#sister sweden | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

beauty-and-passion · 2 years ago

Text

Eurovision and the jury’s problem (but mostly the jury’s problem)

Ah, the Eurovision national juries. I love them so much. My love is so big that, since I started this tradition of writing a post about Eurovision, I’ve always included one paragraph to openly express my love for them and, not surprisingly, my love took the shape of FUCK YOU JURY.

So this year gave me the final push to do more research and finally give them the post they deserve, in which I will finally explain why they do more harm than good and are generally useless.

If that’s what you wanted to know, you can close the post now, thank you for your time. But if you want to know why I think the jury is useless, then allow me to expand more and properly explain myself.

_______________________

The jury has always been part of the show!

Yes, but now always with the same power.

Let’s do a bit of history: Eurovision started in the 50s, right after the end of WW2. TV was starting to grow stronger and with the birth of the EBU, they were searching for a TV program that could’ve involved and united all nations.

And so, an Italian journalist said: “Hey, here in Italy we have this sick song competition called Sanremo. We can make something similar, but every European country should send an artist.”. Marcel Bezençon, general manager of the EBU at the time, liked the idea and, after a few meetings, it was decided to make this music competition that will become Eurovision.

So yes, this is how Eurovision started. It’s because of Sanremo. It’s because of Italy. My country might do stupid shit, but we are still able to do something good once in a while.

The first edition counted 7 countries: Belgium, France, West Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, The Netherlands and Switzerland. Four of them will become the “Big Five”, because they are the ones that put more money into this competition. Other countries will slowly join in.

The jury was first introduced because, well, there was no possible way to call every single person who was watching the show. The TV was still in its infancy, let alone the global communications, so of course there was a jury. IT was the only way.

However, over time the televoting system was born and it started to improve. In 1997 five countries used it for the first time and from the year after all countries could use it. The jury was left in the back and used only under exceptional circumstances when televoting was not possible.

This lasted from 1997 to 2009. Then from 2010 it started the 50/50 system.

So yes, the jury has always been part of the show. But at first it was present because it was the only way to choose a winner, then it was pushed in the back, only to regain more power in the last 10 years.

But hey, you may ask: since Eurovision has been inspired by Sanremo, maybe this is how Sanremo voting system works too, right?

Nope. We are Italians, so we should make the most complicated voting system ever. Sanremo is currently articulated in five evenings and every evening has different juries and different ways to vote. I won’t go into too much detail because it’s bonkers, but I can tell you that:

1) There are multiple juries: the public, a jury made of 150 accredited representatives and the opinion poll jury. This one in particular is a group of people chosen by the national public broadcasting company RAI (which broadcasts Sanremo) out of a sample of habitual music users and selected according to criteria of age/geographical origin.

So no, the system is completely different and yes, this system is evolving too, because the opinion poll jury counted 1000 people last year, this year only 300 and who knows how many there will be in the future.

2) The final result is the sum of all three votes: 33% of the final voting is made of the representative’s jury, 33% of the opinion poll jury and 34% of the televoting. So even if by just one measly point, the televoting is the most important one out of the three.

Is this system perfect? No, it doesn’t work either and it’s fucking complicated. But at least it acknowledges that the public deserves to have more power than the juries. And there is also more than one jury, which at least allows a wider vision of things.

_______________________

The jury is here because it brings more variety!

Aww, how adorable.

I specifically searched for every single winning song from 1997 to 2023, thus including both the years without jury (1997-2008) and the ones with jury (2009-2023). I checked which is the musical genre of every winning song.

Do you want to know which genre won the most? Pop.

Do you want to know how many times a pop song won in the years without jury (including europop and latin-pop)? 9 times.

Do you want to know how many times a pop song won in the years with jury (including folk-pop, dance-pop and electro-pop)? 10 times.

Please, tell me more about the variety the jury brings. Can’t wait to hear it.

_______________________

The jury is here because it brings variety 2: Englishvision

Europe: a country with a shit ton of languages and we use always the same one for singing.

Do you want to know how many times we had a winning song that wasn’t in English from 1997 to 2023? 7 times and in two of them there were English parts.

The first three winners come from the years without jury (Dana International - "Diva", Ruslana - "Wild Dances", Marija Šerifović - "Molitva"). The others come from the years with jury and my god we had to fight tooth and nail to have them:

Jamala - "1944"

Salvador Sobral - "Amar Pelos Dois"

Måneskin - "Zitti e buoni"

Kalush Orchestra - "Stefania"

Those are people’s winners. Well, except for Jamala who no one wanted as a winner, because the public wanted Russia and the jury Australia. However, let’s leave it in for now: it’s a particular case I want to talk about later.

What I want to let you know is that, in order to have these winners, the public had to do a massive collective effort to give them enough points to overcome the jury - especially the last two. And if you know them, it’s because they are in the top 10 list of the public’s favorites.

But what if I tell you we could’ve had two more songs in their native languages on this list?

In 2015 the public’s favourite was Italy with Il Volo. An Italian song, genre classical music. It lost against Sweden’s pop song.

In 2023 the public’s massive favourite was, as you know, Finland. A Finnish song, genre hyperpop/industrial metal. It lost against Sweden’s pop song.

What a strange coincidence, isn’t it? Both times a song in a native language lost against an English pop song. Both times, the public’s favourite lost because the jury’s favourite won. Both times it was against Sweden.

Please, tell me again about the fairness of this system and how much variety it brings.

________________________

The jury is here because the eastern countries all vote for their neighbors!

Just because the western countries all hate each other’s neighbours, it’s not a valid reason to blame the eastern ones for that.

Also, hey, wasn’t that a music competition? Why should we even care about which country the winning song comes from? Shouldn’t the jury think just about the music? Please tell me more about the impartiality of the jury.

Another thing: maybe it’s just me, but I supposed everyone studied math or had a basic knowledge of how many countries are in Europe. Well, I did both for you and if we divide Europe in half, we will have more o less 21 countries on the west and 26 countries on the east (I am including Australia in the west).

In my world, 26 is a bigger number than 21. So if the east slightly wins more times than the west is, well, understandable. The probability for them to win is higher, because there are more artists from those countries and so they have more chances to bring the winning song. I don’t think it’s so difficult to understand.

Maybe the reason why the western countries win less is not because “the easterns votes for their neighbours”, but because the westerns do not take the competition seriously and send shitty songs. Why Italy rarely gets a bad position? Because we care about music and we want to send something good. Why the UK fails a lot of times? Because they don’t care enough to send a good song. They are both Big Fives and they both put money on this show: the only difference is that one cares a bit more than the other. So instead of blaming the east, maybe it’s time to start bringing more decent songs.

And this “the east wins more” is even more stupider, if you look at the countries with the highest number of victories: Ireland, Sweden, the Netherlands, the UK, Luxembourg and France.

In my world, those countries are all in the west. I know we all hate each other, but knowing when our rivals are on a map would be a good start.

Do you want to know why this stupid theory exists? It’s all because of the years without jury. It’s because in the years 2001-2008 we had this series of winners:

Estonia

Latvia

Turkey

Ukraine

Greece

Finland

Serbia

Russia

Since they are all in the east, they thought these countries were all voting for each other’s. That’s it.

I don’t know how they justified Ireland winning 3 times in a row (1992-1994) in their minds but hey, maybe that’s why I’m not a member of the EBU.

_________________________

The jury doesn’t have a favourite!

Very cute.

Do you want to know which are the countries with the most victories in the years 1997-2023? Here is a very funny list:

Israel: 2 times

1998 (no jury year) with Dana International - "Diva" (public’s favourite)

2018 (jury year) with Netta - "Toy" (public’s favourite)

Denmark: 2 times

2000 (no jury year) with Olsen Brothers - "Fly On The Wings Of Love" (public’s favourite)

2013 (jury year) with Emmelie de Forest - "Only Teardrops" (public’s favourite)

Ukraine: 3 times

2004 (no jury year) with Ruslana - "Wild Dances" (public’s favourite)

2016 (jury year) with Jamala - "1944" (not public’s favourite, but highly appreciated by the public)

2022 (jury year) with Kalush Orchestra - "Stefania" (public’s favourite)

Sweden: 4 times

1999 (no jury year) with Charlotte Nilsson - "Take Me To Your Heaven" (public’s favourite)

2012 (jury year) with Loreen - "Euphoria" (public’s favourite)

2015 (jury year) with Måns Zelmerlöw - "Heroes" (jury’s favourite)

2023 (jury year) with Loreen - "Tattoo" (jury’s favourite)

I don’t know you, but I notice two victories that made the public unhappy because both times the jury’s power overcame the public’s power. How weird it happened for the same country that won three times since the 50/50 system has been introduced.

Sure, the first victory was wanted by the public, but the other two were against the public’s will. And please allow me to repeat it again because this is what upsets me the most: both times an English pop song won instead of a song in a native language with a different musical genre.

And what makes these two victories even more undeserved, is that in general the winner has always been the public’s favourite. In 27 years the public’s favourite won 23 times and two times it was a public’s appreciated artist (Jamala, Duncan Lawrence).

The only two times public’s favourite didn’t win, it was a Swedish artist with a massive push from the jury that made it impossible to defeat it.

But hey, maybe this point is a bit unfair. After all, it’s not Sweden’s fault if they learned what the jury likes and keep sending the same kind of song to get their votes. Maybe I am just jealous: I mean, my country basically invented Eurovision and yet we’re not able to exploit this show to win all the times? Gosh, we’re useless :P

The problem is not Sweden’s cleverness. The problem is that the jury always uses the same criteria, so one country has been able to recognize and exploit them. In a democratic world with a fair competition, the organizers of said competition would say: “okay, maybe we should change the criteria all the time, so no one would be able to use them and the jury will remain impartial”. But I suppose this was a too difficult choice for the EBU.

Or maybe they just own Sweden some money, who knows. I really have no idea.

_____________________

The jury is here because otherwise people’s votes would be political!

Oh, so hilarious.

This is the list of the winning entries by jury and by the public:

Until the recent years, public and jury agreeded on the winner and when the public chose a winner, it was jury’s second choice. So if the public’s votes were political back then, the jury’s votes were political as well.

Only in the last editions jury and public started to truly diverge and unless I missed something, Israel just had a catchy song, Italy’s victory had nothing political behind, Ukraine’s victory was a massive collective justifiable effort to say “fuck you” to Russia and people just like Finland’s song more. So, again, nothing political behind.

However, there are also two very interesting cases, the only ones in which the winner was a country no one chose as favorite:

2016: public’s favourite: Russia - jury’s favourite: Australia. Winner: Ukraine

2019: public’s favourite: Norway - jury’s favourite: North Macedonia. Winner: the Netherlands

Do you want to know why the jury’s favourite of 2016 is Australia? I don’t know. What I know is that Australia joined Eurovision in 2015 and it was supposed to be just a one time thing, so they were automatically qualified for the finals. But in 2016 they joined like everyone else and had to make through the semifinals and... well, it wouldn’t be nice to send back home a country that just joined. I am not saying these two things are related, but it’s a bit of a weird coincidence, isn’t it?

Do you want to know why the jury’s favourite of 2019 is North Macedonia? I don’t know. What I know is that on June 2018 the country changed its name to the Republic of North Macedonia. And, you know, it’s nice to hear it more times, just to leave an impression on people’s minds. Again: I am not saying these two things are related, but it’s a bit of a weird coincidence, isn’t it?

Okay, let’s leave the tinfoil hat theories on the side. Do you really want to know where the “the public’s vote is too political” thing comes from? It comes from Jamala winning in 2016. Because Russia has already started with their bullshit in Crimea and Jamala’s song (despite not specifically talking about that invasion) was a reminder of that situation. And so everyone blamed the public for this victory and said that “the public was influenced by the actual political situation”. All while Jamala was second favorite of both the public AND the jury. So, again, if the public was biased, the jury is biased as well.

Actually, in her case the jury is a lot more biased than the public, because the public’s favorite was Russia! So, well, who is the political one now?

The truth is that the public is made of people and of course people will be influenced by the situation in which they live. But same goes for the jury: the jury is also influenced by the current situations, both Eurovision-related and world-related. So it’s totally unfair to blame the public for having a heart and a mind and for their will to choose a song over the other - especially when they are not influenced by the world situation (like in 2016) or when they are as it happened in 2022.

And, honestly, I’d much rather prefer people choosing a winner because of a fucking war, than a bunch of people choosing their winner for reasons that will benefit them only.

______________________

The jury is made of experts and they give their expert opinion!

Awesome. Now explain to me how can you objectively choose the best song between a pop one, a folk one, a metal one and a rock one. Tell me which universal criteria will you apply.

Voice? But each genre requires a different kind of voice. An opera singer has a powerful voice, but growl music requires a powerful voice as well - heck, it’s even more complicated than opera, so it should be more praised than that! I mean, try growling without sounding like an idiot: it’s immensely hard. How can you decide which is better in an objective way? Do you just focus on which is more difficult to perform? But then it’s unfair to the pop singers, who also have good beautiful voices. How can you objectively choose the best?

Performance? But every genre requires a specific kind of performance. You can’t put an energetic performance on a ballad or slow dancers on a rock song. If two performance are equally beautifully ftting for their music genre, how can you decide which is objectively better?

Lyrics? But not everyone knows the lyrics of all songs and some lyrics might have multiple meanings or refer to particular aspects of the country’s culture, so you might not understand how beautiful they are. How can you choice which one is better, without knowing all these details?

Overall impression of the song? That’s not even an objective criteria, try harder.

The truth is that you CANNOT choose between different songs and different genres in a universally objective way. You will always be influenced by your own preferences and musical tastes.

Do you want to know how these criteria could’ve worked? If everyone brought the same song. Then okay, you can objectively make your choice: after all, we are talking about one genre and one song. In all other cases, this criteria makes zero sense.

And before you say “the jury needs to recognize the good singers”: people have ears. If a singer is bad, people can hear it by themselves. Polish people proved very well that they can recognize a very bad singer from an extremely good one and I doubt the entire country of Poland is made of musical experts or that everyone likes dance-pop/electro-industrial music.

Same goes for all the people around the world who praised Jann and said Blanka is terrible: I doubt they are all music experts or Polish. Maybe they just have ears.

Sure, some people have better taste than others, I don’t deny that. But considering that all humans have ears and a brain, I don’t think they need someone else to tell them that yes, this thing you like is good or no, that thing you don’t like is bad. Maybe they can understand it by themselves.

And if the problem is that the public doesn’t have a taste, then give them the means to acquire said taste. Let experts give more insights about an artist: they could explain why their voices are good or bad, why their performance works or not and why the lyrics are complex or simple. Let the public take a decision, instead of treating them like toddlers who should be spoon-fed.

______________________

The importance of the public

What makes this 2023 victory so empty, is that it has nothing Eurovision stands for. It’s not the victory of an unknown, talented artist. It’s not a victory the majority wanted. It’s not a victory that sends a good message.

It’s the victory of mainstream and safety. It’s a victory that doesn’t look forward and doesn’t try anything new, because it prefers to rely on the same old stuff. It’s a victory of nostalgia, industries and brands.

And if it hurts so much, it’s not just because the public’s will has never been so blatantly clear about who they wanted to win, but also because after two years in which we had native languages and new genres on the top, we were really, really hoping for a switch towards something different.

I don’t blame the past artists for not trying more, the years were different. But we are in the 20s of the year 2000 now. We are more open to different people, genders, sexual orientations. We don’t have to play safe anymore, not in a world that is moving forward. We can have different winners, we can have different cultures and we can have different genres.

I really hope that this year will teach something, not just to us, but to the EBU and to Europe. If things will change, good. And despite my harsh words, I am okay if the jury stays: it has always been present, after all, even when pushed in the back. So if we have to keep it, let’s keep it.

But it’s time to give them less power. It’s time for a 30/70 or a 20/80 system. 50/50 is just not acceptable anymore.

Or, as the 2023 public’s winner said: