midnightsun
Veteran
Keep the juries BUT change the rules - that means if there ever existed rules. If not, set up any! What do we know about the rules of jury voting?
German 2017-Jury member Wincent Weiss said in an interview, a few days before the finals, rather reluctantly when asked about the voting process: "Well, it's true, we all watch the performances...ehhh...of course all by...all by ourselves... I must not tell too much about it..."
So here are the questions I ask myself (maybe someone here is able to answer them).
1.) WHERE sit the jury members when watching the performances? Are they live on site, in the hall? Are they in another building, watching via tv screens/monitors? Are they even at home in their home country, watching a secret broadcasting of the show, accessible only for jury members?
2.) Another strange thing coming to my mind is - if the jury members really have no contact between themselves during the voting process (or even during the whole performance), so how is it possible that (in case of Germany, don't know about other countries) all of the jury members have a similar rank of the countries? I mean, there aren't 5 times the same #1 or the same #15, but jury votes often look like this:
Fictional (!) Example (each number is the position each of the five jurors placed the country in)
Portugal 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 1
Croatia 13 | 17 | 12 | 13| 13
Germany 25 | 25 | 18 | 25 | 25
I mean, how probable is this without talking to each other? They must AT LEAST talked to each other BEFORE the finals, maybe already roughly coordinating their opinions? I thought it was forbidden?
Let's get down to another habit that annoys me.
3.) Juries once were introduced to prevent bloc voting. In some way, it was necessary and we still need that to prevent Eastern countries to vote for an obviously bad song that doesn't get points from anyone except their neighbours. Eastern countries tended to do that in the past, not so much anymore now.
But juries still seem to think, especially Western juries, they have to be there for preventing the whole Eastern Europe to win! So they started to reward a lot of Western countries, especially the ones with a certain good reputation in Eurovision, e.g. Sweden or Italy.
Especially Scandinavia (and Australia lately) seems to be suitable for that purpose as Western juries know, the Scandinavian countries give points to each other anyway and there is the highest possibility, IF you want a Western country to win, you can realise this by voting for a Scandinavian country.
So I once ask again: what are the criterias for voting? I always thought juries should reward a song, that is technically AND musically AND voicewise an overall good song.
In case of the German jury (I don't know, what about the other countries?) that means, they concentrate on boring (Western) ballads, "safe songs" how I called them in another post in this thread. They don't dare to experiment. They are not brave. And most importantly they obviously have a wrong idea of what the juries are really have to be there for.
I would understand, if Juror A gives 12 points to Romania, because it is such an outstanding song, and Juror B to Australia, because the kid has such a great voice and Juror C to Hungary, because the ethnics elements build a bridge between different ethnicities in Europe. But the voting chart had to look much differently then, much more differences between the jury members. And I doubt, the jurors followed such ideas as the criterias of voting.
So, JURIES HAVE TO CHANGE or they MUST BE ABOLISHED!
German 2017-Jury member Wincent Weiss said in an interview, a few days before the finals, rather reluctantly when asked about the voting process: "Well, it's true, we all watch the performances...ehhh...of course all by...all by ourselves... I must not tell too much about it..."
So here are the questions I ask myself (maybe someone here is able to answer them).
1.) WHERE sit the jury members when watching the performances? Are they live on site, in the hall? Are they in another building, watching via tv screens/monitors? Are they even at home in their home country, watching a secret broadcasting of the show, accessible only for jury members?
2.) Another strange thing coming to my mind is - if the jury members really have no contact between themselves during the voting process (or even during the whole performance), so how is it possible that (in case of Germany, don't know about other countries) all of the jury members have a similar rank of the countries? I mean, there aren't 5 times the same #1 or the same #15, but jury votes often look like this:
Fictional (!) Example (each number is the position each of the five jurors placed the country in)
Portugal 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 1
Croatia 13 | 17 | 12 | 13| 13
Germany 25 | 25 | 18 | 25 | 25
I mean, how probable is this without talking to each other? They must AT LEAST talked to each other BEFORE the finals, maybe already roughly coordinating their opinions? I thought it was forbidden?
Let's get down to another habit that annoys me.
3.) Juries once were introduced to prevent bloc voting. In some way, it was necessary and we still need that to prevent Eastern countries to vote for an obviously bad song that doesn't get points from anyone except their neighbours. Eastern countries tended to do that in the past, not so much anymore now.
But juries still seem to think, especially Western juries, they have to be there for preventing the whole Eastern Europe to win! So they started to reward a lot of Western countries, especially the ones with a certain good reputation in Eurovision, e.g. Sweden or Italy.
Especially Scandinavia (and Australia lately) seems to be suitable for that purpose as Western juries know, the Scandinavian countries give points to each other anyway and there is the highest possibility, IF you want a Western country to win, you can realise this by voting for a Scandinavian country.
So I once ask again: what are the criterias for voting? I always thought juries should reward a song, that is technically AND musically AND voicewise an overall good song.
In case of the German jury (I don't know, what about the other countries?) that means, they concentrate on boring (Western) ballads, "safe songs" how I called them in another post in this thread. They don't dare to experiment. They are not brave. And most importantly they obviously have a wrong idea of what the juries are really have to be there for.
I would understand, if Juror A gives 12 points to Romania, because it is such an outstanding song, and Juror B to Australia, because the kid has such a great voice and Juror C to Hungary, because the ethnics elements build a bridge between different ethnicities in Europe. But the voting chart had to look much differently then, much more differences between the jury members. And I doubt, the jurors followed such ideas as the criterias of voting.
So, JURIES HAVE TO CHANGE or they MUST BE ABOLISHED!
