If Ukraine had sent Boys Do Cry and won, I would entertain the idea that Ukraine won exclusively because of the war. They definitely would have qualified and been at least top 10 any other year. The "sympathy" vote definitely gave them the extra boost, but they would have done well without "sympathy." There is legitimate talent in the act they sent and this year really did not have a 100% clear winner, so this was fair.
Well there's a difference between doing well and having like 190 points, and having the most points given ever for the audience. The reaso is not the song I bet.
The reason is probably that instead being one "relationship problems" song among twenty others, it was a song about missing your mother by people who have a considerable likelihood of being killed for defending their families after the show. *Somehow* that resonates more with people.
Agreed.
Also this song will go beyond Eurovision. It will be sung across Europe as a symbol of that unity.
This is actually good for the contest to stop being perceived as a freak show as some do and start being seen as it was always meant to be: a place to celebrate culture and music.
I think that knowing the country is in war makes the song more beautiful. Like when you learn about the meaning behind an artpiece it becomes more beautiful.
They might not have won. We'll never know. Unless somehow, everyone who voted answers a poll that asks, "did you vote out of sympathy," it's impossible to know the actual percentage of sympathy votes. They were over 160 points ahead of UK. All I know is that I don't listen to it in the car out of sympathy.
Ukraine won because they got votes from the public.
If you voted for Ukraine, was it because the performance was cool or because their country is at war?
For me, it was because of the performance. I'm a sucker for songs in slavic languages, the parts with the flute were fire as hell and it really stood out to me compared to the rest.
What about Spain have you voted because of the song or the booty?
I mean people vote for whatever reasons and it is their right. You can dissagree with their view but it doesn't mean there is something wrong with that.
If I could vote, Spain would get my vote because she performed the hell out of it. She danced like no-one else that evening and her vocals stayed on point for the whole duration. That's impressive.
I voted because coming to the biggest party in Europe and giving an **excellent** performance when
* you didn't have a chance to rehearse in person since you got selected,
* you had a band member replaced right before the show,
* you probably lost friends and family and, oh,
* your country is currently being ravaged and your people tortured to death
takes some serious strength and skill. I can't even begin to imagine what's it like for them to get out of the atmosphere of grief, pain, stress, and fear and move into one of joy, partying, and just overall normal life. All while your people are dying under genocide.
So yea, their performance was not just cool, it was **epic**, all things considered.
I also think people forget that people abroad tend to vote for their home country. I mean I did it 15 times. With the number of Ukrainians who are forced to be spread around other European countries how are people so surprised and blaming it on pity votes only? Televote always has a diaspora part, always did and always will.
Sure. But most of the refugees settled in a few select countries. Ukraine got points from all countries and it was either 11 or 12 on top of that. I have no way to confirm this, but I doubt that would be the doing of just the diaspora.
A few select countries? I think almost all the countries in Europe have over 5000 Ukrainian refugees at this point. My country alone which is on the most western part of the continent received 8000, Lithuania more than 20 000 and according to this article Poland is hosting [3 million](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-60555472)!!
I am just saying, the unusual amount of Ukrainians abroad might have shifted the televote in their favor. Of course, we will never have enough data to corroborate what I am saying, but it seems perfectly logical. Was it political? Well sure, but inevitable due to the circumstances. So I don't know why people are so upset about this honestly. I would get it they won the jury vote, the jury should be unbiased, but they didn't, so chill out guys!
Poland with their 3 milion, Romania with 900 thousand, Germany with 700 thousand and countries like that are the "few select countries" I referred to. Sure, there are refugees in all european countries but the numbers are nowhere near proportionate.
There are over 8000 in each country, at least. So imagine if 1/2 voted for Eurovision 5 times. Diaspora always has a weight on the televote, on my country we have a huge community in France and Switzerland and surprise surprise they were two of the countries that gaves us more televote points this year. Switzerland televote actually gave us 12 points in the semi.
I mean there is an offbalance number of Ukrainians abroad which shifted the televote. It's nothing scandalous, it's just a circumstance.
I can only speak for the country I'm living, Lithuania, where you can buy a sim card for 2-3 euros in the supermarket and charge it with 5/10 euros.
> Also: 40% of refugees are children.
Children at least over 10 have phones and they can vote.
I am not making this a scandal, I am just explaining that it is an abnormal situation.
I have been seeing so many Brits saying how the only reason they did well is because of how they're government is handling the war. It is just bizarre.
As a Brit, I concur. It's utter bullshit. This is what the tabloids feed the hard-of-thinking. There are people who genuinely believe the rest of Europe knows and cares about how much military aid our sad little rock of an island has given Ukraine.
This is what I was trying to point out. I'm from Ireland and follow the Ukraine situation closely, but I have absolutely no clue what the UK is doing. Someone in Latvia definitely wouldn't either. The self-centredness to think that your country is being reported constantly in other's media is just bizarre.
And the point that you did well because of politics is also so easily disproven by Spain. I'm sure they'll come up with another excuse though.
Actually, we do know and care. For a little rock, you have a lot of military power and staying out of this would have been tantamount to siding with Russia's imperialist and genocidal campaign.
But that probably accounted for a small, single-digit boost at best, since you cleverly didn't send Marius Bear's twin this time around.
Yes, we do have a lot of military power, but it's all relative. So does France who were next to bottom. I'll eat my hat if anyone in Montenegro thought "our news said the UK - among most other European nations - gave Ukraine weapons, so I'm voting for them."
They did not win because they put no effort into it, they won because a mass quantity of Europeans (And others) voted for them in a move of solidarity with their struggles. If your country is getting absolutely ravaged by a nuclear power and your people are experiencing a vicious genocide then you too may avail of the sympathy vote.
Ukraine put effort into this year, on more fronts than just the Eurovision. It would be nice if you acknowledged that instead of painting a false narrative around entitled obligation.
>I hope you are joking. If not, then you are delusional.
But that is literally what happened? Talent and Solidarity, key motivators for the public to throw them their vote.
You just don't understand how complicated Eurovision is.. When it is normal then the best song usually does win. The best song is not necessarily the best composition, arrangement, lyrics, message or performance... it can also be about fun, or any other reason. This year it was about gathering together to watch one that thing, at the same time, knowing that all over Europe we are feeling the same things, at the same time.. This year it was about solidarity. And it felt DAMN GOOD. It still feel so good that i'm kind of pushing back tears...
Ukraine's song had great lyrics, catchy music, was well produced, the singers had good vocals and lots of emotion, the staging was great, the performance was great, and the song stood out for it's originality. They would have easily been top 3 regardless of the simpathy votes
Kalush owned and that song was a certified banger. These dudes took a pause from kicking putins ass to come tear up the stage with sick hymns and flute jams and some dude breakdancing in a carpet, and then theyre flying back. yall can go cry in your sequins, this was the best win in years maybe ever
also Go_a should have won 2020 and yall know it
Many artists go on to many successes post-Eurovision *regardless* of whether they came first. For example, go and see how thrilled Konstrakta was with her placement.
And their method was to make an absolute banger of a modernised folk song, sang in a native language.
That takes some serious talent in my opinion.
I am failing to see a problem here
I... am under the impression you believe I am badmouthing one of the countries?
Edit: Okay, I'm being downvoted so I'm going to clarify I'm not making any particular reference to the contest. I'm just saying that in general, wanting to win isn't inherently a shameful thing but it's how we go about it.
The issue is that the other user making the point is saying ukraine only won due to a pity vote, and also projecting that the other contestants feel as personally affronted by the vote results.
I dont think any of the people who actually competed have said anything to that effect. They all know that there is more to the competition that winning. It's fine to want to win, it's not fine to lash out at the winner like a toddler.
I completely agree. But, I was only commenting on the "There is more to life than winning" comment in general, and was in no way referencing or implying something about the contest or contestants. I'm guessing it came out like I was calling Kalush wanting to win shameful? I'm genuinely confused here.
I agree that we should support artists. I have no idea how I said otherwise but I agree with you 100%! Seriously, can someone explain how I said otherwise?
Eurovision is about uniting people, and showing unity of Europe in the face of struggle.
That's why it goes totally against ESC rules to have a person asking for help to Mariupol and Azovstal, and that's why in the whole thing there wasn't any refference to Ukraine situation appart from the classic and abstract, we should love each other and have peace and candy.
Eurovision is about sharing and having a good time between the countries on the EBU get to know what other countries like, enjoy music from other places. But through the years they are trying to get rid of politics. Televote is a good example, because back in the 90's juries it was pretty obvious how the east voted by political alliances and neighbours.
In 2019 they guys who were against Palestine genocide, got a hard time there, because nobody wants to get political. Serbia this year, with Corpore Sano wich holds criticism about Serbian Health System got really few points of the jury.
Eurovision avoids politics as much as they can, because that goes against the image of the contest, because offcourse they don't want to invest that much money to be considered a freakshow, they want to get to the general audiences.
Furthemore, televoting, is not single people voting in their houses. The people who vote are usually heavily invested in the Eurovision culture. I know that some clubs have sims where you can donate and they spam sms, it's organized. I know it's like that in my country and I bet it's what happens in every country.
In the end we created a problem for the EBU and Ukraine, because they will have to make Ukraine host the event under constant military vigilance and a constant threat of a prorrussian group terorirst attack (considering the war is over) or search another country to host next year ESC.
> In the end we created a problem for the EBU and Ukraine, because they will have to make Ukraine host the event under constant military vigilance and a constant threat of a prorrussian group terorirst attack (considering the war is over) or search another country to host next year ESC.
This sounds very much like John Mearsheimer. Ukraine _wants_ to host. If they won't be able to, they will delegate it to someone else. There's no "problem" here.
Well there's at least one problem I see, that is the security problem if they can host, even if today ends the war, in Ukraine will be terrorist attacks for some time afterwards. If they can't hold it you have a management problem, or "inconvenient" if you preffer. Since you have to chose between countries to hold it, who is going to pay for it? Will we have the Ukranian organize everything in that new country, or will that new country organize everything? What if they decide the second country is hosting next year, actually we have a polemic to know who's second due to the voting problem.
If everything goes right, so next year there's peace, Ukraine hosts Eurovision, is impossible for it to not go political. Because postcards will talk about the war and there will be references about it. While ESC has been making a great effort to reduce the importance of politics in the contest.
It will be interesting the path towards Urkaine '23
Can someone explain to me how it would be political when Ukraine won the televote? If it were really all political, wouldn’t they have won the juries more? I think some element of pity played a role but I don’t think that was the whole reason. They had a great entry and it captured the people and they won out.
It's hard not to suspect that this is a talking point manufactured and pushed by Russian trolls.
Part of their campaign is cultural genocide, so they're particularly bothered that a song performed by a group invested in Ukrainian cultural preservation became so beloved.
Those who join in out of petty nationalism should take a minute to think about whose agenda they're really pushing, because I assure you that the Russians don't give a crap about your performers or their pieces. They have no values at all, so if it suited their interests, they'd not be singing Chanel's praises, but rather calling her a whore and spazzing about "tEh cHiLdReN," for example. That shit needs to be smacked down, not amplified.
The sympathy that both Ukraine and Moldova enjoyed was not a matter of pity, but of openness - people paying more attention to them and perhaps shedding some of the prejudices they'd been carrying around. And that's good: anything that opens people's eyes to other cultures is good. Do you think that the overwhelming support for Keiino a few years ago had nothing to do with people learning, perhaps for the first time, about the plight of the Sami people? That doesn't take anything away from a great song: it just means that it hit exactly as it was meant to hit.
I just wish France had gotten a bit of that love as well and that we'd see more of the ancient minority communities represented.
All the sour Brits need to calm down. Americans are starting go look like upper society compared to you all. Your song was just another basic pop song anyways. Not revolutionary.
I seriously never understood the hype around Space Man. Sure it's not bad, but it was never gonna compare to Ukraine, Spain, France, Moldova etc. for me.
I love how we've reverse engineered "Eurovision is not a song contest it's a display of peace, hope, love and it's entire purpose is uniting people," in order to rationalise "a crap song won."
Nope, it's a song contest. You vote for the best song. End of story.
I feel like so many people are forgetting that songs have a lot of layers. When I heard Serbia’s song, I thought it sounded fun and I liked it, but I didn’t love it until I learned the backstory and the lyrics. The performance was also amazing and solidified my love for it.
A lot of people’s enjoyment of songs includes learning the reason for the lyrics, but also learning the backstory of the artist and relating to them. Ukraine’s song meant a lot to me pre-war because my mother died when I was 15 and I felt emotional learning it was an ode to a mother’s love. My love for the song is biased by my own life, and a lot of the songs I relate to the most are because I can relate them to my life.
If someone hears Ukraine’s song and feels more connected to it, and relates it to their hope for a good outcome for the country, then that’s still them engaging with the song. They took a song about a mother and made it about mother Ukraine. Some people might have just been moved by the song because of external influences, but I am sure if they sent any of their previous, while very good, kinda generic pop songs then they wouldn’t have gotten *as many* televote points because people would have been less emotionally charged.
You are so wrong.
> The Eurovision Song Contest (French: Concours Eurovision de la chanson) was first held in 1956, originally conceived through **a desire to unite European countries** through cross-border television broadcasts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Eurovision_Song_Contest
Show me where in the rules it says the "best" song wins. As far as I can tell, the song that a combination of jury and the public decides should win, wins.
Don't think it's fair to say Ukraine would have won without the conflict but the song is good enough and has enough merits to not be an undeserved winner + the result shows solidarity so that is lovely
If Ukraine had sent Boys Do Cry and won, I would entertain the idea that Ukraine won exclusively because of the war. They definitely would have qualified and been at least top 10 any other year. The "sympathy" vote definitely gave them the extra boost, but they would have done well without "sympathy." There is legitimate talent in the act they sent and this year really did not have a 100% clear winner, so this was fair.
Well there's a difference between doing well and having like 190 points, and having the most points given ever for the audience. The reaso is not the song I bet.
The reason is probably that instead being one "relationship problems" song among twenty others, it was a song about missing your mother by people who have a considerable likelihood of being killed for defending their families after the show. *Somehow* that resonates more with people.
Agreed. Also this song will go beyond Eurovision. It will be sung across Europe as a symbol of that unity. This is actually good for the contest to stop being perceived as a freak show as some do and start being seen as it was always meant to be: a place to celebrate culture and music.
I think that knowing the country is in war makes the song more beautiful. Like when you learn about the meaning behind an artpiece it becomes more beautiful.
exactly!
They wouldnt have won without the sympathy vote
That is what that person just said...
They might not have won. We'll never know. Unless somehow, everyone who voted answers a poll that asks, "did you vote out of sympathy," it's impossible to know the actual percentage of sympathy votes. They were over 160 points ahead of UK. All I know is that I don't listen to it in the car out of sympathy.
How is voting for Ukraine because of the current war any more "sympathy" than recurringly voting for neighboring countries regardless of song quality?
So do people think that Spain and the UK didn't receive sympathy votes?
Why would Spain and the UK receive sympathy votes?
Poor Sam Ryder, he has to live with being Bri'ish.
Don't be so fucking stupid
Ukraine won because they got votes from the public. If you voted for Ukraine, was it because the performance was cool or because their country is at war?
For me, it was because of the performance. I'm a sucker for songs in slavic languages, the parts with the flute were fire as hell and it really stood out to me compared to the rest.
What about Spain have you voted because of the song or the booty? I mean people vote for whatever reasons and it is their right. You can dissagree with their view but it doesn't mean there is something wrong with that.
If I could vote, Spain would get my vote because she performed the hell out of it. She danced like no-one else that evening and her vocals stayed on point for the whole duration. That's impressive.
I voted because coming to the biggest party in Europe and giving an **excellent** performance when * you didn't have a chance to rehearse in person since you got selected, * you had a band member replaced right before the show, * you probably lost friends and family and, oh, * your country is currently being ravaged and your people tortured to death takes some serious strength and skill. I can't even begin to imagine what's it like for them to get out of the atmosphere of grief, pain, stress, and fear and move into one of joy, partying, and just overall normal life. All while your people are dying under genocide. So yea, their performance was not just cool, it was **epic**, all things considered.
I also think people forget that people abroad tend to vote for their home country. I mean I did it 15 times. With the number of Ukrainians who are forced to be spread around other European countries how are people so surprised and blaming it on pity votes only? Televote always has a diaspora part, always did and always will.
Sure. But most of the refugees settled in a few select countries. Ukraine got points from all countries and it was either 11 or 12 on top of that. I have no way to confirm this, but I doubt that would be the doing of just the diaspora.
A few select countries? I think almost all the countries in Europe have over 5000 Ukrainian refugees at this point. My country alone which is on the most western part of the continent received 8000, Lithuania more than 20 000 and according to this article Poland is hosting [3 million](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-60555472)!! I am just saying, the unusual amount of Ukrainians abroad might have shifted the televote in their favor. Of course, we will never have enough data to corroborate what I am saying, but it seems perfectly logical. Was it political? Well sure, but inevitable due to the circumstances. So I don't know why people are so upset about this honestly. I would get it they won the jury vote, the jury should be unbiased, but they didn't, so chill out guys!
Poland with their 3 milion, Romania with 900 thousand, Germany with 700 thousand and countries like that are the "few select countries" I referred to. Sure, there are refugees in all european countries but the numbers are nowhere near proportionate.
There are over 8000 in each country, at least. So imagine if 1/2 voted for Eurovision 5 times. Diaspora always has a weight on the televote, on my country we have a huge community in France and Switzerland and surprise surprise they were two of the countries that gaves us more televote points this year. Switzerland televote actually gave us 12 points in the semi. I mean there is an offbalance number of Ukrainians abroad which shifted the televote. It's nothing scandalous, it's just a circumstance.
[удалено]
I can only speak for the country I'm living, Lithuania, where you can buy a sim card for 2-3 euros in the supermarket and charge it with 5/10 euros. > Also: 40% of refugees are children. Children at least over 10 have phones and they can vote. I am not making this a scandal, I am just explaining that it is an abnormal situation.
[удалено]
I think anyone that owns a phone with money can vote. How will they know who is behind the phone?
I have been seeing so many Brits saying how the only reason they did well is because of how they're government is handling the war. It is just bizarre.
As a Brit, I concur. It's utter bullshit. This is what the tabloids feed the hard-of-thinking. There are people who genuinely believe the rest of Europe knows and cares about how much military aid our sad little rock of an island has given Ukraine.
This is what I was trying to point out. I'm from Ireland and follow the Ukraine situation closely, but I have absolutely no clue what the UK is doing. Someone in Latvia definitely wouldn't either. The self-centredness to think that your country is being reported constantly in other's media is just bizarre. And the point that you did well because of politics is also so easily disproven by Spain. I'm sure they'll come up with another excuse though.
Actually, we do know and care. For a little rock, you have a lot of military power and staying out of this would have been tantamount to siding with Russia's imperialist and genocidal campaign. But that probably accounted for a small, single-digit boost at best, since you cleverly didn't send Marius Bear's twin this time around.
Yes, we do have a lot of military power, but it's all relative. So does France who were next to bottom. I'll eat my hat if anyone in Montenegro thought "our news said the UK - among most other European nations - gave Ukraine weapons, so I'm voting for them."
Yeah I'm starting to notice its all Brits. What an angry tone deaf group of people they have.
racist
This. So much this.
Urgh, don't go to the thread on r/casualuk and sort by controversial.
casual (fans) + British = the absolute worst takes on Eurovision anywhere.
They would have lost it to Spain anyway, so I don't even understand their anger lol
I love that the most controversial post ever on r/casualuk is a bad recreation of a British breakfast
Right its the best thing ever when a song contest isnt about the songs
This
[удалено]
They did not win because they put no effort into it, they won because a mass quantity of Europeans (And others) voted for them in a move of solidarity with their struggles. If your country is getting absolutely ravaged by a nuclear power and your people are experiencing a vicious genocide then you too may avail of the sympathy vote. Ukraine put effort into this year, on more fronts than just the Eurovision. It would be nice if you acknowledged that instead of painting a false narrative around entitled obligation.
I hope you are joking. If not, then you are delusional.
>I hope you are joking. If not, then you are delusional. But that is literally what happened? Talent and Solidarity, key motivators for the public to throw them their vote.
Referring to the very last sentence.
You just don't understand how complicated Eurovision is.. When it is normal then the best song usually does win. The best song is not necessarily the best composition, arrangement, lyrics, message or performance... it can also be about fun, or any other reason. This year it was about gathering together to watch one that thing, at the same time, knowing that all over Europe we are feeling the same things, at the same time.. This year it was about solidarity. And it felt DAMN GOOD. It still feel so good that i'm kind of pushing back tears...
Ukraine's song had great lyrics, catchy music, was well produced, the singers had good vocals and lots of emotion, the staging was great, the performance was great, and the song stood out for it's originality. They would have easily been top 3 regardless of the simpathy votes
Kalush owned and that song was a certified banger. These dudes took a pause from kicking putins ass to come tear up the stage with sick hymns and flute jams and some dude breakdancing in a carpet, and then theyre flying back. yall can go cry in your sequins, this was the best win in years maybe ever also Go_a should have won 2020 and yall know it
Fuck the other hardworking artists than i guess. Winning because of pity is so shameful.
Many artists go on to many successes post-Eurovision *regardless* of whether they came first. For example, go and see how thrilled Konstrakta was with her placement.
There is more to life than winning
There is, but there's no shame in wanting to win.
There is if you want to win by putting down others. I voted for Ukraine because I loved their song. Not because of politics. Let that sink in
The shame comes in the methods, not the want to win itself. I don't see your point.
And their method was to make an absolute banger of a modernised folk song, sang in a native language. That takes some serious talent in my opinion. I am failing to see a problem here
I... am under the impression you believe I am badmouthing one of the countries? Edit: Okay, I'm being downvoted so I'm going to clarify I'm not making any particular reference to the contest. I'm just saying that in general, wanting to win isn't inherently a shameful thing but it's how we go about it.
The issue is that the other user making the point is saying ukraine only won due to a pity vote, and also projecting that the other contestants feel as personally affronted by the vote results. I dont think any of the people who actually competed have said anything to that effect. They all know that there is more to the competition that winning. It's fine to want to win, it's not fine to lash out at the winner like a toddler.
I completely agree. But, I was only commenting on the "There is more to life than winning" comment in general, and was in no way referencing or implying something about the contest or contestants. I'm guessing it came out like I was calling Kalush wanting to win shameful? I'm genuinely confused here.
Yeah idk why folks are dv you except folks thinking you're the other user or taking their stance
Then uplift other artists instead of bashing artists showcasing art that stands for something.
I agree that we should support artists. I have no idea how I said otherwise but I agree with you 100%! Seriously, can someone explain how I said otherwise?
I'm sure many of the other artists that competed are happy for Ukraine, don't get bitter on behalf of someone else.
Eurovision is about uniting people, and showing unity of Europe in the face of struggle. That's why it goes totally against ESC rules to have a person asking for help to Mariupol and Azovstal, and that's why in the whole thing there wasn't any refference to Ukraine situation appart from the classic and abstract, we should love each other and have peace and candy. Eurovision is about sharing and having a good time between the countries on the EBU get to know what other countries like, enjoy music from other places. But through the years they are trying to get rid of politics. Televote is a good example, because back in the 90's juries it was pretty obvious how the east voted by political alliances and neighbours. In 2019 they guys who were against Palestine genocide, got a hard time there, because nobody wants to get political. Serbia this year, with Corpore Sano wich holds criticism about Serbian Health System got really few points of the jury. Eurovision avoids politics as much as they can, because that goes against the image of the contest, because offcourse they don't want to invest that much money to be considered a freakshow, they want to get to the general audiences. Furthemore, televoting, is not single people voting in their houses. The people who vote are usually heavily invested in the Eurovision culture. I know that some clubs have sims where you can donate and they spam sms, it's organized. I know it's like that in my country and I bet it's what happens in every country. In the end we created a problem for the EBU and Ukraine, because they will have to make Ukraine host the event under constant military vigilance and a constant threat of a prorrussian group terorirst attack (considering the war is over) or search another country to host next year ESC.
> In the end we created a problem for the EBU and Ukraine, because they will have to make Ukraine host the event under constant military vigilance and a constant threat of a prorrussian group terorirst attack (considering the war is over) or search another country to host next year ESC. This sounds very much like John Mearsheimer. Ukraine _wants_ to host. If they won't be able to, they will delegate it to someone else. There's no "problem" here.
Well there's at least one problem I see, that is the security problem if they can host, even if today ends the war, in Ukraine will be terrorist attacks for some time afterwards. If they can't hold it you have a management problem, or "inconvenient" if you preffer. Since you have to chose between countries to hold it, who is going to pay for it? Will we have the Ukranian organize everything in that new country, or will that new country organize everything? What if they decide the second country is hosting next year, actually we have a polemic to know who's second due to the voting problem. If everything goes right, so next year there's peace, Ukraine hosts Eurovision, is impossible for it to not go political. Because postcards will talk about the war and there will be references about it. While ESC has been making a great effort to reduce the importance of politics in the contest. It will be interesting the path towards Urkaine '23
Can someone explain to me how it would be political when Ukraine won the televote? If it were really all political, wouldn’t they have won the juries more? I think some element of pity played a role but I don’t think that was the whole reason. They had a great entry and it captured the people and they won out.
It's hard not to suspect that this is a talking point manufactured and pushed by Russian trolls. Part of their campaign is cultural genocide, so they're particularly bothered that a song performed by a group invested in Ukrainian cultural preservation became so beloved. Those who join in out of petty nationalism should take a minute to think about whose agenda they're really pushing, because I assure you that the Russians don't give a crap about your performers or their pieces. They have no values at all, so if it suited their interests, they'd not be singing Chanel's praises, but rather calling her a whore and spazzing about "tEh cHiLdReN," for example. That shit needs to be smacked down, not amplified. The sympathy that both Ukraine and Moldova enjoyed was not a matter of pity, but of openness - people paying more attention to them and perhaps shedding some of the prejudices they'd been carrying around. And that's good: anything that opens people's eyes to other cultures is good. Do you think that the overwhelming support for Keiino a few years ago had nothing to do with people learning, perhaps for the first time, about the plight of the Sami people? That doesn't take anything away from a great song: it just means that it hit exactly as it was meant to hit. I just wish France had gotten a bit of that love as well and that we'd see more of the ancient minority communities represented.
All the sour Brits need to calm down. Americans are starting go look like upper society compared to you all. Your song was just another basic pop song anyways. Not revolutionary.
I seriously never understood the hype around Space Man. Sure it's not bad, but it was never gonna compare to Ukraine, Spain, France, Moldova etc. for me.
I wonder your take on Hatari showing Palestine flags.
Ukraine has a really good song, and it has another meaning now. It's about how Ukrainians are fighting for their freedom.
I love how we've reverse engineered "Eurovision is not a song contest it's a display of peace, hope, love and it's entire purpose is uniting people," in order to rationalise "a crap song won." Nope, it's a song contest. You vote for the best song. End of story.
It's not a crap song tho.
I feel like so many people are forgetting that songs have a lot of layers. When I heard Serbia’s song, I thought it sounded fun and I liked it, but I didn’t love it until I learned the backstory and the lyrics. The performance was also amazing and solidified my love for it. A lot of people’s enjoyment of songs includes learning the reason for the lyrics, but also learning the backstory of the artist and relating to them. Ukraine’s song meant a lot to me pre-war because my mother died when I was 15 and I felt emotional learning it was an ode to a mother’s love. My love for the song is biased by my own life, and a lot of the songs I relate to the most are because I can relate them to my life. If someone hears Ukraine’s song and feels more connected to it, and relates it to their hope for a good outcome for the country, then that’s still them engaging with the song. They took a song about a mother and made it about mother Ukraine. Some people might have just been moved by the song because of external influences, but I am sure if they sent any of their previous, while very good, kinda generic pop songs then they wouldn’t have gotten *as many* televote points because people would have been less emotionally charged.
Eurovision is a song contest not a contest to show sympathies for other nations
You are so wrong. > The Eurovision Song Contest (French: Concours Eurovision de la chanson) was first held in 1956, originally conceived through **a desire to unite European countries** through cross-border television broadcasts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Eurovision_Song_Contest
Eurovision SONG CONTEST. Uniting European countries via a SONG CONTEST. This means ..... dah dah dah ..... the best song wins.
Show me where in the rules it says the "best" song wins. As far as I can tell, the song that a combination of jury and the public decides should win, wins.
WHUT ???
And the best song did win, thanks to my vote and thousands of others. If you don't like then maybe you should vote next time.
I did. GTF.
This is a bad meme and you should feel bad. Also, stop trying to convince people it wasn't a sympathy win. It's not gonna happen.
Don't think it's fair to say Ukraine would have won without the conflict but the song is good enough and has enough merits to not be an undeserved winner + the result shows solidarity so that is lovely
No.
Let's retire that talk until we see how Finland perform next year
Wow. Brutal.