Printable version of thread
Click here to view this topic in its original format
BuzzJack Music Forum _ Eurovision Song Contest _ Time to get out
Posted by: poppet15 May 24 2015, 10:18 AM
I think it's about time UK got out of ESC instead of spending all the licence payers money on it.
It was once a good night's entertainment but since all the Eastern European countries joined it has become just a political stunt.
The acts aren't even entertaining anymore. Even the UK acts over the last 10 years or so have been rubbish.
It's well past its sell by date.
With the UK is the same old rubbish every year. Either send acts never heard of before (or even after) or they send old has beens (e.g. Bonnie Tyler, Engelbert Humperdinck, Nicki French etc)
What we need is acts like Sam Smith, Ed Sheeran, Ellie Goulding, Jessie J, Clean Bandit, Mumford & Sons who are all big stars in mainland Europe.
It's 40 years since we had top acts of the time representing the UK and only 3 times in the last 18 years have UK been even in Top 10.
Posted by: *Tim May 24 2015, 10:22 AM
I was waiting for this thread tbh. Surprised it took this long for it to appear
The UK's song was shit, that s why it did so badly, just accept it
Posted by: joeefoster May 24 2015, 10:23 AM
I don't think we should withdraw, I think we should go back to National Selection and maybe not be a Big Five.
Posted by: Mart!n May 24 2015, 10:37 AM
UK need to take a hard look at European Music, not sending high camp or dross all the time, as no other country will take us serious. Maybe we need a gimmick, it worked for Austria 
seriously though
I have to agree we should go back to having a national selection, or send some decent acts, Eliza Doolittle, Birdy, Nerina Pallot, my personal best would be Bat For Lashes, but that will never happen, since Latvia and Georgia did well with that type of music genre.
Posted by: J▼hnkm May 24 2015, 10:49 AM
It is just as simple as sending a GOOD, professional, song. The kind you would hear on the radio or people would actually BUY. We were so close to getting it right last year.
Posted by: Iz~ May 24 2015, 10:56 AM
This was actually posted... today? And not in 2008? At least change SOME of the wording. All that first post is missing is a longing for the return of Wogan in his senile years.
There have been numerous examples over the last few years of countries doing amazingly after several years in the wilderness. Netherlands and Austria last year, Belgium, Israel and Latvia this year - our time will come when we send a good song. Aminata could have been a Radio 1 darling in another life. It's not over for any country. Ever.
Not that it's even about doing well for most Brits anymore, we're rather accepting and it IS a fun show without the need to do well.
Posted by: Suedehead2 May 24 2015, 10:56 AM
At the risk of being repetitive, just look at the performance of recent UK entries in the UK charts. They have generally done poorly or worse. If the song isn't popular here, why should we expect it to be popular in the rest of Europe?
Posted by: Silas May 24 2015, 11:01 AM
If you honestly expected us to do better than bottom 5 then you need to go get your hearing checked. We were utterly outclassed last night. If we're going to treat the contest like a joke then we have f*** all right to complain when Europe takes one look at our abysmal entry and ignores it.
Sweden have had 4 top 3 finishes in 5 years including 2 winners to overtake us on the all time rankings. That is what happens when you put effort into eurovision and attract some of the top talent your country has to offer. Look at Australia. They've been involved in every war we have and have been condemned internationally for the way they treat asylum seekers. They sent a huge Australian star with a fantastic track and it came top 5. It's not political at all. It's about quality. Our entry had no hook. There was no chorus it was just monotonous. Bad song = bad score. Simples.
Posted by: SKOB May 24 2015, 11:09 AM
Exactly! Or do like Finland does: we are experimenting with all genres possible from europop (Waldo's People) and traditional (Kuunkuiskaajat) to metal (Lordi, Teräsbetoni), poprock (Softengine), basic pop (Krista Siegfrids) and punk (Pertti Kurikan Nimipäivät) 
We're not exactly winning but having a blast!
Posted by: Iz~ May 24 2015, 11:22 AM
^And that's part of the reason Finland are my favourite Eurovision nation. Never the same thing twice and it's normally excellent whatever they send. 
And the more any country keeps experimenting the more likely you'll strike gold somewhere along the line.
Rather that than be stuck in a rut and continue sending awful entries. Electro Velvet were my favourite UK entry for a while but that's not the case for many people and we have been on a fairly boring and samey ballad run for the last few years before that.
Posted by: nickthenoodle May 24 2015, 12:07 PM
Yes the Eastern bloc of Australia, Sweden, Belgium and Italy proved yet again that western countrues can't do well.
Posted by: Rooney May 24 2015, 12:42 PM
I used to think this as well, and I still do to a degree. I mean everyone last year on here saying we might possibly win, or come very close (and of course we didn't 
). A lot of countries do hate us, and I do think that has an effect, a lot of the time it is because of our arrogance and expectancy to do well! However the songs we send it are absolute crap. But y'know Eurovision is a bit of a poisoned chalice in our country, if you want to make a career then being in Eurovision maybe isn't the best thing in the world to do.
Posted by: SKOB May 24 2015, 12:50 PM
It's the same in most countries tho... I think the best for you to do is to send a fading X Factor star (Alexandra Burke for example) with a classy song.. That'd be surefire top ten for you right there.
And by classy song I don't mean Touch My Fire.
Next year we will hear and see lots of electronic music I reckon.
Posted by: dandystar May 24 2015, 12:53 PM
All of these responses are just as generic as the accusations you are firing at the opening post, I don't see any moaning in the first post that we don't win or anything... more an opinion that the contest is a bit shit and that the UK don't put any effort into it - it's perfectly logical to say that if we're not going to try, why continue to fund it in the first place?
Posted by: SKOB May 24 2015, 12:56 PM
^That's true.
Posted by: Aphrodite May 24 2015, 01:04 PM
A good song is all that's needed,Russia is not what you would call a well liked country and look at the votes. I liked the uk entry and i also liked Ireland's entry in the semis but as soon as the performances finished you could just tell they were not of the same caliber of songs that did well. I wasn't a huge fan of Sweden this year but I can totally see why it won.,UK and us Irish have a lot of work to do to get a good result. Sweden are a shining example of how its done they really put work into it and they deserve their success.
A small element of neighbour voting does take place but I think overall it doesn't play a huge role.
Posted by: Iz~ May 24 2015, 01:04 PM
True, but from what I can see, the majority of people still enjoy it as a fun night and it's still getting great viewing figures here, so there's very little reason to be trying to pull out anyway. That the contest is a bit shit is indeed an opinion so it shouldn't mean 'time to get out' or anything of the sort.
Posted by: dandystar May 24 2015, 01:19 PM
That's fair enough... I don't particularly have a strong view on it either way but I can see that it's silly to just fund something routinely just so we can have a yearly joke - and the sad thing is I didn't even get to laugh this year as everything felt too serious and a bit more mundane than usual. I never thought I'd say this but I miss the likes of Verka Serduchka!
Posted by: Iz~ May 24 2015, 01:21 PM
Oh believe me, we (the rabid ESC fans) do as well! I'm just clinging onto the hope that the whole of Europe saw how ballad-infested last night was and pushes the tempo up a lot next time.
Posted by: Umi May 24 2015, 02:48 PM
I don't get how people from the UK can complain. Just send songs that aren't shit and you'll do well again - until then you should take winning as seriously as you take the quality of your entries (i.e. not very). At least you're not France (they actively try and still haven't came top 20 since 2011...) or San Marino (they had to send 12 year olds this year). It would be so easy to make Eurovision a more serious institution in the UK again, too.
). A lot of countries do hate us, and I do think that has an effect, a lot of the time it is because of our arrogance and expectancy to do well! However the songs we send it are absolute crap. But y'know Eurovision is a bit of a poisoned chalice in our country, if you want to make a career then being in Eurovision maybe isn't the best thing in the world to do.Molly isn't the only person ever expected to do well who flopped, it happens almost every year. And UK odds are always inflated so whenever you hear about a UK entry being a favorite you have to take it with a bucket of salt - Electro Velvet were top 20 on favourites just because... British people have delusions about doing well in things. I did watch Molly's performance again recently and honestly it was kinda rubbish (which I feel like was a popular opinion last year?). It could have done well with a strong performance but the song was let down.
The poisoned chalice aspect is the real problem with Eurovision in the country because it's the #1 reason you haven't sent an above entry this side of the century. But I'll never understand why British people have this perception that the rest of Europe hates them, or that it matters. Everyone this side of Ukraine hates Russia but that didn't stop western countries giving them consistently high points.
Posted by: Kaisa May 24 2015, 03:02 PM
Why would we withdraw? It's guaranteed high ratings for the BBC.
If anything, I think we should let ITV take over the rights. Hopefully then we can get better acts in. Who knows?
Posted by: Suedehead2 May 24 2015, 04:16 PM
A small element of neighbour voting does take place but I think overall it doesn't play a huge role.
It's not just neighbour voting. There are a lot of Russians living in the former Soviet states. Similarly, I'm sure a lot of the UK voters for Australia came from Australians living here.
Molly isn't the only person ever expected to do well who flopped, it happens almost every year. And UK odds are always inflated so whenever you hear about a UK entry being a favorite you have to take it with a bucket of salt - Electro Velvet were top 20 on favourites just because... British people have delusions about doing well in things. I did watch Molly's performance again recently and honestly it was kinda rubbish (which I feel like was a popular opinion last year?). It could have done well with a strong performance but the song was let down.
The odds are calculated, in part, based on where the money is going. Therefore, if a lot of Britons put money on a UK win, the odds will shorten. They will always be fairly short to protect the bookies from a large payout.
Posted by: AdamAloud May 24 2015, 05:51 PM
You can blame Terry Wogan for that. Ever since Jemini came last and the dire run of entries that followed, cries of Eastern Europe hates us and everyone votes against us that was spoon fed to the general public by him.
Posted by: popchartfreak May 24 2015, 06:31 PM
If anything, I think we should let ITV take over the rights. Hopefully then we can get better acts in. Who knows?
Spot on. High ratings for relatively cheap programming. The problem is the bbc not making an effort to persuade our songwriters. We have loads of internationally successful ones. This year Ella Eyre wrote one. Fir Germany. Timbaland won with his song. For Russia. And he's American!
We got Lloyd Webber and Diane Warren and came top 5. It's a SONG contest and the BBC don't try to get the best songwriters. Possibly because they don't want to pay to host being strapped for cash and all. !
Posted by: Vülker May 24 2015, 06:40 PM
Ella Eyre's song came last on nil point for Germany.
And it was Jim Beanz who wrote the Russian winner, not Timbaland.
It doesn't matter if the songwriters are internationally successful if the songs are not up to scratch.
Posted by: Umi May 24 2015, 06:47 PM
And it was Jim Beanz who wrote the Russian winner, not Timbaland.
It doesn't matter if the songwriters are internationally successful if the songs are not up to scratch.
Timbaland wrote the 2008 Russian winner, no?
But I do agree with you, people focus too much on "we need famous people". You don't, you just need talented people. But the BBC doesn't really get them either.
EDIT: produced, not wrote
Posted by: Vülker May 24 2015, 07:00 PM
But I do agree with you, people focus too much on "we need famous people". You don't, you just need talented people. But the BBC doesn't really get them either.
EDIT: produced, not wrote
Yes he only "produced" it. Which basically means the Russians paid him to have his name there. Ghost producer much~
Posted by: Hayzayy May 24 2015, 07:02 PM
Winners of the 2010s: Germany, Azerbaidjan, Sweden, Denmark, Austria, Sweden. Wow, didn't know all of these were "Eastern" countries benefitting from the Russian influence.
Yes there is a connection between the votes and the politics, but at the end of the day, any country can win if the song is good enough. The politics don't justify why countries like the UK or France keep sending shit entries.
Posted by: Qassändra May 24 2015, 07:04 PM
We spend barely anything on it though. £200k (which is about three minutes of Doctor Who) for something that gets over 8 million viewers without fail each year. It's a total bargain for the BBC.
-x-
The opening post is, typically as with most of 'euro music's' parochial rantings, a load of old shit. Yep, the thought that REALLY entered my mind on seeing a SWEDISH WIN and a RUSSIAN SECOND PLACE was 'POLITICS!!!!!'
Posted by: popchartfreak May 24 2015, 08:24 PM
in which case it worked. Jim Beanz now writes/produces on the big Empire TV show (wikipedia says) for Timbaland productions, so the argument still applies even if the fact is wrong
Doubt that most voters care or knew who wrote/produced it, though, only that it sounded good. as for other comments, yes a name doesnt mean a great song, but you're more likely to get a good one with track-proven songwriters, as opposed to an ex-binman or someone that hasnt had a hit in years and years, if at all. I loved Molly's song, and Engelbert's and Bonnie's, but most UK entries have been pretty bland or daft in the last 10 years or more, bar lloyd-Webber.
Posted by: Mateja May 24 2015, 11:14 PM
If anything, I think we should let ITV take over the rights. Hopefully then we can get better acts in. Who knows?
Eurovision is a song competition between European public broadcasters. BBC is British public broadcaster. ITV is a commercial TV channel. So suggesting ITV to take over from BBC is just not possible.
The UK has a lot of great music and could easy send great entries every year. Europe knows that.
Meanwhile, Eurovision isn't taken seriously in the UK and no first or second class act would consider going to Eurovision. So BBC struggles every year trying to come up with a decent act and a decent entry. They tried with has-beens and never-was' and complete newbies who just weren't ready for this event.
The UK's problem is the mentality.
Posted by: Ryan. May 24 2015, 11:25 PM
We need a popular artist to come forward and take a risk just like Anouk did for The Netherlands in 2013 after they had had 8 (?) consecutive DNQs. That resulted in a top 10 finish for them and led to Ilse and Trijntje following her lead.
Posted by: Qassändra May 25 2015, 02:20 PM
I'm fairly sure this isn't true - countries have channel switched before and I'm fairly certain there aren't any countries with two public channel umbrellas (as in BBC vs ITV as opposed to BBC1 vs BBC2)
Posted by: ___∆___ May 25 2015, 02:42 PM
The title of this thread need to be changed to 'Time to send a decent entry'..... We can't blame political voting (Not that I believe it exists in the way the UK media/Terry Wogan would have everyone believe!) when we insist on sending sh!te that even the UK public shun, How can we expect Europe to buy into something we're not even prepared to back or make a hit?
Posted by: Common Sense May 25 2015, 02:50 PM
You are wrong. According to Wiki it's a competition between countries who's broadcasters are members of the EBU, European Broadcasting Union. Whilst mostly it is the countries' public service broadcasters that are members, some commercial broadcsters are in the EBU too. ITV and Channel 4 are also members. So there would be no reason why ITV couldn't show it.
Posted by: ___∆___ May 25 2015, 02:58 PM
ITV would totally breathe new life into the selection process - I have no doubt there could be a great selection format for the song that would prove a ratings winner and generate more interest in the act/song representing us.
Acts and songwriters are reluctant to enter as exposure in the home market is minimal and doesn't result in a hit, long term record deal or launch pad for an artists career as recent chart performances have proved.
Posted by: Rooney May 25 2015, 03:29 PM
Molly isn't the only person ever expected to do well who flopped, it happens almost every year. And UK odds are always inflated so whenever you hear about a UK entry being a favorite you have to take it with a bucket of salt - Electro Velvet were top 20 on favourites just because... British people have delusions about doing well in things. I did watch Molly's performance again recently and honestly it was kinda rubbish (which I feel like was a popular opinion last year?). It could have done well with a strong performance but the song was let down.
The poisoned chalice aspect is the real problem with Eurovision in the country because it's the #1 reason you haven't sent an above entry this side of the century. But I'll never understand why British people have this perception that the rest of Europe hates them, or that it matters. Everyone this side of Ukraine hates Russia but that didn't stop western countries giving them consistently high points.
This is normally the case, but with Molly people on here thought we would do very well. As long as I have been on BuzzJack, all of the people that follow all the pre-stuff, go on the official forums etc. thought it had an excellent chance. I always thought the song was poop, but a lot of people thought we would Top 3/5, and maybe even a potential winner. These were the likes of this forums' mods! Our odds are always inflated because of our arrogance, see the same in football tournaments!
Posted by: Mateja May 25 2015, 03:38 PM
There is BBC - British Broadcasting Corporation and then there is United Kingdom Independent Broadcasting (ITV, Channel 4). UKIB's primary function is to represent independent British television interests.
Some countries like Belgium have two public broadcasters (Flemish, Belgian French) and each gets to pick an entry every other year. In Britain, BBC is the primary EBU member.
In any case, I don't think BBC is the problem here. It's the mentality.
Posted by: Qassändra May 25 2015, 03:58 PM
There are plenty of tracks each year that people think will do well because they're great tracks, and they end up flopping - it's not a sign of destiny for our chances that that happened one of the few times we sent something decent! Take Jade and Blue, and it's obvious that if we make the effort it'll more often than not pay off.
Posted by: Common Sense May 26 2015, 02:18 PM
I honestly think we should enter the winner of The Voice each year from now on. They've nothing to lose as they're not established stars and everything to gain. Like an appearance at the Royal Variety is one of the prizes for winning BGT, then the prize for winning The Voice should be representing us at Eurovision. The BBC wouldn't need abother competition then as many are wanting.
Posted by: 'Dan May 26 2015, 04:23 PM
that would be a bad idea - could anyone realistically see someone like Stevie McCrorie or Jermain Jackman doing well at Eurovision? We'd get less than 10 points like what happened with Electro Velvet. Would much rather the BBC actually TRY again to score a decent hit at Eurovision. They did with Molly but clearly have given up after she underperformed.
Posted by: Suedehead2 May 26 2015, 08:42 PM
I'm not sure they would even enter if one of the consequences of winning was that they would do Eurovision. However, Chris's suggestion does highlight a problem with the idea of reviving A Song For Europe. It would mean the BBC would have to move The Voice. If they wanted The Voice to remain a Saturday night show, that would create a scheduling problem.
Posted by: ScottyEm May 26 2015, 10:31 PM
These days, I'll be happy if we sent something which didn't make my toes curl. Utter bag of shit this year, Guy Freeman should be ashamed of himself. Idiot!
Posted by: Mybelle Jun 22 2015, 01:04 PM
The sad thing is that Hurts have offered to do it in the past. They also showed an email on Twitter asking them to possibly do it. Instead, they opted for Englebert Humperdinck. Hurts are well known on the continent and I'm sure would do very well. They've actually hinted too that they'd write for the Russian entry as the British don't seem to want them.
Posted by: Suedehead2 Jun 22 2015, 03:46 PM
That's one reason why I'd like to see them do it.
Posted by: popchartfreak Jun 22 2015, 05:01 PM
Hurts would be fabulous. If it's true the BBC turned them down they need a rocket up the ar*e for being as thick as a supermassive black hole. At the very least it would give a UK entry some credibility and show that young-ish UK acts and songwriters would be willing to go for it to shake off the naff tag which only the UK still seem to have. Meanwhile the UK continue to look stupid as winning acts sell bucketloads across Europe and viewing figures remain massive.
Posted by: Mybelle Jun 22 2015, 05:07 PM
I'll try to find the info. Theo posted it somewhere and I'll post it on here when I find it.
Posted by: Vülker Jun 22 2015, 05:59 PM
How topical~
<<link to Some Kind of Heaven topic>>
Anyway, Portugal has worn the naff tag longer. At least you had Blue.
Posted by: Silas Jun 22 2015, 06:16 PM
I'd rather have Electro Velvet than Hurts.
Posted by: Mybelle Jun 22 2015, 06:20 PM
<<link to Some Kind of Heaven topic>>
Anyway, Portugal has worn the naff tag longer. At least you had Blue.
Sorry, yeah, I've mentioned it on there. I dunno that Blue are any better than anything else we've sent to the contest. Maybe the Hurts song wasn't good enough, but if they wanted them to do it surely they could have said yes and asked them to write something else? Maybe I'm just naive.
I found the link and the info about it and sorry Vulker, I didn't realise it was you who'd posted it on another thread. I just knew I'd seen it somewhere. It's my age lol
http://www.nme.com/news/hurts/63850
http://www.gigwise.com/news/80052/hurts-the-uk-should-treat-eurovision-better
Posted by: Suedehead2 Jun 22 2015, 09:51 PM
Hurts really have nothing to lose. They are popular in some European countries, and a Eurovision entry is unlikely to change that. They are still relatively unknown in the UK, so a Eurovision entry could raise their profile. Just do it!
Posted by: Liаm Jun 22 2015, 10:29 PM
Well Hurts would probably be a good idea, so of course the BBC would shoot that down 
Posted by: Mybelle Oct 28 2015, 07:46 PM
After listening to Hurts latest album, this is the type of song we need to win the competition. It would be amazing to hear them singing this - Nothing will be bigger than us.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_eVOzxZrdE
Powered by Invision Power Board
© Invision Power Services