YEARLY JURY HATE THREAD

[aef]

Well ... my question is rather how it is possible to have so big differences within different juries. For example EST Jury gave ISR song bottom ranking of the final (22, 24, 7, 24, 25) and then there were countless number of countries where Jury gave ISR song top rating. THIS is what I need to be explained. In my mind Jury no matter the country or nation they represent should look at the same things (told them by EBU) and as they should all be "experts" they should pretty much come to the similar conclusion with minor differences.

Also, like I already asked here. How is it that ISR Jury gave CYP 0 points and CYP Jury gave ISR 0 points (similar shit happened last year too between favorites). Explain me this.

My logical conclusion here is that Jury IS NOT UNBIASED ... and we dont need 5 biased idiots from each country to have 50% of power in the outcome.

As for it might be clear why this happened like that: It's a song you either get totally behind or you totally dislike! There isn't really much in-between...
And I can see this being the case for many other songs this year: etc. - we had some very polarizing entries this year!

In the end its 5 random people deciding the points - there can easily be huge differences per each country!

Somehow forum members from AUT and SWE are very happy with Jury work and either see no problems or only minor problems with Jury voting at best.

This has nothing to do with the voting yesterday, right?

No, that's not really the case. I'm not totally happy with them. Of course I can see certain problems. But I can also see why juries make sense.

 

[Bsimmons]

As for it might be clear why this happened like that: It's a song you either get totally behind or you totally dislike! There isn't really much in-between...

I understand this love/hate relationship with Israel song from a fan or televoting perspective, but not really from a jury perspective. They are humans too, I know, but how can some "experts" say Israel entry was "disgusting", "disgrace", "not a music", "freakshow" (not my words, but quotes from Estonian music experts, who have for example written songs to ESC) and then other "experts" saying "its awesome", "amazing", "great" ...

... I mean its like going to the doctor (read: "expert") and getting a diagnose of "you have 2 days to live", then going to the other doctor and getting "No worries, you will live forever".

Not sure which side is wrong or right, but they both cant be experts at the same time.

 

[aef]

I understand this love/hate relationship with Israel song from a fan or televoting perspective, but not really from a jury perspective. They are humans too, I know, but how can some "experts" say Israel entry was "disgusting", "disgrace", "not a music", "freakshow" (not my words, but quotes from Estonian music experts, who have for example written songs to ESC) and then other "experts" saying "its awesome", "amazing", "great" ...

... I mean its like going to the doctor (read: "expert") and getting a diagnose of "you have 2 days to live", then going to the other doctor and getting "No worries, you will live forever".

Not sure which side is wrong or right, but they both cant be experts at the same time.

Well they are also just human beings. I mean for me has totally superficial lyrics and the melody of the song isn't interesting either in my opinion. Netta as an artist seemed quite artificial to me... I always felt like she wanted to transport her message by hook or crook but in the end I wasn't buying it at all.

 

[GermanBango]

A different idea:
Keep things the way they are now in the semis (50% Jury / 50% Tele) - diaspora voting is a lot heavier there because of the lower public interest etc. As for the final it could be something like 30% Jury and 70% televote

 

[Viktor77]

My favourite part last night: And Montenegro's 12 points go to...Serbia!

I don't think the Montenegrin jury even pays attention, they just see Serbia's name and they're like, yep, that one.

 

[mauve]

A different idea:
Keep things the way they are now in the semis (50% Jury / 50% Tele) - diaspora voting is a lot heavier there because of the lower public interest etc. As for the final it could be something like 30% Jury and 70% televote

That would be something I could live with: 30% Jury vote and 70% televotes. But 50%?

 

[blein]

50% Televote / 25% Jury / 25 % Press(Real Press , Not Wiwiwbloggs) is a bad idea?

 

[Alaska49]

like, even though i believe the televote is a lot more honest than people give it credit for and has improved immensely year after year, i still remember the televote only era caused 2008 and 2009 to exist. it wasn't the results that were bad, it's the fact the channels all kept missing the point and some entries were beyond the pale in terribleness. this is what is happening now, except the juries are the ones taking feedback in all the wrong ways instead of the channels. it is clear juries vote trying to influence the overall results over trying to reward what they are supposed to be rewarding.

until this point, i thought trying to have only the televote for a few years was the best solution, but [MENTION=9920]blein[/MENTION] mentioning a press vote is a really, REALLY interesting idea. if we accept juries are imperfect human beings, if we accept juries want to drive eurovision to a certain direction, why can't we be honest about it and replace the jury vote with a press vote? take out the five so-called music professionals, insert five people involved with press. not only this would get us more varied demographics (and more young people, which juries sorely lack), they would be upfront about the fact their motives are not always musically based. of course we as televoters would still disagree with them quite a bit, and some of the voting would still be political, but it would be less insidious.

 

[Neo]

There are press people in juries already. At least in Norway. And the direction they want to take the competition in is basically Billboard, there can be little doubt about that now.

The juries and press have anyway the same sentiment, and they simply fail to realize that Eurovision is a celebration of European music, European musical diversity and European culture. They think they are there to steer it away from all that horribleness and to be more international, and for them that's to what they hear top of the charts on the radio which in reality is mostly what is doing well in America.

That is if their political, nationalistic or other concerns don't get priority.

 

[Neo]

50% Televote / 25% Jury / 25 % Press(Real Press , Not Wiwiwbloggs) is a bad idea?

Yes. It should be 100% televote.

 

[Realest]

My favourite part last night: And Montenegro's 12 points go to...Serbia!

I don't think the Montenegrin jury even pays attention, they just see Serbia's name and they're like, yep, that one.

I think the Serbian Group has a relevant Career in Montenegro. And since they sung in the Motherlanguage and send a Song that reflected Common Musicculture, it made Sense in my Eyes.

 

[midnightsun]

Since when is „radio-friendly“ = quality?

And if so, why weren’t Cyprus or Czech Republic or even Finland, Poland etc favoured by the juries?

Don’t get me wrong, I love Sweden, I love many many of their entries. I even acknowledge Sweden almost always sends good song material. But what happened the past years is strange. How comes Sweden gets this many jury points almost every year? I‘d understand if Sweden was 5-10 in the jury vote.

 

[Bsimmons]

I think the Serbian Group has a relevant Career in Montenegro. And since they sung in the Motherlanguage and send a Song that reflected Common Musicculture, it made Sense in my Eyes.

Stop it with the language and common culture excuse! Estonia sang in Italian and represented Italian opera culture, it did not get 12 points from Italian Jury, did it?

 

[Realest]

Stop it with the language and common culture excuse! Estonia sang in Italian and represented Italian opera culture, it did not get 12 points from Italian Jury, did it?

Because she is a Nobody in Italy
I think we cant forbid Juries to vote for their Neighbours and in this Case it made Sense imo.

 

[Bsimmons]

If Juries also vote for neighbors then this is double trouble, cause people do it anyway.

The fact is, some countries and Juries are honest enough to look past the buddy-buddy stuff and do their job properly and rate the quality of the music/act ... and then there are some "usual suspect" countries who are simply unable to do that year after year after year. I will not mention the names, but we all know who they are.

 

[Realest]

If Juries also vote for neighbors then this is double trouble, cause people do it anyway.

The fact is, some countries and Juries are honest enough to look past the buddy-buddy stuff and do their job properly and rate the quality of the music/act ... and then there are some "usual suspect" countries who are simply unable to do that. I will not mention the names, but we all know who they are.

Well, some Juries give their Neighbours 12 Points, some give Highpoints, Some Medium Points, Some low Points and Some 0 Points. In my eyes its a good Mixture of everything. And if f.e. Estonia, Russia and Australia are allowed to give 12 Points to Serbia, then Montenegro should be as well.

 

[nofuxCZ]

I understand this love/hate relationship with Israel song from a fan or televoting perspective, but not really from a jury perspective. They are humans too, I know, but how can some "experts" say Israel entry was "disgusting", "disgrace", "not a music", "freakshow" (not my words, but quotes from Estonian music experts, who have for example written songs to ESC) and then other "experts" saying "its awesome", "amazing", "great" ...

... I mean its like going to the doctor (read: "expert") and getting a diagnose of "you have 2 days to live", then going to the other doctor and getting "No worries, you will live forever".

Not sure which side is wrong or right, but they both cant be experts at the same time.

Music is a subjective thing. You can hardly compare it to diagnosing a disease.

I guess the juries can judge the vocal ability objectively, but everything else is subjective. Moreover, each jury has members of different age, different backgrounds. It's obvious then that the jury rankings can be very different between countries. Maybe if every jury had to have only 30 years old members who are radio presenters, then the results might be more similar.

 

[Bsimmons]

And if f.e. Estonia, Russia and Australia are allowed to give 12 Points to Serbia, then Montenegro should be as well.

You mentioned 4 countries. 3 of them gave 0 jury points to SRB yesterday. 1 of them gave 12 points. Want to guess which one was it?

 

[Realest]

You mentioned 4 countries. 3 of them gave 0 jury points to SRB yesterday. 1 of them gave 12 points. Want to guess which one was it?

The Only Country where this Type of Music exists. So everything went right here.

 

[Swedenvision]

Since when is „radio-friendly“ = quality?

And if so, why weren’t Cyprus or Czech Republic or even Finland, Poland etc favoured by the juries?

Don’t get me wrong, I love Sweden, I love many many of their entries. I even acknowledge Sweden almost always sends good song material. But what happened the past years is strange. How comes Sweden gets this many jury points almost every year? I‘d understand if Sweden was 5-10 in the jury vote.

The juries look at the whole package and Sweden has got that for the past years.

The past years we have had this jury resluts:

2014- Sanna Nielsen- 2nd with jury
2015- Måns Zelmerlöw- 1 st with jury
2016- Frans- 9th with jury (Actually we did better with televote that year)
2017- Robin Bengtsson- 3rd with jury
2018- Benjamin Ingrosso- 2nd with jury

Like I said before other countries should work harder if they want to impress on juries who work in the music industry.