It's always been the fact that the EBU know the result prior to the score presentation though. In the past the results have been faxed to a central point and in the prehistoric time they were phoned in. Tere have been occasions where the EBU scrutineer has intervened to get corrected versions from the National Spokesperson.
Agreed the DIGAME process makes this a lot less problematic.
ISTR that the fax system was a late 80s/early 90s introduction though wasn't it? In the earlier days of the contest the phone link was the main method of delivering the votes?
So Eurovision fans, how will you go about enjoying this evening? Who'll be throwing a party? If so, describe your proposed party. How many will, just like me, be watching alone and not having a party?
As usual, I'll be sitting alone in front of my TV with the BBCi lyrics up, so I may possibly sing and/or dance along to some songs.
I've noticed there'll be an event chatroom on here for it.
It's always been the fact that the EBU know the result prior to the score presentation though. In the past the results have been faxed to a central point and in the prehistoric time they were phoned in. Tere have been occasions where the EBU scrutineer has intervened to get corrected versions from the National Spokesperson.
Agreed the DIGAME process makes this a lot less problematic.
ISTR that the fax system was a late 80s/early 90s introduction though wasn't it? In the earlier days of the contest the phone link was the main method of delivering the votes?
The EBU have always (when national juries have been used) received the votes prior to them being announced on air to ensure that they aren't changed in accordance with the current running totals.
The problem with the voting in Eurovision is that each country has equal weight when it comes to scoring.
Yugoslavia (previously 1 country of 23 million people) is now 7 countries; so 7 votes instead of the 1 that the UK gets, but less than half the population.
We have the same issue with the former USSR which have now fragmented into seperate states each with a vote in the final.
I appreciate that it's only a competition, but there should at least be a level playing field. The idea that 1 person voting in San Marino has the same influence as 2,000 telephone voters in the UK makes the scoring all rather pointless!
What's the alternative though? UK, France, Ireland and Spain all merged into one vote to match the size of Russia?
I'm sure you're not as daft as that answer indicates! You clearly missed the point I made that
smaller countries
get equal votes, regardless of population.
You wouldn't have a general election where one constituency was 2,000 times the electorate of another, would you?
I didn't suggest a solution, as I'm not sure there is one.
As I’m beginning to say every year now, as spectacular and advanced the presentation of Eurovision is nowadays, the stage sets have descended into identikit packages to such an extent now as almost to be embarrassing. I blame Sweden in 2000 for first introducing those feckin screens!
Okay fair enough, screen technology has the potential to be simply spectacular as we can see, but I also find it a very lazy form of presentation. As sexy as Sven’s direction is, it all becomes just a tad tiresome and predictable with the same sets nearly every year: the buzzing graphics all about, the glassy stage flooring with expansive sweeped skirting ‘floating’ over the house floor, the tokenistic set projections/columns for the jibs to sweep past, the fan grilles defining the edges etc etc etc.
The staging is bordering on a yawn fest now every year: standardised, neatly packaged, off-the-shelf Eurovision numbers that are tweaked for Eastern European broadcasters as they desire – like ordering the same cheap PVC window from a catalogue and choosing stained glass rather than clear or opaque. I believe this year they ordered the ‘Malmo Suite’, ‘inspired by classic Swedish design with a contemporary twist’.
Set design in Eurovision over the past eight years or so, stunning Latvia aside (if a rip-off of 1997), has been so lacking in imagination and originality as to meld the whole lot into one glassy, curvilinear, screen-crazed mush. Yet there is so much potential in modern lighting forms and plastic and structural technologies to inject some real creativity into architectural sets that simply is not being exploited - the stunning saturated lighting grids of recent years have given a taster of what can be achieved. I think it such a shame that the distinctiveness of sets each year up until 2000 has been almost completely lost; indeed it is ironic that such spectacular new forms of technology such as screens have simply made things more homogenous than ever rather than injecting new life and artistic vitality into Eurovision presentation. Who can honestly describe off-hand the forms and design and fundamental character of each Eurovision set of the past 7 or 8 years, aside perhaps from that of Latvia and Greece. This year’s is as forgettable as Estonia’s, and that’s saying something.
I think screens have a role, but it ought to be a secondary one, especially as close-ups look appalling with crass pixellated backgrounds - clearly the art of subtlety has also been lost. Combined with animated floors, they often (though not always admittedly) lead to an utterly chaotic environment where performers can barely even be seen. Even slow songs are ridiculously consumed by them nowadays – one barely even gets to see the emotion in a performer’s face anymore, let alone their stance on the stage which is usually completely absorbed by crazed graphics. Similarly just who is designing the same old glassy flooring moulded into a different shape year in year out?!! It’s so predictable as to be laughable. Tokenistic lumps of random set scattered like icebergs to highlight perspective and camera movement is becoming equally tiresome and lazy.
Eurovision staging requires a radical shake-up in my view, not to bring it into the 21st century, but out of it, given what we’re subjected to nowadays is deemed to be ‘progress’. Ironically the beautifully considered artistry of Sven’s direction is so often lost (though yes also at times complemented) by the very format of staging he so obviously delights in using.
One day after the second Semi-Final of the 2008 Eurovision Song Contest and just one day before the Grand Final, the EBU reveals that one of the ten contestants who qualified last night was selected thanks to the support of the back-up jury, and would not have made it to the Final under the old rules.
A new rule, implemented before this year´s Eurovision Song Contest, says that the top-9 contestants chosen by the televoters qualify for the Final. The highest ranked contestant from the back-up jury results who did not yet qualify through the televoting, also qualifies for the Final.
After the first Semi-Final, it appeared that the televoters and the back-up juries selected the same 10 contestants to qualify for the Final. This was not the case after the second Semi-Final, as one of the 10 contestants who qualified was not in top-10 of the televoters. So, one of the qualified Semi-Finalists would not have made it to the Final without the support of the back-up jury!
"Another country""Under the old rules, we would have seen one other country in the Final," said Svante Stockselius, Executive Supervisor of the Eurovision Song Contest.
Much as I love the ESC, I couldn't agree more with Televis on the staging front. It has become rather formulaic in recent years. I quite liked the idea that every year the staging, direction and style of the contest would be different and somehow representative of the host country. Think Italy's last contest: huge (for the time), glitzy, a bit over the top, and chaotic. Last time Israel hosted, the show was cramped, quite small in scale, no room for the orchestra ISTR, a shambles at times. These days, it's tight, sexy, jimmy-jib-tastic, under-floor lit, lightwalled and ... well ... a bit 'safe'. Shame...
I'll still be watching tonight though. And I'll still love it.
