Reviewing the Grand Final Results | Eurovision 2023
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 3 июл 2024
- For a long time it was said that this was going to be a two horse race between Sweden and Finland. Not only was that exactly what happened when the votes came in, but it divided the juries and public right down the middle! Here we take a look at what happened on the night of the Grand Final and why.
.
.
.
#eurovision #liverpool #loreen #tattoo #kaarija #chachacha
0:00 - End of Liverpool 2023
0:27 - Sweden & Finland
4:04 - Israel & Italy
6:00 - Top 10 & The Middle
7:05 - Bottom 5
8:56 - The Overall Experience
10:39 - THANK YOU!! 🙏🙏🙏 
Развлечения
I said before Eurovision that if Finland gets around 150 points from juries, we can be satisfied. But little did I know about Sweden's one-horse race with juries, daamn.
And the zero points seemed so insulting from 1/3 of the countries. Many juries ranked Finland last place. The 150 would have felt more understandable if it would have come evenly from all the juries. And Loreen's score was redicilous.
ThePeaceAround has shared a video where she goes through the juries and which were favoured and how. It was about Loreen being very over-rated by the juries rather than anyone else being under-rated. Actually Käärijä did very well in the eyes of the juries, it could have been way worse. And it also what I feared.
But the main theme in ThePeaceAround's video was the structure of an individual jury contra the juries over all. The majority of people in the juries working or having expertise in pop, and having none rap experts in any of the juries, that would make a great difference between e.g. Sweden and Finland.
That video by her is a very good discussion opener and she has her suggestions as well.
Yes Loreen got second in the televotes but I think that disguises some of the nuance here. NL got second in televote in 2019 but they were only 30pts behind Norway. Loreen got 136pts less than Kaarja, that is the public huugely favoring one over the other. Loreen was only able to win because the two the jury favored her even more than the televote favored Kaarja.
There is a difficult to define problem here that deserves a discussion to find a compromise solution.
The points aren't percentages representing the strength of public preferences. It's possible that in countries that Finland came first and Sweden came second, there was 0.1% of the vote between them but that still manifests as 4 points difference. So the fact the numerical difference in points is big is doesn't immediately mean that there was an enormous strength of preference between 1st place and 2nd place. There isn't some big problem with the voting, the correct winner won.
@@captinash3864Finland got more points than Sweden in nearly all of the big countries (Germany, UK, Spain, Italy, Poland etc). Such a pathetic thing to try and discredit the televote score. Finland was by far the entry Europeans wanted to win
Always enjoy watching your cool, collected take on things. And thank you for not using the word "slay" once.
Like Rambo Amadeus I only got one rule: always stay cool like a swimming pool 🇲🇪 😆
Great summary Stuart and as a Brit Im glad you enjoyed Liverpool. It was also great that given the UKs recent reputation in Eurovision, we have shown that the BBC can put on a fantastic show 😉 How you felt about Israel I felt about Sweden, it just didnt connect with me. As for the voting, I agree that reintroducing the juries improved the quality of songs, but the juries were intended to temper the televote - but this year they rendered it almost irrelevant. To me its not the rankings that are important, but the gaps in points, both in terms of how far ahead the juries put Sweden as well as how decisive the public were for Finland. Ive never felt comfortable when the televote winner doesnt win overall. For me, Tattoo as a winner will always be very much at the behest of the juries. If this happens again to same extent, it may switch the public off.
Yes, there was a big gap between what the jury and what the public wanted and that simply meant it was too big of a disappointment for too many people. Sure there are always some that complain, but not to this extent. It's not good for the contest. Something that is supposed to bring joy to the public, shouldn't end in frustration for what may have well been the majority.
And that's not just the people who wanted Finland to win over Sweden (although granted it seems like that was a fairly large amount of people), but also the ones disappointed about the fact that the jury almost dismissed some of the other high quality entries. Tattoo had twice as many points as the 2nd in the jury ranking, nearly 4 times as many points as Spain! And that if anything shows that we need a jury reform. If the jury can simply vote for their favourite and not rate each entry objectively, then what is the point of the juries?
AND LAST YEAR the Televote would have overwhelmed any jury winner, period.. Deal with the fact that when you have songs at that level, with varying quality of performers, this sort of thing will happen.. Then we have Jamala 2016.. I didnt hear ANYWHERE NEAR the amount of screaming... even though she won neither half.
The contest didnt begin as a popularity contest, and it was never meant to be one. People insisting on televote only cant seem to get thru their skulls that in a contest theoretically about the song, sheer popular whim CANNOT be allowed to make the decision. They tried that in the 2000s and it was a ridiculous farce. Only since return of Juries (though admittedly there is massive fine tuning required, as all the shenanigans have shown) has the wider musical community stopped actively dissing ESC constantly. Loreen relaunched the brand in 2012, and now has rocketed it even further. Tattoo already has over 1/3rd the total views of the 2 versions of Euphoria that have been on Spotify for 11 years already. Marco Mengoni had a huge lead when she finally entered the chart, and she ended up zooming right past him also.
And as our RUclipsr has said, Loreen was 2nd only to Kaarija... Clearly he wasnt a UNIVERSAL favorite, just a dominant one. Clearly the juries were going to favor Loreen over him, with her being a peerless powerhouse vocalist, and he being a rapper, who gave a decent try at singing... but not really succeeding.
And then there's the elephant staring everyone down: both songs are constantly accused of being derivative or plagiarized (Kaarija stans are conveniently blind.deaf to the Electric Callboy issue). Frankly it's nearly impossible to be 100% original, considering the worldwide music penetration of online streaming. ONLY THIS WEEK did I finally get what the people were saying about Tattoo being linked to The WInner Takes It All. Strangely though, considering that the Tattoo writers have undoubtedly worked with BJorn/Benny at points, neither one of the ABBA geniuses seems to be making a huge fuss about things. . I think they understand all too well that people are gonna be influenced, and short of note for note, word for word, plagiarism in Music is basically impossible to effectively claim.
@@ZakhadWOW funny cause the Electric Callboy 'issue' is completely irrelevant. The start is similar but thats it. Electric callboy themselves even stated on live tv the 2 songs are nothing alike besides that and they see no concern. Compared to Tattoo and the several songs it sounds like thats a bad comparison. Käärijä fans aren't ignoring a thing
@@ZakhadWOW i dont disagree that the juries improved the quality of songs in the contest. But the ESC risks alienating viewers (more specifically televoters who pay to vote) if we get too many occurrences where the jury vote essentially renders the televote irrelevant. This year highlighted more than ever that its the views of 185 people on one side versus millions on the other. Also what is ‘pop’ music if not ‘popular’? 🤷🏻♂️
@@UnscrambledEggs You are so right. All these different songs like Armenia, Serbia ... juries didn't pay attention. The focus on only two songs destroyed every realistic competition.
Thank you so much for everything!
I'm actually writing a research proposal/project on the subject of eurovision for uni right now and I have to say that people have completly forgotten that it's a contest meaning that having a jury is completly normal, I've seen a lot of people be mad at the jury votes but in the past there was no public votes at all so keeping that in mind that fact the mere existance of public votes is a step forward so getting mad at the existence of juries is just wrong. Eurovision used to be more acceptable when there was a gap between the jury and televote because it was fun and just overall chaotic and entertaining, it's become more mainstream leading to people who don't necessarily get the past of eurovision to be mad that they don't have as much power as they would in other competitions. I've seen people want to remove jury votes and all I have to say about that is that they need another contest instead of changing this one because the entire point is that professionals have an input in the winners (the jury) which is also chosen by each country so getting mad at the Eurovision is also unfair and people should be mad at the different countries that chose a jury that voted "so unfairly" as they proclaim.
I feel like its moreso that we as an audience have to pay for our voting to make an impact. The problem this year was that the gap was so wide inbetween the Jury and Televotes that it left a sour taste behind for a lot of the public. Finland won televotes at an 84% majority and it was a massive landslide inbetween them and Sweden (they were still a respectable 2nd place in televotes). Juries as a whole isnt a bad idea but a situation like this years was one of the most extreme cases unfortunately. If the public feel as tho their votes wont make a difference I cant see a lot of them returning to vote again. The system needs some fiddling at least cause involving the public at a price and rendering them useless in the end is kind of a slap in the face
@@nalakahi yes, I agree with this totally, and voting is very expensive in some countries for example in Estonia it costs 34 euros for 20 votes, who wants to spend this if your votes count for nothing?
@@annag1202 I'm not saying this to be mean but technically nobody is forcing you to vote, the entire point of public votes came from wanting to have a revenue other than investment from brands or corporations. Also the voting is 50/50 so your votes do matter, it just depends on just how much the song you voted for is seen as the 'best' by both jury and other people. I loved Finland's song but considering its meaning was basically just getting drunk to manage social interactions and it was a very acquired taste (musically speaking) it makes sense for professionals/juries to maybe not agree with how good it is. Not saying that Loreen was any better considering hers was just kind of kind of a basic love song but musically speaking its easier to like the Swedish entry than the Finland one.
@@nalakahi Agreed, and the European Broadcasting Union is changing stuff and making public votes matter more, I believe there has already been talk about lowering the impact of jury votes next year. The public voting was not useless at all considering Finland got second place, if there was no public votes they would be in fourth place. It's not the first time there's some discourse about the winner, it happens every year but this year feels all the more insulting to the winner. Sorry for the really long comments all the time but this has been building up since the first time I opened any social media after Eurovision and have just seen people shit on Loreen and say the whole thing is rigged.
@@alma.malmberg Loreen unfortunately becoming the face of all the backlash is horrible of course, its what makes the entire situation such a mess. She won by the current rules fair and square. Now I tend to see political arguments and discrediting either artist songs and its a sad situation. Its just frustrating that the 2nd highest ever televote score in history wasn't enough impact to turn the tides. People just want more clarity by Juries voting system because there was a lot of acts slept on (honestly by public as well) that it all just felt...unfair. Sorry these are all arguments that have been said countless times by now but wanted to add my thoughts :)
Hi there Stuart! Glad you safe and well. Fantastic to hear you truly enjoyed your time and the whole experience in Liverpool. You did summarize your perspective quite well.
Thank you Fernanda!
I came into this not knowing your channel, and your laid back approach is such a fresh change! Subscribed immediately :)
Glad to have you here! 😊
Even though Sweden placed second in the televoting I have understood that there was a huge difference in the amount of votes it received compared to the Finnish entry. But you still get 10 points for coming in second regardless of how many actual votes were given.
Finland got 17% of the votes, Sweden 15%
I hope we could get the chance to see your video from the press room on the Eurovision evening 🙂.
Trust me it's not very fun to watch 😅
I subscribed to your channel when I discovered it listening your appraisals of the Benidorm Fest. As I told you then, your channel was going to be the one in English I was going to follow covering Eurovision 2023. I have lived in Canada (BC and Toronto), so your accent sounds so familiar to me, which is a plus when I listen your commentaries. The objectivity and consistency of all of them is also here in this summary. I look forward to the video you are telling us is coming next.
Thank you so much Miguel! ❤️
This year really proved that it was a battle between two countries (Sweden and Finland). Both countries sucked up all the points and only Israel, Italy, and Norway seemed to get any leftovers (Croatia also did well in the televote). I love Loreen though so ultimately I’m glad she won! I would have also been happy with Finland of course.
Great video 👍
For me, i feel like this year has been ruined by negativity of the fans after the show. Loreen got hate from people and it just turned into a lesser event due to the hate to her fans as well. Great video and keep up the great work.
Thank you Harry!
No worries Stuart, hopefully you're having a nice week! Looking forward to the videos that you release in the future
Loreen is still on the Global Spotify top 200 charts with millions of listeners everyday. So she seems to be a favourite. 🌸💖
I was amazed at how high Finland came on the Jury vote. I liked the song but the second half (in my opinion) vocally was weak.
My overall opinion - I think the jury vote is needed to maintain the integrity of the competition. Without it, the competition would just become full of joke/silly songs and Eurovision itself would become a joke (or more of a joke for people who already see it as a joke)
Loreen was being raved about before the competition because the song/performance had a complete package feel to it. Tattoo has also been the bigger chart hit after as it’s the song that people will go back and listen to. Great to see Sweden/Finland/Norway smashing the UK charts though to set records!
I think the reaction of a small number of Cha Cha Cha fans on social media is very telling. There is definitely a pack mentality there and some of the abuse directed at Loreen was sad to see.
ThePeaceAround Rachel is a classic musician and die hard ESC fan. She has compiled a comprehensive analysis of jury votes as well as juror's expertise and age group. In a nut shell: jurors were supposed to follow 4 objective criteria, and had those been applied, entries like Spain, Germany and Armenia (on vocals), Serbia, France and Austria (originality of composition) should have gotten many more points. Points that inflated Sweden's scores came primarily from such entries. The whole idea of a jury is that jurors should not vote on their personal preferences but follow the criteria. Unfortunately, Spain was the biggest loser of their incompetence. Blanca Paloma was an Eurovision moment. I won't expect risky, ethnic entries in the future, even with amazing vocals and impactful performances.
So..im gonna scream at the clouds again. The public vote is an abomination to use for ranking. Usually the winner gets about 11-15% of the vote, which of course means that 85% wanted another winner. Those 85% COULD have thought that the winner was the worst song and placed it dead last and it would still be a huge winner by points. If the whole of europe decides that a song is second best nobody will vote for it and it will end dead last even though it should be ranked 2nd. The public vote is NOT how Europe ranks the songs, it is only a view on how many thinks a song should win. Jury voting is likely much closer to how the public vote would end up if the public also used a ranked voting system.
If the juries were objective, then that would be the case. But we don’t say “oh, that’s gonna do well with the juries” for nothing, because we know that they have extreme biases for certain types of music and performances and against others.
Juries should be part of the contest, but only if they start to objectively rate the entries and not just rank their personal favorites.
I don't think the jury is a solution to the otherwise valid problem you describe. It could be that people must vote for different 3 acts in 1 vote - but that would of course hurt ESC's bottom line while solving the "2nd best" syndrome.
I disagree that the jury is a good representation of the public, there's a strong selection bias there. They are industry insiders with a vested interest in the status quo - will be always biased against outsider art and l'art pour l'art, favoring a good industry standard because the industry is what they depend on (too much of a disruption would force them to have to reinvent themselves which is difficult).
Nice you show another perspective many people are not aware of. I told in another comment that the huge difference is that televoters can vote for the same song a zillion times, but juries have to not only vote for 10 songs and rank the other 16. I think it would be fair if televoters had to rank their songs too to validate their votes.
I was so happy to have my top2 in the final top2 result !
This year was so good 🎉🎉🎉
All the press coverage from the U.S (which isn't much). I've read and watched put the emphasise on corny, novelty aspects of Eurovision.
[Facepalm!]
They *still* don't get it all!
It's like still discussing The Black Eyed Peas' Superbowl halftime show!
Yeah they can be a bit laser focused on the craziest acts and ignore everything else. 🤷♂️
That's why the American Song Contest was a huge failure in all senses. They just don't get how Eurovision is.
To be honest, that kind of reputation is kind of why we need the juror system in the first place. During the 2000s, Eurovision did have this reputation for being just a spectacle pageant for weird Europeans to do corny things and joke entries became a major thing. We still got some great entries (Lordi's performance in 2006 being the best example) But I feel like Eurovision never really got its reputation back from that period of time and it's why unfortunately the US perception seems to think of Eurovision as a laughingstock most of the time (and I say this as a native New Yorker).
I feel that national jury’s should be expanded from what they are now. Currently jury's consist of 5 people who are in the music industry or related to it. My suggestion would be to increase this group to 10 and to make sure it includes professionals from few different musical genres as well as couple who are maybe professionals in staging and/or theatrical background to get more diversity to voting. In the current system it seems possible to make a jury pleasing performance and things that don't fall in to that box don't get jury points even if performance would have definitely deserved. Not saying Sweden didn’t earn the victory but it wasn’t worth double of points second jury favourite Israel. Something is wrong with the public results too, but I don’t have an idea how that could be fixed. Maybe if people could send their 12, 10, 8 ... 1 point lists through eurovision app instead of a single vote?
Yes! I have the same opinion. More judges from different genres and experties. Music is so subjective and very hard to measure. Juries are supposed to be there to look at the parts of the song and performances that could be measured. Staging, story telling, lights, camera, lyrics, musical structure.. and be analyzed by experts. This is just my opinion but I feel like they should look at the lyrics first, listen to the song.. and then have an analysis. This could take a day or two. Of course they are also people that could like or not like a song but they should be able to breakdown why. That is what makes them different from the televoters. Experts eye and ears. And also trasparency. Then televoters wouldnt feel so robbed even if their faves did not win.
There's a very simple tweak that can be done to give the televote a bit more power, and also not cut people off getting ANY points just because they are consistently ranked right below the top 10 by different countries. Keep the jury vote as it is (though I agree with expanding the number of people, being more transparent with who are in it, and requirements given to them). Then for the televote, rank the 20 first instead of the 12 first, and give them points from 1 to 20. (The remaining bottom still gets 0 points).
If we really want to see how badly the juries have worked, we just need to consider the few points they awarded to Spain and Portugal.
From a musical perspective the two songs were two masterpieces sung by extremely talented performers.
By failing to recognise it, the juries have proven entirely inadequate right in their supposed area of expertise.
Hello from a fellow Canadian! (I'm in BC) It's great to find another who has even HEARD of Eurovision lol. I am SO happy Loreen won this year! Sweden was my Winner all along, with my next four favourites being Finland, Czechia, Austria and Lithuania. I'll be sure to follow your channel moving on and especially around Eurovision season! Are you excited for Eurovision Canada? (I'm considering entering myself lol.)
Oooh, there's lots to be said about Eurovision Canada...
Why to vote i would not do it again with these rules
under the old jury system, finland wouldve come 11th, so with this system they actually did far better than they couldve
Over half of the juries gave zero points to Finland. So I definitely don't agree that they are knowledgeable in scoring different type of music. It only shows that only the selected few juries did actually know what they were doing and supposed to look at.
22 juries gave Finland points, which is almost two thirds.
@@stu_makes_vids Oh yeah your right. I thought of only the final countries giving points but of course that's not the case. But still. A huge amount gave zero points.
yeah, 15 juries gave 0 points
The juries did know what they were supposed to look at. They're supposed to look at vocal quality, musical composition, overall combination of the act, staging and you can't tell me that Finland had a better vocalist, a better composed song or better staging than Finland. Just listen to LMFAO's 'shots' and you pretty much hear the chorus of 'cha cha cha'
A pity about televotes for Spain this year. She doesnt deserved to be last in televotes results. According to vocals and performance she did such a good job. It could like more or less but not for just 5 points , It was just something ridiculous. 😢 Just watching Croatia for instance higher score. Its was unbelievable. Personally its time put aside politics decitions on EBU. Support ever Ucrania but as Rusia or others countries affected should not participate. One of reasons people thought Georgia was not clasified in the final, got tondo with this fact. Something also not fair. Thats what I think better not let them till some time.
Spain's entry can be unpleasant to hear first time for those not familiar with flamenco style. Having said that, I can't see how she didn't end up as top scorer in the jury vote. I've heard quite a few vocal coaches explain how her technique was flawless for the genre and her stage presence was mesmerising. Televoters can choose entries according to their personal preference, but juries shouldn't. A competent good rapper, metal or ethnic vocalist should be rewarded just as classically trained voices.
I am sorry, but do you really think all those "historic" things to be good for ESC in general? So next year either Sweden or Ireland should then win to make it "interesting". To be honest, I don't understand you or anyone else who is trying to find anything good in another country winning for the seventh time or a woman/man winning for the second time. Please tell me why that would be good in any way?
The problem this year wasn't how many jury points Finland got - 150 was actually much more than I would have thought - the immense problem was that Sweden got 163 points more than the next one, i.e. how lopsided the juries were. And that was totally ridiculous, and unprecedented. Has it ever been this biased towards one artist?
PS. There shouldn't be a separate jury performance - e.g. noone watching the show understood why Norway got so few points from the jury.
Israel tried to do the Blackpink (kpop girlgroup) or more like YG Ent (the company Blackpink is under) formula, not original.
The Israeli song by all aspects was from head to toe screaming originality such an anprofisional comment..
I can't see how Spain was fans favorite, as ended well behind due to televising, Croatia on the other hand, did quite the jump, from last to 12 or something.
I found the sound mixing bad in some entries, and in others, the artists abused the back vocals, even faking it when they weren't singing (Cyprus in the high notes at the beginning of the chorus).
I'm disapointed with the results (I'm not talking about the top two), both with the juries and the televote. I went to sleep feeling disgust, tbh.
I'm not sure even if I'll be following next year contest
Who complained about Ukraine. At least it was not loud and very popular opinion. I had never heard that Ukraine should not have participated... well maybe some russian said that. But those were not opinions among mainstream.
We need to start branding it as the Juryvision Pop Song Contest.
Tele vote doesnt mean anything, one person could vote multiple times. It doesnt show a large group of people voting for an artist , if we remove the jury votes we return to the period when the most stupid performance won.
I personally believe that everything has a purpose. If Käärijä had won, the issues in question would not have been given the same attention as now, because the song that won the hearts of the people did not win the Eurovision itself. There is a place for each of us here, and Käärijä has a clear order to give the listeners more than aural ecstasy. He is full of warmth and caring, which is clearly reflected in his interviews. Lorenes come and go, but there are few who can make a deeper impact and Käärijä is just like that
Jury is under abba🇸🇪?
Eurofans forget things quickly. In 7 editions using the double vote system, this was only the first time that the jury winner got the trophy (something that was going to happen sooner or later) but it was the third time the televote winner didn't get it. Also, we've had 2 winners that didn't get any category (Jamala 2016 and Duncan 2019). My personal theory is that Loreen won in 2012 being that an awesome year with high quality of songs, and 2023 being such a weak year in that field, it wasn't a surprise to see her winning again; she also got 2nd place in televote, because she keeps being very popular in ESC world. Finland was the fanwank of the year (all ESC related groups and sites had an abismally huge campaign favoring him) and the performance looked very childish. Lack of juries in semifinals also could have played against him, instead of juries, as everybody think. Also, the only country that didn't give televote points to Sweden was (oh, surprise) Finland, who also didn't give any to Israel nor Italy.
I tell you what happened. The competition was rigged for nothing because ABBA decided not to perform next year at ESC. 😂💀
it wasn't rigged, and Abba has stated many times in the past that they will never reunite for eurovision or similar events ever.
that's a lie
The swedish song is more popular in general but more drunk and children watched the show so thats why Finland got more televotes. 😄
honestly yes, i voted for finland because the kids liked the song. Personally all the adults at my house thought it was a joke.
Indeed, Finland performance started good and aggresive, then turned into a (bad) JESC one. And Kaarija was struggling hard to hit those notes.
FFS... I am getting tired of the stupid takes... We are a lot of people who are against juries voting no matter what. Admittedly I prefer Finland to Sweden slightly, but it was not my #1, so this is not the reason. I am against juries overriding the public favorite on principle! It is different people that I don't understand at all that were upset with Kalush winning last year.
Juries are needed to prevent countries from block voting. Like how Finland gave Sweden zero points in the televote 😬 they are not going anywhere but they can be tweaked.
This, exactly - I suspect that many people who are anti-jury are too young to remember why we have them to begin with. The bloc voting was so bad that it drove Terry Wogan to quit.
I've been watching Eurovision since the Danish win in 2000. Bloc voting concerns were and are completely overblown. There are a few bad cases, but mostly it's just similar taste in music. To reduce this small problem, you have to accept so many cases where great entries don't get their deserved reward for captivating the public vote, just because a few select people don't get it. Clearly not worth it.
😂 totally rigged by Abba🇸🇪?
first time in so long a worthy song actually won usually garbage songs the last 15 years or so but few times good songs
I' s not true. Zitti e buoni was/is a banger, Amar pelois dos was a good song. Tattoo sounds very similary to Euphoria.