The discussion page for the 0s (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:0s) has an inconclusive discussion about the 0s "decade" having only 9 years. Wikipedia is no authority in this matter
It does correctly mention, however, that "any period of ten years is a decade" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decade
So yeah, we can agree on talking about 20-29 decade, and it makes just as much sense as a 24-33 decade. 21-30 makes a little more sense, since it's specifically the third decade of XXI century, rather than a random decade starting and ending on random years.
Yes, because year 2000 means 1999 years have passed since the beginning of the calendar. Not including it would sacrifice internal consistency of the entire counting system for the sake of temporary aesthetics oOXAlthough, would it be sensible to include 2000 with the 1991-1999?
That's honestly the best point so far. I'm starting to count decades this way. See ya in 6 years.Talking about decades, the proper decade of Eurovision would start from 2016 to 2025, fundamentally referring to the seventh decade of Eurovision counting by the numbers of its seasons.
I don't like the idea of uneven voting power of each voting group (jury/tele) because it will make the voting process so messy. How do you present a 26.8%/73.2% voting that's easy to follow?
I also don't like strict criteria for the jury to vote on. I don't think you can reduce music to that kind of evaluation process. Music - as is most art - is more than just the sum of its parts.
The things I would change
1. Only top 10 from the jury
2. Increase the jury size to 10 people
3. Go back to 2016-2018 way of presenting the public vote.
I’m not sure they wouldn’t vote for a traditional entry like Europe sometimes does, as Europe often votes for an American sounding entry. Don’t know what you have against Asia or South America, the Middle East etc, being allowed to express a view, at least until they get their own contest. I would love the top 5 in Eurovision to go intoto a World song contest. But that’s just me wanting not to exclude anyone from sharing this joyous event with us as we can.
- No juries
- A percentage of songwriters must be locals
- No big 5
- Random starting order
- No live backup singers (pre-recorded only)
- No international interval acts
- No more Australia
- No more French talk
- No more EBU great leader check-in (valid result, take it away). It's a nasty left-over from the days where higher ranks needed to be stroked.
- No juries
- A percentage of songwriters must be locals
- No big 5
- Random starting order
- No live backup singers (pre-recorded only)
- No international interval acts
- No more Australia
- No more French talk
- No more EBU great leader check-in (valid result, take it away). It's a nasty left-over from the days where higher ranks needed to be stroked.
- No juries
- A percentage of songwriters must be locals
- No big 5
- Random starting order
- No live backup singers (pre-recorded only)
- No international interval acts
- No more Australia
- No more French talk
- No more EBU great leader check-in (valid result, take it away). It's a nasty left-over from the days where higher ranks needed to be stroked.
BIG 5 is actually the most important rule Eurovision has. The reasons are not musical but financial.
Im sorry but that is BS, just because they fund the show doesn't mean they should automatically get a free ticket to the final. Like what Teaching people you can always be successful as long as you're rich...
They can fund and support the show and still be EQUAL to all other countries, current system is unacceptable. Back in the day I could have maybe gotten it as they were sending terrible songs and got terrible results regardless but not anymore in 2019.
It is like going to the same university but you don't have to do the first 2 years bcs you paid the school 100k, indeed quite scandalous.