{"id":583,"date":"2015-05-20T09:32:48","date_gmt":"2015-05-20T09:32:48","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/diegobrown.com\/?p=583"},"modified":"2015-05-22T09:30:02","modified_gmt":"2015-05-22T09:30:02","slug":"songs-of-the-wild-what-we-should-really-renegotiate-with-europe","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/diegobrown.com\/?p=583","title":{"rendered":"Wild sings: What we should really renegotiate with Europe"},"content":{"rendered":"

 <\/p>\n

\"Wolf<\/a>

Could Azerbaijan’s Eurovision entry “Hour of the Wolf” be the just the nose of\u00a0an iceberg of songs about green things? (Photo Rune Jensen)<\/p><\/div>\n

CALL ME SNARLING AND THIN-SKINNED, but for years the Eurovision Song Contest<\/strong> has made me ponder the benefits of\u00a0a snap in-out referendum. All that talent, all those costumes, all that electricity – and for what?<\/p>\n

That\u2019s why, when David Cameron goes off to Brussels to explain that the UK\u00a0– the most unequal country in the EU<\/span><\/a> – needs to be treated differently from all the other losers, I\u2019d like him to put Eurovision on the table.<\/p>\n

What he should demand is both startlingly simple and game-changing.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

As a quid pro status quo for us continuing to help everyone\u00a0else, we\u00a0should insist on Eurovision entries being given more of a steer<\/strong>. Like a theme. For example \u201cThe Environment And What We Should Do to Look After It\u201d<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Interested in this idea?
\nCome and discuss it at The Betsey Trotwood,
\nLondon EC1R, Monday 25 May 2015<\/a><\/span><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

I expect you can see straight away how this would work out on so many levels. For one thing it would quickly rule out any song that uses made-up words<\/strong> like bingy or bongy etc, which have no obvious relevance to the environment. Or anything really.<\/p>\n

For another, it would take the guesswork out<\/strong> of Eurovision night: even if the lyrics still didn\u2019t make loads of sense, at least the judges would have a starting point to help them figure out what\u2019s going on. The combined effect would be to make the finals a bit shorter<\/strong>, which would save time.<\/p>\n

The third reason is perhaps more subtle – but I\u2019d argue the most important: insisting that Eurovision entries deal with the environment would kick-start a new era for the eco-protest song.<\/strong> It would fill the vacuum created by artists such as Michael Jackson and Olivia Newton-John who\u2019ve already turned their artistic gaze on the planet.<\/p>\n

Think of it: each year we\u2019d be able to look forward to literally dozens of new songs that remind us to wake up, think about what we\u2019re doing and notice\u00a0some children<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Knock-on benefits for the economy as a whole would include growth<\/strong> and making families work harder<\/strong>: new home-based and flexible algorithm-rich businesses springing up to meet the need for new and innovative words to rhyme with \u2018Earth\u2019 or \u2018mother\u2019 or \u2018flood\u2019, or \u2018ice\u2019 – for example \u2018nice\u2019. If you\u2019ve never tried writing an environmental protest song I can tell you it\u2019s not as easy or as rewarding as it might sound: what, for example, would you rhyme with denier, sceptic, divestment, renewable obligation\u00a0certificate, pesticide? Not that rhyme is the be-all and end-all of a song. But we\u2019re talking about Eurovision – there are standards.<\/p>\n

And it’s no news that standards have been slipping<\/strong>. Virtually any country can enter now. How is the UK – the country that gave the world\u00a0pop – ever supposed to win this competition if all you have to do is\u00a0sing about feelings?<\/p>\n

Ultimately, though, this is about innovation<\/strong> – and we know from other areas of public life like education and health and railways and the nuclear industry how competition, a playing field and a clearly repeated vision<\/strong> by someone with a job can deliver innovative\u00a0experiences for the consumer. Just like the Olympics or the Duke of Edinburgh award or Asbos, this New Vision for Eurovision would harness a generation.<\/p>\n

For the\u00a0government\u00a0it\u2019s a win-win: a riposte to those carpers who query whether they’re\u00a0doing enough to the environment, it would also placate those who are pre-imagining Britain\u2019s relationship with Europe re-imagined. And it would say to people who like other countries that the UK thinks there\u2019s a role for other countries too.<\/p>\n

How hard is it?<\/h3>\n

A step too far, you might say. Can we really expect Europe\u2019s top songwriters to write songs that have a point?<\/p>\n

I used to ask that question\u00a0too. Not any more. Because I\u2019m hearing Eurovision in a new and different key<\/strong> – and if you can be bothered to read the rest of my incredible story, you might hear it differently too.<\/p>\n

It all began when Sustainababblers<\/a><\/span> Ollie and Dave got me on their splendid Sony-destined podcast to figure out where all the protest songs have gone<\/a><\/span>. And to explore whether there are any decent protest songs about the environment<\/strong>. They also reminded me that the final of Eurovision 2015 is this Saturday (23 May).<\/p>\n

Which is when something remarkable happened<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Looking back over Eurovision winners from previous decades, a hunch quickly became a fully-bloated theory. What I discovered hit me with the force of a relatively accurate<\/strong> exit poll.<\/p>\n

I realised that Eurovision has always featured a not insignificant number of protest songs about the environment<\/strong>. Or at least some had titles that sound like green protest songs even if the actual songs sound, superficially, as if they’re about the transience of romantic love.<\/p>\n

But don\u2019t just take my word for it. Look at a sample of Eurovision winners down the centuries – then tell me these do not constitute a blueprint for the ongoing future of a new Eurovision<\/strong>:<\/p>\n