PDA

View Full Version : Is Eurovision turning safe and "middle of the road?"



A-lister
11th May 2011, 17:45
There was a time when juries decided everything in Eurovision. They overlooked what would become some of the biggest Eurovision hits (such as Gina G's "Ooh ah just a little bit"), they constantly overlooked entries which showcased something different than the western-centered sound. The southern/south-eastern countries such as Portugal, Greece, Turkey, Yugoslavia & Cyprus often gave the contest some flavor, but that was never something the juries could appreciate though and schlager and "tender-ballads" were dominating the contest in times when both pop and other genres were progressing everywhere BUT in Eurovision.

Eurovision generally was seen as dated and boring and out of touch of contemporary music. The music was generally some decade behind the actual trends and whenever a song wasn't, it was overlooked by the juries.

Then something happened slowly when televoting was allowed. Alot of new countries (mainly from the ex- communist bloc) that quite recently gained independence and new strength and pride could suddenly compete on the same terms as the old western ones, and man they DID! It all started with Sertab's win and finally Eurovision became fun and exciting again. The westerners were offcourse unhappy that now they had to step up their game and couldn't get away with grandma's old ballads any longer.

Although the language rule was gone, fresh and local sounds were mixed like never before and new hungry countries were producing top modern songs and some older overlooked countries regained their strange. Turkey, Armenia & Greece became masters in combining the local traditional sounds with modern pop and big shows. Newcomer Ukraine became a big player aswell with grand shows and modern pop with a local twist. Russia, that was overlooked during the 90's, suddenly entered one entry after the other with contemporary music almost on the same level as what was popular on the radio all over the globe.

Eurovision was exciting. While phenomenons such as diaspora voting and bloc voting did kill some of it, there's no denying that Eurovision was a big fun show where you could get some really cool music. Where you were blown away by big shows and where you could hear sounds that for the general viewer (mainly in the west) were both exciting and new.

In 2009 major players such as Ukraine had their biggest over-the top show yet and Russia became bolder after winning sending a rock-folk song that may have not been liked by all, but it was something different for sure. Estonia topped themselves with one of the most mystic ethnic entries ever and both Armenia, Moldova & Portugal were entertaining Europe with their unique local styles. Norway (one of the "older" players) were one of few old countries that had catched on and understood the game and the new level and it paid-off obviously.

Then in 2010 juries were introduced fully also in the semifinals and something happened, some "older" players were suddenly in the game such as Belgium. Which presented a very mellow Jazon Mraz type of song with no show and just a guitar.. fair enough... while Finland was a public favorite with their first real ethnic entry in Finnish language, but juries showed their real colors and here we are in 2011 and it seems Eurovision has been thrown back some decade ago.

Western/Central countries are happy because now their safe middle of the road songs are getting appreciation all out of the sudden, while Russia and Ukraine (the big players) are starting to play on that new safe and simplistic level with entries totally catering to the western-centered half-dated sound appreciated by the juries.

Has Eurovision become better or has the excitement and fun been deleted along with the full re-introduction of juries? Some people say excitement comes with unpredictable countries fairing well, while I believe excitement comes in a great show and interesting music.

Who are these juries? They obviously can't be radio programmers because the type of music juries support wouldn't get any radio play. It's also not the type of people you would hire as your club DJ, maybe if you would kill the party only. It's obviously a bunch of people that really dislike music with identity aswell and they just seem like a bunch of people who generally dislike fun.

Are they here to make western countries feel happy by themselves again sending middle of the road safe songs and shows? Are they here to cater to an idea of western-centered middle of the road music? Because African tunes from Norway (2011), Finnish ethno and French club music (2010) is certainly not appreciated by juries, while early 90's American Disney ballad left-overs are getting jury praise.

What do you think? Or is it just me thinking Eurovision totally lost its fun and excitement?

I said last year we will see yet a decline in quality and interesting music with the juries now on board, it seems the majority agree 2011 is weaker than previous years, and looking at 2011 I'm fearing it will be even worse next year. Juries killed the fun and made countries making big effort uninterested in ever doing so again.

What's the point with spending all those money on a big show when simplistic in both music style and performance is the only thing appreciated? Again we're back in the day when you get punished for putting effort, sending something different, sending something local sounding and/or sending something hit-worthy.

So what do you think? Have the fun declined? Is the level lower? Is the music still interesting?

dizzydjc
11th May 2011, 18:19
I think it's naive to say that that the fun and excitement has gone from Eurovision. The reason the jury vote was put back into Eurovision in a 50/50 stake is because year after year, the more Western sounding songs weren't getting a look in and it felt a bit one-sided to the East. I'm in no way against the Eastern sounding songs, in fact, I prefer them but when you have songs in the semi-final that DESERVED to be in the final not making it through year on year something had to give.

I personally believe that giving those juries that 50% stake makes the contest MORE unpredictable, MORE fun and it gives a healthy mix of songs in the final. Isn't this a SONG contest after all?

I know a lot of people are sad that Norway didn't make it through yesterday, along with Turkey & Armenia but can you safely say that those songs and performances on the night were worthy of a winner? I loved Norway in MGP and rooted for it's win back then, but even I would be the first to admit that it was shaky at best last night and didn't come across very well. It almost looked like Stella didn't care about how the song came across. That's what lost televotes, not the juries.

I can appreciate music from any culture, any country and any identity and I am personally very happy to see a healthy mix of songs in the contest. Lithuania may not have been the most "exciting" song in SF1 but my god can that woman sing and came across very charismatic down the cameras, so I was not too dissapointed to see it qualify as it did deserve it.

All it means for the future is that countries need to put a bit more effort in, they can no longer get by on shaky vocals, heard 1000x before ethno/pop infused songs and need to think of new ideas. I know that Finland is a carbon copy of Tom Dice last year but at least the message it brings with it is new.

FallenAngelII
11th May 2011, 18:24
Yes, because if the countries are sending in inferior songs, it must be the fault of the juries. Also, if they don't like the ethnic songs you like, it must mean they hate etno on principle (despite the fact that Norway was their favourite in 2009 and that they gave Estonia's 2009 entry more points than the televoters). And who cares if you can no longer do well simply by entering a really bombastic stage show to mask the fact that you are a mediocre singer with a mediocre song?

Of course, whenever the juries make choices you disagree with, they are clearly not doing their jobs and need to be sacked! Also, a year of downturn in quality must be the fault of the juries! Cause and effect! It's not like we had similar downturns in quality before the advent of the juries. Not every year can be brilliant.

How do you even know that it was the juries alone which caused Stella to fail to qualify? Finland's entry last year was strange and could only have resonated with a select few people, not music industry professionals. France's entry was low-brow, shake-your-booty bullcrap. It contained a little rap and then, like, 5 words in the chorus and objectified women (though the stage-show was toned down compared to the music video). Of course the juries hated it!

Did you have to create a new thread on this? There are already two threads on pretty much the same subject.

A-lister
11th May 2011, 18:28
I think it's naive to say that that the fun and excitement has gone from Eurovision. The reason the jury vote was put back into Eurovision in a 50/50 stake is because year after year, the more Western sounding songs weren't getting a look in and it felt a bit one-sided to the East. I'm in no way against the Eastern sounding songs, in fact, I prefer them but when you have songs in the semi-final that DESERVED to be in the final not making it through year on year something had to give.

Well this is what I thought at first, but now I just see that the reason is so that western countries still can make lazy efforts but now getting away with it. Yes, we had some unfair moments for sure, but I hate the attitude to just point fingers and never have some sort of self-criticism. Some westerners just couldn't take the fact that they were overdone by what they view as "least superior countries". Juries are there to cater to westerners self-image and not for the music imo.



I personally believe that giving those juries that 50% stake makes the contest MORE unpredictable, MORE fun and it gives a healthy mix of songs in the final. Isn't this a SONG contest after all?

Yes, unpredictable as in what countries qualifies maybe. Yes it's a song contest, but it's turning into a song contest for middle of the road safe dated songs.. so I don't see the fun really.



I can appreciate music from any culture, any country and any identity and I am personally very happy to see a healthy mix of songs in the contest. Lithuania may not have been the most "exciting" song in SF1 but my god can that woman sing and came across very charismatic down the cameras, so I was not too dissapointed to see it qualify as it did deserve it.

We have shows called Idol etc. where the only effort you have to make is singing. To quote yourself: "Isn't this a SONG contest after all?"



All it means for the future is that countries need to put a bit more effort in, they can no longer get by on shaky vocals, heard 1000x before ethno/pop infused songs and need to think of new ideas. I know that Finland is a carbon copy of Tom Dice last year but at least the message it brings with it is new.

New ideas means tons of middle of the road Americanized singer-songwriter stuff you mean? Or Disney ballad rejects a la Lithuania? What message? Save the world? That's nothing new at all.

So what's wrong in showcasing your own culture? What new ideas did you see in Finland, Switzerland, Lithuania, Iceland? Just because westerners have an identity problem and see bad in all which has some national/cultural feeling doesn't mean it's bad... it's a European contest afterall not a contest for Adult radio American music? Or?

FallenAngelII
11th May 2011, 18:32
Yes, unpredictable as in what countries qualifies maybe. Yes it's a song contest, but it's turning into a song contest for middle of the road safe dated songs.. so I don't see the fun really.
A song isn't chalk full of synths and electronic harmonics =/= Dated


We have shows called Idol etc. where the only effort you have to make is singing. To quote yourself: "Isn't this a SONG contest after all?"
Seriously, there's only, like 1 qualifier who probably qualified on their song alone (Lithuania) from last night. Just because you didn't like some of the other songs doesn't mean other people don't.


New ideas means tons of middle of the road Americanized singer-songwriter stuff you mean?m
If by tons you mean the two? Whereof one was an audience favourite and thus most probably received tons of televotes as well?


So what's wrong in showcasing your own culture? What new ideas did you see in Finland, Switzerland, Lithuania, Iceland? Just because westerners have an identity problem and see bad in all which has some national/cultural feeling doesn't mean it's bad... it's a European contest afterall not a contest for Adult radio American music? Or?
So which one is it? Are the juries bad for snubbing modern"Adult radio American music" like France 2010 or bad for snubbingg etno like Finland 2010 (despite the fact that they've favoured plenty of other etno-flavoured songs throughout the year. Just because they didn't favour one entry you loved doesn't mean hey hate etno)?

A-lister
11th May 2011, 18:33
Yes, because if the countries are sending in inferior songs, it must be the fault of the juries. Also, if they don't like the ethnic songs you like, it must mean they hate etno on principle (despite the fact that Norway was their favourite in 2009 and that they gave Estonia's 2009 entry more points than the televoters). And who cares if you can no longer do well simply by entering a really bombastic stage show to mask the fact that you are a mediocre singer with a mediocre song?

I believe in the voice of the people more than the voice of some random so called "experts". It's not about "me".. Finland and France 2010 were good example of my point, aswell as UK 1996. I want to be entertained, you may call the shows something to mask mediocre songs, I totally disagree. Neither artists like Ruslana or Ani Lorak had mediocre songs nor are they mediocre singers. This year though we had plenty of VERY mediocre songs making it even with mediocre shows.. so what's your point?

In your world maybe a big show is something ugly, in my world it means putting effort to entertain the viewers. No major world artist would get away with just being boring on stage, but I guess that's a preference.

A-lister
11th May 2011, 18:36
So which one is it? Are the juries bad for snubbing modern"Adult radio American music" like France 2010...

France 2010 was NOT "adult radio American music"... you need to educate yourself on the different American radio formants I see. That's the radio format playing music more for the older public with more singer-songwriter type of songs and country and ballads and stuff.

AlekS
11th May 2011, 18:48
Eurovision will NEVER lose its fun and excitement 8-)

Sean
11th May 2011, 18:56
No.

I certainly don't have a middle of the road taste in music (I find 95% of the music in the charts to be bland, uninteresting and in general, crap) but every year I find many of the entries are to my liking and they are heavily appreciated by me. Granted, most of my favourites year on year are the songs everyone else seems to take a dislike to (Portugal this year being the most prominent example that leaps to mind at first) but this can only mean that more countries are being more daring and upping their game.

I do realise there's still some terrible mediocre barely professional stuff in the contest that sneaks through and does well but I guess that's down to those with a less extreme taste in music than me. The contest also has lots of typical Disney-ish ballads but I understand this is a major part of the Eurovision experience and that they will be sent for years to come, no matter how little I could care about them.

My taste is quite broad and I'd love to see a Eurovision one day with a couple of less mainstream songs (indie, trance, dubstep, electropop, metal, experimental, all permitting that they would work in 3 minutes) and I think we're not too far away from taking steps in this direction. Trackshittaz in the Austrian NF would have most likely finished in the Top 10 of the final, Top 5 even, and they would have likely dragged Eurovision upwards in leaps and bounds with an entry so unusual and not typical of ESC. Alas, the Disney ballad won out with the Austrians but we're getting there.

I've gone on a bit and drifted slightly but to get back to your original question, Eurovision is fine and there's nothing to worry about in terms of diversity or originality. Whether these moves into different styles will ever be rewarded by the audience remains to be seen but I think Eurovision will be fine. The juries are there to help negate the effects of any political voting and to generally keep the big investment in. They need to put more effort in, granted, but without the juries they probably wouldn't have lasted much longer in the contest.

It's all a matter of personal taste though. What I like is likely to be pretty different to what you like. That's the beauty of music :p And likewise, it depends on your opinion whether you think the contest is going bland. I certainly don't think so, but I don't speak for everyone.

FallenAngelII
11th May 2011, 19:22
I believe in the voice of the people more than the voice of some random so called "experts". It's not about "me".. Finland and France 2010 were good example of my point, aswell as UK 1996.
Yes, and? 3 examples? Out of 80 songs?

Also, France's 2010 was a crowd pleaser, but it was not quality music.


I want to be entertained, you may call the shows something to mask mediocre songs, I totally disagree. Neither artists like Ruslana or Ani Lorak had mediocre songs nor are they mediocre singers.
But I didn't claim that either had a mediocre song, either.


This year though we had plenty of VERY mediocre songs making it even with mediocre shows.. so what's your point?
We don't even know why they made it. You just assume it was just because of the juries.


In your world maybe a big show is something ugly, in my world it means putting effort to entertain the viewers.
No, big shows are not "ugly". But you cannot mask a lack of talent and song-writing with a good show and expect the juries to buy it.


No major world artist would get away with just being boring on stage, but I guess that's a preference.
Most major world artists have good songs.


France 2010 was NOT "adult radio American music"... you need to educate yourself on the different American radio formants I see. That's the radio format playing music more for the older public with more singer-songwriter type of songs and country and ballads and stuff.
Did you just claim that there are no radio stations in the U.S. that frequently plays songs that sound like France's 2010 entry? Really?

A-lister
11th May 2011, 19:31
Also, France's 2010 was a crowd pleaser, but it was not quality music.

Define "quality music". You're often quick at making your opinion the "fact" and to point out others' just being subjective. Well this certainly is subjective, what's quality and good/bad will in the end always be subjective.



No, big shows are not "ugly". But you cannot mask a lack of talent and song-writing with a good show and expect the juries to buy it.

Well certainly the juries buy bad songs AND mediocre performances. But you make it look like big show = bad song.. which is just wrong. There's nothing wrong in entertainment value, afterall ESC is also about the entertainment.. or so I thought.



Did you just claim that there are no radio stations in the U.S. that frequently plays songs that sound like France's 2010 entry? Really?

I don't really understand your question? If you go back and read what I wrote about US radio then I mentioned AC radio (or also called adult chart radio format) and I gave some examples of songs (Switzerland, Finland)... I'm kinda confused, I thought I answered you already on this one?

sannerz
11th May 2011, 19:41
The juries are comprised of people experienced with music, and they probably look at the talent of the singer the most and quality of the musical composition. I think that the music professionals that make up the juries are more capable of judging a song than you. ;)

FallenAngelII
11th May 2011, 20:15
Define "quality music". You're often quick at making your opinion the "fact" and to point out others' just being subjective. Well this certainly is subjective, what's quality and good/bad will in the end always be subjective.
For one thing, it lacked actual lyrics. The chorus was "Dam da dam da dam dam". The rest of the lyrics consisted of "Go! Go! Dance!".


Well certainly the juries buy bad songs AND mediocre performances. But you make it look like big show = bad song.. which is just wrong.
Except I didn't. I just said that you make it sound like big shows + bad songs should be enough.

Big shows are good if they complement good songs. If they're complementing bad songs, then the songs are still bad.


There's nothing wrong in entertainment value, afterall ESC is also about the entertainment.. or so I thought.
Well, yeah. But entertainment =/= Good (in the eyes of the juries, as they are instructed to vote).


I don't really understand your question? If you go back and read what I wrote about US radio then I mentioned AC radio (or also called adult chart radio format) and I gave some examples of songs (Switzerland, Finland)... I'm kinda confused, I thought I answered you already on this one?
You criticized the juries for allegedly (because you're not psychic, you cannot know for sure) favouring Switzerland 2010 and Finland 2010, singer-songwriter songs you derisively refer to as Americanized music often heard on American radio. Then you also criticized the juries for snubbing France 2010.

To which I ask: Since when is France 2010 is Americanized dance hall music you often hear on Americcan radio?

A-lister
11th May 2011, 20:20
The juries are comprised of people experienced with music, and they probably look at the talent of the singer the most and quality of the musical composition. I think that the music professionals that make up the juries are more capable of judging a song than you. ;)

No I don't think they are. They are not more capable than me, or you or the other million voting in Eurovision.

Yes I agree; the juries care about the singers mostly... and that's about it. The songs come in second place.

FallenAngelII
11th May 2011, 20:24
No I don't think they are. They are not more capable than me, or you or the other million voting in Eurovision.
Why, because people who'd vote forth entries like "Dancing Lasha Tumbai" are to be trusted with voting forth quality songs?


Yes I agree; the juries care about the singers mostly... and that's about it. The songs come in second place.
Name 5 entries last year where the juries unfairly favoured voices over songs.

A-lister
11th May 2011, 20:25
For one thing, it lacked actual lyrics. The chorus was "Dam da dam da dam dam". The rest of the lyrics consisted of "Go! Go! Dance!".

Well funny there... we have a song this year with the even called "Da da dum"... also we have the swiss entry with 1 minute of "na na na na...". Anyways Eurovision was never a lyrical contest and none of the songs have brilliant lyrics if you really study them closely.



Except I didn't. I just said that you make it sound like big shows + bad songs should be enough.

Fair enough and I agree, but it felt like you were trying to make it look like big show are only used for bad songs or to mask bad songs, which I think is an unfair analyze of it.



You criticized the juries for allegedly (because you're not psychic, you cannot know for sure) favouring Switzerland 2010 and Finland 2010, singer-songwriter songs you derisively refer to as Americanized music often heard on American radio. Then you also criticized the juries for snubbing France 2010.

To which I ask: Since when is France 2010 is Americanized dance hall music you often hear on American radio?

You mean Switzerland and Finland 2011 I assume?

I think you mixed up what I said: I was talking about American AC radio which is not really meant to be the more modern type of music, but more for the "adult" public.

I never talked about France when I mentioned that. I am still confused what you mean really.

contestfan
11th May 2011, 20:28
The southern/south-eastern countries such as Portugal, Greece, Turkey, Yugoslavia & Cyprus often gave the contest some flavor, but that was never something the juries could appreciate though and schlager and "tender-ballads" were dominating the contest in times when both pop and other genres were progressing everywhere BUT in Eurovision.

I agree with you that the mediterranean and baltic/slawic countries contribute another kind and style of music which gives the contest the needed internationality.

But don't forget the HISTORY of the contest. A few years ago it was called "Grand Prix de la chanson".

A chanson can be categorized as a mixture of pop, ballad and songmaker-style. The "chanson" is a subgenre of pop but it is an standalone category which is performed by Mireille Mathieu (Je ne regrette rien) or in Germany Reinhard Mey. Merci Chérie by Udo Jürgens is a mixture of chanson and piano ballad.




The music was generally some decade behind the actual trends and whenever a song wasn't, it was overlooked by the juries.

Yes, but the genre was always clearly defined: pop with more chanson style.
Pop music contests had always been taken place on MTV or VIVA.


The westerners were offcourse unhappy that now they had to step up their game and couldn't get away with grandma's old ballads any longer.

I agree too, but you also have to consider the fact that the main host are the BIG 5 countries (GB, F, ESP, ITA, GER).

Most of the money for the event are paid by these big 5. Latvia for example won the competition but had not enough money to host the show. Norddeutscher Rundfunk (NDR) e.g. pays at least 500.000 EUR every year to the host country whereever the final takes place.

BUT (and this is very important): NDR belongs to ARD (First German Television). They get their money (2 billion per year) with GEZ charges. All adult inhabitants or families in Germany have to pay this monthly fee of 17 EUR. ARD and other channels are therefore regulated and governed by public law and have very restricted rights what they can do or not.

So ARD and other channels can not broadcast what they want.

- The advertisement e.g. is limited (max. 15 minutes per day).

- They can broadcast only reputable shows and documentations.

- Their primary function is to broadcast TV basic supplies (Casting shows like Pop Idol would get ARD into trouble).

- ARD pays this year 12,1 million euros for the event. They have to justify this amount and give a very good reason why the Eurovision Song Contest is still a part of provision with basic supplies. So they should always take care of the content that they broadcast. If ESC turns into a music slapstick comedy event it might be that the program directors say: We can't justify this event anymore in our program.

I guess that BBC is in the same trouble.



Eurovision was exciting. While phenomenons such as diaspora voting and bloc voting did kill some of it, there's no denying that Eurovision was a big fun show where you could get some really cool music.

And that's the problem. ESC can not only be a funny show but it should better be also a culture event with quality music also for older people. Quality is a matter of taste of course but I doubt that older people like techno or hip-hop.


Has Eurovision become better or has the excitement and fun been deleted along with the full re-introduction of juries? Some people say excitement comes with unpredictable countries fairing well, while I believe excitement comes in a great show and interesting music.

I think the introduction of juries contributes an ensurement of quality music for every generation.
If older people who pay the television charges don't want to watch it but millions of euros are blown for a bass beat event, it might be that ESC would not exist in this way any longer.



What do you think? Or is it just me thinking Eurovision totally lost its fun and excitement?
So what do you think? Have the fun declined? Is the level lower? Is the music still interesting?


I think Eurovision is still great fun for younger people but as I mentioned many older people are dissappointed what was done with the tradtional "Grand Prix de la Chanson".
So pop ballads and slower tunes keeps ESC still as an event for the family and not only for teens and twens. And this is necessary to justify ESC as a music culture event.
Other music contests with only modern music you can find on private TV channels in masses.

A-lister
11th May 2011, 20:30
Why, because people who'd vote forth entries like "Dancing Lasha Tumbai" are to be trusted with voting forth quality songs?

Yes!



Name 5 entries last year where the juries unfairly favoured voices over songs.

This is obviously subjective but okey:

In semi 1: Portugal (#2 juries - #9 public), Bosnia & Herzegovina (#5 juries - #11 public), Malta (#7 juries - #12 public)
In semi 2: Georgia (#1 juries - #5 public), Ireland (#6 juries - #13 public)

A-lister
11th May 2011, 20:34
@ contestfan

What are you saying? That Eurovision should be for a certain genre called "chanson"?? I don't get it. I can't recall that was ever the idea.

Actually my point was partly that juries DOESN'T want the cultural aspect of the contest so I doesn't really get that point?

Also just because something is uptempo or "party-ish", doesn't mean it lacks quality. It's not THAT easy to make a pop song with hit-potential as some make it out to be.

FallenAngelII
11th May 2011, 21:27
Well funny there... we have a song this year with the even called "Da da dum"... also we have the swiss entry with 1 minute of "na na na na...". Anyways Eurovision was never a lyrical contest and none of the songs have brilliant lyrics if you really study them closely.
Except their lyrics contain much more than that. And they have actual melodies and singing instead of a lot of synth riffs, a bunch of shouted words and 35 seconds of pure jibberish for a chorus.

And yes, Eurovision hasn't been about brilliant lyrics... until now. You'd think that'd be a welcome change.


Fair enough and I agree, but it felt like you were trying to make it look like big show are only used for bad songs or to mask bad songs, which I think is an unfair analyze of it.
Except I didn't. You need to differentiate between what I'm saying and things that sound similar to what I'm saying.


You mean Switzerland and Finland 2011 I assume?
Yes, I mistyped.


I think you mixed up what I said: I was talking about American AC radio which is not really meant to be the more modern type of music, but more for the "adult" public.
So... the juries are bad because they favour songs which are popular on some American radio stations?


This is obviously subjective but okey:

In semi 1: Portugal (#2 juries - #9 public), Bosnia & Herzegovina (#5 juries - #11 public), Malta (#7 juries - #12 public)
In semi 2: Georgia (#1 juries - #5 public), Ireland (#6 juries - #13 public)
So you're saying... becaue they favoured certain entries higher than the televoters, they were ovbviously blinded by singing voices before songs?

As if the televoters onlyvote for songs! And since when were Bosnia's Vukašin Brajić and Ireland's Niamh Kavanagh (at least as of 2010) known for their voices, anyway? Niamh was off-tune quite a lot and Vukašin's voice was just plain weird and flat. In fact, in Vukašin's cae, I highly doubt his singing voice was what endeared him the juries.



Actually my point was partly that juries DOESN'T want the cultural aspect of the contest so I doesn't really get that point?
Except that's only because the juries don't like the same etno entries as you do. I have proven time and again that the juries are not prejudiced against etno on principle. Just because they happened to dislike a few entries you liked that also just happened to be etno does not mean they have etno or even that they like etno less than the televoters.

How else do you explain:
2010 - (1st semi) Macedonia (juries' 10th, televoters' 15th)(Balkan rock)
2010 - (2nd semi) Armenia (juries' 5th, televoters' 6th)
2009 - (final) Norway (1st/1st)
2009 - (final) Estonia (juries' 5th, televoters' 6th)
2009 - (final) Moldova (juries' 10th, televoters' 13th)
2009 - (final) Turkey (juries' 7th, televoters' 3rd)

In the case of Armenia 2010 and Turkey 2009, you can hardly argue that the juries favoured voice efore song, especially not for Turkey 2009.

So, really, the juries are neither wholly unfairly favouring voices over songs or prejudiced against etno, seeing as how they've oted many ethnically flavoured songs higher than the televoters and have also been known to favour song quality over live vocal ability (Israel 2010, anyone?).

However, every time they vote in away which you don't disagree with, you automatically see some kind of pattern. No, that's just you and the juries disagreeing.


Also just because something is uptempo or "party-ish", doesn't mean it lacks quality.
Nobody said that. However, just because something is up-tempo and "party-ish", it doesn't mean it's automatically good either.


It's not THAT easy to make a pop song with hit-potential as some make it out to be.
Pop song with hit poteial =/= Always automically quality music

lucian-crusher
11th May 2011, 21:50
Eurovision will always be fun! Juries are subjective like any other person. And abou quality there is no quality and non-quality, they are just songs. ::ch 2004 and ::lt 2006 weren't less or more quality then ::sl 2007 then ::fr 2011!

doctormalisimo
11th May 2011, 22:41
Actually I think Eurovision entries are getting more diverse and riskier. Eg this year ::ge ::no ::al ::be ::de ::pt and ::it have all sent songs that you wouldn't normally expect to hear on Eurovision, so I'm happy so many countries are doing something different this year :)

A-lister
11th May 2011, 23:02
Actually I think Eurovision entries are getting more diverse and riskier. Eg this year ::ge ::no ::al ::be ::de ::pt and ::it have all sent songs that you wouldn't normally expect to hear on Eurovision, so I'm happy so many countries are doing something different this year :)

I can agree about those entries, but I think people have very short memory when it comes to ESC.

I mean Georgia was risky already with their first entry in 2007 (I'd say even riskier). A capella as with Belgium is nothing new either.

As a whole I think we have a smaller amount of "risky" entries now than just some years ago.

WhoKnows
12th May 2011, 05:29
Why, because people who'd vote forth entries like "Dancing Lasha Tumbai" are to be trusted with voting forth quality songs?


I'm sorry but Dancing Lasha Tumbai was and remains one of the best brilliant songs in Eurovision history. Just because it's not classical music or isn't typical 'quality' music doesn't make it any less great. That's where I agree with A-lister. I think the juries have a much narrower definition of what 'good music' is. Yes, a big show shouldn't mask a crappy song. But at the same time, a crappy song and NO show shouldn't be masked by the performer having a good voice. It's a whole package that should count, imo.

Take Lithuania and Iceland with Norway and Armenia. I'll agree that neither Norway nor Armenia had an especially good quality song. Both had good shows though. I think people will mostly agree that neither Lithuania nor Iceland had an especially good song either. They had no show but performers had decent voices. The first two try to mask their crappy songs with entertaining shows, the second two with good voices. Why should the latter AUTOMATICALLY be considered 'quality' or 'deserving' over the first?

QwaarJet
12th May 2011, 05:57
For the most part, I tend to agree with what the juries define as "good music". I think a lot of people are getting popular and good mixed up. Being on the radio doesn't make a song good, neither does high chart positions. I feel there are a lot of risky songs this year and the diversity is as good as ever. ESC is doing good for me atm.

contestfan
12th May 2011, 07:22
What are you saying? That Eurovision should be for a certain genre called "chanson"?? I don't get it. I can't recall that was ever the idea.

The former name of the competition mentions the genre "Grand Prix de la chanson". Now it's Eurovision Song Contest and a song can be from any genre. But older people would not identify with it.



Actually my point was partly that juries DOESN'T want the cultural aspect of the contest so I doesn't really get that point?

I don't agree. Anyway, where is the cultural aspect of the current songs? Not sung in the original language, most pop/rock tunes etc.



Also just because something is uptempo or "party-ish", doesn't mean it lacks quality. It's not THAT easy to make a pop song with hit-potential as some make it out to be.

Yes, but I think that the hit-potential of ESC songs is generally limited. The limit of 3 minutes for every song makes ESC songs outstanding. There is no great pop song by Michael Jackson, Madonna or Elton John that lasts only 3 minutes or less.

ESC songs can not be marketed like other pop songs. I didn't experience that ESC songs are published on a single with instrumental and/or extended version. Most of them have no music videos and so on.

The main purpose of an ESC song is to entertain the family for 3 minutes. Younger AND older people should say: This sounds good. And I doubt that older people love hard rock with dramatic staging like Lordi.

One of my most favourite ESC songs I've ever heard is "Love shine a light" by Katrina and the Waves (Winner song in 1997, GB).
This is a typical pop song where younger and older people might say: That's a great song. That's why it won the competition. I doubt that it would win today again.

The older generation (and that's the majority at least in Germany) cannot identify with ESC like before. I visited the 1st semi-finals on Tuesday and I didn't perceive people older than 50 or 60.

The juries are established to compensate this fact.

lucian-crusher
12th May 2011, 09:13
For the most part, I tend to agree with what the juries define as "good music". I think a lot of people are getting popular and good mixed up. Being on the radio doesn't make a song good, neither does high chart positions. I feel there are a lot of risky songs this year and the diversity is as good as ever. ESC is doing good for me atm.

Being on the Radio doesen't make a song good but also being on the Opera doesen't make it good. It's just music, no good or bad. ,,Sognu" is not a better or a worser song then ,,Lipstick" and ,,Love in rewind" is not better or worser then ,,Luta e alegria"....

FallenAngelII
12th May 2011, 09:54
I'm sorry but Dancing Lasha Tumbai was and remains one of the best brilliant songs in Eurovision history.
It was entertaining but it wasn't what you'd call a well-written song. It barely had any vocals, the vocals it had were just a few lines and the vocalists were far from perfect. The presentation, however, was entertaning and, you could argue, brilliant. But it wasn't something people would listen to on the radio had they never seen it on stage first.


Yes, a big show shouldn't mask a crappy song. But at the same time, a crappy song and NO show shouldn't be masked by the performer having a good voice. It's a whole package that should count, imo.
Very few entries do well in any given year with a crappy song a good voice. This year, we only have, arguably, one insofar. The juries are new, they'll make mistakes.


Take Lithuania and Iceland with Norway and Armenia. I'll agree that neither Norway nor Armenia had an especially good quality song. Both had good shows though. I think people will mostly agree that neither Lithuania nor Iceland had an especially good song either.
Why is Iceland even in this discussion? I bet it was carried by the televoters because of the sad story.


The first two try to mask their crappy songs with entertaining shows, the second two with good voices. Why should the latter AUTOMATICALLY be considered 'quality' or 'deserving' over the first?
You don't even know who carried the entry, the juries or the televoters (yet)! Wait until after the final, when the split votes are released, before making such statements. Lithuania is prertty much the only instances where we can be almost certain was favoured by the juries more than by the televoters.

Andalublue
12th May 2011, 12:25
The music of Eurovision has never been anything other than Middle of the Road. Innovation in popular music has never taken place at the contest, and that's not what it is for anyway. I can summarise your OP thus:

I don't like the music as much now as I did a few years ago.
I don't like jury-voting, I want full tele-voting back
Bloc-voting was no bad thing
Western european music = boring, Eastern european music = exciting

Here's the thing, many many fans of the ESC don't fool themselves into believing that it serves any serious function the the European music industry, nor in representing the current state of European popular music. It's a competition. It's entertainment. It's fun. Anyone looking for anything else, any deeper significance, are deluded.

If I had to bemoan anything, it's the decline of the joke entry. I love 'em, the wilder and sillier the better - Cetin Alp and the Small Wave, Datner and Kushnir, Chikilicuatre, Verka Serduchka - I'll take any of them over another teeny-pop Dima Bilan-wannabe any day.

Jury voting makes sense. Tele-voting had turned ESC into a stupid laughing-stock of petty nationalist sympathisers making petty nationalist gestures. Had they kept it, I'd have been in favour of the Big 4 pulling out and leaving it to turn into an Eastern Bloc Song Contest. I guess some people here would have been happy with that.

busybee
12th May 2011, 12:30
Actually I think Eurovision entries are getting more diverse and riskier. Eg this year ::ge ::no ::al ::be ::de ::pt and ::it have all sent songs that you wouldn't normally expect to hear on Eurovision, so I'm happy so many countries are doing something different this year :)

And what happened to those countries? Albania, Norway and Portugal didn't qualify. Germany and Italy are already in the final and anyway I would hardly call Italy's jazz something different..it's one of the oldest music genres in this eurovision.
As for Belgium, I also don't expect them to qualify.
So basically only Georgia did well...and Georgia is an ex soviet country and competed in a semi with 4 other ex soviet countries.

Regarding the topic of this post, I'll wait for the results of the second semi before I give my opinion.

PS The excuse that Norway, for example, didn't qualify because of poor vocals doesn't cut it for me. Albania had excellent vocals and also didn't qualify.

FallenAngelII
12th May 2011, 12:37
Bloc-voting was no bad thing
O... K... I stopped reading there.


And what happened to those countries? Albania, Norway and Portugal didn't qualify. Germany and Italy are already in the final and anyway I would hardly call Italy's jazz something different..it's one of the oldest music genres in this eurovision.
As for Belgium, I also don't expect them to qualify.
So basically only Georgia did well...and Georgia is an ex soviet country and competed in a semi with 4 other ex soviet countries.
That's because just being diverse and risky doesn't mean you're automatically good. Albania's entry was cocophony-ish, Norway's entry was just horrible on stage and Portugal's entry was a joke entry.

Belgium's got one of the worst songs this year. Just because they're singing Acapella doesn't mean they automatically deserve to qualify. If you want to look at top of the notch Acapella arrangements from the recent past, pull up the Acapella re-arrangements sung on "Glee". Most of Belgium's singers can't even harmonize (with each other) that well.


PS The excuse that Norway, for example, didn't qualify because of poor vocals doesn't cut it for me. Albania had excellent vocals and also didn't qualify.
Albania did not have perfect vocals. And the song wasn't very exciting, nor was the stage show very exciting. Norway and Alabania were flawed in different ways. We don't even know whether it was the juries that killed both entries. I predict that the juries gave Albania more points than the televoters, but that it wasn't enough for Albania to qualify.

busybee
12th May 2011, 15:28
Of course, if you want to find an excuse why some song didn't qualify, you can. But personally I don't see how Hungary's song, for example, is exciting...it's a typical 90-ish disco-ish song, and the singer had as much charm as my chair. And if Albania didn't have perfect vocals, what did Hungary have? And yet it went through.
The only thing I agree on with you is that we don't know the jury/televote results yet..but I would bet that Norway, for example, missed out on the final because of juries..and Lithuania's old fashioned ballad qualified because of them, too.

doctormalisimo
12th May 2011, 18:11
And what happened to those countries? Albania, Norway and Portugal didn't qualify. Germany and Italy are already in the final and anyway I would hardly call Italy's jazz something different..it's one of the oldest music genres in this eurovision.
As for Belgium, I also don't expect them to qualify.
So basically only Georgia did well...and Georgia is an ex soviet country and competed in a semi with 4 other ex soviet countries.

Regarding the topic of this post, I'll wait for the results of the second semi before I give my opinion.

PS The excuse that Norway, for example, didn't qualify because of poor vocals doesn't cut it for me. Albania had excellent vocals and also didn't qualify.

But at least those that failed took risks and sent interesting songs. Countries like Lithuania, Sweden and Croatia sent songs that we hear every year and songs that are likely to please either the voters or the juries. I actually didn't like the Albanian entry, but I take my hat off to them for doing something not safe.

asia
12th May 2011, 18:39
wow, powerful passages in your writing....... Answer:- eurovision, its a tounge in cheek contest, its not meant to be fun or brilliant, each year you have good songs, bad songs and the weird and down right stupid, i watch for that very reason...... To laugh at other countries efforts, i wont mention our own, because when its your home country churning out crap, every year..... Its tedious..... Wether its a jury or telephone vote..... Makes no difference, its eurovision..... Its once a year, we can laugh or scream at the entries..... Still waiting for the right song to win, yet lol..... Eurovision is what it is, thats why we love it and why we are members here, its not the winning or even taking part, its trying to find a song worse than your own countries lol.....

asia
12th May 2011, 18:42
but norways vocals were good compared to the others in semi final 1.......

FallenAngelII
12th May 2011, 19:10
but norways vocals were good compared to the others in semi final 1.......
Compared to whom, Portugal? Name one country that Norway was superior to vocally other than Portugal.

94ayd
13th May 2011, 01:42
After watching the 2nd final I can say I've never watched such a boring semi-final with so many cliché songs...

A-lister
13th May 2011, 12:53
So here we are again...

from semi 2 Austria and Ukraine taking spots of Bulgaria and Cyprus.

With the juries now it's obvious: The more middle of the road and safer the "better".

What happened with the "Euro" concept? What happened with native languages? Local styles?

Eurovision is REALLY turning safe and bland as hell. The Anglo/Western-centricism brought back by the juries mixed with their liking of safe and disney ballads have brought Eurovision back in the 80's.

AlekS
13th May 2011, 16:09
^ And why shouldnt' itr be safe? Just because YOU said so?

They took someone's place? And Bulgarian and Cypriot places were reserved? Having subjective opinion is nice of course but have some respect to people who voted for those entries ;)

A-lister
13th May 2011, 16:13
^ And why shouldnt' itr be safe? Just because YOU said so?

They took someone's place? And Bulgarian and Cypriot places were reserved? Having subjective opinion is nice of course but have some respect to people who voted for those entries ;)

That's my opinion basically.

And you missed the topic here. It was not about what is better/worse or anything like that, that's subjective.

It's about the safe and English taking over the contest. Eurovision is turning very middle of the road anglo-centric (both language and music wise).

I mean Cyprus is a good example; last year they had a very generic anglo-centric song and got helped by the juries.. we don't have the jury result just yet but it's kind of telling that when they send something more local and different sounding they fail.

Finland 2010 vs 2011 is the same issue.

AlekS
13th May 2011, 16:38
^ No, you said that they took somebody's place. Have some respect to me and people who liked/voted for those entries ;)

FallenAngelII
13th May 2011, 16:49
What happened with the "Euro" concept? What happened with native languages? Local styles?
Why do you keep making it sound like all you need to do well at Eurovision (or at least all you should need to do well at Eurovision) is a song with an "Euro" concept, sung in a native language and with local influences?!

Why do so many people think that that's all it takes to make an entry a good enty, or at least a good Eurovision entry? Like "Hey, you singing in your native language with an etno-pop song? Here, have an automatic qualifier spot!".


Eurovision is REALLY turning safe and bland as hell.
In your opinion.


The Anglo/Western-centricism brought back by the juries mixed with their liking of safe and disney ballads have brought Eurovision back in the 80's.
You complete ignored the post where I point out that the juries sometimes favour etno more than the televoters! Just because they didn't favour, what, 4 ethnic entries you liked doesn't mean they're intolerant towards etno in general.

LakZaNokte
13th May 2011, 17:10
So what do you think? Have the fun declined? Is the level lower? Is the music still interesting?
it's a thin line between fun and bulls***.

I swear, few yrs ago, "boom boom chaka chaka" and "haba haba" would have been not only in the finals but in top 10.
those were the years when anything stupid (but "catchy" :roll:), even without any real quality regarding vocals, music or lyrics, did well.
and what are songs without vocals, music and lyrics? fun or bs?

u can make great song that would be fun and modern and "out of the box" without making it stupid.