Cacophony or Caca&phony?

I first heard Mumford & Sons at Bonnaroo this past summer, and their song "Little Lion Man" sent the crowd into wild hippie dancing and cheers (due to both the song's catchiness & its dropping of the f-bomb, no doubt). Also, it was raining, and plastic ponchos abounded. I wondered why I hadn't listened to these guys and whether their album was any good, which sorta sums up my Bonnaroo experience. Well, also a hefty dose of ogling fried (crispy sun-baked) and fried (drugged-out) folks.

Anyway, I've been listening to Sigh No More the past few months, and it is catchy, earnest, over-the-top, raw. I suppose this captures why Mumford & Sons are both loved and hated. (Pitchfork's reviewer gave this album a 2.1/10, finding it caca & phony.) My theory (as someone unduly interested in reviews): Anything that can earn such a low rating might actually deserve a listen.

And I've listened again and again. There's a fair portion of juvenile heartache & rebellion going on here, but I'll cop to feeling those emotions now and again, and this pushes the right buttons when needed. Still, I suspect I won't be returning to this album frequently a year or ten from now. I also can't help comparing them to their cronies in the Brit folk revival scene (Laura Marling, Johnny Flynn) and finding I prefer the cronies.

But then there's Sigur Ros. Their songs are just more more full-bodied, more flavorful than Mumford's. I could chalk it up to a longer career, and maybe that's part of it, but the other part might be that they're just the more interesting band. I do think Sigur Ros might have stood to change up their act a bit more and been, well, less like Sigur Ros. Initially, they were a big surprise. Today they're unmistakable, nearly possible to reduce to parody or formula, and I like to be mistook, rattled. Like, could a song remain teeny-tiny now and again, instead always swelling to some HUGE CACOPHONY?

Whatever: Sigur Ros wins.