A Eurovision Guide For The Perplexed American Part I

Dearest readers, for the last several days, I have been writing a Guide to the Eurovision Song Contest, the annual spectacle that 100 million Europeans (and Israelis) watch religiously every year despite a dearth of quality.

Specifically, I have been writing a guide for the American viewer who may have heard of Eurovision (or may not) but has never seen it before.  While the Europeans themselves–especially the British–are quite adept at describing and mocking the competition while simultaneously loving it (despite their claims to the contrary), European commentary comes with certain baggage: the commentators (1) are speaking to an audience that already has a baseline awareness of Eurovision and its history; and (2) have some kind of vested interest given that they are (allegedly) rooting for their own nation’s entry.

The next couple of posts are written by an American (me) for a primarily American audience.  Years ago I also did not understand the competition, but after 6 years of watching it very closely, reading about it, and spending countless hours on YouTube watching old clips, I feel quite secure in my own knowledge.  As an American, I do not have the same baggage as the Europeans do, and therefore I feel that I am suitably qualified to explain to non-Europeans who have never seen the competition exactly why 100 million people tune in every year to watch.

I will be attaching links to YouTube clips so that you too can see the performances.  While I hope that I have done a good enough job detailing the contest’s appeal, you must remember that Eurovision is a visual and audial event.  Watching the clips is the best way to get a sense of the competition: the good, the bad, and the hideous.

A warning: my guide is long.  This is the most I have ever written about a single topic.  It is so long that I have broken it into multiple parts.   Oddly enough, it is the awfulness of Eurovision that makes it so interesting and so rich a topic.  If all the songs were good, then it would be no fun at all either to watch or to write about.

You may notice that I did not list any of the music that I listened to while writing these posts (as has become my tradition.)  The reason is because I found that I could not listen to music while writing about a song competition.  Ironic, but there you go; Eurovision is steeped in irony.

So, dear reader, I hope you stick with these posts and enjoy.  And come May 14th, I hope that you will watch the final, as I intend to.

Love American Football (Soccer)? End CONCACAF!

By now it is old news that the United States did not get the 2022 World Cup.  The World Cup could have been a tremendous boost to American soccer, just as the 1994 World Cup was, but that is water under the bridge now, and new ways to grow the sport must be sought out.  While the United States Men’s National Team has a devoted following during the World Cup, MLS is still flagging.  I have two meager suggestions that might help, although I do not expect to ever see any of these changes implemented.  There is too much large scale global change involved, and if you are not an American, why change what isn’t really broken?  (I have avoided more concrete solutions like a coaching change or youth development, because this post is complete fantasy, whereas the two suggestions I just listed are in the realm of possibility.)

Suggestion The First–Name Changes

This one is for MLS specifically.  It is too late to change established team names (well, it’s not, but fans of Sporting Kansas City, how do you feel?)  For expansion teams, please stay away from names that remind people of European clubs.  We have American traditions; embrace them.  We are one step away from what the South Americans did in the early days, which was name local clubs after touring British clubs, which is why there is an Arsenal, an Everton, and a Corinthians in South America.  For all new clubs: Philadelphia Union–good, DC United–bad.  And for the love of God, make it illegal for an American team to put “Real” in front of its name.  Confidential to Salt Lake City: Americans do not have a monarch let alone a Spanish one.  Even Canadian MLS clubs should be banned from using “Real”, despite the fact that Elizabeth II is the titular head of the Canadian state.

Suggestion the Second–Join CONMEBOL

CONCACAF has long outlived its usefulness.  In the years between the 1950 World Cup and the 1990 World Cup, when the US almost completely stepped away from football, CONCACAF was fine.  It was more than fine because the US did not deserve to be a part of a better conference (and if we are honest, the only conference of poorer quality than CONCACAF is OFC.)  If it weren’t for the fact that qualification to the World Cup is a near guarantee, I would not be sure how Mexico could put up with CONCACAF.  For decades there was only Mexico.  Now it is only Mexico and the United States.

Starting in 1990 when the US team qualified for the first World Cup again, things started to change.  Now the worry for the United States, like Mexico, is not qualification, it is about improvement.  The quality of CONCACAF is simply not enough to make potentially powerful teams like the United States and Mexico better.  Competing in CONCACAF only hurts the United States.

The United States and Mexico should join CONMEBOL.  South American is the world’s super-region, and CONMEBOL is, from top to bottom, the strongest conference in the world.  There are only ten nations, but of those ten, nine have been to a World Cup (sorry Venezuela), six have made at least the quarterfinals of the World Cup, and all but one have advanced out of the group stages (sorry, Bolivia).  The weakest teams in CONMEBOL this past cycle were Peru and Bolivia; there are no Barbadoses, Belizes, Maltas, San Marinos, Thailands, Mongolias, Vanuatus, American Samoas, Madagascars, Comoroses, or the other zillion national squads that have no shot of ever making the World Cup.  (I am not saying they should not try, mind you, but facts are facts.)

In 2010, five South American nations went to South Africa.  Although Brazil and Argentina disappointed (two quarterfinal exits), Chile had its best showing since 1962, Uruguay made the semifinals for the first time in forty years, and Paraguay made the quarterfinals for the first time ever (in the process nearly upsetting eventual winner Spain.)  A few World Cup cycle ago, CONMEBOL changed its qualification process so that all ten nations play each other home and away.  This raises the standards of all CONMEBOL nations, as was proved in South Africa.

There is no easy way to say this, but the United States Men’s National Team is mediocre.  Really mediocre.  US Football fans know (or should know) that their team will win not the World Cup any time soon.  A true assessment of the US squad should begin with the fact that they got a comparatively easy group in South Africa, and even then only managed one win.  In every single match they played but one in the tournament, they fell behind almost immediately and had to fight their way back.  In the match against Algeria, the US barely eked out a solitary goal at the last minute to win.  This may be the sign of a determined team (and an exciting team), but not a good one.

I would argue that the mediocrity was visible during the qualification.  I blame CONCACAF competition for not exposing that mediocrity.  The United States has a very bad habit of playing to the level of its competition.  Occasionally that means spectacular performances (like the unbelievable 2-0 over Spain at the Confederations Cup), but more often than not it means eking out wins over Trinidad & Tobago or losing to the Mexicans (again) at the Estadio Azteca.  The United States’s record in the final round of qualification was not awful; they won six matches, drew two, and lost two, and finished at the top of the standings.  Nevertheless, the manner in which they qualified was very telling.  Their play was not great.  Stronger teams would have found them out as Ghana eventually did.

The fear of joining CONMEBOL is that the conference is so strong that the US is not guaranteed to qualify like in CONCACAF.  Assuming that is true–a fair assumption–I would ask which is better, a US team that always qualifies but never develops to its potential, or a US team that loses to the best now, but permanently becomes a fixture at the top of the world rankings.

There are two other major advantages to joining CONMEBOL–the Copa America and the Copa Libertadores.  Because CONMEBOL has only 10 nations, they always need to invite two other participants to the Copa America to even out the group stages.  This year’s edition will include Mexico and Japan.  The last time the United States was invited (2007), the United States Soccer Federations sent a watered-down team because (1) the majority of US players were involved in the MLS season, and (2) CONCACAF’s Gold Cup occurred just prior to the Copa America.  The US decided the Gold Cup was more important.  CONMEBOL got very angry and did invite the US back for this year.  This year Mexico and Japan have already indicated that they too will be sending watered down teams; CONMEBOL is not happy.  Sending a team of scrubs to one of the most competitive tournaments in the world is not just bad manners, it’s counterproductive.  If tournament should be sacrificed, it should be the Gold Cup, but that will never happen because the US has to give its best for the CONCACAF championship and because a Gold Cup victories guarantee a spot at the Confederations Cup (a useless tournament that should be dropped from an already packed calendar, but FIFA needs more money from television revenue.)

Whatever strength the US national side would get from going to the Copa America, that applies just as much at the club level and the Copa Libertadores.  The Copa Libertadores may be even more significant because it is an annual competition.  There are logistical problems with MLS teams joining the Copa Libertadores–travel being the major one.  It would be very very difficult and expensive for a team from the US or Canada to go to South America (or for a poorer South American club to go to the US or Canada.)  Nevertheless, there is major potential television revenue for the Copa Libertadores if MLS teams were invited.  (That is why Mexican clubs are invited every year.)

MLS clubs generally do not care much about international competition.  The SuperLiga should be retired immediately, and MLS teams treat the CONCACAF Champions League as more burden than honor.  The Copa Libertadores is a different beast though.  The level of competition would be far above what MLS clubs are used to.  Furthermore, MLS players would be more likely to draw the gaze of European scouts if they perform well at the Copa Libertadores.  Unlike the CONCACAF Champions League or the SuperLiga, there is real history at the Copa Libertadores; the winners’ list includes some of the greatest club sides and players in South American football history.

CONCACAF will never allow the move.  The United States and Mexico are the primary attractions of CONCACAF; without them the conference loses anything resembling competition.  It would be another OFC.  In order for CONCACAF to retain some kind of meaning, the United States and Mexico have to stay.

Australia faced a similar situation to the United States before its move to the AFC this past World Cup cycle, although Australia’s situation was ever more extreme.  The nations of Oceania, Australia and New Zealand excluded, have neither the money nor the resources to provide any kind of meaningful football competition (rugby is a different story though.)  When qualifying for the 2002 World Cup, Australia crushed Tonga 22-0 (an international record) and then smashed a depleted American Samoa 31-0.  This was bad form on Australia’s part, but the scoreline was not so much an intended humiliation as a cry of desperation and rage.  Australia were begging OFC and FIFA to let them move conferences, because OFC would not help Australia develop as it should.  Australia’s weakness was underscored when they lost to Uruguay in a playoff and did not make the 2002 World Cup.  Australia is now in the AFC and much happier.  After their surprisingly excellent showing in South Africa, I wonder how long it will be before New Zealand joins Australia as an Asian nation.  However, without Australia and New Zealand, OFC has almost no reason to exist.  This is truly tragic because, as much as I have been bashing the smaller nations, I do believe that they should be able to qualify and improve.

What FIFA Should Do

If I ran FIFA, I would restructure the whole system, at least with regard to AFC, OFC, CONCACAF, and CONMEBOL.  The competition needs to be structured fairly so that stronger nations can compete with each other and the so-called minnows are not constantly being bashed by the nations who have more resources.  Who does a 31-0 scoreline help?  Wouldn’t American Samoa improve if it played other teams that are at the same level?

FIFA should, as a non-profit, use the money it makes from television revenue to develop football in weaker countries: (1) football development; (2) tournaments for only small nations; and (3) aid to defray the cost of travel for federations with no money.  Developing football in places where money is in short supply should be FIFA’s legacy–not white elephant stadiums in countries that have never before hosted a World Cup.

AFC and OFC should be combined.  There are plenty of weak teams in AFC and OFC that can compete with one another.  CONMEBOL and CONCACAF should also be combined.  Let the minnows play with one another, and the minnow winners get to enter the main draw.  This should probably be applied to the minnows of CAF and UEFA also.

If this were successful, it could change the World Cup qualifying, and make it more equitable than it currently is.  Right now now Europe gets the most spots of any conference.  Europe argues that it deserves more spots because it provides better quality teams.  First of all, let us please retire that canard.  There are more teams from Europe who can compete at the top level, that is true but not that many.  Spain, the Netherlands, and Germany were strong in South Africa, but most of Europe tanked.  A Switzerland, a Slovenia, or a Greece is never going to win the World Cup, and the competition would not be poorer for their absence.

I would want to see 8 spots given to each of my 4 conferences: UEFA, CAF, AFC/OFC, and CONMEBOL/CONCACAF.  There is no reason that the 8th ranked team in a North/South America region is less qualified than the 8th ranked European nation.  I feel confident that the same applies to African and Asian/Oceanic competition.  My solution is equitable and fair.

And it will never happen.

Music I listened to while writing this post: Billie Holiday “Easy Living”;  Leonard Cohen “So Long Marianne”; Thelonious Monk & John Coltrane “Off Minor”; Arnold Schoenberg “Kleine Klavierstücke, op.19″ Sehr langsam; Ludwig van Beethoven “String Quartet #6 In B Flat, Op.18/6 ” Allegro Con Brio; Erasure “Oh L’Amour”; Thelonious Monk & John Coltrane “Epistrophe”; Etta James “Don’t Lose Your Good Thing”; Marian Anderson “My Soul’s Been Anchored in the Lord”; George Gershwin “3 Preludes” Allegro Ben Ritmato E Deciso; Ladysmith Black Mambazo “Ujesu Wami”; Patricia Kaas “Faites Entrer Les Clowns”; Elton John “Grow Some Funk of Your Own”; Ella Fitzgerald “A-Tisket A-Tasket”;

Beautiful People and Beautiful Thing

This past week a good friend of mine introduced me to the BBC show called Beautiful People.  Beautiful people is a two season long British sitcom (very loosely) inspired by the memoirs of Simon Doonan, the creative director of the upscale department store Barneys.  The show is a riot, and it wears its campiness (and gayness) on its sleeve, like a rainbow sticker.  It also has a lot of heart.  I have now seen all of Season 1.  Because I promised my friend I would not watch Season 2 without him, watching the rest will have to wait.

About three episodes in, I realized that I recognized one of the actresses; it was Tameka Empson from Beautiful Thing.  Empson played Leah, the tough, Mama Cass-loving, teenage burnout.  It took another episode for me to realize that the show’s writer Jonathan Harvey also wrote Beautiful Thing–both the movie and the original stage play.

If there are any LGBT teenagers out there reading this blog post, please know that the rest of this post is directed with you in mind.

Beautiful Thing is perhaps the most important movie I ever saw.  My first experience with it was reading a review of the movie in the New York Times back in 1996 when it was first shown in American theaters.  I remember that I badly wanted to see it, but was afraid to because of the implications; it would be admitting that I was indeed gay, something I was not ready to do.

By the time I was a sophomore in college, I had come out.  My life was not particularly happy, and it would be years before I started to feel better about myself.  Nevertheless, Beautiful Thing helped me tremendously.  There was a bodega on the same block as my dorm that rented out movies, and they carried Beautiful Thing.  I rented it and watched it eight times in the next five days.  It became my lifeline.  The subtitle of the movie is “An Urban Fairytale,” and (despite the unsubtle pun) that’s exactly what it is.  I felt like Jamie and Ste (and by my extension me) were going to live happily ever after, and that is what made the movie so meaningful.  The movie also introduced me to the music of Cass Elliot, a talent who died far too early.  I am unable to separate my feelings about her voice from my feelings about the movie, and I still cannot listen to “Make Your Own Kind of Music” without weeping a little bit.  Beautiful Thing was the only thing that lifted my depression.  Needless to say, I bought the movie.

Since that time, life has gotten better, at least for the most part.  I am no longer scared or confused about sexuality.  I do not need Beautiful Thing anymore; the last time I watched it (about six years ago) I fell asleep.  I had just begun my current relationship, and I was in a much better place.

My relationship with Beautiful Thing was like a supportive teenage romance (if such a thing exists); it was very passionate for a while, but an end was inevitable.  At the split there were no  hard feelings, just fond memories.  Nevertheless, there is going back; the void that it once filled closed for good.

I have yet to see a gay-themed romance that is anywhere near as good as Beautiful Thing.  Only Pedro Almodóvar’s ”All About My Mother” (a movie of gay-sentiment if not theme) and Queer as Folk (the British original, not the horrible American remake) have affected me in the same way.

And now there is a fourth: Beautiful People.  Once again, and without me realizing it, Jonathan Harvey has come through for me.  He created a world that, despite the pain and conflicts, is also a warm and loving place.  And ridiculously funny too.  Watching the show was like being introduced to a new friend.

Most television shows out there that have prominent gay characters are made for straight people to watch.  Will and Grace is the absolute nadir of this genre; I could not stomach that show.  I have the same ill will toward Glee (and with the American version of Queer as Folk.)  All three of those shows sacrificed story and character for a politically correct message: gays are people too.  Beautiful People is the show Glee wishes it could be.  The superiority of British gay-themed shows may be a cultural thing; British sitcoms are generally able to be riskier than American ones (Absolutely Fabulous comes to mind.)  Also because there are not as many episodes to make, each episode of a (good) British show can be crafted with more care.

So dear gay teenager who is hurting, consider this my advice to you.  Rent Beautiful Thing, All About My Mother, and, if you can get it, the British Queer as Folk (for the love of God, skip the American version.)  Find Beautiful People on YouTube (don’t watch it on Logo).  Watch them all twice.  Three times, if you need to.

And to Jonathan Harvey, should you ever come across this post. Thank you. For everything.

Music I listened to while writing this post: Patricia Kaas “Faites Entrer Les Clowns”; John Denver “Life is a Sad Song”; Cass Elliot “Make You Own Kind of Music”; Cass Elliot “Welcome to the World”; The Mamas & the Papas “Go Where You Wanna Go”; Cass Elliot “California Earthquake”; The Mamas & the Papas “Dedicated To The One I Love”; Cass Elliot “It’s Getting Better”; The Mamas & the Papas “Monday, Monday”; The Mamas & the Papas “Move in a Little Closer, Baby”; The Mamas & the Papas “Words of Love”; The Mamas & the Papas “California Dreamin’”;The Mamas & the Papas “Look Through My Window”; Dusty Springfield “Of All The Things”; Cass Elliot “One Way Ticket”; The Mamas & the Papas “Creeque Alley”;

An Open Letter to Sepp Blatter, President of FIFA

Dear Sepp,

Please stop talking.  Every time you open your mouth, you show what a buffoon you are.

Sincerely,

Solitary Muser

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=514213&cc=5901