Posted March 3, 200817 yr Its all too political! I bet even if we had Elvis Presley singing for us we would struggle to finish in the top 20!
March 3, 200817 yr Its all too political! I bet even if we had Elvis Presley singing for us we would struggle to finish in the top 20! And you started a "New Topic" just to say that?! It's seriously time for the "Great" British public to stop feeling sorry for themselves, and blame the rest of Europe for it! :manson:
March 3, 200817 yr Its all too political! I bet even if we had Elvis Presley singing for us we would struggle to finish in the top 20! No it is not "political" as you put it. People vote for who they want to win, not who they want to lose. It is alot harder for us to win in the current system, which needs to be (and is being) looked at by the EBU, but there most certainly are other reasons than politics. Does the thought of the 2nd World War put you off voting for Germany? A big help would be if the BBC pulled their finger out and stopped treating it as a laughing stock and nothing more than material for jokes on Terry Wogan's breakfast show.
March 3, 200817 yr Oh shut up you complete idiot :manson: Read the pinned FAQ! I don't want to gloss over it too much though and it is important to point out that with the voting system as it is, it is very hard for a country with fewer friends to have a major impact, and it certainly isn't all about the song, but I strongly object to people saying it is political and that we will NEVER win regardless of who we send. A big part of the blame is firmly on the BBC in my opinion, but the EBU also have alot to answer for.
March 3, 200817 yr it is very hard for a country with fewer friends to have a major impact Ireland? They have no neighbours other than us, and they've won the most of anyone :o But, I agree, BBC hold a lot of responsibility!
March 3, 200817 yr Britain will never win eurovision Not unless we ditch Northern Ireland, but until then our entry will always be known as the United Kingdom. (ps - I dont want us to ditch Northern Ireland, but that's a different debate altogether!)
March 3, 200817 yr Ireland? They have no neighbours other than us, and they've won the most of anyone :o But, I agree, BBC hold a lot of responsibility! All of those wins were before televoting and before the semi-final system came in. That's why I said under the current system. It needs to be changed.
March 3, 200817 yr The whole thing needs restructuring It is ridiculous that countries with a strong history in Eurovision including previous winners are shunted out and sidelined by Mickey Mouse countries in musical terms who have only recently taken part in Eurovision There should be a seeding system where say 16 countries are automatically included based on their long term performances and results over the years and then no more than 2 Eastern Bloc countries and then the others chosen on the basis of lottery or something Eurovision is a farce now
March 3, 200817 yr There should be a seeding system I can think of a few Europeans I'd like to seed. On the whole, the voting system has gone a bit skewiff, but the EBU don't seem to show much of an interest....
March 3, 200817 yr I think it should be based on how good the songs are. Britain's songs have been atrocious for years now, let down by terrible performances or a ridiculous attempt at sounding "contemporary" when what actually is contemporary for half of Europe seems to be oompah bands. While you cannot get around neighbours voting each other 12 points etc. the best song will rise to the top by scoring consistent 10s, 8s or otherwise.
March 3, 200817 yr I think it should be based on how good the songs are. Britain's songs have been atrocious for years now, let down by terrible performances or a ridiculous attempt at sounding "contemporary" when what actually is contemporary for half of Europe seems to be oompah bands. While you cannot get around neighbours voting each other 12 points etc. the best song will rise to the top by scoring consistent 10s, 8s or otherwise. Again, not totally true. Everyone including us will always vote for their friends, which can't be stopped and a country with 10 neighbours/close friends will immediately have an advantage over a country with only one or two, regardless of the quality of the song, meaning were the UK, France or Ireland to send the best song, it would need around 70 points more from non-neighbours than it would were it from say Turkey. Stopping countries voting for certain other countries, seeding or whatever would be unfair, and I think the EBU are going in the right direction by allowing semi-final countries only to vote for countries in that semi-final, but it needs to be enforced that only countries to qualify for the final have voting rights in the final.
March 3, 200817 yr I still don't buy that - again remember that neighbouring countries are more likely to produce songs that are similar traditionally to their neighbours. I still say the strongest song or one with a genuinely unexpected quirk (e.g. Lordi) will win and I hope that Ireland and their puppet win this year to prove the neighbours theory wrong. Britain performs consistently badly because of the tripe we send there. Not because of politics.
March 3, 200817 yr I still don't buy that - again remember that neighbouring countries are more likely to produce songs that are similar traditionally to their neighbours. I still say the strongest song or one with a genuinely unexpected quirk (e.g. Lordi) will win and I hope that Ireland and their puppet win this year to prove the neighbours theory wrong. Britain performs consistently badly because of the tripe we send there. Not because of politics. I agree with your points about Lordi and Dustin. Lordi did prove the neighbours theory "wrong" and so did Dustin, but is that how you really want it to be? Will all countries with not many neighbours have to resort to an outlandish novelty entry to get attention? I didn't say it was impossible, I said it is HARDER for a Western country to win and a song from here would have to be 10 times better than a song from somewhere with lots of neighbours to be treated equally in the voting. It's a mathematical fact. This is taking "Britain" out of the equation by the way, because our songs are c**p, but like I said, we would need to not just have a good song, but a spectacularly brilliant song to be in with a chance. Do you know where I'm coming from?
March 3, 200817 yr we would need to not just have a good song, but a spectacularly brilliant song How does one define a spectacularly brilliant song? Brilliance is a subjective attitude and therefore incongruent to the song's objective ability to win or lose. It just needs to be popular.
March 3, 200817 yr Call me stupid, but I've only just realised that there was a 16 year gap between our wins in 1981 and 1997. By my reckoning, we don't really need to start worrying for another 5 years at least!
March 3, 200817 yr At least Andy can sing. Maybe they should have picked LoveShy.They would have stood more chance, as they definately can't sing. What a load of c**p the pop industry has become.
March 3, 200817 yr I agree realsinger. Love$h!te were simply dreadful. Andy can hold a tune whatever anyone thinks of his style of music.
March 3, 200817 yr Call me stupid, but I've only just realised that there was a 16 year gap between our wins in 1981 and 1997. By my reckoning, we don't really need to start worrying for another 5 years at least! but in between that time we finished top 10 nearly every year, often second :P We've had one joint 3rd place this decade and that's it :(
Create an account or sign in to comment