I smell a rat. He suddenly throws this powerful voiced 21 year old in at the last second of the show. I'd lay odds that she's the winner already.

mikemacca wrote:
I smell a rat. He suddenly throws this powerful voiced 21 year old in at the last second of the show. I'd lay odds that she's the winner already.

That's no bad thing frankly. The reality TV element of this show is pointless if we're serious about choosing a winning performer, rather than chasing TV ratings. He should have just chosen a first rate performer from the west end and left it at that.

I only caught the first 15 minutes before watching Demons (will watch the rest on iPlayer) but did spot myself in a Katrina clip (bet they didn't notice that)...

JK2006 wrote:
I only caught the first 15 minutes before watching Demons (will watch the rest on iPlayer) but did spot myself in a Katrina clip (bet they didn't notice that)...

They could do with you in the whole show rather than the farce they have

A dated shouting ballad by an unknown singer will do absolutely nothing in Eurovision and let's face it that is exactly what we're going to get.

mikemacca wrote:
I smell a rat. He suddenly throws this powerful voiced 21 year old in at the last second of the show. I'd lay odds that she's the winner already.
Yes, that's certainly how it looked. She's clearly the one the BBC wants, hideously trilling and warbling as she was. Another failure awaits.

There were a couple of singers featured who just might have had what it took to make the top ten with the right song (Victor and Katie, I think they were called), but they were both rejected. As for those feckin eejit twins who made it, I was seriously considering how I might be able to kidnap them and lock them in a box until 11pm 16/05/09, before I realised Eurovision isn't worth doing a stretch for.

If UK wins Eurovision with any of those singers, I'll eat my hat...and my shoes...and one of my legs.

Haven't most Eurovision winners over the years been unknowns?

Have to admit I didn't even know this show was on last night. We were in a Poirot mood so tuned into ITV3.

Andrew's views...

www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-11...reality-TV-show.html

I never believed in the importance of the performer until the best song I ever picked for Eurovision - Just A Little Bit - died because Gina G wasn't really a performer. So we then combined a great performer (Katrina) with a good song (Love Shine A Light) and won.

It is important to remember the visual but not to be overwhelmed by it.

It is a TV contest after all - and most voters only get to see the performance once, so the visual does matter, but the tendency for TV executives (and stage producers) is to allow that to dominate the selection process where it needs to be no more than 50%.

...plumber and hedgetrimmer required.

If UK wins it with ANY singer or ANY song in the next ten years, I'd eat my mother.

Everyone hates us now, though not as much as the Americans.

Blame Blair and the war in Iraq.

Well, you could be right, Pete, but I've been reserving judgement on that for many years. It cannot be tested until we enter a good performer with a song actually worth voting for and this hasn't happened since 2002 when UK finished third anyway.

JK, I agree with your last post. There is no substitute for an experienced and reliable singer. A great voice covers a multitude of sins at Eurovision. Of course the visual is important with phone votes, but this does not have to mean the looks of the performers. It is better achieved with the visual impact of the performance- the staging, lighting, dance routine, gimmicks (with extreme caution), costumes, mood or whatever is suitable for the style of the song.

Post IRAQ we could have the Beatles on this competition and still come bottom.

This is the only time the rest of Europe can voice their opinion about the UK being Bush's/Obama's poodle - and they do so with the famous NIL POINTS.

Sir Andrew is doing this for the money and he does not really care. That is why I am watching DEMONS and then judging the song when it is finally unveiled from my own point of view.

It is totally pointless and a waste of TAXPAYERS money in my view. The BBC could spend the money on launching a new TOTP with interactive elements on BBC 3 or 4 to follow.

E.G TOP OF THE POPS on MONDAY NIGHTS 7p.m. - 8p.m. before EASTENDERS followed by TOTP confidential at 8.30p.m. after EASTENDERS on 4 whilst Panorama sweeps up the fuddies who dont like music.

This would be great programming on a night of the week where the BBC has struggled with regional programmes which could now go back to Tuesdays.

This would be a better use of the money rather than paying £5 million to Sir Andrew.

In the show the Graham Norton narrator said something like "Andrew felt there were a lot of talented girl singers so put some together". Anyway, one of these 'put together girls' looks like Nicola Ward. Nicola left Pop Stars-The Rivals (Girls' Aloud show) because she did not want to pose in a bikini shoot. She went on to be in R&B duo Cushh and seemed to be rammed in to a girl band on this show. Incidently when she left Pop Stars she was dating a millionaire, since linked to actor Colin Farrell. Talented singer though and pretty too.

France do so appallingly given their opposition to the war over there.

We just don't take it seriously and are blind to the fact that other countries send good songs and renowned singers from their region.

We send rubbish songs and Z-division artists these days.

Demons crushed the first Eurovision contest show in the ratings.

I'm not surprised, as they have turned Eurovision into X Factor and that has only just finished on ITV.

I didn't think Andy Abraham's effort was that bad, certainly not a winner, but deserved more points.

However, Anthony and JK's opinion's are spot-on, as critics alike have been saying if the songs good enough it would win the competition or at least stand a chance. Wasn't 2002's entrant Jessica Garlick?

I still hope that Andrew Lloyd Webber finds a winner though.

Yes, Mike, Jessica Garlick singing "Come Back". She isn't a world beater, but she gave a competent performance with a nice strong ballad. Just a little bit of class was all it needed for a decent placing.

I too hope Lloyd Webber makes a success of it, though I have enormous reservations. Top ten would be great. I wouldn't want a win as I like my annual jolly to be abroad! Not that I need have too many concerns about that, I fear.

Well I've watched the show now on iPlayer (irritating that you cannot watch iPlayer abroad) and I do wish Andrew well but I have to say - I've written several hits myself but I doubt if I could do it today and how many decades since Andrew last wrote a hit?

I like to think that some of my more recent compositions (as in Vile Pervert or Earth To King) as strong tunes today - but none of them are hits (yet).

That's why MY quest was to find a current topical hit song. The performer is less important - but the latest BBC quest seems to be concentrating on the singer, not the song.

Mistake. I think.

I would say the song and performer are important in equal measure. I have seen good songs with mediocre performers over achieve at Eurovision, and also the reverse.

From the BBC's viewpoint, they are not making a mistake, because no doubt they think the song will take care of itself with Lloyd Webber as composer. If they are right, then there is nothing wrong with the format, except I think they overlooked a couple of singers.

The crux is your point about whether Andrew is still able to produce something which hits the right note with the viewers of 2009.

Years ago (1964) three little public school boys sat outside promotion man Tony Hall's office at Decca in Great Marlborough Street, desperate for advice.

They were JK (Charterhouse), Tim Rice (Lancing) and Andrew Lloyd Webber (Westminster).

We've been friends ever since (Tim was kindly a crippled character witness at my Old Bailey trial - he'd broken his leg playing cricket).

I remember begging the BBC, when I took over Eurovision in 1995, to allow me to do a series of shows to find our entry. They rejected the concept out of hand.

Now, 14 years later, when everyone else does it, they adopt the tired old format.

I involved the public in phone votes. Tired idea now; original and clever then.

I find Your Country Needs You to be derivative and predictable and unoriginal - I wish it the best of luck but I spy no inspiration.

Mind you, getting Diane Warren to write the lyrics is a wise move (though it rather makes the nationality issue look odd).

Yes good point JK, don't the rules stipulate that the writers have to be British at least, or has that changed now?