Yesterday I suggested that it could perhaps be worth considering cutting the number of songs in the ESC final down to 22-24 instead of 26 and I got plenty of feedback on that. Good. Every aspect of the show should be open for discussion.
Quite a few people also voiced the opinion that the Big Five rule should be scrapped: let France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK go through the semis like everyone else.
That has always been a touchy subject, ever since the Big Five system was introduced (in 2001, if I remember correctly). There was talk in 1996 how Germany's absence from the final really strained the NRK budget and how hard it would be staging the contest without one or several of the biggest contributors.
I have always seen the Big Five rule as a necessary evil: if that is what it takes for the ESC to go on properly so be it. Especially if the Biggies also show some commitment by contributing strong entries. Which has not always been the case.
But is this rule really needed? When it was created relegation still meant you had to miss the entire contest for a year and the EBU did not want to risk any of the Biggies to be absent. Since 2004 and the introduction of the semis nobody needs to miss a year anyway.
So what is the argument for keeping this outdated system? That the broadcasters in question would be really upset if it changed? That their viewers would never watch a final unless they have their own entry? Well, that is already the situation for everyone else.
Now that the process is underway to scale down the contest and diminish the costs of hosting and organising - will it still be absolutely necessary to keep the Big Five in the contest in order to afford it?
That would certainly be something for the reference group to ponder before the 2014 contest.
Friday, May 31, 2013
Thursday, May 30, 2013
ESC 2014: Let's scale a bit further!
Tastes differ, but I know for sure I thoroughly enjoyed the new scaled-down version of the Eurovision Song Contest presented by SVT this year. The smaller venue makes for a more intimate feel, the audience comes closer to the performers and the cameras surely came closer as well.
The camera work was accurate, tight and brought about a warmth that has been missing in some of the bigger arenas.
I really think this is the way to go - a more humane and warmer event is what Europe needs rather than a glossy but cold production. I hope DR will continue and try to stick to the same idea and find new ways of downshifting.
Unless something radical happens in the world - like the end of the financial crisis, for instance - and countries start streaming back into the ESC en masse, I would have another suggestion.
26 songs in the final actually does feel a bit much. I'm a huge eurofan but I feel that it is hard to digest and compare that many songs at once. How will the general audience feel, then?
If the number of participating countries for 2014 will be forty or less, I suggest it is time to scale the final down a bit. I have been thinking about it for quite some time already and when one of my regular readers mentioned similar thoughts in a comment, I think maybe I'm not all wrong.
If we would have eight qualifiers per semi final instead, that would bring the number of finalists down to 22 - just like it was back in the late 80's. Twenty-two is a number you can handle and it would free up quite a lot of time in the show as well. There would be more time for the host broadcaster to leave their own mark on the show and yet the voting would avoid feeling rushed or stressful.
This year, eight finalists per semi would have meant some of my personal favourites would have missed the final - most notably Estonia and Finland - but it would have given Petra Mede more time to breathe during the voting sequence.
If a drop down to 22 feels too dramatic, then have nine qualifiers per semi and make it 24 finalists. It would already be better.
It would make it a bit harder to qualify, but if it could enhance the most important product of the Eurovision factory - the Saturday night final - then be it. I think the EBU should have a look into it. For the sake of more accessible watching.
The camera work was accurate, tight and brought about a warmth that has been missing in some of the bigger arenas.
I really think this is the way to go - a more humane and warmer event is what Europe needs rather than a glossy but cold production. I hope DR will continue and try to stick to the same idea and find new ways of downshifting.
Unless something radical happens in the world - like the end of the financial crisis, for instance - and countries start streaming back into the ESC en masse, I would have another suggestion.
26 songs in the final actually does feel a bit much. I'm a huge eurofan but I feel that it is hard to digest and compare that many songs at once. How will the general audience feel, then?
If the number of participating countries for 2014 will be forty or less, I suggest it is time to scale the final down a bit. I have been thinking about it for quite some time already and when one of my regular readers mentioned similar thoughts in a comment, I think maybe I'm not all wrong.
If we would have eight qualifiers per semi final instead, that would bring the number of finalists down to 22 - just like it was back in the late 80's. Twenty-two is a number you can handle and it would free up quite a lot of time in the show as well. There would be more time for the host broadcaster to leave their own mark on the show and yet the voting would avoid feeling rushed or stressful.
This year, eight finalists per semi would have meant some of my personal favourites would have missed the final - most notably Estonia and Finland - but it would have given Petra Mede more time to breathe during the voting sequence.
If a drop down to 22 feels too dramatic, then have nine qualifiers per semi and make it 24 finalists. It would already be better.
It would make it a bit harder to qualify, but if it could enhance the most important product of the Eurovision factory - the Saturday night final - then be it. I think the EBU should have a look into it. For the sake of more accessible watching.
Wednesday, May 29, 2013
ESC 2013: numbers and more numbers
Some time after the big eurovision final, the EBU always releases the split results showing the differences between televoting and jury vote. Same procedure as every year. Yet this year, the numbers were even more highly anticipated by the fans, given the new ranking system in use.
In the past you had to make top ten in either televote or jury vote to get ranked at all. Starting from 2013, every song will be ranked and the final results based on this. A system that could make a huge difference all of a sudden.
Take small countries like Cyprus or Estonia - they are likely to provide a valid televote even though a relatively low number of people will vote there. I dare say that the placings they produce for songs outside top ten are perfectly arbitrary. You could just as well draw lots to determine their order. Yet these placings could have a huge impact on the final points given by this country.
Then again, the jury members are quite likely to distribute quite a few of their points arbitrarily as well. They probably know their top favourites pretty well, as well as the songs they want to place in the bottom of their list. But the songs in between? The placings between, say, 10 - 20?
I won't analyse the results any further as many other people already have.
I just find it amusing when some people are against the televote because their favourites scored poorly there or want to abolish the juries because of the very same reasons. That kind of analysis isn't really worth a lot.
I still think the EBU should have a look into this new system of grading all the points. Is it really as genius as they thought in the first place?
Secondly, there is still a problem with the juries as I see it. They keep Montenegro out of the final - despite entering a modern, genuine and non-conformative song - while they shower Azerbaijan - solid and well performed but hardly as original as a jury favourite should be - with points.
I have said it before but I really think the jury should be instructed to favour hit potential rather than fine singing or pretty harmonies. If a song has hit potential in a country, then the jury should recognise this and vote for it.
The complete split result is to be found here.
In the past you had to make top ten in either televote or jury vote to get ranked at all. Starting from 2013, every song will be ranked and the final results based on this. A system that could make a huge difference all of a sudden.
Take small countries like Cyprus or Estonia - they are likely to provide a valid televote even though a relatively low number of people will vote there. I dare say that the placings they produce for songs outside top ten are perfectly arbitrary. You could just as well draw lots to determine their order. Yet these placings could have a huge impact on the final points given by this country.
Then again, the jury members are quite likely to distribute quite a few of their points arbitrarily as well. They probably know their top favourites pretty well, as well as the songs they want to place in the bottom of their list. But the songs in between? The placings between, say, 10 - 20?
I won't analyse the results any further as many other people already have.
I just find it amusing when some people are against the televote because their favourites scored poorly there or want to abolish the juries because of the very same reasons. That kind of analysis isn't really worth a lot.
I still think the EBU should have a look into this new system of grading all the points. Is it really as genius as they thought in the first place?
Secondly, there is still a problem with the juries as I see it. They keep Montenegro out of the final - despite entering a modern, genuine and non-conformative song - while they shower Azerbaijan - solid and well performed but hardly as original as a jury favourite should be - with points.
I have said it before but I really think the jury should be instructed to favour hit potential rather than fine singing or pretty harmonies. If a song has hit potential in a country, then the jury should recognise this and vote for it.
The complete split result is to be found here.
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
It's too easy to ruin the fun
Everyone knows the PED (Post Eurovision Depression) I guess, and I thought I wouldn't let it get a grip on this blog. I thought it better to keep it going, to keep analysing, to keep thinking out loud.
But I must admit that all these rumours going around are really doing their best to kill the fun.
When you look into the voting patterns of this year's contest (and many, many people have) there seems to be a endless amount of funny-looking things there. Funny-looking little things that would perhaps not look too good if exposed to direct sunlight.
Trading of points? Check. Manipulating the televote in smaller countries? Check. EBU and Digame ignoring troublesome indications of vote fraud? Check. Politics? Extra big fat check. There is not one accusation that has not been phrased openly, I feel.
There has even been the implication that EBU and SVT pushed Danish victory in order to avoid any of the points-trading countries to win, but there must be some sort of upper limit also to the conspiracy theories, I feel.
So if you find me a bit quiet at the moment, it's because all of these discussions are giving me a bitter after taste. Eurovision should be fun and at the moment it feels more sordid.
It will soon be fun again, no doubt. But it would be time for the EBU to act so that their member broadcasters are not left feeling the way I do right now.
But I must admit that all these rumours going around are really doing their best to kill the fun.
When you look into the voting patterns of this year's contest (and many, many people have) there seems to be a endless amount of funny-looking things there. Funny-looking little things that would perhaps not look too good if exposed to direct sunlight.
Trading of points? Check. Manipulating the televote in smaller countries? Check. EBU and Digame ignoring troublesome indications of vote fraud? Check. Politics? Extra big fat check. There is not one accusation that has not been phrased openly, I feel.
There has even been the implication that EBU and SVT pushed Danish victory in order to avoid any of the points-trading countries to win, but there must be some sort of upper limit also to the conspiracy theories, I feel.
So if you find me a bit quiet at the moment, it's because all of these discussions are giving me a bitter after taste. Eurovision should be fun and at the moment it feels more sordid.
It will soon be fun again, no doubt. But it would be time for the EBU to act so that their member broadcasters are not left feeling the way I do right now.
Monday, May 20, 2013
ESC 2013: Dirty tricks during the voting?
The news are all over the place. According to Lithuanian online paper 15 min agents have paid people to vote for Azerbaijan in Lithuania as well as a number of other countries in order to improve their Eurovision result.
The proof is hard to verify and some people claim that the shows footage is staged and only made to slander the successful Azeri entries, but this excellent piece by 12points.tv show quite a few disturbing tendencies in the patterns of what countries vote extensively for Azerbaijan. Let's just say it doesn't look good.
There have also been equally unconfirmed rumours about other countries performing the same stunt - Russia has been named - in order to do well in the voting.
I see these allegations and get the same resigned feeling I had back in the years 1994-2002, another period with extensive trading of points - a standard that obviously upset the flow of points and most probably altered the final results considerably.
I remember sitting on the plane back home after the 2002 final in Tallinn, marking on the scoreboard every given point that seemed suspicious. After a while, having realised just how much trading had been going on, I just had to ask myself if there was any point to keep organising a contest as rigged as this one.
When Digame took over the supervision of televotes, things started to look better for several years but now the voting is beginning to leave a bad taste. Again.
I suggest the EBU investigates the situation properly and then sit down to have a hard think how to make the voting credible again. Eurovision - already tainted with rumours and allegations of being political and unfair - can not afford to have a voting that will upset the audiences.
The Eurovision Song Contest is just a light-hearted little game for the whole family. Strictly speaking the outcome is not important to the world as such.
But every light-hearted game - be it Trivial Pursuit, mini golf or Eurovision - has one thing in common. If some of the players start breaking the rules and cheat, then nobody will enjoy the game and nobody will want to play anymore.
Cheating kills the fun. So somebody better do something about this. At once.
The proof is hard to verify and some people claim that the shows footage is staged and only made to slander the successful Azeri entries, but this excellent piece by 12points.tv show quite a few disturbing tendencies in the patterns of what countries vote extensively for Azerbaijan. Let's just say it doesn't look good.
There have also been equally unconfirmed rumours about other countries performing the same stunt - Russia has been named - in order to do well in the voting.
I see these allegations and get the same resigned feeling I had back in the years 1994-2002, another period with extensive trading of points - a standard that obviously upset the flow of points and most probably altered the final results considerably.
I remember sitting on the plane back home after the 2002 final in Tallinn, marking on the scoreboard every given point that seemed suspicious. After a while, having realised just how much trading had been going on, I just had to ask myself if there was any point to keep organising a contest as rigged as this one.
When Digame took over the supervision of televotes, things started to look better for several years but now the voting is beginning to leave a bad taste. Again.
I suggest the EBU investigates the situation properly and then sit down to have a hard think how to make the voting credible again. Eurovision - already tainted with rumours and allegations of being political and unfair - can not afford to have a voting that will upset the audiences.
The Eurovision Song Contest is just a light-hearted little game for the whole family. Strictly speaking the outcome is not important to the world as such.
But every light-hearted game - be it Trivial Pursuit, mini golf or Eurovision - has one thing in common. If some of the players start breaking the rules and cheat, then nobody will enjoy the game and nobody will want to play anymore.
Cheating kills the fun. So somebody better do something about this. At once.
Sunday, May 19, 2013
2013 prediction: How wrong was I?
Yesterday I had a stab at predicting the outcome of the Eurovision final in Malmö and looking back on it now, I realise I wasn't completely wrong.
Out of 26 countries, 14 placed according to my prediction. Another five found themselves only one placing away from what I predicted. I can live with that. Then there were some spectacular miscalculations, of course.
FRANCE - I liked Amandine's raw and tempestuous performance, but this kind of song is hard to sell to a mainstream audience. I appreciate when people try to break out of the most common formats, but maybe there are limits as to how far you can go without putting people off.
FINLAND - Despite all the publicity and a very energetic appearance, Finland only scored a mere 13 points. None of which from its neighbour countries. Keeping the masses entertained does not automatically mean they will reward you with points.
GERMANY - I felt like I ruined the party for everyone yesterday not thinking Cascada had a chance of surpassing fourth place. In retrospect, my prediction was almost hysterically over-optimistic. Probably the miscalculation of the year.
GEORGIA - The G:son-penned love ballad failed to set the scoreboard on fire this time. While thinking the song and performance deserved more, I'm relieved the cheap trick didn't work out.
MALTA - I didn't think Gianluca would hit home the way he did but I was happy to be wrong. For a while, when he was not too far behind the top scorers, I secretly hoped for Malta to be the unexpected twist that would suddenly collect a bunch of twelvepointers and sail to victory.
IRELAND - I did get a bad feeling during Ryan's performance and thought to myself that this could be the one generic modern pop song too many for the audience, but I never in a million years thought this one would be left in last place. Completely undeserved.
DENMARK - Of course I saw the Danish song as a potential winner, but this is the second year that the biggest favourite wins by quite a comfortable margin. Also, the winner is a very typical safe old-school eurosong, and I would have hoped for the contest to have moved on a bit from that. It would have been so nice with a daring and more original winner. Like Netherlands, like Norway.
But all in all a great show with great songs and some really fine performances. Just possibly maybe I like the songs better than the final result, but you can't have it all, can you?
Out of 26 countries, 14 placed according to my prediction. Another five found themselves only one placing away from what I predicted. I can live with that. Then there were some spectacular miscalculations, of course.
FRANCE - I liked Amandine's raw and tempestuous performance, but this kind of song is hard to sell to a mainstream audience. I appreciate when people try to break out of the most common formats, but maybe there are limits as to how far you can go without putting people off.
FINLAND - Despite all the publicity and a very energetic appearance, Finland only scored a mere 13 points. None of which from its neighbour countries. Keeping the masses entertained does not automatically mean they will reward you with points.
GERMANY - I felt like I ruined the party for everyone yesterday not thinking Cascada had a chance of surpassing fourth place. In retrospect, my prediction was almost hysterically over-optimistic. Probably the miscalculation of the year.
GEORGIA - The G:son-penned love ballad failed to set the scoreboard on fire this time. While thinking the song and performance deserved more, I'm relieved the cheap trick didn't work out.
MALTA - I didn't think Gianluca would hit home the way he did but I was happy to be wrong. For a while, when he was not too far behind the top scorers, I secretly hoped for Malta to be the unexpected twist that would suddenly collect a bunch of twelvepointers and sail to victory.
IRELAND - I did get a bad feeling during Ryan's performance and thought to myself that this could be the one generic modern pop song too many for the audience, but I never in a million years thought this one would be left in last place. Completely undeserved.
DENMARK - Of course I saw the Danish song as a potential winner, but this is the second year that the biggest favourite wins by quite a comfortable margin. Also, the winner is a very typical safe old-school eurosong, and I would have hoped for the contest to have moved on a bit from that. It would have been so nice with a daring and more original winner. Like Netherlands, like Norway.
But all in all a great show with great songs and some really fine performances. Just possibly maybe I like the songs better than the final result, but you can't have it all, can you?
Wanted: Hit factor
One thought I've had in my mind quite some time is that while it is all fair and square to have the juries back in the voting. Not that they seem to have particularly counterbalanced the regional voting like they were hoped to do, but probably they have helped more advanced and daring entries a bit on their way.
For next year, I would just like to add one more thing to the list of things that a jury should observe. They already look for originality, quality singing and the level of performance over all. Good start. But fine singing alone does not make a hit single.
The question I would like the juries to ponder is: could this song be a commercial hit in our country? Does it suit our radio stations, would people here want to buy the single or buy a download? If the answer is yes, then that should provide high marks.
It is ridiculous that a hit single that Germany's scored so poorly last night while several other songs - original, well sung, well performed but commercially stone dead - did way better.
It must pay off to enter a hit song and a hit act. If these songs fail in the voting, we could be back to the bad old days of violins and bagpipes sooner than anyone could think.
For next year, I would just like to add one more thing to the list of things that a jury should observe. They already look for originality, quality singing and the level of performance over all. Good start. But fine singing alone does not make a hit single.
The question I would like the juries to ponder is: could this song be a commercial hit in our country? Does it suit our radio stations, would people here want to buy the single or buy a download? If the answer is yes, then that should provide high marks.
It is ridiculous that a hit single that Germany's scored so poorly last night while several other songs - original, well sung, well performed but commercially stone dead - did way better.
It must pay off to enter a hit song and a hit act. If these songs fail in the voting, we could be back to the bad old days of violins and bagpipes sooner than anyone could think.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)