2019 JURY BEWILDERMENT AND AMUSEMENT THREAD

[Gitte]

Italy always sends good songs though so those televote points are deserved.

 

[Swedenvision]

italy gets high televotes because they are good. sweden can't relate lol.

Well, in that case I could make the same conclusion when it comes to Swedens jury results...

 

[Swedenvision]

Italy always sends good songs though so those televote points are deserved.

Yeah right...

 

[FilipFromSweden]

I know plenty of people here think I'm defending the juries because we are the juries favorite child and has been since 2012 ... which is a long time ... but I agree that they are still needed even though the jury system could need some fixes, making it professional even further. Let me remind you that this would've qualified last year with just televote:

I lowkey hope we finish last next year so that we can wake up from sending such beige entries

 

[popavapeur]

I already gave my opinion about juries/televote

but to be the devil's advocate, each jury is giving 58 points, if they give 12 points to someone that doesn't deserve it, it's always 46 points to countries that maybe deserve it for real ? like the 10 points became the real 12pts, the 12 is just some kind of bonus unfortunately we have to deal with but we can expect the rest of the ranking being somewhat "fair" ?

 

[Alaska49]

I know plenty of people here think I'm defending the juries because we are the juries favorite child and has been since 2012 ... which is a long time ... but I agree that they are still needed even though the jury system could need some fixes, making it professional even further. Let me remind you that this would've qualified last year with just televote:

I lowkey hope we finish last next year so that we can wake up from sending such beige entries

i know i am the cult leader of hating the jury and all but she actually got 11th with the televote. it was close but she would still flop lol.

 

[FilipFromSweden]

i know i am the cult leader of hating the jury and all but she actually got 11th with the televote. it was close but she would still flop lol.

oh !

well

my scientific hypothesis is that they still would've gotten top 15 televote in the finale

 

[Alaska49]

oh i also meant to observe a while ago that juries and televoters are increasingly divergent. i don't know what causes this but it's so apparent. even 4 years ago, it was a scandal within the fandom that mans won by winning jury while being *ONLY* 3rd in the televote. those simulations we could do that had winners being 6th televote/9th jury seemed laughable and impossible. now they are a very real possibility. keiino was 1st televote, 16th jury. we expect this kind of difference to affect the midcarders, but ultimately the top of the table to converge, and this year brought those walls entirely down after the cracks caused by césar's 1st jury, 13th televote stint (it always feels less important when jury faves flop in the televote). televoters and juries are now not even living in the same solar system.

wait. is this a good thing? is this capable of weeding out the entries that consciously try to play both sides, the ones that cause us so much chagrin? they are falling short more and more often, in one side or another. is this what is ultimately rewarding the entries that are just being themselves - our last four winners plus our latest runner-up? something to consider. i will try to remember this next year when our winner is like 4th televote, 6th jury or something.

 

[BorisBubbles]

Professional juries helped raise the quality of the contest, and now that #EurovisionIsGreatAgain, such committed quality control is no longer needed. It now impacts the contest negatively.

Juries don't need to be experts. Juries used to be casual ESC fans before their return in 2009. Let whoever is on there vote for the songs/acts that they like, not those which they think are 'objectively' good. Reward the authentic and the spectacular, not the bland and socially desirable.

In short, keep juries but expand them and change who gets to be a juror is what I'd say.

 

[Ezio]

If we abolish juries, the Eurovision will be a mess like it was before 2009. And countries will quit. Austria has suffered zero televotes in 2015, 2017 and 2019, while Serbia has guaranteed 50+ points every year. If we bring a normal, decent act, we get usually defeated in the televote, but we don't have the capacities to pull off a major act every year, while other countries can nominate a broomstick with a wig for Eurovision and prevail in the televote.

Still, I am disgruntled by the juries a lot too, because they helped generic radio-songs prevail over really interesting out-of-the-box entries. And they dished 12 points to their immediate neighbours even when it was not justified. Or the punish each other even if it not justified (Georgia Russia, Armenia Azerbaijan). We don't need them to be political tools but to ensure quality and fairness.

 

[Mii11]

If we abolish juries, the Eurovision will be a mess like it was before 2009. And countries will quit. Austria has suffered zero televotes in 2015, 2017 and 2019, while Serbia has guaranteed 50+ points every year. If we bring a normal, decent act, we get usually defeated in the televote, but we don't have the capacities to pull off a major act every year, while other countries can nominate a broomstick with a wig for Eurovision and prevail in the televote.

Still, I am disgruntled by the juries a lot too, because they helped generic radio-songs prevail over really interesting out-of-the-box entries. And they dished 12 points to their immediate neighbours even when it was not justified. Or the punish each other even if it not justified (Georgia Russia, Armenia Azerbaijan). We don't need them to be political tools but to ensure quality and fairness.

Austria won televoting in 2014, and was high in 2016 - meanwhile Serbia would fail to qualify even with televote in 2017, and same with Russia in 2018. Poland failed to qualify almost every year despite huge diaspora. Your argument is basically just saying: "I want juries because they like my country'. And I get it (it's good to support your country, even bjorkman does that) but even Austria could do well with televoting only.

I agree with your second statement.

 

[A-lister]

Austria won televoting in 2014, and was high in 2016 - meanwhile Serbia would fail to qualify even with televote in 2017, and same with Russia in 2018. Poland failed to qualify almost every year despite huge diaspora. Your argument is basically just saying: "I want juries because they like my country'. And I get it (it's good to support your country, even bjorkman does that) but even Austria could do well with televoting only.

I agree with your second statement.

Yeah, the idea that juries are apolitical and public will "ruin ESC again" is simply not working any longer. Public has proven over and over again now to be, from a general perspective (sure there is still some problem with diaspora vote, in particular with Russia), that they are far more open-minded than juries, that they aren't always going for the "safe stuff" and vote for countries they are unrelated to. Juries still get bribed (the random small countries' 12s & 10s to Russia and Azerbaijan issues we saw also some of this year), the blind exchange of neighbor votes (gr - cy)... how is the juries better!?

 

[Mii11]

Yeah, the idea that juries are apolitical and public will "ruin ESC again" is simply not working any longer. Public has proven over and over again now to be, from a general perspective (sure there is still some problem with diaspora vote, in particular with Russia), that they are far more open-minded than juries, that they aren't always going for the "safe stuff" and vote for countries they are unrelated to. Juries still get bribed (the random small countries' 12s & 10s to Russia and Azerbaijan issues we saw also some of this year), the blind exchange of neighbor votes (gr - cy)... how is the juries better!?

Exactly! I agree with you 100%. Also there seems to be a lot of instances where juries vote 'upside down' - e.g. apparently one of Czech juries ranked entries 'upside down' which affected the results so Poland got 7 rather than 10 points from the Czech jury (so Poland would get qualification). These situations happen year after year so I'm wondering how messed up the whole system is. Also the 12 points from Belarus to Israel. The EBU should address this because it seems corrupt and unprofessional.

I agree with you about Russia - bur then juries favor some countries over others (Malta, Australia and Sweden) so I don't think it's an effective preventative measure. It might eliminate some biases from the public but creates new ones instead (seems to me mostly Western countries benefit from jury biases).

 

[A-lister]

Exactly! I agree with you 100%. Also there seems to be a lot of instances where juries vote 'upside down' - e.g. apparently one of Czech juries ranked entries 'upside down' which affected the results so Poland got 7 rather than 10 points from the Czech jury (so Poland would get qualification). These situations happen year after year so I'm wondering how messed up the whole system is. Also the 12 points from Belarus to Israel. The EBU should address this because it seems corrupt and unprofessional.

I agree with you about Russia - bur then juries favor some countries over others (Malta, Australia and Sweden) so I don't think it's an effective preventative measure. It might eliminate some biases from the public but creates new ones instead (seems to me mostly Western countries benefit from jury biases).

My main issue is that juries, year after year, kill musical diversity, choose pointless dated safe songs over those that actually add some flavor to the contest. How are these experts? In what sense of the word really if for instance and are considered musically "more interesting" than for instance and ? I know we all have different taste, but if someone is supposed to be an "expert", then act like it!

Also, yeah it's true, to some extent it feels like the juries got brought in to "save" western countries, but then again we see both neighbor voting and political voting among the juries. Why do some of those small countries, non related to both and , always have so much love for their entries? These are countries known for bribing and corruption, Russia cannot even enter one sport event it seems without any dope scandals so Kirkorov probably have a money basket ready for some jurors.

 

[FilipFromSweden]

Let's not forget that the juries:

Chose over in 2016
Chose over in 2017 (and the televote was much closer between them)
Chose over in 2018

I wish people would put the televote on such a piedestal. is interesting for sure, but it sounds like a recycled Melodifestivalen song from 2008 and did not deserve more points than and

 

[midnightsun]

Juries used to be casual ESC fans before their return in 2009.

Actually not. I don't remember exactly how many jurors were in a jury (at least a two-digit number) but one half were experts and the other one casual viewers who were somehow connected to music. And I think it's essential that there are at least a few REAL experts in there who are able to judge a good composition musicwise.

I don't think juries are basically bad. But even more than their power expressed in percentage I would increase the number of jurors and their qualification. Besides, their votes are often too safe for my taste, which is the fault of the betting odds. Which juror dared to give 12 points to Montenegro (except for Serbia) even if he liked that much for any reason? And who would put the Netherlands last in his ranking even if he dislked it so much? They always try to please the public because they don't want to be the scapegoat. But they do forget that people's taste is not necessarily the ones reflected in the odds.
Another reason to vote safely are political reasons. Jurors of the Armenian Jury surely had a tough time if they voted for Azerbaijan and vice versa.

 

[Storm]

Yeah, the idea that juries are apolitical and public will "ruin ESC again" is simply not working any longer.

I think it does. I mean we've been there before! The thing is: juries are more of a precautionary thing. Just because of the existance of the juries, countries put more effort in, send less joke acts, send better compositions. Obviously, if the field is looking better then the televoters have the chance to vote for better stuff too. The moment juries are gone, countries will go for the Guildo Horns, LT Uniteds, Alf Poiers and silly dance acts again, more and more countries will lose interest, will send less good stuff and so on and so on.

 

[hijirio]

In the semifinal Armenian televoters placed in the 11th place whereas all professional music expert juries placed him dead last at 17th.
In the final all the Armenian professional experts placed at the 26th place, and the public 18th.

On the other hand, Montenegrin song got 1st place from all Serbian professional experts in SF1, but managed only 3rd place in the televote.

I am wondering who's more political.

Juries need to go for good, period.
They are only contributing to block voting. Not to even mention the tendency to vote for unoriginal bland and safe songs. That's another whole thing.

 

[A-lister]

The day juries stop their political and biased voting, stop voting for safe only and the day we know they aren't corrupted as well as clauses are introduced that juries should also take musical diversity, cultural heritage, modernity and progressivism into account, then we can keep them... since they are doing all the exact opposite of what supposedly "professionals" should do in a contest like this, I prefer them gone or that their powers get decreased.

 

[A-lister]

I think it does. I mean we've been there before! The thing is: juries are more of a precautionary thing. Just because of the existance of the juries, countries put more effort in, send less joke acts, send better compositions. Obviously, if the field is looking better then the televoters have the chance to vote for better stuff too. The moment juries are gone, countries will go for the Guildo Horns, LT Uniteds, Alf Poiers and silly dance acts again, more and more countries will lose interest, will send less good stuff and so on and so on.

Did you even compare jury votes with televotes? because of juries, Eurovision is still overloaded with dated clichéd ballads and the musical diversity is less and less... is that really what we wanted from ESC just to avoid a single joke entry (btw we still have those, I would consider to be this year's joke entry for example)?

What "silly dance acts"? Do you only want pretentious ballads in ESC?