PBS makes the call: America won't be competing in Eurovision 2014

At this rate, we might as well just dissolve the European Union too—we’re making ourselves look pretty ridiculous in there as well😁

The Champions League? Same deal there. 😁

Olivia Lee12 said:I’m calling BS. There are like 740 million people living in Europe, which would mean this total amateur is pulling in about 500 million viewers—basically almost everyone on the continent. Seems way too inflated if you ask me.

They’re watching her in Australia, Canada, Japan, and the USA too, not just in Europe!

Even if it's only 300 million, that's still huge.

Larry Walker24 said:People are watching her in Australia, Canada, Japan, and the USA—it’s not just a thing in Europe!

If 300 million people tune in, that's plenty, isn't it?

In Germany, you can find public viewings in every single gay cafe!

send from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Given that this festival became irrelevant ages ago and serves as nothing more than a massive waste of money, pulling out is a perfectly reasonable move.

Finally, a sensible decision from PBS.

Patrick Martin said:The reason you didn't watch is likely because you couldn't relate to our representative. In America, people tune into Eurovision mostly just to see how badly we're going to embarrass ourselves; we constantly pick the wrong songs and the wrong artists.
We need to raise the standards of our national selection first if we actually want to have something to hope for. We need to face reality and figure out where we're going wrong.

The fact that we consistently send poor songs and performers means absolutely nothing—every single participant in this game does the exact same thing. We aren't any better or worse than they are.

The point is that this festival lost its purpose a long time ago. It used to be an event half the country followed back in the old days when these competitions actually represented something. Today, it's nothing more than a trashy spectacle defined by songwriters competing for cheap attention. You hear a song once, and that's the end of it. The voting isn't based on logic; whoever has the most neighbors wins. That's the reality. Raising our standards, composing higher-quality music, or sending competent performers won't change a thing. Withdrawing entirely is the only logical option.

I mean, look, it’s about tradition, right? It’s that drive, that shot at glory. If we can't pull something like this off, I honestly don't know what we're doing here.
I mean, we have a massive pool of talent to draw from—it's not like we're lacking. We should have completely overhauled the whole thing, modernized the entire concept, just to give our younger artists a real window into the rest of the world.

Why aren't we just running the whole show ourselves? It would be cheaper and way more efficient. It's on us to figure out a better way to do it.

It’s essentially a solid tradition of getting all these different countries together—it’s a positive thing. In the grand scheme of things, the actual quality of the songs isn't even the main point. It would be better if they were higher caliber, sure, but it’s not some massive tragedy if they aren't. I actually think—contrary to what most people claim—that song quality is actually trending upward compared to the seventies or eighties, back when the entries were laughably bad, barring a few rare exceptions. Nowadays, a track like "Rock Me Baby" probably wouldn't even make it to the finals, let alone win. Or Ding a Dong, Digi Lu Digi Ley or Babysocks 🤣
. This, this or this might not be high art, but it is incomparably better than the old stuff. Our problem here in the States is that we spend all our time trying to figure out the perfect "formula" for Eurovision, acting like we’re mentally stuck in the eighties. We end up sending absolute garbage that nobody in Europe wants to hear—honestly, nobody even wants to hear it here at home. We should just be sending music that people actually enjoy listening to locally; at least then there’d be some value in it. And no, whenever we fail to make the finals, it’s not because of lobbying or because everyone hates us—we simply didn't earn it.
Anyway, the whole point of Eurovision is just being part of the club and participating. When you have about forty countries showing up, that’s no small feat, regardless of what anyone says. It’s much like the Olympics—which are basically the same thing, really—just a fleeting moment of entertainment where the most important thing is showing up and being part of the group for a little while. Those who want to nitpick it should just let the people who love it enjoy themselves. Why deny them that?

🙂

silverpanther13 said:It’s just like the Olympics—which, let's face it, is just transient entertainment where the main thing is showing up and being part of the crew for a moment. If people want to argue about its importance, fine, let them; why deny those who actually enjoy it the chance to participate?
🙂

I disagree.

There is a massive distinction between competing in the Olympics—where athletes participate in sports that have achieved true global significance—and some third-rate singing competition that lost its relevance decades ago. There are two very large differences.

Patrick Martin said:Look, I get it. It’s about tradition, motivation, and having a platform to succeed. If we can't manage that, I honestly don't know what we're doing.
We have more than enough talent in this country. We should have modernized the entire concept and refreshed the lineup so our younger artists actually have a window into the rest of the world.

Why don't we just organize our own thing? It would be cheaper and much more efficient. It’s on us to find a better model.

The performers themselves aren't the issue here. We tried going with Beyoncé last year, and look how that turned out. Talent is irrelevant because the whole thing is rigged by design. The voting is basically just a "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" deal based on geopolitical alliances. The winner is always whichever country has the most neighbors joining forces.

Alexander Howard18 said:The artists don't even matter at this point. We tried going with Beyoncé last year and look how that turned out. Talent doesn't mean squat because everything is just scripted by design. Basically, the voting is just a giant "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" deal based on geography-- and whoever has the most neighbors wins.

Not really, man.

Alexander Howard18 said:We gave it a shot last year with Beyoncé—so, uh, well, you saw how that turned out.

What does it actually look like when you send off a track that nobody’s even listening to back home? 🤣

The winner is obviously going to be whichever country ends up having the most neighbors. It’s just basic math at that point.

I assume you’ve already outgrown Eurovision—moving on to more sophisticated, serious music, I suppose—but let’s not get ahead of ourselves by making arbitrary judgments about what counts as "quality." Besides, how many neighbors does Turkey actually have? Or Greece, Israel, Norway... not to mention Ireland, which is surrounded by quite a few neighbors—though I’m betting you couldn't list them all if your life depended on it. 😛 How many times did they actually push it all the way to the top?

There is something fundamentally different about competing in the Olympics—it’s about stepping up to the plate in those specific athletic disciplines that have actually managed to capture a global spotlight.

Oh, please. What kind of "international significance" are we supposed to find in shooting clay pigeons? 😬

And then there’s that other thing—some third-rate song contest that lost its relevance a long time ago. It just boils down to two massive gaps.

So, what kind of weight did that competition actually carry back then compared to how things work now? To be honest—and I’m being quite serious here—everything used to feel more significant, more precious. Nowadays, everything is just... right there. You can access an entire discography with a couple of clicks on your phone, whereas before, you actually had to cross state lines or travel halfway across the country just to find a specific record. It was an ordeal. Back in the day, actors, singers, athletes—they felt like they belonged to a different world entirely. Now? You can just stroll down a street or leave a like on their Instagram post. That’s why things lose their gravity—not because the quality has dropped, but because the distance has vanished. 😉

silverpanther13 said:if we're going down that road, they might as well just dissolve the EU too—we’re making fools of ourselves there anyway😁

total 🙏

silverpanther13 said:What kind of image are you projecting when you send a song that nobody even listens to back home? 🤣

As if anyone actually listens to our other representatives' entries anyway. 😁😁 😁

I assume you've outgrown Eurovision and moved on to more sophisticated, serious music, but let's not degrade the contest with arbitrary judgments. Just how many neighbors does Turkey have? Or Greece, Israel, Norway, not to mention Ireland—which I'm sure you can't even list all the countries that have pushed them to the top 😛 .

Nope, I’ve never really made an effort to follow Eurovision personally.

You think the country with the most neighbors always wins? Fine, maybe they don't.

But they certainly don't win just because they have the best song.

Give me a break. What international significance does shooting clay pigeons actually hold? 😬

Basketball? Cycling? Tennis? Table tennis? Track and field? Water polo? Handball?

Then what kind of significance did competitions have back then compared to now? To be fair, everything used to feel more significant and precious. Now, everything is available at our fingertips via the internet; entire discographies are just a few clicks away, whereas before, you had to cross borders to find them. There was a time when actors, singers, and athletes felt like they were from another world, but now you can just scroll past them and hit "like." That's why things lose their weight. It isn't because the quality has dropped. 😉

Look, you can't realistically compare songs from Eurovision from forty years ago to the ones from a few years back. I mean, try comparing Vic Vuk, Aretha Franklin, Elvis Presley, and Frank Sinatra to the lineup we've seen lately. Femminn, Daria Kinzer, and that whole crew. We simply don't have performers anymore who are capable of commanding the respect of the entire jury and audience at once. Not 😉

The internet, you say? Sure, go ahead and imagine some guy from England, Denmark, Scandinavia, or wherever else actually going online to dig through the discography of someone like Daria Kinzer or Femminn. The era where this contest featured good, serious music is long gone.

Alexander Howard18 said:you think the country with the most neighbors always wins? fine, maybe not.

but they definitely don't win just because they have the best song.

winners from the last 13 years:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geZZ32svm9k

A wise decision.

What a total disaster ☕

It’s pretty much a settled matter—if you haven't got a clue what you're doing, don't bother trying. Besides, music—any kind of music, really, unless it's incredibly cheesy—is treated as a secondary thought over at PBS, so why would anyone expect anything more?

Brian Edwards78 said:Honestly, the first bit of actual intelligence I've seen come out of PBS in years. 🙏

As if PBS isn't just gonna pivot entirely to endless true crime marathons and courtroom drama anyway.
that's basically our future.