Can Eurovision ever be truly fair?

[paddyirl]

Daz Sampson's rap featuring young girls dressed as school children (and that does have paedophilic undertones) was not a good song. The fact that you admittedly like joke entries and comedic entries justifies why you liked it. And really, that's a huge problem when it comes to the UK and Eurovision. A lot of the televoting public in the UK like joke entries, such as "Teenage Life" and "Eastern European Kind of Funk", thus shite like "Teenage Life" and "Flying the Flag (For You)" get voted through to Eurovision.

The girls were all 16+, so legal.

I actually liked Scooch the only UK entry I liked since Jessica Garlick. Then Jade was good but in the televote only years I liked Scooch.

 

[FallenAngelII]

The girls were all 16+, so legal.

They certainly aren't on the studio version. The studio version uses a children's choir. The only reason why the girls used at ESC were 16+ was because the rule stipulated it.

The entire number has paedophilic or hebephilic undertones because it's a close-to-middle-aged man rapping about teenage life while girls who are pretending to be 12-14 judging by their school uniforms back him up.

I actually liked Scooch the only UK entry I liked since Jessica Garlick. Then Jade was good but in the televote only years I liked Scooch.

And Europe hated them. This is why you guys do so badly at the ESC because you vote through thrash. I found Scooch amusing but I knew they'd crash and burn and deservedly so. Midly amusing =/= Deserves to get out of the Bottom 5.

 

[uk....winner]

I have to admit that although I could listen to UK 2010 without wanting to switch it off, it did deserve to finish last (or at least down the bottom). As has been said on other posts, it was so outdated and generally bad, and even british media slated it.

I also think that ESC is a lot fairer than previously. We just need to try harder.

 

[Lugano]

Daz Sampson's rap featuring young girls dressed as school children (and that does have paedophilic undertones) was not a good song.

Oh please! Do you even know what it means? There was nothing paedophilic about that song at all. What a ridiculous statement. :roll:

Aside from that I agree mostly with what you're saying and the handicapped option doesn't make sense at all.

 

[markovs]

So what is the reason that the voting needs to change again? I can never quite work it out. Looking at it dispassionately, the best song has pretty much won each competition for the last 10 years or so.

There was a bit of neighbour voting, which did distort the results a little, but the jury system has negated that quite a bit. In the end, people will vote for artisits they know, fancy, and styles of music they understand. That will naturally lead to them voting for countries near to them. BUT, good songs get votes across the board and end up doing well.

Everyone has personal likes and dislikes, but it's really hard to argue that the best song has won both years since the juries have been involved. Norway and Germany were worthy winners with catchy, different songs.

The UK argument just falls to pieces with the advent of the jury system. Last year UK sent a decent song and promoted it properly, finishing in a creditable 5th position. This year it's a pile of cack by a nobody, didn't promote it, and ends up last. GERMANY (who the UK said could never win again) won this year. Why? Because of dodgy voting? Neighbours? Diaspora? Hardly!! They won because they sent in a very good song, which europe took to and voted for in droves (me included)

The fact Norway give Sweden 12, or Belarus give Russia 12 is totally irrelevant. There are 39 countries voting, so the odd dodgy vote gets swallowed up. In the end, the most popular, therefore BEST song, always comes out on top.

UK have sent in such strong entries as Jemini, James Fox, Scooch, Andy Abraham, Josh Dubovie, Daz Sampson, Precious, Nikki French and Lindsay Dracass in the last 10 years, or so, and wonder why they come low down in the order??? Not a single decent song or artist amongst them, and all songs terrible and unmemorable. If anyone considers Scooch or Daz Sampson worthy of a place in a song competition, then they deserve what they get.

UK have sent 3 decent entries in the last 12 years, Imaani, Jessica Garlick and Jade Ewen, finishing 2nd, 3rd and 5th respectively, so it can be done. It's just that the contest is perceived as a joke by a big majority of people in the UK, so joke entries are sent. I saw the song for Europe where Scooch were selected. The other song was a lovely ballad sung brilliantly, which would probably have finished top 10. But instead, the public vote in the worst British entry ever in the competiton.

It's not the scoring system which needs changing, which has produced very good winners, it's the UK attitude and selection system that needs changing. Gerrmany have proven ANYONE can win, if the song is good.

 

[Mickey]

The girls in Teenage Life were not meant to be 12-14. The song specifically references "sixth form chicks" which would make them 16-18. The song is not about paedophilia. It is about nostalgia. "Suddenly school life/Your teenage life's gone/All your mates are growing up/Now they're moving on." Daz has left school and is reminiscing.

That year we had come off three bad perormances from non-comedy songs. We had a choice between more of the same or something that made us smile. Daz was never going to win eurovision but he was the best act in the national final by quite a distance.

Not all comedy songs are automatically bad. Verka Zerduchka, LT United, Zdob Si Zdub, Alf Poier and Guildo Horn all managed to combine humour with a catchy tune (okay, maybe not Alf) and scored highly as a result. Some fail to do either, like Dustin the Turkey, Scooch and Latvia's Pirates and place near the bottom.

I can't defend Andy Abraham or Scooch. Neither were the best song in their national finals. I guess, Andy won because he was the nice binman from the X Factor. I don't think any of the other options were surefire winners, though.

The really depressing thing is that James Fox, Javine and Jemini all had the best songs in their national finals. The voting options were that limited.

I guess, I should briefly veer towards the topic. While there is some political voting, you'll never get rid of it entirely and good songs tend to score highly anyway. The voting system is fine the way it is.

 

[94ayd]

Latvia definitely placed near the bottom in 2008.

 

[markovs]

The girls in Teenage Life were not meant to be 12-14. The song specifically references "sixth form chicks" which would make them 16-18. The song is not about paedophilia. It is about nostalgia. "Suddenly school life/Your teenage life's gone/All your mates are growing up/Now they're moving on." Daz has left school and is reminiscing.

That year we had come off three bad perormances from non-comedy songs. We had a choice between more of the same or something that made us smile. Daz was never going to win eurovision but he was the best act in the national final by quite a distance.

Not all comedy songs are automatically bad. Verka Zerduchka, LT United, Zdob Si Zdub, Alf Poier and Guildo Horn all managed to combine humour with a catchy tune (okay, maybe not Alf) and scored highly as a result. Some fail to do either, like Dustin the Turkey, Scooch and Latvia's Pirates and place near the bottom.

I can't defend Andy Abraham or Scooch. Neither were the best song in their national finals. I guess, Andy won because he was the nice binman from the X Factor. I don't think any of the other options were surefire winners, though.

The really depressing thing is that James Fox, Javine and Jemini all had the best songs in their national finals. The voting options were that limited.

I guess, I should briefly veer towards the topic. While there is some political voting, you'll never get rid of it entirely and good songs tend to score highly anyway. The voting system is fine the way it is.

I had forgotten Javine. That was actually a decent song, and if you listen to it alongside the winner from Greece, they were very very similar. I think that was one year that the UKs lack of 'friends' really did have an influence. If Greece was good enough to win (not for me, actually, but that's another story) then Javine certainly deserved to finish higher.

But mostly, the UKs entries have sucked and not deserved any better than the place they finished.

 

[Margerita86]

Unfortunatly Javine did come of a bit like a second rate copy of those kind of acts from Greece, Turkey and Ukraine...

 

[dizzydjc]

Jesus, u have way too much time on your hands.

The UK SUCKED this year and thoroughly deserved it's 25th place. I am british myself and know that we sent the wrong song right from day 1, it's far too dated and nobody in their right mind is gonna pick up a phone and say i want that as the winner, neither will the juries want it to win.

I think eurovision is as fair as it is now with the juries, and nothing else should be changed. It's just people whinging about how bad their song did - well in all honesty, the UK deserved it!

I hate to say it but i did prefer Russia over the UK this year, at least it had a comedy factor.

 

[broomhelga]

Eurovision is never going to be fair.

The results near the top of the board are as fair as they are realistically going to get. However the guaranteed points a lot of countries enjoy means that better songs are pushed down the table. Perhaps we'd need to introduce olympic style scoring with a countries top 10 and worst 10 votes eliminated and the middle group only counting towards their final score. This would eliminate a lot of block votes.

 

[charlesf]

The Handicap Setup is the most idiotic system I've ever seen proposed.

Yep, it's an epically bad idea.

Same goes for the "Electoral College" idea.

For sure, some countries do benefit from structural voting advantages, e.g. Sweden, Russia, Serbia, Turkey (of course by design less so in the semi-finals). But to win, you need to score well across Europe.

So, in regards to winning, the structural advantages some countries enjoy mean rather little. And neither 2009 or 2010 were close votes.

Belgium and Germany, two countries with little to no structural voting advantages, did very well this year.

And Turkey didn't get second place because of structural voting advantages, but simply because Manga's a classy act. I'm sure they did well among the juries. We'll see when the results are released...

 

[charlesf]

UK have sent 3 decent entries in the last 12 years, Imaani, Jessica Garlick and Jade Ewen, finishing 2nd, 3rd and 5th respectively, so it can be done. It's just that the contest is perceived as a joke by a big majority of people in the UK, so joke entries are sent. I saw the song for Europe where Scooch were selected. The other song was a lovely ballad sung brilliantly, which would probably have finished top 10. But instead, the public vote in the worst British entry ever in the competiton.

It's not the scoring system which needs changing, which has produced very good winners, it's the UK attitude and selection system that needs changing. Gerrmany have proven ANYONE can win, if the song is good.

Very true. The UK can't have it both ways. Either you treat the competition as a joke and enjoy your last-place scores, or you actually make an effort and take the contest reasonably seriously.

The ESC isn't a trashfest that it perhaps once was. The times have changed, as Lena's victory with a credible and contemporary song demonstrates. The UK's attitude is behind the times and the commonly held prejudices need to be revised.

Though of course you can continue treating the ESC as a flamboyant trashfest and punish Europe with having to listen to musical trainwrecks. Your call. But then, UK, don't expect other countries to vote for you.

Of course, in 2009 you did take the contest reasonably seriously. Lloyd-Webber ain't exactly cutting-edge, but that's at least a credible showing and was rewarded appropriately (perhaps overly rewarded, if I'm to judge by my personal taste).

Quo Vadis, UK? Trashfest or credible music?

 

[charlesf]

Eurovision is never going to be fair.

The results near the top of the board are as fair as they are realistically going to get. However the guaranteed points a lot of countries enjoy means that better songs are pushed down the table.

That's true enough. But does it really matter all that much what the rankings are outside of the say Top10? Not that much to me.

For me, the voting is now fair enough. It allowed Germany to win with a very good entry (and I guess Lena would have have still won without the juries, though it would have been a close thing. We'll see about that when the full results get published...).

This year proved that any country can win provided theri ESC entry is sufficiently good.

 

[AdrianW]

Very true. The UK can't have it both ways. Either you treat the competition as a joke and enjoy your last-place scores, or you actually make an effort and take the contest reasonably seriously.

The ESC isn't a trashfest that it perhaps once was. The times have changed, as Lena's victory with a credible and contemporary song demonstrates. The UK's attitude is behind the times and the commonly held prejudices need to be revised.

Though of course you can continue treating the ESC as a flamboyant trashfest and punish Europe with having to listen to musical trainwrecks. Your call. But then, UK, don't expect other countries to vote for you.

Of course, in 2009 you did take the contest reasonably seriously. Lloyd-Webber ain't exactly cutting-edge, but that's at least a credible showing and was rewarded appropriately (perhaps overly rewarded, if I'm to judge by my personal taste).

Quo Vadis, UK? Trashfest or credible music?

You seem to be assuming that taking it seriously results in doing well, but I'm sure that many of the countries coming in the last places, or failing to get through the semi-finals, are often taking it very seriously. The BBC selecting ALW last year may have seemed a sign of taking it extra seriously, but it unfortunately paved the way for this year's disaster as from their point of view it justified letting Waterman provide the song, because he's a 'name' songwriter with a past history of big hits.

But however flawed the BBC's approach is, I think the British public probably enjoys the ESC in exactly the same way that the rest of Europe does. It's true that there are some UK commentators and writers who refer to it in an annoyingly patronising and 'superior' way, and this unfortunately might cause a misleading impression. Yes, there have been entries (such as Scooch) which represent a misguided attempt to produce a 'comedy' song, but surely the fact that Lordi won in 2006 showed that something that's quirky and not remotely serious can win, so long as it's good.

If you consider this year's winner "cutting edge" (which I think debatable, although I would call it contemporary), I think you would still have trouble claiming that being cutting edge offers a big advantage. How many winners in the last 10 years were cutting edge? I wouldn't be at all surprised if next year we see a lot of entries that attempt to sound contemporary, and a winner that isn't! Some cutting edge music will only appeal to a minority of the ESC audience, so surely a key attribute is a song that will have fairly broad appeal.

 

[charlesf]

You seem to be assuming that taking it seriously results in doing well

I don't . But if you don't take it seriously, you most definitely won't get anywhere near winning.

The BBC selecting ALW last year may have seemed a sign of taking it extra seriously, but it unfortunately paved the way for this year's disaster as from their point of view it justified letting Waterman provide the song, because he's a 'name' songwriter with a past history of big hits.

I don't see that as taking it seriously. Giving a dated hit-machine the job rather than going with something 2010ish is in my book not what I call taking things seriously.

but surely the fact that Lordi won in 2006 showed that something that's quirky and not remotely serious can win, so long as it's good.

Why? That was serious music. Most definitely not meant as a joke, whatever the costumes were.

If you consider this year's winner "cutting edge" (which I think debatable, although I would call it contemporary), I think you would still have trouble claiming that being cutting edge offers a big advantage.

Cutting edge for the ESC, not for the music-buying public in general.

How many winners in the last 10 years were cutting edge?

Juries have changed the game...

I wouldn't be at all surprised if next year we see a lot of entries that attempt to sound contemporary, and a winner that isn't!

Possibly.

Some cutting edge music will only appeal to a minority of the ESC audience, so surely a key attribute is a song that will have fairly broad appeal.

Lordi didn't have broad appeal, but they had a genuine and solid following.

 

[FallenAngelII]

I had forgotten Javine. That was actually a decent song, and if you listen to it alongside the winner from Greece, they were very very similar. I think that was one year that the UKs lack of 'friends' really did have an influence. If Greece was good enough to win (not for me, actually, but that's another story) then Javine certainly deserved to finish higher.

Javine had a mediocre song performed by a mediocre songstress (she was by no means brilliant), but all of that flew out the window the minute she began performing a porno dance on stage. Eurovision televoters punish female promiscuity (half-naked ladies only work (sometimes) if they're backup singers/dancers, not if they're the main performers!).

You enter with what amouns to a striptease/burlesque dance wonder why the highly Catholic Eastern Europe didn't vote for you? Really?

 

[AdrianW]

The BBC selecting ALW last year may have seemed a sign of taking it extra seriously, but it unfortunately paved the way for this year's disaster as from their point of view it justified letting Waterman provide the song, because he's a 'name' songwriter with a past history of big hits.

I don't see that as taking it seriously. Giving a dated hit-machine the job rather than going with something 2010ish is in my book not what I call taking things seriously.

[quote:1alk2eb7]but surely the fact that Lordi won in 2006 showed that something that's quirky and not remotely serious can win, so long as it's good.

Why? That was serious music. Most definitely not meant as a joke, whatever the costumes were.

[/quote:1alk2eb7]
I can't speak on the BBC's behalf, but irrespective of whether ALW was the ideal choice as 2009 composer, I think the fact that the BBC got him involved created the impression - at least in Britain - that the BBC were taking it far more seriously. This was supported by the selection process of lasting several weeks instead of being one show, and also the amount of promotion afterwards.

I'm not saying Lordi's song wasn't serious, and I believe it's common for them to perform looking like they did on the ESC. However, in the context of the ESC, surely anyone that had not seen them perform elsewhere must have thought that they were dressed the way were in order to be totally over the top - maybe a kind of Spinal Tap-style joke. I think it worked as I'm not sure that they would have won if they had looked like a typical rock band.

 

[catgirlKL]

I am not sure that the rest of Europe is out to get us, I think our song was a little weak this year (sorry Josh, you gave a good performance). I expected better from Pete waterman. We did OK last year, when we get the right song it does well. I agree with the post suggesting keeping the countries anonymous if there were a way to do it, then it would really be fair and no one could be biased. :|

 

[Gimnbo]

As an American who has no say in the actual voting of this competition, I watch Eurovision to be entertained. Over in the states, Eurovision has a reputation (for the few who have even heard of it) for being really weird, quirky, campy pop music. I'm pretty sure the entrants have been trying to shed this image by entering more serious songs, but the end result for me was long stretches of boredom punctuated by fun acts like Moldova and Greece.

As far as voting systems go, the US uses an electoral college for our presidential elections. Said electoral college got Bush elected twice. I think that's all I need to say on that issue. I do seriously agree that they should announce televote and jury votes separately, so I know who I can get mad at when Lithuania gets knocked out.