PDA

View Full Version : Jury vs Televote



Matt
2nd August 2010, 15:34
An interesting article on escdaily.com

For quite a long time, a lot of eurofans complained about the unfairness of the voting system that started in the late 1990?s, which in general terms gave a lot of advantage to countries with a lot of neighbors or with a big community living in other countries, giving place to what was then called friendly and diaspora vote, respectively.

The introduction of the semifinal(s) made it all the more evident that an urgent change in the voting system was urgent, as it became quite clear that a victory for a Western country (other than the Nordic) was pretty much impossible.

EBU stood up and brought back the jury after a long absence. In their first appearances, their action was limited (2008 they just picked a finalist from each semi, and 2009 they were responsible for the same plus half of the result in the final), but 2010 gave them more power. The vote from every country was decided by a 50-50 split between televote and jury vote in both semifinals and the final.

The new system proved to be effective in immediate results, with victory for a well deserving Germany. However, there are things to work in, and to me the most obvious is the one which has now outraged a lot of fans that cannot understand how the juries voted in a lot of cases. The most evident I think is the case of Israel, who received a great support from the juries in the final result, when his singing during the big night was far from good.

The problem, which many don’t know, is that juries and public don’t vote on the same show. While the people at home cast their votes based on the performance of the big night, the juries in reality vote after the second dress rehearsal. That way, a performance which is good in one show can be shitty in another and viceversa. Didrik from Norway, for instance, had a lot of problems in the rehearsals, and sang quite well on Saturday night (although he didn’t really receive much points from either the juries or the public). Harel from Israel had it the exact opposite way.

Then, wouldn’t it be much better if everyone voted based on the same performances? After all, no matter how professional or well taken care of a rehearsal is, in the end, it’s nothing more than that, a mere rehearsal. The actual competition takes place, or should take place, on Saturday night, when all the European public is really watching the show. A rehearsal has the purpose of trying out things, perfecting others and, ultimately, put all the efforts together so that on the big night(s) the artist(s) can be completely ready to bring a quality performance for the public in the arena and all over the continent.

I repeat then, why not have both juries and public cast their votes after being presented with the same staging, singing, dancing? That way the result would be more coherent, and people wouldn’t start questioning the fairness of the jury vote, and questioning their impartiality. As I said, there’s no doubt that EBU has started taking some steps in the correct direction, yet there’s still a lot that can be done to achieve a voting system which leaves no doubt of the fairness of the result. Now that the juries are back to try and balance the deficiencies of the allegedly more democratic voting system, it is essential for EBU to legitimate their work in Eurovision, and that won’t happen if the public keeps seeing obvious differences, sometimes inexplicable (again, take the example of Israel), when the results from the jury vote are published.

http://escdaily.com/articles/2638


What is your opinion about the jury vote vs televote? Is the EBU doing the right thing or do you disagree?? What kind of change do you suggest in 2011?

Jukica
2nd August 2010, 21:01
Maybe jury should vote in the final (with televotes too) and then merge their and televoting's votes ... that could be more fair

AlekS
3rd August 2010, 00:44
I'm effen tired of this "eternal" theme.
People will whine until their fave wins. And this will continue forever.

EBU should finally stick to this current system.

Now rehearsals are blamed, what's next? People will never be satisfied so there's no point.
Next year when the juries give totally different marks than televoters again the crapfest will start and then people would demand changes because their faves (in their subjective opinion) sang better.

Imo, Lena didn't sing well, didn't act well... she was miles worse than Harel but she's 1st. But I don't say let's change the system xshrug and hide it a-la we need to change the rules. because simply it won't help + it's not just about my or your ;) opinions.



A rehearsal has the purpose of trying out things, perfecting others and, ultimately, put all the efforts together so that on the big night(s) the artist(s) can be completely ready to bring a quality performance for the public in the arena and all over the continent.
All of this doesn't work for the final dress rehearsal with people in the venue and broadcast recording.

I think that public should finally learn how to respect different marks and don't demand something just because they disagree or they doubt in something.

94ayd
3rd August 2010, 00:49
It's couldn't be any more illogical how juries and televoters vote beased on different performances. The rehearsal shouldn't really be taken into account. That seems unfair. It's important if they could do great live, when millions of people are watching. ;)

AlekS
3rd August 2010, 01:03
It's important if they could do great live, when millions of people are watching. ;)
For televoters? Yes
For the juries? Nope.

Performers are already really nervous when they perform in front of the audience and the juries @ the dress rehearsal + they record the show during the rehearsal so performers have to show their final entry @ the dress rehearsal.


The juries don't influence televoters so why should televoters influence the juries and order them what to do? :?
The juries should rate the entry when EBU wants.

MyHeartIsYours
3rd August 2010, 12:54
Imo the juries should vote based on the final performance then it makes it fairer. Surely they have enough time to vote in 15 minutes? :?

AlekS
3rd August 2010, 14:15
^ surely they have enough time to find out the televoting results and be influenced by them ;)

MyHeartIsYours
3rd August 2010, 14:16
Even when the televotes are still coming in? :?

AlekS
3rd August 2010, 14:28
^ when they count the sum :roll:

MyHeartIsYours
3rd August 2010, 14:31
But they dont count until after the 15 minutes do they?

AlekS
3rd August 2010, 14:39
^ and who said they can't change their votes after that? ;) in 2009 our jury has already knew televoting results before sending combined results :roll:

MyHeartIsYours
3rd August 2010, 15:03
Maybe they should have an impartial EBU superviser in the room with them?

AlekS
3rd August 2010, 15:28
^ and who's gonna pay for those supervisors?

current system is fair because it follows EBU rules. If EBU feels the need to set such rules you can follow them or switch the channel xshrug

MyHeartIsYours
3rd August 2010, 15:55
Why should I change channel? I notice you are very keen on changing the rules in FSC World Cup, why can't I want the rules of Eurovision to be changed? ;)
I am on about the fact that the two sets of votes are for different performances. How can that be fair?!!

AlekS
3rd August 2010, 16:00
^ Because you dislike the rules?
you're noticing badly then because I was against changing the rules ;)
It can be fair... just like pre-recording the contest (in case of broadcast failure) on the dress rehearsals is "unfair".

We are rating the entry, not the same performance. The time difference between dress rehearsals and the final performance is miserable.
I don't think that people should influence EBU and show disrespect towards their rules every damn year just because they think it's unfair.

MyHeartIsYours
3rd August 2010, 16:15
I disagree that people vote on the entry... only Eurovision fans do. The majority who watch vote on the performance.
The EBU's been known to crack under Big 4 pressure, maybe we can change the rules again. :P

AlekS
3rd August 2010, 16:20
^ I don't care what people choose, the jury is NOT supposed to vote in the same way with people.

MyHeartIsYours
3rd August 2010, 16:45
^ In your opinion ;)

I am not the only one who has this opinion. Last year and this year it was all over the British media that having the jury voting in the dress rehearsal is stupid.

AlekS
3rd August 2010, 17:41
^ No, Adam. Not just my opinion. This is opinion of the EBU, the organizer of Eurovision Song Contest which sets rules ... people do not set rules, EBU does.
And my opinion is certainly not worse than yours ;)

don't get me started on British media and Eurovision :lol: :lol: :lol:

evilperson
4th August 2010, 05:35
I don't think it really matters when the juries vote. I'm pretty sure last year the EBU stated the objective of the juries was to find the best songs with the most commercial appeal. I think whether watching the rehearsals or the live performance wouldn't make a real impact on their choice if this is their criteria.

What I do think the EBU should do in terms of juries is reveal the long list with each country's 5 jurors. They should also have listed qualifications because in some cases I fail to see how an actress has any useful input than a music producer or someone who actively works in the music industry. I think this will make things more fair. The jury panel should also always have to be rotated with new jurors every year.

There will always be differences between public vote and jury and there may even be a Eurovision in the future where they will both pick different winners. I think introducing the juries makes things much more interesting and removes some of the "guaranteed" points some countries were experiencing.

But who knows, the EBU seems to be changing their rules every year, whos to say they wont change them again next year.

Matt
4th August 2010, 15:12
The reason why juries base their votes on the dress rehearsal the day prior is because doing it the same time the televoters vote would just be impossible from a timing standpoint. The 5 jurors would have only a few minutes to come up with their ranking which might end up in a rushed decision and that is the last thing we want.
Then having to input the jury votes into the system and then combine them with the televotes. Things ought to get messy.....

So I understand why the juries vote the day prior even though my personal preference (in theory) would also be for juries and televoters to vote the same night.

But as Aleks already mentioned above, the juries have certain guidelines on how to judge the songs while the televoters don't so their criterias are completely different so even if they would vote the same night I really don't think it would change the juries ranking a whole lot.

In addition (correct me if I'm wrong) the juries get to listen to the songs multiple times which is done on purpose so they are already familiar with the songs anyways so maybe there is no need to change the rules..

DominikS
4th August 2010, 21:26
I also think the juries should be larger so there's less corruption. There has been corruption since nearly the start of the contest and it still continues today. (The votes to Romania this year - forgot by which country :oops: )

94ayd
5th August 2010, 12:16
Probably Moldova. :lol:

DominikS
5th August 2010, 18:59
Probably Moldova. :lol:

I still can't remember what country :evil:

It was the one that gave Romania like 2 or 3 points in the semis then 12 in the final. It could not have been more obvious.

lucian-crusher
5th August 2010, 19:19
Except for -md, no country gaves 12 in the Final. You must be reffering to what our jury did to -ua, they gave Alyosha one point in the Semifinal and two days later, the same jury gave Alyosha 8 points :lol: :lol:

DominikS
5th August 2010, 19:28
Except for -md, no country gaves 12 in the Final. You must be reffering to what our jury did to -ua, they gave Alyosha one point in the Semifinal and two days later, the same jury gave Alyosha 8 points :lol: :lol:

Ooooh yeah, sorry, my brain is on holiday.

That was the one. I really don't think that the jury started loving the song so quickly... especially since in the final Ukraine had a worse draw and there were more songs to choose from :lol:

94ayd
6th August 2010, 10:35
It's not about the draw but it's a grower, IMO. :mrgreen:

AlekS
6th August 2010, 10:50
Except for -md, no country gaves 12 in the Final. You must be reffering to what our jury did to -ua, they gave Alyosha one point in the Semifinal and two days later, the same jury gave Alyosha 8 points :lol: :lol:

Ooooh yeah, sorry, my brain is on holiday.

That was the one. I really don't think that the jury started loving the song so quickly... especially since in the final Ukraine had a worse draw and there were more songs to choose from :lol:
She sang better on the final rehearsals xshrug
Not to mention that different competitors in the final (comparing to the semi) could improve or screw their performance so because of that we could gain some points. Btw, you don't know complete points of the jury, maybe the difference between 9th place and 3rd was really small.
Bigger amount of performers doesn't mean that we were worse :?
I'm wondering why do you think it's a bad draw when she was squezed between fast songs only (Turkey-Albania-Iceland - Ukraine - France-Romania). It was AWESOME draw, such powerful ballad stood out among fast dance songs :D

ParadiseES
9th August 2010, 01:43
Don't know if more fair or not, but it's way more logical juries vote after watching the same performance than televoters ;)

AlekS
9th August 2010, 01:56
^ I think that it's not logical at all xshrug
There can't be any logical solution ;) simply because every game has its own rules and wanting the jury to vote like televoters ;) (in the same day even) abolishes these rules which is not logical.
The juries aren't supposed to please televoters.

MyHeartIsYours
9th August 2010, 02:00
To me it does seem more logical for everyone to vote in the grand final rather than a rehearsal. A rehearsal is a practice... imo all votes should be for the final performance! :)

AlekS
9th August 2010, 02:03
^ I've already said that the final rehearsals are the same like final performances in terms of being prepared.
They perform in front of the juries so it's NOT a practice.
This is the final performance which will be shown to the juries :P

MyHeartIsYours
9th August 2010, 02:07
But it is called a Dress Rehearsal. I understand you totally, but I just cant get my head round the fact that both the jury and televote give out their votes in the Grand Final but 1 of the votes is for different performances to the one they're voting in.

AlekS
9th August 2010, 02:14
The dress rehearsal of Eurovision has a little bit different meaning than other dress rehearals of other events ;)

And I don't get why the juries should please televoters :?

The juries use professional criterias, televoters use subjective opinions, they are already different so what's the fuss?

EBU can force the juries to rate only audio and video material without listening to live performance :lol: they aren't supposed to rate the same things with televoters simply because their job is to use different criterias thus it doesn't matter if they rate the same performance or not.

This is the quest for performers - to stay calm while performing in front of the juries AND later in front of televoters.
The winner takes it all.

MyHeartIsYours
9th August 2010, 02:28
The only reason why I object to the dress-rehearsal Jury voting is because a singer can sing badly at that and then perfectly in the Grand Final. Like Didrik this year. :cry:

AlekS
9th August 2010, 02:46
^ yep, but this is the point. You should perform well for both.

MyHeartIsYours
9th August 2010, 03:08
Yes they should but they deserve to be able to concentrate on 1 perfect performance rather than 2! ;)

AlekS
9th August 2010, 09:52
^ nope, it would be too easy.
someone who can go through all rounds wins.

ParadiseES
9th August 2010, 13:05
^ I think that it's not logical at all xshrug
There can't be any logical solution ;) simply because every game has its own rules and wanting the jury to vote like televoters ;) (in the same day even) abolishes these rules which is not logical.
The juries aren't supposed to please televoters.

It's not to please televoters. Of course juries will value other things than televoters, but at least they should judge THE SAME THING.
Eurovision is a TV show and what thousand of million people are watching live are the final performances, so everyone (jury and televoters) should stick to that.

It's like in an elections half people vote one day and the other half do it other day. The situation is not the same and they didn't vote in the same conditions ;)

Matt
9th August 2010, 13:23
I don't believe that the votes would have changed a whole lot if the jury voted the same night as the televoters. As Aleks said, the juries have voting guidelines they use and the vocal performance is just one small piece of it. So it really doesn't matter when they vote as the overall results would not change a whole lot. Remember that the juries get to listen to the songs several times anyway

ParadiseES
9th August 2010, 13:54
Yeah, I don't think either the results would change a lot, but it's still not logical each part vote for a different performance.

AlekS
9th August 2010, 18:39
at least they should judge THE SAME THING.
Nope, they shouldn't.
Also they do judge the same song and the same performer.

ParadiseES
9th August 2010, 19:19
Why they shouldn't? xhmm

Matt
9th August 2010, 19:39
Well, as said the juries don't judge the same thing. Televoters just vote for what they think is their favorite song while juries have a lot of different criterias they're suppose to use and rank the songs according to those criterias.

They listen to the songs multiple times and will vote after the final dress rehearsal. Even if they would have voted the same day as the televoters their votes would have probably not changed a whole lot.

So I don't see the need of having the juries vote the same day as the televoters if it may not affect the results.

Plus as said, it would be almost impossible from a timing standpoint.

AlekS
9th August 2010, 21:35
Why they shouldn't? xhmm
because these are the rules of the game? ;)
2 different performances = 2 different quests. The one who can deal with both wins.

ParadiseES
9th August 2010, 21:45
^
But rules are to be changed (always). Having both, juries and televoting, didn't suit the rules before. What we're discussing now it's if it's more convenient juries vote after the final performance ;)

AlekS
9th August 2010, 21:56
^ not always, simply because televoters shouldn't influence the juries and vice versa.
It's up to EBU which shouldn't listen to televoter's whining... if televoters rule the juries then there's no sense in having the juries.
so things which are meant for the juries shouldn't be changed by televoters' request ;)

ParadiseES
9th August 2010, 23:30
Well, 100 % televoting sytem was also changed because of televoting request :?

That change wouldn't go against either televoters or jury and there's no reason any of them could influence on the other one. It's just to make sense and everybody votes for what millions of people are watching via TV ;)

AlekS
9th August 2010, 23:54
^ what's so confusing? televoters "decided" their fate ;)
This time it's not their business.

The current system already has sense for me :roll:
As I've said gadzillion times the juries aren't supposed to vote for the SAME things.

ParadiseES
10th August 2010, 00:27
^
Well, but it's clear some little things still don't have sense for many people ;)

AlekS
10th August 2010, 00:31
^ and?
People can do whatever they want - this is their problem.
It's up to EBU only. They know better than people what they need :)

ParadiseES
10th August 2010, 00:37
^
And????

People are who watch this contest, people are who gives this contest huge audiences and make them win such money thanks to sponsors!!!
So I think they should so listen to how people think. It's not that anyone is blaming EBU or something, but nothing is perfect in this life and everything can be improved, and that's one of those things we can do!

AlekS
10th August 2010, 00:40
^ again, this is their problem.

Sponsors ALSO give money.
People do NOT own this contest!!!!
If you're so cool and buy everything :roll: maybe you should appoint the winners too ;)

It's not something imperfect :o

ParadiseES
10th August 2010, 00:42
OK let them do whatever they want with THEIR contest. Anyone else's opinions don't count a sh*t ;)

MyHeartIsYours
10th August 2010, 00:42
Perhaps next year they could keep the current system but also ask the juries to vote on the night (but these votes arent counted) to check whether there is any difference. :)

AlekS
10th August 2010, 00:46
OK let them do whatever they want with THEIR contest. Anyone else's opinions don't count a sh*t ;)
actually ... yes ;)
You rather accept this or not on subjective level. But it's them who decide.
Nobody forces you to give them your money so televoters have no right to "blackmail" EBU.

AlekS
10th August 2010, 00:48
Perhaps next year they could keep the current system but also ask the juries to vote on the night (but these votes arent counted) to check whether there is any difference. :)
so?
Of course there will be differences. It's not a bad thing :P

MyHeartIsYours
10th August 2010, 00:52
According to you it's not a bad thing, personally I think it is bad! :D

94ayd
10th August 2010, 00:53
The EBU listened when people wanted juries back, so why wouldn't they listen to people now? They care for the viewers. Without them, they'd be NOTHING. Nobody would sponsor programmes that don't attract viewers. ;)

AlekS
10th August 2010, 00:53
Of course it's bad cuz your fave was so low :lol:

MyHeartIsYours
10th August 2010, 00:56
Im not biased you know!! :mrgreen: :lol: :lol:

Nah I wanted this rule changed in 2009 when Iceland came 2nd and United Kingdom 5th. ;) :D

AlekS
10th August 2010, 00:59
The EBU listened when people wanted juries back, so why wouldn't they listen to people now? They care for the viewers. Without them, they'd be NOTHING. Nobody would sponsor programmes that don't attract viewers. ;)
Some people have already wanted the juries. Now SO soon after that they want to order the juries what to do :lol: EBU shouldn't listen to them. Period.

If you don't wanna watch this system - don't watch!
There will be people (like me) who like this system. And I'm gonna watch it.
No need in speaking for all viewers there's no way they would lose all or majority viewers at once ;)

Viewers come, viewers go.
And viewers already have more than enough reasons to watch this contest :P
As for the juries, televoters have no rights to influence them and order them what to do because there would be no point in them. The juries aren't televoters' marionnettes! ;)

ParadiseES
10th August 2010, 01:14
But who is talking about influence???
This is not a huge change. It's just changing the day juries are voting to vote the same day everyone's voting. Is it a change of the system? :|

AlekS
10th August 2010, 01:21
^ I don't give a dam if it's a small or a big change.
If the EBU created such rules then they know better what THE JURIES should do, it's not up to televoters.
Only the juries and the EBU have a right to demand changes in this question.

ParadiseES
10th August 2010, 01:28
Everyone have right to demand about this and about anything ;)
Holly f*ck, why can't we demand everything I want?

AlekS
10th August 2010, 01:31
Everyone have right to demand about this.
Holly f*ck, why can't we demand everything I want?
:o :lol: because it seems like you think that people are wh-res and they are supposed to do what you say?
Sorry, but it's not a restaraunt where you can order something and it will be served 4sure.
The juries and televoters are 2 different homes - nobody visits them as a guests and orders them how to live in their house.

ParadiseES
10th August 2010, 01:39
I'm not ordering to do whatever I want. I'm just demanding something according to my opinion. Am I not free to do that? :shock:

AlekS
10th August 2010, 01:43
For me demanding and ordering is the same thing xshrug
Nobody prohibits you to demand things but in this situation it's not up to you (or me or other televoters).

ParadiseES
10th August 2010, 01:46
For me it doesn't have to mean the same thing (and for my dictionary neither cause I checked it :lol:)

Of course it's not up to me, but EBU has the must to listen to what people think, otherwise they'd ruin the whole thing. Not because of this little thing but it could happen if the problem was bigger ;)

AlekS
10th August 2010, 01:53
They listen to people (televoters) where it's needed. Ie. everything where it's connected to televoters. The juries aren't connected to televoters ;) They combine 1 result together but this whole result is not yours or any other's televoters.

As I've said nobody intrudes into your house and demands ie. orders you what to change. The juries and televoters are 2 different homes.

ParadiseES
10th August 2010, 09:45
But why should televoters influence on juries by changing the day of voting? :?

Sim
10th August 2010, 09:54
I think this is a good system.
A performer needs to perform his/her song ALWAYS good.

The juries listen to it in the last dress rehearsal. The televoters at the big show.
If it was performed twice good, it will (probably) get points from both
If it was performad once bad , you will get less.

I think this system now is the best we can have.

The only thing I would change is a limit of max 5 votes per phone:)
But ok, I can also live with 20:)

AlekS
10th August 2010, 10:01
But why should televoters influence on juries by changing the day of voting? :?
cuz they speak their rules? Cuz they demand ie. order the juries what to do? Yeah, they shouldn't ;)

ParadiseES
10th August 2010, 10:07
OK it seems impossible to reason out :roll:

AlekS
10th August 2010, 10:17
^ if that means to agree with you on this, yeah, it's impossible.
and I'll repeat for gadzillonth time: if you demand something from the juries - you want to change their rules ie. intrude into their work.
EBU created such system with 2 phases and there's nothing bad in it :)

Mickey
11th August 2010, 23:03
I think the dispute is more down to the difference between "demand" and "request". We have every right to request a change to the rules, but not to demand that our wishes have to be acted out. EBU have every right to say "no".

I don't like the way juries vote at Eurovision. Lena could have walked out onto the stage in Oslo on the Saturday, tripped over her heals, broke her jaw in the fall, then garbled her way through Satellite in between howls of pain and she could have still won.

If I can pick my favourite songs in the interval, so can the jurors. There's no reason why they should be aware of how the public has voted, so that shouldn't be able to affect them. I don't see the problem.

AlekS
11th August 2010, 23:17
^ actually they were aware and this is the fact. And yes it can affect them so there's a problem.

Demand and request are synonymous so there's no need in dividing both cuz they mean the same ;)

If you can pick songs in the interval it doesn't mean that others are supposed to pick songs in the interval.

ParadiseES
12th August 2010, 00:23
I don't like the way juries vote at Eurovision. Lena could have walked out onto the stage in Oslo on the Saturday, tripped over her heals, broke her jaw in the fall, then garbled her way through Satellite in between howls of pain and she could have still won.



Exactly. Something like that could happen one day and we should avoid these situations by voting equal ;)

Matt
12th August 2010, 00:34
I don't like the way juries vote at Eurovision. Lena could have walked out onto the stage in Oslo on the Saturday, tripped over her heals, broke her jaw in the fall, then garbled her way through Satellite in between howls of pain and she could have still won.



Exactly. Something like that could happen one day and we should avoid these situations by voting equal ;)


I feel so evil for laughing out loud at this thought. But as it was mentioned before, the jury does not only consider the one particular "live performance" as the deciding one but they look into other criterias such as the overall quality of the song, the composition, if it's something charts "worthy" etc etc. So just an unfortunate fall would not necessarily mean the jurors would change their votes.

As said, i'm okay with either option but the main problem is that there is not enough time for all Juries to decide on their votes, turn them in and then have the EBU add them all up with the televotes....it may be too much of a challenge.

AlekS
12th August 2010, 00:47
I don't like the way juries vote at Eurovision. Lena could have walked out onto the stage in Oslo on the Saturday, tripped over her heals, broke her jaw in the fall, then garbled her way through Satellite in between howls of pain and she could have still won.



Exactly. Something like that could happen one day and we should avoid these situations by voting equal ;)
and suddenly you "forgot" about televoters.
Of course they would voted for her if she... let me quote: "tripped over her heals, broke her jaw in the fall, then garbled her way through Satellite in between howls of pain"

why are you so sure that televoters would voted for her and she would have won :P :lol:
Also since 2 phases are involved - she would sucked on 1 night and rocked on another :P Your quest is to vote in the final and the juries' - on another performance of the same entry.
It's like heptathlon ... you sum up points for different kinds and in the end you get your result. If you do everything quite good you win. If not then pray for your competitors to fail otherwise you go home.

MyHeartIsYours
12th August 2010, 01:00
Let's face it... if she tripped and broke her jaw, she wouldnt perform and Germany wouldnt be included in the voting at all. :lol:

AlekS
12th August 2010, 01:05
^ true that :lol:
unless she was on meds/dope and continued her thing :o :lol:

ParadiseES
12th August 2010, 01:14
I don't like the way juries vote at Eurovision. Lena could have walked out onto the stage in Oslo on the Saturday, tripped over her heals, broke her jaw in the fall, then garbled her way through Satellite in between howls of pain and she could have still won.



Exactly. Something like that could happen one day and we should avoid these situations by voting equal ;)


I feel so evil for laughing out loud at this thought. But as it was mentioned before, the jury does not only consider the one particular "live performance" as the deciding one but they look into other criterias such as the overall quality of the song, the composition, if it's something charts "worthy" etc etc. So just an unfortunate fall would not necessarily mean the jurors would change their votes.

As said, i'm okay with either option but the main problem is that there is not enough time for all Juries to decide on their votes, turn them in and then have the EBU add them all up with the televotes....it may be too much of a challenge.

THere is time. As you said, juries have to judge some other criterias, so they must have a clear top before the show, so they only have to fix them, so I don't think there's a problem at all for them to decide their votes before the televoting is counted ;)
;)

AlekS
12th August 2010, 01:31
THere is time. As you said, juries have to judge some other criterias, so they must have a clear top before the show, so they only have to fix them, so I don't think there's a problem at all for them to decide their votes before the televoting is counted ;)
;)
If they have clear top there's no prob to vote 2-3 hours before the final and "fixing" something means following televoter's way... judging the same thing as them - then why the heck do we need diversity and the juries if televoters would like to order them in what way to vote? :lol: ;)
I'm pro-"heptathlon" system. 2 sides (televoters and the juries) should judge 2 phases of the competition. It's not about 1 performance anymore but 2.
Only televoters fully judge 1 performance and only the juries judge another one. It's like 2 separate performances of 1 entry and performer should be prepared for both.
It's not only about 1 final night anymore xshrug and I don't get why it should be only about 1 night. This is a nice way to check all performers if they can handle it.

MyHeartIsYours
12th August 2010, 01:32
^ true that :lol:
unless she was on meds/dope and continued her thing :o :lol:

I think she was on it :lol: :lol:

ParadiseES
12th August 2010, 01:50
THere is time. As you said, juries have to judge some other criterias, so they must have a clear top before the show, so they only have to fix them, so I don't think there's a problem at all for them to decide their votes before the televoting is counted ;)
;)
If they have clear top there's no prob to vote 2-3 hours before the final and "fixing" something means following televoter's way... judging the same thing as them - then why the heck do we need diversity and the juries if televoters would like to order them in what way to vote? :lol: ;)
I'm pro-"heptathlon" system. 2 sides (televoters and the juries) should judge 2 phases of the competition. It's not about 1 performance anymore but 2.
Only televoters fully judge 1 performance and only the juries judge another one. It's like 2 separate performances of 1 entry and performer should be prepared for both.
It's not only about 1 final night anymore xshrug and I don't get why it should be only about 1 night. This is a nice way to check all performers if they can handle it.

We need diversity cause juries are supposed to be objective and won't vote for some songs just because of the country as televoters and will listen to the songs more times, so they will value some songs that need more than one listening as they are music professionals while televoters aren't.
So it's not needed to vote in a different day. And anyway, WHERE ARE TELEVOTERS ORDERING JURIES HOW TO VOTE?
Televoters are free, so juries are :|

94ayd
12th August 2010, 02:42
Well, having different criterias is one thing, but judging different performances is just weird. Both should have a say, based on the same material...

AlekS
12th August 2010, 08:24
^ actually..... not.
Nobody's gonna change the juries' voting just because televoters think it's weird xshrug Both should keep voting how they do it currently.

AlekS
12th August 2010, 08:34
We need diversity cause juries are supposed to be objective and won't vote for some songs just because of the country as televoters and will listen to the songs more times, so they will value some songs that need more than one listening as they are music professionals while televoters aren't. So it's not needed to vote in a different day.
According to the same logic it's not needed to vote in the same day.



And anyway, WHERE ARE TELEVOTERS ORDERING JURIES HOW TO VOTE?
goooosh, why screaming? :?

Here? Cuz you "request" (demand, in other words) them to vote for the same performance? :geek:



Televoters are free, so juries are :|
yep, so no need in saying them what they are supposed to do, they know it better than you & me.

Matt
12th August 2010, 13:34
Back to the topic, please.

If you look back in history it's quite funny because prior to 1997 we only had juries and they also judged the songs based on the dress rehearsal if I remember correctly. So thinking about it, there was no need to actually broadcast the show as the votes were already locked in :lol:

94ayd
12th August 2010, 13:37
Well, that really is lame and unfair. :|

Milos-BC
12th August 2010, 18:15
Simply, the juries have their opinion no matter how much we may agree or disagree. I am not saying they are always objective (in some cases they really aren't), but we can't invent a rule that they have to support the same songs like the audience (why would we need them then), so my opinion is that wherever they vote after the rehearsal or after the main show, the outcome is completely the same.

Mickey
12th August 2010, 21:15
Nowhere has anyone suggested televoters should influence which entries juries vote for. There's no reason why juror's should have access to the televote result before they give their votes.

Instead, fans (who also happen to be voters, come Eurovision time) are requesting, at least in this forum topic, a change to the method of jury voting. Who they actually end up voting for is immaterial.

I find it ridiculous that you can count the votes of millions of viewers from 40-odd countries across an entire continent, plus Israel, and somehow you can't also count the votes of a handful of jurors at the same time.

Mickey
12th August 2010, 21:22
I find it ridiculous that you can count the votes of millions of viewers from 40-odd countries across an entire continent, plus Israel, and somehow you can't also count the votes of a handful of jurors at the same time.
Actually, come to think of it, do jurors vote independently, or do they confer as a group? If it's the latter, then there may be a time issue.

Matt
12th August 2010, 21:25
To my knowledge it is a group decision.

AlekS
12th August 2010, 21:34
Nowhere has anyone suggested televoters should influence which entries juries vote for. There's no reason why juror's should have access to the televote result before they give their votes.
But you do influence the juries by ordering (or "requesting" like you say) what to do - ie. vote in the same day with televoters.
There's a reason - to find out televoters' choice and change the overall result.



Instead, fans (who also happen to be voters, come Eurovision time) are requesting, at least in this forum topic, a change to the method of jury voting. Who they actually end up voting for is immaterial.
I don't care who they actually end up voting. It's not up to you to judge the juries and request some changes in their work. Otherwise it would be "your" juries, those who follow your system. Juries are not meant for televoters, televoters do not choose them, televoters (and fans) do not control their work - it's done by the national broadcasters.
Then the juries should be given the equal opportunity to demand something from televoters, influence EBU, change the televoters way of voting.



I find it ridiculous that you can count the votes of millions of viewers from 40-odd countries across an entire continent, plus Israel, and somehow you can't also count the votes of a handful of jurors at the same time.
Nobody said that it's impossible.
But it brings more technical risks indeed and juridical too. The juries can find out the televoters' results, their votes can be lost during technical screw ups which won't be solved because of the live broadcast. Not to mention that they need time to discuss everything among each other. They should count their votes and solve all ties, they should sign papers, they should check if there are mistakes, type/print results and send them... I remember that last year our broadcaster complained that they had no time to discuss everything and they sent it in the last moment and they didn't even check if there were mistakes in their votes. It seems they weren't the only one who complained.

Mickey
12th August 2010, 21:58
But you do influence the juries by ordering (or "requesting" like you say) what to do - ie. vote in the same day with televoters.
There's a reason - to find out televoters' choice and change the overall result.



Instead, fans (who also happen to be voters, come Eurovision time) are requesting, at least in this forum topic, a change to the method of jury voting. Who they actually end up voting for is immaterial.
I don't care who they actually end up voting. It's not up to you to judge the juries and request some changes in their work. Otherwise it would be "your" juries, those who follow your system. Juries are not meant for televoters, televoters do not choose them, televoters (and fans) do not control their work - it's done by the national broadcasters.
Then the juries should be given the equal opportunity to demand something from televoters, influence EBU, change the televoters way of voting.

My thought process isn't "The jury votes don't agree with mine, therefore we should change the juries," which is what you're suggesting it is.

My thought process is "The jury is judging a different performance to what I'm judging. This feels instinctively wrong."

AlekS
12th August 2010, 22:09
^ actually I wasn't suggesting anything :? :)
In fact I even said that I don't care about people's votes.


My thought process is "Requesting the juries to change something in their own rules is up to EBU, the juries and national broadcasters only"

Matt
12th August 2010, 23:44
My thought process is "The jury is judging a different performance to what I'm judging. This feels instinctively wrong."

I can totally see where you're coming from but the juries don't only use one performance to judge the song. They listen to the songs multiple times so the Dress Rehearsal is only the "last" time prior to them voting.

Mickey
12th August 2010, 23:45
^ actually I wasn't suggesting anything :? :)
In fact I even said that I don't care about people's votes.


My thought process is "Requesting the juries to change something in their own rules is up to EBU, the juries and national broadcasters only"
No, you suggested that I was only interested in changing the judges to mould their decisions to agree with mine.


I don't care who they actually end up voting. It's not up to you to judge the juries and request some changes in their work. Otherwise it would be "your" juries, those who follow your system. Juries are not meant for televoters, televoters do not choose them, televoters (and fans) do not control their work - it's done by the national broadcasters.

AlekS
12th August 2010, 23:57
^ahem??!!
Did you even read my quote? I clearly said system, not your votes.

Schlagerman1
15th August 2010, 03:37
I am an another one that thinks that it is a bit unfair to have the jury voting on the rehearsal and not on the real night, but I can see that it is almost physically and time-consuming almost impossible to do it at the same time. The results need to be out directly after the songs, it is what is has been and will forever be like that. The only thing that could fix this, is to have a timeplan like the Asia-Pacific Song Contest now have, preformances on Friday and final results on Sunday, maybe then ESC can have jury- and televoting at the same night.

Still I can live with that ESC has like this..just silly to read all the newspapers here that almost every year writes "50% OF THE RESULTS IS ALREADY DECIDED!!!!" :lol:

Mickey
15th August 2010, 12:26
Still I can live with that ESC has like this..just silly to read all the newspapers here that almost every year writes "50% OF THE RESULTS IS ALREADY DECIDED!!!!" :lol:

That's interesting. Where are you from? Over here in the UK, it is never mentioned at all. I didn't know the jury voted beforehand until I joined this forum. A lack of openness about how the juries vote was something I was going to complain about.

ParadiseES
15th August 2010, 12:48
That's true. Only the fans know how this contest work. There are not information for viewers.

AlekS
15th August 2010, 12:50
same problem here. We find out about their voting from their officials on talk shows or from the newspapers :lol: =/ even to find out the jury members would be a big problem because the official NTU site never mentions it, not talking about their votes and procedure.

Milos-BC
15th August 2010, 15:48
RTS didn't mention that either :lol: In fact, most of the things they are saying are "he is the biggest star in his country.......she is the biggest star in her country........THEY ARE THE BIGGEST STARS IN THEIR COUNTRY!.........Yes, jury votes just like the audience...........all of you start sending votes for Milan Stankovic, you know that you like his song the best, right?" :lol:

American Andy
17th August 2010, 08:04
I, personally, think that the juries should vote on the Grand Final night, as the performance should be considered when evaluating the song. Historically, the juries voted on the songs on the night of the Contest. However, the Contest is not, nor should it ever be, a singing competition. The juries are not there to judge vocal abilities (though, Harel was great on the Final night, save for that botched note near the end -- and Didrik, as much as I love that song, was terrible; he was flat throughout the entire song), they are there to judge the songs, their lyrics and music. And, as far as I know, each jury has a certified EBU notary with them during the voting process. The juries are in the host city, watch the dress rehearsals live, then are sequestered, with said notary, until all voting is done. We know the juries are together at some point because each of the past three years, there has been claims that juries have had "inappropriate" contact with one another in their hotel and around the arena (i.e., making deals with people to get them to vote for their country's song).

All things considered, the current voting system is great! I think adopting the Our Sound voting procedure (a separate performance and results show) would be silly and unnecessary.

ParadiseES
17th August 2010, 11:40
^
Juries are not in the host city during the voting process. Actually they have to stay in their country ;)

American Andy
18th August 2010, 03:52
Either way, they do have an official EBU notary there to make sure everything is going on properly!

aletem
23rd August 2010, 02:46
I don't mind the fact that juries vote during the rehearsals. This gives an advantage for everyone. The performers are not nervous, not much pressure is put on them, and I'm sure they could deliver it well. And juries have probably heard the songs before hand, so their opinion changes based on the overall performance (voice, choreography, etc).

Tribeca
19th October 2010, 16:10
I don't understand why there always has to be a jury! Isn't it supposed to be the people's choice? And for all I know, the jury is just normal people with extra power to affect the result! They should be televoters! Jury voting is never fair!

MyHeartIsYours
19th October 2010, 18:31
You know why there needs to be a jury ;).

A-lister
21st October 2010, 13:15
You know why there needs to be a jury ;).

Yes, why?

To turn this into some sort of European "American Idol" where the songs isn't important anymore only the voices?

To vote for old-fashion ballads that would get almost zero votes without jury help?

To hate on everything that is not sounding westernized or americanized? Which basically means that everything that is somehow connected to the certain countries music cultures and traditions are being punished.

This is EUROvision SONG Contest

Not "American wannabe idol"..

The juries hasn't really understood that yet... also did they prevent diaspora voting? No they even HELPED in some cases!

So yes... tell me what is really the point with the juries other than destroying this contest?

MyHeartIsYours
21st October 2010, 13:39
The point is to give Western countries an equal chance... if televoting was fair then we would never have called for juries 8-).

goktengri
21st October 2010, 18:16
Televoting is not fair. Half of people votes for countries.

But I'm not sure that Jury voting is fair too. :/

A-lister
21st October 2010, 18:59
The point is to give Western countries an equal chance... if televoting was fair then we would never have called for juries 8-).

I know the point, but it's not working really.

And what about these countries that are not considered "west enough" or "east enough" that is stuck in between and won't get any help from any "side" like for instance Poland and Slovakia?

And what about diaspora voting, which is a much BIGGER problem than the so called "block voting" ? Greece and Turkey still gets alot of help from the juries no matter what...

And what about western countries starting to send good songs for instance?

And when a western country actually send something current (like France 2010) then the juries doesn't give a anyways so what's the point?

goktengri
21st October 2010, 19:10
And what about diaspora voting, which is a much BIGGER problem than the so called "block voting" ? Greece and Turkey still gets alot of help from the juries no matter what...

If we had not diaspora, we would never be in top 10. Well it's a problem but isn't there any problem about people don't care or don't want to vote for some countries ?

Also, can you prove me that we get help from juries, should i remind you we didn't get top 5 before televoting years ?

Political voting issue is important as much as diaspora voting.

A-lister
21st October 2010, 20:01
If we had not diaspora, we would never be in top 10. Well it's a problem but isn't there any problem about people don't care or don't want to vote for some countries ?

Also, can you prove me that we get help from juries, should i remind you we didn't get top 5 before televoting years ?

Political voting issue is important as much as diaspora voting.

There is a major problem with people voting only for countries, but those voters happens to be (in most cases) diaspora voters so...

I know that the juries treated countries like Greece and Turkey badly in the past, but nowadays I wouldn't say so and I think the juries see a problem in blocs rather than diaspora voting.

In the end of the day I don't want the juries to "punish" anyone, I want them to vote for the best songs. If the western countries can't come up with the best songs, then I don't see why they should get any help?

aletem
22nd October 2010, 02:22
Both Slovakia and Poland weren't voted enough by the televoters, so no need to blame it on the jury. The jury voted pretty close with the televoters.

lucian-crusher
28th October 2010, 09:00
I agree that the televoting is not fair but it doesen't influence the winer. As we saw in the last two years juries and televote had the same favourite, so as long as the winer is correct I don't care if the song on 2nd place is placed because people voted on the country and not the song. IMO is just the winer and then, from 2nd to 25th place it doesen't matter as they don't get anything....

MyHeartIsYours
28th October 2010, 12:43
^ It does matter when your 25th regulars like the UK! :lol:

JackBauer
2nd November 2010, 20:07
I think that instead of only using the top ten from the jury and the televotes to make a country top ten we should use their rank for the 25 songs and merge them to get a top 10.

If a song is top 3 with televote because of friendly voting but is very bad i imagine it would be between 18-25 th with the juries and receive less point from a good song with 6th from televote and who is 8-12Th with the jury.

3th televote + 19 th Jury = 11
6 th televote + 12 th jury = 9

So the better song would rank higher in the final ranking.

And sometimes a song which is 11 th with televote & 12 th the jury could get one or two points instead of nothing at all.

It's just stupid to see some crazy voting from the jury and televote with their top 3/4 to make an awful top ten when i'm sure a lot of good songs are 6th,7th or 8th with televote or the jury and just missing with the other being 11,12th or 13th and then being much more worthy of a few points than other stupid or from neighbours songs.

virus666
20th March 2011, 18:30
I can accept Juries' role when they'll stop behave like televoters do (a majority of them not all)!!! This could only happened if there is one and only jury at the concert hall these 3 nights!!! Oh yes.. I don't know how it's going to be in reality (43 people in final.......), but then at least they'll cannot manipulate results that easy!

DanielFullard
20th March 2011, 19:22
Its worked out for better the last few years so I say leave it as it is

MaryAnny
21st March 2011, 12:01
I also think it's better now. It would be more fair to me if the juries vote at the same night, but oh well.

It will never be perfect. I remember the time before televoting; people were also complaining that neighbours gave each other points.

FallenAngelII
21st March 2011, 13:27
In my opinion, the ultimate system would be true 50/50 vote. wach jury and televoting result is announced separately and points from 1-8m 10 and 12 are given out separately. In other words, each country gets two sets of each point. Then it will truly be 50/50. Many countries already adopt this system for their national finals.

With the current system, an entry can get a jury's 12 pointer, yet get only 4 or so points because the televoters gave it zero points while the rest of the jury's picks got televoting marks.

lucian-crusher
21st March 2011, 13:35
I don't like the juries! The juries where introduced to avoid Diaspora and Political voting but they wen far beyond that. They stated voting for good voices and songs that they consider quality. The juries should act just like a public that doesen't vote for countries and only for songs.

FallenAngelII
21st March 2011, 13:45
I don't like the juries! The juries where introduced to avoid Diaspora and Political voting but they wen far beyond that. They stated voting for good voices and songs that they consider quality. The juries should act just like a public that doesen't vote for countries and only for songs.
Uh... how are you supposed to objectively vote forth a winner if not by going with which song is the best song? In fact, that's one of the things the EBU tells the juries to look for: Well-written songs.

What, do you think the juries are supposed to just guess what their kinsmen would vote for had it not been for disapora and neighbour voting? Their job is, among other things, to vote for good songs. Voices don't really factor in very much, but they help.

lucian-crusher
21st March 2011, 14:14
Uh... how are you supposed to objectively vote forth a winner if not by going with which song is the best song? In fact, that's one of the things the EBU tells the juries to look for: Well-written songs.

What, do you think the juries are supposed to just guess what their kinsmen would vote for had it not been for disapora and neighbour voting? Their job is, among other things, to vote for good songs. Voices don't really factor in very much, but they help.

Well! They should vote like a public. I mean, in 2006 ::lt got a lot of points and I am sure that if there was a jury they would've gotten 0 from every single member because the jury members would've said that that's not even a song. Same would go for ::ua in 2007. The juries should just forget they have music studies and vote for the song that goes better to their ears....

A-lister
21st March 2011, 14:56
@ lucian-crusher

I kinda agree with you. I don't like the juries at all.
Firstly they do not reduce the diaspora votes (their only target so far is to reduce points to ex-USSR countries while Turkey/Greece/Bosnia can send whatever and still get jury support AND diaspora support aswell).

Also they are turning this into some kind of singing contest a a la Idol, when it should be a SONG contest. They've totally overlooked songs that appeal to the people and songs with hit-potential in favor of "well-sung ballads" that no one cares for and that has no life after Eurovision.

And also we have the problem with english and ethnic, jurie seem to favor English and vote against any local/ethnic sounding songs, making me wonder if their whole agenda is to basically destroy some of the characteristics of this contest.

Since they're not reducing diaspora power, and since they're voting mostly for has-been ballads, I don't see what they really are here for.

AND juries vote political aswell! Do not forget that! Also we can see corruption cases, wheres you can't corrupt million votes, but a group of 5 people can easily be bought.

FallenAngelII
21st March 2011, 15:19
A-Lister, either prove those claims or just stop throw blatant lies around as if they were fact.

What in the world is Bosnia doing on that list?!

Sabiondo
21st March 2011, 16:10
@ lucian-crusher

I kinda agree with you. I don't like the juries at all.
Firstly they do not reduce the diaspora votes (their only target so far is to reduce points to ex-USSR countries while Turkey/Greece/Bosnia can send whatever and still get jury support AND diaspora support aswell).

No foget that also Russia will had the support ilimitated of Armenia & Belarus and they will not stoped to seend their 12-10 points to Russia uniless if the singer or song is really bad..¡¡¡

A-lister
21st March 2011, 22:59
A-Lister, either prove those claims or just stop throw blatant lies around as if they were fact.

What in the world is Bosnia doing on that list?!

Don't write to me ok? Who are you to think you can constantly jumping on my back.

It was an example of a diaspora country.

Anyways, I will not answer to any more attacks by you, I am not here to prove anything to you and you just have to accept people with different opinions.

NEXT.!

Matt
21st March 2011, 23:08
Firstly they do not reduce the diaspora votes (their only target so far is to reduce points to ex-USSR countries while Turkey/Greece/Bosnia can send whatever and still get jury support AND diaspora support aswell).

Well, that's not quite accurate.

Turkey 2009: 3rd with televoters, 7th with juries
Turkey 2010: 2nd with televoters, 8th with juries

Greece 2009: 5th with televoters, 11th with juries
Greece 2010: 7th with televoters, 11th with juries

Bosnia 2009: 7th with televoters, 12th with juries
Bosnia 2010: 16th with televoters, 14th with juries


The juries definitely caused Turkey and Greece to drop significantly so I'm not sure how you came up with that. And Bosnia seems kinda random to be added to the list but even in that case the jury didn't help them really.

Plus 2 years of data is not enough to make a proper determination.

adnar
21st March 2011, 23:20
Well...jury plays its part and I really enjoy their presence. I can't believe Romania giving "only" 10 points to Moldova and Germany giving "only" 10 points to Turkey would happen without juries. There are plenty more of examples that jury helps in breaking all the stereotypical votes like "we don't care that you sent a piece of crap, you are our friends".

A-lister
21st March 2011, 23:27
Well, that's not quite accurate.

Turkey 2009: 3rd with televoters, 7th with juries
Turkey 2010: 2nd with televoters, 8th with juries

Greece 2009: 5th with televoters, 11th with juries
Greece 2010: 7th with televoters, 11th with juries


So top.10 (or nearly) is a bad vote now? Considering those songs/performances I'd say juries gave these entries a helping hand aswell. Yes, they didn't vote these as high as televoters, but in some of these cases I'd say they voted it remarkably high still for being so called "professionals", or maybe it's just me who thinks a top.10 vote is still good positions.?

So imo they do not help reduce votes in cases needed, well maybe the ex-USSR countries, but Turkey/Greece are still getting plenty of help even from juries, even when they may have not deserved it.

Yep, Bosnia was maybe a bit random I admit.

Sabiondo
22nd March 2011, 00:12
Well...jury plays its part and I really enjoy their presence. I can't believe Romania giving "only" 10 points to Moldova and Germany giving "only" 10 points to Turkey would happen without juries. There are plenty more of examples that jury helps in breaking all the stereotypical votes like "we don't care that you sent a piece of crap, you are our friends".

Must add that thanks by the jury, my motherland Spain stoped to gave their 12 points to Romania thanks also to the jury since 2 years ago..¡¡¡ now Romania just conform with 7 or 8 max from the Romanian diaspora in Spain.

FallenAngelII
22nd March 2011, 01:11
Don't write to me ok? Who are you to think you can constantly jumping on my back.
When you constantly bring up the same old disproven arguments and refuse to provide evidence to prove your case, despite having been refuted, it's really tiresome for everyone else when you trumpet around your half-truths and lies as fact.

It's not an attack. I'm questioning the veracity of your arguments. And since you consequentially refuse to substantitate your arguments, yet you keep trumpeting them around as if they were facts, I'm also questioning your credibility as a debater.

The fact that you created an entire thread to complain about how the juries were highly biased, then brought up highly outdated and unsubstantiated statistics from 2004 to back up your arguments when I disproved you using 2009 and 2010 data and then left the thread, never stepping foot in it again afterwards shows that you tacitly admitted defeat. You simply couldn't prove your point.

Yet you keep on using your same old tired arguments. It's not about you proving yourself to me. It's about you substantiating your arguments to everyone else since you seem so fond of them and drag them up at every turn.

I just have the balls to directly call you out on it in a not-so-subtle way. Notice that Matt did the exact same thing using the exact same kind of data and argument I did. He was just nicer about it. He didn't directly imply that you're using half-truths and lies.

You can claim outrage due to being attacked all you want. You can call me rude and whatever. But in my book, the worst thing you can do in a debate is to refuse to prove your point, then refuse to admit defeat when your point is shattered by the opposition, ignoring the results of the debate as if it never happened and carrying on using the same, old, disproven arguments as if they were facts.

You've now been disproven by at least 3 separate people using actual statistics and facts. Yet you'll, no doubt, be using the same, old, stale arguments come tomorrow.


Anyways, I will not answer to any more attacks by you, I am not here to prove anything to you and you just have to accept people with different opinions.
"I disliked Greece's, Turkey's and Bosnia's entries in 2010 and 2009 and thus think their placements were unfair." - That's an opinion.
"Greece, Turkey and Bosnia were helped by the juries based on diaspora and neighbour voting in 2010 and 2009" - Those are factual statements.

Opinions do not have to be justified. Factual statements do. If you cannot prove your factual statements, admit defeat and stop using them.


So top.10 (or nearly) is a bad vote now? Considering those songs/performances I'd say juries gave these entries a helping hand aswell. Yes, they didn't vote these as high as televoters, but in some of these cases I'd say they voted it remarkably high still for being so called "professionals", or maybe it's just me who thinks a top.10 vote is still good positions.?

So imo they do not help reduce votes in cases needed, well maybe the ex-USSR countries, but Turkey/Greece are still getting plenty of help even from juries, even when they may have not deserved it.
A song/entry can be well-crafted (what the juries are supposed to be on the look-out for) without actually being personally appealing to every single person (the juries included). Turkey cranked out two highly well-produced entries in 2009 and 2010 and while their 2009 entry was painful to watch live, the juries are instructed to mostly disregard the live vocals in favor of studio vocals. Greece put up two well-produced stage shows in 2009 and 2010 (neither of which appealed to me, but I'm not surprised they scored 11th, which isn't that high of a position considering the lackluster competition they had from the rest of the field both years, the fact that in 2009, Greece was only ahead of Bosnia and Malta by 3 and 6 points respectively and that both years they were miles behind the Top 5.)

They simply placed nominally better than Top 12-16. They did a little less badly than them. People obsess about placements as if it's all about what place you end up in. No, no it's not. It's also about the margin of "winning". If you achieved 5th place 100 points behind 4th but only 2-12 points ahead of 6th-9th, it means you only lucked yourself into 5th place because the points were spread out among the "lesser" entries. You weren't exceptionally good, just less mediocre than the rest.

Imagine if this were an Olympic Sport:
In a race with 20 runners, the winner wins by a margin of 0.2 seconds ahead of 2nd place, who's 0.3 seconds ahead of 3rd, who's 0.1 ahead of 4th, who's 0.2 seconds ahead of 5th. Which means that 1st was 0.8 seconds ahead of 5th. It was a relatively close race and 5th place didn't do too shabby.

Now imagine a race where the winner (the same person as in the previour example) is ahead by 2nd by 1.3 seconds. Sure, whoever got 2nd place still got 2nd place, but it's not nearly as glorious a result as 3rd, 4th or even 5th in the earlier example.

Also, you know what, just because you didn't like certain entries doesn't mean it's beyond the scope of imagination for professional juries to have liked them for reasons other than diaspora and neighbour voting.

Maybe if everyone, televoters and jurists alike, like entries that you dislike and vice versa, maybe it's just you. Maybe you just have a quirky taste that not many people share.

A-lister
22nd March 2011, 01:32
@ FallenAngelII

I'm gonna make this very short for you because you seem to have problem understanding simple things:

This is a discussion forum, we are here to share opinions and views.

I am not acting God in here like you constantly do. Somehow you think that your opinion is valid and that it's a "fact".

I've never stated my opinion as a given fact, it's just my personal analysis and opinion which you don't have to question every damn second. People are free to agree or not offcourse, but it's tiring with you commenting every second like people in here have to report to you. Sorry, you're not a holder of any truth, you're just stating opinions on here like everyone else, so don't act like something else.

Now if all you have to do is constantly acting like you own this forum and the right of opinion and somehow believe your opinion is more valid then don't bother writing to me ever again. Is it so hard to read?

Can't take my opinion or having a normal conversation? Well what are you doing on a discussion forum in the first place?

If you have any problem with me then be brave enough to PM me instead of making a scene in every topic I just write my opinion in.

And about Matt; he can discuss this in normal tone contrary to you and we've discussed this many times, but it's about mutual respect something you clearly lack.

End of discussion.

FallenAngelII
22nd March 2011, 01:41
Point out to me a single time when I've trumpeted by opinion around as if it were fact, where I made factual statements that I couldn't back up when prompted.

Saying "The juries are biased against entries sung in languages other than English" isn't an opinionated statement at all. That's a factual statement. Neither is saying "The juries are still goverend by diaspora and neighbour voting patterns".

I have never once said that my opinion trumphs yours. I have simply time and again proven your factual statements inaccurate (or, if you persist on claiming they are not factual statements but opinionated statements, that your opinions are based off on faulty data, faulty interpretations of data and misinformation). Your opinion is as valid as anyone else's as far as opinions go. But maybe they're based off of misinformation and misinterpretation. I'm merely showing you that.

You also seem to be mistaken on how debates work. Debates work in how two opposing sides go at it with opposing viewpoints with the conviction that they hold the correct viewpoint and they thus try to prove the opposition wrong. Of course I think that you're mistaken if I'm debating against you. You clearly think that anyone who disagrees with you is mistaken, seeing as how you just told Matt that (though not in so many words).

Also, what part of this all is not a normal course of debate? Contrary to popular belief, debates aren't all sunshine and roses. People aren't lovey dovey all the time. If you can't take the heat of someone calling you out on using faulty arguments and logic, maybe you need to frequent more forums (specifically ones with more debates, especially heated ones, than this one). The arguments I've been using against you are downright tame compared to what is acceptable fare in debate on most forums. The fact that I have once been disciplined either in PM-form or in the threads I post on by the mods for my percieved hostile and unacceptable behavior and attitude (I believe you once expressed disbelief at the fact that I was allowed to run rampant with this "offensive attitude" (or somesuch) of mine not too long ago) or even simply humbly asked to tone it down is a testament to how not-out-of-line I am,

A-lister
22nd March 2011, 01:48
Point out to me a single time when I've trumpeted by opinion around as if it were fact, where I made factual statements that I couldn't back up when prompted.

I don't need to do this, I'm not having that urge you have sorry. I'm here to discuss, not to jump on people's back.


Neither is saying "The juries are still goverend by diaspora and neighbour voting patterns".

Never said this, just as I never said some other things you made up about me (like the Yohanna thing).


You clearly think that anyone who disagrees with you is mistaken, seeing as how you just told Matt that (though not in so many words).

If Matt would have problem with me, he could speak for himself, he doesn't need your assumptions as guidance.

I've discussed issues like this with Matt many times, but as I said although we may not agree, we do share a mutual respect still.

Anyways I suggest you simply don't answer my posts in the future, it'll be for the best for both of us. I am and never will be in here to report to you or prove you anything. I will share my opinion and I will write interpretation on things whether you allow me to or not.

FallenAngelII
22nd March 2011, 01:52
I don't need to do this, obviously you have an urge to do this yourself though, I understand that this is a discussion forum and people will share their opinions and it's simple.
Again, this is a debate. In debates, opinions clash. And one generally tries to prove the opposition wrong, whether they're making factual statements (which you do, whether you mean to or not) or simply airing their opinions.


I've discussed issues like this with Matt many times, but as I said although we may not agree, we do share a mutual respect still.
I would've had respect for you as a debater had you actually responded to my counter-arguments curteously in the languages-thread instead of simply saying something along the lines of "Well, I disagree!" and then fleeing the thread.

A-lister
22nd March 2011, 01:57
^
Again why you have this urge to question people? Just let them have their opinions it's actually non of your business.

And no, I'm not here to hand in reports to you or anything. My opinion is clear and people know what I stand for and that's it. You disagree? Fine, you're welcome, that's YOUR opinion (or what you want to call it).



I would've had respect for you as a debater had you actually responded to my counter-arguments curteously...

This comment summed it up pretty well. You even admit you didn't give me respect from the get-go since the discussion didn't go your way. Why are you even surprised then I have no interest in discussion with you? I'm not spending my time with people who don't show respect, it's simple.

Do both of us a favor now and stop this finally.

FallenAngelII
22nd March 2011, 02:40
^
Again why you have this urge to question people? Just let them have their opinions it's actually non of your business.
This is how debates work:
Party A presents their thesis.
Party B presents theirs (usually the direct opposite off Party A's).
Both parties tries to disprove the other.

If you engage in a debate, you need to prove your own arguments. Simply throwing out opinions and then saying "It's my opinion." isn't debating. It's not even being open to debate. In fact, that's the very definition of thinking your opinion trumphs all and being intolerant of the opinions of other people.


This comment summed it up pretty well. You even admit you didn't give me respect from the get-go since the discussion didn't go your way. Why are you even surprised then I have no interest in discussion with you? I'm not spending my time with people who don't show respect, it's simple.
Didn't go my way? The majority of posters in the thread agreed with me and disagreed with you. I proved your, ahem, opinions wrong. You failed to prove your statements. Then you left the thread. At which point you lost any respect I might've ever held for you as a debater.

Even now you persist that you didn't "lose" the debate or that you failed to prove your own statements and points. You insist that you were merely presenting your opinion and as such, you did not need to substantiate them with evidence and facts. That is not debate. That is throwing your opinion around, seeing if people will agree, slap yourself on the back if they do and just pack up and leave without a word if they don't.

Every time you post something and I question its validity as an argument, you state either:
* "It's my opinion. And I'm entitled to it. (How dare you question it? It's an opinion. It doesn't need proof!)"
* "I don't have to prove myself to you."

Also, you do not have to have actual respect for your opponents in a debate in order to have meaningful debates. As long as you both stick to the issues, the resulting debates can still be interesting and hold meaning.

A-lister
22nd March 2011, 12:00
Every time you post something and I question its validity as an argument.

See this is your problem. You have to question the validity of what someone say in here, like they have to report to you. This is where you differ from other people in here. I don't have any interest to discuss with someone who is writing "you're a liar, prove yourself to me".. who the f do you think you are!?

Anyways you are just a provocateur and I was just dumb falling for it. You clearly have nothing constructive to say yourself, people who only feel some urge on jumping on others and doesn't have anything else to say are very uninteresting people indeed.

And as a provocateur you simply doesn't understand where to stop either, you just go on and on.

Who are you to "teach" people around here how to debate or discuss things? Sorry mr. almighty, but you're no more or less than anyone else in here, your opinion is not worth more or less, so deal with it.

But this is my last answer to your constant provocation, it's just useless to feed your excitement to argue with people. You bring nothing to this forum, you have no actual own opinion. An opinion is not the same as having an urge to question "validity" of another person's opinions and interpretations, that's just plain stupid. This is a musical forum, not a political debate.

If you have anything off-topic to say again you can atleast do it via PM, this is not a topic to argue back and forth. Unfortunately I see you getting some sort of kick out of doing it.

Do not answer me again, I've asked you a million times already.

FallenAngelII
22nd March 2011, 13:36
See this is your problem. You have to question the validity of what someone say in here, like they have to report to you. This is where you differ from other people in here. I don't have any interest to discuss with someone who is writing "you're a liar, prove yourself to me".. who the f do you think you are!?
No... I question the validity of their arguments... in debates. It's what one does n debates.


Anyways you are just a provocateur and I was just dumb falling for it. You clearly have nothing constructive to say yourself, people who only feel some urge on jumping on others and doesn't have anything else to say are very uninteresting people indeed.
Disproving your arguments =/= Jumping on you


Who are you to "teach" people around here how to debate or discuss things?
Because you clearly do not know how debates work.


Sorry mr. almighty, but you're no more or less than anyone else in here, your opinion is not worth more or less, so deal with it.
"How debates work" is not an opinion. It's a fact.


You bring nothing to this forum, you have no actual own opinion.
'This makes sense how?


This is a musical forum, not a political debate.
It doesn't mean there can't be debates had here.

What would be the point of a forum where one only puts forth one's opinions without debate? "I like cookies!" "I don't" "I do" "OK then".


Do not answer me again, I've asked you a million times already.
Then stop replying.

Matt
22nd March 2011, 13:50
C'mon folks. Let's not get caught up in accusations and focus on the important stuff.

Interestingly enough I realized that I tend to agree with FallenAngel a lot (not just this topic) we just have a different style of delivery.

I guess the thing that I am questiong is the fact that the juries are being accused of not doing their job with not sufficient data available.
A-lister, you mentioned in one of your posts that a 11th place for Greece or an 8th place for Turkey is still way too good.
To me that's a slight contradiction of some of the statements you made in the past such as France 2010 were you critizised the fact that juries were out of touch with the televoters and viewers interest but in this case you're saying the jury and televote results should have been even further apart. So I am not quite sure what was suppose to happen.

And to use the 2009 example Both Greece and Turkey were hot favorites the whole contest and ending up in 11th place as a favorite is actually a dissapointing outcome if you ask me.
As I mentioned before, everyone has the right to an opinion. It's okay to be for or against juries/televotes but these are opinions. We need to seperate opinions from facts cause it's easy to get those two things mixed up.

I like the fact that the results are less predictable with a 50/50 system and while I in general agree with the jury votes over the televote, there are always suprises and things I disagree with. For example I loved Finland last year and thought the juries would, too. Turned out they were not having any of that.

While I wasn't a big fan of the old juries (pre 1998/1999) EBU put a lot of effort and guidelines in place to make the voting as fair as possible. Will it ever be 100% fair? Of course not, music is subjective and jury members are human, too. But based on the limited data we have available do I believe they are being efficient? I'd say yes

A-lister
22nd March 2011, 14:00
@ Matt

The Greece/Turkey example was to show that juries do NOT reduce diaspora voting as some assume, whether these votes were fairly given or not by the juries are offcourse subjective.

@ Fallen Angel

Sorry, you don't have to teach me what a debate is, you are the last person really to do so as you seem to think a debate is something where you show disrespect and act all over rude. That is not a legitimate debate.

When did I write people were jumping on me when they do not agree? Try to write something with respect and you might have gotten another reaction from the get-go, you could learn a thing or two about good discussion from Matt.

Also don't make such subjective things as music or view on Eurovision sound like facts. I can just speak for my own opinion and that's it.

So stop with your provocations and start discussing in a respectful tone, otherwise don't bother with me atleast.

FallenAngelII
22nd March 2011, 14:04
@Matt: Agreed fully 100%. Those a my views exactly. Also, far too often people seem to think that unless the juries agree with them and their views, they are wrong and not doing their jobs.
@A-Lister: Respect needs to be earned. I start out neutral with everbody. But if they choose themselves unworthy of respect, I do not give them any.

A-lister
22nd March 2011, 14:08
@A-Lister: Respect needs to be earned. I start out neutral with everbody. But if they choose themselves unworthy of respect, I do not give them any.

Haha and I did what exactly to you to earn your "disrespect"? :lol:

Anyways I agree, respect needs to be earned, if one acts disrespectful don't expect respect back.

But it's childish to disrespect someone just based on that person's opinion, and here you have the answer why I have no interest discussing things further with you.

Anyways I don't need to "earn your respect". You should listen to yourself, are you for real? People "need to earn your respect" in a music discussion forum? Well you just proved you're a total waste.

Stop provoking me with any more of those answers thank you. You are out to provoke as you can't take it on PM, it's very obvious.

A-lister
22nd March 2011, 14:15
@Matt: Agreed fully 100%. Those a my views exactly. Also, far too often people seem to think that unless the juries agree with them and their views, they are wrong and not doing their jobs.

And they are right when they agree with you ;) How interesting and convenient.

Once again you failed to understand one simple thing: Music IS and always will be subjective, no matter if it's juries voting or not. Opinions on juries votes (for or against) will always be subjective and sorry mate, it's the same for you in this case aswell, although you are unwilling to admit that your opinion is no fact.

FallenAngelII
22nd March 2011, 14:17
On-topic:
What do people think of a true 50/50? The juries and the televote get one set of points 1-8, 10, 12) each.



Anyways I agree, respect needs to be earned, if one acts disrespectful don't expect respect back.

Anyways I don't need to "earn your respect".
Yeah... OK then.


You are out to provoke as you can't take it on PM.
So taking it to PMs would be somehow less provoking? Also, if you wish to do so so vehemently, you do it.


And they are right when they agree with you ;) How interesting and convenient.
I never sad that.


Once again you failed to understand one simple thing: Music IS and always will be subjective, no matter if it's juries voting or not. Opinions on juries votes (for or against) will always be subjective and sorry mate, it's the same for you in this case aswell, although you are unwilling to admit that your opinion is no fact.
I never argued differently.

A-lister
22nd March 2011, 14:18
On-topic:
So taking it to PMs would be somehow less provoking? Also, if you wish to do so so vehemently, you do it.

Because firstly arguing in here is just silly and off-topic.

Secondly why should I? It's clearly you who had a problem with me from the start and you continue to show it on and on again.

lucian-crusher
22nd March 2011, 14:23
On-topic:
What do people think of a true 50/50? The juries and the televote get one set of points 1-8, 10, 12) each.

I agree on that! :D

A-lister
22nd March 2011, 14:30
I agree on that! :D

Me too, atleast it would be more transparent although results would be the same. A split screen with one side for the juries votes and the other half for televotes and then mixing them up in a final screen.

Also the juries should vote in the same evening as televotes, I don't like the current system with voting during dress rehearsal.

FallenAngelII
22nd March 2011, 14:34
Me too, atleast it would be more transparent although results would be the same. A split screen with one side for the juries votes and the other half for televotes and then mixing them up in a final screen.
No... the would be no mixing.

A-lister
22nd March 2011, 14:37
No... the would be no mixing.

Well there would be otherwise how would you have a final result? We can't have two results with maybe two different winners. In every system there's mixing (like the Swedish one).

FallenAngelII
22nd March 2011, 14:43
I misunderstood hat you said as the scores being mixed into a single set of 1-8, 10 and 12. Yes, I'm proposing a system similar that of the Swedish national final.

A-lister
22nd March 2011, 14:46
I misunderstood hat you said as the scores being mixed into a single set of 1-8, 10 and 12. Yes, I'm proposing a system similar that of the Swedish national final.

No I meant a split screen where viewers can see juries and televotes divided and then a merged one. But this would have to be shown in the same time more or less otherwise we would have two hour voting.

evilperson
27th March 2011, 03:28
Apparently the EBU is planning on splitting the televote and jury points.

Something is definitely changing (or not) which is why the order for the voting has yet to be announced.

MyHeartIsYours
27th March 2011, 03:37
^

Oh I hope so!!! :D :D

aletem
27th March 2011, 04:37
If the plan is to have two winners, one from jury and one from televote, then big no! The combined 50-50 is fine. Why do they need to change that?

evilperson
27th March 2011, 04:54
^I don't think thats what the EBU is planning, from what I've read, the plan is to split each country's jury and televote on screen and then combine them in front of the viewers eyes.

There was also discussion about Christer Bjorkman's previous suggestion of using computer technology to order the country voting order for the most thrilling voting experience. That was apparently shot down due to logistics.

aletem
27th March 2011, 04:58
^I don't think thats what the EBU is planning, from what I've read, the plan is to split each country's jury and televote on screen and then combine them in front of the viewers eyes.

If that is the idea, then it would be nice!

A-lister
28th March 2011, 13:05
^I don't think thats what the EBU is planning, from what I've read, the plan is to split each country's jury and televote on screen and then combine them in front of the viewers eyes.

This is good and will make the whole process more transparent.

FallenAngelII
28th March 2011, 14:13
This is good and will make the whole process more transparent.
And fair. Don't forget fair.

Jonathan
2nd April 2011, 09:30
TELEVOTE :)

Mark-ESC14
2nd April 2011, 09:42
That would be great, if they would combine the votes on screen!

A-lister
2nd April 2011, 18:23
And fair. Don't forget fair.

I don't know about that. The results will still stay the same and we will still not know whether juries are corrupted or whatever and who actually votes in this.

Atleast it'll show the people how the juries are operating (for better or worse).

nikolay_BG
25th April 2011, 17:57
I don`t like the juries. I don`t see how they prevented the block and diaspora vote. Can somebody tell me how they actually do it? Let`s take Romania and their entry in 2010 for instance= The song is awfull, and the wise televoters gave it 6th place, but the juries bumped it out and it ended on 3rd place taking Denmarks place in the televoters which was 3rd. :o Do you think that is fair? I personally don`t think it`s fair.
And about the blockvotes, Turkey still gives 12 points to Azerbaijan and vice-verse. Greece and Cyprus too. The same happens to Serbia and B&H and the ex USSR(accept Azerbaijan) countries still give 12 points to Russia.

So I personally don`t see what is the good thing of the juries since we actually don`t know who they are. And corrupting a jury is easier then corrupting a whole nation.
And another big minus I find is that they vote in the rehearsels and not in the actual show.

So, please can anybody tell me, again, how are they preventing the diaspora & blockvote, since they actually encourage it IMHO :o

Matt
25th April 2011, 18:09
Your statements are quite inaccurate and lack some proper research.

In 2009, the televoters put Turkey in 3rd place and the juries had them in 7th place. So due to the juries, the turkish song actually dropped a position.
In 2010 the televoters put Turkey in 2nd place and the juries in 8th. So you can see there is a signifacnt different just in the past 2 years. So your claim that Turkey benefits having juries doesn't really add up.

Nobody claims that diaspora is going away but the purpose was to decrease/minimize it. And Russia only received 12 points from Belarus last year.


Please give me an example where juries enourage bloc voting so I can address you concerns accordingly.

And the names of all jury members will be made public knowledge. They are consisting of people who are involved in the music industry (singers, composers etc).

MyHeartIsYours
25th April 2011, 18:20
So, please can anybody tell me, again, how are they preventing the diaspora & blockvote, since they actually encourage it IMHO :o

Lets use the example of 2009 when the televote dreadfully underrated United Kingdom and France whilst Azerbaijan and Greece were dreadfully overrated! The jury neutralises this affect, and also affects like the Balkan voting. They still always give each other high points but they do also give outside countries high points also - United Kingdom 8 points in 2009 for example from Serbia. Would never have happened under televote 100%. Also it neutralises Western friendly voting - for instance, Ireland gave United Kingdom only 4 points last year. If it had been a 100% televote it would have been at least 7/8 points to us.

nikolay_BG
25th April 2011, 18:21
Your statements are quite inaccurate and lack some proper research.

In 2009, the televoters put Turkey in 3rd place and the juries had them in 7th place. So due to the juries, the turkish song actually dropped a position.
In 2010 the televoters put Turkey in 2nd place and the juries in 8th. So you can see there is a signifacnt different just in the past 2 years. So your claim that Turkey benefits having juries doesn't really add up.

Nobody claims that diaspora is going away but the purpose was to decrease/minimize it. And Russia only received 12 points from Belarus last year.


Please give me an example where juries enourage bloc voting so I can address you concerns accordingly.

And the names of all jury members will be made public knowledge. They are consisting of people who are involved in the music industry (singers, composers etc).

Well the russian song last year was horrible. I predicted that nobody but Belarus will like it. But do you think the same will happen again. I don`t think so. Alexey is a superstar in the exUSSR republics like Dino Merlin is a star in exyugo countries.
The azerbaijani jury gave 12 points to Turkey again and vise-verse.
The same happened with Greece and Cyprus.
And the names of the jury members - I don`t agree. Who are the members of the bulgarian jury? You don`t know? Well, I don`t know too :lol:
I think the jury members had to be told before the show. And why not to hear some interview from them aswell? I really want to know the logic of the juries because i hardly think that the bulgarians liked Safuras screaming and running like chopped chicken :lol:

Because of the juries we didn`t had the masterpiece of Finland in the final, but we got Portugal`s boring and forgetable ballad. Denmark was underrated and didn`t got their 3rd place that they deserved. What we got instead Denmark on 3rd place - the awfull anc cliche stupidness of Romania. Yeah, great.
Because of the juries FYROM wasn`t in the final, but we got alienscharlotte in final. That is fair?

And what if the winner in the televote isn`t the same like in the juries? Will we have a jury winner or televote winner?

lucian-crusher
25th April 2011, 18:58
@nikolay: Your opininon is subjective. First of all ::ro and ::ru had one of the best live performances of last year. Counting the missed notes, only ::be was better then them + the Danish song was acused of plagiarism and was made from different songs. I am not defending ::ro because I already said that I really, really disliked our entry from 2010, but ::dk was worse IMO.

Also you can say that ::fi was better then ::Pt but others might say it's the other way around and I am one of them.

About the jury members it differs from countries. Here they anounce the jury members one hour before the Final and they are not allowed to say anything before that. In 2009 Mihai Traistariu was kicked-out of the jury because he said he will be in the jury :lol:

deese
25th April 2011, 19:22
Well the russian song last year was horrible. I predicted that nobody but Belarus will like it. But do you think the same will happen again. I don`t think so. Alexey is a superstar in the exUSSR republics like Dino Merlin is a star in exyugo countries.

believe me, he is not. I am not sure that even our Azeri Russians know him well.

Leman
25th April 2011, 20:09
Could you please give the link where we can see the televote results and the juri vote results separately for every country.

nikolay_BG
25th April 2011, 20:57
Could you please give the link where we can see the televote results and the juri vote results separately for every country.

here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurovision_2010#Final_2)

asia
27th April 2011, 22:59
I think they should go back to the system as it was is the ninties, only the countries in the final can vote in the final. Also I think that a country should sing in its own language, the televoting system they have at the moment is stupid, what are people voting on the song? The singer? Or more likely the performance.....

FallenAngelII
28th April 2011, 01:27
Because of the juries we didn`t had the masterpiece of Finland...
I stopped reading right there.

nikolay_BG
30th April 2011, 02:56
I stopped reading right there.

Finland scored 9th in the televote. That means that the european public liked finnish folk music. I think the song was more exciting then Portugal or Belarus. It was fresh and original, but like everything fresh and original it was left in the semi because of the juries :twisted:

94ayd
30th April 2011, 03:16
Didn't it score 6th?

nikolay_BG
30th April 2011, 14:29
Didn't it score 6th?

Yes, it scored 6th and it was bumped from Bosnia and Herzegovina
Sweden was bumped by Niamh Kavanagh from Ireland.
And the out of tune Harel Skaat was rewarded with 4th place from the juries which was a detention for Lithuania and they were out of the final :o

94ayd
30th April 2011, 17:44
Out of each pair I prefer Finland, Ireland and Lithuania respectively, so 2:1 in favour of the televoters. :lol:

Manosland
30th April 2011, 19:04
In my opoinion juries got back for two reasons. First because of the songs. If you go back in time you will see some awfull songs being in the final and this way they believed they will change the quality of songs. (up to one point they did IMO). Second was for diaspora, neighbours.ect ect... which this is not going to change easy (and thas bad!!!)

So what they will do to change that.... I don't know.....

FallenAngelII
3rd May 2011, 15:10
Finland scored 9th in the televote. That means that the european public liked finnish folk music. I think the song was more exciting then Portugal or Belarus. It was fresh and original, but like everything fresh and original it was left in the semi because of the juries :twisted:
This equals to the entry being a "masterpiece" how?

"Fresh" and "Original" =/= "Automatically good"

People need to get that through their heads. To boldly go where no Eurovision entry has gone before matters diddly if your entry is just bad/mediocre/meh.

nikolay_BG
5th May 2011, 00:59
^The song IS good and Europe liked it, but it was bumped BY the juries and insted of that fresh and original song we got the little rock from Bosnia and Herzegovin. OK, let`s say it like that. A western/north country was bumped annd one eastern country got on it`s place.

Last year Sweden got in the FYROM drama from 2008 when FYROM was bumped for a detention of a former winner (Perelli). Now Sweden got bumped for Niamh Kavanagh. I`m not gonna back up Sweden, because i don`t think it deserved final last year, but that was the will of the people. When this will isn`t heared. What`s the point of having a televote after all?

FallenAngelII
5th May 2011, 02:30
^The song IS good and Europe liked it, but it was bumped BY the juries and insted of that fresh and original song we got the little rock from Bosnia and Herzegovin.
You didn't answer the question.

You claimed that the Finnish entry was a masterpiece. When asked to substantiate the claim, you act as if you never claimed it in the first place and therefore try to prove that people liked the song, which is some else entirely.


OK, let`s say it like that. A western/north country was bumped annd one eastern country got on it`s place.

Last year Sweden got in the FYROM drama from 2008 when FYROM was bumped for a detention of a former winner (Perelli). Now Sweden got bumped for Niamh Kavanagh.
Why should any of that matter?


I`m not gonna back up Sweden, because i don`t think it deserved final last year, but that was the will of the people. When this will isn`t heared. What`s the point of having a televote after all?What is the point of the juries if the will of the people is final? Having 100% televoting wasn't working. Heck, almost every single country in the contest uses some kind of variation of a 50/50 televote/jury vote system for their national finals, why not for Eurovision as well? And thus the juries returned in order to balance out many things.

Why bring them back at all if the minute a song the people vote to the final doesn't make it due to the juries? We don't hear people whine when the juries do it in reverse, i.e. save entries that many people think deserved better than the televote in retrospect or demote entries that the televote "unfairly" favoured.

You liked the Finnish entry last year? Be my guest. I certainly didn't. I don't know of a single Western European critic who liked it. I'm shocked it garned enough televotes to pass based on televotes alone.

nikolay_BG
5th May 2011, 02:42
1.What is the point of the juries if the will of the people is final?
2.And thus the juries returned in order to balance out many things.
3.We don't hear people whine when the juries do it in reverse, i.e. save entries that many people think deserved better than the televote in retrospect or demote entries that the televote "unfairly" favoured.
1. Because people spend money to vote and that is one of the main financial resourses of ESC.

2. I don`t see how they balance the diaspora and block voting since some countries continue to vote for each other (Belarus-Russia, Greece-Cyprus, Azerbaijan-Turkey, Serbia - B&H). I think the jury is actually making this tendency worse. For example, the bulgarian televoters gave 5 points to Greece in 2009, but the jury gave 12, so they get 12 points. Do you think Sakis Rouvas`s performance that year deserved 12 points? That`s why I say that the juries actually encourage the diaspora and block voting.

3. You didn`t heared, because the only "saved" entry was the swedish entry from 2008.

And yes, I liked Finland last year and I think it had to qualufy for the finals like many europeans. The problem for them was that the critics were too snobby to give something new and original a chance.

FallenAngelII
5th May 2011, 03:09
You claimed that the Finnish entry was a masterpiece. When asked to substantiate that claim, you act as if you never claimed it in the first place and therefore try to prove that people liked the song, which is some else entirely.

You think that if you pretend like you never said it long enough, I'm just going to forget? Admit you were wrong or misspoke or try to substantiate the claim.


1. Because people spend money to vote and that is one of the main financial resourses of ESC.
So because people spend money to vote, only their opinion matters? So you think there should be no juries in the contest? That 100% televoting works better than 50/50?

Also, you're wrong. Televoting is not the main moneymaker for the EBU in regards to Eurovision.


2. I don`t see how they balance the diaspora and block voting since some countries continue to vote for each other (Belarus-Russia, Greece-Cyprus, Azerbaijan-Turkey, Serbia - B&H). I think the jury is actually making this tendency worse. For example, the bulgarian televoters gave 5 points to Greece in 2009, but the jury gave 12, so they get 12 points. Do you think Sakis Rouvas`s performance that year deserved 12 points?
Short of simply penalizing every single country based on diaspora and block voting voting (i.e., in order for a Greek 12 pointer to go to Cyprus, it needs to have at last 5 times as many percentiles of the votes as that of a Greek 12 pointer going to, say, Sweden), the juries are the best way of counteacting diaspora and block voting.

As a whole, the juries counteract diaspora and block voting. A single jury not doing their job des not mean the system itself is failure. And maybe that one jury just liked Sakis Rouvas' entry more than all others in 2009. Heck, why is it even an issue of diaspora/neighbour voting? Bulgaria is hardly known for giving Greece high marks based on either of those things

This was simply an instance of a single jury making a pretty impopular choice.


That`s why I say that the juries actually encourage the diaspora and block voting.
And you're wrong.


And yes, I liked Finland last year and I think it had to qualufy for the finals like many europeans. The problem for them was that the critics were too snobby to give something new and original a chance.
"New and original" =/= "Good"
"People think it's good enough for 8th in the weaker semi-final" =/= "Good"

Also, how the flying fig was Finland's entry last year "new and original"?! We'd seen and heard it all before! Just never from Finland or in Finnish. Etno in the mother tongue featuring unconventional instruments? Been there, done that. I guess if someone were to rip off the basics of Helena Paparizou's "My Number One" and sing it in Bulgarian, that'd be "new and original", right?

"New and original" my tuchas. People act like we've never seen something like "Työlki ellää" in Eurovisiion before. Ohm really? In 2006, Christine Guldbransen entered Eurovision for Norway singing "Alvedansen" with instances of Norwegian etno, in Norwegian and with a melody featuring traditional Norwegian instruments (on stage).

If we go back further, we'll find many entries with the same concepts. In fact, we'll find entries that kind of sound like "Työlki ellää"!

nikolay_BG
5th May 2011, 03:20
^This song IS good!
When the turkish or azerbaijani jury decide not to give each other points, call me. Till then, for me the juries are not usefull method for preventing the block vote.
And BTW, in Bulgaria we have a saying "The man who has money, orders the music" ;)

FallenAngelII
5th May 2011, 03:36
^This song IS good!
You claimed that the Finnish entry was a masterpiece. When asked to substantiate that claim, you act as if you never claimed it in the first place and therefore try to prove that people liked the song, which is some else entirely.

I love it how you refuse to address a single one of the issues I raised in my last post. It's like you're admitting you can't possibly refute my points, yet you're too proud to admit I'm right and choose to pretend like if you ignore my points long enough, people will just forget about it.

I look forward to seeing you claim Finland was robbed and that it's "new and original" in at least three threads tomorrow.


When the turkish or azerbaijani jury decide not to give each other points, call me.
It will happen when Turkey and/or Azerbaijan send in pure crap. And they haven't (yet). In fact, Turkey has had a string of really good entries in the past several years, only truncuated by Hadise's lacking vocals, but the juries are instructed to disregard lacking singing ability in favour of song quality.


Till then, for me the juries are not usefull method for preventing the block vote.
There's no surefire way of preventing all block voting for taking place. The juries are doing a pretty good job at lessening its effect if you take a look at the overall jury points and the final results.

nikolay_BG
5th May 2011, 03:59
There's no surefire way of preventing all block voting for taking place. The juries are doing a pretty good job at lessening its effect if you take a look at the overall jury points and the final results.

Really? I wanna see what`s their job in preventing the block voting.

FallenAngelII
5th May 2011, 10:01
Really? I wanna see what`s their job in preventing the block voting.
If you can't, then you're beyond reason.

Nice job not defending your arguments and even trying to coutner my arguments proving you wrong.

nikolay_BG
5th May 2011, 12:21
And your point is...? :lol:

dogmeat
5th May 2011, 12:48
You claimed that the Finnish entry was a masterpiece. When asked to substantiate that claim, you act as if you never claimed it in the first place and therefore try to prove that people liked the song, which is some else entirely.
Could you please stop shouting? I could hear you 3 threads away from here. We all already know you dislike Finland2010, no need to repeat yourself. Nikolay loved it, the discussion ought to end here. You act like if there was some universal measurer of quality when opposing "liked by the people" and "good". Sorry to disappoint you, but the jury consists of people, not gods, and they all have nothing more on their disposal than their own subjective opinions. Discussions what did/did not deserve to qualify are held in corresponding topic where it's clear people just speak out their opinions. Opinions about certain songs cannot make any matter in a rules discussion.

FallenAngelII
5th May 2011, 13:16
Could you please stop shouting? I could hear you 3 threads away from here. We all already know you dislike Finland2010, no need to repeat yourself. Nikolay loved it, the discussion ought to end here. You act like if there was some universal measurer of quality when opposing "liked by the people" and "good".
Uh... no...

Taste is subjective. I have never denigrated someone for their taste in music (at least not on these boards). However, nikolay_BG made a claim that is quantifiable. He claimed that Finland's 2010 entry was a "masterpiece", which one can quantify, in a way, by pointing out how it's technically flawless.

When asked calmly to defend his claim, he refused. Then he refused to do it again and again when prompted time and again.


Sorry to disappoint you, but the jury consists of people, not gods, and they all have nothing more on their disposal than their own subjective opinions.
When did I claim otherwise?

Generally speaking, however, the juries have guidelines. They are to rate songs before singing ability and stage show. They are to listen to each entry several times to measure how well they "grow" on you, so that an entry that doesn't necessarily reach one after only one listening can still stand a chance. They also exist to lessen the existence of block and diaspora voting. They are also to measure songs on their ability to do well commercially and not just in Eurovision. Generally speaking, they're largely successful in doing all of these things, even if they aren't perfect and at times slip up.

But I'd rather have them than not have them. I personally think that the results have been fairer these past two years than the years preceeding them.


Discussions what did/did not deserve to qualify are held in corresponding topic where it's clear people just speak out their opinions.
I have actually never made the argument that Finland's 2010 entry didn't deserve to make the final. I've merely questioned the claim that they so clearly deserved to make it and that it's a masterpiece and that the juries are snobs for snubbing it.

nikolay_BG
5th May 2011, 14:10
Uh... no...

Taste is subjective. I have never denigrated someone for their taste in music (at least not on these boards). However, nikolay_BG made a claim that is quantifiable. He claimed that Finland's 2010 entry was a "masterpiece", which one can quantify, in a way, by pointing out how it's technically flawless.

When asked calmly to defend his claim, he refused. Then he refused to do it again and again when prompted time and again.

But it is a masteriece! This song shows what ESC is all about. European music in native languages. Kuunkuiskaajat were perfect on the stage and I think they represented their country in the best way. In the televote they scored 6th. Not 8th, but 6th. 6th is a big position and it was a crime to get it from them, I think.

As for Alvedansen. That`s totally different song and I, personally, don`t think it`s good as Finland 2010.

AlekS
5th May 2011, 14:11
Could you please stop shouting? I could hear you 3 threads away from here. We all already know you dislike Finland2010, no need to repeat yourself. Nikolay loved it, the discussion ought to end here. You act like if there was some universal measurer of quality when opposing "liked by the people" and "good". Sorry to disappoint you, but the jury consists of people, not gods, and they all have nothing more on their disposal than their own subjective opinions. Discussions what did/did not deserve to qualify are held in corresponding topic where it's clear people just speak out their opinions. Opinions about certain songs cannot make any matter in a rules discussion.

Weird that you said this to him instead of saying this to NikolayBG who actually compared/discussed Finland and Sweden.
All of us have subjective opinions, no need in saying that some of them mean nothing in certain threads.
These opinions are certainly not less valuable than yours.

FallenAngelII
8th May 2011, 17:28
But it is a masteriece! This song shows what ESC is all about. European music in native languages.
So you finally choose to defend your previous statement. This should be rich.

That's it? That's your definition of an Eurvision masterpiece? Folksy music in its native language no matter what else?


Kuunkuiskaajat were perfect on the stage
Subjectivbe.


In the televote they scored 6th. Not 8th, but 6th. 6th is a big position and it was a crime to get it from them, I think.
Tom Dice scored 14th in the televote in the final. That's 9 places lower than he got when the overall score was compiled. Are you saying the televoters were giant douchebags when it came to that instance and that it was a huge crime for the televoters to rob him of a deserved Top 3 finish (the juries placed him as 2nd, only 3 points behind Lena)?

So what if Finland got 6th? It's a folsky tune, so it appealed to those who like folk-music after only one listening. The juries are instructed to look at many things, how folsky an entry is is not one of them.

If someone were to loop Finland's semi-final 10 times, Finland might not have scored as high (seeing as how folk music has an easy time staying memorable to listeners after only one listening). The juries are instructed to take that into consideration.


As for Alvedansen. That`s totally different song and I, personally, don`t think it`s good as Finland 2010.
Translation: "It's only a travesty if I personally like the song that was 'wronged'!"

Also, what happened to "But it is a masteriece! This song shows what ESC is all about. European music in native languages."?!

By your own standads, Alvadansen was a Eurvision masterpiece, yet it didn't automatically deseve to do well because, uh, you didn't personally like it?

nikolay_BG
9th May 2011, 10:04
^When did I said that Alvedansen is a masterpiece? Alvedansen is boring. From stylized norwegian folk songs i like "Vardlock", but I actually never liked Alvedansen.
Alvedansen is just a "not so good voice" coming from a pretty blond who just sings "aaaaaaaaa" and that`s it.
That`s not the case with Kuunkuiskaajat. They actually made a show. And a good and more spectacular show then (let`s say) Tom Dice`s one ;)

Why should I explain why I like a song? I am not a finnish person, have nothing to do with Finland and finnish people. Don`t even live in the same area.
I think that speaks alot in general.

When an eastern european likes (let`s say) a russian song you, westerners and nordics shout "block voting" or "diaspora voting" or some other cяар, but when an eastern european likes (let`s say) a scandinavian song, we get reactions like this.

Guess, probably, we have to stick to the blockvoting.
At least we`ll know why are we cursed then.

And anyways, why should I explain why I like the song when that`s a feeling and feelings can`t be explained...

I just like it and I don`t like the usual ericsaadepopularromaniancomercialshiZZ music

I think the song was original and good and well performed and it was a big injustice from the juries to cut it off like that.
Is it so hard to accept a different oppinion then yours?

FallenAngelII
9th May 2011, 10:10
^When did I said that Alvedansen is a masterpiece?
This is your own definition of a Eurovision masterpiece:
"But it is a masteriece! This song shows what ESC is all about. European music in native languages."

It took you a week to finally answer "What make Finland 2010 a masterpiece?" and that was the definition you gave. By the same definition, "Alvedansen" was also a masterpiece.


Alvedansen is just a "not so good voice" coming from a pretty blond who just sings "aaaaaaaaa" and that`s it.
Uh... what? She's a ten times better vocalist than the Finnish sisters of last year.


That`s not the case with Kuunkuiskaajat. They actually made a show.
Whut? Dancing around a little?


Why should I explain why I like a song? I am not a finnish person, have nothing to do with Finland and finnish people. Don`t even live in the same area.
I think that speaks alot in general.
I never asked you to explain why you like it?


I just like it and I don`t like the usual ericsaadepopularromaniancomercialshiZZ music
You do realize that I hate Eric Saade and "Popular" with the passion of a thousand suns, right?


I think the song was original and good[/quote9]
I've asked you several times now to tell me exactly what so original about it.

[QUOTE=nikolay_BG;536538]Is it so hard to accept a different oppinion then yours
Except you've stated things as fact many times, not just as opinion. Also, some opinions are just plain wrong.

nikolay_BG
9th May 2011, 10:23
This is your own definition of a Eurovision masterpiece:
"But it is a masteriece! This song shows what ESC is all about. European music in native languages."
It took you a week to finally answer "What make Finland 2010 a masterpiece?" and that was the definition you gave. By the same definition, "Alvedansen" was also a masterpiece.
Uh... what? She's a ten times better vocalist than the Finnish sisters of last year.
Whut? Dancing around a little?
I never asked you to explain why you like it?
You do realize that I hate Eric Saade and "Popular" with the passion of a thousand suns, right?
I've asked you several times now to tell me exactly what so original about it.

I don`t know why i wrote that the norwegian girl is a weak singer. It is a writing mistake ;)
They made a show. AT least for me. I didn`t saw a woman who is dancing with an accordeon in the ESC stage before. :o
And I liked the finnish acrobatics and their clothes and everything they did on the stage.
They didn`t need braking glasses to make a show, they just had to sing ;)
I don`t know how much you hate Eric Saade, but trust me, I hate him more :twisted:

It is original for the reasons that I said. I am not a finn, don`t have connections with Finland, I live in the Balkans, far, far away from Finland.
Maybe it doesn`t sound original to you, because you are a swede, closer to Finland then me and you have the chance to hear finnish folk more often then me.
To me it was original. To me it was something new. To me it was something fresh.

Like "Water" was something new and original to Europe. Do you think that it was something original for me, because i hear songs like "Water" like...every day.

sannerz
9th May 2011, 12:13
You two are arguing everywhere. /:

FallenAngelII
9th May 2011, 12:24
[Me me me me me]
So it all comes down to this. You think this, you think that. You cannot quantify why the Finnish entry of 2010 was so original for Eurovision (it wasn't, we've seen similar entries before) and why it's a masterpiece beside "I liked it!".

Also, you're still a hypocrite and you're playing the "I'll ignore it" game again. By your own definition, "Alvedansen" was a masterpiece.

nikolay_BG
9th May 2011, 14:09
^But "Alvedansen" wasn`t voted from the people on 6th place while "Tyolki Ella" was. See the difference?
I told you why I think the song is a masterpiece, but the answer isn`t comfortable to you and you keep repeating the same things like a broken gramophone.


And I never said that songs frome type are masterpieces. It depends on many things - like lyrics, melody, performance. And face it, the performance of "Tyolki Ella" was better then "Alvedansen". And why are we arguing about "Alvedansen" on first place?

I think "Tyolki Ella" and "Alvedansen" are too different songs to be compared.

But let`s get back to the topic about the juries (because after all, the topic is about the juries)

I think the cutting off "Tyolki Ella" from the final is showing enough how big damage the juries are already doing to ESC => they should be gone.

HeadsWillRoll
9th May 2011, 14:45
I'm very conflicted when it comes to juries. They're very unpredictable. For example, in 2009 they voted for Turkey but not for Ukraine and those two entries were pretty much on the same level. Even worse, Albania was 23rd (second to last) with juries, whereas I just found this comment from one of the AKOE bloggers regarding Albania's rehearsal for the Final in which the judges voted.

"Albania is so good, its simply brilliant. Fantastic setting, wonderfully powerful vocals,
no props just fancy dancing and costumes. Great dance beat with an eastern flair.
This could seriously win you know. I can see this giving Albania their best ever result.
Predict 1-6th. Reaction from the hall is immense."

FallenAngelII
9th May 2011, 22:11
^But "Alvedansen" wasn`t voted from the people on 6th place while "Tyolki Ella" was. See the difference?
Except that's not one of the criteria you gave for a song being a masterpiece.

Also, so you're saying, if a song is voted 6th or higher in the televote, it's a masterpiece?


I told you why I think the song is a masterpiece
Except you need to qualify that statement. Why is it a masterpiece? You gave some very vague reasons that don't really tell us why this one particular song was a masterpiece, because you can't really come up with good reasons why it's a masterpiece besides "Well, I think so!".


And I never said that songs frome type are masterpieces.
Except you totally did!
'

It depends on many things - like lyrics, melody, performance.
Except you didn't say any of that! When I asked you what make "Tyolki Ella" a masterpiece, you gave two simple reasons: Eurropean music sung in its native language.


I think the cutting off "Tyolki Ella" from the final is showing enough how big damage the juries are already doing to ESC => they should be gone.
So because the jury cut off one song that you liked and that the televoters liked, they should be abolished, despite the bajillion good things they're doing (no matter how many lies you throw around about how they totally make block voting worse)?

How totally objective and altruistic of you. It's all fun and games until your favourite entry gets dissed.

FallenAngelII
9th May 2011, 22:25
I'm very conflicted when it comes to juries. They're very unpredictable.
As opposed to the televoters?


For example, in 2009 they voted for Turkey but not for Ukraine and those two entries were pretty much on the same level. Even worse, Albania was 23rd (second to last) with juries, whereas I just found this comment from one of the AKOE bloggers regarding Albania's rehearsal for the Final in which the judges voted.
Turkey and Ukraine weren't the same at all. Turkey had better-sounding vocals when Hadise's voice was audible (Svetlana's were hoarse), but Svetlana was generally more in-tune and didn't have to be carried through the last choruses by her male backing singers.

Hadise had a relatively simple stage show consisting of traditional dancing while Svetlana utilized a "Hell Machine" and male stripper gladiators.

The songs were completely different; Hadise's a "traditional" etno-pop belly dance number from Turkey while Svetlana's was some kind of brass-powered quasi-ska punk thingie tha's possibly rooted in Ukrainian etno (I wouldn't know).

And, yes, if you listen to the CD versions, "Düm Tek Tek" is much more commercially viable than "Be My Valentine! (Anti-Crisis Girl)" (one of the voting criteria for the juries).

These are the peak singles chart positions of the two songs:
"Be My Valentine! (Anti-Crisis Girl)":
Greek: 9th
Swedish: 46
Ukranian (Airplay only): 1
UK: 167

"Düm Tek Tek":
Belgian Flanders: 1
Belgian Wallonia: 24
Dutch: 99
Eurochart Hot 100: 64
Finnish Singles: 29
German: 70
Japan Hot 100: 21
Japan Top Airplay: 16
Japan Adult Contemporary Airplay: 27
Swedish: 12
Swiss: 73
UK: 127

In every single chart except the Greek Singles one, Hadise came out victorious leagues and miles ahead of Svetlana.
So they're bad becvause they didn't agree with some random AKOE blogger?


"Albania is so good, its simply brilliant. Fantastic setting, wonderfully powerful vocals,
no props just fancy dancing and costumes. Great dance beat with an eastern flair.
This could seriously win you know. I can see this giving Albania their best ever result.
Predict 1-6th. Reaction from the hall is immense."
Who cares?

One single AKOE blogger's opinion does not a consensus make. And you make it sound like had the juries not existed, Albania would've won or come close to winning. Abania was 11th in the televote. 11th vs. 18th is onl a 7-step difference. And, really, while her performance was entertaining, it was far from perfect.

HeadsWillRoll
10th May 2011, 00:11
As opposed to the televoters?


Turkey and Ukraine weren't the same at all. Turkey had better-sounding vocals when Hadise's voice was audible (Svetlana's were hoarse), but Svetlana was generally more in-tune and didn't have to be carried through the last choruses by her male backing singers.

Hadise had a relatively simple stage show consisting of traditional dancing while Svetlana utilized a "Hell Machine" and male stripper gladiators.

The songs were completely different; Hadise's a "traditional" etno-pop belly dance number from Turkey while Svetlana's was some kind of brass-powered quasi-ska punk thingie tha's possibly rooted in Ukrainian etno (I wouldn't know).

And, yes, if you listen to the CD versions, "Düm Tek Tek" is much more commercially viable than "Be My Valentine! (Anti-Crisis Girl)" (one of the voting criteria for the juries).

These are the peak singles chart positions of the two songs:
"Be My Valentine! (Anti-Crisis Girl)":
Greek: 9th
Swedish: 46
Ukranian (Airplay only): 1
UK: 167

"Düm Tek Tek":
Belgian Flanders: 1
Belgian Wallonia: 24
Dutch: 99
Eurochart Hot 100: 64
Finnish Singles: 29
German: 70
Japan Hot 100: 21
Japan Top Airplay: 16
Japan Adult Contemporary Airplay: 27
Swedish: 12
Swiss: 73
UK: 127

In every single chart except the Greek Singles one, Hadise came out victorious leagues and miles ahead of Svetlana.
So they're bad becvause they didn't agree with some random AKOE blogger?


Who cares?

One single AKOE blogger's opinion does not a consensus make. And you make it sound like had the juries not existed, Albania would've won or come close to winning. Abania was 11th in the televote. 11th vs. 18th is onl a 7-step difference. And, really, while her performance was entertaining, it was far from perfect.

First of all, those charts data are not significant enough to validate your argument. Not to mention that there are more Turks in Western Europe than Ukrainians. But even if it were a better song (which is completely not the case), it was very poorly performed.

As for Albania. It's not 11 with 18. It's 11 with 23. That's quite the difference. And it wasn't just one AKOE blogger who said that. I did more research and found five bloggers predicting it to be on the Top 5. I didn't like our entry in 2009, but I have to admit both the song and the performance were way better than many songs that placed better due to a generous jury. Moreover, it wasn't a joke entry or something asking to "not" be voted by juries like France last year. In fact, it was better sung than most songs in the final and the performance was charming (save the green man).

Albania has no friends in voting except for Macedonia. So that placement (11th in televotes) was a respectable one. Plus, the bloggers were referring to the 2nd DRESS REHEARSAL in which the judges voted. And there, she seemed to be flawless whereas in the Final, she was indeed shaky in some place and nervous due to pressure.

We cannot argue on taste obviously, but I would like juries not to damage decent songs by helping more "popular" ones like Dum Tek Tek.

And if this weren't enough, I CAN NOT believe, Ukraine was 10th on jury voting in the semifinal last year. Simply can not grasp it.

FallenAngelII
10th May 2011, 00:52
First of all, those charts data are not significant enough to validate your argument. Not to mention that there are more Turks in Western Europe than Ukrainians.
"Düm Tek Tek" charted in Japan. "Düm Tek Tek" charted in more than twice as many countries as "Be My Valentine (Anti-Crisis Girl)".


But even if it were a better song (which is completely not the case), it was very poorly performed.
1) Subjective conjecture.
2) What part of "The juries are instructed to put song quality before vocal performance" was too Flemish for you?


As for Albania. It's not 11 with 18. It's 11 with 23. That's quite the difference.
I misread the voting chart. I apologize.


And it wasn't just one AKOE blogger who said that. I did more research and found five bloggers predicting it to be on the Top 5.
Wow. Six bloggers predicted it would do well.


I didn't like our entry in 2009, but I have to admit both the song and the performance were way better than many songs that placed better due to a generous jury.
And I completely disagree. You know what Kejsi Stola lacked? Charisma and self-confidence. She did an admirable job and the song was pretty OK, but her performance lacked passion, self-confidence and charisma. She didn't really reach into the hearts of her audience. The juries are instructed to not place too much weight on vocal ability, but they are too watch for other things, such as how well a live entertainer the entrants are.

In fact, this was one of the things many critics (professional to semi-professional) had criticized Kejsi Stola for prior to the final: Her inexperience showing through in her lack of stage presence.


Moreover, it wasn't a joke entry or something asking to "not" be voted by juries like France last year.
Uh... the juries hated France 2010. They were 22nd with the juries. Unless this was your point. The juries disliked Albania 2009 and France 2010 for entirely different reasons, all of which are understandable. You have to understand thaat the juries are instructed to look at many things put together, at the "package", not at singular things. Being good at one particular thing won't necessarily endear you with the juries because that's not their job. This is why it's rarely the best vocalist that wins the jury vote (though Tom Dice came close last year) because that's not how the juries are instructed to vote.


In fact, it was better sung than most songs in the final and the performance was charming (save the green man).
But it wasn't very professional. Not due to lack of trying or lack of potential but because of lack of experience (I believe she was only 17 at the time and this was her first performance in front of a larger audience).


Plus, the bloggers were referring to the 2nd DRESS REHEARSAL in which the judges voted. And there, she seemed to be flawless whereas in the Final, she was indeed shaky in some place and nervous due to pressure.
How do you even know this? Do you have an HD feed of the 2nd dress rehearsal?


We cannot argue on taste obviously, but I would like juries not to damage decent songs by helping more "popular" ones like Dum Tek Tek.
"Carry Me In Your Dream" is a strange song. It's quite monotonous and the verses are quite bland. The bridges are strangely low (so low, in fact, that Kejsi had a hard time reaching those notes).

"Düm Tek Tek" is a song that was destined to do well on the dance floors. Turkish disaspora or no Turkish disapora, etno pop songs with a Turkish beat and instruments (often from Turkey) have ben the rage in Europe for close to two decades now. The fact that the song charted even in Japan (in the airplay charts) means that the song has such a wide appeall even people from other continents enjoy it.


And if this weren't enough, I CAN NOT believe, Ukraine was 10th on jury voting in the semifinal last year. Simply can not grasp it.
I can. The song itself is actually quite interesting. And so was the performance. It wasn't one of my own personal favourites, but I can see why it would appeal to the juries.

You seem to think that if the juries disagree with your personal tastes, they clearly aren't doing their jobs. I can see past my personal tastes and understand the things that would make songs that I don't find personally appealing appeal to the juries, who are instructed to vote in specific ways.

HeadsWillRoll
10th May 2011, 01:33
"Düm Tek Tek" charted in Japan. "Düm Tek Tek" charted in more than twice as many countries as "Be My Valentine (Anti-Crisis Girl)".

Be My Valentine wasn't even released in Japan. Plus, we're talking about live performances on the night. Scooch charted higher than FAIRYTALE and all other recent British acts. Does not say anything about the song quality which you and the juries are "instructed" to consider.



1) Subjective conjecture.
2) What part of "The juries are instructed to put song quality before vocal performance" was too Flemish for you?

If so, then it stands for your judgment as well. Hence, you're contradicting yourself with those very two words.


I misread the voting chart. I apologize.

Apology accepted.



Wow. Six bloggers predicted it would do well.

Six bloggers with significant Eurovision experience (very likely more than 99 % of the juries) who have to learned to judge songs based on whatever standard they're judged at Eurovision. If six people say something is "brilliant" then the judgment of the (song quality/vocal performance/stage presentation combined) could fluctuate to being "good" or even "average" but not to freakin' 23rd.



And I completely disagree. You know what Kejsi Stola lacked? Charisma and self-confidence. She did an admirable job and the song was pretty OK, but her performance lacked passion, self-confidence and charisma. She didn't really reach into the hearts of her audience. The juries are instructed to not place too much weight on vocal ability, but they are too watch for other things, such as how well a live entertainer the entrants are.

SUBJECTIVE CONJECTURE


In fact, this was one of the things many critics (professional to semi-professional) had criticized Kejsi Stola for prior to the final: Her inexperience showing through in her lack of stage presence.

Very interesting that (anonymous) professional and semi-professional critics devoted time to analyze a performance that placed 17th.



Uh... the juries hated France 2010. They were 22nd with the juries. Unless this was your point. The juries disliked Albania 2009 and France 2010 for entirely different reasons, all of which are understandable. You have to understand thaat the juries are instructed to look at many things put together, at the "package", not at singular things. Being good at one particular thing won't necessarily endear you with the juries because that's not their job. This is why it's rarely the best vocalist that wins the jury vote (though Tom Dice came close last year) because that's not how the juries are instructed to vote.

MY POINT. Albania was a more "serious" entry (although I prefer France 2010 to it) and perceived as more serious. Okay, so "it's a package" now? Not "song quality". Decide on one version please.



But it wasn't very professional. Not due to lack of trying or lack of potential but because of lack of experience (I believe she was only 17 at the time and this was her first performance in front of a larger audience).

Please define how someone's vocals could be almost flawless but not be professional? How was Hadise professional when you could here her breath throughout the performance and she wasn't even a good dancer?



How do you even know this? Do you have an HD feed of the 2nd dress rehearsal?

I'm referring to their comments which came from watching the 2nd Dress Rehearsal on the Press Arena.



"Carry Me In Your Dream" is a strange song. It's quite monotonous and the verses are quite bland. The bridges are strangely low (so low, in fact, that Kejsi had a hard time reaching those notes).

SUBJECTIVE CONJECTURE.


"Düm Tek Tek" is a song that was destined to do well on the dance floors. Turkish disaspora or no Turkish disapora, etno pop songs with a Turkish beat and instruments (often from Turkey) have ben the rage in Europe for close to two decades now. The fact that the song charted even in Japan (in the airplay charts) means that the song has such a wide appeall even people from other continents enjoy it.

And the songs' studio version appeal makes it enough for juries to bump it up so high that it ends up finishing ahead of entries like ESTONIA, United Kingdom and Bosnia on the final scoreboard?



I can. The song itself is actually quite interesting. And so was the performance. It wasn't one of my own personal favourites, but I can see why it would appeal to the juries.

Once again, you've misunderstood me. For me, Ukraine should've been 1st on the jury scoreboard in the semifinal. Instead the juries placed nine other songs before. All less stellar performance in terms of vocals and stage presence. And please don't use "song quality" here too as most of those songs were nothing better than "Sweet People" by any standards.


You seem to think that if the juries disagree with your personal tastes, they clearly aren't doing their jobs. I can see past my personal tastes and understand the things that would make songs that I don't find personally appealing appeal to the juries, who are instructed to vote in specific ways.

I think that the juries should serve as a logical/traditional mechanism which distinguishes legitimate, live performances and rewards them while allowing the public to vote for entries like "Pirates of the Sea" or "Dum tek tek", the type they've always voted for.

FallenAngelII
10th May 2011, 02:07
Be My Valentine wasn't even released in Japan.
Neither was "Düm Tek Tek". Düm Tek Tek charted on the airplay charts, which are charts monitoring how often songs are played on the radio. The Japanese just liked the song so much they decided to play it on the radio... a lot.


Plus, we're talking about live performances on the night.
But that's not what the juries are instructed to judge. They are to judge the 2nd dress rehearsal. Also, how many times must I point out that the juries are instructed to not put vocal prowess before song quality?


Scooch charted higher than FAIRYTALE and all other recent British acts.
In the U.K.. When speaking of how well a Eurovision entry charts, I generally mean internationally, not in the country of origin.


If so, then it stands for your judgment as well. Hence, you're contradicting yourself with those very two words.
Except I back my statements up with things other than my own personal opinion.


Six bloggers with significant Eurovision experience (very likely more than 99 % of the juries) who have to learned to judge songs based on whatever standard they're judged at Eurovision.
Except those standards no longer apply.

"Eurovision good" is no longer the standard by which one is to judge songs, at least not if one is in the professional juries. Also, those six bloggers were wrong. Albania wan't even Top 6 in the televote.

And what musical education do those bloggers have? Do any of them have any background in the professional music industry? Or is their claim to fame having blogged about Eurovision for many years and bein able to predict Eurovision results nominally well (despite being wrong in this one instance)?


If six people say something is "brilliant" then the judgment of the (song quality/vocal performance/stage presentation combined) could fluctuate to being "good" or even "average" but not to freakin' 23rd.
Six people calling something brilliant does not mean it's good or even average. You're confusing cause with effect.


SUBJECTIVE CONJECTURE
Except every single professional music industry professional and entertainment journalist who specializes in Eurovision agrees with me.

It's not just my own personal opinion. It's consensus among anyone with a musical background or a background in performing in front of an audience.

Of what significance are the opinions of 6 bloggers who don't even make any money on their musical blogging? Besides, who are these 6 bloggers, anyway? Care to link to their blog entries?


Very interesting that (anonymous) professional and semi-professional critics devoted time to analyze a performance that placed 17th.
Funny that you'd call them "anonymous" when you have yet to name your own sources. And of course they'd analyze the performance. It's their job (for which they are paid) to analyze every entry in the Eurovision Song Contest each year.


MY POINT. Albania was a more "serious" entry (although I prefer France 2010 to it) and perceived as more serious.
Why should that matter? You can be a "serious" entry without actually being good.


Okay, so "it's a package" now? Not "song quality". Decide on one version please.
I never said that the juries are instructed to look only at song quality. Song quality is a pretty big deal for the juries, though.


Please define how someone's vocals could be almost flawless but not be professional?
You call Kejsi Stola's vocals almost flawless? Also, your vocals can be technically good without being professionally good. Listen to Kejsi Stola's live performance without the video feed. It's pretty flat and inflection-less, not necessarily due to her own limitation but also potentially due to how the song was written. It's quite monotonous.


How was Hadise professional when you could here her breath throughout the performance and she wasn't even a good dancer?
At least she had charisma. She looked into the cameras at the right time and connected with the audience. Also, her song was harder to sing than Kejsi's (except for high notes, but that's another issue).

And what did Kejsi do when it came to choreogaphy? Dip and sway a bit.


I'm referring to their comments which came from watching the 2nd Dress Rehearsal on the Press Arena.
So... unconfirmed secondary conjecture. And these bloggers actually went back and said that Kejsi was better during the 2nd dress rehearsal than live? Or do you just assume they think so because they praised Kejsi's 2nd dress rehearsal performance?


SUBJECTIVE CONJECTURE.
Only the "strange" parts. The song is monotonous. The bridge is low (harmonically).


And the songs' studio version appeal makes it enough for juries to bump it up so high that it ends up finishing ahead of entries like ESTONIA, United Kingdom and Bosnia on the final scoreboard?
"Thunder and Lightning" was bland entry with mediocre vocals and an uninteresting stage show (in my opinion). I can see why the juries didn't really like it. What was so special about he CD version, anyway? It's not like it went on to do well outside of Eurovision, either.

Also, there's a huge flaw in your argument in that the juries rated Estonia and the United Kingdom higher than Turkey. In fact, they gave the United Kingdom almost twice as many points as they gave Turkey.

The job of the juries is not to penalize entries they think will get a lot of diaspora or block votes but to give entries a normalized score according to how they think their countries woul vote were it not for diaspora or block voting.

The only way or the juries to prevent Turkey from placing ahead of Estonia and the United Kingdom in 2009 would've been for them to subtract a bajillion points from "Düm Tek Tek" simply for being from Turkey.


Once again, you've misunderstood me. For me, Ukraine should've been 1st on the jury scoreboard in the semifinal.
Really? "Sweet People" ahead of "Me and My Guitar" and "Satellite"? Whatever. I guess the juries aren't doing their jobs because they don't agree with your every opinion.


I think that the juries should serve as a logical/traditional mechanism which distinguishes legitimate, live performances and rewards them while allowing the public to vote for entries like "Pirates of the Sea" or "Dum tek tek", the type they've always voted for.
Except they already are that with the special provision that voting forth good songs is more important than voting forth good vocalists (but being a good vocalist certainly helps).

HeadsWillRoll
10th May 2011, 02:41
Oh god, did you even read what I wrote? I don't want to keep discussing with you anymore. Just wanna point out some "little mistakes" you've made on your post to illustrate how attentive you are to a discussion.

1. Thunder and lightning was Bosnia's entry in 2010 in OSLO. Not in MOSCOW. Regina represented Bosnia in 2009. Get your facts straight.
2. The juries by giving a lot of points to Turkey directly impacted Estonia's and UK's placing. That's what I was implying. Unlike you, I check facts before writing them down. I know the juries alone awarded more points to Estonia and the UK. But they still affected their placement by giving bland Turkey lots of points.

DELETED BY AN ADMIN. Personal attacks are prohibited.

FallenAngelII
10th May 2011, 10:28
1. Thunder and lightning was Bosnia's entry in 2010 in OSLO. Not in MOSCOW. Regina represented Bosnia in 2009. Get your facts straight.
I apologize for not remembering every single Bosnian entry in recent history and what year they were part of. I personally think Bosnia's entry was better than Turkey's, but I can see why the juries would rank them lower.


2. The juries by giving a lot of points to Turkey directly impacted Estonia's and UK's placing. That's what I was implying.
And I said that the only way for the jury to not do that would've been for them to penalize Turkey by giving them zero to no points to "counter-act" the points of the televoters. The juries are to give each entry the points they "deserve" without any adherence to diaspora and block voting.

Unless they're gonna stat penalizing Turkey even when Turkey's got decent entries, the juries cannot prevent their points from combining with those of the televoters' and giving Turkey a higher position than those of the juries' favourites.

Last year, the juries favoured Tom Dice over maNga, yet manGa got 2nd while Tom Dice got 6th.


Unlike you, I check facts before writing them down. I know the juries alone awarded more points to Estonia and the UK. But they still affected their placement by giving bland Turkey lots of points.
And I explained how faulty that thinking is.


3. I was talking about "Sweet People" being first in the second SEMIFINAL
I misread. I apologize. I still stand by my statement. It's easy to understand why the Ukraine would be ranked lower than 1st.