Is it time to remove Juries?

[Milos-BC]

I'd rather talk about the years between 2004 and 2014. For countries like Poland you cannot blame only the diaspora for their good televoting results. It surely helps, but it's not the main reason. And even if you cannot find many fans of it in the internet, it doesn't say anything. Not everyone who votes in Eurovision is active in these forums and so on. They are rather dominated by the youth, but many elder people vote as well.

And even the big countries like Greece, Azerbaijan, Turkey or Ukraine cannot only relate to diaspora, as some of their results prove. You can say that it's still unfair they always qualify, or almost at least, but that's not the important thing in Eurovision. The "small" countries can qualify with strong songs anyway. I mentioned them often enough, but for those who forgot just some once again (CZ 2015, CH 2012-2014, BG 2012-2013). And the winner will be the favourite of the majority no matter what country it comes from (DE 2010, AT 2014 In front of the Netherlands in case you forgot)

Once again, of course Russia, Greece, Azerbaijan and co have a big advantage towards others, but to second that, they're doing everything to get the satisfying results in most years, going rather for mainstream stuff.

In the end, every country can get the good results, they do not need the juries. And since the juries, we get more and more songs in english, more and more ballads and more boring heterogenous results in the finals, especially in the televoting section, because three or four qualifiers each year are no televoting qualifiers and cannot stand a chance to sneak into some Top 10's.

This is exactly same as if I wrote it. Well done

 

[GianlucaTomoe]

I'd rather talk about the years between 2004 and 2014. For countries like Poland you cannot blame only the diaspora for their good televoting results. It surely helps, but it's not the main reason. And even if you cannot find many fans of it in the internet, it doesn't say anything. Not everyone who votes in Eurovision is active in these forums and so on. They are rather dominated by the youth, but many elder people vote as well.

And even the big countries like Greece, Azerbaijan, Turkey or Ukraine cannot only relate to diaspora, as some of their results prove. You can say that it's still unfair they always qualify, or almost at least, but that's not the important thing in Eurovision. The "small" countries can qualify with strong songs anyway. I mentioned them often enough, but for those who forgot just some once again (CZ 2015, CH 2012-2014, BG 2012-2013). And the winner will be the favourite of the majority no matter what country it comes from (DE 2010, AT 2014 In front of the Netherlands in case you forgot)

Once again, of course Russia, Greece, Azerbaijan and co have a big advantage towards others, but to second that, they're doing everything to get the satisfying results in most years, going rather for mainstream stuff.

In the end, every country can get the good results, they do not need the juries. And since the juries, we get more and more songs in english, more and more ballads and more boring heterogenous results in the finals, especially in the televoting section, because three or four qualifiers each year are no televoting qualifiers and cannot stand a chance to sneak into some Top 10's.

What do you have against the ballads?

 

[ESCFr]

Do you know what was Eurovision without juries ?

The 2000s.

AKA the worst decade in Eurovision history EVER.

 

[ag89]

There's a point tbh that you barely see anybody who likes Poland's song this year. The televote placing would place it as pretty universally liked across the ESC-fandom, moreso than France and Bulgaria, but it genuinely doesn't feel that way. I'm sure diaspora had a lot of that impact.

There is a much larger world outside Eurovision community that votes and actually makes the biggest impact. That's something most Euro fans don't understand.

The similar example is Iceland this year: she failed to qualify by both jury and televote. And guess what: Euro fans were wanking for weeks about Iceland being the top 5-10 or at least sure qualifier. She was not even close. That's because we, Euro fans, tend to be quite ignorant about the fact we do not represent an important segment at all when it comes to voting in Eurovision.

Speaking of Poland, diaspora had an impact for sure, like for many other countries. But Poland cannot get 200+ points and points from almost every nation just because Poles live outside.

 

[GianlucaTomoe]

Do you know what was Eurovision without juries ?

The 2000s.

AKA the worst decade in Eurovision history EVER.

This!

 

[JamieBrown]

What do you have against the ballads?

Good question

Nothing in general, but I hate monotony.

 

[Alaska49]

Do you know what was Eurovision without juries ?

The 2000s.

AKA the worst decade in Eurovision history EVER.

everyone is entitled to their own opinion but i am always so appalled when i remember this is a somewhat common thought among eurovision fans

the 00s were an amazing eurovision decade that saw more evolution than any other decade. the televote saved us from ireland's reign of boredom. it's true it was getting a bit out of hand by the end of the decade with regards to the humour used by some entries and i do see the return of juries as a mostly good thing (because their priorities are very different from pre-televote juries), but still the 00s gave eurovision the high energy and the fun it still is today (but then again a certain other poster has outright said "eurovision wasn't created to be fun" so i guess some people like to be bored)

 

[ESCFr]

Trashy/voluntarly-shitty performances aren't fun, they are just trashy/shitty.

looking at you 2006.

 

[GianlucaTomoe]

Good question

Nothing in general, but I hate monotony.

I find bland cliché pop songs heard one million of times before more monotonous than a contemporary ballad that has chart potential.

 

[Alaska49]

i actually hate we are the winners too and that's the kind of entry i was talking about when i said things were getting out of hand, but the 00s still gave us a stellar run of winners and legitimately fun, different, competent entries scoring high. it greatly increased variety in eurovision and while some of the variety was indeed bad, it still reached places eurovision had never dared to go without the televote backing it up.

also juries aren't even exempt of guilt when it comes to rewarding entries mostly perceived as trashy. remember when one of the jury wildcards in 2009 was... waldo's people? yeesh.

 

[ESCFr]

The only legitimate winner in the 00s is 2007.

2003, 2005 could also be in this category but they were the only good songs the year they competed so it does not count imo >>

All the others were undeserved/stolen wins.

 

[GianlucaTomoe]

I'd also 2002 and 2004. So, counting the total, in the 00s we have only 5 deserved winners out of 10. While in the 10s, we have only 1 undeserved win ( 2015), and the decade hasn't ended yet. So yeah, another argument in support of the juries.

 

[RomanFromRussia]

LOL are you serious?

why all the winners should satisfy you? The audience has chosen them. Like it, or not.

"Hard rock hallelujah" is the best winner tbh just because they rocked the stage

And yes, juries want to bring back 90's when they tried to vote for Malta just because it's Malta. They voted just for vocal abilities of artist not for the songs. And yes, even during the 2000's not every kitsch entry managed to top.

2009
2008
2007


Maybe it depends on a song? If song is in charts, it means people like it.

 

[GianlucaTomoe]

They voted just for vocal abilities of artist not for the songs

This is another BS that I keep hearing from the euroqueens. Like it or not, also the slow songs deserve recognition, this is why juries voted for them.

 

[Alaska49]

the only 00s winners i think did not contribute to advancing eurovision musically or entertainment-wise are everybody and believe, and i even like believe ^_^

"deserved"/"stolen" is a ridiculous concept that caters to subjective tastes and therefore are not absolute truths. i mean, 2005 is my favourite eurovision year ever (other than this yesr possibly) and it's unfathomable to me that someone dares to say only the winner was good, but hey, opinions

 

[RomanFromRussia]

This is another BS that I keep hearing from the euroqueens. Like it or not, also the slow songs deserve recognition, this is why juries voted for them.

I have nothing against slow songs. They also were my favorites ( 2012, 2013, 2015), but I cannot get the role of juries.

 

[GianlucaTomoe]

And also, juries blindy voting for Malta is just as biased as televoting blindly not voting for this country, no matter what they send. In theory, it's really strange that televoting had Malta in its top 10 only 1 year (2013); in reality, it's actually not, since Malta is not one of those countries which are favoured by diaspora/neighbours voting.

 

[VikingTiger]

And also, juries blindy voting for Malta is just as biased as televoting blindly not voting for this country, no matter what they send. It's really strange that televoting had Malta in its top 10 only 1 year (2013).

I dont think the juries are completely "blinded" by Malta. I think some of the explanation for their relatively good results is that their entries has been more friendly to an older public. I am quite sure that the mean age of the members of the juries are significantly higher than the mean age of the televoters.
I think this can explain many of the differences in the jury and the televoters results. In general the juries seem to favour more ballads, and also they often seem to favour less contemporary music. In general they also tend to reward really good vocals.

I DO think there is a difference in the general jury-taste and the general televoter-taste. I think this is mostly due to the difference in the background of the two different groups; age, occupation etc.

 

[GianlucaTomoe]

I have nothing against slow songs. They also were my favorites ( 2012, 2013, 2015), but I cannot get the role of juries.

I can. In every music competition, songs are judged by juries. Competitions where songs are judged by televoting don't exist, ESC and its NFs are the only exception. And yet, even ESC has been a jury competition for 40 years more or less.

 

[lavieenrose]

And also, juries blindy voting for Malta is just as biased as televoting blindly not voting for this country, no matter what they send. In theory, it's really strange that televoting had Malta in its top 10 only 1 year (2013); in reality, it's actually not, since Malta is not one of those countries which are favoured by diaspora/neighbours voting.

It's not exactly shocking that a country whose national selection uses a 6:1 jury:televote ratio has an easier time winning over juries than televoters.