ESC 2022: Ukraine did it again

You know the feeling when Eurovision is over and your head is boiling and you should go to bed but you really feel the need to blog a bit in order for your thoughts not to get too filtered through sleep?

So. Team Ukraine won. Big style. Like the bookmakers had thought they would ever since March. I had expected them to end in a dignified second place but the support from the televote was deafening.

In the end, the pop entries from the UK, Spain and Sweden had nothing on the etno-flute-rap served up by Kalush Orchestra. A strong entry that could have won any old year but that turned invincible by the emotional twist of cruel reality.

In case you know me, you know I am a pop kid who would want the most likely commercial hit to win the ESC. Even the slightest suspicion that something won because of anything else than hit factor is usually a big no in my book. But this is not our average year. This is a very unusual and very disturbing time. How can we expect any corner of our lives and cultures to be untouched by that?

The voting turned out to be very exciting although a bit shaky. Why was Laura Pausini absent for most of it? What happened to the countries that could not be contacted? Why did the hosts have to win time at deeply illogical places? 

A very large number of voting irregularities had been spotted in the semi finals. Would it be time to shrink the voting window down (and maybe get the voting started some ten-fifteen minutes after the last song) and see if that makes it harder to try and manipulate things? Or was it juries that behaved badly?

Speaking of irregularities but somebody has to mention Azerbaijan. The votes they received from the juries were odd to put it gently and the fact they qualified on jury vote alone while getting zero points from the viewers is astounding. For how much longer do we have to put up with their games?

Some things surprised me but I will content myself with saying how deeply sorry I am about the French fiasco. Going from a hot favourite to second last in a matter of days without really doing anything wrong is brutal. I hope the team doesn't give up - hang in there, la France. 

And then the big question... where will we go to next year? There is no way Ukraine can undertake an event like the ESC in 2023, even if the war was over tomorrow. The logical thing would be to ask the UK or Spain if they want to host, but would they want to without winning? Would they rather try to win it next year instead of hosting as a consolation prize?

Next year's contest is likely to be hosted by some EBU member broadcaster that could take it on without their budget taking too much of a hit while remaining relatively invisible and make room for a large input from Ukrainian television. I'd say the obvious choice would be Germany but what would that look like, now that they scored their third last place in ten years?

So many question and so little sleep ahead. Sweet dreams and may many of the entries live long and prosper in the charts.

ESC 2021: Time to put the foot down

Italy finally got to win Eurovision while France and Switzerland got their finest placings in many a good day. Then happened several things that would obscure the vision and distract the press and everyone else.

There was the absurd allegation that the winning band would have been doing drugs doing the voting. The very idea that someone would engage in a criminal activity while surrounded by cameras during one of the most watched shows in the world is so dumb that everyone contributing to spreading this accusation should hang their heads in shame.

Then people have been trying to put words in Barbara Pravi's mouth that she would be bitter and disappointed to get beaten by Måneskin, something she had very actively denied on her own social media. 

Maybe now we can focus on the things we should have focused on as soon as all results were made public after the final: the very obvious case that something is very wrong concerning the points given to Moldova in the televote of the second semi final.

Moldova had a fun song admittedly but in spite of an outright mediocre vocal performance, the detailed voting information shows a jaw-dropping eight countries awarded top marks to them. Some of these are countries that are notoriously easy to swing if you are inclined to do vote manipulation.

After the 2013 Azerbaijan vote manipulation scandal, the EBU reluctantly looked into the matter and promised to take action if there was anything that looked suspicious.

The Moldova case does not just look suspicious, it sets all the alarm lights flashing. Philipp Kirkorov and his team are no strangers to manipulating their way to victory in the Moldovan final. Now it would be about time to have a deep look into vote manipulation. Again. And slap some people with a participation ban.

There is probably no idea to put a ban on Moldova. Their broadcaster is a small one with a strained budget and it hardly has the means to manipulate the televotes in other countries.

All the figures should be examined (as well as some really odd jury scores too - hello, Bulgaria!) and if there has been any vote manipulation going on (and it sure looks like it) all the people involved - the so-called Dream Team - should be banned from participating.

The Eurovision Song Contest is like playing Trivial Pursuit: it really is just a game but as soon as somebody starts cheating and disregarding the rules the fun ends and nobody wants to play anymore. 

ESC 2016: Voting and stuff

Screenshot borrowed from svt.se

If you were one of the 16 countries that received a lower score in the televote it was really easy to lose track and hard to keep up with where your own country eventually landed in the ranking. That is my only criticism of the new voting sequence introduced this year.

The suspense was kept up until the very last second as Ukraine first snatched the until then seemingly dead certain Australian victory and then managed to keep it despite Russia winning the televote. Perfect drama.

Isolating the jury votes also brought back an air of Eurovision what it used to be like back in the day when I fell in love with the contest. Completely unpredictable results, someone gets a 12 from one country only to get nothing from the next.

But again I'd like to raise the same old discussion. Who is really on the jury? And what are they told to reward? Originality is one of the criteria, right?

I'm surprised that my dear Italy didn't get more love from the juries. A real quality pop song with remarkable production values and classy songwriting that was totally ignored by many juries.

Instead the likes of Lithuania and Belgium got a great deal of points. While I'm happy for two usually unlucky participant countries, I still don't see what there is in either song that would trigger such a reaction from experts.

At the same time, the juries held down Austria so much not even a strong televote finish could secure Zoë a spot in the top ten. Surprising.

ESC: Let's vote like it was 1985

I am yet to give you all my final prediction for tonight as I still haven't got the faintest idea who is going to win this year. It is all so open and so possible and so thrilling. If Abba were right and the history book on the shelf actually does repeat itself, then I am hoping for the voting to be a bit like it was back in 1985.

Look at the screenshot above. Switzerland just surprisingly gave their top mark to Turkey instead of neighbour - and red hot favourite - Germany and suddenly host country Sweden finds itself in the lead.

With four countries left to vote, the gap between the leader and the song in 6th place (Ireland) is a ridiculous twenty points. Had Sweden and Austria been as unpredictable as Switzerland, United Kingdom or even Ireland could leap into the lead.

Only moments earlier Italy had also been a real contender. Picture it: seven out of nineteen participants involved in the final battle for victory. Please let it happen again!

Then Luxembourg ruined the fun already in the second last round of voting and put Norway in a lead nobody could challenge which was fun for Bobbysocks but not so great for the drama.

With a bit of luck the new voting format will have us all screaming before we know the winner.

ESC 2015: the juries did what they should do

Moments after Måns Zelmerlöw had won the Eurovision Song Contest in Vienna, the full detailed voting was made public by the EBU.

I was too tired to dig into it myself but the people who did soon discovered that Italy won the televote by a landslide - had there been no juries, we would be headed for Rome next year.

In the televote Italy won, Russia came in second and Sweden third, but the jury vote reversed the top three and swung things around.

There is nothing wrong with this as such. That's in fact what the juries are there to do. To counterbalance certain things (diaspora votes, for instance) and strengthen songs that are good (and hit friendly) but not instant enough to hit home on one listening.

It is just remarkable how much the juries kept Italy down. (The same goes for Estonia, another entry one would expect be jury candy rather than a general audience favourite.) The Italian offering was relatively original, it was well sung, it had proved to have hit potential. Maybe professional jury experts don't want to be associated with anything as shameless and common as popera.

But I still have two main objections to the current jury system.

Each juror ranks all the songs in the running instead of just rewarding its favourite songs. You don't only pick your favourites - you can effectively give minus points by placing a country last, especially in the final. We saw last year how tempting it can be for some to disregard the entries in question and put countries in low places due to political preferences. What little I've seen so far this year points in the same direction.

The jurors are all hand-picked by people inside the ESC bubble and are probably not selected at random. Many of them are selected for having a history with the ESC rather than being contemporary or relevant. In some cases there seem to be very close ties between the selected jurors and the broadcasters they represent.

These jurors have an awful lot of influence on the voting, given there are just five per country. I'm not sure how I would revise this system - if at all - but if I was an EBU executive I would at least examine it thoroughly and evaluate how well it is working.

There seems to be flaws here in there, at least. Last year, the Georgian jury was disqualified - this year the same happened in Montenegro and FYR Macedonia. Following the rules without trying to bend them seems to be more difficult than you'd think.

40 years of 12 points

The 20th Eurovision Song Contest, held at the Stockholm Fair Centre in Älvsjö on March 22nd 1975 - forty years ago today - didn't only give the world Karin Falck and a number of immortal quotes, it also launched a big innovation. Arguably the most important innovation in the history of the contest.

The EBU had been thinking for years about how to improve the voting - more or less ever since the early 60's. The matter had become pressing after the 1969 contest had ended in a spectacular fiasco where four countries shared the victory and no rules were in place to break the tie.

The new voting system launched in 1971 - where every participating country provided two jurors that ranked each song except their own with a mark from one to five - proved complicated to follow and led to pretty arbitrary results. It was scrapped after only three years. Something else was needed.

Heikki Seppälä, working for Finnish tv, had a better idea. He suggested every jury should vote internally, then award points to their ten favourite songs. According to the original plan, the winner should receive fourteen points, in order to give it a leap ahead. For reasons best known to themselves, the EBU thought twelve points had a better ring to it.

The famous 12 points had been born. After the 1975 contest, the EBU were sure they had struck gold.  The new system made the voting exciting, easy to follow and - best of all - it seemed able to ensure no song would be left with nul points.

That last thing didn't quite work out and not every voting has been exciting since 1975, but on the whole this new system has been a success. Ultimate proof is that it is still standing, forty years down the line.

ESC 2014: The jurors and the votes they gave

I'm still fantastically pleased with the outcome of last night's Eurovision final. Why wouldn't I be? My prediction came out nicely - I nailed seven of the top ten countries - and the winner is a victory not only for Austria but for tolerance and for everyone's undeniable right to be who he or she wishes to be.

It was also a very fine voting that was far less predictable than it has been in years. Most countries dropped the exaggerated "dear neighbours"-approach and if there has been any cases of uncalled-for bias at least I haven't been able to detect them.

But perhaps since the voting in general looks clean and fair, some things stand out to hurt my eyes anyway. Maybe they stand out even worse because most countries behaved.

When looking at the detailed results and individual jury scores you realise some things do not look good in daylight. San Marino's jury have things to explain, for instance. At least one person changed his/her mind about Azerbaijan rather dramatically between the semi final and the final. I'd like to know how that happened.

Then there are the juries in Armenia and Azerbaijan. All Armenian judges put Azerbaijan in their last place, and the Azeri jurors did exactly the same. That has nothing to do with music, but is an act of politics. The very same jurors also obviously sabotaged the scores for Austria - surely as political a statement if not more.

The EBU said they would take strong measures against any kind of vote manipulation this year. If this is not vote manipulation, then what is?

Appointing a jury that clearly does not vote for musical preferences but in accordance with the political agenda of their country - is that what the EBU wishes for. A long hard talk with these broadcasters would be in place.

Also, the EBU should scrap the current voting system where every juror ranks all songs instead of just voting for their top ten. It makes it far too easy to sabotage the chances of one or several songs for the wrong reasons. Time to look over the system, admit it is not working and go back to something better.

ESC 2014: How prejudiced are we?

Usually you'd think that Eurovision was a competition between songs, but this year it seems to be bigger than that. It is more like a complex fairy-tale where good stands against bad. Tolerance against bigotry.

I think (and hope) we will have the closest voting in many years, hopefully we will still have at least two countries in the running up until the very end. And I believe we are all getting stuck in prejudiced ideas.

If we assume automatically that the former Soviet countries wouldn't vote for Austria because Conchita Wurst is a controversial figure, especially in the light of the Russian anti-gay legislation, then we are really under-estimating these countries.

Somehow the prejudiced people are always the loudest. Also in various eurovision discussions throughout spring, there have been loads of intolerant voices criticising Austria's choice, belittling the judgement of ORF, belittling the performing qualities of Conchita Wurst. Also among LGBTQ-people, there has been a lot of judgement and negative comments. They are still there, but in the end it seems that those loud, negative voices were fewer than they seemed to start with.

Just because there is a lot of prejudice, racism and intolerance floating about right now does not mean that the haters will sit at home tonight and vote or that they will have an important influence on how the juries vote.

Why wouldn't a Russian juror be able to appreciate the Austrian performance? And why wouldn't the televoters in Ukraine - who selected Verka Serduchka to represent them already seven years ago - vote for Austria?

Another thing that could make everything possible tonight: if the voting is all over the place, you will need fewer points to actually win.

In 2011, Azerbaijan won with a modest 221 points with 43 countries participating. This year, with six countries less voting, you could theoretically win with less than 200 points and afford scoring zero from a number of countries.

Everything is up for grabs and I just hope we will have a close, tense and exciting evening and may Slovenia as the last country have the decisive vote - just like they had in 1988 and 2003.

ESC 2014: the voting order

Back in the day, the countries would vote in the same order as they had sung or - if you go back far enough, in reverse order so that the last country would have time to count their points while their own country was performing. A clever trick in order to save time and not have to think up any kind of interval act.

Some years, the voting order was decided through a draw but since 2011 there has been a new, better and more scientific way of establishing the voting order.

After the late Friday night dress rehearsal, when every country's jury has seen and heard the songs and cast their votes, the EBU sends all the figures into their computer system in order to calculate the most exciting order that will keep the voting tense and exciting for as long as possible.

The first year it worked very nicely and for the first third of the voting at least the leader board kept changing almost after every single round of voting.

In 2012 and 2013, however, no computer system in the world could have managed to shake any major excitement into the voting sequences as both winners won by a landslide.

In order to save time by the end of the broadcast in 2013, for the first time the winner was announced before the end of the voting at the point where no other country could catch up anyway. I wish that won't happen again this year as it is a real party destroyer. If this turns out to be a very close race, then it can't be done anyway.

The running order is established on how the juries - with half the power tonight - have voted. Then the televotes will be added and things can change dramatically anyway, but can you read anything from this voting order?

1. Azerbaijan, 2. Greece, 3. Poland, 4. Albania, 5. San Marino, 6. Denmark, 7. Montenegro, 8. Romania, 9. Russia, 10. Netherlands, 11. Malta, 12. France, 13. United Kingdom, 14. Latvia, 15. Armenia, 16. Iceland, 17. FYR Macedonia, 18. Sweden, 19. Belarus, 20. Germany, 21. Israel, 22. Portugal, 23. Norway, 24. Estonia, 25. Hungary, 26. Moldova, 27. Ireland, 28. Finland, 29. Lithuania, 30. Austria, 31. Spain, 32. Belgium, 33. Italy, 34. Ukraine, 35. Switzerland, 36. Georgia, 37. Slovenia.

The last time the voting became so close that the last country had the casting vote was in 2003 - also then Slovenia was the last one to vote. Will they add the last points needed for one of their neighbours to win?

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.

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.

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.

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.

ESC 2013: the voting order in the final

You've got to admire the EBU and their current ambition to make the ESC as exciting as possible for as long a time as possible, and since 2011 they sequence the order the countries vote in so that a winner will emerge as late as possible during the voting sequence.

A good ambition that worked well in 2011 and less so in 2012 as Loreen decided to literally run away with the trophy in a way that no mathematic game play could have made look exciting for any longer portion of time.

After the juries had cast their votes last night, the EBU computer went into hard labour and made the perfect voting sequence order to sustain tension for the longest time, at least before the televotes have been added.

Are there any clues to the result here? Most of the Nordic countries vote early which would make a Nordic winner less likely. Bad news for Denmark and Norway? Or is one of them the runaway winner of the year?

Four of the ex-yugoslav countries that all failed in the semis vote among the ten last. What does that mean? Will some country emerge and grab the lead at a late stage? Italy, perhaps? Or Greece?

Or are their votes already unable to change the outcome at that point? Or do they agree with everyone else?

In a matter of hours we will know. This is the order the countries will vote in tonight:

1. San Marino, 2. Sweden, 3. Albania, 4. Netherlands, 5.Austria, 6. United Kingdom, 7. Israel, 8. Serbia, 9. Ukraine, 10. Hungary, 11. Romania, 12. Moldova, 13. Azerbaijan, 14. Norway, 15. Armenia, 16. Italy, 17. Finland, 18. Spain, 19. Belarus, 20. Latvia, 21. Bulgaria, 22. Belgium, 23. Russia, 24. Malta, 25. Estonia, 26. Germany, 27. Iceland, 28. France, 29. Greece, 30. Ireland, 31. Denmark, 32. Montenegro, 33. Slovenia, 34. Georgia, 35. FYR Macedonia, 36. Cyprus, 37. Croatia, 38. Switzerland, 39. Lithuania.

ESC 1991 - it's a draw!

The other day, I wrote about how the 1988 voting left me gasping for my breath for the first time but that would be nothing compared to the thriller of 1991.

I had faint memories of Herreys' victory back in 1984, but for the first time as an active eurofan I had the feeling that my native Sweden could actually have the possibility of winning. I suspect many younger eurofans from Sweden have the same feeling this year.

The voting soon turned into a very tight race with no less than five countries battling it out for victory: Switzerland, Sweden, France, Israel and Spain were contenders until a very late stage, where Spain and Switzerland fell behind.

Finally, it seemed also France dropped too far behind, leaving the final battle to Sweden and Israel - but little did we know. The final jury - the Italian one - gave nul points to Sweden and Israel respectively but awarded their top mark to France.

As if this tension was not enough: add two of the least suitable hosts ever - previous winners Toto Cutugno and Gigliola Cinquetti - whose lack of languages skills as well as any detectable interest for the voting taking place left EBU scrutineer Frank Naef increasingly weary throughout the process.

When the tie between Sweden and France is a fact the result is complete confusion on stage as neither one of the hosts has the slightest idea what to do.



ESC 1991 - the end of the voting (with BBC commentator Terry Wogan)

Trying very hard to keep control over his voice and actions, monsieur Naef manages to sort out the situation. According to a new paragraph in the rules - established as late as after the 1988 ESC (probably because the tight voting that year reminded the EBU it might come to use one of these years) - the juries would not be called back to cast new votes.

Instead, there was a countback and the country recieving the biggest number of top marks would be deemed winner. As both countries involved in this tie had scored four 12-pointers each, the scrutineer went on to count ten-pointers instead. Sweden had five, France had two, and Carola had won the whole thing.

The French delegation - claiming to be completely unaware of this change of rules - were reportedly very upset about the final verdict. The Israeli act, Duo Datz, had on the other hand made friends with Carola during the week and they stayed in touch for several years afterwards. (Maybe still today, is there anyone out there who knows?)

Tobson, aged 15, was extatic about the Swedish victory and the new-found hope of possibly seeing the Eurovision Song Contest live for the first time. It wasn't to be - the tickets were expensive as well as sold-out - but the dramatic victory of Carola remained an important event for this young fan.



Carola - Fångad av en stormvind (Sweden 1991)

24 years ago: a very tight finish

At this very night, twenty-four years ago, 12-year old Tobson decided to give Walpurgis a miss for the first time ever and instead stay home and watch the Eurovision final from Dublin (in the company of classmate who had come down with a fever and who fell asleep after five or so songs).

There was a tremenduous feeling of suspense as the Swedish entry (my entry, being Swedish and all) was marred with Tommy Körberg's throat problems leading to heavy speculation in the press as to whether he would be able to sing or not.

Swedish tabloid Aftonbladet had tipped a tight race between Sweden, Switzerland and Israel. I didn't disagree, but hoped that my personal favourites from Spain, Denmark and Iceland could stand a chance too.

All that feeling of suspense in advance was nothing compared with what we had in store before the show was over. What seemed like a runaway victory for Switzerland soon turned into a battle between Celine Dion and Scott Fitzgerald before the latter pulled away, leading with a comfortable margin as Portugal cast their votes as #20 out of 21 participants.

And then the whole thing changed again. Switzerland was suddenly just five points behind the UK as Pat Kenny and Michelle Rocca call up the Yugoslav jury in Ljubljana. The rules stated that the juries were not supposed to know the standings when called up, but it sounds like Miša Molk knows a fair share, seemingly adding to the drama.

This, the closest voting sequence I had ever seen left me speechless and every time I watch it again I feel the thriller element again. Since then, only four votings have been as tight as this one, donning the same kind of suspense up until the bitter end.

Watch the final votes coming in here and enjoy - it is impossible not to be happy for Céline Dion and the Swiss delegation afterwards. Unless, of course, you are BBC commentator Terry Wogan.



Céline Dion - Ne partez pas sans moi (Switzerland 1988)