The only act the judges at this year's Mercury Music Prize could agree on was Arctic Monkeys. And it's all you really need to know about where the Mercury now finds itself. Once a real exception among music awards because it ignored the exigencies of record companies and sheer volume of sales, it is now as predictable as the Brits.
In years past, the Mercury did a sterling job of flashing a light into the dark corners of popular music and discovering truly worthwhile albums. These were works which weren't marketed up by the agencies and had simply flown in under the media radar. Even allowing for the fact that some Mercury albums have been hideously awful affairs and some of the winners over the years have been deeply questionable, there was still something laudable about a music prize that had such a blithe disregard for popular and/or fashionable taste.
The first problem with this year's list is the by-now laughable inclusion of the token jazz artist. This year it's pianist Zoe Rahman with her Melting Pot album. It's no doubt thrilling for a professional musician to know that the only reason she's on the shortlist is because each year the Mercury has a token jazz album.
The second problem is the "oh, isn't that nice" choice. This traditionally goes to someone who has recorded their album for about £4.35 and is supposed to be proof positive that good music has nothing to do with expensive studios and big-name producers. Which is all very well. But, given the media attention afforded the Mercury, it's a bit like the producers of The Blair Witch Project spending $25 million telling everyone that their film only cost $5,000 to make. This year's organic, home-made, self-released album is by Lou Rhodes (who lives on a commune).
The third problem with this year's list is the inclusion of the newer category of "the token hip-hop album". The idea here is to show how the Mercury people are still in touch or some such patronising nonsense. They had a bit of a struggle this year to find any British/Irish hip-hop album of any worth whatsoever, but eventually they dug up a London rapper called Sway to fit into the reserved parking space.
You can instantly take all the above out of consideration and what you're left with is three so-so albums by Isobel Campbell, Guillemots and Hot Chip; three very good albums by Thom Yorke, Muse and Scritti Politti; and two excellent albums by Richard Hawley and Editors. Add in Arctic Monkeys and what you're really looking at is only six good or better albums out of a shortlist of 12.
The fourth problem with this year's Mercury - and given that six spaces have already been wasted on the list - is the non-inclusion of both Lily Allen and Kate Bush. Both released inventive and acclaimed works and both were sacrificed at the musically correct altar of the Mercury Music Prize.
Two things can save the Mercury. First drop the tokenism. If there are no good British/Irish hip-hop albums released in a certain year, so what? But in the Mercury world, it's obviously better to include a mediocre hip-hop album over and above great albums by Kate Bush and Lily Allen. This is insane music-by-quota thinking.
Second, the Mercury really needs to put a cap on album sales for eligibility purposes. If the prize was restricted to acts who had sold less than 50,000 albums, million-sellers such as Arctic Monkeys would be ineligible. This would allow the Mercury to get back to discovering and showcasing albums that deserve a wider audience. As the lovely Michael McDowell would have it: the Mercury needs to become radical or become redundant.
