After years of politically wrought victories by undeserving contenders, last night's undisputed victory by Dutch performer Duncan Laurence is a breath of fresh air and renewed hope in the fairness that can be achieved by cooperation and honest voting.
Well done, world! What's next, the end of hunger?
Nah, we'll just have Eurovision again.
shareAh, so it's only a deserved victory if The Netherlands wins?
shareHow did the OP say that?π
shareYou have to remember that The Netherlands also won in 1975, but did not win again until 2019.
The OP says that this one was the first deserved victory in 44 years.
You do the maths.
Math says Eurovision also existed before 1975.
shareSure, but the OP was only talking about the previous 44 years.
So we don't know what they felt about the victories before 1975.
Really though, isn't it suspicious that the OP didn't like any winner until The Netherlands won again?
It is particularly weird too since the winning song of 1975 normally is seen as a weak winning song.
You misunderstood, the OP suggests that after 1975 politics always influenced the results. If you don't know how they feel about the previous years, then why imply something so strange? Maybe they feel ALL winners before 1976 deserved their victory?
I've never heard it was a weak winner that didn't deserve to win. Are you upset Sweden didn't win for a second time in a row???
So you're saying the OP feels that the politics changed after 1975 and were the same until 2019?
But it sounds weird that everything would suck for 44 years until the Netherlands won again.
And oh yes, lots of people have a low opinion on "Ding-A-Dong".
And it has nothing to do with my personal opinion, or that I wanted Sweden to win twice in a row.
(Which wouldn't have been good anyway, since a lot of people here at the time hated the ESC.)
When it comes to "Ding-A-Dong", especially the lyrics have been the subject of scorn and ridicule.
Back in the '70s, the critics of the contest saw that song as an epitome of a stupid ESC winner.
However, it is of course true that some people still like it.
It is weird though that someone would like no winner until The Netherlands won again in 2019.
"So you're saying the OP feels that the politics changed right after 1975 and were the same until precisely 2019?
Not a sentiment I agree with, but yes. Well, at least, they expressed the HOPE that it has changed.
"And oh yes, lots of people have a low opinion on "Ding-A-Dong"."
Totally do not get that when reading the opinions of fans (except the pretentious ones who always favour boring French ballads). Very stupid English lyrics, but extremely catchy. Did it really not deserve to win compared to the rest? Was its victory a case of politics?
Why would critics back then complain about the lyrics when most songs were in a strange language anyway? For all they know, the Portuguese entry could've been a song about poo. Or golden Mormon shoes. Lyrics never mattered.
"Ding-A-Dong" was performed in English though, so the jurors did understand the lyrics.
They seemed to not have cared though and voted for it anyway.
And if lyrics don't matter, why did songs in English and French have such an advantage?
Politics, of course. I disagree with the OP those only had any influence after 1975. 99% of Eurovision songs in French suck big time.
But France and Britain have had relatively few wins for languages that are supposedly more popular.
But they do have five wins each, which is better than almost every other country.
You seem to forget too that Ireland won seven times with songs in English.
And remember that most winners since 1999 didn't sing in their own language.
Serbia and Portugal are the only two countries, who managed to buck that trend.
Then we've got Luxembourg, who sang in French (mostly) and got five wins.
Monaco also did well for years with songs in French, even if they won only once.
Switzerland and Belgium also got their best results with songs in French.
However, French seemed to lose its magic with the juries already during the '90s.
The Netherlands has also won 5 times, the majority with Dutch songs. And the one other song in English had awful lyrics, as we both agree.
France and Britain have always performed in French and English, so if those languages are so popular, they should've won way more many times.
Ireland winning 3 times in a row and then another time 2 years later, with pretty crappy songs, was not believable in any way. The talk back then was that Ireland was the only country willing to put in the effort and the money to organize the show.
"And it's no coincidence that most winning songs since 1999 weren't performed in the country's native language."
Well no, that's because most songs since 1999 have been performed in English. All with the hopes of achieving financial success internationally, of course.
I managed to forget that The Netherlands won three times in Dutch.
But the first two wins were way back in the '50s.
Maybe the jurors back then liked Dutch better than later jurors did?
And the 1969 win was a highly controversial shared victory.
Thus, it has to be seen as an anomaly.
And the following two wins were of course with songs in English.
Latvia or Russia or Azerbaijan wouldn't have won in their own languages.
Turkey and Greece probably also needed to sing in English to win.
"And I wonder if Latvia or Russia or Azerbaijan would have ever won with songs in their own languages."
I'm 100% sure they would've won, because they very obviously bought the song contest. Don't forget the whole circus surrounding atrocious singer Dana International, who performed in Hebrew.
I don't believe that you can really buy the contest.
So I guess I have to disagree with you there.
And as for 1998, Israel managed to win twice before in Hebrew.
I will agree though that that win was mostly due to controversy.
We REALLY have to disagree on that:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/media/2014/feb/06/eurovision-song-contest-vote-rigging
https://eurovoix.com/2013/09/26/azerbaijan-new-vote-buying-allegations/
And I think it's worse that what we're aware of.
Even so, you will not win if nobody votes for you.
I don't believe that you could bribe too many people to vote for a song in Azeri.
I think it's possible. A few years back the winner was some dumb political song mostly sung in Ukranian. Definitely fixed. And why did that Portuguese song win, when usually Portugal has not had much success? These artists want to promote themselves internationally, so that's why they prefer to sing English.
share"1944" did have some lyrics in English though.
Salvador was lucky to get a lot of attention.
Which is why he was able to win.
But a win in Portuguese is still an anomaly.
It was the most boring winner in ages.
shareFor sure.
I had even forgotten the name of both the artist and the song.
Very suspicious you don't like this song when he beat that Swedish guy (I seem to remember you didn't like that at all).π€
Personally, I thought it was boring, but the guy could actually sing.
Actually, I didn't care much for John Lundvik's song either.
I found it okay, but not great.
You seem to confuse me with somebody else, because I never said a word about any Swedish guy.
Weren't you the one who complained about how the changed voting system was unfair to the Swedish entry???
Anyway, my point was, I could just as well say you think so negatively of the Dutch entry because you're Swedish. Right?
Im happy that you two like to argue and im'll let you finish, but Riverdance was the best thing to come out of ESC of all time. Of all time.
shareI actually like Furienna and I don't want to argue with them at all. I just disagree with their interpretation of the OP's post.
I'm glad you enjoyed Michael Flatley. For me personally it was the day Eurovision died!π€―