POST SCRIPT TO SUCCESS

"We very much hope that the second attempt by Azerbaijani performers to do their country justice at Eurovision will be crowned with success and that for a start we will make it into the top three." This was how R+ concluded its report on the Eurovision Song Contest 2008, when the brilliant duet of Elnur and Samir came eighth and there was no end to Azerbaijan's disappointment at the geopolitical games over the song contest. Well, our predictions came true. The "electrifying" Azerbaijani duet, as the Russian and European media dubbed Aysel and Arash, came third. Our hopes were justified and our hard work was successful. "Third place is a clear achievement for Azerbaijan," Yana Churikova, presenter on Russia's Channel One TV, said rather sarcastically during her commentary on the voting when our duo jumped from third place to second and back to third again and Russian contestant Anastasiya Prikhodko was already out of the race. Churikova echoed her colleague on the teleprompt, Russian star Filip Bedrosovich Kirkorov, who was supporting his Greek friend Sakis Rouvas too openly (seventh place, 102 points) and the Armenian duet of sisters Inga and Anush Arshakyan (10th place, 92 points). Armenian singer Sirusho's cheap PR trick live on Eurovision - when reading out the results of voting in Armenia she brandished a postcard showing a Karabakh monument - did our neighbours no good at all, nor did the slanderous campaign against Azerbaijan, which alleged that the number for viewers to vote for the Armenian contestants was hidden onscreen.

German company Digame Mobile, which counted the viewers' votes for Eurovision 2009, responded promptly and reported that Azerbaijani residents had in fact voted for Armenia's Inga and Anush. Ismayil Omarov, general director of Azerbaijan's Public TV, said that 43 text messages had come from Azerbaijan for Armenia.

Live broadcasting Malakhov-style 

Russia's mega-star TV presenter on Channel One, Andrey Malakhov, brought several celebrities together in the studio to discuss Eurovision before and after the performances and the counting of votes. But for some reason the discussion concentrated on Dima Bilan, rather than the new winner Alexander Ryback. When the channel finally went live to Norwegian Ryback's press conference, the Eurovision winner was answering with concern a question from the press about Moscow mayor Yuriy Luzhkov's dispersal of a gay parade on the final day of Eurovision! A short time later they switched back to Malakhov's studio and for the last hours of "Malakhov live" the celebrities did not stop singing the praises of Channel One. Channel One producer and chairman of Russia's Eurovision jury Igor Matviyenko said something that will go down as a gem in Russian entertainment: "We used to say, 'We can't do that.' We simply don't have enough money. The readies have appeared and see how beautiful everything is! This is for 150 million. So give us money and we will put on an excellent show for you." 

It's true. Russia tried and succeeded in putting on the show for 100. Moscow Eurovision had the largest arena, the most participants and the most equipment in the history of the competition and was also the most expensive. No-one is likely to beat the bar set by Russia, although the Europeans don't actually try to. Not because Europe does not have the resources - it does. But they simply don't want to. Why? For Russia, Eurovision was a peak that had to be conquered. They did not want to end up flat on their faces. They wanted to show Europe that bears do not walk the streets of Moscow. But back to Malakhov's studio. Before the Eurovision final the live broadcast was based on the idea of inviting all the competitors in for a chat and getting to know their parents through special video clips. The studio guests included Turkish singer Hadise, the Romanian, the singer from Iceland, the contestant from Lithuania, Loboda from Ukraine and the Armenian sisters Inga and Anush Arshakyan and their mother, who clearly went flat out to sing a Russian folk song live on Channel One. You got the impression that the competitors had been chosen for invitation to the studio in order to give the Armenians extra airtime, as after the final the logic of the programme was no longer maintained - inviting other competitors to the second part of Malakhov's live broadcast was for some reason conveniently forgotten.

New old face

Interestingly, the European media slammed Moscow Euro-vision. They commented on the fantastic show, the frenetic extravagant final, but the newspapers did not fail to mention the row over the police dispersal of the gay rights demonstration. Although none of the contestants refused to compete and no-one referred to the incident on stage, the world's media concluded that Moscow did not succeed in presenting a fresh face. The organizers expelled the Georgians from the contest, lamented journalist Schmidt from the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, all because they "don't wanna put in".

Georgia was not allowed to compete because it would not adhere to the Eurovision administrators' request to change the words "we don't wanna put in" in its song, which clearly sounded like Vladimir Putin's surname and could be translated as "we don't want Putin".

"On the one hand, the Russian capital tried hard to impress Europe as a good host that knows how to satisfy his guests," an editorial in the Suddeutsche Zeitung said. "Russia used skill and irony to good effect in their postcards shown during the live broadcast. They looked attractive and accessible. But by banning the gay parade they risked cancelling out the effect." So it will be some time before Russia can actually become the modern country that it really wants to be, the newspaper concludes. 

Eurovision's geopolitics

When talking about Eurovision, it's impossible to ignore the political battles that always beset the competition. Although this year many people agreed that the competition was fair, the voting by text message which decides the winner shows convincingly that viewers choose not so much the song and performer as the country that they represent. The Guardian in Britain thinks that the competition lost its innocence in 1969 when Spain's Gen Franco bought victory for the little known Massiel, while Britain's famous Cliff Richard was left empty-handed. "Since then, Eurovision psephological skulduggery has spread like a virulent virus," the newspaper wrote. The "political" voting has even become the subject of serious academic research. Derek Gatherer claims in his work Comparison of Eurovision Song Contest Simulation with Actual Results Reveals Shifting Patterns of Collusive Voting Alliances that there were originally just a few voting blocs, for example, between Greece and Cyprus. Between 1999 and 2005 five blocs operated in the competition, to which the academic gave jaunty names: the Viking Empire, the Bal-kan Bloc, the Warsaw Pact, the Pyrenean Axis and the Big Four. Between 1999 and 2008 members of either the Balkan Bloc or the Viking Empire won all but two of the contests. Ukraine's victory in 2004 and Russia's in 2008 were the exceptions. Both countries are part of the Warsaw Pact. As a result, it is always the eastern Europeans who win Eurovision, while others, the Big Four - France, Great Britain, Germany and Spain - stump up the cash. 

The Guardian described Azerbaijan as "still unaligned" in the contest. "Who would gainsay the chances of the plucky Azeris, who have only been in Eurovision for two years and so are relative innocents in this grubby pseudo-musical farce?" The voting is therefore interesting not only for song fans but for political commentators too. Many analysts have concluded that Europe has shown yet again that it is far from united. The Portuguese and the Dutch put Greek singer Sakis Rouvas last, while the Bulgarians and the Albanians put him first. Turkey got maximum votes from France, Britain, Switzerland and Belgium and minimum from the Czech Republic. The Estonian singer won in Finland while she was at the bottom of the list in Germany. The Arab-Israeli peace message was most popular in France, while Ukraine and Switzerland thought nothing of it. Greece was the only country where Great Britain won. The British again showed what they think of the French, ignoring Patricia Kaas who came eighth. The Russians gave her the highest place - second - because the singer who has Russian origins has long been popular in Russia. The countries of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union can be said to adhere most to the "ours and theirs" category, as they usually give one another a lot of points. Let's suppose a Norwegian with Norwegian roots and not Alexander Ryback had appeared for Norway. Would Belarus have given Norway the highest rating, 12 points? Probably not. They would probably have given the points to Ukraine or Russia. An ordinary Ukrainian would have seen the Norwegian contestant as a blood brother, a Belarusian.

As for Azerbaijan, the fact that 34 of the 41 competing countries (not including Azerbaijan) voted for Azerbaijan speaks volumes. Last year 21 out of 40 countries voted for Azerbaijan. Neighbourliness led to the exchange of the maximum 12 points between us and Turkey which is not really surprising. Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's visit to the Olympic Complex was one of the most memorable events of Moscow Eurovision for us Azerbaijanis. He turned up so unexpectedly in the press centre foyer that journalists were taken aback too. It's not every day that you see the former Russian president just an arm's length away. Imagine how surprised Aysel and Arash were when they were rehearsing and Putin headed towards them with his familiar walk and climbed onto the stage. The prime minister shook hands with our team, wished them luck, had a souvenir photograph taken with them and left. For the rest of the day the press discussed Putin's visit and "how lucky" the Azerbaijani duo were. But since Azerbaijan is not yet a member of any of the aforementioned political blocs we can boldly say that Europe really liked Aysel and Arash and the hit that they performed. Armenia even gave Azerbaijan one point, presumably wanting to give a pro-forma display of its political tolerance. 

As for our neighbours, they clearly lost ground at Eurovision this year both musically and politically. The only European countries to give the Armenian duet a top ranking this year were Belgium (seven points), Romania (seven points) and the Czech Republic (12 points). Turkey, which last year amazed Azerbaijan by giving Armenia eight points, this year gave them just six. Russia let down its bridgehead too, giving the Yerevan contestants just five points, while the Armenians paid their big northern brother his due with all 12 points. This time the Armenian lobby, which is traditionally strong in these countries, was no help.

Of course, the Eurovision results can be analysed in even greater detail, but is it worth it? "Well wishers" say that Azerbaijan came third thanks to the strong Iranian lobby and the Swedish public who voted for the famous singer Arash, whose ethnic roots are Iranian but now lives in Sweden. But it should not be forgotten that Arash's origins are Azerbaijani and thank you to Sweden for their eight points. After all, the Belarusians voted for Ryback for the same reason. "Third place is sensational and a great achievement for Azerbaijan," wrote practically all the Russian papers. "The country made its debut in the competition only last year, coming a successful eighth with the duet of Elnur and Samir, and has made another impressive leap forward. The duet of Aysel and Arash took bronze well ahead of Iceland. The duo squeezed as much as they could out of their hit song Always." And, most important, it is our success today. We can only hope that next year success will smile on us even more in the form of first place. 

P.S. Next year's Eurovision-2010 will be held in Oslo (Norway) from approximately 18 to 22 May.