Contact us

Why did ESC change so much?

AdelAdel

Well-known member
Joined
May 15, 2011
Posts
15,401
Location
Poland
1 - In the past, you had to wear a formal suit to attend the contest, now you can wear whatever you want.
2 - In the past, it was rude to boo and to shout loudly at every point given - usually, it was silent during the points giveaway, now you can shout whenever you like.
3 - In the past, the callers, after greeting, announced the points, now they chit-chat all they want with the hosts.
4 - In the past, there was no half-naked women on stage, now it's looks more like a strip show, more than a music contest (cough... Ukraine...)
5 - In the past, the contest was generally a respected music festival, now in many countries, it is considered as something ridiculous.

I'm intentionally avoiding stuff like: the language rule and 100% jury vote, because they fall into a different category.

Feel free to share your opinions about the topic - which side are you on: the past or the present?
I personally liked the contests in the past more, they were much more to my liking.
 

tuorem

Well-known member
Joined
January 17, 2012
Posts
9,592
Location
GN-z11
You highlighted some very important things, it's obvious that both broadcasters and people responsible for Eurovision turned this contest into something much more appealing to a wide audience, making it less "academic" and strict as time went on. I don't think it is a bad move, obviously I'll be (with you ;)) one of the first to criticize talentless acts, but allowing more freedom in the contest makes it look less dated.

We know that Eurovision's been called ridiculous for a long time now, but I guess there was an improvement in music quality and "seriousness" since 2009. I guess all new parameters changes that don't alter the original spirit of the contest are for the better, so that a constant evolution may optimize the enjoyment of viewers, fans and maybe change occasional viewers' opinion about Eurovision.
 

AdelAdel

Well-known member
Joined
May 15, 2011
Posts
15,401
Location
Poland
I'm actually glad, that they brought the 50/50 voting back - this is a sign of coming back to the roots. The other thing I'm hoping that will return will be the "own language rule" - there was a freedom of language between 1973 and 1976, and they brought it back later, so I hope that they will come back to that idea, once again.

It's not only about talent-less acts, it also about the performances itself - all those flames, showers, special effects are destroying the song in my opinion.
 

NemesisNick

Well-known member
Joined
June 2, 2012
Posts
1,288
Location
Dorchester, Dorset, United Kingdom
Well let's face it, the Eurovision Song Contest is a song contest (a kind of competition). It is not a museum. Since the debut ESC in 1956, the Contest has been continually changing in some way or other. Some changes have been necessary due to new countries from old ones (e.g. break-up of Yugoslavia), and the ever-growing number of countries eligible / wanting to enter (relegation, semi-finals etc). No doubt some changes that have occurred over the years have been controversial.

1) The very first ESC in 1956 had just 7 countries, but each country had 2 songs. In 1957 each country was limited to just one song, it's been like that since. Presumably right back then the organisers anticipated more countries would want to enter each year and it would therefore be necessary to limit each country to just one song.

2) The scoring in 1957 was kept until 1961. From 1962 to 1966 three different systems were tried, but for some reason they never caught on. So from 1967 to 1970 they went back to the 1957-1961 system. In 1971 a new system was tried, in which it was impossible to finish on nul points, but that was used for only 3 years. After a return to the 1957-1961 system in 1974, the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12 points system was introduced in 1975 and has lasted until this day.

3) Israel debuted in 1973 and first won in 1978. I've read somewhere some argued at the time that Israel shouldn't enter the ESC as it's not in Europe.

4) Relegation was introduced in 1993, i.e. a certain number of the lowest placed countries in 1993 had to sit out the 1994 ESC to accommodate new countries in 1994. The same happened at the end of the 1994 ESC, lowest placed countries out of the 1995 ESC to let the 1994 absentees back in.

5) In 1996 the low-placed countries from 1995 who would have had to sit out the 1996 ESC got a chance after all, but those forced to sit out 1995 didn't get free entry either! Instead there was an audio only pre-selection qualifier (not broadcast in any way), and only the top 22 countries joined hosts Norway for the 1996 ESC. Only used once.

6) 1997 - 2000 saw relegation used again, based on the last 5 years placings. This made it difficult for some countries like Lithuania to build up a record. Interestingly Lithuania who came last with nul points in their debut year 1994 didn't appear again until 1999. Were they given a free place in 1999 as they hadn't had chance to build up a record? Someone I knew at the time felt relegation was unfair and a semi-final would be better.

7) Circa 1999 it was announced that from 2000 the UK, France, Germany and Spain, all of whom pay most into the EBU, would get guaranteed entry each year no matter how badly they've done the previous year, i.e. the start of the Big 4 rule. The person I knew whom I mentioned in the previous paragraph felt it was unfair that these countries should be exempt from relegation.

8) This was modified again in 2001; only the Big 4 + top 15 of the rest went on to 2002 ESC, the rest had to sit out the 2002 ESC. The same rule was used for 2002 into 2003.

9) In 1999 were allowed to sing in any language, that stands to this day. Many then sang in English (which some like, some don't like). Belgium tried the novel approach of a made-up language in 2003.

10) From 1999 there was no requirement to provide an orchestra, and that year's host broadcaster IBA (Israel) didn't have one. Another controversial move, Johnny Logan commented that the contest turned into "karaoke" as a result.

11) Televoting was piloted in a few countries in 1997, most countries used it in 1998 and I think it was mandatory by about 1999 or 2000. In 2009 they changed it again to 50/50 jury and televoting.

12) By 2004 there were so many countries eligible to enter it was necessary to have a semi-final for the first time. The Big 4 plus 10 best of the rest from 2003 were automatically in the 2004 final, the top 10 from the 2004 semi-final got the remaining 10 final places. This was used until 2007.

13) In 2008 the EBU decided to have two semi-finals (which I think is fairer). Only the host + Big 4/5 get automatic places in the final, the top 10 from the semi-finals fill the remaining final places.

14) Only solo artists were allowed in 1956, duets were allowed later, and in 1971 groups of up to 6 were allowed for the first time.

15) In the early days there were no age restrictions on participants. That saw 13 year old Sandra Kim win for Belgium in 1986 (youngest ever winner), and youngish children appear with adults in certain 1970s / 1980s songs. In 1990 the new rule stating you had to be at least 16 was introduced.
 

AdelAdel

Well-known member
Joined
May 15, 2011
Posts
15,401
Location
Poland
@NemesisNick - you stated many encyclopedic facts, as usual. What I'm talking about is the seriousness of the contest. In the past it wasn't that commercial, and it wasn't for the masses, today it is.

And you forgot one rule of the relegation - countries that were relegated the previous year, got a slot for free, 2 years later. That's why Lithuania in 1999 got a place for free (because it didn't participate in 1997 or 1998)
 

evija87

Active member
Joined
March 15, 2011
Posts
776
Location
Bydgoszcz, Poland
Now it's more about a show than a music contest. Back in the past it was more prestegious to win it. Thing is the time moves on so the contest has to keep up with the change over the decades... I trust that EBU knows what they are doing, after all it last since 1956 so it is long time and now the biggest music event. I think bringing back 50% jury helped to increase level, I would like to also do something about the language rule to incourage countries to sing in their own language...
 

AdelAdel

Well-known member
Joined
May 15, 2011
Posts
15,401
Location
Poland
Well, I don't know if EBU will be able to "ecourage" countries to sing in their national languages. Unless there's a rule stating that one must sing in their native language, some countries will almost never sing in it (Scandinavia, Benelux, Germany, Former USSR, etc.)
 

alca

Well-known member
Joined
January 18, 2010
Posts
5,272
Location
Linköping, Sweden
"Changed so much"? I'm sorry but we live in 2012. That means 57 years after the first contest!

1 - In the past, you had to wear a formal suit to attend the contest, now you can wear whatever you want.
2 - In the past, it was rude to boo and to shout loudly at every point given - usually, it was silent during the points giveaway, now you can shout whenever you like.
3 - In the past, the callers, after greeting, announced the points, now they chit-chat all they want with the hosts.
4 - In the past, there was no half-naked women on stage, now it's looks more like a strip show, more than a music contest (cough... Ukraine...)
5 - In the past, the contest was generally a respected music festival, now in many countries, it is considered as something ridiculous.

1 - Oh my God if we still had to be dressed formally that would be stupid! Back then Eurovision was like going to Metropolitan Opera or something. Music changes (don't know which is the right verb...). We have new genres. If you compare the '50s-'60s to today's music you'll see what I mean. Back then we mostly had ballads. Dare I say 95% of the songs were ballads. So we can say it was a more "serious" song contest. Just as opera is for example.
2 - I am against booing but why is it bad to express your happiness when your country or your favourite song does well?
3 - Nothing wrong with that...
4 - Again, 2012.
5 - I agree about that. But what can we do about that to make people change their minds? Start sending songs like in the '60s? Isn't Eurovision supposed to be representing today's music scene? Even if some countries think of the contest as a cheap party. Some countries try to send their best possible song (but ok most of the countries sent at some point a joke entry).

And just to make myself clear. I have nothing against you. I'm just commenting those 5 things you mentioned. :)
 

Matt

Admin Schmadmin
Staff member
Joined
June 1, 2009
Posts
23,485
Location
Los Angeles, USA
1 - In the past, you had to wear a formal suit to attend the contest, now you can wear whatever you want.
2 - In the past, it was rude to boo and to shout loudly at every point given - usually, it was silent during the points giveaway, now you can shout whenever you like.
3 - In the past, the callers, after greeting, announced the points, now they chit-chat all they want with the hosts.
4 - In the past, there was no half-naked women on stage, now it's looks more like a strip show, more than a music contest (cough... Ukraine...)
5 - In the past, the contest was generally a respected music festival, now in many countries, it is considered as something ridiculous.

I'm intentionally avoiding stuff like: the language rule and 100% jury vote, because they fall into a different category.

Feel free to share your opinions about the topic - which side are you on: the past or the present?
I personally liked the contests in the past more, they were much more to my liking.

1. The dress code was quite different, but at that time the contest was a chanson and it has changed a lot over the years. If the contest stayed the same all these years there would be no Eurovision today, it would have died in the 70s. I mean we're talking about a contest that was created in the immediate post war era so things were very different than they are today. Freedom of expression which includes the dress code has become more liberal. Back in the day, students had to wear uniforms at school. Half a century has passed so you'd expect a change in style. Who knows how the contest is gonna look like in 50 years from now.

2. While I'm a big supporter of cheering and supporting your favorites, I am a big opponent of booing wheter or not you agree with an act and/or the song. It's disrespectful, unprofessional and inappropriate. I feel it has become a mob mentality. If you have nothing nice to say, don't say anything at all. I actually wish they would make announcement prior to the live broadcast forbidding booing and disrespectful behavior.

3. There used to be a lot of chatter in the 00s but that has changed since 2010. Those announcing the points have a few seconds to address the hosts and say their "Thanks for a great show" stuff but the hosts are instructed not to engage so they can keep the ball rolling. I support the brief chit chat as it creates a more comfortable and familiar atmosphere but a lot of the announcers seem to be socially awkward but what can you do. It's not a big issue to me as long as they can wrap up their comments within 15 seconds or so.

4. The contest is reflecting what people want to see and if you look at the music charts or MTV, that's what people like. Britney, Lady Gaga, Katy Perry etc so I don't fault the contest and artist trying to stay current and relevant. And while maybe a small minority would vote based on the phycial appearance of the act, the vast majority is still going for the song and/or staging. Loreen was fully dressed, the Russian grandmas were obviously covered up, Zeljko wasn't naked, Sabina from Azerbaijan had a pretty dress but it wasn't "inappropriate" and Albania showed no skin either. So I don't think showing some skin is really helping getting more points.

5. Not quite true, ESC always had the reputation for being out of touch and old-fashioned. Wheter that's accurate or not is a different story. And usually those claims are made by people who neve watch the show or are upset cause their country isn't doing too hot. So this is not a new phenomenon, it has always been that way.
 

r3gg13

Well-known member
Joined
December 23, 2010
Posts
10,264
Location
Westchester - Los Angeles
IMO, the change in ESC is mainly a result of keeping with time. I like both old and new but for different reasons.

I like the old ESCs because of how "respectable" it looked, the hosts and the singers all looked so dignified. Yet, they managed to put their humor and personality in what they do.

It has definitely become more informal. We don't see people wear coat and tie to watch ESC anymore, but it has also become more approachable to everybody. I don't think ESC will have its viewership if it has remained that formal, with all those "canonically good quality" songs I don't think I would even be watching it. I mean how many of us really watch opera performances and the like. The musical genres being represented in ESC just kept up with the times which is great.
 

AdelAdel

Well-known member
Joined
May 15, 2011
Posts
15,401
Location
Poland
But most of the performances never were opera-like, and yet, people still wore formal suits. I'm a fan of wearing formal clothes myself, so it's natural that I liked that fashion more.

In the past, people were only clapping when a song got 12 points, now they're shouting, I think that clapping is more respectful.

I think that the contest and EBU itself doesn't want to make it be respected anymore. They only want money from the views. And why did people's mentality change that much in the first place?
 

r3gg13

Well-known member
Joined
December 23, 2010
Posts
10,264
Location
Westchester - Los Angeles
But most of the performances never were opera-like, and yet, people still wore formal suits. I'm a fan of wearing formal clothes myself, so it's natural that I liked that fashion more.

In the past, people were only clapping when a song got 12 points, now they're shouting, I think that clapping is more respectful.

I think that the contest and EBU itself doesn't want to make it be respected anymore. They only want money from the views. And why did people's mentality change that much in the first place?

About the opera part, I was just trying to find an example of events where one would normally wear formal clothes. The fashion part, I could agree on.

About the respect part, I don't think EBU deliberately wants the show to be less respected, I think that is a consequence rather of the changes that has been happening in ESC.
 

Sim

Well-known member
Joined
October 1, 2009
Posts
19,917
Location
Evergem, Belgium
^^

In 57 years (1956-2012) a lot changed in this world.
Don't know how old you are, but when my grandparents tell about their childhood, it's way different than now.
And that's good, things must change.
If you stay in the same routine, you get bored.

So I support most of the changes made for esc ( not the disappearance of the live orchestra)
 

AdelAdel

Well-known member
Joined
May 15, 2011
Posts
15,401
Location
Poland
About the opera part, I was just trying to find an example of events where one would normally wear formal clothes. The fashion part, I could agree on.

About the respect part, I don't think EBU deliberately wants the show to be less respected, I think that is a consequence rather of the changes that has been happening in ESC.

But EBU encourages those changes, right? So it's their fault, also.
 

daniels1000

Well-known member
Joined
March 29, 2012
Posts
18,176
Location
Munich
1 - In the past, you had to wear a formal suit to attend the contest, now you can wear whatever you want.
2 - In the past, it was rude to boo and to shout loudly at every point given - usually, it was silent during the points giveaway, now you can shout whenever you like.
3 - In the past, the callers, after greeting, announced the points, now they chit-chat all they want with the hosts.
4 - In the past, there was no half-naked women on stage, now it's looks more like a strip show, more than a music contest (cough... Ukraine...)
5 - In the past, the contest was generally a respected music festival, now in many countries, it is considered as something ridiculous.

I'm intentionally avoiding stuff like: the language rule and 100% jury vote, because they fall into a different category.

Feel free to share your opinions about the topic - which side are you on: the past or the present?
I personally liked the contests in the past more, they were much more to my liking.

I actually don't agree with any of these 5 things. I only agree with that , that some countries are thinking that Eurovision is some bad music festival.

I'm glad that these stuff changed,because I like much more "new Eurovisions " than " old Eurovisions "

:D
 

Matt

Admin Schmadmin
Staff member
Joined
June 1, 2009
Posts
23,485
Location
Los Angeles, USA
I'd be happy with the rules from 1977 - 1996. Own language, orchestra, formal outfits, etc.

I don't know how that would change the contest's reputation. It had the same reputation back then. This sounds more like a personal preference to me.
 

AdelAdel

Well-known member
Joined
May 15, 2011
Posts
15,401
Location
Poland
I don't know how that would change the contest's reputation. It had the same reputation back then. This sounds more like a personal preference to me.

EBU wanted countries to show their national heritage and language is a part of it. The orchestra was a sign of a genuine musical accompaniment, now you can insert anything you want to the playback, so the song will be better, than it really should be. Formal outfits were a sign of seriousness.
 
Top Bottom