The Betfair Contrarian: Why The XX won't win the Mercury Music Prize

Mercury Music Prize / The Betfair Contrarian / 05 September 2010 / 2 Comments

Cheer up, the Contrarian isn't always right...

"Laura Marling is the one to watch at [8.2]."

The Contrarian can't wait to inject his wallet with cash provided by one of the most reliable sources of profit every year, a lay of the Mercury Music Prize favourite. Here's why he expects [2.88] market leader The XX to be disappointed next Tuesday...

The favourite hardly ever wins

The biggest shock in the recent history of the Mercury Music Prize was the success of the Arctic Monkeys in 2006, and that was only surprising because it was a rare occasion where the judges sided with the favourites. Normal service has been resumed in the three years since however, with the frontrunners in the betting overlooked each time. In 2007, Bat for Lashes missed out to Klaxons, in 2008, first Radiohead and then Burial led the way, yet Elbow took the prize and in 2009, Florence and the Machine was top of the pile only for an even more left-field winner than usual to be selected in rapper Speech Debelle.

The judges need to play it safe

The decision to give Speech Debelle the prize backfired badly and she already ranks as one of the least successful winners ever. Her album Speech Therapy had sold just 10,000 copies within two months of being crowned, and she then split with her record label. To ensure that the Mercury Music Prize's reputation isn't further wounded, the organisers need the award to go to someone likely to be a hit, so the safest choice is presumably an act that is reasonably established and has earned Mercury recognition in the past. Paul Weller and 2003 winner Dizzee Rascal both meet that criteria, but because of her age and prior nomination in 2008, 20-year-old Laura Marling is the one to watch at [8.2].

The album has been around too long...

The XX's debut album XX was released last August, and while all albums that hit the shops in the second half of the previous year are considered, the prize almost always goes to one that has only been out for a few months. Each of the last eight winning records went on the market on January 23 or later of the year they were in contention for the honour, while only one August release has ever been victorious before, Portishead's Dummy in 1995. The likely reason such a trend exists is that, due to the desire to be seen to be creating stars and providing them with a platform to excel, they try to avoid handing the award to an album that has already had a lot of exposure.

...and is a little on the short side

Trend fans may be interested to note that just two winners in the 19-year existence of the Mercury Music Prize have lasted less than 40 minutes, whereas XX offers a relatively skimpy 38 minutes and 35 seconds of aural entertainment. Over the last few years, winning albums have tended to clock in at around the 50-minute mark, and the closest of 2010's leading contenders to that figure is Mumford & Sons' Sigh No More at 48 minutes and 33 seconds - they're [7.2] to triumph.

NME/Mercury consensus is dwindling

Three Mercury Music Prize winners over the last decade were also voted NME Album of the Year (Franz Ferdinand, Arctic Monkeys and Klaxons) but agreement between the two is becoming far less common, with Elbow only ranking 17th in NME's 2008 list and Speech Debelle not even appearing in the top 50. That would suggest that XX's second-place finish in last year's NME list is a bad omen.

Comments (2)

1. jane | 08 September 2010

   haha!

2. Jamal | 08 September 2010

   FAIL.