Eurovision Has a Jury Problem
Vložit
- čas přidán 16. 05. 2023
- Have a great summer, Europe. CORRECTION: At 11:37 we say Croatia finished in the top 10. They finished 13 overall, 7 in the televoting.
If you want to read all the funny answers to our Overthinking It Awards survey, check them out here:
docs.google.com/spreadsheets/...
Want to see more Eurovision-inspired interior design? Check out this folder for Israel, Lithuania, Sweden, and Australia!
drive.google.com/drive/folder...
Piano covers courtesy Piano With Pano:
/ @pianowithpano
Subscribe to this channel for all our Eurovision coverage!
FOLLOW US
Facebook: / overthinkingit
Twitter: / overthinkingit
VIDEOS
Eurovision 2023: oti.link/otiev2023
Eurovision 2022: oti.link/otiev2022
Eurovision 2018: oti.link/otiev2018
Eurovision 2017: oti.link/otiev2017
Eurovision 2016: oti.link/1Pz6o7h
Eurovision 2015: oti.link/1FAf0uY
Eurovision 2014: oti.link/1MExLwf
Eurovision 2013: oti.link/1AtOJHY
Overthinking It subjects the popular culture to a level of scrutiny it probably doesn't deserve.
www.overthinkingit.com/ - Zábava
See my issue with the jury is lack of diversity in style. Germany who was technically perfect for the genre of music it was got so few points from them. They need to look at their criteria again.
Sorry I’m a bit bitter about it coming last.
Also: why weren't the great vocals awarded with more jury points if that is the reason for all those 12s to Loreen?
Right there with you. I've had that song playing on my playlist since Saturday and it's such a great track & the music video is a blast as well. It's perfectly executed for what it was going for.
It's like the people is slowly accepting some genres of rock and metal, but sadly the jury does not appreciate it at all.
I discovered Lord of the Lost thanks to ESC and I'd love to see them live some day!! They present quality and seem such genuine nice humans.
Understandable. They did not deserve last place, they rocked
@@SigridStorjern SAMEEE!! I hope one day I can watch them live too!
What makes me so disappointed is not the win among juries, but the points difference. Did juries really love Tatoo so much more than other songs? The final made it even more clear that Tatoo was drown among other quality entries. It just FELT like a rigged show, no matter if it wasn't true.
Yeah I agree. There were other songs that had high levels of technical skill, vocal abilities etc, Tattoo didn't really stand out enough to warrant the extreme difference in points.
Exactly. Loreen’s amazing, but I feel like she didn’t have the strongest vocals of the night, neither did she have the most creative song or presentation. She was good, but not 2-4x times better than the likes of Spain, Portugal, France, Cyprus and other strong vocalists of the year.
@@alice45-fgd-456drt bffr what songs stood out vocally??? And stage presencely??? Loreen >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kaarija any day, tbat man doesnt know how to sing with his overrated ass song so happy it didnt win i love juries
One of the cowriters for Tattoo is a huge songwriter for the k-pop industry and has been topping billboard lists multiple times. The other cowriters for the song has won with other songs before. They're really talented people who knows what they're doing, I think that's the difference
@@neryxax No one brought up Kaarija until you, just so you can thrash him. But are you seriously saying that Spain, Portugal, Lithuania, Cyprus, Switzerland, Norway, Estonia (just from the top of my head) didn't also have great vocals and songs that were artistic enough in a more classic sense to get a closer number of points to Loreen? As for stage presence sorry, but Loreen was not the best. Her whole performance was her making some weird hand movements with long nails between two colorful screens. Meanwhile say what you want about the songs themselves (I personally found them really good as well), but Moldova, Serbia, Czechia, Spain, Croatia, Finland (among others) put on a better show with better stage presence. You can be happy about your favorite winning, but you can also be fair about it and see what other people mean when they complain about the juries.
Who is here also after Eurovision 2024?
It was dissapointing
Me. 2024 made 2023 look enjoyable.
@@Nadia1989 yes with the israel stuff
I am. 2024 was basically United by Music, Divided by Juries 2.0, Worst song contest ever: The whole drama around Israel, no jury reform, EBU being dumb af, DQ of Joost without a reason, small and lacklustre stage, boring interval acts and unfunny jokes with pre-2000s humor.
I am glad that Finland didnt have to host this shit show, eventually Sweden got their karma for winning with a jury rigged song in 2023.
@@noactualneedforaname I'm total agree with you!
This video is still relevant in 2024, as the same thing happened with Baby Lasagna this year. Switzerland was 5th in the televoting and still won.
It’s rigged. After this year I can see that public vote is irrelevant if the jury is rigged And we have to pay for the votes too!
Disgusting
Boycott Eurovision.
Switzerland definitely deserved the win. And the results were skewed because of all the votes for Israel, which were all about politics and not music, given that the song wasn't anything special at all. Without all those votes, Switzerland, France or other countries could have received more points by the audience.
@@nickklavdianos5136 its worth noting that the israeli government also put a bunch of ads telling people to vote for israel in the esc
Nah. Baby Lasagna ... I don't like it, my friends don't like it either. Honestly the songs this year are not great. Switzerland was ok but won because it's an overly engineered genre-mashing song with a non binary singer. Eurovision is way too politic
As a finnish person, I'm sad for other countries too than just for us. It felt like juries totally disregarded other great vocalists to give Loreen points. To name a few, France, Portugal and Estonia deserved more and I think their vocals were brought out better in their songs than Loreen's. It just felt unreal how much of a point difference there was between Loreen and others in jury points.
Estonia was waaaay too high with that boring ballad. The jury gave the song 7x more points than the viewers. It did not deserve bottom 5 position but also didn't deserve so many points. 15th place imho would be a fair score.
@@TimorDa But I feel like the jury should be there to reward things the average viewer may care less about, like vocals. I'm not per se against a difference in what the jury rewards, and what the public rewards, but the jury needs a defined role, not the current mess. I was mesmerized by Estonia, and she, Portugal and Spain were my clear favourites in their vocals. But Loreen baffled me, because she got all the flowers from the jury with a pretty generic song, sometimes even cringeworthy vocals and unfitting staging.
@@melindamuller4466 I too was disappointed in Loreens performance in the finals. She was lacking her usual technical prowess. It was probably worst live version of Tattoo I saw. Whimpy start, annoyingly nasal bridge, not really getting those o-o-oo's to shine and vibrate... But she must have smashed it in the friday jury rehearsal, that juries based their votes on.
The jury gave France more points than the public… just sayin
If you think of how an individual juror judges, it’s not really physically possible for the jury as a whole to ‘disregard other great vocalists to give Loreen points’. There’s a set number of points to each country in their top 10, it’s not like each jury has a set total of points to give that they can share how they like and they only chose to give any to Loreen…
I have nothing against Loreen personally, but the bitter aftertaste of this year's jury vote has kinda ruined her legacy for me.
I must say I can't respect her decision to participate again. She's already an established artist and she's already won, yet she decided that "you know what, instead of letting an up-and-coming artist get the opportunity to experience their first win, I'll go for a second win." It just looks like she needs ESC to stay relevant, or to stroke her ego.
Word
@@eels3658 you make it sound like what she did was easy and just walk stepping on people to the win. people like you have no clue about hard work and life.
@@eels3658 I couldn't agree more!
the jury had a different perception of you, what the problem with that? i liked lorren...why should win other because you dont like loreen?
It's wild that 185 people in the jury have the same voting power as all public voters. If you only take European voters into account, the jury has 4 million times more power than the public.
The system pretty much guarantees corruption. What would you do, if you were a record company executive or a country that REALLY wants an ABBA reunion to celebrate your country? Spend some money. Use envelopes and promise another envelope if the vote is correct. Nobody can prove anything. The only rational move for Eurovision is to get rid of juries. But they won't, because they're all in the gravy train. Money talks and bullshit walks, as the saying goes.
Same in sports competitions like olympics, talent shows, losing weight shows, baking shows, fashion designer shows. Juries are always few people, that's the idea. In Eurovision you don't have 5 juries, you have 5 juries per country, that is between 185 and 215 depending of the number of countries. Complaining about that is like saying countries with more population should give more points.
@@rafismusic Exactly, if You were to let the public vote in fashion shows H&M would win.
@@rafismusic you´re missing the point, it´s simply not fair when a handful of people have the same weight in the voting as millions who spend money voting, especially when these so called juries vote according to their personal taste rather than do it according to the guidelines they´re given.
I think 185 different jury people is a good distribution of power. Plus, they all come from different countries (maybe not different backgrounds, but at least there are cultural differences between them). You can assume there is some homogenity regarding the people that get appointed as national jury, as they are typically mainstream media people with a high social standing (trying to avoid the word 'snobs'). This might be enough to cause the jury vote that we witnessed. Not because the 185 people have secretly exchanged their score sheets or were bribed, but simply because they are the same kind of people who like the same stuff.
I believe that no national jury wanted to see Sweden 150 points above the next highest vote, or wanted to create such a difference in points as was ultimately produced. If they had known each others score sheets, they would surely have reconsidered and scored a bit differently, as to not elevate the Swedish performance too much. Because it simply isn't that much better than everyone else. For future evaluations I'm pretty sure the juries have learned from the 2023 contest to take a few more factors into consideration than simply "This was the most polished performance". They also have to consider how others might be voting and if the probable end result is really representative of the performances. And maybe they'll become a bit more transparent, at least revealing their considerations after the finale. It'll never be perfect, let's hope they'll improve a bit from here. FINLAND !!!
As you said, there's no way a professional jury wouldn't vote Spain with such a concept, staging, chorography, dresses, pure quality of voice and difficulty of the music sheet and mix of folllore and modernism. There's no possible explanation and their criteria should be clarified. Beyond liking the song or not, it had pracically everything to get extremely well considered by a professional jury. Up from there, there's no way a sole option slayed with such a difference from the other songs. In fact, the beginning of the show, reminding the importance of Sweden winning to equal Ireland was more than fishy and unfair to the other contestants! Sorry, but terrible aftertaste with the jury...
I totally agree. I would also like to hear jury members' opinions on Croatia's song, among others. Did they even understood it? Did they spend time on understanding anything more than easy smooth pop songs? Can someone interview jury members? And those who have chosen the juries? Who are they and what are they professionals for?
People also bet money for this, a lot. We should know the rules of the game.
@@KatiaMarjaana I think bets are a real disgrace to every competition that involves voting : the bookmaker quotes influence the vote IMHO
@@amarantatedeschi4786 I know some of the so called experts- They don't know what "FUN" is.
This year.. Norway has delivrerd something insane.. and its is fun
@@andersgulowsen2814 And the juries hates it, points only from Finland and Ukraine, and it came last with very little televote too! It's insane.
i knew loreen was going to win the jury because it fits the standards that the jury put themselves: a modern, radio-friendly pop song, mostly sung in english. while i want juries to continue in the final, i am also an advocate for clean, precise criteria and more diversity in juries, because lord of the lost put an excellent show and they were punished by being too niche.
the juries should be there to make sure the niche performances aren’t punished by the televotes. because even televoters tend to swing towards the generic pop songs sung in english.
@@daffodilinthespring Yeah look at Austria and Australia. They were saved by the jury.
@needlehad Jureys soud be abolished out right.
@@stekra3159 i mean they are doing the complete opposite of they were brought in for and should have less sway over the result but i think if they were redesigned they could be useful.
I grew up with rock and metal fans as parents and Lord of the lost seemed pretty tame to me, at least for its genre. It's catchy and it seems pretty mainstream friendly since it's in english (I really wanna see some german metal to Eurovision) . I don't know how it did so bad.
I feel that the power of the jury vote is disproportionate. If it was 30%, then it would feel more justified. Also by now, the jury vote feels a bit patronizing since it always goes in such a different direction than what the public wants. The jury is supposed to guarantee "quality" and "commercial mass appeal" but if songs are massively popular among the public vote, then shouldn't that equal to "commercial mass appeal"? I'm tired of music executives being in charge of what is being played on the radio and dominating platforms, when in fact most people's tastes are more ecclectic and personal than that.
Yess ❤ if you only listen to radio, the moment you discover other genres you're gonna not rlly listen to the radio anymore
100%. Look at the changes to the Belgian music scene when MTV bought, and killed, TMF.
I agree! And I'd say why not make it the same 25% jury + 75% televote divide that has already been in place in many national finals. So that would make the jury vote exactly 1/4 of the total points. Works in the nationals.
And I think there should be more focus on who the juries are comprised of; they need people who are qualified to assess different genres of music as well, not just radio-friendly mainstream pop. Also, there should be clear transparent criteria they need to follow to justify the points they give. If not completely fixing the problem, I think that could at least make the results much more justifiable.
@@peterhoz RIP TMF
@@naniyodesu Definitely more transparency If more people felt that the jury's exisistence were justifyable and reasonable, then their vote would also have more public support. But as it stands - the public just despises the jury and feel like the competition is rigged. Which makes Eurovision less enjoyable as a whole!
Norway is also a prime example of a significant imbalance between the jury and the public. Was Loreen really 288 points better than Norway? The jury gave Loreen 340 points and Norway 52 points. In the public vote, Norway received 216 points while Loreen got 243 points. Norway consistently ranks in the lower half of the jury points, but when the public vote comes in, they suddenly reach the top 5 or top 10. In 2019, KEiiNO received only 40 points from the jury but over 200 points from the public (which was the majority that year). This is just one example, but it is unfair to have such a significant difference. It is also unfair for all those who spend money on voting, only for a small group of jurors to hold considerably more power and often have differing opinions from the public.
Let’s not abbreviate the history here. Norway did very well with the juries in 2009, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2017. And for good reason. Sometimes the public doesn’t appreciate quieter ballads like in 2014 and 2015 as much - that’s why we need the juries, however small they might be.
Yes! Imo norway had a winner this year. (Right after Finland of course!) Alessandra has such an unbeliavable voice, she can use it beautifully and the song is a gem.
@@alexberrian1118 But do we absolutely need quieter ballads..? This is one thing that seems to be taken for granted, but if a genre consistently do not get many televotes, then I don't think they are necessarily needed in ESC. Nice to have (sometimes), but not strictly necessary. Just like some (esp. juries) would say that e.g. death metal is not necessarily needed in ESC. It's the same. It's not like people couldn't listen to quiet ballads everywhere else, if they so want!
@@eveliinaniilivuo7329 the singing was powerful. but the music accompanying it felt off. like it should have been a different Genre. should have gone more Nightwish. not Club music.
I liked Norway's song a lot but her vocals were off during the live show. I can understand why it underperformed with juries. You can hear it especially during the verses and then she was *heavily* supported by the track vocals in the chorus, which kind of masked it. Made me sad cause Allessandra did really well in previous shows...
Has anyone noticed how the voting costs for the maximum number of 20 votes differs greatly by country?
In Finland it costs 20 euros
In Sweden, 6.40 euros
In Denmark, 2.60 euros
In Estonia, 34 euros
Oooh see THAT’S interesting.
Wow! I noticed too (because I watched the Austrian Re-Stream instead of German television, because commentators for Austria were funnnier) and during voting time it said 50 Cents from Austria, while I switched to German TV and it was only 20 Cents from Germany o.O
In France, each vote costs 0.99€
I think this is more due to the value of money in the respective country. Just as prices in supermarkets in each country is slightly different for example. If you know what I mean.
In Italy each vote was 0,99€ but we could only vote a maximum of 5 times
A way to fix the juries is that they should just be more representative have music producers that specialises in all different genres. Make them larger and have 20 jurors for each country instead of 5 (I think that's the number right now).
Agreed, it's favouring safe non-innovative pop too much
That, and there should be universal and transparent scoring system. Like each jury member scores for vocal performance, stage performance, lyrics, and whatnot, and then their combined scores are ranked, but it's public who voted what and why. I also think they should have less points to give, maybe they should only award 5 countries instead of 10 with points with half the pool they have now, idk.
@aeonarin putting the categories to the voting sheet and making them actually score them would probably fix most of the problems. The categories can be changed or tweeked as needed. Jurors are given more time than the audience to do the ranking as they have earlier jury performance. There would still be room for taste as the categories are Vocal capacity, Performance on stage, Composition and originality of the song, Overall impression, (possibly memorability).
i’ve seen some arguing that the finnish guy couldn’t sing and yeah, that’s because he’s a rap artist. it’s a song contest, not singing, and every genre should be given a chance. but that won’t happen until the juries are more diverse and have people from rap, hip-hop, jazz, heavy metal and techno.
and what requirements should televoters meet?
Usually I am against conspiration theories, but seeing that the juries did not just give Loreen the highest points (which I understand), but effectively blocked every other song that could potentially get high popular vote (e.g. 14 juries (!) gave no points to Finland, even knowing that it is such a massive hit, and gave so few points to Spain that could have been a dark horse in the popular vote). I can't but think that it is all for the purpose. 128 jury members have ways more power than millions of public votes. This is sad.
I would like a reminder of how bad it was before they reinstated the jury. Sure, it's fun with a jury that can give points based on more objective things as staging, singing technique or whatever they use as qualities. But Eurovision is for the people, and that is more important than any technique etc.
But it has to be said, that Sweden as anyone else is just playing by the rules, and clearly deserved the win this year with the rules giving the juries that much power.
And what then to say at jury votes against also mega popular and much more serious entry - Mama ŠČ from Croatia?!
Juries gave to this amazing song and performance only 11 overall points though televote gave 112.
And this is, by many experts, one of the most original entries ESC ever had music/ lyrics wise, because of smart symbolism, serious hidden messages, astonising punk music meets alter art and opera performance!
Perhaps juries don't give points on how popular a song is. Thats what public votes are for. I do believe that the juries are judging on the final perfomance. And Käärijä didn't perform his best in the final, in my opinion. The video from his national perfomance was way better than the finals.
Except they gave Finland the 4th highest score at the contest. And loreen only won due to her 240 tele score (which is a winning level score any year)
@@fapmashina1 Croatia one of the Best entrys in ESC?? Give me a break. This is not the 2000 anymore, ESC is not a joke to make fun of with silly entrys. Not only they were absolutly ridoculous, the singer is terrible, he cant sing. You cant seriously vote something like that being a profesional.
The main problem is, if the juries of all europe are so aligned to all vote the same song up, we don't need eurovision anymore.
Exactly, what is the audience's role in this event?
I thought Tattoo was…as beige as Loreen’s costume. It wasn’t bad, but it wasn’t fresh or interesting either. No one’s going to forget Cha Cha Cha. My kids haven’t stopped singing it and bright neon green has been renamed Cha Cha Cha green.
As a Swede I can't weigh in on this, cause of course Tattoo is played on the radio more here. But I'm interested, does your comment hold up a year later?
I also think it is such a paradox that the ESC motto this year was "united by music" :)
The crowd chanting cha-cha-cha while the hosts were announcing the jury results giving Finland no points at all was precious.
Why are you making things up. They did 4th best.
@@LINGWOW9 vulture is referring to the times the jury of a country didn't give Finland points, and that happened several times.
Just sad this was the year Graham hosted. My dude deserves a better show ✊
Edit: Sorry, what I meant was not the songs and such, just regarding the people booing and interrupting the presenters and such.
@@thinBillyBoy did you not think the show was incredible? I wanted Finlamd to win but equally then not hasn't ruined the entire show. It was a very good year with no "bad" songs. Escpially by the final.
"United by music, divided by jury"
I think the polarisation we saw this year is a problem. The jury gave Loreen a huge lead and because this was kind of expected the public had to vote massively for their favorite Finland. But then there are not that many points left for other acts. And so Germany for example got completely smashed despite having a decent song in my oppinion.
Exactly, and we knew this because of the betting odds.
The problem is, the Jury almost exclusively awarded their 12 points to Sweden. The gap between 1st place and everyone else was too massive. It's okay to reward what's good, but other great perfomances were looked over and that's not okay. Tatoo was great, but not THAT great.
Honestly, didn't the audience vote just fine in the semifinals? I felt like we did really good without any juries. I know why there were reinstated, but I don't think Blockvoting is worse than what the juries are pulling tbh... Less power to the juries.
yeah, it's not so much that I expected Germany to *win*, but they shouldn't have scored as *low* as they did. Evaluated through a "what were they going for/what did they achieve" lens (rather than "what do the juries personally like" lens), Germany I think did a pretty solid job.
That’s my theory too. We all voted for Finland because we all thought it was very boring of Sweden to send an established winner and really didn’t want them to win again with such a cheap lazy move. (No hate to her, I like her and her song, but Sweden should’ve never seng her.) And because of the fear that Sweden could win we gave all our points to Finland and had to ignore other great acts.
The juries do not know what other juries vote. So they can´t possibly know "the huge lead" a singer might have.
This year's Eurovision was a huge stinker. The Jury vote raised so many questions, it was baffling. Tattoo is a great song but for the Jury to give it such overwhelming lead to make the viewer votes pretty much obsolete is not something you should see.
The worst part is that we have the same problem 2024 the winner got so many points from the jury that it was basically impossible for Croatia to win even though he got the whole crowd Whit him
I seriously think the contest is rigged so no Eastern European country can never win. Because once an Eastern European country wins, the contest will always be hosted in an Easter European country and won't be celebrated in the Western side ever again. These countries are a lot, they have a bunch of people in them and they support each other with their votes year after year. It's a pity because they send the best songs year after year.
I don't condone Loreen slander and she doesn't deserve the negativity certain people have given her, but man. I cannot let go of the fact that during Melfest season, when interviewed for a kids' news show, she began talking about how she doesn't eat pasta because Carbs Are Evil. This was thankfully cut before the program hit the air since people rightfully pointed out the ramifications of somebody like her uncritically discussing engaging in diet culture to an audience of impressionable children. And in contrast, Käärijä hangs out shirtless on international TV while, of course still slim, lacking visible abs and also having a colostomy scar. And he also emphasizes in interviews that anybody can be shirtless and that you deserve to be happy with yourself just the way you are. I spoke to a friend yesterday who had not seen the contest but had seen photos of Käärijä and felt very seen as somebody who has a very similar body. Käärijä is just such a ray of sunshine and I admire all the good he brought to the table
she doesn’t deserve the hate she’s getting, but i think she does deserve criticism for reentering after already winning. her place in the finals denied a new person from sweden the opportunity to compete and get their name out there. europe already knows who she is, she had her chance and succeeded… so why compete again? even if the different entry was also generic pop, it still would’ve given a new person the spotlight. i know a couple of other countries have also done this before but it leaves an even more bitter taste now she’s won twice.
@Smultronpojke Wish I could like this comment a thousand times! As someone with a belly full of surgery scars (due to chronic illness), seeing Käärijä out there spreading joy to millions of people despite his chronic illness (which very nearly killed him some 9 years ago) was incredibly uplifting and empowering! Loreen dieting for months to look the way she did was pretty much the opposite of uplifting. Perhaps nothing to do with the songs, but all this adds to the overall impression and the taste left in one's mouth.
@@daffodilinthespring she isn't the first winner to come back usually noonecares because they almost never win in fact they usually tank
@@m.5548 i absolutely agree. I wish your health all the best.
I feel like she is giving yoga mom vibes in a off/weird way, of juice cleanses and judgement…
I think she does not deserve the hate, but she did miss out on presenting herself in the same sympathetic and approachable way other artists did, which makes her definitely a target.
@@iria871 know, and i’ve disagreed when other previous winners reenter (alexander rybak for example), not just because it could give them an unfair advantage, but because it denied a new person a chance to compete and get their name out there even if they didn’t win.
Instead of having the jury/televote split 50/50, they should make it 25/75, kinda like how Finland did in their national finals. Juries only make up 25% of the votes, and the public makes up 75% of the votes.
Yeah I think that would be a good solution.
That wouldn't be fair to countries like Sweden that primarily rely on the jury vote. They deserve to be successful even if the public doesn't like their songs
@@casperix3741 no logic behind that take, eurovision is about the audience, not the jury
@@elia_best Wrong, it's about the best song and performance, and sometimes the audience doesn't know which one that is
@@casperix3741 but the jury also doesn’t know. they aren’t music professionals, much of the jury is either a country’s radio host, a member of their broadcaster, or a failed past participant. they have a massive bias for pop music and are unable to see the technical skill and merit of different genres (germany this year). they are very disconnected from the public. the jury shouldn’t be abolished, but it needs to be massively reformed. how can you trust them as they are, 185 “professionals” versus an entire continent?
The problem is that the juries are incapable of evaluating a song based on skill, production, and staging but tend to pick what fits into their own musical genre, which is mainly pop. Just an example: You must be a highly skilled singer to effortlessly switch between growls and clean vocals in metal. Even if you personally prefer pop music over screams the juries as “music professionals” should be able to neutrally assess this. Besides the jury issue the ESC’s voting system needs to change. Giving anyone who doesn’t make it to the Top 10 in a country 0 points means that someone could be 11th place in every country and still place lower than someone who gets 10th place once and 24 times last. That doesn’t seem fair at all. Germany for instance would have got 15th or 16th place in the tele vote. They were actually not placed last in any country.
This is so true, the scoring system should be more fair and diverse. Top then with 12, 10, 8, etc. points leads to such big differences. My suggestions are that jury scoring should be (7,7,6,6,5,5,4,4,3,3,2,2,1,1,1,1) for a total of current 58 points that this system still has. And the televote scores should be percentage based of the proportion of the 58 points for each country. So even if 5% of the people in that country voted for an artist and placed 11th, that artist will still receive 2.9 points. All payed votes will have full statistical value towards the scoring then.
THIS!!!
Österdahl really did score the biggest television event...he got boo-ed out of the existence
It feels very dangerous for the EBU to basically disregard the public's opinion when we're the ones watching the show, oh and also PAY to vote. A couple of more instances like this and there aren't many people left to watch, not a good look at all. The jury definitely needs a change.
How is televoting disregarded
@@_loss_ i assume bc the juries gave Sweden such a massive lead that even a huge televote score didn't even get close to touching Sweden
This is a ridiculous position if you’re referring to this year’s contest. You cannot change the rules of the game mid-game. Loreen won by the rules of the game and Sweden played strategically by appealing to the judges. The fact that Finland placed 4th in the jury vote is actually noteworthy as such silly party songs usually are slated by the jury.
@@_loss_ uhhh... Did Finland win?
@@k.j.hulander2204 no-one is suggesting that they should've changed them in the middle of the contest, they're saying it should be reexamined going forward (which is how literally every change to the rules including juries has been made before)
When countries from Balkan gave points to each other - Eurovision voting has to be reformed to remove the possibility of neighbourly votes.
When Scandinavian countries give each other 12 and 10 points - no one says anything. That's okay.
Hahaha, yes, true xD
But there's so few of us 😅
Scandinavia is 3 countries, nordics are 5 😅😅
But true, we neighbour votes too, to some extent.
Sweden is upset that the Finnish public didn't give them points.
@@henriikkak2091 Talk about entitled lol. I wouldn't have voted for Tattoo even if Sweden wasn't winning, and even if Loreen wasn't representing Sweden. It was one of the most boring-ass songs in the current Eurovision roster.
@@t-pnaminami3808 Calling Sweden upset over it is just a bit of an overexaggeration lol. What has been raised as criticism however is the Finnish presenters calling on the Finnish people to not vote for Sweden to increase the odds of Finland winning. Literally telling their viewers to vote tactically.
@@lillkrull1161 I still think that it didn't affect the voting choices of myself or anyone I know. I wouldn't have voted even if there wasn't the current context. I found the song boring and generic, and others felt the same. It would have gotten a couple of points at most in other circmstances. We send Lordi, Blind Channel and The Rasmus to the ESC for a reason.
might as well repost this every year going forward 💀💀
The problem is not the points that Sweden got, the problem is the points that Finland did NOT get. The jury from 14 countries did not award a single point to Finland.
Similar thing happened to Konstrakta last year, I'm still salty
Well, the problem *is* also the inflated jury points that Sweden got, since if those jury points had been more evenly distributed to all the other entries that deserve it, by usual jury criteria, Finland would have won with that amount of televotes. :(
@@florenna that makes no sense. If you removed sweden from all the jury totals, Finland would have a bit more points but not much.
The truth is, the juries base their points on criteria that Finland did not accomplish to a higher level than other performances. The general public may like the song because it’s fun, upbeat and half of the people watching are drunk, but that does not realistically mean it’s better. If the public had their way joke songs would win at least every other year, if not more often. That would make Eurovision a joke
@@klo4880 The current jury system started on 2010. I can't see that more ethnic, original entries should be called 'jokes'. Netta, Konstrakta, Let-3 and Teya and Selena, to name a few recent entries were protest songs about important issues. I can't believe people think that former member of girl pop groups and middle of the road DJ and composers (UK jurors) know more than millions of voters.
I think the big 5 (except Italy) were really pummeled by the juries because of their genres. I don’t think they were capable to give fair judgment of glam metal (Germany), Chanson (France), or flamenco (Spain). Mae Muller just struggled with the vocals and couldn’t match the studio cut.
I think that that's a fair assessment. I felt bad for the big five.
True, they didn't deserve such low placements, except for Mae, who should have come last with the juries, just for her vocals alone.
@@in_wino_veritas I still have a possibly irrational dislike of Israel’s song. I just can’t with the unicorns man. It may have been excellently performed, but the song itself sounded cheap.
I am usually not a big fan of the songs France send but this years song was REALLY good, personally my fave song of the big 5 followed by Germany.
@@henriikkak2091 Tbh i would feel bad too, but they don't have to qualify (which is unfair) so i don't
I just want to give an example of the voting Germany did this year:
-> 0 points to Finland by the jury
-> 12 points to Finland by the televoting
-> 12 points to Sweden by the jury
-> 1 point to Sweden by the televoting
How can it be that songs get a completely different result in the same country? Cha cha cha got ranked 1st with the german public but 16th with our jury - even though Finland got 4th with the juries overall (so it fulfilled the jury criteria’s).
And how can it be that Tattoo get ranked 1st by literally ALL 5 jury members when there were many other juryfriendly songs and “only” ranked 10th with the German public?
The same happened in 2018. Sweden got 12 points by our jury and 0 points from our Televoting. If I remember it correctly since 2015 Sweden was ALWAYS in our jury’s Top10 and always very low with our Televoting…
I think jury’s are important but the results this year showed the power of the jury needs to be reduced or we need a demoscopic jury!
Juries are composed of music industry professionals who prefer safe pop over more genuine and unique acts or other genres, because that is what sells, that is what they produce, and that is probably what they themselves listen to.
It's because jury voting is based on different criteria, among others voice of the singer and lyrics, neither of which strengths of Käärijä, and they usually decide after a thoughtful listening of several times, although the vote happens based on one live performance a day before the event. The audience on the other hand can vote for whomever they feel like for whatever reason, and may hear most of the songs for the first time in the grand final, so for televoters, a song must work instantly if it is to displace a preselected favourite. What also affects the televoters is everything outside the singing performance, what the jury shouldn't consider, like in Käärijä's case his persona and funny acts. So juries and audience may vote from two totally different perspectives, audience can even vote tactically without any breach of rules.
@@Eppu_Paranormaali Tattoo was not that much of a lyrical/musical talent you all claim it to be. It was quite solid and top 5 material, but not the best done song eurovision has ever seen. It's so similar to her previous performance. No originality. Many other acts did well in their genre. Why is the basic pop the most praised form on music, when its literally the most common to be done.
Other acts had musical diversity and wity lyrics. The jury dismissed them, since they literally know nothing about other genres than radio pop.
@@t-pnaminami3808 So I don't know what you count as music industry professionals, but personally I hightly doubt that dj's, cabaretiers or tv hosts fall under that. Because I looked into the juries of some countries and they had at least one of these on the jury. One country even had all 3.
So... yeah, I genuinely feel like the juries need a makeover to get some actual music industry professionals in the juries and not just some famous people who heard a song before.
@@gandalfthegay. We "all"? Best ever? Of course not, don't extrapolate. Tattoo just had to beat the field this year in the eyes of the juries. What makes the act great is the combination of the song and live performance. It's complete and compelling. I don't think Loreen would've won if the contest is about audio only, at least not clearly.
And what's wrong with being true to one's own pretty unique style? Surely that kind of continuity in an artist's production is a cornerstone of success for most artists.
Who's here after last night? I like Switzerland's song, but was it really jury's favorite? Winner of the public vote lost again 😢
The public vite was political. The song was just generic
@@Wingtail_onpaws
And the jury votes were not political...?
Same shi* happened this year. Croatia was far ahead of Switzerland in the public vote. But since the judges gave them a head start of more than 150 points, its almost impossible to beat that.
Would have been interesting to see how this played out with Joost still in the mix for the final, too. It’s hard to imagine him not sweeping public vote.
Jury is always biased towards Sweden. They can send in whatever they want and they`d get high scores from jury
Why?
@@jennybodin3710 Yeah, exactly, thats the million dollar / euro question...
Jury votes for country, televoters vote for songs ... Sure there's always some politics & diaspora (mostly seen in this year's failure of "the rest of the world" vote that literally lumped everyone else together) but that seems to be the rule of thumb for most years....
Sure. And then they dump Norway, before the tele voters come to save us. Alexander Rybak would never had won if there had been a jury at the time.
@@ahkkariq7406 funny because Rybak won both televote and THE JURIES back in 2009. They put Sweden 22nd😂😂😂
As a German metalhead and LotL fan for many years, I am grateful for all the vindication everyone‘s providing. That Fulenn award illustrates it perfectly. They may not have been a winning act, but they deserved better
They didn't deserve that low of a score! But not very much more either. The delivery was very good, but I have to say that the song was very niche. From the strange tempo shift into almost a rap part and then the strange laser blaster sound at 1;10. And the lyrics is IMO lazy. blood/glitter, sweat/bitter, happy/die. feels like it was written by a 12 year old. That said its nice to see more metal.
@@patrikeriksson7876 They do mix a good few genres/ things from different styles of music, which is something I greatly enjoy. I realise that this can make it odd to listen to, perhaps. However, I am with you in that I acknowledge it's not the best, I in particular believe it is one of their weakest songs from the album, but that is just a matter of taste to start with :D Same with the lyrics, while they'll rarely impress you with utter poetic master pieces, they have been much more profound/ subtle and all in the past. They got great lyrics, but I say with all the love I have for them that it is noticeable they're not native English speakers when it comes to phrasing.
I voted for Germany, best act after Australia imo.
Exactly, Germany’s entrance was way better this year and it deserved more points. Even if metal rock is not all people’s favorite genre, the song was still really good
Although I wasn't a great fan of the studio version, when I saw their performance on Saturday I thought Germany could pull a top 10 with the televote if not overall. The final score was shocking and so undeserved!
2024: A shit, here we go again.
I'm totally ok with Loreen winning the jurys - it makes sense, but they didn't just put her on the first place, they purposefully made it IMPOSSIBLE for anyone else to have a chance of winning via televote! She wasn't so much better than everyone else she had to have 150+ votes more than #2. Käärijä got 100+ points more via televote because he was an obvious fan favorite and in the normal situation he would have won, but due to this ridiculous voting by the jury he finished 2nd and it doesn't sit right with me.
Yeah, Loreen stans are forgetting one thing, i.e. that not only Finland was taken away a chance of winning but every single other country too! Just look how Norway for instance was held down by the juries. Or Spain. You'd have to brainless if can't see how all great songs and singers were ignored in favour of Sweden. Loreen's song is not so unbelievably good that she outshines all her competitors.
This personally reads as an "engineered historic moment" to me. Notice how Loreen is only the second person to win the contest twice after Johnny Logan (maybe that's why they mentioned him during the voting). With her win, Sweden also equals Ireland in most wins, making this a historical double whammy. In this case, I think we should compare her 2023 win to Logan and other returning winners: what made her different?
Her song's definitely better (and less cheesy) than Alexander Rybak's in 2018, so there's that - but it's no justification for the gap. What about differing demogaphics and fan cultures between 1987 and 2023? Was Logan deemed just as much a legend as Loreen at his first win? Probably not. I don't know about every single returning winner, but I think analyzing them could give us more of an insight into Loreen's case.
Couple of points from me:
1.) Käärijä won the UMK televote with such a high score, because UMK system actually works 25:75 jury:televote... And that's how it should be.
2.) It's worth to mention, that the "Tattoo" winning jury vote is just a cherry on top of already baked cake of jury blatant favoritism of Sweden. Out of top 45 highest jury score countries, Sweden take almost 18% of the chart (including this year). Don't tell me that songs like "Dance You Off" or "Too Late For Love" deserved to be 2nd in jury score. For what? why?
3.) Sweden is a powerhouse of the contest, and just like the eurovision was created based on San Remo, in modern times, Swedes are turning it into Melodifestivalen and it's sick. It is also very suspicious to see Sweden constantly getting highest scores in countries they are selling their songs to.
4.) Oh yes, the return of jury vote, right after the contest's popularity started rising in Eastern Europe. For ages this was a "western" competition, but the moment Berlin wall fell and we all got rid of USSR, therefore were finally able to enter the western world. Almost entire west shat their pants, because Eastern Europeans started doing better, sending better songs and overall taking the contest more seriously than UK or Ireland or Germany.
5.) Juries hate eastern europe.. point blank periodt
6.) 2000's in general were very weird years of eurovision, wacky songs, bunch of trolls etc. But I think we are past this. And using examples from that era is at this point... irrelevant
Solution in my humble opinion:
1.) extend jury panel on 10-15 members, diverse it by different age categories and different musical fields they work at
2.) lower the jury vote weight to 25:75 or 30:70... threfore they'll keep jury opinion and balance the vote instead of turning it upside down.
After-all, this is a show for people and for entertainment. Because if it wasn't.. it wouldnt be done with so much glam, sparks and overall feel of "go big or go home".
You are so right!
The only reason "Too late for love" didn´t win that year. Was because he is black and the lack of votes from the eastern block was blatant. So to give more power to the people will only make Eurovision more into a talent show rather than a singing show. As juries still has a criteria to follow. Or do you only want contestants with barely any singing capability and full of weird dances to win?
@@naminus9080 lol. You cant be serious 😂😂😂
For real. Stop with this.
“Too late for love” was mid song asf, nowhere near “Soldi” or “Arcade” that’s why it didn’t win.
Stop with this stereotypical narrative that whole Eastern Europe are bunch of racists…
I agree with Naminus on the point that we do need juries so that it stays a *song* contest. Keeping the power 50/50 would also be fine with me, but definitely a more diverse make-up of the juries, and at least some guidelines that "sounds like it's produced in a lab and would be commercially successful in the US" are not actually the only criteria for quality. The juries favour Sweden because Sweden is the lab-breeding machine for US pop songs, but one of the best parts of Eurovision is that it isn't the US-Top-40. In fact, I'd actually love it if "contains regional ethnic elements" would be its own mini-ranking criterion. Not in a huge way, but mayb within the ranking criteria something that can rank a song up (or down) by one point. It's Eurovision and it's allowed to sound like it!
You should look up to Sweden insted of being a mean little person being angry at Sweden fore being so good There are many wrongs with Esc but your argumentation is worth nothing.The big five doesnt bother you? That is all about money.The fact that Sweden is successful with skills shouldnt bother any decent person! Be ashamed hater
The same problem with jury been in Poland this year. Jann won with televotes but jury choose Blanka.
With Poland it's even more obvious considering how Blanka had connections with the jury + her parents are quite rich. Oh and Jann's performance screams gender nonconforming twink bound to win hearts of every European so the jury probably did the math & came to conclusion it's cheaper to send Blanka & buy her some televotes in semis than stage entire "upsi the boat Jann was celebrating his victory just so happened to blow up" thing
We saw the problem from the very beginning and didn’t pay attention..
How, "Bejba" could achieve anything when it became hated in the country of origin? Theirs decision was also harmful towards Blanka. The girl is well developed for a shitty pop music scene, "Bejba" could become a summer hit in Mielno (Baltic resort) but it became cringe to --watch-- hear her.
@@Pandzikizlasu80 It got such a backlash, because her win was very fishy and also her preselection performance in Poland was really bad, she did a better job in Eurovision final for sure. But it's not just about a song, it's about all the shady stuff around. There are yt videos about it.
I hate Blanka
And TVP
Justice for Poland and Jann
And polish democracy
And this year we saw the same thing with Baby Lasagna winning the televote but losing to Nemo who was only fifth in the televote because of the juries.
Here we go again. Jury deciding between each other to make one song uncatchable. Someone who was 5th in the televote won the competition. ESC should be ashamed of themselves.
This year was a needed wake up call to change the system, not remove jurys fully, i agree with your suggestions. But this just makes it sad that a unknown artist singing in their own language that absolutely got the entire audience behind him..lost so bitterly and what many looked at as unfairly. Käärijä will be remembered forever for this, possibly be remembered more than loreen and if he would have won.
Loreen is the first woman to win ESC twice and only secons person ever. And the we have Euphoria, so no man I dont think so 😊 she will for sure be remembered rightfully so.
@@Dsdsds346 She will be remembered sure. But, Käärijäs song went to spotifys worldwide #1 spot. loreens song didnt. Euphoria was a good song, tattoo is not as good. Käärijä already got 70 requests for shows worldwide reported by news. Käärijä won the audience in a way i have never seen in eurovision. Simple facts are that käärijä has come out stronger from eurovision. 2nd person to win twice and first woman to do so is nice, but not that big of a deal. I dont see many people talking about that as much as about käärijä.
@DS Loreen will be remembered (rightfully) as a Eurovision legend, but I doubt I will remember the song itself. It’s not bad, but it’s not whistleable either. Cha cha cha though. That song sticks in your mind. It will be remembered. Just like Verka is remembered as a legend.
@@MissCaraMint Very true what you said there. Käärijä has become one of those eternal legends of eurovision.
Thanks to Finland, I found the source of inspiration for Finland's Käärijäs song the German band Electric Callboy 🤩czcams.com/video/D1NdGBldg3w/video.html
I don't think it benefits the Big Five not to be in the semis. It almost feels like they're not part of the "normal" Eurovision and we don't get to see their performances several times. With all the other songs, we get to watch them, care about them and interact with them before the Grand Finale.
Come to think of it, why can't they perform in the semis? We get to see part of their (I assume) rehearsal during the interval, how about letting them perform the whole song during this time? Or put them in the running order with other songs, you just can't vote for them.
I am German and I actually agree. It probably creates a weird vibe that 5 'special' countries have a safe pass to the final without competing before. On the other hand there is less exposure for their respective songs (most people pick their favourites after the semi finals already). So really, it's just not a good concept imo.
@@Romy-90 Indeed, not participating in the semis reduces the exposure the songs get and doesn't give them the opportunity to grow on people, I am surprised the Big 5 never tried to get their songs to be performed in the Semis even if they would get automatic qualification anyway
Really, the only country so far that hasn't been hindered by being a Big 5 and not having to compete in semis is Italy, always in top 10, all others have to fight tooth and nail
@@reithehunterjust wanted to say that what you're all shown during the interval is the Big 5 performances from their respective evening preview rehearsal from the day before. It definitely hurts them not to take part in the semis, not only because it makes them feel removed and distanced from the rest of the celebrations/acts, but also because, in many cases, they performed better during their rehearsal (which is only factored in for jury voting) than their major performance (which is when the public can vote).
I was at both evening rehearsals this year, so saw all of the big 5 perform live before the televised shows. The UK, France, and Germany all performed far better during the rehearsals than the live stages.
I came back here after seeing this year's result. I have nothing against Nemo and "The Code", but they were 5th in the televited and they still won...
Countries want to do well in the contest and if they are making notes, they probably got the following from this edition:
- Don't send a crazy song with an even crazier performance (which would actually be the definition of Eurovision)
- Don't send a rock song (unless it's Australia)
- Don't send a band (they can't play anyway)
- Send a song in English
- Send a song that portrays the vocal abilities of the singer
- Send a ballad (as that will be easy to integrate with the point above)
All of the above might still not work if you're from a small country with little to no neighbour voting or diaspora. Yes, the jury is also neighbour voting.
Exactly !👋👋👋
If this continues, we'll end up having a very boring Eurovision, with almost no diversity, simply being mediocre radio chart songs competing for jury votes.
Finally at least a passing mention of Hatari, the Eurovision act most deserving of overthinking in the history of ESC.
YES! We need hatari analysis
For real
Hatari mun sigra
i mean, their act is one of the more obvious ones, they were very clear about their intentions, still id probably watch that video tho
@@yanivshemtov9430 I'm guessing you're thinking about the first layer, and haven't even looked into their humor that flew over most people's heads, or anything else they were saying in interviews and putting in their art
Loreen got an average score of 9,4p from the jury. In 2017, Salvador Sobral got an average score of 9,3p; in 2015, Måns Zelmerlöw got 9,3p. So getting such a high score from the jury is not unusual, what is rather unusual is that the 2nd (and 3rd, 4th) received such a low score from the jury this year. The difference in average score by the Jury usually (2014-2022) lies between 2.9-0.15. This year it was 4.5p down to Israel.
Edit: Miscalculated the difference between Loreen and Israel. Corrected from 4.6 to 4.5.
I think it has something to do with the fact that juries did not vote in the semi finals.
Just for fun, I did a calculation of how much televote percentage various years got in the finals, and what Finland achieve becomes even more significant. Finland got 17.1% of the televotes in the finals. Ukraine got 18.9% last year, Portugal got 15.4% in 2017, and Italy in 2021 got 14.1%. Once you compare the percentages instead of just the total, it really shows how much of a crowd favourite Finland is.
But I also think so many people voted for Finland because they didn’t want Loreen to win and Käärijä was the only one that could beat her. IMO it’s a combination between Käärijä fans and Loreen haters. Or better Loreen favoritism haters.
@@pianobycamila I think it wasn't so much Loreen haters as people that simply preferred for Käärijä to win over her. And because everyone knew that chances of that were tiny according to the odds, they gave a hefty part of their votes to Finland, when they would otherwise have maybe split those votes more equally among their favourites.
@@pianobycamila but when people were voting they didn't see the jury votes yet. No one i know had any idea loreen would be so popular. Majority faved kaarija cause they liked the song.
Okay time to watch this again after the '24 result while waiting for chapter 2.
Finally someone who acknowledges Spains artistic achievements. Obviously it's not a winner song, but it's exactly the kind of song jury should vote more for because of those points you mentioned.
If we follow the jury criteria, Spain should have been Jury Winner. Nevermind the televote because that's expected of a flamenco song.
Ironic he focuses in the jury placing Spain 9th and not the televote placing her 26th. 🙄
I feel like the betting odds influence the jurys a lot. The jurys (maybe subconsciously) want to vote in a way that doesn't cause controversy and alignes with other "professionals" (maybe because they are often not really powerfull industry professionals, but just random people from the music industry). So they end up being highly influenced by odds and Loreen this year led the odds by a huge margin.
Well if this is the case this should have happened with e.g. Ukraine last year too, which was also high in the odds.
@@VY_Canis_Majoris well Sweden always is a sure point-getter and they were high in the odds. So maybe both combined made the difference for the amount of 12s. Ukraine 2022 did well with jurys. This year the difference was the overwhelming margin between Loreen and any other act.
Not just the juries; everyone pays the odds far more attention than they deserve.
Fun fact, election polls also heavily influence election results, although ranked choice voting heals that problem a little.
Yeah, But Finland was 2nd highest in the odds, so you'd think they would've gotten a better jury result too... If it influences anybody, I think it influences the public. Maybe without the constant talking about the odds Loreeen would've gotten less televotes?
It does - the way how uniformly the juries have voted this year is simply bizarre. It cannot be explained away only by the "quality of the song".
Elaborate, I don't see how it is unrealistic whatsoever, It's not like Sweden was given 12 by every country, they just filled most of the criteria for a "good song" in the jury performance, could've countries such as France have gotten more? Yes, but the votes in the lower places were split more evenly, whilst Tattoo was more consistent, henceforth, they got more higher places than Finland, who's appeal is shouting(not an indication of good singing, which is detrimental when you are being judged by professionals) and a likeable personality. That being said, a jury voting based on a list of criteria meant to determine the objective quality of a song will naturally vote differently than people who are easily moved by personality(unrelated to the song) and humour, which is why parodies are always treated better by the public.
@@literalgarbage8014
If we had to discuss artistic value then your username would aptly describe the artistic value of the boring, predictable and cliched G:son-Boström collaboration that won
@@literalgarbage8014 Eurovision is a song contest, not a "who is the most impressive vocalist" contest. The best song and performance is the aim for the winner, not who happens to have the prettiest voice. Tattoo is a miserably boring song, but it won because she has a good voice and that's all the jury cares about. You are incorrect in thinking the jury was measuring the "objective quality of a song" because the public clearly disagreed, meaning that is not objective whatsoever.
@jiji Now this is intriguing, I did actually reapond to this, but it appears as though it was deleted :0
You'd expect the juries, supposedly experts, to realize the artistic potential of songs the public might not like, like Spain's... instead, Spain got 9th in the jury and Israel's tiktok bait got 2nd place.
Then you discover some of the jurors aren't even experts and those who are only expertise in top charting pop music, and so you realize the jury is actually dumb as bricks and has way less diversity in taste than the public.
I didn't knew Swedens and FInnlands song until the final, I only knew that Sweden was somehow the big favorit. After listening to Finnland I had the feeling this is gonna win.
It was a very good stage perfomance, a creative Song and musicwise also interesting.
After listening to Sweden I could not believe this a the favorit. It was not bad, don't get me wrong, but it was in no way outstanding. These type of song we had heard thousand times at the ESC.
At the beginning I even detected some Abba vipes.
And as it turned out Finnnland was the big televoting winner. In my view we really need more transparency of the jury. I am very interested what moved the jury to their decision.
In Germany we have the same problem in small. Lord of the lost only won by televoting, I am not sure, but I think the the jury put them on the third last place.
I have the impression that the jury wants a different contest. It feels very strange when they are so far away of what the people want. I am not sure this a healthy combination.
I have nothing against Loreen, she sings well and her performance was beautiful. Just that compared to all the other songs in the finale, she would've more realistically ranked around 8th to 10th place, the amount of bangers was insane this year, the quality was incredibly high in approximately 20 countries! Who I do have an issue with is the jury, who seem to be incredibly out of touch with the public at best and bribed or blackmailed at the worst, and the Loreen fans who haven't been taking the valid criticisms of Käärijä fans all over Europe well and have instead been calling Finns bad losers and spreading misinformation about Käärijä apparently not apologizing for his reaction to losing (he has apologized at least 6 times, at least twice in English, on his social media as well as on interviews, even though his reaction during the live stream to losing was on par with other second place contenders in Eurovision history).
Loreen got the second place in the televote. So how can you say that the juries where "incredibly out of touch with the public"?
@@Vernunftfan Loreen didn't get the most points from the public vote in any country.
@@artbookgaming okay but Eurovision is not determined on who got the most 12s now is it. She still overall came 2nd in the televote, making her the public's 2nd favourite.
This is the Let 3 appreciation we all deserve
Thanks a lot for your support! 🇭🇷❤🇮🇪
Warm greetungs and big ŠČ from Croatia!
❤ Let 3 from 🇬🇧
Trajna-nina, armagedon, nona, šč
@@fapmashina1 Mama kupila traktora ŠČ
@@Elfdustify Mama ljubila morona, šč
The idea of there being an "expert vote" to ensure a certain level of musical quality isn't bad. The problem is that it's not much of an "expert vote" if the broadcaster just takes the spares that didn't make the cut from the national final, chucks them into the jury and calls it a day (look up the German jury, for example). Of course they are going to vote for safe pop ballads, that's literally what they tried to compete with themselves. And of course that's not gonna match the televoters' tastes - if it did, they would have won their national final.
Juries need more members, more diversity and more qualifications imo. I want ACTUAL professionals on the juries, not industry babies - and not only from pop, but from various genres. It's insane that you are basically competing at a massive disadvantage if you send anything but pop. And 5 members is too few to prevent shady dealings - see last year. If there's gonna be corruption, at least make it expensive.
EXACTLY!! The problem isn't the proportion of jury/televote being 50/50, it's WHO is in those juries.
We need more music specialists, people that work in actual conservatories, music journalists or producers, because those are the people that have the wider range of music knowledge, and can make their choices as objective as possible
First: The voting was never fair.
Second: Block voting was a big thing with the exclusive jury voting.
Jury points are alright, but its just not fair that a minority of Jury members have the same Votingpower as Millions of Viewers.
Jury Members should only vote there Top 3 and give it 1,2,3 points. Not more. Giving 12 points to a country is just unfair.
Thanks a lot for such kind words about us, Ukrainians. And yes, all the buildings in the postcards are safe. There are many complaints now about not very successful locations that were chosen for postcards. As the author of more than 20 guide-books about Ukraine, I cannot disagree with this. But there is a simple explanation for the chosen locations: all civilian drone flights are banned in the country, and the BBC team filming the postcards had to obtain permission from the military administrations of cities/villages and so on for each takeoff. And not everyone gave permission. But I was terribly pleased to see my hometown and castle in the postcard! (Kamianets-Podilskyi).
I was wondering how the postcard locations were chosen, given the difficulty of recording at the moment. Thank you for this insight, and Slava Ukraini!
Update: one of those building has been bombed...
It's relatively easy to bribe a few members of every country's jury than the whole nation's televoting. In previous years very often tv stations from different countries contacted each other and made plans to decide which jury votes for which song so they can get more points for their countries.
A few members? Here we would be talking about hundreds all over Europe. This theory is crazy and makes literal no sense.
@@AleLuciani The jury wasn't allow to give points during the semi finals because of this, atleast 1/4th of the countries were found cheating last year.
@@AleLuciani It's literally just 183 jurors (5 per country, except Croatia and Ireland had 4). I wouldn't call that "hundreds"
@@enigma1256 they were colluting with esch other. It's different to think all 36 countries were favoring only 1. Why would they do that???
@@Mystcret it's literally almost two hundreds.
I think one problem of Let3 was that they could not explain their song in interviews, bc. then it would have been too political for eurovision rules. So they could only say: yes, yes, we are singing about a tractor. And a lot of people didn't understand the meaning, especially in Middle-/North-/ Western Europe. And the juries had their criteria to follow...
germany being last after jury votes with like 3 or so points shows how bad the jury is, they just vote for the best RADIO friendly POP song, soon as you throw something edgy, hard rock or god forbid, heavy metal, they don't listen.
yea loreen was great but good enough to win? i think not
She won bc it's Loreen
I don't wanna be mean but I don't want to see her ever again
It's also worth mentioning that while Käärijä shares the same amount of televote points as Salvador Sobral, there were more countries competing the year Sobral won. Sobral got an average of 8,95 points pr country whereas Käärijä got an average of 9,89 pr contry (incl. rest of the world). Both are still behind Kalush who got an average of 10,98 pr country.
@@jordan3405 didn't even spell it right, you sure you're not a bot?
@@passingextraterrestrial He very clearly is. Or a hateful troll, same difference. (Too many of those here.)
@@jordan3405 No one really liked the Swedish song, actually. It wasn't the public's nr 1 in *any* country.
@@florenna This doesn't mean "noone" likes it. In fact, it came second in many countries, so it was still very popular.
I don't like Cha Cha Cha and I enjoy Tatoo, so I could as well say "noone likes Finland". But I don't.
„I Stan Let 3 all the way“, what a statement, I am also on team ŠČ!
I am also hoping that we will see a change in the system, because the juries are making things a lot harder for everything that is not very mainstream. Things can - surprisingly - be good without being clean well produced pop (Måneskine is also a very safe choice, while not being pop). I do *not* think it was coordinated/rigged for Sweden to win, but I think that the juries wanted her to win for reasons beyond the performance, the first female double-winner, the 50th anniversary and not the picture that „the funny Finnish guy“ won, because „how would that look“.
Great comment, both on mainstream entries and Sweden!
Let 3 and Mama ŠČ especially payed hefty price this year and have been given SHAMEFUL 11 overall jury points just for the sake of fact that they're very underground and shocker type of entry alrhough many experts praised them as one of the most original but also quality entries ESC ever had music/ criptic lyric wise, smartly hidden messages, great performance in which punk meets alter-art and opera!
But what a "shock" - men in undies in 2023. though there are loads of half naked ladies enery year on ESC!
Juries are extremely shortsighted, hypocritical, ultra conservative and leaning to trivial balads and pop trash!
@@fapmashina1 i think you are saying exactly the right things. The juries are - in my opinion - supposed to reward art to some extend, and not radio-compatibly and commercial potential. They are - from my point of view - meant to reward intelligent music choices, amazing vocals, artistic integrity and, well, artistic value. I do not say that commercially successful and radio compatible songs will never have this, but that this is the criteria I would want to see things judged by.
@@annikania2682
You've perfectly summarized all! I absolutely agree with you! 👍
Let 3 has been ripped off this year as the consequence of very narrow-minded and conservative juries that are obviously thinking in such manner as you've explained!
Kind regards from Croatia!
It also has to do with that the semis were determined by the public. So the jury had less to pick from. So it was easier to essential band to together
@@fapmashina1 Notice how Sweden had a nude bodysuit and no shoes, Norway literally forgot to wear her pants, and Israel had the part when she takes them off and spreads her legs INSTEAD OF ANY SINGING PART shown as highlights. The idea that judges promoted anyone based on songs while they gave top points to all three half-naked ladies with no pants, is very obvious. Italy was another singer who got tons of jury points with a song I can't even recall (or sing long to, it has no melody), but he waved LGBT flag so those judges who aren't into women voted for him it seems... Like it legitimately looks like they were just simping and not listening to music.
None of the songs jury ever promotes are catchy or radio friendly BTW, it's always that Idol style whiny loud singing of random notes (or one note like in Israel's case) that gets top marks and then everyone forgets about them because nobody actually listens to this music, it only exists to be graded by judges, as they are the ONLY listeners to such tripe. Everyone, always, hates ballads on Eurovision. They're never remembered after the competition. But the let judges pretend they listen while grading someone for not wearing any pants. That's my take anyway. Croatia should have won but they looked bad without pants, while TVORCHI had the best tune.
And in 2024, the situation is the same as 2023. The Jury system really neads to be reworked. I have nothing against Nemo winning, he was one of my favourites, but hearing the Jury give Switzerland 12 points again and again was very dull. I really hoped Baby Lasagna would win this year - just like I wanted Käärija to win last year.
The video hits different after esc 2024 final where THE SAME THING HAPPENED ONCE AGAIN. Jury gave Switzerland so massive points difference to any other entry that televoting meant nothing. Once again public's favourite got robbed by jury's lack of diversity bc they "planned" switzerland to win. Not only croatia was robbed but there were many great entries which were left forgotten by them. Once again it wasn't eurovision but battle of 2. I'm not saying that jury should be removed bc public could be easly manipulated into political voting (shocking 323 telepoints for Israel this year) but maybe make them less powerful and impactful? For example make jury would give 10 points as max instead of 12, that way winner score won't be easly manipulated by both jury and public.
i still dont understand why swiss got so many jury votes, we (croatia) had much better energy and visuals, hell armenia too, yet both got nothing from the juries, and france had MUCH better vocals than swiss and he didnt even get that much either, wtf was the criteria??? was the balancing on a giant metal pizza seriously the thing that gave him the win?
but the public is at fault also, stupid political bananas cant put politics aside and vote for the song they like and throw 300 pts to ukraine and israel each which if they didnt i 100% guarantee u BL wins it even with the jury going against him.
@@apan990 Yes! Swiss song was ok, it wasn't bad but wasn't masterpiece as well. I think they got so many points bc nowadays it's trendy to be non-binary and they wouldn't like to be called fobic right? (just like israel is calling jury antisemitic bc they didn't give them much points) Especially in country such as Sweden which is known for being the most open. And there's also issue with televotes as u said. While some will look at it as song contest and vote for entry they liked the most while others will vote to show support (ukraine and probably some votes for switzerland) or to protect their country and create fake support (israel). Political votes are usually "louder" not bc there are many people voting like that but bc those voting for song they liked are divided (many votes to many different songs) for example if there are 20 voters total and 12 of them will vote for 6 different songs while remining 8 will make the same political vote then ofc they will send more points %. And i think there's sadly no solution for this televote issue which would make it less political
@@apan990
It’s obvious every year the jury votes strategically. They voting for what is trendy, instead voting for the best song.
thank you very much for talking about the Spanish performance, that one was by far the best artistic performance and to be done this way is very very unfair, the whole voting thing got me scratching my head hard, very hard. the unreasonable points for the super banal Israel performance, among other weird weird decisions.... riggers stench is so damn strong.
Israel was a big question mark for me too. Personally I don't think they should be allowed to compete any more than Russia is, so I might be biased, but the song was ...not good?? Like it brought absolutely nothing to the table, how did it get such high votes? I'm confused.
I loved Spain! Great performance and artistry. I don't think it has anything to do with rigging, just that its a very niche song. Sadly enough.
I agree on israel too. Very bland. The kids loved it though, only because of the word unicorn :D
It defo wasn't rigging. The semis were determined by public. So the jury had less to cchoose from. The jury liked Austria, France, Spain and Australia which were forgotten by the public.
@@hazelcrisp But jury didn't award them enough.
@@alice45-fgd-456drt Finally someone else who questions the way they're allowed to participate as if there was nothing wrong... Combine that with the awful unoriginal song, and Israel became the only one I wanted to win even less than Sweden.
Two profound improvements needed:
1. Jury winner can be different than public winner and they're celebrated as equals
2. Big 5 countries go through semifinals as everyone else. They feel removed now and should participate from start.
I agree about the big 5, but then their citizens shouldn't pay through their taxes for Eurovision then. Imagine Germany not qualifying for ten years in a row, but paying for everybody else having fun in the final.
It'd be unfair too.
Sweden should replace the big 5, paying for Eurovision I mean, they are "automatic" qualifiers anyway
if there are two equal winners, how will it be decided which country will host next year?
@@sillygoose-3000 rock paper scissors
Yeah, I agree that not taking part in the Semis is actually hurting the Big 5.
No, i disagree. 2 Winners would just add to all the confusion, Who'd host?
3 winners: overall winner as well. and that one hosts.
Two years in a row jury winner wins the whole thing
Ever since I started paying closer attention to it, the jury votes have been an absolute tragedy and were pretty different to what the public thought. Also countries giving their neighbors all the points doesn't really happen anymore imo. Maybe it's time to reform the jury votes. We don't necessarily have to compleyely abandon them, but at least give them less power...
Well it kinda does but it’s not because they are neighbours it’s because nearby countries have similar music and possibly in the same language so say if you are from France you may vote a county speaking French because it is what you understand so yes block voting isn’t a thing it’s just similar styles and languages tend to vote each other
Agreed. The whole bloc voting thing is a thing of the past. Popular vote seems to be much fairer these days. And even where it seems bloc voting is happening, there's a good chance it can be explained by shared cultural elements; eg. slavic countries voting for a song with slavic folk elements.
As bad as Finland got robbed, Germany got robbed even harder.
As for how to fix the jury, I have a couple of suggestions:
1. Let the jury vote in the semi-finals, not the finals.
2. Make the jury vote count for only 25% with the public vote getting 75%.
3. Remove the jury entirely.
If the jury has an effect on who wins, it can only be for the worse.
If the winner wins despite the jury, everyone is relieved.
If the jury agrees with the public, then the jury had no effect anyway.
Jury can only make things worse, never better.
There definitely is a jury problem. The system needs to be evolved! Even if Käärijä would have got 12 televote points from every county, he still would not have won. That speaks volumes how Finland was robbed their victory this year by juries. Feels like the public vote doesn't matter
it does. If the televote would have awarded 5 point to Sweden, it would not have won. Instead, the televote gave Sweden more than 200 points.
This is not True at all.
The difference is that Loreen got the second highest televote score while getting the highest jury points, it's not that weird
@IceCreamSplat Well that’s the thing. It’s not an issue that Sweden won, it’s an issue that The audience favorites get consistently handicapped to the point that it feels like voting is useless. You don’t want to give that impression to the audience. It’s simply bad for business.
@@MissCaraMint It is the first time since 2017 that the Jury-favorite won (which was then also the Televote-winner). In 2018,2021 and 2022 the Televote-winner won. In 2019, the eventual winner was neither the Televote nor the jury favorite. So it seems that usually the Televoters still have a lot of power in this system.
We people in Germany really appreciate the award though, thanks for thinking of our song 🥲
Hey, you guys earned it.
A few years back, one of our friends contacted an ex-jury member to ask why one of her bottom 5 songs in the semi final moved to her top 5 for the final. It transpired that she had never heard or seen the songs before and was basically too overwhelmed to make a fair judgement.
This seems to be a gaping flaw in the jury system as it currently stands. Eurovision is already a two week affair for most of those involved in organising it, so I don't see why they couldn't ask the delegations to release a final audio track (or just use the CD version, though sometimes changes are made even after that) at the start of rehearsals and have the juries pre-judge on the scoring categories that aren't based on the live performance over the course of the week. They could also have access to translated lyrics which would help to bring non-english songs to the forefront a bit more.
Then they go in already knowing the songs and can focus on judging the performance and singing voice during the actual shows.
That would surely be a much more meaningful role for the juries to take and do more to differentiate them from casual voters.
I think the Norway jury vote was *way* more shocking than Spain to be honest.
Before Eurovision started, I was rooting for Alessandra so much. I thought that it was the best song this year. But in the Eurovision semifinal and in the final, it wasn't that good. Idk why, if the mike was badly sounded or something, because In Norway's national final, she was singing also live, and it was perfect. I noticed that with more songs this year, the performances sounded different from performances elsewhere. Alessendra's mike was highlighting S in a weird way, in other songs we heard the breath of singers too loudly...idk maybe it is just another way for Eurovision to favour someone over others
Aparently Alessandra flopped very Hard her Jury performance. Everybody talked about it.
@@AleLuciani indeed. Escnation wrote this during the jury rehearsal: Norway ... there's some serious off-key notes in the second verse. Oh and an awful screech further on. Even the scream crashed, so I missed the last 30 seconds. She gets a huge applause, but this was ... not so good, sorry.
@@mariesindlerova9663 It was also weird how bad Vesna's performance sounded live. Many believe there was some technical difficulties or some form of sabotage going on. Vesna can perform live - there are plenty if live material online. But the Eurovision live performance sounded bad.
@@Pehmokettu Yeah Vesna was one of the performances where I could clearly hear the breath of the singer. Like I said I think microphones were very badly sounded this year
The juries are the safest of safe players. Europop power ballads is what they overwhelmingly go for . And they're firm members of the cult of the Swedish pop industry. They need to affect the result by a lower percentage as you said, be transparent before the voting AND be mandated to include artists and professionals from different genres and of different ages. They'll seriously put people off if they shaft another year.
You do know the juries change every year?
@@SteveyB okay? they still always go for the same safe shit every year though
@@crptpyr Voila was safe right. And Finand was safer than France and Spain
Yeah, juries (with some exceptions) tend to vote for safe europop and ballads, which is Sweden's expertise, but the public? It can vote for anything. They might overwhelmingly vote for europop and ballads too, but also folk rap (Moldova 2022), hard rock bordering metal (Finland 2006), whatever Verka brought in 2007, pop opera (Italy 2013), art performance punk (Croatia 2023), because there are millions of voters and you cannot expect every single one of them to have the same taste, let alone the same taste as the juries.
Now I understand how Käärijä fans must have felt 🫤
So agree. I fell in love with Kaarija - the song and him as a performer. He captured some thing ephemeral that so many people across the world connected with. That is a powerful thing in art. How we all long for such connection. Laureen sings wonderfully, and did a wonderful performance. It isn’t about criticizing her worthiness. I paid attention to Eurovision, this year because I’m a fan of Lord of the Lost who I feel got robbed they deserve so much more than they got. And I discovered so many artists that I really enjoyed. I agree Paloma from Spain: What a voice, what a performance cannot fathom why she did not get more support. (And Kaarija as Descoration award both made me laugh out loud because of the ‘who would like to live in a shipping container’ thing, and yet the kitchen concept in particular looked amazing! Maybe that’s where AI will help us rather than harm us by giving us ideas based on prompts that we might initially devalue. ) yes, perhaps I am overthinking but I’m enjoying it.
Aijā is so underrated that even did not win the Fulenn award.
Out of the political entries this year, it is the one I like most. It speaks from inside. Very intimate perspective
I thought exactly the same 😅
ok... what's the "Fulenn award"? :D
@@emapelikanova478 Fulenn was the robbed song last year
I assume its the award for "Biggest Robbery". Also, this is how I'd like to see Eurovision run, a concert with every country winning an award afterwards so everyone goes home happy.
@@elpapirodependiente6059 Robbed of what? The live performance sounded like Pe cimpoi 😅
I am from Finland and I voted Let 3 in semifinal and final. I am glad that they got plenty of televotes from Finland and they got much better total score than many feared. 😊
I wish I could understand Croatian so I could watch their interwiews about Eurovision success. They clearly had problems speaking English.
I personally don't like Käärijä's song but of course I am disappointed that he did't won even though he got the most televotes. And it sucks that Loreen won with a song that was a clone of several different songs and it was much worse song than Tattoo. If any other song from the final would have won it would have been success.
Hi I'm really glad you liked our icons Let3 ❤ they keep making fun of it in their own particular way, translation in English would sound quite vulgar but it does include butts 😅 They never actually planned to win Croatian national contest, they applied only to promote some event. So this whole thing was quite unexpected and tiring for them but they proudly did the job Croatian people chose them for ❤ so this is the overall summary of our media reports 😄
I really loved cha cha cha and I was angry by the results. For me not only did I listen to cha cha cha all the time, I started reading the lyrics and it got me to listen to more Finnish songs such as ikuinen vappu (I don't know if it's popular there, but I really like it). That's why I hold dear to cha cha cha because it moved me to look into your language and music and I think that's really impressive
I supported Let 3, TVORCHI and all actual bands (Australia was good) but judges always promote this fake Idol/Voice style music, and Cha Cha Cha sounded like a compromise between something actually good and what average viewer likes... instead the winner was something that sax players in Odesa will keep boring us for next decade I guess. God I hate Euphoria and wished it would be forgotten.
In their interviews upon coming back to Croatia they expressed that they were really pleased with the overall Eurovision experience and how they and their song were accepted by the public. They mentioned that they didn't go to Eurovision to win but to spread the message and they believe they have achieved that. Lead singer said that they showed Croatia as it should be, that they want people to be without prejudices to those that are different from them, on whatever basis and they believe that their song brings that message. They also spoke highly about the organisation of the event, although they said that the sound was not the best since it was adjusted for TV.
Also they spoke a bit sarcastic about the juries and said that it's difficult to understand which criteria they use.
@@LalosSaw oh wow you're really getting into the finnish party rap! JVG is very popular here, I saw them live last summer, they're very fun😊
I’m a Swede. I liked Loreen’s song (although I didn’t think it was the best) and didn’t really get Finland’s song. Despite this, I didn’t like that we won. It didn’t feel like a real win. I’ve always thought that there shouldn’t be a jury and this year’s result cemented that opinion. It doesn’t feel good to win just because of jury votes.
I understand this as finn. I would have been very very happy of Finland beeing top 5! But now this feels just wrong....:/ and also I like Loreen.
Voyager deserved better than 9th place. In fact, their song was a winner as far as I'm concerned. Look at all the reactors around the world reacting to Promise right now. The lyrics reflect the times we live in. And they blew the roof off the joint, seriously!
Honestly Australia deserved better
Ukraine and Sweden are too overated
The block voting is mostly a myth. People voted for countries close to them because they have similar music cultures and therefore like the same style of music.
That's a fair point.
The juries, however, shouldn't score on this basis (either).
Bloc voting is bad when the pesky Eastern Europeans are doing well. The UK and Ireland, or the Nordics voting for each other is just par the course, normal, righteous
Alexa play InCulo - Eastern European Funk
Also the same celebrities.
Yeah diaspora voting can help borderline qualifiers and elevate songs that would otherwise be at the bottom, but barely has any effect on the top 10
This! Also, ever since they started announcing the jury and public votes separetely, everyone has noticted that the juries constantly vote for their neighbors, too - so the entire reason the why they were introduced in the first place is a moot point.
A big problem with jury is that they can just go "I like this, I don't like that" and noone can argue with them. The jury enables the opinions of less than 200 people have the same sway as *millions* of people who pay for their votes. We better not let the French lead the changes 'cuz we all know how they deal with this kind of problem...
I feel what we need is:
- Jury votes account for at most 1/3 of the points
- Way bigger jury. 10-15 members per country should work
- Jury should have diverse backgrounds. No screwed gender ratio or a jury all born in the same decade
- Jury is selected based on their musical expertise. Meaning no music marketing experts who only know how well a song would sell and not how difficult certain techniques used are (I'm mainly thinking about screaming, growling & the epic register shift Germany's singer did but I'm quite sure there's more)
- Each country's jury should have experts on all genres in that year's competition. One person can double as an expert on idk rap and pop but you can't have a jury without at least one member knowledgeable about metal when Germans finally flip the lid and send Rammstein
- Guidelines for ranking each song individually. Kinda like ice skating score cards but with judges actually following the rules & having their scores double checked after the competition to see if anyone's score differs significantly
- Oh and we should totally make "points for neighbours & friens" where every country gives 1 point to countries they have history with (yes I enjoy the Cyprus-Greece point exchange and believe it should remain being a thing for my personal entertainment 😂)
Ooooor you could ask Hatari to give each performance between 0 and 100 points based on their personal opinions and have that count as the entire jury vote 🤣
Personally I think that Hatari would make better decisions than 99,5% of the current jury members, do yeah, let's make him the King of Eurovision !
Agree, I'd love Hatari to be the Eurovision jury (one year)!! :)
@@marsukarhu9477 Hatari is actually a band ;)
It has been very noticable over the years that if you don't do 'generic pop', you have to hope for audience points because juries will never reward that. Germany, Spain and Australia are just some of this year's example. It is very clear that the juries are made up of industry professionals of certain genres who cannot be bothered with any other genre besides their personal favourite genre. Voting for your personal taste in music is fine for the audience, that is our job, but the jury is supposed to make up for our subjectivity with actual objective judgement of musicality.
I don't really know if those are the best examples though, both Spain and Australia were in the Jury top 10 and performed considerable better in the Jury vote, Spain getting 90 more points in Jury and Aus getting 109 more. Clearly the juries DID reward them, a lot more than the televote did at least.
Juries vote based on political rather than music
Geopolitics over music
This aged well
At last, us Germans win something in the ESC community 🎉
Kidding, obviously. Honestly, the pain from placing last again with a song we all thought was at least going to pull us from the bottom is still fresh and deep. At this point we should probably leave the ESC altogether.
Sometimes it's the right song and wrong year. Cheer up, keep your line, and you'll get it some of these years. And then you'll shine!
Yeah, the wrong year I'd say.
I really loved your song, for what it’s worth ❤ I can’t stop listening to it. Much love from Poland! I seriously cannot believe Blanka scored higher than Lord of the Lost… anytime someone asks me about Blanka I just look away 😅
Germany should be proud for Lord of the Lost. They are an amazing band and the performance was dashing. I am afraid the last place was pre-decided for you by a false system based not on performing skills but politics.
Sorry, dear neighbor, but your song this year was not something I thought was very good. It also wasn't Jendrik bad, though, so that's progress, I reckon.
I think the problem with the juries is that they're all part of the same MTV/Sony style music system and they all push the same thing. Just listen to FM radio in US/AUS/Western EU and tell me there's a great local variety of music. Even those in local languages are a clone of American music, cos anything different just can't get airplay. They need variety in the juries. Compare those who gave 10 or 12 to Sweden to those who didn't.
As a finnish person who voted for germany im extremely angry. 😡
That they got nearly no points is ridiculous
Who guessed it? It happened again...
The jury is definitely not immune to bloc voting...
Juries hate Eastern eurpe
Honestly the jury vote proves that Europe is divided
Instead of unity instead everything has become woke
No hate to Loreen of course, but I just think previous winners have an advantage over jury AND televotes that no one talks about. Alexander Rybak (who might be the only other winner of the 21st century that overtakes Loreen in terms of Popularity and iconicness) won his semi in 2018 with what i consider one of my least favorite Eurovision songs ever (and considering his winning song is among my favs, it's a bar). Still, he got a pretty good jury vote too in the final. People love to blame this hate now on Loreen and counter with "oh but you didn't hate Rybak for returning" dunno about you but I was?
I'm sure that in 1987 when Johnny Logan won again people WERE just as mad, but the internt didn't exist, and the contest wasn't as big as it was now.
I was pretty content with both returning. The returning isnt the problem, it’s the favouritism.
Alexander is proof that just cause you won the Eurovision once dienst mean that you will win it again. Loreen is just exceptionally good and tahts why she won. People like to ignore that she got the second most amount of tele votes (which wasn't mentioned in this video for probably some biased reasons). So glad Loreen won, she deserved it the most.
@@user-ek3ri7gv8e Then it all comes down to taste. I can't comment on melfest because I don't watch it, but like you said, Lena came top ten in one of the worst years of the decade songwise (do I like her 2011 song better than her winning song? Yes, only slightly) this year so many other entries were amazing and got shit from the jury. But the safe bet which (again, imo) doesn't come NEAR her first winning song, gets double the jury points from her second place.
I'm not one of those "rigged conspiracy people" she won and that's it. (Yes, she got second in the televote I am aware) hope we see Måns hosting again if not Petra.
Yes most returning winners flop; but they still make the finals, Norway can send Alexander screeching random off tune notes on the violin and he'll still make it to the final 3rd place at least in the semi. Because he's THAT iconic.
@@omaewamoushindeiru6581 People don’t ignore it at all. It’s simply irrelevant is all. People aren’t angry about Loreen winning. They are angry about how she won. They are angry that once again the people’s favorite gets shafted by the jury. That’s the issue not Loreen.
@@MissCaraMint Omae Wa Mou Shindeiru is one of regular Swedish trolls, don't pay attention to him ;)
Aaaaand it happened again in 2024
Thank you for addressing other acts too. I initially came here because of my frustration over the Finland-Sweden thing.. but I realize so many more artists were completely looked over. I can fully understand why the audience yelled "boo" a few times when the votes were unbelievably low. It's just unfair. Many people's live performances were amazing this year, many were even better than their studio recordings. I was really impressed.
As someone whose musical taste sides with the juries way more than the general public, I believe the juries should be outright stripped from the competition. The primary audience of the competition isn't the 120+ music snobs on jury panels... it's the normal folk who hardly know what music is at all. Even if the winning songs end up being gimmicky flavor-of-the-month tunes that people cringe at later, it's still better to immortalize the musical essence of what people actually cared about at the time instead of some highfalutin, snobbish notion of musical integrity.
Then let's base it on a month's worth of Spotify streams. Let's base it on what people ACTUALLY want to listen to.
In most cases, the song contest is voted for by people who are never going to listen to the songs again. They partake in a TV show. They don't take it seriously. Some even vote when they've not even SEEN all the songs, because they tuned in late and still got invested.
Tattoo is by far the biggest global hit of this year. Arcade was the biggest hit of 2019 - and I say that as a KEiiNO fan.
And let's not pretend the televote even represents the song. Last year, do you think people were really voting for Stefania or for Ukraine?
This! Well said👍I'm annoyed how some are gatekeeping ESC so that only appropriate, presentable artists with 'strong vocals' should win and we end up with the most beige middle-of-the-road songs as winners.
@@SteveyB We can't completely base it on stuff like streaming or radio, for example, bc those are also controlled by companies and labels' interests and payola. It's not an accident that the ESC playlist had Loreen at the top before she even won. Being at the top of such playlists gives you more exposure/streams. It was obvious who they were favoring.
Same . I usually agree with them but it’s time for them to go. Even if we get a terrible winner it’s our winner. We didn’t decide this win
I have a feeling that the same people who would have voted Germany otherwise, voted for Käärijä.
Yes, many original entries got pummeled this year.
The same goes for those who would have voted for Serbia, voted for Finland instead. Germany, Finland, and Serbia had music genres these people mostly love (myself included), which means give all your points to the one that has t the best chances against Sweden
@@BionickpunkSerbia wasn’t good lol they weren’t getting votes either way they barely qualified
I think the juries were always going to pour all their points into Sweden this year and we all knew it. What I ended up doing instead of distributing my points between all the songs I liked (of which there were many) was dump my points into the singer I felt had the best chance of beating Sweden (Finland). I can’t help but wonder if this is what Eurovision is going to be reduced to because of the rift between the people and the juries; a tug of war where most of the performers get ignored.
I quite agree.
Even 400 points from the televote wouldn't have been enough for the people's favorite to win.
Aside from a couple of nice surprises last weekend, most everyone ended up losing because of this setup.
This is why songs like Germany, Serbia, Spain, France, Austria, Moldova, Portugal were so robbed, the jury corruption basically made every have to vote for Finland as the best and likely to win.
Honestly we need more diverse juries
And to me juries should return to semifinals
Justice for 🇬🇪2023
So interesting to see this in the context after esc 24. If it was bad one year ago, last Saturday's drama added insult to injury.
You are so right, agree with (nearly all of) your analysis! :D Yes, Loreen's song definitely was *in no way' so overwhelmingly good that it deserved such an insurmountably huge margin over everyone else* (even many obvious jury baits)! (On the contrary, it was actually quite mediocre.) That's the core of the problem. Juries need to go, or at least reformed in a major way. They have not righted any of the perceived wrongs of televoting, they've only made things worse. I tend to agree more with televote results anyway, so I don't see 100% televoting as a problem many claim it would be. But anyway, thaks for the 3 awards for our Käärijä ❤💚 Love those Käärijä-inspired interior design ideas! ;)
10 months later: Very sad that no changes were introduced, despite so many campaigning for it regarding the juries :(
There actually are specific categories that juries are asked to consider when rating all 26 songs.
But I think that actually produces the problems addressed here. Whenever you take an average of several people, you will always get similar results across the juries. It punishes exotic songs, and leads to the most streamlined popsongs to win.
They're asked to consider the categories but are never told to back their decisions... Like just making them write for each song "we ranked it as number X because Y" would go a long way...
Definitely think if they want to keep it 50/50, they should have every juror release their votes and the justification for each vote in all of the categories. Honestly I'd be fine with it staying 50/50 if this change was implemented plus the people got to choose the jury
It's 2024
Ah sh*t, here we go again!
And the history repeats itself in 2024.
Just like the history book on the shelf
@@GustavoFernandesKing it's always repeating itself