Contact us

SVERIGE - Sweden 2010 - Anna Bergendahl - This Is My Life

how do you rate the entry?


  • Total voters
    143

FallenAngelII

Active member
Joined
March 14, 2010
Posts
1,541
Location
Stockholm, Sweden (La Suede)
The song is rubbish. A 18 yearold signing about "This is my life"? The song itself lacks a distinct refrain. It just goes on and on and suddenly you're at the bridge wondering when there was ever a refrain. It's an innocuous little ditty. Musically, it's mediocre at best.

Just because you love it does not mean it's a musically strong song.

BTW, Anna was not pitch perfect. She wasn't even Top 5 among the best singers at the ESC. Meanwhile, Jon Lilygreen (Cyprus) was the 2nd best singer at staying in tune (2nd only to Belgium's Tom Dice). Anna's voice was shaky and off at times if you listen closely (it's hard to tell sometimes due to her unorthodox singing style).

Just because you love it personally does not mean the song was great or that Anna is the world' best singer or even Top 5 at the ESC 2010... because scientifically verifiable facts tell us Anna was not.
 

alca

Well-known member
Joined
January 18, 2010
Posts
5,272
Location
Linköping, Sweden
FallenAngelII said:
Anna's voice was shaky and off at times if you listen closely (it's hard to tell sometimes due to her unorthodox singing style).
Of course she was! She was extremely nervous!
 

pan

Member
Joined
March 14, 2010
Posts
25
Location
Sweden
FallenAngelII said:
Just because you love it personally does not mean the song was great or that Anna is the world' best singer or even Top 5 at the ESC 2010... because scientifically verifiable facts tell us Anna was not.

Well, just because you hate it doesn't mean the song is rubbish either. And the last part about the "scientifically verifiable facts" really puzzles me. You talk about music like it's mathematics, as if "good music" can be explained with some kind of formula that Anna didn't measure up to? Yet, so many people love her voice and this song - even saturdays performance. And then you go on saying that Cyprus had the 2nd best singer of the evening? Hmmm.. Did we even watch the same show?
I respect your opinion, but don't confuse it with facts.
 

wittgenstein

Active member
Joined
March 6, 2010
Posts
1,577
Location
Stockholm
FallenAngelII said:
wittgenstein said:
lets send something contemporary next year. maybe robyn, laleh or moto boy?
Who cares about the artist? None of the winners since Celine Dion in 1987 have been well-known across all of Europe before winning the contest. Europe certainly doesn't care if Sweden's artist is famous in Sweden. If we're sending one of those three based on their fame alone, then Robyn, I guess.

Just give us a good song sung by a good singer/group with a good stage performance with great stage presence, charisma and chemistry (if it's a duett, for example).

i wasn't thinking about their fame, i was thinking about their contemporary sound and great songs. don't care if their infamous as long as they can rock. :cool:
 

Margerita86

Active member
Joined
February 7, 2010
Posts
2,020
Location
Sweden
Ah, but the question would be if they would be able to avoid the usualy schlageresq traps that participating has...
 

Deltage

Active member
Joined
May 24, 2010
Posts
232
Location
Tallinn, Estonia
FallenAngelII said:
The song is rubbish. A 18 yearold signing about "This is my life"? The song itself lacks a distinct refrain. It just goes on and on and suddenly you're at the bridge wondering when there was ever a refrain. It's an innocuous little ditty. Musically, it's mediocre at best.

Just because you love it does not mean it's a musically strong song.

BTW, Anna was not pitch perfect. She wasn't even Top 5 among the best singers at the ESC. Meanwhile, Jon Lilygreen (Cyprus) was the 2nd best singer at staying in tune (2nd only to Belgium's Tom Dice). Anna's voice was shaky and off at times if you listen closely (it's hard to tell sometimes due to her unorthodox singing style).

Just because you love it personally does not mean the song was great or that Anna is the world' best singer or even Top 5 at the ESC 2010... because scientifically verifiable facts tell us Anna was not.

I really hate people who think that their opinion matters the most. Who are you to say that the song "wasn't good musically"? The God of Music? So many people on this forum act like they're expert vocal coaches or top music producers. I'm a musician myself, and I wouldn't never make such a comment unless I'm making explicitly clear that it's only my opinion, since after all music is only a matter of taste.

And when does one's life start, then? When they're 50 or something?

By the way, I definitely agree with the people who have said that this song was much more worthy of the final than "Hero" or "La Voix" (because it's originality in the ESC context, not because it's "better", although I personally think it was).
 

alca

Well-known member
Joined
January 18, 2010
Posts
5,272
Location
Linköping, Sweden
Deltage said:
By the way, I definitely agree with the people who have said that it's the song was much more worthy of the final than "Hero" or "La Voix" (because it's originality in the ESC context, not because it's "better", although I personally think it was).
I agree that it was better than "Hero" and "La Voix"!
 

Margerita86

Active member
Joined
February 7, 2010
Posts
2,020
Location
Sweden
alca said:
Deltage said:
By the way, I definitely agree with the people who have said that it's the song was much more worthy of the final than "Hero" or "La Voix" (because it's originality in the ESC context, not because it's "better", although I personally think it was).
I agree that it was better than "Hero" and "La Voix"!
Ah, but I still both La voix and Hero more :mrgreen:
 

FallenAngelII

Active member
Joined
March 14, 2010
Posts
1,541
Location
Stockholm, Sweden (La Suede)
alca said:
FallenAngelII said:
Anna's voice was shaky and off at times if you listen closely (it's hard to tell sometimes due to her unorthodox singing style).
Of course she was! She was extremely nervous!
Why did she put up a bad performance due to nervousness? Because she's inexperienced. The Swedish people were all "She's great! She's young, fresh and really talented!"... well, that became her downfall! As an inexperienced singer who's never performed at something as big as the Eurovision Song Contest before, she let her nervousness get the best of her, which served to make her performance lackluster.

This is why you don't send wholly inexperienced performers to Eurovision!

pan said:
Well, just because you hate it doesn't mean the song is rubbish either.
Clearly jurors across all of Europe, people with, you know, experience and insight into the music industry, agree with me. She couldn't even get Top 10 out of 17! If the song was as brilliant as some people claim in this thread, she should've been able to scrounge up enough jury points to get Top 10 even if the televoters shunned her.

pan said:
And the last part about the "scientifically verifiable facts" really puzzles me. You talk about music like it's mathematics, as if "good music" can be explained with some kind of formula that Anna didn't measure up to?
No, you can simply measure how in-tune someone is. If you analyze her singing, she wasn't even Top 5 this year at staying the most in-tune when singing... which is ridiculous because her song has a very small range. It's not even a hard song to perform because it stays within, like, two octaves throughout the entire song! The not shifts are minimal in-between notes, the crescendo barely shifts the song higher. In other words, it's an easy song to sing, yet she couldn't stay in-tune enough to get Top 5.

pan said:
Yet, so many people love her voice and this song - even saturdays performance.
Yes, and? It doesn't change the fact that scientifically speaking, her singing was off-tune relatively a lot for someone being praised as a prodigy in this thread. And who are these "so many people", anyway? The majority of the Swedish people who didn't vote for her? The many televoters and jurors across of Europe who didn't vote for her?

Are you referring to her fans here on the forums? To her scattered fans in Sweden? Who are these "so many people"?

pan said:
And then you go on saying that Cyprus had the 2nd best singer of the evening? Hmmm.. Did we even watch the same show?
I have gone through (superficial) musical education. In fact, I have what in Swedish is called "perfekt gehör", which I'm not sure what it's really called in English but if I hear a note, I can instantly replicate it perfectly and if I hear a song a few times, I will be able to sing it perfectly in-tune.

What's your background in music, really? What's your claim to musical prowess? What are your credentials for being able to claim that Cyprus' Jon Lilygreen wasn't 2nd best at staying in-tune during Saturday's final?

Because scientifically speaking, he was. Some scientists actually sat down and figured it out:
http://blogs.coventrytelegraph.net/pass ... sions.html

pan said:
I respect your opinion, but don't confuse it with facts.
Maybe you should take your own advice.

Deltage said:
I really hate people who think that their opinion matters the most. Who are you to say that the song "wasn't good musically"?
Have I even once said that you are wrong about your assessment of the song? Called you a bad person for liking it? Saying that the song is most definitely rubbish and trumpeting it around as fact?

No. I'm merely stated my opinion: The song is rubbish (in my opinion). Meanwhile, it's the song's supporters who have raged on these forums, stating, as if factually provable, that the song was one of the best, if not the best in this year's contest, that it's an outrage and a giant shocker it didn't make it to the final, that Europe, especially Eastern Europe, is full of idiots who wouldn't know what constitutes good music if it so bit them in the behind because they didn't vote for "This Is My Life".

In Sweden, a lot of people have complained about how it is Europe which is in the wrong because clearly the Swedes know what constitutes good music, "This Is My Life" is a great song and all of Europe are idiots for not voting for it.

This is the height of audacity: To claim that your favourite song is factually provable to be great and that anyone who dislikes it is an idiot.

I have never denigrated someone for liking the song. Your "side" does on a regular basis.

BTW, here are some things scientifically verifiable:
* The song's range is quite small. It stays within just two or so octaves and the switch-up between verse and refrain is minimal, thus creating a monotone-ish sound. As in you never move far up or down on the scale.
* The song has a barely noticeable refrain. It just goes from verse to refrain instantly due of a climb in notes, it's quite sudden and suddenly the refrain is over. Songs with barely discernible refrains often do badly at Eurovision (or just badly overall. Songs with bad verses but good refrains have been able to do well on the refrains alone. Why? Because the refrain is often what people remember the most from a song, especially after having heard it only once). This makes the song easily forgettable after only one listen.

Both of these things serve to make "This Is My Life" less than a brilliant song, especially live at Eurovision where you only get to perform your song once unless you make it to the final. So if not a bad song by nature, it's at least unsuitable for Eurovision and one can easily see why it did not make it to the final.

Deltage said:
The God of Music? So many people on this forum act like they're expert vocal coaches or top music producers. I'm a musician myself, and I wouldn't never make such a comment unless I'm making explicitly clear that it's only my opinion, since after all music is only a matter of taste.
When is it not someone stating their opinion when they say the song is rubbish? When have I ever claimed that I can scientifically prove the song is rubbish? Do you always add "In my opinion" to everything you write, be it you claiming a song is great or a song is rubbish, to make sure people don't assume you're speaking as if you think "The God of Music" is whispering things in your ear?

Deltage said:
And when does one's life start, then? When they're 50 or something?
It's a philosophical song about being true to yourself, to live your life the way you want to. It's not something you expect of an 18 yearold dressed like a 14 yearold. The quasi-tiara, the stockings under a short dress, which went out of style a few years back, btw, made her look unique, sure, but it also made her look less mature and grown-up than, say, Safura who chose a billowing evening gown-ish type of dress. Anna set herself up to look young on purpose, which kind of didn't help her sound credible when singing about existential and philosophical matters.

Like how Martin Stenmarck's "Las Vegas" was wholly out of place and really out-of-place for him to sing because there was nothing Las Vegas about him. A Swede singing about Las Vegas? Please.

I'm not saying it would never, ever work. It kinda works in the studio version since you don't actually see Anna performing it them. But live, she gave off a very "I'm a young hipster" vibe, which clashed with the spirit of the song. Meanwhile, Lena sang a song about someone driven kooky but their puppy love and acted kooky while singing it (and after singing it), which only served to help her.

Deltage said:
By the way, I definitely agree with the people who have said that this song was much more worthy of the final than "Hero" or "La Voix" (because it's originality in the ESC context, not because it's "better", although I personally think it was).
Original =/= Good

Also, it's hardly original in the context of the contest. Tell me 3 things that are so original and unique about this song and I'll be able to name at least one recent ESC entry that had all or most of those 3 things.

Also, rewarding entries for simply being original is not a good thing. It encourages people to send in entries that aren't necessarily good but simply stand out and are original.
 

Deltage

Active member
Joined
May 24, 2010
Posts
232
Location
Tallinn, Estonia
Have I even once said that you are wrong about your assessment of the song? Called you a bad person for liking it? Saying that the song is most definitely rubbish and trumpeting it around as fact?

No. I'm merely stated my opinion: The song is rubbish (in my opinion). Meanwhile, it's the song's supporters who have raged on these forums, stating, as if factually provable, that the song was one of the best, if not the best in this year's contest, that it's an outrage and a giant shocker it didn't make it to the final, that Europe, especially Eastern Europe, is full of idiots who wouldn't know what constitutes good music if it so bit them in the behind because they didn't vote for "This Is My Life".

In Sweden, a lot of people have complained about how it is Europe which is in the wrong because clearly the Swedes know what constitutes good music, "This Is My Life" is a great song and all of Europe are idiots for not voting for it.

This is the height of audacity: To claim that your favourite song is factually provable to be great and that anyone who dislikes it is an idiot.

Yet you are basically saying that can be proven that "This Is My Life" is not good or memorable or produced badly or whatever. How is that different? And why should that matter to me what the Swedish or other media or fans are saying? I only pay attention to ESC in few weeks in May, I don't watch the NFs and I heard that song first in like a week ago.

Also, it's hardly original in the context of the contest. Tell me 3 things that are so original and unique about this song and I'll be able to name at least one recent ESC entry that had all or most of those 3 things.

You wouldn't get it as it's clear we listen and like music for totally different reasons. But I assure you that based on the elements according to which I judge a song, I haven't yet heard a similar song in ESC.

When is it not someone stating their opinion when they say the song is rubbish? When have I ever claimed that I can scientifically prove the song is rubbish? Do you always add "In my opinion" to everything you write, be it you claiming a song is great or a song is rubbish, to make sure people don't assume you're speaking as if you think "The God of Music" is whispering things in your ear?

You're missing my point. I was stating that I wouldn't call any song "rubbish" just because I don't like it very much personally because I see no reason to purposely offend other people that might like it. Calling a song "rubbish" is like declaring it actually is and it's really different from just stating that it's not one of your favorites and at least for me, it would be really hard to find a song that I hate so much I just have to bash it every way possible (although it's mostly because I just avoid most music coming from sources I know I wouldn't really like).

BTW, here are some things scientifically verifiable:
* The song's range is quite small. It stays within just two or so octaves and the switch-up between verse and refrain is minimal, thus creating a monotone-ish sound. As in you never move far up or down on the scale.
* The song has a barely noticeable refrain. It just goes from verse to refrain instantly due of a climb in notes, it's quite sudden and suddenly the refrain is over. Songs with barely discernible refrains often do badly at Eurovision (or just badly overall. Songs with bad verses but good refrains have been able to do well on the refrains alone. Why? Because the refrain is often what people remember the most from a song, especially after having heard it only once). This makes the song easily forgettable after only one listen.

Although I'm not telling you to "scientifically prove" those things, this just proves my point that liking music is a matter of personal taste. All those things you mentioned, like "monotone sound", "barely noticeable refrain" and so on might not appeal to you but don't make the song necessarily bad. Some other person might still like the song and maybe just for those qualities that you don't. And I personally judge all the songs mainly according to my personal taste and what I think constituted a good song, so I don't care at all how it will relate to Eurovision (unless the song is really different from the typical ESC formula so that it could attract more different genres to it and make it more interesting). Most ESC songs I like haven't, in fact, done well. Oh, and by the way, I remember the chorus well although I have heard it only one time (technically one and a half) times and I made no effort to memorize it.

It's a philosophical song about being true to yourself, to live your life the way you want to. It's not something you expect of an 18 yearold dressed like a 14 yearold. The quasi-tiara, the stockings under a short dress, which went out of style a few years back, btw, made her look unique, sure, but it also made her look less mature and grown-up than, say, Safura who chose a billowing evening gown-ish type of dress. Anna set herself up to look young on purpose, which kind of didn't help her sound credible when singing about existential and philosophical matters.

I can't say anything about that, since I was actually listening to the song and I didn't notice at all what she was wearing. Not that I wouldn't have cared anyway.

I have gone through (superficial) musical education

Oh, so you are one of those people who actually think that music can be learned. I'm really sorry for only reading that sentence in the topic review, otherwise I wouldn't have wasted my time writing all that stuff when I actually thought you had some credibility related to music.
 

FallenAngelII

Active member
Joined
March 14, 2010
Posts
1,541
Location
Stockholm, Sweden (La Suede)
Deltage said:
Yet you are basically saying that can be proven that "This Is My Life" is not good or memorable or produced badly or whatever. How is that different? And why should that matter to me what the Swedish or other media or fans are saying? I only pay attention to ESC in few weeks in May, I don't watch the NFs and I heard that song first in like a week ago.
I never said the song is scientifically provable to be bad or "badly produced". Stop blatantly making stuff up! It's not memorable after only one listen, which is scientifically provable and most probably the reason why it failed to qualify for the final.

Listen to the song with an open mind. Assume you'd never heard it before, assume you're not an Eurovision fan but just a random viewer of Eurovision who watches with their family. Assume you didn't know who it was, which country she's from or at least didn't care about it. Assume you're from a far Eastern European country such as, oh, Slovakia. Would you vote for it after only one listen? Probably not.

Deltage said:
You wouldn't get it as it's clear we listen and like music for totally different reasons. But I assure you that based on the elements according to which I judge a song, I haven't yet heard a similar song in ESC.
Wha a nice way of not actually answering the question. You claim it's original in the context of Eurovision. This is easily scientifically provable. Name all of the things which make it so original for Eurovision. Stop avoiding the question.

Deltage said:
You're missing my point. I was stating that I wouldn't call any song "rubbish" just because I don't like it very much personally because I see no reason to purposely offend other people that might like it.
So I don't really care about your "feelings" and "offending" people for liking a song I deem rubbish. Sue me.

Deltage said:
Calling a song "rubbish" is like declaring it actually is and it's really different from just stating that it's not one of your favorites and at least for me, it would be really hard to find a song that I hate so much I just have to bash it every way possible (although it's mostly because I just avoid most music coming from sources I know I wouldn't really like).
I feel the song is so bad merely stating that it's not one of my favourites doesn't even come close to estimating my feelings for the entry. Especially not compared to the songs which it beat in its national final. Next to them, it really is rubbish.

I hated the presentation of "Manboy", but that entry was at least memorable after only one listen. I had the refrain down pat after only two listens (semi-final + final) whilst it took me a good 7 listens of "This Is My Life" to really remember much about is refrain (because it doesn't actually have one!).

Deltage said:
Although I'm not telling you to "scientifically prove" those things, this just proves my point that liking music is a matter of personal taste.
This has nothing to do with what you just quoted. It's not about not liking the song, I stated some scientifically provable facts about the song, facts which I feel contributed to its failure at Eurovision. You can say that people have different tastes in music all you like, the facts will remain the same. The producers made several major mistakes when it came to writing this song, scientifically provable mistakes since it lacks several of the elements which a ESC winner usually has (like a "real" refrain!).

Deltage said:
All those things you mentioned, like "monotone sound", "barely noticeable refrain" and so on might not appeal to you but don't make the song necessarily bad.
Can you stop making things up in your head as you go?! You seem to have deluded yourself into thinking that everything I say when it comes to "This Is My Life" has the underlying meaning that it's somehow connected to how the song is "bad". I named things which I feel were contributing factors to why people didn't rank it in the Top 10 in the second semi-final. I named things which I felt made it unsuitable for Eurovision, not to prove anything about its qualify!

Deltage said:
Some other person might still like the song and maybe just for those qualities that you don't.
Clearly the majority agree with me because Sweden didn't even make Top 10 in the second semi-final. That should telll you something. I'm not saying you're a bad person for liking the song, but you should stop acting high and mighty and superior for "getting" the song whilst looking down at others for not getting it (like that previous remark where you refused to name the things about this song which make it original when it comes to the ESC because we measure the quality of music in different ways, implying I wouldn't be able to grasp these unique qualities about the song because I'm too ignorant or something).

Deltage said:
And I personally judge all the songs mainly according to my personal taste and what I think constituted a good song, so I don't care at all how it will relate to Eurovision (unless the song is really different from the typical ESC formula so that it could attract more different genres to it and make it more interesting).
The only times when I've expressed my own personal opinion about this song were when I stated my personal opinion about the quality of the song. Everything else was expressed from a neutral, objective stand-point, such as the lack of a refrain, etc. I can totally understand why it failed to qualify. And you and other fans of the song need to understand that too if you want to be able to vote forth songs which do not fail to qualify for the final in the future.

Deltage said:
Most ESC songs I like haven't, in fact, done well. Oh, and by the way, I remember the chorus well although I have heard it only one time (technically one and a half) times and I made no effort to memorize it.
Most Eurovision viewers do not stay 100% alert during all songs. They do not listen to each song intently, they give each song a good 20-30 seconds and if those opening 20-30 seconds do not appeal to them, they do not stay focused for the rest of the song. They tune out, so to speak. Or they get up to go to the bathroom, talk to friends, eat chips, whatever. Also, you are you. Several "experts" and music industry insiders (from Sweden nonetheless) agree with my supposition: It's hard to remember Anna's song, especially the refrain, after only one listen.

Deltage said:
I can't say anything about that, since I was actually listening to the song and I didn't notice at all what she was wearing. Not that I wouldn't have cared anyway.
You =/= Europe

Europe cares. People care. It contributed to her failure. And when people finally wake up and accept that maybe, maybe Europe wasn't wrong. Maybe Anna, Björkman and the Swedish people were at fault here, sending something which does not appeal to the greater Europe, Western or Eastern. Maybe they made many bad choices, such as sartorially, choreography-wise, etc. Because when people can accept that Sweden did a lot of things wrong, they will be able to move on and stop repeating the same mistakes over and over again.

Deltage said:
Oh, so you are one of those people who actually think that music can be learned. I'm really sorry for only reading that sentence in the topic review, otherwise I wouldn't have wasted my time writing all that stuff when I actually thought you had some credibility related to music.
Again with the high and mighty, snooty attitude. No... I never said that. Try to read what people write in context once in a while. Try not to read people's posts with a clearly biased mind trying to find every single thing you can personally attack them for.

That was said in the context of one being able to discern whether someone is able to stay in-tune while singing or not. So many people often claim their favourite artist was the best singer that year or 100% pitch perfected without having any idea of discerning how in-tune someone was.

Some things concerning music, such as the ability to discern when someone is in-tune and off-tune, can be taught/learned!
 

94ayd

Well-known member
Joined
October 1, 2009
Posts
17,940
Location
Bulgaria / Bulgarie / България
You can actually never know whether or not the majority liked this song since:
- the countries that voted for it the most might have the biggest populations
- you cannot predict how many people liked it and didn't vote for it

I really don't know why you keep posting here and commenting on the entry since you have so little love for it.
 

FallenAngelII

Active member
Joined
March 14, 2010
Posts
1,541
Location
Stockholm, Sweden (La Suede)
94ayd said:
You can actually never know whether or not the majority liked this song since:
- the countries that voted for it the most might have the biggest populations
- you cannot predict how many people liked it and didn't vote for it
Virtually no countries gave this any points. Clearly, the vast majority of Europe did not like it.

94ayd said:
I really don't know why you keep posting here and commenting on the entry since you have so little love for it.
To refute misinformation being spread left and right. Also, I'm a Swede. I'm trying to get the Swedish people to stop sending entries which will never garner European support to Eurovision since I want Sweden to actually do well at the ESC. I'm trying to get people to recognize what mistakes we did this year and try not to repeat them.
 

94ayd

Well-known member
Joined
October 1, 2009
Posts
17,940
Location
Bulgaria / Bulgarie / България
I should really stop responding but I seem to have come up with something else to tease you with: what if the other half of the countries (that ones in semi 1) liked it but never had the chance to vote. Maybe they would've placed it top 10. Honestly, everything can happen and luck is the main factor (, especially when referring to the semi-finals).
 

FallenAngelII

Active member
Joined
March 14, 2010
Posts
1,541
Location
Stockholm, Sweden (La Suede)
alca said:
FallenAngelII did you have any favourites in this year's MF?
Turkey, Romania, Belgium. 3 wildly different genres, 3 songs I knew would do well, 3 songs I personally supported. I would've preferred for one of them to win. Pre-final, Germany was in my Top 5, but her live performance was lackluster so I wished her a Top 10/Top 5 finish, but not a win.

94ayd said:
I should really stop responding but I seem to have come up with something else to tease you with: what if the other half of the countries (that ones in semi 1) liked it but never had the chance to vote. Maybe they would've placed it top 10. Honestly, everything can happen and luck is the main factor (, especially when referring to the semi-finals).
No it's not. Because if you have a song that's a hit in most of Europe, you're going through to the final. I highly doubt the other 19 countries magically would have her in their Top 10 and if they did, it'd be at the bottom of their Top 10, so she would've qualified and then finished Bottom 5 or Bottom 10. Your argument is beyond desperate.

Either way, it would've been a failure. Stop talking about "What if"s. Talk about what happened. Admit to the entry being a failure and try to move on and get Sweden to make better choices next year. Denial will only make us repeat the same mistakes over and over again.
 

alca

Well-known member
Joined
January 18, 2010
Posts
5,272
Location
Linköping, Sweden
FallenAngelII said:
alca said:
FallenAngelII did you have any favourites in this year's MF?
Turkey, Romania, Belgium. 3 wildly different genres, 3 songs I knew would do well, 3 songs I personally supported. I would've preferred for one of them to win. Pre-final, Germany was in my Top 5, but her live performance was lackluster so I wished her a Top 10/Top 5 finish, but not a win.
No no. I meant favourites in Melodifestivalen. :)
 

FallenAngelII

Active member
Joined
March 14, 2010
Posts
1,541
Location
Stockholm, Sweden (La Suede)
alca said:
FallenAngelII said:
alca said:
FallenAngelII did you have any favourites in this year's MF?
Turkey, Romania, Belgium. 3 wildly different genres, 3 songs I knew would do well, 3 songs I personally supported. I would've preferred for one of them to win. Pre-final, Germany was in my Top 5, but her live performance was lackluster so I wished her a Top 10/Top 5 finish, but not a win.
No no. I meant favourites in Melodifestivalen. :)
Personal favourite:
* Salem al Fakir - Keep on Walking (I believe this would've been a jury favourite for Top 5 at least)
* Timoteij - Kom (though they needed to work on some of their vocals, especially during the refrain) - If they beefed up the life performance (not just vocally but also visually) a bit, I believe this would've been definite Top 5 material.
Entries I knew would do well at ESC (besides the above entries):
* Eric Saade - Manboy (unfortunately, I hated his performance, especially the desperate-for-votes-jailbait-shower)
* Ola - Unstoppable (the weakest out of these 4, but the Swedish national final was quite weak in general. Ola would've qualified at least, IMO)
Non-qualifiers from the semi-finals that could've done well:
* Neo - Human Frontier (my God, how could he lose Kalle Moraeus and his BS:y song?! A bunch of geriatrics probably voted Moraeus through to the final!) - This would be a dark horse qualifier, though. Could go either way depending on how the juries vote. It's a song that jurors would either love or hate.
 

94ayd

Well-known member
Joined
October 1, 2009
Posts
17,940
Location
Bulgaria / Bulgarie / България
Margerita86 said:
alca said:
Deltage said:
By the way, I definitely agree with the people who have said that it's the song was much more worthy of the final than "Hero" or "La Voix" (because it's originality in the ESC context, not because it's "better", although I personally think it was).
I agree that it was better than "Hero" and "La Voix"!
Ah, but I still both La voix and Hero more :mrgreen:

I see no comparison possible. 2009 is on top, followed by 2008 and 2010 is nowhere for me, nor even top 25...
 
Top Bottom