PDA

View Full Version : Should Sweden be a member of the "big 5"?



Nike
30th April 2012, 07:29
If I remember correctly, the big 5 members pay most money to EBU and that's why they are already qualified to final. But why should Italy pay that much money when they have been absence in many many years and have very low interest in ESC? Do they pay that much money because they want to be a BIG 5 member? Or do they pay much money at all? Are they a Big 5 member because EBU want them in the contest and Italy made that ultimatum? Why are Italy suddenly a big 5 member after have been absence in many years?

Now to Sweden: Sweden is very interested in ESC. We have a very well-produced NF. It's probably even better produced than ESC itself. Sweden's dominance in ESC is being bigger and bigger. Last year a Swedish song won ESC and Sweden itself became 3rd. This year we have 10 acts with swedish help, Sweden included. Three of the big 5 have asked Sweden for help this year. The former EBU boss was a Swede, Svante Stockselius. Sweden is also very popular among ESC fans. Sweden is among the countries which is hardest to see leaving the contest.

Speaking about music and songs Sweden is more dominant than all the big 5. should Sweden be a member of big 5?

Sim
30th April 2012, 07:50
Well if you desperately want Sweden to be a Big 5, then just pay more money:P

Nike
30th April 2012, 08:05
Well if you desperately want Sweden to be a Big 5, then just pay more money:P

So all countries who wants to be in the big 5 must pay more money??? What about the countries who can't pay more money? This seems unfair? Escpecially when countries like Italy seems to buy their ticket to the final. If they have so much money why not produce their own songs? Three of the big 5 members have asked for help from Sweden.

daniels1000
30th April 2012, 11:01
I think that Sweden belongs to BIG 5 , but Italy doesn't.

Gerly
30th April 2012, 11:36
So all countries who wants to be in the big 5 must pay more money??? What about the countries who can't pay more money? This seems unfair? Escpecially when countries like Italy seems to buy their ticket to the final. If they have so much money why not produce their own songs? Three of the big 5 members have asked for help from Sweden.

In 2009, RTÉ’s participation fee was €55,000. In the same year, the BBC paid a total of £279,805 to take part in the Moscow contest.
In Oslo the BBC paid £283,190 (approximately €333,165 using the rate of £1 = €0,85 on Friday 28th May 2010), with RTÉ’s fee costing €63,000.

Source:http://www.escdaily.com/the-cost-of-not-having-the-big-45/

That's a huge difference!

CANyouLoveMeBack
30th April 2012, 12:02
Italy is 5th ''BIG'' cause EBU loves to give award to Italy all the time :)

Do you remember? Ebu changed the voting sythem in 2011 and running order for voting decided after the votes and EBU made Italy to the second position slowly.. At the beginning Italy was in 20th-25th position and at the end of voting italy went 2nd position and nobody realised it.. EBU gave its award slowly :)

Don't tell me ''Italy deserved 2nd position'' cause it didn't ... :) it was another award except being big5 member..

Actually SWEDEN is the best ESC country, Melodifestivalen is even bigger than Eurovision for me. But nobody deserves to be ''Big..'' ... this is a contest and if a country deserves to be in the final it would already qualify.. This is not fair..

Franco
30th April 2012, 16:10
I don't think it's Sweden's best interest to become one of the big5.
If your entry is surely going to pass the semi-finals, like in Sweden's and Russia's cases, you have the big advantage that your song has been performed two times, instead of the 1 time only allowed to the big5. Thus, the audience is more acquainted to your song, and they are more keen to vote for you again in the final.

Yoni
30th April 2012, 16:18
*sigh* once again crazy ideas that OGAE would agree with.

KaptenFisk
30th April 2012, 17:36
I don't think that Sweden should get a free ticket to the big 5. Why should there be an exception?

But mostly cause quite like the semifinals and I think it is a little advantage, just as Franco said, to have the song performed twice.

LalehForWD
30th April 2012, 17:47
Sweden is a small country and Swedes loves to be underdogs, it's a great role to play! :lol: Who wants to pay more and loose the extra gig in the semi-finals? I think being part of the big 5 is more of a curse than a blessing!

CANyouLoveMeBack
30th April 2012, 17:59
Big4 big5 and now big6 and then big10 slowly it's gonna be big26 ... And in semifinals will be just for fun :D :D

A-lister
1st May 2012, 22:47
Actually, Sweden has contributed with alot more than just regular non- "big" countries have. We helped out during many of the shows, with both staff and technical help.

BUT, I don't want us to be a "big" country considering the disadvantage it has in the voting.

Margerita86
1st May 2012, 23:07
And if we were to add more to the big 5, where would it end? Possibly with no spots left in the final since they don't want to make the show too long.

gabimen
1st May 2012, 23:07
Nah...Sweden has such a small population not even half of the half of Germany,UK or France...so NO Sweden should stay as it is

QwaarJet
1st May 2012, 23:20
Nah...Sweden has such a small population not even half of the half of Germany,UK or France...so NO Sweden should stay as it is

What the hell does population have to do with it?

yulara
1st May 2012, 23:23
If I remember correctly, the big 5 members pay most money to EBU and that's why they are already qualified to final. But why should Italy pay that much money when they have been absence in many many years and have very low interest in ESC? Do they pay that much money because they want to be a BIG 5 member? Or do they pay much money at all? Are they a Big 5 member because EBU want them in the contest and Italy made that ultimatum? Why are Italy suddenly a big 5 member after have been absence in many years?
you just forgot that ESC is a very small part of the EBU's work ;)
I only know the technical part of EBU's activities (but I know that they do a lot of other things), they have defined standards for Digital Audio (AES), RDS, Satellite or DTT broadcasting (DAB/DVB), HDTV, and many other things. If you work in this industry, you work under EBU's rules, and Italy is the third financial contributor to EBU.

GodSaveTheQueen
1st May 2012, 23:35
Epic fail !!

Sweden isn't big country..

Matt
1st May 2012, 23:36
you just forgot that ESC is a very small part of the EBU's work ;)
I only know the technical part of EBU's activities (but I know that they do a lot of other things), they have defined standards for Digital Audio (AES), RDS, Satellite or DTT broadcasting (DAB/DVB), HDTV, and many other things. If you work in this industry, you work under EBU's rules, and Italy is the third financial contributor to EBU.


I was just about to say something similar. It goes way beyond ESC and the Big 5 are the biggest contributors. It was always common knowledge that if Italy decided to come back they would join the Big 4 (at that time).

And I don't understand why Sweden is being singled out here. They are certainly not close to being the biggest financial contributors, with the exception of last year their results have been rather poor and just because a Swede was previously the CEO of the EBU doesn't give them any special rights.

Miguel
1st May 2012, 23:43
My answer is no. None of your claims (quoting)

We have a very well-produced NF. It's probably even better produced than ESC itself. Sweden's dominance in ESC is being bigger and bigger. Last year a Swedish song won ESC and Sweden itself became 3rd. This year we have 10 acts with swedish help, Sweden included. Three of the big 5 have asked Sweden for help this year. The former EBU boss was a Swede, Svante Stockselius. Sweden is also very popular among ESC fans. Sweden is among the countries which is hardest to see leaving the contest.

justify Sweden being a "Big 5" member. Results aren't everything. There are no countries with special treatment. France, Spain, Germany, Italy and the UK are part of the Big 5 because they can and they want to help EBU with their money. That's all.

Wtr
2nd May 2012, 00:15
The EBU is also looking at the population of a Country and that is how they make a calculation of the contribution a country needs to pay to be a member of the EBU. Sweden has a very low population so they will never be a member of the big 5.

Nike
2nd May 2012, 00:45
What have the population the do with anything?What about this: Sweden with our small population has 10 songs in this contest. Last years winner song was all Sweden except the main singers. Now if UK, Italy, Spain have so big population and are so superior shouldn't they make own songs then?? Why do the big populations needs help from the small population?

AlekS
2nd May 2012, 00:46
*sigh* once again crazy ideas that OGAE would agree with.
True that :lol:


What the hell does population have to do with it?
Forming the national budgets that sponsor the national broadcasters?

Nike
2nd May 2012, 00:51
True that :lol:


Forming the national budgets that sponsor the national broadcasters?

So why the ask for help from Sweden then? BTW how can Spain and Italy pay this much money wiith their financial problems?

doctormalisimo
2nd May 2012, 00:55
*yawns*

I do agree with the idea of the Big 5 but that's beyond the point. No, Sweden should not be a member of the Big 5. So what if Melodifestivalen is the most popular NF? So what if Swedish songs are usually the fan favourites? Does being "good at ESC" give you the automatic right to qualify?

And ESC is only a small fraction of what the EBU does. The Swedish broadcaster doesn't contribute as much as the BBC or TVE or any of the other big 5 broadcaster.


Now to Sweden: Sweden is very interested in ESC.
So is everyone else.

We have a very well-produced NF. So does Estonia.
It's probably even better produced than ESC itself. [/QUOTE] How would an internal NF be any of the EBU's concern?

Last year a Swedish song won ESC Azerbaijan did

and Sweden itself became 3rd. Romania came 3rd the year before that.

This year we have 10 acts with swedish help, Sweden included. OK?

Three of the big 5 have asked Sweden for help this year. How many countries have 100% nationally produced songs?

The former EBU boss was a Swede, Svante Stockselius. and the current one is Norwegian

Sweden is also very popular among ESC fans. So is Chiara. Should she be made into a big 5 country?

Sweden is among the countries which is hardest to see leaving the contest. Along with about 30 others...

This thread seems to have been started because you're worrying that Euphoria wont qualify and you'll want someone/thing to blame if it doesnt. Relax, hun, it'll qualify.

AlekS
2nd May 2012, 01:00
What have the population the do with anything? What about this: Sweden with our small population has 10 songs in this contest.
10 songs are more important than 800 mil. viewers? Wow.


Last years winner song was all Sweden except the main singers. Now if UK, Italy, Spain have so big population and are so superior shouldn't they make own songs then?? Why do the big populations needs help from the small population?
Rather particular singers need help from few people of certain nationality (which doesn't really mean anything) :lol:

Nike
2nd May 2012, 01:05
*yawns*

I do agree with the idea of the Big 5 but that's beyond the point. No, Sweden should not be a member of the Big 5. So what if Melodifestivalen is the most popular NF? So what if Swedish songs are usually the fan favourites? Does being "good at ESC" give you the automatic right to qualify?

And ESC is only a small fraction of what the EBU does. The Swedish broadcaster doesn't contribute as much as the BBC or TVE or any of the other big 5 broadcaster.

This thread seems to have been started because you're worrying that Euphoria wont qualify and you'll want someone/thing to blame if it doesnt. Relax, hun, it'll qualify.

It has nothing to do with Loreen qualifying or not. It was an non-Swede who thought Sweden should be a Big 5 member on ESC Today.

So this means the Big 5 maybe aren't they who pay most for ESC? How do we know all those money are used on ESC? maybe Sweden or other actually pay more to Eurovision Song Contest.

You are saying SVT doesn't contribute as much as the Italian broadcaster. But how do you know that the Italian broadcaster(who don't seems to be very interested in ESC) actually pay more money ESC itself.

AlekS
2nd May 2012, 01:07
maybe Sweden or other actually pay more to Eurovision Song Contest.
maybe you'll tell us how much do you pay?

MyHeartIsYours
2nd May 2012, 01:09
Who the hell came up with this crazy idea? :lol:

Matt
2nd May 2012, 01:12
Nike, are you questioning that the current Big 5 are not the biggest financial contributors?

I am trying to follow your thought process and reasoning but I'm not sure where you're going with this.
Germany, UK, France, Spain and Italy pay the most into the EBU, Sweden is by far not even close to that therefore not part of that group.

So I don't understand why Sweden should get an automatic qualification because they are huge fans and have a lot of song writers. This argument seems so baseless. Not trying to be rude but I just don't get it.

Nike
2nd May 2012, 01:13
10 songs are more important than 800 mil. viewers? Wow.


Rather particular singers need help from few people of certain nationality (which doesn't really mean anything) :lol:

800 millions viewers? do you really think the big 5 has that many viewers? Really? What I hear ESC is very unpopular in Italy. A few years ago MF final had as many (or maybe little less) viewers than the UK final. Now I really think you overrate the Big 5 too much.

BTW, ohh certain singers needs help from other countries? What about this singers BROADCASTER? I don't think this singer can pick the songs whatever she/he wants without the broadcaster.

MyHeartIsYours
2nd May 2012, 01:15
Last year Eurovision had like 10 million viewers in the United Kingdom, that's the population of Sweden + another million people on top!

Nike
2nd May 2012, 01:17
maybe you'll tell us how much do you pay?

Maybe you tell me how much Germany, Spain, UK, France and Italy pays? And no I don't mean to EBU, I mean to ESC.

Franco
2nd May 2012, 01:21
Now if UK, Italy, Spain have so big population and are so superior shouldn't they make own songs then?? Why do the big populations needs help from the small population?

I don't know about the rest of them, but in Italy's case it's because "Universal", the music label Nina works for, decided this way. Otherwise Nina would sing "Per sempre" in Baku. :(



So why the ask for help from Sweden then? BTW how can Spain and Italy pay this much money wiith their financial problems?

I suppose that's one of the causes of the bankrupt. Be happy that Sweden is out of that! ;)

MyHeartIsYours
2nd May 2012, 01:21
Italy are part of the Big 5 because they are one of the top 5 funders of the EBU.
If Sweden was to be a Big 5 member, then basically anyone else could claim to be too. Russia would be a good possible member, but you cant have everybody in it.

Nike
2nd May 2012, 01:22
Last year Eurovision had like 10 million viewers in the United Kingdom, that's the population of Sweden + another million people on top!



If viewers and populations are that important then why isn't RUSSIA a big 5 member then?

If UK is that superior why do they need help from Sweden then? I don't understand this.

Nike
2nd May 2012, 01:26
Italy are part of the Big 5 because they are one of the top 5 funders of the EBU.
If Sweden was to be a Big 5 member, then basically anyone else could claim to be too. Russia would be a good possible member, but you cant have everybody in it.

How much of Italy's money goes to ESC?


And that's a LAME excuse: you can't have everybody in it. You see that's why Big 5 shouldn't excist at all. As you said if Sweden was to be a Big 5 member bascially anyone else could claim to be too. The same for UK. What's right have UK to be there instead for Russia?

MyHeartIsYours
2nd May 2012, 01:27
If viewers and populations are that important then why isn't RUSSIA a big 5 member then?

If UK is that superior why do they need help from Sweden then? I don't understand this.
Russia dont pay as much as the Big 5, if they happen to do so in the future however, I will be very happy for them to make a Big 6. But it was you who brought up populations and viewers, not me.

As for us getting help from Sweden? How is that the case??

Franco
2nd May 2012, 01:28
However, I'm sure that Sweden has the means to become one of the big5, if it wants to. If it's still out of that, it must be because the directors of swedish tv think that it's better this way, not because EBU wants Sweden out of the big5.

MyHeartIsYours
2nd May 2012, 01:29
How much of Italy's money goes to ESC?


And that's a LAME excuse: you can't have everybody in it. You see that's why Big 5 shouldn't excist at all. As you said if Sweden was to be a Big 5 member bascially anyone else could claim to be too. The same for UK. What's right have UK to be there instead for Russia?
You misunderstand; it is not funding of ESC but the EBU instead. Each country pays the set ESC fee, but part of the contest is financed directly from the EBU, and the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy and Spain overwhelmingly fund that.
And because the United Kingdom pays more than anybody else into the EBU? Even more than the other Big 5 members?

Nike
2nd May 2012, 01:32
BTW, how much do EBU really need Italy in ESC?? I mean we have been without them in several years.and surprise, ESC SURVIVED. But now they came back and suddenly they are so important that they need to be in big 5??

MyHeartIsYours
2nd May 2012, 01:34
What is your thing against Italy? :lol: I think the contest is much better having them back, and they deserve to be in the Big 5 according to the rules.

Franco
2nd May 2012, 01:36
BTW, how much do EBU really need Italy in ESC?? I mean we have been without them in several years.and surprise, ESC SURVIVED. But now they came back and suddenly they are so important that they need to be in big 5??

AFAIK, Rai (Italy's public broadcaster) was out of ESC but still in EBU, so it still paid its usual fee.

Franco
2nd May 2012, 01:40
Just for the records, I'm not saying that the 'big5' system is fair. For me it just means missing the thrill of semifinals.
I don't understand why did they come up with this system at the beginning.

Nike
2nd May 2012, 01:46
AFAIK, Rai (Italy's public broadcaster) was out of ESC but still in EBU, so it still paid its usual fee.

So they payed for ESC in all those years?? That's the important thing. How much money goes to EUROVISION SONG CONTEST?

Franco
2nd May 2012, 01:53
So they payed for ESC in all those years?? That's the important thing. How much money goes to EUROVISION SONG CONTEST?

No: they paid for EBU. Frankly, I don't know if EBU and ESC have distinct fees or the same one.

DanielLuis
2nd May 2012, 01:55
*yawns*


So is Chiara. Should she be made into a big 5 country?

I loled so hard at that! And the problem is its past midnight!

Franco
2nd May 2012, 02:02
I've just discovered that EBU also grants the rights on european football events. That explains why is Rai so involved into this EBU business and so willing to pay high fees. :D

Sabiondo
2nd May 2012, 04:56
No, because Russia its a first priority of EBU than Sweden for many economic & interest reazons, because both channels - (RTR & Channel One) give many contributions to EBU (Even more than Spain & France, who are EBU members) in order to be EBU BIG member. bersides STV, are the 8th contributor to EBU, just behind of The Netherlands

Nike
2nd May 2012, 06:16
No, because Russia its a first priority of EBU than Sweden for many economic & interest reazons, because both channels - (RTR & Channel One) give many contributions to EBU (Even more than Spain & France, who are EBU members) in order to be EBU BIG member. bersides STV, are the 8th contributor to EBU, just behind of The Netherlands



And still Russia isn't included in the big 5. Why Italy but not Russia. So where goes the limit for the contribute to EBU?? Where goes the limit on how big population you need to get in big 5 members. Sweden contribute much more to ESC than those big 5 members among them the all songs.

Much talk about contribute to EBU but still no one tell me how much do they pay for EUROVISION SONG CONTEST????? As example how don't we know that most of Italy, UK and Spain's money goes to football and not to ESC? How do we know that Sweden actually don't pay more for ESC itself than those countries?

Nike
2nd May 2012, 06:51
It's quite funny that people are saying the big 5 + Russia are so big and contribute most when 4 of them have asked Sweden for help with their songs. Russia last year and UK, Italy and Spain this year.:lol:

rajo
2nd May 2012, 09:13
Oh wow, what a sniffy topic.... :S

yulara
2nd May 2012, 09:45
It's quite funny that people are saying the big 5 + Russia are so big and contribute most when 4 of them have asked Sweden for help with their songs. Russia last year and UK, Italy and Spain this year.:lol:
you really don't want to understand that Big5 has nothing to do with ESC...
it's an EBU thing and I'm sorry for you but SVT and TV4 are small contributors (and small TV company in the european audiovisual landscape) in EBU compared to BBC, France Television, TVE, RAI, ARD and ZDF.

Sean
2nd May 2012, 09:52
Butthurt Swedish fan detected.

The reason there's a Big 5 is because they pay the most money. Fact. Everybody knows that. Whether you like it or not Italy is one of the biggest financial contributors to participation fees (yes, that's the Eurovision Song Contest), even moreso than Spain I believe. Russia has tried to become a member of the Big 6 but it's becoming a point where it'll end up with a ridiculous amount of pre-qualified countries. Besides, when has Russia ever not been in the final? Same with Sweden, you missed out once in about 50 years so I'm not sure what automatic qualification would actually bring to you beneficially.

Also, another reason why countries such as the UK, France and Germany are in the final is because it would be a massive loss for the contest's popularity if one or more of them failed to qualify to the final. If one of these countries didn't qualify then the viewership in these countries (who all have very high populations) would decrease massively, costing the EBU a fair bit of money and increasing the likelihood of a lower viewership over the years.

You've said yourself that ESC is very popular in Sweden, which is a good thing. It means regardless of what happens loyal fans will tune in to the final. It's not like that in these countries, and it's harder for a bigger percentage of the population to take interest, especially if we didn't even had a song.

I can see why you think we should go through the semis, and I agree with you. We'd probably try harder. But it's too much of a financial risk for the EBU to take. It's a business at the end of the day, and very few businesses would run with a massive gamble like that :p

Interrail
2nd May 2012, 11:09
I don't think Sweden should be a member of big5. Not because they can't afford it, but I don't really see benefits of being big5. Final spot every year isn't benefit if song is bad and If song is good Sweden will qualify without problems.

Jopi
2nd May 2012, 12:24
Noo:)

FilipFromSweden
2nd May 2012, 12:33
I think Sweden should be in the big 5/6. Because without Sweden Eurovision would not have been Eurovision. For an example there are always many, many songs that has something to do with Sweden. We also help alot with stageworkers and coreography. Even the Superbowl Madonna show was made by swedes! The big 5 includes the biggest countrys in Europe and Sweden is not one of the biggest. But i think that Sweden deserves it. Dough i think NO ONE should be automaticly be qualifed to the final. Everyone accept the hosting country should have to qualify through a semifinal. It would have been fun because then it would be like 21 countrys in each semifinal and the pressure would be bigger.

FilipFromSweden
2nd May 2012, 12:40
*yawns*

I do agree with the idea of the Big 5 but that's beyond the point. No, Sweden should not be a member of the Big 5. So what if Melodifestivalen is the most popular NF? So what if Swedish songs are usually the fan favourites? Does being "good at ESC" give you the automatic right to qualify?

And ESC is only a small fraction of what the EBU does. The Swedish broadcaster doesn't contribute as much as the BBC or TVE or any of the other big 5 broadcaster.


So is everyone else.
So does Estonia.
It's probably even better produced than ESC itself. How would an internal NF be any of the EBU's concern?
Azerbaijan did
Romania came 3rd the year before that.
OK?
How many countries have 100% nationally produced songs?
and the current one is Norwegian
So is Chiara. Should she be made into a big 5 country?
Along with about 30 others...

This thread seems to have been started because you're worrying that Euphoria wont qualify and you'll want someone/thing to blame if it doesnt. Relax, hun, it'll qualify.[/QUOTE]
Wow, you are very bitter. I would like to say that Italy does not deserve the big 5. I think Russia, Ireland or Sweden deserves it.

Sabiondo
2nd May 2012, 13:19
And still Russia isn't included in the big 5. Why Italy but not Russia. So where goes the limit for the contribute to EBU?? Where goes the limit on how big population you need to get in big 5 members. Sweden contribute much more to ESC than those big 5 members among them the all songs.

Because thee EBU was promiced that if Italy backs to ESC, the RAI will be included in the BIG 5 at ESC, but as Russia don't had much time as member in the EBU (Only 18 years) insurance shall include the Russia as BIG 6, when they had 30 years of membership (And if don't fall from any Semi-final of Eurovision). Sweden bouquet is not comparable to that of the Russians had, despite having a proper festival that everyone talks & follow about it every year, and The Netherlands also pay almost the same as the Russians to cover the event each year, so..:lol:

FallenAngelII
2nd May 2012, 13:59
I don't want Sweden to be a member of the Big 5. Because that means that we'll get 1 less opportunity to perform our entry at Eurovision. If our entry is Top 5 material, it will pass the semi-final. If it fails to pass the semi-final, it wouldn't have done well in the final, anyway.

Italy supposedly is a member of the Big 5 because it's among the 5 countries which give the most money to the EBU, not just for Eurovision but in general.

Sabiondo
2nd May 2012, 14:29
If I remember correctly, the big 5 members pay most money to EBU and that's why they are already qualified to final. But why should Italy pay that much money when they have been absence in many many years and have very low interest in ESC? Do they pay that much money because they want to be a BIG 5 member? Or do they pay much money at all? Are they a Big 5 member because EBU want them in the contest and Italy made that ultimatum? Why are Italy suddenly a big 5 member after have been absence in many years?

Because the RAI was mad many contributions & was paid much money to EBU before, the BIG rule was established, but as RAI wasn't very interesed to return, the EBU began to convince the RAI to return and take part in the event, at the request of many Eurofans for more than 10 years. Them with the German victory at ESC 2010, finally make Italy reazons for come back :)


Now to Sweden: Sweden is very interested in ESC. We have a very well-produced NF. It's probably even better produced than ESC itself. Sweden's dominance in ESC is being bigger and bigger. Last year a Swedish song won ESC and Sweden itself became 3rd. This year we have 10 acts with swedish help, Sweden included. Three of the big 5 have asked Sweden for help this year. The former EBU boss was a Swede, Svante Stockselius. Sweden is also very popular among ESC fans. Sweden is among the countries which is hardest to see leaving the contest.

But still not enough for Sweden to be part of the BIG 5, at least they should put much more money in the coffers of the EBU, and over have a population of at least 20 million to be given the full membership.


Speaking about music and songs Sweden is more dominant than all the big 5. should Sweden be a member of big 5?

If its about music, them Sweden deveserd to be in the BIG 5 without dobuts :D but the Economic reasons are more important than the music... :lol:

Franco
2nd May 2012, 14:50
It's quite funny that people are saying the big 5 + Russia are so big and contribute most when 4 of them have asked Sweden for help with their songs. Russia last year and UK, Italy and Spain this year.:lol:

Again, Italy didn't ask for help. Nina Zilli has been chosen in Sanremo because of her Sanremo song (which had an italian author). It looked like she was going to sing "Per sempre" in Baku and just a few days before the deadline the Nina's music label (which is UK-based) chose to ditch it for "L'amore è femmina", which was already in her album and not just for Eurovision.

A-lister
2nd May 2012, 15:21
Epic fail !!

Sweden isn't big country..

Epic fail !! A Eurovision fan who don't understand the system.

Russia and Turkey are bigger than most "big" countries (well Russia is bigger than all) and it's not a "big" country anyways, it's all about contribution, not just how big you are.

FilipFromSweden
2nd May 2012, 19:36
Again, Italy didn't ask for help. Nina Zilli has been chosen in Sanremo because of her Sanremo song (which had an italian author). It looked like she was going to sing "Per sempre" in Baku and just a few days before the deadline the Nina's music label (which is UK-based) chose to ditch it for "L'amore è femmina", which was already in her album and not just for Eurovision.

Is not that against Eurovision-rules?

rajo
2nd May 2012, 19:40
Sweden must never ever enter BIG 5.....

Swedish reactions are priceless when they don't qualify :D

Franco
2nd May 2012, 19:43
Is not that against Eurovision-rules?

Apparently it's not.

GodSaveTheQueen
2nd May 2012, 23:22
Epic fail !! A Eurovision fan who don't understand the system.

Russia and Turkey are bigger than most "big" countries (well Russia is bigger than all) and it's not a "big" country anyways, it's all about contribution, not just how big you are.

God save the Sweden .d .d .d

CANyouLoveMeBack
3rd May 2012, 11:58
^^ God can do nothing, but I can save that god :D he is so small but Turkey is one of biggest countries yes. But Russia is the biggest one. Also Italy go back home we don't need you.

FilipFromSweden
3rd May 2012, 12:30
Turkey is not one of the biggest country? Its called.. kalkon..

GodSaveTheQueen
3rd May 2012, 13:47
Turkey is not one of the biggest country? Its called.. kalkon..

Kalkon??? Shoo

Matt
3rd May 2012, 19:09
Also Italy go back home we don't need you. [/B]


Speak for yourself! Why is Italy becoming a target all of the sudden? They didn't do anything but deciding it's time to return to the contest.

EurovisionSmile
3rd May 2012, 20:17
No, no more BIG countries, 5 are enough for the reasons that have been mentioned.

Mozz
4th May 2012, 18:41
From a financial perpective, I think it would be good for the EBU's wallet if Sweden or another country that can and is willing to pay, joins the Big ones.
Let them pay. Let them pay for their secure spot in the finals (as if they have to sweat and fight for it every year :?). I bet Swedish money is more than welcome to the EBU.

This is purely from a financial point of view.

Franco
4th May 2012, 18:54
I bet Swedish money is more than welcome to the EBU.


That's what I think, too. I don't believe EBU would ever say "Go away, Sweden (or whatever country)! We don't want your money." :lol:
And, since Sweden has always been a sure finalist anyway, the swedish tv director is smart enough to save that extra money.

Vague
7th May 2012, 17:42
big 5 is not democracy. non should qualify directly

Nike
8th May 2012, 07:13
Speak for yourself! Why is Italy becoming a target all of the sudden? They didn't do anything but deciding it's time to return to the contest.

....and they suddenly is one of the "big 5". After has been abscene in many years. I think some people think this is unfair.

Matt
8th May 2012, 07:17
....and they suddenly is one of the "big 5". After has been abscene in many years. I think some people think this is unfair.


But it was explained why that is. They are one of the biggest financial contributors to the EBU along with Germany, France, UK & Spain. That's why. I don't understand why there is still confusion about that part.

Nike
8th May 2012, 07:18
you really don't want to understand that Big5 has nothing to do with ESC...
it's an EBU thing and I'm sorry for you but SVT and TV4 are small contributors (and small TV company in the european audiovisual landscape) in EBU compared to BBC, France Television, TVE, RAI, ARD and ZDF.


Yes I know that the big 5 has NOTHING to with ESC. So why are they qualified directly to the final????? It's pity that great songs misses the final and often terrible songs from the "Big 5" are there!! I would say Sweden contribute more to ESC itself than those "big 5".

Nike
8th May 2012, 07:23
But it was explained why that is. They are one of the biggest financial contributors to the EBU along with Germany, France, UK & Spain. That's why. I don't understand why there is still confusion about that part.

But as one person here has pointed out. This has nothing to do with ESC itself. So why are they qualified to final?

Franco
8th May 2012, 07:37
It's pity that great songs misses the final and often terrible songs from the "Big 5" are there!! I would say Sweden contribute more to ESC itself than those "big 5".

I may agree that it's unfair and there is no guarantee that the big5 will always send final-worthy songs. But again, it seems to me that you are not asking for this unfairness to stop, but for Sweden to be part of it. :lol:



But as one person here has pointed out. This has nothing to do with ESC itself. So why are they qualified to final?

:confused: How can you say that EBU has nothing to do with ESC?

No Name
8th May 2012, 08:19
No, big-5 shouldn't be expanded to include Sweden (nor any other country for that matter).

Why miss the fun of competing in the semi-final by paying big money for your spot in the final instead of earning your right to be in that final through hard work? Don't quite understand why this is even up for discussion since being pre-qualified has always seemed more of a curse than a blessing.

From the bottom of my heart, I'd rather see my own country miss out on the final once in a while than knowing that our qualification had been bought. It'd be such an empty feeling. As heartbreaking and frustrating it may feel to miss out a final it is totally overshadowed by the fantastic feeling of seeing your country getting through. ESC is all about feelings and shouldn't be come down to having the biggest wallet.

Farahim
8th May 2012, 13:32
Sweden is always in the final, so i don't see any sense to become a member of big 5 or 6. why? Sweden wants to pay more money?

FallenAngelII
8th May 2012, 19:15
Yes I know that the big 5 has NOTHING to with ESC. So why are they qualified directly to the final????? It's pity that great songs misses the final and often terrible songs from the "Big 5" are there!! I would say Sweden contribute more to ESC itself than those "big 5".
If these allegedly great songs didn't make the final, they certainly wouldn't have done well had they been pre-qualified either.

Being pre-qualified is actually kind of a handicap nowadays now that the contest has grown so large. Being pre-qualified means that you only get to perform your entry once in front of the general populus (you also get a small portion of your promo/music video played during the semi-finals, but that just doesn't compare to performing in the semi-finals).

People treat making the final like some kind of Holy Grail. If you're in the final, you're golden. If you don't make the final, you failed horribly. If you're pre-qualified to the final, you've got an unfair advantage.

No, that's stupid thinking. If you make the final, you make the final. It actually matters whether you got 1st to 3rd when the points were tallied in the semi-final or whether you were the 8th to 10th qualifier, with the 10th qualifier narrowly beating 11th place with 1 point. How well you score in the final also matters. There's really not much of a difference between barely missing the final and getting 25th in the final. Being pre-qualified is a handicap, as I've already mentioned.

The one thing being qualified allows you to do that not being pre-qualified does is to perform on final night, in front of the biggest audience on the globe. That's it. From a commercial stand point, that's possibly a huge deal if you do well. From a Eurovision standpoint, it's pretty inconsequential if you still score in the Bottom 5.

I don't want Sweden to be pre-qualified. The 1 time we missed the final, as well as the 1 time we were saved by the jury vote back when the 10th qualifier was decided by the jury, we sent shitty entries I knew wouldn't do well and which I actively campaigned against. I wated Sweden to miss the final back in 2010 so we'd never send something as asinine as Anna Bergendahl singing a shitty entry like "This Is My Life" to Eurovision again, which brings me to my final point: Being pre-qualified can make you complacent.

During the majority of the naughts, the Big 4 kept sending shitty entries. Either the songs were shitty, the singing was shitty, the staging was shitty or all of the above. Already being pre-qualified, they didn't feel the need to work hard. Years of Eurovision neglect and complacency came to a head when the Big 4 scored 4 out of 5 Bottom 5 placements (19-23rd, with Ireland dead last at number 24) at the 2007 contest.

If I were Christer Björkman, I wouldn't accept membership into a Big 6 formation if they paid me a million bucks.

MyHeartIsYours
8th May 2012, 19:31
During the majority of the naughts, the Big 4 kept sending shitty entries. Either the songs were shitty, the singing was shitty, the staging was shitty or all of the above. Already being pre-qualified, they didn't feel the need to work hard. Years of Eurovision neglect and complacency came to a head when the Big 4 scored 4 out of 5 Bottom 5 placements (19-23rd, with Ireland dead last at number 24) at the 2007 contest.
This was voting corruption, not our fault.

I support Big 6, but I think it should be Russia.

FallenAngelII
8th May 2012, 20:56
This was voting corruption, not our fault.

I support Big 6, but I think it should be Russia.
Sure, blame "voting corruption" (what, every single nation in the contest decided to simply not vote for the Big 4 out of spite/corruption?). Tell me, were the Big 4 themselves a part of this alleged corruption?

* Spain Nul Pointed France and the UK (they gave 5 to Germany).
* Germany Nul Pointed every other Big 4 country.
* France gave 6 points to Pain and Nul Points to the UK and Germany.
* The UK Nul Pointed every other Big 4 country except Germany, who they gave 1 point.

The Big 4 2007 songs were:
* Spain - D'NASH - "I Love You Mi Vida" - An aging boy-band of questionable attractiveness who couldn't hold a tune.
* France - Les Fatal Picards - "L'amour à la française" - A strange joke entry which failed to grasp viewer support. Overshadowed by miles by "Dancing Lasha Tumbai", the most successful joke entry in the history of the contest. But even on its own, "L'amour à la française" was pretty bleak.
* Germany - Roger Cicero - "Frauen regier'n die Welt" - This should've done better. But it was in German.
* The United Kingdom - Scooch - "Flying the Flag (For You)" - 4 people who couldn't sing dressed up as flight attendants spewing double entendres all over the place. Those who don't speak English very well didn't get the jokes. Those who got the jokes were probably just annoyed.

No, voting corruption wasn't what sank those entries. Bad quality was. Especially considering that just the year before (2006), Germany had managed to get 14th (Texas Lightning - "No No Never"). I guess Europe forgot to be corrupt that year.

Margerita86
8th May 2012, 22:05
Your forgetting something regarding the UK in 2007. They were right behind Verka, nobody would have had a chance to do well there. Everyone else would have been forgotten if they were right after him...

Dessi
8th May 2012, 22:16
Should Sweden be a member of the "big 5"?

NO!!!

FallenAngelII
8th May 2012, 23:37
Your forgetting something regarding the UK in 2007. They were right behind Verka, nobody would have had a chance to do well there. Everyone else would have been forgotten if they were right after him...
Good point. A crappy joke entry right on the heels of "Dancing Lasha Tumbai". The U.K. never stood a chance that year, but with that particular draw, their place in the Bottom 5 was sealed.

MyHeartIsYours
8th May 2012, 23:56
No, voting corruption wasn't what sank those entries. Bad quality was. Especially considering that just the year before (2006), Germany had managed to get 14th (Texas Lightning - "No No Never"). I guess Europe forgot to be corrupt that year.
Nice analysis there, but the fact that the Big 4 all finished at the bottom, not a single Western European country qualified from the Semi-Finals, a member of the Balkan block won, and members of the ex-Soviet block came 2nd and 3rd provides unquestionable evidence that the voting was totally corrupt in 2007.

Matt
9th May 2012, 01:46
But as one person here has pointed out. This has nothing to do with ESC itself. So why are they qualified to final?

ESC has nothing to do with the EBU?? What are you talking about?? The Big 5 are the biggest financial contributors to the EBU without which the production of the Eurovision Song Contest would not be possible.

FallenAngelII
9th May 2012, 02:49
Nice analysis there, but the fact that the Big 4 all finished at the bottom, not a single Western European country qualified from the Semi-Finals, a member of the Balkan block won, and members of the ex-Soviet block came 2nd and 3rd provides unquestionable evidence that the voting was totally corrupt in 2007.
Or maybe it was just the year when the West sent only bad entries whereas the East sent a lot of good entries? Or did Europe magically forget to be all corrupt the years preceding 2007 and the years since? Do the Easten countries and their diaspora get together before each ESC to determine just how corrupt their voting is going to be? Do they sometimes go "Eh, I guess we'll just not be corrupt at all this year" and allow a Western country to win?

2007 is easily explained. Serbia and Russia sent in great entries. Both were favourites to in for weeks if not months prior to the contest. Meanwhile, "Dancing Lasha Tumbai" was insanely popular. Every single country in he contest but a single one (Albania) voted for it. Serbia, Ukraine and Russia all scored points from all over Europe. Meanwhile, the U.K. sent crap, a joke entry that came right after "Dancing Lasha Tumba". France also sent a joke entry that was just too weird for the populus and Ireland sent a band with a songstress whose voice hurt people's ears. It's no wonder they all ended up Bottom 3.

Yoni
9th May 2012, 14:45
Plus let's not forget that all of the big 5 reached top 10 in the last 3 years in televoting (2009 - UK, 2010 - Germany & France, 2011 - UK & Germany), or were close to it (2010 - Spain 12th, 2011 - Italy 11th)

MyHeartIsYours
9th May 2012, 14:59
Or maybe it was just the year when the West sent only bad entries whereas the East sent a lot of good entries? Or did Europe magically forget to be all corrupt the years preceding 2007 and the years since? Do the Easten countries and their diaspora get together before each ESC to determine just how corrupt their voting is going to be? Do they sometimes go "Eh, I guess we'll just not be corrupt at all this year" and allow a Western country to win?
All a great coincidence that, isnt it!


2007 is easily explained. Serbia and Russia sent in great entries. Both were favourites to in for weeks if not months prior to the contest. Meanwhile, "Dancing Lasha Tumbai" was insanely popular. Every single country in he contest but a single one (Albania) voted for it. Serbia, Ukraine and Russia all scored points from all over Europe. Meanwhile, the U.K. sent crap, a joke entry that came right after "Dancing Lasha Tumba". France also sent a joke entry that was just too weird for the populus and Ireland sent a band with a songstress whose voice hurt people's ears. It's no wonder they all ended up Bottom 3.
All very subjective. I thought Molitva was sh*t, my country never voted for it xshrug.

Franco
9th May 2012, 17:42
2007 is easily explained. Serbia and Russia sent in great entries. Both were favourites to in for weeks if not months prior to the contest. Meanwhile, "Dancing Lasha Tumbai" was insanely popular. Every single country in he contest but a single one (Albania) voted for it.

Oh, my! I've just seen Ukraine 2007 entry on youtube, and what I have seen cannot be unseen. :o
If that thing got 2nd place, Valentina rightfully deserves the 1st place this year. xcheer

Margerita86
9th May 2012, 21:43
Oh, my! I've just seen Ukraine 2007 entry on youtube, and what I have seen cannot be unseen. :o

Understand what I mean when I said that ALL entrants would have been forgotten if they were right after that ;)
Valentina doesn't have the "specialness" that Verka had so it probably won't do well.

Franco
9th May 2012, 22:05
Understand what I mean when I said that ALL entrants would have been forgotten if they were right after that ;)


I understand. :?

FallenAngelII
10th May 2012, 14:04
All a great coincidence that, isnt it!
It happens. There have been years in recent memory where 2 out of 3 Top 3 countries were "Western" while 2 or 3 out of the Bottom 3 were "Eastern". Corruption? Obviously, according to you.


All very subjective. I thought Molitva was sh*t, my country never voted for it xshrug.
And the United Kingdom has been such a paragon of high quality music in recent years!

2005 - Javine - "Touch My Fire" - Can only be described as soft core porn.
Choice Porn Dialogue: "Are you easy come and easy go whoaa/Come on let the music grab ya/From your head to your toes/No need to rush/Take it nice and slow feel that beat"

2006 - Daz Sampson - "Teenage Life" - A 31-32 yearold rapper rapping about how difficult it is to be a teenager while background singers who a trying to look like middle shool students cavort on school benches.
Choice Pedophile Ramblingt: "Dwelling on the past, from back when i was young/Thinking of my school days and trying to write this song/Classroom schemes and dreams/Man they couldn't save me."

2007 - Scooch - "Flying the Flag (For You)" - 4 people in steward uniforms throwing as many double entendres our way as they possibly can while 2 hidden singers try to compensate for the 4 main singers' lack of vocal talent. I believe this directly lead to the new rule that states that no singers may be hidden.
Choice Double Entendre: "Would you like something to suck on?"

2008 - Andy Abraham - "Even If" - Some kind of dated disco-song. Nobody remembers anything about it.
Choice... What Was I Talking About (?): What, the UK sent a song this year?

2010 - Josh Dubovie - "That Sounds Good to Me" - Poor kid couldn't carry a tune if his life so depended on it and he got stuck with something that would've been dated even back in the 70's. I was sure it was going to get Nul Points.
Choice Excerpt: "So if you bring the sunshine/I'll bring the good times/Just add your laughter/It's happy-ever-after/I don't know about you but that sounds good to me."

Clearly, the musica tastes of United Kingdom voters is impeccable and if they snub an Eurovision entry, that entry must be trash!

LakZaNokte
10th May 2012, 14:47
Oh, my! I've just seen Ukraine 2007 entry on youtube, and what I have seen cannot be unseen. :o
If that thing got 2nd place, Valentina rightfully deserves the 1st place this year. xcheer
that thing is one of the best esc entries ever. seriously, ever.
sorry but Valentina is not even close. the joke is there but the song isn't. Verka had both. :D

Franco
10th May 2012, 17:19
that thing is one of the best esc entries ever. seriously, ever.
sorry but Valentina is not even close. the joke is there but the song isn't. Verka had both. :D

I beg to differ. Valentina trolls on so many levels, whereas Verka just trolls with an in-your-face kitsch performance.

Mozz
10th May 2012, 17:27
I beg to differ. Valentina trolls on so many levels, whereas Verka just trolls with an in-your-face kitsch performance.

And of course I have to agree with Franco 100% :D

Valentina is so going to overshadow the rest of semi 1. Even 2 days later in semi 2 people will still be talking about San Marino. Mark my words :mrgreen:

FallenAngelII
11th May 2012, 01:08
I beg to differ. Valentina trolls on so many levels, whereas Verka just trolls with an in-your-face kitsch performance.
It depends on how it's all staged. If they have a giant laptop on the stage while the background singers are dressed as different social media (a book around your face, a blue bird, etc.), then the performance might become legendary.

MyHeartIsYours
11th May 2012, 22:22
It happens. There have been years in recent memory where 2 out of 3 Top 3 countries were "Western" while 2 or 3 out of the Bottom 3 were "Eastern". Corruption? Obviously, according to you.
Come off it! Stop denying the undeniable! We're not just talking about who finished at the top of the final, but also about who finished at the bottom, who qualified from the Semi, etc.


And the United Kingdom has been such a paragon of high quality music in recent years!
Excuse me. You were talking about 'great, popular entries', well Im telling you that they were not great and popular entries by any standards according to everybody, and the fact that the winner didnt even manage to get a single point from one of the major Eurovision countries is damning proof of this!


2005 - Javine - "Touch My Fire" - Can only be described as soft core porn.
Choice Porn Dialogue: "Are you easy come and easy go whoaa/Come on let the music grab ya/From your head to your toes/No need to rush/Take it nice and slow feel that beat"
It was a fun routine and song, with a great beat. Javine also sang brilliantly. Hardly porn at all. Deserved at least top 10.


2006 - Daz Sampson - "Teenage Life" - A 31-32 yearold rapper rapping about how difficult it is to be a teenager while background singers who a trying to look like middle shool students cavort on school benches.
Choice Pedophile Ramblingt: "Dwelling on the past, from back when i was young/Thinking of my school days and trying to write this song/Classroom schemes and dreams/Man they couldn't save me."
What's wrong with his age? This was also a great track, with a catchy chorus, very popular in the hall. Deserved around 10th, maybe just a bit under.


2007 - Scooch - "Flying the Flag (For You)" - 4 people in steward uniforms throwing as many double entendres our way as they possibly can while 2 hidden singers try to compensate for the 4 main singers' lack of vocal talent. I believe this directly lead to the new rule that states that no singers may be hidden.
Choice Double Entendre: "Would you like something to suck on?"
This was everything a Eurovision entry should be, absolutely perfect. As for hidden singers, what you on about?! They were quite clearly present on the stage LOL. And innuendo is AWESOME! :lol: This year was the year the British viewers lost patience with Eurovision, and why the BBC was so determined to get the Juries in. Before 2007, it was sort of a laughing matter how nobody voted for us, then it changed. Deserved to win imo, but top 5 would have also been fine. Certainly NOT second last - oh and who was on either side of us? France and Ireland - oh how surprising. Not corrupt at all! :roll:


2008 - Andy Abraham - "Even If" - Some kind of dated disco-song. Nobody remembers anything about it.
Choice... What Was I Talking About (?): What, the UK sent a song this year?
Yep, it was utter sh*t. I expected to come last that year, we deserved to come last too.


2010 - Josh Dubovie - "That Sounds Good to Me" - Poor kid couldn't carry a tune if his life so depended on it and he got stuck with something that would've been dated even back in the 70's. I was sure it was going to get Nul Points.
Choice Excerpt: "So if you bring the sunshine/I'll bring the good times/Just add your laughter/It's happy-ever-after/I don't know about you but that sounds good to me."
Josh was a very good singer who struggled on a few notes at the end, and a representative to be truly proud of. In any case, it's sorta rich to go on about our singer not being able to sing, whilst simultaneously defending Verka and Loreen :lol:. It wasnt exactly the best entry we've ever sent, nor was it anywhere near the top quality that year, but last was very undeserving. 10th-19th we should have been. And what is wrong about happy lyrics anyway?

Hegepege
11th May 2012, 23:55
Sweden's dominance in ESC is being bigger and bigger. Last year a Swedish song won ESC and Sweden itself became 3rd. This year we have 10 acts with swedish help, Sweden included. Three of the big 5 have asked Sweden for help this year. The former EBU boss was a Swede, Svante Stockselius. Sweden is also very popular among ESC fans. Sweden is among the countries which is hardest to see leaving the contest.

Speaking about music and songs Sweden is more dominant than all the big 5. should Sweden be a member of big 5?

You say it as if it's a good thing? In my opinion you're describing everything that has gone wrong with the competition the last few years. The swedish "help" makes the entries sound more and more alike, it's taking away originality, creativity and eventually each nations feeling of having chosen a song that represent them as a country and instead they have been choosing the song they think will harvest most points from Europe. I thing EBU needs to do something to prevent this trend to develop even further, otherwise we will all be like Italy and loose interest.
I really applaud countries like Moldova, Montenegro, Iceland and even Russia to have the guts to send something that can represent the cultural diversity of their countries in an exellent and entertaining way. It may not be the winning songs, but at least they are genuine. Those countries are what makes the competition worth watching, not the countries with immediate but forgettable crowd-pleasers that are a swedish speciality.
So no, Sweden should not be in the "big 5".

Yoni
12th May 2012, 10:14
Well MYIY, that's your opinion on the song, and imo accusing of a voting fraud is just a whiny attitude about the results (not that It doesn't happen here :lol:)

LalehForWD
12th May 2012, 13:06
Please, stop bumping this thread, it's embarrassing enough that it was ever started in the first place xoscar:mrgreen::lol:!

Nike
12th May 2012, 13:07
Plus let's not forget that all of the big 5 reached top 10 in the last 3 years in televoting (2009 - UK, 2010 - Germany & France, 2011 - UK & Germany), or were close to it (2010 - Spain 12th, 2011 - Italy 11th)


2009: Spain 23rd and Germany 20th.
2010: UK 25th
2011: Spain 23rd

These are the lowest placements for the Big 5 the latest year. Every year it's at least one Big 5 at the the bottom of the result list... Why are they in the final over better entries which didn't qualify from the final? 2010, Sweden missed the final with just few points... Why deserved that crap from UK which ended 25th in final to be in the final over Sweden? UNFAIR!!! :mad:

Yoni
12th May 2012, 13:18
2009: Spain 23rd and Germany 20th.
2010: UK 25th
2011: Spain 23rd

These are the lowest placements for the Big 5 the latest year. Every year it's at least one Big 5 at the the bottom of the result list... Why are they in the final over better entries which didn't qualify from the final? 2010, Sweden missed the final with just few points... Why deserved that crap from UK which ended 25th in final to be in the final over Sweden? UNFAIR!!! :mad:

Well of course it is very very very likely that if UK were to be in any semi in 2010 it wouldn't qualify. :P

LalehForWD
12th May 2012, 13:32
It is kind of practical to have a sure bottom 5 every year, though :lol:.

MyHeartIsYours
12th May 2012, 15:59
These are the lowest placements for the Big 5 the latest year. Every year it's at least one Big 5 at the the bottom of the result list... Why are they in the final over better entries which didn't qualify from the final? 2010, Sweden missed the final with just few points... Why deserved that crap from UK which ended 25th in final to be in the final over Sweden? UNFAIR!!! :mad:
Because my country (and hence the people of the UK) pay more than Swedes do into the EBU and Eurovision?

Nike
12th May 2012, 17:02
Because my country (and hence the people of the UK) pay more than Swedes do into the EBU and Eurovision?

Ohh yeah so because pay more money a crap song deserves to be in final ahead of better songs?? This has nothing to do with music or ESC at all. It's all about MONEY then!

BTW is it anyone who said to UK that they NEED to pay more money?? If not then it's their own choice to do that.

MyHeartIsYours
12th May 2012, 17:07
Yeah? If we didnt pay that Eurovision couldnt be held at all? So then you wouldnt have to worry about qualifying or not qualifying, cuz there'd be no participants at all :D.

Nike
12th May 2012, 17:14
Yeah? If we didnt pay that Eurovision couldnt be held at all? So then you wouldnt have to worry about qualifying or not qualifying, cuz there'd be no participants at all :D.

Really, so it's UK who pay the whole ESC in Baku?? I don't think so. How do you know UK pay most to ESC at all. How do you know that most of UK money to EBU don't go to football ect?

Yeah right, EBU surely has told BBC: YOU NEED TO PAY MUCH MONEY OR ELSE THE ESC WILL NOT EXIST AT ALL?? As a person already pointed out: the UK money go to EBU not ESC itself.

MyHeartIsYours
12th May 2012, 17:19
Really, so it's UK who pay the whole ESC in Baku?? I don't think so. How do you know UK pay most to ESC at all. How do you know that most of UK money to EBU don't go to football ect?

Yeah right, EBU surely has told BBC: YOU NEED TO PAY MUCH MONEY OR ELSE THE ESC WILL NOT EXIST AT ALL?? As a person already pointed out: the UK money go to EBU not ESC itself.
Nah not pay for it all, but we pay more than anybody else. And if it wasnt for the Big countries, Eurovision couldnt take place at all, so like I said there'd be no moaning about you not qualifying because there wouldnt even be a contest!
We deserve to pre-qualify.

Nike
12th May 2012, 17:35
Nah not pay for it all, but we pay more than anybody else. And if it wasnt for the Big countries, Eurovision couldnt take place at all, so like I said there'd be no moaning about you not qualifying because there wouldnt even be a contest!
We deserve to pre-qualify.

Even with a crap song?? Sorry you don't deserves to pre-qualify. Sorry UK don't pay for the whole ESC. They pay for EBU. BIG DIFFERENCE!

MyHeartIsYours
12th May 2012, 17:38
It's only fair that we do. And pretty sure that Eurovision is a brand of the EBU??!

Franco
12th May 2012, 18:28
It's all about MONEY then!


It took 11 pages, but at last we nailed it. :mrgreen:

swedish
13th May 2012, 22:32
Do a country with 1 million habitants need to pay as much as a country with 100 million habitants?

Matt
13th May 2012, 23:27
Even with a crap song?? Sorry you don't deserves to pre-qualify. Sorry UK don't pay for the whole ESC. They pay for EBU. BIG DIFFERENCE!

I think you're branching out into a separate issue. You seem to dislike the Big 5 idea in general which is totally understandable.

The question was if Sweden should be part of the big 5 and I think it was explained on multiple occasions that the Big 5 are by far the biggest EBU contributors and ESC belongs and is funded by the EBU therefore they are prequalified. I would have to look for that article but I remember reading that about 40% of the money comes from those countries.

Sweden does not financially contribute as much as those countries, therefore has to go through the Semis. The fact that they have a lot of song writers has no impact and a big music market in general.

FallenAngelII
14th May 2012, 00:33
Come off it! Stop denying the undeniable!
I stopped reading right here (except for the below since it caught my eye when deleting the rest of your post).


Josh [Dubovie, 2010 UK artist] was a very good singer...
According to no one but you.



These are the lowest placements for the Big 5 the latest year. Every year it's at least one Big 5 at the the bottom of the result list... Why are they in the final over better entries which didn't qualify from the final? 2010, Sweden missed the final with just few points... Why deserved that crap from UK which ended 25th in final to be in the final over Sweden? UNFAIR!!! :mad:
And entry that was 11th in a semi-final would end up in the Bottom 5 in the final anyway. So who cares if Sweden would've made the final had the Big 4 not automatically qualified for it? Our entry was pure **** that year and it would've ended up Bottom 5 if it'd made the final.

People treat qualifying for the final like it means your entry's good. No, it can still be ****. Just less shitty than the entries that got less points than it. But at the end of the day, it's still ****.


Y
I really applaud countries like Moldova, Montenegro, Iceland and even Russia to have the guts to send something that can represent the cultural diversity of their countries in an exellent and entertaining way.
How does "Euro Neuro" represent Montenegrin musical culture?!

Joyride
16th May 2012, 18:01
...should Sweden be a member of big 5?

Yes, I would appreciate it! Sweden has always shown interest and if one asked me to name a country that I undoubtedly connect with the ESC I would always say "Sweden". So why not? I'm surprised that Sweden didn't ask for it yet - or did they already?

Spencre
16th May 2012, 22:15
I don't undestand why people think that sweden should enter in big 5!
BIG 5 doesn't deal with talent, but money!!!
Okay Sweden's participant are all talented each year, but being part of big 5 doesn't mean the participant of these 5 countries are talented.


So why should Sweden be a member of big 5 if it's not talk about talent?

Stargazer
16th May 2012, 23:12
I don't think anyone should be a member of the Big 5, regardless of how much money one pours into the company. For a contest to be as fair and square as possible, no one should be given the red carpet treatment except for the previous year's winning country.

And yeah, you might argue that it's better for your song to be heard twice than only once (so us semi-finalists are better off), but honestly I'd rather be in the final than not at all. So I don't think it's fair that some countries get the golden ticket automatically ever year.

musicfan
19th May 2012, 12:54
I'm sure broadcasters that pay thousands of pounds to the contest would think twice about taking part if they didn't make the final, and then you wouldn't have a contest at all. Maybe we need to change the name 'Big 5' to something else so people don't get jealous.

FallenAngelII
19th May 2012, 13:03
I'm sure broadcasters that pay thousands of pounds to the contest would think twice about taking part if they didn't make the final, and then you wouldn't have a contest at all. Maybe we need to change the name 'Big 5' to something else so people don't get jealous.
You do realize that for the years when Italy was absent from the contest, they were still a member and one of the 5 highest paying members of the EBU, right? They weren't even in the contest! The whole Big 5 concept should be done away with. The only country which should be pre-qualified should be the host country as it'd just be ridiculous to have to host the contest, yet not be in the final.

Being part of the Big 5 just makes you complacent. For years, the Big 4 sent in shitty entries that did really, really badly but they didn't really care since they were pre-qualified for the final, anyway. It's not 'til recently that the Big 4 finally got their heads out of their behinds and started making an effort (which lead to the Big 4 doing really well in the contest, with Germany going from constant Bottom 5 showings to winning the contest in 2010).

musicfan
19th May 2012, 13:22
I thought Lena's first song was nothing special. But Virginie Pouchain's song in 2006 I really liked.

stroop
19th May 2012, 15:40
Is it not odd that Italy is one of the 'big-paying' countries when you look at their country's financial state at the moment? :?

MyHeartIsYours
19th May 2012, 15:53
^ You could say that for any of the Big 5 :lol:

Franco
19th May 2012, 16:14
Is it not odd that Italy is one of the 'big-paying' countries when you look at their country's financial state at the moment? :?

Nope. As I said earlier, Italy is probably a big-payer because there are copyrights on european football events involved in the EBU business. And most of my fellow countrymen would sell their underpants before giving up football.

musicfan
19th May 2012, 16:21
Is it not odd that Italy is one of the 'big-paying' countries when you look at their country's financial state at the moment? :?

Not really. Whatever the financial state is you can be sure some people will still be rich enough. The poorer probably get hit hardest.

FallenAngelII
19th May 2012, 21:11
Nope. As I said earlier, Italy is probably a big-payer because there are copyrights on european football events involved in the EBU business. And most of my fellow countrymen would sell their underpants before giving up football.
The EBU has nothing to do with football, AFAIK. SVT is the Swedish EBU network, yet tons of other networks show football (depending on the cup).

yulara
19th May 2012, 23:56
The EBU has nothing to do with football, AFAIK.
EBU has a deal with UEFA and FIFA ;)

http://www.ebu.ch/en/union/news/2011/tcm_6-72080.php?display=EN
http://www.ebu.ch/en/union/news/2009/tcm_6-68041.php?display=EN

FallenAngelII
20th May 2012, 00:36
EBU has a deal with UEFA and FIFA ;)

http://www.ebu.ch/en/union/news/2011/tcm_6-72080.php?display=EN
http://www.ebu.ch/en/union/news/2009/tcm_6-68041.php?display=EN
I see. However, that was June of last year, yet Italy was a Big 5 member before that. And the EBU doesn't have a monopoly on broadcasting UEFA and FIFA, just a deal to allow for public service channels in certain countries to air the tournaments, so I still highly doubt Italy's high fees are because of football.

yulara
20th May 2012, 01:02
I see. However, that was June of last year, yet Italy was a Big 5 member before that.
EBU has deals for every competition with these organizations. I just gave 2 examples :)
Italy never leaves EBU (they just leave ESC at the time when eastern countries voted for each other and when italian audience didn't find interest in it anymore) and was always a big contributor. why ? I don't have sufficient knowledge of EBU system to know that, but I'm sure, it's not only for pleasure. RAI's people are not stupid :)

FallenAngelII
20th May 2012, 02:51
EBU has deals for every competition with these organizations. I just gave 2 examples :)
Italy never leaves EBU (they just leave ESC at the time when eastern countries voted for each other and when italian audience didn't find interest in it anymore) and was always a big contributor. why ? I don't have sufficient knowledge of EBU system to know that, but I'm sure, it's not only for pleasure. RAI's people are not stupid :)
1) I never said Italy ever left the EBU. I said that despite leaving Eurovision, they've remained one of the 5 biggest financial contributors to the EBU, which means that while there might be some griping should the idea of a Top 5 be dropped, it's not like the Top 5 would drop out of the competition or contribute less, since Italy willingly gave tons of money despite not actually being in the competition.
2) Someone made the argument that probably Italy kept paying tons of money because of football. I disagreed.

Andalublue
20th May 2012, 20:20
So why the ask for help from Sweden then? BTW how can Spain and Italy pay this much money wiith their financial problems?

You think those Swedish song-writers are working for free? They see Eurovision as a way to be involved in the Europe-wide music industry. It's not charity and as such should not bring any preferential treatment for their home country. Big 5 status is about contributing to the work of the ESC and EBU generally. If Sweden, or more logically, Russia and Ukraine, contributed more, they might be offered the same status.

Performance history has, and should have, nothing to do with it. If it did then an even more successful country like Ireland would have a claim too.

strajker
22nd May 2012, 02:57
So, I read these posts and I say we should just declare Sweden as the winner every edition. Lol.

LakZaNokte
22nd May 2012, 03:32
how much exactly are big 5's paying for esc/ebu/votever? (in percentage; if those aren't possible, then in comparison to other members)

MyHeartIsYours
22nd May 2012, 04:02
The United Kingdom (BBC) pays the EBU around an extra £280,000 a year to skip the SemiFinals and go straight into the Final.
2010's fee for us was £283,190, they wouldnt disclose how much last year (or this year) has cost, but the price rises each year.

Matt
22nd May 2012, 04:05
At one point the Big 4 paid about 40% of the total fees so I would assume it would be still around that amount.

LakZaNokte
22nd May 2012, 04:10
well, I do know we aren't paying that much. as I said, I find big 5 concept fair.
I wouldn't pay big for some party if there was a chance I kiss the doors. that's all.

Rusch
28th May 2012, 18:08
Why should Sweden one of the Big 5 (or Big 6) then?
Why not the Netherlands (they attent from the beginning and despite of failing again and again, they never lost interest in the contest.
Or why not Norway? The won also 4 times and there is also a great intrest in that courntry.
Or the Russia? Isn't Russia the biggest country of all?

You will find arguments for almost every single country.

My opinion is, that there shouldn't be a big 5 status. But this might mean, that Spain and France would stop sending entries after some failures in a row. Maybe the same would happen in UK and Germany. It was so important, that one of the former Big 4 won the contest, because the interest was getting lower and lower.

Trece
28th May 2012, 18:13
I know Sweden will be a member of the "big 5+1" next year :lol: xcheer

LalehForWD
28th May 2012, 18:28
I know Sweden will be a member of the "big 5+1" next year :lol: xcheer

LOL:lol:

QwaarJet
28th May 2012, 18:43
I know Sweden will be a member of the "big 5+1" next year :lol: xcheer

Yep, debate put on hold for a year :p

Andalublue
28th May 2012, 18:46
My opinion is, that there shouldn't be a big 5 status. But this might mean, that Spain and France would stop sending entries after some failures in a row. Maybe the same would happen in UK and Germany. It was so important, that one of the former Big 4 won the contest, because the interest was getting lower and lower.

What it would mean is that everyone except the Big 5 would have to pay a lot more, and that one or more of the Big 5 would pull out. This would also make a big impact on ESC viewing figures with Germany, UK and Spain having the largest viewing audiences. Russia and Turkey may have more viewers but precise audience figures aren't available for either country.

Franco
28th May 2012, 20:02
I know Sweden will be a member of the "big 5+1" next year :lol: xcheer

True! xrollinglol

dezbee2008
28th May 2012, 21:44
I know Sweden will be a member of the "big 5+1" next year :lol: xcheer

xrofl3 xcheer Very true...

bubblingtrue
3rd June 2012, 01:05
If I remember correctly, the big 5 members pay most money to EBU and that's why they are already qualified to final. But why should Italy pay that much money when they have been absence in many many years and have very low interest in ESC? Do they pay that much money because they want to be a BIG 5 member? Or do they pay much money at all? Are they a Big 5 member because EBU want them in the contest and Italy made that ultimatum? Why are Italy suddenly a big 5 member after have been absence in many years?

Now to Sweden: Sweden is very interested in ESC. We have a very well-produced NF. It's probably even better produced than ESC itself. Sweden's dominance in ESC is being bigger and bigger. Last year a Swedish song won ESC and Sweden itself became 3rd. This year we have 10 acts with swedish help, Sweden included. Three of the big 5 have asked Sweden for help this year. The former EBU boss was a Swede, Svante Stockselius. Sweden is also very popular among ESC fans. Sweden is among the countries which is hardest to see leaving the contest.

Speaking about music and songs Sweden is more dominant than all the big 5. should Sweden be a member of big 5?

I think the participation fees are based on size and population, and also broadcasting area (population wise)? Correct me if I'm wrong?

JackBauer
3rd June 2012, 01:26
I don't think so no. If the fee was only based on size and population Russia, Ukraine & Turkey would be direct qualifier too and Poland would be close i guess.

I reckon it's based first on what the broadcaster can afford first and how they contribute to EBU every year.

Then for sure the fee is determined on what a country can win in eurovision with market shares. Albania pays much much less than let's say the Turkish broadcaster because the tv channel is way smaller and don't produce any thing the EBU can use (Because EBU is also a market exchange between countries and Turkey's tv produce of course more programms EBU can sell than Albania )

Besides the Turkish broadcaster can expect to win much more money than Albania, even if only 10% of turkish people are in front of their tv due to the size of their population.

So basically size matters only at the end, first it's the money and the contributions (meaning tv movies, documentaries, sport events given to EBU) and then the size to see who needs to pay more.