I agree with the view that it's not the contest it once was both song-wise and inventive-wise (more screen technology and less clever props and hamster wheels). I suppose it's due to changing 'musical' tastes and commercialism and whippersnappers grabbing the octaves of power. That said I never miss Eurovision and I think I've seen every one from Kenneth McKellar's (or was it Kathy Kirby's) onwards so I really enjoyed last night's spectacle, despite the lacklustre songs. One emerging trend that I do like now is the referencing of the contest's past - seeing Johnny Logan again and Jan Leeming and Bjorn; and even hearing Vicky Leandros name-checked. For once I got the top 5 right (almost). I had Loreen down to win and Israel to do very well. Italy took me by surprise though. Roll on next year in Sweden. It would have been nice if the UK could have hosted again but we were defeated, they won the war.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Eurovision
- Thread starter 150249
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
First contest I've watched all the way through in years, put it on for the wife and soon got into it.
Thought Finland should have won (they were robbed!*) as I found Sweden's entry dull. Also enjoyed Australia and Norway's entries. I'm actually a fan of Lord of the Lost, so it's a shame they came bottom!
Wasn't impressed at all at our entry either, lyrics seemed pretty...amateur?
*Fully aware of the jury's role in voting, though it was always amusing seeing countries such as Greece and Cyprus giving each other 12 points every year
Thought Finland should have won (they were robbed!*) as I found Sweden's entry dull. Also enjoyed Australia and Norway's entries. I'm actually a fan of Lord of the Lost, so it's a shame they came bottom!
Wasn't impressed at all at our entry either, lyrics seemed pretty...amateur?
*Fully aware of the jury's role in voting, though it was always amusing seeing countries such as Greece and Cyprus giving each other 12 points every year
Trainguy34
Member
Definitely agree Finland or Croatia should've won, liked Australias entry and Germany and loved Norways
PeterY
Established Member
- Joined
- 2 Apr 2013
- Messages
- 1,316
I didn't watch it and I haven't watched in years. It's not my "cup of tea" 
. How long as Australia been in Europe?
. How long as Australia been in Europe?gg1
Established Member
Germany and Norway were my two clear favourites, quite liked Finland and Croatia too. Croatia's entry was like an ultra camp version of Laibach (Slovenian avant garde industrial band with a liking for the surreal).
Sweden was okay but didn't really grab me and the UK's entry was bland and forgettable - as usual.
Sweden was okay but didn't really grab me and the UK's entry was bland and forgettable - as usual.
The songs the UK enters are consistently bland and forgettable, combined with boring staging and too often (including last night) singers who just aren't that good. Part of that is probably because people who would have a chance of winning don't want to enter. I think a lot of the songs/artists we enter are probably better in a studio or on the radio than on stage as well, including this year. The live performance aspect is so important.
But there is definitely a pattern that when we send an actually good song or artist and actually try to promote it we do get points. Obviously Sam Ryder last year, but we came 5th the year they got Andrew Lloyd Webber involved, 11th (which most countries would consider a decent result) with Blue, 10th on the jury vote in 2017 despite another bland song. The trouble is every time we do something right the next year seems to be back to square one.
I liked the Finland song, was very Eurovision in how it was sung & the performance. I noticed that if there was no jury vote then Finland would have won. The Sweden song was good but I thought it was not as good as Loreen’s previous winning song Euphoria.
The GB song by Mae Muller I thought was not good & no where near as good as Sam Ryder last year, I thought his interval song was better than the GB entrant song. I also thought it was awkward for Mae Muller following the Croatia song as it had an interesting performance.
The GB song by Mae Muller I thought was not good & no where near as good as Sam Ryder last year, I thought his interval song was better than the GB entrant song. I also thought it was awkward for Mae Muller following the Croatia song as it had an interesting performance.
birchesgreen
Established Member
There are 26 songs on the night (which is too many i think to be honest) and you can get 1000s of votes but only be the 11th or 12th favourite in every country and get the dreaded nul points.
Our song was ok but there were at least 10 songs better than it.
Our song was ok but there were at least 10 songs better than it.
GS250
Member
- Joined
- 18 Mar 2019
- Messages
- 1,024
The Finland song reminded me a bit of Trio's 'Da Da Da' in spirit anyway. Proper cheesy Europop.
Our own entry was bland and too generic IMO.
johncrossley
Established Member
Introducing the rest of the world vote is a nice little earner. The fee per vote was 0.99 EUR for up to 20 votes, compared to 15p per vote in the UK.
I didn't watch it and I haven't watched in years. It's not my "cup of tea"
Nothing wrong with allowing Australia to compete, it demonstrates a welcoming attitude all too missing in contemporary politics.
I was really surprised by that, I thought Germany's entry was very distinctive and that would win it points.
I saw one of the semi-final shows earlier in the week, it was a great experience and Liverpool has really shined throughout this whole process.
In terms of the votes, while Loreen (Sweden) was undoubtedly great, I don't think her song would have won the jury vote with anywhere near the numbers she received. The fact the jury vote was so lop-sided for Sweden put a bit of a damper on the night - you could hear it in the crowd. Käärijä was the people's princess!
In terms of the votes, while Loreen (Sweden) was undoubtedly great, I don't think her song would have won the jury vote with anywhere near the numbers she received. The fact the jury vote was so lop-sided for Sweden put a bit of a damper on the night - you could hear it in the crowd. Käärijä was the people's princess!
brad465
Established Member
The crowd and the voting public, given Finland received the highest score on public votes.
Trainguy34
Member
Controversial opinion time!
I think they should make it so the jury vote has less of an influence on the overall score as by what I've read here, it looks like the general public have differing opinions to the jury (or we all just share a similar opinion on current music
I think they should make it so the jury vote has less of an influence on the overall score as by what I've read here, it looks like the general public have differing opinions to the jury (or we all just share a similar opinion on current music
johncrossley
Established Member
Do you remember what happened when it was 100% public vote? Hence the reintroduction of the jury vote. We expect the jury vote to be different. Otherwise there would be no point having it.
Trainguy34
Member
Fair point, forgot about those times
Still think Australia should've won. Partly for the music but mainly as the group was called Voyager
birchesgreen
Established Member
You don't have to be in Europe to be in Eurovision. You have to be a member of the European Broadcasting Union.I didn't watch it and I haven't watched in years. It's not my "cup of tea"
Falcon1200
Established Member
I also could not understand what people saw, or rather heard, in Sweden's winning song. My personal favourites were Cyprus (for the wailing), Finland (should have won), Czechia (for the ponytails) and Croatia (for the underwear). I had never heard of Mae Muller before Eurovision, and after her silly comments hopefully she will now return to the obscurity from where she came.
johncrossley
Established Member
The European Broadcasting Area boundary extends as far east as 40 degrees east longitude and as far south as 30 degrees north latitude so African countries bordering the Mediterranean as well as Middle Eastern countries can participate in Eurovision if they want, but they mostly choose not to. Hence why Israel is in it and Morocco has been in it once. Australia is not in the European Broadcasting Area and was originally invited to participate as a one-off.
What were her silly comments, incidentally? Missed that one.
Damn tectonic plates again.I didn't watch it and I haven't watched in years. It's not my "cup of tea"
Sweden was the bookies favourite to win the moment Loreen/Tattoo was announced, and is one of the most commercially successful songs of the year. Finland sort of came from nowhere, with the song only gaining any real sort of momentum when the pre-shows started featuring performances of it. At the same time, Sweden were kind of just going with the flow, while Finland were making big efforts to connect with the audience - to the point of bringing a truck based sauna and parking it outside the venue.
The week before the semi finals, the word around the venue was that Loreen was going to walk it and it was a foregone conclusion, no chance of anyone else getting near, with one of Norway, Israel or Finland expected to be a distant second. Something happened though when people started hearing the Finnish entry more, by the time the time of the first semi final, it had become the crowd favourite. When he performed in the first audience rehearsals there was suddenly mutterings of "actually, he might win this".
Someone else summarised it as "Sweden is the song you won't skip past if it comes on your playlist at random, Finland is the song you want to see played again at the end of the show".
Whichever country won, the lighting would have been blue and yellow, for Ukraine - in rehearsals when the UK "won" it was still blue & yellow. All of the voting sequence graphics and lighting were blue and yellow - the winners announcement is no different - it's just coincidence that Sweden has the same colours in it's flag.
The week before the semi finals, the word around the venue was that Loreen was going to walk it and it was a foregone conclusion, no chance of anyone else getting near, with one of Norway, Israel or Finland expected to be a distant second. Something happened though when people started hearing the Finnish entry more, by the time the time of the first semi final, it had become the crowd favourite. When he performed in the first audience rehearsals there was suddenly mutterings of "actually, he might win this".
Someone else summarised it as "Sweden is the song you won't skip past if it comes on your playlist at random, Finland is the song you want to see played again at the end of the show".
Whichever country won, the lighting would have been blue and yellow, for Ukraine - in rehearsals when the UK "won" it was still blue & yellow. All of the voting sequence graphics and lighting were blue and yellow - the winners announcement is no different - it's just coincidence that Sweden has the same colours in it's flag.
Cloud Strife
Established Member
- Joined
- 25 Feb 2014
- Messages
- 1,831
He's been pouring a huge amount of effort into connecting with Eurovision fans too, while Loreen has been mostly acting like a pop diva, so it's not a surprise that Käärijä was so overwhelmingly favoured.
The thing is: Sweden would have won a high score from the jury regardless of the 50th anniversary of Abba winning. The song was technically flawless, her performance was flawless, and it would have been yet another top 5 result for Sweden no matter what. The juries have to vote on technical criteria, which is why Cyprus only got 4 points from the Greek jury despite getting their usual 12 from the people. I suspect that had the 50th anniversary not been in play, then Israel would have taken several of those 12 points away from Sweden.
The problem with the jury is that some countries (such as Poland) comprise their juries of people who are too close to the host broadcaster. So, in the case of Poland's TVP, their decision is dictated by commercial concerns, because the station functions as a major propaganda outlet for the government. The ESC should really demand independent juries who are distant from the host broadcasters. At the same time, it's fair to say that Sweden really will go all-out with putting on an incredible ESC, so perhaps it was the right decision after all.
Falcon1200
Established Member
The one thing that struck me most about Eurovision was every one of the 'Liverpool' songs played during the interval between performances and voting was better than anything we had heard so far, and would have won hands down had they ever been entered!
Couldn't disagree more. Imagine, in particular, was horrendous in my opinion
birchesgreen
Established Member
Ah an example of the famous British sense of humour.
I watched the back end of performances (loosely - was chatting with family at the same time) and the results. One thing I will say, having watched ESC a number of times over the years is how much better the results bit is. Cutting it down so that only the 12 points is announced from each country speeds things up massively (although you still get your prima donnas from some countries, their air time is drastically reduced) and then the public vote at the end keeps it somewhat exciting up to the last. There used to be times where (like the Swedish jury vote) it was blindly obvious very early on who would win and made the whole thing particularly tedious
Mcr Warrior
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2009
- Messages
- 11,974
Some tabloid newspapers were suggesting last week that the UK's Eurovision contestant (Mae Muller) was applying for (or had applied for) a German passport so that she could go live in Spain and be able to tour Europe with minimal paperwork, and that she had, sometime in the past, supposedly tweeted that she "hated Britain".
- Status