Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
That said, what they have nominated is probably still a good sight better than the likes of Bring Me The Horizon, Gallows or Fightstar.
And Sylosis - are they still around?!
and still not as good as they should be
They should try renaming their band to something that doesn't sound like an eye disease.
In fact, many metal bands would see their revenue increase if they adopted this policy.
the metal press and fans couldn't milk some "we're SO SIDELINED" ego points out of it, so it's probably for the best.
But there are few things shitter than metal.
always get some interloper who knows nothing about metal chipping in with their "metal is shit" comments?
maybe not true for dis though
But metal is shit.
A couple of my very good friends are huge fans of metal and are always trying to convince me but its just not for me. Of course just branding it shit is childish and provocative but thats generally what arguments about music between me and my friends are reduced to.
at least you have tried to see the light :)
such a character
Music. It's a lie.
but I do think Future of the Left deserved a nod.
if they chose some metal it would be of the wank variety, just as they like to choose wank indie, wank pop etc.
Anthony and the Johnsons was an interesting one (not my cup of tea, but still), and i wouldn't call Elbow anything other than great.
+ PJ Harvey
loads of great winners
and Boy in da Corner is one of the best albums this decade (certainly one of the best debuts) - desperate attempt to appear hip? Can we have more desperate attempts then please.
For all the people who criticise the Mercury (and there is plenty you can criticise), threads on here talking about this year's shortlist have totted up to over 100 replies between them, so it gets people arguing if nothing else.
along the same lines as the everett true threads, i think something getting people talking doesn't automatically validate whatever kicked the discussion off
the fact that despite everything people still feel moved to moan about it all or to argue about what got/didn't get shortlisted - that doesn't 'validate' it (ultimately, it's an award, not really much better or worse than any other award), but I just think that's better for the prize than if there was complete indifference.
but either way, the percentage of good stuff shortlisted is typically very low.
...I'd call them shit, to be blunt.
No one is safe from differing opinion, even the cosmically overrated Elbow.
I would say the Mercury Prize is ok. It might seem to be yet another orgy to mediocrity on the DiS forum but for most other people, compared to the other music awards ceremonies which garner media attention, it's pretty niche and exclusive.
The 'Brits' or 'NME awards' it certainly aint.
but if you don't like them you don't like them, fair enough.
i agree about it being the better of the big music awards in the UK, however, if a forum of likeminded music fanatics can find copious examples of more interesting/varied/original albums than the "Music critics" then the awards are failing at the root.
let us remember though that the entrants have to pay to be shortlisted.
whereas the Mercury is SRS BSNS.
From their website "The Mercury Prize exists soley to champion UK music by promoting the 12 albums of the year by British or Irish artists. All genres are eligible and all albums are treated equally... The music on the album is the only thing that is taken into account"
Nothing about shifting units, nothing about trends or being cool, nothing about promoting a band or genre. Now I don't believe for a minute that these things don't come into the minds of the panel. Like it or not there have been some fantastic British/ Irish heavy albums in the past few years that have as much merit as any pop/ dance/ jazz/ world/ hip-hop/ whatever.
Looking back over the past few years surely the inclusion of Biffy Clyro, Gallows, Johnny Truant, Rolo Tomassi, Meet Me In St Louis, Ghost of a Thousand, Hell is for Heroes, Napalm Death, yourcodenameis:milo and Sikth just to look back to 2006 have as much merit as good albums both within and beyond their genre as Estelle, Adele, The View, Winehouse, Jamie T and anyone else.
Now there shouldn't be a token "alternative" choice just as there shouldn't be a token jazz or hip hop selection, but given the high quality of the heavier side of guitar music this country has produced it would seem appropriate for the foremost "independent" prize that is "all about the music" to recognise that.
It could only make the awards, and folks resulting exposure to the spectrum of music richer.
But my point still stands
that was a science joke btw
sheesh, tough crowd
Metal will struggle to make the Mercury Prize shortlist for the following obvious reasons:
- It's too abrasive for people who've not spent time getting into it i.e. the majority of music listeners.
- A lot of metal is lacking in melody, which is something almost all Mercury Prize nominees have.
- Metal as a genre is still looked down upon because of the fantasy element/silliness of 80's metal.
is a matter of personal taste.
All metal has melody to some degree although generally speaking a metal song is likely to be significantly less melodic than your average Bat for Lashes or La Roux track.
There's plenty of fun and enjoyment to be had from metal, it's not just for bearded anger merchants. I'd be happy to sort you out with some recommendations you might be able to get on board with. Don't be shy, let the metal in!
NEED MOAR RIFFS
just isn't that objectively good?
"Metal" is one of those things were if you're in for a penny, you're in for a pound and I've seen metal fans argue to death the quality of some frankly shocking bands whilst comparing them to some well-respected artists from that side of the musical spectrum.
Its seen as alot harder for more casual music fans to get into (with some exceptions) and a large part of that is there's no quality control. A magazine like Kerrang! seeming treats every band it comes across in the exact same manner.
So yes the Mercury may have ignored some commendable metal albums in years gone by, but its understandable why - metal exists in such an enclosed bubble with an almost fanatical guard it would be difficult to see which albums were worth holding up.
(NOTE: I have no idea what I'm talking about, so feel free to call me out if I'm totally wrong, but this should be useful as an outsiders perspective)
But it goes back to my point earlier, the prize organisers have set their mission statement to say that it is quality, not genre that they are looking at. And while there have been some shocking releases in the alternative area, there have been equally shocking releases in mainstream pop/ indie that garnered far more public attention and done more damage to the musical fabric of the nation because of it.
Just wait til the new Devil Sold His Soul album comes out and blows any other UK 'metal' acts completely out of the water. Then you can start making some new planet-related prize just for them.
i don't know if i can be bothered to go and see them on sunday though, as they're playing Offset, i probably should though, but i won't.
hmm. Sika Redem's maybe? it's been a while..
I doubt it
Would bands bother going through the expense of nomination if you thought your entry would essentially be discounted by the judges before they'd even listened to it?
That article has a point, but it's a bit whiney. Like 'OH all our bands aren't getting nominated wah wah wah BUT WE DON'T CARE ANYWAY CUZ THE MERCURY'S ARE SHIT'.
I really would have to agree with this. I've said ti for years. It's also unfortunate that the real breaks metal has got in mainstream "culture" (for want of a better phrase) over the years has bascially been nu-metal. Which is TOTAL AND UTTER FUCKING SHITE.