Politics is part of the Eurovision Song Contest, but let’s limit the hysteria to the acts

Through trial and error, the Netherlands is once again working seriously on the Eurovision Song Contest, which starts on Tuesday in Sweden with the first semi-final. Joost Klein’s entry (Europapa) was in third place among bookmakers. Fans love the festival, but the event is also plagued by ‘misunderstandings’. Now that the Eurovision Song Contest is enjoying widespread reappraisal thanks to recent Dutch successes, we can put an end to at least three persistent Eurovision myths.

Like many others, my love for the Eurovision Song Contest is linked to my youth; with nostalgic Eurovision Song Contest sounds in the parental home, then still sung in their own language as standard. Typical Eurovision Song Contest terms (‘douze points’) and Eurovision Song Contest traditions are included, such as awarding points to the entries. Years later, those traditions are honored with my husband and other fans. Judging is of course accompanied by sharp commentary, although nowadays you have to be careful that it remains politically correct.

Myth 1: Eastern Europe ruined the Eurovision Song Contest

Not everyone is equally enthusiastic. A common complaint: Eastern Europe ruined the festival. That misunderstanding is particularly persistent in the Netherlands, and not without reason. With winning gems such as ‘De Troubadour’ (1969) by Lenny Kuhr and ‘Ding-a-dong’ by Teach-IN (1975), the Netherlands was once a Eurovision country. In the early years, the 1950s, the Netherlands even won twice. In later decades things also went quite well. The 1990s saw varying successes, culminating in a fourth place for ‘Heaven and Earth’ by Edsilia Rombley in 1998.

After that it goes downhill. What the writers Dave Boomkens and Richard van de Crommert think of The Great Song Contest Book ‘the nine lean years’ coincides with the arrival of newcomers to the festival. In the 1990s – after the Cold War and the break-up of Yugoslavia – participants such as Russia, Poland and Croatia made their debut. Early 21^e century, more countries will be added, such as Serbia, Albania, Georgia and Azerbaijan.

A new system will also be introduced from 2004; countries now have to qualify for a place in the final in two semi-finals. This was possible in the first year, but from 2005 onwards the Netherlands failed to secure a place in the final for eight years.

The lack of success is accompanied by complaints. With Eastern European countries voting for each other, our country would not have a fair chance of victory. In reality, only three Eastern European newcomers won in those years (2005-2012): Serbia, Russia and Azerbaijan. Most of the winners are simply veterans, such as Greece, Norway and Germany. The lack of Dutch success is more due to the quality of the songs. But even good singers do not get further than the semi-finals. This is mainly due to not moving with trends.

Annette

Complaints about cronyism are not entirely unfounded, although this is not limited to Eastern European voters. The starting position of countries also appears to influence the judgment of televoters. It was then decided to give professional juries a voice again. Half of the points come from viewers, the other half from ‘professionals’. The lean years in the Netherlands came to an end in 2013 with Anouk’s participation with ‘Birds’. Then we go up again, with the Eurovision Song Contest victory of Duncan Laurence in 2019 as the temporary highlight.

Myth 2: The Eurovision Song Contest is a freak show, the music doesn’t matter

Songs from the sixties, seventies and eighties in particular have become classics. Is there anyone who Waterloo of ABBA, or who has not once shouted along with Johnny Logans Hold me Now. Or even better: has been swinging J’aime, j’aime la Vie by the Belgian child star Sandra Kim. The festival also produced many hits more recently. Beautiful songs also come from the East, perhaps one of the many underrated songs Jan Jan by the Armenian Inga & Anush from 2009.

Of course the act matters too. Visual effects, hilarious costumes, theater and comic quips are a regular feature. The Netherlands has ignored this fact for a long time. Only in more recent years has there been more attention paid to the ‘show’. This year, the director of Joost Klein even promises a revolutionary act. He speaks of ‘a new form of the moon landing and physically almost impossible’. The first images mainly show ‘rarities’, such as a blue chicken suit, which caused the entry to drop in the polls.

A good or spectacular act is not a guarantee of success, because what is hip or original is subject to fluctuations. Infinite glitz and glamor is the norm in some years. For a while, ‘novelty acts’ in particular scored. Finland won the festival in 2006 with ‘Hard Rock Hallelujah’. The fact that the band members are dressed as monsters confirms the image of a freak show. Influences of ‘folk music’ are hot in the noughties, while in other years it revolves around ballads. And what applies to wine also applies to the Eurovision Song Contest. There are bad years and good years, although that remains a matter of (dis)taste.

With a good submission, both the act and the artist, the song and the marketing are in order. Adequate budget is also important, and luckily ‘camp’ never goes out of fashion. But no matter how crazy the participants act or are dressed; ultimately they can also sing well. At least most of them.

Myth 3: Politics plays no role in the Eurovision Song Contest

In 2022, shortly after the outbreak of the Ukraine war, viewers vote Kalush Orchstra’s Ukrainian entry to number one. A year earlier, Ukraine really had a good song: Shum by the Ukrainian electro-folk band GO_ A, but that song ‘only’ finishes in fifth place. Perhaps also typical is the neck-and-neck race between Russia and Ukraine in 2016, which was won by the Ukrainian Jamala.

The almost seventy-year history of the festival has seen subtle and less subtle political protests. Politics are as much a part of the Eurovision Song Contest as wind machines and modulations. There are limits to this: the Eurovision Song Contest organization did not allow a speech by President Zelensky at the festival. The call to exclude Israel from participation this year also went unheeded. According to Eurovision boss Martin Osterdahl, the Eurovision Song Contest is not the place where global conflicts can be resolved. And he’s right: let’s limit ‘hysteria’ mainly to the acts.

From historian and journalistBina AyarThe book was published by Uitgeverij Blauwburgwal in 2023The Malleable Man.

Wynia’s Weekis published 104 times a year with reporting that is as independent as it is much needed. The donors make that possible.Are you in?Thank you!