I think the problem is always that the songs we send are too self-conscious of being Eurovision entries. I think it was Asa that said he gives each entry 'The Credits Test' ie could he imagine the song playing whilst the credits rolled at the end of the contest. That is implying that there is a 'Eurovision-style' of song that will win. I believe that is a view shared by many in the UK, and it's just not true. If you look at the winning entries from the last 10 years, each one is very different to the other, and not a particular style.
We try too hard to treat it like an exact science... "This will get votes because he's well known in Eastern Europe..." "This is camp as Christmas, it's bound to get noticed..." "This sounds 'Very Eurovision..."
How do other countries carry out the reality programmes? Are they similar to X Factor to find a voice, or just a one off similar to the old Song for Europe? Or something completely different like fame academy to find the best singer/song writers?
For those wanting a laugh, may I recommend listening to Peter Urban's commentary from ARD / Das Erste on their website and play from 2 hours in for his reaction of the commentators fireworks.
It struck me this year how little of the contest is now delivered in anything other than English. There were one or two songs in languages other than English, but apart from the French jury all of the spokespersons (I think) spoke in English and virtually all of the presenters' links were English too. The French translations of the votes were (I think) a little vague here and there too. And hardly any Danish (at all?) spoken by the presenters. Now I know it's a global audience and they want to make it as understandable as possible throughout but I used to like the French and host language stuff being interspersed into the programme. However French is still supposed to be an official language of the EBU but I wouldn't be surprised if this requirement was dropped in the next few years.
That's the whole point of having individual commentators for each member station - so as to translate the contest and 'describe the scene' as Katy Boyle used to say
Have to say that I agree the contest is becoming all too generic. It's no doubt a very polished programme and produced to extremely high standards. But I liked having each country's broadcaster putting their own spin on things - now it all seems very similar from one year to the next.
And I continue to mourn the loss of the orchestra - you wouldn't get a great contest opening song like this otherwise:
Although Norway's scoreboard that year was perhaps a little too ahead of it's time - and also a bizarre choice of design!
(Don't think the floor is reactive by the way - just cleverly designed graphics that the artists hit marks for.)
Again, I was just going by what was said by the production designer in this video (starts talking about their use of smart glass, talks about the reactive stage floor screen at 3m14s:
Thanks for the answer regarding the lighting - would explain why it was only to the sides, as the central part of the screen otherwise would've looked terrible on-screen.
I may have been wrong - lots of the effects looked pre-rendered to me - as they didn't quite match the stage motion. I think Smart Glass means different things to different people.
(Don't think the floor is reactive by the way - just cleverly designed graphics that the artists hit marks for.)
Again, I was just going by what was said by the production designer in this video (starts talking about their use of smart glass, talks about the reactive stage floor screen at 3m14s:
Thanks for the answer regarding the lighting - would explain why it was only to the sides, as the central part of the screen otherwise would've looked terrible on-screen.
I may have been wrong - lots of the effects looked pre-rendered to me - as they didn't quite match the stage motion. I think Smart Glass means different things to different people.
Smart Glass, provided by Smart Tint, was used on the boxed construction behind which allow different stage set ups (results vs performances) on the one set. Smart Glass has the ability of increasing/decreasing the levels of opacity of the glass (for example ITV's 2010 Daybreak studio windows)
I think the problem is always that the songs we send are too self-conscious of being Eurovision entries. I think it was Asa that said he gives each entry 'The Credits Test' ie could he imagine the song playing whilst the credits rolled at the end of the contest. That is implying that there is a 'Eurovision-style' of song that will win.
I think there is a Eurovision style of song that will win, but which changes (and viewers'/judges' preferences change) each year. I don't think you could just send any good song (I don't think all good/great songs would work well live at Eurovision). I think the "credits test" thing sounds quite good. I also think it should be possible to predict the winner, or have a high probability of predicting, given enough data/inputs. You could have a great artificial neural net program or AI program that could predict it and which might earn some money?
Last edited by Neo on 14 May 2014 11:51pm - 3 times in total
Obviously there is a traditional schlagher-type Eurovision song, but I feel like that hasn't been the case in the past decade or so. I think one of the clearest markers of a winning song (or almost winning) can actually be found through minimalist and intimate staging. Loreen (Sweden) in 2012 and The Common Linnets (The Netherlands) this year weren't widely tipped before hand, but once their minimalist semi-final performances were viewed, a great deal of buzz surrounded them. In a contest with over the top staging, I think going for a minimal and intimate look really helps a performance stand out.
