[justanne]

Originally Posted by Doktor Dances

You are the one who is coming across as 'sad'.

Did you winge when Katrina and the Waves were selected? "What, that 80s band? They're so outdated!"

Did you cheer when Blue were selected and proved THEY COULDN'T SING LIVE?

I have been a fan of Eurovision since 1991, and have never heard such a petulant reaction.

Katrina was ok.....blue were pathetic.
I always watch Eurovison, I love it, the whole spectacle of it. I just accept that now UK does not seem to know how to produce a winner. Our glory days are over.
As for petulant, I prefer disappointed.

It's time BBC came up with a better way of choosing song/singer.

[mossy2103]

Originally Posted by friendlyguy2

The fact that in a period of cuts the BEEB can't be bothered again to devote a saturday night or a midweek night to allowing the public to choose is no great surprise.

Or maybe the BBC felt that, going by previous decisions, the British public (those who actually choose to vote) don't exactly have a great track record in choosing the right song/artist, or one that stands a chance of winning. Maybe reality has taken centre-stage for once.

It's surely time to question whether the BBC should be in charge of making the decision on the Eurovision entry given that yet again they've ballsed up any hope of the UK being able to win it.

Well, the same thing can be said about the public who initially vote for our entry. They too have "ballsed it up" many times.


Or maybe you should simply wait to see what the actual song and performance is like before reaching your conclusions.

[JohnnyForget]

Originally Posted by cnbcwatcher

Pixie Lott got turned down? Maybe the other reason they turned her down is because they thought it could ruin her career if she didn't win or do well.

Or perhaps the reason was that she's crap.

[friendlyguy2]

Originally Posted by mossy2103

Or maybe the BBC felt that, going by previous decisions, the British public (those who actually choose to vote) don't exactly have a great track record in choosing the right song/artist, or one that stands a chance of winning. Maybe reality has taken centre-stage for once.

Well, the same thing can be said about the public who initially vote for our entry. They too have "ballsed it up" many times.


Or maybe you should simply wait to see what the actual song and performance is like before reaching your conclusions.

Who made the decision to allow those acts in front of the public in the first place? Did the public get it wrong with Bucks Fizz and Katrina and the Waves?

It was Lloyd-Webber who was largely responsible for the UK coming fifth in 2009 with Jade not the BBC and then the BBC made another great fist of it a year later getting Pete Waterman to write a completely hopeless song for Eurovision.

As for this year ok then let's wait and see but I'll be amazed if the UK finishes much higher than about 20th.

[21stCenturyBoy]

Originally Posted by JohnnyForget

Or perhaps the reason was that she's crap.

Here Here!

Don't get the bizarre obsession some fans had with getting Pixie to "sing" for the UK. She wouldn't be guaranteed a high ranking place just because she's Pixie Lott.

[MARTYM8]

Originally Posted by justanne

Katrina was ok.....blue were pathetic.
I always watch Eurovison, I love it, the whole spectacle of it. I just accept that now UK does not seem to know how to produce a winner. Our glory days are over.
As for petulant, I prefer disappointed.

It's time BBC came up with a better way of choosing song/singer.

Blue actually came 5th in the public vote - despite singing out of tune. Strong song - better performers - it might have come close.

We also came 5th in 2009.

Being realistic by the law of averages the UK will now only win once in 40 years - so we have potentially another 25 years to wait!

PS Katrina won by the biggest points margin ever up to that point in the history of Eurovision (i.e. based on points one out of all the countries voting). I think only Norway in 2009 has since done better - so she wasn't OK she was great!

[phill363]

Originally Posted by 21stCenturyBoy

Here Here!

Don't get the bizarre obsession some fans had with getting Pixie to "sing" for the UK. She wouldn't be guaranteed a high ranking place just because she's Pixie Lott.

she were awful on the royal variety show.

[BBAnne]

Blimey this thread has got a bit surreal! Had about 20 multi quotes, so had to trim it down a bit

*waves at Humpsters nephew* pleased to have you on board here - we expect family updates in the run up to Baku!

Originally Posted by Helbrown

Not really interested. Haven't watched Eurovision for years since the influx of E European countries meant we had zero in common with most of the voters.

I do think the decision to choose Enge is a joke though, and keep having to check to see whether it's April 1st. Sadly not.

I am not ageist. There are a lot of 70 years olds that are in my list of favourites that I go and see regularly, but would I want to see them in this? A resounding No!

We will just be a laughing stock if our entry is meant to represent us and our music scene to the rest of Europe.

If you believe that we have zero in common, how could you believe that we will be a laughing stock? Random....

Originally Posted by Straker

I thought she was taking 5 years off? Seems like she’d be ideally placed!

Of course that was BS and she’ll be milking it for as long as she can but my point was we (ie the BBC) don’t even try to get top tier artists for this. Their prevaling attitude is that the show is a tacky joke and this colours every decision they make regarding it.

You have to blame Wogan for that - he created a monster - the monster is called "let's take the piss out of the contest and pat the head of all the "little countries" participating"

Originally Posted by phill363

next year we just need a big name songwriter on board, i think then the act can be relatively unknown, though i expect a few names from the voice will be involved.

We do. The Humpsters song will be written by the team behind some Adele songs and James Blunt songs. That big enough for you??

Originally Posted by phill363

this is a quote from the man him self
"I play these countries frequently and I hope I have scored some points with them. Representing my country means a great deal to me. I represent my country wherever I go. In every way, shape and form I wave the flag. This has just given me a big thrill."

i get a patriotic feeling about the hump now, and I'm really excited about him.

Me too - that was a fab quote!

Originally Posted by CelticMyth

The BBC spend too much time trying (and failing) to get "big names". They need to find someone that is talented, has a good image and who has a good song. That is all.

People watching on the night aren't going to think "you know I like that Greek song, but I'm going to vote for UK instead because I quite liked that Quando song 40 years ago" or "yeah that Blue song was pretty good when I heard it 10 years ago on the Radio". The two previous winners were totally unknown to everyone before Eurovision (and weren't particularly good singers).

The song may be amazing of course, but Engelbert (and apparently one hit wonder band The Darkness) just seemed like the BBC failing to get a "big name", which irritated me initially. We shall see. I would like an open selection next year.

Lena's 'Satellite' had actually already been number one in a few of the countries prior to her appearing in 2010

Originally Posted by friendlyguy2

Who made the decision to allow those acts in front of the public in the first place? Did the public get it wrong with Bucks Fizz and Katrina and the Waves?

It was Lloyd-Webber who was largely responsible for the UK coming fifth in 2009 with Jade not the BBC and then the BBC made another great fist of it a year later getting Pete Waterman to write a completely hopeless song for Eurovision.

As for this year ok then let's wait and see but I'll be amazed if the UK finishes much higher than about 20th.

BBC got Sir ALW involved in 2009, and they got Pete Waterman involved in 2010 - one was genius, one a disaster

[mossy2103]

Originally Posted by friendlyguy2

Who made the decision to allow those acts in front of the public in the first place?

The BBC, however on a number of occasions )or is that most occasions) the public were given a choice (6?) acts and songs to choose from.

Did the public get it wrong with Bucks Fizz and Katrina and the Waves?

No, but note that I chose my words carefully by saying many times And are you saying that the public's track record (over many years) is good or at least fair to middling? Because two successes over 30-odd years is not exactly sparkling in my book. hence my view that their track record in choosing an appropriate song is not good. Maybe I should have qualified that by adding "of late". as 1997 is a long way into the past.

At least the BBC are toying with new ideas (ALW, Pete W, now an established act who can sing, can perform on a big stage, and is used to the showbiz glitz & glamour) and seeing what works and what doesn't, rather than sticking with established formulae that have failed so many time previously (even if, with the political voting and the breakup of the Soviet bloc, I guess that we will never win as easily as some years).

Now, how would you propose that the artist/song was chosen?

[ChipChomper]

Originally Posted by friendlyguy2

Who made the decision to allow those acts in front of the public in the first place? Did the public get it wrong with Bucks Fizz and Katrina and the Waves?

It was Lloyd-Webber who was largely responsible for the UK coming fifth in 2009 with Jade not the BBC and then the BBC made another great fist of it a year later getting Pete Waterman to write a completely hopeless song for Eurovision.

As for this year ok then let's wait and see but I'll be amazed if the UK finishes much higher than about 20th.

i still think that song was left over from the 80's he dusted it down and hoped for the best.It really was SO dated its like the songs you hear at butlins.

on this years choice i fully expected tom jones/bassey to perform so the age factor isnt coming into it.If the song is wrong im hoping the chap himself will demand changes .

One thing is certain its going to be great night TV seeing what the rest of them make of the UK entry.

[Phoenix Lazarus]

Originally Posted by mossy2103

The BBC, however on a number of occasions )or is that most occasions) the public were given a choice (6?) acts and songs to choose from.

Is that how they chose Brotherhood Of Man, Kippers For Tea?

[mossy2103]

Originally Posted by Phoenix Lazarus

Is that how they chose Brotherhood Of Man, Kippers For Tea?

I can't remember. Years ago they chose the act and the act then sang 6 songs - the public choosing the song.


Later they tried one act/one song, with 6 acts to choose from.

I can't envisage BoM being given 6 songs to sing though.

[Stunty]

Originally Posted by ChipChomper

I still think that song was left over from the 80's he dusted it down and hoped for the best.It really was SO dated its like the songs you hear at butlins.

on this years choice i fully expected tom jones/bassey to perform so the age factor isnt coming into it.If the song is wrong im hoping the chap himself will demand changes .

One thing is certain its going to be great night TV seeing what the rest of them make of the UK entry.

It WAS an old song originally written years ago.

Not considered good enough for the Scott, Aitken and Waterman pop factory of the 80's, he found it on the back burner and thought 'that'll do' ...... however the rest of Europe thought it just as rubbish as they themselves had done in the 80's.

[BomoLad]

Originally Posted by Straker

They don’t know. They assume or worse still they don’t even consider doing so because of their own jaundiced, outdated view of the contest.

Well you don't know they don't try to get 'top' artists.

Just because they've asked someone doesn't mean they haven't tried asking someone else.

[ChipChomper]

Originally Posted by Stunty

It WAS an old song originally written years ago.

Not considered good enough for the Scott, Aitken and Waterman pop factory of the 80's, he found it on the back burner and thought 'that'll do' ...... however the rest of Europe thought it just as rubbish as they themselves had done in the 80's.

omg...

[Quizmike]

Originally Posted by Phoenix Lazarus

Is that how they chose Brotherhood Of Man, Kippers For Tea?

Brotherhood of Man was chosed from 12 songs at a big bash at The Albert Hall hosted by Michael Aspel. There were 14 regional voting juries.

The Top three were...

Brotherhood of Man 140
Co-Co 138
Tony Christie 129

So we nearly got Co-Co two years before we did.

Just for the record Katrina was chosen from four songs and Bucks Fizz from eight.

Lulu was chosen as artist and Boom was chosen from six songs. Same with Sandie Shaw who sang five different songs (one a week on the Rolf Harris Show!)

[mossy2103]

Originally Posted by Quizmike

Brotherhood of Man was chosed from 12 songs at a big bash at The Albert Hall hosted by Michael Aspel. There were 14 regional voting juries.

Of course, I had forgotten that method of choosing the entry.

[MacDubhsith]

Trying to catch up here (it's great to see so many debates) but I'm rather blown away by one, which is - Pixie Lott got vetoed? Who's insane idea was that? She's not perfect, but she can and has sung live pretty well, she's very popular, would have made news and in my opinion if the song was right would have done quite well and appealed across Europe to both the juries and those who vote.

That's exactly the kind of person the BBC should be going for if they're serious about winning. I'm not saying the Hump has no chance, particularly if the song is good, but it's a huge gamble and the BBC aren't handling it at all well so far (anything that involves a public vote has an element of politics and popularity contest to it, you can't avoid that, no matter how good the song / performance is).

Is anyone else completely shocked by this?

[phill363]

i was shocked at first but now i love the idea and I'm getting patriotic and proud, time to go out and buy some bunting to decorate my living room for the final .

we salute the hump.

[friendlyguy2]

Originally Posted by mossy2103

The BBC, however on a number of occasions )or is that most occasions) the public were given a choice (6?) acts and songs to choose from.

No, but note that I chose my words carefully by saying many times And are you saying that the public's track record (over many years) is good or at least fair to middling? Because two successes over 30-odd years is not exactly sparkling in my book. hence my view that their track record in choosing an appropriate song is not good. Maybe I should have qualified that by adding "of late". as 1997 is a long way into the past.

At least the BBC are toying with new ideas (ALW, Pete W, now an established act who can sing, can perform on a big stage, and is used to the showbiz glitz & glamour) and seeing what works and what doesn't, rather than sticking with established formulae that have failed so many time previously (even if, with the political voting and the breakup of the Soviet bloc, I guess that we will never win as easily as some years).

Now, how would you propose that the artist/song was chosen?

By getting someone like ALW or other people in the music industry like Mike Read or others who have been there and done it to come up with an artist, song and performance that is original and has a chance of winning.

Executives sitting in a room in Salford or Shepherds Bush doing it purely to cross off Mr Thompson's audit sheet for the first half of the year is not the answer and when Humperdinck comes 17th in a couple of months time I imagine those same executives will yet again blame the voters of Europe for it.

[vauxhall1964]

I'm not at all shocked...the BBC have been doing this for years. They wouldn't even let the Puppini Sisters (who'd had a top 20 album at the time) join the line-up of the UK final in 2007 because some BBC idiot decided they, like Pixie Lott, 'weren't right for Eurovision'. The BBC felt in that year that Scooch, of course, were 'perfect for Eurovision'. They really are clueless.

I suspect they turned Pixie Lott down because they were worried she might do far better than they'd like. The Head of Entertainment Katie Taylor is apparently the genius responsible for vetoing Pixie Lott (9 top ten singles, incl. 3 number ones). The BBC just don't want the cost of hosting the contest so this will be the pattern long term. We better get used to it, I'm afraid.

PS Someone said Satellite was already a hit in various countries before it won in 2010. Not so, it was only already a big hit in Switzerland and Austria (but Austria weren't in Eurovision that year). So it had an advantage in just one country and even then it only got 7 points from the Swiss.

[21stCenturyBoy]

Oh for God's sake get a grip!

How do know Pixie even approached them, or that she'd approached them when they were in advanced talks with Humperdinck?

Only in Britain, which, by the way, has a massive ageism problem would a pop-tart whose been on the scene for five minutes be considered a much better option than a Grammy winning (he was last nominated in 2004!) pop legemd.

[Bald Eagle 72]

Ah, 1976 - the year our national final produced an outstanding top 3, any of which would have won the Contest in my opinion.

Originally Posted by Quizmike

Brotherhood of Man was chosed from 12 songs at a big bash at The Albert Hall hosted by Michael Aspel. There were 14 regional voting juries.

The Top three were...

Brotherhood of Man 140
Co-Co 138
Tony Christie 129

WAKE! UP! Dah Dah Dah Dah Dah Dah!!

Great stuff!! Originally recorded by The Arrows in 1974, although I understand it was never released:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2MywYHCluI

[Bald Eagle 72]

Originally Posted by vauxhall1964

I suspect they turned Pixie Lott down because they were worried she might do far better than they'd like. The Head of Entertainment Katie Taylor is apparently the genius responsible for vetoing Pixie Lott (9 top ten singles, incl. 3 number ones). The BBC just don't want the cost of hosting the contest so this will be the pattern long term. We better get used to it, I'm afraid.

The BBC turned down Pixie Lott?

Do you believe everything the internet tells you?

[mossy2103]

Originally Posted by friendlyguy2

By getting someone like ALW or other people in the music industry like Mike Read or others who have been there and done it to come up with an artist, song and performance that is original and has a chance of winning.

Erm, wasn't that tried for 2009 (albeit with the good old British public having their say on the final six):

The BBC announced today (October 18, 2008) that Andrew Lloyd Webber has agreed to compose the United Kingdom entry for the Eurovision Song Contest 2009. He will now embark on a nationwide search for the singer or group that will perform his song.


Eurovision-wannabes will be invited to send their auditions to the BBC website – before the closing date of 21st of November 2008. The search is open to all artists both amateur and professional. Entrants will be scrutinised by Andrew and a team of music industry professionals, who’ll then decide on a shortlist of six finalists. He and his experienced team will be able to pick and mix the artists in order to put together the best acts. Once Andrew has seen the various artists he will begin work with a top lyricist and record producer to create the song for Eurovision.

http://www.eurovision.tv/page/news?i...e_the_uk_entry

And we finished 5th. Well, it worked well, so they tried it again the following year with Pete Waterman.

That didn't work so well (to put it mildly) 25th out of 25.

Executives sitting in a room in Salford or Shepherds Bush doing it purely to cross off Mr Thompson's audit sheet for the first half of the year

Except that you don't know how or why it was arrived at, that is mere speculation and assumption.