Mumford & Sons — Timshel
Album: Sigh No MoreAvg rating:
Your rating:
Total ratings: 1721
Length: 2:49
Plays (last 30 days): 5
share
tweet
Cold is the water
It freezes your already cold mind
Already cold, cold mind
And death is at your doorstep
And it will steal your innocence
But it will not steal your substance
But you are not alone in this
And you are not alone in this
As brothers we will stand and we'll hold your hand
Hold your hand
And you are the mother
The mother of your baby child
The one to whom you gave life
And you have your choices
And these are what make man great
His ladder to the stars
But you are not alone in this
And you are not alone in this
As brothers we will stand and we'll hold your hand
Hold your hand
And I will tell the night
And whisper, "Lose your sight"
But I can't move the mountains for you
It freezes your already cold mind
Already cold, cold mind
And death is at your doorstep
And it will steal your innocence
But it will not steal your substance
But you are not alone in this
And you are not alone in this
As brothers we will stand and we'll hold your hand
Hold your hand
And you are the mother
The mother of your baby child
The one to whom you gave life
And you have your choices
And these are what make man great
His ladder to the stars
But you are not alone in this
And you are not alone in this
As brothers we will stand and we'll hold your hand
Hold your hand
And I will tell the night
And whisper, "Lose your sight"
But I can't move the mountains for you
Comments (141)add comment
Gawd please make it stop...
"Thou mayest"
scrubbrush wrote:
Point of Order: "the listener objectively considers "good""
By definition the listener cannot "objectively" consider any non-scientific thing "objectively ... merely subjectively
[refer Karl Popper for the definition of what is "science" ... everything else is being human.]
....
Other artists are trendy to like (Miles Davis, Elliot Smith, David Bowie, etc.) even though the artist has just a few songs that the listener objectively considers "good" (or has ever even heard).
and that's my rant
Point of Order: "the listener objectively considers "good""
By definition the listener cannot "objectively" consider any non-scientific thing "objectively ... merely subjectively
[refer Karl Popper for the definition of what is "science" ... everything else is being human.]
macadavy wrote:
Thanks! I didn't know that was possible. Some grumpy day I may try that.
RP even offers you the option, if you've selected enough songs, rated 7 or better, to play the 'My Favourites' channel and never risk listening to anything new and different that you might (heaven forbid!) not like. Go for it, and quit whineing here!
Thanks! I didn't know that was possible. Some grumpy day I may try that.
Trip_Estes wrote:
I think this is correct. I don't mind genuine criticism as long as there are no insults, but, you know, people gotta right to be jerks, however much I dislike that. I think we need to be willing to accept a little criticism as well as fandom. We should continue to call out bad and bullying behavior though, I believe.
It seems people are more inclined to leave negative comments on here. I think Mumford is a nice fit on the RP playlist. I believe that we all have to recognize that, for RP to provide the variety we seek, we all will have to endure a certain percentage of songs that we find annoying. If you are not wiling to accept that, then go listen to 100% of the songs you love on your own iPod.
I think this is correct. I don't mind genuine criticism as long as there are no insults, but, you know, people gotta right to be jerks, however much I dislike that. I think we need to be willing to accept a little criticism as well as fandom. We should continue to call out bad and bullying behavior though, I believe.
Trip_Estes wrote:
RP even offers you the option, if you've selected enough songs, rated 7 or better, to play the 'My Favourites' channel and never risk listening to anything new and different that you might (heaven forbid!) not like. Go for it, and quit whingeing here!
It seems people are more inclined to leave negative comments on here. I think Mumford is a nice fit on the RP playlist. I believe that we all have to recognize that, for RP to provide the variety we seek, we all will have to endure a certain percentage of songs that we find annoying. If you are not wiling to accept that, then go listen to 100% of the songs you love on your own iPod.
RP even offers you the option, if you've selected enough songs, rated 7 or better, to play the 'My Favourites' channel and never risk listening to anything new and different that you might (heaven forbid!) not like. Go for it, and quit whingeing here!
Triquel67 wrote:
Well, I think they expressed a reasonable opinion that they simply didn't like that particular group's sound, even if they couldn't put their finger on exactly why, it just wasn't their cup of tea.
I have the same problem with the Grateful Dead. I appreciate they are a cultural icon, craft good lyrics, play well and have a huge, loyal, fan base. But for some reason I have never been a fan of their 'sound'. So I can appreciate them for the artists that they are, but I do not seek them out. Begrudgingly, 'Ripple' is growing on me, (dammit).
When I read the OP, I sense the same thought, they appreciate them a bit, feel they are over played, a bit, and don't seek them out. Lots of other music to agree on though.
Very well put Troquel67... your middle paragraph did put a smile on my face... Strangers Stopping Strangers... Just to Shake Their Hand (Scarlet Begonias)
Well, I think they expressed a reasonable opinion that they simply didn't like that particular group's sound, even if they couldn't put their finger on exactly why, it just wasn't their cup of tea.
I have the same problem with the Grateful Dead. I appreciate they are a cultural icon, craft good lyrics, play well and have a huge, loyal, fan base. But for some reason I have never been a fan of their 'sound'. So I can appreciate them for the artists that they are, but I do not seek them out. Begrudgingly, 'Ripple' is growing on me, (dammit).
When I read the OP, I sense the same thought, they appreciate them a bit, feel they are over played, a bit, and don't seek them out. Lots of other music to agree on though.
Very well put Troquel67... your middle paragraph did put a smile on my face... Strangers Stopping Strangers... Just to Shake Their Hand (Scarlet Begonias)
I just love this!
itsme_bygolly wrote:
Well, I think they expressed a reasonable opinion that they simply didn't like that particular group's sound, even if they couldn't put their finger on exactly why, it just wasn't their cup of tea.
I have the same problem with the Grateful Dead. I appreciate they are a cultural icon, craft good lyrics, play well and have a huge, loyal, fan base. But for some reason I have never been a fan of their 'sound'. So I can appreciate them for the artists that they are, but I do not seek them out. Begrudgingly, 'Ripple' is growing on me, (dammit).
When I read the OP, I sense the same thought, they appreciate them a bit, feel they are over played, a bit, and don't seek them out. Lots of other music to agree on though.
e
I guess you're not their audience. I'm not either but I grew up in blue grass country. But there is no reason to disparage artists. They are crafting the art in a way meaningful to them.
I guess you're not their audience. I'm not either but I grew up in blue grass country. But there is no reason to disparage artists. They are crafting the art in a way meaningful to them.
Well, I think they expressed a reasonable opinion that they simply didn't like that particular group's sound, even if they couldn't put their finger on exactly why, it just wasn't their cup of tea.
I have the same problem with the Grateful Dead. I appreciate they are a cultural icon, craft good lyrics, play well and have a huge, loyal, fan base. But for some reason I have never been a fan of their 'sound'. So I can appreciate them for the artists that they are, but I do not seek them out. Begrudgingly, 'Ripple' is growing on me, (dammit).
When I read the OP, I sense the same thought, they appreciate them a bit, feel they are over played, a bit, and don't seek them out. Lots of other music to agree on though.
GQ - Girls Quartet, out of Baltimore -did beautiful, passionate, intense version of this.
e bam23 wrote:
I guess you're not their audience. I'm not either but I grew up in blue grass country. But there is no reason to disparage artists. They are crafting the art in a way meaningful to them.
I'm generally loathe to add negative comments here, since the tone typically degenerates and leaves a reader wanting rather less. But, this band really grates on me. Why, I cannot say. I like acoustic music, including some bluegrass and have nothing against any of this per se. But, it is getting to the point where M&S is annoying as hell. Further, there is more than enough airplay in the Bay area these days for me to inadvertently hear much more than ever intended. Cannot win them all, but I await their fading from prominence.
I guess you're not their audience. I'm not either but I grew up in blue grass country. But there is no reason to disparage artists. They are crafting the art in a way meaningful to them.
I have giving this an 8. Thanks for most educated comments.
FORA BOLSONARO!!!
(#stayhome)
olee
(#stayhome)
olee
oy vey.
Don’t remember these guys much
Sounds good
Trip_Estes wrote:
Agree
For me it's 90% of Dylan songs, but for the 10% I shall endure...
It seems people are more inclined to leave negative comments on here. I think Mumford is a nice fit on the RP playlist. I believe that we all have to recognize that, for RP to provide the variety we seek, we all will have to endure a certain percentage of songs that we find annoying. If you are not wiling to accept that, then go listen to 100% of the songs you love on your own iPod.
Agree
For me it's 90% of Dylan songs, but for the 10% I shall endure...
Trip_Estes wrote:
Upvote. Been saying something to this effect for years.
It seems people are more inclined to leave negative comments on here. I think Mumford is a nice fit on the RP playlist. I believe that we all have to recognize that, for RP to provide the variety we seek, we all will have to endure a certain percentage of songs that we find annoying. If you are not wiling to accept that, then go listen to 100% of the songs you love on your own iPod.
Upvote. Been saying something to this effect for years.
CyrusPaul wrote:
You're not, but I truly don't get that. Avett Brothers sound nothing like Mumford to me - I doubt I'd ever mistake one for the other. They all sound very distinct to me (Elephant Revival and Head & Heart also get thrown in this pile). My sense is some of these bands don't have much range in their sound, so repeated listens result in tired ear. Mumford is definitely like that for me, though I have to say I always liked this song a lot and still do.
I think Mumford & Sons are fun to see live but if I didn't look this could easily be the Avett Brothers, Lumineers, Of Mice and Men, etc. I don't think I'm alone in this opinion...
You're not, but I truly don't get that. Avett Brothers sound nothing like Mumford to me - I doubt I'd ever mistake one for the other. They all sound very distinct to me (Elephant Revival and Head & Heart also get thrown in this pile). My sense is some of these bands don't have much range in their sound, so repeated listens result in tired ear. Mumford is definitely like that for me, though I have to say I always liked this song a lot and still do.
scrubbrush wrote:
I totally agree with premise of paragraph one (I might add DMB, U2, and David Byrne for these boards).
Paragraph two loses me completely. If you change out "the listener" for "this listener", I might be able to get behind it as it applies to you specifically.
Of course, it still wipes out the meaning of paragraph one and three. You see, you've done for Miles, David, and Elliot EXACTLY (criticize) what you don't want done to Counting Crows and Mumford.
It's sad how certain bands become trendy to dislike. Mumford and Sons is one of those bands. Counting Crows is another. I'm sure this eclectic crowd can think of dozens of others...
Other artists are trendy to like (Miles Davis, Elliot Smith, David Bowie, etc.) even though the artist has just a few songs that the listener objectively considers "good" (or has ever even heard).
I just wish people would spend a little less time typing out breathless, exhausting criticisms of bands that they dislike because "all the cool kids" also don't like them and just listen to to music... if you still don't like it: PSD. It's far easier than ranting.
and that's my rant
Other artists are trendy to like (Miles Davis, Elliot Smith, David Bowie, etc.) even though the artist has just a few songs that the listener objectively considers "good" (or has ever even heard).
I just wish people would spend a little less time typing out breathless, exhausting criticisms of bands that they dislike because "all the cool kids" also don't like them and just listen to to music... if you still don't like it: PSD. It's far easier than ranting.
and that's my rant
I totally agree with premise of paragraph one (I might add DMB, U2, and David Byrne for these boards).
Paragraph two loses me completely. If you change out "the listener" for "this listener", I might be able to get behind it as it applies to you specifically.
Of course, it still wipes out the meaning of paragraph one and three. You see, you've done for Miles, David, and Elliot EXACTLY (criticize) what you don't want done to Counting Crows and Mumford.
scrubbrush wrote:
I agree that certain recording artists can seem to be trendy to dislike, however, it's really an absurd stretch to say that Miles Davis and David Bowie (or Elliot Smith) each had just a few "good" songs.
It's sad how certain bands become trendy to dislike. Mumford and Sons is one of those bands. Counting Crows is another. I'm sure this eclectic crowd can think of dozens of others...
Other artists are trendy to like (Miles Davis, Elliot Smith, David Bowie, etc.) even though the artist has just a few songs that the listener objectively considers "good" (or has ever even heard).
I just wish people would spend a little less time typing out breathless, exhausting criticisms of bands that they dislike because "all the cool kids" also don't like them and just listen to to music... if you still don't like it: PSD. It's far easier than ranting.
and that's my rant
Other artists are trendy to like (Miles Davis, Elliot Smith, David Bowie, etc.) even though the artist has just a few songs that the listener objectively considers "good" (or has ever even heard).
I just wish people would spend a little less time typing out breathless, exhausting criticisms of bands that they dislike because "all the cool kids" also don't like them and just listen to to music... if you still don't like it: PSD. It's far easier than ranting.
and that's my rant
I agree that certain recording artists can seem to be trendy to dislike, however, it's really an absurd stretch to say that Miles Davis and David Bowie (or Elliot Smith) each had just a few "good" songs.
if you would listen to 'another day another time celebrating the music of inside llewyn davis' you would see Markus Mumford playing along with Avett Brothers etc. what a nice gig that must have been...
will catch them live in May...
CyrusPaul wrote:
will catch them live in May...
CyrusPaul wrote:
I think Mumford & Sons are fun to see live but if I didn't look this could easily be the Avett Brothers, Lumineers, Of Mice and Men, etc. I don't think I'm alone in this opinion...
scrubbrush wrote:
I really don't think it's a question of trends positive or negative but rather a more simple one of likes or dislikes. I personally don't like in this case, but each to their own.
It's sad how certain bands become trendy to dislike. Mumford and Sons is one of those bands. Counting Crows is another. I'm sure this eclectic crowd can think of dozens of others...
Other artists are trendy to like (Miles Davis, Elliot Smith, David Bowie, etc.) even though the artist has just a few songs that the listener objectively considers "good" (or has ever even heard).
I just wish people would spend a little less time typing out breathless, exhausting criticisms of bands that they dislike because "all the cool kids" also don't like them and just listen to to music... if you still don't like it: PSD. It's far easier than ranting.
and that's my rant
Other artists are trendy to like (Miles Davis, Elliot Smith, David Bowie, etc.) even though the artist has just a few songs that the listener objectively considers "good" (or has ever even heard).
I just wish people would spend a little less time typing out breathless, exhausting criticisms of bands that they dislike because "all the cool kids" also don't like them and just listen to to music... if you still don't like it: PSD. It's far easier than ranting.
and that's my rant
I really don't think it's a question of trends positive or negative but rather a more simple one of likes or dislikes. I personally don't like in this case, but each to their own.
I think Mumford & Sons are fun to see live but if I didn't look this could easily be the Avett Brothers, Lumineers, Of Mice and Men, etc. I don't think I'm alone in this opinion...
Well, apologies to the rest, but I can't find anything about this to dislike. Having just lost my Mum and mother-in-law in quick succession and witnessed the disastrous effect on the younger family members, this fits the bill just right. My 13-year old lad is struggling big time and the best we can do is hold his hand whilst he grieves in his own way. Moving from the innocence of childhood to the clumsy horrors of adolescence is enough without having to cope with such trauma.
To those who feel compelled to express their extreme distaste for something as mild and unassuming as this track, by this band...I hope you have a more pleasant day and that you don't accidentally trip over yourselves on your way.
It's sad how certain bands become trendy to dislike. Mumford and Sons is one of those bands. Counting Crows is another. I'm sure this eclectic crowd can think of dozens of others...
Other artists are trendy to like (Miles Davis, Elliot Smith, David Bowie, etc.) even though the artist has just a few songs that the listener objectively considers "good" (or has ever even heard).
I just wish people would spend a little less time typing out breathless, exhausting criticisms of bands that they dislike because "all the cool kids" also don't like them and just listen to to music... if you still don't like it: PSD. It's far easier than ranting.
and that's my rant
Other artists are trendy to like (Miles Davis, Elliot Smith, David Bowie, etc.) even though the artist has just a few songs that the listener objectively considers "good" (or has ever even heard).
I just wish people would spend a little less time typing out breathless, exhausting criticisms of bands that they dislike because "all the cool kids" also don't like them and just listen to to music... if you still don't like it: PSD. It's far easier than ranting.
and that's my rant
Trip_Estes wrote:
Couldn't agree more.
People with musical tastes I trust like Mumford and Sons. I don't like them but that's good enough for me.
It seems people are more inclined to leave negative comments on here. I think Mumford is a nice fit on the RP playlist. I believe that we all have to recognize that, for RP to provide the variety we seek, we all will have to endure a certain percentage of songs that we find annoying. If you are not wiling to accept that, then go listen to 100% of the songs you love on your own iPod.
Couldn't agree more.
People with musical tastes I trust like Mumford and Sons. I don't like them but that's good enough for me.
Trip_Estes wrote:
Well said!! Funny enough this one didn't annoy me at all (others do that trick for me). I didn't like it much either, it just went by, unnoticed, until I read the comments. Although negative, I'd have to say some were quite hilarious, you could almost feel the pain those people went through!
I believe that we all have to recognize that, for RP to provide the variety we seek, we all will have to endure a certain percentage of songs that we find annoying.
Well said!! Funny enough this one didn't annoy me at all (others do that trick for me). I didn't like it much either, it just went by, unnoticed, until I read the comments. Although negative, I'd have to say some were quite hilarious, you could almost feel the pain those people went through!
Trip_Estes wrote:
And Bill is smiling because he knows it's ok to play what he sees fit and ignore the naysayers.
Right on Trip, either iPod or PSD and stop BM&C.
It seems people are more inclined to leave negative comments on here. I think Mumford is a nice fit on the RP playlist. I believe that we all have to recognize that, for RP to provide the variety we seek, we all will have to endure a certain percentage of songs that we find annoying. If you are not wiling to accept that, then go listen to 100% of the songs you love on your own iPod.
And Bill is smiling because he knows it's ok to play what he sees fit and ignore the naysayers.
Right on Trip, either iPod or PSD and stop BM&C.
sieversfam wrote:
Oh geez, you're KILLIN' me! This reallly got me laughing ... I have been there too: Trying hard to really crank out some drawings, up against a deadline, the ray-didio is on loud enough to keep the flames of production nice and hot, but not TOO loud so as to break that critical concentration ... and then SHITE strikes again! Some drivel on the ray-didio comes on, The National followed shortly by Mumbles & Sons in this case. It's like those times when you successfully tip back in your chair for a long time and everything seems really good even if it is a bit precarious, and then wham-o, someone sneaks up from behind and kicks that sucker right out from under you. Will you be okay? Of course, but man I was "in the zone," and now I'm way out of it.
And the next 3 comments or so were spot on too. Yes, it bugs me to go negative, but Mumbles = self-contrived preciousness
Ok, so I am at work, in the middle of working on a huge project. This comes on.. I feel compelled to spend the time to login -- just so I can comment and give my compulsory "1" to all things Mumford.
Contrived TRIPE.
Contrived TRIPE.
Oh geez, you're KILLIN' me! This reallly got me laughing ... I have been there too: Trying hard to really crank out some drawings, up against a deadline, the ray-didio is on loud enough to keep the flames of production nice and hot, but not TOO loud so as to break that critical concentration ... and then SHITE strikes again! Some drivel on the ray-didio comes on, The National followed shortly by Mumbles & Sons in this case. It's like those times when you successfully tip back in your chair for a long time and everything seems really good even if it is a bit precarious, and then wham-o, someone sneaks up from behind and kicks that sucker right out from under you. Will you be okay? Of course, but man I was "in the zone," and now I'm way out of it.
And the next 3 comments or so were spot on too. Yes, it bugs me to go negative, but Mumbles = self-contrived preciousness
blotto wrote:
Thank you Blotto, you saved me the virtual ink....
Fawk, The National and Mumford and Sons within 4 songs of each other. How pathetic can this Friday afternoon get.
Thank you Blotto, you saved me the virtual ink....
It seems people are more inclined to leave negative comments on here. I think Mumford is a nice fit on the RP playlist. I believe that we all have to recognize that, for RP to provide the variety we seek, we all will have to endure a certain percentage of songs that we find annoying. If you are not wiling to accept that, then go listen to 100% of the songs you love on your own iPod.
I'm generally loathe to add negative comments here, since the tone typically degenerates and leaves a reader wanting rather less. But, this band really grates on me. Why, I cannot say. I like acoustic music, including some bluegrass and have nothing against any of this per se. But, it is getting to the point where M&S is annoying as hell. Further, there is more than enough airplay in the Bay area these days for me to inadvertently hear much more than ever intended. Cannot win them all, but I await their fading from prominence.
dwlangham wrote:
Perfect comment award winner. Now, if we could click these comments to hear the audio version I would give my right arm to hear it spoken in an angry cockney accent.
Fucking agony.
Perfect comment award winner. Now, if we could click these comments to hear the audio version I would give my right arm to hear it spoken in an angry cockney accent.
I agree, I can't handle this group lol!
sieversfam wrote:
sieversfam wrote:
Ok, so I am at work, in the middle of working on a huge project. This comes on.. I feel compelled to spend the time to login -- just so I can comment and give my compulsory "1" to all things Mumford.
Contrived TRIPE.
Contrived TRIPE.
Ok, so I am at work, in the middle of working on a huge project. This comes on.. I feel compelled to spend the time to login -- just so I can comment and give my compulsory "1" to all things Mumford.
Contrived TRIPE.
Contrived TRIPE.
It was over before I could decide if I like it or not. I guess it's a 4.
Tired of them and their preaching. 3 PSD
dwlangham wrote:
The PSD button alone is worth the money I've contributed to RP.
Yet another shameless rip-off of Mumford & Sons...or is it the other way 'round?
The PSD button alone is worth the money I've contributed to RP.
Yet another shameless rip-off of Mumford & Sons...or is it the other way 'round?
dwlangham wrote:
The PSD button alone is worth the money I've contributed to RP.
Fucking agony.
The PSD button alone is worth the money I've contributed to RP.
Fucking agony.
rdo wrote:
Feud? That requires at least two participants. You've plainly got the hump with me, but that's your problem. Flames via PM, please, to spare innocent bystanders.
I have already addressed your many troll accusations at me on a few other songs (enjoy), so I will leave that alone here and spare the rest of the members our feud, fun though it may be.
Feud? That requires at least two participants. You've plainly got the hump with me, but that's your problem. Flames via PM, please, to spare innocent bystanders.
rdo wrote:
Oh for goodness' sake, tone it down.
This is a song comment board, not a try to impress others with your Perfidious Albion board. :massive eye roll:
I have already addressed your many troll accusations at me on a few other songs (enjoy), so I will leave that alone here and spare the rest of the members our feud, fun though it may be.
As to your point. My god. Are you serious? I feel like I am in some alternate universe when I read your comments. I am not even going to ask you what your solution would be.
BTW, I would like to take this opportunity to point out the remarkable contributions of two of our finest English imports here in the US. Both of whom are unfortunately no longer with us (both died last year). Both are Marxist Socialists who have had a profound influence on my life: Tony Judt and Christopher Hitchens. If you could tone it down a bit Fred, and say something constructive on these boards, I am sure we could find something to talk about. Still, I will never forgive the UK for stealing Henry James from us. Perfidious Albion indeed!!!!
Oh for goodness' sake, tone it down.
This is a song comment board, not a try to impress others with your Perfidious Albion board. :massive eye roll:
fredriley wrote:
Nice troll, but this old socialist won't bite. Enough to say that class is an objective reality of capitalist society, not a fantastical subjective construct. That different classes have different cultures is clearly evident, as is certainly the case in the UK of now when we're ruled by a bunch of public schoolboys belonging to the hereditary ruling political and economic class. Mumford and Sons are very much part of that same class, hence the grating and 'dissonance' when they sing songs deriving directly from folk music written by peasants and workers. Horny-handed sons of toil they're not.
Nice troll, but this old socialist won't bite. Enough to say that class is an objective reality of capitalist society, not a fantastical subjective construct. That different classes have different cultures is clearly evident, as is certainly the case in the UK of now when we're ruled by a bunch of public schoolboys belonging to the hereditary ruling political and economic class. Mumford and Sons are very much part of that same class, hence the grating and 'dissonance' when they sing songs deriving directly from folk music written by peasants and workers. Horny-handed sons of toil they're not.
I have already addressed your many troll accusations at me on a few other songs (enjoy), so I will leave that alone here and spare the rest of the members our feud, fun though it may be.
As to your point. My god. Are you serious? I feel like I am in some alternate universe when I read your comments. I am not even going to ask you what your solution would be.
BTW, I would like to take this opportunity to point out the remarkable contributions of two of our finest English imports here in the US. Both of whom are unfortunately no longer with us (both died last year). Both are Marxist Socialists who have had a profound influence on my life: Tony Judt and Christopher Hitchens. If you could tone it down a bit Fred, and say something constructive on these boards, I am sure we could find something to talk about. Still, I will never forgive the UK for stealing Henry James from us. Perfidious Albion indeed!!!!
Fawk, The National and Mumford and Sons within 4 songs of each other. How pathetic can this Friday afternoon get.
Mumford and Sons are awesome! Very glad to see them on the playlist. I have this whole album and nearly all the songs are excellent. If you like this song, I recommend the whole album.
fredriley wrote:
Nice troll, but this old socialist won't bite. Enough to say that class is an objective reality of capitalist society, not a fantastical subjective construct. That different classes have different cultures is clearly evident, as is certainly the case in the UK of now when we're ruled by a bunch of public schoolboys belonging to the hereditary ruling political and economic class. Mumford and Sons are very much part of that same class, hence the grating and 'dissonance' when they sing songs deriving directly from folk music written by peasants and workers. Horny-handed sons of toil they're not.
the ENTIRE "St. Bonio" diatribe makes a LOT more sense now...
comrade.
Nice troll, but this old socialist won't bite. Enough to say that class is an objective reality of capitalist society, not a fantastical subjective construct. That different classes have different cultures is clearly evident, as is certainly the case in the UK of now when we're ruled by a bunch of public schoolboys belonging to the hereditary ruling political and economic class. Mumford and Sons are very much part of that same class, hence the grating and 'dissonance' when they sing songs deriving directly from folk music written by peasants and workers. Horny-handed sons of toil they're not.
the ENTIRE "St. Bonio" diatribe makes a LOT more sense now...
comrade.
cafortier wrote:
Just did the same thing! :-)
I bought this album based upon hearing this song here. Love it.
Just did the same thing! :-)
Saw these guys Saturday night on Austin City Limits, they were pretty good. They played this song.
rdo wrote:
If you have seen Michael Apted's 7-Up Series, it may surprise you to see just how the notion of class is over-hyped there in the UK as well. The ones in the series who are supposed to be lower-class, or whatever they call it there, make a mockery of the notion, it's quite hilarious. Socialists need class conflict as a raison-d'etre, otherwise, what will they bitch about?
Nice troll, but this old socialist won't bite. Enough to say that class is an objective reality of capitalist society, not a fantastical subjective construct. That different classes have different cultures is clearly evident, as is certainly the case in the UK of now when we're ruled by a bunch of public schoolboys belonging to the hereditary ruling political and economic class. Mumford and Sons are very much part of that same class, hence the grating and 'dissonance' when they sing songs deriving directly from folk music written by peasants and workers. Horny-handed sons of toil they're not.
If you have seen Michael Apted's 7-Up Series, it may surprise you to see just how the notion of class is over-hyped there in the UK as well. The ones in the series who are supposed to be lower-class, or whatever they call it there, make a mockery of the notion, it's quite hilarious. Socialists need class conflict as a raison-d'etre, otherwise, what will they bitch about?
Nice troll, but this old socialist won't bite. Enough to say that class is an objective reality of capitalist society, not a fantastical subjective construct. That different classes have different cultures is clearly evident, as is certainly the case in the UK of now when we're ruled by a bunch of public schoolboys belonging to the hereditary ruling political and economic class. Mumford and Sons are very much part of that same class, hence the grating and 'dissonance' when they sing songs deriving directly from folk music written by peasants and workers. Horny-handed sons of toil they're not.
rdo wrote:
If you have seen Michael Apted's 7-Up Series, it may surprise you to see just how the notion of class is over-hyped there in the UK as well. The ones in the series who are supposed to be lower-class, or whatever they call it there, make a mockery of the notion, it's quite hilarious. Socialists need class conflict as a raison-d'etre, otherwise, what will they bitch about? But still, your point is correct I think in that people are snobbier there, though we have plenty of snobs here too in the US. We all know about rich and poor, etc.. I think there are much better ways to address social injustice than trying to raise class consciousness. An issue oriented approach works better. Political apathy is the big problem here.
Fair enough.
If you have seen Michael Apted's 7-Up Series, it may surprise you to see just how the notion of class is over-hyped there in the UK as well. The ones in the series who are supposed to be lower-class, or whatever they call it there, make a mockery of the notion, it's quite hilarious. Socialists need class conflict as a raison-d'etre, otherwise, what will they bitch about? But still, your point is correct I think in that people are snobbier there, though we have plenty of snobs here too in the US. We all know about rich and poor, etc.. I think there are much better ways to address social injustice than trying to raise class consciousness. An issue oriented approach works better. Political apathy is the big problem here.
Fair enough.
Real hit and miss band with me, most of the songs I like are heavier on the banjo like this one. The banjo is the cowbell for them I suppose.
I bought this album based upon hearing this song here. Love it.
Ag3nt0rang3 wrote:
Keep in mind the rather large differences between the British and North American conceptions of class divisions. In England there's been pretty much constant war of varying heat and intensity between the classes since William the Conqueror did his thing. Crossing class lines is just not done; the boundaries are many hundreds of years old. In America, by contrast, there has been, starting in the early twentieth century a pattern of cultural advancements arising from the African American community and spreading throughout the culture. Blues music didn't derive from the working class (in this, Fred is mistaken) but from the slave class, a class that no longer exists, and that makes a difference.
For you or me in North America, it's pretty much inevitable that cultural "products" will transcend classes, and in the last few decades the cultural transfer seems to be going in both directions (note the obsession with luxury items in hip-hop music as an example). In England, this kind of cultural line-jumping is probably tantamount to class-war treason.
If you have seen Michael Apted's 7-Up Series, it may surprise you to see just how the notion of class is over-hyped there in the UK as well. The ones in the series who are supposed to be lower-class, or whatever they call it there, make a mockery of the notion, it's quite hilarious. Socialists need class conflict as a raison-d'etre, otherwise, what will they bitch about? But still, your point is correct I think in that people are snobbier there, though we have plenty of snobs here too in the US. We all know about rich and poor, etc.. I think there are much better ways to address social injustice than trying to raise class consciousness. An issue oriented approach works better. Political apathy is the big problem here.
Keep in mind the rather large differences between the British and North American conceptions of class divisions. In England there's been pretty much constant war of varying heat and intensity between the classes since William the Conqueror did his thing. Crossing class lines is just not done; the boundaries are many hundreds of years old. In America, by contrast, there has been, starting in the early twentieth century a pattern of cultural advancements arising from the African American community and spreading throughout the culture. Blues music didn't derive from the working class (in this, Fred is mistaken) but from the slave class, a class that no longer exists, and that makes a difference.
For you or me in North America, it's pretty much inevitable that cultural "products" will transcend classes, and in the last few decades the cultural transfer seems to be going in both directions (note the obsession with luxury items in hip-hop music as an example). In England, this kind of cultural line-jumping is probably tantamount to class-war treason.
If you have seen Michael Apted's 7-Up Series, it may surprise you to see just how the notion of class is over-hyped there in the UK as well. The ones in the series who are supposed to be lower-class, or whatever they call it there, make a mockery of the notion, it's quite hilarious. Socialists need class conflict as a raison-d'etre, otherwise, what will they bitch about? But still, your point is correct I think in that people are snobbier there, though we have plenty of snobs here too in the US. We all know about rich and poor, etc.. I think there are much better ways to address social injustice than trying to raise class consciousness. An issue oriented approach works better. Political apathy is the big problem here.
boober wrote:
I don't know if I'm considered "posh".....but I am in a rock/blues band and people seem to have no problem listening to me sing the blues.I've had good times I've had bad times(like everybody else)that gives me the right to sing about the blues......
plus....I don't give a shit what anybody else thinks....I do it because I love it and I think I'm pretty good at it.
Boober.....the "dilettante"
Keep in mind the rather large differences between the British and North American conceptions of class divisions. In England there's been pretty much constant war of varying heat and intensity between the classes since William the Conqueror did his thing. Crossing class lines is just not done; the boundaries are many hundreds of years old. In America, by contrast, there has been, starting in the early twentieth century a pattern of cultural advancements arising from the African American community and spreading throughout the culture. Blues music didn't derive from the working class (in this, Fred is mistaken) but from the slave class, a class that no longer exists, and that makes a difference.
For you or me in North America, it's pretty much inevitable that cultural "products" will transcend classes, and in the last few decades the cultural transfer seems to be going in both directions (note the obsession with luxury items in hip-hop music as an example). In England, this kind of cultural line-jumping is probably tantamount to class-war treason.
I don't know if I'm considered "posh".....but I am in a rock/blues band and people seem to have no problem listening to me sing the blues.I've had good times I've had bad times(like everybody else)that gives me the right to sing about the blues......
plus....I don't give a shit what anybody else thinks....I do it because I love it and I think I'm pretty good at it.
Boober.....the "dilettante"
Keep in mind the rather large differences between the British and North American conceptions of class divisions. In England there's been pretty much constant war of varying heat and intensity between the classes since William the Conqueror did his thing. Crossing class lines is just not done; the boundaries are many hundreds of years old. In America, by contrast, there has been, starting in the early twentieth century a pattern of cultural advancements arising from the African American community and spreading throughout the culture. Blues music didn't derive from the working class (in this, Fred is mistaken) but from the slave class, a class that no longer exists, and that makes a difference.
For you or me in North America, it's pretty much inevitable that cultural "products" will transcend classes, and in the last few decades the cultural transfer seems to be going in both directions (note the obsession with luxury items in hip-hop music as an example). In England, this kind of cultural line-jumping is probably tantamount to class-war treason.
Thank you!
Timshel...thou mayest.
Not, you will overcome evil, but you may overcome it.
I know it has a religious origin, but Steinbeck taught me!
Just like how some people may rate this a 2...it's an 8 for me!
Not, you will overcome evil, but you may overcome it.
I know it has a religious origin, but Steinbeck taught me!
Just like how some people may rate this a 2...it's an 8 for me!
4 -> 2 and sinking fast.
I am not catching the vibe for this band.
I have been really enjoying this whole CD ; it's on heavy rotation on the ipod. There's an interesting article about them in the latest Rolling Stone.
1st time I've heard this band.....quite good!
fredriley wrote:
Ooh, now there's a discussion topic that could keep you going for hours or days, even. Ok, strictly speaking, any music can be sung/played by anyone from any class, but in practice musical styles are closely associated with class. Opera is primarily though not exclusively these days, an upper-class activity, at least over here, which is reflected in the eye-watering prices to go to these posh musicals. Folk music, past and modern (such as that put out by Billy Bragg or The Levellers), is very much associated with the working and peasant classes.
The point is that musical styles often represent class experiences. Opera, at least pre-20th Century, reflects the aristocratic and bourgeois milieus in which it originated and is often about court intrigues and courtly love. Folk music comes directly out of the life experiences of lower-class toilers, and reflects it. That's why a bunch of toffs appropriating folk styles really grates on my sensibilities, because they're hardly horny-handed sons of the soil or wage-slaves living hand to mouth in oppressive conditions. It grates in the same way as posh white folk singing the blues, which came out of American working-class experience. Ok, they're free to sing and play whatever they want, and good luck to them, but they'll be effectively dilettantes, singing about experiences that are alien to their own lives.
For all that, Mumford & Sons are very much flavour of the year over this side of the Pond, and I met a young guy the other day at a bus stop who said he'd been to one of their gigs in Nottingham and said that it was brilliant, the dog's bollox, and even said he knew Mumford's mother who, according to him, isn't half as posh as her son. So what do I know?
I don't know if I'm considered "posh".....but I am in a rock/blues band and people seem to have no problem listening to me sing the blues.I've had good times I've had bad times(like everybody else)that gives me the right to sing about the blues......
plus....I don't give a shit what anybody else thinks....I do it because I love it and I think I'm pretty good at it.
Boober.....the "dilettante"
Ooh, now there's a discussion topic that could keep you going for hours or days, even. Ok, strictly speaking, any music can be sung/played by anyone from any class, but in practice musical styles are closely associated with class. Opera is primarily though not exclusively these days, an upper-class activity, at least over here, which is reflected in the eye-watering prices to go to these posh musicals. Folk music, past and modern (such as that put out by Billy Bragg or The Levellers), is very much associated with the working and peasant classes.
The point is that musical styles often represent class experiences. Opera, at least pre-20th Century, reflects the aristocratic and bourgeois milieus in which it originated and is often about court intrigues and courtly love. Folk music comes directly out of the life experiences of lower-class toilers, and reflects it. That's why a bunch of toffs appropriating folk styles really grates on my sensibilities, because they're hardly horny-handed sons of the soil or wage-slaves living hand to mouth in oppressive conditions. It grates in the same way as posh white folk singing the blues, which came out of American working-class experience. Ok, they're free to sing and play whatever they want, and good luck to them, but they'll be effectively dilettantes, singing about experiences that are alien to their own lives.
For all that, Mumford & Sons are very much flavour of the year over this side of the Pond, and I met a young guy the other day at a bus stop who said he'd been to one of their gigs in Nottingham and said that it was brilliant, the dog's bollox, and even said he knew Mumford's mother who, according to him, isn't half as posh as her son. So what do I know?
I don't know if I'm considered "posh".....but I am in a rock/blues band and people seem to have no problem listening to me sing the blues.I've had good times I've had bad times(like everybody else)that gives me the right to sing about the blues......
plus....I don't give a shit what anybody else thinks....I do it because I love it and I think I'm pretty good at it.
Boober.....the "dilettante"
fredriley wrote:
I saw them in Asheville, North Carolina, and it WAS brilliant (this coming from someone who simply likes their music; I'm not a crazed fangirl who would swear they are perfection). It was one of the better shows I've been to in the last year.
I do not care where one comes from, how much one makes, how one learned to play music, where one lives, etc. What matters is the music, not the musician, and I personally like the creations of Mumford & Sons.
For all that, Mumford & Sons are very much flavour of the year over this side of the Pond, and I met a young guy the other day at a bus stop who said he'd been to one of their gigs in Nottingham and said that it was brilliant, the dog's bollox, and even said he knew Mumford's mother who, according to him, isn't half as posh as her son. So what do I know?
I saw them in Asheville, North Carolina, and it WAS brilliant (this coming from someone who simply likes their music; I'm not a crazed fangirl who would swear they are perfection). It was one of the better shows I've been to in the last year.
I do not care where one comes from, how much one makes, how one learned to play music, where one lives, etc. What matters is the music, not the musician, and I personally like the creations of Mumford & Sons.
Cold water... warm vocals and sweet guitar
The entire album is excellent.
Its been a while since I heard this here. This station got me into these guys. They are GREAT!!
fredriley wrote:
Ok, strictly speaking, any music can be sung/played by anyone from any class, but in practice musical styles are closely associated with class.
We have one class here, the "middle". I'm 40. Still have not met anyone who admits to being in any other class but that one. fredriley wrote:
Experience (personal, familial or sought-for) can indeed have a lot to do with authenticity of culture. Skin color? Used way too often as an artificial flavoring. Pride is to be respected, restriction never useful in either direction.
... It grates in the same way as posh white folk singing the blues, which came out of American working-class experience...
Ask any US Citizen who would identify themselves as black if they have personally spoken with a member of their bloodline who was owned by another person. None will answer yes, a function of time. So, ask if they have personally spoken with a member of their bloodline who worked as a sharecropper, effectively indentured to a landowner. A few, perhaps - but the experience is just as likely to be shared by a mostly mostly Caucasian or Hispanic person. White folk, currently posh or otherwise, can be just as steeped in blues culture and tradition as those of other colors. But what do I know? I'm just a sharecropper's son born in the mud of the Mississippi Delta while a mule plowed cotton in the field next door. As fate would have it, my Dad used hard work, luck and risk to forge a very different life for us as we grew, as did many of all colors from the same area and circumstance.Experience (personal, familial or sought-for) can indeed have a lot to do with authenticity of culture. Skin color? Used way too often as an artificial flavoring. Pride is to be respected, restriction never useful in either direction.
Mojoboy wrote:
Ooh, now there's a discussion topic that could keep you going for hours or days, even. Ok, strictly speaking, any music can be sung/played by anyone from any class, but in practice musical styles are closely associated with class. Opera is primarily though not exclusively these days, an upper-class activity, at least over here, which is reflected in the eye-watering prices to go to these posh musicals. Folk music, past and modern (such as that put out by Billy Bragg or The Levellers), is very much associated with the working and peasant classes.
The point is that musical styles often represent class experiences. Opera, at least pre-20th Century, reflects the aristocratic and bourgeois milieus in which it originated and is often about court intrigues and courtly love. Folk music comes directly out of the life experiences of lower-class toilers, and reflects it. That's why a bunch of toffs appropriating folk styles really grates on my sensibilities, because they're hardly horny-handed sons of the soil or wage-slaves living hand to mouth in oppressive conditions. It grates in the same way as posh white folk singing the blues, which came out of American working-class experience. Ok, they're free to sing and play whatever they want, and good luck to them, but they'll be effectively dilettantes, singing about experiences that are alien to their own lives.
For all that, Mumford & Sons are very much flavour of the year over this side of the Pond, and I met a young guy the other day at a bus stop who said he'd been to one of their gigs in Nottingham and said that it was brilliant, the dog's bollox, and even said he knew Mumford's mother who, according to him, isn't half as posh as her son. So what do I know?
Does it matter where the music originated from? The important thing is that this group is keeping the music alive. Since when does your class determine what you sing
Ooh, now there's a discussion topic that could keep you going for hours or days, even. Ok, strictly speaking, any music can be sung/played by anyone from any class, but in practice musical styles are closely associated with class. Opera is primarily though not exclusively these days, an upper-class activity, at least over here, which is reflected in the eye-watering prices to go to these posh musicals. Folk music, past and modern (such as that put out by Billy Bragg or The Levellers), is very much associated with the working and peasant classes.
The point is that musical styles often represent class experiences. Opera, at least pre-20th Century, reflects the aristocratic and bourgeois milieus in which it originated and is often about court intrigues and courtly love. Folk music comes directly out of the life experiences of lower-class toilers, and reflects it. That's why a bunch of toffs appropriating folk styles really grates on my sensibilities, because they're hardly horny-handed sons of the soil or wage-slaves living hand to mouth in oppressive conditions. It grates in the same way as posh white folk singing the blues, which came out of American working-class experience. Ok, they're free to sing and play whatever they want, and good luck to them, but they'll be effectively dilettantes, singing about experiences that are alien to their own lives.
For all that, Mumford & Sons are very much flavour of the year over this side of the Pond, and I met a young guy the other day at a bus stop who said he'd been to one of their gigs in Nottingham and said that it was brilliant, the dog's bollox, and even said he knew Mumford's mother who, according to him, isn't half as posh as her son. So what do I know?
Businessgypsy wrote:
My dog abhors a vacuum even more than nature.
fredriley wrote:
Me, for instance.
Must grate your grits that a thin candy shell of socialism is trendy among the trustifarians these days, but nature abhors purity even more than a vacuum. My dog abhors a vacuum even more than nature.
If you'll indulge me: FYI, public schools in Fred's environs are what we'd call private schools in the U.S.ofA. Toffs are, well, toffs.
...There's something plain wrong about a bunch of nobs rehashing folk songs that came out of peasants and workers...
Hey Fred, lots of things came out of peasants and workers that have little connection to them. Me, for instance.
Must grate your grits that a thin candy shell of socialism is trendy among the trustifarians these days, but nature abhors purity even more than a vacuum. My dog abhors a vacuum even more than nature.
If you'll indulge me: FYI, public schools in Fred's environs are what we'd call private schools in the U.S.ofA. Toffs are, well, toffs.
fredriley wrote:
But do you think the peasants and workers today care about the folk songs that their forebears (direct or not) composed, traded, perpetuated? I think it's possible that without educated people taking an interest, many of the things we consider to be important parts of our culture would have been lost already.
"And you are the mother, the mother of your baby child, the one to whom you gave life". (Er, shome tautology - Ed)
Of all the 'progfolk' bands, this bunch of public school toffs score highest on the irritation scale. There's something plain wrong about a bunch of nobs rehashing folk songs that came out of peasants and workers. I'll take The Decemberists in place of this lot any day.
Of all the 'progfolk' bands, this bunch of public school toffs score highest on the irritation scale. There's something plain wrong about a bunch of nobs rehashing folk songs that came out of peasants and workers. I'll take The Decemberists in place of this lot any day.
But do you think the peasants and workers today care about the folk songs that their forebears (direct or not) composed, traded, perpetuated? I think it's possible that without educated people taking an interest, many of the things we consider to be important parts of our culture would have been lost already.
Lightning is perfect but it strikes where i can.
fredriley wrote:
Does it matter where the music originated from? The important thing is that this group is keeping the music alive. Since when does your class determine what you sing
"And you are the mother, the mother of your baby child, the one to whom you gave life". (Er, shome tautology - Ed)
Of all the 'progfolk' bands, this bunch of public school toffs score highest on the irritation scale. There's something plain wrong about a bunch of nobs rehashing folk songs that came out of peasants and workers. I'll take The Decemberists in place of this lot any day.
Of all the 'progfolk' bands, this bunch of public school toffs score highest on the irritation scale. There's something plain wrong about a bunch of nobs rehashing folk songs that came out of peasants and workers. I'll take The Decemberists in place of this lot any day.
Does it matter where the music originated from? The important thing is that this group is keeping the music alive. Since when does your class determine what you sing
Pure genius!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I î§ it
I î§ it
Got my tickets for the Santa Barbara Bowl!
Hannio wrote:
Hahahaha.
This sounds like their other song.
Hahahaha.
"And you are the mother, the mother of your baby child, the one to whom you gave life". (Er, shome tautology - Ed)
Of all the 'progfolk' bands, this bunch of public school toffs score highest on the irritation scale. There's something plain wrong about a bunch of nobs rehashing folk songs that came out of peasants and workers. I'll take The Decemberists in place of this lot any day.
Of all the 'progfolk' bands, this bunch of public school toffs score highest on the irritation scale. There's something plain wrong about a bunch of nobs rehashing folk songs that came out of peasants and workers. I'll take The Decemberists in place of this lot any day.
repeat108 wrote:
"Death takes your innocence but not your substance....." Interesting line. I like this song a lot.
Jelani wrote:
I suppose that depends on whose death it is.
No. I think it matters not.
"Death takes your innocence but not your substance....." Interesting line. I like this song a lot.
Jelani wrote:
I suppose that depends on whose death it is.
No. I think it matters not.
moonsaura wrote:amazing for such a young band. marcus mumford is born around 1987....amazing. cannot wait to see what else they will create.
FlatCat wrote:
A little saccharine for my taste. How about some kittens ... and ponies!?
Aurally identical to camp meeting Hymn singing, circa 1966. Not that it wasn't cool to be out in the woods as a nine year old with a roaring fire hearing all of those assembled voices, but it does evoke the event. repeat108 wrote:
I suppose that depends on whose death it is.
"Death takes your innocence but not your substance....." Interesting line. I like this song a lot.
I suppose that depends on whose death it is.
amazing for such a young band. marcus mumford is born around 1987....amazing. cannot wait to see what else they will create.
Was lucky enough to have four tickets to see these guys last week at House of Blues in Boston. These guys are the real deal, way better live than on disc. Best live band I have seen in years. Next time through, they'll be playing the big houses....
Hannio wrote:
Which oneS?
This sounds like their other song.
Which oneS?
Bleyfusz wrote:
Except these guys can sing on tune...
Ok, ok, ok, I'm sorry. That was unkind.
Holy crap, could have sworn this was Fleet Foxes....
Except these guys can sing on tune...
Ok, ok, ok, I'm sorry. That was unkind.
This sounds like their other song.
Holy crap, could have sworn this was Fleet Foxes....
Have been really loving this CD of late. Solid 8...
I really love this song each time when it first comes on, then it always starts to lose me at the start of the second verse.
justlistening wrote:
i do
Does anyone else get reminded of Crosby, Stills, Nash when they listen to these guys?
i do
not so often please. I cannot handle this ultra very nice voice.
Of the twelve tracks on this album, eight are on the RP playlist.
Nice harmony, smooth and haunting. I don't love it yet, but I have the feeling it'll grow on me with time.
I was knocked on my ass from work, sitting here listening to Mumford and Sons, and just about to collapse into my hands in a wonderful groove, and along comes this Bob Dylan song. I sat up straight, my lovely mood broken.
Bill, I think you messed up. Then again, you don't tailor your sets for me. Still, this woke me enough to sign off and go to bed. I love Dylan, but not right now.
Bill, I think you messed up. Then again, you don't tailor your sets for me. Still, this woke me enough to sign off and go to bed. I love Dylan, but not right now.
Does anyone else get reminded of Crosby, Stills, Nash when they listen to these guys?
why do some bands seem to pop up everywhere ............all of a sudden like?
These guys are growing on me
....thanks to RP.
....thanks to RP.just purchased this CD..like it so far...well written lyrics throughout
hkarr wrote:
Except for just a few differences, like these guys sing in key, don't have muddy production to hide their mistakes, actually have talent, and are not boring to watch live. . . other than that, they're just like FF. . .
I thought it was Fleet Foxes — same harmonies with reverb ...
Except for just a few differences, like these guys sing in key, don't have muddy production to hide their mistakes, actually have talent, and are not boring to watch live. . . other than that, they're just like FF. . .
I'm really enjoying this album. I try to make sure that everyone is out of the house before I turn it up to 11 and belt every song on the album. Very cathartic work.
Stefen wrote:
Whatever it's called (and I think you're right), I like what I've heard so far... They're very resonant and haunting.
It appears to me that the name of this album is not Mumford & Sons, but Sigh No More.
Whatever it's called (and I think you're right), I like what I've heard so far... They're very resonant and haunting.
It appears to me that the name of this album is not Mumford & Sons, but Sigh No More.
"Death takes your innocence but not your substance....." Interesting line. I like this song a lot.
This is what Ray LaMontagne would sound like with a backup band. I like it... 
I thought it was Fleet Foxes — same harmonies with reverb ...
8 
9.
I just noticed for the first time how many tracks from this CD have been aired. Quite a compliment for a 1 CD band.
9.I just noticed for the first time how many tracks from this CD have been aired. Quite a compliment for a 1 CD band.
zipper wrote:
I think this every time I hear them. Have to check and see which it is.
thought it was the avetts on quaaludes.
I think this every time I hear them. Have to check and see which it is.
What an amazing group of people we have here. 31 comments here and we have quotations from John Steinbeck and William Shakespeare. I love Radio Paradise.
vesta0424 wrote:
randyleahy wrote:
first off, it's just a lyric - chill out. second, if you want be super technical about it, one could argue that the you need the third line to eliminate the possibility of an adopted child, step-child, etc. so there.
I think this also can be interpreted as a creation birthed. A labor of love completed. Artists will understand this. A piece of artwork, or a poem. When you create something from yourself, you give birth. You become a mother (regardless of sex) & experience what it is to truly give of yourself. With no options of taking it back. Whether or not you love what you have created, it becomes a part of the world nonetheless. One artists' garbage is a another's art. Just because you don't 'get it' doesn't mean its garbage. And true, its just a lyric. So chill out.
Ok, so this bugs me a LOT, this lyric:
And you are the mother
The mother of your baby child
The one to whom you gave life
What's with the the last line? Its implied in the proceeding two lines and is completely unnecessary — a garbage lyric.
I have this album, and I like it, but this is the only song that is played on Radio Paradise, and it drives me nuts every time I hear it. Let us hear White Blank Page next time.And you are the mother
The mother of your baby child
The one to whom you gave life
What's with the the last line? Its implied in the proceeding two lines and is completely unnecessary — a garbage lyric.
randyleahy wrote:
first off, it's just a lyric - chill out. second, if you want be super technical about it, one could argue that the you need the third line to eliminate the possibility of an adopted child, step-child, etc. so there.
vesta0424 wrote:
first off, it's just a lyric - chill out. second, if you want be super technical about it, one could argue that the you need the third line to eliminate the possibility of an adopted child, step-child, etc. so there.
Ok, so this bugs me a LOT, this lyric:
And you are the mother
The mother of your baby child
The one to whom you gave life
What's with the the last line? Its implied in the proceeding two lines and is completely unnecessary — a garbage lyric.
I have this album, and I like it, but this is the only song that is played on Radio Paradise, and it drives me nuts every time I hear it. Let us hear White Blank Page next time.
And you are the mother
The mother of your baby child
The one to whom you gave life
What's with the the last line? Its implied in the proceeding two lines and is completely unnecessary — a garbage lyric.
I have this album, and I like it, but this is the only song that is played on Radio Paradise, and it drives me nuts every time I hear it. Let us hear White Blank Page next time.
first off, it's just a lyric - chill out. second, if you want be super technical about it, one could argue that the you need the third line to eliminate the possibility of an adopted child, step-child, etc. so there.
Flavor of the mumf? sorry!
Reminds me of CSN&Y, no small tribute.............
Reminds me of CSN&Y, no small tribute.............
Ok, so this bugs me a LOT, this lyric:
And you are the mother
The mother of your baby child
The one to whom you gave life
What's with the the last line? Its implied in the proceeding two lines and is completely unnecessary — a garbage lyric.
I have this album, and I like it, but this is the only song that is played on Radio Paradise, and it drives me nuts every time I hear it. Let us hear White Blank Page next time.
And you are the mother
The mother of your baby child
The one to whom you gave life
What's with the the last line? Its implied in the proceeding two lines and is completely unnecessary — a garbage lyric.
I have this album, and I like it, but this is the only song that is played on Radio Paradise, and it drives me nuts every time I hear it. Let us hear White Blank Page next time.
This leaves me awestruck every time I hear it. Always been a sucker for good harmonies and well written lyrics.
I love hearing something I like and checking the tour schedule.
Wow, they're coming to SF next week!!
Crap, it's sold out!!!
Wow, they're coming to SF next week!!
Crap, it's sold out!!!
FamilyMan wrote:
Timshel; hmmm, I just read "East of Eden" last summer.
I was about to get into the connection when I saw your post; thanks for saving me the trouble! ; )
(edit) . . . from "East of Eden" by John Steinbeck . . .
Timshel; hmmm, I just read "East of Eden" last summer.
I was about to get into the connection when I saw your post; thanks for saving me the trouble! ; )
Great album!
FlatCat wrote:
And bubbles and balloons and Hello Kitty too!?!
A little saccharine for my taste. How about some kittens ... and ponies!?
And bubbles and balloons and Hello Kitty too!?!
FamilyMan wrote:
Thanks for the quote, FamilyMan. I considered typing that entire passage from my dogeared copy of East of Eden but I got lazy. I have read and re-read that book and it takes on new meaning every time.
From the lyrics...
"And you have your choices
And these are what make man great
His ladder to the stars"
Timshel. A Google search brought me to this....
"Do you remember when you read us the sixteen verses of the fourth chapter of Genesis and we argued about them?"
"I do indeed. And that's a long time ago."...
...Lee sipped his coffee. "Then I got a copy of the American Standard Bible. It was very new then. And it was different in this passage. It says, ‘Do thou rule over him.' Now this is very different. This is not a promise, it is an order. And I began to stew about it. I wondered what the original word of the original writer had been that these very different translations could be made."...
...Lee's hand shook as he filled the delicate cups. He drank his down in one gulp. "Don't you see?" he cried. "The American Standard translation orders men to triumph over sin, and you can call sin ignorance. The King James translation makes a promise in ‘Thou shalt,' meaning that men will surely triumph over sin. But the Hebrew word, the word timshel -‘Thou mayest'- that gives a choice. It might be the most important word in the world. That says the way is open. That throws it right back on a man. For if ‘Thou mayest'-it is also true that ‘Thou mayest not.' Don't you see?"
"Yes, I see. I do see. But you do not believe this is divine law. Why do you feel its importance?"
"Ah!" said Lee. "I've wanted to tell you this for a long time. I even anticipated your questions and I am well prepared. Any writing which has influenced the thinking and the lives of innumerable people is important. Now, there are many millions in their sects and churches who feel the order, ‘Do thou,' and throw their weight into obedience. And there are millions more who feel predestination in ‘Thou shalt.' Nothing they may do can interfere with what will be. But ‘Thou mayest'! Why, that makes a man great, that gives him stature with the gods, for in his weakness and his filth and his murder of his brother he has still the great choice. He can choose his course and fight it through and win." Lee's voice was a chant of triumph.
from "East of Eden" by John Steinbeck
For context (and inspiration) go here (https://timshel.org/timshel.php)
Thanks for the quote, FamilyMan. I considered typing that entire passage from my dogeared copy of East of Eden but I got lazy. I have read and re-read that book and it takes on new meaning every time.
Thanks! I didn't know that was possible. Some grumpy day I may try that.
a while back, that was the only stream working for many folks.