Heart of a Punk Soul of a Rasta

The idea of awarding prizes for popular music is as perverse as it is invalid. And the idea of awarding a prize for the "best" album of any year is quite frankly saft (Black Country for mental). Popular music is not something that can be tangibly broken down and quantified in this way. You can have a "favourite" album ok, based on your own individual TASTE, but "best" album, what a load of old shitting knackers! The only way you could get near to the "best" album would be if you got a group of disparate bands to all record the same material. But still it would be subjective and down to the individual TASTE of the judges. So scratch that idea from your mind immediately and tell no one about it, some dip shit might actually try doing it. Ed

We are led to believe that the Mercury judges decide which album they like based on their individual musical preference and then try to persuade the other judges to vote likewise. Let's for a moment pretend that this is what really happens, and that The Mercury Prize is a valid exercise.
For the second year running Charles Hazelwood, the Bermuda shirt wearing conductor, was a Mercury Prize judge - Hazelwood a suitable judge of popular music? [We shall now pause for several hours of insane laughter] Let's heap preposterousness on top of incredulity shall we - if Charles Hazelwood is a suitable judge of popular music then we'll soon be seeing John Lydon judging Cardiff Singer of the World.

From my experience of technically competent musicians, they know diddly squat about real music. You can never get a classically trained bod to come up with anything either off the cuff or original (without writing it down for them first) and they always want to split as soon as the drugs arrive, strange people indeed. A quick deco at previous short lists and you know that these people couldn't tell the difference between a bull and a cow with four dicks, even if their life depended on it. (PS A cow with four dicks is just a cow in case you were wondering).

Yes looking back at the nominees and winners since '92 is a hilarious experience, will people be listening to the albums by Gomez, Ms Dynamite, Klaxons, Roni Size etc in thirty years time and getting off on the music. No! Did any of these albums define the music of year in which they won? No!

Even when they get it right The Mercury judges have got it so very wrong. The judges always love to nominate Radiohead or Thom Yorke it's nice and easy. Call me old fashioned though but the Radiohead album that finds its way on to my turntable more than any other is "Kid A", was competition really harsh in 2000? No! Likewise "Urban Hymns" by The Verve is another album I own and love, but its "Northern Soul" that gets played at my gaff more than any other Verve album. Was there tough opposition for the Verve in 1995, so tough they couldn't even be nominated? Nah!

The Mercury Prize is a totally floored endeavour that offers an empty conceit wrapped up to look like achievement. Longevity is the only true achievement in music - will an album last and endure, will the punters still come to hear it played live.

The only nominee with any credibility at The Mercury Music Prize of 2009 was James Allan of Glasvegas, who failed to show up and for all the right reasons. We salute him. Let's hope next year all the nominees will act accordingly and we can finally see the back of this perverse load of old bollocks.