The Eurovision Song Contest 1994 saw Hungary participate’s Eurovision debut with Friderika Bayer. She achieved what is still today the best results for Hungary.
In 1994 Hungary made its debut in the Eurovision Song Contest. Hungary attempted to participate on the previous year with Andrea Szulák. Back then, there was no semi-finals in Eurovision. Hungary took part in Kvalifikacija za Millstreet, the pre-selection for Eurovision 1993. Although, they failed to make their debut in 1993, Hungary was eligible for the following year. Thus, Friderika had the honour to be the first Hungarian representative in the Eurovision Song Contest in Dublin.
1 Kinek Mondjam El Vétkeimet? – opinions from fans
2 A mini Biography to Friderika
For the 1994 Eurovision Song Contest, MTV, the Hungarian national broadcaster organised a national selection. Friderika Bayer won the national selection with the song Kinek Mondjam El Vétkeimet? (To whom can I tell my sins?). She performed her song accompanied by a guitarist and received 122 points, which resulted in a 4th place. This is Hungary’s best result to this date in Eurovision.
Kinek Mondjam El Vétkeimet? is written by Szilveszter Jenei.
Kinek Mondjam El Vétkeimet? – opinions from fans
In order to find out what Eurovision fans today think of this Hungarian entry from 1994, we asked our Eurovision Fan Panel. It includes team members as well as fans from all over the world.
🇨🇿 Josef S. – Friderika is very young and those guitar ballads at Eurovision are always great. This time combined with orchestra, it just makes a perfect feel-good song to listen to. That guitar melody is memorable, and Friderika sings it really well. It may sound like I repeat myself, but with these opinions, my Eurovision favourites playlist is growing bigger and bigger. I should focus more on the older Eurovision years as there are some hidden gems. And Hungary 1994 is definitely one of them.
🇬🇧 Paul G. – I have to say that I am not a massive fan of this entry from Hungary, I think they have sent better since their debut in 1994. However debuting with a 4th place was very good for them.
🇸🇪 Jill R. – Friderika Bayers from Hungary has a rather good voice but her performance wasn’t very interesting. And Kinek Mondjam El Vétkeimet isn’t a great song. It is sweet and sounds a bit like a lullaby, but it is also kind of boring and forgettable. But so were a lot of other songs that year, so I still would place it in top ten. Let´s face it; 1994 wasn’t´t a very good year in ESC. The Riverdance interval act totally outshone all the contestants.
See also13 fans about the worst Eurovision entry
🇨🇴 🇫🇮 Álvaro S.- I love the sound of the guitar and Friderika’s beautiful voice. It is a minimalistic atmosphere that brings me peace and it works perfect creating an intimate atmosphere. The sound of this song is touching and gives a feeling of intimacy even if one does not understand the lyrics.
🇩🇰 Tina M. – A very timeless song. The song could just as well have participated in Eurovision 1970 as it could 2010. The song shows the strong vocal of the singer, and the accompanying guitar helps the song in a great way. The song is thus very simple, which suits it a lot. A fine and simple song. A very fine song, which I like. 7/10.
🇭🇺 Vangelis M. – Allow me to take this moment to mention that for me an artist is someone who respects first of all people. Friderika was a member of an anti-LGBT action, spreading hate towards the LGBT community. I am so sorry this woman was sent to the contest, because in Hungary we have artists that respect human beings, love and respect all people no matter what. The song for me is boring and even if I love my country in the contest I cannot understand how it went so well in the final results.
🇬🇧 Michael O. – No way did I see this getting 3, 12 points right at the start of the voting and fortunately the scoring returned more to what the song deserved. Certainly I like this better than the eventual winner, but to me Poland and Russia’s debut in the same year, were the better entries.
See alsoEurovision 2016: Austria's Zoë in focus
🇪🇸 Quique B. – For me Frederika leaves a good first impression from Hungary. She sang a pleasant song, nice, elegant, in Hungarian, that’s good for a presentation card. Probably her country hasn’t done it again. The problem is that Poland did the same but much better, and also Russia. Anyway that was a nice song, well performed, very well classified and a great souvenir from Dublin 1994.
🇩🇰 Charlotte J. – This song reminds me of an old boyfriend of mine. It was one of his favourite entries. While I don’t share his love for the song, I am able to appreciate it too. It’s nice and a bit mysterious, probably because I don’t understand the lyrics (Guilty, I haven’t checked the translation). The guitar player really is a nice addition, for me. I would probably rate it 6/10.
🇬🇧 Ashleigh K. – A nice entry from Hungary that I hadn’t heard before. The performance is beautifully subtle but still captivating. I’m glad to have heard this.
Enjoy Friderika’s performance from the 1994 Eurovision Song Contest in the embedded video. Below the video, you can read more about Friderika.
A mini Biography to Friderika
Friderika Bayer is a pop, gospel singer. She was the first Hungarian representative in Eurovision in 1994. Her first album, Friderika, got a gold certification two months after it’s release in her country. She started attending the Faith Church since 1996 along with her husband. In 2003 she released the album Gospel, an album inspired by her faith. This marked a change of genre. More recently, she has released children-oriented music.
In October, 2019 she said to a local newspaper that though she loves music, she is living a happy life with her family which includes three children.
Eurovision news worth supporting? Support EuroVisionary on Patreon.com
We all know it. There has to be some Eurovision songs which we, for various reasons, just don’t like. It is songs, which we decide not to listen to. In the case, that we are exposed to them anyway, they remind us, that these songs, just aren’t for us.
Taste is different. Whenever we talk to other Eurovision fans we realise, that while we do agree on many things, and share a common love for many songs, there are bound to be some, where our taste is different.
We asked a group of fans one simple, yet difficult question: ‘Which song, is to you, the worst Eurovision entry?’.
The answers we got were of course very different. Finland’s 2015 entry was mentioned by several fans, a few also pointed out both Portugal as well Iceland from 2019. Aside from those we really saw a wide variety of songs fall into the category of being picked as worst Eurovision entry: Israel 2000, Latvia 2002, Norway 2011, Montenegro 2012, Poland 2016 and Spain 2017 for example.
13 fans and their worst Eurovision entry
We asked people from our dedicated Fan Panel which Eurovision entry, to them, is the worst one. The Fan Panel consists of fans from all over the world in various ages.
🇬🇧 Steve P. – For me, the worst song in the history of the contest, indeed one of the worst ever, regardless of where it’s from, has to be Norway’s 2011 ‘effort’, Haba, Haba, by Stella Mwangi. Even writing the words make me feel uuurrgh!!! There are absolutely no redeeming features about this ‘song.’ There is no discernable tune, at least, if there is one, Stella does her best to hide it! Her performance (if that isn’t a breach of trades descriptions) was totally flat throughout, and the lyrics (some of us care about them) are childish!
🇮🇪 Paul K. – This is a fairly hard question, and I had to think about it for a while! But the more I think about it, my mind goes back to 2017 and Spain. Just everything about it was actually cringe and hard to listen to, as well as watch! I can’t remember who it was but there was a better song that they could have sent but they went with that! I’m sorry but I can’t forgive them. They were my least favourite of 2017, as well as my least favourite ever! Sorry Spain, nul points.
🇬🇷 Giannis A. – It is very difficult to choose the worst song of the contest. The first entry that comes to my mind is Portugal 2019. I never understood the love of some people for this participation, they were even considered it among the favourites. A song, which had three different songs in it, with melodies that alternated, but without any coherence. The stage presentation was even worse, I never understood what the performer wanted to show, and I better not comment on the vocals. So Telemoveis is for sure one of the worst songs, in my opinion.
See alsoVasil tells a love story on his new single “PriKazna”
🇩🇰 Alberte B. – For me, the worst ESC entry is Telemoveis (Portugal 2019). I dislike everything about it, from the melody to the singing. I get that they tried to do something new, but new doesn’t always mean good.
🇬🇧 Michael O. – Wow, of course there have been some horrors, but what criteria would really make a song the worst? Sadly I’d describe one as a racket that really is quite unlistenable and although Denmark’s entry from the same year is quite sickly, I’m sorry to say the worst is Finland 2015 and I hate myself for saying it, as I have so much respect for the band, it yes I feel it’s the worst.
🇨🇴 🇫🇮 Alvaro S. – 63 years are a long period of time so I would rather comment on the songs from the 90s to this date. For me one of the worst eurovision entries of recent Eurovision years is Finland 2015. It is messy, the music is monotone and the vocals… just no comments. I considered that maybe it was just me that is not used to this genre, but then I see Hungary 2018 or Iceland 2019 and I can confirm the problem is not the genre. It is just them being awful. As a story of perseverance, they deserve some praise but as musicians they just are not very good.
🇨🇿 Josef Š – I am not big fan of fun songs or songs that are completely out of my genre preference. Therefore I really disliked Ireland 2008, Finland 2015, and partially also Hungary 2018, Iceland 2019 and even our own Czech entry from 2009. Every year there is something I dislike and it is put on this “shame list” with other songs from the past. As I still don’t know all past Eurovision songs, I cannot add more of the pre-millenium era entries. Those I mentioned are some I don’t like at all even after many listens and some years.
See alsoEurovision 2001: Slovenia's Nuša Derenda in focus
🇩🇰 Charlotte J. Now, I have a bad memory so it might be that there are even worse songs, I just simply don’t remember. Israel 2000 however is the one, I remember as being the worst. Ping Pong were extremely bad in my ears. Vocally, they sound bad, the performance is awful and the song really is the worst, I recall ever having heard on a Eurovision stage. I just went back to listen to it again, and was confirmed in that yes, it is as bad as I remember.
🇳🇱 Eric O. – Oh wow, this is such a difficult question, because my list of ‘bad’ songs in Eurovision is quite long! I think my worst one is Turkey 2012 (Can Bonomo – Love me back) because of the ‘goat’ sound the singer makes, but also Finland 2015 (Pertti Kurikan Nimipaivat – Aina mun pitaa), Albania 2012 (Rona Nishliu – Suus) and Bulgaria 2013 (Elitsa Todorova & Stoyan Yankulov – Samo shampioni) are definitely ear worms. My worst winning song would be Azerbeijan 2011 (Ell & Nikki – Running Scared), as their performance was really awful, so I don’t understand why they won at all.
🇬🇧 Ashleigh K. – I choose to focus on my own country here. One of the worst entries that the UK ever sent to Eurovision was Josh Dubovie’s That Sounds Good To Me. I think a lot of the time, the UK deserve more points than they are awarded. But in 2010 we placed exactly where we should have. It’s another example of how the UK pick a big name, in this case song writers Stock and Waterman with little thought to the fact they hadn’t had a hit in over a decade, probably longer. It was the same with Engelbert and Bonnie Tyler (I actually liked Bonnie’s entry) but their style of music was no longer popular and it’s the same with Stock and Waterman. A very disappointing entry and I feel sorry for Josh because he wasn’t a bad singer and deserved something better.
See also16 fans about their favourite Eurovision country
🇩🇪 Pascal W. – For me, this one is a tie between Poland 2016 and Iceland 2019. Michał‘s song is way too kitschy for my taste and I‘m totally on the side of the juries here. Hatari‘s song is very creepy. I didn’t like it from the beginning and I still don‘t like it now. I usually don‘t want to refer to songs as “bad”, because mostly it‘s just a question of taste, but in this case, these two were just totally overrated and I can’t understand why people like them.
🇹🇷 Gunec G. – In my opinion, Montenegro’s 2012 entry Euro Nero was literally disturbing. I think it was not even a song. He might be a good entertainer but he should stay away from music and Eurovision.
🇫🇮 Martti I. – A question so easy to answer? Honestly there is definitely hundreds I like the least for various reasons, but to nominate one is hard. Maybe, the 2002 winner I wanna for being such a bad song that it won for it’s show. There are other reasons too, but I think it’s best to skip those.
Eurovision news worth supporting? Support EuroVisionary on Patreon.com
If you have ever watched a rehearsal video from the Eurovision Song Contest or a National Final, you might have seen a box with a timer running and various numbers on screen.
That is CuePilot, and it has brought about some major changes to the look of our Song Contest.
What Is CuePilot?
CuePilot’s Eurovision debut was in 2013, and has been used in numerous National Finals. It lets Directors pre-program the camera work, allowing for more creative, advanced and appealing performances for those watching. The Director programs the shot list for each performance and synchronizes it with the other aspects of the performance, such as sound, lighting effects, pyrotechnics, and the video backdrops). This allows the visual show to be run ‘on automatic’. It reduces the potential for human error in a live show, which in turn allows for more advanced performances to be created with the help of quick cuts between cameras or the introduction of video-based special effects in a live performance.
The visual script is programmed into an online platform and shared with each of the camera operators who each get an individual script so they know when it is their turn to be live and what image they should be providing at that time. The usage of CuePilot enables the camera work of a performance to run multiple times under the same conditions, and helps delegations to alter and improve the visual look of the performances at the Song Contest.
Using CuePilot in Australia’s very first national selection, Eurovision: Australia Decides 2019.
CuePilot And Eurovision Rehearsals
During the rehearsal weeks of the Eurovision Song Contest, the journalists and bloggers in the press centre often try to analyze if the camera work helps a performance or going to harm its chances to qualify to the Grand Final, and in turn towards winning the Song Contest. Meanwhile, delegation members sit in the viewing room and negotiate with the production team over the same camera work as the press. Delegations are looking to have the best three minutes possible, while the production team are looking to make every performance in the show unique with little visual repetition.
Does the camera work really make a difference, and can the viewers even notice that a tool like CuePilot is in use?
Along with my colleague Alexander Åblad, I study Media Technology at KTH Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, and we’ve tried to answer this question in our study ‘Spirit in the Screen: The effect of CuePilot on the viewer’s experience in live broadcasted music competitions.‘ I’ve spent ten years writing about the Song Contest, I’ve also been working with Swedish broadcaster SVT; and have been involved with the production of the Eurovision preview event ‘Israel Calling’ and Eurovision 2019 in Tel Aviv. Alexander has grown up watching the Contest and the National Selections, and also worked with lighting and camera production in church environments.
Alexander (l) and Gil (r) at work. (Photos: Emanuel Stenberg, Private)
Our hypothesis was that pre-programmed camera work will result in a more unified experience among the viewers. A unified experience means that in terms of emotions and their intensities, each individual among a group of viewers would feel the same as the other group members. This can be measured and later analyzed using statistical methods.
Most Eurovision productions will start using CuePilot very early in the process to help plan the camera work with the staging concepts and initial designs, before taking to the actual stage and running rehearsals. It was therefore difficult to find material where the use of CuePilot is the only difference to allow for a comparison.
However, Latvia’s Supernova 2017 was different, CuePilot was only used in the televised Final. As the competition had three stages (2 heats, 1 Semi Final, and the Final), it meant that each of the four finalists had performed twice without CuePilot.
A side-by-side comparison of Triana Park’s “Line” performed during the second heat (without CuePilot) and the final (with CuePilot).
For the research, we used the Semi Final and Final performances of each entry. A total of six different combinations of the four entries were made. Each variant includes two entries with CuePilot and two entries without. The four entries were presented to the participants in the same running order in which they performed in the Supernova 2017 final:
‘Your Breath‘, by Santa Daņeļeviča.
‘I’m In Love With You‘, by The Ludvig.
‘All I Know‘, by My Radiant You.
‘Line’, by Triana Park.
Triana Park at Supernova (Latvia 2017)
A total of 30 Media Technology students aged 19 to 31 from KTH Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, Sweden participated in the research. Out of them, 18 identified themselves as females, 11 as male and one as other. Each received a video file featuring one of the six variants and was asked to watch it using their own computers and monitors, with their own headphones, at a quiet location of their choice.
In order to measure the evoked emotions the Geneva Emotional Music Scale (GEMS) was used, a special instrument which was developed exactly for this kind of studies. GEMS includes a set of 45 labels that describe a wide range of emotions and states that can be evoked by listening to music. A shorter scale of 25 labels also exists and is preferred by most users due to the favorable balance between brevity and validity. The labels are grouped into nine different categories (GEMS-9).
GEMS Categories and Labels
After watching each of the four entries, the participants were asked to rate the intensity with which they felt each of the nine categories – not a description of what the entry should mediate but their pure personal feelings – on a five point Likert scale (1: not at all; 2: somewhat; 3: moderately; 4: quite a lot; 5: very much) and had an optional place for leaving short-text comments explaining their ratings.
At the end, the participants were introduced to CuePilot and its purpose. The participants had then to determine which two of the four performances they watched had CuePilot in use and to explain their choices. This was asked in order to understand if the use of CuePilot is noticeable among viewers.
Each of the nine GEMS-categories in each performance was ranked on a scale from 1 to 5 for a total of 15 times each, as each performance was watched by half of the participants. The mean value and the variance were then calculated for each feeling, summed for each performance, and compared between the two variants of each entry (without CuePilot or with CuePilot). These are shown for each entry in the following tables. In each of these tables, the variance value in bold indicates the lowest variance for that specific category among the two versions of the entry, and thus a more unified experience among the group of viewers.
Manual vs CuePilot comparisons
Although the sum of the variances for all entries is smaller for the performance that was directed with CuePilot, a significance test was conducted in order to ensure that the outcome of the experiment did not happen by chance.
Using F-Test for equality of two variances, the question “Is the variance between the means of the two versions significantly different?” was answered for each feeling in each entry. Our null hypothesis assumes that the variances are equal and our alternate hypothesis is that the variances are unequal.
The output of the F-Test is a numerical value. Two equal variances would give us a value of 1.00, like the value of Peacefulness in “Line”. That value gets bigger as the variances are more unequal. In order to assume that the variances are significantly unequal, a desired outcome in our test was getting a result bigger than 2.48, with a sub-condition that the version with CuePilot has the smaller variance. The F-Value of Tension for “All I Know” could not be calculated as a division by zero occurs.
F Values for CuePilot Study
Categories in blue had the smallest variance in version with CuePilot, while the categories in red had the smallest variance without. Categories in bold have a value of more than 2.48 and thus passing the significant test, however in some cases it was the opposite result that was achieved.
Amount of Shots and CuePilot identification
How many shots were added to each entry with the introduction of CuePilot? Going through the CuePilot scripts of the Final performances and comparing them to the Semi Final performances showed that Entry 4 saw the biggest increase in the number of shots followed by entries 1, 3 and 2 in that order.
Shot Count (CuePilot Study)
The two entries that saw the biggest increase in the number of shots were songs that had electronic music as a characteristic (‘Your Breath‘ and ‘Line‘). The same ranking applies to the successful identification rates of the version directed with CuePilot. A majority (80 percent) of the participants managed to guess only one entry correct. Apart from arbitrary explanations (“I’m not sure, but I felt like, they had a bit of ‘cooler’ camerawork, especially the last one”), more than half of the participants managed to explain their choices in technical terms:
“In ‘Your Breath‘ there are ‘special effects’ at some parts when turning from one camera/angle to another, for example the clouds that ‘blur’ out to another picture, which is most likely pre-programmed” (guessed ‘Your Breath‘ correctly but not ‘Line‘).
“They felt more staged. At one point in ‘Line‘, she was waiting for the camera, which I reacted to. Overall, those two entries felt more complex” (guessed ‘All I Know’ and ‘Line‘ correctly).
The overall identification rates per entry were as follows:
Identification Rates (Cue Pilot Study)
The conclusions drawn from the research is that pre-programmed camera work can result in a more unified experience compared to manual camera work. The ability to do that depends on the overall creativity value of the production, which in turn depends on various aspects such as the number of cameras and the available shooting angles, the production team’s proficiency in using tools as CuePilot, and in the time that the team got to spend on the production.
As seen in Australia Decides’ and Supernova, the use of CuePilot increases the expressive potential of the production while reducing the time needed for reaching a specific production level. Adding more cameras and having a skilled production team will increase the creativity value even more, thus allowing the creation of more unified experiences.
Though not enough significant results were received to conclude CuePilot’s effect on the viewer’s experience, there was a overall tendency of the usage of CuePilot resulting in a more unified experience, which is why further research is encouraged, for example testing two different CuePilot scripts for the same performance or having a bigger and varied test group which is not limited to Swedish university students.
Regarding the subproblem, whether pre-programmed camera work is distinguishable, the conclusion is that it is more noticeable if the performance has quick cuts, special video effects or explicit interaction of the artist with the camera. It is based on the participants’ explanations provided when they choose which two of the entries they watched were directed with CuePilot. These aspects are not unique to pre-programmed camera work but are easier to implement with such tools.
The most significant result in terms of difference between sum of variances, significance tests and overall identification of CuePilot was achieved with ‘All I Know‘ although not having the most radical changes in production. Just adding more shots, quick cuts and video effects will not directly lead to a significant more unified experience among the viewers.
So whether you’re watching the Eurovision Song Contest or making it happen from behind the scenes – know that the camera work can affect the way you feel about a specific performance. Interested in reading the full study? Find it here.
Laufer, Gil & Åblad, Alexander. (2020). Spirit in the Screen: The effect of CuePilot on the viewer’s experience in live broadcasted music competitions. 10.13140/RG.2.2.19169.33121.
Vasil Garvanliev, chosen to represent North Macedonia at 2020 Eurovision, is out with a new single “PriKazna”. It’s a summery pop song about love and desire.
Vasil Garvanliev launched the second song since his entry for the later cancelled 2020 Eurovision Song Contest, You, was presented in March. The title of the new single, which is sung in Macedonian, is PriKazna or Story as it translates to in English.
No matter what comes our way, it is our duty to stay true to ourselves and share our story with as many people as we can.
Vasil Garvanliev about PriKazna
So, what is Vasil’s story? The new song is undoubtedly an impression of a dream or desire to connect with someone or something special in order to make a perfect and passionate love story.
PriKazna is a contemporary and radio friendly pop song that combines dance and traditional music vibes. 35 year old Vasil has written the song himself together with Tanja Brkovska. Davor Jordanovski, who is living and working in Canada, has produced the song, while Design Box, with Jelmaz Dervishi serving as creative director, responsible for the video.
I saw you, I breathed you, and your breath
On my skin like the silence of the morning
And from that moment I made a wish
For you to be a part of my story.
(Lyrics from PriKazna)
In the embedded video below, you can watch the video for PriKazna, which was filmed in beautiful surroundings around the Lake Ohrid:
Eurovision news worth supporting? Support EuroVisionary on Patreon.com
Turkey’s first Eurovision appearance came in 1975. It took a draw to decide who should represent the country for the first time. At Eurovision she was sick, and unfortunately came last.
Turkey’s first appearance on the ESC stage was in 1975. Broadcaster TRT decided to participate, and opened an audition to find the entry. 105 songs were shortlisted to 32 by a professional jury in the first phase. Nilüfer’s (Turkey 1978) “Boşver” was disqualified due to plagiarism but it turned out afterwards that it was not stolen at all.
1 Seninle Bir Dakika – Opinions from fans
2 A Mini Biography to Semiha Yankı
3 In my view
On 9th of February 1975, final 8 songs auditioned for the final decision. Ali Rıza Binboğa’s “Yarınlar Bizim” won the public votes. However, Semiha Yankı’s “Seninle Bir Dakika” and Cici Kızlar’s “Delisin” got the equal highest points from the professional jury. After a draw, Semiha Yankı earned the honour of representing her country for the very first time in Eurovision Song Contest.
In Stockholm, 17 year old Semiha took the stage with 38 degrees fever. The girl did her best to make her country proud. Unfortunately, she could only get three points from Monaco and took the last place.
Seninle Bir Dakika – Opinions from fans
In order to find out what Eurovision fans today think of this Turkish entry from 1975, we asked our Eurovision Fan Panel. It includes team members as well as fans from all over the world.
🇬🇧 🇹🇭 John E. – The first ever Turkish entry I think. I remember watching this contest live but this song did not stand out but I don’t feel it deserved last place. Beautiful simple staging and orchestral accompaniment and a singer with a strong voice clearly singing with great passion. I think she may have suffered from singing in Turkish when many other countries chose English. I have no idea what she was singing about because back then we did not get the wealth of information we do today, especially the meanings of the songs. It was great to welcome Turkey to Eurovision but I enjoyed many of their subsequent entries much more.
🇩🇰 Charlotte J. – Unfortunately, I find this song too boring. It’s not directly bad, but it’s just boring. It doesn’t do anything for me, there’s no highlights to attract me.
🇹🇷 🇫🇷 Egemen O. – Semiha Yankı’s selection was in fact, due to some luck. She had obtained the same points as another song called Delisin and the representative was selected by lottery. Good luck for her, but terrible luck for Turkey. Later on, Delisin became a hit whereas this one sunk into oblivion. It is a love song and the lyrics are okay. But the music is definitely a dull one. When you take into account this fact alongside with the fact that her voters don’t speak Turkish and that villager dress, the song’s destiny isn’t surprising.
See alsoEurovision 1974: Italy's Gigliola Cinquetti in focus
🇬🇧 Aslegih K. – I hadn’t realised that Turkey had such a long history in Eurovision. This is a very nice song from Turkey with beautiful vocals. I don’t think it’s a song that I would seek out again but I’m very glad to have heard it.
🇨🇿 Josef S. – I hear this song for the first time and I love how it sounds like from a fairytale. I don’t understand a single word in Turkish, but it has a mystical atmosphere together with the flute in the orchestra. It is a ballad, but still has some power especially when the refrain starts. It is as good as other old Eurovision songs, it can even compare to some of the winners from the same decade. I really like this one. I miss Turkey at Eurovision.
🇫🇮 🇨🇴 Alvaro S. – I love the melody of this song. It sounds like a lullaby and it transports me to another time. The lyrics of this song are short but passionate and Semiha is very expressive on stage. It definitely deserved a better result.
See alsoGreek musician Agathonas Iakovidis died at the age of 65
🇬🇧 Michael O. – I never have understood the placings in the 1975 contest where Turkey was far from the worst. This is a really nice lilting melody of a song, which although was no winner, should have finished much further up the table. In fact I think this is one of Turkey’s best entries.
🇹🇷 Gunec G. – A 17 year old teenager on stage with 38 degrees fever. Singing her heart out for her country. Her heart flapping like a bird and there is desire in her eyes. A strong, powerful, emotional ballad written and composed by two legendary musicians of Turkey. Another legend Timur Selçuk (he also conducted Bana Bana in 1989) conducting the orchestra. The result, only 3 points from Monaco. This is really sad. Turkey sent much worse entries to Eurovision but Seninle Bir Dakika was not one of them. I think Bora Aydos’ Esmer Yarim (1993) was the worst Turkish entry ever.
🇬🇷 Kostas C. – First attempt for Turkey, and they wanted to show their European profile. And they achieved it. A very good and melodic song. Personally, I find it as one of the best entries of the country and the result is very unfair. It cannot be only the ugly dress of the singer the reason for the last place. Maybe the low scoring is a result of the Turkish invasion in Cyprus, the previous year.
Enjoy Semiha Yankı’s performance from the 1975 Eurovision Song Contest in the embedded video. Below the video, you can read more about Semiha Yankı.
A Mini Biography to Semiha Yankı
Semiha Yankı was born on 15th of February 1958 in Istanbul to a family of circus acrobats. After her brother’s death when he fell down from the rope, she decided to deal with music instead.
After her appearance on the Eurovision stage in 1975, she has released many singles and albums. Her last single Tükendim was released in 2018.
She is currently living in Çeşme, still active and taking the stage in various places.
In my view
I see that at least thought of connecting the bad result to Cyprus “invasion” in 1974. I would like to share some brief information about the Cyprus issue here to clear things up, from my point of view. (Although Eurovision should not be a platform for political discussions, I felt the need to answer).
In 1571 (449 years ago) Ottoman Empire conquered the island after the Venetian Empire. The island was ruled by Genoese traders at the moment. In 1878, with Cyprus Pact, the administration of the island was given to United Kingdom. In 1923, the island was literally given to the UK by the Lausanne pact. In 1925, Cyprus was announced as crown colony and first Turkish ambassador was appointed. In October, Greeks rioted in request of Enosis. After that, UK took strict measures against both Turkish and Greek people. In 1950 as the result of a referendum, Greek islanders decided to join Greece. The terrorist group EOKA began their terrorist actions to remove the British power out of the island. Meanwhile, Turks started get armed as well to keep the island with two nations living. In 1960, the island became a free republic. In 1974, after a Greek coup, the Turkish Republic sent armed forces to protect the Turks and to protect peace in the island. The operation is remembered as the Peace Operation in Turkey.
Gunec Gulun Yazıcıtunc, writer of the article
On EuroVisionary.com we would like to point out that there are two sides to the story about Cyprus. We don’t want to create a discussion about it, but will advise people interested to check out more information for themselves. We gave the writer of the article permission to share the Turkish point of view, but have not – and will not – take any side as to who is right and who is wrong.
Charlotte, Manager of EuroVisionary.com
The opinion expressed in "In my view" are those of the author and are not necessarily the one of EuroVisionary.com.
Eurovision news worth supporting? Support EuroVisionary on Patreon.com
We are living in unprecedented times. One minute everything was “normal” and before we knew it, terms such as clinical masks, social distance, and hand sanitizer have become a part of our daily vocabulary.
The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic has heightened our need for proper personal sanitation and hand hygiene. Health authorities around the world have insisted that people carry hand sanitizer with them because of their travel-friendly nature.
A hand sanitizer is a hand antiseptic that is applied and rubbed into the hands to kill disease-causing bacteria. Sanitizer is used when soap and water is not an option. This normally happens when you’re on the go but still want to maintain clean hands.
Sanitizer is typically available in two forms: liquid and gel form. It’s important to know what sets the two apart so here are a few points to consider when trying to pick out a hand sanitizer that works for you.
What’s the Difference Between Liquid Hand Sanitizer and Gel Hand Sanitizer?
First and foremost, both gel and liquid hand sanitizers are scientifically effective; as long as you use them the right way. The difference between the two only comes in when you consider certain aspects such as their physical properties or how long they take to work.
For instance, it has been noted that liquid sanitizer acts faster than gel sanitizer. Liquid sanitizers kill disease-causing bacteria under 15 seconds of use while gel sanitizers need at least 30 seconds to work.
The longer time taken for gel hand sanitizer to act may result in decreased efficacy. This is because some people may quickly rub it on their hands, then wipe it off before it has the chance to do its job. This greatly reduces its effectiveness. It is important to educate users that they need to be a bit patient when using gel hand sanitizer.
Liquid sanitizers are recorded to leave less residue on a person’s skin, but this is dependent on the manufacturer. Manufacturers develop hand sanitizers with different ingredients and formulations thereby affecting the end product’s texture and consistency.
Gel sanitizers, on the other hand, take much longer to dry. Once again, compliance will affect the effectiveness of the sanitizer. A lot of users have claimed that they found it is easier to dispense and handle gel sanitizer than it is for the liquid sanitizers.
In the end, however, both liquid hand sanitizers and gel hand sanitizers are both effective at killing bacteria. However, you need to make sure that you use it well. If you do not apply the sanitizers on your hands effectively, this reduces the efficiency of the sanitizer. This is how you should go about it.
How to Effectively Use a Gel or Liquid Hand Sanitizer
There are 4 steps to follow when using an alcohol-based hand sanitizer:
Apply a generous amount of hand sanitizer to the palm of your hand.
Rub your hands together ensuring that the product reaches your fingertips, nails, and the back of your hand. (the same way you should wash your hands with soap and water.)
Continue rubbing all surfaces until your hands are dry.
Do not go near a gas burner, flame, or any burning object when applying hand sanitizer. Alcohol is extremely flammable.
You also need to consider the alcohol concentration of the sanitizer. Let’s take a deeper look.
What Role Does Alcohol Play in a Hand Sanitizer?
Many experts have said that the more alcohol content a liquid or gel hand sanitizer has, the more effective it is at killing off bacteria. But what is the minimum alcohol content required for a sanitizer to be effective?
The CDC recommends using a hand sanitizer that has at least 60% alcohol content. This isn’t new information because alcohol has been used as a disinfectant throughout history and into the modern medicine world.
Alcohol alters the bacteria from its original state through a process called denaturation. This is how it fights off the pesky germs that could cause you disease or infections.
For instance, if you have bacteria that could cause Covid-19 on your hand and you apply an alcohol-based hand sanitizer, the alcohol will alter the bacteria’s chemical makeup thus preventing it from doing any real damage.
There are so many hand sanitizers flooding the market and if you don’t pay attention to the alcohol content, you may end up buying a non-effective hand sanitizer which may smell nice but not do the job as required.
Do Hand Sanitizers Effectively Prevent The Spread Of Covid-19?
The world has shifted to disease preventative measures in a bid to reduce the spread of the coronavirus. A hand sanitizer should not be treated as a cure but simply a preventative measure.
Handwashing is the best way of cleaning your hands and preventing the spread of the coronavirus. However, a good gel or liquid hand sanitizer can also do a good job on the same. It is, therefore, important to walk around with a hand sanitizer with an alcohol content of 60% or more. All public areas such as schools, grocery stores, and offices should also install hand sanitizer dispensing points for people to observe good hand hygiene.
When Are Hand Sanitizers Not Effective?
If your hands are visibly soiled or greasy, sanitizer may not be as effective be it liquid or gel. In controlled environments such as hospitals, healthcare workers are normally contaminated with pathogens but are hardly ever soiled or have grease. However, in community settings where playing, cooking, gardening or other outdoor activities are the order of the day, hand sanitizer will simply not suffice.
Keep in mind that leaving hand sanitizer in near reach to children is dangerous because they may ingest the sanitizer. Children are highly attracted to hand sanitizers because they are usually brightly colored, well scented, or packaged attractively.
So Which Is Better? Liquid or Gel Hand Sanitizer?
In truth, it is hard to say that one is better than the other. It is more of a matter of personal preference and how you feel the product on your hands. As long as you apply your sanitizer properly and purchase a CDC-approved alcohol-based sanitizer, then you should be on the right track.