I thought the main joke was when the guy from Russia announced that the 12 points from Russia were going to Russia?
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Eurovision 2015
- Thread starter Searle
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Searle
Established Member
Hahahaha I cracked up when he said that, it was so sincere, so perfect
the sniper
Established Member
- Joined
- 4 Sep 2007
- Messages
- 3,499
:roll:
A good contest I thought overall. I think the crowd in the arena were much more up for visiting Sweden next year over the rather less welcoming to allcomers Russia... I liked the show ORF put on, but there were numerous small technical issues throughout the show. They didn't really have much regard for the BBC audience though or people in the stadium while much of Europe took their adbreak, what with the nice half time show being followed by filler 'chat'. I think DR of Denmark did much better with this time last year when they did this bit with Graham: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vJi4i0vxAk Most other broadcasts have also filled the time more successfully, but ORF spared no expense on us...
On our performance, we've gone back to insulting Europe by sending forgettable nobodies, who, surprise, surprise, aren't well received by Europe. Europe and the world are very familiar with UK recording artists, they love our music and know it well, so it's entirely obvious to them that the UK doesn't take Eurovision seriously when we send them acts that aren't even known to anybody here and frankly aren't that good. Why should they vote for us when we send them not the Rolling Stones, but a bloke from a Rolling Stones tribute group doing a bit of Scat in between unremarkable vocal performances!
You only have to consider what our last decent result was, Blue coming in 11th in 2011. This is because they were a known entity who'd had reasonably recent chart success in the UK and Europe and had a decent song. See also the successes and failures we had in the '90's. The problem is either the lack of contemporary chart successful acts willing to do Eurovision or the BBC's negligent or deliberate method of picking inevitably unsuccessful entries.
I was amused when one of the former eastern bloc countries' hosts came on screen to give their results, she was wearing a red dress with silk-like lapels which Graham Norton described as "Star Trek, - The Musical".
CC 72100
Established Member
- Joined
- 23 Jan 2012
- Messages
- 3,777
I don't normally like Graham Norton at all - but I must admit he is very good on Eurovision.
Disappointed not to see Romania do better, liked their entry.
Disappointed not to see Romania do better, liked their entry.
Smudger105e
Member
I quite liked the UK entry, but it was never going to do well as it was not in a Euro vision style. European music taste is apparently very different from British taste.
I disagree we have plenty of contemporary acts which are hugely popular in Europe and which, if we actually sent them, would probably do very well (Adele, One Direction, Sam Smith, Ed Sheeran, for example, whatever your opinion are popular in Europe). Instead we send bands which no-one has heard of not even in the UK. It's hardly surprising, therefore, if we keep our best artists away from Eurovision that we don't do very well.
Especially in Northern European countries, there's always UK artists in the charts. Here in Germany, I'd say most music I hear on the chart music radio is from the usual suspects; UK, US, Sweden e.t.c. In fact, speaking of Sweden, they often send their good modern talent. If the UK did the same, I've no doubt the scores would be better.
Last edited:
I would assume there must be pressure on the UK not to send well-known and popular artists as the UK would walk it most years, so there wouldn't be much of a contest.
Interestingly, Italy would have won it on phone/text voting alone, excluding juries. In the UK phone vote, Lithuania were first followed by Poland. The UK jury didn't rate them much, so Poland only got 2 points and Lithuania got 4. The Irish top two phone vote was the same, and the jury there also marked them down.
Interestingly, Italy would have won it on phone/text voting alone, excluding juries. In the UK phone vote, Lithuania were first followed by Poland. The UK jury didn't rate them much, so Poland only got 2 points and Lithuania got 4. The Irish top two phone vote was the same, and the jury there also marked them down.
Searle
Established Member
Where are the stats for this please?
I've also heard it suggested that the BBC is terrified of winning because they'd have to stump up the cash to host the following year's event, and so they sandbag it.
People do like to say that, mostly as a joke, but unless a country hosts it on a regular basis, I don't really believe cost it is that big an issue. The BBC is one of the largest broadcasters in the world so if they can't afford it, it would be much worse for small countries, even rich ones like Austria or Sweden. You can't really criticise the BBC for a lack of commitment to the Contest. They went to town on promoting Electro Velvet and set up a temporary DAB radio station for Eurovision.
It doesn't matter how much you put in if the song isn't up to it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I wonder as well whether the pop world isn't a bit less snobby about such things. Twenty years ago I doubt you would have had a singer songwriter like Ed Sheeran being visibly mates with a boy band such as One Direction. This is not to denigrate 1D - they wouldn't be where they are now were they not talented performers - it's just that twenty years ago, those world's wouldn't really have met. (I seem to recall that Robbie Williams had to leave Take That and rock up at Glasto before partying with the rock fraternity).
So perhaps Eurovision wouldn't be massively uncool for a modern Tallent! But then again, I'm an old codger so what would I know!
Searle
Established Member
thanks, that's really interesting. Juror 5 from the UK (a capital DJ) voted Australia 1st, Germany 2nd and Israel 3rd??? What was she thinking?
Lithuania appeared to blank Russia in the voting, giving them no points, but the phone/text voting had Russia third. They got no points because the jury had them in 20th, with 2 jury members placing them second last. That looks very suspiciously like the jury deliberately put the boot in.
And from the phone voting, it was Lithuania and Poland getting the top two places, followed by Sweden.
And the jury - Israel third?
Russia 7th and 6th respectively.
the sniper
Established Member
- Joined
- 4 Sep 2007
- Messages
- 3,499
I liked really liked the Israeli entry! I'd honestly have put it third! 
I think they were predicted to do better than they actually did.
I think they were predicted to do better than they actually did.
Searle
Established Member
no. :P
The stump up a fair amount of cash to put it on anyway, whatever country shows it, it is why we are one of the 4 or 5 that get a free run straight into the final.
- Status