dj_ivocha on 15/5/2016 at 00:07
So, this year's Eurovision is over and I'm conflicted.
On the one hand, I really dislike the concept of a professional jury of dubious "professionality" having the same voting weight as thousands or millions of citizens of a country. On the other, they put Australia in the first place, while the televoters only in the 3rd. Both didn't put the Ukraine at the top, which is how it should have been, IMO. The song wasn't bad, but I don't think it was the best, either. Poland* was about as good or maybe even a bit better. Russia too and also Sweden. Oh well, at least next year's finals will be great for popcorn munching. Whatever happens, it will be interesting - will the Ukraine deny entry to Russia? Will Russia boycott Eurovision and withdraw. Will they participate and how will the Ukrainian hosts greet them. Ahhh, such potential for INTRIGUE! It will be more interesting than this year's event in any case - while as mentioned above I did like several songs (in fact, most of them), none was really outstanding. No Romanian gay vampire lords, no sax guys, no nothing... And Germany got 11 points! :laff:
* - that's what's wrong with the juries. So they decide Poland should only get 9 points and the Ukraine over 200, and Australia over 300, while the popular vote gives Poland 220 points and Russia over 300? Isn't the whole point of the event that the people decide who they like most?
icemann on 15/5/2016 at 07:33
Imo Dami for Australia had zero chance due to the "Australia should not be in Eurovision as their not in Europe" stance taken by some people. Until that changes you wont see Australia ever win it.
As an aussie I hope that changes. Great to see Australia finally taking part in it as the event has been popular over here for decades.
WingedKagouti on 15/5/2016 at 09:13
Eurovision has always been as much about politics as it has been about actual musical talent and showmanship.
Tomi on 15/5/2016 at 10:12
Quote Posted by icemann
Imo Dami for Australia had zero chance due to the "Australia should not be in Eurovision as their not in Europe" stance taken by some people. Until that changes you wont see Australia ever win it.
Well, Australia got
very close to winning the whole thing this year, so I wouldn't say that they had/have zero chance of winning. In fact, I have a feeling that they get a lot of sympathy points from people just for
not being European!
Matthew on 15/5/2016 at 14:54
Love Love Peace Peace should've won anyway.
henke on 16/5/2016 at 10:28
My fave was Latvia's Justs, with Heartbeat.
[video=youtube;o-2Lt7zzlBU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-2Lt7zzlBU[/video]
Also good: Georgia, Belgium, and Australia. The one that got the most votes around the coffeetable at my house and the one we sent in a vote for was Israel. I gave it 4/5. Not my fave, but a solid song nonetheless. The winner, Ukraine, was pretty meh. Would've been happy if Australia won instead, as it looked like they would until the last minute.
Quote Posted by dj_ivocha
On the one hand, I really dislike the concept of a professional jury of dubious "professionality" having the same voting weight as thousands or millions of citizens of a country.
As I understand it there's always been this professional jury, it's just that this year they explicitly displayed their votes separately instead of lumping them in with the overall votes of a country.
dj_ivocha on 16/5/2016 at 16:02
Quote Posted by henke
As I understand it there's always been this professional jury, it's just that this year they explicitly displayed their votes separately instead of lumping them in with the overall votes of a country.
Well, for most of ESC's history the winners have been decided by the jury, until some time in the 90s, when televoting was first introduced. I think some time after that it was just televoting for a few years, then 2009 the juries were reintroduced and until this year it was a 50:50 mix of jury/televote, with the winner getting 12 points total (so 6 from the jury and 6 from the televote) from each country, while the only change this year was that the winner gets 24 points - 12 each from jury and televote. One of the reasons for only having a jury for most of the ~60 years history of the ESC was probably that it was not that easy (technically) to do a televote until the late nineties. Or maybe it wasn't, I don't know. But in any case, it makes sense to me to let the people decide which song they like most. Having jury AND televote is like taking the worst of both worlds.
I mean, look at the winner - the Ukraine was second in both the jury vote and the popular vote, meaning neither the jury (for what that's worth), nor the people thought it was good enough to win, yet it still did... Never mind the fact that it was at best skirting the line about being politically influenced. Even if Jamala herself really only wanted to sing about her grandmother and wasn't even thinking about the current situation in the Ukraine, which I'm not 100% sure I'd believe but might very well be true, all the others around her certainly knew that people would draw parallels between then and now. I wonder if it still would have won, had it been entirely in Crimean Tatar* and/or about something else entirely, but with the same rhythm and melody.
It would have been interesting for Australia to win and next year's ESC to take place there. Oh well, I hope you Australian guys don't get discouraged and keep participating in the future contests :)
By the way, I would have been fine if it was a jury-only win and Australia had won, as well as if it was a televote-only win and Russia had won - I liked both songs well enough.
[EDIT] * - that's another thing. Why don't more performers sing in their own language? This year there were literally only 2 songs entirely in a non-english language and one of them was the Austrian song being sung in French, with 3 more having at least some text not in English (the French, Ukrainian and Bulgarian songs). The last song to win the ESC in a language other than English was the Serbian one in 2007...
Matthew on 16/5/2016 at 17:51
Sadly, had Australia won then they'd have been required to 'partner' with a European country to actually host the competition in that Euro country. :(
dj_ivocha on 16/5/2016 at 18:06
Huh. Are you sure? I mean, I'd understand and probably expect them to stage and broadcast it during EU prime time, so early in the morning local time, but other than that I don't see what would speak against the contest being held there. The travel costs would be higher, true, but I don't think those make up most of the costs for each participating country anyway?
Matthew on 16/5/2016 at 20:07
Well, that's what Graham Norton was saying last night when they were in the lead, anyway.
