Mercury Music Prize 2009: The Nominees

I've been a long term admirer of the Mercury Music Prize since its inception 17 years ago. I still enjoy the day when the nominations are announced because invariably, it is a day when my world is opened up to 4 or 5 albums that I hadn't heard of and that will possibly adore.

Over the past few years, I do believe the quality of the list has started to go down markedly. There is still a few gems unearthed (I loved Rachel Unthank last year) but there seems to be a greater populist nod that has developed over time.

Before I look at the list, I'd like to comment on some of the exclusions. There are four that stick in my head as being harshly dealt with.

Micachu & the Shapes - Jewellery
Manic Street Preachers - Journal For Plague Lovers
Emmy The Great - First Love
Lily Allen - It's Not Me, It's You

I was seriously amazed that Micachu didn't make it onto the list. The album is one of the most innovative things that I've ever heard, full of strange sounds and genuinely original melodies. It takes a little bit of time to get into but once you've got over the experimental nature of the record, it is a fascinating and truly remarkable piece of work.

To me Emmy The Great's debut record is one of the best written albums that I've heard in ages. Although at times the music can lack an extra frontier and you could argue that there aren't enough memorable songs on there but I do believe that First Love is a work of brilliantly understated post-modern lyrics and sumptuous melodies with far more consistency than a lot of albums on the list.

I can understand a little more why Lily Allen and the Manics were left off the list (similarly with Doves, although I'm not a massive fan) but I do believe again that these two albums were better than the comparable genre nominee. Allen has made a fabulous pop record - which in comparison to (for example) Florence and the Machine stands head and shoulders above. Similarly, I would take the Manics record over Kasabian and Glasvegas without even having to have a minor debate.

To the rest of the list then. I'm a big fan of both Lisa Hannigan and Bat For Lashes and given their opposition would be happy for either to win. I do think that both of their albums are good but not great; specifically in Lisa's case. I love her voice and some of the songs are beautiful, breathy bunches of gorgeosity but over the course of a full album, it doesn't quite carry. That said, I would be made up if she won the prize as I do think there's a lot more to come from Lisa if she garners the confidence in her own ability.

I have an issue with Kasabian, Glasvegas and the Horrors, mainly because of the way they are all so derivative. I'm comfortable with people wearing their influences on their sleeves, but to become the Primal Scream/Phil Spector/Joy Division pastiches does absolutely nothing for me and I don't think that an award that rewards the most creative, original and ultimately best album of the year should be showering this kind of album with praise.

But then again, The Klaxons won a couple of years ago and that's on a different level.

As far as the list goes, at the moment I have heard 7 out of the 12 albums in full. This is normally at around the four or five mark and is testament to the fact that the list this year is a touch more mainstream than normal.

Every year a number of debates come out of the nominees (and its normally the same ones) - that the quality of the years music has gone down markedly, that women are taking over and that the list is trying to tie itself in with whatever music style or scene is on the up at the time (this year, 80s Pop reinvention). Ultimately, I don't believe that any of these applies to this years list, I just don't think that the judges have picked an especially reflective list of 2008-2009.

Conjecture aside however, the big question that it all boils down to: Who do I want to win?

Out of the nominees, I think that the La Roux record is the most consistently good and I would welcome Elly Jackson as the newest member of the Mercury club. On a differing note, if Lisa Hannigan or Bat For Lashes win I will be happy too as I think they are both fantastic artists in their own right. I don't necessarily agree that they have made the album of the year, but perhaps like Elbow last year, who's to say the amount of good it would do for mainstream music.

La Roux then. Though I would have loved it to have been Micachu.

Songs Of The First Half Of 2009

I have recently put together a CD for one of my friends with what I think have been the best songs in the first half of 2009. Here's the list (in no particular order other than what I thought what sound best on a CD):

1. Micachu - Lips (Jewellery)
2. La Roux - Bulletproof (La Roux)
3. Morrissey - Something Is Squeezing My Skull (Years Of Refusal)
4. Ipso Facto - You Don't Own Me (Myspace Release)
5. PJ Harvey & John Parish - Black Hearted Love (A Woman, A Man Walked By)
6. Bruce Springsteen - The Wrestler (The Wrestler OST )
7. Yeah Yeah Yeahs - Heads Will Roll (It's Blitz)
8. Emmy The Great - First Love (First Love)
9. Manic Street Preachers - Jackie Collins Existential Question Time (Journal For Plague Lovers)
10. Gundogs - Call Out My Name (Call Out My Name (Single))
11. Doll & The Kicks - Roll Out The Red Carpet (Doll & The Kicks)
12. Eminem - 3am (Relapse)
13. Uncle Meat & The Highway Children - Streets Of Camden Town (Myspace)
14. Metric - Help I'm Alive (Fantasies)
15. Taylor Swift - Fifteen (Fearless)
16. Little Boots - Meddle (Tenorion Piano Version) (Little Boots EP (iTunes))
17. Franz Ferdinand - Ulysses (Tonight)

It soon became apparent that the majority of songs on the list were performed by female singers or bands. I do have a natural penchant for the vocal range that women can hit but even by these standards, to have 11 out of 16 tracks suggests a shift in either my tastes or the pop music culture.

This article serves as a nice warm-up for the Mercury Music Prize nominees piece that's coming in the next couple of days. Until then.

Antichrist: A View

Lars Von Trier's controversial new film Antichrist opened in cinemas at the weekend, having passed through the UK censors completely uncut. Ignoring the Daily Mail's traditional reaction, this is very much the correct decision.

Much has been made of some of the more shocking scenes (genital mutilation, full sex, talking foxes) that I'm not going to go into any of that because it has already been discussed to death by the worlds press. If you're not aware of the full extent of the graphic horror on display in the film click here for some more details on Wikipedia.

The film itself is a deeply shocking affair. From the beautiful opening scene, where the baby son of the two main characters (played by Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg) falls to his death from an upstairs window whilst his parents are having sex in another room.

The scene is shot in black and white, and in permanent slow motion, soundtracked by a delicate and moving Handel aria. The classical music fuses both the tender and beautiful act between the adults and the horrific accident to wonderful effect. It is a horrible scene and it is made horrible by the fact that it is filmed so beautifully.

The next forty five minutes or so are quite slow and more than a little dull. Willem Dafoe's character, a pompous and arrogant therapist, takes it open himself to treat his wife through her overpowering grief. This, naturally, culminates in Gainsbourg becoming convinced that everything (and more specifically, the entire of womanhood) is evil. To counterbalance this, she attacks both her husband and herself in the disturbing ways so well documented in the media.

When the film premiered at Cannes earlier this year, it was greeted with outrage. Journalists accused Von Trier of "rampant misogyny", that the film was “an abomination” and "proof that Von Trier hates women". Famously, at his press conference, a furious journalist implored him to justify not just his film but also himself to the world press.

I'm not really interested in the issue of misogyny. The film itself is in many respects a mediation on that whole topic and it has been argued that the main theme of the film is that women are essentially evil. Although Von Trier's attitudes towards women are - at best - suspect, to make such sweeping and generalised statements does nothing to actually critique the film. A much better discussion of the gender issue can be found at Guardian Unlimited.

In fact, all it really does is turn an arthouse film with limited appeal into a global talking point that more people will go and see.

Despite that, it still isn't the kind of film that a multiplex audience is going to devour and that is a good thing. To go and see Antichrist is because you have made a conscious decision that you want to make your mind up about it yourself. It is for that reason that it was crucial that it passed through the censors uncut; not because I believe that the film is necessarily a masterpiece but because the audience of Britain should be given the freedom and responsibility to decide for themselves.

To my mind, there are two pressing questions about the film and neither of them are about misogyny:
a) Was the violence/sex/graphic nature of the film necessary?
b) Does the film actually work?

I'm still unsure about the second question (and furthermore during the writing of this article I have struggled to settle on a definite answer). My normal argument in any situation like this would be that if a piece of art can polarise opinions in both directions (as many people hate is as love it) then regardless of individual opinion it must be an important piece of work.

Ultimately, the feeling of genuine shock as the film reached its conclusion suggested that it must have worked. I was open mouthed for a significant amount of time after leaving the cinema and even a day after it was difficult to explain in conversation just how powerful it was. A significant chunk of that was the beautiful way it was filmed by cinematographer Anthony Dod Mantle and perhaps even more so for the performances from the always fantastic actors Gainsbourg and Dafoe. Both roles were understandably difficult but both actors came out with dignity and an intensely believeable character, which mightn't have happened in lesser hands.

I would like to go and see the film again, but I don't see I can physically put myself through it. It is by no means a piece of great entertainment; it was one of the more unpleasant 105 minutes of my life. Despite this, I firmly believe that art doesn't always have to be pleasant and nor should it be. In fact, the anarchist in me actually thinks that it has a duty to be nasty and ugly just as much as beautiful.

The question of whether the graphic scenes were necessary or not remain a difficult balancing act. I would argue that the opening scene, where you see a short shot of an erect penis thrusting in and out of a vagina was unnecessary. It didn’t add anything to the scene whatsoever, other than the initial shock factor and in all honesty, there’s enough shock factor by the end of the film to do without this initial one.

With regards to the violence, I don't have the same problems. The way that the film lags in the first half and builds the tension slowly through the psycho-analysis between husband and wife means that the violence has to finally manifest itself to bring meaning to the whole film. Unfortunately for viewers in the 21st century, violence needs to be taken to new lengths in order to sustain any real sense of psychological disturbance.

Ultimately it is a question of subtlety. I would compare Von Trier with Michael Haneke, who is the master of the subtle art of screen violence. Take Funny Games, which retains its sense of genuine shock without actually showing any violence on screen, and compare it with the sledgehammer impact of Antichrist.

There is no doubting that Antichrist is a flawed piece of work - as most of Von Trier's work is - but it is also a beautiful, moving and genuinely disturbing piece of art. It's most definitely not for everyone and I would even go as far to say that those who like the film probably didn't enjoy it - it's not the kind of film you enjoy - but there is definitely a reward in there for the viewer.

This is cinema as art, not cinema as entertainment. Whether you love it or hate it, there is a definite place for it in the modern world.