Tom Service of the Guardian gave an interesting lecture recently about composers and the state of contemporary (whatever that is!) music. Find the transcript here:

http://www.sound-scotland.co.uk/site/2010/diary/10_23@1400_transcript.htm

Yes, yes ok so the xx probably deserved it but a few things still remain unanswered. Namely, if the prize is given just for the album and nothing to do with the brief performance each artist can give on the night (the don’t all chose to), then why did the xx say they thought that Wild Beasts should have won ‘because their performance was amazing’! If the hot favourites for the prize (until wads of cash went on Weller) are not sure about the criteria by which they are being judged what hope have the rest of us? Since the xx still have some work to do in the live department (sort out the drum machine please!), then it perhaps just as well they were not judged on their performance.

Number 2 issue is we should have a retrospective Mercury Music prize 10 years on from each original prize and see how many albums come out top after that time. Not many is my guess. 

Issue 3 is Paul Morley banging on again about how Gavin Bryars should have won in 1993. With all respect due to Gavin, the piece (Jesus Blood Never Failed Me Yet) was composed over 20 years before. It was just recorded and issued in 1993, so how does that fit with the remit of reflecting the rich and varied music of the time?

Of course I have many other issues with the prize but won’t bore you any more now…!