Mercury Prize 2009 shortlist in 'mix of predictable and unpredictable announcements' SHOCKER

is what it's called

i'm all for Uranus

Someone tell me?

probably bfl seen as she didn't win last time round

do i get so depressed every year this is announced?
of course la roux and friendly fires were going to be nominated.
and of course kasabian were going to be in there too.
but every year i have a tiny little bit of hope that the competition is going to come good and pick out innovative releases.
I'm glad the invisible are in there, i don't really like them, but i'm glad they're there.
for me it should be for band like the invisible.
i wish i didn't care. i'm going to pretend i don't.

But you may be right about the other ones, but it comes down to what you expect the Mercury Prize to be. Is it rewarding unrewarded talent or is it just THE BEST BRITISH ALBUMS OF the given time period with more than half an eye on what is quite mainstream, bar the Jazz act.

Really, the Mercury isn't very cutting edge. But we knew that anyway, didn't we?

What Kasabian are doing on there is anyone's guess though...?

S - E - A

cheers

Hope she wins it.

on friendly fires - put £10 on them at 25/1 back in May

Can't think of too many glaring omissions, unlike last year, but I'd have put PJ Harvey and John Parish in there. My vote goes to Florence and the machine.

the majority of the list emphasises the sorry state of british music.

I thought they'd be nailed on for a nomination. They're basically this year's Elbow, aren't they? That's what all the press have been saying... ¬_¬

I'd have gone for Grammatics, too.

I'm sure it's no a popular opinion around here, but for me Kasabian have the best album on that list.

I love your intro to this article! :-D

The problem with readers posting comments here saying "x should win it" or "y should win it" is that there are probabley very few of us readers who have properly listened* to every nominated album and are therefore in a position to judge. I mean, personally I'm tempted to say I'd like The Horrors to win it, but I've only heard two of the shortlisted albums; some due to knowledge-of but lack-of-interest-in the album and some due to shear ignorance of their existence.

* Listening once to each nominee doesn't count - you need to listen to an album several times to make a proper judgement.

But where were you able to place that bet? I've never seen a firm price up a market ahead of the nominations before.

I have no idea which of those albums should win because I'm not familiar with them but I can safely say that the stuff I am familiar with is terrible and if that's the best they can come up with then there's something wrong with their scope/taste. I mean really, I'd like to care about the Mercury but it's become a lame joke.

Put a longlist up in January, February. There's normally a thread on Digital Spy around that time as well.

I think last year they really seemed to get it right, bar Portishead's omission. This year it seems to be back to the checklist approach of nomination. I don't think that's done on purpose, just a tragedy of the commons.

La Roux and Florence and too Marmite to win the award, Horrors SD, F Fires and Bat For Lashes I had money on beforehand, £2 at 33s, 50, 18s and 8s. Still think that 5/1 is good value for Two Suns.

Trendy, yeah its the Mercuries, but electro poppy.. who else on that list qualifies as electro pop other than La Roux..?

Surely we all lost faith in the Mercury Music Prize years ago, its a way to get underperforming albums to sell better.

I honestly don;t care who wins ,the only reason i was pleased when Elbow won was because they've been grafting for ages and appear to have won from merit.

everyone on here is going to moan about the choices, but let me say I have always been a huge fan of the Mercury Prize. Why did we 'lose faith years ago'? Let's think. Antony and the Johnsons. Arctic Monkeys. Franz Ferdinand. Dizzee Rascal. Klaxons. Elbow. All are representative (except maybe Klaxons) of the brilliance of music and what it can be. The award is far better than any other around, at least in Britain, and is it really a 'way to get underperforming albums to sell better'? Kasabian and Glasvegas have been very high in the charts. OK, so there's albums I would have liked to see there, but generally it represents a good, interesting selection of mostly capable bands from a range of genres, and many are from 'our world' anyway, or have been tipped and loved on here. We will all have our differences of opinion, but is it subjective anyway? No. Do we need to argue about it like it's the be all and end all? Again, no.
Also, it's not a 'checklist approach' of nomination, this year esepcially. People have pointed out that normally there are 'token' acts and two obscure artists. There are four not widely known this year, and I genuinely don't think any are included just to give that genre a bit of a boost. Besids, why do we classify music into genres? If it's all good stuff, can't we enjoy it regardless of what little style we pigeonhoe it into? We should be beyond that now.

I hope someone agrees with this, or at least is up for sensible, non abusive debate. Please write to put your view in.

they had a whole list up from january onwards - doves was top for most of it at 4/1

either win and the world is not bat shit insane. If Kasabian or La Roux win we ought to cancel christmas

But I'm well happy about The Invisible.
Not even sure why.

just the same pointless miserable indie schmindie shite we've come to expect every year squeezed from out of the gaps in the clenched fists of glasgow's indie schmindie mafia. at least glasvegas are doing something new, even though they're terrible

Camera Obscura and Malcolm Middleton are also great off that list anyway.

with a few exceptions. Here's my take:
Bat for lashes - Great artist and a good album
Friendly Fires- this is good but few would argue there was better albums
Florence and the Machine- Nearly unlistenable whiny voiced Kate Bush wannabee.Effectively a tuneless album
Glasvegas- Didn't quite get this until about 4 listens and now I love it. They are a little melodramatic and over the top but I now admire them for this trait where as before I wasn't sure it worked. I wouldn't mind if this or the Horrors won.
The Invisible- First listens makes one think this is the inventive album illustrating musical progress. Unfortunately it is pretty forgettable fluff.
Lisa Hannegan- seems like they nominate a boring female singer songwriter every year and here's this years token. Real typical, underwhelming female folk that is interchangable with hundreds in her field.
The Horrors- one of the years most exciting albums. Mostly for catching everyone off center and proving there are still surprises out there. Really an amalgamation of every shoegaze era band you've every loved but upon additional listens the albums individualism reveals itself.
Kasabian-haven't heard it so won't comment. Will buy soon.
La Roux-I really like this. This sounds new and edgy and like it has somewhere to go. A good choice to fill the obligatory popular female pop singer. Much better then Lily Allen.
Led bib-Jazz recognition. You can pretend that you enjoy listening to it if you must.
Speech Debelle-i guess it's important to have a hip-hop flavor in the list and this does nicely.
Sweet Billy Pilgrim-who cares. There's a million of these coming out of america. There are more deserving obscure artists.

Frankly the Doves deserved this above anyone for their soaring, majestic endlessly enjoyable missle into the fringes of the mainstream "Kingdom of Rust." Their lack of inclusion is a great injustive to a band whose now put out 4 phenomenal albums and doesn't seemingly compromise on their musical vision. Also the Manics album is a triumphant, significant kick ass accomplishment and it would have been great to see it honored here. I also don't get why everyone's already forgotten about the latest Morrissey album one of the best of his career. The new Veils album would have been a good obscure choice.

at no Phantom Band, but hope Horrors do it. Kasabian being featured is no surprise, and credit where it's due their improvement is for all to see.

Not the first time it has been said but Glasveges- w h y.

goes to prove there isn't endless streams of cash in the Little Boots account if they couldn't buy her a place on the list...!

Am quite reassured that I haven't heard of a few entries this year though, despite the prescence of acts we knew were going to be shoehorned on there it is nice that they're honouring what the Mercury was actually set up to do

http://drownedinsound.com/lists/mercury

The list is a strategy to drive marketing when all is said and done. The amount of comments here and the blanket media coverage yesterday is far more important than the actual albums on the list.

The Mercury is a prize in search of a point and has decided its role is to drive man in a pub debate. On that basis, they are succeeding. And the posts here (including mine) help that process along.

I happen to know some people who like Led Bib. Even though they never win, it's free publicity, good for sales. Someone needs to throw these jazzers a bone.

for your opinion. The point I was trying to make was, if we were on the panel, I'm sure we would have different picks, but is there a need to complain? Can we not just enjoy it for what it is rather than saying they were 'wrong' when taste is an opinion anyway? Also, to quite a lot of you: why is it a criticism of Speech Debelle that she's 'bound to be on there'? These boards have been praisinf her and as soon as she gets nominated, no control of her own over, you start slating her. Hypocrites.