Eurovision Song Contest 2021

Cienciano

YellowLead wrote: »

I tuned into Graham as I can’t stand Marty....but ended up switching back to Marty! Graham seemed to be annoyed by the whole thing

I think BBC for the performances, then switch to RTE when the voting starts. Graham has more interesting comments on the performances but turns into one of those idiots talking about "block voting" when the voting begins.

JuanJose

Enjoyablable read on here last night (even if I didn't get to post). Well done y'all!

Whether you like the winner or not, the singer absolutely nailed the vocals from what I could hear. He was absolutely comfortable out there, the staging wasn't 'forced'. There's a lesson in that for us tbh but are RTE even that bothered? I don't think so.

A polished performance by the Dutch public broadcaster too (4 presenters though, WTF?).
The structure of the announcement of the votes works a charm - with the result up in the air 'til the very end - even if the revelation of the public vote ensures a very public annual humiliation for the UK(!).

Onwards to....Rome? Rock & roll never dies!

shtpEdthePlum

eviltimeban wrote: »

Unless the guy has a "hands free" way of doing coke...

You can clearly see he has both his fists clenched and is shaking them while he's looking down.

Left finger sticking out pressing in his nostril

Kunta Kinte

Kunta Kinte wrote: »

Sad day when a potential Eurovision winner like the UK`s entry is robbed because of the Brexit lashback. James should have finished in the top 5 at the very least.

On what planet was the UK entry a potential winner? You must have been watching a different show to the rest of us.

The cream generally rises to the top and this year was no exception.

LizT

The Italian guy would have to be some idiot to be openly doing Coke in an arena, surrounded by people with a camera clearly pointed on him. It’s just an unfortunate camera angle I think.

juneg

I love the Eurovision and watch it every year.
However I was very uncomfortable with the humiliation dished out to the UK act and the others who received zero points. That's no way to behave. The acts have worked hard done their very best and travelled a long road to be a laughing stock in front of millions.

Surely to God there is a more humane way of adding the public vote and the jury vote rather than the cruel way it was done.

shtpEdthePlum

shtpEdthePlum wrote: »

Left finger sticking out pressing in his nostril

Not in the video I've seen. His hands are nowhere near his nose.

breezy1985

juneg wrote: »

I love the Eurovision and watch it every year.
However I was very uncomfortable with the humiliation dished out to the UK act and the others who received zero points. That's no way to behave. The acts have worked hard done their very best and travelled a long road to be a laughing stock in front of millions.

Surely to God there is a more humane way of adding the public vote and the jury vote rather than the cruel way it was done.

How without also taking away the fun of watching and the nice moments for the people who get loads of points

Samsonsmasher

Italian song was great. A proper muscular rock song. A return of classic cool. The Iceland song was naff as well as the band. The weedy childish hipstery nerdy thing is over thankfully. Those kind of people should be wall flowers. They aren't cool. French song was great. Classic sexy French femininity.

odyssey06

Is there a jury prize? I think Italy deserved the win but for the other performers a EV win would mean so much more to their careers.

If Italy keep sending top performers from San Remo festival they will be there or thereabouts every year.

shtpEdthePlum

LizT wrote: »

The Italian guy would have to be some idiot to be openly doing Coke in an arena, surrounded by people with a camera clearly pointed on him. It’s just an unfortunate camera angle I think.

I'm sorry like, I don't know why you are in such denial but he is 100% doing cocaine at this precise moment.

Kunta Kinte

forumdedum wrote: »

During a live TV broadcast?

The point is this. Is there any Eurovision rule that would disqualify a winner or for that matter any competing artist because of drug taking? If there is I`m not aware of it.

breezy1985

breezy1985 wrote: »

How without also taking away the fun of watching and the nice moments for the people who get loads of points

I think they should just add the points for the five lowest televote songs in one go, and maybe mention which countries they are but without singling them out with "your score is zero points."

shtpEdthePlum

Kunta Kinte wrote: »

The point is this. Is there any Eurovision rule that would disqualify a winner or for that matter any competing artist because of drug taking? If there is I`m not aware of it.

Alcohol is a drug. They are in Rotterdam where drug use is not a punishable offense under the law.

Hamsterchops

Cienciano wrote: »

I think BBC for the performances, then switch to RTE when the voting starts. Graham has more interesting comments on the performances but turns into one of those idiots talking about "block voting" when the voting begins.

Sound quality was better on BBC One HD, always is for some reason, maybe RTE taker their feed from the BBC signal?

Sadly France didn't win

breezy1985

Flying Fox wrote: »

I think they should just add the points for the five lowest televote songs in one go, and maybe mention which countries they are but without singling them out with "your score is zero points."

I suppose but you still had people way higher up the list getting 40 or 50 who looked gutted. Humiliation is a risk you take with live performance or sport for that matter

jackboy

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

Italian song was great. A proper muscular rock song. A return of classic cool. The Iceland song was naff as well as the band. The weedy childish hipstery nerdy thing is over thankfully. Those kind of people should be wall flowers. They aren't cool. French song was great. Classic sexy French femininity.

Sure, even though the Italian singer is a weedy shorty.

shtpEdthePlum

breezy1985 wrote: »

I suppose but you still had people way higher up the list getting 40 or 50 who looked gutted. Humiliation is a risk you take with live performance or sport for that matter

At least with sport there is a objective winner by virtue of the rules. It's not just a popularity contest where even if everyone subjectively agrees that you excel, you can potentially get no points because you're unpopular.

Eurovision is like Mean Girls for the plebeians sucking up to politicians. The jury aspect of it also makes it entirely undemocratic, taking the power away from the people and putting it in the hands of the organisers, which is never a good thing. Very dishonest and makes a vote actually fairly worthless if it can just be overruled.

Kunta Kinte

shtpEdthePlum wrote: »

Alcohol is a drug. They are in Rotterdam where drug use is not a punishable offense under the law.

Well in that case he should have just admitted what he was doing instead of making up some BS about checking for broken glass.

deisedude

Kunta Kinte wrote: »

Sad day when a potential Eurovision winner like the UK`s entry is robbed because of the Brexit lashback. James should have finished in the top 5 at the very least.

I thought it was comfortably the worst overall performance

Lyrics terrible
Singer terrible
Production terrible

breezy1985

shtpEdthePlum wrote: »

At least with sport there is a objective winner by virtue of the rules. It's not just a popularity contest where even if everyone subjectively agrees that you excel, you can potentially get no points because you're unpopular.

Eurovision is like Mean Girls for the plebeians sucking up to politicians. The jury aspect of it also makes it entirely undemocratic, taking the power away from the people and putting it in the hands of the organisers, which is never a good thing. Very dishonest and makes a vote actually fairly worthless if it can just be overruled.

It has been a jury vote for most of its existence so clearly the "plebs" dont have a problem with it and neither do the participants who go willingly.You have a problem with the public vote because its a popularity contest and a problem with the jury vote because you think its shady. Can I take it you just dont like Eurovision

bladespin

breezy1985 wrote: »

It has been a jury vote for most of its existence so clearly the "plebs" dont have a problem with it and neither do the participants who go willingly.You have a problem with the public vote because its a popularity contest and a problem with the jury vote because you think its shady. Can I take it you just dont like Eurovision

They brought in the public vote because the jury vote was accused of being out of touch, pretty obviously was/is considering last nights phone results.

Problem is they kept both systems opening themselves up to these accusations.

KathleenGrant

Why are people blaming the UK 0 points on Brexit? They have been failing miserably for years before Brexit. I have listened to the songs for the past two weeks and I still don't remember the song that well. It's forgettable.

shtpEdthePlum

breezy1985 wrote: »

It has been a jury vote for most of its existence so clearly the "plebs" dont have a problem with it and neither do the participants who go willingly.You have a problem with the public vote because its a popularity contest and a problem with the jury vote because you think its shady. Can I take it you just dont like Eurovision

The jury vote was gone for ages and only came back in 2009 because the organisers felt public voting was political.

The participants are doing it for their own fame and fortune (usually sellouts).

The voting public are the likes who watch XFactor. That is reflected in the calibre of the music.

I don't have a problem with the idea of Eurovision, I just wish it could be better. It's dishonest, staged (visuals often win it over sound). It's not about the music, not one iota. I hate that it's the main music contest and it's not about the music.

HeidiHeidi

When I first started watching Eurovision it was a contest for the songwriters.

Then it became all about the songs themselves.

Now it's about the theatre of the act.

I don't think it's a music competition per se at all any more.

Mildly entertaining, though (last night's being the first I've watched through in years, mind you).

JuanJose

juneg wrote: »

I love the Eurovision and watch it every year.
However I was very uncomfortable with the humiliation dished out to the UK act and the others who received zero points. That's no way to behave. The acts have worked hard done their very best and travelled a long road to be a laughing stock in front of millions.

Surely to God there is a more humane way of adding the public vote and the jury vote rather than the cruel way it was done.

It made for great TV - if you weren't one of the acts in the line of fire - but would agree to an extent as a few countries took a right punch to the gut/ego in that section. But, as someone else said, a poor mark in the public vote wasn't confined to just the back markers. Malta didn't grab the public's attention as I thought it might and had to suck it up despite being in the top half of the table after the jury vote. All told, you put yourself up there, you may be prepared for all outcomes.

penny piper

Personally, I thought Finland was far better than Italy and that neither of them deserved to win.
France, the song "voila" and that's the content of it... she also looked like a celine dion impersonator.
Norway the guy actually had a very good voice but the silly staging let him down. He also looked like he was a fan of john lennon.
Germany's song was dire.
The UK song didn't deserve to come last again the staging let him down alot.

is_that_so

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

When I first started watching Eurovision it was a contest for the songwriters.

Then it became all about the songs themselves.

Now it's about the theatre of the act.

I don't think it's a music competition per se at all any more.

Mildly entertaining, though (last night's being the first I've watched through in years, mind you).

Drifted in and out of it myself, mostly the votes. Unbelievably annoying hosts, especially at the end. Not a fan of the public vote which clearly rewards spectacle and tomfoolery and is just an instant reaction but I guess it fills a need for people once a year. Felt sorry for the Swiss lad who'd clearly won it but such is life.

shtpEdthePlum

shtpEdthePlum wrote: »

At least with sport there is a objective winner by virtue of the rules. It's not just a popularity contest where even if everyone subjectively agrees that you excel, you can potentially get no points because you're unpopular.

Eurovision is like Mean Girls for the plebeians sucking up to politicians.

Politicians?

The jury aspect of it also makes it entirely undemocratic, taking the power away from the people and putting it in the hands of the organisers. Very dishonest and makes a vote actually fairly worthless if it can just be overruled.

There are two voting systems. Switzerland would have won if it was a jury only vote. Italy was rewarded for the performance on the night.

Mad_maxx

I like the Winner but i Preferred France

those were my top two after the superb silliness of Denmark failed to reach the final

breezy1985

shtpEdthePlum wrote: »

The jury vote was gone for ages and only came back in 2009 because the organisers felt public voting was political.

The participants are doing it for their own fame and fortune (usually sellouts).

The voting public are the likes who watch XFactor. That is reflected in the calibre of the music.

I don't have a problem with the idea of Eurovision, I just wish it could be better. It's dishonest, staged (visuals often win it over sound). It's not about the music, not one iota. I hate that it's the main music contest and it's not about the music.

The juries were only gone between 1998 to 2000 and again 2003 to 2009.


Plenty of years are crap but this year the whole its not about the song thing does not hold up looking at the top acts

JuanJose

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

When I first started watching Eurovision it was a contest for the songwriters.

Then it became all about the songs themselves.

Now it's about the theatre of the act.

I don't think it's a music competition per se at all any more.

Mildly entertaining, though (last night's being the first I've watched through in years, mind you).

Good summary.

The bit that gets me though is the musicians get to ponce about with no need to worry about hitting the right notes 'cos they're not plugged in. The singer, on the other hand, has to hit the notes. Not sure why that is. The turnaround time for a tightly scheduled live TV marathon maybe doesn't allow for the stage to be reconfigured. Dunno.

is_that_so

fvp4 wrote: »

Politicians?



There are two voting systems. Switzerland would have won if it was a jury only vote. Italy was rewarded for the performance on the night.

Which is where it seems to be heading now. A mediocre song with enough crowd pleasing visuals can clean up.

shtpEdthePlum

shtpEdthePlum wrote: »

The jury vote was gone for ages and only came back in 2009 because the organisers felt public voting was political.

The participants are doing it for their own fame and fortune (usually sellouts).

The voting public are the likes who watch XFactor. That is reflected in the calibre of the music.

I don't have a problem with the idea of Eurovision, I just wish it could be better. It's dishonest, staged (visuals often win it over sound). It's not about the music, not one iota. I hate that it's the main music contest and it's not about the music.

The best songs were rewarded in my opinion. The Swiss song was dull on the night. Possibly I’d have preferred the French song to win but it was close. All the top songs were good. The songs that got zero deserved zero.

breezy1985

is_that_so wrote: »

Which is where it seems to be heading now. A mediocre song with enough crowd pleasing visuals can clean up.

Was Italy full of crowd pleasing visuals ?

is_that_so

fvp4 wrote: »

The best songs were rewarded in my opinion. The Swiss song was dull on the night. Possibly I’d have preferred the French song to win but it was close. All the top songs were good. The songs that got zero deserved zero.

You do get the sense all the same that it's 14 year olds doing a lot of the voting in this.

is_that_so

breezy1985 wrote: »

Was Italy full of crowd pleasing visuals ?

Outfits alone would have got them votes!

is_that_so

is_that_so wrote: »

Which is where it seems to be heading now. A mediocre song with enough crowd pleasing visuals can clean up.

The Italian sing was fine. I’d have preferred the French song but it was pretty good. The other song that did well in the public votes was the Finland song which was also performed well. In neither case were the visuals that exceptional.

Norton was pretty good at knowing what the popular vote would do before it did it. He was able to judge the crowds reaction, and he didn’t like Italy at all

HeidiHeidi

JuanJose wrote: »

Good summary.

The bit that gets me though is the musicians get to ponce about with no need to worry about hitting the right notes 'cos they're not plugged in. The singer, on the other hand, has to hit the notes. Not sure why that is. The turnaround time for a tightly scheduled live TV marathon maybe doesn't allow for the stage to be reconfigured. Dunno.

It really is ridiculous, the more you think about it.

I suppose the secret is not to think about it. It's entertainment. And badly needed this year if all years, gawd knows!

Dodge

It’s always been entertainment. It’s always been a mix of music and everything else. The most famous bit of UK Eurovision is girls having their skirts whipped off FFS

I honestly don’t know how some of you can live your life being so angry about a TV show

Every year a different conspiracy is dreamt up

is_that_so

fvp4 wrote: »

The Italian sing was fine. I’d have preferred the French song but it was pretty good. The other song that did well in the public votes was the Finland song which was also performed well. In neither case were the visuals that exceptional.

Norton was pretty good at knowing what the popular vote would do before it did it. He was able to judge the crowds reaction, and he didn’t like Italy at all

I realise that I'm no longer the audience for it and they were like Iron Maiden meets Euro rock! Not that great either. But it's really a talent show that rewards performances on the night. That's what people seem to want.

is_that_so

Dodge wrote: »

It’s always been entertainment. It’s always been a mix of music and everything else. The most famous bit of UK Eurovision is girls having their skirts whipped off FFS

I honestly don’t know how some of you can live your life being so angry about a TV show

Every year a different conspiracy is dreamt up

I detect some anger in this post at people who are allegedly angry!

Samsonsmasher

jackboy wrote: »

Sure, even though the Italian singer is a weedy shorty.

He was manly though. He gets the chicks by the look of him. The Iceland crew looked like dorks. Nice people to play chess with or pick rubbish out of the shrubs in the park with but not people you would have to hang out with in a cool nightclub with cool people?

DebDynamite

Delighted Italy won. They had no gimmicks, no political statements, no back/sob story. It was just a good rock song and they looked likes seasoned performers, which they are. Hopefully it will encourage other credible acts to partake.

I think also think the spilt between the jury and the public vote gives us the right result. If it was down to the jury vote only, Switzerland would’ve won, and would’ve been one of the most forgettable acts to win in years.

doc22

Didn't like the winners but they had number one in Italy so perhaps they just aren't my taste.But when you have say 20 pop acts and 2 rock acts the pop vote get diluted. In a head to head France Vs Italy I'd say France would have won.

doc22

DebDynamite wrote: »

Delighted Italy won. They had no gimmicks, no political statements, no back/sob story. It was just a good rock song and they looked likes seasoned performers, which they are. Hopefully it will encourage other credible acts to partake.

I think also think the spilt between the jury and the public vote gives us the right result. If it was down to the jury vote only, Switzerland would’ve won, and would’ve been one of the most forgettable acts to win in years. If it was down to the public vote, Lithuania would’ve won. I liked Lithuania and thought they were fun, but it wouldn’t have been a good winner and would brought the credibility of the contest into question, imo.

They finished 7th on televote

Zaney

Italy benefited from being relatively different from the other songs. I’m not a fan of rock. Musical tastes vary across Europe and whilst the rock style is not hugely popular here, it’s not the same elsewhere.

If you like rock, you had little to choose from. If you like pop the vote could be split in any number of directions.

Whilst the French song was my favourite, it was always going to struggle with the popular vote, particularly as is was in French.

DebDynamite

doc22 wrote: »

They finished 7th on televote

Ah yes, sorry - my mistake! I got confused with another stat!

naufragos123

At first I wasn't mad about the winner and preferred France. But I watched the group again and googled them and saw the appeal. They're young, sassy, cool and very talented and I think on balance, deserved it. The Swiss song was lovely but too like Duncan Lawrence's number. It's nice to see variety and a group haven't won since 2006.

I also think it's brilliant that none of the top songs were in English and that an Italian song actually won. There are brilliant music industries in Europe in the European languages. Great to break away from the domination of English. Especially when ironically, the two English speaking countries in Europe have performed so dismally of recent years. And add Australia to them this year.

DebDynamite

Zaney wrote: »

Italy benefited from being relatively different from the other songs. I’m not a fan of rock. Musical tastes vary across Europe and whilst the rock style is not hugely popular here, it’s not the same elsewhere.

If you like rock, you had little to choose from. If you like pop the vote could be split in any number of directions.

Whilst the French song was my favourite, it was always going to struggle with the popular vote, particularly as is was in French.

I think the fact that *was* in French helped it. People loved the Edit Piaf, French cinematic feel about it.