Eurovision 2023

[The Masked Poster]

1 hour ago, JohnM said:

Disclosure: I'm not a fan of the ESC as it is now.  In fact, I intensely dislike the whole pantomime freak show, though I do miss Katie Boyle.

I trust this is a better explanation of my view. 

I recognise that millions of others are real fans and that they are entitled to experience and enjoy the whole thing. Same for fans of Wimbledon, Strictly Come Dancing etc.  

Thus, although the main BBC channel carried end to end coverage from Monday till Saturday, it did not concern me since there were 3 other live BBC TV channels, plus live ITV, C4 etc and numerous other sources of enjoyment and entertainment.

Thank You.

I too appreciate that many people enjoy it and I wouldn't want to detract from them doing so. I just found the coverage excessive, to put it mildly. Yes, I'm aware that other alternatives are available but I didn't see why the whole day should have been taken over in this manner. That's just my opinion and I was a little annoyed. I'll definitely survive but I still say that the coverage is completely OTT. 

NB I aren't remotely arguing about it being dropped or whatever, that's not where I'm coming from. 

[Futtocks]

2 minutes ago, The Masked Poster said:

Thank You.

I too appreciate that many people enjoy it and I wouldn't want to detract from them doing so. I just found the coverage excessive, to put it mildly. Yes, I'm aware that other alternatives are available but I didn't see why the whole day should have been taken over in this manner. That's just my opinion and I was a little annoyed. I'll definitely survive but I still say that the coverage is completely OTT. 

NB I aren't remotely arguing about it being dropped or whatever, that's not where I'm coming from. 

Think about how long you've been typing posts about how inconvenienced you (very briefly) felt. Add it all up. Assess what that time is really worth to you. Remember that TV schedules tend to be disrupted by any big events.

[The Masked Poster]

9 hours ago, Futtocks said:

Think about how long you've been typing posts about how inconvenienced you (very briefly) felt. Add it all up. Assess what that time is really worth to you. Remember that TV schedules tend to be disrupted by any big events.

How long has it taken to write those posts? 5 or 10 minutes. Hardly any time or effort at all really - and I've been polite whilst doing so, I'm not anti Eurovision. I mean, it's not for me but anything that gives people happiness is ok with me. 

I'm very well aware that TV schedules are altered for big events like this or football etc and I wasn't arguing that it should not be so. But this was in addition to the huge amount of TV coverage too and I think it was excessive to disrupt pretty much a full day of radio in addition to everything else. As I say, just my opinion. I'm not going to write to the BBC about it, nor am I "fuming". But I still stand by my point. 

Thanks also. 

[John Drake]

On 14/05/2023 at 11:51, The Masked Poster said:

Right. I'm glad you enjoy the Eurovision, that's up to you and not up for debate. But why does it have to be so all encompassing? Was there any need to disrupt everyone else's schedule? As it happens I work a lot of weekends and can rarely listen live. But never mind eh? 

You got to watch the build ups during the week, the mass radio coverage and of course, the actual final itself - wasn't that enough? Not to mention that all these programmes were on BBC Sounds too? It was saturation coverage. 

I'm very much a live and let live kinda person but I strongly maintain that the coverage and hype for this event was ridiculously OTT. Just my opinion, you feel differently. 

Was it really that much of a hardship to put up with, for one week of the year, for the first time in 25 years and probably never on this scale ever again?

It would have been a bit odd if the BBC, as host broadcaster of a major international event, had not disrupted its schedules to accommodate it, no matter what the nature of the event.

I'm sure there were people who complained about the amount of coverage they gave to the Rugby League World Cup last year.

However, we are lucky (?) to live in an age of unlimited choice. With BBC iPlayer and BBC Sounds, any of us can choose to watch or listen to tons of alternative BBC content, other than what happens to be being broadcast at any given time, not to mention all the other channels that exist.

[lucky 7]

1 hour ago, John Drake said:

Was it really that much of a hardship to put up with, for one week of the year, for the first time in 25 years and probably never on this scale ever again?

It would have been a bit odd if the BBC, as host broadcaster of a major international event, had not disrupted its schedules to accommodate it, no matter what the nature of the event.

I'm sure there were people who complained about the amount of coverage they gave to the Rugby League World Cup last year.

However, we are lucky (?) to live in an age of unlimited choice. With BBC iPlayer and BBC Sounds, any of us can choose to watch or listen to tons of alternative BBC content, other than what happens to be being broadcast at any given time, not to mention all the other channels that exist.

Well said John

I love these international events that show the country in positive light, and we need more of them

[The Masked Poster]

15 hours ago, John Drake said:

Was it really that much of a hardship to put up with, for one week of the year, for the first time in 25 years and probably never on this scale ever again?

It would have been a bit odd if the BBC, as host broadcaster of a major international event, had not disrupted its schedules to accommodate it, no matter what the nature of the event.

I'm sure there were people who complained about the amount of coverage they gave to the Rugby League World Cup last year.

However, we are lucky (?) to live in an age of unlimited choice. With BBC iPlayer and BBC Sounds, any of us can choose to watch or listen to tons of alternative BBC content, other than what happens to be being broadcast at any given time, not to mention all the other channels that exist.

It certainly wasn't a hardship as I've pretty much forgotten about it now, I was just having a grumble about, what I saw, as way too much coverage.

14 hours ago, lucky 7 said:

 

The RLWC was unlikely to have inconvenienced anybody as most of the games were in traditional sports spots, with a handful on BBC2 on certain evenings. But had it also been on Radio 2 all day and regular programmes had been dropped then I expect many people would find it excessive, yes. 

I fully understand them making a big deal of it being in England again and all that. But I still think it was OTT, sorry. 

14 hours ago, lucky 7 said:

Well said John

I love these international events that show the country in positive light, and we need more of them

And I totally agree, I just think in this case the overall coverage was too much. Not that it should not be celebrated, there's a big difference.

[GURNER]

On 15/05/2023 at 18:00, John Drake said:

Was it really that much of a hardship to put up with, for one week of the year, for the first time in 25 years and probably never on this scale ever again?

It would have been a bit odd if the BBC, as host broadcaster of a major international event, had not disrupted its schedules to accommodate it, no matter what the nature of the event.

I'm sure there were people who complained about the amount of coverage they gave to the Rugby League World Cup last year.

However, we are lucky (?) to live in an age of unlimited choice. With BBC iPlayer and BBC Sounds, any of us can choose to watch or listen to tons of alternative BBC content, other than what happens to be being broadcast at any given time, not to mention all the other channels that exist.

 

Except for the coronation, when every bbc tv channel offered no alternative

[EagleEyePie]

On 14/05/2023 at 20:25, Maximus Decimus said:

Just putting this out there...

I'm also going to put it out there that my first reaction to the British one was 'what a load of s***e' it did grow on me somewhat but most people would have been voting having heard it just the once.

That was a good call! I know there's lots of conspiracy theories about Sweden because of next year being the 50th anniversary of ABBA's win but clearly lots of people were impressed with the song. Personally I thought it was incredibly bland and sounded like anything and everything from one of those ubiquitous Scandinavian songwriters who've written and produced every other modern song on the radio. I guess Sweden and Finland showed the two different sides to the contest and both have their merits. 

I thought this year there was a lot of variation in sound and style and some surprises which is why I enjoy watching. A good mix of serious songs and novelty. Unfortunately the UK entry was never going to stand out. At best it's a pleasant and inoffensive song but we'd have been better off doing whatever it was Croatia did. Most songs charted near the top of their respective countries charts (like Sam Ryder did last year) but Mae Muller didn't. It probably wasn't bad enough to deserve 2nd to last, although Germany definitely didn't deserve last place either, it was performed really well, it was just a bit niche.

[bbfaz]

If Sweden won, the Danish entry - which didn't make it to the final - should be a worldwide sensation.

[gingerjon]

7 hours ago, EagleEyePie said:

That was a good call! I know there's lots of conspiracy theories about Sweden because of next year being the 50th anniversary of ABBA's win but clearly lots of people were impressed with the song. Personally I thought it was incredibly bland and sounded like anything and everything from one of those ubiquitous Scandinavian songwriters who've written and produced every other modern song on the radio. I guess Sweden and Finland showed the two different sides to the contest and both have their merits. 

I thought this year there was a lot of variation in sound and style and some surprises which is why I enjoy watching. A good mix of serious songs and novelty. Unfortunately the UK entry was never going to stand out. At best it's a pleasant and inoffensive song but we'd have been better off doing whatever it was Croatia did. Most songs charted near the top of their respective countries charts (like Sam Ryder did last year) but Mae Muller didn't. It probably wasn't bad enough to deserve 2nd to last, although Germany definitely didn't deserve last place either, it was performed really well, it was just a bit niche.

The issue with Sweden is that is scored so well with the judges relative to the public and I think the key reason for that is just massive groupthink. I don't buy conspiracy but a certain complacent incompetence.

Britain didn't deserve second last but it wasn't even the best of that kind of song so would have been very lucky to be anywhere near the top of the leaderboard on either jury or public vote. Also Mae Muller was nowhere near as good as Sam Ryder in terms of quite obviously spending, and enjoying, months on a massive publicity push across Europe.

Germany needed more lyrics. That would have made a difference.

[Maximus Decimus]

On 17/05/2023 at 00:50, bbfaz said:

If Sweden won, the Danish entry - which didn't make it to the final - should be a worldwide sensation.

It didn't sound great live, too much falsetto.