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?

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.

 

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.

 

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.

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.

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.

 

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.

 

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?

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. !

This year Ella Eyre wrote one. Fir Germany. Timbaland won with his song. For Russia. And he's American!

 

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.

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.

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

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

 

Yes he only "produced" it. Which basically means the Russians paid him to have his name there. Ghost producer much~

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.

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!

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!!!!!'

Yes he only "produced" it. Which basically means the Russians paid him to have his name there. Ghost producer much~

 

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 :o :teresa: 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.

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?

 

 

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.

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.

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.

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)

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?

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.

 

 

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.

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.

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.

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!

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)

 

 

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.

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!

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.

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.