Ha! It's a farce, like it's been every year since the start.
Oh. Let me guess. You're angry that this year's list doesn't include the Pet Shop Boys, or Scott Walker, or Lily Allen, or Jim Noir, or Plan B, or Keane, or Roddy Frame, or Aberfeldy, or Dirty Pretty Things, or King Creosote, or Belle & Sebastian, or Camera Obscura, or someone else who released a British album in the past few months which was pretty good. Maybe a jazz musician I've not heard of?
Well, it does seem daft that Kate Bush isn't in there, but no. What's farcical is the sheer, predictable self-serving self-importance of the whole enterprise. Yet again there's a token jazz album (Zoe Rahman's Melting Pot), to maintain the illusion that it's a prize for all genres of music, not just "pop" - and therefore more intellectual and important than mere pop prizes, even though the vast majority of nominees are always pop albums. And yes, once again there's a token album by a little-known artist on a tiny label, to maintain the illusion that it's all about music, and not about sales or media profile.
But
it is just about the music, right? The panel consists of fans with no vested interest in who wins, and there's never been any suggestion that record labels have corrupted the selection process. It's certainly more about the music than the Brit Awards.
Maybe, but no music prize is ever just about the music. For example, explain why Richard Hawley was shortlisted this year, coinciding with a significant rise in his profile, even though he'd already made two excellent albums with much the same signature sound. And explain why it took the prize until 2004 to recognise Belle & Sebastian - neatly coinciding with their move to a bigger label, even though their earlier work was just as strong, and musically similar, if less slickly produced. Either some lobbying goes on, or the panel doesn't listen to half as much music as it would like us to think.
You're b
eginning to sound like a conspiracy theorist. Of course the process is flawed, but at least they're trying. What does it matter if the panel failed to reward Hawley before? They're making up for it by rewarding him now. And yes, it's tokenistic to include one jazz album, but any attempt to recognise the diversity of British music risks looking tokenistic at times when the shortlist is so small.
But it's the Mercury Prize's decision to make the shortlist so small. The point is that the prize is based on a lie - that you can (and should) judge different genres of music on equal terms. The problem is that Arctic Monkeys, Thom Yorke and Zoe Rahman are trying to do entirely different things artistically. So what purpose does the prize really serve, except to make the panel feel clever, and get their sponsor some publicity?
I suspec
t you could argue the exact same thing for the Booker Prize.
Indeed. Don't even get me started on that one...
