An essay on juries and their importance in Modern Eurovision.

[BorisBubbles]

Hello everyone.

Tel Aviv 2019 has come to a close and has provided us with another enjoyable edition of Eurovision. Like always, the results have been subject to a lot of discussion. Upon starting this topic, there are already 3-4 topics on the jury/televote split and those always elicit interesting discussions.

I see many people, here and elsewhere ragging on Juries but I've always been in favour of their inclusion. I'll try my best to explain as concisely as possible as to why I think they're an essential part of Eurovision (but probably will fail at the 'Concise' part )

I could of course make this post in one of the 3-4 available "2019 JURY" topics where it would inevitably get burried under a myriad of "UGH KEiiNO WERE ROBBED #FuckJuries" and "LOLOLOL TAMARA JURY QUEEN "-like posts, but I think the topic of the post itself is important enough to warrant separate attention. So, bear with me for however long this post will become.

Now, I'll open by saying something saying something positive: Juries do a really good job at saving good songs that deserve recognition but get lost in the shuffle. "Friend of a friend", "Proud" and "Chameleon" aren't obvious standouts the annual Carnival of Death we all know and love, and juries are great at giving these entries the attention they deserve. It has a positive impact on the contest, for it rewards broadcasters for sending good, innovative music.

Having said that "PROFESSIONAL" JURIES FUCKING SUCK. I think they are rubbish. They weren't too bad this year, but that doesn't mean the entire concept of a "Professional Jury" is a good one.

However, why do they suck? Well, to understand this one must first understand how juries functioned before their re-implementation. If you are new to Eurovision and are unaware of how juries used to work: open the tags and enlighten yourself

Before 1997, every single vote was decided through a jury. These juries were different from the ones we know nowadays: instead of a professional jury of 'Music Industry Professionals', these juries consisted of regular people: hairdressers, nurses, accountants. Random people, in various degree of fandom. People like you and I. Instead of five, there were ten members of each and they were each given one scoresheet and a pencil to make as many notes as they pleased. After some deliberation, the ten jurors had to come up with a final list of ten songs they wanted to give points to.

In 1998 however, the BBC opened a can of worms by getting rid of all of the staples of Eurovision at that time. Getting rid of live music and the language rule were both positive decisions. Live music greatly limited the modernization of the contest and the language rule was unfair to countries which languages which are lack reference points in others, such as Greek, Finnish or Turkish. There's a reason why the UK, Ireland and Malta dominated the 90s in terms of results. Each of those countries sang in languages people not from those countries could understand.

However, the EBU also got rid of the juries in favour of the televote, which of course quickly erupted in pandaemonium once countries and viewers alike figured out how the system could be abused. Before long diasporiae and cheap gimmicks ruled Eurovision and it completely ruined the reputation Eurovision had as a Quality Music Contest.

Juries cull diasporia voting and attention-whoring Gimmick Acts and that's why they are essential to Eurovision. Without them, Eurovision literally is nothing but a circus. Their mere presence forces the participating countries to take the contest seriously, boosting Eurovision's appeal . Lose juries and you lose reputation. Every self-respecting Eurovision fan should hope they remain a part of Eurovision.

However... do juries have to be professional? You see, by specifcially making the jury a group of five Music Industry Professionals, the EBU has created a system that is almost as easily exploited by delegations, and provides results which are more than questionable than those from the Goldie Oldie Contests. Back in the 90s and earlier, the EBU considered it IMPORTANT to the jurors were in fact *NOT* connected to the music industry. Every year hosts HAMMERED on the fact that they were people such as you and I. Being a casual fan was the defining characteristic of being a Eurovision juror. The fact that today's jurors MUST have connections to the music industry is the SINGLE fatal flaw of modern day juries, for the following five reasons:

1) The Music Industry is a very small world...

A lot of these people know each other. You've all seen the Music & Lyrics chyrons. Everyone who follows Eurovision knows Laurel Barker, Ashley Hicklin, Thomas G::son, Fridrik Kempe, Philipp Kirkorov, Mihai Alexandru, Boris Milanov, Lise Cabble, the Paelinck brothers, Ralph Siegel, Joy & Linnea Deb, etc. These people all know each other, and most of the jurors also know at least some of them on a first-name basis. Even when not intended to be biased, bias can easily sneak in simply based on past and future collaborations between the jurors and the performers/songwriters they have to rate.

2)... consisting of people that think progressively.

The Western music industry, like most creative environments, is generally left-wing. That means that the vast majority of jurors are progressive, idealistic thinkers, putting them in stark contrast to the average eurovision viewer in what they like.

A song such as "Love is forever", which I (a centrist with a pessimistic disposition) personally find diabolical for its pushy guidance and belittlement, presents an ideal and that simply resonates more to someone who is more progressive than I am.

The dark side of the medal is that songs which aren't modern, even if those songs are good, are ruthlessly downvoted, sometimes in stark contrast to the general public's tastes. Spirwhil is the latest in a long line of shafted songs and it won't be the last. Mind that 'modern' doesn't equate to innovative. "Dance you off" was generic as fuck, but it still did very well. Modern music often uses the same theorems, hence why many radio songs sound alike.

This penchant for "modernity" also translates to western jurors voting against countries whose societies aren't socially progressive: That's where the biases against Russia and Belarus come from, for instance. This ALSO accounts for the jury bias against traditional music, which is why countries such as Serbia and Hungary often get shafted by them.

Naturally, this doesn't apply to eastern-European jurors who think more conservatively and vote against supposed "Gay/Western Propaganda" (xsnooty) but that isn't my point. The point is that because they live in a bubble professional jurors tend to think alike and they like/dislike the same things. What they like is ultimately dictated by the society they live in, but each juror's preferences a pre-scripted all the same.

3) Professional juries have to judge quality and not every country has the opportunity to produce 'quality' on a consistent basis.

Consistent production of good ESC songs is often a question of resources: talent (Netherlands), reputation (Italy) and money (Azerbaijan) all play a role in how often a country can produce 'Good Music'. For a country that has all three in abundance, such as Sweden, winning the jury is child's play.

I will take an intermezzo to stress that Pro-Sweden bias, as if often tossed around, does not exist. Sweden is a wealthy country with a tradition of consistently innovating pop music, the most common genre of music at ESC (most common BECAUSE of Sweden, may I add). Many of the most talented songwriters, choreographers, composers, producers and vocal coaches either reside in Sweden or were born there. There is a default perception that Swedish entries are good but this is because most of their entries are good. No other country has an easier time producing Good Quality Music as Sweden does. No one.

Which brings me to the point #4 why professional juries suck:

4) Juries are instructed to look for certain criteria only

Which precisely why countries with 'Resources' do consistently well. Here I speak not of Christer's transparent rigging; His presence is a whole other issue which I won't be addressing here. Juries are instructed to look for 'quality', a subjective entity, in an objective manner, which is like fitting a square peg into round hole. They are expected to set their personal biases aside. Jury duty therefore often devolves into ticking off a checklist where entries with one or multiple glaring flaws are downvoted in favour of songs which are supposedly 'objectively' better (ie: less offensive).

Take "Spirit in the Sky" vs "Truth" as an example. On the surface, both are EDM trash with a really vague backstory obscured by nonsensical lyrics. Both are among the best songs this year had to offer imo. Yet Azerbaijan did a lot better than Norway did in the jury vote. Is "Truth" really that better than "Spirit"? It is my opinion that it isn't, "Truth" simply has a more contemporary sound, a more current topic and uses modern technology to create a show, while the more classic "Spirit" relies solely on the vocals, backdrop and cheesy dated soundtrack to carry itself. Remember that juries vote mostly progressively, hence why "Truth" soared here while "Spirit" was mostly ignored.

5) Today's juries are too small.

I cite as an example poor Igor Gulayev, juror for Russia, who much like Lina Hedlund reversed his vote by accident, putting Denmark first instead of last and in doing so single-handedly caused Leonora's qualification. Because juries consist of only five members one person can have a massive impact on the result. One accidental vote made the difference between 11th place in the SemiFinal and 12th place in the Grand Final.

TL;DR: Juries need an overhaul because we've far reached a point where safety and conformity are getting rewarded over daring indie darlings. Professionals reward the lowest common denominator and that is musically regressive. TelAviv2019 had satisfying results, if unexpected ones, and a good winner, mostly THANKS to the discrepancy between televote and jury vote. Without the televote, Sweden would have won again, because they are 'objectively' the best at music out of everyone.

It is my firm belief that the best solution is not to abolish juries entirely. Correct evaluation is difficult to pull off but never the less of paramount imporantance for reasons already stated and juries are the best way to accomplish this. So long as the EBU is aware of their flaws and how to work around them, we're fine.

Look at San Remo, which has both a press jury and a dioscopic jury and it has worked miracles for them. Having those juries at San Remo single-handedly provided Italy second place in Tel Aviv. I would love to see similar juries used in Eurovision. It beats 'Professional Only' juries every day.

I also suspect that adjusting juries like this shall also get rid of most of the ailments Professional-only juries bring with them. A jury with casuals will no longer ostentibly downvote KEiiNO for being dated, but the presence of press & professionals ensure quality songs such as "Chameleon" and "Proud" also do well. Sweden and Russia will still do well, but in a jury with fewer professionals they will no longer be as dominant, getting high scores based on their own merit rather than flag.

Both sides of quality, the traditional and the innovative, the progressive and conservative, the substance and the style, the authentic and the professional, the song and the act, the alpha and omega will be rated equally and take central stage more than they currently do. Such juries, in conjuction with a televote and broadcasters which continue to put the envelope on their entries can only benefit the contest in the future.

I probably didn't need to make this post, let alone make it its own topic, but still, I wanted to get it off my chest so that it no longer occupies my mind. Eurovision is one of best things about being European and I hope it gets passed on for future generations to come.

 

[Alaska49]

not to be a dumb gay but all i have to answer to this stellar essay is WIG

i specially agree that press juries and/or public opinion juries are the way to go. they work wonders in sanremo, and that eurovision panel in unser lied fur israel was basically a public opinion jury and the only fucking thing that did their job there. eurovision desperately needs to start using one of those (or both) instead and it would be so easy for them. i guess they are not interested, though.

 

[midnightsun]

There is a default perception that Swedish entries are good but this is because most of their entries are good. No other country has an easier time producing Good Quality Music as Sweden does. No one.

That's your opinion. I don't think everyone agrees on Sweden producing good quality music. So don't state this as a fact. I agree that Sweden is able, more than any other country, to produce an Eurovision-friendly song and to please a huge crowd but that doesn't mean their songs are necessarily good. Sweden is one of my favourite countries in Eurovision this decade, rightfully so because they're doing well for a reason, but it hasn't always been like that in the past. Before the 2000s, Sweden wasn't necessarily known for its successful entries. I didn't even like their most sucessful entries in the '00s much.

Before 1997, every single vote was decided through a jury. These juries were different from the ones we know nowadays: instead of a professional jury of 'Music Industry Professionals', these juries consisted of regular people...[...]

Don't know where you got that from but that's not exactly true.

Anyway, I agree it would be good to have a higher number of jury members.

 

[BorisBubbles]

That's your opinion. I don't think everyone agrees on Sweden producing good quality music. So don't state this as a fact. I agree that Sweden is able, more than any other country, to produce an Eurovision-friendly song and to please a huge crowd but that doesn't mean their songs are necessarily good. Sweden is one of my favourite countries in Eurovision this decade, rightfully so because they're doing well for a reason, but it hasn't always been like that in the past. Before the 2000s, Sweden wasn't necessarily known for its successful entries. I didn't even like their most sucessful entries in the '00s much.

I respectfully disagree. Sweden produces a lot of good music both in Melfest and outside of it. That does not mean I like their eurovision entries. I disliked If I Were Sorry and I Can't Go On and didn't not give a hoot about Dance You Off. A lot of people liked them however, and a majority rules concensus is the closest we can possibly get to 'objective' when rating something as subjective as "goodness".

And yes, old school Sweden never did as well as Sweden does nowadays, but again, that's because points weren't decided by people who had ties to them musical industry (and therefore to Sweden). Remove the music industry professionals, and Sweden's results balance out to 'consistently good, but not dominant'.

Don't know where you got that from but that's not exactly true.

That is indeed not *exactly* true, fair enough. I know that Spain used civilian juries throughout the entire Jury Era, but all countries did during the early 80s and late 70s as well (we know this because of the hosts confirming this during the live show). No idea about the late 80s and 90s though.

 

[Franzilein]

That's your opinion. I don't think everyone agrees on Sweden producing good quality music. So don't state this as a fact. I agree that Sweden is able, more than any other country, to produce an Eurovision-friendly song and to please a huge crowd but that doesn't mean their songs are necessarily good. Sweden is one of my favourite countries in Eurovision this decade, rightfully so because they're doing well for a reason, but it hasn't always been like that in the past. Before the 2000s, Sweden wasn't necessarily known for its successful entries. I didn't even like their most sucessful entries in the '00s much.

My thoughts exactly. I like how not a single argument is made why Sweden's music is good except for "muh popular producers", essentially saying success = good music. I often see such empty phrases thrown around here, because I reckon most of the people writing on this forum don't even have a musical education that goes beyond "That's the sound of a piano". The result are justifications of why they don't like a certain song with fancy sentences like "If the composition was a bit more interesting, I would like it more" or "it has the potential, but they didn't realise it" not giving one example how they would change it. It's quite the phenomenon.
(Just for the record: I'm okay with people stating their opinions why they do or don't like something, but those phrases suggesting something further or deeper knowledge of the matter are hilarious )


Not to mention that if we go by the logic of OP's thesis that Sweden produces "good quality music", because they're successful, how do you explain all the ESC songs written by Swedish composers not making it even to the final or achieving a good result? Moldova 2016, Azerbaijan 2018 etc.? Hell, we even have a perfect example with John Lundvik this year. He also wrote UK's entry Bigger Than Us, despised by many. Is this also "good quality music"?

The whole essay is basically an opinion covered in fake objectivity. "On the surface, both are EDM trash with a really vague backstory obscured by nonsensical lyrics." Are they though? I had no problem with following the lyrics, to me they seem pretty coherent, don't really see much of a difference to those good music quality lyrics from John Lundvik

 

[Alaska49]

i mean, boris could have elaborated further on the sweden quality point because it's not about just the eurovision entries (or even just about melfest), and the point that he didn't write outright but could be read betwene the lines is that since a lot of pop music comes from sweden, and juries are people in the music industry, it's very likely the jurors will know the people involved with the swedish entry or the delegation, and just understand the decisions behind it more clearly, or just plain reward their acquaintances consciously or subconsciously. it's not a conscious bias towards swefen, which i agree with, but a bias nonetheless.

it also partly explains why entries composed by swedish people for other countries don't get that same jury success but that comes down to presentation. have you seen lidia isac and aisel's stages? sweden would never do those.

 

[Teaisloveable]

I think the biggest jury crime of the year was Spain coming last. Like honestly wtaf!?!?

Sure, San Marino was fun but these are supposed to be MUSIC PROFESSIONALS. I am not one, but even I can see the performance, vocals, staging and song of Miki was farrrrr superior than that of Serhat.

I don't know if I'd go as far to say we need a 100% televote... I think that opens more problems than it solves. But I do think the EBU need to have a serious think about how the juries run, what they should be basing their votes on and who should be allowed to be on them.

It is impossible to have a 100% unbiased jury, perhaps that is where the biggest problem lies.

 

[BorisBubbles]

My thoughts exactly. I like how not a single argument is made why Sweden's music is good except for "muh popular producers", essentially saying success = good music.

The quote-unquote goodness of songs is indeed best defined by their efficiency at connecting with the audience (which directly results in success and popularity) How else would you rate quality? Taste and the perception of what is good and what is not is therefore prone to subjectivity. If most people who listen to a song perceive it as good because it moves or entertains them, it is a good song, period. Majority rules in this case, whether I like it or not.

I often see such empty phrases thrown around here, because I reckon most of the people writing on this forum don't even have a musical education that goes beyond "That's the sound of a piano". The result are justifications of why they don't like a certain song with fancy sentences like "If the composition was a bit more interesting, I would like it more" or "it has the potential, but they didn't realise it" not giving one example how they would change it. It's quite the phenomenon.

Oh I can be more analytical as to why I think TLFL is an excellent song. I find it very charming. It bursts with personality, slowly building up dramatic tension during the story it tells and releases it in a satisfying middle-eight and climax once the Mama's enter the fray. Its story of two flames rekindling their once lost love is told in a playful, cheeky manner that both recognisable and relatable. TLFL is excellent at telling a gripping story and does so with unambiguous clarity. The music is upbeat, hinting at a happy ending even if the lyrics themselves leave it open.

And yes, that's ofc only part of the reason why it's good - performance plays a part as well, as does staging, but the performance was good (John sang in tune, acted in concordance with his songs overarching happy-go-lucky vibe and interacted well with the camera), as was the staging (it supplements the song well and doesn't interfere with the message). Overall a good entry, definitely the best Swedish one since Heroes IMO. I'm not at all surprised it won the jury vote.

Likewise btw, I'm not surprised "Proud" did well with them either because that song *also* had excellent storytelling and a strong build up, topped off by a very emotive, convincing performance by Tamara Todevska. The 'Stripped Down Power Ballad With Meaning' is one of my least types of ESC entries and even I liked it. It outsold itself and that makes it a good entry. That's why juries voted for it in droves.

(Just for the record: I'm okay with people stating their opinions why they do or don't like something, but those phrases suggesting something further or deeper knowledge of the matter are hilarious )

You appear to be older than me and might have a deeper understanding of music theory than I do. If you have any information add, feel free to share it. I like learning new things and so do you, otherwise you wouldn't have bothered to reading and responding (for which I'm grateful, btw! )

Not to mention that if we go by the logic of OP's thesis that Sweden produces "good quality music", because they're successful, how do you explain all the ESC songs written by Swedish composers not making it even to the final or achieving a good result? Moldova 2016, Azerbaijan 2018 etc.? Hell, we even have a perfect example with John Lundvik this year. He also wrote UK's entry Bigger Than Us, despised by many. Is this also "good quality music"?

True, not all music produced in Sweden or by Swedes is 'good', but Sweden's success goes a bit beyond that. Juries are instructed to look at 'quality' and welll. I work in education and objective evaluation is not easy to pull off.
The best way to evaluate is by defining the standards you rate by (e.g.: "Good" =' the song is effective at getting its message across, the singer sings in tune and interacts with the camera, the staging supplements the song but doesn't elevate it'; "Very Good" = "the song is very clear in its message, the singer outsells the performance, the staging improves the quality of the overall performance")
The easiest way to evaluate by looking at the flaws an entry has and voting them down because of it. ("Oh, Lucy sang out of tune once" *ranks below all singers that hit every note*).

Either way, Sweden's songs are competent; they contain very few flaws because the general production value is higher than that of most other countries (and this also applies to countries such as France, Russia and Netherlands). This is a safe generalist assumption to make, even without knowing the criteria each juror rates the songs by.

It's also important to note that Sweden is very rarely ranked first by individual jurors. However, they are also just as rarely ranked in a below average position, which results in their high jury scores. A more intuitive or critical jury would quickly dismantle their entries as distant and cold, but as long as juries remain a tool of quality control, it will benefit Sweden more than most.

As I said, that isn't the same as pro-Sweden bias. The system rewards Sweden because their entries fit the bill of what professional juries are instructed to look for. We know how well Sweden would do under a people's jury, we've seen it in the Jury Era: Better than most (again, their entries are of a higher production value on a consistent basis), but not dominant.

I had no problem with following the lyrics, to me they seem pretty coherent, don't really see much of a difference to those good music quality lyrics from John Lundvik

Both "Truth" and "Spirit" suffer from subpar lyrics (the former because they're very ESL, the latter because they're too metaphorical), which makes it difficult to understand what their songs are about contentwise. You need to do a lot of reading between the lines and well.. that's not effective when you have three minutes to convince your audience that you're awesome.

I don't think lyrics alone define what 'quality' is though. Music & Song are media through which you communicate intuitive feeling. TLFL is better at conducting its feelings with words, it really just is a compelling short story set to a tune. Spirit and Truth are both rhythmic, conjuring up imagery through ambience. Spirit especially, you can *imagine* the Northern Lights in your brain even before they are mentioned in the libretto. It just feels so authentically Norwegian. The public loves authenticity. No wonder it won the televote.