I can't even remember the name of the girl rapper who won last year - sank without trace.
Is this significant? Does it reflect the impact of the prize or the music scene in general or - God forbid - my age?

Congratulations to The xx on their win; I was delighted Weller didn't win; apart from the fact that he now looks 20 years older than me, he's one of the most unpleasant people I've ever met.

Best thing was that BBC2 gave it quite hefty coverage.

Mercury update; having watched all the finalists; I've always hated albums, considering them mainly a major label con to sell a couple of decent tracks (the singles) and a load of padding crap to innocent buyers. These days however they don't even appear to have a decent track on them. This year's crop had not one real hit amongst them (I'm not even keen on Bonkers though A Van H tried to improve it). Biffy Clyro were not bad I thought, and I like The Villagers (s?) who could do woth a decent producer but I decided it's the judges who are the flaws in this. Pretentious crap, artistic rubbish, shit artistes, lousy self indulgent sounds.
No wonder our industry is dying if this shit represents the best of what's coming out of these shores these days.

Have to agree with you about albums JK - Ive been conned many times by buying any Beatles album, Led Zeppelin 4 (where are the singles on that??!!), Dark Side of the flippin' Moon, Ziggy Stardust (only 1 single on that - what a waste of money!), anything else by David Bowie, London Calling - whats all that about? - Elvis Costello should have packed in after Olivers Army, U2 - whats the point??, Oasis- Definately Maybe? definately shouldn't have imho, and as for Radiohead!!!

'The Eagles Greatest Hits' - now theres a good record~!

and if only Carole King had just released 'Its Too Late' instead of all that twaddle and filler on 'Tapestry'

tell it like it is JK...now, where's my pipe n slippers...?

I did say "mainly" Harry and would agree with you on some of your exceptions to the rule.

ZIGGY is a wonderful album - every song is a story in itself.

But I agree that the "tastemakers" are just getting more obscure and just opening the door to rubbish urban music which in decades gone by would happily sit in the club charts and be fantastic for going out...but as hits and songs....ahem.

Music is dead in the commercial sense. It is now a heritage industry where the old bands with big hits are going to be constantly recycled like The Beatles - Stones - Buddy Holly - Roy Orbison - and so on. This last decade has Lady Ga Ga - but not alot else. Muse perhaps - but the general public would struggle to sing a few verses of any of their songs.....

This drive to putting out albums that sell virtually nothing but are "cool" started in the 90s and now has a massive grip on the UK record labels.

They have intentionally walked away from commercial sounding acts who can play and write. The idea that a tune is "selling out" got into these strange individuals heads - who have wanted to turn Rock and Pop into some upper middle class orgy of cleverness or dumb it down to formulas for chavs. Music I suppose represents the fracture in society in this respect.

This current decade will potentially go down as the decade that the music died.....unless someone somewhere can kick start it.

Guardian analysis of The xx - can any description be more calculated to make any true music lover want never to hear this Tracey Thorn lookalike?

An opaque and unassuming album on first listen, its hushed, early-hours dynamics and undertow of sexual desire gradually work their way under the skin of the listener: there's something nagging and compelling about the songwriting. The band's influences are drawn from outside the indie canon - the xx are famously fans of modern R&B, which might account for the album's preoccupation with sultry yearning, not a mood indie music traditionally conjures: it sounds original, but isn't abstruse enough to scare less adventurous listeners.

Does it reflect the impact of the prize or the music scene in general or - God forbid - my age?

All three factors play a role: With "the music scene" splindered into lots of (small) scenes, a music prize target at a certain demographic (rock/"urban"-orientated males between 14 and 44)can only have an impact on that segment.

I agree that the "tastemakers" are just getting more obscure

This years selection was not obscure. After last years fiasco the nominated albums were all "safe" bets (right in the middle of the UK mainstream).

JK2006 wrote:
[quote]Congratulations to The xx on their win; I was delighted Weller didn't win; apart from the fact that he now looks 20 years older than me, he's one of the most unpleasant people I've ever met.quote]

I had an interesting chat with Paul Weller last night. He's actually a delightful person. Much changed from his "angry young man" days. I heard he was quite an abrasive person, but as with most people, age has mellowed him. That, and the fact his Dad, whom he was very close to, died not too long ago, (possibly allowing him to reflect on like) has allowed him to become a very pleasent person.

He had no need to talk to me, but he did. JK, time to reassess the guy.

Fair enough Dixie - it was 30 years ago I met him!

Albums - the reason I hate the concept and even the word - I prefer "collections" - is that whilst singles stand or fall on the quality of the music, albums tend to try to con money out of fans. They were a company con and generally have little to do with music.

I predicted for years - going totally against the majority - that albums would die and singles would grow.
I was correct on both counts.