Earlier this week, the Barclaycard Mercury Prize was won by the bookie’s favourites, The XX; a bunch of endearingly awkward nerds from South London whose debut has been well received by critics and TV producers alike. Whilst this is an uncontroversial victory for the Mercury, famous for last minute side stepping of dead certs, it has not done much to assuage the annual bashing from the media that the award inevitably receives.
For many in the press it is a victim of its self appointed principles. The Mercury Prize is an award that seems to claim integrity, awarding originality and vision over gloss and commercial success. But many in the media seem to have decided that this assumed integrity is just a veil over more cynical motives. The Mercury Prize is portrayed as just as shallow as the unerringly populists Brits, another pointless bout of self-congratulatory flesh pressing for music industry executives. For many purists, the Mercury Prize has come to be seen as part of the cynical greed that stifles genuine innovation in a bloated and bland music industry.
It is undeniable that the Mercury is no saint. Like other awards, the ceremony is just as much a thorough massage for the ego as it is a showcase for artists. However, to see this as a major problem is naïve. As in any industry, money is the driving force. Ever since patronage of classical composers, creativity has been seen as a commodity to be exploited, but this is no bad thing. Like it or not, money enables, and just as patronage allowed composers freedom for productivity, so does the industry give a platform for artists to produce. Yes, the music industry is saturated with greed, but this stems from all involved, after all, artists have to be willing to produce substandard recordings for the industry to release them (just ask the once legendary now embarrassing Oasis). The industry may profit from musicians but by doing so it also enables their survival, and despite the hype, it is not an industry that will be dying any time soon. For all the talk of an Internet revolution, few artists have the time and energy to promote themselves in a saturated virtual market place. The role of the music industry executive remains valid today, and will remain valid in some form for the foreseeable future.
Of course, business can be unpalatable. Any businessman wants to maximise an investment and this can lead to markets flooded with pale imitations of successful acts. After Brit pop we faced years in the wilderness of landfill indie, where for every Arctic Monkeys, there were seemingly endless Scouting For Girls. After Amy Winehouse and Lilly Allen came an influx of ‘feisty’ white girls singing watered down soul, from Gabriella Cilmi to Pixie Lott, and in the aftermath of Mumford and Sons expect a further influx of hairy men with banjos. The endless publicity devoted to the numerous Simon Cowell vehicles has contributed to a general malaise at the state of an apparently cynical and shortsighted industry, (although to me it is the continual employment of shameless quasi-leprechaun Louis Walsh that is the real worry). However, it is for these reasons that prizes like the Mercury remain important. The shortlist, although sometimes a little smug, is a deliberate attempt to promote some musical diversity. The ‘token’ jazz and folk acts are often sniffed at but for the artists involved, just being nominated can make a career; this year’s jazz act, the Kit Downes Trio, have apparently experienced an 800% sales boost since their inclusion.
Gratifyingly, the list allows interesting acts with popular appeal to gain credibility as well as sales. It is heartening to see the intelligent Laura Marling and last year, the eccentric Florence and the Machine, hit the mainstream. In the past the award has had many a well-publicised misstep (ahem, M People…) but it has also acknowledged and secured reputations of artists as diverse as Pulp, P J Harvey and Dizzee Rascal. The award tries to bring some genuinely dynamic and original acts to mainstream attention and this should be applauded even if it does come accompanied by occasional clumsiness and an ulterior motive.
I don’t understand the logic behind any suggestion that the Mercury Prize is killing music’s integrity. I’m infinitely more concerned about Simon Cowell’s X Factor and the like. I think the Mercury Prize conversely uphold’s music’s integrity. It’s about how good music is, critically rather than superficially. Of course money is involved, and nomination for or winning the prize is financially beneficial for acts, but this is what these people do as a profession. In the face of the expansive ways of people being able to acquire music for free, the Mercury Prize is a good means of promotion which usually results in a surge in sales. Furthermore I think it introduces a lot of brilliant music to a wider audience than it might otherwise receive.
as a huge music fan, i can tell you that music is an awful veneer of shit. And the florence reference, sorry but i thought flo looked exciting in ’08 until she turned out to be yet another ‘off the wall’ record company creation, writing very few of her own songs and having an album more over-produced than coca cola, and more grating than a… grater, but seems different, cos she has red hair. And mumford may be copied, but that doesnt make them the real mcCoy either, I’m personally unaffected by their music, and whether there are folk tokens or not (there definately are) noah and the whales surprising, emotional and well… brilliant second album not only deserved to be nominated but to win, and mumford wouldn’t be where they are now without the help of Fink, and their scene boosting (yet saccharine) debut.
All this said, I am a big fan of the mercury prize and what it represents and the fact that it represents LP’s cos no-one seems to listen to them anymore, token entries may annoy people, but they are actually vital, cos if they weren’t there the whole thing would just be an indie-fest every year and people would bitch even more… and yes the Kit Downes trio have now sold 8 records!