I know no one likes us but katrina and the waves won it for us back in 2000 I believe, so what's changed?
Wasn't it jury voting back then and a public vote now?
More countries in the competition. It was noticeable UK did particulalry badly on the public vote. Also that there are a lot of Polish people living in the UK and widely accross Europe. I can see no other reason why the dire Polish song got nil points from the jury and came second in the public vote. It can't just be that the majority of Europe has appalling musical taste (it could be that as well).
It is definitely not about the music as the Australian singer, who had a very good voice, should have won but shouldn't have been in the competition as they are not in bloody Europe & was only beaten by the show of support for Ukraine for being invaded. Its a bizarre competiton.
I watched it out of respect to the Missus & all the European Championship games that will shortly be on in the summer. (I am even suffering the Graham Norton bloody chat show).
Don't know why the UK bother, should let Sweden et al pay for the damn competition themselves. I don't think it will encourage a stay vote for the EC.
Its like as @DamoNorthStand said Adele could duet with the Rolling Stones at their 1960's peak best and UK would still come in third from last with virtually nil points.
I did see one funny comment on twitter about the German singer who looked like she had ram raided a pick and mix sweet counter.
It's just a political thing. No one likes us and never will. We could enter a collaboration between Coldplay, Brian May, Rolling Stones, Paul McCartney and Adele. And we would still get beating by a folk singer with an accordion from a farm in Belarus.
In many cases, I agreed more with the public vote than the professional vote.
Poland for example wasn't the best song, but it certainly didn't deserve to be placed last by the juries. Similarly, the Austrian song was seriously undermarked by the juries
And how the hell did the British Jury give 12 points to Georgia?
the song about the Soviet secret police knocking on your door in the wee hours
and killing/deporting an entire ethnic group within 2 days
Typical Eurovision song
Obvious how we can win next year. Get a Scot to sing about the Highland clearances.
Scotland will be a seperate country next year if we vote Brexit!
Nailed winners on for a Eurovision victory then, even if it was a drunken Jimmy Krankie singing a 500 miles Proclaimers cover.
Now, if the UK had the Proclaimers sing a Eurovision song last night the result might have been different.
As for the Australians, the reason why they are there is because they are bonkers about the Eurovision, and have been attending in numbers for years.
My sister worked with an Australian woman (in an NGO in Afghanistan) who goes to every Eurovision final - while still living in Australia. She was in Sweden yesterday, and was on to my sister this morning saying that she's planning her trip to the Ukraine for next year (and to visit my sister in Lebanon as well).
In many cases, I agreed more with the public vote than the professional vote.
Poland for example wasn't the best song, but it certainly didn't deserve to be placed last by the juries. Similarly, the Austrian song was seriously undermarked by the juries
And how the hell did the British Jury give 12 points to Georgia?
Their entry next year will contain threats of further incursions into the Ukraine and the chorus a two fingered salute to Western Europe. Juries who award them less than 12 points will be eliminated.
Apparently the Russian broadcaster put out that their entry was the real winner and that the televote was merely ceremonial, or something like that. Scary times the lengths that they go to lie to their own population about a song contest of all things.
It is also completely against the ethos of the contest - that it happens in spite of any current or former hostilities between nations. Russia can't be happy to walk into it thinking they are going to win and then throw their toys out of the pram because the country they are currently annexing wins instead.
Good luck to Ukraine hosting it next year - I would really hope the rest of the EBU bar Russia chips in to help them pull it off since Ukraine is probably one of the countries least able to host it at the moment, almost entirely thanks to Russia.
Russia won the televote, but was 3rd or 4th on the jury. Australia finished 2nd overall.
Must hurt them to have obviously wanted it so much but be beaten by a song that's explicitly anti-Soviet and anti-Russian.
I've seen some stuff about music beats, tempo, key etc RT'd into my timeline. I didn't understand it but it read as if Russia had picked the most unlikely/unpopular option on each of those, so professional musicians were never going to vote for them.
Their entry was a carbon copy of last year's winner - dull song with expensive and impressive staging. Maybe they can do the same next year by producing an anti-Russian lament.
I know no one likes us but katrina and the waves won it for us back in 2000 I believe, so what's changed?
Katrina and the waves won it in 1997 when public televoting was just being tested. Only five countries had televoting back then. The rest of the countries had jury voting. It was when we hosted the competition in Birmingham the following year that televoting was introduced to all countries.
I personally think that Joe and Jake's song was the best we have entered in over a decade yet they still finished 24th out of 26 countries due to getting only 8 points from the eligible 42 countries that were voting in the televote from the public. It's time the BBC quietly withdrew for a few years and saved the money it costs to find an entry, promote it and to send the artists and crew to the finals and ploughed it into something better.
I've been watching Eurovision since Brotherhood of Man won it in the 70's and I would miss it. But, it's pointless entering these days. It has nothing to do with music any more.
All of which has made me think for years hat we should pull te plug. Why are we investing money in some Karaoke fest where the rest of Europe always takes great pleasure in giving us a two-finger gesture. It's a crap show, the music is generally bland and irritating, and we appera to occupy the sort of position there that Millwall have in whatever their league they play in. #timetogo
Surely, the best thing with Eurovision is to enter a song that I not totally awful, but hope not to win.
Winning costs far too much, staging Eurovision is very expensive, and, if it's in someone else's country, you get to laugh at their cringe-making antics rather than your own country's.
Don't worry about the voting (though it's interesting to watch the Scandinavian, Slavic and Hellenic blocs vote for each other, but not important), you can claim that the UK has, de facto, won the competition in perpetuity because almost every nation sings in English. Other countries might "win" the right to host it in the following year, but that's all, I wouldn't put money on a non-English song winning in the future.
To be fair, the amount of money British musicians earn from European countries probably far outstrips how much the UK contributes to the contest, which is probably the starkest indication of how well our music is actually received abroad. If the Eurovision Song Contest was decided by how much money each song would actually earn if it was released on the mass market then the UK would probably win every single time (since it would probably enter an artist that would play to this specific metric, as opposed to what we currently do now).
To be fair, the amount of money British musicians earn from European countries probably far outstrips how much the UK contributes to the contest, which is probably the starkest indication of how well our music is actually received abroad. If the Eurovision Song Contest was decided by how much money each song would actually earn if it was released on the mass market then the UK would probably win every single time (since it would probably enter an artist that would play to this specific metric, as opposed to what we currently do now).
If you're a successful UK artist, you'll get yourself heard across Europe anyway, whereas for someone from a smaller country, it's a great chance of international exposure.
One slightly depressing thing this year, is the sheer number of entrants who starred in their countries "Voice" or X-Factor.
Surely, the best thing with Eurovision is to enter a song that I not totally awful, but hope not to win.
Winning costs far too much, staging Eurovision is very expensive, and, if it's in someone else's country, you get to laugh at their cringe-making antics rather than your own country's.
Don't worry about the voting (though it's interesting to watch the Scandinavian, Slavic and Hellenic blocs vote for each other, but not important), you can claim that the UK has, de facto, won the competition in perpetuity because almost every nation sings in English. Other countries might "win" the right to host it in the following year, but that's all, I wouldn't put money on a non-English song winning in the future.
If Australia had won, I imagine then they'd have to hold it in a European country. The UK would be the obvious one, but presumably someone in Australia would have to pay for it?
Comments
Typical Eurovision song
I thought the quality of the songs last night was decent, many of them would do OK in the charts if they weren't associated with Eurovision.
It's a similar idea to X Factor, Britain's Got Talent etc, but describing it as 'karaoke' is unfair. They're original songs.
It is definitely not about the music as the Australian singer, who had a very good voice, should have won but shouldn't have been in the competition as they are not in bloody Europe & was only beaten by the show of support for Ukraine for being invaded. Its a bizarre competiton.
I watched it out of respect to the Missus & all the European Championship games that will shortly be on in the summer. (I am even suffering the Graham Norton bloody chat show).
Don't know why the UK bother, should let Sweden et al pay for the damn competition themselves. I don't think it will encourage a stay vote for the EC.
Its like as @DamoNorthStand said Adele could duet with the Rolling Stones at their 1960's peak best and UK would still come in third from last with virtually nil points.
I did see one funny comment on twitter about the German singer who looked like she had ram raided a pick and mix sweet counter.
Ukraine beat them as the professional juries scored them higher
Poland for example wasn't the best song, but it certainly didn't deserve to be placed last by the juries. Similarly, the Austrian song was seriously undermarked by the juries
And how the hell did the British Jury give 12 points to Georgia?
are you watching, Belgium?
As for the Australians, the reason why they are there is because they are bonkers about the Eurovision, and have been attending in numbers for years.
My sister worked with an Australian woman (in an NGO in Afghanistan) who goes to every Eurovision final - while still living in Australia. She was in Sweden yesterday, and was on to my sister this morning saying that she's planning her trip to the Ukraine for next year (and to visit my sister in Lebanon as well).
Their entry next year will contain threats of further incursions into the Ukraine and the chorus a two fingered salute to Western Europe. Juries who award them less than 12 points will be eliminated.
It is also completely against the ethos of the contest - that it happens in spite of any current or former hostilities between nations. Russia can't be happy to walk into it thinking they are going to win and then throw their toys out of the pram because the country they are currently annexing wins instead.
Good luck to Ukraine hosting it next year - I would really hope the rest of the EBU bar Russia chips in to help them pull it off since Ukraine is probably one of the countries least able to host it at the moment, almost entirely thanks to Russia.
Must hurt them to have obviously wanted it so much but be beaten by a song that's explicitly anti-Soviet and anti-Russian.
I've seen some stuff about music beats, tempo, key etc RT'd into my timeline. I didn't understand it but it read as if Russia had picked the most unlikely/unpopular option on each of those, so professional musicians were never going to vote for them.
Their entry was a carbon copy of last year's winner - dull song with expensive and impressive staging. Maybe they can do the same next year by producing an anti-Russian lament.
I personally think that Joe and Jake's song was the best we have entered in over a decade yet they still finished 24th out of 26 countries due to getting only 8 points from the eligible 42 countries that were voting in the televote from the public. It's time the BBC quietly withdrew for a few years and saved the money it costs to find an entry, promote it and to send the artists and crew to the finals and ploughed it into something better.
I've been watching Eurovision since Brotherhood of Man won it in the 70's and I would miss it. But, it's pointless entering these days. It has nothing to do with music any more.
It would be far simpler if they did away with the singing and just went straight to the voting.
Vote for which country you like best.
#timetogo
And it fills 4 hours of the BBC1 schedule on Saturday so probably pays for itself
Winning costs far too much, staging Eurovision is very expensive, and, if it's in someone else's country, you get to laugh at their cringe-making antics rather than your own country's.
Don't worry about the voting (though it's interesting to watch the Scandinavian, Slavic and Hellenic blocs vote for each other, but not important), you can claim that the UK has, de facto, won the competition in perpetuity because almost every nation sings in English. Other countries might "win" the right to host it in the following year, but that's all, I wouldn't put money on a non-English song winning in the future.
One slightly depressing thing this year, is the sheer number of entrants who starred in their countries "Voice" or X-Factor. If Australia had won, I imagine then they'd have to hold it in a European country. The UK would be the obvious one, but presumably someone in Australia would have to pay for it?