Liechtenstein and Eurovision

As stated in my last post, the song "Un beau matin" by Vetty was a Eurovision parody and not - as stated on the record sleeve - the 1969 Liechtenstein entry for Eurovision. But what do we know about the tiny state and their relationship to the ESC, then?

Flag from Wikipedia

It is known that Liechtenstein made a brave attempt to participate at the 1976 Eurovision and that a song - "Little Cowboy" performed by Biggi Bachmann - was selected for the purpose. Reliable sources even claim that the song was selected by the national parliament, supposedly on a day without too heavy items on the political agenda.

However, disappointment hit Vaduz as the EBU rejected their entry. The ESC is a competition not between countries but between EBU member broadcasters and as Liechtenstein didn't even have a national radio station at the time they were hopelessly left out in the cold.

The same reliable sources claim that Switzerland - in a grand gesture - offered to compete under the name of "Switzerland & Liechtenstein" in The Hague. Dutch tv rejected the idea as the long name wouldn't fit on the scoreboard.

Biggi Bachmann continued her career, releasing at least two singles, and participated in the 1979 Swiss final where she ended second last singing "Musik Musik". After that traces of her are scarce, leading me to believe neither one of her singles propelled her into any major grade of stardom. As far as I know, "Little Cowboy" was neither recorded nor ever made public in any way.

In 2008, Liechtenstein became the last european country to have their own tv station. 1FLTV is strictly speaking not a state broadcaster but a private channel, however have they voiced an ambition to join the EBU as well as the Eurovision Song Contest. To date, these plans have come to nothing.

Unlike what is stated here and there online, 1FLTV has never been rejected by the EBU. They have simply never applied to be an active member, for reasons best known to themselves. In these grim times of financial crises, it seems likely that the owners would be reluctant to plunge headlong into any costly projects.

Until they have a change of heart, Liechtenstein remains the only independent and internationally recognised state in Europe not to have participated in the Eurovision Song Contest, alongside the Vatican state.

Eurovision and Wikipedia

Last night I heard the news that the first ever participant to grace a Eurovision stage - Jetty Paerl of the Netherlands - had passed away at the respectable age of 92. I decided to check her up on Wikipedia - as I knew little about her other achievements - and stumbled across another one of these strangely inaccurate "facts" that often surround the Eurovision Song Contest.

Wikipedia screen capture

You can see for yourselves, it bluntly states that this first Eurovision was only broadcast on radio and not on television. A small thing in this large universe, perhaps, but I still believe encyclopedias should be correct. Otherwise I could just as well write my own.

There seems to be a fraction of the eurovision fanbase so desperate to participate and contribute that they don't mind inventing things or, perhaps, just jump to conclusions and never take a second to doubt (or verify) what they came up with.

Even more strange is the fact that the inaccuracies often remain without being corrected or removed. I think if somebody wrote on Wikipedia that the moon is made of cheese or that Ireland is mainly inhabited by elves, it would be corrected rather soon.

The real problem is that the longer an inaccuracy is left to linger, the more people will believe it. Finally it will become a "truth". Like Liechtenstein 1969, for instance.

In 1969, French record label released an EP including the song "Un beau matin", a parody of the typical eurosongs of its time, and the cover stated the song to be the entry of Liechtenstein for the 1969 Eurovision Song Contest. Just as a joke. To make sure nobody took it seriously.



Vetty - Un beau matin

Still today, disturbingly often, you see serious texts claim that Liechtenstein really intended to take part in Madrid but for unknown reasons never appeared.

This is just one of the many stories that seem impossible to get rid of. Like dandelions they keep popping up everywhere, reappearing shortly after you think you extinguished them.

Life would be so much easier if people checked their sources and tried to verify their facts a little bit better. Until then, we all have to keep our heads calm and not believe everything we read.

Not even on Wikipedia.

What about the Big Five?

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.

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.

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.