Guidelines for Eurovision juries - Your opinion on ESC juries and direction of ESC!

[A-lister]

Re: Guidelines for Eurovision juries - Your opinion on ESC juries and direction of ES

I think, back then, there was still the language rule.

English has gradually become more popular since the language rule was dropped. I don't think televoting or juries has much to do with it.

Oh so why do we have a record in English just with two years with juries? Coincidence?

and @ Sannerz

No you are wrong. Voters generally are more positive towards entries in native languages than the juries have been, just check the statistics.

Last year for instance we would have had Finland in final if only voters were to decide, which would have been very rare considering Finland send more or less only English entries since 1999.

Looking at the final the viewers also gave Spain and France (although being the big 4 and traditionally struggling with televotes) better positions than the juries gave them, France for instance got a top.10 position which hasn't happened for a French entry in a long time thanks to televoting alone.

In 2009 we have other examples aswell.

I will give a more full analyze on that later as promised, but those are good examples.

 

[sannerz]

Re: Guidelines for Eurovision juries - Your opinion on ESC juries and direction of ES

Oh so why do we have a record in English just with two years with juries? Coincidence?

and @ Sannerz

No you are wrong. Voters generally are more positive towards entries in native languages than the juries have been, just check the statistics.

Last year for instance we would have had Finland in final if only voters were to decide, which would have been very rare considering Finland send more or less only English entries since 1999.

Looking at the final the viewers also gave Spain and France (although being the big 4 and traditionally struggling with televotes) better positions than the juries gave them, France for instance got a top.10 position which hasn't happened for a French entry in a long time thanks to televoting alone.

In 2009 we have other examples aswell.

I will give a more full analyze on that later as promised, but those are good examples.

No, YOU are wrong. I gave you valid proof from MY point of view.

In 2010:
Out of the top 15 songs in the Final voted by TELEVOTING, only 2 songs were in native languages.

Out of the top 15 songs in the Final voted by JURIES, 3 songs were in native languages.

In 2009:
Out of the top 15 songs in the Final voted by TELEVOTING, only 5 songs were in native languages.

Out of the top 15 songs in the Final voted by JURIES, 6 songs were in native languages.

Now, you want to talk about semi-finals? Okay, let's do it.

In 2010 Semi Final 1:
Out of the top 10 songs in Semi-Final 1 based on TELEVOTING, 4 songs were in native languages.
Out of the top 10 songs in Semi-Final 1 based on JURIES, 4 songs were also in native languages.

In 2010 Semi Final 2:
Out of the top 10 songs in Semi-Final 2 based on TELEVOTING, there were NO songs in native languages.
Out of the top 10 songs in Semi-Final 2 based on JURIES, there were 2 songs.

Um... You still want to make your case there? It's obvious that the Juries are not the cause for the move towards English. If anything, its the televoters.

 

[A-lister]

Re: Guidelines for Eurovision juries - Your opinion on ESC juries and direction of ES

^
That's almost the same amount of votes so not more valid than my point really, I guess it all comes down to how one is looking at it.

Also this topic didn't only concern the native languages, it also concerned juries overlooking songs that can be considered ethnic/local sounding (either ethno-pop or something with local characteristics).

2008
Semifinal 1 wildcard : Americanized ballad in English
Semifinal 2 wildcard : English, Disco-schlager-pop

2009
Semifinal 1 wildcard : 90's Eurodance in English
Semifinal 2 wildcard : ethno-ballad in native language

2009

Final top.10:

Televoters : 4/10 native languages (5 incl. UK), 7/10 ethnic/local style (total 9 native languages, 14 ethnic/local style)
Juries : 4/10 native languages (5 incl. UK, 2/4 with English mixed), 5/10 ethnic/local style)

2010

Semifinal 1:

Televoters : 4/10 native languages, 3/10 ethnic/local style (4 incl. Russia) (total 6 native languages + 1 bi-lingual, 5 ethnic/local style (6 incl. Russia)
Juries : 3/10 native languages (5 incl. Ireland), 2/10 ethnic/local style

Semifinal 2:

Televoters : 0/10 native languages, 1/10 ethnic/local style (total 5 native languages + 1 bi-lingual, 5 ethnic/local style)
Juries : 1/10 native languages, 1/10 ethnic/local style (2 incl. Israel)

Final top. 10 :

Televoters : 3/10 native languages, 3/10 ethnic/local style (total 8 native languages incl. Ireland+UK, 5 ethnic/local entries (7 incl. Ireland+Russia)
Juries : 1/10 native languages, 2/10 ethnic/local style (incl. Israel)

 

[Mickey]

Re: Guidelines for Eurovision juries - Your opinion on ESC juries and direction of ES

You can prove anything you want if you pick out individual entries that fit your own purpose. I've tried to collate all the data. It's been a bit of a pain doing this, so I haven't included semi final votes for reasons of laziness. It also becomes very difficult to combine semis and finals votes, because many entries appear in both.

Just to clarify "Av. per country" means that I've just divided each points total by the number of countries voting for them and then done an average. The combined average at the bottom covers both years. To decide whether a song is in English or not, I've gone by what Wikipedia says and counted bilingual songs as non-English.

A few thoughts. In 2009 the juries gave more points to non-English language songs. If any country based their sending of English in 2010 on 2009's jury results, they're idiots. In 2010 it switched round and juries liked English more.

When you combine these two years of results, you get no significant link between languages and jury/televote split.

 

[MyHeartIsYours]

Re: Guidelines for Eurovision juries - Your opinion on ESC juries and direction of ES

One thing I would like changing is the BBC YouTube videos - I want them to show the full song, not cut it half way through!!

 

[Matt]

Re: Guidelines for Eurovision juries - Your opinion on ESC juries and direction of ES

@Mickey

Very interesting stats, thank you for doing the work. I always said that based on the little data we have (2 years is not a lot) the juries never showed preference over english/non english songs. But those stats really show that it's not a jury/televote thing.

But to get back to the topic which also asked about what I expect from juries

- The jury gets to listen to the songs more than once before giving them points so they don't go by the catchyness of a song alone. Fact is that for some songs it takes a few listens before they really click with people.

- The juries are not as easily impressed by crazy choreographies and visually mind blowing effects. Good example is 2008 where the Top 4 where all very entertaining and incredibly well choreographed but from a musical point of view, they were not really considered masterpieces. And if we had the 50/50 system back then I'm pretty sure the results would have been different.

- Juries need to look at different factors. Overall quality, vocals, charts potential, lyrics are just a few that come to mind here. Actually when you look at the results over the past 2 years, the jury results tend to be a closer race (Germany and Belgium only 2 or 3 points apart and the rest of the songs not too far behind) which is an indication that there is more thought put into the votes rather than just voting for the most memorable performance which is not an uncommon thing among televoters.

Fact is juries and televoters won't agree all the time but that's the whole purpose, to even out the flaws that both 100% televote or jury vote would have.

 

[FallenAngelII]

Re: Guidelines for Eurovision juries - Your opinion on ESC juries and direction of ES

Oh, so tell me if it's the people's fault that English is doing wellµ

1) Coincidence.
2) Songs in English did very well the years preceding thye returng of the juries.
3) So, you're saying that Europe was psychic and knew that the juries would prefer songs in English, thus sent in a record number of songs in English? Seriously, what's the argument here?

why do we have a record of songs in English when juries were brought back? Why are the juries top entries in English?

Just because a song is sung in a language other than English does not mean it's automatically great or even good. Maybe for the 2009 and 2010 contests, the top songs just happened to be in English.

If you look at the voting, they voted for specific types of songs, not language. Also, Estonia was the jury's 5th in 2009. Gee, I guess that's not good enough for you. Norway won with a song that breathed etno. The juries also gave Israel 5th in 2010.

Maybe, just maybe, for those two years, the songs sung in languages other than English just simply weren't good enough to get Top 3 from the juries. They certainly didn't going by televotes along.

Yeah. A good example is Finland that got televoting support 2010, sending their MOST genuine entry to date, but juries didn't think that was okey obviously.

Yes, and?

Genuine =/= Good/Must have a place in the final

The jury is supposed to, among other things, find songs that are contemporary and can do well on charts. Are you saying "Kuunkuiskaajat" are either of those things?

Just because they didn't support one entry sung in a native language other than English does not mean they are inherently biased against all such entries.

Maybe it was just this one entry. Maybe it was this one genre (because, really, the Swedish critics (Inför Eurovision, entrainment columnists, music columnists, etc.) panned it as well, and we're neighbours!). Maybe it was just the composition of it all.

Televoters liked the French up-to-date in French party song, juries didn't.

It had nothing to do with the fact that the song was in French (the 2009 juries gave France 5th!). It had everything to do with the presentation, genre and overall production.

It's a club song. If you analyze how it's built up, harmonicaly, lyrically, composition, stage performance, etc., it's not a very well-produced entry in the classical sense.

But I will come back with the whole statistics when I have the time. But so far I don't see the juries bringing anything good to this contest.

I told you before about the entries sung in languages other than English that the juries have voted for when the people ignored them (or when they both agreed).

Just because they aren't the entries you liked doesn't mean the juries are biased against anything in particular.

I think the televoters (minus the usual diaspora stuff) being much smarter and in touch with both modern music and true to European culture.

Because Finland 2010 was pure modernism.

 

[A-lister]

Re: Guidelines for Eurovision juries - Your opinion on ESC juries and direction of ES

Just because a song is sung in a language other than English does not mean it's automatically great or even good.

And I have never said that either.

The jury is supposed to, among other things, find songs that are contemporary and can do well on charts. Are you saying "Kuunkuiskaajat" are either of those things?

I agree with this to a certain extent, but as you write yourself "among other things". What other things? Eurovision is a unique concept, why does it has to be a copy of all other music shows out there? As I wrote on the first page I believe the juries should support songs that are 1) Contemporary-hit worthy 2) songs with touch of local elements and-or in native languages. What's so bad with that?

Or do you want just one big bland contest with no diversity where there are supposed to be no cultural elements anymore and just 40 English pop songs? And who is to say what should be trends anyways? You? I think the viewers can decide for themselves and not be forced into a certain way of thinking.

It's a club song. If you analyze how it's built up, harmonicaly, lyrically, composition, stage performance, etc., it's not a very well-produced entry in the classical sense.

Didn't you just write juries should vote for what's contemporary? France 2010 is a good examples that juries do not care about what's contemporary or hit-worthy anyways.

Sometimes even today I can hear this French 2010 randomly played both at parties and clubs in SWEDEN, but for sure I can't hear Ireland's ballad from the past anywhere. Your argumentation is based upon contradiction. When a song doesn't fit your taste, you say it's not classical, but when it is you say juries vote for it because it's "contemporary"?? wow...

 

[A-lister]

Re: Guidelines for Eurovision juries - Your opinion on ESC juries and direction of ES

@Mickey

Very interesting stats, thank you for doing the work. I always said that based on the little data we have (2 years is not a lot) the juries never showed preference over english/non english songs. But those stats really show that it's not a jury/televote thing.

But to get back to the topic which also asked about what I expect from juries

- The jury gets to listen to the songs more than once before giving them points so they don't go by the catchyness of a song alone. Fact is that for some songs it takes a few listens before they really click with people.

- The juries are not as easily impressed by crazy choreographies and visually mind blowing effects. Good example is 2008 where the Top 4 where all very entertaining and incredibly well choreographed but from a musical point of view, they were not really considered masterpieces. And if we had the 50/50 system back then I'm pretty sure the results would have been different.

- Juries need to look at different factors. Overall quality, vocals, charts potential, lyrics are just a few that come to mind here. Actually when you look at the results over the past 2 years, the jury results tend to be a closer race (Germany and Belgium only 2 or 3 points apart and the rest of the songs not too far behind) which is an indication that there is more thought put into the votes rather than just voting for the most memorable performance which is not an uncommon thing among televoters.

Fact is juries and televoters won't agree all the time but that's the whole purpose, to even out the flaws that both 100% televote or jury vote would have.

Looking at some songs juries have supported, which are stuff that is directly picked from some Eurovision year in the 90's, I am not sure if they fully know what they're here for to be honest.

I think it's sad if juries doesn't vote for songs if they have a big show. Has it become something ugly to entertain the viewers now? I don't get that really. Then why don't we just transform Eurovision into a radio show then if big performances are considered something "bad"? It would cost much less for sure.

I don't think countries should be "punished" for putting lots of effort and thought into their stage shows, afterall it's also about the "visionary" aspect; the performances. Eurovision should be about finding the good songs, but also being about entertainment.

And that's one more thing I noticed with the juries. 2010 we probably had like the "least" entertaining performances for a decade or so. I mean offcourse if a song is bad then it's bad, but why this scare for big shows? Atleast I want to watch an entertainment show, not some blandess.

 

[Mickey]

Re: Guidelines for Eurovision juries - Your opinion on ESC juries and direction of ES

2010 we probably had like the "least" entertaining performances for a decade or so.

What show were you watching? France, Romania, Ukraine, Serbia, Lithuania. All brilliant stage presentations.

 

[A-lister]

Re: Guidelines for Eurovision juries - Your opinion on ESC juries and direction of ES

What show were you watching? France, Romania, Ukraine, Serbia, Lithuania. All brilliant stage presentations.

Wow 5 out of 38 brilliant presentations??

I miss the days when we got those big spectacular shows from Ukraine and Greece for instance.

I would change Lithuania to Moldova though, but it's a matter of taste.

 

[Mickey]

Re: Guidelines for Eurovision juries - Your opinion on ESC juries and direction of ES

Wow 5 out of 38 brilliant presentations??

I miss the days when we got those big spectacular shows from Ukraine and Greece for instance.

I would change Lithuania to Moldova though, but it's a matter of taste.

I didn't say it was an exhaustive list.

I don't think juries necessarily vote against big stage shows. They just don't take them into consideration as much. My theory is that juries like ballads and they generally don't have a big show. But that is made up for by televoters voting in the opposite way.

I think the biggest thing that influences what countries send is the previous year's winner. It's stupid really and a staggeringly bad way to do your research. It's a very short-termist approach. I think there was an increase in native languages after Molitva won (you probably know the figures better than I do). There was also a ridiculous rumour last year that BBC wanted a male singer because Alexander Rybak was a man. I wouldn't be surprised if, based on Lena's win, we see fewer big stage shows this year.

 

[FallenAngelII]

Re: Guidelines for Eurovision juries - Your opinion on ESC juries and direction of ES

And I have never said that either.

Your entire argument is built on the fact that two entries sung in a language other than English didn't do as well as you think they should have among the juries. Maybe they simply didn't like the entries themselves, with no regard to the languages they were sung in.

I agree with this to a certain extent, but as you write yourself "among other things". What other things?

The composition of the song, the lyrics, the production, the singing ability of the artist, the stage show, etc.

Eurovision is a unique concept, why does it has to be a copy of all other music shows out there? As I wrote on the first page I believe the juries should support songs that are 1) Contemporary-hit worthy 2) songs with touch of local elements and-or in native languages. What's so bad with that?

1) Are you arguing that they should only care about those two things?
2) If not, then why should they care about those things? Why shouldn't they judge each entry as they are instead of ascribing bonus points (you categorically deny that you want bonus poinst for etno, yet you keep saying that you want the juries to support certain kinds of entries when they already do)?
3) The juries already support those entries. They are merely judges on the same level playing field as all other entries. Which means that an etno entry has to be as good as the best non-etno entry to be in the top.

Or do you want just one big bland contest with no diversity where there are supposed to be no cultural elements anymore and just 40 English pop songs?

So because the televoters don't particularly care much for etno anymore, the juries should award etno automatic bonus points?

And who is to say what should be trends anyways? You? I think the viewers can decide for themselves and not be forced into a certain way of thinking.

Who said anything about trends?

Didn't you just write juries should vote for what's contemporary? France 2010 is a good examples that juries do not care about what's contemporary or hit-worthy anyways.

Contemporary is one of the things they watch out for. It doesn't mean that if it isn't contemporary, it's automatically trash in the eyes of the jurists. Patricia Kaas, believe or not, is an internationally known singers who's sold millions of records worldwide. And her brand of music is appreciated by millions of people worldwide. Just because it isn't mainstream doesn't mean it's not contemporary for some people.

I didn't care much for it personally, but I can see why it did well.

Sometimes even today I can hear this French 2010 randomly played both at parties and clubs in SWEDEN, but for sure I can't hear Ireland's ballad from the past anywhere.

1) Well, yeah. Ireland 2010 was pretty shitty.
2) What does that argument have anything to do with whether or not the juries are biased against etno?
3) This is an altogether another complaint, that the juries vote for ballads too much. What's important to note is that it's probably specific national juries where ballads are popular (Malta, the UK, etc.) that do this. Also, as a former winner, what's-her-face probably had a leg up among juries. This is a problem of personal bias in taste, not personal bias against entries genres.

Your argumentation is based upon contradiction. When a song doesn't fit your taste, you say it's not classical, but when it is you say juries vote for it because it's "contemporary"?? wow...

What? When did I argue any of that? When did I even use "classical" as an argument?!

 

[FallenAngelII]

Re: Guidelines for Eurovision juries - Your opinion on ESC juries and direction of ES

Wow 5 out of 38 brilliant presentations??

I miss the days when we got those big spectacular shows from Ukraine and Greece for instance.

I would change Lithuania to Moldova though, but it's a matter of taste.

And this is the fault of the juries how? I love it how you think every single Eurovision country is now psychic, able to tell exactly what the juries want and what they don't want, thus they send in what they want, thus it's the juries' fault that people are sending in entries without huge stageshows nowadays.

Also, "those days"? What, you mean 2009? Wow, that was such a long time ago. And because they didn't send in entries with huge stage shows the following 1-2 years, it must mean they never will again and it's the fault of the juries!

 

[damienn]

Re: Guidelines for Eurovision juries - Your opinion on ESC juries and direction of ES

I don't know if it's been mentioned previously in this thread. But choosing english, might also be a tactial move out of a commercial aspect. Sure it might be fun for a artist to win a Eurovision, and perhaps even more fun to do so in their native language, but everybody needs to make a living, and these performers are usually artists who live on their success. To get the liking of most of europe, who can understand and relate to the texts and because of that perhaps vote for you in the ESC and maybe if you do well, help you sell, millions of records outside of your own country might take precedence when it's time to make the language choice. Victory in ESC AND alot of albums sold, is a win / win scenario.

I've bought many records, since i'm a swede, many have been in swedish, but after that, english. Even if a like a song in, lets say, romanian, I might not buy the record, because I have NO clue what the texts are about, and sitting and liking the beat and the sound of the song only works for a very limited time, which usually is rather short. France 2010, ye I can see that's played in many clubs, probably not because it's insanly good, but because the Beat is excellent to dance to, what do I know, I don't go out as much as I used to anymore.

Now, sorry for interrupting, please continue

 

[A-lister]

Re: Guidelines for Eurovision juries - Your opinion on ESC juries and direction of ES

^
You know, this is probably right, but still looking at some hard Eurovision facts it is still NOT necessarily commercially tactical though.

Most artists are unable to cross-over to have an international career after Eurovision, perhaps (if they win) they'll have that one single becoming a hit in some markets, but overall they won't make it.

This doesn't mean that they are bad artists by any means, it's just the reality of the overall American dominated music market. Which makes me wonder is it really tactically smarter for example artists from Ukraine to sing in English, when their future potential market most probably will be Russia/Ukraine and some other ex-USSR countries? Countries where Russian is dominating and not English. Looking at some artists which on paper has all the right features to become international successful artists (like Ani Lorak) for instance, they still need to go back to Russian to break any market outside their own anyways.

The chances for Eurovision to get another ABBA/Celine Dion or even a more minor Lara Fabien success story is very narrow. These artists future will in 99% cases lie within their own region, regardless of use of English in Eurovision or not.

And as for Romanian, we've already had hits in Romanian all over Europe (remember Dragoesta din tei)? Also in French (Alors on dance) etc. Considering the timing of Eurovision (right before summer) and the fact that Europe seems most open to other languages when it comes to summer-hits, I am not sure if there's always need for English anyways. The France 2010 song was a good example of the type of song that could have easily become a summer-hit throughout Europe, the audiences understood its potential, the juries did not.

 

[damienn]

Re: Guidelines for Eurovision juries - Your opinion on ESC juries and direction of ES

^
True, countrys with a very large population or with neighbours having very similar languages have their market pretty much cut out for them, Like Germany, Russia, France, Turkey, UK. Ukraine isn't one of the biggest populated countrys but they do have countrys where they can be understood. But smaller nations like Sweden, Hungary, Bulgaria, Israel, Moldova, Finland, Estonia, Lithuania, along with many more, would definently have a commercial advantage by choosing English.

I don't know about you, who will probably dissagree, but I wouldn't buy a record or CD of an artist in a language I had no chanse of understanding, with the exception of maybe a Eurovision collection CD, but then again, Those are mainly in english nowdays anyway

 

[AlekS]

Re: Guidelines for Eurovision juries - Your opinion on ESC juries and direction of ES

Well, we are the 7th most populated country (Russia, Germany, Turkey, UK, Italy, France) and the only close market which is bigger than ours is Russia.
Though there are a lot of Ukrainians, a lot For instance their chart is ruled by our performers, whole month. It's not so hard to conquer Russian market these days like it was 2 years ago for instance so ESC slooowly becomes more about international market.

But I doubt that our performers can become so popular somewhere else.
I don't think that Europe is interested in our performers and it's not only because of music.
You should know the language, you should have big money, you should have useful ties... In Germany, the UK - it's much easier because they already have developed system, some kind of factory which produces music for years. We do not have free visa regime... it takes A LOT of time, money and nerves in order to start something big there. The 1st rule is to move there, to USA or the UK. Our performers like to record their albums there (Ruslana, Ani Lorak, Mika Newton, Jamala etc.) but it's much easier to rent the studio than going there and living there constantly for a year in order to promote themselves. Popularity abroad lasts rather for 1 album. Like Ruslana, or Kazaky (currently). Our country is already big enough, our projects are expensive enough so why going somewhere and talking to walls, leaving their families if they can earn big money here? We have A LOT of high class performers which would surprise the rest part of Europe but what's the point for them? Even some British, French or German performers can't become internationally popular because of huge competition, not talking about someone who came from another country



@ A-Lister so you're wrong when you say that we need to stick to Russian when we need to break another market than ours. Our performers already dominate Russian market They don't need Eurovision for that like it was earlier. Thanks to Kirkorov and Ani Lorak, lol. Right now our performers refuse from ESC and choose the New Wave fest instead or choose independent promotion if they have big money

Look at the Russian chart:
#1 Vera Brezhneva & Dan Balan (she also became #1 with the previous single, lol)
#2 Yolka

First 2 spots are taken by our performers which refused from ESC. Do they need ESC in order to become popular in Russia? No. Lol. Btw, in Russia ESC rating fell so much after they've won. It's not #1 event anymore.

Anyway, we will never break international market if we sing in Ukrainian or Russian. Because of the same reason why it's impossible to hear songs in Swedish, German, Polish here only English, less Spanish and French, almost impossible to hear something in Italian. Go to Italy or the UK and try to hear something in Russian or Ukrainian
Verka was the only Ukrainian performer which made it into British top-40. It wasn't a song performed 100% in Ukrainian.
Ruslana promoted only English version outside of Ukraine and ESC. She recorded the English album which sold more than 100 000 copies in Europe. English, not Ukrainian or Russian
When Alexander Rybak bought appartments in Kyiv and moved here he started singing in Russian, lulz.


Of course we can send a song, 100% in Ukrainian and it can become successful on ESC - but it's just 1 song, and simply because it's ESC.

 

[damienn]

Re: Guidelines for Eurovision juries - Your opinion on ESC juries and direction of ES

Ok ok, maybe Ukraine wasn't such a good example seeing that you are the 29th most populated country in the world (sweden being at 86th). there is different starting conditions aswell as you say. You don't really need BIG money to get to a record out here, just a good song, or better yet, a couple of them and a good promotor of some sort who knows the system and the distribution channels. But I doubt that a few of Swedens greatest performers and song writers through time would have been as successfull as they've been if they would have been sining in swedish. ABBA, Roxette for example, http://www.stim.se/en/PRESS/Press-releases/The-biggest-Swedish-international-hits-2009/ to mention a few more.

So what I'm saying is, it doesn't matter if you already are famous in the country you're representing or not, but if you WANT to reach the rest of europe. English is most likely the language to go to do so, and ESC is like one huge free commercial show where you can shine and market yourself and your music.

 

[AlekS]

Re: Guidelines for Eurovision juries - Your opinion on ESC juries and direction of ES

^ If we were close to big record labels and we could travel Europe freely without documents (go to any embassy here and try to stand in line for a month or 2 just for 1 month visa, wish you luck! ) like certain European citizens then it won't be such a big deal.

So what I'm saying is that even if you are the most popular performer (thus you have big money) you have really miserable chances to conquer European market.
1. Language
2. Ties
3. Ability to live abroad (nobody from another country is going to move here just because of you + how the hell are you going to promote yourself if it's so complicated to receive documents, not talking about living in another country for a long amount of time ) and leave your family here.
4. Being ready for tough competition

We have low salaries which means that you should earn even more money here in order to adjust to other countries' prices. What's not BIG money for you is BIG money for us
Money is the main factor of course, so usually it's not justified.

Though there are exceptions. Look at TATU. 1 million copies sold in Japan only, lol. Though their 2nd international album flopped. Then again - they became MEGA popular in Russia, earned millions and only then went abroad.

Totally agree about English and ESC.
And yes, ABBA and Roxette (who gave a concert in Kyiv few days ago, btw) are famous here... though we like Italian performers who almost never sing in English and we like songs in Spanish. Patricia Kaas and Mylene Farmer are VERY popular here and they sing in French. I can't name any single song in Russian or Ukrainian which became popular somewhere else.