Is Eurovision turning safe and "middle of the road?"

[lucian-crusher]

Eurovision will always be fun! Juries are subjective like any other person. And abou quality there is no quality and non-quality, they are just songs. 2004 and 2006 weren't less or more quality then 2007 then 2011!

 

[doctormalisimo]

Actually I think Eurovision entries are getting more diverse and riskier. Eg this year and have all sent songs that you wouldn't normally expect to hear on Eurovision, so I'm happy so many countries are doing something different this year

 

[A-lister]

Actually I think Eurovision entries are getting more diverse and riskier. Eg this year and have all sent songs that you wouldn't normally expect to hear on Eurovision, so I'm happy so many countries are doing something different this year

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

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

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

 

[WhoKnows]

Why, because people who'd vote forth entries like "Dancing Lasha Tumbai" are to be trusted with voting forth quality songs?

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

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

 

[QwaarJet]

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

 

[contestfan]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The juries are established to compensate this fact.

 

[lucian-crusher]

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

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

 

[FallenAngelII]

I'm sorry but Dancing Lasha Tumbai was and remains one of the best brilliant songs in Eurovision history.

It was entertaining but it wasn't what you'd call a well-written song. It barely had any vocals, the vocals it had were just a few lines and the vocalists were far from perfect. The presentation, however, was entertaning and, you could argue, brilliant. But it wasn't something people would listen to on the radio had they never seen it on stage first.

Yes, a big show shouldn't mask a crappy song. But at the same time, a crappy song and NO show shouldn't be masked by the performer having a good voice. It's a whole package that should count, imo.

Very few entries do well in any given year with a crappy song a good voice. This year, we only have, arguably, one insofar. The juries are new, they'll make mistakes.

Take Lithuania and Iceland with Norway and Armenia. I'll agree that neither Norway nor Armenia had an especially good quality song. Both had good shows though. I think people will mostly agree that neither Lithuania nor Iceland had an especially good song either.

Why is Iceland even in this discussion? I bet it was carried by the televoters because of the sad story.

The first two try to mask their crappy songs with entertaining shows, the second two with good voices. Why should the latter AUTOMATICALLY be considered 'quality' or 'deserving' over the first?

You don't even know who carried the entry, the juries or the televoters (yet)! Wait until after the final, when the split votes are released, before making such statements. Lithuania is prertty much the only instances where we can be almost certain was favoured by the juries more than by the televoters.

 

[Andalublue]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[busybee]

Actually I think Eurovision entries are getting more diverse and riskier. Eg this year and have all sent songs that you wouldn't normally expect to hear on Eurovision, so I'm happy so many countries are doing something different this year

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

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

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

 

[FallenAngelII]

[*]Bloc-voting was no bad thing

O... K... I stopped reading there.

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

That's because just being diverse and risky doesn't mean you're automatically good. Albania's entry was cocophony-ish, Norway's entry was just horrible on stage and Portugal's entry was a joke entry.

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

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

Albania did not have perfect vocals. And the song wasn't very exciting, nor was the stage show very exciting. Norway and Alabania were flawed in different ways. We don't even know whether it was the juries that killed both entries. I predict that the juries gave Albania more points than the televoters, but that it wasn't enough for Albania to qualify.

 

[busybee]

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

 

[doctormalisimo]

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

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

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

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

 

[asia]

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

 

[asia]

but norways vocals were good compared to the others in semi final 1.......

 

[FallenAngelII]

but norways vocals were good compared to the others in semi final 1.......

Compared to whom, Portugal? Name one country that Norway was superior to vocally other than Portugal.

 

[94ayd]

After watching the 2nd final I can say I've never watched such a boring semi-final with so many cliché songs...

 

[A-lister]

So here we are again...

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

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

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

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

 

[AlekS]

^ And why shouldnt' itr be safe? Just because YOU said so?

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

 

[A-lister]

^ And why shouldnt' itr be safe? Just because YOU said so?

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

That's my opinion basically.

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

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

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

Finland 2010 vs 2011 is the same issue.