A-lister
Veteran
- Joined
- December 28, 2009
- Posts
- 32,825
Yes, that's a great example of where juries scr*wed up and seemed so out of touch.
ROMANIA 2012 - Mandinga - Zaleilah
- Thread starter escYOUnited
- Start date
- Watchers 61
Yes, that's a great example of where juries scr*wed up and seemed so out of touch.
EurovisionSmile
Veteran
Romania in the final again. Well done! 
You didn't get my point, I don't think juries should vote for stuff just because it's got hit potential, but it's really silly when they don't support such songs but vote for songs that aren't not just "off-trend", but totally out of this world dated and with zero potential of having any impact anywhere other than house for grandmas ...
And I do think, as I pointed out, that it is important for the contest to find a balance. To be a relevant force in music, I think they should atleast acknowledge the songs that might have a life afterwards. I'm not saying the juries should always award those songs 12p, but atleast not the opposite either.
And I really don't think that the jury didn't vote for songs like this in the past and also they didn't vote for many outdated balades or "wanna be quality" songs. I think that the juries has a good role and they play it very well. I also think that they will vote for Mandinga.
A-lister
Veteran
- Joined
- December 28, 2009
- Posts
- 32,825
We must have studied two different type of juries
Anyways, I'm pretty sure Romania will make it to the finals (like always), but I'm just fearing this might be a little too "hip" for the juries.
Well, we'll see what happens
I'm actually surprised that it's not a bigger fan-favorite even, I thought this would be one of those big pre-favorites like Cyprus and Norway (which imo are weaker than this one).
QwaarJet
ESC Moderator
You didn't get my point, I don't think juries should vote for stuff just because it's got hit potential, but it's really silly when they don't support such songs but vote for songs that aren't not just "off-trend", but totally out of this world dated and with zero potential of having any impact anywhere other than house for grandmas ...
And I do think, as I pointed out, that it is important for the contest to find a balance. To be a relevant force in music, I think they should atleast acknowledge the songs that might have a life afterwards. I'm not saying the juries should always award those songs 12p, but atleast not the opposite either.
Sorry, I can't agree with you at all. Juries should vote for the song if they like it. There should be no other criteria. That includes whether something is "hip" or "out-dated". Good music never goes out of fashion. ESC is not relevant in modern music, and nor should it be. ESC does its own thing, and I'm OK with that. What impact a song may or may not have after ESC is of no concern to the juries.
A-lister
Veteran
- Joined
- December 28, 2009
- Posts
- 32,825
I agree that juries should vote for the best songs, but they never do anyways
I don't agree with you, I think ESC SHOULD play a role in the European music scene, and actually, if done right, ESC could be a positive force in shaping the European market towards a more... well.. "pro-European" one and not just something where American sounds and acts dominates. Europe as a whole has more than double the population of the USA, ESC is the world's biggest yearly music show, there's alot of potential here.
But if they always vote for hopeless entries, that will never happen.
Acknowledging songs that might have a life afterwards is like voting for songs just because they might have hit potential. So I believe I got your point perfectly. Why should anyone acknowledge songs they don't like? Whether it's 12 points or 2 points, it's equally absurd to award a song any points based on how well it might do in charts or sales after the contest.You didn't get my point, I don't think juries should vote for stuff just because it's got hit potential, but it's really silly when they don't support such songs but vote for songs that aren't not just "off-trend", but totally out of this world dated and with zero potential of having any impact anywhere other than house for grandmas ...
And I do think, as I pointed out, that it is important for the contest to find a balance. To be a relevant force in music, I think they should atleast acknowledge the songs that might have a life afterwards. I'm not saying the juries should always award those songs 12p, but atleast not the opposite either.
I'm kind of glad the jury often votes completely different from the public (even if I don't always agree with their preferences). The public usually prefers radio friendly pop tunes, the jury usually prefers more mature/different/unique entries. That to me is balance if anything.
but dont u think that for a contest which is being viewed by MORE than 125 million people (!!!!!) ESC juries should have to be more in line ALSO with contemporary music scene...?we re not talking about a restricted event being followed by just few hundreds of people.......
QwaarJet
ESC Moderator
If they just vote for contemporary acts, then it just becomes X-Factor, and I don't want that. I want ANY type of song to be able to win Eurovision, if it is good enough, regardless of what period of time the genre is from.
A-lister
Veteran
- Joined
- December 28, 2009
- Posts
- 32,825
Mature yes... different? no... unique? no... I don't think early 90's Disney ballads are different or unique in any possible way
I still think you misunderstood me though. I don't think they should vote for songs only because of hit-potential, surely they should vote for the best songs, but they can't even manage such an easy task
I think it's good for ESC's relevance if they atleast don't totally overlook songs that have the potential of bringing ESC's name to the public... well after ESC. It's good if artists see that entering ESC is no failure, but now alot of acts won't even touch ESC because it equals being a flop. Atleast if the contest could produce ONE real cross-European hit each year, it would mean alot for it.
The day the juries vote for actual interesting and unique entries though, then we can have a talk! Nowadays I feel the televoters are even better in that apartment even.
A-lister
Veteran
- Joined
- December 28, 2009
- Posts
- 32,825
But that's just how they vote right now !
They've overlooked a bunch of good and interesting entries, only focusing on "voices"... which is exactly what X-Factor and craps like that is.
If juries started paying attention to the actual songs, we'd all be happier I think.
thats why I used (in capital letters and in bold) the word ALSO.....
But that's just how they vote right now !
They've overlooked a bunch of good and interesting entries, only focusing on "voices"... which is exactly what X-Factor and craps like that is.
If juries started paying attention to the actual songs, we'd all be happier I think.
TRUE! + the previous 'disney ballad' comment...
I don't think the problem lies with the ESC. The problem lies with the narrow-minded music scene and its fickle consumers.
There is no universal standard that defines what the best song is. It's all a matter of opinions. There's no right or wrong. Obviously the juries DO vote for the best songs every year - the songs THEY think are the best. It might not be the best songs to me or to you, but they're still voting for the best songs (according to them).Mature yes... different? no... unique? no... I don't think early 90's Disney ballads are different or unique in any possible way
I still think you misunderstood me though. I don't think they should vote for songs only because of hit-potential, surely they should vote for the best songs, but they can't even manage such an easy task
I think it's good for ESC's relevance if they atleast don't totally overlook songs that have the potential of bringing ESC's name to the public... well after ESC. It's good if artists see that entering ESC is no failure, but now alot of acts won't even touch ESC because it equals being a flop. Atleast if the contest could produce ONE real cross-European hit each year, it would mean alot for it.
The day the juries vote for actual interesting and unique entries though, then we can have a talk! Nowadays I feel the televoters are even better in that apartment even.
QwaarJet
ESC Moderator
But that's just how they vote right now !
They've overlooked a bunch of good and interesting entries, only focusing on "voices"... which is exactly what X-Factor and craps like that is.
If juries started paying attention to the actual songs, we'd all be happier I think.
I agree that X-Factor has too many ballads. It also has too many of these crappy up-tempo "contemporary" hits that you think could do well in the charts. Both can be good, but I want more ethnic stuff, to celebrate the diversity of Eurovision. But, a lot of ethnic styles are quite dated. I don't mind that.
I think we can agree that we want less "Americanized" songs, but I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the methods of achieving that.
I don't think the problem lies with the ESC. The problem lies with the narrow-minded music scene and its fickle consumers.
There is no universal standard that defines what the best song is. It's all a matter of opinions. There's no right or wrong. Obviously the juries DO vote for the best songs every year - the songs THEY think are the best. It might not be the best songs to me or to you, but they're still voting for the best songs (according to them).
Isnt it stange then that they re MOST of the time far apart from voters......?i mean, what defines a jury member...?being vastly different from an average viewer...?
A-lister
Veteran
- Joined
- December 28, 2009
- Posts
- 32,825
I don't understand, X-Factor is a karaoke show, they don't sing original songs there... I meant that's even scarier because juries in ESC should pay attention to the songs, but they treat it like it's X-Factor (big voice = votes).
Hmm. I'm one of the main voices here for ethnic type of entries!
So I totally agree with you on that one and the juries totally punish these type of entries.I think you misunderstood, I think the juries are generally scr*wed, because they don't vote for anything unique, original, ethnic OR with hit-potential. We're left with irrelevant ballads sung in English basically or dated middle of the road pop.
A-lister
Veteran
- Joined
- December 28, 2009
- Posts
- 32,825
There is no universal standard that defines what the best song is. It's all a matter of opinions. There's no right or wrong. Obviously the juries DO vote for the best songs every year - the songs THEY think are the best. It might not be the best songs to me or to you, but they're still voting for the best songs (according to them).
Oh, of course it's highly subjective, but since they are so called "experts" and have equal say as millions of viewers, I think we should be able to view them critically. If they are just random people voting for what they "like" and without no thought about anything, then I'd say the system should be totally abandoned.
And btw, juries also vote where the money is... don't for a second think everything is according to their opinion on songs all the time.
No naturally, but the public doesn't exactly always vote according to their opinion on songs either.
I think this is a good example where you're phrasing your opinion in a way to make it sound like it's an actual fact.
And I don't think we have to highjack every other topic to discuss the juries, we have a separate thread for that.