The 2007 Mercury Prize shortlist was announced this week, and the nominees are the expected blend of so-mainstream-it’s-hip or cred-grabbing oddballs artists. Marking its 16th year, Britain’s most coveted music award will be handed out Sept. 4 during a televised spectacular. This year’s list of candidates includes several past nominees, as well as two former winners.

Chosen by a panel of U.K. music executives and critics, the award serves as the English industry’s equivalent to the Grammy’s Album of the Year. Without fail, there are always favorites, underdogs and what-the-heck selections. This year is no different, although each of the 12 albums has specific pros and cons at work that could prevent or solidify taking home that the top prize.

Arctic Monkeys, “Favourite Worst Nightmare”
Why this will win: This is a critic’s award, and many of the journalists responsible for casting votes are the same writers who praised the band’s sophomore album for being better than the debut, which just happened to win this award last year. “Favourite” could benefit from judges fear of not wanting to seem like 2006′s victory was the result of hype, and from journalists afraid to publicly second guessing their own reviews. Why this will not win: Because there has never been a two-time winner, let alone in consecutive years. By hiding behind history, judges can site precedent and keep the Monkeys from setting yet another historic feat.

Basquiat Strings, “Basquiat Strings with Seb Rochford”
Why this will win: Critics love to talk about liking jazz, and what better way to prove their love for a genre than to reward one of Europe’s top jazz string players. Front man Ben Davis could reap the reward of his genre’s prestige. Why this will not win: One of the draws of jazz is the impromptu nature of live performances, and this award is designed around studio recordings, which eliminates a major selling point. Plus, people who play jazz appreciate it much more than the people who actually have to listen to it. So unless the panel of judges is all fellow beatsmiths, the ensemble could run into trouble.

Bat for Lashes, “Fur and Gold”
Why this will win: Multi-instrumentalist Natasha Kahn’s performance art and Middle Eastern upbringing could sway the judges to vote with senses other than just their ears. Drawing from simple beats to waif-like scarcity, the warm but electronic debut could utilize the songwriter’s many talents to sway to judges. Why this will not win: The album relies too heavily on its songwriter’s back story and ambient settings to reach its full effect.

Dizzee Rascal, “Maths + English”
Why this will win:After topping the list in 2003, Dizzee Rascal might be in line to become the award’s first repeat winner. As grime explodes internationally, one of the genre’s most notable names remains the lone hip-hop nominee on a list perennially dominated by rock outfits. Why this will not win: There has never been a repeat winner, something the judges certainly are aware of. They also are aware that giving the award twice to the same rap artist will highlight how few acts in the genre they actually acknowledge.

Fionn Regan, “The End of History”
Why this will win: A solo artist has not taken home the prize since 2000, when Badly Drawn Boy was victorious. Regan could be rewarded for drawing such similarities to that previous winner. Why this will not win: There is a reason solo artists win this award so sparingly – it takes much more for them to be compelling. Good singer/songwriters stand out like sore thumbs among a sea of manicured hands. And the list of journalists surely are nervous to reward a troubadour today and have him become James Blunt tomorrow.

Jamie T, “Panic Prevention”
Why this will win: While many albums target London scenesters, this debut attracts the most soft spoken legion of suburban coffeeshop goers. It might be rewarded for being the most unassuming release of the lot. Why this will not win:His accent might even be too cockney for most Brits to handle, as his harsh Wimbledon dialect is all that prevents this from sounding like a smooth David Gray album.

Klaxons, “Myths of the Near Future”
Why this will win:It has single handedly revived rave culture and, although inexplicably, spawned “nu rave,” despite being more rooted in acidic space rock than dance loops. Why this will not win:Much of the band’s attention results from their fan’s drug/sex abuse, and not from their music. The band’s personal lives might keep the judges from voting for a record that otherwise might have gone unnoticed.

Maps, “We Can Create”
Why this will win: Votes could sway in favor of songwriter James Chapman’s debut LP because of its whimsical, sweeping electronic soundscapes and wall of sound structures. Or they might fall his direction because it was self-recorded in his bedroom on throwback analogue equipment, yet sounds futuristic. Why this will not win:In a growingly singles-driven environment, albums that play like theatric scores are fighting an even more uphill battle.

New Young Pony Club, “Fantastic Playroom”
Why this will win: The perfect blend of music’s two current throwback trends – post punk and new wave. The album will tug on the judges obvious affection for early 80s nostalgia, while also hedging itself in contemporary rock. Why this will not win:This debut comes a few years too late to be given the same leeway as bands such as The Sounds, and the critics might be growing hostile with everything synthetic pop.

The View, “Hats Off to the Buskers”
Why this will win:The panel of judges has shown a love as of late for chart-topping, platinum selling, rock’n'roll bands – awarding Franz Ferdinand and Arctic Monkeys the prize in recent years. Why this will not win:Always fearing the trends it helps to create, Mercury Prize officials will be nervous about giving a mod-inspired, energetic rock band the award three of the last four years.

The Young Knives, “Voices of Animals and Men”
Why this will win: The committee has always had a soft spot for off-the-beaten-path acts, most notably when Radiohead’s “OK Computer” and The Chemical Brothers’ “Dig Your Own Hole” in the same year were beaten out by Roni Size/Reprazent. Though this album did reach No.21 on select charts in Britain, it was far from a recognizable selection. Why this will not win: Because of some missteps by the judges, they are quite conscious of what can happen by picking a dark horse instead of obvious favorites.

Amy Winehouse, “Back to Black”
Why this will win: Winehouse’s bluesy R&B is both commercially successful enough to not be a surprise, but different enough from recent rock band winners to not fall in line with any trend. On her second Mercury Prize nominated release in as many LPs, the sultry vocalist could benefit from not winning this prize the first time around. Why this will not win: Many journalists considered her nomination to be a lock even before the short list was announced. These same writers won’t want to appear predictable twice.

WHO SHOULD WIN: Maps
Rewarding everything the Mercury Prize was designed to highlight, the release encompasses masterful studio production, solid musicianship and beautiful songwriting, while swaying back and forth between ambient mood music and charismatic faux-house tracks. Bridging the gaps between several of the U.K.’s most legendary movements – dance, rock, and orchestral pop – “We Can Create” would satisfy both the mainstream sensibility and challenging tendencies of the panel of judges.

WHO WILL WIN: Amy Winehouse
With only four female-fronted acts to have ever brought home the award (PJ Harvey, Portishead, Ms. Dynamite and M People), and none since 2002, the panel should take notice of its testosterone leanings. Winehouse is the odds on favorite because of her international success and quick rise as press darling/tough girl. Although both 2004 and 2006 gave the prize to money grabbing sales giants, the singer’s sophomore album is a stark contrast from those rock outputs. Panel members voting for Winehouse will justify their selection by citing (1) her role as the new voice of R&B, (2) her difference from the other short listers, (3) her commercial success, (4) her critical success, (5) that she is the list’s most recognizable face and current “it” member. And by selecting the 23-year-old vocalist, will have found a way to keep both the prize’s credibility within the artist community without alienating the general music-buying public.

Northwest Herald, July 18, 2007