I did the maths and if you take the jury results for switzerland from the semi final 2 countries and take away all the countries that didn't compete in semi 2 than Switzerland hypothetically got 214 out of 218 points, but that's assuming they voted the same in the final as in the semi but I don't think it would be far off
Yes, it is a very impressive score there!Just Israel and France did not let it become an absolute maximum. Actually 212 of 216, not 214 of 218, but it does not matter so much 😉
I really don't understand why we still have jury voting in final, maybe SomeoneWantsToControlTheFinalResult, and they don't vote in semi final because "favorites" will qualify 100%.... 🤫🤔🧐🧐🧐
The juries are very important cause the televote is too much influenced by politics and attracted to catchy performances rather than judging who has better voice, more modern song and who can have an international success in the future
Because the public can't be trusted and vote for the populist song, rather than a good song. 2023, remember that? There is NO WAY you could even entertain the Finnish song being a "better song" than Sweden's, IMO, but certainly was "better entertainment". The public can't discern the difference, unfortunately.
@@AppNetEnt I absolutely agree! If we want it to be a SONG contest and not a "performance" contest - the juries are of course required. But they often of course also pay a lot of attention to the vocals and professionalism of the singer, rather than at the quality of the song. So many things could be improved :)
@@AppNetEnt and yet France, Iceland, Serbia, Cyprus and Norway all had jurors that voted Cha Cha Cha higher than Tattoo. Those juries all gave higher points to Sweden. In fact, 14 jurors overall gave Finland 12 points. I'm not trying to prove that Cha Cha Cha is better. I'm saying that even with the guidelines given by the EBU to jurors while scoring, they dont all think the same and vote the way you expect them to. I do not want a televote-only final. That would kill Eurovision.
Then Poland could’ve qualified like I wanted! But… Finland would be eliminated which wouldn’t be good for me… I’ve been starting to root for Finland ever since Kaarija’s outstanding performance.
But either way maybe it’s time for the juries to continue voting in the semifinals, because now with them out of the semifinals, the juries have fewer choices to choose in the grand final and potentially there will be fewer songs that the jury would like. Hence these few songs would have more concentrated jury scores. And it led to issues where they came off as ‘biased’, like how they gave Sweden 15 sets of 12 last year and Switzerland 22 sets of 12 this year.
@@jason256-8 you are so right about this! Especially I was able to see it with the second semi-final qualifiers when all of them except of course Switzerland were not really liked by the juries at all 😅
Really interesting video, was thinking about this the other day. One thing I disagree on is Poland getting so much points from the juries, as Luna's vocals were not particularly good, so Finland or Slovenia would have still qualified
Thank you, Diego 👌 You are right about the vocals, but they were actually not really bad. Her voice is not strong, but she was just singing in quite a delicate way and she has hit the notes. I believe the juries would vote for this one as it is one of very few potential radio-hits from this semi-final. Modern pop track but not a trashy europop, which juries usually do not appreciate 😅
@@JustESCAnalyst Yeah, Luna's song felt very current and in line with current music trends, so maybe the juries would have loved it. And it may have been one of the rare ocurrences in which Poland gets more points from the juries than from the televote, haha
I get more and more pissed at Eurovision every year when it becomes more and more obvious that people cannot separate their emotional feelings for an artist, country or culture from the actual song. And it's getting worse. At the end of the day it is a song contest. Read the tin label. Yes, I understand culture will always play the bigger factor of the three, that's obvious, but I think this guy hits the nail on the head. Australia misses out of the 'neighbour' factor (by extension some cultural elements - ignoring the diaspora factor in Australia to some extent as Europeans are a lesser percentage/weighting these days), yet other countries like Poland, Lithuania and Ukraine have such a massive diaspora across Europe that they can, and do, actually affect televoting results). The thing that ruins this contest for me now more and more is this inability to say 'yes I am Xxxxxish, yes I want Xxxxxxxx to win, but Yyyyyy's song is better so I'll vote for that' (you can replace Xxxxx and Yyyyyy with any country you like). That isn't human nature, generally, especially when you factor in an artist may be your favourite, you saw them three times on tour promoting their song and you heard it the most, or all your friends are voting for it for their own non-empirical reasons. All of this can work in the opposite too, of course. Even if you think a song is better than your own you won't vote because 300 years ago they did whatever they did. Look, I am not naïve, I know there are deeply held reasons why people do and don't do what should be an empirical action, but this is why we will forever need juries to smooth over the sharp edges of peoples' irrational actions. Maybe I am just being an idealist and what I am arguing for people to do is irrational in itself, but I feel I can never trust this contest again when factors as those this guy lists are in play. How can (or should) you use previous jury trends as part of an analysis? Every song *should* stand on its own merit, devoid of any historical context, populist context and frankly commercial context. The only way to achieve this is to have anonymous songs by artists not from that country all sung in one language so you've no idea where it's from until afterwards and clearly none of that can never happen. The solace I take is that in general the 'best' song *generally* wins (2022 excepted in recent years) through this smoothing process, but analyses like this should be moot because the populace *should* be able to separate an empirical judgement on a song from all the other crap clouding our brains. But I know we can't. This is a song contest, not a performer, culture, bezzie mates nor radio play contest. I'd love people to at least think of some of that before we pick up our 'phones. Some people really would vote for a farting goat on stage if the rules allowed it for any of the reasons above. Some probably have.
You are absolutely right! I have a couple, who are my close friends, who for example vote each and every year 20 times from both of their phones for the same country, because one of them came originally from this country. Even if they don’t like the song 😂 I think it is unfair, but so is their human nature and EBU has no way to stop such cases, except by eliminating the televote completely, which will not happen
@@JustESCAnalyst it’s a shame. We are emotional beings and maybe it’s just my (extremely) mild autistic tendencies to automatically separate my emotions from fact. I’m not always successful of course, but I try.. haha Btw your videos are great. I love your style and presentation and have an extremely camera-friendly manner (and face!), so please don’t think any of this is a criticism of the work you’ve done. I think it’s great and you should be very proud of this output. I covered ESC as press from 2005-2014 and stopped for a lot of the reasons above, and the runaway costs! Don’t even talk about the Baku costs and Malmö 2013, I’m already feeling the pain for those guys go head to Switzerland next year! Ouch! But seriously, great videos and lovely presentation.
Thank you so much 😉 very interesting, I am sure you have a lot of nice memories from those times. But the costs are, indeed, extreme. Luckily nowadays you don‘t really have to be there in order to cover the contest as a press 👌 but I am still glad I have at least visited one show in Malmö 🇸🇪
I have discovered something a bit weird with Esc results, specifically with nordic countries , for some odd reason nordic countries allways have something bad happen to them if the contest is hosted in a fellow nordic country Some examples of this are Swedens only nq happening in norway 2010 In sweden 2016 not a single nordic country qualified In denmark 2001 norway and iceland were tied for last place Finlands best result in a nordic country since the 2000s is 18th in 2000 Sweden 2024 where norway came last , finland a televote magnet flopped , denmark failed to qualify with a half descent song and then iceland came dead last with only 3 points Hoping for a nordic country to win again so we can see what the curse does next
37 Juries gave Israels best ever entry on 30 points. What lesson can Israel take from this ??? 🤔 (But sadly they will think the Public vote is the majority of people as opposed to certain people voting MANY times for Israel.) .
The juries were often very supportive of Israeli entries, but Israeli ballads in 2010, 2013, 2019 were also always rated quite low by the juries. Eden did actually quite good with the juries in my opinion 👌
Eagle eye! 👍 have realized it after I have posted the video :) I mean Cyprus, mixed up these two countries. Thank you, the video about semi-final 2 comes soon :)
Eurojury was based on the music videos and not on their live performances. Australian song was one of a few radio-friendly ones in this semi-final and it really came alive with this live performance 👌 Also don’t forget that, ranking all 37 songs at once, juries would had Australia rather in the middle of their tops, meaning not giving points. But choosing just among 14 other semi-finalists, I am sure they would have to give points to Australia
@@JustESCAnalyst Eurojury also asses the song quality which as it showed the Australia song is a bad light. The performance live wasn’t enough to overcome the reality that the song just isn’t very good. Possibly but the same argument could be made for all the other songs it was competing with. I suspect with a lot of people that they think just because it’s Australia it would automatically be liked by juries despite the grave signs that don’t support it.
Wow! Great idea💡
Thank you 😉👌
Love a good analysis. You also have one of the most pleasant smiles!
♥️
Its obvious that with jury votes, iolanda would be even Higher! 🇵🇹💪🏼🔝
So happy for her she has not only qualified but finished in the final top-10 🇵🇹💪🏻
@@JustESCAnalyst yes and that was my goal! 🥰
I did the maths and if you take the jury results for switzerland from the semi final 2 countries and take away all the countries that didn't compete in semi 2 than Switzerland hypothetically got 214 out of 218 points, but that's assuming they voted the same in the final as in the semi but I don't think it would be far off
Yes, it is a very impressive score there!Just Israel and France did not let it become an absolute maximum. Actually 212 of 216, not 214 of 218, but it does not matter so much 😉
Oooh stats, love this!
Then you have found a right channel 😉 be sure to subscribe to not miss the video about the Semi-Final #2 ✌️
I really don't understand why we still have jury voting in final, maybe SomeoneWantsToControlTheFinalResult, and they don't vote in semi final because "favorites" will qualify 100%.... 🤫🤔🧐🧐🧐
We need the jury because if the final is just televote it will result in novelty and joke entries being entered every year like in the 00s.
The juries are very important cause the televote is too much influenced by politics and attracted to catchy performances rather than judging who has better voice, more modern song and who can have an international success in the future
Because the public can't be trusted and vote for the populist song, rather than a good song. 2023, remember that? There is NO WAY you could even entertain the Finnish song being a "better song" than Sweden's, IMO, but certainly was "better entertainment". The public can't discern the difference, unfortunately.
@@AppNetEnt I absolutely agree! If we want it to be a SONG contest and not a "performance" contest - the juries are of course required. But they often of course also pay a lot of attention to the vocals and professionalism of the singer, rather than at the quality of the song. So many things could be improved :)
@@AppNetEnt and yet France, Iceland, Serbia, Cyprus and Norway all had jurors that voted Cha Cha Cha higher than Tattoo. Those juries all gave higher points to Sweden. In fact, 14 jurors overall gave Finland 12 points. I'm not trying to prove that Cha Cha Cha is better. I'm saying that even with the guidelines given by the EBU to jurors while scoring, they dont all think the same and vote the way you expect them to.
I do not want a televote-only final. That would kill Eurovision.
Then Poland could’ve qualified like I wanted! But… Finland would be eliminated which wouldn’t be good for me… I’ve been starting to root for Finland ever since Kaarija’s outstanding performance.
But either way maybe it’s time for the juries to continue voting in the semifinals, because now with them out of the semifinals, the juries have fewer choices to choose in the grand final and potentially there will be fewer songs that the jury would like. Hence these few songs would have more concentrated jury scores. And it led to issues where they came off as ‘biased’, like how they gave Sweden 15 sets of 12 last year and Switzerland 22 sets of 12 this year.
@@jason256-8 you are so right about this! Especially I was able to see it with the second semi-final qualifiers when all of them except of course Switzerland were not really liked by the juries at all 😅
Really interesting video, was thinking about this the other day. One thing I disagree on is Poland getting so much points from the juries, as Luna's vocals were not particularly good, so Finland or Slovenia would have still qualified
Thank you, Diego 👌
You are right about the vocals, but they were actually not really bad. Her voice is not strong, but she was just singing in quite a delicate way and she has hit the notes. I believe the juries would vote for this one as it is one of very few potential radio-hits from this semi-final. Modern pop track but not a trashy europop, which juries usually do not appreciate 😅
@@JustESCAnalyst Yeah, Luna's song felt very current and in line with current music trends, so maybe the juries would have loved it. And it may have been one of the rare ocurrences in which Poland gets more points from the juries than from the televote, haha
I get more and more pissed at Eurovision every year when it becomes more and more obvious that people cannot separate their emotional feelings for an artist, country or culture from the actual song. And it's getting worse. At the end of the day it is a song contest. Read the tin label.
Yes, I understand culture will always play the bigger factor of the three, that's obvious, but I think this guy hits the nail on the head. Australia misses out of the 'neighbour' factor (by extension some cultural elements - ignoring the diaspora factor in Australia to some extent as Europeans are a lesser percentage/weighting these days), yet other countries like Poland, Lithuania and Ukraine have such a massive diaspora across Europe that they can, and do, actually affect televoting results).
The thing that ruins this contest for me now more and more is this inability to say 'yes I am Xxxxxish, yes I want Xxxxxxxx to win, but Yyyyyy's song is better so I'll vote for that' (you can replace Xxxxx and Yyyyyy with any country you like). That isn't human nature, generally, especially when you factor in an artist may be your favourite, you saw them three times on tour promoting their song and you heard it the most, or all your friends are voting for it for their own non-empirical reasons.
All of this can work in the opposite too, of course. Even if you think a song is better than your own you won't vote because 300 years ago they did whatever they did.
Look, I am not naïve, I know there are deeply held reasons why people do and don't do what should be an empirical action, but this is why we will forever need juries to smooth over the sharp edges of peoples' irrational actions. Maybe I am just being an idealist and what I am arguing for people to do is irrational in itself, but I feel I can never trust this contest again when factors as those this guy lists are in play.
How can (or should) you use previous jury trends as part of an analysis? Every song *should* stand on its own merit, devoid of any historical context, populist context and frankly commercial context. The only way to achieve this is to have anonymous songs by artists not from that country all sung in one language so you've no idea where it's from until afterwards and clearly none of that can never happen.
The solace I take is that in general the 'best' song *generally* wins (2022 excepted in recent years) through this smoothing process, but analyses like this should be moot because the populace *should* be able to separate an empirical judgement on a song from all the other crap clouding our brains. But I know we can't. This is a song contest, not a performer, culture, bezzie mates nor radio play contest. I'd love people to at least think of some of that before we pick up our 'phones.
Some people really would vote for a farting goat on stage if the rules allowed it for any of the reasons above. Some probably have.
You are absolutely right! I have a couple, who are my close friends, who for example vote each and every year 20 times from both of their phones for the same country, because one of them came originally from this country. Even if they don’t like the song 😂 I think it is unfair, but so is their human nature and EBU has no way to stop such cases, except by eliminating the televote completely, which will not happen
@@JustESCAnalyst it’s a shame. We are emotional beings and maybe it’s just my (extremely) mild autistic tendencies to automatically separate my emotions from fact. I’m not always successful of course, but I try.. haha
Btw your videos are great. I love your style and presentation and have an extremely camera-friendly manner (and face!), so please don’t think any of this is a criticism of the work you’ve done. I think it’s great and you should be very proud of this output. I covered ESC as press from 2005-2014 and stopped for a lot of the reasons above, and the runaway costs! Don’t even talk about the Baku costs and Malmö 2013, I’m already feeling the pain for those guys go head to Switzerland next year! Ouch!
But seriously, great videos and lovely presentation.
Thank you so much 😉 very interesting, I am sure you have a lot of nice memories from those times. But the costs are, indeed, extreme. Luckily nowadays you don‘t really have to be there in order to cover the contest as a press 👌 but I am still glad I have at least visited one show in Malmö 🇸🇪
0:53 I mean, Kiril, that was BRUTAL Lmaoo
🤣 with all the love to Hera, this entry was just a mistake. I hope she had fun nevertheless 😅
I have discovered something a bit weird with Esc results, specifically with nordic countries , for some odd reason nordic countries allways have something bad happen to them if the contest is hosted in a fellow nordic country
Some examples of this are
Swedens only nq happening in norway 2010
In sweden 2016 not a single nordic country qualified
In denmark 2001 norway and iceland were tied for last place
Finlands best result in a nordic country since the 2000s is 18th in 2000
Sweden 2024 where norway came last , finland a televote magnet flopped , denmark failed to qualify with a half descent song and then iceland came dead last with only 3 points
Hoping for a nordic country to win again so we can see what the curse does next
I have noticed it too, but 2013 is a big exception, where Denmark won, Norway finished top-5 and all other 3 Nordic countries were in the final 👌
37 Juries gave Israels best ever entry on 30 points.
What lesson can Israel take from this ??? 🤔
(But sadly they will think the Public vote is the majority of people as opposed to certain people voting MANY times for Israel.) .
The juries were often very supportive of Israeli entries, but Israeli ballads in 2010, 2013, 2019 were also always rated quite low by the juries. Eden did actually quite good with the juries in my opinion 👌
at 12:35 you say that Portugal was blanked by Croatia, while Croatia actuall gave 12 points to Portugal. However, great effort!
Eagle eye! 👍 have realized it after I have posted the video :) I mean Cyprus, mixed up these two countries.
Thank you, the video about semi-final 2 comes soon :)
@JustESCAnalyst haha. Just a Croatian very involved this year in ESC 😁
The jury should be included too
But this year I am glad Slovenia has qualified because there was no jury 😅
Australia came 2nd last in Eurojury ahead of only Finland…I’m curious as to why some people think juries would have suddenly supported it.
Eurojury was based on the music videos and not on their live performances. Australian song was one of a few radio-friendly ones in this semi-final and it really came alive with this live performance 👌
Also don’t forget that, ranking all 37 songs at once, juries would had Australia rather in the middle of their tops, meaning not giving points. But choosing just among 14 other semi-finalists, I am sure they would have to give points to Australia
@@JustESCAnalyst Eurojury also asses the song quality which as it showed the Australia song is a bad light. The performance live wasn’t enough to overcome the reality that the song just isn’t very good.
Possibly but the same argument could be made for all the other songs it was competing with. I suspect with a lot of people that they think just because it’s Australia it would automatically be liked by juries despite the grave signs that don’t support it.
Croatia the Best ❤❤❤❤😊😊😊😊
Baby Lasagna has absolutely smashed the competition in his semi-final 😉👌
Nah m8, #CrownTheWitch
@@oliverqueen5883 they really brought THE performance of the year! And it is super impressive, that they were ranked so high with the juries too!