Klaxons scoop 2007 Mercury Prize

oh well

I'm pleased for them - there's no doubt that Myths... is a decent debut album, albeit one with traditional debut flaws (too much filler, too little killer) - but the way they went on... sheeeesh.

And forward thinking? Really? You REALLY think that? Really? Have you heard your own album? Really? Etc...

Oh, and quit all the coke, eh? Live television interviews are better conducted when you're not so shitfaced.

from that list is?

klaxons are a mess. they put on the worst performance of the night at the mercurys, and the interview was just embarrasing. With any luck the mercury curse will hit them and they'll disapear in a year or so. Which they probably would've anyway since they're just an NME 'scene' band.
In fact, i think the Klaxons represent the poor side of the currently healthy music scene in britain. Weak songs, poor live and idiot band members who just want to have their 5 minutes of fame. In fact, the lead singer even said in the interview that they started the band 'as a joke'

Lets face it, they're not gonna be around in 2 years time. The Reading Festival organisers recognised that by making them headliners in the Radio 1 tent. In other words, get em now before they are no longer cool

any album from that list is the most forward thinking of the last 8 years (though I haven't heard 3 of them)

is having a cover of Grace's "not over yet" on your album, then you are very much in dreamworld

Oakenfold > James Ford
You Decide

one of the worst live gigs I've seen

But if you'd won an award, you're going to be happy about it, aren't you? Maybe the use of term 'forward thinking' is a bit...misplaced. But fuck it. Hmm.

Considering they are reknowned for being pretty shit live they put on quite a good performance last night.

However my highligh was watching the dude who was clearly pilling, chewing his face off whilst Jo Whiley was trying to interview him!

who?

'headliners in the NME tent always just disappear immediately afterwards. That's what happens. It's like the law, or something.'

no i didnt say that. i'm saying that the organisers know that klaxons are shit and will never play any higher, so get em headlining while the scene is still alive cos in 2 years time they'll be stacking shelves in asda. hopefully

but the album just doesnt sound nice...

is it forward thinking to have a cover on your debut album... pretty lazy

7 reasons why they suck:

1) Are they really part of the nu-rave scene? Yes they are perpetrating the mainstream with their pop infectious dance/rock overtures and general pissed-ness which unfortunately does indeed resemble what was once known as 'Rave'- i.e a bunch of twats leaping around with glow sticks, getting pissed, whilst donning stupid neon smiley face tee shirts and telling everyone they're off to a rave (dave) in a field in the middle of nowhere in their banged up ford fiesta, but they've just got to pop off and get some white lightening from the offi before it closes first. And yes I am only enough to remember Rave the first time around (the youthfulness is plastic surgery I tell thee- I'm really 103!).

2) Being pissed at every single festival appearance this summer (with perhaps the exception of Glasto's dance tent) does not maketh you important musicians who should be awarded with a supposedly prestigious prize to celebrate the quality of your music, especially when that music cannot be played live because all members of your band have a drinking problem.

3) There are bands that do New Rave better. If you want 'proper scene' rave look no further than those with the song 'It's a Rave Dave'- Trash Fashion (this is just hilarious).

4)Trademark's 'Over Again' is better than anything the Klaxons have penned, including Golden Skans, and you don't see them nominated for the Mercury Music Prize.

5) Bat for Lashes' album Fur and Gold is absolutely amazing, in an alternative indie ethereal way, and we should be celebrating artists like these, who are not afraid to step away from a scene and create interesting and innovating music.

6) Even The View can play relatively well live, the Klaxons can not.

7) Every time I see one of the Klaxons' heinous live performances I want to smash bottles of beer over their heads as people are playing them good money to watch them get pissed and play below-par sets.

I remember when The Prodigy made a danceable pop-rock record.

Oh hang on, that never happened.

essentially a big bombast blown over-hyped...battle of the bands???

Telegraph. I think.

1) No, they are not part of the nu-rave scene.

2) They've not been pissed at most of them actually, truth be told.

3) That's fine, they're not new rave.

4) Trademark are a niche band who have never attempted to write a massive pop-rock dance crossover album that appealed to kids and Radio 2. Klaxons are and have.

5) Klaxons' album doesn't sound directly like anything else, and they certainly didn't see a scene a join it, the NME created one around them. A lot of the Bat for Lashes album sounds like a second rate Kate Bush singing over rejected sessions from Björk's Vespertine album. Some of it is good, for sure, but if you're levelling the "some killer, some filler" argument at Klaxons, you've got to send it the way of Bat for Lashes too.

6) Yes, yes they can.

7) Once again, Klaxons have curbed their antics a great deal and are a really fabulous proposition now, live and on record.

Please don't compare Prodigy To Klaxons

I thought it was pretty funny, its not often you see people so MuDded up on the telly and totally freaking jo whiley and jools holland out.

this album just wasn't good enough to warrant recognition.
'Golden Skans' was a solid pop song, but the rest? One hit wonder quite honestly.

I don't even know who was nominated, but I saw 'Bat For Lashes' mentioned. Already a more 'forward thinking' artist that far surpasses these boy school west midlander pricks.

so doing covers of 90's dance music such as "the bounce" and "not over yet" means your forward thinking and not retro?

bull shit

I like the sound of this. i haven't got a bloody clue what it means, but I like the sound of it.

One element of the coverage that annoyed the hell out of me.

The way the three of them were talking, there may as well have been 4 bands on the list.

I thought the whole point of the prize was to give a less biased view of music released that year generally, hence nominating from across the board? That attitude is totally destroyed when it's covered by three people who are either concerned only by what will be 'hot' or have only listened to a few of the albums...

I dont think they're Nu-rave at all.

You've got every man and his dog who have made spanking remixes out of average songs to thank for that. See Atlantis.. and Magick

- it's a good album but hardly ground- breaking

Richard Dundas is my new best friend for coining that phrase (whether he likes it or not).

i would be coked up off my tits if i was rich and famous and at an awards ceremony. it would be mint

plus, i would have to be coked up to deal with wileys shit, it might even give me the balls to punch the bitch right in the nose

that shouldve been Test-icicles.

Yes i'm talking to you the young knives, amy winehouse etc.

anyway,on the night klaxons were by far the worst performers.

bat for lashes was stunning and got my vote overall......

2002ish I believe

I guess that this result is another feather in NME's cap as they championed them more than any other nominee over the last year or so. It's a good job that their live show is not part of the criteria for this award as they are truly dire when transorted on to the stage. The Album is OK I would of voted for Amy Wine' as i think she has a truly great voice and her collection is less contrived and better produced.

anglo saxons.

it should have been Test Icicles' wave

was hardly very consistent. And didn't have a single quite like Golden Skans (not that popularity should sway the Mercury panel but in this case...)

Its a good album, and out of the nominations there could have been a lot less deserving winners, but it does have faults, about a 7 i'd say. I dont even think its the most forward thinking album of the last year though.

and its not even what the prize is about.

its not the best album off the list though (dans my opinion). I thought that basquiat strings band looked cool.

I thought either bat for lashes or fionn regan were the most deserving.

Between Klaxons first appeareing as a sort of - phenomenon, and when they released their album, i think a heck of a lot has changed. Like when the demos came out for Atlantis to Interzone and Gravity's Rainbow, they spread like wildfire. And i don't think it was hype at that time, as similar to the Arctic Monkeys' arriving, it took the media to latch on to people's already burgeoning appetite for them. Which other band on the list generated that much excitement?It was only once Klaxons came about that everyone started wearing day glo paint and dressing 'funny' all over London, so maybe Mercury saw the band as representative of this year's atmosphere or culture (that could cerainly have been true of the Arctic Monkeys' album last year.) I think more recently acts like NYPC and Calvin Harris have made people more impartial to Klaxons. At the time they were quite unique to their backdrop, and so maybe the Mercury people considered the impact of the band more generally, and the not just the album.

Think i would have liked Young Knives or Jamie T to win. Definitely not a fan of Jamie Reynolds as a bloke...

when oasis were on the main stage