Re: Eurovision 2013 : Fri Mar 08, 2013 3:26 am  

I'm pretty certain that there used to be some rules in place to prevent established acts participating (hence complete nobodies generally being the norm).

In any event, its never ever been about British 'popular' music. Its always been British music with the bands and musicians removed, leaving space for third-rate 'composers' to put together songs-by-numbers and non-entities to sing them (often embarrassingly badly).

Re: Eurovision 2013 : Fri Mar 08, 2013 5:38 am  

BrisbaneRhino wrote:

I'm pretty certain that there used to be some rules in place to prevent established acts participating (hence complete nobodies generally being the norm).

In any event, its never ever been about British 'popular' music. Its always been British music with the bands and musicians removed, leaving space for third-rate 'composers' to put together songs-by-numbers and non-entities to sing them (often embarrassingly badly).

The perfromer(s) is/are completely incidental, it's the song that is judged.

So any performer cn be used but the song must be previously unrecorded/released

Re: Eurovision 2013 : Fri Mar 08, 2013 9:08 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Disagree entirely. It's the majority of the songs that do that.<snip> Which is only churned out because that's how it's always been.

There's no reason it has to stay that way.

But we know it will, don't we?

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Well, Abba would be one case in point, they were a brilliant group, with a brilliant song, and used it as a showcase which gave them instant fame plus millions, not that that's the be-all and end-all but you get the point...

I've already conceded that point (albeit grudgingly as, to my mind, Abba songs were merely jauntily formulaic and a large part of their popularity was down the videos that they gave away to TV companies but, as the first band to do that, you've got to give them high marks for marketing nous).
I can see why the performers would want to win, what I should have said as that I don't know why anyone would want to watch the chosen performer from their country perform a lowest-common-denominator song usually on a par with a nursery rhyme in the hope that that performer would win.

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

If I went to see a concert in Hyde Park in 2012 and all the acts were rubbish, I don't really see what relevance that has to what they could make of the 2013 concert. It's a blank page.

Sure, it's a blank page but pretty much the same stuff gets written on it every year.
With the amazing hope and faith you are demonstrating here, it would be nice for it to be fulfilled ... but, personally, I can't see it happening.

Anyway, I can see the way this thread is going and, being someone whose imagination can't stretch as far as believing that this year's show might be worth watching, I'd better back out of the thread ... a la Dally when he has no answer ... but with better grace, I know when I'm beaten.

Re: Eurovision 2013 : Fri Mar 08, 2013 9:42 am  

BrisbaneRhino wrote:

I'm pretty certain that there used to be some rules in place to prevent established acts participating (hence complete nobodies generally being the norm).

Nope. See "Richard, Cliff", for example.

BrisbaneRhino wrote:

In any event, its never ever been about British 'popular' music. .

Er, no it hasn't. It's a European song event.

Nevertheless it is valid to reference "British 'popular' music" simply because the best of that, or even the most commercially successful of that, if you look at it ignoring what some might call 'artistic merit' would probably win or finish in the top 3 every single time.

The reason that the winning song rarely dents the UK charts is not xenophobia but because there are usually at least 20 better songs already in the UK charts and plenty of them aren't right cracking either, but still better. So, we could have entered "any of the above" and still won.

Re: Eurovision 2013 : Fri Mar 08, 2013 9:57 am  

Whatever the merits of our song, I don't think we should forget the partisan voting.
It's a joke and skews the contest.
You can almost predict where some votes will go irrespective of song quality.

We appear to held in low regard and will continue to struggle.
I blame Blair and his wars!

Re: Eurovision 2013 : Fri Mar 08, 2013 10:05 am  

Durham Giant wrote:

almost as good a guitarist as Randy Rhoads

Both brilliant guitarists but sadly Randy Rhoads was taken so young. How he would have progressed we'll never know but ask Ozzy about him and he'll tell you what he beieves Randy would have done in the future.

Re: Eurovision 2013 : Fri Mar 08, 2013 10:12 am  

El Barbudo wrote:

But we know it will, don't we?

No.
a) if we keep getting flogged and humiliated then eventually things will have to have a sea change.
b) nothing ever stays the same, if you think about it we have been trying to tinker with it and make significant changes, national jury shows, getting Lloyd-Webber in, etc., it's more IMHO a case of the people at present in charge of the tinkering are a bit lost, to be frank.

El Barbudo wrote:

I've already conceded that point (albeit grudgingly as, to my mind, Abba songs were merely jauntily formulaic and a large part of their popularity was down the videos that they gave away to TV companies but, as the first band to do that, you've got to give them high marks for marketing nous).
I can see why the performers would want to win, what I should have said as that I don't know why anyone would want to watch the chosen performer from their country perform a lowest-common-denominator song usually on a par with a nursery rhyme in the hope that that performer would win.

But they don't. It may get a lot of viewers but I'm certain that in recent times the demographic that views it is loaded with people who are not into music.

El Barbudo wrote:

Sure, it's a blank page but pretty much the same stuff gets written on it every year.

... which should make it a piece of pisz to win, there's effectively no competition to a good song.

El Barbudo wrote:

With the amazing hope and faith you are demonstrating here, it would be nice for it to be fulfilled ... but, personally, I can't see it happening.

I can't see the overall contest efforts changing much, as frankly few of the other countries seem to have people who even "get" modern music. But I can imagine us for once making a sensible choice, and winning it, which would be bound to have a knock-on effect as we would then set the bar at a new height (well, as matters stand, at least lift one end of it it off the floor ).

But my point isn't really about whether suddenly the contest will be brimming with great music, I agree with you that won't happen, ever, as most of the countries don't have great pop or rock music or a tradition of it. What I just would like to see is us putting up a fight for once instead of every year announcing yet another turkey, to universal dismay. If WE can all see it's a no-hoper (again), why can't the selectors?

El Barbudo wrote:

Anyway, I can see the way this thread is going and, being someone whose imagination can't stretch as far as believing that this year's show might be worth watching, I'd better back out of the thread ... a la Dally when he has no answer ... but with better grace, I know when I'm beaten.

Maybe you do, but sadly whoever is in charge of song selection for the UK clearly doesn't. Anybody could have told him/her/them that it's a turkey. They're not up to the job. As for "worth watching", that's hard one. It was to me always worth watching as a good laugh, watching the truly awful and sometimes frankly laugh-out-loud turns, and listening to Tel's sparkling put-downs, and the truly painful, heavily accented attempts at trendy Eenglish which for god knows what reason the other national presenters invariably affect. But I suppose unless you enjoy cringe-making and cringe-worthy, and countries taking the pisz out of themselves without ever realising it, there's not much else.

PS I doubt very much that the song as sung on the night by Bonnie Tyler will be the same version as on that YouTube vid. It has been so roundly bagged that I bet they have been working on it non-stop to try to inject some life, so at least it (probably) won't be quite as bad as in that vid.

PPS Did you know that the actual national votes by the national juries are cast based not on the live transmitted performance, but all done on the full-scale rehearsal? I didn't know this, but seemingly Engelbert made a right porridge of the rehearsal despite making the best of a bad job in the live show. Seems wrong to me that there already is a winner before anybody sings a note on the night.

Re: Eurovision 2013 : Fri Mar 08, 2013 11:55 am  

I'm quite proud of the fact that the UK is crap at Eurovision.

Re: Eurovision 2013 : Fri Mar 08, 2013 12:41 pm  

Cibaman wrote:

I'm quite proud of the fact that the UK is crap at Eurovision.

So am I, it works when you realise that we're rubbish in a rubbish song contest, hence we must be good.

Re: Eurovision 2013 : Fri Mar 08, 2013 1:16 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

So am I, it works when you realise that we're rubbish in a rubbish song contest, hence we must be good.

Like two negatives equal a positive?

As an aside, because we part-fund this nonsense, we ought to have a clause inserted to the effect that we have to win the thing every so many years, if only to keep Aardvark happy (if that's possible), otherwise we will withdraw our funding.
It's only fair, value for money and all that.