Eurovision Season 2019: What Have We Learned?
Right, having gotten my previous rant out of the way, I now feel in a calm enough state to discuss when 2019 brought in terms of perspective to the Eurovision Song Contest. What has edition 64 brought us to inform edition 65 and beyond?
We should begin considering a hosting threshold
Now, I'll admit that our quartet this year were better than the Lisbon hosts but that was a really low bar to traverse over. I know that it's a good opportunity to showcase local presenting talent but it is still the biggest TV show in the world and we should remember that the scripting of these shows are done by people who don't necessarily all have an amazing grasp of English. I know that the video during 2017 of Mans training the Ukrainian hosts was comedic but I actually believe that maybe the EBU offering the potential hosts and scriptwriters a crash course on how to do Eurovision whilst keeping the cultural sense of humour that makes each year's hosting distinctive would be very beneficial. They don't need to go public with it, but even if they did it privately, I think the improvement would be noticeable.
There is no special dispensation for the big names
Ok, so maybe we sort of knew this beforehand but I think this year really brought home that reality. Darude finished LAST in that first semi-final having gone through a national final where everybody acknowledges Finland picked the best of the three songs. Alongside him as non-qualifiers were Joci Papai and Roko (brought to you by Jacques Houdek). Yes, a name brings a fanbase and the fanbase is handy when it comes to some votes but you need more than an international fanbase even just to get out of the Semi-Finals. Let's not forget that our champion this year won the contest with his first-ever single. Ultimately, it will always come down to the song and the performance over reputation. Bad news for any British Eurovision fans out there hoping we might someday send Adele or Robbie Williams.
It's time to consider axing the juries
I wrote this in the equivalent post last year and I am bringing it into this year too. I am bored of five "music professionals" having the exact same say in the final contest as the voting public of a whole country. In the past, I saw that it might work in the context of having elements of performance be highlighted that the voting public might not recognise. However, I then see the songs that are supposedly winning these jury votes and I would love somebody to explain to me how the Dutch act was technically the third best on Saturday night. Which brings me to another point, am I the only one who is beginning to think that the juries judging an entirely different performance from the one we watch to perhaps be slightly problematic to the final result? I think that whilst the EBU are surely still a few years away from actually seriously considering axing the juries, I am definitely an advocate for it. Norway were the chosen favourites of the European public and given their story as a group, they would have been perfectly worthy winners of the whole contest. The juries are becoming more and more outdated at the contest and I strongly believe I am not the only one amongst the fanbase and viewing public who agrees.
No country is a guaranteed qualifier
Hungary's failure to qualify this year marked their first non-qualification in all my years watching the contest. It was a reminder of the classic cliché that every country starts at 0. People may argue that the Swedes are a year-on-year guaranteed qualifier but they have had their own experience of failing to make the Grand Final. All I am saying is that with the exception of Australia, no country has a 100% qualification record at the contest and even countries with large diasporas around Europe will need votes from others to see their act get out of the Semi-Final.
Unique staging and novelty acts aren't guaranteed to succeed
I will be the first to stand up and say that coming into the contest, I had Portugal as a nailed-on qualifier and Iceland as this winner. This wasn't specifically a novelty-based response, but it was what I thought about unique staging and songs being enough to stand out. To be fair, this is definitely true amongst the voting public who gave Iceland the victory in the first Semi-Final, but the juries certainly proved to be a tougher group to win over for songs that pushed the boat out artistically. I won't go on too much about my views on this (even though the vocal techniques in the Icelandic song are incredibly difficult to achieve and this wasn't recognised in their jury points tally) so I will look at the bigger picture and say that to do well at Eurovision, you need more than crazy costumes, bizarre lyrics or three bendy poles.
Covers at Eurovision are not the best idea
I am definitely going to get a lot of stick for saying this one but Dana International singing Bruno Mars complete with kiss cam was the most cringe-worthy moment I have ever seen at a Eurovision Song Contest. They then wheel out Shalva band during the other Semi to sing a song from the Greatest Showman. It's just weird. These are singers who have an incredible back-catalogue of work they could opt for and instead they perform songs we have already heard many times in a way that is not original enough for it to stand out. This brings me on to the Switch Song. The Eurovision fan in me appreciated being able to see all these different artists cover each other's songs but I wasn't amazed by it and the constant interruptions throughout were very offputting. It was a memorable interval act but it had very little to do with Israel and therefore anybody could have shoved that act in their song contest. I would have been curious to see the various Israeli acts cover each other's songs. Netta doing 'Golden Boy'? Nadav Guedj doing 'A Ba Ni Bi'? Gali Atari doing 'Diva'? Maybe I'm just being pernickety but I don't feel like we saw enough of them and that would have been a really fun concept to experience and watch instead of just getting recent successful acts. Though to be honest, I am all up for just letting artists sing their own songs and express their own artistry.
Delegations can alter their act before the finals (but shouldn't)
I will never forgive the Israeli delegation for ruining Kobi's song this year. They took what was set to be the most understated song in the final and put weird beats under it in order to make it a pop song that it never was. By contrast, the French did an entire remix to 'Roi' and didn't really make any big deal about it at all until rehearsals started. It was a decent remix but I had no opportunity to listen to it and understand it before it was up on that stage and that was extremely confusing in terms of deciding how I felt about a song that I hated in its original form. Look, I understand that the rules don't force you to show all your cards on an act before the Head of Delegation meeting but from a fan perspective, I felt like I fell in love with a song only to be told that what I was told I would get wasn't what I was going to get. It's a feeling I can only compare to ordering something at a restaurant and getting something entirely different. Make your decisions in-house and then when you release the song Eurovision delegations in that final week before your deadline, please have it be the one we are working with so that us as Eurovision fans know what we are getting behind heading into the promotional tour, rehearsals and then shows.
We can't take the rehearsal process for granted
I will be the first to put my hand up and say that I trusted the Eurovision process enough to say that everybody would be ready to go come the final shows. Yes, it is a massive TV production and a lot of work gets put into it but as far as I know, everybody who has put the contest together seems to have managed fine. In the time I have been properly following the contest, a newly-monied Azerbaijan, a shipyard-based Denmark and a war-torn Ukraine managed it so what was it about 2019's technical process that the Israelis found so hard to manage? I feel like by definition this year's show was not of the standard that it could have been because acts were having technical difficulties throughout and therefore not able to bring their artistic vision for the performance to this year's competition. Additionally, the Estonian camera angle mishap was just an embarrassment and something that no professional TV producer in their right mind would stand for in any circumstance let alone the biggest TV show in the world.
Contemporary Pop music can give an indication on who could do well
Whatever your thoughts on Duncan Laurence and 'Arcade', nobody can argue that it isn't an extremely contemporary song that would fit on popular music radio stations around the world. It is not a "Eurovision" song and perhaps that is a healthy indicator as we look towards the future that Eurovision is becoming more relevant to general audiences. If the public not just in Europe but around the world can look at a Eurovision winner and recognise it as something they would listen to, then we as Eurovision fans are a step further towards making the contest something that is treated with respect and that in turn leads to better quality of artists coming forward to participate and ultimately a better show. I can't make any calls on what Eurovision 2020 will be like at this moment, but what I do know that it will be full of songs that aren't "Eurovision" songs specifically but are instead entries, artists and sounds that wouldn't feel out of place in a global, mainstream, popular music landscape.
Right, that's been Eurovision Season 2019. What did you learn from this year? What do you make of the connotations of the points made above? Please leave your comments below and don't forget to subscribe to the blog using the link above. We will be continuing to write content throughout the summer including a look at the best Dutch entries of all time and some wider thoughts on the wonderful world of Eurovision coming soon. For now, it's time to decompress, take a breath and enjoy the beautiful summer weather!
We should begin considering a hosting threshold
Now, I'll admit that our quartet this year were better than the Lisbon hosts but that was a really low bar to traverse over. I know that it's a good opportunity to showcase local presenting talent but it is still the biggest TV show in the world and we should remember that the scripting of these shows are done by people who don't necessarily all have an amazing grasp of English. I know that the video during 2017 of Mans training the Ukrainian hosts was comedic but I actually believe that maybe the EBU offering the potential hosts and scriptwriters a crash course on how to do Eurovision whilst keeping the cultural sense of humour that makes each year's hosting distinctive would be very beneficial. They don't need to go public with it, but even if they did it privately, I think the improvement would be noticeable.
There is no special dispensation for the big names
Ok, so maybe we sort of knew this beforehand but I think this year really brought home that reality. Darude finished LAST in that first semi-final having gone through a national final where everybody acknowledges Finland picked the best of the three songs. Alongside him as non-qualifiers were Joci Papai and Roko (brought to you by Jacques Houdek). Yes, a name brings a fanbase and the fanbase is handy when it comes to some votes but you need more than an international fanbase even just to get out of the Semi-Finals. Let's not forget that our champion this year won the contest with his first-ever single. Ultimately, it will always come down to the song and the performance over reputation. Bad news for any British Eurovision fans out there hoping we might someday send Adele or Robbie Williams.
It's time to consider axing the juries
I wrote this in the equivalent post last year and I am bringing it into this year too. I am bored of five "music professionals" having the exact same say in the final contest as the voting public of a whole country. In the past, I saw that it might work in the context of having elements of performance be highlighted that the voting public might not recognise. However, I then see the songs that are supposedly winning these jury votes and I would love somebody to explain to me how the Dutch act was technically the third best on Saturday night. Which brings me to another point, am I the only one who is beginning to think that the juries judging an entirely different performance from the one we watch to perhaps be slightly problematic to the final result? I think that whilst the EBU are surely still a few years away from actually seriously considering axing the juries, I am definitely an advocate for it. Norway were the chosen favourites of the European public and given their story as a group, they would have been perfectly worthy winners of the whole contest. The juries are becoming more and more outdated at the contest and I strongly believe I am not the only one amongst the fanbase and viewing public who agrees.
No country is a guaranteed qualifier
Hungary's failure to qualify this year marked their first non-qualification in all my years watching the contest. It was a reminder of the classic cliché that every country starts at 0. People may argue that the Swedes are a year-on-year guaranteed qualifier but they have had their own experience of failing to make the Grand Final. All I am saying is that with the exception of Australia, no country has a 100% qualification record at the contest and even countries with large diasporas around Europe will need votes from others to see their act get out of the Semi-Final.
Unique staging and novelty acts aren't guaranteed to succeed
I will be the first to stand up and say that coming into the contest, I had Portugal as a nailed-on qualifier and Iceland as this winner. This wasn't specifically a novelty-based response, but it was what I thought about unique staging and songs being enough to stand out. To be fair, this is definitely true amongst the voting public who gave Iceland the victory in the first Semi-Final, but the juries certainly proved to be a tougher group to win over for songs that pushed the boat out artistically. I won't go on too much about my views on this (even though the vocal techniques in the Icelandic song are incredibly difficult to achieve and this wasn't recognised in their jury points tally) so I will look at the bigger picture and say that to do well at Eurovision, you need more than crazy costumes, bizarre lyrics or three bendy poles.
Covers at Eurovision are not the best idea
I am definitely going to get a lot of stick for saying this one but Dana International singing Bruno Mars complete with kiss cam was the most cringe-worthy moment I have ever seen at a Eurovision Song Contest. They then wheel out Shalva band during the other Semi to sing a song from the Greatest Showman. It's just weird. These are singers who have an incredible back-catalogue of work they could opt for and instead they perform songs we have already heard many times in a way that is not original enough for it to stand out. This brings me on to the Switch Song. The Eurovision fan in me appreciated being able to see all these different artists cover each other's songs but I wasn't amazed by it and the constant interruptions throughout were very offputting. It was a memorable interval act but it had very little to do with Israel and therefore anybody could have shoved that act in their song contest. I would have been curious to see the various Israeli acts cover each other's songs. Netta doing 'Golden Boy'? Nadav Guedj doing 'A Ba Ni Bi'? Gali Atari doing 'Diva'? Maybe I'm just being pernickety but I don't feel like we saw enough of them and that would have been a really fun concept to experience and watch instead of just getting recent successful acts. Though to be honest, I am all up for just letting artists sing their own songs and express their own artistry.
Delegations can alter their act before the finals (but shouldn't)
I will never forgive the Israeli delegation for ruining Kobi's song this year. They took what was set to be the most understated song in the final and put weird beats under it in order to make it a pop song that it never was. By contrast, the French did an entire remix to 'Roi' and didn't really make any big deal about it at all until rehearsals started. It was a decent remix but I had no opportunity to listen to it and understand it before it was up on that stage and that was extremely confusing in terms of deciding how I felt about a song that I hated in its original form. Look, I understand that the rules don't force you to show all your cards on an act before the Head of Delegation meeting but from a fan perspective, I felt like I fell in love with a song only to be told that what I was told I would get wasn't what I was going to get. It's a feeling I can only compare to ordering something at a restaurant and getting something entirely different. Make your decisions in-house and then when you release the song Eurovision delegations in that final week before your deadline, please have it be the one we are working with so that us as Eurovision fans know what we are getting behind heading into the promotional tour, rehearsals and then shows.
We can't take the rehearsal process for granted
I will be the first to put my hand up and say that I trusted the Eurovision process enough to say that everybody would be ready to go come the final shows. Yes, it is a massive TV production and a lot of work gets put into it but as far as I know, everybody who has put the contest together seems to have managed fine. In the time I have been properly following the contest, a newly-monied Azerbaijan, a shipyard-based Denmark and a war-torn Ukraine managed it so what was it about 2019's technical process that the Israelis found so hard to manage? I feel like by definition this year's show was not of the standard that it could have been because acts were having technical difficulties throughout and therefore not able to bring their artistic vision for the performance to this year's competition. Additionally, the Estonian camera angle mishap was just an embarrassment and something that no professional TV producer in their right mind would stand for in any circumstance let alone the biggest TV show in the world.
Contemporary Pop music can give an indication on who could do well
Whatever your thoughts on Duncan Laurence and 'Arcade', nobody can argue that it isn't an extremely contemporary song that would fit on popular music radio stations around the world. It is not a "Eurovision" song and perhaps that is a healthy indicator as we look towards the future that Eurovision is becoming more relevant to general audiences. If the public not just in Europe but around the world can look at a Eurovision winner and recognise it as something they would listen to, then we as Eurovision fans are a step further towards making the contest something that is treated with respect and that in turn leads to better quality of artists coming forward to participate and ultimately a better show. I can't make any calls on what Eurovision 2020 will be like at this moment, but what I do know that it will be full of songs that aren't "Eurovision" songs specifically but are instead entries, artists and sounds that wouldn't feel out of place in a global, mainstream, popular music landscape.
Right, that's been Eurovision Season 2019. What did you learn from this year? What do you make of the connotations of the points made above? Please leave your comments below and don't forget to subscribe to the blog using the link above. We will be continuing to write content throughout the summer including a look at the best Dutch entries of all time and some wider thoughts on the wonderful world of Eurovision coming soon. For now, it's time to decompress, take a breath and enjoy the beautiful summer weather!
Comments
Post a Comment