lucian-crusher
Well-known member
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)
Juries- keep'em or trash'em?
- Thread starter r3gg13
- Start date
- Watchers 5
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.
@ 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 "Not that our outdated and ultra generic were at fault."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.
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
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 22, 2010
- Posts
- 24,545
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.
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
Active member
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
Well-known member
evilperson
Active member
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.
^ 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.
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
.... 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.
Last edited:
nikolay_BG
Banned
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.
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.
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.
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.
A-lister
Veteran
- Joined
- December 28, 2009
- Posts
- 32,825
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.
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.
Last edited:
Sabiondo
Well-known member
Them why the jury don't overlooked Sweden also..?? by rule 3 also Eric was to be sunk by jury
MyHeartIsYours
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 22, 2010
- Posts
- 24,545
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
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 22, 2010
- Posts
- 24,545
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.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
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.
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
Well-known member
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!
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
Well-known member
Exactly what I mean! They are called music experts and that's why they get 50 % in the voting wich is bad!