EBU In Discussion On Jury System For Eurovision 2024 After Controversial 2023 Result

[darkgaga 3,249]

People are still bummed a hugh quality song and performance which came 1st with juries and 2nd with televote won over a fun song that came 2nd and 4th?

[bionic 43,865]

12 minutes ago, darkgaga said:

People are still bummed a hugh quality song and performance which came 1st with juries and 2nd with televote won over a fun song that came 2nd and 4th?

is that illegal?

[Guillaume Hamon 6,027]

Public may vote for more wtf songs but juries often vote for more basic songs...

The juries favorites often sounds like a Demi track so not saying it's bad but it's forgettable vocally demonstrative ballads.

 

[Juanlittlem 42,000]

20 minutes ago, Guillaume Hamon said:

it's forgettable vocally demonstrative ballads.

So Tattoo, Israel (top 2 this year), Finland (4th place), Australia (6th place), Belgium (7th), Austria (8th) and Czechia (10th) are ballads? 

 

[darkgaga 3,249]

3 hours ago, bionic said:

is that illegal?

Well people could just admit Loreen won, without putting her down

[Schwerk 7,019]

To me this years outcome actually demonstrated the vote system works. Sure the judges are not always the most professional, but they so seem to be less distracted and focus more on the actual song and quality of the performance.

[Guillaume Hamon 6,027]

9 hours ago, Juanlittlem said:

So Tattoo, Israel (top 2 this year), Finland (4th place), Australia (6th place), Belgium (7th), Austria (8th) and Czechia (10th) are ballads? 

 

I say in general. Of course it's not ONLY ballads getting love from the juries each year.

[Bronco 6,883]

20 hours ago, MonSwiftAnton said:

And to have winners the test of time. With the jury mostly is there to ensure the quality of the songs and the performance the winning songs can actually do that.

Otherwise this will become an even more ridiculous competitions where only gimmicks and stupidity will win.

I mean how many winners stand the test of time outside of actual eurovision fans excluding Abba? 

How many people remember who actually beat Verka Seducha for example? 

Looking at the streaming numbers after this year's contest if anything I'd say the Jury voting hurts acts by encouraging people to throw their support behind one major candidate to try and offset the Jury vote. Like if you look at the spotify top 10 for Eurovision it includes Austria, UK, Slovenia & France. All of whom got ****ed in the voting 

[Juanlittlem 42,000]

25 minutes ago, Bronco said:

I'd say the Jury voting hurts acts by encouraging people to throw their support behind one major candidate to try and offset the Jury vote.

I think this mostly happened this year with Finland, everyone knew Loreen would do better with juries so they had to win televote for it to have a chance so lots of countries that deserved better got screwed.

[OMF 3,152]

Eurovision has been trying for decades and every time they change things, something else goes wrong. 

[BBhomemaker 5,611]

Yall its the Eurovision not America's got talent.. we are not searching for the next Jennifer Hudson or a hit machine, we look at it for the fun, for the ridiculous acts, for the extravagance, for the "is it gay or european?" for the wtf, to shade our neighbours and have a good time. If the public voted Chacha, then Chacha it is. The jury should count as 25% or less of the results

[Guillaume Hamon 6,027]

1 hour ago, BBhomemaker said:

Yall its the Eurovision not America's got talent.. we are not searching for the next Jennifer Hudson or a hit machine, we look at it for the fun, for the ridiculous acts, for the extravagance, for the "is it gay or european?" for the wtf, to shade our neighbours and have a good time. If the public voted Chacha, then Chacha it is. The jury should count as 25% or less of the results

I think the juries should be gone. There are enough awards given by academies of music pros already and the public-voted prices often target a very young audience only suggesting teen idols in their categories like the NMA awards etc.

This one has the specificity of interesting all ages while inviting us to vote so it should be a full on contest for the most popular song/ performance and own it imo.

[BBhomemaker 5,611]

22 hours ago, MonSwiftAnton said:

And to have winners the test of time. With the jury mostly is there to ensure the quality of the songs and the performance the winning songs can actually do that.

Otherwise this will become an even more ridiculous competitions where only gimmicks and stupidity will win.

The test of time ? Moldova came 22 out of 25 in 2010... tell me who doesnt have childhood flashback with those notes. They dont look classy, they are not tailored for charts, they are extra af, yet this sax won everyone.

Thats what eurovision is about, its so extra that it become so good. How boring it would be if we were all sending some Adeles and Shawn mended wannabes

[darkgaga 3,249]

I really don’t agree Eurovision should just be about all weird acts. We woulndt have had Euphoria, Arcade, Tattoo, Rise like Phoenix, Only teardrops, the winners of Portugal and Urkaine 2016, even thought I didnt like them

[Bronco 6,883]

9 hours ago, darkgaga said:

I really don’t agree Eurovision should just be about all weird acts. We woulndt have had Euphoria, Arcade, Tattoo, Rise like Phoenix, Only teardrops, the winners of Portugal and Urkaine 2016, even thought I didnt like them

Allmost all of these won the fan vote though, so non-weird acts do do well at Eurovision without the juries. Only Arcade, Tattoo & 1944 didn't top the Televote (1944 also didn't top the Jury vote).