Sigh No More - Mumford & Sons
User Score

Generally favorable reviews- based on 165 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 22 out of 165

Review this album

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. May 23, 2011
    I'm sorry but I've gotta go along with Pitchfork on this one. It has one song that sticks, I guess for lyrical/personal/whatever reasons. ("I Gave You All." I freakin' love that song.) But the aesthetic from one song to the next is *identical.*

    I'm not saying that they don't have a certain knack for building up the tempo to a cacophony and letting Marcus Mumford's voice ride the
    instruments like a wave. They're not half bad at it. But they aren't exactly the best there's ever been, yet they do it on EVERY SONG. On a contemporary level, Arcade Fire and The Decemberists easily have them beat at that. What makes those bands as good as they are (or great, in Arcade Fire's case) is that they don't copy this formula on every song. They show off their wealth of other talents.

    When you can do something pretty-well-but-not-great, as M&S do with their folk anthemic climaxes, you should think about switching it up and writing a new song once in a while. And P4k, I'm sad to say, is spot on. When every song has the exact same formula, the album as a whole starts to sound disingenuous and I become totally disconnected with it. Imagine if Fleet Foxes had used the wordless chorus-double verse-A Capella 3-4-part harmonies on EVERY song on Sun Giant as they did with Mykonos. It would've been horrible, and a real slight to the genre of folk rock.

    I'm not going to say that this isn't a good band. (Yet.) If they could chill on the soft-loud formula like some sort of folk rock Nirvana, maybe use it on one or two songs in an album, and use the rest of the space for--I dunno--something else, I can hear what they're made of.
  2. gbv
    Apr 25, 2011
    I got suspicious when everyone started falling all over themselves for these guys so quickly. (Something smells fishy when d-bags and college girls are lining up right away to worship a "folk" band. There's really no reason for the rootsy instruments and wardrobe - it's really all about the big indulgent swelling of sound here. Check out Frightened Rabbit or others that do that as well, but have so much more real art & soul behind it. The Decemberists are so brainy and skilled, they can certainly pull it off. I'm sorry, but IMO these guys are hacks. Expand
  3. Apr 6, 2012
    Except for the hit singles The Cave and Little Lion Man, there is hardly anything else that this album offers. Moreover, Little Lion Man fails to compete with the other other of its genre. The albums is not an absolute disaster. It's just that it requires a lot of refinement.
  4. Dec 29, 2010
    The point of the Pitchfork review is that this record sounds completely contrived. They give you harmonies a la Fleet Foxes, but it feels forced, not natural. They basically sound like what every band at your crappy local Irish pub is trying to be. Unfortunately, even with success in their efforts, it comes across as an incongruous pastiche of tacky musical tricks. They might have sounded good at one time or another, but here they're smooshed together without an ounce of creativity or musical adventurism. They don't challenge the listener in the slightest nor do they break any musical ground. And for those of you who think that Pitchfork 'disdains' popularity, check out their review for the new Kanye album... Expand
  5. Oct 21, 2012
    If Mumford & Sons never put out another track for the rest of time, no fan of them would notice as long as they put out the song again with new cover art. Catch my drift?
  6. Oct 23, 2011
    Horrible! Trite, repetitive, excruciatingly bad lyrics. Cannot understand the fuss over them. I only wish John Belushi were still alive so he could break that overused banjo over his knee.
  7. Aug 6, 2011
    This isn't a terrible album, but there's nothing that makes it stand out at all. It might be a stretch to call it a "good" album really. It's an album with good songs. I don't think any song on this album is a complete dud, but that isn't the problem. The problem is that every song uses the same build up crescendo triple forte formula and it wears thin on anyone with a musical backbone. They're clearly a talented band who have the potential to create something fantastic, but this isn't it. Expand

Generally favorable reviews - based on 18 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 12 out of 18
  2. Negative: 1 out of 18
  1. May 10, 2011
    Sigh No More sees four-piece Mumford and Sons strike out for equally distinctive territory, carving out a mostly winning--if nigglingly naive--debut that deserves an audience to match its impressive convictions.
  2. 80
    Thanks to a volatile mix of the uplifting and gloomy--there's a bitter murder tale ("Dust Bowl Dance") and lingering visions of death ("Timshel")--Sigh No More transfixes.
  3. Despite any popularity which may come their way, what Mumford & Sons have produced in Sigh No More is nothing more than an empty shell of a half-decent record.