Boooooooooooooooooooooooorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnggggggggggggggg
I really like the Elbow album. A great deal. But that doesn't make it any less boring a winner. Do we accept that the folk, jazz etc entries will never ever win?
Having said that, there were more good albums in this list, and more I own, than any year i can think of.
/Roni Size/Ms Dynamite). Bit of a shame really 
I think Elbow deserved it. They've been plugging away at it for years and have produced some fantastic music.
I would have been just as happy if Rachel Unthank had won, but you'd be hard pushed to call her music 'exciting' too.I don't disagree, they've got some great tunes and have worked for minimal reward or recognition, but fuck me, shouldn't something exciting be winning?
Maybe to you it is, but I doubt if most people would describe her sound or the decision to choose her as "exciting" - and that's not a criticism of the quality of her music.But her music IS exciting and it would be an exciting CHOICE.
I would have been just as happy if Rachel Unthank had won, but you'd be hard pushed to call her music 'exciting' too.
Does the Mercury Prize ever really shake anything up?I still think them winning would have been more exciting. It would shake things up, rather than it being another bloody indie band
Does the Mercury Prize ever really shake anything up?
OK. Let me reword it: Does WINNING the Mercury Prize ever really shake anything up?No. Which is precisely my bloody point.
Let me reword it: Does WINNING the Mercury Prize ever really shake anything up?

M.I.A. Arular. Where was it? Stunningly good set of tunes.
Should have been Burial otherwise imo. But M.I.A. was the real alternative Mercury winner still i reckon![]()

If you look at the bands who won the prize back in the 90s it seems like it was genuinely based on who made the best records. I know albums were more important in those days, but people are still making decent albums

M People?
![]()