Mercury Music Prize: Reflection

In an earlier blog I promised to shed some thoughts on the (rather predictable) result of the Mercury Music Prize a few days ago-and now is the time (before it gets completely over-written about and boring).

I'm not a big xx fan, and certainly did not get caught up in the hysteria that went with their debut album, released over a year ago now. I always find that when one of their songs is on I find myself thinking this isn't bad, it's quite interesting and a bit different to most indie-pop (shite) around at the moment. Listening to the album through however, I find an extreme lack of diversity and although I hate saying it in regards to anything-it does all sound the same (or at least too similar). I can understand why they won though (especially after the fuss over Speech Debelle's win last year). The xx were the obvious and inevitable choice for this year, and I don't think too many were disappointed. I did feel however, that there were more deserved winners.

All the talk in the 'build up' was over Weller. The bookies were apparently taking it as a given that he was going to win, although this always seemed like a bit of a nonsense. I'm a huge Weller fan, however I wasn't as impressed with 'Wake Up The Nation' as everybody else. I prefer '22 Dreams' and still found that struggled quite a bit at times. Realistically, he hasn't written a brilliant album since 'Stanley Road' 15 years ago, so it would have been a bit of a backwards step for him to win. 

Personally I loved two of the albums nominated this year, with one deserving to win. The debut album from Irishman Conor O'Brien (better known as Villagers) was brilliant. I found myself telling everyone to listen to it and getting caught up in its lyrics and dark melodies for days on end. Winner of the Mercury award? Probably not. 

When a band is from Oxford, I usually take notice. 'Antidotes', the debut from Foals, really didn't do much for me. I found that it was very fashionable, and if I'm honest, pretty irritating in parts. They did however, completely turn it around with 'Total Life Forever', and should've won the prize. I don't want to praise the pants off the record as it's by no means perfect, and not my favourite of 2010...but I do think it ticked more boxes than any of the other albums nominated, therefore deserving to win the prize.  

Laura Marling album wasn't bad and Wild Beasts are quite interesting too. Neither of them scream at me though, and I rarely listen to either (never a good sign). I Am Kloot are probably the band that offered the least to the process . I mean they were never going to get close to winning...they don't seem like a Mercury sort of band. I've got nothing against them, but there's nothing interesting about them and so would've been a bit of a joke if they were to win. Listenable though.

The only other band that I feel could have won was Biffy Clyro. Although I'm not a massive Biffy fan, I do appreciate their music and they've grown quite steadily to become one of the forerunners in the indie scene at the moment. It may not have been the most of inspired of choices, but it would've been fair enough I guess. Going platinum probably didn't do their chances any favours.

It's over now, and will be forgotten by next week; but it is one of the few music awards that matters to me, and one that rewards interesting over 'perfect for BBC Radio 1'.