Mumford & Sons = The Beatles?

Pretty amazing chart feat, although they need a few more Top 10 hits at once to blow the Fab Four away on the 50th anniversary of their British chart debut.

http://www.nme.com/news/mumford-and-sons/66501

 

I loved the first Mumford stuff I came across a couple years back. White Blank Page and Dust Bowl Dance were unlike anything I'd heard. But I've been reading some criticism aimed at how similar the new album sounds. The first song they released -- can't think of the name right now -- did indeed sound like much of their other stuff. I got bored with it after about 90 seconds. Guess I'll have to seek out the rest of the album and see if the criticism is warranted.

 

Those charts aren't what they used to be:

nymag.com/arts/popmusic/features/grizzly-bear-2012-10/

 

This album sounds basically just like the one before. They know how to play about three songs and they just change up the arrangements a little on those three songs throughout the album.

 

Soon someone will compare Miley Cyrus to Michael Jackson.

 

Miley Cyrus and Michael Jackson are both bipeds...

 

The new Mumford album is boring as all hell

 

I like every Mumford and Sons song I've heard because they all sound nearly identical.

 

Mumford and Sons = Nickelback

 

Seems to me people were saying the same thing about Oasis 15 years ago.

I love Mumford & Sons, but no one = The Beatles.

 

Read the article. In this regard, Mumford & Sons actually did equal The Beatles.

 

Gotta echo the comments here. I liked the first album quite a bit, but the second is basically a cover's album. If you're going to be a one-trick pony, it's got to be a really good trick. With M&S, it doesn't really work.