PDA

View Full Version : ESC - what would you improve for the future?



Joyride
16th May 2011, 11:06
So tell me - what would YOUR perfect ESC be like?

How would you avaoid block voting, which countries should be taking part in your opinion, would your starting time differ, would your rules be different... and so on!

I thought about it for a while... maybe they should cancel the semi finals but do local aereas semis instead, pe-selections e.g. just like the do for the Soccer World Cup.

Scandinavians could do one on their own and the best two pass, Balkan countries do one on their own and the best two pass... and so on. There is no block voting in the semis and you have only two countries of "the same kind" in the final at the most.

AlekS
16th May 2011, 17:07
And why should so called "block voting" be avoided?

Germany and Italy proved that block voting doesn't really influence anything. Turkey & Armenia proved that it's useless in the semis.
It's already perfect as it is.


The best option is to send what appeals to the vast majority of countries. Like Lena, Rybak, Tom Dice or Gualazzi.

MyHeartIsYours
17th May 2011, 02:22
Id change quite few things :mrgreen:.

- Russia should become part of Big 6.
- A new voting system where the Televote provides the baseline for the result and then once the Juries have voted, the result is adjusted to make it fairer (by abolishing or limiting bloc + diaspora voting) and ensure that only songs which are popular with both the Jury's and Televotes can succeed. Votes from Televotes from countries to countries which are a regular occurrence eg United Kingdom and Greece, Belarus and Russia, Denmark and Iceland and Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, would have their results adjusted downwards to take account of this, enabling popular songs of both the Televoters and Juries to get high points and redistributing high points out to countries which were popular but stunted by bloc voting.
- The addition of 9 and 11 points.
- Big 6 + host allowed to choose their positions in the GrandFinal and SemiFinal participants allowed to chose their positions in the SemiFinals.
- 10 people allowed on stage instead of 6.
- Up-to 4 minute performances instead of 3 minutes.
- Instruments allowed to be played live on stage.
- All entries must have the opportunity for pyro's and special effects (atm I think it's only a certain number but I could be wrong).
- Photographs should be allowed to be taken inside the Arena.
- Allow a certain amount of backing track (but not pre-recorded main vocals obviously ;)).
- Immediately after the points given by each country, the Televote and Jury ranking must appear.
- All of Big 6 + participants of opposite SemiFinal allowed to vote in one SemiFinal, then swap over for the other.
- Extend the show by 1 hour (in recent years parts of it appear to be rushed, especially the SemiFinals).
- Eurovision to take place in August or December - a bit different I know but I think it'd be better suited for August because a lot of people are on holiday = more viewers and for December because the cold nights mean more people are inside = more viewers.
- Work towards the setting up of Worldvision to compliment Eurovision but not replace it.

So there are my ideas :D.

94ayd
17th May 2011, 04:12
Bring back the orchestra and the language rule. ;)

r3gg13
17th May 2011, 05:30
I'm on the orchestra bandwagon, me want me want me likey! There should be a limit on how many times countries can use English (if it's not their official language) each decade, let's say 3 times per 10 years. Let's have more songs in countries' official languages :). I think that's a fair compromise.

@Adam: wouldn't it be nice if we could have it NOT DURING EXAM SEASON. I so so so so so agree with either August or December, more revenue and more viewers for sure. Not only are they home, they also are not too busy during those months, so they have actual leisure time or detente or whatever. In conclusion, more time to watch the ESC, Reggie's gonna be happy if this ever came true :lol:

Rose
17th May 2011, 06:01
I'm sick of English, english, english . . . . I'm on board wih the language rule. The orchestra is great too for those countries who would want to use it.

lucian-crusher
17th May 2011, 11:13
I always had thi idea! To make the Eurovision a 8 nights show containing 1 opening show, 6 Semifinals and one Final:

I. Opening show: Host country, ::de, ::it, ::es, ::fr, ::uk (They will all sing their song in the Opening night, no voting, no nothing)

II. Semifinal 1: ::ch, ::at, ::pl, ::cz, ::sk, ::hu, ::ro, ::md and ::li (only participating countries + ::de and the host country vote; the Top 4 qualifies)

III. Semifinal 2: ::pt, ::gr, ::bg, ::al, ::ad, ::mt, ::mc, ::sm, ::tr, ::cy and ::il (only participating countries + ::it, ::es and the host country vote; the Top 4 qulifies)

IV. Semifinal 3: ::mk, ::ba, ::rs, ::me, ::hr and ::sl (only participating countries + the host country vote; the Top 3 qualifies)

V. Semifinal 4: ::am, ::az, ::ge, ::by, ::ua, ::ru and ::kz (only participating countries + the host country vote; the Top 4 qulifies)

VI. Semifinal 5: ::be, ::nl, ::ie and ::lu (only participating countries + ::fr, ::uk and the host country vote; the winner qualifies) - if there is any other Semifinal we can add this 4 countries and eliminate this Semifinal it would be ok

VII. Semifinal 6: ::dk, ::no, ::se, ::fi, ::is, ::lt, ::lv and ::ee (only participating countries + the host country vote; the Top 4 qualifies)

VIII. Final: the 26 qulifiers (all the countries vote)

doctormalisimo
17th May 2011, 12:13
I would get rid of the Big 5. and instead allow the top 6 from last year's contest to qualify automatically.

lucian-crusher
17th May 2011, 12:28
I would get rid of the Big 5. and instead allow the top 6 from last year's contest to qualify automatically.

I say! Get rid of the Big 5 and allow ONLY the Top3 from the prevoius contest. If we get Top 6 directly in the Final, some of the might get releaxed and send bold entries just to experiment instead of playing it safe.... And yes I like to play it safe! Get in the Final for sure, reach of the table and go home, rather then send a love or hate song and either win or finish bottom of the Semifinal :lol:

doctormalisimo
17th May 2011, 12:35
some of the might get releaxed and send bold entries just to experiment instead of playing it safe

I don't see what's wrong with that... I'd rather have a Eurovision full of Jedwards and Zdob si Zdubs than Blues and Mika Newtons :)

lucian-crusher
17th May 2011, 12:48
I don't see what's wrong with that... I'd rather have a Eurovision full of Jedwards and Zdob si Zdubs than Blues and Mika Newtons :)

No! I preffer a Eurovision full of depressing and amazing ballads (No one, Angel, Lako je sve, Drip Drop, Bistra voda, Is it true?, Lane moje) :D

MyHeartIsYours
17th May 2011, 13:13
I'm on the orchestra bandwagon, me want me want me likey! There should be a limit on how many times countries can use English (if it's not their official language) each decade, let's say 3 times per 10 years. Let's have more songs in countries' official languages :). I think that's a fair compromise.

@Adam: wouldn't it be nice if we could have it NOT DURING EXAM SEASON. I so so so so so agree with either August or December, more revenue and more viewers for sure. Not only are they home, they also are not too busy during those months, so they have actual leisure time or detente or whatever. In conclusion, more time to watch the ESC, Reggie's gonna be happy if this ever came true :lol:

By orchestra, do you mean an actual orchestra in the arena or just playing instruments live on stage? Im not sure how much an actual orchestra would be in keeping when the majority of songs nowadays but I guess it'd be interesting during big ballads or swing songs though! As for official languages, I dont agree :p. Personally, (I know Im selfish :lol:) I do prefer songs in English so I understand them but also I dont think it'd be fair to limit the amount of times a country can use English - they should be able to sing in any language they wish, like now imo. However I urge countries to not sing in English when the singer struggles with it, my Mum thought Dino Merlin was singing in another language :lol:.
Definitely it'd be gorgeous not to have it during exams + May seems like a bit of a strange time like I said when it could achieve much greater viewers and therefore make much more money in the Summer or Winter! Id be so happy too if it came true! :lol:

-

As for abolishing Big 5 or Big 6, I think that'd be really unfair as these countries finance the competition and without this money the contest couldnt take place.

doctormalisimo
17th May 2011, 13:17
As for abolishing Big 5 or Big 6, I think that'd be really unfair as these countries finance the competition and without this money the contest couldnt take place.
But then it's equally unfair on the smaller countries just because they aren't big or rich enough to be important in ESC.

MyHeartIsYours
17th May 2011, 13:30
But then it's equally unfair on the smaller countries just because they aren't big or rich enough to be important in ESC.

Well it was unfair pre-2004 when they could be excluded from participating but everyone can participate now, just in the SemiFinals. I dont see the problem in that.

Sean
17th May 2011, 13:44
But then it's equally unfair on the smaller countries just because they aren't big or rich enough to be important in ESC.

Who probably couldn't even take part without the Big 5.

I dislike how unfair it is that we're always in the final and it would likely do us some good to have to qualify but for the greater good we need to stay in the final.

doctormalisimo
17th May 2011, 13:56
Who probably couldn't even take part without the Big 5.

I dislike how unfair it is that we're always in the final and it would likely do us some good to have to qualify but for the greater good we need to stay in the final.
Eurovision is just too capitalist for me :)

Synergise
17th May 2011, 19:09
I think the Big 5 should be scrapped. Mainly because I actually think it's detrimental to those countries, rather than beneficial. If you're good enough to win, you're good enough to get through the semi anyway, and it gives you a greater opportunity to show off your song and gain support.

Quent91
17th May 2011, 19:16
I'm for the Big 5. ESC would be boring without the big western countries and the EBU would get into financial troubles.

r3gg13
17th May 2011, 19:20
By orchestra, do you mean an actual orchestra in the arena or just playing instruments live on stage? Im not sure how much an actual orchestra would be in keeping when the majority of songs nowadays but I guess it'd be interesting during big ballads or swing songs though! As for official languages, I dont agree :p. Personally, (I know Im selfish :lol:) I do prefer songs in English so I understand them but also I dont think it'd be fair to limit the amount of times a country can use English - they should be able to sing in any language they wish, like now imo. However I urge countries to not sing in English when the singer struggles with it, my Mum thought Dino Merlin was singing in another language :lol:.
Definitely it'd be gorgeous not to have it during exams + May seems like a bit of a strange time like I said when it could achieve much greater viewers and therefore make much more money in the Summer or Winter! Id be so happy too if it came true! :lol:

-

As for abolishing Big 5 or Big 6, I think that'd be really unfair as these countries finance the competition and without this money the contest couldnt take place.

For the orchestra: it depends on what participating countries want. If they want an actual orchestra to give them accompanying music, I'm all for it. If they want to have their own singers play instruments on stage, that sounds good to me too ;) I secretly want to have a dance-ey song like Secret Combination or Get You to have orchestra accompanying them.

As for the language rule, I firmly stand in the limitation of English to 3 to 4 per decade. I think that all of the countries should follow Estonia's lead and give translated subtitles to songs that are not sang in the broadcaster's national language. It was pretty nifty how ETV had it :). My parents thought that Dino, Anastasia and Aurela weren't singing in English.

doctormalisimo
17th May 2011, 19:27
I think the Big 5 should be scrapped. Mainly because I actually think it's detrimental to those countries, rather than beneficial. If you're good enough to win, you're good enough to get through the semi anyway, and it gives you a greater opportunity to show off your song and gain support.

xgood

Yeah, being in the Big 4/5 has made those countries complacent. If they keep on sending good songs then they wont even need those places

Fluke
17th May 2011, 19:28
I never understood why they forbid real instruments to be used on stage! I mean, they used to forbid prerecorded music - then they reversed that completely and allow ONLY prerecorded music! What's the logic in that?

dizzydjc
18th May 2011, 00:55
If I was supervisor, I would change these:

1. The Top 3 from the previous year would all get automatic qualification into the next years final, almost like bronze, silver and gold medals recognition. The winning country would also get to choose their performance slot in the final after the draw for the final has already been done for the other countries. The Big 5 will also get an automatic qualification with one country as wildcard getting to pick their slot.

2. The semi-finals would change slightly, there would be 2 semi-finals as normal. My changes would be only the top 7 on televotes alone would get to qualify into the final. The jury then would then get to decide who the remaining 2 countries would be, so there is 9 qualifiers from each semi-final. This is much similar in vein to the wildcards that were used in 2008 & 2009 except this would be based on complete jury votes that hadn't already qualified from the top 7.

3. Number of people on stage to be changed to 8. 6 is too small, 10 is too crowded. 8 is too right! Makes way for more dancers or backing vocalists to the fill the empty gaps on stage.

4. In the final voting on the night, there is both a jury and televote combined vote to give an overall amount as there is at the moment. The slight difference I would make is that when the 8, 10 and 12 points are being given, much like in the oscars, there will be 3 screens popping up at the bottom with the countries who are receiving these points to see their reactions. When the 12 points is given, the transmission goes straight to them to get the full screen reaction. Slight difference, but i've always wanted to see something like this.

Sabiondo
18th May 2011, 00:55
Add Russia in the BIG 5 to becoming BIG 6 and everything will be fixed :D

lucian-crusher
18th May 2011, 01:28
About the Big 5, I think people made wrong opinions. The Big 5 countries don't want to be in the Final because they want biger chances to win. They want to be directly in the Final so their national broadcasters make biger ratings and get back the money they invest in Eurovision. If they have to pass in the Semifinals and ::es fails then the ratings on TVE for the Final would be lower so their investment in Eurovision would not be covered!

doctormalisimo
18th May 2011, 01:38
About the Big 5, I think people made wrong opinions. The Big 5 countries don't want to be in the Final because they want biger chances to win. They want to be directly in the Final so their national broadcasters make biger ratings and get back the money they invest in Eurovision. If they have to pass in the Semifinals and ::es fails then the ratings on TVE for the Final would be lower so their investment in Eurovision would not be covered!

winning = ratings. The bigger the chance of winning, the bigger the ratings...

lucian-crusher
18th May 2011, 01:54
winning = ratings. The bigger the chance of winning, the bigger the ratings...

No! It's all abouy being in the Final! Everybody here knew that Hotel FM will finish betwen 14-19 in the Final and still TVR had the bigest ratings of the night :D

MyHeartIsYours
18th May 2011, 02:14
lucian is right - when evil Svante was trying to get rid of Big 4 the BBC specifically said that it'd be weird for them to screen a competition in the big BBC One primetime slot without us even taking part - we got 5 million viewers with Josh Dubovie, imagine what we'd have if we were knocked out in the SemiFinals - probably about 1/2 million just hardcore fans :lol:.

I do agree that in the long-run it disadvantages us - from the results this year, it's pretty safe to assume that United Kingdom would have qualified from the SemiFinals had we been taking part in them and Im sure as a consequence of that, we would have maybe finished a few positions further up in the GrandFinal - some people take their favourites from the SemiFinal's and wont change their mind so we miss out. I think Ireland wouldnt have done half as well if they hadnt have had fans to carry over from the SemiFinal. But still, it's the participation and not the winning that counts (;)) and I prefer being part of the Big5/6 and I really hope that Russia joins us! :D

Sabiondo
18th May 2011, 02:33
How about The Eurovision anti-corruption system..??

http://www.esctodayforum.com/showthread.php?5824-Eurovision-anti-corruption-system-soon..

Joyride
18th May 2011, 03:08
As mentioned in the first post, I would exchange the two semi finals with a couple of small semis, blockwise. Lucian crusher shared that idea as well.

Last year's winner + follow-ups (Top5) should get qualifications for the final automatically.

Big 5 should be abolished.

Live orchestra allowed!

A limit of 20 participating countries.

Telephone voting only with some alterations. One user already had the idea as well. Votes from a neighbour country have less influence on the points given than a country from far away.

AlekS
18th May 2011, 04:11
Votes from a neighbour country have less influence on the points given than a country from far away.
Total discrimination of countries which have a lot of neighbours.
And countries which have just 1 neighbour like Portugal would win it all the time :lol:
Rate music - not countries.

Quent91
18th May 2011, 12:05
Big 5 should be abolished.


A limit of 20 participating countries.

that would be so annoying...

Avitas
21st May 2011, 16:59
I believe that running order is turning out to be just a big a problem as bloc voting. Since 2005 there hasn´t been a winner drawn earlier that 17! What about showing the recap in the break in reverse, or random, order? Just to counter the impact of running order?

94ayd
22nd May 2011, 02:25
They did that in 2002 and 2003, actually. Funny thing is both of those contests were staged in the Baltics. ;)

Avitas
22nd May 2011, 03:28
Wow I didn´t know that... Well, you had a winner drawn at #4 in 2003 and UK placed 3rd at #2 in 2002. I´d say go back to that as I believe many people make up their minds during the recaps. Another thing - why not have a completely different running order in the jury final compared to the final? Anything to lessen the impact of running order I´d say!

Michelangelo
22nd May 2011, 21:28
Bring back the orchestra and the language rule. ;)

Yes and yes! I agree totally. The orchestra brought very much to the contest, and made it so much more fun to watch it. I miss those days, I really do.

And one thing that makes the contest a bit boring today, is that almost everyone is singing in english - It's a shame. In many cases the songs are even translated into english for the contest! Sure, I can understand why. It's easier to understand if one sings in english. But besides that, why should the songs be in english? I mean, Eurovision Song Contest is the perfect arena to listen and learn more about the different languages of Europe. We already hear a lot of music on the radio on english. Personally, I love to listen to songs in different languages, that's one reason I love Eurovision - and especially the days when each country had to sing in their language. I doubt they will bring back that rule, but one can dream. :p

Then to the block voting. I'm not sure how to completely solve this problem. Countries will always tend to vote for their neighbors, since they often have the same kind of taste when it comes to music. But the problem has already been solved a little bit - with only letting the participating countries in each semifinal vote in that particular semifinal. I like that idea. Why not bring that idea to the final as well? Only the countries in the final should be able to vote in the final, that's my humble solution.

That's the things I could think of at the moment.

lucian-crusher
22nd May 2011, 21:37
A big no NO to the language rule! If we sing in Romanian I don't think IO will support my country. I am proud that ::ro is the only country participating in BMA 2011 that doesen't sing in national language :D

Also I don't agree on leting only finalists vote! For me that's the bigest thing when it comes to my country participating. If ::ro will withdraw in the future my first concerne would be ,,OMG! I won't be able to vote for my favourites in Eurovision".....

doctormalisimo
22nd May 2011, 21:39
If we sing in Romanian I don't think IO will support my country. I am proud that ::ro is the only country participating in BMA 2011 that doesen't sing in national language :D

Qué? A self-hating Romanian? :(
I'm dying for ::ie to send a song in Irish. It wouldn't do well but at least it would be nice to see.

lucian-crusher
22nd May 2011, 22:07
Qué? A self-hating Romanian? :(

Singing in Romanian = non-mainstream song = not my cup of tea.

And yeah! You are not a real Romanian if you don't hate your culture :lol:

Quent91
22nd May 2011, 22:10
language rule would be great.

Avitas
22nd May 2011, 22:14
...If ::ro will withdraw in the future my first concerne would be ,,OMG! I won't be able to vote for my favourites in Eurovision".....

Well, if Romania withdraw in the future you wouldn´t be able to vote anyhow regardless of whether or not only finalists can vote...

lucian-crusher
22nd May 2011, 22:37
Well, if Romania withdraw in the future you wouldn´t be able to vote anyhow regardless of whether or not only finalists can vote...

That's what I mean! Voting in the Final is the most important thing I am looking for in Eurovision, more important then my own country's result!

Michelangelo
23rd May 2011, 01:46
A big no NO to the language rule! If we sing in Romanian I don't think IO will support my country. I am proud that ::ro is the only country participating in BMA 2011 that doesen't sing in national language :D

Also I don't agree on leting only finalists vote! For me that's the bigest thing when it comes to my country participating. If ::ro will withdraw in the future my first concerne would be ,,OMG! I won't be able to vote for my favourites in Eurovision".....

Well, one can't be sure of anything. Certainly not when it comes to musical taste of Europe. Perhaps you would get some support, who knows. A good song is a good song, despite the language. And a song can actual be better in its national language. I think we should be proud of our languages and not rely too much on the english one. Sure, I like the english language and both United Kingdom and Ireland are two favourite countries in the contest, but it shouldn't be dominating as much as it does today. Today everybody sings in english!

I know that it's so much more fun to be able to vote and decide the winner. But the truth is that there are problems with the current situation where blockvoting is very common, and something has to be done about that. One solution is to only let the finalists vote - which would be a total of 25. It's still pretty many countries if you ask me. And you know, perhaps Romania would be in that lucky group. The positive side to it, would be a much more fair voting, and the procedure wouldn't be too long either. We could also go back to the old system - which I actually miss too a bit, where all the points are presented. It was more exciting back then!

But with this said, I know that a lot of people think they way you do. My opinion is probably in minority. So it's unlikely to happen.

lucian-crusher
23rd May 2011, 10:35
Anyway, I hope they won't alow only finalists to vote! It would be acceptable for me if they will make non-finalists vote as one country. All the non-finalists vote then they add-ip their votes and they will counted as ,,The non-finalists vote"....

Michelangelo
23rd May 2011, 14:12
Anyway, I hope they won't alow only finalists to vote! It would be acceptable for me if they will make non-finalists vote as one country. All the non-finalists vote then they add-ip their votes and they will counted as ,,The non-finalists vote"....

Well, I don't know. I'd say, let all the countries vote all the way - as it is today, or let only the finalists vote.

Yamarus
24th May 2011, 21:10
language rule would be great.

Oh yes ESC, please bring back the language rule! But I guess it's not commercial enough, and suddenly the UK and Ireland would get much better results (LOL). What about having the semi-finals *with* language rule, and the final *without* ?

- I support the Big Five, it's not like if it gives them any advantage. When their song is bad, they finish in the bottom five anyway.

- I am a bit nostalgic of the time the ESC was just one big night, but I'm still for semi-finals which allow all the countries that wish to do so to participate.

- Vote: yes, the big controversial subject. IMO, the vote will never be "fair" and one shouldn't get upset about unfair results: they've been happening ever since the ESC exists and it still provides us with great entertainment. But the current vote is a real drag on that entertainment value: it lasts *forever* and at the same time you barely have time to see the points and the presenters! The fact that they now organise the voting order to make it more exciting is a nice improvement, but I think there should be other measures to make the vote more exciting. For example, with 40+ countries, the points are just *enormous*, and the winner often ends up with a significant lead on n°2 (I think ESC 2011 is an exception, I may be wrong).

Quent91
24th May 2011, 22:26
and suddenly the UK and Ireland would get much better results (LOL).

Well, since the language rule have been taken away, the Uk and Ireland have been doing very bad results in the 2000's.

Michelangelo
25th May 2011, 08:43
Well, since the language rule have been taken away, the Uk and Ireland have been doing very bad results in the 2000's.

Yeah, and that's not too strange really. Singing in english does have an advantage, since most people understand the language. For a long time, Ireland and United Kingdom has been alone using it in the contest. When everybody else is using it as well, one doesn't have to vote for them - if you know what you mean.

But then again, a good song is a good song - irrespectively the language.

GRE
25th December 2011, 20:03
One thing i definetelly want,is to see familiar persons to eurovision people,giving the points!
For Example
Νorway Alexander Ribak
Russia Dima Bilan
Germany Lena
Ukraine Ruslana
Malta Chiara
Turkey Sertab
Iceland Johanna
Israel Dana International

Mickey
28th December 2011, 19:57
Anyway, I hope they won't alow only finalists to vote! It would be acceptable for me if they will make non-finalists vote as one country. All the non-finalists vote then they add-ip their votes and they will counted as ,,The non-finalists vote"....

I've long thought that would be a good idea. The only amendments I'd make is to split the non-qualifiers into semi 1 and semi 2. I'd also make these marks worth more than the standard 1 to 12. Nine or ten countries' worth of votes should be worth more than that. I'd multiply them by five and give points 5 to 60.

This format would mean there is enough time to read out all the votes and the contest should be closer. Even better, if you save one of the semi finalist votes to the end, you'd be much more likely to have a tense finale.

Yamarus
30th December 2011, 00:24
There is a problem, a very big problem, with relegating non-qualifiers to non-voter (or "loser voter"): why would people in these countries actually watch the final if they can't vote?

I'm not in favour of it anyway, and I think those advocating such reform come from those countries that are automatic or "easy" qualifiers. Obviously, Belgium does not belong to that group and I wouldn't like being denied the right to vote, or see my vote diluted in a massive "semi-finalist group", because my country seldom qualifies.

MyHeartIsYours
30th December 2011, 00:45
I think non-qualifiers should be able to vote individually, I dont see any reason why they shouldnt.
Another change I would like though is that the participants vote in the opposite SemiFinal. Eg participants from SF1 vote in SF2 and vice versa. They dont vote in their own SemiFinal. There is no reason for this except I think it would mix things up a bit and generate interest in the other SemiFinal. The Big5+1 should be able to vote in both SemiFinals.
Also, when it comes to the GrandFinal, I think the host country should be able to choose its running order number first, and then a small draw amongst the other Big5 countries who'd choose their positions in the Final. It would be better than having a random draw I think.

Mickey
30th December 2011, 17:34
There is a problem, a very big problem, with relegating non-qualifiers to non-voter (or "loser voter"): why would people in these countries actually watch the final if they can't vote?

I'm not in favour of it anyway, and I think those advocating such reform come from those countries that are automatic or "easy" qualifiers. Obviously, Belgium does not belong to that group and I wouldn't like being denied the right to vote, or see my vote diluted in a massive "semi-finalist group", because my country seldom qualifies.

That would be one of the main problems. However, with the semi finalist votes counting for more than the normal 1-12, it could be argued by the commentators that the semi final votes are the most important (it would rely on some rather shoddy maths, but that hasn't stopped tv presenters before).

I had a play with my system for 2011 and found that if you left the votes from semi 2 to the end, the whole competition ends up being decided by whether Italy is given the last 60 pointer (they aren't - it goes to Sweden which gives them second and Azerbaijan the win. With zero from semi 2 Italy finishes fourth.). If it is marketed to the non-qualifiers that YOU decide the winner, it might not be such an issue.

There is another issue, in that the outcome of the show is decided by an element of luck. Who qualifies for the final and how a country's votes are distributed over the two groups of non-qualifiers could have a big influence over the voting.

The system I've suggested certainly has its flaws, but if the aim is purely to have an entertaining results procedure, then I think it achieves that.

Matt
30th December 2011, 19:38
I think non-qualifiers should be able to vote individually, I dont see any reason why they shouldnt.
Another change I would like though is that the participants vote in the opposite SemiFinal. Eg participants from SF1 vote in SF2 and vice versa. They dont vote in their own SemiFinal. There is no reason for this except I think it would mix things up a bit and generate interest in the other SemiFinal. The Big5+1 should be able to vote in both SemiFinals.


Ohh, I like that idea. Let's do that :D

Mickey
30th December 2011, 20:17
The Big5+1 should be able to vote in both SemiFinals.


Why should we get special treatment? If you're going to play around with who votes in what semi, wouldn't it make more sense to let everyone vote in both?

That said, I'm not sure if all the countries actually broadcast both semis. If there are some who only broadcast their own appearance, I think it's best to leave it as it is.

Jim
31st December 2011, 20:17
I support that all the countries must broadcast all the three nights of the contest.

CPV4931
1st January 2012, 12:40
I support that all the countries must broadcast all the three nights of the contest.

*sign* ESC is not also the big final, also the two Semis belong to it.

MyHeartIsYours
1st January 2012, 16:41
Why should we get special treatment? If you're going to play around with who votes in what semi, wouldn't it make more sense to let everyone vote in both?

That said, I'm not sure if all the countries actually broadcast both semis. If there are some who only broadcast their own appearance, I think it's best to leave it as it is.
Cuz 1) it will mean more revenue for the broadcasters and the EBU and 2) the non-qualifying semi finalists vote in the grand final, so why should we vote in the semi finals? It wouldnt be more sense to let everyone vote in both because part of the reason 2 SemiFinals were created was to split voting blocks in half.
As for the broadcasting, yes that's a problem now but there could be a new rule that countries must broadcast all 3 shows.

sannerz
1st January 2012, 18:50
The ability for a performer to be ejected from the contest for being a douchebag at interviews, press conferences, etc. (AKA Alexey Vorobyov-Russia 2011)

Mickey
1st January 2012, 20:54
Cuz 1) it will mean more revenue for the broadcasters and the EBU and 2) the non-qualifying semi finalists vote in the grand final, so why should we vote in the semi finals? It wouldnt be more sense to let everyone vote in both because part of the reason 2 SemiFinals were created was to split voting blocks in half.

1) It would be more revenue for everyone if everyone could vote in both semis. Why should only the richest broadcasters get extra revenue?
2) Huh? We do vote in the semi finals. We have the same voting rights as any other country.
3) Voting blocks were split when the two semi format was created, but I wasn't aware this was the reason for their existence. The old one semi system was rubbish. It allowed bad songs to get to the final based only on the previous year's entry, significantly lessening the quality of the show.

Matt
1st January 2012, 21:07
The ability for a performer to be ejected from the contest for being a douchebag at interviews, press conferences, etc. (AKA Alexey Vorobyov-Russia 2011)


haha *sign* ;)

doctormalisimo
2nd January 2012, 16:51
I would make a rule that only Moldovan song writers are allowed. Imagine how epic ESC would be....

Narmina
3rd January 2012, 15:28
^ :D :D :D

lowyby
4th January 2012, 22:27
3) Voting blocks were split when the two semi format was created, but I wasn't aware this was the reason for their existence. The old one semi system was rubbish. It allowed bad songs to get to the final based only on the previous year's entry, significantly lessening the quality of the show.
Imo this is SO true, in 2007 & before we had chance on 14 bad entries and 10 good entries, well at least chosen by public, to be in the final, now it's lessened down to possible 6 bad entries & 20 good ones, I'm not saying that Big 5 & the host always send rubbish, they just do sometimes (:

A-lister
15th February 2012, 13:54
New national selection and song rules

- Only allowing citizens or people who actually are attached to the national market to enter the national selections as acts, songwriters or composers. Stop the "hire a foreign" team thing! With "attach" the person need to have a career on the national music scene for example a foreign producer must have atleast produced some songs for local acts in the year prior or so and not just totally unknown work.

- A country can not change a chosen entry to another song, if however the song was proven to break the ESC rules, the song would either have to re-written (if the lyrics are the problem) or the runner-up entrant (song and if there's another act) in that national selection has to be chosen instead. If there is no runner-up, then the song might be changed to a new one under investigation of EBU and perhaps a fine if it's been proven that the country didn't care about the rules in the first place.

- Still however songs should still be allowed to be updated for ESC, but the final versions that also are to be performed on ESC change may not change after the final deadline.

- A song may go through some lyrical changes and be updated, but if chosen in a certain language it should not be allowed to change language for ESC.

New guidelines for the juries

In ESC the juries should have strict guidelines to follow and the progress must be transparent and jurors must be actual experts mixed with regular fans and with no zero self-interest in any of the competing entries or acts. Record producers, radio programmers, a&r's .. people with actual insight in music and not some random singers like previous years.

- Vote for the best song first and foremost (it's a song contest afterall).
- Encourage the use of native languages.
- Look for originality and standout songs.
- Look for hit-potential and compare to the actual music scene and trends in your own particular market (the juries should have a sense for trends but also understand that they represent their own country's taste and not everyone else).
- Encourage songs which reflects the country's musical heritage and culture.

^ Juries may judge by a combination of all the above or some of these, diversity is still also important when casting their votes.

In the final the points between juries and televoters should be split into two screens and combined in front of the viewer's eyes so they can compare. Jury groups should not be revealed until after ESC final to avoid corruption. The juries between semi and final has to differ but still be made up by a similar constellation of people (however I think that might be the case already). Juries should vote after the semi and final, NOT dress-rehearsals! However they might sit through dress-rehearsals to get a first idea of what to come, but the final judgment should not be made on this.

Try to put more focus on the songwriters/composers/producers, afterall this is a song contest. Maybe having a certain price for them aswell?

Mickey
15th February 2012, 23:30
New national selection and song rules

- Only allowing citizens or people who actually are attached to the national market to enter the national selections as acts, songwriters or composers. Stop the "hire a foreign" team thing! With "attach" the person need to have a career on the national music scene for example a foreign producer must have atleast produced some songs for local acts in the year prior or so and not just totally unknown work.
What are San Marino meant to do? If Monaco, Andorra, Liechtenstein or Luxembourg enter again, they're going to struggle to find these home grown acts year after year.



- A country can not change a chosen entry to another song, if however the song was proven to break the ESC rules, the song would either have to re-written (if the lyrics are the problem) or the runner-up entrant (song and if there's another act) in that national selection has to be chosen instead. If there is no runner-up, then the song might be changed to a new one under investigation of EBU and perhaps a fine if it's been proven that the country didn't care about the rules in the first place.

- Still however songs should still be allowed to be updated for ESC, but the final versions that also are to be performed on ESC change may not change after the final deadline.

- A song may go through some lyrical changes and be updated, but if chosen in a certain language it should not be allowed to change language for ESC.
If you do this, I think the songs will all just be in English from the outset. It's not that bad an idea, but I'm not sure it would have the desired effect. That and I don't really like the idea of interfering in how broadcasters choose their song. I like being able to critique a country's selection method as well as the song and if we creep towards a uniform selection method it would take some of the fun out of ESC.



New guidelines for the juries

In ESC the juries should have strict guidelines to follow and the progress must be transparent and jurors must be actual experts mixed with regular fans and with no zero self-interest in any of the competing entries or acts. Record producers, radio programmers, a&r's .. people with actual insight in music and not some random singers like previous years.

So you don't want random singers, but you do want random members of the public? It would be interesting to see how they would judge "actual insight". Such people might not want anything to do with Eurovision anyway.



- Vote for the best song first and foremost (it's a song contest afterall).
- Encourage the use of native languages.
- Look for originality and standout songs.
- Look for hit-potential and compare to the actual music scene and trends in your own particular market (the juries should have a sense for trends but also understand that they represent their own country's taste and not everyone else).
- Encourage songs which reflects the country's musical heritage and culture.

^ Juries may judge by a combination of all the above or some of these, diversity is still also important when casting their votes.
This just seems impossible to enforce. Let's say I studied the 2011 entries based on those guidelines and decided Lithuania was the best. Are you going to say I'm wrong? Are you going to ban me from giving twelve points to an old-fashioned musical theatre style ballad in English? I don't think you can regulate a person's thought processes. Then if you're not going to enforce the guidelines, what's the point?



In the final the points between juries and televoters should be split into two screens and combined in front of the viewer's eyes so they can compare. Jury groups should not be revealed until after ESC final to avoid corruption. The juries between semi and final has to differ but still be made up by a similar constellation of people (however I think that might be the case already). Juries should vote after the semi and final, NOT dress-rehearsals! However they might sit through dress-rehearsals to get a first idea of what to come, but the final judgment should not be made on this.
This seems impractical. Do it immediately after the show, by all means, but there could be too many numbers flashing up too quickly to take in live. It's hard enough following the 1-7 as it is.



Try to put more focus on the songwriters/composers/producers, afterall this is a song contest. Maybe having a certain price for them aswell?
Do you mean the composer joins the winning singer on stage at the end? Because this I agree with!

A-lister
16th February 2012, 15:25
^
And what are your OWN suggestions then haha? :lol:

A-lister
16th February 2012, 15:35
What are San Marino meant to do? If Monaco, Andorra, Liechtenstein or Luxembourg enter again, they're going to struggle to find these home grown acts year after year.

I said either they have to be citizens or attached to the local markets. I recognize that these tiny countries may not really have any markets, so in those cases I'd say Monaco (France), Andorra (Spain), San Marino (Italy)... well you get my point.



If you do this, I think the songs will all just be in English from the outset. It's not that bad an idea, but I'm not sure it would have the desired effect. That and I don't really like the idea of interfering in how broadcasters choose their song. I like being able to critique a country's selection method as well as the song and if we creep towards a uniform selection method it would take some of the fun out of ESC.

Actually, this rule wouldn't really be about how the broadcaster's decide to chose their entry, this rule is for the version they send to ESC. There's a risk with that effect, but that's just speculating, I think it could be worth trying atleast. We don't know the effect until it has been tried right?



So you don't want random singers, but you do want random members of the public? It would be interesting to see how they would judge "actual insight". Such people might not want anything to do with Eurovision anyway.

Well, I dunno, the most important is members with actual insight, I am not sure about the other, I realized after writing it didn't really make sense, but I didn't care to change that.




This just seems impossible to enforce. Let's say I studied the 2011 entries based on those guidelines and decided Lithuania was the best. Are you going to say I'm wrong? Are you going to ban me from giving twelve points to an old-fashioned musical theatre style ballad in English? I don't think you can regulate a person's thought processes. Then if you're not going to enforce the guidelines, what's the point?

You think juries don't have guidelines already? The whole point with juries is to be "experts" and care about things that the general public might overlook. If the juries aren't even capable of this easy task and if they are totally clueless about what such guidelines would mean, then they are not fit to be in the juries in the first place. No, Lithuania 2011 does not fit into those guidelines imo. Yes, sure it's about perception to some agree, but let's not exaggerate it. Again what's the point with juries if they are clueless about all these things? I mean they should be "experts" right and not retarded? Then I'd rather change to 100% televoting again. It's not about "banning" a certain vote, but if the juries can't even understand the meaning of such guidelines and have a clue about the music scene, trends and the cultural aspects, then what's their "expertise" in the first place? Because I can't see it sorry. Then they are waste of time and space. If we are taking away some of the democracy in this, atleast prove it's worth it.



This seems impractical. Do it immediately after the show, by all means, but there could be too many numbers flashing up too quickly to take in live. It's hard enough following the 1-7 as it is.

I don't agree, it would be two screens shown at first, then combined when the spokesperson gives the last point. One of the major problem with the jury system is the complete lack of transparency (where it's needed) and the transparency (when it's stupid). Only the fans check up the split votes that are presented like a month afterwards :lol:, I think the general public should know, I think it's their right. I mean in local selections jury votes are shown, so why not in big ESC? Why all the secrecy around it?



Do you mean the composer joins the winning singer on stage at the end? Because this I agree with!

Yeah, maybe like this or getting a price or something. I am not sure, but they should be acknowledged aswell, afterall this is a song contest and not just a singing contest.

MyHeartIsYours
16th February 2012, 23:56
I prefer for the Juries to remain with minimal interference in the way in which they vote. If it so happens they like Disney-ballads in English (which they actually dont - look at some of the songs they've voted for, and not voted for) then so-be-it. To give them requirements or restrictions on how they should vote is just manipulating the vote.

A-lister
17th February 2012, 01:00
I prefer for the Juries to remain with minimal interference in the way in which they vote. If it so happens they like Disney-ballads in English (which they actually dont - look at some of the songs they've voted for, and not voted for) then so-be-it. To give them requirements or restrictions on how they should vote is just manipulating the vote.

It's not manipulating, they are there for a reason, to be "experts", to notice things that the public might not notice.

If they're not, then I say bring back 100% televoting, because then the juries are pointless imho.

MyHeartIsYours
17th February 2012, 01:13
Well I think that the fact that they are musical 'experts' mean that they will pick things out themselves that they regard as special qualities - if you give them guidelines then it is very open to everyone's opinion/interpretation. For instance, you and many other people Im sure support them looking for native languages and native culture, but I and many other people dont, because I believe that it such a guideline will penalise good songs in English and give an advantage to poor songs in native languages. Also how do you define native culture nowadays? What's the United Kingdom's native culture for instance? I think it's too hard to define.

A-lister
17th February 2012, 01:34
Well I think that the fact that they are musical 'experts' mean that they will pick things out themselves that they regard as special qualities - if you give them guidelines then it is very open to everyone's opinion/interpretation. For instance, you and many other people Im sure support them looking for native languages and native culture, but I and many other people dont, because I believe that it such a guideline will penalise good songs in English and give an advantage to poor songs in native languages. Also how do you define native culture nowadays? What's the United Kingdom's native culture for instance? I think it's too hard to define.

I think they already have guidelines so it wouldn't change much (well the guidelines may be more specific). I don't think they should praise bad songs in native languages or penalize good songs that aren't, then you didn't get my point here.

Well for sure English is not the language of all countries competing in Eurovision, so that's a good starting point to answer your question "what's native anyhow!?".

And btw my whole point was that the so called "experts" in the juries proved to be pretty clueless regarding all these things, so therefor maybe the old corrupt grannies in the juries need some guidelines ;)

CC92
17th February 2012, 13:21
Why to have a "jury" at all? I mean we have a jury and that is the Eurovision countries' audience. If they 'overlook' some things let them overlook, Europe did not bother then (and it is not that a 'jury' would be immune to ignorance) . After all this show is made for the people and also lives on them and not on a small anonymous bunch of morons.
The effects of Diaspora voting cannot be balanced with them either (UK coming 5th/22nd or Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina qualifying due to 'jury' votes prove it) but therefore political and tactical voting gets introduced.
Overall Europe did a pretty good job through the years voting for diverse contemporary and cultural approaches I would say. Now ESC turned into a huge out-dated cheesefest for Disney ballads and lame American pop with probably soon only foreign entries in English competing. Which is awful IMHO.

A-lister
17th February 2012, 15:33
Why to have a "jury" at all? I mean we have a jury and that is the Eurovision countries' audience. If they 'overlook' some things let them overlook, Europe did not bother then (and it is not that a 'jury' would be immune to ignorance) . After all this show is made for the people and also lives on them and not on a small anonymous bunch of morons.
The effects of Diaspora voting cannot be balanced with them either (UK coming 5th/22nd or Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina qualifying due to 'jury' votes prove it) but therefore political and tactical voting gets introduced.
Overall Europe did a pretty good job through the years voting for diverse contemporary and cultural approaches I would say. Now ESC turned into a huge out-dated cheesefest for Disney ballads and lame American pop with probably soon only foreign entries in English competing. Which is awful IMHO.

Agree 100% with all you said, however I was trying to stay pragmatic. I'm against the juries generally, but I realize they most probably will stick around... so I'm thinking how would be the best way to deal with what we have?

dezbee2008
10th March 2012, 01:26
Here's what I would like for future ESCs (and some are already mentioned)

Increase the limit of participating countries to 50 (but then again, there will be 22 countries per semi-final)
Apply the language rule (as much as I love love love English, this is just too much, but I would like to see more bilingualism)
Take away block voting, but that'll be hard to do
Finally, my last request was to prolong the voting window because I do enjoy the voting window opening from the first song to 15 min after the last one. Won't vote though.

EDIT: Actually, I have another way to improve it. Singers should not sing in a language they can't speak. I don't understand how that's possible.

ESCjunkie
15th March 2012, 12:36
My suggestions would be:

1) BRING BACK THE LANGUAGE RULE! Let all countries sing in their own language, it used to be the charm of the ESC. There can also be a benefit to countries: the lyrics do not have to be that strong, but if it sounds good you can still get the points. In English everyone can tell if the lyrics are bad, plus some people's English is so bad they completely ruin their own song.
2) The maximum lenght of the song goes from 3 minutes to 4 minutes.
3) Playing both music and singing must be done live on stage, so no pre-recorded music
4) The maximum number of people on the stage can be flexible: some groups just have more then 6 members
5) Switch to televoting only. Why have juries? Who decides who is an expert and who is not? Shouldn't the song most people like win and not the song that so called experts like? No jury also means saving money! Now the televoters pay the bill but only got 50% of the votes.
6) All countries get to vote for the final, the same applies for both semi finals.
7) No big 5 or last years winner goes directly to the final. We only need good songs in the final, countries should not be able to send bad songs and go straight to the final (I do realise the money issue here, but isn't the topic about how you would like the ESC to be?)
8) 2 semi finals, 12 countries per semi final progress to the final. So the final has 24 countries in it.
9) Italy should always enter the contest

Matt
15th March 2012, 19:36
My suggestions would be:

1) BRING BACK THE LANGUAGE RULE! Let all countries sing in their own language, it used to be the charm of the ESC. There can also be a benefit to countries: the lyrics do not have to be that strong, but if it sounds good you can still get the points. In English everyone can tell if the lyrics are bad, plus some people's English is so bad they completely ruin their own song.
2) The maximum lenght of the song goes from 3 minutes to 4 minutes.
3) Playing both music and singing must be done live on stage, so no pre-recorded music
4) The maximum number of people on the stage can be flexible: some groups just have more then 6 members
5) Switch to televoting only. Why have juries? Who decides who is an expert and who is not? Shouldn't the song most people like win and not the song that so called experts like? No jury also means saving money! Now the televoters pay the bill but only got 50% of the votes.
6) All countries get to vote for the final, the same applies for both semi finals.
7) No big 5 or last years winner goes directly to the final. We only need good songs in the final, countries should not be able to send bad songs and go straight to the final (I do realise the money issue here, but isn't the topic about how you would like the ESC to be?)
8) 2 semi finals, 12 countries per semi final progress to the final. So the final has 24 countries in it.
9) Italy should always enter the contest


1) I encourage acts to sing in their native tongue however I value creative freedom more. Why would "Within Temptation" (famous Dutch Rock band) sing in Dutch when they exclusively sing in English? Plus songs that are in English have statistically a better chance of winning or doing well so we want an equal battlefield for all.
2) While I personally like the idea it's just not feasable, the show is already over three hours long and your average viewer just won't strick around for a 4 hour show.
3) I love the orchestra and love to have it back but then at the same time, music has changed and most dance or even pop music is computerized. Plus the additional costs for the hosting broadcaster would increase significantly. Not only would they need to provide space for the orchestra, they also need to pay each individual for their services. And it's almost impossible for an orchestra to learn 40 + songs in such a short amount of time, back then they had maybe half the amount of entries.
4) We need to look at this from a Logistics point of view as well. There is a LOT going on backstage and having even more people on Stage will cause additional hassle and technical implications that are way beyond just adding one or two individuals on Stage.
5) We have a separate topic for that but the juries were introduced to battle the diaspora voting. And the juries are not random people picked of the street. They're all have some association with the industry. Singers, songwriters, composers etc. They do this for a living and have a different approach and outlook.
6) I'd like that acutally
7) As you said, money makes the world go round but I agree that in a perfect world everyone with the exception of the host should have to qualify.
8) If we had no Big 5 then that would make perfect sense.
9) Word!!!

Mickey
15th March 2012, 21:26
3) I love the orchestra and love to have it back but then at the same time, music has changed and most dance or even pop music is computerized. Plus the additional costs for the hosting broadcaster would increase significantly. Not only would they need to provide space for the orchestra, they also need to pay each individual for their services. And it's almost impossible for an orchestra to learn 40 + songs in such a short amount of time, back then they had maybe half the amount of entries.


And before anyone suggest acts play their own instruments, try setting up and tuning them all in the less than a minute between songs.

GRE
21st March 2012, 02:06
Definetelly the language rule.

NemesisNick
28th June 2012, 15:50
Russia should become part of Big 6.
Why? How much money do Russia contribute to Eurovision?


A new voting system where the Televote provides the baseline for the result and then once the Juries have voted, the result is adjusted to make it fairer (by abolishing or limiting bloc + diaspora voting) and ensure that only songs which are popular with both the Jury's and Televotes can succeed. Votes from Televotes from countries to countries which are a regular occurrence eg United Kingdom and Greece, Belarus and Russia, Denmark and Iceland and Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, would have their results adjusted downwards to take account of this, enabling popular songs of both the Televoters and Juries to get high points and redistributing high points out to countries which were popular but stunted by bloc voting.
Making adjstments would be tampering with the result. I don't think they'll ever be able to eliminate bloc voting. Also remember that this year 2012 Sweden didn't just get high scores from other Nordic countries. 18 countries gave 12 points to Sweden: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Latvia, Norway, Russia, Slovakia, Spain, The Netherlands, United Kingdom.


The addition of 9 and 11 points.
Why? I think the current points system used since 1975 is to make sure each country gives points to what it thinks are the best 10 countries. I think the top two scores are 10 and 12 rather than 9 and 10 in order to space out the top three a bit.


(and others who've said this) Up-to 4 minute performances instead of 3 minutes.
That would make the contest too long. Imagine 26 countries singing in the final, if each sang for 4 minutes instead of 3 minutes, that would add 26 minutes to the final. Three minutes for a song is long enough.


Instruments allowed to be played live on stage.
Is there really a rule banning playing of instuments on stage? How come then certain artists have been able to play a guitar, accordion or drums in recent years?


I always had thi idea! To make the Eurovision a 8 nights show containing 1 opening show, 6 Semifinals and one Final:
Eight nights would be a bit much, don't you think? How long would each semi-final be?

I notice the way you've arranged the semi-finals by groups, so only 3 or 4 countries from each one qualifies. Thus under your scheme of things only 3 Balkan and 4 Nordic/Baltic countries could reach the final. Isn't that manipulating the final a bit though.

How did you choose your groups. The following are obvious:
IV. Semifinal 3: ::mk, ::ba, ::rs, ::me, ::hr and ::sl - Balkan countries
VII. Semifinal 6: ::dk, ::no, ::se, ::fi, ::is, ::lt, ::lv and ::ee - Nordic and Baltic countries

The following is mostly Benelux, VI. Semifinal 5: ::be, ::nl, ::ie and ::lu , but what's Ireland doing in there?

What's the relationship between the following:
II. Semifinal 1: ::ch, ::at, ::pl, ::cz, ::sk, ::hu, ::ro, ::md and ::li
III. Semifinal 2: ::pt, ::gr, ::bg, ::al, ::ad, ::mt, ::mc, ::sm, ::tr, ::cy and ::il
V. Semifinal 4: ::am, ::az, ::ge, ::by, ::ua, ::ru and ::kz


A big no NO to the language rule! If we sing in Romanian I don't think IO will support my country. I am proud that ::ro is the only country participating in BMA 2011 that doesen't sing in national language :D
Some have favoured the return of the countries' on language rule, and some don't want a return to it. Whilst it's nice hearing songs sing in their own languages, I think it's best to let artists sing in any language they like I notice that Sweden's last two wins: Take Me To Your Heaven (1999) and Euphoria (2012) were sung in Swedish, not English. From 1999 to 2012 there's only been one winner completely not in English: Serbia 2007. Do you think some of the others would have won between 1999 and 2012 had they been forced to sing in native languages? Turkey, Greece and Finland finally got their first wins between 2003 and 2006 after years of participating in the ESC; presumably they found it difficult to attract votes/points when forced to sing in their native languages (Turkish, Greek and Finnish respectively).


Well, since the language rule have been taken away, the Uk and Ireland have been doing very bad results in the 2000's.
I've noticed that too. Ireland won 4 times during the 1990s, and the UK won once in that time. Undeniably the UK and Ireland had an advantage being able to sing in English then. Allowing anyone to sing in any language in 1999 meant that since 1999 many countries have sung in English, thereby taking that advantage away from UK and Ireland. Mind you, during the 90s, songs won in other languages too: 1990 Italian, 1991 Swedish, 1995 Norwegian (just a few short lines though, most of the song was music), 1998 Hebrew. Even more non-English songs won in the 1980s; seven years 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1988, 1989 saw non-English songs win, against English songs in 1980, 1981 and 1987.


I'd also make these marks worth more than the standard 1 to 12. Nine or ten countries' worth of votes should be worth more than that. I'd multiply them by five and give points 5 to 60.
That wouldn't be fair. Every country has to give equal amounts of points to its top 10 favoured countries; i.e. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12.


Another change I would like though is that the participants vote in the opposite SemiFinal. Eg participants from SF1 vote in SF2 and vice versa. They dont vote in their own SemiFinal. There is no reason for this except I think it would mix things up a bit and generate interest in the other SemiFinal. The Big5+1 should be able to vote in both SemiFinals.
It depends how the semi-finalists are split up. What if both semi-finals contain roughly equal numbers of Balkan, ex-USSR and Nordic/Baltic countries? Then you'd probably still get bloc voting within country group members in opposite semi-finals. Take this year's two semi-final line-ups: semi-final 1 (http://www.eurovision.tv/page/baku-2012/about/shows/first-semi-final) and semi-final 2 (http://www.eurovision.tv/page/baku-2012/about/shows/second-semi-final). Bosnia & Herzegovina, Croatia, FYR Macedonia, Serbia and Slovenia were in semi-final 2, whereas Montenegro was in semi-final 1. Montenegro might then have had plenty of votes from the other ex-Yugoslav countries in semi-final 1, whereas Montenegro could have given top 5 marks to the other 5 ex-Yugoslav countries in semi-final 2. Greece and Cyprus happened to both be in semi-final 1, so they couldn't have given each other anything. One can only speculate how / if that would have affected who went through from each semi-final.

AdelAdel
28th June 2012, 16:28
Some have favoured the return of the countries' on language rule, and some don't want a return to it. Whilst it's nice hearing songs sing in their own languages, I think it's best to let artists sing in any language they like I notice that Sweden's last two wins: Take Me To Your Heaven (1999) and Euphoria (2012) were sung in Swedish, not English. From 1999 to 2012 there's only been one winner completely not in English: Serbia 2007. Do you think some of the others would have won between 1999 and 2012 had they been forced to sing in native languages? Turkey, Greece and Finland finally got their first wins between 2003 and 2006 after years of participating in the ESC; presumably they found it difficult to attract votes/points when forced to sing in their native languages (Turkish, Greek and Finnish respectively).



I agree that the English speaking countries had huge advantage back then. Also, don't just look at the winners, take 2nd places for example - how many times was UK second? A lot. The point is, if UK continues sending bad entries, even if the language rule came back, they wouldn't place in the top 10.

EurovisionSmile
28th June 2012, 18:41
**Post deleted**

AdelAdel
28th June 2012, 18:44
Post Deleted

EurovisionSmile
28th June 2012, 18:48
**Post deleted**

AdelAdel
28th June 2012, 18:49
Post Deleted

EurovisionSmile
28th June 2012, 18:54
**Post deleted**

NemesisNick
1st July 2012, 21:15
If there's one thing i'd like to change about the ESC, it's change the criteria for who hosts the Contest.

At present, the standard procedure is that whoever wins hosts the ESC the following year. From my experience of watching the ESC since the 1980s, that can influence what some countries enter if they've won in the last year or so.

A prime example is Ireland.
Won in 1992, so they hosted it in 1993.
Won in 1993, so they hosted it in 1994.
Won in 1994, so they hosted it in 1995.

I first heard / saw the 1994 Irish entry "Rock 'n' Roll Kids" sung by Paul Harrington and Charlie McGettigan during the 1994 ESC. I liked it, it was a good ballad. Going by all the cheering and applause at the end it was surprisingly popular, and ended up winning with a then record breaking 226 points. Yet at the time, rumours were circulating in the media that song was chosen as a subtle attempt not to win Eurovision a third time. I accept that was only a rumour, and whether or not it was true is questionable, but anyway, it winning the 1994 ESC was an unexpected surprise against the odds. The upshot of that was RTE ended up footing the bill for hosting it a third year in succession.

Is there any reason why the EBU didn't excuse RTE from hosting the 1995 ESC, after their already having hosted the 1993 and 1994 Contests? Couldn't they have invited another highly placed country to host the 1995 ESC? The obvious alternative contender would have been Poland who came 2nd in 1994; was TVP in a financially OK position to host the 1995 Contest?

I didn't think much of the 1995 Irish entry Dreamin' by Eddie Friel; I thought it was downright dull and boring. Presumably the judges felt the same way as Ireland finished a dismal 14th with just 44 points in 1995. Since then I've often wondered if RTE deliberately chose that song as a desperate attempt to come last with nul points and get relegated for a year, thereby having no danger of winning in 1996 and not have to host the ESC until 1998 at the earliest (that is if they won the 1997 ESC following their automatic return from relegation). As it happened relegation was replaced by an audio only pre-qualifier for the 1996 ESC, which at the time even the 1995 high fliers Spain (2nd) and Sweden (3rd) had to enter to get a place in the 1996 ESC. As we all know, Ireland's "The Voice" (a rather church style song, not the sort of thing you'd expect to win Eurovision) made it through the 1996 pre-qualifier, and won the 1996 ESC!

Since then I've noticed some interesting host entries. After Sweden's 1999 win, in 2000 they entered "When Spirits Are Calling My Name" which sounded quite a poor effort compared to "Take Me To Your Heaven" in 1999. I got the impression their 2000 entry was an effort to do badly and not win 2 years running; as it happened it finished 7th in 2000. After Ukraine won in 2004, their 2005 entry "Razom Nas Bahato" sounded downright awful to me. In my opinion "Razom Nas Bahato" seemed like a boring protest chant which seemed to me like a "suicide entry", i.e. attempt to come last with nul points, and not have to host it in 2006.

In other words, from my observations the last 20 years or so, it seems some countries that have won the ESC have submitted below par or downright awful entries when hosting the ESC the following year in an effort not to win again and have to host it again.

I'd like to see countries who want to host it put their name in a hat, and host country for a particular year is announced 18-24 months ahead. For example, announce the 2014 host country before 1 October 2012, so as not to influence countries in what songs they pick between Jan - Mar 2013 for the 2013 ESC.

AdelAdel
1st July 2012, 21:31
The most ridiculous thing was Monaco taking part in ESC... I mean... why would a country want to take part and presumably win, if they don't have even one venue to host it?! And, of course, the only time they won, they couldn't host it next year.

tuorem
1st July 2012, 22:23
The most ridiculous thing was Monaco taking part in ESC... I mean... why would a country want to take part and presumably win, if they don't have even one venue to host it?! And, of course, the only time they won, they couldn't host it next year.

Guess that like Andorra, they just wanted to be represented in this popular show. A not so expensive way to promote their country to a huge part of the European population.

AdelAdel
1st July 2012, 23:25
Guess that like Andorra, they just wanted to be represented in this popular show. A not so expensive way to promote their country to a huge part of the European population.

Monaco was worse, I mean, look at the entrants - most of them were French! The funniest thing was that the winner (1971) haven't even been to Monaco prior to the contest :?

tuorem
1st July 2012, 23:51
Monaco was worse, I mean, look at the entrants - most of them were French! The funniest thing was that the winner (1971) haven't even been to Monaco prior to the contest :?

Ah didn't know that about the winner :lol:
Actually, I've never considered Monaco as a real state like Andorra. Not sure why. What about San Marino? I don't think they have a venue to host neither, and yet they had big chances to win with Valentina this year :mrgreen:

AdelAdel
2nd July 2012, 00:02
Ah didn't know that about the winner :lol:
Actually, I've never considered Monaco as a real state like Andorra. Not sure why. What about San Marino? I don't think they have a venue to host neither, and yet they had big chances to win with Valentina this year :mrgreen:

Andorra is more of a real state than Monaco, that's for sure. What is there anyway? The prince's palace, a casino and a few hotels? :lol:
And how many citizens of Monaco actually WORK in Monaco? I bet most of them go to France to work :lol:

tuorem
2nd July 2012, 00:23
Andorra is more of a real state than Monaco, that's for sure. What is there anyway? The prince's palace, a casino and a few hotels? :lol:
And how many citizens of Monaco actually WORK in Monaco? I bet most of them go to France to work :lol:

You're right. The big interest in Monaco being independant is that it was a tax heaven. :? And what is the pride of reigning over a block of houses?:lol:

Mickey
2nd July 2012, 00:26
You don't have to host the contest if you win. You merely get invited to do so. There are plenty of examples of countries choosing not to host (admittedly not since Israel declined in 1980 and Netherlands took over).


As we all know, Ireland's "The Voice" (a rather church style song, not the sort of thing you'd expect to win Eurovision) made it through the 1996 pre-qualifier, and won the 1996 ESC!
The Voice is not something you would expect to win now, but what about in the mid 1990s? Compare it to the winner from 1995.



Since then I've noticed some interesting host entries. After Sweden's 1999 win, in 2000 they entered "When Spirits Are Calling My Name" which sounded quite a poor effort compared to "Take Me To Your Heaven" in 1999. I got the impression their 2000 entry was an effort to do badly and not win 2 years running; as it happened it finished 7th in 2000.
You seem to be assuming that was an internal selection, when the Swedish entry, like all other Swedish entries, had to win Melodifestivalen to enter ESC. It was the Swedish people's favourite. Your personal opinion that it was poor is also somewhat undermined by it's top ten finish.


After Ukraine won in 2004, their 2005 entry "Razom Nas Bahato" sounded downright awful to me. In my opinion "Razom Nas Bahato" seemed like a boring protest chant
That's exactly what it was. The song was originally a protest song from that year's Orange Revolution in Ukraine. It wasn't really about winning, but not because of the cost of staging Eurovision. It was there more as a celebration of the revolution than anything else.

I think you are also underestimating how hard it is to win ESC. The year before they won, Ukraine sent what I consider their worst ESC entry. Were they also trying not to win in 2003? Just because they struck gold in 2004, it doesn't mean that was the only time they put in an effort.

AdelAdel
2nd July 2012, 00:34
You're right. The big interest in Monaco being independant is that it was a tax heaven. :? And what is the pride of reigning over a block of houses?:lol:

Is there even border control between France and Monaco? :lol:
Do you know this joke?

Two teenagers from Monaco meet
- Hey Jacques, my parents still don't allow me to drink alcohol, and even if I went to the other side of the country, they would find me! But now I found a perfect way to drink without them seeing.
- Oh yeah? What are you doing?
- Simple, I just go abroad to drink

:lol:

tuorem
2nd July 2012, 00:45
Is there even border control between France and Monaco? :lol:
Do you know this joke?

Two teenagers from Monaco meet
- Hey Jacques, my parents still don't allow me to drink alcohol, and even if I went to the other side of the country, they would find me! But now I found a perfect way to drink without them seeing.
- Oh yeah? What are you doing?
- Simple, I just go abroad to drink

:lol:

Haha :lol: good joke! So true!
I don't think there is a border between France and Monaco, I guess that you can go to Monaco and leave it without even noticing you were elsewhere :lol:

AdelAdel
2nd July 2012, 00:56
Haha :lol: good joke! So true!
I don't think there is a border between France and Monaco, I guess that you can go to Monaco and leave it without even noticing you were elsewhere :lol:

This reminds me... sometime ago there was an article about Swiss troups marching into Liechtenstein without noticing :lol:
The whole Liechtenstein prince's guard army (about 100 people :lol:) was moblized.
The Swiss troops got lost during morning excercises :lol: and stepped to Liechtenstein without even knowing

tuorem
2nd July 2012, 01:04
This reminds me... sometime ago there was an article about Swiss troups marching into Liechtenstein without noticing :lol:
The whole Liechtenstein prince's guard army (about 100 people :lol:) was moblized.
The Swiss troops got lost during morning excercises :lol: and stepped to Liechtenstein without even knowing

Oh my! That's priceless! :lol:
Don't know what's the funniest information... The Swiss Troop that got lost in Liechtenstein or the size of the Liechtenstein army! I hope that those Swiss were aware of the existence of Liechtenstein then :lol:

AdelAdel
2nd July 2012, 01:20
Oh my! That's priceless! :lol:
Don't know what's the funniest information... The Swiss Troop that got lost in Liechtenstein or the size of the Liechtenstein army! I hope that those Swiss were aware of the existence of Liechtenstein then :lol:

Technically, it was the prince's guards, because Liechtenstein doesn't have an official army :lol: But then again, who would want to attack Liechtenstein and for what reason? :lol:
And yes, maybe they weren't aware of their existence... just like most people in the world are not aware :lol:

tuorem
2nd July 2012, 02:01
Technically, it was the prince's guards, because Liechtenstein doesn't have an official army :lol: But then again, who would want to attack Liechtenstein and for what reason? :lol:
And yes, maybe they weren't aware of their existence... just like most people in the world are not aware :lol:

Sorry, yes it's the prince's guards! It must have been an awkward situation.
That's right, when you think that most western people don't even know where is/what is Slovakia or FYR Macedonia... so Liechtenstein... :lol: That's maybe why they want to take part in Eurovision, not to be bothered by the Swiss anymore!

I didn't answer to the original topic because there are so many things to improve. For now, I'd say that in the green room, each delegation should be randomly shown during the finalists anouncement, because cameras tend to focus on the country that will qualify in the next envelope, so it kills the suspense.

The removal of the "vote boxes" during the performances is really enjoyable, that's a good move.

As to the language issue, I know it's impossible but I'd suggest that mother tongues be used in the semi finals (thus almost all countries would have sung in their languages), THEN in the final, the finalists can choose either their own language or switch to English.

As to the final voting, as some people say, it's both too fast and too long, quite boring also, but I don't see a better way to present the final outcome.

AdelAdel
2nd July 2012, 02:07
@up

What are vote boxes?

tuorem
2nd July 2012, 17:15
@up

What are vote boxes?

Don't know how do you call that. In 2010 and 2011, a window was appearing during each performance to remember the phone number.

AdelAdel
2nd July 2012, 17:20
Don't know how do you call that. In 2010 and 2011, a window was appearing during each performance to remember the phone number.

Oh, I didn't remember that.

Well, in 2012 they obviously had to remove them, because it was impossible to vote during the performances.

94ayd
3rd July 2012, 11:48
As to the language issue, I know it's impossible but I'd suggest that mother tongues be used in the semi finals (thus almost all countries would have sung in their languages), THEN in the final, the finalists can choose either their own language or switch to English.

What about the PQs? Would it be fair if countries like ::de & possibly ::it always escape the situation of them (fully) performing in German and Italian respectively?

tuorem
3rd July 2012, 21:14
What about the PQs? Would it be fair if countries like ::de & possibly ::it always escape the situation of them (fully) performing in German and Italian respectively?

What are PQs?
For the Big 5 + host, they would have the choice like all the qualifiers. But I know it's a vain idea.

AdelAdel
3rd July 2012, 22:41
Hey, tuorem - regarding our Monaco discussion a few posts ago - I checked it, and it seems that not even one entrant, who represented Monaco was from Monaco - they all were French.

94ayd
4th July 2012, 11:14
What are PQs?
For the Big 5 + host, they would have the choice like all the qualifiers. But I know it's a vain idea.

PQs = prequalifiers = Big 5 + host. ;) Sorry, we use that in NSC a lot. :lol:

tuorem
4th July 2012, 18:57
PQs = prequalifiers = Big 5 + host. ;) Sorry, we use that in NSC a lot. :lol:

No, don't be sorry! :) I just didn't know this abbreviation.

tuorem
4th July 2012, 19:02
Hey, tuorem - regarding our Monaco discussion a few posts ago - I checked it, and it seems that not even one entrant, who represented Monaco was from Monaco - they all were French.

Oh :D that's even worse than we thought! Monaco is just a travesty, I guess it participated according to the royal family's will.

AdelAdel
4th July 2012, 19:30
Oh :D that's even worse than we thought! Monaco is just a travesty, I guess it participated according to the royal family's will.

I guess so... I read that many of the entrants had to actually meet with someone from the royal family before singing. Not the 1971 winner, though, as like I said, she have never been to Monaco prior to the contest :lol:
Luxembourg, however, sent about 10 entrants from their own country, but all the others were also foreign. Actually, none of the "Luxembourgish" winners were actually from Luxembourg :?

However, there were worse cases, take Switzerland for example - Celine Dion and Vanilla Ninja represented it, while having no connection with Switzerland whatsoever! They're as Swiss as I am :lol:

tuorem
4th July 2012, 19:47
I guess so... I read that many of the entrants had to actually meet with someone from the royal family before singing. Not the 1971 winner, though, as like I said, she have never been to Monaco prior to the contest :lol:
Luxembourg, however, sent about 10 entrants from their own country, but all the others were also foreign. Actually, none of the "Luxembourgish" winners were actually from Luxembourg :?

However, there were worse cases, take Switzerland for example - Celine Dion and Vanilla Ninja represented it, while having no connection with Switzerland whatsoever! They're as Swiss as I am :lol:

At least, Luxembourg tried to promote its own artists, that's the spirit! even though none of the winners weren't natives as you said. As to Switzerland, it's absolutely disappointing to see that they looked for foreign artists while they have three different cultures within their borders, with lots of artists to be revealed through Eurovision.

I acknowledge that they don't have an easy path to qualify for the final, but very often they seem to ruin their chances themselves by sending mediocre songs

AdelAdel
4th July 2012, 20:00
At least, Luxembourg tried to promote its own artists, that's the spirit! even though none of the winners weren't natives as you said. As to Switzerland, it's absolutely disappointing to see that they looked for foreign artists while they have three different cultures within their borders, with lots of artists to be revealed through Eurovision.

I acknowledge that they don't have an easy path to qualify for the final, but very often they seem to ruin their chances themselves by sending mediocre songs

Yeah, I agree. The last time Switzerland had success, was in 2005, when Vanilla Ninja represented the country. They came 8th in the final. The problem is - they are an Estonian band, and it's still mystery to me, why didn't they want to represent Estonia back then.

tuorem
5th July 2012, 13:05
Yeah, I agree. The last time Switzerland had success, was in 2005, when Vanilla Ninja represented the country. They came 8th in the final. The problem is - they are an Estonian band, and it's still mystery to me, why didn't they want to represent Estonia back then.

Yes, its is really odd. As to Vanilla Ninja, maybe they had enough taking part once. Eighth place is good, it's hard to come back and do better. By the way, is an artist allowed to represent different countries? is there a rule stating that a Eurovision entrant for Switzerland for instance cannot represent any other country in the future?

AdelAdel
5th July 2012, 13:29
Yes, its is really odd. As to Vanilla Ninja, maybe they had enough taking part once. Eighth place is good, it's hard to come back and do better. By the way, is an artist allowed to represent different countries? is there a rule stating that a Eurovision entrant for Switzerland for instance cannot represent any other country in the future?

There's no rule like that. You can be from whatever country to represent another, for example, a Chinese & Peruvian duo can represent Slovakia no problem, even if they haven't put a foot in Slovakia (hello, Monaco 1971).

Nowadays, it is problematic to get a higher place, than before. The ones that tried failed (Niamh, Dana International, Edsilia Rombley, etc.). In the past it was different, look at Udo Jurgens (winner of the 1966 contest), he participated in 1964 and received the 6th position, then in 1965 the 4th position, and in 1966 he finally won.

Vanilla Ninja is successful enough without Eurovision. Actually, I enjoy their songs :)

Mickey
5th July 2012, 20:21
Yes, its is really odd. As to Vanilla Ninja, maybe they had enough taking part once. Eighth place is good, it's hard to come back and do better.

They tried and failed to represent Estonia in 2003 (when they topped the phone vote, but juries didn't like them) and 2007. They've now split up, but are still trying. Lenna, the lead singer, has twice come second in the Estonian national final (2010 and 2012). I think some of the other members have also attempted to represent their homeland solo.

NemesisNick
7th July 2012, 14:48
Actually it is possible to come back and do better. Take the following artists:
Dima Bilan: Russia 2006 "Never Let You Go" 2nd, Russia 2008 "Believe" 1st
Jean Vallée: Belgium 1970 8th, Belgium 1978 2nd
Linda Martin: Ireland 1984 2nd, Ireland 1992 1st
Udo Jürgens: Austria 1964 6th, Austria 1965 4th, Austria 1966 1st (i.e. third ime lucky!)

Unfortunately a lot of repeat attempts have been placed lower.
Bob Benny: Belgium 1959 6th, Belgium 1961 15th
Charlotte Nilsson/Perrelli: Sweden 1999 1st, Sweden 2008 18th
Cliff Richard: UK 1968 2nd, UK 1973 3rd
Dana International: Israel 1998 1st, Israel 2011 (SF2 15th DNQ)
Evridiki: Cyprus 1992 11th, Cyprus 1994 11th, Cyprus 2007 (SF 15th DNQ)
Family Four: Sweden 1971 6th, Sweden 1972 13th
Gary Lux: Austria 1985 8th, Austria 1987 20th
Guy Bonnet: France 1970 4th, France 1983 8th
Ilanit: Israel 1973 4th, Israel 1977 11th
Isabelle Aubret: France 1962 1st, France 1968 3rd
Jedward: Ireland 2011 8th, Ireland 2012 19th
Katri-Helena: Finland 1979 14th, Finland 1993 17th
Niamh Kavanagh: Ireland 1993 1st, Ireland 2010 23rd
Sakis Rouvas: Greece 2004 3rd, Greece 2009 7th
Tony Wegas: Austria 1992 10th, Austria 1993 14th
Thomas Forstner: Austria 1989 5th (97 pts), Austria 1991 22nd (out of 22, nul points)
Tommy Körberg: Sweden 1969 9th, Sweden 1988 12th
Željko Joksimović: Serbia & Montenegro 2004 2nd, Serbia 2012 3rd (he deserved 2nd though, better than Russia who deserved last!)

There have been some interesting up and down performances:

Carola: Sweden 1983 3rd, Sweden 1991 1st, Sweden 2006 5th
Corry Brokken: Netherlands 1957 1st, Netherlands 1958 9th (N.B. Corry's 1956 placing for "Voorgoed Voorbij" is unknown, but obviously was below 1st).
Hot Eyes: Denmark 1984 4th, Denmark 1985 11th, Denmark 1988 3rd

By the way, I've looked at selected individual countries on eurovision.tv - due to the long winded process involved there are several countries I didn't look at so there's bound to be more artists that have entered more than once and have been placed lower on second or later attempts.

Also there's Izhar Cohen and the Alphabeta Israel 1978 1st and Izhar Cohen Israel 1985 5th. I take it that's the same Izhar Cohen both times. There must be more cases like that.

In addition there's artists that have performed as part of a group solo one year and alone another, or as part of one group one year and part of another group another, e.g. I think there was one singer who was in Co-Co in 1978 and Bucks Fizz in 1981. Obviously cases like this are difficult to spot just by looking at individual countries histories on eurovision.tv - one would need to know individual members of groups.

Mickey
7th July 2012, 17:05
Also there's Izhar Cohen and the Alphabeta Israel 1978 1st and Izhar Cohen Israel 1985 5th. I take it that's the same Izhar Cohen both times. There must be more cases like that.

Yeah, same guy. Personally I prefer his 1985 entry, even though it was almost ruined by an out of tune backing singer.

Part of the reason for second timers often doing worse, is that the reason they're invited back is that they did well before. Could you imagine the UK selecting Jemini to represent the UK again? There'll be very few, if any who go from a place at the bottom of the scoreboard to the top ten, just through lack of opportunity. There's every opportunity to do the reverse.

NemesisNick
7th July 2012, 17:22
Could you imagine the UK selecting Jemini to represent the UK again?
After Jemini's nul points in 2003, I hardly think the BBC will enter Jemini again. Has Jemini tried to enter since 2003?


There'll be very few, if any who go from a place at the bottom of the scoreboard to the top ten, just through lack of opportunity. There's every opportunity to do the reverse.
Here's one example of the above:
Jahn Teigen: Norway 1978 20th (last) with nul points, Norway 1983 9th 53 points.
Those are just his two solo entries. In between there was Jahn Teigen and Anita Skorgan Norway 1982 12th 40 points.

I haven't looked through eurovision.tv to find any other similar examples. Is Jahn Teigen the only singer to return to the ESC after coming last with nul points (either alone, with another singer or part of a group)?

Mickey
7th July 2012, 19:09
After Jemini's nul points in 2003, I hardly think the BBC will enter Jemini again. Has Jemini tried to enter since 2003?

Of course not. That was my point.


Here's one example of the above:
Jahn Teigen: Norway 1978 20th (last) with nul points, Norway 1983 9th 53 points.
Those are just his two solo entries. In between there was Jahn Teigen and Anita Skorgan Norway 1982 12th 40 points.

I haven't looked through eurovision.tv to find any other similar examples. Is Jahn Teigen the only singer to return to the ESC after coming last with nul points (either alone, with another singer or part of a group)?
Good example. I'd forgotten about him. Perhaps Jahn is an exception, as he became a sort Eddie the Eagle type folk hero in Norway after his landmark failure (the first nul pointer under the current voting system).

I read the book "Nul Points" by Tim Moore about all the nul pointers (very interesting read for any fan) and, as far as I can recall, he was the only one to return to ESC.

AdelAdel
7th July 2012, 19:53
I read the book "Nul Points" by Tim Moore about all the nul pointers (very interesting read for any fan) and, as far as I can recall, he was the only one to return to ESC.

This sounds like a cool book to read... is it available on-line? :D

Mickey
7th July 2012, 20:26
This sounds like a cool book to read... is it available on-line? :D

Nul Points: Amazon.co.uk: Tim Moore: Books (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nul-Points-Tim-Moore/dp/0224077805/ref=cm_cr_pr_pb_t)

AdelAdel
7th July 2012, 20:33
Nul Points: Amazon.co.uk: Tim Moore: Books (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nul-Points-Tim-Moore/dp/0224077805/ref=cm_cr_pr_pb_t)

Whoaaaaa! :o 10,79 x 5 = over 50 zloty... for a book about nul points... no thanks :mrgreen: If we count the additional fee for the book being transported from the UK, that would cost A LOT of money :p

Mickey
7th July 2012, 21:41
Whoaaaaa! :o 10,79 x 5 = over 50 zloty... for a book about nul points... no thanks :mrgreen: If we count the additional fee for the book being transported from the UK, that would cost A LOT of money :p

There must be a way to get it more easily in Poland. I just lazily picked the easiest way for me. There's also used versions on that site that are much cheaper.

tuorem
8th July 2012, 15:31
NemesisNick, the list of "successful comebacks" that you wrote here reinforce my thoughts that, except Dima Bilan from Russia (well, it's not that surprising), there weren't any in the 2000s. The contest has changed a lot and I guess people had more chances to do better on the second attempt in the past.

NemesisNick
11th July 2012, 14:38
If you look back at my list, you will notice that even in the 1960s and 1970s, there weren't many "placed higher 2nd time around" artists. Back then the majority of artists I listed were placed lower on second or subsequent attempts.

What makes you think artists had more chances to do better on 2nd attempts in the past?

AdelAdel
11th July 2012, 14:45
If you look back at my list, you will notice that even in the 1960s and 1970s, there weren't many "placed higher 2nd time around" artists. Back then the majority of artists I listed were placed lower on second or subsequent attempts.

What makes you think artists had more chances to do better on 2nd attempts in the past?

They were ambitious and performed better songs than in the past? I don't know.

tuorem
12th July 2012, 15:55
If you look back at my list, you will notice that even in the 1960s and 1970s, there weren't many "placed higher 2nd time around" artists. Back then the majority of artists I listed were placed lower on second or subsequent attempts.

What makes you think artists had more chances to do better on 2nd attempts in the past?

It may be stupid, but I think that when someone wins the contest or achieves a good placing, obviously he/she was loved by the viewers. So if that person returns to the contest, because of his/her past success, the new entry will get more attention than if it was sung by a new singer. The popularity gained during the first attempt is a huge advantage for the second one.

Examples like Charlotte Perrelli saved in 2008, Chiara qualifying in 2009 with a weak effort, Niamh Kavanagh in 2010, Jedward going to the final this year with "Waterline", come to my mind. (Except Dana International last year who didn't follow the rule).

At least, it helps in most cases going to the final while I doubt these entries would have qualified with an unknown singer who had to promote the entry as well as himself/herself. Do you know what I mean?

AdelAdel
12th July 2012, 16:36
Examples like Charlotte Perrelli saved in 2008, Chiara qualifying in 2009 with a weak effort, Niamh Kavanagh in 2010, Jedward going to the final this year with "Waterline", come to my mind. (Except Dana International last year who didn't follow the rule).


All of these qualified, but they all did really bad in the final. This proves, that the public doesn't really like comebacks that much.

tuorem
12th July 2012, 16:41
All of these qualified, but they all did really bad in the final. This proves, that the public doesn't really like comebacks that much.

Yes, I agree. But I can't help myself from thinking that most of them qualified because of their names. Yeah obviously, it goes nowhere in the final.

AdelAdel
12th July 2012, 17:28
Yes, I agree. But I can't help myself from thinking that most of them qualified because of their names. Yeah obviously, it goes nowhere in the final.

There is a chance that their name helped them, but it's not a rule. Let's take this year's Engelbert Humperdinck and Anggun - they are very well known around the world, and finished at the very bottom.

tuorem
12th July 2012, 17:52
There is a chance that their name helped them, but it's not a rule. Let's take this year's Engelbert Humperdinck and Anggun - they are very well known around the world, and finished at the very bottom.

Actually, I was talking about singers that already took part in Eurovision previously. Of course, the fame alone isn't sufficient.

Even for Blue, they did actually really well with the televotes, but now that the juries have their say in the final too, well known artists have to bring something good.

SnideAsides
6th August 2012, 16:32
I think I have a solution that might help the bloc voting - a pre-voting point bonus (let's say twelve points) for songs in a language any part of the country recognises as official. Yes, Turkey and Russia would benefit some more, but so would Spain, Portugal, Italy, France, the UK, Ireland, and the Netherlands (which has English-speaking territories in the Caribbean). Belgium doesn't benefit with an English song, but between Dutch, French, and German they should be able to work something out. The full language rule won't do anything, and with the diaspora there's no way to fairly restrict votes, but... with this a country has to weigh up the benefits of singing a song people can understand and forfeiting bonus points, or taking bonus points but also taking the risk their song is good enough to overcome the language barrier.

tuorem
8th August 2012, 22:30
I think I have a solution that might help the bloc voting - a pre-voting point bonus (let's say twelve points) for songs in a language any part of the country recognises as official. Yes, Turkey and Russia would benefit some more, but so would Spain, Portugal, Italy, France, the UK, Ireland, and the Netherlands (which has English-speaking territories in the Caribbean). Belgium doesn't benefit with an English song, but between Dutch, French, and German they should be able to work something out. The full language rule won't do anything, and with the diaspora there's no way to fairly restrict votes, but... with this a country has to weigh up the benefits of singing a song people can understand and forfeiting bonus points, or taking bonus points but also taking the risk their song is good enough to overcome the language barrier.

And how would your suggestion work? Can you give me an example? Because rewarding a country that sends a song sung in its national language doesn't automatically mean that the song is musically worthy. It's brave to sing in your language but if the song is meh, it shouldn't be rewarded than better songs sung in English imo.

So the juries would be entitled to award those extra points... I really don't know if it can push countries to sing in their own language: maybe the poorest ones in terms of results (like Slovakia, Latvia, San Marino) because they're rather desperate at achieving a decent placing, but still... It won't be enough to change the trend. On the contrary, the countries that are used to do well may not feel concerned by those points since they don't need twelve more points to qualify.

Bringing the languages back without the language rule is almost impossible because most of the attempts to reach this goal wouldn't rely on musical and quality matters. A good song may be better in the country's mother tongue, while a bad song remains bad, whether it's in English or not.

Plus, I'm convinced that it wouldn't stop block voting.

Matt
9th August 2012, 00:57
I think I have a solution that might help the bloc voting - a pre-voting point bonus (let's say twelve points) for songs in a language any part of the country recognises as official. Yes, Turkey and Russia would benefit some more, but so would Spain, Portugal, Italy, France, the UK, Ireland, and the Netherlands (which has English-speaking territories in the Caribbean). Belgium doesn't benefit with an English song, but between Dutch, French, and German they should be able to work something out. The full language rule won't do anything, and with the diaspora there's no way to fairly restrict votes, but... with this a country has to weigh up the benefits of singing a song people can understand and forfeiting bonus points, or taking bonus points but also taking the risk their song is good enough to overcome the language barrier.

So Ireland & UK would get a default 12 points every year???

And how would that stop bloc voting? If everyone starts singing in their native language everyone would get 12 points therefore it's a washout.

Jukica
9th August 2012, 18:04
So Ireland & UK would get a default 12 points every year???

And how would that stop bloc voting? If everyone starts singing in their native language everyone would get 12 points therefore it's a washout.

Agree, wouldn't help a lot :/

Stuff
11th August 2012, 06:38
Since Eurovision is watched world wide, How about having a single slot for the grand finals to be voted by a "global vote" This is going to be called world's choice. Votes outside the EBU will be counted and the one with the highest non EBU vote will get to the finals. The global vote wont be existing in the finals though. Its only for a finals slot.

It has negatives though.... Lets say a person of Chinese descent represent San Marino, the whole Chinese population will vote for San Marino.

----

Or how about a Wildcard entry to be voted by the eliminated candidates themselves.

thegry
11th August 2012, 20:02
Or how about a Wildcard entry to be voted by the eliminated candidates themselves.

Now there's an idea.....

Anyway, I think that the Big5 rule should be abolished, and that all counties can vote in the semifinal(s).

Stargazer
14th August 2012, 04:10
The only thing that would stop the bloc voting is if you wouldn't be allowed to vote for the countries that are in your "pot", the ones they use for the semi final allocation draw. So, for example, during this year's ESC, Belarus, Georgia, Israel, Moldova, Russia and Ukraine wouldn't have been able to vote for one another since they were all in pot 3. Azerbaijan belongs to that pot as well.

SnideAsides
27th August 2012, 05:56
And how would your suggestion work? Can you give me an example? Because rewarding a country that sends a song sung in its national language doesn't automatically mean that the song is musically worthy. It's brave to sing in your language but if the song is meh, it shouldn't be rewarded than better songs sung in English imo.

So the juries would be entitled to award those extra points... I really don't know if it can push countries to sing in their own language: maybe the poorest ones in terms of results (like Slovakia, Latvia, San Marino) because they're rather desperate at achieving a decent placing, but still... It won't be enough to change the trend. On the contrary, the countries that are used to do well may not feel concerned by those points since they don't need twelve more points to qualify.

Bringing the languages back without the language rule is almost impossible because most of the attempts to reach this goal wouldn't rely on musical and quality matters. A good song may be better in the country's mother tongue, while a bad song remains bad, whether it's in English or not.

Plus, I'm convinced that it wouldn't stop block voting.

That's kind of my point though - we're never going to be able to stop bloc voting completely. But we can even the playing field a little to try and dilute the impact of the hundred or so votes the usual suspects receive by default from the diaspora every year. If it was only one country benefiting, I'd suggest just adding them to the Big Group and we'd be done with the whole issue. But it's not, and we need to find a way to help the smaller countries.

So, for example, the scoreboard comes up at the start of voting and the hosts explain everything, then explain that countries who sang in their own languages are awarded a bonus douze points. These points are then added at the start, before the first round of votes, and it's all done and dusted.

It's actually an advantage that the countries who are used to doing well wouldn't care about it - if everybody starts singing in their own languages, the bonus becomes pointless. And quite often the songs in native languages are those ones that finish eleventh or twelfth in the semifinals and just miss the cut. If a good native-language song makes it to the final, it tends to do fairly well (unless it's British).

Let's say the Netherlands sends a kickass song in Dutch next year. Without the bonus, it finishes a close twelfth and becomes their ninth semi-final loss in a row. With the bonus, it vaults over the bland Albanian and Ukrainian entries sung in English, and secures the tenth place in the final. It probably won't win the whole contest (because, you know, Dutch entry), but again with the bonus it could mean the difference between finishing in the bottom few and finishing in the middle of the pack.

Plus, bad songs rarely do well enough for an extra twelve points to make a difference.

Yamarus
3rd September 2012, 08:42
I think Stargazer's suggestion that you cannot vote for countries in your allocated "Pot" is an interesting one. After all, those change slightly every year according to voting patterns, so why not?

I've always thought that a good way to keep balance would be to organise regional finals: one for UK, Ireland and Nordics; one for ex-USSR, one for the rest of Continental Western Europe; one for Eastern Europe (from the Baltic States to Romania) and one for South-Eastern Europe (Balkans, Greece, Turkey, Israel & Cyprus). Then the top 5 in those groups move to the Big Final where you can only vote for a song in another regional group. I don't see how that could be organised though, because you'd have in effect 5 semi-finals instead of two, and not broadcast Europe-wide.