I'd be very surprised if Bowie didn't show up. As long as I've been following the Mercurys, every entrant has always been present on the night. And that includes the big names like Robert Plant. Adele etc as well as the more obscure entrants.What's so different or special about Bowie's case?
The difference is that Bowie is all but retired from public appearances or live performance, he has been since 2006. Several people who worked on The Next Day have stated that his current interest lies solely in recording music rather than anything else. He didn't do any direct promotion on what has been one of the most successful albums of his career.
I don't see why a relatively minor, hipster yet corporately sponsored award would change this.
Yes, I would be very surprised if he shows, he's a virtual recluse nowadays, isn't he? But you can't blame the Mercurys for trying to get him there for the publicity by nominating him. They do summat like this every year (previous nominations have included Robbie Williams, Take That, Jamelia and The Darkness! :eek:)
PS The last time Bowie was nominated he lost out to Ms Dynamite Seriously, if you was him would you show up?
PPS Did he attend in 2002? Not sure whether this reply is a joke
The Mercury Prize doesn't really need the publicity these days. They wouldn't focus on so many avant-garde or obscure acts were that the case. It's well known outside Britain, eg in the US even though American artists can't enter on theiir own account.
David Bowie wasn't nominated for publicity purposes. He was nominated because his album was universally praised. I don't think I came across a bad review anywhere, not that I've heard it.
But you can't blame the Mercurys for trying to get him there for the publicity by nominating him. They do summat like this every year
Considering how well his album has been received by UK critics and people in the industry it would have been a bit weird if he wasn't on the shortlist imo. Pretty much everyone who wrote about the Mercury Prize thought he would be nominated and not for publicity reasons.
I don't doubt one of the reasons he got in was the album's quality but you only have to look at the historical pattern of nominations in this 'competition' to see plainly that they include a couple of very famous artists every year (who so rarely win) and the suspicion is surely that hey are there for publicity purposes (you've already admitted they normally, although interestingly not this year, nominate a 'token' jazz and folk act so it's not a great leap of faith to assume there are other motives at play in addition to the perceived quality of any album). I say again, it would be a major coup (and provide huge publicity) if they got Bowie to turn up and if he agreed to play live, crikey.
PS He was nominated in 2002 for 'Heathen' and that was far less warmly received by the critics ....
I don't doubt one of the reasons he got in was the album's quality but you only have to look at the historical pattern of nominations in this 'competition' to see plainly that they include a couple of very famous artists every year (who so rarely win) and the suspicion is surely that hey are there for publicity purposes
Nope, that doesn't wash with me. Go and look at the list of nominees for the last 4 or 5 years and you'll see that it's not really the case at all. You can certainly make a case for any "famous" artists being there on merit.
Rudimental - Home
Foals - Holy Fire
Jon Hopkins - Immunity
Jake Bugg - Jake Bugg
Laura Mvula - Sing to the Moon
Villagers - Awayland
David Bowie - The Next Day
Savages - Silence Yourself
Disclosure - Settle
Laura Marling - Once I Was An Eagle
James Blake - Overgrown
Arctic Monkeys - AM
Bowie and Savages get my vote for doing something interesting, Foals and the Monkeys are OK but far too mid-tempo to ignite my interest. The rest of the list is dull beyond belief.
The list could do with an injection of something with a bit more edge - F*ck Buttons "Slow Focus", for example or My Bloody Valentine "MBV".
Otherwise most interesting stuff at the moment comes from outside the UK - Deafheaven, Iceage, Deerhunter, Metz etc.
Nope, that doesn't wash with me. Go and look at the list of nominees for the last 4 or 5 years and you'll see that it's not really the case at all. You can certainly make a case for any "famous" artists being there on merit.
As per usual, I guess we will have to agree to disagree (although please note I've quoted your whole post to reply to, unlike you did )
As per usual, I guess we will have to agree to disagree (although please note I've quoted your whole post to reply to, unlike you did )
I quoted the most relevant part. I'm not disagreeing for the sake of it, I just don't see which artists from recent years have been chosen for publicity rather than for producing a decent album.
Bowie and Savages get my vote for doing something interesting, Foals and the Monkeys are OK but far too mid-tempo to ignite my interest. The rest of the list is dull beyond belief.
The list could do with an injection of something with a bit more edge - F*ck Buttons "Slow Focus", for example or My Bloody Valentine "MBV".
Otherwise most interesting stuff at the moment comes from outside the UK - Deafheaven, Iceage, Deerhunter, Metz etc.
For those of us who can appreciate other types of music rather than just rock, it's a pretty good list actually. 'Interesting' is not the word I'd use to describe most rock music at the moment.
Comments
The difference is that Bowie is all but retired from public appearances or live performance, he has been since 2006. Several people who worked on The Next Day have stated that his current interest lies solely in recording music rather than anything else. He didn't do any direct promotion on what has been one of the most successful albums of his career.
I don't see why a relatively minor, hipster yet corporately sponsored award would change this.
PS The last time Bowie was nominated he lost out to Ms Dynamite
PPS Did he attend in 2002? Not sure whether this reply is a joke
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130606134628AA5dupj
David Bowie wasn't nominated for publicity purposes. He was nominated because his album was universally praised. I don't think I came across a bad review anywhere, not that I've heard it.
PS He was nominated in 2002 for 'Heathen' and that was far less warmly received by the critics ....
I would say that James Blake is in with a shout.
I wouldn't really mind if he doesn't win it because it doesn't really matter.
Bowie and Savages get my vote for doing something interesting, Foals and the Monkeys are OK but far too mid-tempo to ignite my interest. The rest of the list is dull beyond belief.
The list could do with an injection of something with a bit more edge - F*ck Buttons "Slow Focus", for example or My Bloody Valentine "MBV".
Otherwise most interesting stuff at the moment comes from outside the UK - Deafheaven, Iceage, Deerhunter, Metz etc.
As per usual, I guess we will have to agree to disagree (although please note I've quoted your whole post to reply to, unlike you did
For those of us who can appreciate other types of music rather than just rock, it's a pretty good list actually. 'Interesting' is not the word I'd use to describe most rock music at the moment.