So, in anticipation of the musical event of the next couple of weeks (if you're Jo Whiley, anyhow), I started thinking about who might win. This is what I came up with:
JOANNA MCGREGOR/GUY BARKER: should not win because it'll just be dismissed as tokenism, which is what their nominations are in any case. If they do win, people will either say:
1) well, the token classical/jazz album would have to win eventually
2) the Mercuries have lost it.
Neither entirely unfair. But why bother putting these in in the first place? I don't know anyone that's hugely in to either genre, but the odds on them caring about the Mercury Music Prize aren't exactly fantastic. Plus which, if the Mercuries really want to include these genres to reflect diversity, why not find room for more than one album of the genres? In other words:
BEVERLY KNIGHT/GEMMA HAYES: possibly the two most questionable nominations on the entire card, but bizarrely enough, probably the most obvious. Gemma Hayes seems to be specifically targeted at readers of Q and The Sunday Times, plus which she's on bloody Source Records, while Beverly Knight is the R&B Artist It's OK For People That Listen To Simon And Garfunkel To Like. While I do think Gemma Hayes is fantastic, either of these albums taking the prize would probably be the worst result possible, not just for the prize's credibility, but for those of the artists involved, as the music press would immediately scream ROBBERY!, creating the impression that the albums are shit not simply by comparison, but in their own right. Which, in Gemma Hayes' case, isn't really very fair. I don't honestly give a shit about Beverly Knight.
DOVES/MISS DYNAMITE: And these would gain what from winning, exactly? Both have achieved commercial success and critical acclaim, and either of them winning would hardly create huge ripples in the outside world, would it? The Mercuries like to create an impression, something that either of these winning would not do.
THE STREETS/ROOTS MANUVA: (innit handy how these come in pairs?) Now, discarding the fact that Manuva came out so long ago that he's had time to release an entirely reworked version of the album in the interim, both artists have acquired a reputation as 'critic's choices', something that winning the Mercury Music Prize would do bollock-all to shift. Plus which, the Streets is such an obvious choice that the Mercuries could be dismissed as becoming predictable, which they seem to want to actively avoid... facourites never seem to do that well - the last time one did, I think, was Gomez, who up till about two days before were out at 20/1 or something.
THE ELECTRIC SOFT PARADE: have enough words for two bands, so, anyway... put it this way - they were the only nominees I couldn't remember. They've already released seven bloody singles off this album (or very close to that), and people will more than likely moan about the straightforwardness of it by comparison to Doves or The Coral. They've been on Top Of The Pops and everything... a victory for the ESP could to easily be seen as the Mercuries being wilfully perverse. Or, in other words, they just plain ain't good enough.
Which leaves us with THE BEES, THE CORAL, and DAVID BOWIE, who, to my mind, are probably the only possible winners - because -
THE CORAL: Along with Miss Dynamite, this lot are the only real 'zeitgeist' nominees, hitting their form at just the right time. Unlike Miss Dynamite, they've yet to make the top twenty. Bit like Badly Drawn Boy when he won. Also, the critics wouldn't be too likely to argue with this, and they've had the 'obvious choise' heat taken off them by The Streets. The Coral winning would probably boost their careers, as well as helping the credibility of the Mercuries a little via making them seem contemporary and in tune with yoof, what with their average age being about 12 or something.
THE BEES: Because, like McGregor or Barker, absolutely no-one would see it coming. But unlike McGregor or Barker, they aren't in one of the token slots. It's an album that, by and large, slipped under most people's radars, and the Mercuries could therefore claim to be supporting unheralded(ish) talent. Plus which, Punchbag is fantastic. How they're still at 20/1 is a bit of a mystery to me...
DAVID BOWIE: Because, ladies and gentlemen, this is THE NATIONAL YEAR OF THINKING THAT DAVID BOWIE IS REALLY GREAT. A victory for Bowie would probably give the Mercuries the most authority of all, as none of the post-award focus would be on them, but on Bowie instead. Writers would eulogise about how he's still got it, and him winning the Mercury would be held up as proof of this - and, as such, winning the Mercury becomes important by association. What with him benefitting from the Skinner effect and such and such (i.e. the Streets being the screamingly obvious choice), there wouldn't be too many that'd knock it. Everyone wins. He's still 14/1 an' all...
(Disclaimer: Of the above albums, Mr Swygart owns only the Gemma Hayes one. But everyone know the Mercuries isn't about quality, anyway...)
― Mr Swygart (mrswygart), Tuesday, 10 September 2002 12:20 (twenty-three years ago)
Point is, it was always the way that the Mercuries went indie-dance-indie-dance-indie-dance (in the loosest possible senses of the terms). Look:
1995 - Portishead - Dummy
1996 - Pulp - Different Class
1997 - Roni Size/Reprazent - New Forms
1998 - Gomez - Bring It On
1999 - Talvin Singh - OK
2000 - Badly Drawn Boy - The Hour of Bewilderbeast
Then it all goes to shit with PJ Harvey winning it, which was the equivalent of John Wayne winning best actor Oscar because everyone knew he was gonna be dead before he could make another decent movie.
Roots Manuva would be the best possible winner, but he won't because a) he's already released another album in the interim, and I can't see him being fucked to promote the old one again and b) can you really see the Guardian or the Telegraph doing a full page article on him?
Beverley Knight's a non-runner (not "cutting edge in a non-cutting edge way" enough), Barker and McGregor are tediously tokenist (where's the Asian album this year anyway?). It comes down to Dynamite vs Streets. I would have said, a month back, that Streets was a lock, basically because he is the garage Badly Drawn Boy (what a hideous image). However... the difference is that he has so little crossover appeal as to be scary (the amount of times he gets radio play compared to chart position is embarassing). Ms Dynamite satisfies the Mercury "wants: she's a bit alterantive, a bit mainstream, a bit dinner party and a bit nightclub. She'll win.
― Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Tuesday, 10 September 2002 13:15 (twenty-three years ago)
The winner will be either Streets or Roots Manuva. Why?
1. The last two years they've given the albums to a guitar act, so they'll want to re-dress the balance this year.
2. I think that the non-rock winners of previous Mercuries have shown the Mercury to be a little out of touch (Talvin Singh, M People, Roni Size to a slightly lesser extent), whereas the rock albums that have won show that the panel have at least some sense of what has caused a stir within guitar music. They will be eager to show this year that they do not just have an old-fart's idea about what is cutting edge, and will be eager to make amends.
Since it's nadir in 1999, when they were just nominating disappointing follow-ups to albums they'd nominated a few years previously (AND the year they gave it to Talvin Singh), the Mercury has been listening to its critics, and is eager to prove them wrong. It's improved quite a bit, but there's still room for improvement.
― weasel diesel (K1l14n), Tuesday, 10 September 2002 22:38 (twenty-three years ago)