Semi-final 1, 2014

Here in Australia, we get our Eurovision experience distilled into one sequin-filled weekend.  So I've only just seen the first semi-final, even though Europeans would have seen it earlier in the week.

And my over-all impression is:

Meh.

I know music videos of all the songs are available well in advance of the competition, but I like to experience it "live" first, so I usually only look at the Estonian video and maybe one other before the Big Weekend.

This year's entry for Estonia struck me as being, well, nothing special.  They were okay, I just didn't particularly think they would wow the audiences enough to get through to the final - and I was right.

What I didn't know was that they would be sitting amongst a whole bunch of forgettable songs.  I honestly think that the Estonian number was probably stronger than some of the others that got through.

The Netherlands was good - I really enjoyed that one and I'm glad it got in.  Sweden wasn't bad and Aremenia had an okay song (although the singer was off-key for part of it).  I was happy to see San Marino get through this year (and I thought they had one of the better songs on the night).

The real shame was Portugal.  Their song was a) good and b) one of the only songs not in English.  For some reason the songs in English are usually just a little bit boring.  But they didn't make the cut.

In the end, though, I found myself unsuccessfully trying to remember any of the tunes an hour after the show.  All I could get was Estonia's "Amazing".  That could have been because the song actually had one of the strongest hooks in the field, or it could have been because it was the only one I'd heard twice.

In the five years I've been watching Eurovision, I think Baku has had the best set of songs.  Copenhagen is proving to be a bit boring, really.

Fortunately we have Austria tonight.  That should liven things up a bit.

Eurovision initial washdown 2012

So, I've decided to turn something I half did last year into a tradition, and take a moment to share the Eurovision songs I thought had real "legs". That is, the songs I think could actually be heard outside of the realm of Eurovision tragics and might still be remembered in a year.

Firstly, my "winner" - the song I think was actually the most 'leggie' song from the finals:



Gaitana's "Be My Guest", from the Ukraine. Man, every time I hear this song I feel like sitting up a bit straighter. It's just a fun, upbeat, happy dance number with a good hook. It's good stuff.

The other songs from the final that I thought were strong enough to become radio hits post-Eurovision were "Should've Known Better" by Denmark's Soluna Samay, "Euphoria" (which actually won) by Sweden's Loreen and "Standing Still" by Germany's Roman Lobb.

I also particularly liked the songs by France, Italy and Spain, but in terms of "this might still pop into my head in a year's time, and I won't be annoyed by it being there", those were my top picks.

Sadly, Jedward's "Waterline" will probably also pop into my head on a regular basis, even though I thought it was a bit weak.  Was it just me, or did Jedward seem a little odd this year?  Last year it was like they were hyped up on some sort of substance, this year it seemed more like they were going through the motions.  One of them looked like he had resigned to being a hyperactive git for a living, the other one looked like someone was standing behind him with a gun muttering "I said, dance!" in a menacing voice.

I loved the Estonian song, "Kuula", by Ott Lepland, but as it is in Estonian I think it isn't likely to get much airplay outside of Finno-Ugric speaking countries.

As for the songs that didn't make it out of the semi-finals? There's always a couple I thought were better than some of the songs that did make it through, but this time around the only one I really missed was "You and Me" by the Netherlands' Joan Franka. It was a daft song, but I liked the music. Latvia's "Beautiful Song" by Anmary would have been better if it was less about winning Eurovision - a different spin on the song would have done it a world of favours, I think.

So, there you have it. While I think the winning song had some legs, my personal favourite for this year was "Be My Guest" from the Ukraine.  Will it still be my "winner" by the time the next Eurovision contest rolls around?  Who knows?

What for and sentence structure

By the way, it occurred to me that everyone involved in the entire selection process for Latvia was apparently unaware that their 2010 entrant to Eurovision was using noticeably poor sentence structure in her song.

So, just a heads up for anyone who, like the Latvian Eurovision committee, thinks you can start an English question with the phrase "what for":

You can't.

"What for" always splits on either side of the full question:

"What is this axe for?"
"What did you do that for?"
"What are we living for?"

It's a corruption of "for what purpose" or "for what reason". You could start a question with "for what reason" (in fact, if you wanted to be completely correct, you probably should start the question that way), but it would sound pretty dorky:

"For what reason are we living?"

Dorky though it may be, that would still sound miles better than "what for are we living?"

"For what reason are we living?" sounds overly formal and slightly unnatural in modern usage. "What for are we living?" is just wrong.

Where you get "what for" together at the beginning of a question is when it is the entire question.

"Can you see me in my office after lunch?"
"What for?"

You can't see them, but there are words between the "what" and "for" in that example. The response is short for "what do you want to see me for?" Or, to be extra formal and correct: "For what purpose would you like to see me?"

By rights, the question should really be "for what?"

"Can you see me in my office after lunch?"
"For what?"

But, in modern English colloquial usage, we tend to go with "what for" - you just can't start a sentence that way.

Why? Quite frankly, only Mr God knows why, but if you aren't sure how to use "what for", might I suggest that you simply don't? The single word "why" works just as well, and avoids all sorts of value judgements regarding correct grammatical structures.

"Why is this axe here?"
"Why did you do that?"
"Why are we living?"

Why, indeed?

Still makes me laugh

She looks so earnest. She sounds so ridiculous. I just love the way the tears well up in her eyes as she says "I ask my uncle Joe, but he doesn't speak", and the way she says "what for do people live until they die?" as though the question really means something.