Clearly, the public vote and overall win went massively – and rightly – to Ukraine's Kalush Orchestra. But Sam Ryder’s belting version of Spaceman won support from national juries across the continent and beyond. Even this independence supporter was rooting for the 32-year-old Essex session-player because his performance deserved it and his demeanour clinched it.
Ryder certainly looked the part (the perfect locks of Jennifer Aniston with a beard, according to one wag) but it was his outlook that broke the British mould.
Unassuming and modest, the singer’s unconcealed joy as votes came rolling in was as infectious during a half-time chat stressing inclusion, peace, diversity and creativity. Like any good team player in the limelight, he nodded generously to ‘stellar’ performances by fellow contestants, gave a whole-hearted thumbs up to the camera as Ukraine overtook the UK in the final minutes, and went over to hug Marius Bear after Switzerland's entry received a humiliating nul points in the public vote.
All of this was aided by Graham Norton’s commentary while the UK was zipping up the leadr-board – “take a picture of that, you may never see it again”. Ironic, humble, non-triumphalist and (let’s face it) Irish, Norton did not echo the excruciating, alienating, chest-beating commentary that accompanies most British sporting efforts. All in all, it was a master-class in humility. Not a quality normally associated with Britain.
Before the event Ryder told Channel 4, “I'm not going into this with any kind of expectation. I did videos in lockdown from the corner of my shed and people sharing those [he has 12 million Tik Tok followers] is the reason I'm here in the first place and I'm incredibly thankful for that. I never had any expectation … those videos would take on a life of their own but here I am now and what I've learned is to carry that same intention and energy onto the Eurovision stage on Saturday."
And he did. No ego. No strutting or wrapping himself in the Union Jack. No superiority or complacency. And he almost won. So, does that mean Europe's forgiven Britain for Brexit? Was it ever the real reason for last year’s nul points and a string of low scores?
So why Britain’s fall from Eurovision favour? One explanation is that singing in English gave British singers an advantage until the rule that countries must sing in their native languages (temporary waived when Abba won with Waterloo) was permanently abandoned in 1999 and the UK's linguistic advantage disappeared. The very success of the UK’s ‘serious’ rock and pop scene led producers to look down their noses at Eurovision while other countries put energy (and less complacent entitlement) into the business of selecting songs.
Down the rankings Britain fell – despite the automatic qualification that comes with being a Big Five financial backer and the self-fulfilling business of blaming failure on European conspiracies began.
Essentially Britain believed our music industry was inherently superior and no-one votes for the brash or entitled. Surly victimhood hopefully ended for good in Turin, thanks to a talented competitor who approached the competition with the same daft, wide-eyed enthusiasm as everyone else. Ryder was special on Saturday night because he was a great performer - not because he was British.
Indeed, at first glance it’s hard to believe the singer is British, with the wide-smile, flowing locks and beatnik outlook; "I love singing, it brings me the most joy in the world and it gives me everything. It gives me fulfilment in my life and to expect it to give me anything more than that would kill the magic because it's already given me absolutely everything."
This kind of joie de vivre is not generally associated with Britain, whose government (and some fans) exhibit a thinly disguised belief in the country’s innate superiority. That’s fuelled Brexit and has been deployed by Boris Johnson to justify every empty, post-colonial bit of stage-strutting.
Ryder’s easy, unassuming manner and exuberant performance smashed that rigid and off-putting stereotype of Britishness and managed to redefine European perceptions of Britain – temporarily.
Unfortunately, when Johnson reneges on international agreements in Northern Ireland as expected later this week, he will once again haul Britain’s reputation into the gutter. Still, Ryder’s Eurovision success suggests the ‘British jinx’ has always been about self-absorption not relentless persecution.
Norway has finished last in 11 Eurovision finals and received the dreaded "nul points" four times – as Ryder pointed out. Yet the country’s associated with the fresh-faced fiddler Alexander Rybak (who won in 2009) and the daring, barking offering Give That Wolf a Banana this year – not constant failure. Perhaps that’s because the Norwegians don’t have a persecution complex that’s lasted 25 years.
Of course, it would be a mistake to read any serious political import into a contest that’s just featured a weird Serbian song – partly in Latin – about Meghan Markle’s hair. With a backdrop of Russian aggression in Ukraine and a Europe-wide energy and cost-of-living crisis, escapism was indeed the only serious pursuit of the night. As one commentator said of the Norwegian entry – inspired by Red Riding Hood – “Thank God Norway are being f***ing weird. Some of these countries have forgotten the true meaning of Eurovision.”
That meaning may simply be that it has no political meaning – a Euro-pop celebration of all things camp, gay, inclusive and frivolous. But in a wider world still filled with discrimination – that is a serious statement. So was the organiser’s decision to ban Russia.
So was the conscious promotion of Ukraine by millions of Europeans, which means the Big Five must help Volodymyr Zelenskyy stage next year’s contest in Mariupol. And a British singer wowed Europe with talent and humility.
Glory be.
Our columns are a platform for writers to express their opinions. They do not necessarily represent the views of The Herald.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel