1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Mumford & Sons = The Beatles?

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Football_Bat, Oct 6, 2012.

  1. Azrael

    Azrael Well-Known Member

    To be fair, the way the 'Hot 100' is measured has been completely overhauled several times since then. And like all bestseller lists, it shows only the success of a widget in relation to other widgets available the same week.
     
  2. Cosmo

    Cosmo Well-Known Member

    A better comparison would be Coldplay.

    I guess I'm in the minority, but I dig the new album. To each his own, I suppose.
     
  3. old_tony

    old_tony Well-Known Member

    In 1964, there was no way to buy a single song unless it was released as a single. With iTunes and downloading of single songs now, it's a whole different game.

    But I would surmise that if you could buy single songs via download in 1964, the Beatles would have had many more than six songs in the top 100.

    Comparing Mumford & Sons to the Beatles at this point is ridiculous.
     
  4. John

    John Well-Known Member

    I feel like I should like Mumford & Sons, but I've yet to hear a song of theirs that I want to hear a second time. Of course, I'm not the biggest Beatles fan either.
     
  5. dooley_womack1

    dooley_womack1 Well-Known Member

    I'll wait until Mumfords for Sale comes out before passing judgment
     
  6. Football_Bat

    Football_Bat Well-Known Member

    They put on an incredible show at Bonnaroo in 2011.
     
  7. JR

    JR Well-Known Member

    Mumford and Sons are the modern day version of The Hollies.
     
  8. old_tony

    old_tony Well-Known Member

    The Hollies kick Mumford& Sons asses.
     
  9. JR

    JR Well-Known Member

    Well, that's the best analogy I could think of at the time. :)

    I like Mumford & Sons a lot but to mention them and the Beatles in the same breath, regardless of the context, is ludicrous.
     
  10. old_tony

    old_tony Well-Known Member

    On this, sir, we are in total agreement. As I posted over the weekend, if single-song downloads were available in 1964, the Beatles would have had a dozen songs on the Hot 100 chart.

    The difference now and then is that the Beatles had "singles" on the chart, while Mumford & Sons have "songs" on the chart. You can buy single songs off albums today. You couldn't in 1964; it had to be released as a single on a 45-rpm record.
     
  11. Michael_ Gee

    Michael_ Gee Well-Known Member

    Excellent point, OT. This comparison is akin to the board's many "X is a Hall of Famer?" threads.
     
  12. Versatile

    Versatile Active Member

    Jesus. Mumford & Sons literally equaled The Beatles. That's all the subject line means.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page