Network member Peter Rehberg offers this overview and account of yesterday morning’s session:

„Eurovision as  a TV-Event“, May 12 9:30 – 11.30 AM,

Fachhochschule Düsseldorf:

Panelists:

Prof. Dr. Lars Rademacher (MHMK Munich)

Ivana Dragila (Magazine «Musikmarkt»)

Tim Frühling (Commentator ESC 2009)

Prof. Dr. Susanne Binas-Preisendörfer (University Oldenburg)

Bianca Shomburg (Participant ESC 1997)

Moderation:

Prof. Dr. Martin Lücke (MHMK Munich)

Dr. Irving Wolther («Doctor Eurovision»)

The moderators prepared 6 questions for the panelists:

1. Question: Is the Eurovision Song Contest a Music competition?

Rademacher said ESC is a competition between nations without being militaristic, Shomburg calls the event just „crazy“, Bina-Preisendörfer thinks ESC  is somthing „cultic games“ and compares it to antiquity. Wolther then raises the question, what the difference between ESC and other casting shows is. Bina-Preisendörfer emphasizes the „historic routine“ of the event and the function of rituals to filter information which in contemporary media societies seems to be especially necessary. Frühling says, that the music itself is secondary, which according to Bina-Preisendörfer is always the case for the genre of popular music where music is the medium for some other meaning – a screen of projection. Shomburg reminds us, that Eurovision first and foremost is a comeptition of composers, not performers, and Wolther agrees that the status of music at the comepttion is being perceived as ambivalent in a way. The German public broadcaster ARD, for instance, never really feels comfortable with Eurovision as a musical event, which brings Wolther to the question, whether the songs might simply be not good enough. Frühling agrees that in Germany the contest has a reputation of being „uncool“ and that there are many prejudices against Eurovision. Despite these prejudices, however, it was possible to establish „Lena“ as a brand in Germany and thus she also triggered a more general interest in the competition. Frühling brings up the larger question, why some countries have more of an interest in Eurovision – Malta, Greece – than others. One possible answer: For smaller countries like Malta it is almost impossible to succeed in other competitions like World Cup or Olympics, therefore they have a unproportionally high chance to do good at ESC. Finally Bina-Preisendörfer points out that one of the most exciting  things about Eurovision is the voting chart, which, according to her, with ist calculations and distinctions of winners and losers, visualizes the principle of capitalism as such like a bank statement.

2. Question: What is the position of the artist in the context of Eurovision as a „media-machinery“?

Shomburg who represented Germany in 1997 with the Ralph-Siegel-Song „Zeit“ recalls that Siegel decided upon every little detail, each movement and the costume, she didn’t have a say but was a complete product of Siegel, „I couldn’t be myself“ she says „I was in my early twenties and I was supposed to act as an old woman on stage!“. Rademacher asks why Lena, in distinction to last year, this year comes across as so „artificial“. Lena remains the topic of discussion: Frühling believes that Lena knew from the start who she was and what she wanted, she never was „natural“, she was „shaped“ by Raab but not „made“ by him. Bina-Preisendörfer claims that Lena is staging herself as a brand like her generation is trained to do by YouTube and social media. Shomburg adds, that from this perspective in difference to Lena she herself really was a pre-casting-show phenomenon. Bina-Preisendörfer differentiates, with respect to Lena, being a YouTube kid doesn’t mean you’re indifferent to the emotional impact of stardom, but rather growing up with new media means that one is raised with the idea of eventually having a break-through and becoming a star oneself.

3. Question: Is it still true that the interest of national broadcasters has priority over commercial interests at the ESC?

A member from the audience tells us, that apparently the cost for Eurovision in Düsseldorf was about 20 mio Euros of which the city of Düsseldorf paid 7,8 Mio and the NDR/ARD, the public German broadcaster, 12,1 Mio. Included in this are the 2,1 Mio fort he construction of a mobile footbal stadion for the local soccer club „Fortuna Düsseldorf“ since their home-stadion, the arena, was blocked for ESC already several weeks prior to the event. He explains again, that Berlin was decided against as a location for ESC since the event would have been too expensive for the city, which is a much more poor Bundesland (regional state) than Nordrhine-Westphalia, the state of Düsseldorf, for instance and their local public braodcaster, WDR. Given the federal system of the German broadcasting system thus only the larger local stations like WDR or NDR would be economically able to host the ESC. Frühling reminds us, that apparently the German broadcasting system is the largest, worldwide. Still, there are complains about the costs in Germany, since a consiousness of „representation“ for Eurovision is lacking. Dragila agrees that also the German music industry has no interest in the competition. In comparison: around 4000 entries are being composed for the Swedish national pre-selection „Melodienfestival“ alone. A turkish guy from the audience gives as an example fort he strong Turkish interest in Eurovision that the Turkish superstar Tarkan was offered millions just to represent Turkey at Eurovision. This leads to a discussion of the distinction between „low“ and „high“ culture in Germany, where money is being spent for the opera festival in Bayreuth but not so easily for Eurovision, Rademacher says as an academic sometimes you are still being dismissed for doing Eurovision research.

4. Question: The EBU doesn’t allow for political content at the ESC. But can Eurovision really be an unpolitical event?

Shomburg says that even before we had a discussion about bloc-voting, cultural proximities between countries always matterd in Eurovision. Frühling believes that Turkey and other countries that have been quite successful in the past couple of years use Eurovision as a showcase to prove: look we are also part of Europe! Wolther remarks that the discourse on bloc-voting itself is politically motivated. Frühling thinks one shouldn’t emphasize the issue of bloc-voting too much: neighboring countries are voting for each other, that’s all there is to it. The question came up, if bloc- or neighboring-voting decides about winning eurovision, how was it possible for Lena to win last year? Frühling claims, that usually German entrys are either super-serious or pure carnival and there is not much in between. From this perspective Lena with her „Björk-like-character“ was a bit of a surprise. Also, with her a younger generation became attracted to Eurovision.

5. Question: How did the German self-perception changed after Nicole’s victory and how did it change after Lena?

There was not so much of a discussion here. The question is whether a political shift is taking place, also with Lena’s victory and whether popular music will have more support in Germany in the future.

6. Question: Can Eurovision be an instrument to produce an European consciousness?

Rademacher sees music optimistically as a „paneuropean language“. Binas-Preisendörfer thinks that Europe cannot be culturally pinned down to one common idea, also, Eurovision is about the voyeurism, to look at the different, exotic, or oriental. European identity in this context exists only negatively as the negation of a national identity. This is also being reflected in the formula quite often applied at Eurovision, namely, to negotiate national folklore with global pop.

It has also been discussed in which ways national broadcasters should promote Eurovision more as a European event and not just as a national task, isn’t that part of their responsibility? It has been pointed out that the Europeaness of the event is also being performed on the internet. Binas-Preisendörfer finally points out that one shouldn’t overload Eurovision with too many expectations.