Cultural e(uro)volution...
Sunday 21st of May 2006
And that's that : Finland 292 points.
If I say Eurovision, you probably say "pop, ballads and prefab music". And quite frankly, I'm not one to disagree with this statement. But all this could change. Recently, the Eurovision has crowned rather boring "artists", most of whom manage to completely dissapear from the public eye as soon as the Eurovision is over. Can anybody remember Sertab Erener, Marie N or even Ruslana and Elena Paparisou? I, for one, cannot. And yet, I still have hope for the Eurovision.
In most cases, I think that televoting is the stupidest thing that could happen. After all, who is going to pay to be able to vote for something that is globally unimportant, such as a music contest? I wouldn't vote for Pop Idol, nor for Star Academy or another variant of the concept, because I think that it's just giving money to a big TV group, and it's quite annoying to be forced to vote between different variants of the same bland sounds. But perhaps even if televoting is still quite inadapted to represent perfectly a nation's tastes, it is better than the Eurovision's previous method : panel voting.
Panel voting would be adapted if the members of the panel were able to represent correctly their country. But now, it would be impossible to find a panel as diverse as any country, leaving televoting the only way to get a thought of what a country likes as a whole.
Let's just look at France one of the oldest memebers of the Eurovision, who sent Michel Drucker as commentator to the contest. And he both showed that he were completely in contrast with his country's culture, tastes and cravings. Drucker spent the whole program repeating that Virginie Pouchain's "Il était temps" would sweep the board clean, and have all the other countries reeling in front of the beauty of the song. Come Finland, all in monster suits garbed, and he was almost having a nervous breakdown in front of 3.5 million spectators, visibly annoyed by Finland's outrageous courage to send something anti-conformist to such an institution. His fellow commentator, Claudy Sair, was no better, saying that Virginie Pouchain would "surely finish amongst the five best songs" and that Lordi had no chance at all.
And yet, France itself would disavow their opinion, awarding Lordi 8 points, and ranking them as the third best group, just behind Armenia and Turkey, both probably recieving more political votes from the french armenian community and the french turc community than the french finn community awarded Finland... So, once they had heard that France had dissaproved their snide remarks, and chosen Finland as one of their favorites, would it not have been normal for Mrs Drucker and Sair to plug it and calm their agressivity? Seeing every country in europe (save Albania, Andorra and Monaco) award at least 4 points to the Finnish quintet should at least have been an indication that Lordi were perhaps not as rubbish as they wanted them to be, and they should have been prepared to accept something that they may not like, and yet is liked by those they represent. But the icing came during the final song. As Lordi took to the scene to play an encore of their winning song "Hard Rock Hallelujah", Mrs Drucker and Sair were unable to keep quiet, and spent all of the extra commenting on how they were dissapointed that Lordi had won, that it was a bad joke, and making snide remarks as to their supposed faltering fanbase.
We can all agree on one point : Lordi were the only group to all sport an instrument, and one of the two groups that were completely self-sufficent as to their music, the other being the quite intriguing and yet not at all boring Latvian quintet. So, to say that they are "not musical" would be quite an offence, especially if you consider that France, Monaco or even the UK's entrys were musical. Hard Rock Hallelujah was clearly one of the most inspired acts, one with the most heart and will, something that lacks in the Eurovision, and perhaps it won becuase of that. What a pity it would have been if only people like Drucker and Sair could vote, as it would mean the end of all cultural differences.
Lithuania's LT United brought new cheekiness to the Eurovision, Finland's Lordi brought new rock vibes to the Eurovision, Lettonia brought subtilty and innovation. Perhaps the Eurovision is going to change for the better, when countries will no longer send in bland uninteresting false pop artists, and really use it as a launching pad for their talented new artists. Drucker might have nightmares of a world where Lordi would come to "Vivement Dimanche", but perhaps Mr Lordi has the same nightmare. And on that point, I'm inclined to side with Mr Lordi, as a fearer of all that is bland that Mr Drucker promotes so shamelessly.
Yes, the times have changed. In the 60s, the Beatles were unruly young men, as were the Rolling Stones, and they changed the way a whole generation saw music and culture. Today, the people who grew up with these changes are refusing a new change. Perhaps Lordi is just one of the many holes that will end up tearing down the wall of cultural isolationism and conservatism.
As for Virginie Pouchain... Well, nobody really had hopes for her except Mrs Drucker and Sair... Even a well-informed betting company had higher odds against her than against Moldavia... A whopping 211 to one.
Perhaps at last we'll get rid of the ancient monsters of our current TV, and replace them with someone who is able to appreciate more kinds of music... And not make a fool of himself.
And that's that : Finland 292 points.
If I say Eurovision, you probably say "pop, ballads and prefab music". And quite frankly, I'm not one to disagree with this statement. But all this could change. Recently, the Eurovision has crowned rather boring "artists", most of whom manage to completely dissapear from the public eye as soon as the Eurovision is over. Can anybody remember Sertab Erener, Marie N or even Ruslana and Elena Paparisou? I, for one, cannot. And yet, I still have hope for the Eurovision.
In most cases, I think that televoting is the stupidest thing that could happen. After all, who is going to pay to be able to vote for something that is globally unimportant, such as a music contest? I wouldn't vote for Pop Idol, nor for Star Academy or another variant of the concept, because I think that it's just giving money to a big TV group, and it's quite annoying to be forced to vote between different variants of the same bland sounds. But perhaps even if televoting is still quite inadapted to represent perfectly a nation's tastes, it is better than the Eurovision's previous method : panel voting.
Panel voting would be adapted if the members of the panel were able to represent correctly their country. But now, it would be impossible to find a panel as diverse as any country, leaving televoting the only way to get a thought of what a country likes as a whole.
Let's just look at France one of the oldest memebers of the Eurovision, who sent Michel Drucker as commentator to the contest. And he both showed that he were completely in contrast with his country's culture, tastes and cravings. Drucker spent the whole program repeating that Virginie Pouchain's "Il était temps" would sweep the board clean, and have all the other countries reeling in front of the beauty of the song. Come Finland, all in monster suits garbed, and he was almost having a nervous breakdown in front of 3.5 million spectators, visibly annoyed by Finland's outrageous courage to send something anti-conformist to such an institution. His fellow commentator, Claudy Sair, was no better, saying that Virginie Pouchain would "surely finish amongst the five best songs" and that Lordi had no chance at all.
And yet, France itself would disavow their opinion, awarding Lordi 8 points, and ranking them as the third best group, just behind Armenia and Turkey, both probably recieving more political votes from the french armenian community and the french turc community than the french finn community awarded Finland... So, once they had heard that France had dissaproved their snide remarks, and chosen Finland as one of their favorites, would it not have been normal for Mrs Drucker and Sair to plug it and calm their agressivity? Seeing every country in europe (save Albania, Andorra and Monaco) award at least 4 points to the Finnish quintet should at least have been an indication that Lordi were perhaps not as rubbish as they wanted them to be, and they should have been prepared to accept something that they may not like, and yet is liked by those they represent. But the icing came during the final song. As Lordi took to the scene to play an encore of their winning song "Hard Rock Hallelujah", Mrs Drucker and Sair were unable to keep quiet, and spent all of the extra commenting on how they were dissapointed that Lordi had won, that it was a bad joke, and making snide remarks as to their supposed faltering fanbase.
We can all agree on one point : Lordi were the only group to all sport an instrument, and one of the two groups that were completely self-sufficent as to their music, the other being the quite intriguing and yet not at all boring Latvian quintet. So, to say that they are "not musical" would be quite an offence, especially if you consider that France, Monaco or even the UK's entrys were musical. Hard Rock Hallelujah was clearly one of the most inspired acts, one with the most heart and will, something that lacks in the Eurovision, and perhaps it won becuase of that. What a pity it would have been if only people like Drucker and Sair could vote, as it would mean the end of all cultural differences.
Lithuania's LT United brought new cheekiness to the Eurovision, Finland's Lordi brought new rock vibes to the Eurovision, Lettonia brought subtilty and innovation. Perhaps the Eurovision is going to change for the better, when countries will no longer send in bland uninteresting false pop artists, and really use it as a launching pad for their talented new artists. Drucker might have nightmares of a world where Lordi would come to "Vivement Dimanche", but perhaps Mr Lordi has the same nightmare. And on that point, I'm inclined to side with Mr Lordi, as a fearer of all that is bland that Mr Drucker promotes so shamelessly.
Yes, the times have changed. In the 60s, the Beatles were unruly young men, as were the Rolling Stones, and they changed the way a whole generation saw music and culture. Today, the people who grew up with these changes are refusing a new change. Perhaps Lordi is just one of the many holes that will end up tearing down the wall of cultural isolationism and conservatism.
As for Virginie Pouchain... Well, nobody really had hopes for her except Mrs Drucker and Sair... Even a well-informed betting company had higher odds against her than against Moldavia... A whopping 211 to one.
Perhaps at last we'll get rid of the ancient monsters of our current TV, and replace them with someone who is able to appreciate more kinds of music... And not make a fool of himself.
posted by Unknown at 12:45
1 Comments:
Trop bien ! ^^ L'eurovision tou un programme...Lordi est sumren la nvelle génération....et g peur d'avoir d gouts proches de ceux de drucker...bon, n'exagèrons rien, virginie machin c vraiment dla daube. Enfin "Drucker might have nightmares of a world where Lordi would come to "Vivement Dimanche", but perhaps Mr Lordi has the same nightmare." ---> cette fraz est en passe de devenir culte :)
Post a Comment
<< Home