Who knows what goes on behind the scenes etc, and yes it would be great if a non-mainstream act could have the chance to win one year. But, for whatever reason they are included, the inclusion of jazz acts and others can only help to bring helpful attention to these genres that are in need of and deserving of it - so I still hold that however 'token' they are it is still a positive thing that they are included..
I'm struggling to remember what their profile was like at the time but I don't think Talvin Singh and Speech Debelle could really be described as mainstream when they won. It is generally quite well known artists though and it seems to be more mainstream and predictable now than it used to be.
I say every year that my main interest is in seeing which artists are on the shortlist rather than who is actually going to win. It's often disappointing because really good albums from lesser known artists (that also would have added more variety) don't make the list but that's inevitable I suppose. You can't even be sure that those type of artists have bothered to pay to enter and be considered.
And then there are others who use the fact that they support obscure artists as some sort of nerdy badge of honour and are often sniffy about successful acts because they are, actually,you know, successful. Add a lack of any semblance of a sense of humour into the mix and we have a heady brew indeed :eek::D. But I guess it takes all sorts.
Now now konebyvax I wonder who you could be talking about It''s all meant in good humour from this side too y'know. Still haven't seen you address any of my points yet thought... Of course it goes without saying that a well known band can be very good and deserving (you'd certainly hope at least some of them would be!!) - I'm certainly not advocating supporting people simply for being lesser known! That said most of the best music I've ever seen has been in small rooms to small audiences and most of the worst music I've ever seen had been to stadium crowds or on television! Supporting quality music that is out of the limelight is very different to supporting music for being unpopular! Don't need a badge thanks - just saying there's a *lot* of good music out there in the jazz world for people who want to hear it, and that perhaps it's not right that the vast majority of people seem so scathing of it being even slightly accounted for by the mercury award - but hey I'm probably being humourless
And then there are others who use the fact that they support obscure artists as some sort of nerdy badge of honour and are often sniffy about successful acts because they are, actually,you know, successful. Add a lack of any semblance of a sense of humour into the mix and we have a heady brew indeed :eek::D. But I guess it takes all sorts.
Grow up. What you still don't seem to realise is that some of us would rather just discuss music for what it is and not even bring popularity/success into the equation. As far as I'm concerned it's got absolutely nothing to do with the actual music itself and I don't waste my time worrying about what other people like. So when you keep banging on about it, the annoyance comes from the fact that you've mentioned it (again) in the first place, it's got nothing to do with the level of popularity of the artists themselves.
Every thread you're involved in turns into a discussion about popularity and it's really boring. Can't you just stick to discussing the actual music? This is a thread about the Mercury Prize so I would like to see people discussing the merits of the albums/music involved, not someone looking down on artists for not being really successful :rolleyes:.
Here are my 12 faves from the last 12 months, in no particular order, I wonder how many will end up on the real shortlist?
Arctic Monkeys - AM
Georgia Ruth Williams - Week of Pines
Disclosure - Settle
Jake Bugg - Jake Bugg
Rudimental - Home
Peace - In Love
Foals - Holy Fire
Sweet Baboo - Ships
Bowie - The Next Day
Palma Violets - 180
Bring Me The Horizon - Sempiternal
XX - Coexist
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
Biggest surprise is the lack of the jazz and folk album. Oh and lack of London Grammar.
I think Marling and Turner have both now equalled Radiohead's record 4 nominations? Edit: looks like Marling only has 3?
Laura Marling 3, Arctic Monkeys 3, Alex Turner 4, PJ Harvey 4, Radiohead 4, Thom Yorke 5. Not that nominations really mean anything. PJ Harvey has the best record for winning it twice.
Laura Marling 3, Arctic Monkeys 3, Alex Turner 4, PJ Harvey 4, Radiohead 4, Thom Yorke 5. Not that nominations really mean anything. PJ Harvey has the best record for winning it twice.
Most of the shortlist may have been quite predictable but I think it's really open this year. You can make a case for most of the albums winning, depending on the type of music the judging panel want to reward.
My view is that David Bowie and Laura Marling are the strongest albums. I like most of the others but whilst they're decent, I think they are more patchy albums. Pleased to see Jon Hopkins on the list and wouldn't mind him winning either.
I initially thought (few weeks ago) that David Bowie would win but people were pointing out that he's very unlikely to turn up or take an interest in the award so maybe not. Can't really predict the winner this year no matter what the betting says later.
They probably won't win but my vote goes to the Savages. They have a little more of an edge and aren't as conventional and MOR as some of the other choices. Plus, I'm all for women playing instruments and starting their own band. These awards do tend to be kind of male dominated.
Bowie probably got nominated primarily because they know it would be a real coup if he actually showed up, but if he also played live, well, the prize would be his. But he's very unlikely to do either so I'm looking elsewhere. Marling could be the one given she has now received 3 noms and it's not really fair to ignore her thrice.
I own all apart from two of these albums (John Hopkins and David Bowie) and feel this is one of the strongest shortlist in years. All the albums are excellent but I'd prefer it if David Bowie and Arctic Monkeys didn't win simply because the money would mean nothing to them where as with the others I feel it will contribute to making stronger bodies of work in the future.
Bowie probably got nominated primarily because they know it would be a real coup if he actually showed up, but if he also played live, well, the prize would be his. But he's very unlikely to do either so I'm looking elsewhere.
He didn't get nominated just for being Bowie, it's a really good album and deserving of being shortlisted. He could still win but I think the judging panel will know that the award will mean a lot more to a newer, younger artist.
If I was forced to make a bet (or someone gave me the money ) I would probably choose Disclosure. New, young artist and something a bit different to what they normally go for.
I bet James_Linham1 is a little annoyed at the lack of a jazz artist on the shortlist. Although the list is quite varied I kind of miss it not being there, it doesn't feel right somehow .
Bowie probably got nominated primarily because they know it would be a real coup if he actually showed up, but if he also played live, well, the prize would be his. But he's very unlikely to do either so I'm looking elsewhere. Marling could be the one given she has now received 3 noms and it's not really fair to ignore her thrice.
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?
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?
He may do, but it depends how much he cares about the award, if at all. The award really isn't that special, especially to long established artists like Bowie. It may also be that he doesn't want all the fuss and attention.
I'm sure he would have done a pre-recorded video acceptance speech but that's not how the award works. The judges decide on the night so no one knows who's going to win until the last minute.
He may do, but it depends how much he cares about the award, if at all. The award really isn't that special, especially to long established artists like Bowie. It may also be that he doesn't want all the fuss and attention.
I'm sure he would have done a pre-recorded video acceptance speech but that's not how the award works. The judges decide on the night so no one knows who's going to win until the last minute.
Comments
I say every year that my main interest is in seeing which artists are on the shortlist rather than who is actually going to win. It's often disappointing because really good albums from lesser known artists (that also would have added more variety) don't make the list but that's inevitable I suppose. You can't even be sure that those type of artists have bothered to pay to enter and be considered.
Every thread you're involved in turns into a discussion about popularity and it's really boring. Can't you just stick to discussing the actual music? This is a thread about the Mercury Prize so I would like to see people discussing the merits of the albums/music involved, not someone looking down on artists for not being really successful :rolleyes:.
Arctic Monkeys - AM
Georgia Ruth Williams - Week of Pines
Disclosure - Settle
Jake Bugg - Jake Bugg
Rudimental - Home
Peace - In Love
Foals - Holy Fire
Sweet Baboo - Ships
Bowie - The Next Day
Palma Violets - 180
Bring Me The Horizon - Sempiternal
XX - Coexist
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
Biggest surprise is the lack of the jazz and folk album. Oh and lack of London Grammar.
I think Marling and Turner have both now equalled Radiohead's record 4 nominations? Edit: looks like Marling only has 3?
PS No 'token' noms. Have the judges been reading this thread?
PPS This bloke predicted 10 of 'em (but to be fair his list seemed to be about 100-strong
http://www.thecmuwebsite.com/article/editors-letter-mercury-prize-2013-contenders/
If Jon Hopkins, Laura Mvula, Savages or Disclosure win then I'll be mildly satisfied.
Great 'statting' there; thanks for that
My view is that David Bowie and Laura Marling are the strongest albums. I like most of the others but whilst they're decent, I think they are more patchy albums. Pleased to see Jon Hopkins on the list and wouldn't mind him winning either.
I initially thought (few weeks ago) that David Bowie would win but people were pointing out that he's very unlikely to turn up or take an interest in the award so maybe not. Can't really predict the winner this year no matter what the betting says later.
If I was forced to make a bet (or someone gave me the money
I'm sure he would have done a pre-recorded video acceptance speech but that's not how the award works. The judges decide on the night so no one knows who's going to win until the last minute.
I bet he's a little bit chuffed to be nominated