Jury vs Televote

[94ayd]

Didn't it score 6th?

 

[nikolay_BG]

Didn't it score 6th?

Yes, it scored 6th and it was bumped from Bosnia and Herzegovina
Sweden was bumped by Niamh Kavanagh from Ireland.
And the out of tune Harel Skaat was rewarded with 4th place from the juries which was a detention for Lithuania and they were out of the final

 

[94ayd]

Out of each pair I prefer Finland, Ireland and Lithuania respectively, so 2:1 in favour of the televoters.

 

[Manosland]

In my opoinion juries got back for two reasons. First because of the songs. If you go back in time you will see some awfull songs being in the final and this way they believed they will change the quality of songs. (up to one point they did IMO). Second was for diaspora, neighbours.ect ect... which this is not going to change easy (and thas bad!!!)

So what they will do to change that.... I don't know.....

 

[FallenAngelII]

Finland scored 9th in the televote. That means that the european public liked finnish folk music. I think the song was more exciting then Portugal or Belarus. It was fresh and original, but like everything fresh and original it was left in the semi because of the juries :twisted:

This equals to the entry being a "masterpiece" how?

"Fresh" and "Original" =/= "Automatically good"

People need to get that through their heads. To boldly go where no Eurovision entry has gone before matters diddly if your entry is just bad/mediocre/meh.

 

[nikolay_BG]

^The song IS good and Europe liked it, but it was bumped BY the juries and insted of that fresh and original song we got the little rock from Bosnia and Herzegovin. OK, let`s say it like that. A western/north country was bumped annd one eastern country got on it`s place.

Last year Sweden got in the FYROM drama from 2008 when FYROM was bumped for a detention of a former winner (Perelli). Now Sweden got bumped for Niamh Kavanagh. I`m not gonna back up Sweden, because i don`t think it deserved final last year, but that was the will of the people. When this will isn`t heared. What`s the point of having a televote after all?

 

[FallenAngelII]

^The song IS good and Europe liked it, but it was bumped BY the juries and insted of that fresh and original song we got the little rock from Bosnia and Herzegovin.

You didn't answer the question.

You claimed that the Finnish entry was a masterpiece. When asked to substantiate the claim, you act as if you never claimed it in the first place and therefore try to prove that people liked the song, which is some else entirely.

OK, let`s say it like that. A western/north country was bumped annd one eastern country got on it`s place.

Last year Sweden got in the FYROM drama from 2008 when FYROM was bumped for a detention of a former winner (Perelli). Now Sweden got bumped for Niamh Kavanagh.

Why should any of that matter?

I`m not gonna back up Sweden, because i don`t think it deserved final last year, but that was the will of the people. When this will isn`t heared. What`s the point of having a televote after all?

What is the point of the juries if the will of the people is final? Having 100% televoting wasn't working. Heck, almost every single country in the contest uses some kind of variation of a 50/50 televote/jury vote system for their national finals, why not for Eurovision as well? And thus the juries returned in order to balance out many things.

Why bring them back at all if the minute a song the people vote to the final doesn't make it due to the juries? We don't hear people whine when the juries do it in reverse, i.e. save entries that many people think deserved better than the televote in retrospect or demote entries that the televote "unfairly" favoured.

You liked the Finnish entry last year? Be my guest. I certainly didn't. I don't know of a single Western European critic who liked it. I'm shocked it garned enough televotes to pass based on televotes alone.

 

[nikolay_BG]

1.What is the point of the juries if the will of the people is final?
2.And thus the juries returned in order to balance out many things.
3.We don't hear people whine when the juries do it in reverse, i.e. save entries that many people think deserved better than the televote in retrospect or demote entries that the televote "unfairly" favoured.

1. Because people spend money to vote and that is one of the main financial resourses of ESC.

2. I don`t see how they balance the diaspora and block voting since some countries continue to vote for each other (Belarus-Russia, Greece-Cyprus, Azerbaijan-Turkey, Serbia - B&H). I think the jury is actually making this tendency worse. For example, the bulgarian televoters gave 5 points to Greece in 2009, but the jury gave 12, so they get 12 points. Do you think Sakis Rouvas`s performance that year deserved 12 points? That`s why I say that the juries actually encourage the diaspora and block voting.

3. You didn`t heared, because the only "saved" entry was the swedish entry from 2008.

And yes, I liked Finland last year and I think it had to qualufy for the finals like many europeans. The problem for them was that the critics were too snobby to give something new and original a chance.

 

[FallenAngelII]

You claimed that the Finnish entry was a masterpiece. When asked to substantiate that claim, you act as if you never claimed it in the first place and therefore try to prove that people liked the song, which is some else entirely.

You think that if you pretend like you never said it long enough, I'm just going to forget? Admit you were wrong or misspoke or try to substantiate the claim.

1. Because people spend money to vote and that is one of the main financial resourses of ESC.

So because people spend money to vote, only their opinion matters? So you think there should be no juries in the contest? That 100% televoting works better than 50/50?

Also, you're wrong. Televoting is not the main moneymaker for the EBU in regards to Eurovision.

2. I don`t see how they balance the diaspora and block voting since some countries continue to vote for each other (Belarus-Russia, Greece-Cyprus, Azerbaijan-Turkey, Serbia - B&H). I think the jury is actually making this tendency worse. For example, the bulgarian televoters gave 5 points to Greece in 2009, but the jury gave 12, so they get 12 points. Do you think Sakis Rouvas`s performance that year deserved 12 points?

Short of simply penalizing every single country based on diaspora and block voting voting (i.e., in order for a Greek 12 pointer to go to Cyprus, it needs to have at last 5 times as many percentiles of the votes as that of a Greek 12 pointer going to, say, Sweden), the juries are the best way of counteacting diaspora and block voting.

As a whole, the juries counteract diaspora and block voting. A single jury not doing their job des not mean the system itself is failure. And maybe that one jury just liked Sakis Rouvas' entry more than all others in 2009. Heck, why is it even an issue of diaspora/neighbour voting? Bulgaria is hardly known for giving Greece high marks based on either of those things

This was simply an instance of a single jury making a pretty impopular choice.

That`s why I say that the juries actually encourage the diaspora and block voting.

And you're wrong.

And yes, I liked Finland last year and I think it had to qualufy for the finals like many europeans. The problem for them was that the critics were too snobby to give something new and original a chance.

"New and original" =/= "Good"
"People think it's good enough for 8th in the weaker semi-final" =/= "Good"

Also, how the flying fig was Finland's entry last year "new and original"?! We'd seen and heard it all before! Just never from Finland or in Finnish. Etno in the mother tongue featuring unconventional instruments? Been there, done that. I guess if someone were to rip off the basics of Helena Paparizou's "My Number One" and sing it in Bulgarian, that'd be "new and original", right?

"New and original" my tuchas. People act like we've never seen something like "Työlki ellää" in Eurovisiion before. Ohm really? In 2006, Christine Guldbransen entered Eurovision for Norway singing "Alvedansen" with instances of Norwegian etno, in Norwegian and with a melody featuring traditional Norwegian instruments (on stage).

If we go back further, we'll find many entries with the same concepts. In fact, we'll find entries that kind of sound like "Työlki ellää"!

 

[nikolay_BG]

^This song IS good!
When the turkish or azerbaijani jury decide not to give each other points, call me. Till then, for me the juries are not usefull method for preventing the block vote.
And BTW, in Bulgaria we have a saying "The man who has money, orders the music"

 

[FallenAngelII]

^This song IS good!

You claimed that the Finnish entry was a masterpiece. When asked to substantiate that claim, you act as if you never claimed it in the first place and therefore try to prove that people liked the song, which is some else entirely.

I love it how you refuse to address a single one of the issues I raised in my last post. It's like you're admitting you can't possibly refute my points, yet you're too proud to admit I'm right and choose to pretend like if you ignore my points long enough, people will just forget about it.

I look forward to seeing you claim Finland was robbed and that it's "new and original" in at least three threads tomorrow.

When the turkish or azerbaijani jury decide not to give each other points, call me.

It will happen when Turkey and/or Azerbaijan send in pure crap. And they haven't (yet). In fact, Turkey has had a string of really good entries in the past several years, only truncuated by Hadise's lacking vocals, but the juries are instructed to disregard lacking singing ability in favour of song quality.

Till then, for me the juries are not usefull method for preventing the block vote.

There's no surefire way of preventing all block voting for taking place. The juries are doing a pretty good job at lessening its effect if you take a look at the overall jury points and the final results.

 

[nikolay_BG]

There's no surefire way of preventing all block voting for taking place. The juries are doing a pretty good job at lessening its effect if you take a look at the overall jury points and the final results.

Really? I wanna see what`s their job in preventing the block voting.

 

[FallenAngelII]

Really? I wanna see what`s their job in preventing the block voting.

If you can't, then you're beyond reason.

Nice job not defending your arguments and even trying to coutner my arguments proving you wrong.

 

[nikolay_BG]

And your point is...?

 

[dogmeat]

You claimed that the Finnish entry was a masterpiece. When asked to substantiate that claim, you act as if you never claimed it in the first place and therefore try to prove that people liked the song, which is some else entirely.

Could you please stop shouting? I could hear you 3 threads away from here. We all already know you dislike Finland2010, no need to repeat yourself. Nikolay loved it, the discussion ought to end here. You act like if there was some universal measurer of quality when opposing "liked by the people" and "good". Sorry to disappoint you, but the jury consists of people, not gods, and they all have nothing more on their disposal than their own subjective opinions. Discussions what did/did not deserve to qualify are held in corresponding topic where it's clear people just speak out their opinions. Opinions about certain songs cannot make any matter in a rules discussion.

 

[FallenAngelII]

Could you please stop shouting? I could hear you 3 threads away from here. We all already know you dislike Finland2010, no need to repeat yourself. Nikolay loved it, the discussion ought to end here. You act like if there was some universal measurer of quality when opposing "liked by the people" and "good".

Uh... no...

Taste is subjective. I have never denigrated someone for their taste in music (at least not on these boards). However, nikolay_BG made a claim that is quantifiable. He claimed that Finland's 2010 entry was a "masterpiece", which one can quantify, in a way, by pointing out how it's technically flawless.

When asked calmly to defend his claim, he refused. Then he refused to do it again and again when prompted time and again.

Sorry to disappoint you, but the jury consists of people, not gods, and they all have nothing more on their disposal than their own subjective opinions.

When did I claim otherwise?

Generally speaking, however, the juries have guidelines. They are to rate songs before singing ability and stage show. They are to listen to each entry several times to measure how well they "grow" on you, so that an entry that doesn't necessarily reach one after only one listening can still stand a chance. They also exist to lessen the existence of block and diaspora voting. They are also to measure songs on their ability to do well commercially and not just in Eurovision. Generally speaking, they're largely successful in doing all of these things, even if they aren't perfect and at times slip up.

But I'd rather have them than not have them. I personally think that the results have been fairer these past two years than the years preceeding them.

Discussions what did/did not deserve to qualify are held in corresponding topic where it's clear people just speak out their opinions.

I have actually never made the argument that Finland's 2010 entry didn't deserve to make the final. I've merely questioned the claim that they so clearly deserved to make it and that it's a masterpiece and that the juries are snobs for snubbing it.

 

[nikolay_BG]

Uh... no...

Taste is subjective. I have never denigrated someone for their taste in music (at least not on these boards). However, nikolay_BG made a claim that is quantifiable. He claimed that Finland's 2010 entry was a "masterpiece", which one can quantify, in a way, by pointing out how it's technically flawless.

When asked calmly to defend his claim, he refused. Then he refused to do it again and again when prompted time and again.

But it is a masteriece! This song shows what ESC is all about. European music in native languages. Kuunkuiskaajat were perfect on the stage and I think they represented their country in the best way. In the televote they scored 6th. Not 8th, but 6th. 6th is a big position and it was a crime to get it from them, I think.

As for Alvedansen. That`s totally different song and I, personally, don`t think it`s good as Finland 2010.

 

[AlekS]

Could you please stop shouting? I could hear you 3 threads away from here. We all already know you dislike Finland2010, no need to repeat yourself. Nikolay loved it, the discussion ought to end here. You act like if there was some universal measurer of quality when opposing "liked by the people" and "good". Sorry to disappoint you, but the jury consists of people, not gods, and they all have nothing more on their disposal than their own subjective opinions. Discussions what did/did not deserve to qualify are held in corresponding topic where it's clear people just speak out their opinions. Opinions about certain songs cannot make any matter in a rules discussion.

Weird that you said this to him instead of saying this to NikolayBG who actually compared/discussed Finland and Sweden.
All of us have subjective opinions, no need in saying that some of them mean nothing in certain threads.
These opinions are certainly not less valuable than yours.

 

[FallenAngelII]

But it is a masteriece! This song shows what ESC is all about. European music in native languages.

So you finally choose to defend your previous statement. This should be rich.

That's it? That's your definition of an Eurvision masterpiece? Folksy music in its native language no matter what else?

Kuunkuiskaajat were perfect on the stage

Subjectivbe.

In the televote they scored 6th. Not 8th, but 6th. 6th is a big position and it was a crime to get it from them, I think.

Tom Dice scored 14th in the televote in the final. That's 9 places lower than he got when the overall score was compiled. Are you saying the televoters were giant douchebags when it came to that instance and that it was a huge crime for the televoters to rob him of a deserved Top 3 finish (the juries placed him as 2nd, only 3 points behind Lena)?

So what if Finland got 6th? It's a folsky tune, so it appealed to those who like folk-music after only one listening. The juries are instructed to look at many things, how folsky an entry is is not one of them.

If someone were to loop Finland's semi-final 10 times, Finland might not have scored as high (seeing as how folk music has an easy time staying memorable to listeners after only one listening). The juries are instructed to take that into consideration.

As for Alvedansen. That`s totally different song and I, personally, don`t think it`s good as Finland 2010.

Translation: "It's only a travesty if I personally like the song that was 'wronged'!"

Also, what happened to "But it is a masteriece! This song shows what ESC is all about. European music in native languages."?!

By your own standads, Alvadansen was a Eurvision masterpiece, yet it didn't automatically deseve to do well because, uh, you didn't personally like it?

 

[nikolay_BG]

^When did I said that Alvedansen is a masterpiece? Alvedansen is boring. From stylized norwegian folk songs i like "Vardlock", but I actually never liked Alvedansen.
Alvedansen is just a "not so good voice" coming from a pretty blond who just sings "aaaaaaaaa" and that`s it.
That`s not the case with Kuunkuiskaajat. They actually made a show. And a good and more spectacular show then (let`s say) Tom Dice`s one

Why should I explain why I like a song? I am not a finnish person, have nothing to do with Finland and finnish people. Don`t even live in the same area.
I think that speaks alot in general.

When an eastern european likes (let`s say) a russian song you, westerners and nordics shout "block voting" or "diaspora voting" or some other cяар, but when an eastern european likes (let`s say) a scandinavian song, we get reactions like this.

Guess, probably, we have to stick to the blockvoting.
At least we`ll know why are we cursed then.

And anyways, why should I explain why I like the song when that`s a feeling and feelings can`t be explained...

I just like it and I don`t like the usual ericsaadepopularromaniancomercialshiZZ music

I think the song was original and good and well performed and it was a big injustice from the juries to cut it off like that.
Is it so hard to accept a different oppinion then yours?