Are there too many qualifiers?

[Brandt]

There should be:
9 qualifiers from each semifinal.
+Big 5
+host
+guest country from rest of the world
=
25 countries.
This is the best solution in my opinion.

Worst idea ever.
Each semi should keep qualifing 10 songs, that is the best. And 27 songs mean longer final than usual, why isn't that good thing for Eurofans?

 

[GRE]

Worst idea ever.
Each semi should keep qualifing 10 songs, that is the best. And 27 songs mean longer final than usual, why isn't that good thing for Eurofans?

It gets boring for an average spectator.
Even 26 is to much, if you ask me.
24 would be fine.

 

[Terence]

Screw the average spectator, more fun for us (Yeah I kinda agree 26 songs are a bit too much, but 10 qualifiers are enough. If they reduce them to 9 qualifiers in a low-numbered semifinal, it's unlucky to whoever misses out, because of other withdrawing countries' issues).

 

[Mainshow]

26 songs à 3 minutes = 78 minutes of musical content. An ordinary movie lasts 90+ minutes, the "average spectator" is still able to watch a football match of 90 minutes + "interviews, half time, maybe even additional time". Most concerts one can attend to last for 80 up to 120 minutes (depending on the artist)... I think that this is just the right amount of time. I actually wouldn't mind increasing the qualifiers to #11 per semi final and ditching a few parts of the 40-50 minutes of unnecessary interval acts instead.

 

[tomos2019]

I have actually thought before a guest country from the rest of the world might be a good idea, it would have been a bit more variety than just Australia, no offence!

 

[midnightsun]

To answer the original question: yes!

I posted my opinion about this here a few years ago and to summarize it: in my opinion the grand final should have only 20 countries maximum.

26 countries are too many. Even my attention span [as a die hard ESC fan] is low after 20 songs when there have been two semis and countless national finals, videos, rehearsals etc. Thinking about friends and family who are casual viewers... I'd say 90% fall asleep around song #20. That's my experience.

I would love to have better (advanced) semi-finals though, not just the songs and "that's it, bye, see you on Saturday!"

 

[ESC94]

26 songs à 3 minutes = 78 minutes of musical content. An ordinary movie lasts 90+ minutes, the "average spectator" is still able to watch a football match of 90 minutes + "interviews, half time, maybe even additional time". Most concerts one can attend to last for 80 up to 120 minutes (depending on the artist)... I think that this is just the right amount of time. I actually wouldn't mind increasing the qualifiers to #11 per semi final and ditching a few parts of the 40-50 minutes of unnecessary interval acts instead.

Well, 11 qualifiers aren´t necessary imo, but otherwise I completely agree with you, especially the highlighted parts.

 

[lasse braun]

i would have no problems with 11 or also 12 qualifiers,especially if some returnees fill up the field in the near? future.
the quality is given because many countries try it hard & have also good preselections at TV.
in my opinium only the defender of the titel should get a freeticket to the final.
the strictly 3 minutes maximum dictation kills some creativity!
some songs are too long like sweden this year (going nowhere after 2.25 or so) and other songs are too short like ukraine in both versions.
i know of course the timefetishcorset from the EBU!
so my proposal: give a joker for the better 11th place of both semis or give a joker for the best televoter outside the top10 in both semis and give the songs a more relaxed time window like 2.00-3.30.

 

[Himan]

Songs should be only shorter than 3.00 right. Also about the interval acts: votes have to be counted and voted, so that costs time also. 26 is actually way to much to remember, tough I think the way it is handled now with the 'director' choosing the order makes it a bit more equal. Yes it makes the 2nd song which probably would end 15th in the ranking now maybe 18th, but that is less important than the difference between first and second in the ranking. So if we want as much songs in the final as possible this is about right.

 

[Loindici]

Imagine only 7 songs qualify from each semi. Loss of viewers because of 6 countries not qualifying seems not like a big deal but it does affect the viewing numbers and measurement of success.

 

[burrito]

More countries participating in the final mean higher viewing figures.
If there was a need to reduce the number of entries, I'd say ditch the Big 5 and guaranteed qualification for the host (although I wouldn't be a fan of the latter because it's a reward) and increase number of qualifiers to 12 from each semi, so 2 x 12 = 24. With guaranteed place for the host, 25.
But I think it's absolutely fine as it is. Eurovision is once a year. 3-4 hours of the show (and how much of that is actual music?) isn't too long as for something taking place that seldom.

 

[DenizESC]

Ditch the big 5 + increase the numbers

*What actually should be talked about*

 

[Chalphon]

no

 

[HarryUK]

Girl no I want all 37+ acts in the final

Give us the Saturday night TV marathon we deserve

Keep the semi finals as preview shows though

 

[Chalphon]

Girl no I want all 37+ acts in the final

Give us the Saturday night TV marathon we deserve

Keep the semi finals as preview shows though

Sure, if they start the broadcast two hours earlier...

 

[Ajeje Brazorf]

If you consider the maximum of countries that could participate in an edition is 44 and you can have a maximum of 19 countries per semi, there is no need to change the actual 26 spots for the Grand Final.