What changes do you want introduced to the rules/format?

[A-lister]

Discuss!

These are my proposals:

• Abolishment of pre-recorded backing vocals.
• Increasing the maximum amount of people allowed on stage from 6 to 8 (or 10 even), I think it's a good compromise between only allowing live vocals and still make it possible for dancers to do their thing. Also, it's long overdue tbh, 6 has been a very low number for years now and is just and odd number in this time and age.
• Acts and songwriters/composers need to have a proven connection to the music market of the country they represent, no more shopping around for entries! The concept of Eurovision is entries representing their countries, I feel like we diverged from that. It doesn't mean that all songwriters/composers need to come from said country, but at least they need to be an active part of that music scene (past Eurovision entries don't count here!). I am fully aware that some music markets are integrated and that micro-states are 'de facto' part of their neighbors' markets, but a change of rule would take that into consideration while still protect the concept of entries actually representing their countries.
• Running order needs to be random! I think we pretty much established now that letting the "producers" choose it opens up to favoritism, corruption and tactics. We should have a transparent and fair system, and there a methods to keep a nice flow in the production (draw the songs from genre/tempo pots for instance).
• Abolishment of juries (now I am not delusional and know it won't happen, but at least decrease their powers to a 40/60 situation in favor of televoters).
• Have it explicitly written into the rules of Eurovision that only recognized independent countries that are at least partially geographically within the European continent, or at least have a history of a minimum of 5 previous entries in the contest, can take part and scrap the idea of the dated European Broadcasting Area (that EBU don't even follow themselves). This would close the door to any risk of having countries like USA, China, Qatar, Morocco, Lebanon, Canada or others joining. It's not EUROvision if the world can join! Let's protect the brand and concept!
• Have the juries verbally give out 8-12 points (I know it would make the show longer, but don't we want more suspense? I know that we can't go back to the old days of giving out 1-12 when we have so many countries and also split the televoting results, but this could be a compromise that could still work).
• Re-establishing the language rule (another idealistic fantasy that won't happen, but that's just my opinion).

 

[Shadowfuxcs]

The jury voting is the one thing that needs to be rebranded. I'm not against the presence of juries per se cause the idea of them being there pushes countries to have quality acts. The problem is the actual decisions that the juries make and that they have ended up voting more strategically than the public.
I would suggest to dissolve the national juries and replace them with a single big jury body consisting of equal amount of representatives from each participating broadcaster. After appointing the jurors, the broadcaster should have no more interference and from that point on they are only in contact with the EBU and give the results from their homes without meeting or knowing who the other jurors are.
The results of each juror should come with a justification and not just "this is my favorite song!!!!11". One way to do it would be by having to rank each entry based on specified criteria (give 0-12 points for the composition, the stage presence, the vocals, originality of the sound, etc) with different categories holding different co-efficients of determining the final score of the entry according to what eurovision should be about (for instance the composition scores should hold more weight than the vocals). Each country ends up receiving an overall score and then the jury points are divided based how these scores were attributed. There can also be a mechanism for preventing bias by removing outlier scores that are way higher or lower than the average for the particular country.
So with this system if the Greek jurors would want to benefit Cyprus by giving high scores, then a) this wouldn't automatically translate to 12 easy points as the score can be brought down by the almost 200 other jurors and b) if they are favoring an entry too much they might have their scores cancelled as outliers.
The EBU should also have stricter rules about the profile of the jurors, at least 3-4 out of the 5 from each country should have proven musical knowledge and and a career within the music industry of the country that is appointing them.

As for the voting process we could have the televote results (anounced by country as usual) being the main part of the voting so that the televote winner can always have their moment. Then the jury results would come in and determine the final score.

Finally we need to have a rule stating that any participant be it singer, dancer, composer or stage director can only work for one country at a time. This way we can prevent cases of jurors exchanging points because their countries use the same songwritter.

 

[A-lister]

The jury voting is the one thing that needs to be rebranded. I'm not against the presence of juries per se cause the idea of them being there pushes countries to have quality acts. The problem is the actual decisions that the juries make and that they have ended up voting more strategically than the public.
I would suggest to dissolve the national juries and replace them with a single big jury body consisting of equal amount of representatives from each participating broadcaster. After appointing the jurors, the broadcaster should have no more interference and from that point on they are only in contact with the EBU and give the results from their homes without meeting or knowing who the other jurors are.
The results of each juror should come with a justification and not just "this is my favorite song!!!!11". One way to do it would be by having to rank each entry based on specified criteria (give 0-12 points for the composition, the stage presence, the vocals, originality of the sound, etc) with different categories holding different co-efficients of determining the final score of the entry according to what eurovision should be about (for instance the composition scores should hold more weight than the vocals). Each country ends up receiving an overall score and then the jury points are divided based how these scores were attributed. There can also be a mechanism for preventing bias by removing outlier scores that are way higher or lower than the average for the particular country.
So with this system if the Greek jurors would want to benefit Cyprus by giving high scores, then a) this wouldn't automatically translate to 12 easy points as the score can be brought down by the almost 200 other jurors and b) if they are favoring an entry too much they might have their scores cancelled as outliers.
The EBU should also have stricter rules about the profile of the jurors, at least 3-4 out of the 5 from each country should have proven musical knowledge and and a career within the music industry of the country that is appointing them.

As for the voting process we could have the televote results (anounced by country as usual) being the main part of the voting so that the televote winner can always have their moment. Then the jury results would come in and determine the final score.

Finally we need to have a rule stating that any participant be it singer, dancer, composer or stage director can only work for one country at a time. This way we can prevent cases of jurors exchanging points because their countries use the same songwritter.

Actually, you might be onto something.

I also like that the spokespersons would give out the televote rather than juryvote, as I really think the public should be more represented, although I think the announcing of public vote should still come after the jury vote regardless but these are just minor details.

But yeah, a reversed system (in a sense) grouping the juries together instead (but not just in the vote announcement but the actually voting as well) would be an interesting concept.

Also agree with the last point you made about who is involved in staging, like half of the year was basically MF (the same Swedish stage director, Swedish dancers etc.), but that also comes back to the point I made that acts should have to have a proven connection to the music market of the country they represent, I think this could also be apply to dancers, stage directors, backing vocalists etc. too, I mean don't we want to see local products instead of Swedish ones?

 

[randajad]

The jury voting is the one thing that needs to be rebranded. I'm not against the presence of juries per se cause the idea of them being there pushes countries to have quality acts. The problem is the actual decisions that the juries make and that they have ended up voting more strategically than the public.
I would suggest to dissolve the national juries and replace them with a single big jury body consisting of equal amount of representatives from each participating broadcaster. After appointing the jurors, the broadcaster should have no more interference and from that point on they are only in contact with the EBU and give the results from their homes without meeting or knowing who the other jurors are.
The results of each juror should come with a justification and not just "this is my favorite song!!!!11". One way to do it would be by having to rank each entry based on specified criteria (give 0-12 points for the composition, the stage presence, the vocals, originality of the sound, etc) with different categories holding different co-efficients of determining the final score of the entry according to what eurovision should be about (for instance the composition scores should hold more weight than the vocals). Each country ends up receiving an overall score and then the jury points are divided based how these scores were attributed. There can also be a mechanism for preventing bias by removing outlier scores that are way higher or lower than the average for the particular country.
So with this system if the Greek jurors would want to benefit Cyprus by giving high scores, then a) this wouldn't automatically translate to 12 easy points as the score can be brought down by the almost 200 other jurors and b) if they are favoring an entry too much they might have their scores cancelled as outliers.
The EBU should also have stricter rules about the profile of the jurors, at least 3-4 out of the 5 from each country should have proven musical knowledge and and a career within the music industry of the country that is appointing them.

As for the voting process we could have the televote results (anounced by country as usual) being the main part of the voting so that the televote winner can always have their moment. Then the jury results would come in and determine the final score.

Finally we need to have a rule stating that any participant be it singer, dancer, composer or stage director can only work for one country at a time. This way we can prevent cases of jurors exchanging points because their countries use the same songwritter.

Omg yes yes yes! The first part with one big jury body - I was thinking about the same thing, but I compared it to the Academy for the Oscars and had no concrete idea how to realise it, this could work really well.

Discuss!

These are my proposals:

• Increasing the maximum amount of people allowed on stage from 6 to 8 (or 10 even), I think it's a good compromise between only allowing live vocals and still make it possible for dancers to do their thing. Also, it's long overdue tbh, 6 has been a very low number for years now and is just and odd number in this time and age.
• Acts and songwriters/composers need to have a proven connection to the music market of the country they represent, no more shopping around for entries! The concept of Eurovision is entries representing their countries, I feel like we diverged from that. It doesn't mean that all songwriters/composers need to come from said country, but at least they need to be an active part of that music scene (past Eurovision entries don't count here!). I am fully aware that some music markets are integrated and that micro-states are 'de facto' part of their neighbors' markets, but a change of rule would take that into consideration while still protect the concept of entries actually representing their countries.
• Have it explicitly written into the rules of Eurovision that only recognized independent countries that are at least partially geographically within the European continent, or at least have a history of a minimum of 5 previous entries in the contest, can take part and scrap the idea of the dated European Broadcasting Area (that EBU don't even follow themselves). This would close the door to any risk of having countries like USA, China, Qatar, Morocco, Lebanon, Canada or others joining. It's not EUROvision if the world can join! Let's protect the brand and concept!
• Have the juries verbally give out 8-12 points (I know it would make the show longer, but don't we want more suspense? I know that we can't go back to the old days of giving out 1-12 when we have so many countries and also split the televoting results, but this could be a compromise that could still work).

With these I agree wholeheartedly and I would implement them without even thinking more.

There should be some way of regulating language rule or something, I would not bring it back completely (but I would not be that mad either).

And now the part where we have a completely different opinion, I would change the pre-recorded vocals rule (but not remove it completely), so they can stay for entries that cannot be replicated live (choir, voice effects and such as in Grab the Moment, chanting in Mata Hari, "Better Love" verse in Better Love etc.). However, just like the previous one, I would be ok if they go full live vocals.

 

[A-lister]

With these I agree wholeheartedly and I would implement them without even thinking more.

There should be some way of regulating language rule or something, I would not bring it back completely (but I would not be that mad either).

And now the part where we have a completely different opinion, I would change the pre-recorded vocals rule (but not remove it completely), so they can stay for entries that cannot be replicated live (choir, voice effects and such as in Grab the Moment, chanting in Mata Hari, "Better Love" verse in Better Love etc.). However, just like the previous one, I would be ok if they go full live vocals.

Great to see we're in agreement

I think a way to not directly introduce a forced language rule but at least encourage broadcasters to pick entries in local languages, could be to simply instruct juries that when judging an entry the use of native language should be weighted in somehow (of course the other factors such as the song and performance too), and this could be added with what I've proposed for a long time now that juries should pay "certain attention to if the entries represent their countries, it could be in style or language or both".

I hear you with the pre-backing vocals, and I think I agree. My issue with pre-backing vocals isn't the same as I think others have, I don't actually mind it, but in a competition it could be misused. I think a compromise could be to allow pre-recorded backing vocals for choirs and effects, but not for soloist singing (if a solo singer), they would have to fully sing live.

 

[Ezio]

Jury needs to be rebranded: no Eurovision alumni, no record label partners, no EBU or broadcaster affiliates, no composer affiliates, or any other acolyte whatsoever.

Just musical experts with close to zero connection or interest in Eurovision. Cooldown period post-Eurovision of at least 5 years or more for any producer, singer, composer, backup dancer or coffee cupbearer at Eurovision. Create and maintain a database with people around Europe, and EBU randomly invites jurors from each country, who have to sign an NDA. No juror know who else is in the panel, no interaction at all. Submission electronically and checked twice by Digame and PwC or EY

Really, I don't need flops like Nathan Trent or Paenda to judge what's interesting or good, or people who have Kirkorov on speed dial and ask him for Rubels in exchange for their votes.


Televoting needs a refurbishment as well: Early running order is just a nail in the coffin for any act:

Make voting easy. For free, with app vote, reactions and applause for example. Block diaspora from voting for their own country. It's against the rules anyways (You cannot vote for your own country). No landline voting, no Call Center voting, just the App.

 

[randajad]

Great to see we're in agreement


I think a way to not directly introduce a forced language rule but at least encourage broadcasters to pick entries in local languages, could be to simply instruct juries that when judging an entry the use of native language should be weighted in somehow (of course the other factors such as the song and performance too), and this could be added with what I've proposed for a long time now that juries should pay "certain attention to if the entries represent their countries, it could be in style or language or both".
I agree with this completely as well.

I hear you with the pre-backing vocals, and I think I agree. My issue with pre-backing vocals isn't the same as I think others have, I don't actually mind it, but in a competition it could be misused. I think a compromise could be to allow pre-recorded backing vocals for choirs and effects, but not for soloist singing (if a solo singer), they would have to fully sing live.

I agree with you actually a lot and quite often, but you can be intimidating sometimes. And regarding these vocals and language rules explanations I agree with them as well.

 

[Gitte]

Make voting easy. For free, with app vote, reactions and applause for example. Block diaspora from voting for their own country. It's against the rules anyways (You cannot vote for your own country). No landline voting, no Call Center voting, just the App.

That would basically remove the concept of the greyvote. Even many middle-aged people don't really have smartphones yet, or don't really know who to work with apps. This is quickly changing of course but not everyone has an app-able smartphone is what I want to say.

 

[A-lister]

Jury needs to be rebranded: no Eurovision alumni, no record label partners, no EBU or broadcaster affiliates, no composer affiliates, or any other acolyte whatsoever.

Just musical experts with close to zero connection or interest in Eurovision. Cooldown period post-Eurovision of at least 5 years or more for any producer, singer, composer, backup dancer or coffee cupbearer at Eurovision. Create and maintain a database with people around Europe, and EBU randomly invites jurors from each country, who have to sign an NDA. No juror know who else is in the panel, no interaction at all. Submission electronically and checked twice by Digame and PwC or EY

Really, I don't need flops like Nathan Trent or Paenda to judge what's interesting or good, or people who have Kirkorov on speed dial and ask him for Rubels in exchange for their votes.


Televoting needs a refurbishment as well: Early running order is just a nail in the coffin for any act:

Make voting easy. For free, with app vote, reactions and applause for example. Block diaspora from voting for their own country. It's against the rules anyways (You cannot vote for your own country). No landline voting, no Call Center voting, just the App.

I agree with what you say about juries, but not about voting.

In fact, free and app voting would increase diaspora voting alot, and also it would block some voting groups as well...

 

[A-lister]

I agree with you actually a lot and quite often, but you can be intimidating sometimes. And regarding these vocals and language rules explanations I agree with them as well.

Haha intimidating, well maybe, not on purpose though

But always nice to agree with people

 

[anto475]

Let's see

• No more pre-recorded vocals. Tbh it didn't really make sense this year as many countries sent 6 people to perform so there's no need for it. This is the Eurovision, not Melodifestivalen or the MTV Awards.
• More people on stage, maybe 8 or 10. Keep the number of vocalists at 6, while the extra people can be dancers or fire breathers or whatever
• A fusion running order. Draw the running order randomly and then, if there's a case where two or more songs of a similar tempo/genre are drawn together, move them around.
• Juries should vote according to criteria. In an ideal world, everyone should, but there's no logistical way of policing everyone's living rooms. Juries should have a set list of criteria (lyrics, melody, staging, listenability, etc) and judge on that. Also picking up on something people have been saying here, I don't think the televote should be presented before the juries or by the national spokespeople. It would be much nicer but you have to remember that the reason for the current system is because it takes longer to count the televotes, something that is done while the spokespeople are presenting the jury votes.
• Juries should also only be filled with music industry professionals, not just former eurostars (unless they also happen to be music industry professionals).
• A ban on on-screen overlays and anything that can't be seen in the arena. Five Albinas dancing just looks tacky, as does a storm swirling around Victor Crone. I know that only a tiny number of people actually see the live shows in comparison to the hundreds of millions that watch the show every year, but it's not fair to them to pay however much to go to see it and end up missing out on what's going on. Plus it's inauthentic and lazy, it shows a lack of faith in the song itself. On top of that, no green screen. "Last Dance" is a strong song, I don't know why it needed that cheap gimmick.
• Spokespeople to present 8 and 10 points again. I know it eats up a bit of time but the jury votes are already calculated and no one really cares about the interval acts anyway.
• A ban on songwriters representing more than one country. If the same artist can't (and shouldn't) represent more than one country, neither should the same artist. Sorry Sharon Vaughn. Actually extend that ban to stage directors (SJB) too.
• The production and direction team must, in as far as possible, come from the host country. This can't be a Swedish-lead production every year, and 2021 was a refreshing break from it.
• No MGP/Melfest-style voting app where you can see the votes live on screen or hear the audience cheering more. It's not fair for obvious reasons.
• Also this isn't really important but it's just something I'd like myself, a ban on Mans Zelmerlow from appearing for more than a fraction of a nanosecond in any show he is not taking part in as a competitor. Enough. Society has progressed past the need for Mans Zelmerlow (and we did that in 2007 when he came out with Cara Mia).
• Finally, the full set of rules should be posted on eurovision.tv, not an edited version of them

 

[anto475]

Also sorry, three more rules.

• The rules must be strictly adhered to and not bent and flexed willy nilly, as happened under Jon Ola Sand.
• There should be absolutely no one representing more than one country, not even backing singers. Apparently there were quite a few people singing backing vocals for different countries in 2016. Unacceptable.
• I forget the third one but I'll come back with it when I remember

 

[Realest]

Theres no Need to change anything. The EBU knows pretty well how Things work.

 

[John1]

One of the Big 5 members should be randomly drawn to perform in a semi final, so that they would experience what it takes to be under the pressure of not making it to the grand final.

 

[Gitte]

One of the Big 5 members should be randomly drawn to perform in a semi final, so that they would experience what it takes to be under the pressure of not making it to the grand final.

Ooooh that would be spicy.


A random draw would make it possible that it's always or often the same country with lots of bad luck though, and I doubt they would like it.

 

[Laepo1]

Abolishment of pre-recorded backing vocals.

Increasing the maximum amount of people allowed on stage from 6 to 8 (or 10 even), I think it's a good compromise between only allowing live vocals and still make it possible for dancers to do their thing. Also, it's long overdue tbh, 6 has been a very low number for years now and is just and odd number in this time and age.

agreed. but to 8. 10 would be too much

• Have the juries verbally give out 8-12 points (I know it would make the show longer, but don't we want more suspense? I know that we can't go back to the old days of giving out 1-12 when we have so many countries and also split the televoting results, but this could be a compromise that could still work).
• Re-establishing the language rule (another idealistic fantasy that won't happen, but that's just my opinion).

No to both. Can you imagine Carola giving 8-12 points? It already took her one hour of self praise with just the 12p. Like it is now keeps it moving and avoids boredom.

and the same problem as before would happen with the language rule, countries with more than one official language would have an advantage. and don't forget that two of the last four winner were not in english, specially this year we had only one english song in the top5. removing that rule was one of the best decisions, it should be up to the countries/national selectors to decide about the language.

Acts and songwriters/composers need to have a proven connection to the music market of the country they represent, no more shopping around for entries! The concept of Eurovision is entries representing their countries, I feel like we diverged from that. It doesn't mean that all songwriters/composers need to come from said country, but at least they need to be an active part of that music scene (past Eurovision entries don't count here!). I am fully aware that some music markets are integrated and that micro-states are 'de facto' part of their neighbors' markets, but a change of rule would take that into consideration while still protect the concept of entries actually representing their countries.

We didnt "diverge" from it. It always happened. Without checking I can think of at least 5 winners from the 70s-80s that won representing countries to which they had no attachment. Plus a few other entries in the 90s and 00s. If a country chooses to be represented by a songwriter/singer from another country, that's their problem.

 

[John1]

Ooooh that would be spicy.


A random draw would make it possible that it's always or often the same country with lots of bad luck though, and I doubt they would like it.

They could take the country "out of the ballot" once they experienced it, right?

 

[Chiarina]

I agree about the no pre-recorded vocals.
I think the juries should stay but I think they should have more jury members, maybe 10 instead of just 5.

 

[A-lister]

We didnt "diverge" from it. It always happened. Without checking I can think of at least 5 winners from the 70s-80s that won representing countries to which they had no attachment. Plus a few other entries in the 90s and 00s. If a country chooses to be represented by a songwriter/singer from another country, that's their problem.

It happened before, but not to extent it's doing now and it became pretty much industrialized and I think it truly takes away from the concept of the contest.

 

[Laepo1]

It happened before, but not to extent it's doing now and it became pretty much industrialized and I think it truly takes away from the concept of the contest.

It has happened way more in the past than nowadays. I don't see the problem with that. Music is an industry