The second semi-final of the Eurovision Song Contest takes place
today. For some countries the results tonight are incredibly important. One
example is Georgia, a country keen to promote itself on the world stage. Part
of the process of constructing “the nation” involves establishing the state
within the wider geopolitical context. For a small country participation in
events like the Eurovision Song Contest offer an opportunity to do exactly
this.
Earlier this week I attended a reception with the Georgian
Ambassador here in Sweden who spoke about the importance of events such as
Eurovision for promoting the country. This wasn’t the usual affair with free
wine, food and banal chat. This was a Georgian cultural afternoon where the
Ambassador presented for 20 minutes about Georgia and the importance to them of
European integration. For years the Estonian government have been advising the
Georgians on reform and it is clear from speaking to them that this is a
country which is hungry for recognition as a full and equal European partner.
What’s this got to do with Eurovision though? Well smaller,
lesser known countries have few opportunities to punch above their weight. As
the Irish showed in the 1990s, Eurovision gives host countries the chance to
say something to the world and on their own terms. The publicity gained from
winning and staging the contest could not be bought. What’s interesting is that
with Georgia, it is mere participation in this event which is important to
them. It’s not just smaller, lesser known countries which use Eurovision as a
promotional opportunity. Some use it as an exercise in public diplomacy.
Greece, on its knees financially and yet still continues to participate in
Eurovision. Failure to take part would effectively present an image of the
country as a poor relative of the EBU. Last night the Greeks performed their
song at the Euro Café here in Malmö. Before doing so they performed the Turkish
entry from 2004 before announcing “Turkey should be here in Eurovision”. This
is hugely significant and a reflection of the progress the Greeks and Turks
have made in terms of their relationship. Eurovision offers an opportunity to
further international relations and I think this is what makes it just that
little bit more than a TV show.
Rehearsals are continuing here in Malmo; some good, some bad and some very ugly! I'm not going to provide a critique as there are so many others blogging about the performances. I will say though, it's amazing how opinions change, as they always do. Songs which I hadn't even considered qualifying are now coming across very strongly. I have a sneaky suspicion about Malta now! Time will tell...
The Swedes are injecting a little bit of politics into the event this year, even though the EBU continuously insist that Eurovision is "not a political event". The slogan for this year, "We Are One", is said to reflect the diversity of Europe and the importance of universal human rights. Given that the contest is taking place in Malmö, one of the most diverse cities in Sweden, this is fitting.
The Swedes aren't afraid to tackle the difficult questions that were dodged so many times in Azerbaijan. At the press conference for Belarus our host, Alexandra Pascalidou, asked the delegation about the situation in their country with regards to freedom of expression. Awkward. The team, unsurprisingly, didn't answer the question and just said how much they love Eurovision. Their Dear Leader would have been proud I'm sure. Some journos here questioned the appropriateness of such an angle given that "it's only Eurovision". I think it's completely appropriate. These are press conferences and yet they're used as an opportunity to fawn over random acts. There are very serious and real questions concerning freedom of speech and human rights amongst so many of the participating countries. I spoke to Alexandra after the press conference, she's a feisty woman and was completely unrepentant about asking those delicate issues.
"I have fought hard for equality for all throughout my life. I'm a Greek Swede born in Romania. We have countries in this contest which don't uphold basic freedoms which most of us live by. I will not be told not avoid certain subjects by anyone".
I think it's important to speak for people who have no voice, to raise these issues. Yes, the singers can't do anything to change things but it would be wrong to simply sweep it under the carpet. I'm not meaning to have a go at Belarus, it's one of my favourite songs this year, however it is essentially a regime country. The EBU are in a very awkward position and will be should the contest ever go to Minsk.
Tonight it's the Belarusian party, I'll be there. I will try and speak to some of the delegation about life in Belarus. Is it really as bad as is reported? I doubt I'll get a true picture of the situation. It's important not to let ourselves become pawns in a propaganda exercise, no matter how much free booze they ply us with. We aren't one. That's the point that the Swedes are trying to make and fair play to them, they're certainly not "running scared".
The Eurovision bubble
is certainly in full swing, I’ve no idea of what day of the week it is. After
the rehearsals on Monday I went to Ukraine for two days, as you do. So this
particular blog post today is less about Eurovision and more about my expedition. I’m
going to be working on a research project on Ukraine’s nation branding campaign
later in the year. I was last there in 2007 and so much has changed. They’ve
built a new terminal which is impressive, signs in both Cyrillic and English, air
condition and specific smoking areas. Euro 2012 appears to have left a lasting
legacy. Old Soviet habits die hard though; the hotel was, well, interesting. I
was staying in the Hotel Ukraine, right in the centre of Kyiv. 4 stars,
allegedly. It’s in need of renovation but was perfectly situated. To get the
room key you need to take a piece of paper to the “hostess”, there’s one for
each floor, she then grudgingly gives you the key to the room. It provides jobs
but is so inefficient although I suppose it stops people bringing undesirables
into the hotel. Or does it? In the lobby there were adverts for an “erotic
show”, which basically meant a pole dancing club where the women were
completely starkers. In the evenings there also appeared to be a lot of ladies,
sitting by themselves in reception… Kyiv is a really beautiful city, it was
scorching hot and it was nice to be back.
On Tuesday evening I
decided to check out the local gay bar, Pomada. It’s funny, we take basic
freedoms for granted, people in the UK question the need for gay pride events
these days. It’s worth keeping in mind that there are countries on the doorstep
where being gay is particularly difficult. Arguably Kyiv is more cosmopolitan
than the rest of Ukraine, however the tight security and underground nature of
the bar suggests that gay life in Ukraine is discreet to say the least. It’s
also worth remembering the important role that straight girls play in the lives
of gay men; certainly in Pomada it appeared that they were real champions for
their gay friends. The drag queen was particularly interesting given that she
was dressed as a Soviet veteran, the day before the national parade
commemorating the Soviet army’s victory, Europe day. Commemorations and
memorials are essentially a form of nation building, affirming a national
identity and reminding citizens of that constructed identity. On May 9th
people also visit the graves of their relatives, laying flowers and having a
bit of a party. It was really interesting to see people having a picnic by the
graveside with shots of vodka. I must have been Ukrainian in a previous life…
I returned to Sweden
last night (Thursday) with Estonian Air via Tallinn, it was so nice to be back,
even for 45 minutes. You know you’re in Eesti when the wifi works perfectly. I
had to laugh though, the safety demonstration on the flight was in Estonian and
English, they then played a Russian version at which point the flight
attendants stopped demonstrating! Read into that what you will! When I arrived
I went straight (only straight) to the San Marino party. A lovely evening was
had by all although hearing a jazz version of their entry from 2012, “The
Social Network Song” was a tad bizarre. Alcohol was free, well the first three
drinks were. Lovely food, good company, followed by the usual dance floor
fodder later, fantastisk, as they say in Sverige! Dancing the night away in the
Euroclub was Farid from Azerbaijan, a sweet bloke and a very friendly
delegation. There was a slightly awkward moment when the DJ played Armenia’s
2008 entry, at which point they looked really uncomfortable and stopped
dancing. Fair play to them though, they could have stormed off in a huff and
yet they stayed and continued to party with everyone else.
Today the press centre
opened, it’s a little camp and very stylish - would we expect anything else from the Swedes? They’re
handing out bottles for water, boasting that Sweden has some of the best tap
water in the world. We all know its Scotland which has THE best of course!
There’s free tea and coffee, lots of space available and it’s all incredibly
well organised. The EBU press conference took place earlier and questions were
asked about human rights in Eurovision. Should countries which don’t uphold
basic freedoms be allowed in the contest? The EBU replied, rather
diplomatically, that they work with national broadcasters and not the state and
therefore they should be allowed. What happens though if the national
broadcasters are tightly controlled by the state? A good point was made; change
comes from within and by working with countries which have difficult political
situations then positive change can be achieved. However this change also has
to come from within the specific countries too. Similarly to the complexities
surrounding gay pride in Moscow, these things can’t be imposed from outside.
More people are
arriving and it’s all getting a little hectic. More tomorrow!
Eurovision 2013 has
officially started! It’s scary how quickly time flies. I’m here in Malmo where
it’s all kicking off. Armenia is back after withdrawing last year so no doubt it’ll
be business as usual for them and Azerbaijan (i.e. ignoring each other!) Whilst
it’ll be interesting to see the interaction between the Swedes and the Belarusians
following the teddy bear incident last year, after the controversy of 2012, it’s
looking like a tame year in comparison, politically speaking.
So far so good here in
Malmo, the city is small but friendly, expensive but clean and it’s shaping up to being the perfect city for Eurovision. Often
when the event is in larger cities it gets lost somehow, Moscow and Istanbul
were classic examples of this. Small cities like Tallinn, Helsinki and Malmo allow for
an intimate atmosphere. I’m in a hotel with my friend Elaine for the first week
before moving to an apartment in week two. It’s a rather small hotel, with a
transparent shower screen. Good job we know each other pretty well! (We
certainly will do after this trip!)
Eurovision of course
has a massive gay following and the Swedes, unlike our Azeri hosts last year,
are not afraid to reach out to the contest’s core fans. In the hotel reception
there are gay magazines, Eurovision guides and maps of the city’s gay scene. We
certainly won’t have any exciting experiences this year like we did in Baku;
underground gay bars and local pubs for local people. However, it’s quite
refreshing really to feel welcomed in a city where people are safe to live
their lives.
The theme for the show
this year is “We are one” which is an interesting one, fashioning Europe as a
united entity when in reality it’s a fractured construct, economically,
politically and socially. Much has been made here in Malmo of the multicultural
vibrancy in the city, so perhaps it’s fitting that such an international event
is here, in the city where over 150 languages are spoken.
The Swedes are doing
things differently this year, they’ve arranged Eurovision on a much smaller
scale. The venue is small, the press centre is restricted until Friday and
currently the assembled press are crammed into the Slaghuset (the slag house,
and venue for the Euro Club). SVT are undoubtedly aiming to present a slick,
professional television show. For them, this is just that, a television event.
Unlike previous hosts where Eurovision has become almost like a circus, the
Swedes don’t appear to be engaging in a quasi-propaganda offensive. To be
blunt, they don’t need to prove anything to anyone.
Rehearsals began in
earnest this morning. I will try and update the blog daily, although I am going
to Ukraine for two days tomorrow, back Thursday. Euro Club opens tonight so no
doubt there will be a few sore heads and lighter wallets tomorrow! More later!
With Sweden hosting the contest in 2013 there was a lot of interest surrounding Melodifestivalen this year. There was also a great deal of diasppointment amongst fans in the voting results and the standard of songs. It was almost as if the Swedes were trying not to win again! For the first time ever, the winning song, "You", came from the Andra Chansen (second chance) round! This entry is fairly standard Swedish schlager fodder. It's good but no cigar. I doubt Sweden will do the double but with a big hometown roar and strong performance, this could be in the final shake-up on the night.
Last year I was convinced that Romania had a fighting chance of winning Eurovision with "Zaleilah". This year I am convinced that Romania are not only going to fail to qualify, they will fail badly. Cazar's vocals, whilst impressive, are also downright freaky. The song "It's My Life" doesn't do much for me either. I full expect people at my preview party tomorrow night to be falling around laughing when this comes on. Still, it's memorable, for all the wrong reasons. If Europe is having a bit of a laugh then this might just sneak through but I'm sticking to my guns. For now.
It's the Sally Army Band for Switzerland! Or Takasa as they are now calling themselves. Still, it's the Sally Army Band for Switzerland! When this was chosen it even made it to the BBC news website. It's certainly a quirky story. Some have mentioned that the Salvation Army have homophobic members, however, which religious organisation doesn't? As for the song, "You and Me", it's a catchy one and performed well. It's not my favourite but it comes at the right time in the contest and I think this will qualify relatively easily. Certainly no winner but an interesting backstory for the commentators to tell.
Georgia knows how to put on a good Eurovision party. Indeed their 2010 effort was more impressive than the official Welcome Reception! Georgia is an EU-aspirant country, pro-actively tackling corruption and keen to make a mark on the world stage. Participation in Eurovision is very much part of this process of projecting a positive international image. The chance to win and stage Eurovision are serious opportunities for some countries and that's very true when it comes to Georgia. Last year the delegation spoke candidly about Eurovision and the platform it affords them. To put it crudely, they're out to win. This is perhaps their best ever chance. "Waterfall", written by the winning Swedish team behind Loreen's "Euphoria", is a dramatic and moody ballad which of course, features the obligatory key change. It's old-fashioned but it's performed incredibly well and I can see this going far. I'd be absolutely delighted for Georgia to win, not only do I stand to win a lot of money with the bookies, it will also provide the perfect opportunity to visit an interesting country with a rich cultural history. If they go for a ballad, this could well be it.
Albania were traditionally the first country to announce their Eurovision entry, using the long-standing Festivali i Këngës as a national final. I sat through the event in December 2009 - never again! Just when you think it's about to end, it continues and continues - to the point when even the contestants look bored! Albania have come up with some pretty decent entries in the past. Whilst their song this year is well-performed, it doesn't really do anything for me. I can't see this qualifying although saying that, many couldn't fathom how they did so well last year with "Suus".
After their landslide victory in 2009, Norway have had a tough few years in Eurovision. Their entry "My Heart Is Yours" flopped badly on home turf in 2010, they failed to qualify in 2011 and in 2012 they came last in the final. This year they have come out fighting. "I Feed Me Your Love" (that's an offer a boy can't refuse!) is a very modern piece of electro-pop which builds nicely. It's contemporary and fresh. Intially I wasn't sure of this and whilst I would prefer to venture out of Scandinavia next year, I think this is a possible winner. It has massive hit potential and would be good for the contest. Staged simply yet effectively, no gimmicks, just pure class. If the voters of Europe opt for an uptempo song then this could be it.
Lithuania have had mixed fortunes in Eurovision, from their debut in 1994 which suffered the humiliation of the dreaded nul points, to their surprise qualification in 2011 and 2012. Their song this year, "Something" definitely has something about it; something of the night! Andrius is a good performer but the eyebrow thing is just downright creepy! The song reminds me of an album track from The Killers. It's a credible entry but I can't see it picking up too many votes somehow. I hope I'm wrong as I'd like to see this in the final but at the minute I can't quite see it happening.
For once Montenegro aren't opening their semi-final! This is a pretty brave choice, although that's not saying much. It will be interesting to see how this is performed on the night. The male rapping reminds me of "Euro Neuro" from last year. It's essentially a remixed version of that with a female vocalist thrown in for good measure. I can't see this doing anything and it looks like we'll have to wait another year before Montenegro grace the Eurovision stage for the final.
Netherlands have a bit of a depressing history when it comes to modern Eurovision. The country that used to dominate in the early days have missed every single final since 2004. Last year they were widely tipped to qualify only to narrowly miss out on a place amongst the 26 finalists. This year they've chosen the popular rock chick Anouk in the hope that she'll be able to reverse their fortunes. "Birds" is a haunting, highly original piece of music. It reminds me of something from the 1940s, it's daring and a brave choice. Clearly more conventional pop songs haven't worked for them so they're going a bit left-field this year. It might just work. I think this will get a big jury vote and even though the public might not go for it, this might just sneak through. I hope they do, it'll be good to see them back in the final after a long absence. Netherlands are one of the favourites to win the entire contest. I can't see that happening, I can see them having something to celebrate this year though. Fingers crossed for Nederland!
Ukraine, like Russia, have been highly successful in the Eurovision Song Contest. Ukraine won Eurovision with their second ever entry and have continued to perform strongly coming second in both 2007 and 2008, qualifying to every single final since the semi-finals were introduced. Their offering for 2013, "Gravity" resembles something from a Disney cartoon. The video is bizarre and features amongst other things, unicorns. One thing Ukraine know how to do is sell a song, even weak ones. The singer, Zlata, has a good voice and isn't afraid to use it. Given a good draw I see this doing very well indeed. I quite fancy a trip to Kyiv next year!
Russia is one of the most successful countries in modern Eurovision. Arguably they've been helped along the way by the sizaeable Russian diaspora in the former Soviet states too. However credit must be given to the Russians, they just know what works. The Russian grannies were the big story last year and whilst this year isn't particularly newsworthy, it's a very strong ballad from Mother Russia. The singer, Dina, is an excellent vocalist and indeed she won The Voice in Russia last year. "What If" is a pretty standard Eurovision ballad, with a couple of cliches thrown in for good measure. It's catchy, she can sing and they know how to stage a song. Having said that, perhaps the best thing about this entry is the video. I don't think it was meant to be intended as a parody, it's hilarious. Thanks to my good friend Ben, I can't help but thinking that someone is doing something to the young blonde lad at 0:58. As the song climaxes (so does the boy!) the crowd all hold hands in unity. That said, I think St Petersburg or Sochi 2014 are distinct possibilities. Discount this at your peril.
After that dirge they entered last year, this is a pleasant, catchy song. It's the current favourite to win. I just don't get it. What's it even about? The tin whistle thing is so over, very 1995. That greasy hair could do with a wash too. I imagine with several thousand Danes coming over to support this, the roar in the hall will be immense. I just find it a little old fashioned and bland. Not a bad song but surely there are more deserving, contemporary winners? Special congratulations do go to Danish TV though who, yet again, organised a superb national final. Will there be only tear drops left at the end of the voting?
It was meant to be announced on March 18 but hey, never trust the press to keep a secret. Yes Bonnie Tyler is off to Sweden and to Eurovision to fly the flag for the UK! I have mixed feelings about this. I do like Bonnie and I do like her songs. However I can't help feeling that what looks good on paper doesn't necessarily translate into votes.
Bonnie is an established artist with a proud career and extensive back catalogue. She's still touring Europe today (she's in Germany just now) and arguably she's a legend. However the same could be said for Engelbert Humperdinck who represented the UK in 2012. It was an inspired choice that didn't quite work. I have a horrible feeling that we're heading the same way in 2013.
I do like Bonnie's song, it's nice. However, "nice" doesn't scream winner. I really do hope the UK does well but at the minute it's looking like we're heading for a mid-table finish at best. The UK has a love-hate relationship with Eurovision. Why would a current and contemporary act put themselves up for judgement on the Eurovision stage? Adele doesn't need to. Neither do Take That. Where as Blue and Engelbert had nothing to lose. The same can be said for Bonnie. The difference is that other artists in the contest view the event as "everything to gain". That difference is crucial and has come to really put the UK and the BBC in a bit of a trap.
Still, it could have been worse. I was fearing it would be Kimberley Walsh who showed that performing under pressure wasn't her strong point if the National Television Awards are anything to go by! Bonnie does have stage presence and charisma. This is important at Eurovision. You can have a dull song and yet sell it to the viewers in a way which translates into votes. The UK have indeed polished turds! Michael Ball, Sonia and more recently Jade Ewen have shown that it comes down to the performance on the night. In the case of contemporary Eurovision, that includes the Friday night dress rehearsal performance on which the juries cast their vote. Blue and Engelbert just weren't up to it on the Friday night. Let's hope that Bonnie is!
A lot of the rhetoric concerning Eurovision in the UK is reflective of wider discourse concerning the EU and Britain's place in Europe more generally; peripheral and distant. Accusations that Eurovision voting is "political" betrays the truth of the matter, bloc voting has always existed and the UK and Ireland are just as guilty as everyone else.
Eurovision has changed. The contest is has doubled in size and the truth is that the UK has not kept up with these changes. I applauded the BBC's decision to use an internal selection in 2011, I believed that the public were guilty of choosing songs they thought were "very Eurovision" when in fact Eurovision has perhaps moved on. Yes there will always be novelty songs but there are also some pretty credible acts and entries which is all too often forgotten. Sweden's Loreen proved that Eurovision still has the capacity to generate international hits. It even reached number three in the UK! Where was The Hump? Number 60.
The risk this year is that we're entering an act and song which again is out of sync with not only the UK charts but also the European music scene. Eurovision is first and foremost a television show. The BBC want viewers. Does it matter if the UK does badly? Not really. However as long as this attitude continues the less chance there is of popular, current acts coming forward to take part in the contest. Perhaps it's time for a re-think.
Germany have shown that it's possible for a Big Five country to win. Germany aren't exactly the most popular country in Europe! I hope I am proved wrong, I hope Bonnie does well for the UK and of course I'll be cheering her on with word and gesture. In a nice twist of fate, the first UK entrant I met, Nicki French (UK 2000) scored a massive global hit with a dance version of "Total Eclipse of the Heart" and yet here is Bonnie, the original singer of that song, following in Nicki's footsteps. As Terry Wogan said of Nicki in 2000, "let's cheer her on with word and gesture".
Earlier this month the official slogan for the 2013 Eurovision Song Contest was unveiled. We Are One. Prior to the introduction of a generic logo for Eurovision in 2004, the logos for Eurovision were different each year which excited and exasperated fans in equal measure. Since 2002 a further slogan or theme was adopted every year (with the exception of 2009). These slogans and themes have become part of the branding of the event, a way for the host country to make their mark in addition to using the generic Eurovision logo. Whilst at first glance the slogans Modern Fairy Tale, Awakening and We Are One might seem somewhat innocuous, however, on closer inspection they can reveal much more about the country promoting the message and the wider political context.
Estonia's theme from 2002, Modern Fairy Tale, was used as a way of not only showcasing the country but also as an avenue for telling a story about the country itself. It is no accident that Sleeping Beauty was the choice fairy tale in the postcard leading up to the Estonian performance. The modern fairy tale can actually be seen as a metaphor for how Estonians see their own history:
If Estonia were a fairy tale, it could perhaps be likened to Sleeping Beauty. Having awoken from the ice cold slumbers of Soviet Rule, Estonia today is a bold, young country, vibrant with creative energy and eager to take its place in Europe(Rene Vilbre cited in The official programme of the 47th Eurovision Song Contest 2002)
Turkey's theme from 2004, Under the Same Sky, might at first sound like a fluffy slogan but given the wider political context it can be read as Turkey opting to promote itself as an equal, European country, under the same sky as the rest of Europe, namely the European Union, which Turkey first applied for membership in 1987. Turkey's victory in the 2003 contest and the opportunity to stage the event in 2004 were seen as important breakthroughs by the political elite in the country. 2004 also marked the first time that Turkey has voted for Cyprus in Eurovision.
Kyiv in 2005 remains one of the more politically charged contests over the past decade (2012 aside) and their theme of Awakening was a very obvious point in hand. Given that the Eurovision Song Contest was taking place in a country which only months before had been the focal point of the world's attention as a result of political protests, it is perhaps unsurprising that the contest that year was tinged with political rhetoric. Whilst the theme was not overtly political per se, the developments going on behind the scenes in Ukraine in 2005 definitely were. The then President, Viktor Yushchenko planned to make a lengthy speech on the Eurovision stage. The EBU did not allow this to go ahead although Yushchenko did still appear to present Greece's Elena Paparizou with her winning trophy.
The EBU continuously reinforce the point that Eurovision is not a political event. This is strictly true but it has and does become politicised whether the organisers like it or not. These slogans can serve as a platform for articulating political message in a subtle manner. It's soft politics, however, it is still politics.
The theme for 2013, We Are One, is an interesting concept. It presents Europe and Eurovision nations as united entities. This is at a time when Portugal, Turkey, Bosnia Herzegovina and Slovakia have all withdrawn from the contest in the last year. It is also a time when Europe as a social, economic and political construct is fractured. Recent debates concerning the Euro, bailouts and the UK referendum on the EU highlight that Europe is anything but at one. This is where Eurovision is powerful. For one night only, Europe sits down and watches a television programme in unison. It is unique in the television year and an opportunity for escapism. Despite some pretty naff slogans along the way, Eurovision has continued as a format for nearly 60 years and given the wider developments going on in Europe today, it appears that is it an event which is stilled needed just as much as it ever was.
The UK waited 16 years for a victory in Eurovision after Bucks Fizz won in Dublin in 1981. In Dublin in 1997 history really did repeat itself and Katrina and the Waves stormed to a landslide victory which meant that the honour of hosting the 43rd Eurovision Song Contest was bestowed to the BBC. There are many reasons why 1998 was a landmark contest so let’s take a look back to the last time the BBC hosted the Eurovision Song Contest.
In the mid-1990s the BBC invested heavily into the Eurovision project which in turn, for a time, reversed the fortunes of the popularity of the contest and led to the UK entries becoming credible chart hits. Love City Groove’s eponymous entry from 1995 reached number seven in the UK singles charts and of course Gina G had massive number one with “Ooh Aah… Just a little bit”, which was even nominated for a Grammy. The new approach at the Beeb also spawned some further hits from the Song for Europe show itself; Deuce’s “I Need You” became a top ten hit in 1995. The BBC wanted to win Eurovision in the 1990s, not because of the musical merit but because they wanted to host the event. Eurovision is of course, first and foremost a television format and allows the host broadcaster the opportunity to pioneer new broadcasting techniques. The 1998 contest did exactly that.
1998 is memorable to many fans since it is the last year that the orchestra was present at the event. Many lament the demise of this tradition arguing that the show has lost some of its unique ambience whilst others have barely noticed that the musicians have left the building. In the past many Eurovision fans have criticised the BBC for their apparent aloofness towards them and yet it was the BBC’s Terry Wogan who specifically welcomed the “thousands of fans and supporters” who had gathered in the National Indoor Arena in Birmingham. Whilst fans with flags had increasingly become part of the show, only two or three years before the event felt like almost like a black tie affair. The acknowledgement of the fans in 1998 was a watershed moment in Eurovision history, since this point the show has incorporated fans as very much as part of the show, so much so that they formed the interval act in 2010!
The 43rd Eurovision Song Contest is also notable because it remains the last year that there was a restriction on the language of performance. 1999 saw free language introduced which saw many countries opting to sing in English, dip in and out of English and other languages or in the case of Belgium making up a language of their own (2003, 2008). Finally, the 1998 contest stands out because it was the first year that televoting was introduced en-masse. This one rule change injected new interest in the contest and new controversies and continues to have a lasting impact on the way in which the contest is analysed by fans, critics and academics alike.
The voting in 1998 was perhaps one of the most thrilling sequences since Celine Dion’s narrow one point victory over the UK in 1988. With the leader changing almost with every country voting, it was a race to the finish. By the time the final country voted, the debuting Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the contest could have been won by three countries. The voting patterns from 1998 appear to be contradictory since it could be argued that they marked a turn towards more explicit “neighbourly voting” which has recently dogged the contest. On the other hand, Malta, with no neighbours scored consistently whilst the UK notched up its 15th second placing, receiving votes from every single participating country. Certainly the outstanding moment in the voting that year was Ulrika Jonsson’s “a long time ago, was it?” gaffe. Personally I think it would have been a whole lot better if Conny, the Dutch spokesperson, had taken offence. Of course Ulrika was merely repeating what had previously been said, the audience in the arena, however, heard differently. It remains one of the highlights of 1998 for me and is a testament to the enduring appeal of live television.
Of course the contest really was Dana International’s. Not only did she win the event, she won the publicity game. Months before the competition the Israeli singer was causing a stir in the European press, Eurovision’s first transgender singer. The selection of Ms International as Israel’s Eurovision entry caused outrage amongst orthodox Jews who viewed her as peripheral to their understanding of national identity. Death threats ensued and the headlines grew. From an academic perspective the controversy concerning Dana International is interesting. According to one esteemed colleague of mine, Professor Brian Singleton, this was the moment that Eurovision itself “came out”, from that point onwards it could be read as an openly queer event. For many fans Dana International’s victory represented a struggle over adversity, in essence a reflection of the very personal journey many people make when they come out as gay.
From a technical perspective the 1998 contest was a triumph for the BBC. The corporation has endured criticism from Eurovision fans for as long as I can remember however their moves toward modernising the contest are a legacy which continues to be felt today. In 2012 the BBC and the UK proved that when they host large international events, they host them well. I personally think it’s about time that the Beeb were responsible for organising Eurovision in the very near future. The challenge is of course finding a winning song for Europe. It seems that when it comes to the UK, hosting the contest is the easy part, winning the damn thing is the real challenge.
The Eurovision Song Contest has hit the headlines again.
This time it’s serious. Austerity in Europe is apparently forcing countries to
withdraw. Could this be the end of Eurovision as we know it?
Last weekend it was reported that Poland and Portugal have withdrawn from the 2013 Contest due to the ongoing economic crisis. True,
the recession has had an impact on national broadcasters across Europe, however,
is it really all down to economics? Money
is an obvious issue since participation itself in the competition is an
expensive business let alone winning and hosting the event. Poland withdrew in 2012 since the national broadcaster TVP were concentrating on Euro 2012. However the
economic crisis has not deterred all of Europe’s most cash-strapped countries, Greece
being one example. There are other issues at play here.
Crippled financially by spiralling debts, Greece have
continued to appear at Eurovision (and qualify to the final) every year. Greek
participation in the event is paid for through private sponsorship – the record
company picked up the bill in 2012 and not the public. Eurovision is one of the
biggest shows of the year in Greece – participation in the event is almost a
matter of national pride. This is also true of Estonia which faced with
possible withdrawal in 2010. Enterprise Estonia, a government agency
responsible for promoting Estonian interests abroad, stepped in and paid for
the country to appear on the Eurovision stage. To some countries Eurovision is
more than a song contest; it is an opportunity to promote themselves
internationally, an opportunity that we take for granted in the UK.
Why didn’t Poland and Portugal follow the same
blueprint then and get private enterprise to pay the bill? Could it be that
their ratings were down which perhaps prompted this action? Poland’s best
placing was 2nd in 1994 and Portugal has never made the top 5
despite entering since 1964! Poland and Portugal aren’t the only countries to
have withdrawn recently though. The Czech Republic, Andorra and Monaco have all
walked away from the Eurovision stage in recent years. Again, given the
financial climate in Europe this is perhaps unsurprising. However these are
also countries that consistently failed to qualify from the semi finals. When
there isn’t much of a new story, the viewers tend not to follow.
In the summer of 2012 it was reported that the BBC
spent £350,000 on entering Eurovision. This might seem like a lot but in the
context of primetime television broadcasting this is not a gigantic sum, it is
all relative. One hour of Dr Who or Strictly easily runs into the millions. For
its £350,000 the BBC got over seven and a half hours of live, primetime
television and some of its largest audience shares of the year.
In terms of staging Eurovision, of course it is an
expensive programme (costing in excess of £25 million). In 2010 Norwegian
broadcaster NRK forfeited their rights to the World Cup in order for them to
host Eurovision. In 2001 the Estonian government stepped in to guarantee
funding for the 2002 contest in Tallinn after it was reported that the country
was “too poor to host Eurovision”. Ireland’s RTE were rumoured to have faced
difficulties in the 1990s after winning and staging four out of five contests
and yet they did it, and they did it well. Why? Good old fashioned national
pride. This is not something that will just totally diminish in a recession. In
fact that resolve might even be strengthened as Greek tenacity exemplifies.
Eurovision is undoubtedly changing. Gone are the days
of lavish parties and massive LED stages ala Moscow 2009. The Swedes are
working on a more streamlined format, back to basics. It is first and foremost
a television show. The contest in 2013 is unlikely to rival Azerbaijan’s show
in 2012 or Moscow’s in 2009. In the past countries have tried to beat the
previous host and produce ever more lavish contests. In the current economic
climate this is simply not sustainable. Eurovision will however, ride out this
storm, as it has every storm since 1956. It continues to draw in viewers and
capture the public imagination like no other format. People love it or they
hate it. There is no apathy when it comes to Eurovision and that is what is
really powerful. It is unlikely that formats such as X Factor will still be
around in 50 years. Surely we need Eurovision just now as much as we did in 1956? It unites us like nothing else and given the scale and the severity of the economic crisis in Europe, the contest provides us with some much needed light relief. Recession or no recession Eurovision will endure.
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
