okay, my personal thoughts on the jury vote/televote drama (as unbiased as possible):
i understand people’s disappointment when their favourite doesn’t win. i also understand how that disappointment can turn into frustration when it turns out that was the most popular entry with the general public, yet it didn’t result in victory.
for me, the presence of juries in the contest is non-negotiable. i think they help to recognise aspects of the songs that very often get overlooked by the viewing public - composition and vocal ability being the two most important. i think of estonia from this year, a song and performance that most definitely deserved the love they got from the juries to push them up the scoreboard. i think of albania 2018, switzerland 2021, portugal 2022 - all entries that deserved to be recognised, and were not given that by the televote.
all of that is not to say the jury is faultless. i agree with most, that the criteria the jury is told to judge upon should be modified/expanded. i think they should drop the focus on commercially successful songs to help level the playing field for songs in languages other than english (or popular languages like italian or spanish). they should also include people from more diverse musical backgrounds to appreciate alternative forms of music like rock, jazz, folk and music with ethnic elements etc. they could also make the juries larger (i think just doubling the size to 10 people would already make such a huge difference).
i think the biggest change the EBU needs to make regarding the juries is to be much more transparent. the general public has no idea why the juries exist, or what they are even judging on. each show the presenters should explain the criteria the juries judge on. because i’ve seen so many comments on social media over the past 12 hours which seem to fundamentally miss the fact that the juries judge based on criteria which is given to them by the EBU. they do not simply sit down and make a ranking of their favourite to least favourite.
the big point for me is that the jury vote is NOT supposed to be representative of the public vote. there would literally be no point to it if it were. therefore the jury having different scores, and ultimately a different winner than the televote, does not in itself mean that there is a problem with the juries. if you ask me, it means that the juries are doing exactly what they are supposed to do. they recognised the song which best fit the criteria they were asked to judge upon… tattoo.
and i would also add that tattoo was immensely popular with the public as well, it came second in the televote. and the juries placed televote winner cha cha cha in fourth position. so the argument that the juries are out of touch with the european public (at least when it comes to the top spots) just doesn’t add up.
since the juries were reintroduced in 2009 we’ve had 4 types of victories
• where the televote and jury vote agree on a winner (2009, 2010, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2017)
• where the televote winner has won overall despite not winning the jury vote (2011, 2018, 2021, 2022)
• where the jury vote winner has won overall despite not winning the televote (2015, 2023)
• where the winning song has won neither the jury vote nor the televote (2016, 2019)
so, in the 14 contests with the 50/50 jury televote system, only twice has the jury overridden the televote to decide the winner. the televote has overridden the jury vote double as much. in fact, the majority of times (8 times, if you include the 4th category since on both those occasions the winner came 2nd with both televote and jury vote) both have agreed on the winner. overall, the televote has gotten their winner to win the overall contest 10 times out of the 14 contests since the reintroduction of the jury.
therefore i find the conclusion that the jury is tainting the results of the contests’ winners not based in reality.
now, all of that is simply the opinion of one girl who likes eurovision. you can take it or leave it. i don’t think this will change anyone’s mind if they are dead set on the juries needing to perish in hell fire to atone for their sins against euro pop music. but more so i wanted to explain my reasoning behind still valuing the juries as an important part of the contest.
and, two last very important notes:
• käärijä not winning the contest doesn’t mean that he’s lost. it doesn’t mean that you can’t go back and watch his performance a thousand times and revel in the joy it gives you. it will always be there. music is subjective, just because a certain song wins a certain contest doesn’t mean it’s necessarily the best. he has thousands more fans now and you can always support his future career.
• being disappointed with the results of the contest however does not give you the right to send abusive messages and hate towards other contestants. käärijä himself said after the final yesterday that he cannot complain about the rules and he was happy for loreen. this is the same guy who was so distraught when he received one hate comment that he deleted all his accounts on social media. he wouldn’t want anyone to be doing the same towards his fellow artists. the contest was about being united through music, and sending hate won’t change the results, and it won’t make you feel better either.
turnnoffyourmind
vaporwave
dailybridgerton
origamiaround
romaincrisis
gummygunk
