Better than: It's cool to admit, apparently.
I honestly don't understand the voracious hatred some have for Mumford & Sons. I get that banjos/mandolins/dobros aren't for everyone: there is no law that says you have to like fiddles and boots-as-percussion instruments, same as there isn't one that requires you enjoy heavy metal or doo-wop or techno. I can see why one look at how they dress, from their suspenders to their waistcoats to their weathered wingtips, could easily lead to thinking that it's all for the sake of buying into the alt-folk image. I'd believe you if you said you'd puncture your own eardrums with the nearest stabby object if you heard "Little Lion Man" one more time, and I wouldn't fault you for thinking that it's weird that an English band got nominated for an Americana Grammy. Still: since when has wardrobe, genre or radio airplay served as stand-alone criteria for dubbing a band as a good or bad one? Why can't their talent, lyrical strength and overall musical aptitude cut them some slack, seeing as the songs themselves aren't worthy of sonic exile? What's wrong with just writing Mumford & Sons off as "It's fine, just not my thing" vs. "Dude screw all of that Civil War/half-ass folk revival shit!"?More »