The juries killed the ‘good’ songs once again

EDITORIAL – Finally the 2017 Eurovision Song Contest winner was the choice of both the jury and public voting. Still, though, the juries destroyed many good songs and favoured crap songs, in my opinion.

Australia is the first example. It is clear that the juries somehow boost the Australian entry every year in order to keep the country’s interest to the Eurovision Song Contest. Although it was not a bad song, the Australian entry was obviously something the European audience didn’t like. if there were no juries, Australia wouldn’t have made it to the final.

Finland is the ultimate example in my view, on how the juries destroyed the contest once again. There is not a single press / media representative who didn’t consider the Finnish entry as one of the best songs ever in the Eurovision Song Contest, most of them expressing their wish for Finland to even win the 2017 Eurovision Song Contest. It seems they were kinda right as the public ranked them 10th in the semi final, which means that the country would have been in the final, something the juries didn’t allow.

Belgium which was clearly a hot favourite in this year’s Eurovision Song Contest ranked 13th in the juries and 3rd in public voting. Maybe Blanche was not that good during the jury rehearsal (a day before the public watch and vote for the semi finals). But it was clear that the juries wanted somehow to lower the chances of Belgium to go to the final. The same thing happened in the final as well.

In the second semi final despite The Netherlands coming 9th in the public voting, the jury ranked them 2nd. Seriously? Yes! The song that had nothing special to show, with just good vocals and an indifferent tune managed to be the 2nd favourite of the juries among the 17 participating juries in that show. No one can understand what was the “great” thing in that song!

Malta once again promoted by the jury ranked within the top ten while the audience didn’t award them points at all. In this one I think I have some objections. Malta ranked high in the juries also last year and it’s clear that there is interest to boost the small Mediterranean island. Sadly for me this time, Europeans couldn’t see what a great song “Breathlessly” was. Yes, maybe the dress was not the best choice but come on, can we avoid voting a song because a woman has some juicy silhouette and wears a “too-much” dress? Her vocal performance and her emotional slay on stage was something that Europeans should have seen.

Estonia was the biggest mistake of the juries. Plundered by the “experts” around Europe, the audience ranked them high enough to proceed to the final. It is totally unfair for another big favourite in Eurovision 2017 to see elimination from the final especially when Koit and Laura were perfect on their performance and stage presentation. Instead juries qualified (along with the audience) an incoherent drama without story and prospect, the Greek entry.

On one thing I agree with the juries (and obviously the public) is that we had enough of Valentina Monetta. She might claim that the fans are calling for her to participate again and again and again, but honey you can see it’s not true. No one wants you again in Eurovision.

Romania, Croatia, Denmark and Moldova (in the Grand Final) definitely could have done better if there were no juries in Eurovision. The gap of their voting with the one of the public is clear and should raise concerns. It is also a big surprise for me that the best ever Azeri entry in Eurovision with Dihaj which was considered a potential dark horse to even win Eurovision 2017 was definitely scrapped by the juries. Though on this one, sadly, the European audience didn’t get the artistic message of the song presentation which was for me one of the best stage appearances ever in the contest.

So once again, I will shout out: skip the juries and let the people decide the winners. Don’t consider diaspora and sympathy voting as a fear against the quality of the contest. After all you see once again (like 2015) that Europeans can vote on quality when it’s true and honest just like Italy back in Vienna. Results in the recent Eurovision editions could have been so different if those 210 people (42 juries by 5 members each) didn’t decide for the fate of the contest actually!


6 Comments on The juries killed the ‘good’ songs once again

  1. The title should be changed to ‘The juries killed the songs I like once again’.

  2. Hello Fotis,

    Great journalism once again.

  3. Well, in my opinion, the juries saved us from some really poor choices such as Estonia. Besides, it’s becoming unpleasant to read your dramatic posts, blaming the whole world for anything that is done against YOUR opinion. Grow up. I understand why ERT cut you out of the clip. No one wants to be connected with such a sour face.

  4. Well said Frank. The juries are the voice of common sense in the voting- the televoting is a total farce dominated by countries who will vote for their neighbours regardless of quality.
    Also, the writer of the article needs to stop using the word ‘plundered’ as he clearly doesn’t know what it means.

  5. You said it well, “in my opinion.”

  6. Sorry, I completely disagree. Eurovision would be dead without the jury and would only consist of absurd carnival songs like the Romanian or Moldovan entry this year or kitschy trash like the Croatian or Estonian songs (by the way the performance of Koit and Laura in the final was a desaster). Imagine 2009 without the jury, wonderful Patricia Kaas would have been last!
    But at the end it is always a question of personal taste. If your favourite song doesn’t come trough it is easy to blame either the jury or the public vote (just depending on what fits best to support your opinion or taste). In the editors case, who seems not to be in favour of the Dutch song, it is the juries fault that they made it to the final or that the song from Finland didn’t make it (a song he seems to like a lot). On the other side I am very grateful that the jury voted for the great Dutch song and against the dull Estonian entry and I could easily blame the public to vote for the horrible Croatian entry. What I want to say with this polemic is that with the same argument the editor writes against the jury, I could demand to stop the public televote and go back to good old 100% jury voting, as the public vote destroys the songs I like or supports the songs I and many others don’t like. At least for this year… Next year I might argue with the jury for the same reason, depending who (either the jury or the the public) supported my favourite songs. That’s why we need both the jury and the public vote to keep the balance!
    What concerns me much more is the fact that neither the jury nor the public vote can and wants to stop the unbearable exchange of 12 points between countries like Greece and Cyprus (or Romania and Moldova on a certain level), which has nothing to do with judging on the quality of music any more.


Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s