I think the popular argument in the fandom is that juries need to have less of an impact on the contest overall, not to completely get rid of themYeah I don’t know why people are complaining about having juries - they’d be e same people complaining the U.K. got nothing, or that Israel came a close second. I think having the balance works.
Poland would possibly come second here. UK people here as well so they could reasonably come 3rd/4th.Yeah lots of Brits have recent Irish ancestry which influences them. Didn’t realise there was a big Lithuanian community in Ireland. Surprising Poland doesn’t do better here in the U.K. given we have a large Polish immigrant community, especially where I am.
I assume (possibly wrongly) that the EBU has a checklist for the juries, so they'd be judged on various aspects, staging, vocals etc.I think the popular argument in the fandom is that juries need to have less of an impact on the contest overall, not to completely get rid of them
Basically whatever they do people are going to complain. Except in the year their country and/or favourite song does well and wins, then it’s not rigged and the system worked perfectly, but the next year when that doesn’t happen - rigged again!Yeah I don’t know why people are complaining about having juries - they’d be e same people complaining the U.K. got nothing, or that Israel came a close second. I think having the balance works.
Also, I really wish the U.K. producers or whoever chooses our song, stops thinking about what makes a ‘Eurovision’ song, and just pick a good song! It’s so obvious someone thought ‘Eurovision camp = raunchy men = success and it’s not true at all. Spain fell into the same trap. People just got good songs, sung well with a good staging. It’s not hard.
When they send decent songs Poland & Lithuania tend to do well with the UK televote.Poland would possibly come second here. UK people here as well so they could reasonably come 3rd/4th.
Curious, but why is that considered an improvement? I think the standard of music drops when it becomes a popularity contest for the public vote, personally. As a long time watcher of Eurovision, the quality of acts have vastly improved since the reintroduction of the jury vote!!I think the popular argument in the fandom is that juries need to have less of an impact on the contest overall, not to completely get rid of them
*Frowns*I see Ireland as just an extension of us
I think the argument is often that the jury vote favours entries that often aren't the crowd-pleasers. Portugal, in recent years, tends to send really serious acts, quite boring, tbh and the get relatively good scores, bit often only because of the jury vote.Curious, but why is that considered an improvement? I think the standard of music drops when it becomes a popularity contest for the public vote, personally. As a long time watcher of Eurovision, the quality of acts have vastly improved since the reintroduction of the jury vote!!
lol say Nathun,*Frowns*
I also like the fact the juries have to RANK the songs. It makes it way more interesting and balanced. As we could see from the televote last night- so many acts with points under 20, then huge numbers for the favourites. It’s actually super hard to get televote points unless there’s a political agenda, or you REALLY stand out. The best performances don’t necessarily get rewarded but rather the crowd pleasers/things that really grab your attention. I personally love ballads so I’m glad the juries rewarded deserving countries like Portugal. I realised last night that whilst the quality of all the performances were faB IMO, none of them made me want to make the effort of going on the app and vote. 26 songs is a lot to get through in one night and they all can just blur into one.I assume (possibly wrongly) that the EBU has a checklist for the juries, so they'd be judged on various aspects, staging, vocals etc.
I'm thinking of writing a song 'as Gaeilge' and entering next year.lol say Nathun,
I think @CovergirlD s post has hit the nail on the head about this. The juries rank so while the crowd pleasers might be in the mix there are rarely 12 crowd pleasers so other songs like Portugal’s that are good get a chance to shine. Whereas most people who vote probably spend all 20 votes on one or maybe two songs (be it crowd pleasers, neighbours, political or just their personal fave) so it massively skews it plus running order bias plays a part more for the vote than the juries.I think the argument is often that the jury vote favours entries that often aren't the crowd-pleasers. Portugal, in recent years, tends to send really serious acts, quite boring, tbh and the get relatively good scores, bit often only because of the jury vote.
Because the public vote and the jury vote often don’t match up all that well, but there’s also a recognition that some songs are appreciated by the jury more than they are by the public (Portugal being a great example this year)Curious, but why is that considered an improvement? I think the standard of music drops when it becomes a popularity contest for the public vote, personally. As a long time watcher of Eurovision, the quality of acts have vastly improved since the reintroduction of the jury vote!!
Ah but the 2000s wee full of boring ballads that did well with the public - mainly because they were sung by a pretty girl in a tight dress. At least now the boring a songs are few and far between, and at the very least technically good.I think the argument is often that the jury vote favours entries that often aren't the crowd-pleasers. Portugal, in recent years, tends to send really serious acts, quite boring, tbh and the get relatively good scores, bit often only because of the jury vote.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?