Critics talk: Abba’s win was a style break in Eurovision

Kajsa Haidl: The silvery platform boots, the blow-dried bangs, Agnetha and Anni-Frid’s vocal singing…. Everyone has seen the clip when Abba sings “Waterloo” in Eurovision. How do you think it was to see the performance in its context?

Hanna Fahl: Of course, it becomes clear how the entire television medium has changed since then. The pace is so slow. Everyone is so rude. Not only the performers but also the presenter Katie Boyle, who only says exactly what is required to make the show work.

Kaysa: I have to admit I was watching at 1.5 times the speed to keep my concentration up.

Po Tidholm: It is also clear that it was actually a music competition back then. It is funny that the Swedish commentator constantly underlines the formal music education the participants have. It was like completely different merits back then.

Kaysa: A Eurovision that takes itself very seriously, compared to now?

po: Really. Just look at the crowd! Dressed up as if for an evening at the opera. It is so obvious that this has nothing to do with youth culture. Or popular culture for that matter. And that’s what makes Abbas’s contribution so interesting.

Hannah: Yes. It is often said that Abba were the first entry to be pop with a capital p, but just as important was the sleight of hand humor in the performance that had not been seen before. Just that the conductor Sven-Olof Walldoff has that bizarre Napoleon costume. It is an abrupt break in style compared to the other contributions.

po: Yes, it really feels like Abba are drawing up the guidelines for future Eurovision here. And when you read the reporting from 1974, you also understand how calculated everything is. Stikkan Andersson had a launch plan for the song and the group a year before “Waterloo” was written. Nothing was left to chance. Not to mention the awareness of the performance itself. They run onto the stage with big smiles, moving in coordination. There is a commercial energy here that the other contributions completely lack.

Kaysa: The contrast becomes particularly clear in the contribution after, when the 25-year-old maiden aunt Ireen Sheer sings for Luxembourg. It’s such a punk. All the air goes out.

Hannah: Abba marked one of the years when it was allowed to sing in a language that was not the country’s own. I wonder how much it affected? If they had won if it was in Swedish?

po: Stika was very careful with the title “Waterloo”. He bowled many, but chose one that everyone could pronounce and recognize. And it was called the same in Swedish, so the rest of the text might not have had that much meaning. I think it’s the attitude they win with. The commercial joy!

Hannah: I think so too, in the end. Just the lightness, in Agnetha and Anni-Frid’s singing too – it’s so effortless. And that they actually introduced a scoop of kitsch. Their victory was definitely the basis for Sweden as a Melodifestival nation. And by extension Sweden’s self-confidence as a pop nation.

po: It’s so depressing!

Hannah: Haha, Po! Choose the joy!

Kaysa: Why depressed Po?

In Abbas’ contribution there is a commercial energy that the other contributions completely lack.

po: Because the whole thing has gone wrong. Like everyone else, I can rejoice at the role that Mello and Eurovision have been given in the fight for gay rights. But it is not possible on the one hand to celebrate the competition as an LGBTQ party and a kitsch and camp party and on the other hand to judge the contributions as if they were quality music. And the arrangement gets too much space from the media, takes up too many resources, stifles so much else. It is a dominance of the space that is absolutely insane.

Kaysa: I think the space given this year is perfectly reasonable. Israel’s involvement, the protests, the increased threat level… It is a serious security situation.

Hannah: The coverage and media interest in Eurovision will probably be very focused on those aspects, yes. The program itself will probably be business as usual. Which will perhaps be experienced as bizarre in itself. I remember what it was like when Russia just introduced its anti-LGBTQ laws and competed in Eurovision in Copenhagen and they put applause sounds on the TV broadcast to drown out the boos in the arena. It felt… surreal. Unpleasant, actually.

po: The arrangement is both then and now completely disconnected from time and reality in a strange and scary way. Think how popular music in general sounded in 1974. Joni Mitchell released “Court and spark”. Bowie “Diamond dogs”. Steely Dan “Pretzel logic”. Big Star released “Radio City”!

Hannah: But it is not completely detached from reality! Eurovision 1974 was actually quite a political year. Portugal’s song is interesting. It came last in the competition and didn’t make much of an impact until a month later, when it was used as a signal to start the revolution in Portugal and became extremely politically charged.

po: I’d say it’s the same blinders then as now. It is strange how the Greece of the junta and the Yugoslavia of communism were allowed to display corrected folklore. Even Spain, which despite the fact that Franco still ruled and the country was a dictatorship, carelessly participated in the festivities.

Hannah: There was also the same discussion about countries in active conflict then, as there is now – although that debate hardly made any impression on people in general. Just in 1974, Norway raised a proposal to ban countries that were in international conflicts, but it was voted down. If that rule had already been introduced then, this year’s competition would have been a little easier to arrange, it can be stated.

Kaysa: Which do you prefer? A Eurovision that takes itself seriously – or the family-oriented appearance of today’s editions?

po: The latter, definitely. The whole competition is at its worst when people realize that it should be about quality.

Hannah: I want a Eurovision that is both, that’s when it’s at its best. It must not be only kitsch, but also not only serious.

Read disc reviews here and all about music here.