Eurovision Song Contest 2024 #4

1 Sort by date Sort by reaction score 2
The best songs are ones that don't have an agenda, and are just pure talent, like Sam Ryder. Olly put his ego into that performance unfortunately, it was all about him, he didn't think how it would be responded to by the rest of europe

Ps. Never drinking again 🥴 been up to be sick so many times, I may as well live in the bathroom at this point
 
Gym&Tonic said:
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.
Click to expand...
Poland would possibly come second here. UK people here as well so they could reasonably come 3rd/4th.
 
I will always be team Juries. I also think neighbourly voting is annoying but tbh when I look at us and Ireland I get why it happens so much in other countries. I see Ireland as just an extension of us, and would always want them to do well. Or when Jedward represented them- of course we gave them 12 points - we knew them. Other countries have artists that are also famous amongst the entire region or they share similar languages (like the balkans). It is what it is but it means the UK can’t get away with being crap/mediocre like some others can and still get points. If Serbia sends crap- Slovenia & Croatia will always be there to give them something etc etc.
until next year… I am proud of the UK and even if the entire package didn’t come off as intended, the staging was incredible and silly seems like a sweetheart.
 
Merpedy said:
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
Click to expand...
I assume (possibly wrongly) that the EBU has a checklist for the juries, so they'd be judged on various aspects, staging, vocals etc.
 
TheArtisticMouse said:
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.
Click to expand...

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!

I think the way it is now is a good balance. It’s never going to be perfect because humans are involved so it will never truly be all about the music but then it never has been. Like it or not, all the neighbour voting, political voting, juries disagreeing with the public etc are just part of Eurovision and have been for decades.
 
Merpedy said:
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
Click to expand...
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!!
 
TheArtisticMouse said:
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!!
Click to expand...

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.
 
Mrs Fluff said:
I assume (possibly wrongly) that the EBU has a checklist for the juries, so they'd be judged on various aspects, staging, vocals etc.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Codiaeum said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

The jury is a great counterbalance to the public vote IMO.
 
Having watched that YT vid that was posted after my comment regarding our entry looking too music videoy....

Why don't the EBU put a 'raw' feed so the audience can see what the venue audience sees - the set changes etc.

That would pull a tit tonne of viewers - some would say it would be much better than the official polished TV production.

I'd be all over the 'raw' footage rather than the polished TV production.
 
TheArtisticMouse said:
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!!
Click to expand...
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)

Also comes back to juries mostly favouring radio friendly songs which is a shame

I’ve seen the suggestion to diversify the jury to include people that are from different genres and experiences to see if that makes a change too
---
Though I fully suspect that some of those Portugal votes from the jury were political as she has been one of the few artists that have been outspoken about Israel/Palestine situation but not in the obnoxious type of way 🤐🤐
 
Codiaeum said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top