EUROVISION 2023 - FINAL REHEARSALS AND LIVE SHOW DISCUSSION

[FilipFromSweden]

I didn't realise the "S" in "ESC" stood for "streaming"...

Oh my god, you guys are being so tiresome. I just said that it makes sense that the most streamed song won the Eurovision, I never said it should replace televote or the jury system or that streaming is the ultimate factor or whatever. If you followed the pre-ESC season this year there was a TON of comments attacking the authenticity and the quality of Tattoo. Some said it was cheap, unoriginal, lacked soul, etc. Yet it had the biggest day-after-Eurovision streams of any Eurovision song ever (in modern times at least). To me, it would've been crazy had a song that achieved that not won.

 

[Wynnter]

Popularity shouldn't be a deciding factor for juries. That is much more of a televoting thing.

Popularity does not always equal to quality.

 

[FilipFromSweden]

Popularity shouldn't be a deciding factor for juries. That is much more of a televoting thing.

Popularity does not always equal to quality.

And they don't they put North Macedonia at first place in 2019 which nobody predicted.

[SPOILER="My point is just that this year, the number of streams were alligned with the jury vote"][/SPOILER]

 

[0scar]

to be fair a lot of those streams are because of the fact that Tattoo won

can I say calling someone a little bitch isn't going to make your case stronger + while I've read those comments about Tattoo's authenticity as well, but I don't see anyone in this argument about the streams saying that and it isn't important for this discussion at all?
Tattoo can be a nice authentic entry deserving of great numbers of streams, and using the streams as a reason why it should receive big jury points can be a silly opinion as well

 

[Wynnter]

And they don't they put North Macedonia at first place in 2019 which nobody predicted.

[SPOILER="My point is just that this year, the number of streams were alligned with the jury vote"][/SPOILER]

Aight. I originally understood you're point to be that juries are more legitimate because they put high streaming songs in their top 3.

 

[Ajeje Brazorf]

And they don't they put North Macedonia at first place in 2019 which nobody predicted.

[SPOILER="My point is just that this year, the number of streams were alligned with the jury vote"][/SPOILER]

Finally someone said it! Even this year, Juries voted lots of underdogs: Belgium, Australia, Estonia... How many people predicted them to be in the top 10 at the end of the contest, or to be that high up in the Juries ranking, tbh?

 

[Bmbriga]

I never said points lack legitimacy if the song isn't streamed, you're just being a little bitch. I'm saying it is a point in favour of the juries that they chose two songs that have the most streams, since people want to question their professional status. Don't bother responding because I cba with some troll

Listen dude, I'm not your little bitch and you most certainly won't tell me what I'm going to write or not or respond or not.
Check yourself and get of your high horse.
The only troll here is you ignoring what people are telling you and that more than 90% percent of streams coming from your own country doesn't mean a thing about popularity in Europe, and last time I checked this is European not Italian or Scandinavian song contest, even if it did it has nothing to do with giving legitimaicy to jury votes.

 

[midnightsun]

can I say calling someone a little bitch isn't going to make your case stronger

The vocabulary of some people here is very limited, obviously.

By the way, Spotify is a SWEDISH company so of course Loreen is big there!

(Not saying she‘s the only one or that she isn’t popular on other streaming media as well.)

 

[midnightsun]

they put North Macedonia at first place in 2019 which nobody predicted.

I could tell you why they did that but I know, all I get from you is 'conspiracy theorist'.

Apart from that, I already said there are a few exceptions but if you look at the average ratio, juries definitely vote accordingly to the betting odds far more often than not. And it has been proven and now even officially said at our Eurovision website.

Before televote only (when we only had juries) the winners got less points overall of all possible points. In contrary to the most recent winners who get a lot of jury points and some countries very few.

So today juries all predict the same winner while in earlier decades that wasn’t the case. Now think how possible it is that juries nowadays give their points to one and the same artist(s)? We have about 200 jurors and they all think the same song is the winner?

Exactly, it isn’t possible unless there is‘t another factor that influences them and that is the odds and (Swedish, in most recent contests) producers!

Jury votes were all over the place in the 80s, 90s… etc

 

[AliceEsc]

Sometimes I say things when I'm angry and regret it. Calling you a dumbass is not one of them, you were asking for it.

I never said points lack legitimacy if the song isn't streamed, you're just being a little bitch. I'm saying it is a point in favour of the juries that they chose two songs that have the most streams, since people want to question their professional status. Don't bother responding because I cba with some troll

Please. Don't.
I never get caught up in others' arguments and maybe these specific words are a huge trigger for me, but if @midnightsun didn't use the words "Please call me a dumbass" they definitely were NOT asking for it.

 

[midnightsun]

To be fair, in my last post I said he can call me what he wishes to because I‘m tired of him insulting other people (that 'bitch' was addressed to someone else not me) but thank you so much he‘s definitely rude to people.

 

[heke1988]

WTF?

Our jury:

Belgium

18​

12​

19​

3​

5​

Norway

10​

17​

7​

10​

9​

Portugal

11​

10​

9​

4​

12​

United Kingdom

2​

7​

16​

25​

20​

Norway's mediocre score is lower, than United Kingdom and Belgium, so Norway should have got points from our jury. Also Portugal should have got 5 points from our jury.

 

[Storm]

WTF?

Our jury:

Norway's mediocre score is lower, than United Kingdom and Belgium, so Norway should have got points from our jury. Also Portugal should have got 5 points from our jury.

Jury rankings aren't determined by an average, they're using an exponential system. A formula assigns a score to each country. The goal is to put more weight on the top positions of each juror.

 

[GermanBango]

Wow this thread is a mess. People have zero chill.

 

[GermanBango]

Enjoy this beautiful video of pure art instead of fighting:

ranking all BEJBAâs that blanka has performed

BEJBA

youtu.be

 

[heke1988]

Enjoy this beautiful video of pure art instead of fighting:

ranking all BEJBAâs that blanka has performed

BEJBA

youtu.be

Are we fighting?

 

[GermanBango]

Are we fighting?

The discussion seems rather heated.

 

[HarryUK]

WTF?

Our jury:

Belgium

18​

12​

19​

3​

5​

Norway

10​

17​

7​

10​

9​

Portugal

11​

10​

9​

4​

12​

United Kingdom

2​

7​

16​

25​

20​

Norway's mediocre score is lower, than United Kingdom and Belgium, so Norway should have got points from our jury. Also Portugal should have got 5 points from our jury.

Did Norway finish 25th? Leave the UK's pitiful amount of points alone

 

[PollyWantsACracker]

The Televoting system is and will always be the most problematic for Eurovision. And in fact Eurovision wasn't in good shape when it had 100% televote, was it?

Really, guys, don't ask for a 75/25 or a full Televoting system: they already tried it and let's say that system FAILED BADLY in Eurovision. And there is no "maybe this time...", it will be the same and you know it even if you are not ready to admit it, because Eurovision Grand Finale was just 4 days ago and the delusion is still palpable. That system failed so badly Eurovision lost lots of viewers, lost lots of sponsorships and lost almost entirely its credibility. The 2000's were a dark era compared to what we have now and all people supporting 100% televote or similaria, act like they didn't witness that era.

You want more power to public vote? You can test a 60/40 format, you can try to introduce demoscopic jury, like in Sanremo and Benidorm, you can try to extend jury panels... But EBU won't ever be back to a 75/25 or a 100/0 televote format, and rightfully so.

Why would we have a separate demoscopic jury when current jury system is already half-demoscopic and non-professional.

Members of the juries can be journalists, editors, staging producers, basically any person with zero knowledge of music.

Normally only 1 juror is actually a person with formal education in music capable of assessing composition and vocals.

The rest can be media and industry based clowns who actually do the same thing as Cinan or ToyGoy - get overhyped by some acts before the contest, the rest he sees first time during jury show and just concludes: meeeh, next, bonkers, slays. Literally

So we don't need another demoscopic jury over already almost a demoscopic jury.

Also all producers shouldn't be allowed into a jury due to conflict of interest. One year you sell a song to a singer, next year you rate the same person on the contest. Unacceptable.

Btw Konstrakta has signed and has shared the petition for abolishing the juries. Queen.

 

[PollyWantsACracker]

Finally someone said it! Even this year, Juries voted lots of underdogs: Belgium, Australia, Estonia... How many people predicted them to be in the top 10 at the end of the contest, or to be that high up in the Juries ranking, tbh?

Really?

I could ask who didn't predict that a ballad with strong vocals from Estonia, pop Boy George, and Australia that pays big contributions and its current contract with EBU expires this year, would all be top 10 with the juries?

We knew it.