Quality video. Thanks for putting this out. The math of Eurovision's point system is what makes the contest unique. We should improve it more rather than being bitter everytime the televote favorite doesn't win. (spoiler: the televote winner doesn't always have to be the overall winner all the time)
but who is more important? Juryvoters or televoters? (we pay money and without us, the show is worth nothing) so I think public favourite is important too.
@@MsMeyara not always. Most of the people were complaining about the Ukraine's win in 2022, which they actually won with televotes. Televotes can be political too, and sometimes people just give vote to "fun" or "pop" songs and don't value the important things.
@@MsMeyarayeah but nobody says you have to vote. If you don't agree on the way the voting works, then don't. You know before it's 50/50. Also I didn't vote for Finland this year but for another act, so my winner also didn't win. But I knew before that this might happen and I still voted. That's how the system works. The televote isn't more important because we pay money, if this was the case, every act who gets a single televote needed to win. Again: if you don't agree with the system, don't vote.
I personally think Juries should be strictly objective, and objectively, Tattoo just isn't the best song, not even among the best, it's barely average. It's a song whose melody, which doesn't sound unique, but is so common that there are 6 or more allegations of plagiarism, can be written down in one line and is basicly just repeated over and over again, has incredibly short verses (both verses + both pre-choruses together take up a quarter of the song (45 seconds exactly, yes I measured)) and has no deeper meaning or Message other than being the average love song. It's a song that is so not interesting and so bland that even my grandma, a more than 70 years old woman who doesn't listen to anything other but what plays on the radio, finds the song to be boring. I personally enjoyed the contest a lot, and I still listen to the songs a lot too, but Tattoo winning is undeserved according to the juries' own criteria and that's a hill I'm willing to die on. Nothing about this song except the singer stands out.
Well here is the criteria of the jury with "Tattoo" Vocal capacity of the artist(s) = very good Performance on stage = very good Composition and originality of the song = meh, but still an amazing song for me personally Overall impression of the act = It depends on the person but I remember the first time I watched a performance of "Tattoo" on melodifestivalen and I was nearly crying and blown away So that means that Loreen fits 3 of the 4 criteria....That's as much as Käärija who is considered way better by many people
@@Naon2178 For me personally: Vocal Capacity: Absolutely Outstanding, I'm nlt saying anything about this. Out of 15 points, I'll give this 14/15 if not 15/15. Performance: Here, we already differ. While the staging looks good and Loreen's Facial expressions are expressive and suited for the song, I think there is to consider that the setup was very static and only made use of a very small section of the stage with the better portion of the stage remaining empty throughout the whole performance. I like the Idea of the Mega-Sunbed as it, at least in my opinion, represents the feeling of being suffocated by the desire for Love, I also don't think that it was as innovative as La Zarra's Pole and it also made little sense in the sense of my interpretation that it rises throughout the song, through from a performance perspective, I see why they did this (end = climax). I think the performance is 9-10/15 area, but not more. It was decent, but not Top Level. Composition/Originality: 4/15 for the reasons stated above. If we count the performances, I'd even give Bejba more points in Originality than Tattoo, althrough that is only for the Dance Break. Overall Impression: I don't really like this criteria point due to it's subjectiveness and redundancy, but if I'd had to give a score here, it would probably be 9/15 area. I can appreciate Loreens prowess as singer and performer, but aside from that, there isn't really much substance to the song itself. I can honestly not understand what the jurors saw in this song when EAEA, Bridges, Unicorn, Evidemment and Ai Coracao existed.
@@nick3805 how are you going to make a whole claim that there's an "objective" ranking that exists then include the word "personally" in your next comment ... it doesn't add up
Don't the juries vote on the Friday performance too rather than the Saturday one? A performer can hit a few bum notes one night but then be pitch perfect on the Saturday which can also go a long way in explaining a discrepancy between a performer's jury/public vote. I know this isn't in direct response to the subject of this video but it always seems to be overlooked when results are dissected
As someone who has been in the press centre three times (twice digitally and once in person) the differences in performances are usually marginal and hardly enough to make a difference in the score. The biggest difference I saw was with Cyprus 2022, where Andromache was really struggling with her jury performance. The televised one was better, although definitely had issues as well.
I can't believe how people still blame juries of the bad placements of Spain and Portugal. And honestly, the juries have way more job than televoters, which can vote up to 20 times with every cellphone they own to the same song if they want.
Believe it or not, I still do. Because Eaea's and Tattoo's jury placement needs to be switched and even then, we still have to switch Tattoo with Ai Coracao. Reasons? See my own comment.
@@nick3805eeaaa was horrible. Like a annoying mosquito flying over your pillow a warm night. But yes she has a great voice which the juries gave her votes for. Televoters didnt even care about that.
@@nick3805lol Eaea was a useless shitty song, how in the hell can someone like an ambulance screaming two vowels for three minutes? Five points are too much, they should've been zero. Spain is such a flop country
Personally I don't think the numbers themselves are the problem. The problem is that jury is mostly composed of music *marketing* experts instead of actual *music* experts. This results in pretty much saying "these 200 people's *personal taste* has the same importance as thousands of common people". The jury wasn't created to just pick 5 random people from each country a massive say. It was (officially) created to judge songs based on criteria that sadly goes often ignored. I can't believe I'm saying this but *figure skating* has a more fair & unbiased scoring system and we all saw what ISU was doing the past decade....
The thing is, taste is ALWAYS subjective. How do you rate if someone's taste is valid to judge a music contest? Are they valid only if they align with your own taste? Then the system would be rigged (as well). And if the juries voted the way you wanted, would you still criticize the system? I'm not saying the system isn't flawed, but many people blame "the system" for Loreen's win, just because she wasn't their personal favorite - and not because they genuinely care about how voting works. All that just to discredit Loreen, because "there's no way she deserved it". Support your faves, but don't drag down others to do so. And criticizing the system should be done independantly from individual results.
@@davidmorris8319THANK YOU! Stuff like this needs to be taken into consideration before immediately judging a winner. They have a basis on what they look for, some juries may or may not look for specific basis depending on each performance but they sure do look for performance and particular songs that will go far beyond a specific country. A song that is vocally challenging, genuinely emotional, and commanding the stage well throughout the song along with a veteran in the Eurovision community was bound to win.
@@davidmorris8319 I'm glad we agree! Personal taste is so subjective that having official jury based of it is just asking for trouble since it's impossible to find 2 people with same taste. I'm not arguing Loreen shouldn't win - her performance was amazing and she's a phenomenal performer who really gave us a great show. I don't think you understood what I wanted to say. I don't want a jury whose taste matches my own. I want performed
Probably one of the best videos I've seen about Eurovision's voting system. you're so clear and articulate and pleasant. Not to mention knowledgable! Wonderful!
The irony of people complaining that the juries are biased and dont show appreciation for originality and culture, meanwhile the televoters gave Spain the lowest televote score of the night
Jury and televotes are different worlds. Jury has to consider their voting based their categories. By the categories Spain or Portugal would dominate the votes. Public votes based of their liking.
Juries just randomly vote for those ballads like Switzerland and Sweden without even listening.Years and years and still juries vote for the same.Tout'l Univers was number one 2 years ago.Proud was in the Highest in 2019.Juries never voted for non ballads except for Je Me Casse and Dance you off
We need more people with more sense like you talking about the results, even though I agree with that commenter that Spain and Portugal were robbed it is absolutely no one's place to criticise the jury vote for not giving them as many points "as they should." Music is subjective and yes, even though there is criteria the juries rank by, they can still use their opinion to order the songs as they please according to what the criteria means to them- if there were a bunch of songs the juries had a "job" to rank highly then it would be an extremely boring outcome and imply that there was an objective hierarchy, which there isn't.
I agree with a lot of what you're saying. I think the way that the jury votes is fair. But I think the diversity of the jury is the problem. They need more people from different musical backgrounds, age ranges, etc. Because a lot of the jury is made up of older people with a background in pop music, those songs are gonna be favored no matter what.
Realistically pop would always be favored because it's the most popular mainstream genre, Eurovision wants to have winners that can have a high likelihood of success after the competition, in the likes of ABBA and Celine Dion.
@@dikoproz yeah, I get what you're saying. But the jury got reintroduced to give less popular songs a fighting chance. If pop is the most popular genre and the jury is mostly made out of people with a background in popmusic, then that kinda defeats the purpose of the jury. And there are also songs that get really famous without winning. I'm thinking of Snap by Rosa Linn. In the end I think you're right and obviously the EBU won't change much about the jury. But my opinion still stands
Well I'm glad this video popped into my recommended. Incredibly well thought out, nicely paced and easily digestible. Time to go on a channel binge, I think!
This is very thorough and definitely took a lot of time to research and edit. For that, you definitely deserve a sub. I can't believe you only have less than 2k subscribers. More power to your channel.
New to Eurovision and this makes a lot more sense and makes me feel less indignant that some of my favorite songs didn't make it to top 10, especially if the jury has to score that way. Also some song's studio edits were such a bop but the actual performance unfortunately didn't deliver the same level of greatness. Not discounting the singer of course, live singing is hard, but the quality of sound mixing and staging really does affect the overall package and even slight difference can push one country's entire package up or down in comparison to another country's performance.
"It represents preference, with respect to all of the entries in the show" - spot on. It's easy to see a low score and think it tanked on its own merit, and equally easy to forget the other entries it stood up against. Still, I was very surprised Spain didn't do as well as it should have, esp based on the juror's criteria - where such criteria does make sense to see Sweden do remarkably well, i.e the "complete package" Fantastic indepth yet simply explained video, especially for us Eurovision geeks (read: me!) and, kudos on the slick editing too 🙌. Will be checking out your longer vids!
Thank you for explaining this in such a good way. As a person that is too deep into ESC myself I knew this already, but explaining it to people that think Loreen only won because of faul play is hopeless, now I have a link to send them and do not have to try to explain this myself. Again Thank You!!!!!
The juries benefit Sweden. Look at the data. Formulaic songs turned out. This is what so many people are upset about. How many times has Sweden been the last to get their televoting points because they won the jury vote. Some of their songs are complete rubbish and they will always score well with the juries. The data speaks for itself.
I knew Sweden was going to win based on e.g. betting odds, but I still don’t understand why. It’s so boring and mediocre. Just by listening to the songs I don’t think I would have even put it in the top 10.
Great analysis and an awesome video! I think that the problem with both juries and televoters is not mathematical and is actually more subtle - it can be summed up as "lazy groupthink + no incentive to vote fairly". It is difficult to rank 25+ songs of different genres and in different languages fairly with meticulous effort. So most jurors - don't. Many of them probably don't even pay much attention to the details of songs and performances, but will vote for those songs that they are "meant to vote for", meaning the most hyped ones. Honestly, I think that FIN can thank the hype for such a great jury result - not that he didn't deserve it, but out-of-the-box entries are traditionally trashed by juries. Likewise, the crowds have no reason to pay attention to 25+ songs in the evening - they will focused on the hyped ones and neighboring countries. The only solution I see is more marketing by ESC itself, focused on performers and songs. Believe me, Tattoo was marketed heavily.
I'm a bit skeptical about how much the pre-show hype affects jury voting. We have to remember that everyday people are not really tuned-in to the developments around the show. Industry people may be in the know about the local selection but I doubt they are invested enough to pay attention to the discourse at the same level as us. But I do agree that the jurors may feel an "obligation" to vote for certain songs, especially if they are vocally impressive. It could explain situations like in 2022 with Azerbaijan, Australia and Switzerland doing so well with the juries and so poorly with the televote.
I agree on the jurors not voting fairly since there's a lot of songs & while it's easy to select your top and bottom few, the middle often feels like "I honestly don't care how these are sorted". Hell sometimes it's hard to even decide if a song should be on your 15th or 25th place... Imo it would be better if every song was scored individually & only use "top song gets 12 points, 2nd gets 10, etc" system for televoting...
My issue isn’t with the Juries but with the televote. So many good songs got such low scores because everyone was directing their votes to one or 2 countries. Voters should have to give at least 2 countries votes, whether it’s 12 votes for one country and then however many votes for however many songs they want after that up to 20 votes of course.. This way they can still give maximum votes for their favourite song but potentially giving other songs better (more deserved) points as well. I didn’t like Spain this year but it deserved more than 5 points.
i mean... did it actually really deserved more than 5 points? idk. maybe 10? maybe 20? Would it have mattered anyway? It's a song that will never get televotes and that's alright.
@@EurovisionESC I think it did. Using my method it might’ve gotten a few more votes but Spain is just an example. France certainly deserved more, and even tho I’m biased, Australia deserved more.
@@Matthew-bu7fg not at all. We already have the option to divide our votes anyway we like. You could give 1 vote for 20 songs if we wanted to. My idea just means the max amount of votes given would be 12. So your fave would still get maximum votes but other songs would be able to get more points.
Lovely explanation of the voting system, but I think the root of fans' complaints comes down to the jury criteria and how they're used in practice, not how the numbers shake out. At 6:50, you show those criteria - song composition and originality, quality of the performance, vocal capacity, and overall impression. Routinely we see that polished ballads with strong vocals scoop up a large number of jury points, even when they're a by-the-books composition that few will remember after the night. Consider our jury winners in 2018 and 2019, Estonia this year, or perhaps the clearest example, Azerbaijan 2022, which got nul points in the semi televote and still qualified. Meanwhile, galvanizing 'bops' that don't jive with the mainstream music scene are consistently underrated relative to fan opinion. Consider Norway 2019 or Finland this year. Originality and the level at which a song engages its audience (one way that you could interpret "overall impression") are consistently lesser considerations. I don't begrudge Loreen's win at all. It was a well-produced song, impeccably staged and sung. It deserved to do well in the jury. But I was surprised by how it dominated the juries considering how familiar or even passé the composition was. And so I don't blame some fans for complaining about a jury that consistently underrates songs that arguably make a bigger impact on the contest and its fandom.
I'd love to see a video on Black smoke by Ann-Sophie from 2015. It got the dreaded Zero points but almost all comments about it says it deserved much better. It was easily in my top 10 that year.
I wonder how it would work out if the jurors gave the songs a score instead of placement. Then they would tell if they meant that a third place was a strong third or a weak third.
Excellent take on the jury results! And if I may add: We’ve seen time and time again how the jury winners ended up still losing because they didn’t get enough points from the televoters. ITA 2011: J - 251; T - 99 AUT 2018: J - 271; T - 71 MKD 2019: J - 247; T - 58 This could’ve happened to Sweden and Loreen. Even with 340 points from the juries, in theory, Loreen could still lose if she received a low score from the televoters. But no, that’s not what happened. Europe and the rest of the world gave “Tattoo” 243 points, more than enough needed to win. The public could deny Loreen the victory by, I don’t know, simply not voting for her, but clearly, they still liked the song enough to give it that many points (the second-highest score in the televote, btw). So, if anything, the juries aren’t solely to blame. It’s the public vote that gave her the extra edge needed to win. 🤷
Hey Mark! You can find the jury scores on the website. They are on the "Detailed Voting Results" section of an individual year. However they are organized by voting country rather than showing all the ranks for one song like I did here. Some people make graphics of their own to present them that way like @eurovisionario on Twitter. Hope that helps! 😉
For me i think there's two things I'd like to see to improve the scoring system: 1) Either expanded juries of more than 5 people, or slightly diluted jury power (maybe 34/66 or 25/75 split perhaps) 2) Replacing the system where points go to the top 10 countries with a system which awards points to the top 20. The idea that 11th and 26th places are equal is a bit silly to me.
Stuart, this is bloody fantastic. One of the best (if not the best) Eurovision explainer videos I have ever seen. And a much needed explanation for our passionate fanbase. ~ Dale
My favorite part: the ranking of the song in the scoreboard means the preference of the MAJORITY, not the quality of the song. This is for those saying that other songs would've deserved to win. Yes, in THEIR opinion.
This video needs more out reach, while I still think Finland should have won, at least now I can understand how the point system works within the jury system
All I got out of this video is that the jury scoring needs to be made more comprehensible. I principally believe that the juries should not be able to favor one act so heavily that no other entry could've won, even if it literally got the highest proportional televote turnout of all time. I have no respect for a jury that was instructed to take the originality of the song into account yet handed the W to a song with four separate plagiarism accusations. I don't think Tattoo is plagiarism, but I do believe its structure is basic and generic to the point that it's easy to accuse of plagiarism, which is a point against originality. I know it's easy to call me a sore loser, but seeing as I'm surrounded by sore winners who have been actively xenophobic I think I have every right to be
Really good explainer! Much as I understand the frustration of Finland not winning, it's not hard to see why Cha Cha Cha proved so divisive among the juries but as you point out, the exponential weight model ensured it still got a very respectable jury score. In another video, ESC Tom points out there's usually more of a "consensus" in the televote than the jury and it's pretty unusual for a country to dominate the jury as Loreen did this year. Looking at the 2022 jury scores, there's a much narrower gap between the top 5 which was also the case in 2021: 1. 🇬🇧 283 2. 🇸🇪 258 3. 🇪🇸 231 4. 🇺🇦 192 5. 🇵🇹 171 Granted, Ukraine's televote score was unusually high as a percentage of the available votes (93% compared to 85% for 🇫🇮 2023 and 70% for 🇮🇹 2021) but in any case, it demonstrates a more typical scenario where there's less of a consensus among the juries than the televote and the televote winner is more likely to prevail. One idea I've seen is to require jurors to score each song out of ten for each criterion and then have the scores aggregated. I'm not a stats expert so I've no idea if that could be done in a way that prevents low scores cancelling out higher ones but I think it would be good if each song could be judged on its own merits and not in relation to others. Again, I've no idea if that's possible!
Damn, I was so hyped over my favourite Aussies making the top ten overall that I hardly reflected on the fact that people who actually know stuff about music ranked them 6th! Still behind bloody Belgium though. 😂 If any of the numbskulls you’re trying to reach actually receive some knowledge, you should follow up with a video about what is and isn’t plagiarism. 😂 I’m a Loreen stan, I’ll freely admit, but allegiance doesn’t matter. The only time your opinion matters is when you vote. Like everything these days that annoys more than about twelve people, this whole shitshow comes close to some post-truthism shit; “bUt YoU kNoW wHo RuNs ThE bRoAdCaStInG cOmPaNiEs RiGhT?!1!?” #bidenrobbedfinland Tasteless jokes aside, I was genuinely concerned for the safety of the presenters, EBU people, Swedish delegation and the Queen herself. The level of vitriol - over a fucking singing competition. -_- (Just had an image in my head of Hannah Waddingham, Yuliya, Loreen and Simone Dow: Aussie Shred Goddess fighting off a horde of red-eyed, mouth-foaming Dunning-Kruger University graduates wearing green boleros and brandishing Finnish flags. How is it fair that someone with this fucked up of an imagination can’t draw to save his damn life? Anyone who hasn’t checked the new Voyager album that dropped a couple of weeks ago out: DO! ❤ If you liked Promise, you will die and go to music heaven upon hearing this thing! 😊 )
i love videos like this. as a STEM major, it gets frustrating s when some people make big statements about the juries/televote without actually understanding how it works mathematically/statically. it's nearly impossible to have a perfect system but the current one works pretty damn well
Absolutely impressed by this video. thank you for the explanation of the structure, and may I compliment you on the way you present because it was very clear, concise and direct
People are always quick to criticise the jury scoring and demand they are removed from the voting system when they feel their favourites have been robbed. Don't they get that if the jury voted everything in agreement with the public then there would be no point in having a jury. Personally, I'd rather it was just the jury voting but that juries were made up of about 100 everyday folk and they just voted on what they liked not on criteria. Then you are less likely to know winners before the show and it will help remove biased voting from the public.
Thanks for explaining how the score itself came to pass. I still find it a bit aus that Sweden wins the year before ABBAs anniversary though… I am not that deep into Eurovision politics but when I heard that a feeling grew in me.
I really enjoyed your video, gave it a like, and I don't want to be That Guy but it's actually not pronounced LorEEn as it's spelled, it sounds more like the name Lorraine.
You're really cute, and I love that you're a statics scholar, but Loreen won according to the rules applied at the time. When I grew up, the big debate was "can you compete in music?" That ultimately comes down to musical "taste". There's not one person on earth who thinks their taste in music is anything but the best! Maybe I should delete this comment, because I don't have the energy to elaborate stuff. There are multiple parameters going into a Eurovision winner. And as long as it offers creators revenue, let's keep on bickering.❤
Thank you very much for your clever explanations! Televoters are too often confused by their own feelings and emotions, blaming the professional jurys aren't capable to feel the same emotions as the audience, and from that criticizing the expertise and the complete voting system by qualifying it as unfair, rubbish etc... To my own personal opinion, I hope that system will prevail as such but I have a huge doubt about the pertinence of letting the audience from countries outside the Eurovision 37 participants vote to the contest.
Why people outside the Eurovision 37 shouldn't vote? Like it litterly no reason. It can't be political since there are people from more than one country. Give them right to vote
@@DanTony68 First of all, I didn't say that I want jury votes to disappear. You making asumption out of nowhere. Second I don't want jury votes to disappear just change it. More people in the jury and more diversity of them. At different ages, career (still strongly attached to music), Music genres etc.
@@kawa8149 Obviously you ignore totally how the national jurys have been composed for several decades. So it's worthless speaking to you. Your "change" is only a stupid fantasm
Very well explained, i dont get why are people suprised by the jury results, as a juror i would never put Finland above Sweden, like where were the vocals??
I know for me personally it’s not about Finland not winning, but about Sweden’s runaway lead. Sure, the vocals were great, but that’s still only 1/4 of the criterion that the juries are supposed to judge on. You simply cannot argue that the song is original. The style, instrumentation, and genre is nothing new, and there is little to no innovative or clever lyricism. It’s been accused multiple times of plagiarism, and the essence of the song can be condensed into an 8-bar melody, from which it rarely deviates. Even if you argue that they got full marks in the other 3 (which I personally would dispute but for the sake of argument, let’s go with it) one could certainly argue that other countries fulfilled 3 of the four categories just as much. Finland’s vocals might have been weak, but the song was incredibly original, the staging was effective at what it was trying to do, and it got everyone up and dancing-you certainly can’t argue that it left an impression. In all four categories, Spain should have dominated. Incredibly original song, staggering was excellent, Blanca was note perfect (in a very technically difficult song), and it definitely left an impression. It’s impossible to remove bias completely from music, but the purpose of the jury is to attempt to reward quality on the most objective basis it can. Based on this, I simply cannot understand how it managed to beat out every other entry by such a huge margin . If each of the four categories was ranked /15 and Loreen got 14, 14, 14, and 3, the average score per category needed to beat that would be 11.25, which would have been more than achievable for entries such as the Spanish one. I do worry that juries are becoming a bit blinded by vocals, and that we should remember that it is a song competition, not a singing one. Vocals are important, but imo they shouldn’t be the primary factor in what decides the winner, as the juries seem to be doing-they should be judging the song before all else. To a degree vocals are important for this, as they are how the song is expressed, but great vocals should never be able to make an objectively unoriginal song win. Otherwise Eurovision is just an international ‘The Voice’.
Exactly!Hate how people think juries rigged something and Finland's jury score was fixed eventhough in past it could have been worse.😒But yeah one thing I think should be changed is having more jury members so that a bigger group ranks the songs.
The matter is simple, no matter how deep you look into it. Either the jury overrules the popular vote, or they don't. If they do, there is no good justification for it and if they don't, then it's irrelevant. If you want to have a jury to moderate the quality of the songs, then you need to have the jury on the semifinals, not on the finals. No amount of mental gymnastics can get you around, or over this simple fact.
The actual formula hasn't been released but some people have attempted to reverse engineer it and have come up with calculations that are relatively close. I have a link that I could share but posting links in YT comment sections is dicey so instead I will suggest to search for "eurovision exponential weight model" and check out the first few results 😉
What I miss in this discussion is that the jury give points in an slightly different show (a day earlier) than the Saturday final. It has not been unknown that a performer has a lesser performance in the jury show then in the actual final or vice versa. Would that also be a factor that sometimes explain the difference between the public vote and the jury vote. It struck me because Ukrain didn't do that well with quite a numner of juries but did better with the public.
Having watched the jury shows from 2021-2023 from the press centre (online in '21 and '22, in person in '23) I feel as if there is rarely enough of a difference in the performances to really change the jury score. In most cases I think it's just the juries are more drawn towards other songs irrespective of the artist's vocals. The only time where I felt the jury show was significantly different was with Cyprus 2022. She was even more off key than in the televised performance and sadly finished last with the juries. I can't really think of another one where it made a huge difference. Sometimes the really skilled vocalists will do some more complicated runs or hit a higher note, but that's about it.
I would love jury to give points more evenly to all acts. One or few would not get that much lead. That way the public score would weight more even the total points would be the same
It's a very good question. In previous years if an individual juror has to back out or is dismissed, they were usually replaced by an alternate. Why that didn't happen is a bit odd...
After the jury vote, theoretically none of countries could beat Sweden by overall scores, even if Sweden scored 187 points on televote, which is even lower than 4th place. It's absolutely record in ESC history, and proves that jury was biased, because considering that no one can argue that Loreen can reach at least top 5 on televotes, making the jury vote by "first and the rest places" will guarantee the victory of Sweden even before the show started. So anyone can say that it's how Eurovision works, but we can't see any situation from any previous contests even a little similar to this, jury votes does not giving that difference except when they are focused only on one contestant.
Well if 'biased' means ' they liked this song best' you're correct 😂 I don't get your point. No, the victory wasn't guaranteed. Just very probable looking at the universal quality of the song.
@@miskatonic6210 yes, no other song was good, not "Watergun", not "Evidemment", not other songs, nice joke 😂. Tell me that you're Loreen fan without telling it.
One thing you failed to mention is how several musicians who are way more knowledgeable about music than most jury members say that if the jury had followed the criteria Sweden wouldn’t’ve won and although most agree that she deserved more points than Finland, it wouldn’t’ve been enough to beat their televote, mostly because Sweden would’ve lost of points on the “composition and originality of the song” criteria point. “the peace among us” youtube channel is run by a professional musician and she has a great video on that, you can check that out in case you don’t trust me. I studied music professionally (I don’t have proof of this, you’ll have to believe me if you want) and although I gave up on it very early on, before getting my degree I know enough to be able to tell that they are right and the jury voted according to their preference instead of following the criteria. I also have several musicians friends i’ve met when studying music who’ve finished their degree and love eurovision and they agree. I’m not Finnish (you’ll have to believe me on this one too lmao) and neither are none of my friends so we have no reason to defend Finland. Although several of my friends had Sweden as their nr1, almost all agreed that Loreen didn’t deserve that many points (most said that Spain was the deserved jury winner, which also matches with the musicians that made videos on RUclips), again, mostly because of the originality thing. One of them said “As a member of the public, i’d give her all of my televote calls if I weren’t broke but as a fair jury member I couldn’t give her more than 8 points”. They all absolutely hate Käärijä for some reason but they admitted that he deserved a decent amount of points. This is basically the conclusion we reached on our eurovision group chat. Personally, I think the problem was not only them not following the criteria but also not being diverse enough. There’s no reason why more than half of them should be middle aged pop professionals all being biased towards pop music.
But we can't forget here that Finland still came 4th with the juries. Now if we'd be super strict about the criteria for the juries, maybe Finland would've gotten less points from the juries. Of course Loreen would've too, but maybe Finland would be dragged down so much the televote still wouldn't be enough to win and a secret third option could've snatched it, like Israel. We will never know for sure.
The jurors don’t have unlimited time to judge the entries and compare them to be able to make a perfect judgement where they only follow the criterias. It’s not fair on them to expect them to be able to get it completely right. They get one listen from one run through of the show and have to decide from that, it’s absolutely impossible to follow each criteria to 100%. Most performances will also suit one or two criterias not all 4 since no song is perfect and so they would have to then make personal decision of what criteria they feel is the most important to them. You can not expect jurors to get it 100% right, if that was to be the expectation every year then they would need to get rid of human jurors and implement an AI based jury system where there’s no emotions only facts.
This is my big problem with current juries. Whether or not there was influence on jurors isn't the point. I would even argue that if there wasn't influence, it makes this look worse for the use of juries. The *entire* point of juries is that they don't vote for preference, but according to criteria. Käärijä deserved to lose on vocal ability, Loreen on originality. Audience is allowed to vote on preference, the 180 people voting for a song as juror, are not. Yes, there is going to be some personal preference, but unless these industry professionals aren't expected to vote on criteria there is no basis for them needing to be professionals or their votes being worth thousands, sometimes even literally millions, of audience votes. I'm perfectly willing to believe jurors just voted for their preference, AND THAT IS THE PROBLEM.
@@Tollkirschenkind I don’t think Finland would’ve been dragged that much. His voice was mediocre at best in the pop bit but the rap was pretty great, the performance was great, the song was very decent composition wise and caused a good impression. I don’t know of any musician who thought he deserved more than 100 points less than Loreen so his victory would’ve been guaranteed. Don’t forget that he had 133 points more than her.
@@user-ek3ri7gv8e that’s true but this is their job, they get paid to do it (i think) so they are supposed to do as well as they can. One thing is to be torn between placing your favorite song above or below another one in one of the criteria and choosing to put your favorite above, that’s being human. Another thing is putting a song you hate but follows most of the criteria pretty well and deserves a a good placing out of the top 10, or worse, placing it last, like many juries did to Finland. That’s not just being human, that’s being corrupt. Like, i wanted Finland to win but ik I couldn’t place it 1st, nor could i put Israel out of the top 10 even though i hated it.
A thought occurs to me. The quality of entry to Eurovision entries over the last few years has become SO good that it is almost impossible to pick a winner based on the quality of the music/performance alone leading in the last 2 years to the obvious winners winning. Is it time for a head shift to a less competitive appreciation of Eurovision?
I'd say the true winners are the people who realize that the contest side of the show isn't everything and as long as you find music and talent to appreciate you can't lose. 🤷♂️
Thanks for extensively explaining this system. I'm one of those people who thought Loreen deserved the win but Käärijä just deserved it more. I wonder how the order would have changed, had they used a different model for the jury votes.
I just have to say, this was a great video. You explained everything clearly while stile going in depth. De graphics were amazing. And you managed to keep me entertained the entire time through.
The actual numbers are on Eurovision's website, but they are separated by votes from each country rather than votes for each song. There's a Twitter account @eurovisionario who organizes them so that you can find some of the songs' jury breakdowns. They don't do them for every entry, but they will make graphs that show how each song ranked between the split system and where they received their points from.
People always blaming/complains about everything evertime when it is televoting/jury votes. Wrong song won, wrong singer qualify etc...! And I’m tired of it!👎🏼
the difference to the Portugal winning. THIS was art.. lorreens song was a mainstream pop song that you can hear at the radio everyday. its not special at all. Would have any other artist sung that song it wouldnt have won.
That last part can be said about any song. Maybe if Cha Cha Cha was performed by someone who can actually sing, Finland could have won 🤷♂️. Tattoo is literally breaking records left and right after the show, and doesn't rely on its staging to do so (unlike Cha Cha Cha, which is underperforming when the televote result is taken into account). The right song clearly won, and is considered art by many. Your opinion doesn't make it a fact.
@@dav4811 so you say käärijä candy sing? For me loreens voice doesn’t sound good to nasal for my taste. And since when does a song needs to be amazing to be successful?! Tattoo is popular because its mainstream music. So my point stands 😂😂
@@smallblueangel yes, Käärijä can't sing and plenty of vocal coaches on youtube for example say so too. I have yet to see a vocal expert say something negative about Loreen's vocals. And I trust the opinion of professionals over yours, who is already biased against Loreen anyway. You don't need to be able to sing to be successful: look at JLo! You need it, however, to actually win Eurovision. And had a different, more capable vocalist, performed Cha Cha Cha, then maybe Finland would have received more jury points, hence possibly overtaking Sweden in the end 🤷♂️. There's nothing wrong with being mainstream and popular music. There have been plenty of mainstream and English language winning songs, and none of them have had the commercial success of Tattoo (in the same timeframe). Stop trivializing this song's achievements, it reeks of jealousy and hatred honestly. It's just the tea 🤷♂️.
@@dav4811 plenty vocal coaches also praise his voice. 🤷🏾♀️ he isn’t a singer he is a rapper and a pretty good one. And what a miracle that a mostly pop jury prefers a pop song. 🤷🏾♀️ who is surprised about that?! And a song being successful doesn’t mean its a good song, i totally forgot how tattoo sounded the second it was over because there is nothing memorable about it. It sounds like every other song too
Even if we put jury voting in this context, this isn't really changeing anything. 154 jury put her in top ten, even if she isn't that great. Jury aren't there for judgeing by they own taste, but, by criteria that has been given to them. Lyrics is so generic and boring so she already does not check one of the boxes. I saw somewhere opinion of vocal coach that Loreen doesn't really hits lower notes. (I'm not sure if I describe it correctly, bc it was review in my native languange) 5:45 yea these points do not matter, because the jurys do their job badly. I mean I understand what you say, that there are limited point to give, but even compared with other results there are so low.
We will never recover..sweden victory was so anticlimactic... i just don't see how competition can move forward with this system...people are voting, paying for their votes and then...this happens
Käärijä on average more than 10 points from each of the 37 televoting countries (out of 12 possible). Of course he should have won. I don't think the audience has ever been as clear on who they wanted to win. I have little respect for this years jury results
It's a 50-50 system and all countries know that in advance. Finland chose to send an artist who couldn't even sing his own song, but was more than happy to make a clown out of himself on that stage (instead of investing in vocal training and possibly physical training to get that breath control in order). It literally doesn't matter what the televote alone thought. Again, it's a 50-50 system. The general public is extremely influenced by running order and has a tendency to vote for joke-y and campy acts (that in their eyes are still thought of as "quintessentially Eurovision" - an idea that the contest needs to move away from as quickly as possible, if it wants to retain any semblance of a serious contest). The jury ranking is superior this year, and as the video explains, it even helped Käärijä. A lot. Which just shows that there wasn't too much actual substance in Cha Cha Cha aside from the clownery that was showcased on stage. Stay indefinitely mad, Loreen still won, and the people literally supported her enough to get that victory. Had Israel's and Sweden's televote scores been swapped, then Sweden would have lost by 1 point. But that didn't happen, because people actually stood behind the song. A song that was 9th in the running order (!!!), followed by all televote magnets like Cha Cha Cha, Queen of Kings, Unicorn and even Heart Of Steel (let's be real, sympathy voting was still there). That's massive, and she would have most likely scored more if she performed in the second half. Get over it, honestly, and accept that Sweden just understands the system best: jury and televote appeal is essential for winning. Finland puts the focus on televote, and that's entirely on them.
@@dav4811 I do get your point that Sweden received a lot of televoting points, but the difference between Käärijä’s and Loreen‘s televote points was not 30 or 40, it was over one hundred points, which isn’t nothing! Additionally, you can support Loreen in every way you want to, but stop dragging Käärijä down and calling him a clown, since his outgoing and fun personality actually succeeded in uniting the ESC audience and made him one of (if not the) most beloved Eurovision artists of the last years. No, Eurovision is not always about the best voice, it’s one part like overall presence, performance, melody, message etc.. Both Käärijä and Loreen own unique qualities and should not receive hate comments from each side.
@@Elirie276 It doesn't matter. Sweden still came 2nd with the people, from an extremely tough position in the running order - followed by literally all the other televote favorites. It's a 50-50 system. Käärijä couldn't keep up with the juries against Loreen, which is why he lost at the end of the day. An other, more capable vocalist, could have possible pulled off a win 🤷♂️. It has been predicted and projected since March that the jury score difference between Sweden and Finland would be bigger than the televote score difference. In other words, the maths was always in favor of Sweden.
We have to be honest and tell the whole story, Kaarija was probably going to win the televote ( public love a crazy and fun performance) but by a small distance because Loreen was the big favourite to win. Kaarija won the UMK in February and didn't make it to No.1 in odds, Ukraine was still No.1 and Loreen had not yet released Tattoo. When Loreen won Melodifestivalen she got 40% (N.1) in the odds and that's when the campaign against Loreen started and the eurofan community united with Finland just to prevent Loreen from winning. In fact Loreen was not only N.1 in the odds, she was N.1 in Myscoreboard, Ogae, Eurojury, EurovisionWorld poll, in all the relevant and most known polls of the eurofan community and the best sellling song, the most streamed song before Eurovision. The reason why Kaarija got so much points in the televote is because of all the negative campaign against Loreen by a big part of the eurofans community and the most media eurofan press, because they saw it unfair that Loreen and specially Sweden would win again. Im not saying that Kaarija wouldnt have won the televote without this stupid boycott against Loreen, because Cha Cha cha got that elements that people love, but Loreen also has it. Without this hateful campaing probably the televote would have been similar to Eurovision 2016 Russia 361 Ukraine 323 or Eurovision 2017 Portugal 376 Bulgaria 337. A similar result would have been more sense
@@bermerubioI expected these 243 points to Loreen instead of 300 or something because she started getting hate just because je participated again, the “plagiarism “ thing and because she doesn’t give chances to other people to win. So yeah that campaign started against Loreen and she got fewer televoting points. I think she could get like 300 or more.
So, it is just a pure coincidence that whenever there is a major discrepancy between jury and audience preferences, it is Sweden that gets pushed to the top spot by the juries? Ok, I'll take your word for it. Music industry is known to not ever play absolutely any dirty tricks on anyone, after all.
![Tee Grizzley - Blow for Blow (feat. J. Cole) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wNLN5xsx5dc/mqdefault.jpg)
Here's a summary of jury data used in this video across all the songs from the Liverpool 2023 Grand Final: i.imgur.com/NNViINC.jpg
Quality video. Thanks for putting this out. The math of Eurovision's point system is what makes the contest unique. We should improve it more rather than being bitter everytime the televote favorite doesn't win. (spoiler: the televote winner doesn't always have to be the overall winner all the time)
but who is more important? Juryvoters or televoters? (we pay money and without us, the show is worth nothing) so I think public favourite is important too.
@@MsMeyara not always. Most of the people were complaining about the Ukraine's win in 2022, which they actually won with televotes. Televotes can be political too, and sometimes people just give vote to "fun" or "pop" songs and don't value the important things.
@@MsMeyarayeah but nobody says you have to vote. If you don't agree on the way the voting works, then don't. You know before it's 50/50. Also I didn't vote for Finland this year but for another act, so my winner also didn't win. But I knew before that this might happen and I still voted. That's how the system works. The televote isn't more important because we pay money, if this was the case, every act who gets a single televote needed to win.
Again: if you don't agree with the system, don't vote.
@@MsMeyara The televotes are worthless, I'd love for them to be removed from the competition again.
@@MsMeyarahave you seen when Eurovision was purely televote based??? 💀 an absolute shitshow
exactly just like success on the charts its better to be like by lots than loved by few.
I personally think Juries should be strictly objective, and objectively, Tattoo just isn't the best song, not even among the best, it's barely average.
It's a song whose melody, which doesn't sound unique, but is so common that there are 6 or more allegations of plagiarism, can be written down in one line and is basicly just repeated over and over again, has incredibly short verses (both verses + both pre-choruses together take up a quarter of the song (45 seconds exactly, yes I measured)) and has no deeper meaning or Message other than being the average love song.
It's a song that is so not interesting and so bland that even my grandma, a more than 70 years old woman who doesn't listen to anything other but what plays on the radio, finds the song to be boring.
I personally enjoyed the contest a lot, and I still listen to the songs a lot too, but Tattoo winning is undeserved according to the juries' own criteria and that's a hill I'm willing to die on. Nothing about this song except the singer stands out.
The record number of streams of Spotify for Tattoo seems to disagree with you.
Well here is the criteria of the jury with "Tattoo"
Vocal capacity of the artist(s) = very good
Performance on stage = very good
Composition and originality of the song = meh, but still an amazing song for me personally
Overall impression of the act = It depends on the person but I remember the first time I watched a performance of "Tattoo" on melodifestivalen and I was nearly crying and blown away
So that means that Loreen fits 3 of the 4 criteria....That's as much as Käärija who is considered way better by many people
@@Naon2178 For me personally:
Vocal Capacity: Absolutely Outstanding, I'm nlt saying anything about this. Out of 15 points, I'll give this 14/15 if not 15/15.
Performance: Here, we already differ. While the staging looks good and Loreen's Facial expressions are expressive and suited for the song, I think there is to consider that the setup was very static and only made use of a very small section of the stage with the better portion of the stage remaining empty throughout the whole performance. I like the Idea of the Mega-Sunbed as it, at least in my opinion, represents the feeling of being suffocated by the desire for Love, I also don't think that it was as innovative as La Zarra's Pole and it also made little sense in the sense of my interpretation that it rises throughout the song, through from a performance perspective, I see why they did this (end = climax). I think the performance is 9-10/15 area, but not more. It was decent, but not Top Level.
Composition/Originality: 4/15 for the reasons stated above. If we count the performances, I'd even give Bejba more points in Originality than Tattoo, althrough that is only for the Dance Break.
Overall Impression: I don't really like this criteria point due to it's subjectiveness and redundancy, but if I'd had to give a score here, it would probably be 9/15 area. I can appreciate Loreens prowess as singer and performer, but aside from that, there isn't really much substance to the song itself.
I can honestly not understand what the jurors saw in this song when EAEA, Bridges, Unicorn, Evidemment and Ai Coracao existed.
@@nick3805 how are you going to make a whole claim that there's an "objective" ranking that exists then include the word "personally" in your next comment ... it doesn't add up
@@nick3805 we have really different opinions........But i do agree that queen bejba is superior to everyone 😌
Sweden is a great host, but they got this conveniently for the 50th anniversary celebrations of ABBA. 😅
Yet we fucked up about it
Don't the juries vote on the Friday performance too rather than the Saturday one? A performer can hit a few bum notes one night but then be pitch perfect on the Saturday which can also go a long way in explaining a discrepancy between a performer's jury/public vote. I know this isn't in direct response to the subject of this video but it always seems to be overlooked when results are dissected
Yeah that is why Norway did bad with the Jury her performance on Friday wasn't her best so the Jury results makes sense.
As someone who has been in the press centre three times (twice digitally and once in person) the differences in performances are usually marginal and hardly enough to make a difference in the score. The biggest difference I saw was with Cyprus 2022, where Andromache was really struggling with her jury performance. The televised one was better, although definitely had issues as well.
I can't believe how people still blame juries of the bad placements of Spain and Portugal. And honestly, the juries have way more job than televoters, which can vote up to 20 times with every cellphone they own to the same song if they want.
Believe it or not, I still do. Because Eaea's and Tattoo's jury placement needs to be switched and even then, we still have to switch Tattoo with Ai Coracao. Reasons? See my own comment.
@@nick3805but the point is still… juries saved “eaea”
@@nick3805eeaaa was horrible. Like a annoying mosquito flying over your pillow a warm night. But yes she has a great voice which the juries gave her votes for. Televoters didnt even care about that.
@@nick3805 i mean, they got only 5 points from public, juries saved it.
@@nick3805lol Eaea was a useless shitty song, how in the hell can someone like an ambulance screaming two vowels for three minutes? Five points are too much, they should've been zero. Spain is such a flop country
Personally I don't think the numbers themselves are the problem. The problem is that jury is mostly composed of music *marketing* experts instead of actual *music* experts. This results in pretty much saying "these 200 people's *personal taste* has the same importance as thousands of common people".
The jury wasn't created to just pick 5 random people from each country a massive say. It was (officially) created to judge songs based on criteria that sadly goes often ignored. I can't believe I'm saying this but *figure skating* has a more fair & unbiased scoring system and we all saw what ISU was doing the past decade....
THIS.
The thing is, taste is ALWAYS subjective. How do you rate if someone's taste is valid to judge a music contest? Are they valid only if they align with your own taste? Then the system would be rigged (as well).
And if the juries voted the way you wanted, would you still criticize the system?
I'm not saying the system isn't flawed, but many people blame "the system" for Loreen's win, just because she wasn't their personal favorite - and not because they genuinely care about how voting works. All that just to discredit Loreen, because "there's no way she deserved it".
Support your faves, but don't drag down others to do so. And criticizing the system should be done independantly from individual results.
@@davidmorris8319PREACH
@@davidmorris8319THANK YOU! Stuff like this needs to be taken into consideration before immediately judging a winner. They have a basis on what they look for, some juries may or may not look for specific basis depending on each performance but they sure do look for performance and particular songs that will go far beyond a specific country. A song that is vocally challenging, genuinely emotional, and commanding the stage well throughout the song along with a veteran in the Eurovision community was bound to win.
@@davidmorris8319 I'm glad we agree! Personal taste is so subjective that having official jury based of it is just asking for trouble since it's impossible to find 2 people with same taste. I'm not arguing Loreen shouldn't win - her performance was amazing and she's a phenomenal performer who really gave us a great show.
I don't think you understood what I wanted to say. I don't want a jury whose taste matches my own. I want performed
Probably one of the best videos I've seen about Eurovision's voting system. you're so clear and articulate and pleasant. Not to mention knowledgable! Wonderful!
The irony of people complaining that the juries are biased and dont show appreciation for originality and culture, meanwhile the televoters gave Spain the lowest televote score of the night
Jury and televotes are different worlds. Jury has to consider their voting based their categories. By the categories Spain or Portugal would dominate the votes.
Public votes based of their liking.
Juries just randomly vote for those ballads like Switzerland and Sweden without even listening.Years and years and still juries vote for the same.Tout'l Univers was number one 2 years ago.Proud was in the Highest in 2019.Juries never voted for non ballads except for Je Me Casse and Dance you off
@@hehedutchthey voted for Nobody But You, Unicorn, Heroes, Toy, Space Man, Slomoo. This songs are not ballads.
Spain sounded horrendous
I loved every second of this video. Finally a competent analysis of the results and jury system! Thank you so much for your great work!
My pleasure Evi! 😊
We need more people with more sense like you talking about the results, even though I agree with that commenter that Spain and Portugal were robbed it is absolutely no one's place to criticise the jury vote for not giving them as many points "as they should." Music is subjective and yes, even though there is criteria the juries rank by, they can still use their opinion to order the songs as they please according to what the criteria means to them- if there were a bunch of songs the juries had a "job" to rank highly then it would be an extremely boring outcome and imply that there was an objective hierarchy, which there isn't.
I agree with a lot of what you're saying. I think the way that the jury votes is fair. But I think the diversity of the jury is the problem. They need more people from different musical backgrounds, age ranges, etc. Because a lot of the jury is made up of older people with a background in pop music, those songs are gonna be favored no matter what.
Realistically pop would always be favored because it's the most popular mainstream genre, Eurovision wants to have winners that can have a high likelihood of success after the competition, in the likes of ABBA and Celine Dion.
@@dikoproz yeah, I get what you're saying. But the jury got reintroduced to give less popular songs a fighting chance. If pop is the most popular genre and the jury is mostly made out of people with a background in popmusic, then that kinda defeats the purpose of the jury. And there are also songs that get really famous without winning. I'm thinking of Snap by Rosa Linn.
In the end I think you're right and obviously the EBU won't change much about the jury. But my opinion still stands
Well I'm glad this video popped into my recommended. Incredibly well thought out, nicely paced and easily digestible.
Time to go on a channel binge, I think!
This is very thorough and definitely took a lot of time to research and edit. For that, you definitely deserve a sub. I can't believe you only have less than 2k subscribers. More power to your channel.
Thank you! That's very kind of you 😄
@@stu_makes_vids you are most welcome. haha. I'm actually currently watching your other videos. 😅😅
New to Eurovision and this makes a lot more sense and makes me feel less indignant that some of my favorite songs didn't make it to top 10, especially if the jury has to score that way. Also some song's studio edits were such a bop but the actual performance unfortunately didn't deliver the same level of greatness. Not discounting the singer of course, live singing is hard, but the quality of sound mixing and staging really does affect the overall package and even slight difference can push one country's entire package up or down in comparison to another country's performance.
I'm glad that you found this useful! 😊
"It represents preference, with respect to all of the entries in the show" - spot on. It's easy to see a low score and think it tanked on its own merit, and equally easy to forget the other entries it stood up against. Still, I was very surprised Spain didn't do as well as it should have, esp based on the juror's criteria - where such criteria does make sense to see Sweden do remarkably well, i.e the "complete package"
Fantastic indepth yet simply explained video, especially for us Eurovision geeks (read: me!) and, kudos on the slick editing too 🙌. Will be checking out your longer vids!
Cheers Fernand! I really enjoy your stuff too! 😁
Fascinating Video Stuart. I really enjoyed it. Very insightful. Keep them coming :)
Thanks Chris! 😁
This was my favorite Eurovision reporting video ever. Well edited. Paced perfectly. Professional.
That's quite the compliment! Thank you! 😄
Thank you for explaining this in such a good way. As a person that is too deep into ESC myself I knew this already, but explaining it to people that think Loreen only won because of faul play is hopeless, now I have a link to send them and do not have to try to explain this myself. Again Thank You!!!!!
The juries benefit Sweden. Look at the data. Formulaic songs turned out. This is what so many people are upset about. How many times has Sweden been the last to get their televoting points because they won the jury vote. Some of their songs are complete rubbish and they will always score well with the juries. The data speaks for itself.
I knew Sweden was going to win based on e.g. betting odds, but I still don’t understand why. It’s so boring and mediocre. Just by listening to the songs I don’t think I would have even put it in the top 10.
WOW this is probably the best video I’ve seen in relation to voting. Got a new sub here 👍❤
Thank you Karl! 😊
Wow! What a brilliant video! One of the more useful ones on the Eurovision topic. Rock on!
Great analysis and an awesome video! I think that the problem with both juries and televoters is not mathematical and is actually more subtle - it can be summed up as "lazy groupthink + no incentive to vote fairly". It is difficult to rank 25+ songs of different genres and in different languages fairly with meticulous effort. So most jurors - don't. Many of them probably don't even pay much attention to the details of songs and performances, but will vote for those songs that they are "meant to vote for", meaning the most hyped ones. Honestly, I think that FIN can thank the hype for such a great jury result - not that he didn't deserve it, but out-of-the-box entries are traditionally trashed by juries. Likewise, the crowds have no reason to pay attention to 25+ songs in the evening - they will focused on the hyped ones and neighboring countries. The only solution I see is more marketing by ESC itself, focused on performers and songs. Believe me, Tattoo was marketed heavily.
I'm a bit skeptical about how much the pre-show hype affects jury voting. We have to remember that everyday people are not really tuned-in to the developments around the show. Industry people may be in the know about the local selection but I doubt they are invested enough to pay attention to the discourse at the same level as us.
But I do agree that the jurors may feel an "obligation" to vote for certain songs, especially if they are vocally impressive. It could explain situations like in 2022 with Azerbaijan, Australia and Switzerland doing so well with the juries and so poorly with the televote.
I agree on the jurors not voting fairly since there's a lot of songs & while it's easy to select your top and bottom few, the middle often feels like "I honestly don't care how these are sorted". Hell sometimes it's hard to even decide if a song should be on your 15th or 25th place... Imo it would be better if every song was scored individually & only use "top song gets 12 points, 2nd gets 10, etc" system for televoting...
My issue isn’t with the Juries but with the televote. So many good songs got such low scores because everyone was directing their votes to one or 2 countries. Voters should have to give at least 2 countries votes, whether it’s 12 votes for one country and then however many votes for however many songs they want after that up to 20 votes of course.. This way they can still give maximum votes for their favourite song but potentially giving other songs better (more deserved) points as well. I didn’t like Spain this year but it deserved more than 5 points.
i mean... did it actually really deserved more than 5 points? idk. maybe 10? maybe 20? Would it have mattered anyway? It's a song that will never get televotes and that's alright.
there's a lot more maths involved in that and therefore the time implication is a lot higher.
@@EurovisionESC I think it did. Using my method it might’ve gotten a few more votes but Spain is just an example. France certainly deserved more, and even tho I’m biased, Australia deserved more.
@@Matthew-bu7fg not at all. We already have the option to divide our votes anyway we like. You could give 1 vote for 20 songs if we wanted to. My idea just means the max amount of votes given would be 12. So your fave would still get maximum votes but other songs would be able to get more points.
THIS!
Loreen was the complete package. Very deserved win!
That was very interesting, Keep up the good work.
Lovely explanation of the voting system, but I think the root of fans' complaints comes down to the jury criteria and how they're used in practice, not how the numbers shake out. At 6:50, you show those criteria - song composition and originality, quality of the performance, vocal capacity, and overall impression. Routinely we see that polished ballads with strong vocals scoop up a large number of jury points, even when they're a by-the-books composition that few will remember after the night. Consider our jury winners in 2018 and 2019, Estonia this year, or perhaps the clearest example, Azerbaijan 2022, which got nul points in the semi televote and still qualified. Meanwhile, galvanizing 'bops' that don't jive with the mainstream music scene are consistently underrated relative to fan opinion. Consider Norway 2019 or Finland this year. Originality and the level at which a song engages its audience (one way that you could interpret "overall impression") are consistently lesser considerations.
I don't begrudge Loreen's win at all. It was a well-produced song, impeccably staged and sung. It deserved to do well in the jury. But I was surprised by how it dominated the juries considering how familiar or even passé the composition was. And so I don't blame some fans for complaining about a jury that consistently underrates songs that arguably make a bigger impact on the contest and its fandom.
I'd love to see a video on Black smoke by Ann-Sophie from 2015. It got the dreaded Zero points but almost all comments about it says it deserved much better. It was easily in my top 10 that year.
This is the best video I've seen on this topic so far. Not sensational and really informative.
Glad you liked it! 😊
I wonder how it would work out if the jurors gave the songs a score instead of placement.
Then they would tell if they meant that a third place was a strong third or a weak third.
Excellent take on the jury results! And if I may add:
We’ve seen time and time again how the jury winners ended up still losing because they didn’t get enough points from the televoters.
ITA 2011: J - 251; T - 99
AUT 2018: J - 271; T - 71
MKD 2019: J - 247; T - 58
This could’ve happened to Sweden and Loreen. Even with 340 points from the juries, in theory, Loreen could still lose if she received a low score from the televoters.
But no, that’s not what happened. Europe and the rest of the world gave “Tattoo” 243 points, more than enough needed to win.
The public could deny Loreen the victory by, I don’t know, simply not voting for her, but clearly, they still liked the song enough to give it that many points (the second-highest score in the televote, btw).
So, if anything, the juries aren’t solely to blame. It’s the public vote that gave her the extra edge needed to win. 🤷
Where do you find the data for this? - As in how each Jurevis ranked each song? Would be really interested to see this info
Hey Mark! You can find the jury scores on the website. They are on the "Detailed Voting Results" section of an individual year. However they are organized by voting country rather than showing all the ranks for one song like I did here. Some people make graphics of their own to present them that way like @eurovisionario on Twitter. Hope that helps! 😉
@@stu_makes_vids Legend thanks Stuart - subscribed btw love the content!
For me i think there's two things I'd like to see to improve the scoring system:
1) Either expanded juries of more than 5 people, or slightly diluted jury power (maybe 34/66 or 25/75 split perhaps)
2) Replacing the system where points go to the top 10 countries with a system which awards points to the top 20. The idea that 11th and 26th places are equal is a bit silly to me.
I agree. The current system isn't good. Those sound like good improvements
Stuart, this is bloody fantastic. One of the best (if not the best) Eurovision explainer videos I have ever seen. And a much needed explanation for our passionate fanbase. ~ Dale
Thank you Dale! 😁
My favorite part: the ranking of the song in the scoreboard means the preference of the MAJORITY, not the quality of the song. This is for those saying that other songs would've deserved to win. Yes, in THEIR opinion.
Looooove your videos! Sooo well thought out, produced and presented! Keep up the amazing and great work you are doing!! ❤❤❤
Thank you! Glad to have you here! 😊
Justice For Tattoo!! Best song of that year
This video needs more out reach, while I still think Finland should have won, at least now I can understand how the point system works within the jury system
All I got out of this video is that the jury scoring needs to be made more comprehensible. I principally believe that the juries should not be able to favor one act so heavily that no other entry could've won, even if it literally got the highest proportional televote turnout of all time.
I have no respect for a jury that was instructed to take the originality of the song into account yet handed the W to a song with four separate plagiarism accusations. I don't think Tattoo is plagiarism, but I do believe its structure is basic and generic to the point that it's easy to accuse of plagiarism, which is a point against originality.
I know it's easy to call me a sore loser, but seeing as I'm surrounded by sore winners who have been actively xenophobic I think I have every right to be
Really good explainer! Much as I understand the frustration of Finland not winning, it's not hard to see why Cha Cha Cha proved so divisive among the juries but as you point out, the exponential weight model ensured it still got a very respectable jury score.
In another video, ESC Tom points out there's usually more of a "consensus" in the televote than the jury and it's pretty unusual for a country to dominate the jury as Loreen did this year.
Looking at the 2022 jury scores, there's a much narrower gap between the top 5 which was also the case in 2021:
1. 🇬🇧 283
2. 🇸🇪 258
3. 🇪🇸 231
4. 🇺🇦 192
5. 🇵🇹 171
Granted, Ukraine's televote score was unusually high as a percentage of the available votes (93% compared to 85% for 🇫🇮 2023 and 70% for 🇮🇹 2021) but in any case, it demonstrates a more typical scenario where there's less of a consensus among the juries than the televote and the televote winner is more likely to prevail.
One idea I've seen is to require jurors to score each song out of ten for each criterion and then have the scores aggregated. I'm not a stats expert so I've no idea if that could be done in a way that prevents low scores cancelling out higher ones but I think it would be good if each song could be judged on its own merits and not in relation to others. Again, I've no idea if that's possible!
Damn, I was so hyped over my favourite Aussies making the top ten overall that I hardly reflected on the fact that people who actually know stuff about music ranked them 6th! Still behind bloody Belgium though. 😂
If any of the numbskulls you’re trying to reach actually receive some knowledge, you should follow up with a video about what is and isn’t plagiarism. 😂
I’m a Loreen stan, I’ll freely admit, but allegiance doesn’t matter. The only time your opinion matters is when you vote. Like everything these days that annoys more than about twelve people, this whole shitshow comes close to some post-truthism shit; “bUt YoU kNoW wHo RuNs ThE bRoAdCaStInG cOmPaNiEs RiGhT?!1!?” #bidenrobbedfinland
Tasteless jokes aside, I was genuinely concerned for the safety of the presenters, EBU people, Swedish delegation and the Queen herself. The level of vitriol - over a fucking singing competition. -_-
(Just had an image in my head of Hannah Waddingham, Yuliya, Loreen and Simone Dow: Aussie Shred Goddess fighting off a horde of red-eyed, mouth-foaming Dunning-Kruger University graduates wearing green boleros and brandishing Finnish flags. How is it fair that someone with this fucked up of an imagination can’t draw to save his damn life?
Anyone who hasn’t checked the new Voyager album that dropped a couple of weeks ago out: DO! ❤ If you liked Promise, you will die and go to music heaven upon hearing this thing! 😊 )
i love videos like this. as a STEM major, it gets frustrating s
when some people make big statements about the juries/televote without actually understanding how it works mathematically/statically. it's nearly impossible to have a perfect system but the current one works pretty damn well
Absolutely impressed by this video. thank you for the explanation of the structure, and may I compliment you on the way you present because it was very clear, concise and direct
Always good to know the effort pays off! Thank you 😊
People are always quick to criticise the jury scoring and demand they are removed from the voting system when they feel their favourites have been robbed. Don't they get that if the jury voted everything in agreement with the public then there would be no point in having a jury. Personally, I'd rather it was just the jury voting but that juries were made up of about 100 everyday folk and they just voted on what they liked not on criteria. Then you are less likely to know winners before the show and it will help remove biased voting from the public.
Thanks for explaining how the score itself came to pass. I still find it a bit aus that Sweden wins the year before ABBAs anniversary though… I am not that deep into Eurovision politics but when I heard that a feeling grew in me.
Why can’t you just be happy for Loreens success??? Her song is most popular on Spotify than Finland. Sorry no offence but it’s true.
I really enjoyed your video, gave it a like, and I don't want to be That Guy but it's actually not pronounced LorEEn as it's spelled, it sounds more like the name Lorraine.
You almost got me by the thumbnail!
Loreen was my 12 points and truly my winner this year. Can't wait for Malmö!
What a great video and the visual we’re on point. Keep up the work I subscribed
Finally someone speaking facts ❤
Idk man, I’m still salty about Spain’s flop on the jury side of things, think it met the criteria way better than other songs that were on top of it.
You're really cute, and I love that you're a statics scholar, but Loreen won according to the rules applied at the time.
When I grew up, the big debate was "can you compete in music?"
That ultimately comes down to musical "taste".
There's not one person on earth who thinks their taste in music is anything but the best!
Maybe I should delete this comment, because I don't have the energy to elaborate stuff.
There are multiple parameters going into a Eurovision winner.
And as long as it offers creators revenue, let's keep on bickering.❤
Thank you very much for your clever explanations! Televoters are too often confused by their own feelings and emotions, blaming the professional jurys aren't capable to feel the same emotions as the audience, and from that criticizing the expertise and the complete voting system by qualifying it as unfair, rubbish etc...
To my own personal opinion, I hope that system will prevail as such but I have a huge doubt about the pertinence of letting the audience from countries outside the Eurovision 37 participants vote to the contest.
Why people outside the Eurovision 37 shouldn't vote? Like it litterly no reason. It can't be political since there are people from more than one country. Give them right to vote
@@kawa8149 Exactly for the same NO REASON AT ALL that people like you wanting the professional jurys disappear.
@@DanTony68 First of all, I didn't say that I want jury votes to disappear. You making asumption out of nowhere. Second I don't want jury votes to disappear just change it. More people in the jury and more diversity of them. At different ages, career (still strongly attached to music), Music genres etc.
@@kawa8149 Obviously you ignore totally how the national jurys have been composed for several decades. So it's worthless speaking to you. Your "change" is only a stupid fantasm
Very well explained, i dont get why are people suprised by the jury results, as a juror i would never put Finland above Sweden, like where were the vocals??
I know for me personally it’s not about Finland not winning, but about Sweden’s runaway lead. Sure, the vocals were great, but that’s still only 1/4 of the criterion that the juries are supposed to judge on. You simply cannot argue that the song is original. The style, instrumentation, and genre is nothing new, and there is little to no innovative or clever lyricism. It’s been accused multiple times of plagiarism, and the essence of the song can be condensed into an 8-bar melody, from which it rarely deviates. Even if you argue that they got full marks in the other 3 (which I personally would dispute but for the sake of argument, let’s go with it) one could certainly argue that other countries fulfilled 3 of the four categories just as much. Finland’s vocals might have been weak, but the song was incredibly original, the staging was effective at what it was trying to do, and it got everyone up and dancing-you certainly can’t argue that it left an impression. In all four categories, Spain should have dominated. Incredibly original song, staggering was excellent, Blanca was note perfect (in a very technically difficult song), and it definitely left an impression. It’s impossible to remove bias completely from music, but the purpose of the jury is to attempt to reward quality on the most objective basis it can. Based on this, I simply cannot understand how it managed to beat out every other entry by such a huge margin . If each of the four categories was ranked /15 and Loreen got 14, 14, 14, and 3, the average score per category needed to beat that would be 11.25, which would have been more than achievable for entries such as the Spanish one.
I do worry that juries are becoming a bit blinded by vocals, and that we should remember that it is a song competition, not a singing one. Vocals are important, but imo they shouldn’t be the primary factor in what decides the winner, as the juries seem to be doing-they should be judging the song before all else. To a degree vocals are important for this, as they are how the song is expressed, but great vocals should never be able to make an objectively unoriginal song win. Otherwise Eurovision is just an international ‘The Voice’.
Great video! This is very informative
Glad it was helpful! 😁
Exactly!Hate how people think juries rigged something and Finland's jury score was fixed eventhough in past it could have been worse.😒But yeah one thing I think should be changed is having more jury members so that a bigger group ranks the songs.
The matter is simple, no matter how deep you look into it.
Either the jury overrules the popular vote, or they don't.
If they do, there is no good justification for it and if they don't, then it's irrelevant.
If you want to have a jury to moderate the quality of the songs, then you need to have the jury on the semifinals, not on the finals.
No amount of mental gymnastics can get you around, or over this simple fact.
The fact that a lot of juries thought Sweden was the complete package shows their bias because tattoo isn't an original song at all
Except that’s an opinion. Stop assuming that you are the one who is right.
Wow I'm curious about how the exponential thingy is done. How is it calculated?
The actual formula hasn't been released but some people have attempted to reverse engineer it and have come up with calculations that are relatively close. I have a link that I could share but posting links in YT comment sections is dicey so instead I will suggest to search for "eurovision exponential weight model" and check out the first few results 😉
@@stu_makes_vids i found an article on reddit and I think I might stick to his explanation for now haha.
All Finland stans need to watch this lol
7:49 Italy was my last place
What I miss in this discussion is that the jury give points in an slightly different show (a day earlier) than the Saturday final. It has not been unknown that a performer has a lesser performance in the jury show then in the actual final or vice versa. Would that also be a factor that sometimes explain the difference between the public vote and the jury vote. It struck me because Ukrain didn't do that well with quite a numner of juries but did better with the public.
Having watched the jury shows from 2021-2023 from the press centre (online in '21 and '22, in person in '23) I feel as if there is rarely enough of a difference in the performances to really change the jury score. In most cases I think it's just the juries are more drawn towards other songs irrespective of the artist's vocals.
The only time where I felt the jury show was significantly different was with Cyprus 2022. She was even more off key than in the televised performance and sadly finished last with the juries. I can't really think of another one where it made a huge difference. Sometimes the really skilled vocalists will do some more complicated runs or hit a higher note, but that's about it.
love it!
Nice video
I would love jury to give points more evenly to all acts. One or few would not get that much lead. That way the public score would weight more even the total points would be the same
💙
What happened to Latvia's and Ireland's 5th jurors? They got cancelled for something? Haha
It's a very good question. In previous years if an individual juror has to back out or is dismissed, they were usually replaced by an alternate. Why that didn't happen is a bit odd...
After the jury vote, theoretically none of countries could beat Sweden by overall scores, even if Sweden scored 187 points on televote, which is even lower than 4th place. It's absolutely record in ESC history, and proves that jury was biased, because considering that no one can argue that Loreen can reach at least top 5 on televotes, making the jury vote by "first and the rest places" will guarantee the victory of Sweden even before the show started. So anyone can say that it's how Eurovision works, but we can't see any situation from any previous contests even a little similar to this, jury votes does not giving that difference except when they are focused only on one contestant.
Well if 'biased' means ' they liked this song best' you're correct 😂
I don't get your point.
No, the victory wasn't guaranteed. Just very probable looking at the universal quality of the song.
@@miskatonic6210 yes, no other song was good, not "Watergun", not "Evidemment", not other songs, nice joke 😂. Tell me that you're Loreen fan without telling it.
One thing you failed to mention is how several musicians who are way more knowledgeable about music than most jury members say that if the jury had followed the criteria Sweden wouldn’t’ve won and although most agree that she deserved more points than Finland, it wouldn’t’ve been enough to beat their televote, mostly because Sweden would’ve lost of points on the “composition and originality of the song” criteria point. “the peace among us” youtube channel is run by a professional musician and she has a great video on that, you can check that out in case you don’t trust me.
I studied music professionally (I don’t have proof of this, you’ll have to believe me if you want) and although I gave up on it very early on, before getting my degree I know enough to be able to tell that they are right and the jury voted according to their preference instead of following the criteria. I also have several musicians friends i’ve met when studying music who’ve finished their degree and love eurovision and they agree. I’m not Finnish (you’ll have to believe me on this one too lmao) and neither are none of my friends so we have no reason to defend Finland.
Although several of my friends had Sweden as their nr1, almost all agreed that Loreen didn’t deserve that many points (most said that Spain was the deserved jury winner, which also matches with the musicians that made videos on RUclips), again, mostly because of the originality thing. One of them said “As a member of the public, i’d give her all of my televote calls if I weren’t broke but as a fair jury member I couldn’t give her more than 8 points”. They all absolutely hate Käärijä for some reason but they admitted that he deserved a decent amount of points. This is basically the conclusion we reached on our eurovision group chat.
Personally, I think the problem was not only them not following the criteria but also not being diverse enough. There’s no reason why more than half of them should be middle aged pop professionals all being biased towards pop music.
But we can't forget here that Finland still came 4th with the juries. Now if we'd be super strict about the criteria for the juries, maybe Finland would've gotten less points from the juries. Of course Loreen would've too, but maybe Finland would be dragged down so much the televote still wouldn't be enough to win and a secret third option could've snatched it, like Israel. We will never know for sure.
The jurors don’t have unlimited time to judge the entries and compare them to be able to make a perfect judgement where they only follow the criterias. It’s not fair on them to expect them to be able to get it completely right. They get one listen from one run through of the show and have to decide from that, it’s absolutely impossible to follow each criteria to 100%. Most performances will also suit one or two criterias not all 4 since no song is perfect and so they would have to then make personal decision of what criteria they feel is the most important to them. You can not expect jurors to get it 100% right, if that was to be the expectation every year then they would need to get rid of human jurors and implement an AI based jury system where there’s no emotions only facts.
This is my big problem with current juries. Whether or not there was influence on jurors isn't the point. I would even argue that if there wasn't influence, it makes this look worse for the use of juries. The *entire* point of juries is that they don't vote for preference, but according to criteria. Käärijä deserved to lose on vocal ability, Loreen on originality. Audience is allowed to vote on preference, the 180 people voting for a song as juror, are not. Yes, there is going to be some personal preference, but unless these industry professionals aren't expected to vote on criteria there is no basis for them needing to be professionals or their votes being worth thousands, sometimes even literally millions, of audience votes. I'm perfectly willing to believe jurors just voted for their preference, AND THAT IS THE PROBLEM.
@@Tollkirschenkind I don’t think Finland would’ve been dragged that much. His voice was mediocre at best in the pop bit but the rap was pretty great, the performance was great, the song was very decent composition wise and caused a good impression. I don’t know of any musician who thought he deserved more than 100 points less than Loreen so his victory would’ve been guaranteed. Don’t forget that he had 133 points more than her.
@@user-ek3ri7gv8e that’s true but this is their job, they get paid to do it (i think) so they are supposed to do as well as they can. One thing is to be torn between placing your favorite song above or below another one in one of the criteria and choosing to put your favorite above, that’s being human. Another thing is putting a song you hate but follows most of the criteria pretty well and deserves a a good placing out of the top 10, or worse, placing it last, like many juries did to Finland. That’s not just being human, that’s being corrupt. Like, i wanted Finland to win but ik I couldn’t place it 1st, nor could i put Israel out of the top 10 even though i hated it.
A thought occurs to me. The quality of entry to Eurovision entries over the last few years has become SO good that it is almost impossible to pick a winner based on the quality of the music/performance alone leading in the last 2 years to the obvious winners winning. Is it time for a head shift to a less competitive appreciation of Eurovision?
I'd say the true winners are the people who realize that the contest side of the show isn't everything and as long as you find music and talent to appreciate you can't lose. 🤷♂️
@@stu_makes_vidsso Loreen's press conference booings werent deserved? Get gaught?😮
After watching Eurovision for 50 years, it’s nice to live in a world where that’s possible 😁
Thanks for extensively explaining this system. I'm one of those people who thought Loreen deserved the win but Käärijä just deserved it more. I wonder how the order would have changed, had they used a different model for the jury votes.
5 juries by country is definately low.
I just have to say, this was a great video. You explained everything clearly while stile going in depth. De graphics were amazing. And you managed to keep me entertained the entire time through.
Glad it was helpful! 😊
Nicely put
Where do you find this? I want to see it from the others entrys to!
The actual numbers are on Eurovision's website, but they are separated by votes from each country rather than votes for each song. There's a Twitter account @eurovisionario who organizes them so that you can find some of the songs' jury breakdowns. They don't do them for every entry, but they will make graphs that show how each song ranked between the split system and where they received their points from.
Thank you so much for this! ❤
My pleasure! 😁
People always blaming/complains about everything evertime when it is televoting/jury votes. Wrong song won, wrong singer qualify etc...! And I’m tired of it!👎🏼
the difference to the Portugal winning. THIS was art.. lorreens song was a mainstream pop song that you can hear at the radio everyday. its not special at all. Would have any other artist sung that song it wouldnt have won.
That last part can be said about any song. Maybe if Cha Cha Cha was performed by someone who can actually sing, Finland could have won 🤷♂️. Tattoo is literally breaking records left and right after the show, and doesn't rely on its staging to do so (unlike Cha Cha Cha, which is underperforming when the televote result is taken into account). The right song clearly won, and is considered art by many. Your opinion doesn't make it a fact.
@@dav4811 so you say käärijä candy sing? For me loreens voice doesn’t sound good to nasal for my taste.
And since when does a song needs to be amazing to be successful?! Tattoo is popular because its mainstream music. So my point stands 😂😂
@@smallblueangel yes, Käärijä can't sing and plenty of vocal coaches on youtube for example say so too. I have yet to see a vocal expert say something negative about Loreen's vocals. And I trust the opinion of professionals over yours, who is already biased against Loreen anyway.
You don't need to be able to sing to be successful: look at JLo! You need it, however, to actually win Eurovision. And had a different, more capable vocalist, performed Cha Cha Cha, then maybe Finland would have received more jury points, hence possibly overtaking Sweden in the end 🤷♂️.
There's nothing wrong with being mainstream and popular music. There have been plenty of mainstream and English language winning songs, and none of them have had the commercial success of Tattoo (in the same timeframe). Stop trivializing this song's achievements, it reeks of jealousy and hatred honestly.
It's just the tea 🤷♂️.
@@dav4811 plenty vocal coaches also praise his voice. 🤷🏾♀️ he isn’t a singer he is a rapper and a pretty good one.
And what a miracle that a mostly pop jury prefers a pop song. 🤷🏾♀️ who is surprised about that?! And a song being successful doesn’t mean its a good song, i totally forgot how tattoo sounded the second it was over because there is nothing memorable about it. It sounds like every other song too
@@dav4811 what should i be jealous about?!
Who the hell is edgar is higher than Eaea? Wtf
Great video!!
Glad you enjoyed it! 😃
Even if we put jury voting in this context, this isn't really changeing anything. 154 jury put her in top ten, even if she isn't that great. Jury aren't there for judgeing by they own taste, but, by criteria that has been given to them. Lyrics is so generic and boring so she already does not check one of the boxes. I saw somewhere opinion of vocal coach that Loreen doesn't really hits lower notes. (I'm not sure if I describe it correctly, bc it was review in my native languange)
5:45 yea these points do not matter, because the jurys do their job badly. I mean I understand what you say, that there are limited point to give, but even compared with other results there are so low.
Hahahaha 😂🤣
We will never recover..sweden victory was so anticlimactic... i just don't see how competition can move forward with this system...people are voting, paying for their votes and then...this happens
She was the best. Simple as that. Next time maybe Finland can send someone who can actually sing....andvthen Finns will not need to vote tactically.
New juries ASAP
Käärijä on average more than 10 points from each of the 37 televoting countries (out of 12 possible). Of course he should have won. I don't think the audience has ever been as clear on who they wanted to win. I have little respect for this years jury results
It's a 50-50 system and all countries know that in advance. Finland chose to send an artist who couldn't even sing his own song, but was more than happy to make a clown out of himself on that stage (instead of investing in vocal training and possibly physical training to get that breath control in order). It literally doesn't matter what the televote alone thought. Again, it's a 50-50 system. The general public is extremely influenced by running order and has a tendency to vote for joke-y and campy acts (that in their eyes are still thought of as "quintessentially Eurovision" - an idea that the contest needs to move away from as quickly as possible, if it wants to retain any semblance of a serious contest). The jury ranking is superior this year, and as the video explains, it even helped Käärijä. A lot. Which just shows that there wasn't too much actual substance in Cha Cha Cha aside from the clownery that was showcased on stage.
Stay indefinitely mad, Loreen still won, and the people literally supported her enough to get that victory. Had Israel's and Sweden's televote scores been swapped, then Sweden would have lost by 1 point. But that didn't happen, because people actually stood behind the song. A song that was 9th in the running order (!!!), followed by all televote magnets like Cha Cha Cha, Queen of Kings, Unicorn and even Heart Of Steel (let's be real, sympathy voting was still there). That's massive, and she would have most likely scored more if she performed in the second half.
Get over it, honestly, and accept that Sweden just understands the system best: jury and televote appeal is essential for winning. Finland puts the focus on televote, and that's entirely on them.
@@dav4811 I do get your point that Sweden received a lot of televoting points, but the difference between Käärijä’s and Loreen‘s televote points was not 30 or 40, it was over one hundred points, which isn’t nothing!
Additionally, you can support Loreen in every way you want to, but stop dragging Käärijä down and calling him a clown, since his outgoing and fun personality actually succeeded in uniting the ESC audience and made him one of (if not the) most beloved Eurovision artists of the last years. No, Eurovision is not always about the best voice, it’s one part like overall presence, performance, melody, message etc.. Both Käärijä and Loreen own unique qualities and should not receive hate comments from each side.
@@Elirie276 It doesn't matter. Sweden still came 2nd with the people, from an extremely tough position in the running order - followed by literally all the other televote favorites. It's a 50-50 system. Käärijä couldn't keep up with the juries against Loreen, which is why he lost at the end of the day. An other, more capable vocalist, could have possible pulled off a win 🤷♂️.
It has been predicted and projected since March that the jury score difference between Sweden and Finland would be bigger than the televote score difference. In other words, the maths was always in favor of Sweden.
We have to be honest and tell the whole story, Kaarija was probably going to win the televote ( public love a crazy and fun performance) but by a small distance because Loreen was the big favourite to win.
Kaarija won the UMK in February and didn't make it to No.1 in odds, Ukraine was still No.1 and Loreen had not yet released Tattoo. When Loreen won Melodifestivalen she got 40% (N.1) in the odds and that's when the campaign against Loreen started and the eurofan community united with Finland just to prevent Loreen from winning. In fact Loreen was not only N.1 in the odds, she was N.1 in Myscoreboard, Ogae, Eurojury, EurovisionWorld poll, in all the relevant and most known polls of the eurofan community and the best sellling song, the most streamed song before Eurovision.
The reason why Kaarija got so much points in the televote is because of all the negative campaign against Loreen by a big part of the eurofans community and the most media eurofan press, because they saw it unfair that Loreen and specially Sweden would win again. Im not saying that Kaarija wouldnt have won the televote without this stupid boycott against Loreen, because Cha Cha cha got that elements that people love, but Loreen also has it. Without this hateful campaing probably the televote would have been similar to Eurovision 2016 Russia 361 Ukraine 323 or Eurovision 2017 Portugal 376 Bulgaria 337. A similar result would have been more sense
@@bermerubioI expected these 243 points to Loreen instead of 300 or something because she started getting hate just because je participated again, the “plagiarism “ thing and because she doesn’t give chances to other people to win. So yeah that campaign started against Loreen and she got fewer televoting points. I think she could get like 300 or more.
So, it is just a pure coincidence that whenever there is a major discrepancy between jury and audience preferences, it is Sweden that gets pushed to the top spot by the juries? Ok, I'll take your word for it. Music industry is known to not ever play absolutely any dirty tricks on anyone, after all.
It´s because of ABBA.......
Because she's the Dancing Queen? 🥁😃