Options
Why is Eurovision considered a 'career killer'?
![[Deleted User]](https://w7.vanillicon.com/v2/728bd10d082d2c39ab02c6091705c85a.svg)
[Deleted User]
Posts: 39 Forum Member
✭
Just been reading about eurovision and our (UK) entries and how good, popular artists don't want to enter the competition for us because they consider it a career killer. But why?
People say its because the artists are afraid they won't get a good final position on the board and it would be humiliating, yet when entering good contemporary artists with good contemporary songs that this isn't the case. Jade Ewen, in 2009 came fifth I]Who afterwards joined the sugababes, now that hardly sounds like a career killer joining one of the most successful British girl groups[/I and Blue came 5th in the televoting in 2011 but only came 11th altogether - which is still a good score. So it shows sending a good artist and good song will get you a good place despite the bloc and political voting. I do think that give or take a few places, countries get the place they deserve on the board in the end and that the winners are always worthy winners, so if our big contemporary good act didn't win then I think they probably wouldn't have deserved to win. I don't see why the artists fans would lose interest in them if they lost, if they keep producing good music then people will keep listening, right? Plus if we were to get a low place of which we definitely didn't deserve people are way more likely to say 'oh its all political we're never going to win' or 'Well done you done us proud' than 'oh why did we send ___, they're rubbish, now that they've lost I'm never listening to them again'
Eurovision results aside, they're getting their music shown to more than 170 million people worlwide - now that's a big audience. The charts also prove that you don't have to win to be successful in Eurovision, this year over 5 Eurovision songs charted in the top 100, Sweden reached No.40, Austria reached No.17, The Netherlands, who came second, got the best position of No.9.And yes these artists probably will be only charting once in the UK chart, but they wouldn't of charted at all without Eurovision. Molly, our entry who was unknown to the general public two months ago charted at No.23 after the contest, and reached the top 100 in 8 other European countries (counting scotland), despite only coming 17th with 40 points, she's gained a record label because of Eurovision, not lost one which would be expected from this 'killer competition' (I thought the lyric 'They said it's the end but I've a feeling It might just be the start' from Children of the Universe was quite fitting to her and the competition] .
And as for the BBC, entering a good popular artist which will mean good betting odds will mean higher viewing figures for them. Keep entering good artists and people will take Eurovision more seriously, and then other artists may also start seeing it as the good opportunity that it is.
So is there something I'm missing? Is it just the cheap cheesy camp stererotype putting people off? It sounds like a good opportunity to me, and good fun.
People say its because the artists are afraid they won't get a good final position on the board and it would be humiliating, yet when entering good contemporary artists with good contemporary songs that this isn't the case. Jade Ewen, in 2009 came fifth I]Who afterwards joined the sugababes, now that hardly sounds like a career killer joining one of the most successful British girl groups[/I and Blue came 5th in the televoting in 2011 but only came 11th altogether - which is still a good score. So it shows sending a good artist and good song will get you a good place despite the bloc and political voting. I do think that give or take a few places, countries get the place they deserve on the board in the end and that the winners are always worthy winners, so if our big contemporary good act didn't win then I think they probably wouldn't have deserved to win. I don't see why the artists fans would lose interest in them if they lost, if they keep producing good music then people will keep listening, right? Plus if we were to get a low place of which we definitely didn't deserve people are way more likely to say 'oh its all political we're never going to win' or 'Well done you done us proud' than 'oh why did we send ___, they're rubbish, now that they've lost I'm never listening to them again'
Eurovision results aside, they're getting their music shown to more than 170 million people worlwide - now that's a big audience. The charts also prove that you don't have to win to be successful in Eurovision, this year over 5 Eurovision songs charted in the top 100, Sweden reached No.40, Austria reached No.17, The Netherlands, who came second, got the best position of No.9.And yes these artists probably will be only charting once in the UK chart, but they wouldn't of charted at all without Eurovision. Molly, our entry who was unknown to the general public two months ago charted at No.23 after the contest, and reached the top 100 in 8 other European countries (counting scotland), despite only coming 17th with 40 points, she's gained a record label because of Eurovision, not lost one which would be expected from this 'killer competition' (I thought the lyric 'They said it's the end but I've a feeling It might just be the start' from Children of the Universe was quite fitting to her and the competition] .
And as for the BBC, entering a good popular artist which will mean good betting odds will mean higher viewing figures for them. Keep entering good artists and people will take Eurovision more seriously, and then other artists may also start seeing it as the good opportunity that it is.
So is there something I'm missing? Is it just the cheap cheesy camp stererotype putting people off? It sounds like a good opportunity to me, and good fun.
0
Comments
You've hit the nail on the head.
Acts that represent the UK (and most other countries) at the contest are usually unknown or past the peak of their career. Eurovision is essentially a job for them and it puts them in the spotlight for a couple of months. Most artists have nothing major going on before the contest and nothing major afterwards.
I'd like to see Molly buck that trend though.
These attitudes and opinions also relate to the myth that Eurovision is largely an arena for unknowns and hasbeens. UK attitudes, UK opinions !
The UK won't do well every year any more as it's all political, just like Bonnie Tyler said in agreement with Paul O'Grady earlier this week. No doubt also why Conchita did so badly for Austria this year ! Never mind Lena for Germany etc etc.
UK attitudes, UK opinions, lead to UK results, all the way !
Though I agree there's nothing stopping the UK winning with the right song at the right time, I think this year's result shows sending a good song still does not guarantee a good result, so it's too risky if you're already doing well.
If you lose Eurovision, you're probably not going to lose your hardcore fans, but you may well lose media support so your future singles won't get played, so you end up selling less, the press just refer to embarrassing loss all the time. This might not be fair, but it is probably what would happen.
I don't believe Molly is ever going to be taken seriously now. I cannot see anyone other than Radio 2 getting behind her next single. She may never have made it anyway of course.
Your arguments about foreign acts making the UK top 40 (for a single week!) isn't going to be very impressive to a UK #1 artist either, because most likely they'll be able to sell records in Europe without Eurovision. It's not like any Eurovision acts in recent years have even been able to score a 2nd big Europe-wide hit is it? Even Loreen couldn't do it.
So really, I can't see why anyone who is already successful in the UK would do it when there's so much at risk and so little to gain.
She was never going to be taken seriously anyway so I doubt Eurovision harmed her career at all.
I do wonder if Eurovision being a career killer has any validity whatsoever. There have been very few actual examples of it happening over the years.
But that's because none of them had much of a career to begin with. Doesn't mean that the fears aren't valid, when there's so much evidence of the negativity towards the contest in the media and general public.
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/music/news/a461537/rita-ora-if-id-done-eurovision-my-career-would-be-over.html#~oFKKyPg19O6C7F
Ah, who knows who else we could have had
This is all you need to know to understand why.
seriously I'm sure the Germans felt the same about ESC 'killing careers' until Lena came along and kick started a very very successful career in Germany (in the same way Bucks Fizz did here). We just need our own similar success story with an unknown starting out. Though admittedly German radio and media were far more supportive of Lena than the UK equivalents would ever be towards a UK ESC entry. But stranger things have happened... Had Molly had a killer song and a winner in Copenhagen it may have kickstarted a career.