Mumford & Sons Match Beatles Record

With six songs in the Billboard 100 at the same time, Mumford & Sons have matched a record set by The Beatles in 1964. What is it about this band that the US loves so much?

Ultimate Guitar

Mumford & Sons have matched a record set by The Beatles in 1964 with a whopping six songs in the Billboard 100.

It follows the tearaway success of their album "Babel" which had sold more than 600,000 copies by Friday - more than any other album this year.

They were helped by having their album on Spotify, where all twelve songs on the album are part of the On-Demand chart which ranks songs based on streams over the week.

The "Glee" cast had previously put nine songs in the top 100, but chart-makers consider them a group rather than a band.

"Number Two was the best we got with [first album] 'Sigh No More' so it would be amazing [to get number one]," said Ted Dwayne from the band (via NME).

"Obviously no-one's going to wish against a Number One record but I know Green Day have an album out and they're a pretty big hitter. If you told me in the '90s that I'd be in a chart battle with Green Day, I probably would have just laughed at you."

What do you think of Mumford & Sons surprise success? Is there something about their folk roots which strike a chord with US listeners? Share your theories in the comments.

96 comments sorted by best / new / date

    Where the hell did this band come from? It's like a year ago, they just said "Hey world, we're a new band. Listen to us mother****ers." And everyone did.
    No, they played in small venues/clubs for since 2007. They just exploded once they released a full album after some EPs.
    They're just not a folk band. No. No no no. They are a pop band dressed like a folk band, playing "folky" instruments. This does not a folk band make. All this tells us is that people love the kind of pop they can convince themselves isn't pop.
    Mr Brownst0ne
    That's great that they're doing so well instead of all of the processed synth pop acts but I do think that they're a tad overrated. And I don't buy the whole "we're playing music that was last popular about 200 years ago so we'll dress like that too" thing.
    I agree. When I first heard them on some Awards Show, I thought to myself "These guys are like a subpar Avett Brothers." Not to discredit them for their success, but M&S have a very broad quality to their music. It has been done before countless times, but for some reason people are eating it up like they created this music scene. This is just personal preference, but I am simply not a fan. Don't attack me for having this opinion, I just want that to be heard.
    I thought to myself they sounded like a hybrid of modest mouse and flogging molly, with all of the parts that make those acts great removed.
    You know, you all are right. MaS are really great and innovative, but I feel like they shouldn't be the biggest thing out there. A lot of other, in my opinion better, indie acts need to get noticed, especially when I find a lot of their songs to be very similar to each other.
    Ironic. One overrated artist topped another overrated artist!
    I hope your referring to Green Day, cause if you're referring to the Beatles, then i'd have to shoot you.
    funny, you're gonna say something like that because i stated an obvious fact, yet the beatles are supposed to be for non-violence? what kind of a "fan" are you?
    I've never understood what's so special about this band. Listening to them, I can't even hear what would draw so many people to listen to them.
    Bad Kharmel
    yeah, I don't get it either, their playing is kind of bad, and the songs just seem to be strongly okay
    it's not in the playing, it's all in the dynamic, emotion, and lyrical message, at least for me.
    its great that they've done this but they wouldn't have matched the beatles. in the 60's people had to go to the local music store to buy the album but now people can buy one anywhere. so to me they haven't matched the beatles.
    I just don't get the hype. They sound completely dull to me and I have the impression that I've seen thousands of bands with the same sounding. Lucky people I guess...
    As they say, timing is everything (although luck is probably a very close second).
    Everyone has their opinion, but I think they're great. I think overall, people don't listen to this kind of music, and M&S came out with something new to the majority of people, with catchy tunes, and they just blew up. I agree on the dullness sometimes, because a lot of the songs seem to be a bit repetitive through each album. Its hard to tell the difference between some of them and there's not much variety. I'm still happy for the band. It is always amazing to see a band that is different from the majority of Top 40 music to make it big like these guys have. You don't have to like their work, but you have to admit its impressive.
    Everyone seems to be hating on them because they're a 'pop band', I think we'd all rather see these guys as no.1 as opposed to rihanna or taylor swift
    I'm super surprised at all the hate! Mumford is a genuine band, and while they aren't metal, at least they write their own stuff and play their own instruments. There's something to be said for that in this day and age.
    **** yes. Once you've seen them live, listened to their music a lot, and you like the image, then you understand the hype.
    Yeah, even though I like some of their music, I have to agree. They're just a pop band dressed like a folk band.
    Okay, this was actually supposed to be a reply to McTodd's comment.
    Before reading the comments on this article I had literally never heard anyone say a bad thing about this band. I don't know what there is to dislike about them.
    I love Mumford&Sons! Their music is awesome! Their passion for music is also awesome. These guys deserve what they are getting!
    Never heard of them, so I youtubed them. Probably the most scary music I've ever listened to in my life.
    Because all music needs to be heavy metal, right? I think it takes balls to use a banjo in your band, not downtuned and overly distorted guitars. Metal sucks, Mumford do not.
    I believe as the "rock" community, we should get behind this band. They have stayed true to their music with this release and are a mainstream success.
    Hey, it was bound to happen sooner or later. Better it be by Mumford & Sons than some braindead pop musician.
    But whats the difference? It's just a different sort of pop.
    Does that make them noticeably inferior to non-pop artists? There's a pretty clear difference in quality between Mumford & Sons and, say, Ke$ha. Sometimes other genres catch mainstream attention. I won't resort to the cliche "just because it's popular doesn't mean it's bad" argument, because I realize you don't believe that. But I will say that just because it's catchy and is receiving mainstream attention does not mean it should be lumped together with all other artists who are receiving mainstream attention. It's unfair to bands who do things their own way and happen to get noticed for it.
    As well reasoned as that is, M&S (rofl) are still musically unfullfilling. I wouldn't ever settle for music that didn't make me feel anything. M&S just sounds like the trendiest thing in rock (indie) + the least trendiest thing in rock (country) blended in a board room with some executives having a good discussion over their haircuts.
    Indie mixed with country? I guess they are technically an indie folk band, but you sound like you're just not that familiar with the folk genre. As for being musically unfulfilling, I disagree but that's completely subjective anyway. I will leave this to see what your opinion of it is:
    holy shit this is a great song! didn't particularly like the singles on the radio but this is top stuff.
    Agreed. M&S offer nothing new. Sigh No More ripped so much from the Fleet Foxes songbook it wasn't funny, and Babel is just the same, uninteresting record
    I don't LOVE them but it's good to see a band like them having so much success in 2012.
    Question: Is everyone hating on them because they play acoustic instruments instead of sweep picking at 200 bpm with a crapload of distortion? o_0 Their music is emotional (not 30 Seconds to Mars emotional) and well written. They have brilliant harmonies and sing fantastically live. Can't we at least agree that it's far better than the Flo Rida that kids would otherwise be hearing?
    Honestly, can someone explain why you don't like them?!
    Not everyone has to like their style of music ya know? I would like to see more variety in their songs, but hey it's their music, let them do what they want.
    They deserve to be #1. I love Sanford and Son. I never felt Redd Foxx got enough comedic respect. And I rather listen to Aunt Ester sing the blues than the Mumfurd's... Their music is dull at best. ANY comparison to the Beatles is down right maddening.
    it's not so much the look but the message and sheer emotionality of their songs, I know it's been done countless times before but the combination of the emotive dynamics and their lyrics just gets to me everytime. the reason why their so big right now is that most listeners don't have very long memories, even if this type thing was popular 10 years ago people would still be in the same state of awe because it's so different from anything else their hearing on the radio right now. just because it's simple and has been done before it doesn't make it any less powerful to listeners, look at steel panther, their basically spinal tap if they had started in the eighties, nothing original about what their doing but people still love the shit out of them.
    I totally agree; you can't deny Marcus Mumford's lyrical genius. His songs include nods at writers from Shakespeare to Steinbeck. Anyone who can get to the top of the charts with that level of literary ability deserves the praise of anyone who truly values music. More so in a world dominated by gangster rappers and vacuous pop songs.
    six songs which all sound the same, seriously i was at school the other day and a teacher played a whole mumford and sons album, and i genuinely didn't notice when the songs changed.
    Perfect description that I found on Mumford and sons: "Bland music for bland people." If you thought Dave Mathews was bad you should check out these guys.
    It's simple music that people connect with. It has pop hooks, it's a little aggressive, folk and country fans will always dig this kind of stuff. They're a good band, and I'm not surprised they're doing well.
    not big into their music but fair ****s to them, its nice to hear the sound of a guitar on the radio
    just because they sole so many records (in 2012) does not make them a pop band. Yes they do promos for their records, but every band does. Why are all of you hating on a band because people like them. Typical UG full of metal heads that can't wrap their heads around popular music..... and further more susan I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to find all four of them habitually smoke marijuana cigarettes.... reefer as for the comparison to the beatles. British band with massive American success (relatively massive). Beatles started as a skiffle band. M&S as a folk band. Just watch this saga unfold and enjoy the fact that they beat justin biebers opening week sales.
    I was in an art class where students could play songs from their ipod for the whole class. There was always these girls who put M&S on repeat EVERY day for an entire semester. I never want to hear their music again as long as I live.
    Its nice and refreshing to see that ppl actually do buy records. This is like in your face to those who says records dont sell. I dont find them that special, but hey. Good for them
    Heh, well good thing ONE band is selling records, now we'll have to say, "No one except one band per year can sell records." :p
    Nero Galon
    I've noticed recently how the mainstream has allowed some folk in, such as M&S's and the likes of Ben Howard etc. I actually like folk, the debate over them being genuine (just because they are well known) is pretty silly. But sadly it is true that the radio can kill.
    I find his comment funny about Greenday... Of course they're a band that's always going to sell huge numbers of albums, but has anyone else heard that Kill the DJ song? A local reviewer put it quite well when he said that song should have been put out by Pink; I'm sure it would have put off enough buyers that Mumford & Sons could take out the top slot
    They've always sounded a bit like REM in my opinion, but that's just me. And I'd rather see them doing well than some other pop acts...
    I'm super surprised at all the hate! Mumford is a genuine band, and while they aren't metal, at least they write their own stuff and play their own instruments. There's something to be said for that in this day and age.
    This proves one thing: Mindless people will accept anything as music these days.
    Green Day BJA
    I love Mumford and Sons. But if you ask me, the fact that they're in a chart battle with Green Day is ridiculous. M&S are a great band, but I think they are over-rated slightly and certainly don't deserve to be competing with bands like Green Day so early in their career.
    Marcus Mumford is ****ing talented. Being able to do the bass drum, tambourine, guitar and vocals all at the same time is just amazing. He is definitely more talented than a lot of musicians that keep coming out lately. To bad nobody actually pays attention to raw talent anymore.