Matthew eats… Eurovision Song Contest 2024

This is normally the post I look most forward to writing. My thoughts on a joyful four hours where I can bemoan the UK at being rubbish, debate the merits of the winner and just generally review whatever has occurred on the night.

But this year is different for obvious reasons. Firstly, there is the cloud over Israel’s participation. I initially thought many months back the EBU had taken the right decision allowing them to compete. But over time I came to question this. There was the attempt to send a deliberately provocative song, that was eventually watered down. Then there have been persistent rumours that the delegation had been unpleasant in their conduct to other delegations that had openly criticised them being allowed to compete. On balance, whilst Israel should have been allowed to compete, it perhaps would make sense know for everyone involved to ask whether it is the best thing in the long run for anyone involved to allow this to be repeated.

Then there was the Netherlands’ disqualification following an altercation with a member of the production team. It says something about how toxic the environment was this year that the rumour mill immediately sought to blame Israel. Personally, though I find it regretful, I do think that the disqualification was the right thing to do. If the act was indeed engaged in threatening behaviour then that is a breach of the rules, and it would be worse for them to have carried on and perhaps won and then be found guilty then to be removed and later found innocent.

So what about the show itself? Well, overall it was brilliant to see the breadth of genres. We seem to have moved far on from ballads and eurodance being all that is available with the odd token rock song. Ireland, Croatia and Switzerland in particular all learnt how to do ‘different’ right. Less so Norway and Finland. The former were handsomely rewarded with both healthy jury and public vote scores. Switzerland were deserving winners in my view – easily the best voice on the night, an excellently constructed song and clever staging.

The biggest shocks were the big votes for Ukraine and Israel. Yes, there’s sympathy voting, but I am tiring of a certain class of viewer failing to actually reward good songs. Although in terms of Israel, it perhaps shows that underneath a progressive veneer, the average viewer is still quite conservative and not interested in the plight of Gaza the way younger generations might wish them to be.

And the UK? Well, we came 18th, which is several places higher than last year, thanks to a jury score that fell for the pop hook. But no viewer votes. Again, in hindsight staging the song around a homoerotic encounter in a men’s locker room in space was not the strongest of ideas when you are pitching to an audience that consider Eurovision to be a family show (although no such issues with scantily clad women or hetero men dancing suggestively). The LGBT audience were busy rallying behind Switzerland and Ireland anyway.

Plus, Olly’s voice was not the best. It was very much a performance that seemed to be focused on dancing and the bells and whistles, rather than showing any vocal prowess. With so many countries delivering something close to flawless (again Switzerland, but also France, Germany and Latvia) you can’t get away with those kind of wobbles.

But there is hope. The song was so nearly there. The vocals were not a complete disaster. The staging showed the UK can be bold. If we can build on this we can climb the leaderboard. That’s something to hope for in a difficult time for the contest.

Matthew eats… Eurovision Song Contest 2023

The circus has rolled out of town once more. So thus, my yearly review must be produced. Once more I will be offering my thoughts on the show in general, if the right song one, and what the UK must do better to be competitive (although the last one was unnecessary last year).

So to the show itself. I personally think the BBC executed the show wonderfully. The crowd was one of the most engaged I’ve heard in years, helped by being in Liverpool, a party capital. The hosts actually fizzed with chemistry and even the obligatory awkward filler moments were a cut above the usual. Hannah Waddingham proved to be a breakout star, holding everything together with a sense of humour and British fortitude. One of the most delightful moments came when Graham Norton lost patience with Iceland’s spokesperson and branded him ‘the slowest stripper ever’. Her corpsing was joyous.

I also loved the postcards. Part of this was the beautiful notion of tying together Ukraine, UK and the artist’s home country as a display of unity. The other part though was it just letting me indulge my love of geography.

As for the songs; well this year we felt spoilt in terms of big personality numbers. Moldova and Croatia brought varying degrees of oddness and charm. France gave us refined charm. Portugal lived their Moulin Rouge fantasy. Belgium took us to the clubs circa 1992. Norway scored the soundtrack to the next Game of Thrones prequel. All delightful in their own way.

But it was Finland who stole the show. It was quintessential Eurovision. The performer was an oddity but engaging with a signature fashion choice and haircut. The staging was powerful yet never overtook the song. And the song itself was a joyous mix of genres, slipping from angry techno-rap in the first half before exploding into a party anthem. The lyrics apparently detail the adventures you have on a night out. It didn’t matter, you were sold to it anyway.

So why instead of this package of near perfection did Sweden win with one the blandest most middle-of-the road numbers? The juries. What chance did Finland have against such a peerless vocal. It was Goliath destroying David through the medium of c#. But that doesn’t mean I join the mob wanting an end to the jury system. I remember the horrors of the mid-00’s, where their seemed to be a battle to out gimmick each other and quality went out the window. Just let the juries at least partially vote on fun factor, rather than the rather staid constraints they have now.

Besides, the juries give us more points. And we needed them. Our act was disappointing in the context of it all. It may have been sound issues, it may have been bad camera angles, it may have been an overly complex song. Whatever it was, we were a whimper on a night of bangs.

But the fixes are easy. We did it just last year in fact. Write a decent song with excellent vocals and well constructed staging and we have a shot. We always did. If we stick to that formula a new golden era dawns for us.

Matthew eats… Eurovision Song Contest 2021

It felt strange last year not being able to talk about Eurovision properly. I mean, yes, we had the substitute shows, but they didn’t match the drama or fun that the full contest itself brings. And boy, did it.

So where to begin? Well for a start, there definitely seemed to be a theme, particularly among the Balkan and former Soviet states of sending dance/r’n’b hybrid song. Cyprus, Greece, Moldova, San Marino and Serbia all went down this path with varying degrees of quality (Cyprus nailing it, Serbia very much not for instance). Throw in the female empowerment anthems of Malta, Russia, Israel and Azerbaijan and you got a night that risked going samey. It didn’t help that a lot of the acts seemed to go for red or purple/magenta as their primary colour palette.

This meant that any change of pace was welcome. Well, kind of. I liked the metal of Finland, the eccentricity of Iceland and the cool vibe of Portugal, and even the sparse Bulgaria and France charmed me. I was less keen on the slightly cartoony Germany and bland pop of Norway and Sweden. I also found the virtue signalling of the Netherlands tiresome, whilst Ukraine felt like popping an e at the world’s creepiest folk festival.

My personal favourite was Lithuania, which despite hovering towards the aforementioned colour palettes managed to be distinct enough. It was upbeat yet melancholy in its lyrics, making it sound very contemporary and giving it an air of Hot Chip.

Meanwhile, Italy’s win, although predicted by the bookies, still felt like a surprise. I didn’t dislike the song, and I always believe you shouldn’t stereotype what an Eurovision song is, but I couldn’t grasp the support for it. Surely not enough people knew Italian to understand the lyrics? And although the staging suited the song, for me it wasn’t overly memorable. But clearly it connected somewhere, and at least it puts the ‘Big 5 can’t win’ theory to bed.

And what about us in the UK? Well, sadly the nil points was not a surprise. The song was solid but badly song, especially in the verses. His outfit was hideous. The strongest aspect was the staging, which suggested some effort, but was ultimately wasted.

We seem to be reluctant to learn lessons from previous mistakes here. The formula to do well is actually simple – high-quality song, sung sincerely with complementary staging. You don’t need someone mega-connected or a gimmick. Just get the basics right and build from there. We may be howling about the unfairness of the result, but this year we really do only have ourselves to blame.

Matthew eats… The Eurovision Song Contest 2019

It is that time again where I air my thoughts on the results of Eurovision Song Contest. It was a year of contrasting musical styles, with the traditional ballads, dancefloor bangers and ethno-pop meeting pop opera and BDSM techno-punk. Oh, and Madonna turned up.

In fact, let’s start with her. You would think after being in the industry for nearly 40 years she would know how to make chat with TV hosts, but no. Her stilted conversation with the poor presenter was the most awkward moment of the night. Until that is we got to her actual performance. Barely a note was in tune and was actually mind-numbingly dull. A waste of 10 minutes that could have been given to hurrying the vote along so we could have gone to bed before midnight.

Honestly, most of the half-time entertainment was sub-par. Thank god for Verka, who should be a feature every year. At least give him a five-minute cabaret slot at some point.

The songs themselves were all very middle of the road in terms of quality. Bar a weirdly cold Slovenia and an overly saccharine Germany (and the bizarre world of San Marino) there were very few clangers, but also very little genuine quality. Norway was a personal favourite of mine, for actually bringing a bit of a tune and some energy. Azerbaijan was another high point and I have to reluctantly give some credit to Russia.

The biggest talking point was, of course, Iceland. The song itself was deliciously OTT, as was the staging. How they got away with something bordering on BDSM porn is beyond me (we were one ball gag away from an 18 rating), but I’m glad they did. Quite what Europe’s take on their Palestine protest during the voting will be is another matter. It’s interesting Madonna got away with her political statement with the crowd but not them.

The Netherlands were victors. It wasn’t a surprise though. Although not a personal favourite of mine, it obviously had a quality to it that would chime with juries and public alike. It is yet more proof that sincerity, regardless of genre of song, is the biggest vote winner. If you can sell the story of your song to the audience, you are going to be in the running to win.

Which brings me to the UK. Whilst the song was poor and the staging no better, last felt harsh when you consider some of the other songs out there. But it did lack anything to make it sound special. It takes more than a good voice. There will always be a debate as to if internal selection or public is the way forward, but there needs to be quality to begin with.

Still, there’s always next year. Amsterdam here we come!

Matthew eats… Eurovision: You Decide

Some mysteries are easier to solve than others. I for one wouldn’t want to unpick any of those impossible maths challenges. I can however solve the case of the UK’s terrible run at Eurovision.

All the clues are there, but the problem is too many people look at the symptom, the grand final in May, rather than the cause, which in this case is the national selection process, the final of which occurred on Friday. I present to you, the criminal that is Eurovision: You Decide.

The format this year was a little different from normal, with six acts divided into pairs and having a song each. In other words, three songs in two different styles. In theory this is a good idea, as you can pair up the arrangement and the singer better to the song. It does prevent self-written songs though, with all the tracks produced by committee.

Of course, that relies on the three songs being quality to begin with. I don’t think any of them were. ‘Freaks’ was infuriatingly catchy but had awful lyrics. ‘Sweet Lies’ never really hit top gear as either a dance track or a ballad. ‘Bigger than Us’ was the cheesiest of cheese-fests. A stronger performer on all three was fairly self-evident, although if true justice occurred the public would have been able to vote on both versions of ‘Bigger than Us’ and ‘Freaks’ eliminated straight away.

Michael Rice’s take on ‘Bigger than Us’ was the best vocal of the night and an understandable winner. It fails the charisma test though. Some proper performance arts training will help, as will someone teaching him how to keep the microphone in the right place at all times. There is too much arm flailing in the choreography at present and a cruel draw in the final will guarantee us last place.

In some respects the problems run deeper than the songs though. The mocking tone we associate with Eurovision is present here. There is an amateur hour standard of production, with Mel Gidroyc and Mans Zemerlow frequently looking at the wrong camera and Gidroyc even at one point wandering off the set. I doubt you would see such sloppiness on any of the Scandinavian selection shows.

It is this feeling we are taking it as a joke that costs us every year. We can send whatever song we like, but if it is done with a sneer or a giggle we will get punished.

I argue we need to promote Rylan Clarke-Neal from head judge to presenter (he is surprisingly professional for a reality TV graduate). I also think that as good as the matching exercise was in theory, it didn’t work in practice. If they want a twist, make is self-written songs only. This encourages the performers to sing sincerely, a common theme amongst previous winners. And make the whole thing more professional. If even all that fails to produce a result, then we may need to make a second exit from Europe.

Matthew eats… Eurovision Song Contest 2018

We have come to that time of year again where I offer my thoughts on the Eurovision Song Contest. This year felt like a bit of an odd one. A lot of slow ballads and weak mid-tempo songs in the first half, lifted only by the cheesy Norway and distinctly odd Ukraine, with a second half filled with party bangers and eccentricities.

It was the slow start for the show that made me struggle more to enjoy it this year than normal, blandness topped with mediocrity being the theme. Of course, interest was piqued with the stage invasion during the UK’s song. One of these seems to happen a year now – if it’s not an onstage protest we get a member of the crowd mooning. Security is clearly a bit lax at this event.

The voting system also highlighted massive disparities in terms of what the critics want and what the public loves. The juries rewarded tight pop efforts from Austria and Sweden and dismissed the theatrics of Ukraine and the earnest folksy Denmark, both of which got more love from the viewers. The former I could understand, as it proved to be one of the high points of staging. The latter less so. It takes more than a beard for me to buy into some Viking backstory.

But did the right song win? Well, in my opinion, yes. TOY – the Israeli entrant – was one of the other masterclasses in staging, although one that was driven by the performer rather than the props. Netta worked the arena and the audience at home, no mean feat considering the stakes. The song also managed the feat of being up tempo but still with a message, in this case female empowerment. There have been grumblings of cultural appropriation with her geisha styling, but if we are to celebrate coming together as one, shouldn’t we be prepared to incorporate such things without fear of criticism? Or is that not woke enough?

I also enjoyed Moldova, despite Graham Norton’s criticisms of it. If you are going to bring the novelty, do it with conviction. It was also one of the few performances to really throw everything into the pot – props, choreography, a storyline – what more could you want? Likewise, Finland was too harshly judged by jury and viewer alike.

And finally, what about us? Well, I found the song to be beige in musical form. The staging was little better. The invasion probably saved us from being forgotten and SuRie’s admirable fortitude picked us a few sympathy votes that saved us from last place. But we wouldn’t need that if the song was stronger to begin with.

Which brings us to how we go about doing better next year. Two things for me. Firstly, the song writing by committee has to stop. Some of the best songs over the last few years have only written by one or two people, preferably the artist themselves or someone close to them. Second, there needs to be more of an investment from the record industry as a whole – genuine up-and-coming acts need to be scouted. An undiscovered talent who writes their own material seems to be the perfect act for Eurovision. But, until next year, that is that.