Eurovision 2023 Grand Final - thread 4

[GrandTheftWalrus]

Just incase anyone wants to carry on the chat.

Swedens entry is the highest charting spotify rank for Eurovision. Ever.

Its also No1 in the UK's spotify ranking. This is the first Eurovision song ever to do this.

So its NOT just the jury that like it.

I think there is a difference between the general public and Eurovision fans.

Clearly Tattoo has wider appeal. And Im willing to say that, and say the Abba conspiracy theory is utter bollocks. Even though I wanted Finland to win.

So I'm not ready to ditch the jury just yet. I think that actually the combined result gave a result that better reflected where the songs should have placed in terms of how good they were.

If you look at the results based on the public vote alone it is (number in brackets is their position based on jury/public official result):

1 (2) Finland
2 (1) Sweden
3 (5) Norway
4 (6) Ukraine
5 (3) Israel
6 (4) Italy
7 (13) Croatia
8 (19) Poland
9 (18) Moldova
10 (22) Albania
11 (12) Cyprus
12 (7) Belgium
13 (14) Armenia
14 (16) France
15 (11) Lithuania
16 (21) Slovenia
17 (10) Czechia
18 (20) Switzerland
19 (8) Estonia
20 (9) Australia
21 (15) Austria
22 (23) Portugal
23 (24) Serbia
24 (26) Germany
25 (25) United Kingdom
26 (17) Spain

Australia, Poland, Moldova, Estonia, Croatia, Belgium and Albania are the particularly interesting ones to look at. But Austria are THE one to look up - they were first up, and completely bombed on the public vote - which REALLY didn't reflect the reaction to the song in the arena itself. It was definitely one of the fan faves. Their poor result in the public vote, definitely owes a lot to being given the shit opening slot.

I find it funny, watching the "whining" for two countries, it's almost identical ;)

No guarantees countries would end up in other places than their, seemingly, normal ones, but it would make for a fairer competition.

On Saturday night, when the voting opened, I stopped in my tracks when the clip from Sweden's song came on. Something about it stood out from all the other songs, maybe the combination of singer and song? So I can see why it was so popular with the jury and earned so many public votes.

I hadn't paid much attention to the performance itself as I was busy joking with DH about whether Loreen was singing about wanting to be in The Hunger Games or the X-Men.

Yes, I can't remember the song at all but she definitely had some kind of x factor presence. Actual X factor, not the TV show.

I didn't really care for the Austrian entry. And I also liked the twins who didn't get through.

Good point about the scoring and that without giving all of them a place, it doesn't really give the whole picture. But I love the post mortems and analysis after the result. Strangely feel less bothered about the UK's performance this time as hosting was winning for me.

Interesting and, as you noted, it is not as if Sweden didn't get a lot of public votes and definitely take your point about Eurovision voters v general public.

DHs latest reflection about split votes:

Finland: cha cha cha
Austria: Poe Poe Poe
UK: Da da da dah

All three have a really simple similar hook pattern.

If Finland got most of this vote, you'd expect Austria and the UK to score badly. Which they did.

Good point about the scoring. I had forgotten that it's only allocated to a top ten. It would be fairer to include every participating act.

I also agree about Loreen's appeal to the public audience as opposed to fans of eurovision who are not necessarily the same demographic. She gave a powerful, polished performance, it has to be said. I would have preferred to see Finland win but I'm sure he'll do well out of it.

I liked the twins from Azerbaijan. They were sweet and had a nice song. They had a challenging competition in the first semi final.

Out of interest, are you Finnish?

I'm not, I would have mentioned that as it might have made me a bit bias. I am English. Although I will happily admit our entry this year was crap.

The vote was also split between the bands; Australia, Germany, Slovenia.

'Clearly Tattoo has wider appeal. And Im willing to say that, and say the Abba conspiracy theory is utter bollocks. Even though I wanted Finland to win. '

I think the conspiracy is bollocks too. Although I do think Sweden choose this year to send out their strongest performer possibly in the hope of hosting next year. I've had Tattoo in my head all day - it's a great song but takes a few listens to really grow on you.

Sorry as this is a repeat post - but to illustrate the difference between the Juries idea of what is a good song and what the public think is illustrated by these:

Thie big differences between jury and public votes were

Finland - Jury 150 - Public 375
Norway - Jury 52 -- Public 216
Croatia - Jury 11 -- Public 112

But in reverse the Juries gave many more votes to these countries some of which got null points from the public

Belgium, Estonia, Australia, Cyprus

The judges probably reflect wider public appeal and talent.
The public vote probably reflects the Eurovision watching public.

Both are valid in assessing which is the better song.

When I'm watching Eurovision I want the Eurovisiony songs to do well precisely because they are different. And I will vote accordingly. But I think that they aren't necessarily the ones that will chart best. And that's exactly what the Finland v Sweden arguement is proving.

Tbh Sweden is easier for me to try to get to next year... So I'm happy enough with the result.

Loreen will be back next year. But I think Käärijä will have a different kind of Eurovision longevity. He's in the mould of Dadi, Verka etc who will return for years. Same for Sam Ryder.

Coming second in Eurovision (which Dadi would have done if not first in 2020) doesn't mean oblivion.

1 (2) Finland
2 (1) Sweden
3 (5) Norway
4 (6) Ukraine
5 (3) Israel
6 (4) Italy

—-

I think I was slightly wrong upthread, I thought the top 5 included the same from jury/public, but it was actually the top 6. But it does go to show that it’s really not that different. Also, the jury voted on different performances and possibly eg Norway (strong singer, a bit sea shanty) wasn’t quite so polished on the jury performance, say.

Like Gina G in the 90's.. I think she came 8th(?) in Eurovision but went #1 in the music charts and became a bit of an icon.

“I think the conspiracy is bollocks too. Although I do think Sweden choose this year to send out their strongest performer possibly in the hope of hosting next year.”

Good point.

There’s obviously a lot of “Finland was robbed” sentiment around at the moment but as others have pointed out Tattoo is a worthy winner with broad appeal. I was a bit baffled by the popularity of Finland. I actually referred to it in a politics lesson today about referenda and direct democracy and the general public sometimes making odd decisions. 😂

The fact is that since jury votes became part of the scoring in 2009 the quality of music at Eurovision has improved and there have been a lot of really iconic winning songs since then. Fairytale, Satellite, Heroes, Euphoria, Arcade etc. I think it’s helped to change the reputation that Eurovision had for crap novelty songs, and overall the competition is better for it.

My post was more about the huge discrepancy is votes for some countries between jury and public

ie the really heavy voting by the juries for sweden was obviously the decising factor.

For the juries to have only given Norway 52 but the public 216, and similarly Ukraine and Croatia.

If it had been consistently throughout a few votes either way it would seem less puzzling.

It happened the other way as well. ie Belgium, Esonia, Australia, Cyprus and Austria all got 3 figure votes from the Juries, but only 50 and below from the public.

Serbia was the only country where there was 1 vote different between juries and public.

Maybe the suggestion up thread of juries at least doing a spread vote or maybe 1st, 2nd and 3rd.

But also sounds like there needs to be a far more robust voting system for the public as many never got their vote recorded.

Yesterday I said I thought Eurovision had started to show Europe could compete with US songs. But in fact it was to demonstrate how TV channels could do simaltaneous broadcasting. So maybe now is the time for internet companies to step in and show they can do similtaneous voting.

The deciding factor wasn’t how well Sweden did with the juries, it’s how poorly or at least inconsistently Finland did with the juries. If they’d come in second in the jury vote, with a score similar to what she got coming second in the public vote then they would have won. They got 0 from a number of juries whereas Sweden scored consistently across the board.

It's hardly puzzling that Croatia and Ukraine did well with the public vote but less well with the juries is it? I said upthread that I couldn't really see myself stone cold sober on a jury arguing that Finland was the best written song of the contest. Well that goes treble for Croatia and even Ukraine.

I think the Jury/Public voting system is pretty good actually, and as a PP said, it has given us a decent selection of winners since its introduction. Barring an unprecedented event like the war last year, you need to get a lot of support from both sides in order to to win.

What is the actual stated aim of the Eurovision Song Contest? Best technically brilliant song? Song For The Public? Catchy tune?

My partner is a complete music snob, doesn't really get Eurovision but does sometimes watch it with me. Belgium and Estonia were the two he commented on as being pretty good. For whatever that's worth 😁

And I slightly take it back a bit about the forgettability of Sweden. I've had a vague earworm about something, listened to the Swedish entry again and realised it was that one.

My post wasn't about any of the songs being good.

But just that as there are some really big differences for some countries it make you wonder what sort of values are being used.

Professional musicians may give points for technical things that us ordinary listeners just have no interest in.

So just saying.

Or is it cultural. After all our ears are equally influenced but what we have learnt is usual.

(I did wonder whether some of the eastern european votes weren't made in solidarity with each other!)

But it's the tele / public vote which is newer. Jury voting was the only way between 1956-1996 (I remember it ;)!!

I'm a talented amateur! Used to hang out a lot with bands and A&R people in my 20s and had a knack for picking winners. One of the A&R people used to run stuff past me as a sort of everyman! Not posh in any way, I just knew what would sell.

I LOVED Finland but didn't think they were chart material. As a Eurovision entry it was perfect. In their native language, utterly bonkers and unique. Belgium on the other hand was a hanging club tune from the 90s. Definitely would have filled dance floors at Heaven. Cher-like! That's why that got more jury votes. It is objectively a 'better' song. Just not for Eurovision. They have what, three or four languages in Belgium and used none of them.

How I'd vote on a jury and as a member of the public is different. Sweden wouldn't have douze points either way though.

I dont think the UK did any better when they experimented with the public choosing the UK entry which I think they tried for a couple of years.