Eurovision song contest...what do you do to avoid it?

[sprinterguy]

I was impressed to see Sabaton appear in the montage of Swedish acts too

Yes, spontaneous raucous chants of "SABATON!" immediately ensued in our household. There was also about a seconds worth of Hammerfall in there.

 

[backontrack]

And in perhaps possibly the biggest shock of the evening, Paul 'will-make-a-post-to-complain-about-a-slight-misspelling' Sidorczuk has made a glaring error in the title - unless of course we now are part of the Furopean union!

I assumed that was deliberate.

 

[sprinterguy]

I have been listening to a woman on Radio 4 who stated that having Eurovision was "better than going to war". Make of that what you will.

Yes, I'll take sitting on my sofa drinking copious amounts of cider in front of the telly box over charging into automatic weapons fire any day.

 

[Domh245]

I assumed that was deliberate.

He has since fixed the title, so I must assume that it was a rare mistake.

 

[70014IronDuke]

I blame Sandie Shaw. (or was it Cher? Or Susan Maughan?)

Anyway, she should have been arrested and charged for exposing naked feet.

No wonder the country's been going down ever since..... Disgutted of Tonbridge Wells.

 

[TheKnightWho]

I blame Sandie Shaw. (or was it Cher? Or Susan Maughan?)

Anyway, she should have been arrested and charged for exposing naked feet.

No wonder the country's been going down ever since..... Disgutted of Tonbridge Wells.

Frankly, I'm amazed you managed to type that without your intestines.

 

[Railops]

I have to say I thoroughly enjoyed it.

What a shock that is, you must have breathed a massive sigh of relief when those nasty British never won.

 

[radamfi]

Whether you or I personally like Eurovision or not is completely immaterial to whether or not the BBC should be paying for it. The fact remains that a significant proportion of licence fee payers enjoy watching it, and therefore the BBC has a mandate to invest in it. I don't count myself as one of those who enjoy Eurovision, but I accept that a great many do and that this great many also pay into the licence fee pot.

Although if the BBC stopped showing it, ITV may well take it up. That's possible as ITV is an EBU member. There are breaks scheduled in the programme to enable channels to insert adverts should they so wish.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I'm struggling to work out whether you genuinely think the organisers of Eurovision really don't know that Australia is in Europe. :roll

How many miles do you think it is that separates Australia from the nearest part of Europe to it? We are not just talking of tens or even hundreds of miles, but thousands of miles in distance. So that offers no excuse whatsoever for decision to include Australia in a Eurovision contest.

 

[anme]

It is par for the course for such a transmitted television programme as this with its core element of unremitting dross to also have a complete lack of knowledge by its compilers of where the geographical borders of Europe are actually situated.

"Eurovision" is the name of the organisation that runs the contest. I don't see why entrants should necessarily be restricted to the European continent (although practical considerations regarding the number of contestants mean that some limitations are likely to be necessary). Is anyone offended that British Airways operate flights outside of the British Isles? Or that the British Broadcasting Corporation has a World Service?

And as always, the best advice is surely that if you don't like it, don't watch it. Don't let it ruin your life.

 

[TheKnightWho]

How many miles do you think it is that separates Australia from the nearest part of Europe to it? We are not just talking of tens or even hundreds of miles, but thousands of miles in distance. So that offers no excuse whatsoever for decision to include Australia in a Eurovision contest.

I would advise you to reread what I wrote. I didn't say that anyone thinks that Australia is in Europe, or even close to it.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

"Eurovision" is the name of the organisation that runs the contest. I don't see why entrants should necessarily be restricted to the European continent (although practical considerations regarding the number of contestants mean that some limitations are likely to be necessary).

.

Perhaps, heartened by your logic, the 2017 contest will see entries from Burkina Faso, Bhutan and Chile.

 

[crehld]

How many miles do you think it is that separates Australia from the nearest part of Europe to it? We are not just talking of tens or even hundreds of miles, but thousands of miles in distance. So that offers no excuse whatsoever for decision to include Australia in a Eurovision contest.

This seems to getting silly. What about the island of Reunion in the Indian Ocean which is a departement and territorially constituent part of the French Republic? Perhaps the Pitcairn Islands in the Pacific Ocean, being a British Overseas Territory, should host the next contest? At least it will be close (relatively speaking of course) to Australia so should allay your fears about geographical proximity to the territorial and politico-administrative borders of 'Europe'.

I honestly don't think it matters. And I'm sure the Eurovision organizers have received a healthy financial contribution from Australia's entry into the competition and the sale of broadcast rights over there, which will no doubt lower the cost to the British licence fee payer which you seem rather concerned about.

 

[anme]

.

Perhaps, heartened by your logic, the 2017 contest will see entries from Burkina Faso, Bhutan and Chile.

And why not?

Also, given that you don't watch it, why do you care?

 

[TheKnightWho]

.

Perhaps, heartened by your logic, the 2017 contest will see entries from Burkina Faso, Bhutan and Chile.

Australia were invited because Eurovision is extremely popular over there. I really don't see why you've taken umbrage to it.

 

[70014IronDuke]

This seems to getting silly. What about the island of Reunion in the Indian Ocean which is a departement and territorially constituent part of the French Republic? Perhaps the Pitcairn Islands in the Pacific Ocean, being a British Overseas Territory, should host the next contest? At least it will be close (relatively speaking of course) to Australia so should allay your fears about geographical proximity to the territorial and politico-administrative borders of 'Europe'.

OMG! Sandie Shaw - or Cher/Susan Maughan/Judith Durham/Vera Lynn, whoever it was - you are forgiven.

Please come back, naked feet and all, before this gets out of hand.

(Actually, Judith Durham might make it get more out of hand)

This is clearly not the Eurovision Song Contest as we once knew and loved it !

Digested of Tonbridge Wells

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Does anyone know what was the original aspiration behind the organiser's raison d'etre was when the Eurovision Song Contest was first launched? Was there any geographical limit on entrants in the early years?

 

[backontrack]

OMG! Sandie Shaw - or Cher/Susan Maughan/Judith Durham/Vera Lynn, whoever it was - you are forgiven.

Please come back, naked feet and all, before this gets out of hand.

(Actually, Judith Durham might make it get more out of hand)

This is clearly not the Eurovision Song Contest as we once knew and loved it !

Digested of Tonbridge Wells

I take it you're using autocorrect on your phone...

 

[Darandio]

I watched the scoring, I always do, you all now have permission to shoot me.

However, as tedious as that was in previous years where you could pretty much predict where the 12 points would go from each country, it wasn't as much the case last night. As well as that, the public vote made it completely unpredictable until the end.

In the previous guise without the public vote, you would have known Australia were going to win after a quarter of the votes.

 

[D6975]

I didn't watch any of it. My son decided we would watch an old recorded Dr Who Christmas special.

Is it safe to assume that the usual political voting occurred as normal?
Moldova/Romania, Greece/Cyprus etc.

 

[Darandio]

Is it safe to assume that the usual political voting occurred as normal?
Moldova/Romania, Greece/Cyprus etc.

As above, not at all, but mainly for good reason.

Cyrpus couldn't vote for Greece, Greece didn't give Cyprus maximum points. Neither Moldova nor Romania could vote for eachother, neither were in the final.

But even votes that were once 'dead certs' such as Norway for Sweden, they didn't give them a point!

 

[TheKnightWho]

I watched the scoring, I always do, you all now have permission to shoot me.

However, as tedious as that was in previous years where you could pretty much predict where the 12 points would go from each country, it wasn't as much the case last night. As well as that, the public vote made it completely unpredictable until the end.

In the previous guise without the public vote, you would have known Australia were going to win after a quarter of the votes.

There's always been the public vote, but it used to be mixed in with the jury one.

 

[SS4]

I didn't watch any of it. My son decided we would watch an old recorded Dr Who Christmas special.

Is it safe to assume that the usual political voting occurred as normal?
Moldova/Romania, Greece/Cyprus etc.

Not too bad in the jury vote with some exceptions with the 12 points (Estonia -> Sweden and Belarus -> Russia) will surprise nobody.

The televoting because they were summed and added in one go and I've not had a chance to parse the full results (see http://www.eurovision.tv/page/results)

 

[Harbornite]

If you want to avoid Eurovision, there are two options:
A. Change the channel
B. switch off the Television

Job done.

 

[furnessvale]

Although if the BBC stopped showing it, ITV may well take it up. That's possible as ITV is an EBU member. There are breaks scheduled in the programme to enable channels to insert adverts should they so wish.

If the BBC stop showing it, Eurovision will have to look elsewhere for serious money.

One of the reasons we have automatic entry to the final is the fact that auntie beeb stumps up a huge wedge of cash to support this tosh!

 

[radamfi]

Does anyone know what was the original aspiration behind the organiser's raison d'etre was when the Eurovision Song Contest was first launched? Was there any geographical limit on entrants in the early years?

http://www.eurovision.tv/page/history/the-story

1955, the EBU came up with the idea of an international song contest whereby countries, represented by their respective public broadcasters, would participate in one television show, to be transmitted simultaneously in all represented nations.

This was conceived during a meeting in Monaco in 1955 by Marcel Bezençon, a Frenchman working for the EBU. The competition was based upon the Italian Festival di Sanremo, held for the first time in 1951, and was also seen as a technological experiment in live television: in those days, it was a very ambitious project to join many countries together in a wide-area international network.

Participants are members of the EBU and, apart from Australia, countries within the European Broadcasting Area (EBA) can enter, which is bigger than the traditional definition of "Europe", hence Israel's regular participation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Broadcasting_Area

The "European Broadcasting Area" is bounded on the west by the western boundary of Region 1, on the east by the meridian 40° East of Greenwich and on the south by the parallel 30° North so as to include the northern part of Saudi Arabia and that part of those countries bordering the Mediterranean within these limits. In addition, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia and those parts of the territories of Iraq, Jordan, Syrian Arab Republic, Turkey and Ukraine lying outside the above limits are included in the European Broadcasting Area.

 

[Darandio]

There's always been the public vote, but it used to be mixed in with the jury one.

Not always, I believe limited televoting only appeared after 1997??, but even then it didn't always work and wasn't compulsary for all countries.

However, my point was that the newer system means that the final result isn't so predictable so early.

 

[anme]

If the BBC stop showing it, Eurovision will have to look elsewhere for serious money.

One of the reasons we have automatic entry to the final is the fact that auntie beeb stumps up a huge wedge of cash to support this tosh!

No, the reason the UK has automatic entry is that the BBC is one of the largest contributors to the European Broadcasting Union, which does many other things besides run the Eurovision Song Contest.

Anyway, why would the BBC stop showing it? It seems to be very popular (four pages of discussion on a railway forum in less than 24 hours!).

 

[70014IronDuke]

Does anyone know what was the original aspiration behind the organiser's raison d'etre was when the Eurovision Song Contest was first launched? Was there any geographical limit on entrants in the early years?

It was De Gaulle's idea

a) to bring peace and brotherhood to Europe, centred on Paris

b) to stop the Beatles ruining the French language (after they'd ruined their own)

c) he thought the French would win it every, 'cos he'd done a deal with the Swiss that they could do a yodel entry every second year so long as they voted for France.

But he hadn't counted on les anglais perfides, and their naked-feet Sandie

(or was it Marianne Faithful, or Mary Hepkin?)

Degenerate of Tonbridge Wells

 

[radamfi]

If the BBC stop showing it, Eurovision will have to look elsewhere for serious money.

One of the reasons we have automatic entry to the final is the fact that auntie beeb stumps up a huge wedge of cash to support this tosh!

You are of course talking about the UK being one of the "Big Five". The UK is one of the most populous countries in the contest so arguably should pay more than most. For example, you might not think it would be fair to ask Malta or San Marino to pay the same as the UK. I wouldn't be surprised, however, if the cost isn't that different to the cost of a regular Saturday night of BBC One broadcasting as the cost is split across many countries.