So - the moral of today's stories is that the draw has been over-analysed (by people like myself) and that there really are no jinxed starting positions bound to ruin your chances.
And yet - there are at least two starting positions that really seem to wreck a song's chances since televoting was introduced.
Being drawn first in the final seems to do you no favours. Ask Azerbaijan's Safura or Finland's Paradise Oskar if they felt singing first enhanced their chances.
The other real shipwreck of a starting position is being the first song after the commercial break. It is not necessarily a position that will make you crash and burn, but it is like the short break ruins the focus of the viewers. Could it be that the break distracts just enough people for your song to lose its chances?
Hari Mati Hari felt like a strong contender for victory, like the song able to gather all possible ballad points in one basket. Its draw, right after the commercial break, changed the whole thing.
It was still bound to score well - it still holds the best Bosnian result to date - but it didn't feel like a potential winner anymore.
Sometimes the draw can make a huge difference, indeed.
Hari Mata Hari - Lejla (Bosnia-Herzegovina 2006)
Showing posts with label bad draw. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bad draw. Show all posts
Sunday, April 1, 2012
Bad Draw Day: Turkey 1997
Typical Turkish bad luck, the way it used to be at Eurovision. Turkey had been drawn early on in the running order most of the years, usually going back home with dismal placings and a few complimentary points in their suitcase.
Most people agreed that the Turkish entry was the most user-friendly one for years, but then again being drawn in the dreaded #2 slot would do it no favours.
What did we know? The biggest underdog there ever was in the contest (since Norway shaped up in the mid-80's) surprised everyone and scored their by far best placing until then. Şebnem Paker recieved three top marks and came in third.
This proves beyond the shadow of a doubt, that a bad draw can make things a bit harder for you. But a good song is still a good song, a convincing performance is still a convincing performance, and when it is time to vote nobody cares what starting position you had.
Once you break through to people, you will score. A good starting position just makes everything a little easier.
Şebnem Paker & Grup Ethnic - Dinle (Turkey 1997)
Most people agreed that the Turkish entry was the most user-friendly one for years, but then again being drawn in the dreaded #2 slot would do it no favours.
What did we know? The biggest underdog there ever was in the contest (since Norway shaped up in the mid-80's) surprised everyone and scored their by far best placing until then. Şebnem Paker recieved three top marks and came in third.
This proves beyond the shadow of a doubt, that a bad draw can make things a bit harder for you. But a good song is still a good song, a convincing performance is still a convincing performance, and when it is time to vote nobody cares what starting position you had.
Once you break through to people, you will score. A good starting position just makes everything a little easier.
Şebnem Paker & Grup Ethnic - Dinle (Turkey 1997)
Bad Draw Day: Italy 1989
I'm not sure if the draw is really to blame here. Something must have been fundamentally wrong in the universe when a song like this enters Eurovision only to recieve nul points from thirteen out of twenty-one juries possible.
One would think that a skillful jury would be able to recognise a sophisticated and well-crafted ballad in an ocean of slightly less striking entries, but these juries failed big time. On the other hand, they gave the victory to a jaunty but lightweight little ditty from Yugoslavia, so the Italian ballad probably never entered their radar.
Clearly calculated on their successful Sanremo entry "Ti lascerò" from the same year, Anna Oxa and Fausto Leali reunited to do Eurovision together. For many years, Italy struggled to get any kind of recognition from the juries and 1989 was no exception.
Blame it on the draw or not, this was a most unexpected and undeserved flop.
Anna Oxa & Fausto Leali - Avrei voluto (Italy 1989)
One would think that a skillful jury would be able to recognise a sophisticated and well-crafted ballad in an ocean of slightly less striking entries, but these juries failed big time. On the other hand, they gave the victory to a jaunty but lightweight little ditty from Yugoslavia, so the Italian ballad probably never entered their radar.
Clearly calculated on their successful Sanremo entry "Ti lascerò" from the same year, Anna Oxa and Fausto Leali reunited to do Eurovision together. For many years, Italy struggled to get any kind of recognition from the juries and 1989 was no exception.
Blame it on the draw or not, this was a most unexpected and undeserved flop.
Anna Oxa & Fausto Leali - Avrei voluto (Italy 1989)
Bad Draw Day: Romania 2008
Very much the same case as Finland 2011 - a ballad that stood out as very attractive in its semi-final and counted as one of the pre-contest favourites. A classy little bilingual Italian-style song, where pseudo-classical singing meets up with a pop voice in close harmony.
This is the kind of song that is designed to come as a healthy break after loads of dancing and singing and uptempo and Finnish bare-chested rock groups. Performing first on the night can never do it any favours, regardless of how well you sing.
Nicola & Vlad - Pe-o margine di lume (Romania 2008)
This is the kind of song that is designed to come as a healthy break after loads of dancing and singing and uptempo and Finnish bare-chested rock groups. Performing first on the night can never do it any favours, regardless of how well you sing.
Nicola & Vlad - Pe-o margine di lume (Romania 2008)
Bad Draw Day: Yugoslavia 1991
Opening the contest should, in theory, make you stand out and be a strong advantage in a long lineup of songs. But it doesn't always help.
After doing really well for a couple of years with their joyful uptempo numbers, Yugoslavia was predicted to score fairly well in Rome with samba-flavoured "Brazil" performed by Baby Doll. However, all juries made thumbs down and only Malta awarded it one poor little point in the end.
A bit strange, given that the 1991 ESC could stand out as one of the slowest ever with huge quantities of ballads, several of which being sopoforic rather than beautiful.
On some level I can understand if Baby Doll failed to reach the quality requirements of the jury, but then - in all fairness - so should the likes of Luxembourg, Ireland and Germany too.
I wonder if Baby Doll hadn't scored a bit better had she had the chance to storm in with her kitschy number after a row of seriously dull ballads instead of singing first?
Baby Doll - Brazil (Yugoslavia 1991)
After doing really well for a couple of years with their joyful uptempo numbers, Yugoslavia was predicted to score fairly well in Rome with samba-flavoured "Brazil" performed by Baby Doll. However, all juries made thumbs down and only Malta awarded it one poor little point in the end.
A bit strange, given that the 1991 ESC could stand out as one of the slowest ever with huge quantities of ballads, several of which being sopoforic rather than beautiful.
On some level I can understand if Baby Doll failed to reach the quality requirements of the jury, but then - in all fairness - so should the likes of Luxembourg, Ireland and Germany too.
I wonder if Baby Doll hadn't scored a bit better had she had the chance to storm in with her kitschy number after a row of seriously dull ballads instead of singing first?
Baby Doll - Brazil (Yugoslavia 1991)
Bad Draw Day: Finland 2011
It all started out so nicely, with the best possible draw for a song like this. In the semi final, Paradise Oskar came in as a breath of fresh air with a relaxed and scaled-down little number. Easy on the ear as well as the eye, with a chorus everyone could sing along with.
The song stormed into the final, ending third in its semi, with top marks from no less than three countries.
That is where the good luck ended, as getting drawn to perform first in the final ruined the whole act. The appeal of "Da Da Dam" is that it is simple and uncomplicated, standing out from many of the other entries. For that to work, you need other songs to compare it to.
Coming first, the Finnish entry was reduced to just a pleasant song by a pleasant performer. Nice, in short. And nobody votes for nice.
Had it been #24 instead, anything could have happened. Probably.
Paradise Oskar - Da Da Dam (Finland 2011)
The song stormed into the final, ending third in its semi, with top marks from no less than three countries.
That is where the good luck ended, as getting drawn to perform first in the final ruined the whole act. The appeal of "Da Da Dam" is that it is simple and uncomplicated, standing out from many of the other entries. For that to work, you need other songs to compare it to.
Coming first, the Finnish entry was reduced to just a pleasant song by a pleasant performer. Nice, in short. And nobody votes for nice.
Had it been #24 instead, anything could have happened. Probably.
Paradise Oskar - Da Da Dam (Finland 2011)
Bad Draw Day: Luxembourg 1984
When Luxembourg hosted the 1973 ESC, they won on home ground and several people involved rated their chances quite highly of repeating the trick when hosting eleven years later.
Their song was seen as a fresh and modern piece of very catchy pop, more bang up to date than the very classical ballad they had won with the year before.
Unfortunately, they were drawn at the dreaded #2 spot, right after the sensation of the year - the synchronised singing and dancing boys from Sweden - and what was expected to be a candidate for victory had to content itself with a lacklustre tenth place.
In all fairness, maybe the draw wasn't the only thing pulling this one down. Model-turned-singer Sophie Carle apparently sang flawlessly in all rehearsals but lost her plot completely on the day of the final, not exactly standing out as the Maria Callas of Luxembourg.
Sophie Carle - 100 % d'amour (Luxembourg 1984)
Their song was seen as a fresh and modern piece of very catchy pop, more bang up to date than the very classical ballad they had won with the year before.
Unfortunately, they were drawn at the dreaded #2 spot, right after the sensation of the year - the synchronised singing and dancing boys from Sweden - and what was expected to be a candidate for victory had to content itself with a lacklustre tenth place.
In all fairness, maybe the draw wasn't the only thing pulling this one down. Model-turned-singer Sophie Carle apparently sang flawlessly in all rehearsals but lost her plot completely on the day of the final, not exactly standing out as the Maria Callas of Luxembourg.
Sophie Carle - 100 % d'amour (Luxembourg 1984)
Bad Draw Day: the importance of a good draw
I'm going to try to make up for the recent lack of updates here by running a special theme. Ever since the draw was established, people have analysed and over-analysed the importance of these magical numbers and jumped to some rather far-stretching conclusions already.
It is clear to me that the draw is far from unimportant. In order to make you a potential winner, you need to come in at the right spot where people will notice you and where you will stand out in a good light.
It is also clear that some parts of the running order are better than others. If you sing closer to the end, the televoting masses are more likely to remember you than if you sing as number six.
But I don't believe in the importance given to specific numbers. That it would be better to be #17, while #16 would be worse off.
A song performed as #2 on the night never won a final, that is true. There must be some kind of explanation for that. And I suppose the biggest reason is the short attention span of the audience - there is such high focus on the first song and the viewers/voters can't keep that up. That means that the second song needs to be very strong and convincing to stand a chance.
If your pop song gets drawn at #22 after a row of sleep-inducing ballads, that is of course and advantage. But that has more to do with those ballads and less with #22 as such.
You get my point, right? There is no such thing as an impossible starting position, and there are no automatically great positions either.
It should be good to sing first or last - given the extra attention and how that makes you stand out in the presentation - but song #1 has only won three times (and not since 1984), while the last song has won six times (and not since 1989).
So let's not over-analyse this running order. I realise it made it easier for some and harder for some, but what really counts is how people deliver on stage come May. (But it would be a bit of a thrill to see red hot favourite Sweden drawn as #2 in the final - that would add some tension to the mix.)
And then the theme of the day: a number of songs that might (or might not) have lost their battle due to bad luck in the draw.
It is clear to me that the draw is far from unimportant. In order to make you a potential winner, you need to come in at the right spot where people will notice you and where you will stand out in a good light.
It is also clear that some parts of the running order are better than others. If you sing closer to the end, the televoting masses are more likely to remember you than if you sing as number six.
But I don't believe in the importance given to specific numbers. That it would be better to be #17, while #16 would be worse off.
A song performed as #2 on the night never won a final, that is true. There must be some kind of explanation for that. And I suppose the biggest reason is the short attention span of the audience - there is such high focus on the first song and the viewers/voters can't keep that up. That means that the second song needs to be very strong and convincing to stand a chance.
If your pop song gets drawn at #22 after a row of sleep-inducing ballads, that is of course and advantage. But that has more to do with those ballads and less with #22 as such.
You get my point, right? There is no such thing as an impossible starting position, and there are no automatically great positions either.
It should be good to sing first or last - given the extra attention and how that makes you stand out in the presentation - but song #1 has only won three times (and not since 1984), while the last song has won six times (and not since 1989).
So let's not over-analyse this running order. I realise it made it easier for some and harder for some, but what really counts is how people deliver on stage come May. (But it would be a bit of a thrill to see red hot favourite Sweden drawn as #2 in the final - that would add some tension to the mix.)
And then the theme of the day: a number of songs that might (or might not) have lost their battle due to bad luck in the draw.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)