The Lumineers

edward sharp and the magnetic zeros are more annoying to me than any of these other bands, actually, because people would play "home" all the time when i was in college. i also went to college in gettysburg, pennsylvania so there was no shortage of 19th century kitsch.

You can't overthink Lumineers. Isn't that the problem?

Their feet:

http://sparklingflakes.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/the-lumineers-1024x682.jpg

they actually offer so little to think about that it's hard to think about them at all. I see their grinning faces and then I hear the sound of a single drop of water in a vast, echoing emptiness.

jfc assholes, the two guys cuffed their pants in the same exact asymmetrical way, and the chick is doing that cloying little girl thing where she turns her feet in

I like how they have work boots and she's wearing designed shoes.

josh in chicago has been very much otm regarding these insufferable bastards throughout this thread, but I have to say their feet are not as annoying as everything else about them.

i kind of like their workboots that's not a bad look.

I would like this band if they were conjoined triplets.

I could understand someone connecting Fleet Foxes to these guys if they'd only seen a photograph but not if they'd actually heard any of the music, read an interview, thought about it for more than a minute, etc. They're different in every single important way.

even in photos fleet foxes don't look as affected as the lumineers, they're just guys with beards wearing plaid. i feel like many of the people here look like that.

look at this new band, totally copping the lumineers' style
http://25.media.tumblr.com/98e3bc02da83c14c9adb0b8c4a9ba40e/tumblr_mlb03tZecZ1qga7lvo1_500.jpg
oh wait that's modest mouse

They yelp, too, come to think of it.

And look at these poseurs:

http://static.rateyourmusic.com/lk/f/a/82f4eda8602d6579b205dc3137f02cc4/906667.jpg

lol

Point being, you can get away with anything if your music does not suck.

New board description AND rule number one of art

http://www.nationalcivilwarbrassmusic.org/images/FCBBGibsoncropped3.jpg

only a couple of these guys even tried to nail the look, rest are just phoning it in

Phoning it in, or ... euphonium-ing it in?

It's not over until someone sousaphones it in.
Overthinking this shit is a vast empty wasteland; best to ignore it lest you get stuck there.

well my problem is that i see traditional instruments and traditional dress and automatically assume things from the starting point of "tradition," when that might not be the case at all.

]tra·di·tion
[truh-dish-uhn]
noun

1.
the handing down of statements, beliefs, legends, customs, information, etc., from generation to generation, especially by word of mouth or by practice: a story that has come down to us by popular tradition.

2.
something that is handed down: the traditions of the Eskimos.

3.
a long-established or inherited way of thinking or acting: The rebellious students wanted to break with tradition.

4.
a continuing pattern of culture beliefs or practices.

5.
a customary or characteristic method or manner: The winner took a victory lap in the usual track tradition.

i often can't tell the difference between good authentic, bad authentic, good inauthentic, or bad inauthentic but when i see certain signifiers i think either someone's trying to faithfully reconstruct something or purposefully doing it "wrong" just for aesthetic effect, whichever. i don't think i can judge new authentics on these grounds b/c they're not going for either of these things.

"elvis, was a hero to most but i'm not sure who that is you see"

]tra·di·tion
[truh-dish-uhn]
noun

4.a continuing pattern of culture beliefs or practice.

Usage: "There is a long tradition of phony-baloney bands co-opting or enlisting lazy signifiers, trends and fashions as a shortcut to success."

lol

oh well, just another old-time band, with honky affectations

i feel nervous because my boots/pantcuffs combo today does not look dissimilar to that photo of the lumineers.

I don't care a whole lot about authenticity. Whether or not the Lumineers are actual moonshine-swilling ragamuffins with a deep connection to all the old jug bands of yore, they make the same racket. Is the issue that they themselves *think* that they're authentic? Or that they knowingly convey an impression of authenticity to their easily persuaded fans? I dunno, I feel like it's a mistake to read into their intentions or experiences too much; just say you don't dig their sound/style.

my problem with the Lumineers is that the 15 seconds of music I've heard from them was worse than Polyphonic Spree

i feel like the reason i don't like their whole spiel is related to my intuitive sense of what they "represent", something it seems others on this board share, and i guess the authenticity discussion is just a way of unpacking that sentiment. i don't think there is something objectively worse about the simple pop melodies they turn out and the simple pop melodies recorded by some of my favorite groups -- it's all about how this material is presented, how it is framed, which is related to their "sound" but also to other things, like the niche they seem to fill in the culture. i mean, their music is more enjoyable than jandek's, but it irks me, whereas his music fascinates me, and i think it's worth asking why.

i'm also not sure if what i am talking about necessitates looking into their "intentions". the material itself, it seems, lacks self-awareness, in that it presents us with hokey, old-timey, nostalgic pablum, and there is nothing in its presentation to indicate the artists' understanding that it is all a conceit. i don't know: the music doesn't seem to relate to its source material in an interesting way. it's one-dimensional.

an act that is still basically a pop band but which employs "nostalgia" toward more constructive ends, or richer ends, is, i think, beirut. the music feels thoughtful and not lazy, even though it is at the same time pretty on a superficial level.

I'm always shocked when a band so brazenly gloms onto some fashionable sound, like putting on a new suit. I mean, did these guys walk around wearing Olde Tyme stuff with banjos, see Mumford on TV and go, wow, likeminded souls!! Or did they shape their image around some pre-defined trends? I've always wondered this when, say, U2 is being all U2-y, and then the next thing you know, there are a dozen of bands that sound like U2. Or Coldplay. Or Arcade Fire. Just the Zeitgeist? Coincidence? Or simply shameless? Like, if you were the Lumineers, and this was your thing, would you second guess yourself because your thing is the same as so many other things? Like, shit, maybe I should shave my beard and dress differently? Or does arrogance and ego take over and you think, fuck it, I will do this fake folk and work boot shit better than everyone. Or, do you think, even more arrogantly, all these other poseurs can step off, because we are the real deal, look at my suspenders and listen to me yelp? You'd think they'd make even the most modest efforts to differentiate themselves.

eh the mumfords were only popular for a year or two before they put their record out. it seems more likely they were just doing that style for a while and benefited from its popularity than that they scrambled to 'copy' such a broad and established sound/look.

i feel like the visual aesthetics of this sort of thing have been around in the indie world for a while... i mean, look at that modest mouse promo. i think these bands are different because they are just always going for the least common denominator of what appeals to twinkly eyed, romantic-souled indie fans. it's just so depressingly predictable.

in related news, idk if anyone here is a prozac nation fan, but elizabeth wurtzel has outed herself as a fan of mumford and sons. seems like a pretty brave thing to admit to. http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-arts-and-culture/music/128313/in-bed-with-bob-dylan

fleet foxes at least seems to approach the rustic campfire schtick from their own angle.

idk if anyone here is a prozac nation fan, but elizabeth wurtzel has outed herself as a fan of mumford and sons. seems like a pretty brave thing to admit to. http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-arts-and-culture/music/128313/in-bed-with-bob-dylan

― Pat Finn, Monday, April 15, 2013 5:53 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

every elizabeth wurtzel blog post lately amounts to "fuck the world, I'm a mess and I'm staying in bed and eating ice cream in my pajamas" so I wouldn't say this is exactly "brave" in her context

i'm also not sure if what i am talking about necessitates looking into their "intentions". the material itself, it seems, lacks self-awareness, in that it presents us with hokey, old-timey, nostalgic pablum, and there is nothing in its presentation to indicate the artists' understanding that it is all a conceit.

Fair point.

xpost lol. for some reason, i still like wurtzel's style. there is something admirable in her unwavering commitment to act like a self-absorbed teenager forever, no matter how horrible it makes her look to the outside world.

yeah what Pat said. It's not like anyone is accusing them of "Not Actually Being From The Turn Of The Century"

That's not partic admirable imo but to each her own.

idk, i feel like it's "authentic" in its own way.

I feel like being "committed" to not growing up isn't really properly defined as "commitment"

oh it totally isn't, and her whole ego seems to be built upon an insane illusion that by sleeping late and doing drugs in her 40s or whatever she is bravely rebelling society's narrow expectations for what she should be doing, and that somehow readers will admire her for that. this worldview is, of course, inauthentic. but the fact that she like, never backs down, and just kind of lives in her own world, not ours... idk, it is authentic. she is authentically pathetic.

I guess so. A lot of people live that way and just don't write about it. I don't know if she's braver for writing about it or just more narcissistic.

hm. i don't know. what i like about her writing is that it gives expression to a worldview that, as you said, seems pretty common in my experience.

also she seems to savvy not to understand that she is coming across as desperate and narcissistic, but for whatever reason spurns those criticisms at every turn. she seems very in control of how she presents herself.

*too

I decided to find out who the Lumineers are influenced by and I got

Drummer Jeremiah Fraites exclusively told BANG Showbiz: ''The first thing I got into was Beethoven. I remember getting one of those CDs that was all piano stuff by Beethoven and that really influenced me a lot, I love classical music.

''Then the next band I got into was Guns N' Roses. I don't really know how that transition took place, but I think I really grew up listening to lots of different types of genres.

''I love cinematic music and anything strange and weird. Wesley [Schultz, guitar] and I write all the music and he grew up on stuff that his father liked such as Talking Heads and Bruce Springsteen. I think there's a blend we bring to the table, where we don't have the same exact influences, but write well together.''

so, okay then.

I was thinking about similar things recently when I saw some ridiculous band whose every stylistic and sonic element seemed taken directly from Animal Collective - I figure I can make a pretty nuanced aesthetic argument about bands taking sonic (and other) referents that they don't know the roots of, and so in some way not really understanding how the sounds n structures they're using function in the ear of the listener who knows that stuff, leaving us with a displeasing uncanny or 'inauthentic' mess in the Mumfords or Lumineers manner. But ultimately I like plenty of stuff that could easily pass as a casual ripoff of this or that, so I don't know what to do with that other than accept that the argument kind of goes out the window if the bands somehow happen to be 'good' despite what I'm thinking of as their higher-level artistic failings.

I dunno, I'm not a huge fan of Mumford & Sons or the Lumineers or anyone else trafficking in this sound, but nor do I completely understand what it is about a certain kind of earnest rock band -- Dave Matthews Band, Coldplay, Death Cab for Cutie, and Arcade Fire -- that gets ILMers riled up so much. Part of it, I gather, is that these bands' presentation of "authenticity" is pernicious inasmuch as it encourages people to see them as much better or more important than they actually are. (In contrast to most other pop music, which is recognized as "just" pop music.) But I think the reaction to that phenomenon among certain "knowledgeable" music fans is to treat these bands as much worse than they actually are.

xpost to Merdeyeux, i think that is similar to the impasse contenderizer described upthread: any "rule" you make about what separates good -- or authentic, or original, or any other value-laden critical term -- from bad, is bound to have many glaring exceptions that you can't account for. like, i mentioned before i like beirut, and their thing is also producing an effect of warm, fuzzy nostalgia by bending older folk forms (mostly european in their case i think, but i'm far from an expert) to the catchy pop song format. there is nothing "critical" about beirut's music, and there is also nothing partic. "self-aware" about it like with the rolling stones who exploited the dissonance between who they were and what their music sounded like. but it still "works" somehow (for me), while the lumineers don't, and it is hard to account for this. like, the whole thing doesn't "feel" as contrived as the lumineers, and any contrivance i am aware of in the act of listening doesn't feel like a bad thing, kind of like how a tastefully, period-appropriately furnished colonial house doesn't feel artifical, even if it has modern appliances. the contrivance is able to feel natural; the illusion works even though it doesn't...

i think what might be going on is that "good" bands have a more unified, meaningful aesthetic vision than bad bands. they are able to sound like themselves, even when their source material is super-obvious, and comes from all over the place. i think the "mess" you hear with the lumineers song is like how orwell described sloppy thinking: pre-fabricated phrases and ideas are "tacked together like hen-houses." a good band synthesizes their source material in a way that is "meaningful", even if it is hard (or impossible) to articulate what exactly this "meaning" is.

sorry if that was super-long.

i think there are way more long posts itt than the subject requires but that's just me

hey ho stfu lumineers the end :)