Oh Vienna! Eurovision Final Thread

[SuffolkNWhat]

Here we go, 25 minutes until Eurovision 2015 kicks off in Austria.

Get the drinks in, it's going to be a long one!

I think that assessment is right -- regional tastes account for a lot. You can see it in fashion and traditional foods too.

The UK seems to think ridiculous or gimmicky is the way to go when it comes to Eurovision. Hence Englebertgate. And yes, Jedward had a certain level of those qualities but they also came across as a genuine act (as did the Babushkas who came second for Russia a few years ago) whereas there is a fakeness to UK entries that I can't quite put my finger on but it is there.

The full voting breakdown is available on the official Eurovision website. It shows by country how the jury voted, how the corresponding televote went and what the overall ranking for each country was. You can even see who the jury members were for each country taking part.

The UK televote ranked Lithuania 1st, but the jury had Sweden 1st. I cannot remember anything about the Lithuanian entry now!

Oh, wow, wow. I'm going to be spending hours looking at those . Quick spot checks confirmed what I thought though - that you can come 15th/17th/20th whatever but the final result can make it seem much worse.

Btw Eurovision is a broadcasters' programme and it is the BBC and no one else who decides how our entry is selected. We don't even get a say anymore.

In Sweden they properly compete for the honour of representing their country. It's taken very seriously.

Here if we don't win it's either because our entry was shit or other Europeans have no taste in music.

Those scores are really interesting . I just looked at all of the various scores for Austria (as people seemed to like that and yet they go no points) and, apart from 3 scores (out of 6 per country), no-one ranked them 27th.

I can't really work them out, tbh - the French jury ranked the UK 17th whilst the tv audience ranked the UK 25th to give an overall score of ... 25!

Lets just say that in our family we could all understand the French lyrics (to a greater or lesser extent) and it just wasn't what we'd vote for.
Actually we were desperate for a positive lyric, far too many break up ones or worse (I did something dreadful in my youth...).

We need to get someone good to write and perform for us (James Blunt offered on twitter - and he's far better than Engleburk - who I can't even spell).

I think we also need a change of attitude - there's too much of a 'we deserve to win because we're so much better than this foreign crap', but we don't enter a strong enough song. Also other countries do a lot to promote their song which the UK doesn't.

SwedishEdith the jury and televote scores are combined, each weighted 50:50 which is how the overall rankings are formulated. It really doesn't matter is we were ranked 17th by a jury and 25th by the televote because neither would result in any points being awarded - only the top 10 get points.

James Blunt wouldn't work, not because he is in the same league as Englebert when it comes to gimmicks, but because it would look like a UK 'bringing in the big guns in a desperate effort to win' type of gimmick. The trick is to capture the Europop zeitgeist.

Ireland has had some spectacular fails in the past few years with voting for the entry (Dustin the Turkey, Niamh Kavanagh's second ESC appearance, and this year's entry) but I still think taking it out of the hands of the professionals is a better idea and the UK should have a proper competition.

Oh, yes, I get you have to be top 10 to get any points. I'm really not complaining about the UK's scores at all , just using them as an example. If it's 50:50, I don't understand how 17 + 25 gives an overall ranking of 25 rather than 21? But, then that might give lots of equal ranking scores? So, I suppose there's some other calculation that weights the individual rankings of each juror. Overthinking this now.

Does anyone actually listen to the UK entry and think 'we deserve to win because this is so much better than that foreign crap'? If they do, the. They're clearly not well acquainted with reality.

Every single year we enter something that we're genuinely ashamed of.

Oh but even if James Blunt didn't perform he could write the song.
Heart to Heart was ridiculously catchy.
Hell, if he's offered, they should be snapping his hand off.
The Ozzie guy was very famous in Australia and often European countries use or bring out the big guns.
Blue did brilliantly and 'I can' was a really strong entry, it's just that a sore throat, and Lee was really ill, means hitting high notes was practically impossible on the night in question.
But I am still mooching given that I voted for the UK and thought they encapsulated kitsch.

I am not acquainted with reality .

Thinking about the Blue entry which was the last UK song to do reasonably well - it was the combination of a well-known professional act, a strong song and the pre-competition promotion across Europe that resulted in a respectable finishing position. (Andrew Lloyd-Webber did better and they also promoted the song especially in eastern Europe) It seems to me that the winners in recent years are songs that have been released and been hits across Europe before the competition. Graham Norton said the Swedish entry had already been number one in a several countries. At one time the rules were that a song couldn't be released beforehand. I suppose the digital age did away with that.

I think our biggest problem is not promoting ourselves - hardly anyone in the UK had heard the song let alone elsewhere, obviously having unknowns perform who, bless them for trying, but sounded a bit nervous - bit of a problem as I realise anyone at the top of their game right now won't do the contest for obvious reasons of credibility - and probably not putting in a really strong contemporary song in the first place. I actually wish that the BBC would have the guts to say they're pulling out of this and put the money into better programming and dramas on TV. If anyone knows what we or the BBC actually get out of this I'd be interested to know (genuine question).

The rules state that songs can only be released a limited time before the competition. I don't know when the UK entry was released in comparison to the Swedish one.

We need someone in the ascendency or at their peak - not a reformed boy band - to represent the UK imho. A lot of the other entries are really strong songs sung by X Factor type show winners.

How about Jess Glynne singing next year's song?

I think the biggest problem for the UK is finding someone good, reasonably young, at the right stage of their career, contemporary and a credible artist who is willing to take part. (Not too long a list of requirements then!) The last requirement is probably the most difficult one.

Interesting about the time limits on releasing songs ahead of the competition but clearly if you get the promotion right it still plays into the hands of countries like Sweden and I can't help feeling we were a little bit ashamed of our entry this year. Who chose it for goodness sake? I actually didn't dislike it that much - it was fun and catchy but just not on the same wavelength as the winner or quite a few others. Anyone think that not having an opportunity to perform the song live in one of the semi-finals is a disadvantage? Obviously we don't have to qualify but I wonder whether the Big Five should get a chance to do a live performance anyway like all the others who go to the final.

I think the BBC needs to make up its mind whether it's going to make a big effort by producing some sort of talent show to select a winner or give up altogether and save the money because the sort of half-baked efforts of recent years are just a waste of time.

That's a good point about getting semi final play for the automatic qualifiers. I think they play snippets of the songs. I had a hell of a lot on this year so although I did watch the second semi final I wasn't giving it my full attention.