Contact us

What changes do you want introduced to the rules/format?

A-lister

Veteran
Joined
December 28, 2009
Posts
32,843
Discuss!

These are my proposals:
  • Abolishment of pre-recorded backing vocals.
  • Increasing the maximum amount of people allowed on stage from 6 to 8 (or 10 even), I think it's a good compromise between only allowing live vocals and still make it possible for dancers to do their thing. Also, it's long overdue tbh, 6 has been a very low number for years now and is just and odd number in this time and age.
  • Acts and songwriters/composers need to have a proven connection to the music market of the country they represent, no more shopping around for entries! The concept of Eurovision is entries representing their countries, I feel like we diverged from that. It doesn't mean that all songwriters/composers need to come from said country, but at least they need to be an active part of that music scene (past Eurovision entries don't count here!). I am fully aware that some music markets are integrated and that micro-states are 'de facto' part of their neighbors' markets, but a change of rule would take that into consideration while still protect the concept of entries actually representing their countries.
  • Running order needs to be random! I think we pretty much established now that letting the "producers" choose it opens up to favoritism, corruption and tactics. We should have a transparent and fair system, and there a methods to keep a nice flow in the production (draw the songs from genre/tempo pots for instance).
  • Abolishment of juries (now I am not delusional and know it won't happen, but at least decrease their powers to a 40/60 situation in favor of televoters).
  • Have it explicitly written into the rules of Eurovision that only recognized independent countries that are at least partially geographically within the European continent, or at least have a history of a minimum of 5 previous entries in the contest, can take part and scrap the idea of the dated European Broadcasting Area (that EBU don't even follow themselves). This would close the door to any risk of having countries like USA, China, Qatar, Morocco, Lebanon, Canada or others joining. It's not EUROvision if the world can join! Let's protect the brand and concept!
  • Have the juries verbally give out 8-12 points (I know it would make the show longer, but don't we want more suspense? I know that we can't go back to the old days of giving out 1-12 when we have so many countries and also split the televoting results, but this could be a compromise that could still work).
  • Re-establishing the language rule (another idealistic fantasy that won't happen, but that's just my opinion).
 
Last edited:

A-lister

Veteran
Joined
December 28, 2009
Posts
32,843
3. No, let everyone send whoever they want. People talk about Eurovision like we lost the original thought of entrys being vastly different to one another due to cultural differencies. I would argue that that is not the case. In the early years of the competition the entrys were a lot more alike each other genre-wise than they are now.
It's not so much about the genres, more about promoting local talents. I'm all for genre diversity.
5. No, just no. Televoters go for flare and shock-value, juries go for craftmanship and execution. They need to stay equal.
I see this kind of argument over and over again, as if the public are 'stupid' and juries vote for 'quality'. Quality according to whom? What you refer to as 'flare and shock-value' is often broadcasters putting more effort into their stagings, there is more than conservative ballads in the world of music.
6. No, let countries apply if they want to and make a case by case decision.
The idea of USA and China entering Eurovision equals the death of this contest.
7. No, the voting takes longer than needed already. Also, the horrible procrastination by the show hosts this year should not be allowed to happend again.
Each to their own, if one of the most exciting and fundamental parts of the contest is 'boring', then maybe Eurovision isn't the right platform for such viewers.
 

Sabrewulf238

Well-known member
Joined
October 5, 2009
Posts
3,586
Location
Ireland
Here's a random idea that would likely never happen...

Introduce a wildcard system where the country that received the most televotes in either semi without managing to qualify gets added to the final.

but it's kept a secret until they walk out on the stage on Saturday.

Basically I'm still just salty that the juries kicked Denmark out of the final.
 

A-lister

Veteran
Joined
December 28, 2009
Posts
32,843
Here's a random idea that would likely never happen...

Introduce a wildcard system where the country that received the most televotes in either semi without managing to qualify gets added to the final.

but it's kept a secret until they walk out on the stage on Saturday.

Basically I'm still just salty that the juries kicked Denmark out of the final.

They did have a "jury wildcard" in the past before they introduced the 50/50 vote.

I actually think you're idea is fine, as long as that entry was in the top. 10 in its semi with televoters. I think it shows some respect to the public vote and yes Denmark should have been in the final!
 

Chalphon

Well-known member
Joined
February 28, 2021
Posts
2,039
Location
Stockholm
It's not so much about the genres, more about promoting local talents. I'm all for genre diversity.

I see this kind of argument over and over again, as if the public are 'stupid' and juries vote for 'quality'. Quality according to whom? What you refer to as 'flare and shock-value' is often broadcasters putting more effort into their stagings, there is more than conservative ballads in the world of music.

The idea of USA and China entering Eurovision equals the death of this contest.

Each to their own, if one of the most exciting and fundamental parts of the contest is 'boring', then maybe Eurovision isn't the right platform for such viewers.

Local talent can be local and still sing in whatever language they please.

I didn't call anyone stupid, neither did I mentioned quality, don't put words in my mouth. Juries and televoters do go for different things though, we need them both.

I don't think either the US or China has applied to join in on the fun so I really don't see this as a problem, as I said previously, just handle applications case by case, we don't have to exclude countries that have no interest in joining.

Again, stop putting words in my mouth damn it, I didn't call the point distribution boring.
 

A-lister

Veteran
Joined
December 28, 2009
Posts
32,843
Local talent can be local and still sing in whatever language they please.
I think you mixed up the two proposals I made though, one was about language yes, but the other (which I think you reacted to) was about only allowing people who are somehow an active part of a country's music scene to be involved in said country's entry (which is unrelated to language).
I didn't call anyone stupid, neither did I mentioned quality, don't put words in my mouth. Juries and televoters do go for different things though, we need them both.
You wrote: "Televoters go for flare and shock-value, juries go for craftmanship and execution", am I really putting "words in your mouth" by understanding this comment as an assumption that the public are kinda stupid and the juries vote for quality? I don't think so tbh, at least that's how I read this comment, but by all means if you meant it differently.
I don't think either the US or China has applied to join in on the fun so I really don't see this as a problem, as I said previously, just handle applications case by case, we don't have to exclude countries that have no interest in joining.
Well, the problem is if there is no clear rule here then we could very well end up with them (or others). China already showed interest at some occasion in the past (not sure what happened with that), and seeing how the EBU sneaked in Australia and clearly favor big rich markets, then it wouldn't be too shocking if they will try to get for instance the winner of American Song Contest into Eurovision somehow. Now of course, if that isn't a problem for you then I understand you don't like my proposal, I guess it depends if you want Eurovision to be a European affair or not, I'm in the former camp.
Again, stop putting words in my mouth damn it, I didn't call the point distribution boring.
I dunno, again you wrote something that can be read in different ways then since you did express that you think that "the voting takes longer than needed already" which I dunno how to read other than it must be kinda boring? xshrug

I'm not putting any words in your mouth, I just comment on what I read, nothing else. Perhaps you write ambiguously or we simply don't understand each other.
 

Chalphon

Well-known member
Joined
February 28, 2021
Posts
2,039
Location
Stockholm
I think you mixed up the two proposals I made though, one was about language yes, but the other (which I think you reacted to) was about only allowing people who are somehow an active part of a country's music scene to be involved in said country's entry (which is unrelated to language).

You wrote: "Televoters go for flare and shock-value, juries go for craftmanship and execution", am I really putting "words in your mouth" by understanding this comment as an assumption that the public are kinda stupid and the juries vote for quality? I don't think so tbh, at least that's how I read this comment, but by all means if you meant it differently.

Well, the problem is if there is no clear rule here then we could very well end up with them (or others). China already showed interest at some occasion in the past (not sure what happened with that), and seeing how the EBU sneaked in Australia and clearly favor big rich markets, then it wouldn't be too shocking if they will try to get for instance the winner of American Song Contest into Eurovision somehow. Now of course, if that isn't a problem for you then I understand you don't like my proposal, I guess it depends if you want Eurovision to be a European affair or not, I'm in the former camp.

I dunno, again you wrote something that can be read in different ways then since you did express that you think that "the voting takes longer than needed already" which I dunno how to read other than it must be kinda boring? xshrug

I'm not putting any words in your mouth, I just comment on what I read, nothing else. Perhaps you write ambiguously or we simply don't understand each other.

First point, yeah I mixed them up. Still disagreeing though, I think anyone should get to compete for whomever they want. We don't need more restraining rules.

Yes you are putting words in my mouth since the words you turn against was not used by me but rather added by you. What I mean by craftmanship and execution is that the juries are professional musicians and they value different things than the general public where most people are not professional musicians. It's a music contest after all, letting professionals have a say is a good thing to me.

But there are rules, the EBU have rules on what needs to be in place for a country to take part. I strongly disagree that there need to be rules in place to exclude specific countries you don't like. Australia wasn't sneaked in , they were invited because they have broadcasted the competition since the early 80's. They are also not a permanent member, they have a contract that lets them compete in the competition until 2023 if I remember correctly. But , maybe it is about camps. The ESC was created to spread peace, unity, and inclusion after WW2, I'm in the camp that still wants inclusion, peace and unity, I don't want an iron curtain around Europe against the rest of the world. If a country hurts the integrity of the contest they can be disqualified and have their membership in EBU revoked, like Belarus this year.

I specificly said that it takes to long and that the hosts procrastinate the results. Never said boring, result can be delivered without unnecessary procrastination. There's no need for a recap of the points when there's only two countries left for instance.

Yes you are putting words in my mouth, you read my posts like El Diablo reads the bible and make up an interpretation based on words I haven't used.
 

iwanna belovewithyou

Active member
Joined
April 10, 2021
Posts
120
For only one year the forbidden of english language in the songs all national language songs. Uk sing in gaelic or scottish celtic, Ireland in irish celtic, Malta in maltese language and Australia in aborignal language. This for not too much helped this country like in 90's when only Ireland and Uk won only because they are sing in english and Malta very time in the top 5 for this easy english songs language.
 

heke1988

Well-known member
Joined
March 4, 2018
Posts
3,599
Location
Finland
If country is going to qualify both jury and televote ranking, it would automatically qualify, even some country is ahead it on points.
 

Sammy

Veteran
Joined
February 1, 2014
Posts
14,231
If country is going to qualify both jury and televote ranking, it would automatically qualify, even some country is ahead it on points.
Isn‘t it likely that the country ahead with more points also qualified with jury and televote?
 

heke1988

Well-known member
Joined
March 4, 2018
Posts
3,599
Location
Finland
Isn‘t it likely that the country ahead with more points also qualified with jury and televote?

I mean for example on this year semi-final 1: Croatia would have qualified both televote (9 rank) and jury (10 rank). But for exampel Norway and Azerbaijan wouldn't have qualified by juries (Norway was 12th and Azerbaijan was 11th). In this case Norway would have been last one, who won't qualify, because it had lesser points than Azerbaijan and Belgium.
 

Sammy

Veteran
Joined
February 1, 2014
Posts
14,231
I mean for example on this year semi-final 1: Croatia would have qualified both televote (9 rank) and jury (10 rank). But for exampel Norway and Azerbaijan wouldn't have qualified by juries (Norway was 12th and Azerbaijan was 11th). In this case Norway would have been last one, who won't qualify, because it had lesser points than Azerbaijan and Belgium.
so you‘re basically saying in order to qualify you have to get support from both jury and public. wouldn‘t you fear that we then get many middle of the road songs to please everyone?
 

heke1988

Well-known member
Joined
March 4, 2018
Posts
3,599
Location
Finland
so you‘re basically saying in order to qualify you have to get support from both jury and public. wouldn‘t you fear that we then get many middle of the road songs to please everyone?

It would only be a fair for country, if it is going to qualify both juries and televote to GF. Desbite, what kind of song it is.
 

A-lister

Veteran
Joined
December 28, 2009
Posts
32,843
First point, yeah I mixed them up. Still disagreeing though, I think anyone should get to compete for whomever they want. We don't need more restraining rules.
Each to their own
Yes you are putting words in my mouth since the words you turn against was not used by me but rather added by you. What I mean by craftmanship and execution is that the juries are professional musicians and they value different things than the general public where most people are not professional musicians. It's a music contest after all, letting professionals have a say is a good thing to me.
I'm not, fair enough if you want a split vote and believe the juries are pros (have to disagree with that), but your comment could be read as undermining the "intelligence" of the audience. I just react to what I read but apparently we can't have a discussion in here xshrug
But there are rules, the EBU have rules on what needs to be in place for a country to take part. I strongly disagree that there need to be rules in place to exclude specific countries you don't like. Australia wasn't sneaked in , they were invited because they have broadcasted the competition since the early 80's. They are also not a permanent member, they have a contract that lets them compete in the competition until 2023 if I remember correctly. But , maybe it is about camps. The ESC was created to spread peace, unity, and inclusion after WW2, I'm in the camp that still wants inclusion, peace and unity, I don't want an iron curtain around Europe against the rest of the world. If a country hurts the integrity of the contest they can be disqualified and have their membership in EBU revoked, like Belarus this year.
Now who puts words in someone's mouth? Where have I ever said I didn't "like" certain countries or is against peace and unity... like really? xshrug I don't want to exclude certain countries because I "dislike" them, I simply think EUROvision should be a European contest and that's it... you seem to rather be open to some sort of "Worldvision", I guess we just have to agree to disagree... oh and Australia was sneaked in since EBU first announced them as a one-off thing, and we see how all that turned out, no need to be history revisionists.
I specificly said that it takes to long and that the hosts procrastinate the results. Never said boring, result can be delivered without unnecessary procrastination. There's no need for a recap of the points when there's only two countries left for instance.
My proposal was that the spokespeople read out 8-12, but I see we're in a disagreement here that's fine. Also, I don't mind the hosts keeping up the suspense but again each to their own.
Yes you are putting words in my mouth, you read my posts like El Diablo reads the bible and make up an interpretation based on words I haven't used.
Again I'm not... but based on your own responses I guess you have some need to project...
 

Chalphon

Well-known member
Joined
February 28, 2021
Posts
2,039
Location
Stockholm
Each to their own

I'm not, fair enough if you want a split vote and believe the juries are pros (have to disagree with that), but your comment could be read as undermining the "intelligence" of the audience. I just react to what I read but apparently we can't have a discussion in here xshrug

Now who puts words in someone's mouth? Where have I ever said I didn't "like" certain countries or is against peace and unity... like really? xshrug I don't want to exclude certain countries because I "dislike" them, I simply think EUROvision should be a European contest and that's it... you seem to rather be open to some sort of "Worldvision", I guess we just have to agree to disagree... oh and Australia was sneaked in since EBU first announced them as a one-off thing, and we see how all that turned out, no need to be history revisionists.

My proposal was that the spokespeople read out 8-12, but I see we're in a disagreement here that's fine. Also, I don't mind the hosts keeping up the suspense but again each to their own.

Again I'm not... but based on your own responses I guess you have some need to project...

As I said, you read my post like the devil reads the bible. No where have I undermined the intelligence of the televoters. That is all in your head and your own interpretation.

I didn't say you were against peace and unity, I stated which "camp" I would be in. You said the idea of letting the US and China in would be the death of the contest. I really don't see how Australia was "sneaked" in. They were publicly announced as a guest competitor for 2015 and then they have been allowed to prolong their attendance to, thus far, 2023. Nothing of this has been decided in a sneaky way, it has been very public and no EBU member has objected.

Again, yes you are. I don't carry a need to project, wtf with the personal attack? You don't know me dude. This is clearly not a fruitful dialogue, I'm opting out. Good bye.
 
Joined
February 24, 2021
Posts
957
Location
Italia fascista
The most suggestive idea and I have been writing it for a long time is the creation of a "Wild Card" to allow only one non-European nation to enter the ESC. ESC is now a much loved global show. Australia is no longer the only non-European country with the highest interest in ESC. This would allow us to increase the attention on our musical contest.

We can take three directions:

a) accept Australia by right and internally select a non-European song (as does any nations that does not have its own Festival).

b) do not accept Australia by right and select the extra-European piece internally.

c) create a "World Road to the ESC" show to be held annually in Australia. The winner will be entitled to enter the ESC. Now ... we can say ... either Australia is entitled to qualify and the winner of the new show is added, or Australia will have no favorable treatment. However, even if Australia did not qualify, take the latter hypothesis for granted, they would already be rewarded by having the confidence of the EBU and the honor of having their own show.

I prefer the third direction because it follows, more or less, what the EBU, after having trained Australia for years, wanted to do with Asiavision.

A-lister could tell me that the probable entry into the ESC of the US or China (only if they win the "Wild Card") would be the "death of the ESC" and that we must protect our borders. I ask him, is Australia in Europe? I am happy and respect our Australian friends but that Australia is not in Europe is a fact. Therefore any "ideological closure" makes no sense. If we're going to be picky, we don't have to accept Australia.

Instead, I dream of seeing investments come in. Too many nations withdraw each year or consider ESC too expensive an expense. The contest must survive and the extra money doesn't make us sick. I dream of seeing like a K-Pop on our stage! xD It would drive all European "catchy song fans" crazy xD That said, Europe is not closure but expansion. We are a point of reference for the world. We are the ones who make diversity coexist and dance together. Before applying ESC border protection if you wish, it would be more logical to start by blocking and regulating our real borders. Manners are learned from parents. How can we want closure in music if we can't (and don't want to) solve this problem? Either the blockade is total or it makes no sense to regulate one thing and the other not.
 

EDC0708

Well-known member
Joined
January 12, 2014
Posts
3,622
I would go back to 100% televoting (except San Marino), and the old way of presenting the votes.
I would go back to all vocals live, with the option of instruments live as well.
I would go back to the random running order draw.
I would reduce the length of the interval, it is far too long at the moment between the final song being performed and the results starting.
 

A-lister

Veteran
Joined
December 28, 2009
Posts
32,843
The most suggestive idea and I have been writing it for a long time is the creation of a "Wild Card" to allow only one non-European nation to enter the ESC. ESC is now a much loved global show. Australia is no longer the only non-European country with the highest interest in ESC. This would allow us to increase the attention on our musical contest.

We can take three directions:

a) accept Australia by right and internally select a non-European song (as does any nations that does not have its own Festival).

b) do not accept Australia by right and select the extra-European piece internally.

c) create a "World Road to the ESC" show to be held annually in Australia. The winner will be entitled to enter the ESC. Now ... we can say ... either Australia is entitled to qualify and the winner of the new show is added, or Australia will have no favorable treatment. However, even if Australia did not qualify, take the latter hypothesis for granted, they would already be rewarded by having the confidence of the EBU and the honor of having their own show.

I prefer the third direction because it follows, more or less, what the EBU, after having trained Australia for years, wanted to do with Asiavision.

A-lister could tell me that the probable entry into the ESC of the US or China (only if they win the "Wild Card") would be the "death of the ESC" and that we must protect our borders. I ask him, is Australia in Europe? I am happy and respect our Australian friends but that Australia is not in Europe is a fact. Therefore any "ideological closure" makes no sense. If we're going to be picky, we don't have to accept Australia.

Instead, I dream of seeing investments come in. Too many nations withdraw each year or consider ESC too expensive an expense. The contest must survive and the extra money doesn't make us sick. I dream of seeing like a K-Pop on our stage! xD It would drive all European "catchy song fans" crazy xD That said, Europe is not closure but expansion. We are a point of reference for the world. We are the ones who make diversity coexist and dance together. Before applying ESC border protection if you wish, it would be more logical to start by blocking and regulating our real borders. Manners are learned from parents. How can we want closure in music if we can't (and don't want to) solve this problem? Either the blockade is total or it makes no sense to regulate one thing and the other not.

Ehm? I was always against Australia entering the contest so not sure about the question?

But now they've been in for some years and should we just throw them out? xshrug

I see I'm in the camp who want to protect the Eurovision brand, I have nothing against non-European countries just to clarify, but I am in the camp who think Eurovision should stay European and it's just that simply. People are free to disagree of course.
 

Lance Esgard

Well-known member
Joined
March 15, 2021
Posts
588
Location
Melbourne, Australia
The most suggestive idea and I have been writing it for a long time is the creation of a "Wild Card" to allow only one non-European nation to enter the ESC. ESC is now a much loved global show. Australia is no longer the only non-European country with the highest interest in ESC. This would allow us to increase the attention on our musical contest.

We can take three directions:

a) accept Australia by right and internally select a non-European song (as does any nations that does not have its own Festival).

b) do not accept Australia by right and select the extra-European piece internally.

c) create a "World Road to the ESC" show to be held annually in Australia. The winner will be entitled to enter the ESC. Now ... we can say ... either Australia is entitled to qualify and the winner of the new show is added, or Australia will have no favorable treatment. However, even if Australia did not qualify, take the latter hypothesis for granted, they would already be rewarded by having the confidence of the EBU and the honor of having their own show.

I prefer the third direction because it follows, more or less, what the EBU, after having trained Australia for years, wanted to do with Asiavision.

I really like the idea of a Wildcard.

I much prefer Option C (but not necessarily hosted in Australia). Not only would there be more content for fans of Eurovision, especially if it were held in the Eurovision off-season, but as I have a concern with the internal selection process of a Wild Card.

The decision of such an internal selection would involve the Eurovision Song Contest Reference Group (who we really mean most of the time when we say EBU) which are to make decisions in the general interest of the ESC, but if given a range of potential nations to which a wild card can be given, I could see there being difficulties coming to a decision. As they only meet four to five times a year and the members include those who are otherwise busy in their regular duties at the broadcaster they represent, they may not have the time to fully consider detailed proposals which could lead to more risk-averse decision-making.

Having a selection show would help resolve these difficulties in part because those entries would allow potential participants a means to demonstrate the level of support broadcasters and other commercial partners can bring to the table. This could lead to more diversity than if left to internal selection alone.

I would probably call the show 'Passport to Eurovision Song Contest' or the 'Passport to Eurovision' for short myself.
 

A-lister

Veteran
Joined
December 28, 2009
Posts
32,843
As I said, you read my post like the devil reads the bible. No where have I undermined the intelligence of the televoters. That is all in your head and your own interpretation.

I didn't say you were against peace and unity, I stated which "camp" I would be in. You said the idea of letting the US and China in would be the death of the contest. I really don't see how Australia was "sneaked" in. They were publicly announced as a guest competitor for 2015 and then they have been allowed to prolong their attendance to, thus far, 2023. Nothing of this has been decided in a sneaky way, it has been very public and no EBU member has objected.

Again, yes you are. I don't carry a need to project, wtf with the personal attack? You don't know me dude. This is clearly not a fruitful dialogue, I'm opting out. Good bye.
That's rich considering your rude responses from the get go, so yeah you're projecting and I agree, waste of time engaging in a conversation with someone like you.

At least I know who to put on the ignoring list so thank you for clarifying that, you're welcome!
 
Top Bottom