Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 1956/Archive 1

Archive 1

Radio contest?

"This dumb contest was mainly a radio program, though there were cameras in the studio for the benefit of the few Europeans who had television." This is a strange statement - the contest was developped for television to start with. Why else would anyone had called it EuroVISION Song Contest had it been designed to be heard only? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tobsonhelsinki (talk • contribs) 17:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

Score sheet

Does there need to be a "score sheet"-section, if the points never were made public?--90.224.50.167 14:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The order

I've listened to the audio recording, and it seems the second song from Luxembourg was performed before the second from France, not like in the article. I don't know why?Eurowizion 20:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

was any of the history clips in 2013 from 1956

if that is the case it means that more have survived. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.59.120 (talk) 20:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

It seems that this took place whilst the BBC was interviewing people, but will have to look on the official site. --[[ axg ◉ talk ]] 21:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Having seen it, I don't think there was. --[[ axg ◉ talk ]] 23:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Minimap

Does someone know the meaning behind Algeria participating in 1956? They have never taken part in Eurovision. Alts (talk) 20:39, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@Alts: During this time (and until 1962) Algeria was part of France as the French Fourth Republic. -- AxG / ✉ / 10 years of editing 21:00, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Alts (talk) 09:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Final Placings

I think this edit should be removed. I cannot see any official source for the final placings. KobiNew (talk) 10:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Reception?

I found a short review by Norman Cook in the Liverpool Echo from the day after the broadcast. It reads:

"The Eurovision Song Competition from Lugano proved a theory to which I have long subscribed. And that is that the words of popular songs can be complete gibberish but yet remain acceptable to the viewing multitudes. Take one pretty girl, pour her into a skin-tight frock, give her a microphone to cover up the fact that she can't sing, add a syrupy orchestra—and you have a big hit. It doesn't matter too much what sort of a noise comes out, as long as the girls are good to look at. The trouble with last night's Eurovision transmission was that, because of poor picture quality, the girls weren't even particularly good to look at. The programme was a waste of valuable viewing time."

References

The article presently has no reception section, and I did not immediately find any other reviews to justify one, so I'll leave it here for other editors to consider. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 15:45, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 1956/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sammi Brie (talk · contribs) 05:49, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

I've only really watched one and a half ESCs, but from what I do know about the contest, this is like early American football to the sport today—nigh unrecognizable! Some copy cleanup to do. Consider adding alt text. Looks good though. Pinging Sims2aholic8 for the 7-day hold on this. Ping me when you're done making changes. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:22, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Copy changes

Lead

• the majority of the broadcast is however available in audio Set off "however" with commas: "is, however, available"

Origins

• "Corportation" typo
• "Following the formation of the EBU" add comma
• Don't capitalize "president". MOS:JOBTITLES
• Venice International Song Festival—the gloss in the first paragraph of Format belongs here on first mention.

Format

• Each participating organisation had sole discretion on how to select their entries for the contest, but were strongly encouraged by the EBU to hold their own national contests to determine their representatives. Remove the comma or add "the organisations" before "were strongly encouraged". See User:Sammi Brie/Commas in sentences for more. Other errors of this type are denoted (C in S)
• Each song was accompanied by the Radiosa Orchestra, supplemented by the strings of the Italian Swiss Radio Symphony Orchestra, with 24 members total, which was presided over by the contest's musical director, Fernando Paggi. Consider reflowing this sentence because of the number of commas.
• The event was hosted by in Italian by Lohengrin Filipello — extra "by"
• Upon the announcement of the results only the winning song was named, with the full breakdown of the jury votes not revealed. — add comma after "the results"

Participating countries

• Austria and Denmark are believed to have also been interested in participating, however broadcasters from those countries reportedly missed the cut-off point for entry; these two countries, as well as the United Kingdom, would however broadcast the contest along with the participating countries, with the United Kingdom's BBC having chosen to not send an entry for this event in favour of organising their own contest, the Festival of British Popular Songs. This is a long sentence. It also needs a MOS:HOWEVER fix. Consider Austria and Denmark are believed to have also been interested in participating; however, broadcasters from those countries reportedly missed the cut-off point for entry. These two countries, as well as the United Kingdom, would broadcast the contest along with the participating countries, with the United Kingdom's BBC having chosen to not send an entry for this event in favour of organising their own contest, the Festival of British Popular Songs.
• The full results of the contest were not revealed, and have not been retained by the EBU. — remove comma (C in S) (There is also a C in S error in footnote a)
• Known details on the broadcasts in each country, including the specific broadcasting stations and commentators are shown in the tables below. — add a comma after "commentators" to complete the appositive
• Audio of most of the contest have however survived — should be "has, however, survived"

Source spot checks

I randomly selected six references to check. All pass (AGF on 14).

• 7: This official history of Eurovision is generally a bit redundant to ref 5, but with 5 it does check out.
• 13: Mentions the venue name as "Teatro Kursaal".
• 14: Official history of the Casino Lugano mentions the opening of the casino. I presume offline source [15] has more information on its demolition?
• 31: Official list of ESC winners backs up the claims about "Refrain"
• 40: La Stampa newspaper archive mentions television airing
• 42: Seems a bit of a bare page, but it does link to the RTL site, and if they were the EBU member this should be self-evident.

Other

• There are two freely licensed images and one fair-use image with an appropriate rationale. The logo is PD-textlogo and is also used by the EBU itself (I was wondering how authentic it'd be, but if even Eurovision use it...) They do need alt text (not required strictly for GA but I always encourage editors to add it).
• Earwig catches a source that definitely copied from a recent revision of this article (97.4%). Beyond that, Earwig mostly catches organization names and formulations like "original language, as well as translations".
• Run IABot again, as not all references archived.

• @Sammi Brie: Thanks for conducting this review! I believe I have now covered all the points raised above (and gained a better understanding of commas along the way). Let me know if there is anything further you need in order to pass this article. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:58, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The actual scoring?!

I was browsing in Google Books when I found the places of the songs. The book was copyrighted, I forgot which one it was but here are the top 3 (according to the book):

1st: Switzerland - Lys Assia - Refrain 2nd: Belgium - Mony Marc - Le Plus Beau Jour De Ma Vie 3rd: Germany - Freddy Quinn - So Geht Das Jede Nacht

Is this verifiable? Could it be true? --Ajitirj (talk) 14:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

In case anyone is interested in discussing this, here is the link to the book. — /an.dre.jiˈʃor//tɔːk/ 20:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I have added the information from the book. Grk1011 (talk) 00:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no other source than that book. I don't think that count as verifiable. Dinsdagskind (talk) 09:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The votes have never been disclosed, that's also what the book says and the author doesn't say where he got the results from. So I will edit the article and say the results are unknown, I will mention the book though.

With only 14 jury members in all, two for each country, each casting one vote, there would only have been 14 votes to share between 14 songs. Which means several songs would probably have ended with "Nul Points", unless each song received one vote. So the songs could not have received rankings from 1 to 14 - there would have been several shared places. The only thing that is known is that "Refrain" was proclaimed the winner.

Dinsdagskind (talk) 19:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I found this magazine that was published a month after the contest https://m.facebook.com/106776711218916/photos/a.106929614536959/109214110975176/?type=3&source=48&__tn__=EHH-R It says that Fud Leclerc’s song was "not reaffirmed by the juries and was for the most part personal.", meaning her got a low score. I’m not sure what the other descriptions say, or if the magazine even has more results to imply, but for anyone who wants to translate it, it’s in Italian. Jusherman (talk) 19:49, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Les Trois Menestrels interval act song

Amonth ago, I was able to contact Eurovision researcher, Louis Zandt (person who found the 1956 photos for EurovisionArtists.nl) via email. Since then, he handed me some really useful info, such as a cleaner version of the audio from 1964 with partial Danish commentary (source in the 1964 article). He also has half of the Dutch commentary from 1964, and he plans to put it on the NPO website.

I asked him about what the second interval from 1956 was, and he said it was "Ma mie, ma caravelle," as he saw a video of the trio wearing the same outfits from Lugano. To add more confirmation, it was recorded in 1956, the same year. It also doesn’t appear they wear the outfits in any other archived performance.

He doesn’t give me a source, but he used his own research. Since he is an expert at doing research, I do believe this is correct.

Les Joyeux Rossignols, the first interval actors, whistled the song "Audabe d'oiseaux," which was a popular French accordion song. They also recorded it on some of their albums, and they sound similar. Jusherman (talk) 03:54, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

@Jusherman: I have no reason to doubt the autheticity or truthfulness about the statements above, however that still doesn't get round the fact that Wikipedia is based on verifibility, as in the ability of the readers to check that the information contained on Wikipedia comes from reliable sources. Although what you have provided is most likely true, it's unverifiable because we can't provide a reliable source to state so, as it largely falls under a self-published source, i.e. someone doing their own research. As it's not been published anywhere online, e.g. through a news source or an official Eurovision website where editorial standards exist, externally to conversations between individuals, then this is not something we can publish on this article and would violate the good article criteria which the article was rated against three months ago to promote it to GA status. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 09:06, 15 November 2022 (UTC)