PDA

View Full Version : Juries- keep'em or trash'em?



r3gg13
1st July 2011, 22:38
Ok, so from reading the window for voting thread, I noticed a lot of discussion about juries.

So, here's a thread dedicated to juries.
All sentiments welcome! Say anything and everything related to juries

Sabiondo
1st July 2011, 23:05
Don't have anything to say against hers...i thing that they did well his jop, but i wished that they had carrefull when are evaluating :)

nikolay_BG
1st July 2011, 23:06
F|_|CK THEM :lol:

:lol: yes, this is how much I love the juries.... yes... :lol:

lucian-crusher
1st July 2011, 23:07
Kick them out! Everybody should have the same power in voting!

goktengri
1st July 2011, 23:28
Juries are not fair either. It doesn't matter.

Yamarus
1st July 2011, 23:54
I was uncomfortable with 100% televote. And 100% jury voting is absolutely out of the question. 50/50 is the compromise. But I do think that juries need more transparency.

Matt
1st July 2011, 23:57
I was uncomfortable with 100% televote. And 100% jury voting is absolutely out of the question. 50/50 is the compromise. But I do think that juries need more transparency.

Agree 100% with this.

I didn't like the path ESC was taking with 100% televote so bringing the juries back with different rules and guidelines was a fantastic idea. I just would want to get more info on the voting breakdown by country and jury vs televote just like they did in 2009 for transparency reason.

Quent91
2nd July 2011, 00:07
The juries are doing a great job. I wanna keep them ;)

94ayd
2nd July 2011, 14:41
Um, I find the combined voting really interesting, so I don't mind them at all. It's probably the best system we've had so far. ;)

doctormalisimo
2nd July 2011, 14:47
Um, I find the combined voting really interesting, so I don't mind them at all. It's probably the best system we've had so far. ;)

+1 :D

Kicker
2nd July 2011, 14:55
Kick them out!
The ESC is just a question of TASTE. And why should the TASTE of a few people count more as the taste of a million people togheter?!

CC92
2nd July 2011, 15:16
Hence with them! Those who like dated disney ballads and over-generic pop stuff but hate modern music as well as cultural or un-commercial/innovative impacts are free to watch American Idol, listen to 'Adult contemporary' stations or whatever but should not disturb the majority that does not share their taste.
Earlier I was a fan of the idea of having huge representative juries. Like poll surveys for political elections. However, in practise this never would work as too many broadcasters still would try to push through their own political/tactical/economic interests. Instead we need a strictly limited amount of votes via one phone, anyway, still almost always works better (incl. the televoting system now) than a responsible's veto against public decisions.

sophielou
2nd July 2011, 16:45
I think the juries make the voting more varied and interesting so I'm all for them. The ultimate irony is that my country's entry would have come 5th this year but for the jury votes. Yet the jury votes do spread the scores a little further and fairer, so I'm for them. Keep 'em! :D

That said some improvements might be needed. I think that the juries should have some people from the music industry (Like they do now) but maybe a couple of regular people (or at least younger people) who are fans of the show and are randomly selected by people who apply to be on the jury. I think it'd be nice for mad Eurovision fans to have their say because I like to think we don't have particular country loyalties or song-type loyalties (The juries appear to like ballads, for example). I'd also like to know who the juries are. You really have to scrape around to find their names.

But yes, I do think 50% televoting and 50% jury is the most interesting and fair system the country has ever had. Previous systems were unfair and did create biases one way or the other. The public vote and the jury vote sort of cancel each other out.

nikolay_BG
2nd July 2011, 16:56
I think, because of the juries we`ll get more and more borring disney ballads then good music.
People only support juries, cause their countries aren`t backed up by the others, cause they send awfull songs (I look at you, UK).

The juries avoid some styles (modern) and some countries (like Russia) on purpuse. That`s not fair and this looks like a "revenge" to the "filthy eastern heads" :D.

Also the juries don`t give any colourful diversity to the contest - all of the songs who were let from the jury were in english (accept of Serbia).
Pluse it`s easier to bribe 5 jury members then a whole nation.

I am 100% sure that all of the jury members are bribed to vote or not to vote for specific countries (like Russia for example)

Matt
2nd July 2011, 17:18
I think, because of the juries we`ll get more and more borring disney ballads then good music.
People only support juries, cause their countries aren`t backed up by the others, cause they send awfull songs (I look at you, UK).

Italy 2011 is a Disney ballad? Germany 2010 is a Disney Ballad? Norway 2009 is a Disney Ballad? There is so much bias in your statement I wouldn't even know where to begin. You call 'Disney' ballads (why is every ballad in ESC called a Disney ballad???) bad music....based on what? Your personal taste. And since you always love to associate Disney ballads = bad music, you may wanna look around and check what songs are considered timeless music that is still listened to and loved by millions of people even today? The so called 'bad Disney music' that you are referring to. The whole purpose of juries is to look at music from a different perspective than televoters who easily get impressed with a catchy and predictable melody that I could write in 10 minutes myself. Just repeating the same melody and lyrics 25 times in three minutes is not appealing to everyone. And now you are claiming that UK sends terrible music, the funny thing is the juries agreed with you 2 years in a row. So the UK hasn't been backed up by the juries at all. So your point is kind of weak there.


The juries avoid some styles (modern) and some countries (like Russia) on purpuse. That`s not fair and this looks like a "revenge" to the "filthy eastern heads" :D.

Please define the term 'modern music' to me. Are you claiming that Slovenia 2011 was not modern? Azerbaijan 2011 was outdated? Same goes to Denmark??? It's clear that you have an agenda here and disregard the fact that songs like "Popular" that has the 90 Schlager sound and not charted anywhere either is incredibly outdated. Let's be fair here. Don't blame "juries" voting for non modern songs when that could apply to both parties. And we all are aware of your dislike of Western Countries but the juries are from all over the continent so your discriminatory accusation is kind of baseless unless you are calling the Eastern Countries (and you always looove to be exclusive like that) cheaters, too don't just play the 'blame the West' card.




Also the juries don`t give any colourful diversity to the contest - all of the songs who were let from the jury were in english (accept of Serbia).

Hmm, 9 1/2 half songs in the Televoting To 10 are in english, and the jury had 8 1/2 songs in english in their Top 10 respectively. While that is on an average basis a high number as well it is definitely pretty much proves that your claim is not fair blaming the juries voting for english songs when their No 1 is half italian/half english and the only song that the televoters gave high points to was Greece where the chorus was in greek but that's it.




I am 100% sure that all of the jury members are bribed to vote or not to vote for specific countries (like Russia for example)

Oh great, please provide some proof or source.

In the meantime, I am 100% sure that the world is flat and bunnies are planning on conquering Alaska trying to build nuclear carrots of mass destruction.

sophielou
2nd July 2011, 17:28
I think, because of the juries we`ll get more and more borring disney ballads then good music.
People only support juries, cause their countries aren`t backed up by the others, cause they send awfull songs (I look at you, UK).

The juries avoid some styles (modern) and some countries (like Russia) on purpuse. That`s not fair and this looks like a "revenge" to the "filthy eastern heads" :D.

Also the juries don`t give any colourful diversity to the contest - all of the songs who were let from the jury were in english (accept of Serbia).
Pluse it`s easier to bribe 5 jury members then a whole nation.

I am 100% sure that all of the jury members are bribed to vote or not to vote for specific countries (like Russia for example)

I don't see why that should be true given that it was the juries that kept the UK out of the Top 10 this year. Televoting alone and Blue would have been in 5th place. So the nations obviously liked it but the juries didn't. Slovenia received most of their points from the juries (and good because it was a good song).

What's wrong if the juries just really liked Italy this year? Italy had no desire to win Eurovision so I don't think they were bribing anyone to vote for them but they beat their nearest rivals (Azerbaijan) by nearly 70 points. Neither of these countries had anything to gain from bribing anyone.

And as I said on the other thread I doubt very much the juries are bribed. I mean, who the hell in bribing them? Like, all 45 of them? Who could be bothered?

Matt
2nd July 2011, 17:30
They also have 168 points to Denmark, which is an Eastern European country. (and good because it was a good song).



:?: :o::dkx??? xthink

Kicker
2nd July 2011, 17:35
Denmark an eastern european country? o_O

sophielou
2nd July 2011, 17:45
OK, point taken. :p

I suppose the point I was trying to make was that countries in the middle of supposed bloc-voting areas still receive top points from the jury if they deserve it and I said it wrong thing. I was my mistake. Sorry.

Matt
2nd July 2011, 18:45
OK, point taken. :p

I suppose the point I was trying to make was that countries in the middle of supposed bloc-voting areas still receive top points from the jury if they deserve it and I said it wrong thing. I was my mistake. Sorry.

I kinda knew where you were going with it ;) But Denmark is certainly NOT East. It's either West or North.
And when you look at the jury votes for this year it's a clear mix between West and East all over the board

1. Italy (considered West)
2. Azerbaijan (East)
3. Denmark (West)
4. Slovenia (East)
5. Austria (West)

Bottom 5

Russia (East)
Spain (West)
Switzerland (West)
UK (West)
Hungary (East)

And don't get me wrong, I don't agree with all of those results (Austria so hight?? WTF??? UK so low??? WTF??? Azerbaijan so high?? WTF) but that's my personal taste an preference. I'm not saying those are the good or modern songs, those are the ones I responded to well.

lucian-crusher
2nd July 2011, 20:41
1. Italy (considered West)
2. Azerbaijan (East)
3. Denmark (West)
4. Slovenia (East)
5. Austria (West)

Bottom 5

Russia (East)
Spain (West)
Switzerland (West)
UK (West)
Hungary (East)

Wrong! This is more correct:

1. Italy (South)
2. Azerbaijan (East)
3. Denmark (North)
4. Slovenia (South)
5. Austria (Central)

Bottom 5

Russia (East)
Spain (South)
Switzerland (Central)
UK (West)
Hungary (Central)

Matt
2nd July 2011, 21:18
Wrong! This is more correct:

1. Italy (South)
2. Azerbaijan (East)
3. Denmark (North)
4. Slovenia (South)
5. Austria (Central)

Bottom 5

Russia (East)
Spain (South)
Switzerland (Central)
UK (West)
Hungary (Central)


It's not wrong, I was purely referring to the West vs East conversation. Of course there are north, south and central european but you know what I was talking about.

CC92
2nd July 2011, 21:21
@ sophielou

Who says that Denmark was a 'good song'? Because it suited thy taste? Asia and Europe have not thought so in May.

But I agree that the jury – all in all! some political points and boycotts just balance the total outcome – rather votes against genres than flags. If assumed televoting (diaspora/neighbour/political) profiteers play juryfriendly they will gain their support or be saved by them. Examples are Bosnia and Herzegovina 2010, Ukraine 2010, Romania 2010, Serbia 2011. And vice versa assumed victims become punished with juryunfriendly entries like Spain on all three occasions, France 2010, Holland 2010 or the United Kingdom 2011. Well, this more or less proves they either are unable to degrade the assumed unfairness of televoting or the effects had never been that dramatic as some fans and boulevard media snivelled after they lost in 2007 and 2008. "Not that our outdated and ultra generic were at fault." It was much easier to blame the soviets, communists and aliens instead.

MyHeartIsYours
3rd July 2011, 04:07
Keep them, but they and the way they vote needs reforming badly, just like the Televoting does. At present, it is just two seperate results stuck together and it doesnt work when there are clear differences in opinion between the Televote and Juryvote.
For the Juries, they need to be made up of more members (say 10) and must be a variety of ages and with a variety of musical backgrounds to prevent to so called 'Jury favourites' doing very well without as much Televote support ie Italy 2011. I agree that they should vote based on certain categories but this vote should be done after the final performances, not the dress rehearsal. It's seems very silly to me to have half of the result based on a completely different performance to what I watched.

sannerz
3rd July 2011, 08:18
Wrong! This is more correct:

1. Italy (South)
2. Azerbaijan (East)
3. Denmark (North)
4. Slovenia (South)
5. Austria (Central)

Bottom 5

Russia (East)
Spain (South)
Switzerland (Central)
UK (West)
Hungary (Central)

He was obviously referring to the normal ideological "Western v. Eastern" boundaries in Europe, but your correction of his post furthermore proves that the jury votes were spread out relatively equally and not favored towards any "part" of Europe.

Sabiondo
3rd July 2011, 08:50
Keep them, but they and the way they vote needs reforming badly, just like the Televoting does. At present, it is just two seperate results stuck together and it doesnt work when there are clear differences in opinion between the Televote and Juryvote.
For the Juries, they need to be made up of more members (say 10) and must be a variety of ages and with a variety of musical backgrounds to prevent to so called 'Jury favourites' doing very well without as much Televote support ie Italy 2011. I agree that they should vote based on certain categories but this vote should be done after the final performances, not the dress rehearsal. It's seems very silly to me to have half of the result based on a completely different performance to what I watched.


xgood

evilperson
12th July 2011, 05:57
Keep them, but they and the way they vote needs reforming badly, just like the Televoting does. At present, it is just two seperate results stuck together and it doesnt work when there are clear differences in opinion between the Televote and Juryvote.
For the Juries, they need to be made up of more members (say 10) and must be a variety of ages and with a variety of musical backgrounds to prevent to so called 'Jury favourites' doing very well without as much Televote support ie Italy 2011. I agree that they should vote based on certain categories but this vote should be done after the final performances, not the dress rehearsal. It's seems very silly to me to have half of the result based on a completely different performance to what I watched.

I agree completely. Having the jury vote for a whole country come down to 5 people is a bit foolish. They should up the number and they really should vote for the same performance I believe. I'm iffy on this but I think its more fair to be judged on the same piece of work. And I really think each country should have to reveal who is on their jury! I'm sure there are people interested in knowing exactly who are the people who are deciding half of the result. That's all.

CC92
12th July 2011, 14:52
^ One could give it a try but I fear broadcasters will always abuse their power. For example German NDR always giving 80-95% of their points to 'blond countries' or Turkish TRT to muslim countries no matter how many persons they use for this. And there had to be strict criteria for the jury's setting but less for which genres they are (not) to vote. Additionally not only the juror's names need to be revealed, also to whom they gave their points and that during the voting procedure at best broken down to each specific member what would make bribing much more awkward. Furthermore they had to fix the of addition both results that it is mathematically correct. Every year the actual 50/50-result differs a bit from the official combined list and for sure it (rightfully) would lead to huge trouble if that effected the final's winner like in 2010's second semi-final.

AlekS
12th July 2011, 15:05
At present, it is just two seperate results stuck together and it doesnt work when there are clear differences in opinion between the Televote and Juryvote.

It doesn't work for why? Because the jury doesn't vote like televoters? And why should they vote like televoters? Even with small differences...
There's no point in the jury then if you want them to vote similary to televoters.

Such "reforming" is nothing but ordering people to vote like majority. If it really differs it's such a crime.... oh my. Judging performers in a different way is such a crime :lol: .... uhuh.


As for judging 2 different performances. If performer sucks at performing this is his problem, not the jury's. Back up entries are being recorded on the last dress rehearsal so performers sould be ready like this is their final night. I see not a single problem here.

And again there's not a single adecavte reason why the jury should please televoters and vote in the same day with them and that it's such a problem and it's not fair.
It's like saying that there should be just 1 event in heptathlon.

nikolay_BG
12th July 2011, 17:43
Why should we keep them, Aleks? They are fucking the results. Badly. Look at the top 3 countries - only 1 is good od them and thank god that it won. Italy and Sweden sucked hard. Do you believe that Italy and Sweden were THAT good to take this places?

For the first time I`ll say it but I believe that Russia was purelly underrated this time. Also as Poland, Spain, UK, Germany and Norway.

Something really fishy is going on and it started after the EBU decided that the televotes suck because Serbia won the contest.

Yamarus
12th July 2011, 20:52
Sweden's ranking was actually 2nd thanks to televote, the juries placed it lower. So you can't blame 'em. And as for Italy, while I consider that song to be completely forgettable (but Italy is not far from the bottom of my list of favourite countries), you can hardly say it sucked hard. Televote nr 3, Greece, is as controversial (IMO, that song was beyond awful, whereas other people see it as a masterpiece).

And honestly, Russia? Underrated? When does that ever happen? "Get You" wasn't bad, I liked it, but among the many up-tempo songs of 2011 it was one of the least original and people overlooked it. Estonia 2011, now *that* was underrated.

CC92
12th July 2011, 22:25
^ And for me it was Estonia that was beyond awful. You see, it is all about taste.

A-lister
12th July 2011, 22:29
I got just two words to answer this question:

TRASH 'EM!!

They have been bringing this contest to such low levels it hasn't been on prior the semifinal resolution.

They are biased against anything that can be remotely representing the countries (ethnic elements, native languages) and therefor totally killing one very important spirit of this contest imo, which is the EUROpean aspect of it.

They have no clue about current music trends (hello the era of Disney Ballads died in mid 90's!!) and they are turning Eurovision into yet another copy of singing kareoke contests such as Idol/X-factor instead when the focus should be on the songs (afterall this is a song contest, we don't need another copy). Now a real crappy song, dated and unrepresentative, will get high points only if the singer can wail it off good enough... so much for SONG contest huh?

If nothing radical is done, then I'd say scr*w the juries! I feel they are just put here to give an alibi to some countries' lack of commitment in bringing actual good entries and the only thing that has resulted in is that countries who once were committed stopped caring that much or try to lower their level to the taste of the juries, which leads us to the overall lower level in song qualities.

They only vote for safe songs in English, middle-of the road sounding and preferable somewhat dated.

I can go on forever, EBU either cut their power somewhat, kick 'em out totally or give them firm voting guidelines which would force them to encourage use of native language, encourage up-to-date/modern/forward thinking/out of the box entries and not to forget encourage songs which represents the countries' musical traditions in one way or another aswell. If we would have a diverse mix of all these, then Eurovision would be so much more interesting and entertaining musically.

And one more thing: The juries have done nothing to stop they power of diaspora voting, so if that was the point then I'd say the generally failed.

Also some countries now get a free-ticket with lame songs because they are the "right" countries according to the juries. Well if a country doesn't make an effort, then they should not be in the final it's simple.

CC92
13th July 2011, 00:09
^ well expressed. *second*

Sabiondo
13th July 2011, 00:09
And honestly, Russia? Underrated? When does that ever happen? "Get You" wasn't bad, I liked it, but among the many up-tempo songs of 2011 it was one of the least original and people overlooked it. Estonia 2011, now *that* was underrated.

Them why the jury don't overlooked Sweden also..?? by rule 3 also Eric was to be sunk by jury :D

MyHeartIsYours
13th July 2011, 00:12
A-lister, the Juries havent stopped screwed up voting obviously but I think they have raised the standard of the competition, look for instance at the quality of the shows pre-2009 and post-2009, for me, there's no comparison ;).

MyHeartIsYours
13th July 2011, 00:28
It doesn't work for why? Because the jury doesn't vote like televoters? And why should they vote like televoters? Even with small differences...
There's no point in the jury then if you want them to vote similary to televoters.

Such "reforming" is nothing but ordering people to vote like majority. If it really differs it's such a crime.... oh my. Judging performers in a different way is such a crime :lol: .... uhuh.


As for judging 2 different performances. If performer sucks at performing this is his problem, not the jury's. Back up entries are being recorded on the last dress rehearsal so performers sould be ready like this is their final night. I see not a single problem here.

And again there's not a single adecavte reason why the jury should please televoters and vote in the same day with them and that it's such a problem and it's not fair.
It's like saying that there should be just 1 event in heptathlon.
It does work because 2 separate votes cant just be stuck together, they have to be integrated. Small differences they can hardly be described as! Italy = 251 points winner for the Jury, 99 points 11th for the Televote. United Kingdom = 5th/22nd.

Nope, everything needs constant reforming otherwise it gets stuck and brakes (like it did this year). What worked in 2009 and 2010 worked then, but now we need more reform. If things in life just stayed the same nothing would get anywhere, nothing ever is perfect and so you must continually improve to make it as close to perfect as possible.

The performer should be allowed to suck in the rehearsal, it is the rehearsal and the purpose of the rehearsal is to prepare for the final performance which you will be judged on. The performers are humans like everyone and they dont deserve to have pressure upon them both nights. If there is a problem and the back-up is needed then yes of course use to rehearsal, but it shouldnt be normal practice. I see many problems here, not just for the performers but also the viewers, who of course are the only reason Eurovision is made.

Who said the Jury should please the Televoters? There just needs to be a flowing voting system, not one that is 2 parts stuck together which dont agree.

lucian-crusher
13th July 2011, 00:35
A-lister, the Juries havent stopped screwed up voting obviously but I think they have raised the standard of the competition, look for instance at the quality of the shows pre-2009 and post-2009, for me, there's no comparison ;).

That's subjective and it's your opinion! I could say that for me ,,Leto svet" and ,,Pokusaj" where better then ,,Madness of love" and ,,Sognu" and other people might think different! The only thing I have against the juries is that I don't think is fair that 215 people's opinion should be equal to milions of people's opinion just because the 215 people are music experts!

CC92
13th July 2011, 00:39
That's subjective and it's your opinion! I could say that for me ,,Leto svet" and ,,Pokusaj" where better then ,,Madness of love" and ,,Sognu" and other people might think different! The only thing I have against the juries is that I don't think is fair that 215 people's opinion should be equal to milions of people's opinion just because the 215 people are music experts!

a) what is a 'music expert'?
b) do you know those people and their professions?

As far as I know not even ten per cent of their names are revealed.

lucian-crusher
13th July 2011, 00:44
a) what is a 'music expert'?
b) do you know those people and their professions?

As far as I know not even ten per cent of their names are revealed.

Exactly what I mean! They are called music experts and that's why they get 50 % in the voting wich is bad!

MyHeartIsYours
13th July 2011, 00:51
That's subjective and it's your opinion! I could say that for me ,,Leto svet" and ,,Pokusaj" where better then ,,Madness of love" and ,,Sognu" and other people might think different! The only thing I have against the juries is that I don't think is fair that 215 people's opinion should be equal to milions of people's opinion just because the 215 people are music experts!
Of course it's my opinion, I dont speak for everybody! A lot of people do think this though, most people in this country think so and that's why Eurovision's popularity really has been boosted. When I look back at the old contest it does appear very corny and not very good (still fun though! :D) in general. Like you say though it's my opinion, I just think that when you look at the likes of 'I Can', 'Playing With Fire', 'Is It True?', 'It's My Time' and 'Satellite', there's just no comparison.

Like I said before I think the number of Jury members should be raised to 10 and be a mix of musical experts. Like people have said, they should be named but only after the contest, in order to prevent any dodgy deals that have happened in the past.

Sabiondo
13th July 2011, 00:58
^ One could give it a try but I fear broadcasters will always abuse their power. For example German NDR always giving 80-95% of their points to 'blond countries' or Turkish TRT to muslim countries no matter how many persons they use for this. And there had to be strict criteria for the jury's setting but less for which genres they are (not) to vote. Additionally not only the juror's names need to be revealed, also to whom they gave their points and that during the voting procedure at best broken down to each specific member what would make bribing much more awkward.

That thing will change never :lol:

Im agaisn't that the juror's names need to be revealed, because it would create a big scandal against someone if they also would force them to reveal what they voted or you don't remember the scandal of 2002 Winter Olympics, when was reveal that about an Canadian couple that they after a flawless routine, they was received a score that only allowed them to get the silver medal, and shortly after the decision they appealed after discovered they had conflicts with French jury. The Canadian couple ended up getting the gold medal sharing first place with the couple from Russia who won the competition. Since them the jury in every skaing competition its secret, so the vote its secret ;)

CC92
13th July 2011, 01:04
I remember Terry Wogan speaking bad about Lane moje during the voting and cheering for Stronger every minute instead so if he is representative for British public (what I do not know) they might not be the best measure talking about 'quality'. Actually it is senseless anyway. Could it not be that the interest increased rather because the BBC themselves stepped up their game?! Here I believe a large majority agrees. Only a very few people look up the other countries's entries before the show and even less (if any) make their decision (not) to watch the show dependent on this impression.

CC92
13th July 2011, 01:09
That thing will change never :lol:

Im agaisn't that the juror's names need to be revealed, because it would create a big scandal against someone if they also would force them to reveal what they voted or you don't remember the scandal of 2002 Winter Olympics, when was reveal that about an Canadian couple that they after a flawless routine, they was received a score that only allowed them to get the silver medal, and shortly after the decision they appealed after discovered they had conflicts with French jury. The Canadian couple ended up getting the gold medal sharing first place with the couple from Russia who won the competition. Since them the jury in every skaing competition its secret, so the vote its secret ;)

I do not remeber this certain issue but you are pro bearing corruption for reasons of accommodativeness?

Sabiondo
13th July 2011, 01:17
I do not remeber this certain issue but you are pro bearing corruption for reasons of accommodativeness?

No, but also i must care about the segurity identity of voters ;)

CC92
13th July 2011, 01:39
No, but also i must care about the segurity identity of voters ;)

who that wants a special treatment his voice to be more weighted (in fact this means more than x100,000 times in some countries... ridiculous I say) and even getting money for it and in addition still tries to bribe has to live with the personal consequences then.

A-lister
13th July 2011, 02:04
Of course it's my opinion, I dont speak for everybody! A lot of people do think this though, most people in this country think so and that's why Eurovision's popularity really has been boosted. When I look back at the old contest it does appear very corny and not very good (still fun though! :D) in general. Like you say though it's my opinion, I just think that when you look at the likes of 'I Can', 'Playing With Fire', 'Is It True?', 'It's My Time' and 'Satellite', there's just no comparison.

Like I said before I think the number of Jury members should be raised to 10 and be a mix of musical experts. Like people have said, they should be named but only after the contest, in order to prevent any dodgy deals that have happened in the past.

I think there's another reason why "alot" of people agrees with that, especially in the UK, and I'm not sure if it's the actual songs that got better (imo they are far worse and less interesting) but the fact that we now have a somewhat western biased juries to balance up things, which some are fine with. I think it's sad though that instead putting effort in the songs, we now have juries to back up countries who generally put little effort and commitment.

Anyways that's totally subjective whether the quality have risen or not, I think the overall quality have fallen, offcourse one could point out a couple of songs here and there, but for instance 2011 was just a bunch of middle of the road dated songs in English with zero substance imo, no connection to the countries they represented in term of cultural style or what was actually popular in those countries at the moment.

"It's my time" was cheesy dated stuff, if that's considered "higher quality" then yeah, we're heading right in that direction with the juries now onboard. As I wrote the era of Disney ballad died in mid 90's, for some odd reason only the people you call "music experts" (whatever that is) who are part of the Eurovision juries somehow find relevance in those type songs.

Personally I'd take songs like "Wild Dances", "Lejla", "Oro" and "Rändajad" over any of those songs you mentioned. I miss when we had some identity in songs, now they are all bland and sound like dated American stuff more or less.

Again, if this was a singing contest then maybe, but this is also a song contest. The juries are so focused at finding the best wailing voice that they totally overlook the fact that this is a song contest.

If the juries took any chances, then why did they overlook Germany 2011? Imo the juries are totally out of touch of more or less anything. No clue about what's actually modern, no respect towards local sounds, no interest in anything little bit different.

Eurovision could change its name to Anglovision Bland Singing Contest, because that's what has happened imo.

AlekS
13th July 2011, 02:20
Why should we keep them, Aleks? They are fucking the results. Badly.
In your opinion. But it's not just up to you to decide the results :p

AlekS
13th July 2011, 02:23
a) what is a 'music expert'?
b) do you know those people and their professions?

As far as I know not even ten per cent of their names are revealed.

a) Someone who's going to promote this entry/performer after ESC and someone who decides if he/she/they will be promoted.
ESC is not just for you or other televoters xshrug


b) I can speak about our jury. Yes, I know those people. A singer, an owner of a radio station, record label owner, vocal coach, the 1st NTU vice president.

MyHeartIsYours
13th July 2011, 02:27
A-lister, I take your points and yes like I said before opinions are very subjective and personal. But I dont think that how many songs are in English is a sign of quality. If countries wanna sing in English then I dont see a problem with that. The Juries arent biased towards English, the Televoters like it just as much (if not more) and if there is a great non-English song, it will do well under both the Juryvote and Televote.

AlekS
13th July 2011, 02:35
It does work because 2 separate votes cant just be stuck together, they have to be integrated. Small differences they can hardly be described as! Italy = 251 points winner for the Jury, 99 points 11th for the Televote. United Kingdom = 5th/22nd.
Actually they can.
And omg @ discriminating big differences. I have really different taste with you so why do you say that the jury's difference is worse? It's not worse than any big difference between televoter's tastes ;)



Nope, everything needs constant reforming otherwise it gets stuck and brakes (like it did this year).
I'm f-en fed up by reforms! This contest is for music and performing - not for changing rules every year just because someone doesn't like it :)




The performer should be allowed to suck in the rehearsal, it is the rehearsal and the purpose of the rehearsal is to prepare for the final performance which you will be judged on.
Fail! This is NOT just an ordinary rehearsal. This is performance in front of the whole venue, the juries and cameras. If they suck they will be slapped xshrug




There just needs to be a flowing voting system, not one that is 2 parts stuck together which dont agree.
Actually they agreed on the majority of cases and they are allowed to agree/disagree with the televoters. They shouldn't vote like somebody said them.

A-lister
13th July 2011, 02:45
A-lister, I take your points and yes like I said before opinions are very subjective and personal. But I dont think that how many songs are in English is a sign of quality. If countries wanna sing in English then I dont see a problem with that. The Juries arent biased towards English, the Televoters like it just as much (if not more) and if there is a great non-English song, it will do well under both the Juryvote and Televote.

Well I don't think it's a coincidence that we had a record of English songs only after a couple of years of juries' influence.

Anyways my point was not just about the language issue, but about the juries' overall voting and taste.

And yeah, it's all subjective and it all comes down to how one view Eurovision I guess, it's just a fact that no matter what someone will be dissatisfied.

I really hope though that something will be done, because I truly believe that this is hurting Eurovision the way things are going now. I can just talk for myself, 2011 was the first Eurovision CD I didn't buy (I own all from 2004-2010), the music is just uninteresting and in the end of the day if the songs aren't good or interesting, then what type of "song" contest is this really?

It's not even that entertaining to watch any longer. They spend all the money on the big stages and effects, but with all the safe midtempo/ballads no one pays any attention in bringing us some shows. If it's all about the voices, this would cost less being broadcasted on the radio. I'm not saying the singers should sing bad or anything, but right now it seems to be the only thing that counts and we already have shows for that.

In Idol and other similar concepts where you are looking for a "singing talent" it's different. They sing kareoke and the songs are not the main deal. But in a song contest one would think that the songs should be the most important thing and I feel the juries doesn't pay attention to that any longer, and therefor the song quality imo has fallen.

CC92
13th July 2011, 04:36
a) Someone who's going to promote this entry/performer after ESC and someone who decides if he/she/they will be promoted.
ESC is not just for you or other televoters xshrug


b) I can speak about our jury. Yes, I know those people. A singer, an owner of a radio station, record label owner, vocal coach, the 1st NTU vice president.

They are free to promote whoever they want after and also before the contest as they already do it. That is no reason to hide the public's opinion or are they feared to face it because that could put a spoke in their capitalistic and political wheels? I almost think so. Anyway, they (I speak about the 215 as a whole, not about single members) seem to be quite unexperienced 'business men' when they think they can be successful with disney ballads, uber generic/old-fashioned pop songs and at the same time overlook massive chart hits like Allez Ola Ole or I can. However, what I assume is that this instrument rather was given to please broadcasters relieving them from their powerlessness and giving them scope to assert their internal interests different in their natures: political voting, tactical voting –> after 2008 this seemed especially 'necessary' for western broadcasters, networking, display of power, ... and on the other hand to continue with the creeping americanisation, commercialisation, idolisation etc. of European's culture and music market as in the results and the musical field of 2007 and the years before there was a clear, obviously unconvenient trend back to originality and authenticity recogniseable. Moreover, fueling hatred against Easteners ('communist bloc') or Muslims still sells well in Western Europe.

AlekS
13th July 2011, 12:38
They are free to promote whoever they want after and also before the contest as they already do it.
It's not up to you to order and advice others how to do their job. They know better than you about it. They don't promote their entries for everyone and they aren't supposed to please your holy taste.
If it's better for them they have a full right to judge the last dress rehearsal.



That is no reason to hide the public's opinion or are they feared to face it because that could put a spoke in their capitalistic and political wheels?
And since when public opinion should order others how to live and how to vote? :o

Do we hide your public opinion or you don't complain enough!?
Public doesn't rule the EBU, accept that. Have your opinion as much as you want but you aren't in charge and you never will be xshrug

Public opinion doesn't order you how to vote on elections so have at least basic respect and don't order others how to vote. Thanks.

MyHeartIsYours
13th July 2011, 14:15
@Aleks


Actually they can.
And omg @ discriminating big differences. I have really different taste with you so why do you say that the jury's difference is worse? It's not worse than any big difference between televoter's tastes ;)
They can, and that's what's happening. But what Im saying is that it's not very good. Seeing as the Televote result is the result made by millions of people then I will consider it to be the priority and that the Juryvote doesnt fit in with it. But I've also said that there's got to be changes to Televote too but seeing as this topic is about Juries I'll stick to the Juries.
And it's not really about Televote vs Juryvote, Im saying that neither of them work well stuck together, they have to be combined in a better way.


I'm f-en fed up by reforms! This contest is for music and performing - not for changing rules every year just because someone doesn't like it :)
You might be, but Im f-en fed up by keeping things the same! We saw the consequences of when things are left too long without changes in 2006/2007/2008, lets not do the same again. 2011 voting was evidence that the current system worked well in 2009 and 2010, but it's time for a change again, and I hope that the EBU will make some changes.


Fail! This is NOT just an ordinary rehearsal. This is performance in front of the whole venue, the juries and cameras. If they suck they will be slapped xshrug
Whatever you think doesnt change the fact that it is called a 'dress rehearsal' and so it should be to prepare for the final performance. That is what rehearsals are for, where else, in sports, in music, etc, do you get judged on your rehearsal performance? :lol: It's ridiculous.


Actually they agreed on the majority of cases and they are allowed to agree/disagree with the televoters. They shouldn't vote like somebody said them.
I wouldnt say they agreed on the majority of cases. They both had different winners, 10 place difference for Italy, 7 place difference for Sweden, 10 place difference for Greece, 17 place difference for United Kingdom! They agreed on finishing positions in the minority of cases.

doctormalisimo
13th July 2011, 16:00
^I'm assuming that by minority, you mean that there were more disagreements than agreements?
Because looking at the figures, in 15 cases the jury and televote result only differed by 5 or less :mrgreen:

And while there were a lot of large disagreements (like the UK and Italy), the juries and the televoters both put ::is in 19th place and ::lt in 20th place, the televoters put ::az in 1st and the juries put them in 2nd. The televoters put ::de in 9th and the juries put them in 10th.
Also in 2010, the exact same situation occurred when the juries and the televoters put 15 entries within 5 places. In 2009, the two sides put just 12 entries within 5 places. So actually, the juries-televote discrepancy has actually been getting smaller, therefore the overall result has been getting more accurate.

AlekS
13th July 2011, 16:10
they have to be combined in a better way.
And I'll repeat again. Any real objective reason for this? Except someone's subjective taste. Why should the voting be like you or somebody else says? It's only up to EBU to decide ;)
Televoters shouldn't intrude into jury's voting and vice versa.
If the juries think differently than televoters let it be so.



You might be, but Im f-en fed up by keeping things the same! We saw the consequences of when things are left too long without changes in 2006/2007/2008, lets not do the same again. 2011 voting was evidence that the current system worked well in 2009 and 2010, but it's time for a change again, and I hope that the EBU will make some changes.
THE SAME?! The rules used to change every year. And if "consequences" mean that the entry which you hate or geographical area which you hate (I think we've already found out which one) takes high positions - it's not consequences, it's your subjective taste and inability to accept other televoters' taste :rolleyes: You label majority of them in neighbour voting without having any proofs. Like voting for my neighbour entry is a crime ;)





Whatever you think doesnt change the fact that it is called a 'dress rehearsal' and so it should be to prepare for the final performance. That is what rehearsals are for, where else, in sports, in music, etc, do you get judged on your rehearsal performance? :lol: It's ridiculous.
Whatever you think doesn't change the fact that we judge multiply performances. If performers record their back-up videos on this rehearsal and they still suck then their marks should be reduced.

Just like heptathlon is not about 1 event, ESC is not about just 1 performance currently I see no valuable reasons why the juries should rate the same thing with televoters.
So what, that others aren't judged on the rehearsals... and? Will you become straight just because others are straight? Eurovision is not like others xshrug

You can't respect EBU's rules and the jury's way of voting (as well as my voting and voting of my country). It's ridiculous. Just like demanding the juries to vote similary to televoters :lol:




I wouldnt say they agreed on the majority of cases. They both had different winners, 10 place difference for Italy, 7 place difference for Sweden, 10 place difference for Greece, 17 place difference for United Kingdom! They agreed on finishing positions in the minority of cases.
They didn't have a different winner last year. And 2 years ago.
So we should change the rules because the juries do not vote like televoters? xrofl3 You say that it's not what you mean but in the same time you contraddict yourself :o
The juries aren't supposed to vote exactly (or similar) like televoters.

7 places difference is not so much actually so yes, they agreed in majority of cases.

Difference between tastes is not a crime. And I'm not a criminal if I or majority of my nation thinks/votes differently than you. Just like the juries.

MyHeartIsYours
13th July 2011, 16:24
^I'm assuming that by minority, you mean that there were more disagreements than agreements?
Because looking at the figures, in 15 cases the jury and televote result only differed by 5 or less :mrgreen:

And while there were a lot of large disagreements (like the UK and Italy), the juries and the televoters both put ::is in 19th place and ::lt in 20th place, the televoters put ::az in 1st and the juries put them in 2nd. The televoters put ::de in 9th and the juries put them in 10th.
Also in 2010, the exact same situation occurred when the juries and the televoters put 15 entries within 5 places. In 2009, the two sides put just 12 entries within 5 places. So actually, the juries-televote discrepancy has actually been getting smaller, therefore the overall result has been getting more accurate.
I would consider a 5 place difference to be rather substantial - 10th place and 15th place, they're very different. And this year is the first year that the winner has differed, personally I would have preferred Sweden to win but why is it fair that Italy came second overall despite coming first in the Jury vote with a massive points lead over second place whilst Azerbaijan only managed to win the Televote by 3 points ahead of Sweden? This proves the problem for me. It leads to countries succeeding who are only average in both votes, and countries who have an overwhelming endorsement from one vote but not the other, are neglected.

AlekS
13th July 2011, 16:33
^I'm assuming that by minority, you mean that there were more disagreements than agreements?
Because looking at the figures, in 15 cases the jury and televote result only differed by 5 or less :mrgreen:

And while there were a lot of large disagreements (like the UK and Italy), the juries and the televoters both put ::is in 19th place and ::lt in 20th place, the televoters put ::az in 1st and the juries put them in 2nd. The televoters put ::de in 9th and the juries put them in 10th.
Also in 2010, the exact same situation occurred when the juries and the televoters put 15 entries within 5 places. In 2009, the two sides put just 12 entries within 5 places. So actually, the juries-televote discrepancy has actually been getting smaller, therefore the overall result has been getting more accurate.

xyeah

CC92
13th July 2011, 16:34
It is not condemnable to have another taste than 'the majority' (in fact, the 'majitorian taste' itself is just a compomise of pluralistic opinions... the very fewest come even close to agree on all places) but to say 'my taste is more relevant the one of thousands or million others and thus I just oppress the domocratic outcome'. Unlike in e.g. Melodifestivalen where they at least have the spark of decency to show how the people voted.

AlekS
13th July 2011, 16:42
It is not condemnable to have another taste than 'the majority' (in fact, the 'majitorian taste' itself is just a compomise of pluralistic opinions... the very fewest come even close to agree on all places) but to say 'my taste is more relevant the one of thousands or million others and thus I just oppress the domocratic outcome'. Unlike in e.g. Melodifestivalen where they at least have the spark of decency to show how the people voted.

And again fail.
According to your logic we should prohibit/change televoting because Andorra's or Sammarenese votes are relevant to millions of others.

ps. and MF obviously isn't equal to 42 countries combined.

doctormalisimo
13th July 2011, 16:42
I would consider a 5 place difference to be rather substantial - 10th place and 15th place, they're very different. And this year is the first year that the winner has differed, personally I would have preferred Sweden to win but why is it fair that Italy came second overall despite coming first in the Jury vote with a massive points lead over second place whilst Azerbaijan only managed to win the Televote by 3 points ahead of Sweden? This proves the problem for me. It leads to countries succeeding who are only average in both votes, and countries who have an overwhelming endorsement from one vote but not the other, are neglected.
No one who was rated averagely by both sides had success :?
All of the top 5 came in the top 4 of at least one side...
Only 2 top 10 countries failed to make the televote's top 10 and only 3 (different) countries failed to make the juries top 10. It's not like any country that came 15th in both ended up coming 5th.
As for countries who did well with one side and not the other, these ended up in average mid-table positions. Again, it's not as if one country came 2nd in the televote but ended up coming 20th overall...
And I dont consider 5 places a big difference. Given that there's 25 countries, 5 places in only 20% of the field.

MyHeartIsYours
13th July 2011, 16:45
@Aleks


And I'll repeat again. Any real objective reason for this? Except someone's subjective taste. Why should the voting be like you or somebody else says? It's only up to EBU to decide ;)
Televoters shouldn't intrude into jury's voting and vice versa.
If the juries think differently than televoters let it be so.
Because of the reason that I have stated in my reply to doctormalismo. It is up to the EBU to decide, but I hope they make the fair decision and change the voting. From what I've seen, there's many more people wanting a change than wanting to keep it the same.


THE SAME?! The rules used to change every year. And if "consequences" mean that the entry which you hate or geographical area which you hate (I think we've already found out which one) takes high positions - it's not consequences, it's your subjective taste and inability to accept other televoters' taste :rolleyes: You label majority of them in neighbour voting without having any proofs. Like voting for my neighbour entry is a crime ;)
Yes, the Eastern European hater who has voted for Russia :rolleyes:. The whole bloc voting issue is something different than this issue, and it is an issue that I have discussed before so Im not going into it again. I will say though, that the issue must also be dealt with whenever the EBU decides to reform.


Whatever you think doesn't change the fact that we judge multiply performances. If performers record their back-up videos on this rehearsal and they still suck then their marks should be reduced.

Just like hepatthlon is not about 1 event, ESC is not about just 1 performance currently I see no valuable reasons why the juries should rate the same thing with televoters.
So what, that others aren't judged on the rehearsals... and? Will you become straight just because others are straight? Eurovision is not like others xshrug

You can't respect EBU's rules and the jury's way of voting (as well as my voting and voting of my country) :lol: It's ridiculous. Just like demanding the juries to vote similar to televoters :lol:
The rehearsal's purpose is to relax the performer and allow the mistakes or troubles to be got out of the way. The heptathlon athletes arent judged on their rehearsal performances, are they?? Why should Eurovision performers be treated any differently?
Why else the Juries and Televoters should vote on the same night? Because Eurovision is produced not for musical greatness, but for the viewers, and the Eurovision viewers expect the other half of the result to be calculated on the same performances that they watched themselves.



They didn't have a different winner last year. And 2 years ago.
So we should change the rules because the juries do not vote like televoters? xrofl3 You say that it's not what you mean but in the same time you contraddict yourself :o
The juries aren't supposed to vote exactly (or similar) like televoters.

7th place difference is not so much actually so yes, they agreed in majority of cases.

Difference between tastes is not a crime. And I'm not a criminal if I or majority of my nation thinks/votes differently than you. Just like the juries.
I didnt say there was a problem last year (I'll just point out my country came last 8-)) or in 2009, but because there wasnt a problem two years ago, doesnt mean that there isnt now. They agreed in the minority of cases and songs which were only average were allowed to succeed (I can think of many ;)) which they wouldnt have been based on the either 100% Televote or 100% Juryvote.

AlekS
13th July 2011, 17:05
@Aleks
Because of the reason that I have stated in my reply to doctormalismo. It is up to the EBU to decide, but I hope they make the fair decision and change the voting. From what I've seen, there's many more people wanting a change than wanting to keep it the same.
From what I've seen there are more people who don't care xshrug



Yes, the Eastern European hater who has voted for Russia :rolleyes:. The whole bloc voting issue is something different than this issue, and it is an issue that I have discussed before so Im not going into it again. I will say though, that the issue must also be dealt with whenever the EBU decides to reform.
You voted for Russia but it's a problem when someone from here votes for Russia.
I'm sorry if it seems that I want to offend you :*) but this is how this issue looks to me, I'm just stating my thoughts about this. You said that the voting in 2006-2008 had consequences. Your own words. We all know who used to take high/top-5/top-10 places then. Russia, Ukraine, Turkey...
I also voted for those entries, as well as my family, as well as my friends and people. I never understood why people's choice was such a ... "problem" and I'll never undesrtand. Yes, let's not go into this xkiss



The rehearsal's purpose is to relax the performer and allow the mistakes or troubles to be got out of the way. The heptathlon athletes arent judged on their rehearsal performances, are they?? Why should Eurovision performers be treated any differently?
Why else the Juries and Televoters should vote on the same night? Because Eurovision is produced not for musical greatness, but for the viewers, and the Eurovision viewers expect the other half of the result to be calculated on the same performances that they watched themselves.
Other people are staright, why should you (or me) be treated differently?
People in the venue are also the viewers. In order to rate the entry you don't necessary need millions televoters.
ESC performers could already relax on the previous rehearsals. THAT's why EBU allowed many rehearsals.



I didnt say there was a problem last year (I'll just point out my country came last 8-)) or in 2009, but because there wasnt a problem two years ago, doesnt mean that there isnt now. They agreed in the minority of cases and songs which were only average were allowed to succeed (I can think of many ;)) which they wouldnt have been based on the either 100% Televote or 100% Juryvote.
And again it's subjective and again they are allowed to have such taste. You can have 10 000 jurors but the tastes will be different still.
We can try millions systems but none of them will be the best and non of them will be fair, none of them will satisfy the majority of televoters.
After all this contest started as the contest for broadcasters.

You won't believe me but people from different broadcasters (including Big 4) suggested our 1st Vice president to forget about televoters and choose only internally. Their argument was - ESC was created for broadcasters and it's broadcasters who choose/vote(d) for entries. Do you think they really care about televoters if they suggest such things?

CC92
13th July 2011, 17:08
And again fail.
According to your logic we should prohibit/change televoting because Andorra's or Sammarenese votes are relevant to millions of others.

ps. and MF obviously isn't equal to 42 countries combined.

Apart from the fact that they use no televoting anyway that issue is argueable and has been discussed multiple times. On the other hand, each country in the game submits one song and has one vote. So you coluld say it is fair but I do see your point.

For the Melodifestivalen and many other preselection's format where is the difference? It is exactly the same.

AlekS
13th July 2011, 20:04
Apart from the fact that they use no televoting anyway that issue is argueable and has been discussed multiple times. On the other hand, each country in the game submits one song and has one vote. So you coluld say it is fair but I do see your point.

For the Melodifestivalen and many other preselection's format where is the difference? It is exactly the same.

Apart from the fact that Andorra used televoting in 2008 and 2009 the jury's question is highly arguable and it's been discussed even longer.
I can compare Estonia and Russia or Switzerland and United Kingdom.
It doesn't matter because the difference is big. We can start jumping at each other about whose vote is more valuable or we can simply accept the host's (EBU) position.
If they want to bring some difference in such way - whatever. If you disagree - don't vote, don't give them money xshrug
At first people complained about televoting, now 50/50 is wrong... it will NEVER be enough :lol:

As for MF. Their selection is different and it can't be compared to 42 countries combined. Sweden is not the whole Europe, Sweden doesn't collect votes from 42 national broadcasters/juries. I heard numerous complaints about MF having the juries or MF having televoters. No matter what we do and what we change there will be dissatisfied people.

Mark-ESC14
13th July 2011, 21:27
I believed the juries were introduced again to satisfy the countries who complained about the diaspora voting but in 2011 it didn't really seem to have any effect.
Norway for example still gave 7,8,10 and 12 points to their Scandinavian neighbours. So I don't know whether that's positive.

Sabiondo
14th July 2011, 04:53
I believed the juries were introduced again to satisfy the countries who complained about the diaspora voting but in 2011 it didn't really seem to have any effect.
Norway for example still gave 7,8,10 and 12 points to their Scandinavian neighbours. So I don't know whether that's positive.

Also the Balkans & Soviets votes are very flawed too...¡¡¡

Yamarus
16th July 2011, 00:21
I must say I thought 2011's 'douze' points were even more blockish than usual. I mean, Belgium giving 12 points to France? That didn't happen since who knows when.

doctormalisimo
16th July 2011, 01:09
I must say I thought 2011's 'douze' points were even more blockish than usual. I mean, Belgium giving 12 points to France? That didn't happen since who knows when.

what about Denmark and Sweden giving 12 to Ireland, and Ireland giving 12 to Denmark. And there was that weird triangle of Iceland, Hungary and Finland giving each other 12.
And of course Latvia and Bulgaria gave 12 to Italy and the UK xD

Yamarus
16th July 2011, 01:12
Hungary-Finland is not totally surprising, because of the linguistic ties between the two (yeah, I know they both sent their songs in English - or part-English for Kati, but anyway). Finnish and Hungarian are non-Indo-European languages which are closely related to each other.
And Iceland-Finland is quite self-explanatory.

Yes, Bulgaria to UK, Latvia to Italy and Greece to France were some of the surprises on my part.

nikolay_BG
16th July 2011, 13:57
Also the Balkans & Soviets votes are very flawed too...¡¡¡

Let`s say it like that. If there was an international contest with Colombia and Bulgaria in it and you had to choose between the 2 who would you choose? Colombia or Bulgaria?

Sabiondo
16th July 2011, 17:19
Let`s say it like that. If there was an international contest with Colombia and Bulgaria in it and you had to choose between the 2 who would you choose? Colombia or Bulgaria?

If was my nature i chosse Colombia :) but if Bulgaria had an verry good song, them i will change of tream :)

nikolay_BG
17th July 2011, 01:46
If was my nature i chosse Colombia :) but if Bulgaria had an verry good song, them i will change of tream :)

So will the other 99% of the venezuelans who watch this "competition", just didn`t had what to do in the evening and they saw that (let`s say) "worldvision" is on TV.

Sabiondo
17th July 2011, 07:18
So will the other 99% of the venezuelans who watch this "competition", just didn`t had what to do in the evening and they saw that (let`s say) "worldvision" is on TV.

The ''Worldvision'' as you said its telecast of the in the afternoon here (and a very comfortable time for us xkiss), so if we watch this, the 99% of the Venezuelans as you said will watch it its just only for support Spain, Portugal and Italy - (Our Motherland, and the 2 long diasporas here) & as well as you said ''To kill the time''.

I looked for this reason, but with the passage of time now if i had the opportunity to vote, without hesitation I would do to any country of Eastern Europe with Good Song or Russia for my taste. 8-)

nikolay_BG
17th July 2011, 14:16
You would, cause you are a fan. What about the rest of the people from Venezuela that aren`t sick fans and just watched the contest, cause they didn`t had anything else to do?

The same is done only in Europe. So do we have to be judged that we vote for something familiar to us? For a person from (I love) Belarus would likely the song from Ukraine or Russia be more apealing then something like (let`s say) "Flying the flag" or "Irelande douze point".

And let`s face it, in the last decade the countries from the former soviet and yugoslav block + Greece sent better songs then UK and Ireland.
For me, as a person from the eastern part of Europe it`s more likely to like Dima Bilan & Anna Vissi more (as I did in 2006), then Daz Sampson.

The biggest missunderstanding that I don`t get is am I the only person who sees that?
This is elemental psychology, you don`t have to be a rocket scientist to find that out.

doctormalisimo
17th July 2011, 16:08
^No one is denying that. But you're making it sound like a good thing :?

CC92
17th July 2011, 16:15
^^ You are not. But for western broadcasters and agitational tabloid press it is still a political disgrace to be worsted by poor and former communistic contestants on a (perceived) long-term basis. Still it is right when NDR jury gives ten points to Denmark and twelve points to Austria after last year giving the top score to Belgium.

nikolay_BG
17th July 2011, 17:55
^No one is denying that. But you're making it sound like a good thing :?

Who said that it`s a bad thing?
And if it`s a bad thing, why is it a bad thing?

Let`s give a little example.

Serbia won with 260 points. 60 from them came from the neighbouring countries. Where did the rest 200 points came from? The space?

This example means that you don`t only have to have neighbours to win, because the neighbours can`t give you as many points as you need to win. Maybe in the past 60 points would be enough to win, but now when we have around 40 countries 60 points aren`t enough to win.

doctormalisimo
17th July 2011, 18:05
Who said that it`s a bad thing?
And if it`s a bad thing, why is it a bad thing?

Let`s give a little example.

Serbia won with 260 points. 60 from them came from the neighbouring countries. Where did the rest 200 points came from? The space?

This example means that you don`t only have to have neighbours to win, because the neighbours can`t give you as many points as you need to win. Maybe in the past 60 points would be enough to win, but now when we have around 40 countries 60 points aren`t enough to win.

???????
You were talking about neighbourly voting being natural then you were talking about Serbia getting points from all over Europe. I'm confused :?
Well anyway, voting for a country because you live near that country is wrong. You should be voting for the song that you like the most, and not even care which country it comes from. I realise that Eastern Europe tends to send well known artists and this is what the West should be doing too, but voting for a country because you like that country is not really in the ESC spirit...

MyHeartIsYours
17th July 2011, 18:10
doctormalismo is right. Nikolay you made it quite clear that you think it's excusable for people to vote for neighbours cuz they're close. Well I dont think it is. I vote for Ireland when they have a good song, not because I love the country and they're next door. I expect people wherever they are to follow the same principles.
If it was Worldvision and all the Commonwealth countries voted for the UK, we voted for them and the US and UK exchanged points, I can guarantee you would be one of the first to moan...

nikolay_BG
17th July 2011, 19:13
Yes. We have to vote for songs. And I like more songs liks "Yassou Maria" then "Irelande douze points". We still have to vote for songs and that`s the point. The thing is that you send ******************** songs and you don`t get points and now you are bitching. cause you don`t have friends to back you up.

How can this be when UK sends a good song get a good place? What`s so blockvoting and political for that?

MyHeartIsYours
17th July 2011, 19:17
^ You just said it yourself, 'we dont have any friends'. That proves my point. If a country sends a bad song then it should get a bad result, not a better result cuz it has lots of friends. I've never said that we cant do well, we can, but I stand my belief that it is a lot tougher for some countries to do well (United Kingdom, Ireland, France, Poland) than it is others (Greece, Turkey, Serbia).

nikolay_BG
17th July 2011, 20:08
^because the last 3 countries send great songs in the last decade. We have to vote for songs, right?

MyHeartIsYours
17th July 2011, 20:18
That's pretty subjective, so have the United Kingdom, France and Ireland imo :).

nikolay_BG
17th July 2011, 20:20
What`s so great about UK 2003, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010? Or Ireland 2008? Or France 2008?

94ayd
17th July 2011, 20:31
I definitely prefer France over Serbia, Turkey & Greece... Ireland, too, probably.

Sabiondo
17th July 2011, 22:28
What`s so great about UK 2003, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010? Or Ireland 2008? Or France 2008?

Add UK 2005 (Sertab copy)

Ireland 2001 (His first elimination from an Eurovision final ever)

And France 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007.

MyHeartIsYours
17th July 2011, 22:49
What`s so great about UK 2003, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010? Or Ireland 2008? Or France 2008?
It's funny but I dont believe they all got the position they got because of the songs or singing =)).

goktengri
17th July 2011, 23:19
UK 2006 and 2007 were great and they deserved a high place imo :)

MyHeartIsYours
17th July 2011, 23:26
UK 2006 and 2007 were great and they deserved a high place imo :)
I think so too, I add 2005 to that too!

For me, out of the British entries since 2003 (except 2009), the only one which got the position it deserved was 2008. That was very bad, but I have enjoyed the rest and have been proud to have them as my country's entry! And when you compare them to entries which finished above, I dont think anyone can make a claim that they are so terrible they deserved to finish in like the bottom 5 every single year!

doctormalisimo
17th July 2011, 23:32
What`s so great about UK 2003, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010? Or Ireland 2008? Or France 2008?

Whats so great about Russia 2008 or 2010? Or Bulgaria 2007? :)

nikolay_BG
17th July 2011, 23:33
Strange, Adan, I feel the same for the bulgarian entries accept 2009. Does that make the other europeans like them? No.

Stop thinking like a nationalist fan of ESC and think like you are in the other part of the continent and how a local sees your songs and will he waist money for your songs. Think like you are just a regular person who watches ESC pn TV, just because there is nothing more on TV.

nikolay_BG
17th July 2011, 23:34
Whats so great about Russia 2008 or 2010? Or Bulgaria 2007? :)

You didn`t answer my question. :mrgreen:

94ayd
17th July 2011, 23:50
Everything's great about Bulgaria 2007. ;)

MyHeartIsYours
18th July 2011, 00:36
I've been saying that the Televote and Juryvote needs to be separated to make sure that countries which are favoured by one of the votes are still valued in the final result. Well, if the results had been counted this year under a Seperated system, this would have been the result:

1. ::az Azerbaijan - 405 (-)

2. ::it Italy - 350 (-)

3. ::se Sweden - 327 (-)

4. ::ua Ukraine - 285 (-)

5. ::gr Greece - 260 (+2)

6. ::ba Bosnia And Herzegovina - 241 (-)

7. ::dk Denmark - 229 (-2)

8. ::uk United Kingdom - 223 (+3)

9. ::ie Ireland - 220 (-1)

10. ::ge Georgia - 217 (-1)

11. ::de Germany - 217 (-1)

12. ::sl Slovenia - 205 (+1)

13. ::rs Serbia - 200 (+1)

14. ::md Moldova - 180 (-2)

15. ::at Austria - 170 (+3)

16. ::fr France - 166 (-1)

17. ::ro Romania - 165 (-)

18. ::ru Russia - 163 (-2)

19. ::is Iceland - 132 (+1)

20. ::hu Hungary - 124 (+2)

21. ::fi Finland - 122 (-)

22. ::lt Lithuania - 121 (-3)

23. ::es Spain - 111 (-)

24. ::ee Estonia - 106 (-)

25. ::ch Switzerland - 55 (-)


Now as you can see it doesnt make a huge difference (the top 4 is still the same) so it shouldnt be too hard for the EBU to implement or for people to get used to. But I think this little tweak would be beneficial to the contest and there has been quite a few changes in positions towards the centre of the board.
For my own country, I think 8th is closer to what we deserved, Austria has moved up by 3 places which is what they also deserved whilst the rather poor Moldova has moved down, like it deserves too :p.

CC92
18th July 2011, 01:32
Gosh....:? If you think the UK in 2007 was great it is up to you but you cannot expect large parts of Europe to like kindergarten music in a show broadcasted at 21.00 CET. Almost everyone had favourites where it was obvious (or not) that they most likely would not please the majority. Blaming the others then for not sharing your individual taste is childish.
Asian and European audiences liked I can 5th most in its year; It's my time 10th most. Why now should they swap their positions? Because 200 viewers (well, some of those 200 to be more precise) judged it different than millions. Or probably just even were asked to judge it different? LOL.

goktengri
18th July 2011, 01:35
Gosh....:? If you think the UK in 2007 was great it is up to you but you cannot expect large parts of Europe to like kindergarten music in a show broadcasted at 21.00 CET. Almost everyone had favourites where it was obvious (or not) that they most likely would not please the majority. Blaming the others then for not sharing your individual taste is childish.

I said it was my opinion. This post is just childish. I don't expect the others to love that entry but imo it was great and deserved a high place. You can't insult my opinion by calling it '' childish ''

CC92
18th July 2011, 05:35
I said it was my opinion. This post is just childish. I don't expect the others to love that entry but imo it was great and deserved a high place. You can't insult my opinion by calling it '' childish ''

This post was not directed to thee but in general people to people who cry when their favourites fail and blame 'eastern mafias', nationalist 'aliens' in their countries, whatever for the (televoting) outcome that does not please them.
I used UK 2007 as an example because it was a nursery rhyme and before the show predicted by all odds, fan polls and others to flop so I thought it was a good one. Of course one should not behave different when less obvious entries or even (on most occasions OGAE) favourites do badly. My point was it is silly to moan in a way like 'but I think xx that scored 8 points overall is better than yy that scored 245 points... results are unfair!!!!'. There has been a voting with millions involved, discussing individual opinions is not helpful for dealing seriously with this issue.
Also saying how they do combine televoting and jury is wrong and explain it with the own favourites who suffer is absurd. No one (hopefully) denies it is a mathematical joke but certainly not because x or y does not come closer to 'what it deserves'. It is random so the next profiteers could be the own country or the own favourites. And then it will be fair again? Give me a break. :lol:

Yamarus
18th July 2011, 20:07
For my own country, I think 8th is closer to what we deserved, Austria has moved up by 3 places which is what they also deserved whilst the rather poor Moldova has moved down, like it deserves too .

All of that is just your opinion though. I for one can understand why Moldova did so good: a song with soul and that doesn't take itself seriously (a bit like Lithuania 2006). I didn't like it until I got the point.

Much like Blue's 8th place is, according to you, "closer to what they deserved". All personal opinion. Mine is that their live performance was sub-par and underwhelming, and that they're lucky they got 5th in the televote (Blue still rings many bells in Europe apparently). Seeing Estonia and Hungary completely ignored, that both surprised and disappointed me. But it's all my opinion, and Estonia's second-to-last place is what they got, and I'm not going to rave about it all day long.

nikolay_BG
18th July 2011, 20:25
^Also the eastern countries invest big time in their acts. Azerbaijan (for example) invested like more then 1 million euro in Safura and they scored well.

Also the eastern countries send familiar faces to the eastern public while BBC (for example) sends idol-rejects in the same time when Greece sends a totally developped superstar like Giorgos Alkaios who is popular not only in Greece, but also in the Balkans.

And in this time from UK we see Josh Dubovie xghost

But we also see when UK sends a good song (like this year), scores well. Where is the politics here?

MyHeartIsYours
19th July 2011, 03:12
Time magazine is American not British :?.

Nikolay, are you forever moaning about Western European countries and the United Kingdom? Why is it you dont like us? =/

AlekS
19th July 2011, 12:40
No more going personal, please ;)

If I disliked Josh Dubovie, I'm wondering, do I moan too? :twisted:

Anyway, this thread is not about East/West ... tbh this hate-saga is old like mammoth's crap :lol: Let's go ON topic.

nikolay_BG
19th July 2011, 16:26
But the juries were back, because some western countries complaigned that they are underrated. So basicly this is about the east and the west. At least I see it so.

Sabiondo
19th July 2011, 16:44
But the juries were back, because some western countries complaigned that they are underrated. So basicly this is about the east and the west. At least I see it so.

Yeah.. and don't foget that they do in 70s-80s and 90s with Greece, Turkey, Yugoslavia and Easten Countries when staring on participate.

MyHeartIsYours
19th July 2011, 16:48
It's only West vs East if you make it out to be. It's obviously not the case and I dont think of it that way at all, it was the Big4 who pressed for the Juries, not Western European countries as a whole, and anyway, it was a good rule-change.

CC92
19th July 2011, 16:57
Indeed. The broadcaster jury is a political instrument that was meant to cant the east/west weights. It comprises other purposes as well beyond only the country flags but in the end it does form the basis of ideological and economic (U.S. American) interests therefore it still could be broken down to the 'east vs. west' issue.

nikolay_BG
19th July 2011, 16:59
And where is the music in this case?

CC92
19th July 2011, 17:03
And where is the music in this case?

Nowhere. At best that (mainly Eastern) countries are not to be successful with their cultural music anymore.

nikolay_BG
19th July 2011, 17:07
Nowhere. At best that (mainly Eastern) countries are not to be successful with their cultural music anymore.

Really. Remember that most of the points that Serbia got in 2007 are mostly from western countries.
Also Ukraine in 2008 or Serbia (and Montenegro) in 2004.

And where did Ireland score in 2007 (which also sent an ethnic irish song)?
Or Norway in 2006?

CC92
19th July 2011, 17:17
Really. Remember that most of the points that Serbia got in 2007 are mostly from western countries.
Also Ukraine in 2008 or Serbia (and Montenegro) in 2004.
I think the fact even the own people prefered those foreign cultural attempts to ubergeneric pop stuff from their neighbours made the U.S. obsessed western broadcasters even more wroth and decided to change the rules.


And where did Ireland score in 2007 (which also sent an ethnic irish song)?

Well, this song was defenitely not a masterpiece and dreadfully performed on stage. Overall 5 points, nevertheless, was a bit too little IMHO.

Sabiondo
19th July 2011, 17:20
Really. Remember that most of the points that Serbia got in 2007 are mostly from western countries.
Also Ukraine in 2008 or Serbia (and Montenegro) in 2004.

And where did Ireland score in 2007 (which also sent an ethnic irish song)?
Or Norway in 2006?

And also add Germany 2008 (Who our country saved them from beiging last with BIG FAT 0) thanks cause one of the singers was Bulgarian.

Quent91
19th July 2011, 18:29
(Who our country saved them from beiging last with BIG FAT 0)

It's often hard to understand what you write.

But anyway, ::ch gave them 2 points so they wouldn't have finished last with a "big fat 0".

Salmon
19th July 2011, 20:40
^ Yes, but they'd have finished last anyway.

nikolay_BG
20th July 2011, 13:33
And also add Germany 2008 (Who our country saved them from beiging last with BIG FAT 0) thanks cause one of the singers was Bulgarian.

...and that the song was 2 mounths on our prime time every night in the most watched bulgarian TV... 8-)

AllThatJazz
21st July 2011, 15:59
For me, the main reason to keep the juries is to reduce biased votes and thus make the voting more exiting. It's not a question of taste when viewers consequently vote for their neighbours or their native country. You can agree with the taste of the juries or not, but they've made the voting less predictable.

Some examples:

From 2004-2008 Belarus consequently gave their 12 points to Russia. After the introduction of 50/50 they've given 12 points to Norway and Georgia as well.

From 2004-2008 Denmark consequently gave their 12 points to a Nordic neighbour. After 50/50 they've given 12 points to Germany and Ireland.

From 2004-2008 Slovenia consequently gave their 12 points to a ex-Yugoslavian neighbour. After 50/50 they've given 12 points to Norway and Denmark.

From 2005-2009 Ireland gave their 12 points to either Latvia or Lithuania. After 50/50 they've given 12 points to Iceland and Denmark.

From 2004-2008 Netherlands consequently gave their 12 points to Turkey. After 50/50 they've given 12 points to Norway and Belgium.

The juries aren't perfect but I'm convinced that they are far less biased than the viewers. That's why I'm very happy with the 50/50-system - it brought the fun and the surprises back in Eurovision.

(And no, I'm not saying that because the juries have helped Denmark getting higher placings. Actually, I thought it was pretty lame when Iceland and Norway gave 12 points to "All night long" in 2008. I'm convinced that had the song been from e.g. Portugal or Azerbaijan, they've wouldn't have given it more a than a few points).

Sabiondo
22nd July 2011, 03:23
Some examples:

From 2004-2008 Belarus consequently gave their 12 points to Russia. After the introduction of 50/50 they've given 12 points to Norway and Georgia as well.

Don't foget that Alexander Rybak is Belarusian Born. That was the reazon why Belarus was gave their 12 points to Norway in 2009.

CC92
22nd July 2011, 05:07
You can agree with the taste of the juries or not, but they've made the voting less predictable. Nonetheless in the end still it is 'their taste' (sure?) that does effect the contest's musical approach. Consequently songs are getting more safe, dated, idolised, bland and English year by year. Diversity and cultural sounds are fought but also for chart success competers it is much harder to do well in the combined lists. Something being 'less predictle' in the eyes of an outsider does not equal fairness. Azerbaijani Turkish and Maltese Delegations could do secret dealings for example. Or the Portuguese and the German. And no matter if bribed or biassed, amateurish or professional: decisions of five peope never will be representative. These surprises bring fun to you? I wonder. Apart from this, I did not recognise many high scores that were not forseeable (lower ones never were). Not less than in 2006, 2007 etc.
Some examples: Times to get your facts right.
From 2004-2008 Belarusconsequently gave their 12 points to Russia. After the introduction of 50/50 they've given 12 points to Norway and Georgia as well. Twelve points to Norway has nothing to do with 50/50. Georgia is not that much better in terms of voting patterns and seeing the 50/50 points it is unlikely Russia got 12 from televoting in 2011. Probably also 2010's 12 would have gone to another country.
From 2004-2008 Denmarkconsequently gave their 12 points to a Nordic neighbour. You must refer to Nordics in general and to the finals only.
From 2004-2008 Denmarkconsequently gave their 12 points to a Nordic neighbour. After 50/50 they've given 12 points to Germany and Ireland. This is the southern neighbour (with national minority group) and another northern European country.
From 2005-2009 Irelandgave their 12 points to either Latvia or Lithuania. After 50/50 they've given 12 points to Iceland and Denmark. Two aurora borealis having their diaspora there, too.
From 2004-2008 Netherlandsconsequently gave their 12 points to Turkey. Wrong.
After 50/50 they've given 12 points to [...] Belgium. That I call a surprising and patternless vote.
The juries aren't perfect but I'm convinced that they are far less biased than the viewers. How are you to know? Hiding the results for the second year in a row now and NDR's jurors giving top scores to exactly those neighbouring and western entries they have promoted before are good indications it is the opposite way.

nikolay_BG
22nd July 2011, 15:41
The juries are bribed. I can`t find another reason for the talentless unspectacular and boring song and show from Sweden to get 3rd place.

Bribing 5 people is way easier then bribing a whole nation. :geek:

MyHeartIsYours
22nd July 2011, 15:45
Sweden got 3rd place because it was very popular... it was a great song and performance quite obviously. In the Televote, it was second, only 3 points behind Azerbaijan.
Personally I would rather have had Sweden winning, but they didnt, cuz they were marked down by the Juries :p.

CC92
22nd July 2011, 16:30
^ Still it got high 'jury' marks (Top3 in in its semi, Top10 in the final). How comes they voted Russia to last place (no final) then? Was that so much different/worse in terms of quality?

Yamarus
22nd July 2011, 18:28
The juries are bribed. I can`t find another reason for the talentless unspectacular and boring song and show from Sweden to get 3rd place.

Bribing 5 people is way easier then bribing a whole nation. :geek:

I'm not sure Sweden would be the country bribing the judges though... Accusations of jury bribing are as old as the contest itself (the controversial Spanish victory in 1968 being the most telling example), but I think they're mostly based on assumptions rather than actual evidence.

@CC92: Every year there are strange voting patterns. It's not restricted to the jury, the public also votes in a very odd way too.

CC92
22nd July 2011, 19:15
^ Bribing and political or ideologic voting are two different pairs of shoes. Do you really believe it is a coincidence that the NDR each year gives 70 to 90 per cent to western countries, preferred neighbours? Also, and that is a proven fact and no way less important, they have a mission disadvantaging uncommercial, especially ethnic/folkloristisc songs.
Public might have odd voting patterns sometimes but it is fine as they are the majority that decides.

Yamarus
22nd July 2011, 20:16
"The majority" is a very, very relative term considering each country however small has the same number of voices. Not to mention the voting system (1-8-10-12) which effectively ignores votes for countries out of the top 10 and heavily advantages the top 2. So yeah, "majority"...

AllThatJazz
23rd July 2011, 15:15
@ CC92,

thanks for correcting a mistake in my calculation, I’ll come back to that in a minute.

In my post, I didn’t try to define “fairness” as that is a tricky term to use within a music contest. I tried to argue that the juries have made the voting less predictable. You don’t agree and I admit that predictablility is a subjective matter. Let me try to explain once again, why I - for my part - find the voting less predictable than in previous years:

Regarding the Belarussian votes, I couldn’t predict that their 12 points would go to Georgia this year. I feel convinced (I don’t know for certain, I just feel convinced) that if there had been 100 % televoting, these 12 points would’ve went to Russia as they did from 2004-2008. After all, it’s not (as you write) unlikely that Russia received 12 points from the televoters. A hypothetical example: RUS 12+0, GEO 10+7, UKR 6+10, GER 2+12, MOL 8+5, AZE 7+6 = Russia 5 points.

Regarding the Danish votes, I couldn’t predict that our 12 points would go to Ireland this year. I feel convinced that we would have given our top mark to Sweden, if there had been 100 % televoting. After all, we rewarded Sweden with 89 points in the finals from 1999 to 2008.

Regarding the Dutch votes, you’re right and I’m wrong. Netherlands only rewarded Turkey with 12 points in 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007. In 2008 they gave ‘em 10 points. However, from 2009-2010 Turkey only received 8 points from the Netherlands despite the high placings of the songs. That’s for me a clear example that the voting has become less biased. I don’t think that it’s a question of Ducth people’s taste when songs like “Rimi rimi ley” and “Süper Star” gets 12 points, while “Düm tek tek” and “We could be the same” gets 8 points.

To sum up: As many others, I would like the voting to be much more transparent. After all, my examples are just an outsiders conviction and not facts. Just as your claim that the juries are bribed is a conviction.

As I wrote, the juries aren’t perfect. It’s still not hard to predict where many 12 points are going, Cyprus and Moldova being the best examples. Nevertheless, I was happy to see a lot of surprising 12 points this year. Perhaps you were able to predict 90% of them – I was not, and that is what’s make the voting fun and exiting for me.

Fair or not, I don’t know. As you, I would normally define democracy as being the best foundation for fairness. But when Russia receives 12 points from Belarus five years in a row, and Turkey receives 12 points from both Netherlands and France four years in a row, I don’t know whether that equals fairness.

As you’ve earlier mentioned, huge representative juries would probably be a better solution to avoid biased votings – if they could work in practice, that is.

AllThatJazz
23rd July 2011, 17:46
Don't foget that Alexander Rybak is Belarusian Born. That was the reazon why Belarus was gave their 12 points to Norway in 2009.acc

You're right, I forgot about Alexander Rybak origins - thanks for reminding me!

Mickey
23rd July 2011, 19:22
Don't foget that Alexander Rybak is Belarusian Born. That was the reazon why Belarus was gave their 12 points to Norway in 2009.acc

You're right, I forgot about Alexander Rybak origins - thanks for reminding me!
Rybak also happened to have the best song in the contest and scored 8 or more points from almost every other country. I suppose you're going to tell me that Rybak also has an Israeli grandmother, a Slovenian uncle and a pet cat from Spain. Those are the only reasons those countries could have voted for him.

The UK gave precisely zero points to Romania this year. I didn't like the song. I didn't care that their singer was from England and no one else cared enough to give him any points. Unless they've had commercial success there, I don't believe in links between a performer's birthplace and that country's points.

Sabiondo
23rd July 2011, 20:40
Rybak also happened to have the best song in the contest and scored 8 or more points from almost every other country. I suppose you're going to tell me that Rybak also has an Israeli grandmother, a Slovenian uncle and a pet cat from Spain. Those are the only reasons those countries could have voted for him.

The UK gave precisely zero points to Romania this year. I didn't like the song. I didn't care that their singer was from England and no one else cared enough to give him any points. Unless they've had commercial success there, I don't believe in links between a performer's birthplace and that country's points.

Greece & Cyprus exange points cause they bersides shaers music market , shares also their singers.

Bulgaria was give 12 points to Germany in 2008, cause one of the No Angels singers, was Bulgarian.

ESC 2006 Switzerland six4one group was composted for members from Sweden, Malta, B&H, Israel & one are German-´Portuguese blackground ... and all thorse countries members (exect Sweden) was vote to hims.

Mickey
23rd July 2011, 21:54
Unless they've had commercial success there, I don't believe in links between a performer's birthplace and that country's points.


Greece & Cyprus exange points cause they bersides shaers music market , shares also their singers.

Bulgaria was give 12 points to Germany in 2008, cause one of the No Angels singers, was Bulgarian.

ESC 2006 Switzerland six4one group was composted for members from Sweden, Malta, B&H, Israel & one are German-´Portuguese blackground ... and all thorse countries members (exect Sweden) was vote to hims.
You've ignored an important part of my argument. The Bulgarian girl in No Angels and the members of six4one were all already well known in their home countries. I may be wrong, but I'm not aware of Rybak being a successful artist in Belarus (or anywhere) before he won ESC.

Of course, if Adele or Take That chose to represent someone else at ESC, I'd expect the UK voters to give them big marks. If it's just some guy who happened to be born here and then move away, that's a completely different story.

Yamarus
24th July 2011, 00:13
Good point Mickey. Ryback's Eastern origins certainly helped (as far as musical influences go), but he won because his song really appealed to absolutely everyone (I'm not fond of the song, but you can't deny it's really distinctive).

BTW, I just watched the ESC 2005 final in Kiev, on DVD. I thought the voting that year was quite interesting, and pretty fair actually. Switzerland in particular struck me as surprisingly popular (10 points from Belarus, and high marks from every Baltic country). Just my impression, do you think 2005 was a "fair" year (if there is any)? (I know I'm digressing, but this is linked to the jury issue IMO)

Sabiondo
24th July 2011, 00:37
BTW, I just watched the ESC 2005 final in Kiev, on DVD. I thought the voting that year was quite interesting, and pretty fair actually. Switzerland in particular struck me as surprisingly popular (10 points from Belarus, and high marks from every Baltic country). Just my impression, do you think 2005 was a "fair" year (if there is any)? (I know I'm digressing, but this is linked to the jury issue IMO)

The Vanilla Ninja Ninja actually was so popular for that time in Belarus.

Yamarus
24th July 2011, 01:29
oh, yeah... that's what I thought lol

CC92
24th July 2011, 05:00
Regarding the Belarussian votes, I couldn’t predict that their 12 points would go to Georgia this year. I feel convinced (I don’t know for certain, I just feel convinced) that if there had been 100 % televoting, these 12 points would’ve went to Russia as they did from 2004-2008.
Apart from the few steady vice-versa-connections, namely Cyprus<–>Greece, Azerbaijan<–>Turkey, Italy<–>San Marino(?), whose forseeability does not vary in televoting and 'combined results' likewise, there is no predictable 12 points score either when it comes to the public. Although it is supposable they stay in a greater 'bloc' (keep in my mind: there have been various exceptions) it is impossible to appoint the exact country that will be awarded with it before knowing the entries or even overall voting trends. As higher-voted Georgia belongs to the same 'political bloc' as Belarus or Russia I fail to see a moral difference or a larger surprise.

After all, it’s not (as you write) unlikely that Russia received 12 points from the televoters. A hypothetical example: RUS 12+0, GEO 10+7, UKR 6+10, GER 2+12, MOL 8+5, AZE 7+6 = Russia 5 points.
Given the split points by country released for the 2009 contest, there has not been one case in that the 12 points from televoting were diminished to five or less points in the 'combined voting'. Nor occured this in any revealed split for 2010 or 2011. Just once the televoting favourite received 6 points, on all other occasions at least 7 points. In addition we do not even know BTRC gave nil points. Thus based on facts it can be considered as unlikely (not mathematically excluded).


Regarding the Danish votes, I couldn’t predict that our 12 points would go to Ireland this year. I feel convinced that we would have given our top mark to Sweden, if there had been 100 % televoting. After all, we rewarded Sweden with 89 points in the finals from 1999 to 2008.
Popular was a typical nordic Pop schlager that won the international full televoting, not counting back up juries, so it was plausible if it topped the Danish one, too. Giving not the 12 rather seems incredible to me.


[B]I don’t think that it’s a question of Ducth people’s taste when songs like “Rimi rimi ley” and “Süper Star” gets 12 points, while “Düm tek tek” and “We could be the same” gets 8 points.
It indeed is not because Düm tek tek also gained the people's 12.


To sum up: As many others, I would like the voting to be much more transparent. After all, my examples are just an outsiders conviction and not facts. Just as your claim that the juries are bribed is a conviction.
I cannot claim if they are bribed or not and I have not done it. It is clear and officially stated they do assert foreign interests and it is a fact EBU and 95% of the broadcasters do hide the results since 2010.


As I wrote, the juries aren’t perfect. It’s still not hard to predict where many 12 points are going, Cyprus and Moldova being the best examples. Nevertheless, I was happy to see a lot of surprising 12 points this year. Perhaps you were able to predict 90% of them – I was not, [...]
Still I would like to know the lots of surprising 12 points for you as for me and other observers the voting looked quite 'blocish' this year. Probably the neighbourish voting among western contestants was unwonted.


[...]and that is what’s make the voting fun and exiting for me.
For me, an absolute meaningless and intransparent can hardly bring fun and excitement. Probably I do take it too serious? However, many agree on that without voting ESC is a farce.


As you’ve earlier mentioned, huge representative juries would probably be a better solution to avoid biased votings – if they could work in practice, that is.
I supported this idea earlier. Seeing the broadcasters's behaviour (expetiated sveral times) these days not any direct influence is acceptable IMHO.

CC92
24th July 2011, 05:07
The Vanilla Ninja Ninja actually was so popular for that time in Belarus.

A good example people vote for close music, not countries.

AllThatJazz
28th July 2011, 04:45
@ CC92

Thanks for answering once again, I see your point regarding the hidden results. As a matter of fact, I wrote the Danish broadcaster last year (and the year before that) asking why they didn't publish the full results - as they've done for several years in Sweden. Never got a saitisfying answer, though.

In the case of predictability, we obviously disagree. But I would like to know more about thoughts regarding the voters: If EBU skip the juries, should they return to 100% televoting - with the possibility of introducing limited votes per phone? What would be the best solution, according to you?