Listen to this episode and find out more about the topics therein at theallusionist.org/eurovision2
This is the Allusionist, in which I, Helen Zaltzman, award language douze points.
This is the second half of our two-part excursion into the language of the Eurovision Song Contest, whose bespangled all-singing some-dancing surface belies the linguistic squabbles, politicking and upsets beneath. You don’t even have to have seen the contest before for this podcast to be a worthwhile use of your time, but do treat yourself to some online clips of the Eurovisionary greats. The final of the 2023 contest is May 13th and why don’t you watch it with me and your fellow Allusionauts? We’ll be gathered in the Allusioverse Discord to chat throughout, and it’ll be lovely to have you along; join us at theallusionist.org/donate.
On with the show.
HZ: Previously on the Eurovisionallusionist: in 1956 the European Broadcasting Union or EBU, a body made up of state broadcasters of various different European countries, started the annual televisual event the Eurovision Song Contest, in which each competing country performs an original song — and the rules have changed many times: countries had to perform in one of their official national languages; then countries could perform in any language; then too many were choosing English so the rule was restored that countries had to perform in their official national languages; then English-language songs kept winning in the 1990s; the compulsory national language rule was taken away again; and now countries can perform in whichever language they like - but that is still often English.
DEAN VULETIC: It's very interesting to see what they chose in the past and what they choose now.
HZ: Was it a disadvantage if you only had one national language, like less choice?
DEAN VULETIC: I wouldn't say it was a disadvantage; I would say that countries which have multiple national languages, such as Switzerland and Belgium, they would tend to go for the romance languages - Italian and French in their cases. But we can see that in recent years, these countries have tended to go for English as sort of a compromise language among the different national groups.
HZ: As in Eurovisionallusionist part 1, we are joined by historian Dean Vuletic, author of Postwar Europe and the Eurovision Song Contest, the world's first scholarly study on the history of the Eurovision Song Contest.
HZ: The choice of which national language to use if you had multiple could be very politically heated.
DEAN VULETIC: Definitely. When we look at a country like Yugoslavia, which had Serbo-Croatian, Slovenian and Macedonian as its official languages, generally the variant that was opted for was Serbo-Croatian, and especially its Croatian standard, because that was the center of the popular music industry in Yugoslavia. Albanian, for example, even though it was the main language in Kosovo and was represented in Yugoslavia's national selections for Eurovision, never managed to make it through; nor did Macedonian, even though Macedonian was an official language of Yugoslavia at the time. So there was a lot of political controversy surrounding the domination of Croatian entries in the 1980s, especially when the Federation began to disintegrate in the early 1990s.
And in 1992, there were accusations made against the government of Slobodan Milošević that it had rigged Yugoslavia's national selection in order to ensure the win of a Serbian singer, with the Serbian side responding that Croatian entries had dominated Yugoslavia's representation in Eurovision for so long that it was time for a Serbian entry to participate - and an entry of course in the Serbian variant of what was known then as the Serbo-Croatian language. So there were a lot of political controversies.
And also in the 1980s in Yugoslavia, one of the key arguments of the movement in Slovenia, which eventually led to it becoming independent from Yugoslavia, was that the Slovenian language was in an inferior position regarding Serbo Croatian, even though it was an official language in Yugoslavia, so that Serbo Croatian was too dominant in the federation. And this was also evident in Yugoslavia's Eurovision entries where, you know, the Slovenes really were marginalized. So, yes, the linguistic politics in these federations certainly also did have an effect on the Eurovision entries. There are lots of economic, cultural and political factors that can decide which language will be most represented in a country's entries, even when it has various national languages.
HZ: Azerbaijan: the only country never to have entered in its national language.
DEAN VULETIC: Correct.
HZ: Could be this year.
DEAN VULETIC: Errrr, I doubt it, because the Azerbaijani government has been very ambitious in Azerbaijan’s Eurovision entries, in using them as a tool of soft power and cultural diplomacy. It has spent a lot of money in getting well-known songwriters and composers from across Europe to produce pop hits that could really win Eurovision. And of course, this means hits in English. And once Azerbaijan did win Eurovision in 2011 and went on to host the most expensive Eurovision ever in Baku. So Eurovision is also popular among dictators as a tool of cultural diplomacy - or as a tool for whitewashing their human rights and democratic records.
HZ: Excuse the gear shift; I could not think of a way to segue from dictatorships to… this:
HZ: I think quite a lot of people associate with Eurovision, songs with nonsensical titles like ‘Boom Bang-A-Bang’, ‘Diggi-Loo Diggi-Ley’, and ‘Ding-A-Dong’ and ‘La, La, La’ - all of which have won. Is there an advantage to that because those titles transcend all languages in a way?
DEAN VULETIC: Of course. And that's why they were created; they were created to attract an international audience, to appeal to an international audience, and also to be sung by an international audience. So these songs emerged in the 1960s, the 1970s. Then they were especially popular at a time when Europop was at its height, when people were singing these songs across Europe in disco's holiday resorts, shopping centres - in all of these symbols of Western European prosperity. So this was also about being commercial; it was also about selling songs in these locations where Europeans from different countries would come together to holiday, to party, to enjoy life. And that was also a time in the 1960s, 1970s when we had several songs in Eurovision about going on holiday, usually sung by Northern Europeans going to the south. Southern Europeans never sang about going to Northern Europe and having a holiday there and falling in love, whereas Northern Europeans often did. As another fun fact, Helen, when it comes to the actual words that are used in Eurovision entries, or the subjects of Eurovision entries: technological words - satellites, videos, planes - they would appear in Northern European entries, but they were never in Southern European entries. So that's a very interesting distinction, that Northern Europeans were more eager to sing about technology than Southern Europeans ever were.
HZ: Huh. I wonder why.
DEAN VULETIC: Do I need to answer that question in a diplomatic way?
HZ: Yeah.
DEAN VULETIC: Well, we know the differences between the north and the south of Europe: the cultural differences, the economic differences; I think it's all related to that. For the south, songs, especially then, were about love, they were about nature - let's say a more romantic notion of what popular music should be, and especially inspired by the Mediterranean sphere, this shared romantic Mediterranean cultural sphere, which Northern Europeans were also attracted to and discovering en masse in the early post-war decades as western Europe generally became a more prosperous place, as holidays became a right for workers. This was an area that Western Europe was really basking in and falling in love with. And when it comes to Northern Europe, let's say Northern Europe was the place of economic growth. It was the place where Southerners immigrated to work. It provided the opportunities to become prosperous.
HZ: Yeah, I mean, do you want to go somewhere warm and fall in love, or do you want to be prosperous? Those are the choices.
DEAN VULETIC: Or you do both. You be prosperous and then you come back to the south for your holidays. Look, this is still the case in Europe today: we have this issue where so many young people are leaving the southern European countries to go and work in the more prosperous northern ones. But then where does everyone go for holiday in the summers? And the Southern European economies are still very dependent on their tourism earnings. So this is something that has probably, I would say, become even more apparent since the 1960s and 1970s.
HZ: Technology references are allowed, but mentions of specific brands are not. In 2012, San Marino faced disqualification because their entry was called ‘Facebook Uh, Oh, Oh (A Satirical Song)’ - they renamed it ‘The Social Network Song (OH OH – Uh - OH OH)’, but still got knocked out of the contest in the semifinals. And in 2014, Belarus rewrote their song ‘Cheesecake’, replacing lyrics about Google Maps with “all the maps”. Had they not learned the EBU’s stance on brands already? Back in 1987, Sweden’s entry had to be renamed ‘Boogaloo’, as the song’s original title referenced Coca-Cola and the Swedish chewing gum brand Bugg.
HZ: Are there any other guidelines for what's allowed? Is there a style guide for the songs? Are there any words that are forbidden?
DEAN VULETIC: Of course, you can't have offensive words, swear words. Entries also should not have political messages, but what that actually means is controversial. So you can have a song, let's say, that promotes LGBTIQ issues, which, you know, in a lot of European countries isn't a problem, but in some European countries still is, unfortunately and tragically; but that is something that the European Broadcasting Union would allow. But two years ago, the Belarusian entry that was submitted was performed by a group which appeared to be criticizing in its song the anti-government protestors in Belarus. And that song was disqualified because it was claimed by opposition groups in Belarus that the song was actually a political tool by the regime of Alexander Lukashenko to mock the protestors. And of course, Belarusian television is controlled by the government, the Belarusian member of the EBU, so the connection with the government was quite obvious. And after that, Belarus was actually disqualified from Eurovision - also from the EBU completely, because of the government's control over the television station.
HZ: Who decides what is controversial?
DEAN VULETIC: The reference group of the Eurovision Song Contest. To simplify, I would say they basically decide if something is controversial, if it's going to be offensive - to some political group, to some national group.
HZ: You can always find someone to be offended by something, if you need justification.
DEAN VULETIC: You can - but this is I think why they wait for a response from interest groups, from the interested parties. Very interesting in this regard, actually - I was thinking about this before meeting you today because I thought, have there been songs in which, let's say, same sex romances have been explicitly mentioned? And I think that Eurovision entries that have been seen as queer haven't been seen as queer because of the language of the songs, but more because of the performance. So if it's a drag performance like that of Conchita Wurst, or even some earlier entries there was one entry in 1961, which won Eurovision and is often considered as the first gay song in Eurovision, called ‘Nous, les amoureux’, ‘We, the Lovers’, performed by Jean-Claude Pascal. And when you read the lyrics, they're ambiguous, it's not clear that this is about the relationship between a man and a woman. It left that open, and a lot of people think that was deliberately done to make this a gay song. We don't have exact proof of that, but we're going by people's reactions and how people from the gay scene in French-speaking countries then interpreted the song.
But otherwise, you don't really get entries that will explicitly say, “I'm a boy, say, and I love a boy,” or “I'm a girl and I love a girl.” You'll get a same sex kiss to go along with a song or something like that, but nothing in the actual lyrics. And this has something to do with the fact that a lot of these entries have been in English. Because in English we don't have the same gendered language that we do, let's say, in romance languages, right? So, yeah, when it comes to queer entries in Eurovision, I think it's harder to have this message come across in the lyrics. And this is why perhaps a lot of these countries in which sexual minorities face prejudices, face legal obstacles, face harassment, in which they haven't been bold enough to say, no, we oppose this song, because it's a queer song. It's harder to say when you just see the lyrics and the music. It's the performance that makes it queer.
HZ: I mean, I don't think it's unique to Eurovision that the existence of queer people shouldn't be counted as political.
DEAN VULETIC: Exactly, because we would like to think or hope that in this world, all of this gender and sexual diversity could be accepted in all societies, and that this shouldn't be a controversial matter, that it should be an issue of human rights. But when it comes to geopolitics, then you have nations being offended or threatened by each other, and that's what could really harm the reputation of Eurovision as the organizers see it. The organizers no longer have a problem with this social diversity. They see it as something that enriches the contest and as part of the values of the contest. But this is also because the organizers or the leadership of Eurovision come from countries in Europe and especially the European Union in which these are considered to be important values, important social values and human rights that should be upheld and promoted by the broadcasters that participate in Eurovision.
But, the Eurovision world is a world that stretches from Iceland to Azerbaijan. And just looking at those two countries: they have very different records. When it comes to human rights, the human rights of sexual minorities, but also liberal democracy. Iceland is one of the most advanced liberal democracies in Europe, and Azerbaijan is one of its leading dictatorships.
HZ: I was also wondering about lyrics that you wouldn't get because they weren't coded for you, if you are not the person supposed to get them.
DEAN VULETIC: That's the other issue as well. And it also applies to political issues, let's say Kosovo: it declared its independence in 2008; that independence was opposed by Serbia, which Kosovo had formally been a part of. Yet lo and behold, Serbia was about to stage Eurovision in Belgrade in 2008, and when Kosovo's independence had been recognized by many member states of the EU as well as the United States, there were protests in Belgrade, which violently targeted some western institutions in the city. And then there was a big debate over whether Belgrade could still host Eurovision, which was about to take place a few months later, considering the hostility that was shown towards the West in these protests. But Serb television guaranteed that security would be heightened and that there would be no political messages in the contest itself, especially political messages concerning Serb's claims to Kosovo.
So the Serbian entry ended up being a folk-inspired song called ‘Oro’, and it mentioned Vidovdan, or St. Vitus’s Day, which takes place on June 28th and has so much historical meaning for Serbs, including their defeat at the Battle of Kosovo on that date in 1389. Vidovdan is only mentioned a few times in the song, but it's coded. This is a political message to those who understand Serbian and the meaning of this date in Serbian history, but it still managed to to get past the censor in Eurovision and it was not banned from the contest, of course, because the Serbs could also argue, “Well, it's a big national holiday anyway, it's a saint’s day,” there are a lot of arguments that can be made to say that this is simply an important day in Serbian culture and has no political meaning. But, for those of us who know Balkan history well, it could also easily be interpreted as a political message.
HZ: The Eurovision involves a lot of deliberating over what could be interpreted as a political message. For example, in 2015, Armenia had to retitle their song ‘Don’t Deny’ to ‘Face the Shadow’, lest ‘Don’t Deny’ was a reference to the centenary of the Armenian genocide.
Another controversy happened in 2009 with Georgia’s entry, a jaunty disco number about not letting negativity kill the groove; the EBU rejected it before the semi-finals, because they considered song’s title and refrain ‘We Don’t Wanna Put In’ to be breaching the rules that forbid political commentary in the songs. Why? ’Because Put In - Putin, as in Vladimir Putin, ‘We don’t Wanna Putin’?
CLIP:
We don’t want to put in!
The negative mood is killing the groove.
I’m not sure a court of law would convict on that evidence, but Georgia had already voiced objections to the contest being held in Russia that year, citing contravention of human rights and international laws - and Georgia and Russia had been at war with each other in August 2008.
Russia had already been the object of a lyric controversy in the 2007 contest. Ukraine’s entry written and performed (in spectacular silver garb with the number 69 on the back) by Verka Serduchka was ‘Dancing Lasha Tumbai’, Verka said ‘lasha tumbai’ is a Mongolian phrase meaning ‘milkshake’ or ‘churned butter’ or whipped cream. But it sounded - to some! - like she was singing not “lasha tumbai” but “Russia goodbye”. What do you think?
CLIP:
I want to see
Lasha Tumbai
I want to see
Lasha Tumbai
The song came second. The EBU didn’t check their Mongolian dictionaries because ‘lasha tumbai’ is not Mongolian for any kind of churned dairy.
In 2016 the EBU did overrule Russia’s complaints that they were being targeted by Ukraine’s entry ‘1944’. What happened in 1944? Stalin forced all the Crimean Tatars to leave Crimea, some 200,000 people were deported, the majority to Uzbekistan. Thousands died on the 3000km journey, and many more in the few years following; according to Crimean Tatar numbers, they lost 46% of their population. Russia said that figure was slander, according to the KGB only 22% of Crimean Tatars died. 22% dead? That is not a Russia-exonerating number. Anyway, the Eurovision song was written in the wake of Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea, which brought renewed persecution of Crimean Tatars; but the EBU ruled that the song did not contain political lyrics, and ‘1944’ went on to win the contest for Ukraine.
Even when the EBU doesn’t mind it, the countries might: in the 1974 contest, Italy came second - to ‘Waterloo’ by ABBA - with Gigliola Cinquetti performing a song called ‘Sì’, the Italian word for ‘yes’, which appears several times in the lyrics, it’s a song about saying yes to love. So why did the Italian state broadcaster take such exception to it that they refused to run the live telecast of Eurovision? Well, the following month Italy was to hold a referendum about whether to outlaw divorce, which had been legalised three years earlier, and all this singing of the word ‘sì’ was considered potentially a subliminal message to influence Italian voters to vote sì to repeal the right to get divorced. Perhaps Eurovision should rethink the rule that all the entries must have lyrics, because look at all the trouble words cause. AGAIN.
HZ: Just people want to sing and dance and have some nice sequins and stuff, and yet it's so incredibly loaded.
DEAN VULETIC: It is, it is, in so many ways; and I think the language politics of Eurovision has always been one of the most loaded aspects of the contest, from the Italian origins to French domination, English domination, and this trend in recent years to embracing linguistic diversity once again. And I hope that this embrace of linguistic diversity in Eurovision will continue to grow. I think this is really the power of the contest, to teach Europeans - especially because Europeans are the core audience of this event, even though the contest has gone more global in recent years - but to teach Europeans more about the cultures that share this continent, to teach them more about the different languages that are spoken. I think very often to audiences outside of Europe, it seems that Europeans might seem to understand each other quite well, especially because we now have the European Union in which we're economically and politically united, or much of the contest is. But I think there is still a lot for us to do to help Europeans to get to understand each other more, to learn about each other's cultures more. And I think that historically Eurovision has played a major role in this as the biggest cultural event that unites Europeans and that it really is - even commissioners from the European Union will tell you that there are two big events that unite Europeans: one is Eurovision, the other is the Champions League soccer, in which we don't hear the different languages of Europeans. So Eurovision is very special in this regard, and my hope is that it will really re-embrace the linguistic diversity of the contest and be empowered by the fact that younger viewers as well are also attracted to the contest if it expresses this diversity and authenticity.
If you enjoy pop music analysis but like to keep it a bit more light and fun than dictators using the form to nicewash themselves, then check out our podpal Switched on Pop, where musicologist Nate Sloan and songwriter Charlie Harding get stuck into what makes a hit, where a song fits in the culture, and what makes pop so irresistible. If I want to be cheered up and amused and left a little perkier than I was before, Switched on Pop is one of my go-to pods. You’ll find Switched on Pop in the podplaces and at switchedonpop.com.
And if you have any inclination and petty cash to help keep the Allusionist afloat, join the Allusioverse at theallusionist.org/donate. You get behind the scenes info about every episode! You get livestreams with relaxing readings from reference books - last week we had a really good time with a 1906 glossary of architectural terms, we’ll never confuse our misericordes and our misereres again, or our squinches and our squints. And you get to join your fellow Allusionauts in our companiable Discord community, where we’ll watch this year’s Eurovision final together, as we did last year - and another festivity has been suggested by Sweth, who says:
“I want there to be an official annual allusioversary where allusionauts plan ahead and meet up around the world on the same day to use randomly selected words in an email or text.”
I know this isn’t much notice, but April 22nd is my birthday, so I decree it to be International Use A Randomly Selected Word from the Dictionary Day. You pick the word, you pick the dictionary - let me know what you find - or go rummage through the Allusionist back catalogue and randomly select one of my randomly selected words from the dictionary.
Here’s a fresh one for your use: your randomly selected word from the dictionary today is…
urinant, adjective, heraldry: diving, head down. Noun: urinator, a diver. From Latin: ūrīnārī, to plunge.
Try using ‘urinant’ in an email today. Or a text. Or a conversation. Or at your International Use A Randomly Selected Word from the Dictionary Day knees-up.
This episode was produced by me, Helen Zaltzman. The original music is by Martin Austwick of palebirdmusic.com. You heard from historian Dean Vuletic, author of the book Postwar Europe and the Eurovision Song Contest; he has a lot more to tell you about Eurovision, so check out his media appearances as well as the rest of his work at deanvuletic.com. Many thanks to Ewan Spence of ESC Insight, the podcast and website devoted to the Eurovision Song Contest all year round.
Our ad partner is Multitude. If you have a product or thing about which you’d like me to talk about, sponsor a show: contact Multitude at multitude.productions/ads.
Seek out @allusionistshow on YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter. And you can hear or read every episode, find links to more information about the topics and people therein, see the full dictionary entries for the randomly selected words, and browse a lexicon of every word covered in the podcast, all at the show’s forever home theallusionist.org.
