# Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 1956

I was sent a program guide of the 1956 Eurovision Song Contest by the aforementioned Dutch researcher, which was made and shared by Danmarks Radio.  https://www.dr.dk/alletidersprogramoversigter/?from=1956-05-24&to=1956-05-25&date=1956-05-24&fileIndex=8 
It mentions the 14 participating songs in order and the interval acts from Les Joyeux Rossignols and Les Trois Ménestrels.
Below the line of text that mentions the last song,” we see our interval acts. Turns out the 2 interval actors performed multiple songs, with Les Joyeux Rossignols performing their songs before Les Trois Ménestrels.
According to the guide, Les Joyeux Rossignols whistled “Valse Savoyarde” (heard in the audio), “Rhytme d’Asie”, and “Samba Dance”. Les Trois Ménestrels performed “Guerre de Troie”, “Ma mie, ma caravelle”, “Davy Crockett”, and “Ballade des balladins.”
Although most of these songs can be found online, unfortunately the last 2 songs from Les Joyeux Rossignols can’t be found, as I couldn’t find their covers of either song. Jusherman (talk) 21:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing up that source, which is very interesting. It seems that this "koda list" is a sort of report of what was broadcast, written after the broadcast. Similar documents exist for French television in the INA, called "Rapport du chef de chaîne", which focus more on technical details (technical incidents).
As far as I can see, the document linked by you mentions the song titles of the interval acts and their order but doesn't say anything about who performed them. How can we know that Les Joyeux Rossignols first performed a series of songs and then Les Trois Ménestrels another series of songs? How can we be sure that Les Joyeux Rossignols didn't perform just one or two songs, then Les Ménestrels another two, then again Les Rossignols etc...? In total, nine songs are mentioned. Your conclusion is that Les Joyeux Rossignols performed the first three, then Les Trois Ménestrels six more songs. How do you know? The conclusions you draw in your edits look like either guessing or WP:SYNTH to me. EurovisionLibrarian (talk) 19:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
The reason why I figured the artists from the songs is because the last 6 mentioned of bunch were all released and had credits by Les Trois Ménestrels, and the others must be from Les Joyeux Rossignols.
I tried looking up “Rhythme d’Asie” and “Sambe Dance” with mentions of Trois Ménestrels, but I found nothing, so I concluded that Les Joyeux Rossignols sung those songs. Les Joyeux Rossignols recorded themselves making whistle covers of various accordion songs and maybe classical music, so the fact that they whistled those 2 songs makes sense. I also assume the order of the interval acts that are listed are correct, since the competing songs are also listed in order.
“Vegliero” doesn’t appear to be an interval act, because I couldn’t find anything from that for either interval actor, and since the name of the composer is partially blocked, I assume it read “Paggi,” the contest’s musical director.
I hope this inference or assumption doesn’t revert my edits back, because I want more of the Eurovision community to know a lot about the 1956 and 1964 contests with even the most extensive knowledge. Jusherman (talk) 00:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Looking at the new reference and your accompanying explanation, I would concur with EurovisionLibrarian that this would be a WP:SYNTH issue, as well as a wider WP:OR issue, since you're making assumptions about limited information at hand and drawing conclusions that are not included within the sources provided. I commend your drive to adding to the articles for the 1956 and 1964 contests, which like most of the early editions are somewhat overlooked, but additional sources, if available, are required to support your additions so that they do not rely on OR. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
I can somewhat understand this revert, but Les Joyeux Rossignols didn't whistle "Aubade d'oiseaux" at all; not in the audio or in the program guide. In fact, they’re whistling “Valse Savoyarde,” since studio versions of the same song are a perfect match, and it’s the first interval act that’s mentioned in the program guide. It was a mistake I made while editing that, and I don’t want it to be misinterpreted as fact.
As for finding more information on the interval acts, I think it’s a tough challenge, because interval acts are barely mentioned in the newspapers I’ve seen. None of the acts or the interval actors are even mentioned in the official booklet. It’s very likely the program guide is the only documentation of all of 7 of these acts, or at least a very rare one.
If that’s so, then I think we should still include the program guide and its information to some extent that doesn't violate any citation issues, since it's a primary source. Jusherman (talk) 14:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
I can understand that, and yes it does appear that the "Aubade d'oiseaux" was an error, however unless there are relevant sources that we can use to point to the performance of "Valse Savoyarde" that does not cause a SYNTH issue then unfortunately we can't include it as this would be an OR violation. For now I've removed all reference to the specific piece that les Joyeux Rossignols performed given the conflicting sources, but until another source can be found to back up "Valse Savoyarde" and the other pieces then for now we cannot confidently include them without violating Wikipedia policy. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 15:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
In order not to dismiss the information present in the DR papers, my proposal would be adding a sentence with the following outcome:
"[...] performances by Les Joyeux Rossignols and Les Trois Ménestrels [fr] were featured to entertain the audience, with the latter performing "Guerre de Troie"." (current version)
+
"Besides that, the pieces "Valse Savoyarde", "Rhytme d'Asie", "Sabre Dance", "Ma Caravelle", "Davy Crockett", "Coupeurs de bois" and "Ballade des balladins" were played or performed during the show." [+your ref = DR programoversikter]
OR (less interpretative):
"Besides that, a broadcast document by Danish broadcaster DR also lists the pieces "Valse Savoyarde" [etc.] as being part of the show."
As to "Vegliero", I agree that it could be the piece played as closing music by the orchestra, and would therefore not include it in the article because its function is unclear and it is a bit speculative with a part of this row in the scanned document not being visible.
The information you found is of value, and we should treat it with the proper respect and responsibility. EurovisionLibrarian (talk) 19:02, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
That’s a great idea. Thank you! I hope we find more information about these outside of speculation.
Do you think citing Les Trois Ménestrels would bypass any violations, since we know which songs can be traced to them? If so, then I think it’s easy to see where I made my assumption too. Jusherman (talk) 23:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
I would be opposed to adding in this large string of titles of pieces performed in this manner when we don't have the link to the artists. Additionally, using this source and another source as "proof" that Les Trois Ménestrels performed the pieces in question at Eurovision would be a WP:SYNTH violation, since you're combining two sources to reach a conclusion that isn't present in either source. I did a slight rewrite to include a general statement that other pieces were performed and to reinclude the DR reference. Happy to continue to work to get the phrasing right, but I still don't believe adding in a whole list of pieces performed without the right context is helpful for the reader. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
I can live with that. The phrasing "with the latter performing "Guerre de Troie" along with other works" is still a bit misleading or confusing because it gives the impression that only Les Ménestrels performed several works but I can't think of a better sentence for the moment without repeating the verb. EurovisionLibrarian (talk) 19:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
A while ago, I managed to get my hands on the BBC program guide, which also mentions some of the interval acts. I got this from screenshots from texts between the aforementioned Dutch researcher and Gordon Roxbourgh.
This guide actually mentions which interval performers did each song. It says Les Joyeux Rossignols performed “La Valse” (Valse Savoyarde) and “Rhythme d’Asie,” while Les Trois Ménestrels performed “La Caravelle” (Ma mie, ma caravelle), “Le Telephone,” and “Davie Crockett” (Ballade de Davy Crockett).
All of the songs from Les Trois Ménestrels from the BBC guide can be matched with the DR one, but both have some differences. It doesn’t appear Les Trois Ménestrels performed “La Telephone” in the DR guide, nor is the song available online. Sabre Dance, “Le coupeurs de bois,” and “Le ballade de balladins” are absent from the BBC guide, but appear in the DR guide.
If you know how to include this information to the article, that would be a big help. You can find the BBC and DR guide in this tweet I made, as well as my inferences on the info. https://x.com/LewisTheJej/status/1791666513558024562 Jusherman (talk) 02:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
The Wikipedia guidelines require reliable, published sources. Your post on X can't be cited per WP:SYNTH and WP:UGC (in this case, there are also legal questions since the document looks like coming from an archive and not having been published on behalf of the BBC nor with their permission so could be a WP:COPYLINK issue, in addition).
As for your contact with Roxburgh, I propose we wait and see if in one of his future volumes of his "Songs for Europe" series, he will or will not include information (usually in the addenda sections at the end of the volume) about the interval act of 1956. This would be an example of a reliable, published secondary source. EurovisionLibrarian (talk) 13:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
I recently found this article mentioning “Ma mie, ma Caravelle” as an interval act performed by Les Trois Ménestrels. "Chronique de la Télévision". Tribune de Genève (in French). Vol. 78, no. 126. 31 May 1956. p. 9. Retrieved 7 April 2025 – via E-newspaperarchives.ch.
Would this mean the Danish koda list is more verifiable, since another song has been confirmed? After all, DR reportedly broadcast the full show unlike BBC, whose koda list I’m still uncertain on. So far, I haven’t anymore specific claims of the interval acts, but I hope it’s enough to potentially make the koda list into a usable source. I also hope more information on the interval acts besides other koda lists and potential fan websites can be found. Jusherman (talk) 20:51, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
I saw that you included "Ma mie, ma caravelle" in the article, which is fine for this particular song in my opinion since there's a secondary source giving explicitly the match artist-song. In the other cases, nothing has changed. The DR koda list does only give a list of songs, which, with Sims2aholic8's message above, can be considered as of no great interest to a reader without having the context, i.e. at least the artist. Any hypotheses about possible matches without explicit statements present in literature would be WP:SYNTH issue. EurovisionLibrarian (talk) 09:21, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
Could I cite a website dedicated to Les Trois Ménestrels for the songs believed to be performed by them? (Like Discogs?) Unlike Valse Savoyarde, Rhythme d'Asie, and Sabre Dance, it’s known that rest of the songs have been recorded and performed by the trio.
I also believe Valse Savoyarde can be cited in the article, while using a citation on the remaining 1956 Eurovision audio. If for example, a covered song was played at an event, it would make sense to cite the event as a source of the song being played, since it can be matched to its origin. For Valse Savoyarde, I believe it can be cited based on the audio we have of the contest and the fact it can be matched with other recordings of the song. Jusherman (talk) 07:29, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
Discogs is listed as "unacceptable user-generated source" in WP:UGC.
May I add that, from my experience, the practice of recording of cover songs was a little bit different in the 1950's in Europe from today. It was not unusual at all that a song was both performed and recorded by several different artists, often within a few months, and it was possible that several versions of the same song by different artists entered the record charts (a famous example of this is Nel blu dipinto di blu (Volare)). Which means that the fact that a recording of a song by a certain artist exists doesn't mean that this artist performed the song at a certain event nor that this artist was the only one who recorded or performed it.
As for your second paragraph, I guess I don't understand. In the audio, does the presenter say at some point that "Valse Savoyarde" will be performed? Does he say by whom it will be performed? If not, again any guess of possible matches artist-song would be a WP:SYNTH and/or a WP:OR issue. And, as already mentioned above, the song title alone without the artist is possibly of no great interest to the reader as the context is missing. EurovisionLibrarian (talk) 08:16, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
I’d like to apologize for my poor wording in the second paragraph, which I will further elaborate.
For example, if Für Elise were being performed at a show where the performance was archived, it would make sense to cite the show’s title a source that confirms Für Elise was performed. There isn’t a way to disagree they performed a different song if it’s already identifiable.
I think for Valse Savoyarde, we have Les Joyeux Rossignols, who were known for whistling, performing said song, which was entirely archived in the Eurovision audio, and can be matched with other recordings of the same song.
I believe we can cite Eurovision 1956 (or its remaining audio) as a source that such song was played, since the whole performance is available. I hope I made things clearer and understandable. If not, then I would like to sincerely apologize. Jusherman (talk) 08:26, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
My feeling is that you cannot compare "Für Elise" to "Valse Savoyarde" in this case. "Für Elise" is a widely-known musical piece. Even persons who don't regularly listen to classical music may know this piece. In contrast, I don't think that "Valse Savoyarde" is a well-known piece. You typically would have to compare the audio of the broadcast to other recordings of the same piece in order to come to the conclusion that this piece in the broadcast must be "Valse Savoyarde". But precisely that would be original research, and therefore against WP:OR.
The same is true for the artist. We know from other sources that they performed, and if you say "they were known for whistling and performing that song", you actually build a hypothesis, you draw conclusions from probabilities, and that again is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.
It's a different case if the presenter of the broadcast explicitly announces something like "And here they are, the Joyeux Rossignols, with 'Valse Savoyarde' !" In this latter case, the broadcast can be cited as a source for information which is explicitly there. EurovisionLibrarian (talk) 12:15, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi, in the current version of the article, there is no reference for Franco Marazzi being also the radio commentator for Secondo Programma. The Radiocorriere references credit him as TV commentator and give the broadcasting channels. Was there an earlier reference about him being the radio commentator that has been removed at some point? EurovisionLibrarian (talk) 07:55, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Earlier versions of the articles give the following reference for the radio broadcast:
"Oggi e domani alla radio" [Today and tomorrow on the radio]. Stampa Sera (in Italian). 24 May 1956. p. 6. Archived from the original on 30 May 2022. Retrieved 30 May 2022.
However, also this source lacks a mention of Franco Marazzi as radio commentator. So for the moment, I have separated the two broadcasts to make it clear that Marazzi is only sourced as TV commentator. EurovisionLibrarian (talk) 19:35, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Since a recent edit by Jusherman suggests that the original duration of the broadcast was more than two hours, I will try to bring more light into the darkness with this post (the edit summary alone would not give sufficient space to that):
The hypothesis that the original broadcast lasted over two hours is based on the following source:
"Second programme: Studio de Lugano" [Second program: Lugano Studio]. Scriptorium. 10 January 1957. Retrieved 31 January 2025.
It's a radio listing of Swiss-Italian radio broadcaster RSI's (a.k.a. Studio Lugano or Monte Ceneri) 2nd radio channel saying that at 20.30 the Eurovision Song Contest 1956 (or parts of it) would be broadcast, and then from 22.20 on the program of the first radio channel would be broadcast. This is a duration of 1 hour and 50 minutes (NOT more than two hours if you calculate correctly).
But does this say how long the original show really was?
There are other TV listings for 24 May 1956 for various countries. Not surprisingly, most of them give 21.00 CET as the starting time of the broadcast.
For INR, De Standaard (p. 10) announces the TV-Journaal for 22.30.
For RAI, Il Tempo (p. 5) announces "Permette una domanda" for 22.30 (with a starting time of 21.15, however).
For Télé-Luxembourg, Letzebuerger Journal (p. 8) announces "Fin" [End of the day's transmissions] for 22.30.
For RTF, Radio Cinéma Télévision (20 May, p. 10) announces "Le fil de la vie" for 22.30.
For NTS, Omroepgids (19 May, p. 39) announces the Eurovision Song Contest 1956 for "9.00–10.30".
From this, it is clear that the broadcast was scheduled to have a planned duration of 1 hour and 30 minutes.
As for the actual duration, the Wikipedia article has two quotations in the first sentence of the section “Contest overview”, namely one from eurovision.tv and the other is the book “Songs for Europe” (vol. 1) by Gordon Roxburgh. Both sources say the contest lasted for about 100 minutes (1 hour and 40 minutes).
Roxburgh (p. 96) adds that the BBC joined the other countries in transmission at 21.43.50 and its broadcast lasted for 48 minutes and 33 seconds, meaning the end of the BBC broadcast occurred at 22.32, about 92 minutes after the start of the show.
The French Television Archives INA hold technical reports on RTF’s television transmissions called “Rapports du chef de chaîne”, compiled after the broadcasts, with exact starting times of each program. During my next visit, I can take a look into them with a special focus on the actual starting time of the following broadcast “Le fil de la vie”, scheduled for 22.30. (This is of course original research relying on unpublished material, and therefore cannot be quoted in the article itself but I can keep you up-to-date nevertheless since this information can be worthy in estimating the credibility of other, secondary sources)
Until then, my opinion is that the secondary sources whose quotations are already present in the article seem plausible in their claim of a duration of about 1 hour and 40 minutes. The fact that a later radio broadcast of the recording was scheduled for 1 hour and 50 minutes on RSI can also be explained by new, additional content in the radio broadcast (speakers giving more information, introducing and ending the broadcast, other songs, a possible interview with the winner being part of the broadcast, etc.).
As for the claimed relevance of mentioning the “last known broadcast” of the ESC 1956, it would be more relevant if it had been a TV broadcast since this would mean that there once existed a TV recording of the show. But since it’s about a radio recording whose existence is well known, I don’t think that including the information in this paragraph would mean a significant contribution to the article. The broadcast could be mentioned as a footnote in the Radio Monte Ceneri row in the table of broadcasts but it is not common practice to include information on re-broadcasts of the contest, usually only the first broadcast (if not live) on a given channel is mentioned. --EurovisionLibrarian (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi Sims2aholic8.
I have always had a big doubt about Belgium in this first contest. And the comment you just made in the edit has made that doubt even bigger. I mean when you say: "if there's already one broadcaster for that country another one can't take part", applied to this exact contest. The article exactly says: "Per the rules of the contest, each participating country, represented by one EBU member organisation...". So I went to read the rules, which luckily we have in ref-32.
The rules state, roughly translated from French, that: "Under the auspices of the EBU [...] the television services of the EBU member broadcasters of, Germany, Belgium [...] hereinafter called "participants", organise, ..." and "the choice by each of the participants [...] of two songs maximum".
The television services of the EBU member broadcasters of Belgium were INR and NIR. And there is nothing in the rules that prevented both of them from participating in the contest with one song each, (and one jury). Even more, taking the rules literally, they could have even submitted two songs each (and two juries). The article about Belgium in 1956 says: "..both could have participate in the contest, however Flemish broadcaster NIR, busy with its participation in the 1956 Venice International Song Festival, let Walloon broadcaster INR alone...". This sentence does not make it very clear whether both could participate at the same time or that both were eligible to participate.
Either there is something that I am missing, or that of only one broadcaster participating per country does not apply this year, and both INR and NIR could have been competing. And I think that in years when the rules only allow specifically one entry per country, nothing prevents said entry from being a joint entry of two (or more) broadcasters if they agree. Ferclopedio (talk) 12:23, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Taking a look at the published rules, you're right that there is nothing in there that actually sets out that only one broadcaster may represent a given country. That doesn't mean it was never a possibility though, it just means they never spelled it out in such a way. As we saw in many future contests other broadcasters have been prevented from competing because another broadcaster already takes part within that country, e.g. a separate Welsh entry was prevented in 1969 because the BBC took part for the whole country, and the BBC also put in a bid to host 1974 to stop ITV from taking the contest and preventing them from competing. Maybe it's retroactive to state that only one broadcaster could represent each country at this early stage in the contest, so I've removed the "per the rules..." bit from the article. As for your joint entry hypothesis, it's been proposed before (I remember there was talk about Luxembourg and San Marino teaming up before the former came back), but it's all hypothetical as it's never happened or even been proposed to the EBU as far as we know, so I don't see how it's relevant. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 12:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
When I talk about a joint entry, I mean that when the rules state that only one entry is allowed per country, it doesn't mean that only one broadcaster (from that country) is behind that entry. INR and NIR decided at the time to alternate their participation because they would never have agreed to choose a joint entry, but there is nothing to prevent them from participating together (as one) if they had agreed.
I think the BBC example is different, INR and NIR have always share the rights (their audiences are different), but I don't know how the BBC got exclusive rights in the UK. I understand the case of the broadcasters in Wales and Scotland, since the BBC represents the UK as a whole, which prevents them from participating. But why the BBC has precedence over other national EBU members is beyond my knowledge. I assume it is for historical reasons and because the BBC is one of the largest investors in the EBU, which makes it one of the "big five". And I don't think the BBC would be interested in sharing rights or entering a joint entry with a rival national broadcaster. Ferclopedio (talk) 13:19, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
The same situation happened in Russia though, where there were two different broadcasters that alternated between each other (except for a period in the early 00s when only one of them competed). For sure with Belgium the two broadcasters cover different languages, but that's not the same with these Russian broadcasters as they both broadcast in Russian. I don't believe there was ever a conversation about them collaborating on an entry though, and again I don't know from a historical perspective if there were ever any other broadcasters within a singular country that even considered that; we do know however that changes to the responsible broadcaster have happened over time (e.g. in France).
I don't think there's any reason behind the BBC taking "precedence"; in my opinion it's moreso that they've always been the broadcaster responsible, and I suppose for as long as they keep participating (or until the UK ceases to be a country in its present form) that they will continue to hold the exclusive rights for the UK. If they decide not to participate in a future contest for whatever reason, then any other UK-based EBU member could decide to participate. I think collaboration between broadcasters within a single country is just not much of a thing, bar in some very specific circumstances, e.g. political situations like the death of a head of state while in office or the likes of United News in Ukraine. There of course has been collaboration between TV stations on Eurovision selections, e.g. Germany this year, but that's been a EBU member collaborating with a non-EBU member.
It's an interesting point, but also thinking what exactly we want to get out of this. I think it's a very abstract concept, and it's not one that has come up much before, it's certainly not a regular concern when it comes to ESC. I would also think it comes into conflict with WP:OR to state that it's a "possibility". As far as we know, each country is represented by one broadcaster in every contest, and that's always been the case from as far back as 1956. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
The only thing we can get out of this is that we cannot say that the rules say something that they do not say, as it was in this case. We are not going to state the "possibility" (unless we find something that confirms that INR and NIR were both intended to participate in 1956 with one song each), but at least we can be careful not to say that the rules say things that they don't say. Most rules are not specified in detail until a case has occurred to them (and we have quite a few examples of euro-dramas where the EBU had not considered a case and had to change the rules after running into it).
In almost all cases there is only one EBU member television broadcaster per country, and of those where there are more, I also do not know of any cases of attempts of joint participation. And regarding Russia, I know very little about them, beyond the fact that there were two broadcasters, so in order not to make mistakes, I have not edited any Russian articles. But what I understand, correct me if I'm wrong, is that unlike the Belgians, who alternate participation but share the broadcasting rights (both broadcast the contest), the Russians, alternate participation and broadcast (meaning that, they only broadcast the contest in which they participate) as they were direct rivals. Ferclopedio (talk) 18:33, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
Contributing from my sources:
For Belgium 1956, Vermeulen states that "het eerste jaar worden uit elk land twee liedjes verwacht [...] In België zou je dan verwachten dat de Nederlandstalige omroep NIR ('Brussel Vlaams') en de Franstalige omroep INR ('Brussel Frans') elk één liedje sturen, maar om praktische redenen gebeurt dat niet: het NIR heeft de handen al vol met de voorbereiding van zijn deelname aan het Festival van Venetië [...]" [translation: In the first year, two songs are expected from each country [...] In Belgium, you would expect the Dutch-language broadcaster NIR ('Brussels Flemish') and the French-language broadcaster INR ('Brussels French') to each send one song, but for practical reasons this does not happen: the NIR is already busy preparing its participation in the Venice Festival]
(Vermeulen, André (2021), Van Canzonissima tot Eurosong, p. 10)
As to the hypothesis that both NIR and INR could have presented two songs each, this seems not plausible when looking at a letter from 10 February 1956 by L.P. Kammans (INR TV director) and sent to E. Blondeel (director of the "variety and music" section), which is conserved in the Belgian State Archives (Archives générales du Royaume), file RTBF 7316):
“Chacun des 8 ou 9 pays participants fera présenter le 24 mai deux chansons” [each of the 8 or 9 participating countries will present two songs on 24 May]
According to this, it’s two songs per country, not per broadcaster. This is in line with Vermeulen who speculates that NIR and INR could both have chosen one song each then. Maybe the EBU didn’t have a full picture themselves of diverse possibilities of participation in their mind when working on the rules. When reading the rules of 1956, it becomes clear that they weren’t as strict as today’s rules and didn’t foresee every possible scenario.
In fact, it even seems that the rules were only finalised when INR and NIR had already decided that INR would take part alone and choose the Belgian entries: The letter from 10 February still speaks of “8 or 9 countries”, the official rules name only the seven countries that finally took part, so the final official rules must have been finalised at some later point, in February or March, maybe. INR was named as the one and only Belgian participating broadcaster in a news article from Le Soir on 12 February 1956 (p. 6). EurovisionLibrarian (talk) 19:01, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
EurovisionLibrarian, thank you very much for such a detailed reply. This confirms my suspicions, both broadcasters were eligible to participate, and initially both were expected to participate with one song each. But since NIR decided not to participate early, the rules were written with only one Belgian participant in mind, and that's why they talk about two songs per participant. The rules we have are the final version and we don't know how many rewrites they had.
I wouldn't be surprised if the decision to have two songs per country was deliberately not made at an early stage so that both Belgian broadcasters could participate. Ferclopedio (talk) 19:48, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
During the discussion about the Venice Film Festival below, we noticed something that makes much of what we've said here about Belgium meaningless because we've been working from a flawed premise throughout.
We have been considering Institut national de radiodiffusion (INR) and Nationaal Instituut voor de Radio-omroep (NIR) two different companies all along, when in reality they were both the same company. Actually, those were the names in French and Dutch ​​for the same broadcaster. We just had to read the articles of the National Broadcasting Institute in their native languages to notice that. I found the acronym for this joint company online in INR/NIR and NIR/INR formats. As its logo is File:NIR-INR 1953.svg, I will refer to it as NIR/INR. Since 1937, the NIR/INR had two departments, one Dutch-speaking and one French-speaking, each headed by a director, and it had two television channels Flemish NIR-Belgische Televisie-Vlaamse uitzendingen and Wallon INR-Télévision Belge, Émissions françaises. It was not until 18 May 1960 when NIR/INR was split into Flemish BRT and Wallon RTB as two different broadcasters.
This discovery explains many things, but it also invalidates many of the claims we've made about Belgium's participation in the early contest in our articles, and undermines the credibility of some reliable references we had. Starting with the aforementioned reference by Vermeulen about Belgium in 1956, which, considering them the same broadcaster, has no sense.
So we have to review all the Belgian participation until the 1960 contest (in country, contest, country in year, and list of countries articles), and rework specifically the wording used for their first participation and the reasons for their alternation. Ferclopedio (talk) 08:56, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
Yes I had the same realisation as I was building out the VISF article! It could still be true that the French and Flemish production teams within the company decided to split responsibilities after the 1955 Venice festival, since there were now two international song contests in which they could split their resources, but that for the 1955 Venice festival there wasn't the same split, and six songs were chosen by the entire company to participate. Either way it does raise a lot of questions! Sims2aholic8 (talk) 13:43, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
It may be that the internal responsibilities have always been split from the very beginning in the VISF 1955, since each production team could have chosen three songs (there are 3 in French and 3 in Flemish) and the only thing they had to share was the orchestra.
Either that or working together for the VISF 1955 was so disastrous that from that moment on they said, never ever again! :) Ferclopedio (talk) 14:57, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
Also another confusing part of this puzzle, in the write-up in Radiocorriere of the 3rd Venice festival (pp. 10-11), in which Belgium also participated, they explicitly state a few times that it's the Flemish side taking part, which is backed up by the conductor and singers listed being Flemings. So either the French production team never took part in Venice, or this switch in responsibilities never happened at all and the company as a whole took part. Neither scenario however resolves the Belgium in Eurovision situation, where there's a lot of evidence that the French and Flemish sides of NIR/INR alternated responsibilities from the very beginning. Given all this, I just don't think we can rely on Venice as the "easy out" to explain why what became VRT and RTBF alternate. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 14:02, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
In practice, how are we going to refer to the participating broadcaster in the ESC country in year?
We can use National Broadcasting Institute (NIR/INR) in all cases and then in the prose specify if it was the Walloon or the Flemish department of the NIR/INR.
We can use the official name of the company in the language of the department in charge linked to the company in the infobox: Nationaal Instituut voor de Radio-omroep (NIR) and Institut national de radiodiffusion (INR) and then in the prose specify that it was in charge the Flemish or Walloon department of the National Broadcasting Institute (NIR/INR).
We can use the official name of the company in the language of the department in charge with a note in the infobox: Nationaal Instituut voor de Radio-omroep (NIR)--note:Nationaal Instituut voor de Radio-omroep (NIR) was the official name in Dutch of the National Broadcasting Institute (NIR/INR).-- and Institut national de radiodiffusion (INR)--note:Institut national de radiodiffusion (INR) was the official name in French of the National Broadcasting Institute (NIR/INR).-- and then in the prose specify that it was in charge the Flemish or Walloon department of the National Broadcasting Institute (NIR/INR).
We can use the official name of the company in the language of the department in charge linked to the company in the infobox: Nationaal Instituut voor de Radio-omroep (NIR) and Institut national de radiodiffusion (INR) and in the prose say "the Flemish department of the Nationaal Instituut voor de Radio-omroep (NIR), and the Walloon department of the Institut national de radiodiffusion (INR)"
I saw you kept in the participants tables of the contest the separate use of NIR and INR. That's ok for me, I added a note in the country and the list of countries articles. I think the case that best aligns with that is the second one or the third one (that is more explanatory). Ferclopedio (talk) 15:28, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
I think the better approach is the third case. I made the changes in the Belgium in 1957 article, how does it look? Ferclopedio (talk) 19:14, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
Given the official Eurovision website lists the participating broadcaster as either NIR or INR, and never both, I think for the country in year articles my preference would be the second option you have listed. It's the simplest to convey, and looking into it further, from a quick internet search, it appears that the company itself actually didn't cease to be one unified broadcaster until 1977, when constitutional reforms within the country changed Belgium from a unified state to a federal entity and gave control of the broadcaster to the new communities. So even when NIR/INR was renamed to Radiodiffusion-télévision belge (RTB) and Belgische Radio- en Televisieomroep (BRT) in 1960, it was still the same entity. That means that right through to 1978 we would need to be consistent and follow the same system as for NIR/INR. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 22:01, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
According the French article, "the Organic Law of the Belgian Radio and Television Institutes of 18 May 1960, it created three separate independent institutes, each with legal personality: Belgian Radio and Television, French Broadcasting (RTB) responsible for the French-language public broadcasting service, Belgische Radio en Televisie, Nederlandstalige uitzendingen (BRT) responsible for the Dutch-language public broadcasting service, and the Institute for Common Services (RTB ISC/BRT IGD) responsible for the administrative and technical functions common to the other two institutes. After thirty years of existence, the INR/NIR thus gave way to the RTB and BRT."
Since 1960, RTB and BRT were two legal independent entities. Yes, maybe in 1977 they control was transferred to the new communities and the Common Services disappeared, but since 1960 they were two separate legal entities, and we can consider them different broadcasters.
The difference between the second and third option is to link or not the name in the infobox to the company. I think if we link the names, at first glance it would seem that they are different companies (as one is linked to fr and the other to nl), not only the name in that language of the company. Without linking it, we add a note clarifying that that is the name of the company in the language of the department in charge, as it was participating like that, and we clarify that also in the prose. Ferclopedio (talk) 22:35, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
You can check here a reference saying that about the Organic Law of 1960, and you can check the articles of Belgium in year to see if option three makes sense. Ferclopedio (talk) 23:11, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
Regarding the Communities: Communities were created in 1970, and the law of 21 July 1971 grants their Cultural Councils the power to regulate matters relating to radio and television broadcasting, with the exception of the broadcasting of government communications and commercial advertising, which remain the responsibility of the federal government.
What may be true is that we may not be able to call the broadcasters "Flemish" and "Walloon" at least until 1972, and we will have to stick with "French-speaking" and "Dutch-speaking" until then. Ferclopedio (talk) 08:07, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
I just came here to reaffirm all that you said as well after a bit of digging, so yes you're right, they became effectively independent organisations from 1960 onwards. :) Sims2aholic8 (talk) 11:16, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
Unless an unexpected worm pops up and throws us off track, I think we've got everything aligned with Belgium now.
The only thing left to fine-tune is the paragraph in Belgium in 1956 about their alternation and the role of NIR in VISF 1956. I've rewritten it to leave it as neutral as possible with what we know so far until we can decipher the enigma. Ferclopedio (talk) 12:05, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
Just for the sake of completion, I quote from the article "Eurovisie-prijs" in De TV-kijker from 1956 (it's also one of the references alongside Vermeulen in the Belgium 1956 article):
"In ons vorig nummer publiceerden wij een uittreksel van een brief [...] waarin de vraag gesteld werd waarom België tijdens het Festival te Lugano door franse zangers vertegenwoordigd werd. De persattaché van de Vl. Televisie liet ons daarover het volgende toekomen:
... Tussen de direkteurs-generaal van de Vlaamse en de Franse uitzendingen van het NIR werd afgesproken dat dit jaar de Vlaamse uitzendingen zouden deelnemen aan de internationale wedstrijd voor het lichte lied te Venetië en dat de franse uitzendingen zouden deelnemen aan de wedstrijd voor het europese lichte lied, waarvan de finale plaats had te Lugano. [...] Er zal elk jaar een wedstrijd gehouden worden voor de eurovisieprijs van het lichte lied. De vlaamse uitzendingen van het NIR nemen er het volgend jaar deel an."
[Translation: ‘In our previous issue we published an extract from a letter [...] asking why Belgium was represented by French singers at the Festival in Lugano. The press attaché of the Flemish Television sent us the following about it:
... It was agreed between the general managers of the Flemish and French broadcasts of the NIR that this year the Flemish broadcasts would take part in the international competition for light song in Venice and that the French broadcasts would take part in the competition for European light song, the final of which took place in Lugano. [...] A competition for the Eurovision light song prize will be held every year. The Flemish broadcasts of the NIR will take part in it next year.’] EurovisionLibrarian (talk) 19:05, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
You nailed it, that extract fully explains the enigma. It was a joint decision that one would go to ESC and the other to VISF (not that one went to ESC because the other was busy with VISF as we say). With that we can rewrite the paragraph better. Ferclopedio (talk) 19:38, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
Certainly that seems to have been the intention in 1956, however in 1957 it appears that the Flemish NIR competed in both ESC and VISF. Potentially by the time 1957 had rolled around, the French INR didn't want to bother with Venice at all now (which wouldn't be the last time either if true, given they stopped competing in JESC after three years). However that's not exactly an issue for the ESC 1956 articles anyway, but something I'll have to look into as I keep drafting the VISF article I suppose. Either way information for Venice 1957 is looking pretty spotty, so it could be that it's just something we can't pin down why there seems to have been this change in mind come 1957, or whether it happened after ESC and before VISF or was a decision made in the weeks/months before ESC 1957. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 11:22, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Sims2aholic8, EurovisionLibrarian, I would like to know your opinion on something else about 1956.
We have read the rules, and they state that the contest is a co-production by the television services of the EBU member broadcasters. But I found this sentence in the ESC article: "Although cameras were present to practice pan-European broadcasting for the first contest in 1956 to the few Europeans who had television sets, its audience was primarily over the radio."
Yes, there were few television in Europe at the time, and there were certainly more radio listeners than television viewers. But the sentence as written suggests that the presence of cameras was anecdotal and that the television broadcast was only a test. The contest has always been a pioneer in using the most modern technologies in television broadcasting available, as a way of pushing these innovations among the EBU members and keeping them up to date. The television broadcast of the 1956 contest may have been precarious, but this does not make it only a test (no more than any other contest) nor anecdotal, especially when it was a co-production of the television services.
Does that sentence need rewriting? What do you think? Ferclopedio (talk) 13:02, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Good evening and thank you for raising that point. The reference for that sentence is the Lugano 1956 page at eurovision.tv, which says “The 1956 Eurovision Song Contest was primarily a radio show, although some cameras were taping the contest for the few Europeans who had a television set at that time”
This is surely misleading. It may be true that, in mathematical terms, there may have been a greater number of people following the contest via a radio broadcast than the number of viewers in front of a television set. Nevertheless, the nature and intention of the broadcast was primarily a television show. Reviews published after the show in various European newspapers emphasised the television broadcast aspect and the technical challenge of a European-wide television live broadcast.
The objected sentence could be deleted altogether, in my opinion if “for 1956” was inserted into the following sentence. The whole paragraph is more about today’s situation of preservation of video recordings than about the nature of the broadcast back in the 1950s. EurovisionLibrarian (talk) 19:43, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
Agree. I removed the sentence. Thanks. Ferclopedio (talk) 09:34, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
EurovisionLibrarian, I found a similar sentence in the Rules article. I have rewritten it. Ferclopedio (talk) 12:52, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
Alright, thank you! EurovisionLibrarian (talk) 13:22, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
This Swiss-Italian article from 1989 states that 3 total cameras were used in the TV broadcast: one placed near the audience to film the stageup close, one placed in the back to show the whole stage from afar, and one pointing to the audience during applauses. https://www2.sbt.ti.ch/quotidiani-public-pdf/main_part.php?fullscreen=true&query=Eurovisione+Canzone+1989&paper=gt&day=19&month=4&year=1989&page=15&papername=Gazzetta%20Ticinese&allpages=16
Furthermore, a “behind the scenes” video of the 1956 contest is available online and shows a cameraman moving the faraway camera. I think these claims further support these cameras weren’t just for testing, but for the actual broadcast. Jusherman (talk) 06:59, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

@EurovisionLibrarian, I don't know if we're messing things up with SRG.
While editing the Switzerland in 1957 article I noticed that Schweizer Fernsehen der deutschen und rätoromanischen Schweiz (SF DRS) as a company was not established until 1958, according to what is stated in its article. So it could not have been who organised the 1957 national final or who lent the television production truck to RSI in 1956. As the German television channel was named SRG back then, I assumed that SRG stands for Schweizerische Rundspruchgesellschaft as the German-speaking company of the Swiss Broadcasting Corporation. I don't know if I got carried away.
Your last edit claims that SRG refers to the entire corporation, not just the German-speaking company, as I assumed. Which makes me think we're missing something:

Was there a German-speaking company SRG, who together with French-speaking company SSR formed the corporation SRG SSR?
Was there a German-speaking television company before SF DRS called SRG?... or as was the case back then in many cases
Was SRG, as the German-speaking radio company, the one that also provided the German-speaking television service, and that the television company was created later?
In short, it had to be one of the corporation's companies who provided that service.
Ferclopedio (talk) 19:44, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Firstly, we shouldn't be basing ourselves off of a Wikipedia source, as this clearly goes against WP:CIRCULAR. Additionally, the German language article de:Schweizer Fernsehen states that SF was founded in 1953. However I don't know where they're getting the 1953 date from either; they state that this is when test television broadcasts first began in Switzerland, but this sentence is unsourced. Either way we need to be relying on what reliable sources say above all else; it's important that we question these of course, and try to come to a singular version of the truth, but if we're making assertions that aren't backed up by what the sources say, or we're using two or more different sources to draw a particular narrative that isn't present in either source, then this is an WP:OR and WP:SYNTH issue, respectively. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:50, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
SRG and SSR are just the German and French abreviations for the same broadcasting corporation. (That's not uncommon in Switzerland, the Swiss railway company calls itself SBB CFF FFS in three languages) It's important to note that these are the names of the broadcasting corporation, not of the television channels. Both French- and German-speaking Switzerland had their own television in 1956 (see the references in the Broadcasts section for French and German Swiss TV).
The whole point of the sentence is to stress that RSI (a radio broadcaster in Italian-speaking Switzerland) for obvious reasons, didn't have TV cameras back then, and it was helped out by the German-speaking television service based in Zurich (see the topic RSI / Radiotelevisione svizzera + co-production with Swiss German TV here on this same talk page). Ultimately, both the German-speaking television and the Italian-speaking radio broadcaster RSI were part of the large broadcasting organisation SRG/SSR.
As to the question of how to express that in the article, I modified Ferclopedio's edit from 20 March because it would have been misleading in my opinion that way. If you're looking for a name for that German-speaking Swiss television, SRG is surely wrong. I've looked into the references for that sentence again, and the German-speaking reference calls it "Schweizerischer Fernsehdienst" but I'm not sure whether this is actually an official name in 1956. Therefore I opted for paraphrasing it. In general, television channels in the 1950's don't have proper names in many countries since there's usually only one television channel in the whole country at that time and newspapers and listings magazines usually just call it "television" at that time. In the Broadcasts sections of the ESC articles in the 1950s, it has been a tradition so far to give the name of the broadcasting organisation instead and link it to the article about the modern television channel that historically was the first television channel in the country. Not more than an approximation, in my opinion, and difficult to deal with. EurovisionLibrarian (talk) 18:58, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
EurovisionLibrarian, as far as I know, the Swiss Broadcasting Corporation (with its multiple names in different languages), is only the holding company of the different Swiss public broadcasting companies, each one with its television channels or radio stations. The corporation itself doesn't provide the TV/radio services, they are provided by each broadcasting company. And due to the characteristics of the country these companies are different by language. So we have three levels, the holding corporation, the broadcasting company, and the channel/station.
In the early days (everywhere, not only in Switzerland), the TV channels were usually named after their company, as their names were extremely self-explanatory (Televisión Española -TVE-, Radiodiffusion-Télévision Française -RTF-), they only had one channel, and they didn't have a specific name for it. And in the listings indeed were just called "television". So, it is not a matter of tradition of linking "TVE" (as a TV channel) to the current "La 1", it is really how the channel was called back then.
To say that "RSI (a radio broadcaster) for obvious reasons, didn't have TV cameras back then", is misleading, and is not so obvious. There are many examples of TV channels starting out in radio companies before establishing the proper television company to give the service. To give an example, Sveriges Radio (SR) was responsible in Sweden of the television channel (Sveriges Radio TV) until Sveriges Television (SVT) was established in 1979. The same thing happened in Ireland with Radio Éireann providing the television service (Telefís Éireann) until 1966. So it is not so obvious that an radio company back then didn't have TV cameras nor provided television services.
For all this, I think the sentence "in cooperation with the German-language television of SRG" (SRG as the corporation) is not the best wording. The German-language TV channel (whatever it was called) was provided by a company within the corporation. The trick is finding out which one.
What I have been gathering is (without checking refs, yet):
Radio svizzera italiana was established in 1925. Their first television broadcasts was on 18 November 1958 (as TSI, now RSI La 1). The TV company Televisione svizzera di lingua italiana (TSI) was founded in 1961. So, we have here another example of a radio company providing television services.
SRF 1 was launched in 1 March 1953 and was named SRG until 1958. (What does SRG stands for?. Maybe it is wrong and it was "Schweizerischer Fernsehdienst" as you say.) The TV company Schweizer Fernsehen der deutschen und rätoromanischen Schweiz (SF DRS) was founded in 1958, and the TV channel changed its name to TV DRS. Who provided the television service before 1958? My theory is that in this case also, the German-language TV service was provided by the corresponding German-language radio company, and that was them who had the TV cameras. All my bets go with Schweizer Radio: Radio der deutschen und rätoromanischen Schweiz (SR DRS) but I really don't know.
Ferclopedio (talk) 22:24, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
I've been further searching through the articles in English, French, and German from both the German-language TV channel and the TV and radio companies trying to find some reliable reference that might shed some light on the matter, but all I've found are dates and names that contradict each other everywhere and no references at all. Ferclopedio (talk) 12:22, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
You can have a look at this ebook on the history of SRG, especially the pages numbered 175–186, which include information on how television in Switzerland was organised in the 1950s and also on the situation in Italian-speaking Switzerland.
By the way, I don't quite understand your paragraph:
In the early days (everywhere, not only in Switzerland), the TV channels were usually named after their company, as their names were extremely self-explanatory (Televisión Española -TVE-, Radiodiffusion-Télévision Française -RTF-), they only had one channel, and they didn't have a specific name for it. And in the listings indeed were just called "television". So, it is not a matter of tradition of linking "TVE" (as a TV channel) to the current "La 1", it is really how the channel was called back then.
Do you have any sources for that? Like, for instance, a document from RAI in the 1950s stating that their television is not just called "Televisione" but "RAI". Or a document from ORF stating that Austrian television was not called "Österreichisches Fernsehen" or the like in the 1950s but "ORF"? EurovisionLibrarian (talk) 12:01, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
I have read pages numbered 175–186, with the help of a translator (because my knowledge of German is zero). What I've been only able to gather is (and I may have missed some other piece of information lost in translation):
- "In contrast [to radio], television was desired and created by the Confederation – a completely new, even unprecedented phenomenon."
- "On 28 February 1952 the PED granted the General Directorate of the SRG a provisional license to operate a television service in the spirit of public service. This meant that the member societies were practically excluded from the organization of television."
- "In 1953, the Bellerive film studio in Zurich was converted into a television studio, and the transmitter on the Üetliberg was put into operation."
- "On 1 November 1954, the SRG integrated the Geneva experimental center into the national television network"
- "In 1954, the number of permanent employees at Swiss Television increased from 31 to 82"
- "On 1 February 1955, the La Döle transmitter, connecting French-speaking Switzerland with German-speaking Switzerland, went into operation."
- "On 1 January 1958, the concession for the public broadcasting of television programs came into force for a period of ten years.
- "the southern side of the Alps was finally connected to the national network in June 1958."
- "In 1958, the Corporation began a reorganization process that would last several years and aimed at integrating television into the broadcasting organizations."
- "On 5 July 1960, the corporation changed name to "Schweizerische Radio - und Fernsehgesellschaft"."
- "It was not until 1961 that Studio Lugano began broadcasting programs from the Televisione della Svizzera italiana (TS I)."
I'm not sure if we can connect the dots with this, because it's all a bit vague. I don't know if I understood correctly that the television service was created centrally by the corporation and that it wasn't until after they were granted the permanent concession on 1 January 1958, that they began to integrate that service within the different broadcasting companies. According to what I have understood, they had one television service with two production centers, one in Zurich and one in Geneva. So "in cooperation with the German-language television of SRG ..." should be "in cooperation with the television service of the corporation, which brought a television production truck from Zurich to Lugano", as I can't see that there were specifically a German-language television. Am I very far off track? Ferclopedio (talk) 19:23, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
I think my interpretations of these pages are similar to yours. What is clear from reading the pages is that Italian-speaking Switzerland was a little bit "left aside" by SRG in terms of television during the 1950s (despite politicians from Ticino voicing their dissent), and that RSI didn't have sufficient technical means for producing a TV show on its own since the studios and OB vans were all located in German- and French-speaking Switzerland (see the map on p. 183).
And yes, my interpretation is also that the television service was under direct direction of SRG with any intermediary company/member company, at least until 1958. EurovisionLibrarian (talk) 18:10, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and made the necessary change to the article. EurovisionLibrarian (talk) 18:33, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
I'm glad I wasn't so lost, since the translator was a mess.
I think that the link is not necessary, as it is linked above, and that the sentence needs some kind of explanation with a note like:
"in cooperation with the television service of SRG SSR, which brought a television production truck from Zurich to Lugano."--note: In 1956, SRG SSR had a single television service, which was the only one operating in the country. This service was directly managed by the corporation with a provisional license, and had two production centers, one in Zurich for German-speaking Switzerland and one in Geneva for French-speaking Switzerland.--
What do you think? Ferclopedio (talk) 20:07, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the note is absolutely necessary. If you really feel like adding it, please include also the reference (with the relevant pages from the aforementioned ebook).
Besides that, in my opinion, if SRG SSR is not linked here, it looks a little bit weird that RSI is linked, which makes a bizarre contrast. I would advocate for linking either both of them or none of them, for the sake of consistency. EurovisionLibrarian (talk) 18:22, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
I think it is good to have the note, since it is not a known fact, it is there on record so that in the future the same issue is not raised again. And yes, I added the note with the reference.
The reason SRG SSR is not linked is because it is already linked previously in the prose. It is linked in the lead and in its first appearance in the prose. In the paragraph just before the appearance we are talking about, it appears and it is not linked. This is for Wikipedia overlink guidelines. Ferclopedio (talk) 19:52, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
Regarding my paragraph, I mean that the channels didn't have a specific brand, and I don't think they were aware of this need. In their own broadcasts, they identified themselves with the company name, and the logos they displayed for the channel were those of the company. They didn't just call themselves "television", they called themselves "Televisión Española", "RAI", etc.
Some examples:
- "Television Española emitiendo en periodo de pruebas [...] les recordamos que el día 28 de octubre iniciaremos las emisiones de una forma regular" (here)
- "La RAI - Radiotelevisione italiana inizia oggi il suo regolare servizio di transissioni televisive..." (here)
- "A começo deste mês as emissões regulares da Radiotelevisão Portuguesa..." (here) Ferclopedio (talk) 19:24, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi. There is a topic that is very vaguely addressed in this article, but which directly affects both this article, and the "ESC" and the "history of ESC" articles (where it's not even mentioned), and that shakes up the fundamental belief that the ESC is primarily based in Sanremo, which is the influence in the ESC of the Venice International Song Festival (let me call it VISF).
According to eurovision.tv, in 1955 the City of Venice and RAI organised the VISF which included entries submitted by the radio services of EBU members from Austria, Belgium, France, Italy, Monaco, and the Netherlands. They each submitted six songs that were original and no longer than 3.5 minutes, with the entries being voted on by national juries and the winner being awarded the Golden Gondola prize. And this was the world’s first-ever international song contest based on the participation of national broadcasting organisations.
The Italian article on VISF is very vague, but it says that its first edition was held between 24 and 30 July 1955 (although the reference supporting this is not very strong). We also say in the article for Belgium in 1956 that the reason why the Flemish broadcaster NIR did not participate in the ESC was because it was busy with its participation in the VISF 1956, which meant that it had more than one edition.
Surely the initial idea of ​​holding a television song contest came to them because of Sanremo. But the date of the first VISF is right in the middle of the EBU's January decision to further study two projects (song contest and entertainers contest) and the October agreement to hold the ESC. Although the direct involvement of the EBU in the VISF is not clear, the involvement of RAI and the other EBU radio broadcasters, and the similarities with the first ESC, suggest that it did have a direct influence on its format, perhaps even more than Sanremo. While the influence of each of them on the ESC will be difficult to demonstrate, VISF should at least be named as an influential player, as was Sanremo. To have a clearer picture we would need to know:

The exact date of that first VISF
If the EBU had a direct involvement in the organisation of it
and any other piece of information that helps us relate VISF to ESC
@EurovisionLibrarian, do those fantastic references of yours say anything about this?. @Sims2aholic8, do you know anything about this topic? Ferclopedio (talk) 11:10, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

I didn't have a great deal of knowledge about the Venice festival before you posted this, but I did a little bit of digging into RAI's flagship publication at the time, Radiocorriere and there was a wealth of information on the festival in this publication. It is true that the first VISF was indeed between 24 and 30 July 1955, but in fact it spanned several days, with each night dedicated to the songs from each country. The first six nights were held in the Palazzo del Cinema in Lido, where the Venice Film Festival takes place, while the final night took place in the Piazza San Marco. The event appears to have been organised by the "Ente Comunale del Turismo di Venezia" (the Venice Municipal Tourist Board), so it doesn't appear to have been an EBU production. All this comes from the edition of Radiocorriere covering this time period, which listed that the festival was broadcast each night on RAI's Secondo Programma (now known as Rai Radio 2), with the final night also appears to have been broadcast on television, with Radiocorriere explicitly stating that it was a Eurovision broadcast. You can see below which countries were represented on each night below:
First night (24 July 1955): Italy (RAI)
Second night (25 July 1955): Netherlands (AVRO)
Third night (26 July 1955): Austria (ORF)
Fourth night (27 July 1955): Belgium (INR)
Fifth night (28 July 1955): Monaco (RMC)
Sixth night (29 July 1955): France (RTF)
Seventh night (30 July 1955): Final night, with the top six songs, one from each night, performing again
Radiocorriere lists the artists, and the songs and songwriters, competing in the event, although not who sang which song. There also appears to have been separate orchestras invited to participate for each country, and not a single home orchestra conducting every entry. Radiocorriere also had an article about the festival in the edition covering listings for 7 to 13 August 1955 (pages 10 and 11), where "Vecchia Europa" by Rossi, Nisa and Testoni is listed as the overall festival winner. This article also lists some information about the other participants in the final, which I have bolded below.
Italy: Carla Boni, Gina Latilla (corrected to Gino Latilla in the August edition), Lucia Mannucci and the Quartetto Cetra ("orchestra della canzone" directed by Angelini)
"Perché?" by Rastelli and Fragna
"La voce del cuore" by de Giusti and Spotti
"Stornello d'amore" by Biri Mascheroni
"Sogno" by Locatelli and Bergamini
"Projumo n. 5" by Testoni and Kramer
"Vecchia" by Nisa, Testoni and Rossi
Netherlands: Jenny Roda, Bert Robbe (De Zaaiers orchestra directed by Jos Cleber)
"Venetia" by Silberman
"Ma Provence" by Gersteling
"Quand dans le soir" by de Pauw and Maas
"Everybody whistles" by Bulterman
"Ne t'en fais pas" by Lyden and de Beaufort
"Till I return to you" by Niël and Cleber
Austria: Erni Bieler, Chris Ulberston, Iörg M. Berg (Klein Wiener Rundfunkorchesters directed by Carl de Groof)
"Angèle" by Lang and Meder
"Tausend Märchen" by Andree and Stahl
"Deine Augen werden weinen" by Halletz and Werner (the latter listed as Niessen in the August edition)
"Du lieber Mai" by Bebbo and Kaderka
"Sei doch zärtlich, Chérie" by Totzauer and Schubirz
"Es war ein Tag im November" by Loubé and Haller
Belgium: Renaat Verbruggen, Deva Dassy, Jef Verelst (Radio Bruxelles orchestra directed by Yet Verelst; possibly referring to be Jozef Verelst?)
"Door jou" by A. Preud'homme
"Vivre" by Lile Happy
"Op het San Marco-plein" by Francis Bay
"Ta vie" by J. Say
"Goude nacht" by Hans Flower
"Evasion" by Marise Lelong
Monaco: Yvette Bazzic, Louis Marey, Paul Mauzic (orchestra directed by Claude Besset)
"J'ai pas su" by Bonifay and Gardoni
"Mon p'tit café" by Laplayne and Pauriat
"Tango mandoline" by Fuller and Chabrier
"L'homme au Panama" by Kérambrun and Mottier
"Puisque tu t'en vas" by Berthier, Cansora and Danny Kane (the former listed as Canfora in the August edition)
"Donne-moi Paris" by Berthier, Cansora and Danny Kane
France: Jean Deny, Denise Benoît, Michèle Matey (orchestra directed by Chekler)
"Dans le ciel" by Richepin and Devevey
"A Pacaruco" by Tabet, Diamant Berger, and Louiguy
"Tu te rappelles" by Misraki
"J'ai pris le vent d'été" by Contet and Noblot
"Amour qu'as-tu fait de moi?" by Dabadie and White
"Le petit nez retroussé" by Lemarchand
What is interesting about some of these song titles is that there doesn't appear to have been a language rule in place, as most of the Dutch songs appear to be in English or French. Additionally there appears to be a mix of French and Dutch songs representing Belgium, which means either the French and Flemish broadcasters both contributed songs to VISF, which could potentially contradict the assertion that NIR didn't take part in the first ESC because they were preparing for VISF, or INR selected a mix of songs across languages to be representative of the entire country. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
That was a really good dig :)
The fact that the final was broadcast on television and also transmitted through Eurovision, makes VISF more relevant for our purposes than just being a radio event, as eurovision.tv claimed.
With each broadcaster bringing its own orchestra for its own evening, did each of them also use its own orchestra for its entry in the final? Isn't that a crazy crowd of people coming in and out of the stage during the final?
The assertion that NIR didn't take part in the first ESC must refer to the second VISF, which should take place in 1956. We are talking about the first VISF that took place in 1955. Ferclopedio (talk) 15:56, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
The listings for the final night, and the August Radiocorriere write-up, refer to all six orchestras taking part in the final; on page ten of the August edition they write: "trenta cantanti, sei orchestre, dieci presentatori" (thirty singers, six orchestras, ten presenters). I don't know how they managed to arrange that many musicians at the event but it seems they did!
I understand what you mean about NIR. Again it could be that INR decided to contribute songs across the Belgian linguistic divide, as INR is listed as the only broadcaster within the radio listing, but it's quite peculiar that they would send songs in Dutch, and with Flemish songwriters and possibly a Flemish conductor, if there weren't NIR involvement. Alternatively it could have been a co-organisation for this, especially to submit six songs, and then when ESC came along they decided to separate the responsibilities.
Although I only did a cursory look for around the same time in 1956, I can't see any mention of a second VISF in Radiocorriere listings in July 1956. It could be that they decided to host it at a different time of year to separate it further from ESC, but it could also be that a second contest never materialised for whatever reason. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 16:04, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
In a quick google search I found this: 2o Festival internazionale della canzone - Venezia - 4-7 July 1956, so it indeed was a second VISF in 1956. Ferclopedio (talk) 16:16, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
That's a nice find! Checked the Radiocorriere edition for that weekend, and there's both a write-up on the upcoming festival (pages 9 and 39) and radio listings, with the final again shown on TV and broadcast through Eurovision. However the second edition had pivoted away from new songs, and instead it was a festival for "classic" songs, i.e. those published before 1 January 1946. The first night (4 July 1956) was again the contribution from Italy, with Germany (represented by SWF) and the Netherlands (represented again by AVRO) taking part on the second night, and Austria and Belgium contributing to the third night. France and Monaco ultimately appear to have not participated. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 16:32, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
Also to note is the Radio Bruxelles orchestra, with the same conductor, is listed within Radiocorriere for the 1956 event as well. Potentially this means they're not creating a distinction between the two Belgian broadcasters, or in the 50s NIR and INR were sharing a lot more resources, including orchestras and conductors. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 16:36, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
Also did a quick search to see if any countries broadcast VISF over Eurovision, and I found references for the final night being broadcast on Dutch radio (Hilversum I; now NPO Radio 2) and Dutch television. De Telegraaf also had a brief write-up of the event in its edition from 30 July 1955, with the same six countries listed, which also backs up "Everybody whistles" as the Dutch entry in the final and lists broadcast on Belgian and French radio. The Swiss TV magazine Radio Je vois tout (the predecessor of TV8) also [lists the festival being broadcast throughout the week, either live or deferred, on multiple radio stations across Europe. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 16:21, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
Another piece of information we have (according to eurovision.tv) is that: "Members of the Programme Committee attended the Sanremo Italian Song Festival in 1955".
The meeting of the Programme Committee in Monte Carlo where they approved the two projects for further study was "at the end of" January 1955, Sanremo was on 27-29 January 1955. Ferclopedio (talk) 22:01, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
Ok so it's likely then that the two events were being considered or planned at the same time. Given that VISF was held that July, that it had RAI involvement, and that it was broadcast on television via Eurovision, it's certainly feasible that Bezençon was at least aware of it, and therefore may well have taken some inspiration from it when formulating ESC.
On another note, given the trove of information and evidence regarding VISF which I hadn't realised was out there, I'm now drafting an article on the two editions of the festival which are known to exist. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 22:10, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
Cool!. When I saw all the information you found about VISF, my first thought was: we have articles with less information than that. :)
I have news. I found two references to the third contest. In a google search I found in ebay the number of the magazine "SORRISI E CANZONI" of 30 June 1957, which in its front page says "Il programma e le canzoni del Festival di Venezia" here and the number of 7 July 1957 with the "Un grande servizio illustrato sul Festival di Venezia"" here. Ferclopedio (talk) 22:34, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
OMG, reading your Draft, I have noticed something that opens another can of worms!!.
Institut national belge de radiodiffusion (INR) and Nationaal Instituut voor de Radio-omroep (NIR) were the same company until 18 May 1960 when it was split into Wallon RTB and Flenish BRT (that were two different companies). Since 1937, the INR/NIR had two departments, one French-speaking and one Dutch-speaking, each headed by a director. It is all explained in the french article you linked. That is why the orchestra of Radio Bruxelles was the same and why they sent to VISF songs in both languages. I'm in shock, this affects what we have about the participation of Belgium in the early contests quite a bit. Ferclopedio (talk) 23:18, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
I have moved the discussion about Belgium above, so as not to mix things up. Ferclopedio (talk) 08:58, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
The Italian article says that the 1955 event was "presented by Nunzio Filogamo and Franca Maj. In addition, various pieces from the repertoire were performed by the Angelini orchestra and its singers with the extraordinary participation of Rino Salviati, Armando Trovajoli, and Franco Pucci." But as you said that there were ten presenters, and if you read the italian article carefully you notice that they are only talking about the first night. So I think those guests were for that first night and also the presenters, who maybe had some role in the final. Ferclopedio (talk) 12:18, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
I'm truly amazed that the judges were in their countries sending the votes by telegraph; I'd never heard of anything like that. The counting of those votes must have been something to see. They were more daring than the producers of the first ESC. Ferclopedio (talk) 12:15, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
A little bit late in joining the debate. I'm not exactly sure what the goal of this topic here is: just gathering general knowledge about the Venice Song Festival? Determining how influencing it was in the creation of the ESC?
Regarding the question whether Sanremo or Venice played a bigger role in inspiring the ESC, a chapter by Dean Vuletic [1] mentions the Venice International Song Festival being "more similar in its structure to the ESC than the national Sanremo Italian Song Festival" (p. 4) but doesn't link it otherwise to the process of creation of the ESC. In contrast, he explicitly states that Sanremo "was a model for the ESC [...] also because of its widespread popularity [...] Members of the EBU's Programme Committee [...] consequently attended the Sanremo Italian Song Festival in 1955" (p. 4). Vuletic's finding are cited/copied almost word for word in the "How Eurovision almost ended up in Venice annually!" page by eurovision.tv already cited in the Wikipedia article about 1956.
But Vuletic's interpretation matches also my impression: Sanremo was by far bigger than Venice in terms of popularity and prestige. Especially in Italy, but also abroad. Its press coverage dominates those of any other song festival in the 1950s. In 1956 and 1957, the number of broadcasting countries that broadcast it live on television was nearly as high as those broadcasting the ESC.
I don't exclude that Venice didn't inspire the EBU Programme Committee as well but I couldn't find any evidence in order to claim it had an influence on the same level as Sanremo did.
[1] = "The Grand Tour: the origins of the Eurovision Song Contest as a cultural phenomenon" In: Dubin, Adam; Vuletic, Dean; Obregón, Antonio: The Eurovision Song Contest as a cultural phenomenon : from concert halls to the halls of academia | London ; New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.  | pp. 3-17. DOI EurovisionLibrarian (talk) 18:47, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
It's not late, you're arriving in the middle of the investigation. We are trying to determine how influential it was in the creation and how impact it had in the format of the ESC. And if we don't find out how much, at least find that it did have influence so we can name it as an influential player, as was Sanremo.
Sanremo was indeed by far bigger than Venice. The simple fact that Sanremo had been held for several years and Venice was holding its first edition confirms this. My concern is that the big importance of Sanremo may be overshadowing the influence of Venice. And the lack of knowledge about Venice (even of its existence) makes things worse. For sure the idea of a song contest in the January meeting came from Sanremo, so Sanremo was the inspiration. For sure they wanted the popularity and the prestige of Sanremo as a goal to achieve. But Venice was in the middle of the January meeting and the October decision of holding the ESC. With "Venice was more similar in its structure to the ESC than Sanremo", the claim that San Remo was a "model" for the format is questionable. My impression is that Sanremo was the inspiration and the goal to achieve and Venice was who influenced in the format. We have the facts, we lack the evidence. Ferclopedio (talk) 20:40, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
With all the surprises we've been getting lately, anything is possible and maybe we can't see the wood for the trees. What if, Venice had actually been a proof of concept for the ESC? What if, after (or in) the January meeting and the visit to Sanremo, RAI offered to stage Venice as a proof of concept and as a way to further study the format before making a decision in October? They had almost six months to put together Venice, and at that time production times were much shorter than they are now; just look at the dates of old national finals, many of which were very close to the corresponding ESC.
The more we discover about Venice, the more suspicious everything seems to me: the involvement of the EBU radio stations, the television broadcast on Eurovision, the juries in their countries sending their votes by telegraph, the original songs concept switching to the known songs concept in the second edition. I find it very strange that the Tourism Board and RAI came up with this all by themselves.
Perhaps they realized in Venice that for the ESC, the concept of multiple orchestras and multiple nights was too complicated and that communications were not mature enough to have juries in the countries. Perhaps for RAI and the city of Venice, the VISF was a success and that is why they made a second and third edition.
Perhaps this is something possible and reasonable, or just a crazy idea on my part. But it's something worth keeping in mind; we just have to find the evidence and see what it tells us. Ferclopedio (talk) 09:15, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
Another fact to consider, in order to understand the full picture is that although Sanremo had been held since 1951, it wasn't until its fifth edition (that 1955 edition visited by the members of the Programme Committee) that it was broadcast on television. Part of the final night was broadcast on TV for the fist time. So before 29 January 1955, no one had seen Sanremo on TV, not even the members in the January meeting. Ferclopedio (talk) 11:06, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
I have found here a 14-pages article about the VISF in German titled "Das Blondchen im Gondelchen und der Karneval" by Henrike Rost published in the "Lied und populäre Kultur / Song and Popular Culture" journal, but I don't have access to it. :( Ferclopedio (talk) 10:59, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
EurovisionLibrarian has gratefully sent across a copy of this journal entry to me. It is all in German, but I'm hopeful it will provide a wealth of knowledge around VISF! Sims2aholic8 (talk) 21:12, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
That's great news, thanks EurovisionLibrarian.
Sims2aholic8, I've already seen your additions and they're promising. I'm excited to see what you can squeeze out of the document. The only regret is the telegraph thing; I'd already imagined that scene. :) Ferclopedio (talk) 08:04, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
@Sims2aholic8, could you please double-check the RTF orchestra? At that time, broadcasters often had several orchestras for their broadcasts: a symphony orchestra, a light music orchestra, jazz ensemble, etc. It is strange that the RTF sent a symphonic orchestra to the festival. At that time it had, the national orchestra, the Radio-Symphonique, Orchestre de chambre de l'ORTF, and Orchestre lyrique de l'ORTF at least. Ferclopedio (talk) 11:33, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for flagging that! I will do a comparison against all the sources I have available and determine if any of these is correct. :) Sims2aholic8 (talk) 13:10, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
I have a tiny little gift for you, which I think you would like to listen: at min. 1:20 and at 9:00 HERE :) Ferclopedio (talk) 22:16, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

"Each participating delegation was allowed to supplement the orchestra with its own musical director for the performances of its entries (...)"
is the current version of a sentence where "broadcaster" was replaced with "delegation". I'm not sure that this has improved the article. The rules of 1956 (which are one of the reference for that sentence) say (article IX) that each "participant" appoints a musical director. Article I specifies what is meant by "participants", namely the television services of the broadcasters. So the decision who is going to be musical director for this or that broadcaster and the responsibility of communicating it to the host broadcaster lies within each broadcaster as an institution.
The word "delegation" suggests that the choice or the appointment of each musical director was a matter of the delegation, i.e. the small group of representatives that went to the host city, usually consisting at that time by the artist, the musical director, the commentator, two jury persons per country, and maybe one representative of the broadcaster who might also have been one of the jury members or the commentator at the same time. EurovisionLibrarian (talk) 18:37, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree with you on this. The conductor was hired by the participating broadcaster and was a member of the delegation. And he was "appointed" to that task, not "nominated" as is said in other years. Ferclopedio (talk) 21:39, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
I get your point that the conductor is also a part of the delegation, but for me the delegation is more than just who goes to the country, it's also the people who are responsible for that country's participation at the broadcaster. More importantly for this point, delegations more often than not include people involved in the production of the song, i.e. songwriters, and then would often, albeit not always, have a say in who the conductor should be. Obviously this varies from country to country, and there are certain countries that almost invariably had the same conductor almost every year, but you will also notice a not-uncommon sight of overlap between composer and conductor, which indicates to me that they had at least some input into this among certain broadcasters. Saying it's just the broadcaster that makes the decision seems a bit misleading, whereas using delegation here allows for a more broader interpretation of who is responsible for some of the creative decisions. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 23:54, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
It is always the decision of the broadcaster. If the broadcaster decided: "I don't care, let the songwriter decide who should I hire", was also a decision of the broadcaster. And the broadcaster is who hire the conductor (and everyone else), the delegation is not a legal entity that can hire someone. When we talk about the delegation all around Wikipedia, we already say that it is the group that goes to the contest. And for you the delegation is everyone in the broadcaster that work for the candidacy... that it can be a loooot of people. Ferclopedio (talk) 08:36, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
The question then is who at the broadcaster is making this choice, cause I doubt the CEO of whichever broadcaster is actively involved in something as trivial as which conductor is being selected. It's more likely the head of delegation (or whatever the equivalent was in 1956), which again lends itself to using delegation here as a catch-all word to describe whoever was ultimately responsible for the big decisions relating to that country's participation. The wording as is isn't meant to describe any kind of collective decision making, it's meant to specify that instead of the broadcaster at-large making the call it's someone actively involved in that country's participation as delegated the task by a senior position-holder at the broadcaster (CEO, head of entertainment, whatever title it may be). Sims2aholic8 (talk) 09:02, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
We seem to have different perceptions here. You think that the word "broadcaster" is misleading, I think that the word "delegation" is misleading.
While it may be true that going to Eurovision isn't the only thing that a delegation does and that a delegation can involve a large group of people (rather not in 1956), I guess that the average reader will associate "delegation" with the visible activities of the participating broadcaster's designated group on-site during Eurovision week such as reported in fan press. I would like the article to stay understandable for every reader. I would still advocate for sticking to the wording used in the sources. The wording "broadcaster" is neutral, in my opinion, and it has also the desired effect of leaving it open who ultimately was responsible for the decision since the general-director of each broadcaster had the possibility of delegating those tasks to someone else, and I think that is clear to everyone (I don't think anyone reading the wording "broadcaster" will assume that it was the "CEO" who decided everything).
In contrast, if "delegation" was used, a lot of other sentences in this and in other articles would have to be changed: "Broadcasters were required to submit to the EBU by 10 May 1956 scores for their participating songs"... "Each participating broadcaster submitted into the contest a maximum of two songs".... "Broadcasters were able to send commentators to provide coverage of the contest"... EurovisionLibrarian (talk) 18:25, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
I've had a go at rewording this sentence entirely to completely remove mention of broadcaster or delegation, which hopefully is a suitable compromise that drives home the actual message of what it's about? Sims2aholic8 (talk) 18:09, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
That's a compromise I can agree with. Thank you! EurovisionLibrarian (talk) 18:50, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
Call me crazy, but it seems much more ambiguous to me than the way we had it before. That wording gives me the feeling that anyone who happened to be passing by could be nominated by I don't know who, and it doesn't make me think they brought their appointed conductor from home. Ferclopedio (talk) 23:50, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
Well we don't know exactly how the process for picking a conductor actually worked, and I assume each country had a different method. Writing in the passive just saves us the effort of having to jump through hoops to explain the situation, and just keeping it simple is probably best. Obviously individuals within the broadcaster had overall final say on who got to conduct the entry, but sometimes that's probably just a nod of the head to whoever the songwriters wanted. I understand what you mean, but I don't think it's so much ambiguity as it is we're working with missing and/or contradictory information, coupled with each broadcaster having a different method. Trying to sum this up in one sentence is just impossible, hence why I think the current structure works best.
I personally feel it's a bit of a stretch to say that the current wording leads to the perception that "anyone who happened to be passing by could be nominated"; I think we also have to take an approach to trust that the reader is going to understand this, because I think it is covering the major points as best as we can with the limited/complicated/contradictory information we have, and it's clearly not going to be just someone lifted off the street. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 07:59, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
I was thinking in something like:
"In addition, each participating entry could be conducted by its own musical director, with the host musical director also available for those who did not have one appointed."
You got here just as I was writing this message. :) Ferclopedio (talk) 08:02, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
There are a few things about this new proposed wording that bug me slightly. "In addition" coming off the back of mentioning the contest musical director makes it sound to me as if both the musical director and country conductor were leading the orchestra at the same time. There's also something that bugs me about the current wording that states an entry has a musical director, I don't really know why, it's a bit irrational I guess since it is true. I would maybe go for something along the lines of:
"The contest's musical director was also available to conduct the orchestra during the participating entries if a separate conductor was not otherwise appointed." Sims2aholic8 (talk) 15:22, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
Yes, that one can work and is consistent with what we say later in the paragraph. But without the "during"; the "during" sounds like the orchestra was playing in the background while the entries were competing, as if they had no connection:
"The contest's musical director was also available to conduct the participating entries if a separate conductor was not otherwise appointed."
If we are tweaking, it might also be a good idea to change the first sentence in the paragraph, I mean, instead of saying "Each song was accompanied by a" say something like "All music was provided live by a" (or similar), because the orchestra and the contest musical director were not there just for the songs in competition, but for all the music of the event. If we change this first sentence, we can use "participating songs" instead of "participating entries" in the sentence we are discussing about. Ferclopedio (talk) 19:38, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
I don't really understand your point around the word "during". What other word would you use instead? The orchestra started playing at the start of the song, and stopped playing at the end; that's the literal definition of during the song, no?
As for your suggestion around changing the emphasis from songs to music, I think that would be an WP:OR violation, because although it's undoubtedly true for 1956 it's not listed in any of the sources as far as I can see. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 23:42, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
My point around "during" is that the orchestra performed the songs, not that they played during the songs. The definition of conducting (according its article) is "the art of directing a musical performance", so saying "conducted the participating entries", I understand we are saying "directed the performance of the participating entries". If you prefer we can either say:
"The contest's musical director was also available to conduct the participating entries if a separate conductor was not otherwise appointed."
"The contest's musical director was also available to conduct the performance of the participating entries if a separate conductor was not otherwise appointed."
"The contest's musical director was also available to conduct the orchestra on the performance of the participating entries if a separate conductor was not otherwise appointed.
The orchestra performs the music and the artist performs the lyrics on the competition, while the conductor directs the performance. And the winning conductor usually also received the medal for this. (We might also be understating this if we say that he only conducted the orchestra, since the artist had also to follow his cue, so my third example maybe is the worst of them). Saying "during" give other meanings.
OK for the other thing regarding OR. Ferclopedio (talk) 07:32, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
Ok that makes more sense. I've used the second option and edited the article; I also added in "by that country" at the end, because it's an important distinction that the appointment was made by the participating broadcaster/delegation as opposed to the EBU. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:01, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I have a question. In this, and in other early contests, we have the original contest title in other languages in the lead section. To improve its readability, could we put the translations of those foreign language titles that are between parentheses in a note instead? Would we be breaking any Wikipedia rule with that? Ferclopedio (talk) 19:47, 17 July 2025 (UTC)