What do you think about Big 5?
- Thread starter Impressive
- Start date
- Watchers 6
MyHeartIsYours
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 22, 2010
- Posts
- 24,546
Even worse is political votingI think it's completely unacceptable that UK sends bad songs every year
Impressive
Banned
I think it's completely unacceptable that UK sends bad songs every year
Actually this is personal idea. I mean 2010 was bad, for who? 2011 was bad, for who? 2012 was bad, for who? I don't think since 2008, there were just 2 songs bad. And especially this year, Engelbert did not deserve this place.
But like I said, this is personal idea. Bad thing is result, no one likes UK in Eurovision voting :/
rajo
Active member
- Joined
- March 10, 2011
- Posts
- 2,147
Mickey
Well-known member
I was going to write about how the UK was bound to pull out if we were made to enter the semis, but the more I thought about it, the more I think we'd stay anyway.
Eurovision is such a big part of the British cultural landscape. We may laugh at it as a joke show, but it is at least a joke everyone is in on. Everyone knows about 12 points and Norway coming last and Riverdance and Bucks Fizz. The BBC wouldn't throw away 50+ years of history like that. I'm sure we'd survive the first failure to qualify for the final.
Three or four exits in a row would be more of a problem, but would we fail that consistently anyway? We've started to get the hang of this Eurovision thing recently. I'm still optimistic enough to think that sometime in the next few years we'll finally sign up that big name act who will take us back to the top of the table. I think we'd still manage at least a 50% qualification rate, enough for the BBC to weather the occasional calls to pull out.
Eurovision is such a big part of the British cultural landscape. We may laugh at it as a joke show, but it is at least a joke everyone is in on. Everyone knows about 12 points and Norway coming last and Riverdance and Bucks Fizz. The BBC wouldn't throw away 50+ years of history like that. I'm sure we'd survive the first failure to qualify for the final.
Three or four exits in a row would be more of a problem, but would we fail that consistently anyway? We've started to get the hang of this Eurovision thing recently. I'm still optimistic enough to think that sometime in the next few years we'll finally sign up that big name act who will take us back to the top of the table. I think we'd still manage at least a 50% qualification rate, enough for the BBC to weather the occasional calls to pull out.
I definitely think the Big Five countries would up their game and really try to send great entries every year if they were forced to go through the semis like the rest of us. Now they can do whatever they want because they're going to be in the final every year no matter what and I don't think any of them is trying very hard. Apart from a couple of fantastic entries, the Big Five hasn't really delivered (in terms of great quality songs) since the '90s for me and they were all such strong countries in the past!
PeterLPZ
Well-known member
I can accept the critics about the Big5-rule. But there are two important reasons for EBU to do it in such a way.
First of all, what many members here are said, that they give a lot of money to EBU. But an aslo important thing is the fact, that in these bigger countries many people are watching ESC. F.e. in Germany there are around 10 millions viewers (2010 were more than 20 millions viewers). I can remember in 1996, when Germany wasn´t alloud to take part, there are less 300.000 viewers. This destroys the sum of viewers around Europe. And it´s the same in the other 4 countries.
Another fact is, that it´s a disadvantage for the Big5 countries, because most of the viewers hear the song the first time in the final. The songs, which were qualified in the semifinals are known and they have many fans, while the songs of Big5 aren´t known. So I think, it´s ok to rest this rule. But I agree, that mostly bad songs are send by the Big5-countries. This should be changed.
First of all, what many members here are said, that they give a lot of money to EBU. But an aslo important thing is the fact, that in these bigger countries many people are watching ESC. F.e. in Germany there are around 10 millions viewers (2010 were more than 20 millions viewers). I can remember in 1996, when Germany wasn´t alloud to take part, there are less 300.000 viewers. This destroys the sum of viewers around Europe. And it´s the same in the other 4 countries.
Another fact is, that it´s a disadvantage for the Big5 countries, because most of the viewers hear the song the first time in the final. The songs, which were qualified in the semifinals are known and they have many fans, while the songs of Big5 aren´t known. So I think, it´s ok to rest this rule. But I agree, that mostly bad songs are send by the Big5-countries. This should be changed.
Mickey
Well-known member
Do you really think Nina Zilli, Roman Lob and Pastora Soler wouldn't have qualified in 2012? In the final they beat 14 of the 20 qualifiers.
alca
Well-known member
And as I said, not only I believe Pastora would have qualified but she'd also finish higher!
sorry I hate this rule. I mean look at Italy and Spain. Bad economies. They don't even want to win ESC because they can't host ESC next year. How can these two countries pay that much money to EBU then? BTW do the pay EBU or ESC itself??? How do we know they pay more to ESC itself than the semifinalists? Especially Italy who came back after many years abscene...
Also if they are directly qualified because their economy they would be forced to make great and OWN entries. It's pretty sad that this years 3 of the big 5 had SWEDISH entries...Why that?
The standard on the big 5 entries are low since they know they are in final. They don't care. I think it's sad that Italy who has been abscent for many years and who really don't care about ESC is qualified to final. Sweden, who contribute more to ESC and really love ESC isn't in final.
People are saying that loss of any big 5 member would be bad for the economy. But what would be more shocking: Sweden or any of the big 5 withdrawing? TBH, I would love to see Sweden withdraw from the competition just to see the reactions...
I don't get why the Big 5 wants to be in final. There are no positive things with that. Actually there's favour to be in semi first. I think it would fair both for big 5 and the all other countries if this rule was removed.
Also if they are directly qualified because their economy they would be forced to make great and OWN entries. It's pretty sad that this years 3 of the big 5 had SWEDISH entries...Why that?
The standard on the big 5 entries are low since they know they are in final. They don't care. I think it's sad that Italy who has been abscent for many years and who really don't care about ESC is qualified to final. Sweden, who contribute more to ESC and really love ESC isn't in final.
People are saying that loss of any big 5 member would be bad for the economy. But what would be more shocking: Sweden or any of the big 5 withdrawing? TBH, I would love to see Sweden withdraw from the competition just to see the reactions...
I don't get why the Big 5 wants to be in final. There are no positive things with that. Actually there's favour to be in semi first. I think it would fair both for big 5 and the all other countries if this rule was removed.
rajo
Active member
- Joined
- March 10, 2011
- Posts
- 2,147
I completely understand what you are saying here, although I don't share your thoughts on Swedens (I find them rather sniffy actually). But if a Big 5 country doesn't proceed to the finals, the ESC viewing figures would crash in a major country. And now imagine all 5 out of the finals. Good luck with that, Eurovision! Between 2003 and 2008, with the surge of political televoting, Eurovision might have died without the major contributors.
MyHeartIsYours
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 22, 2010
- Posts
- 24,546
Some people are confusing this rule with why we don't take Eurovision so seriously. The fact is that we will never take Eurovision as seriously as most countries, not because we are already in the final, but because most see the contest as a bit of a laugh. And that's not a bad thing, I think its good. Taking things unnecessarily seriously is bad for you.
MyHeartIsYours
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 22, 2010
- Posts
- 24,546
:? :?Yeah, I wouldn't take British surpremacy, the Union Jack and the Queen too seriously neither.....
Quent91
Well-known member
Don't touch to the Big5 !
Those countries were the very first countries to participate in the 1956 contest. Just for this, they deserve to get a good spot in the final without going through the semi's.
Those countries were the very first countries to participate in the 1956 contest. Just for this, they deserve to get a good spot in the final without going through the semi's.
MyHeartIsYours
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 22, 2010
- Posts
- 24,546
^ Exactly! We're the golden oldies!
The UK and Spain weren't taking part that year
According to your logic Netherlands, switzerland & Belgium should also receive the "Big" STatus
The UK and Spain weren't taking part that year
According to your logic Netherlands, switzerland & Belgium should also receive the "Big" STatus
And Luxembourg
Maybe if they were part of the "Big", they would actually come back
2