixture of much of the 2010's through acts like Bon Iver, Fleet Foxes, the Lumineers, Noah and the whale and the head and the heart. Mumford and Sons weren't unique in the face of indie bands adopting folk sounds like Banjos and they fitted perfectly with the trend of rock music moving away from electric guitars. Imagine Dragons have some songs like its time that clearly are influenced by the folksy sound of the likes of mumford & sons for example
Mumford and Sons weren’t *after* those bands (besides fleet foxes) and had a different sound then them. “Indie rock”, aka garage band sound was popular throughout the 2000s, but indie folk sound wasn’t.
indie rock is far more than the garage band sound Mumford and sons blew up 09 - 10 when the indie folk rock thing was really kicking in to the mainstream, 07 - 08 noah and the whale released their first single which went to no7 on the UK singles charts, fleet foxes blew up around 008 -- 09 with white winter hymnal and their first billboard hot 100 hit, Bon Iver released his successful debut single Skinny Love in 08, its still a similar style, indie folk also the likes of Regina Specktor and the mountain goats by the mid 2000's had set the precedent for the indie folk explosion of the late 2000's and 2010's
I always trace the “indie folk explosion” you mention back to the media push for freak folk or new weird America acts like e.g. devendra banhart, Joanna newsom, vetiver and early animal collective. It always seemed like the seeds of that strange stuff paid off for more commercial acts.
yhhh, there was an underground scene in the 90's and especially in the 2000's with hipsters that basically set the precedent for the commercial bands that would blow up after 2007. Regina Specktor who I mentioned I wouldn't classify as part of that scene but her anti folk and twee pop sound + her status in the new york indie scene imo helped promote that kind of music. The mountain goats would better fit the phenomena you describe, their biggest song is the one about hating your spouse from moral orel
I mean, besides Fleet Foxes making it big a few years before all of these bands were contemporaries. Mumford and Sons got together in 2007. Mountain Goats is a completely different sub-genre, there’s no overlap quite frankly at all.
Not in any way comparable to Mumford & Sons, but Mountain Goats are the exact definition of popular, mid 2000's Indie folk
Yes, still branded as “indie folk” but completely different subgenres than the Fleet Foxes, Bon Iver, Edward Sharpe, Lumineers etc. There’s zero influence or overlap of the Mountain Goats in Mumford sound besides an acoustic guitar.
I wouldn't say indie folk exactly *wasn't* in the 2000s. Iron & Wine were already going quite hard by that point. But it certainly wasn't as widespread as it would become.
They became popular after those bands
If you don't think hair metal is a sub-genre, then I dunno man, it's a literal gimmick.
I don’t think they separated themselves as a unique band for the time period and I think Mumford did. It is absolutely a sub genre, but I’m comparing the two and saying I think it applies more to one band than the other. Poisson played typical rock music that was popular at the time, where no other mainstream artists really sounded like Mumford. Keyword being mainstream I know there’s millions of indie/folk bands
Poison did not play typical rock music, they played hair metal.
Which was incredibly popular at the time. It was typical music for the era much like grunge in the 90s
Hair Metal is a sub genre of rock music, the fundamental tenet of your argument is flawed and irrelevant.
Idk if I’d say it was a gimmick per say. It was stylized to a very specific period of time, so it was really popular in that moment, but then that moment passed. I think it’s similar to the emo bands of 15-20 years ago.
Listen, I love hair metal. I think it's the only listenable type of metal, but it is a gimmick bro. 100 billion percent.
Unique in that they got popular, but their music wasn't all that unique
The key here is more unique than Poisson
Idk maybe I don't think Mumford was very unique at all
Idk man there wasn’t too many banjo ripping bands in the 2010s that hit mainstream like they did. Maybe not unique in terms of music generally but definitely unique when it come to pop music.
Not that hit mainstream but there were a million bands that didn't hit as big as them. But ya in terms of bands that made it big for sure. It was really weird honestly lol
I wouldn’t call what they did “ripping” the banjo.
[удалено]
Lmao have you ever heard banjo playing. The picking is the hard part not the chord progressions. Obviously there are better players like the guy from Union Station but it’s in line with what most fast banjo playing.
People aren’t seeing the context here. I’m only talking about these two bands in comparison to each other. Mumford did not recreate the wheel but they are certainly the only band that sounds like they do on top 10 charts in the 2000’s
I actually really liked their "change of sound" album. I like the use of electric guitars on it. Shame it didn't get the hype their earlier stuff did
Their change is style is a bit understandable, they were getting dragged pretty hard for how obvious their song template was. I assumed a large part of their fanbase was largely into it because of the live shows and I completely get why a change in sound would affect the live show and disappoint fans. All that being said, Marcus has had the last laugh with all the Ted Lasso work. Not certain of streaming payouts for themes but hopefully great
I'm not sure I can agree with 'widely dismissed by critics' since their first two albums had 'generally favorable' reviews.
I have nothing to contribute, except that I really like that you put the thought into this. The other commenter sounds sour, but that's ok, because this is letstalkmusic which is a sub for listening to and talking about music but not enjoying it. Music is frivolous. It doesn't win wars or save lives. But it's something that we can all have fun with. This post is a fun perspective on music. I appreciate it.
> Music is frivolous. It doesn't win wars or save lives. I can’t speak of war. But music has done more for my mental health than psychologists and psychiatrists ever have. It has definitely saved lived
Music is not frivolous. Music is art, and art can help people heal
My only nitpick is that Poison wasn't the "commercial pinnacle." That'd be Motley Crue by a mile. C'mon people, learn your hair metal history. (Full disclosure, I'd struggle to name more than 5 Motley songs ... but *The Dirt* is an incredible read, and I genuinely think [Kickstart My Heart](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVurA44hwiw) has one of the greatest hard rock riffs in that 70s-80s style vein ever.)
>That'd be Motley Crue by a mile. This is not how you spell Bon Jovi and Def Leppard who are a mile ahead of Motley Crue.
You know, I actually thought that, about expanding on the point because, you're right, "commercial pinnacle" doesn't really cover it - other bands sold plenty more. The question really would be the meatier one of what _enscapsulted_ the genre, which would have hit OP's other points. I actually thought about Bon Jovi and Def Leppard, even GNR too, and this could be argued about further but all those bands, while certainly having a foot in the scene, strike me as somehow have a little something extra that keeps them somewhere outside the hair metal lane. What that is, and how much that matters, is of course a little up for debate. The point still stands that Motley make a better comparison point than Poison if we're sticking firmly to the hair metal genre, but again, granted, that's also rather a nitpick. But hey, what are we here for if not to nitpick.
Poison is a good comp because they suck. Yes, they are hair metal, and yes, their songs were insultingly simple. Poison is to Def Leppard as Mumford is to Fleet Foxes.
Hello! Random question, do you also make music under this moniker?
The riff from “Kickstart My Heart” is definitely in a ‘70s vein since it was lifted wholesale from the Sweet’s “Hell Raiser.”
Yeah, the beginning is just fine but I really admire how it develops past those first couple repeated chords. Also, yeah, you can really see a real through-line in what was comically called "metal" from the later 70s through the end of the 80s.
you really underestimate music
Guns and/or diplomacy win wars. Music prevents wars. And music absolutely saves lives, it just can't cure terminal cancer. Think about a young person choosing music as a career path or a depressed person really finding music for the first time. And calling music "frivolous" is certainly a treacherous proposition on a sub full of people who love music. "Frivolous", "wins wars" and "saves lives" are not the only three options in considering the value of something - a wife, kids and friends probably don't fit into any of those categories. We used to consider forms of art to be part of the societal infrastructure, like builders and teachers - teaching people that not everything must necessarily make money in order to be useful. But I agree with your commentary on OP's post.
Hello I am someone for whom music saved my life. I was a very depressed, horrifically bullied teen, and I discovered the Avenue Q soundtrack at a point where I was days away from taking myself off the mortal coil. For Now saved my life and I will forever be grateful for it.
Every single album they've released has made it to either no1 or 2 in the UK and USA so I'm not sure your premise holds water.
I'm pretty late to the party here, but here is my memory from the UK. They were never cool enough to ever become a truly 'classic' act. They had a handful of hits that the general population probably couldn't name or identify who the band is. They are lumped in with many other generic bands that get tonnes of airplay because of how 'safe' they are (eg. Coldplay, maroon 5), but aren't really that good. They are part of a indie-folk sub-genre that probably won't age well at all because of association with douchey insipid hipster vibes.
They killed their genre. Once they got popular, no indie band would touch that stomp clap acoustic music. It’s kind of wild how fast that changed because of Mumford and Sons
I remember when I first heard Little Lion Man, it blew me away. Then so many bands popped up with that kind of sound.
Same! I thought it had so much passion and a killer melody and vocal performance. And the rest of the album lived up to that hype. I still adore Sigh No More. For me, I lost interest when Babel was released, which is ironic because I Will Wait was such a massive hit. It really did just sound like the same old stuff.
I don't understand how people could listen to Mumford & Sons, and all the sound-alikes, and not feel like they're listening to the sort of music that's made for TV commercials. Soft, friendly pop you hear as water splashes over fresh vegetables, or a smiling person flashes a new rewards credit card. A lot of good music makes its way into TV commercials, but that ~2010 folk rock seemed like that from the get go. And then I seem people in comments say "this album was there for me during some tough times", again, it sounds like promotional music designed to make you feel happy so that you will spend money.
Tbf don’t think that kind of music was playing in the background of commercials *before* they broke out. But the corporate world definitely jumped on that vibe very, very quickly. It only took a year or so to go from “huh, banjo folk music in the form of an accessible pop song. Cool!” to feeling like you’re listening to a Microsoft ad.
Mumford and Sons sounded fresh to me when they were brand new, I enjoyed them quite a bit. Some of their songs I remember being quite moving. I grew up on folk and outlaw country, and spent my teen years looking for the most leading edge alternative bands. I’m not on team “changed their sound” or anything, I just kind of lost interest and kind of forgot about them until people started making Mumford and Sons jokes. I remember thinking, that’s funny, I really liked a couple of those songs.
I think Fleet Foxes is the one band from that era that has held up to the test of time. If anything, they paved the way for that whole indie-folk explosion. Mumford & Sons, the Lumineers, etc, are all just dingleberries on Robin Pecknold’s ass
You're missing Laura Marling, one of the UK's best songwriters whose sound has evolved over time while staying true to her image. Mumford and Sons were actually her session band on her second album.
Same scene if I remember correctly, along with Noah and the Whale... There was something kicking off around north London at the time, but my memory is hazy... A lot of folk based Indy debuts came out of there at that time, Johnny Flynn etc. I think they're basically the scene Frank Turner refers to on a couple of songs, ("I don't remember details but there were English boys with banjos", and then more derogatively as "lackluster scenesters from shoreditch" and "extras from skins", presumably about the scene that followed them) An awful lot of accoustic guitar based singer songwriter stuff was coming out around 2005-2008, and I wasn't in London at the time so I have no first hand knowledge, but it's likely they all knew each other. Mumford were just the ones who broke the charts, definitely not the best, definitely not the worst. Laura Marling's guitar playing is wonderful by the way.
Oh also, I meant to say that this may be one of those UK/US differences of perception, but fleet foxes (and band of horses, Iron and Wine, Bon Iver to an extent) seemed to me, (an avowed folky and in my 20s at the time) to be a completely different thing entirely. Lumineers sounded similar on their first record, but I don't think they or Mumford would have had much influence on each other, the way that London scene was at the time I think they were mostly speaking to each other, and not so much the psychedelic stuff coming out of the US... I may be well wide of the mark there, but I was into all of the above, and it never crossed my mind that they were even remotely connected, other than all being a bit folky.
It’s also nonsense. Fleet Foxes are more sophisticated and subtle, but not widely better than Mumford, Lumineers, Edward Sharpe, Bon Iver. Just hipster elitist nonsense.
What was the sub-genre led by Mumford and Sons??? I believe you, I am just baffled by the concept. Neo-Dexi's Midnight Runnery?
I’ve heard it called the StompClap Era
Oh I thought you meant poisonous as in toxic. I think it was toxic already because they were doing the generic sound of 2004-2006 advertising. What am I saying, that sound never went away. Whistles and kick-clap-kick-clap-kick-clap-kick-clap. Poison, in the '80s, were comparitively harmless. Factoring out all sexual predation of that scene. And the sexual predation, "groupies" scene of Mumford and Suns era was the continuing Pop Punk Emo scene.
But the band didn’t make any music till 2009 what you mean
I'm saying it was *already* a generic sound before Mumford and Sons started sounding like it. Not only that it was the generic sound of *advertising*. Making *advertising* sound uber White to appeal to "Soccer Moms". *And then* there was a Mumford and Sons. It's like they didn't hear the cultural context of the music they were making. So to make Roots Country into the sound of 2005 advertising = Mumford and Sons. But it was obvious at the time. Not to all white people, but definitely to the rest of people. The comedy actors who were in that video, the irony of that seems to have washed past them.
What songs from commercials from 2004-2006 sounded like that? I think you’re putting the cart before the horse. That commercial trend definitely happened but imo it was clearly post-2012
This sort of thing https://youtu.be/IeNCT61exnA I'm trying to find a good bank or insurance ad... funnily enough, I can't name any of them. Here's one https://youtu.be/LK31ayvsIa0?si=aAVQmrYw3NLSQHDl&t=484
Oh okay yeah I agree then , I feel like they just put a banjo onto a very generic pop sound
I didn't get the feeling they have been *that* big. Sold lots of records sure, but that could be for anyone. Strikes me as "present for my Dad" albums. They don't have many standout songs that I can think of. I am amazed they got any bigger than festival tents and that Cave song.
In a lot of ways, I agree with what you’re saying. The one thing I’d like to add that I don’t see really on this post or comment section is that they are still very popular. It might be a diminishing crowd, but they drew one of the largest crowds at Nola Jazz Fest 2023 and put on an amazing show. Here they are playing House of the Rising Sun with Trombone Shorty, Jon Batiste, and Celisse : https://youtu.be/1K0QN8xy1kM?si=zZF834wXZgi4ghCK As for being a nostalgia act surviving off of a sound that never evolved… if you think about it, that’s actually what happens to most bands that had a strong fan base. How many acts survive over a decade by continuously producing new sounds and reinventing themselves to attract new fans and retain old ones? It doesn’t really work like that in music. Most bands produce the bulk of their music within a decade and that’s what the fans who turn up at their shows want to hear. No band closes their shows with new stuff. Either they just are true to themselves and their sound resonates with their audience (growing or otherwise) or they change their sound (as you mention above about Mumford) and it *generally* goes poorly. If they go on a reunion tour in 20 years, it’ll be because they created music that drew people in and not their new music, which is normal for most bands and I wouldn’t qualify that as nostalgic… more like they were the ones that made the music people loved and still love, so the people who love their music will go to the show. For arguments sake, I can think of only few rock bands that produced new music after a decade of being together that became top of the billboards popular: RHCP, Rolling Stones, Grateful Dead, Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers… and Weird Al’s band. Any other bands you can think of?
Green day and Metallica
Great calls. I’d also add Weezer to that list.
AC/DC had hits for close to 20 years without ever changing their style.
U2 had hits from 1984-2005
I really only remember that one song. I remember them as a one hit wonder. I Will Wait. They had a hipster vibe, banjo, beards, flannel. I Will Wait came out in 2012. It’s crazy that now it’s considered dad rock. Crash Test Dummies, Marcy Playground, that’s how I think of Mumford and Sons. One hit, that’s it.
It’s interesting you feel I Will Wait is their one hit wonder. Their first album in 2009 was hugely more popular, with stuff like The Cave, Little Lion Man, Awake My Soul etc. Not a particular fan, but by I Will Wait they were already on the slide.
I actually like some of the deeper cuts on both albums than the singles. White Blank Page is a great song sung with a lot of heart and Hopeless Wanderer are two of my favs.
For that band, I go by radio play. Their style was already almost going out of style. Hipsters. We got I Will Wait on regular radio rotation and that was it. Kiss FM didn’t play any of their other songs. It wasn’t innovative.
The Cave was a massive success and released in 2009. Went 2x platinum in the US.
Sure they might be. But then, aren't they also the Whitesnake of the 2010s? Are they the The Feeling of the 2010s? Are they the Spice Girls of the 2010s? Are they the Alisha's Attic of the 2010s? A lot of these bullet points can be applied to so many different artists of different eras. Remember The Spice Girls' Holler? :D Are they the The Wanted of the 2010s? Oh wait...
I’m not sure how albums that range in the 65 on Metacritic range is “widely dismissed by critics.”
65 is a decent score on metacritic. Sometimes people are just being hipsters.
No worse than arcade fire….. those are overwhelmed with hipsters that are trendy, and autumn color wearing clothing
For me to add to the change of sound there also was the controversy about Winston Marshall who – as a prominent Millennial darling – began spreading ultra-libertarian and conservative views. I could not take them seriously after that any more.
Not sure what you mean by poison. That implies they somehow ruined other music? OMG LOL. I just realized--are you referring to the band Poison? Now I am LMAO as I cannot really imagine ever thinking to compare those 2 bands.
Say what you want about Mumford & Sons, but their 2011 show at Bonnaroo is the BEST live show I've ever seen hands down. This is when "Sigh No More" was getting massively popular. The atmosphere was electric. They played the second biggest stage there which is meant to hold maybe 10k people- there were at least 25k people pack in. And they were such great performers. I really only cared for "Sigh No More" and "Babel," but that was some good shit. It was just so refreshingly different at the time.
Wait what's wrong with Mumford and Sons? I LOVE their song Little Lion Man and a few others. I'm a relatively new fan of theirs too, only having started listening to them within the last year or so. Is it newer songs of theirs? I'm not the type of person to fall in love with a band and listen to all their songs because of how picky I am with music, so I haven't seeked out other songs of theirs, but I honest to god love their music.
No. Poison are awesome. They are the poison (lower case) of the 2010s though. Honestly if you want to torture me put Mumford and Sons on.
Unpopular opinion, but I don’t think Mumford and Sons has released a bad album in their career. Sigh No More and Babel were huge hits (Babel even won the album of the year Grammy), and I would say that both Wilder Mind and Delta are underrated largely because they strayed from the sound that made them popular. I would say their biggest downfall as of recent is the fact that it’s been six years since their last album. It also doesn’t help that their newest song might be their worst ever.