Mumford & Sons is out with their new album Babel, which is already being greeted by the same negative reactions from critics—and eager embrace from fans—that met their first. Many conservatives and Christians see the critical savaging of Mumford as another instance of media bias—the sequel to recent attacks on Tim Tebow, Sarah Palin, et al.
That might be, but whatever their motivation, the media are right about Mumford’s musical stylings. In subject and in style, the music of Mumford and Sons is nostalgic and subjective rather than historical and committed. Traditional folk and roots music, when it is not merely humanely, honestly simple and silly, is about spiritual, sexual, and political yearning. Praising Christ, lamenting death, demanding justice. The singer has an existential position—as sinner, laborer, husband, wife—from which they sing. And the audience must take sides. For revenge of an infidelity, for redress of an injustice, for the glory of God.
But Mumford does not demand any public or existential commitment from its listeners. It is the typical suburban song-spinning of popular music, but unlike that popular music it affects to be about something more. Mumford seems to be incapable of writing serious songs and unwilling to write ones that eschew bombast. Hence the vague historical and religious references. Hence the waistcoats sans jackets, the odd assemblage of nonsense wardrobe items that share no connection to each other beyond their outmodedness.
Mumford and Sons are a kind of musical Pinterest. They “collect” without really linking together a variety of quaint, beautiful, and touching things. A little gospel here, a little Chesterton there, a little waistcoat here. Because of their penchant for gathering any and every sartorial, lyrical, and instrumental oddment, their coy references to the gospel and GKC become just the “pinning” of another striking and well-wrought thing. We don’t know if they’re Christians (or indeed if they have any existential commitment), or if they’re just aesthetic reactionaries of a limited type. Eclecticism precludes evangelism.
The whole problem is well represented by their name, “Mumford and Sons.” It suggests history, tradition, the passing down of something real—above all, the transmission of blood. But Marcus Mumford is not in a band with his sons; in fact, he has no sons at all.
October 1st, 2012 | 4:09 pm
“But Mumford does not demand any public or existential commitment from its listeners.”
Seriously? Music must require “existential commitment” to be taken seriously? Wow, I was not aware of this rather serious role of popular music.
FWIW, I find the music enjoyable and the lyrics engaging and often poetic. I guess I just set the bar far too low …
October 1st, 2012 | 4:23 pm
Music critics are like any other kind of critic – they try too hard to find something wrong.
Mumford and Sons is unique in their style and has a huge following because they don’t sound like anyone else and they don’t take their music too seriously.
Critics could learn something from them.
We really shouldn’t get into an existential discussion about lyrics. It will make most bands seem rather shallow.
October 1st, 2012 | 4:27 pm
This is a weird tendency I’ve noticed especially in the Y-generation. There is desire to create and live in an aesthetically nostalgic environment without actually understanding the past in any meaningful way: Civil War figurines, old oak dressers, a quote from Epicurus, a painting by van Gough… all of these disparate pieces of history mashed together creates some kind of pleasing aesthetic experience as they belong to “the past” or the “great minds of history”. Nevermind of course the implications of these historical fragments, and certainly nevermind any kind of coherent historical narrative that might be constructed by looking at the interrelatedness of these pieces.
I think you’ve struck a nerve, Matt. We have taken the ideas and objects of the past – ideas and objects with real value – and have used them as idols; a tribute to an aesthetic trend in modern culture to appreciate, in a hip-new-way, “the old days”, without bothering to figure out what the old days were about.
M&S don’t need to stand for anything. They offer a generation lacking in existential commitment an anthem to sing sold out arena’s: “We don’t need to believe, we don’t need to understand. We only need to feel anything at all”. Paradoxically, this anthem of meaningless actually provides meaning. Our purpose is to sing – side by side – about nothing in particular.
October 1st, 2012 | 4:30 pm
Eh. It’s just not very good music. How’s that for analysis?
October 1st, 2012 | 4:41 pm
Must everything be a flat out testimony? The beauty of Mumford & Son is in their vagueness. It is a way of saying “There is more…go find out”. It is an invitation to the listener to discover for themselves what they are thirsting for. Those who can do; those who can’t, criticize.
October 1st, 2012 | 4:52 pm
I don’t think Matt here is calling out for “testimony”. I think he’s calling for “conviction” – and conviction requires an understanding of one’s existential commitments. There is a difference between vagueness – which comes from laziness – and mystery – an inevitable bi-product of the pursuit of truth.
Certainly we are all vague and lazy to an extent. I think the criticism here goes beyond M&S (a band I enjoy listening to) and to our culture at large: We have created a consumer market that is satisfied, even pines after, a blurry vagueness.
October 1st, 2012 | 4:54 pm
To be fair, Mumford and Sons gave us fair warning of all of this with their latest album title.
October 1st, 2012 | 4:55 pm
You make some interesting points, but Mumford and Sons is pretty young to be writing off. For as young as they are, they have more substance than most popular acts. I think the verdict is still out, and I look forward to what is to come.
October 1st, 2012 | 5:17 pm
Love the banjo!
October 1st, 2012 | 5:23 pm
Without any thought to their assumed intent, I think their music is certainly beautiful. When form follows function, it cannot help but be beautiful. I also think their lyrics have given a religiousless, or even anti-religious group of listeners pause to think. I am a big fan of their music, lyrics, and performances. I hope they continue to produce thoughtful and inspired music.
October 1st, 2012 | 5:34 pm
Matt,
Its interesting to me that so many of the commenters responding to your post are responding to your issues with Mumford & Sons’ lyrical/existential commitments and not to the ways that their “sample without committing” aesthetic affects the quality of their music.
The main reason that I dislike Mumford & Sons is not because I dislike folk music, in its various forms, but because I like it enough to recognize that the band doesn’t really get it. Instead, they play a generic banjo riff over emo rock as a recognizable signifier of the band’s authenticity, while missing out on the heart of what makes folk music great. Listening to Mumford & Sons is a bit like watching a Dreamworks animated movie; it takes all of the right superficial cues from another source (Pixar and good folk music, respectively) while missing out on the core. And the result is something that is temporarily satisfying, as opposed to something lasting.
One final thought: it is important to note that an updating of traditional stylings can be done, very well. Paul Simon’s Graceland and Rhythm of the Saints come to mind, as does the Pogues’ early work. But it seems to me that the problem is that Simon and Shane McGowan first very clearly loved and understood the traditional styling they were updating, while Mumford just took some of the superficial signifiers and hoped no one would notice.
October 1st, 2012 | 5:53 pm
I wonder whether Mumford & Sons represents the “superficialization” of music that Mr. Schmitz suggests, or the beginning of its reconstruction (or someting else entirely – I don’t mean to suggest that those are the only options). Once all of the previous “existential commitments” have been deconstructed, and all the resulting angst and nihlism exhausts itself, maybe this generation is left with the uneviable task of reconstructing a narrative from the bits of the past that resonate as true and enduring. If so, the themes in the music of Mumford & Sons are a good place to start. I agree with Chris – let’s give them a chance. They may disappoint, but the hope they sing about suggests they deserve at least that.
October 1st, 2012 | 5:55 pm
Well, I had never heard their music until I played the link you provided. I liked it. A lot. I might have to purchase me some of that.
Your review reminded me of my snobby college friends who had decided that anything popular could not be good. They would continually pull out some obscure, tedious record album to play for me, assuming it to be good because it was by a little-known band. But as my father always told me, music that is little known usually deserves to be little known.
October 1st, 2012 | 6:56 pm
This seems to me a good case of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. At a cultural moment when most popular music ranges from banal to straightforwardly unwholesome, a band — and, in particular, a songwriter — appears who want to sing about purity of heart, love of truth, hope, beauty, and grace. One would think it would be an occasion for mild rejoicing, or at least quiet thanks.
On the other hand, one could point out — correctly, for all I know — that they don’t dress properly, and complain that they aren’t Billy Graham and the Carter Family in one.
As for me and my house, we’re giving quiet thanks.
October 1st, 2012 | 7:26 pm
I don’t think I’m alone in thinking, contrary to the reviewer, that M&S does have substance. I can appreciate that the reviewer does distinguish M&S from the run of the mill pop music (e.g., “It is the typical suburban song-spinning of popular music, but unlike that popular music it affects to be about something more.”). I guess where the debate comes is whether or not they actually deliver on the “something more.” Perhaps the reviewer could point to contemporary pop musicians that he thinks are actually providing their audiences with that “something more” in order to give the rest of us a point of reference. There seems to be a tendency among some Christians: if it’s popular with the masses it must be bad…I’m sure it isn’t the case with this reviewer but there is very little engagement with the music beyond beyond vague references.
October 1st, 2012 | 9:43 pm
pleasant roots music. I like roots music
October 1st, 2012 | 10:09 pm
Can I get a ‘like’ for Joe Z? lol….
October 1st, 2012 | 11:22 pm
I would highly recommend this article on NPR’s website for a bit more substance on the topic: http://www.npr.org/blogs/therecord/2012/09/27/161883725/mumford-sons-preaches-to-masses
October 2nd, 2012 | 1:35 am
What references to GKC? I recall Mumford discussing how he enjoyed “The Outline of Sanity”, but is there any allusion to GKC in the lyrics?
October 2nd, 2012 | 9:40 am
Mr. Bultitude, have a look at this.
October 2nd, 2012 | 9:42 am
I am the father of a 17 year old male. I am delighted that his favorite group can be listened to on the car radio without me wincing with each obscenity. I am delighted that he listens to a group that does not glorify thuggery, misogyny or substance abuse.
Perhaps one day he will hear some of the music from which M&S has rummaged and will follow that path. In the meanwhile, is this discussion as to how “authentic” a band sounds reflective of how stupid we sounded in our earnest discussions in High School and college? If so, I apologize for past sins.
October 2nd, 2012 | 9:47 am
[...] didn’t know what it was that bothered me until I read my friend Matthew Schmitz’s post, Against Mumford:Mumford and Sons are a kind of musical Pinterest. They “collect” without really linking [...]
October 2nd, 2012 | 1:54 pm
I do not believe the writer of this article suggested that all music must have an existential element to its lyrics but rather suggested that traditional (and critically acclaimed) roots and folk music do have an existential deliema at its heart and therefore Mumford and Sons are not doing anything “new” for the industry but breaking down the essential building blocks of the genre by watering down the lyrical component of the music they make, therefore making their songs no more special and any other catchy pop tune on the radio now.
I personally love listening to M&S.
The philosopher in me appreciates the article for pointing out what I also believe to be true about the lyrical content of their music but the musician in me also can not deny the passion which Marcus Mumford’s voice posseses and the extreme power of a live performance from him and his non-sons.
October 2nd, 2012 | 3:10 pm
[...] other hand, there are all the Christian reviewers. These dudes, writing in Christianity Today and First Things, take a different tact. You want to like Mumford & Sons. You really do want to like them. But [...]
October 2nd, 2012 | 4:37 pm
Mr. Schmitz, I would like to hear your views on the Fleet Foxes.
October 2nd, 2012 | 4:57 pm
[...] which he approached writing a review of the music of Mumford & Sons, whose music I might have objected to more succinctly by pointing out its sentimentality and leaving it at that. In any case, I present [...]
October 2nd, 2012 | 5:37 pm
I completely disagree with this post. Music is an art form. Part of the beauty of art is that the philosophical message is not blatant, but latent. The message, although not a theology textbook, is that life has meaning and purpose. Art is meant to make you think and reflect and wrestle with the human experience. Arguably, all good art makes people think. Few people in this polarized world would just pick up a theology book. It is precisely because they are pleasing to so many people, that many more are wrestling with deeper questions. They also do have an existential end in their music. No one could listen to their music and relate as a nihilist. I think the other commentators are right too that this poster just dislikes the popular. Comparing them to popular pop is a pretty far-fetched claim at least in subject. I would be shocked if Britney Spears writers are relying on Pascal or Shakespeare or even tidbits of Chesterton. Perhaps their latent approach is a means of evangelizing. Maybe someone could end up going to their blog, following their book club, reading Chesterton who knows where this little lyrical poetry could go.
October 2nd, 2012 | 8:33 pm
“Mumford and Sons are a kind of musical Pinterest. They “collect” without really linking together a variety of quaint, beautiful, and touching things.”
I have to say, I DEEPLY, DEEPLY disagree. I haven’t listened in depth to the new album yet, but Sigh No More actually presents a pretty clearly discernable narrative of a faith journey which corresponds roughly to C S Lewis’ sense of Enchantment, Disenchantment, and Re-enchantment. It’s actually one of the most unified albums I’ve ever heard.
October 2nd, 2012 | 10:43 pm
Could not disagree more with this post, and I have never had that thought about a post on this blog. Marcus Mumford’s songs are, contrary to the assertions of the author above, some of the most beautiful, significant poetry being produced by any artist today. This post simply expresses a curmudgeon’s unwillingness to take the artist seriously.
October 3rd, 2012 | 2:11 pm
What I don’t understand is who we SHOULD be listening to. Who DOES do what the author is hoping musicians do?
October 3rd, 2012 | 5:17 pm
In the interest of adding to my substantial analysis above … from my very limited experience listening to their music, I agree with Chris’ point, that Mumford’s use of folk instruments and styles is pretty shallow as a matter of musical form and function (nothing to do with the lyrics). Pop with banjos, to put it bluntly. Not that that makes it terrible.
I mean, good for them for being a popular and competent band that is decent and educated and properly motivated in many ways. I don’t happen to think that it’s great music, and I think Chris gives good reasons for that judgment. On the other hand, not everything has to be great. Good things are still good even if they aren’t great.
October 3rd, 2012 | 7:09 pm
I – How do you know that “many conservatives and Christians see the critical savaging of Mumford as another instance of media bias”? How many conservatives and Christians do you know who hold that opinion? What sort of research did you undertake to reach that conclusion?
II – You criticize Mumford’s musical stylings because they do not demand a public or existential commitment from listeners. In 2009 you upbraided National Review for making the mistake of “claiming that while art may be important, the message matters a great deal too” and praised Eric Rohmer for an artistic treatment of “gender, sex and love free of irony or politics.” Have your views on artistic expression changed since then, or do you have some other basis for distinguishing your criticism of Mumford from your prior comments?
III – When you listen to Beethoven’s 5th, what sort of public or existential commitments do you find yourself required to make?
IV – On what grounds do you distinguish the vague religious and historical references in Eliot’s The Wasteland from the vague religious and historical references in Mumford’s lyrics? Or do you think The Wasteland is a kind of poetic Pinterest?
October 4th, 2012 | 7:05 am
[...] gory details here. The best critique of the bunch comes from my fellow Nebraskan Matthew Schmitz at First Things. Mumford and Sons are a kind of musical Pinterest. They “collect” without really linking [...]
October 7th, 2012 | 5:31 pm
[...] New Sincerity Posted at 5:45 on October 7, 2012 by Andrew Sullivan Matthew Schmitz really does not like the new Mumford and Sons album, Babel: Mumford and Sons are a kind of musical Pinterest. They [...]
October 7th, 2012 | 5:33 pm
Why don’t you put together a group, practice, write some songs, and perform in some concerts. Then the rest of us can make up ridiculous reasons to criticize you.
October 7th, 2012 | 5:40 pm
Bobby Darin was never separated from his lover in the navy/merchant marine, nor was he a serial murderer.
I doubt Sinatra was forlorn over a summer love for a year.
As for folk music specifically, most folk songs are sung by people who didn’t write them. Where’s the authenticity in that?
Sometimes people write and perform deeply personal songs that we love, and sometimes people channel other things into their songs. I mean, do we need to delve into the authenticity of 1960′s white rock and roll?
If a song moves you, it ought to make little difference if the singer’s words and the band’s music come from personal experiences or conviction. Lost in all this discussion about what is “historical and committed” is the question: Is it enjoyable? A lot of people seem to think so.
October 8th, 2012 | 8:09 am
Lighten up Francis, it’s just a band. Like most bands, they entertain, they provide some escapism, maybe their reflective on society, maybe not. Who cares. If you like the music, enjoy it, if not, move on. To quote from Ratatouille:
“In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face is that, in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is more meaningful than our criticism designating it so. “
October 8th, 2012 | 8:12 am
You could just enjoy the music and not try to “figure it out”. I think Flannery O’Connor said that once about her stories.
But true, there is a deep yearning in us to find something that touches the divine. We want meaning. We long for the sacred in a mundane routine world. Like relics of saints, we want to discover the sacred and keep it as close to us as possible.
October 8th, 2012 | 10:06 am
[...] the most incisive critique along these lines came from another conservative writer, Matthew Schmitz, who finds Mumford’s songs shallow counterfeits of the actual folk music that inspired the [...]
October 8th, 2012 | 2:29 pm
Give me a break. What you are demanding of pop music is not something that it purports to give. Pop music is always the genre that underpromises and overdelivers on spiritual content. Folk music is usually the reverse. If you don’t believe me, listen to Bruce Springsteen’s genius talk from SXSW this year.
Make no mistake…the Mumfords have the upper hand here. They aren’t trying to feed the hungry…they’re trying to remind people that the dull pain they feel in their guts can be satisfied if they don’t lose heart.
One more in the name of love,
Climacus
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact