Love that chart action :cheer:

 

Even as streams and sales fade throughout the week they should all maintain high positions.

Everyone pretending that Loreen is this unbeatable Eurovision behemoth but predictably forgetting that 'Statements' exists...

 

The conspiracy theories are inane.

 

The producer from SVT and Melodifestivalen personally invited Loreen to participate in Melodifestivalen and when the International Juries were chosen they eliminated the ones who were less likely to vote for her such as the UK one based on historical voting. It was one of the weakest Melfests in years and it was always said it was harder for Loreen to win Melfest than Eurovision.

 

While Loreen deserved to be the winner it wasn't exactly transparent.

Edited May 15, 20232 yr by xMx

On the topic of Juries

 

My opinion is this - if it was purely down to public vote, there is a high chance that we would end up with loads of gimmicky songs. The overall quality of the music will suffer and Eurovision will become a joke (or more of a joke to people who see it as a joke).

 

These gimmicky songs are songs that whilst popular on the night, do not necessarily lead to the sales/streaming numbers you would want to keep the contest relevant and a promoter of popular music

 

Linked to this, I also think Juries maintain the integrity of the competition. Sam Ryder, Gjons’s Tears and Loreen won the jury vote in recent years because they are complete packages. They are not only memorable on the night, but they are also an example of the high quality music that can come from the competition.

sweeden didnt won the televoting so all this was done on purpose by the jury so that ABBA and Eurovision could celebrate 50 years next year so convenient a jury pushing something to happen to please a music group instead of doing their job in the most neutral possible way

The rest of the world gave only 7 points to Sweeden

Edited May 15, 20232 yr by Odaisul

I mean I would word it this way

 

Loreen got points from 37/37 juries

Loreen got points from 37/38 public voting countries. The only country that gave her nothing was the biggest rival……..(& a neighbour!)

Sweden not getting any 12s in the televote demonstrates nothing. If a country gives Sweden a 10 then that's still a lot of people supporting the song. She came second in the televote. Second. That's better than Sweden have done since 2015. They've not managed to come top 5 in the televote since 2015. It's clearly a very popular song with the people too.

Edited May 15, 20232 yr by Colm

sweeden didnt won the televoting so all this was done on purpose by the jury so that ABBA and Eurovision could celebrate 50 years next year so convenient a jury pushing something to happen to please a music group instead of doing their job in the most neutral possible way

 

Scream!

 

The conspiracy theories are ridiculous. 'Tattoo' has been outperforming every other song on all metrics since they were revealed months ago — and not for no reason. It's a great song with a fantastic performance. It's Eurovision bait! It's quite daft to think this was all handed to Loreen because they wanted to celebrate Sweden and ABBA.

sweeden didnt won the televoting so all this was done on purpose by the jury so that ABBA and Eurovision could celebrate 50 years next year so convenient a jury pushing something to happen to please a music group instead of doing their job in the most neutral possible way

This theory needs to end coz:

 

@1657991240749555712

 

Only 4 of the last few winners were televote winners... there wasn't nearly as much uproar for any of the other ones as there is now? (Duncan and Jamala didn't even finish first in ANY of the metrics???)

 

I'd understand this argument MORE if A- she wasn't the most streamed song going IN to the competition, B- If she'd won with a jury vote and was "only" 4th or something in the televote (she wasn't, she was 2nd...) or C- She wasn't the one who even after the uproar was CONSIDERABLY ahead on streams etc..? If people were so against her being the winner, why would they be streaming in their (literal) MILLIONS?

 

But this excuse is just noise right now and isn't making any sense to me.

Eurovision became too commercial instead of a contest, and the jury is part of that commercial process, instead of a song the jury votes for a commercial hit.

The producer from SVT and Melodifestivalen personally invited Loreen to participate in Melodifestivalen and when the International Juries were chosen they eliminated the ones who were less likely to vote for her such as the UK one based on historical voting. It was one of the weakest Melfests in years and it was always said it was harder for Loreen to win Melfest than Eurovision.

 

While Loreen deserved to be the winner it wasn't exactly transparent.

 

 

sweeden didnt won the televoting so all this was done on purpose by the jury so that ABBA and Eurovision could celebrate 50 years next year so convenient a jury pushing something to happen to please a music group instead of doing their job in the most neutral possible way

 

This conspiracy talk is empirically unfalsifiable. Sure, some of it lines up, but it's just far more likely that juries rewarded the most technically proficient pop song, something they were always going to do and have always done. Is it a coincidence Sweden tried for the win so they could host in a significant year? Probably not. But they're always trying for the win and I don't fault them for that.

 

Any claim that's actually bad would be something like juries around Europe instructed to vote for Sweden with the aim of ticket sales and serendipity to be ensured next year, and that would not stay covered up PARTICULARLY after what happened with jury corruption last year.

 

(UK jury simultaneously going to hurt Loreen's chances in Melfest while being one of her biggest helpers in Eurovision thanks to their lack of taste putting Cha Cha Cha near last, that makes sense)

 

only real change I would advocate is as ever, do more juries per country, from a wider range of musical backgrounds to ensure you don't get ridiculous situations where genre outsiders like Croatia and Germany, which clearly aren't inept songs and show at least some originality if nothing else, aren't automatically left at the bottom of any given jury vote.

 

 

Eurovision became too commercial instead of a contest, and the jury is part of that commercial process, instead of a song the jury votes for a commercial hit.

I'm going to have to disagree. If that was the case some of the songs that ended up bottom half of the jury votes would be much higher...

 

I was firmly against Jury voting and even tweeted it after Loreen's win. But then I realised the "song" wouldn't matter if there was no jury vote to balance out the clear "entertaining/novelty" packages like Croatia or Moldova last year... I think juries just have too much weight (50% is a bit much, personally) but idk how else they would do it.

 

I loved that the semi's were ALL televote this year. Because we can get a very entertaining final out of the televotes amongst some of the most popular favourites and weeding out some of the deadwood and bland tracks. I hope that stays (? - was it always just televotes, I don't think it was, was it? :unsure:), but for the final... idk I think I'm swaying more towards keeping juries now. Especially as it's seemingly rarer for a jury favourite to win than it is for a televote winner...

Eurovision became too commercial instead of a contest, and the jury is part of that commercial process, instead of a song the jury votes for a commercial hit.

 

because... popular songs tend to do well commercially? I see some of that, they vote for the song rather than it as a performance art - and public televote smashes often don't hold up in long streaming metrics (often a pity but w/e). But that's still a fine metric to rank a song on, along with all the others, performance, originality, entertainment etc.

 

Only 4 of the last few winners were televote winners... there wasn't nearly as much uproar for any of the other ones as there is now? (Duncan and Jamala didn't even finish first in ANY of the metrics???)

 

There was a bit of uproar after 'Arcade', I guess that was dulled because the jury winner didn't win either. A jury winner which absolutely did not become a commercial hit btw. And 'Spirit In The Sky' clearly didn't have as much wide-ranging love as 'Cha Cha Cha' did. Guess that's what happens when it becomes a 2-horse race.

I loved that the semi's were ALL televote this year. Because we can get a very entertaining final out of the televotes amongst some of the most popular favourites and weeding out some of the deadwood and bland tracks. I hope that stays (? - was it always just televotes, I don't think it was, was it? :unsure:), but for the final... idk I think I'm swaying more towards keeping juries now. Especially as it's seemingly rarer for a jury favourite to win than it is for a televote winner...

 

New for this year pretty much thanks to semi-final jury rigging from 6 countries last year that was such a bad attempt at jury rigging that it didn't change a single qualifier and what makes me so certain that there was no deliberate jury rigging in Loreen's favour.

 

It does need to stay, there tends to be only minor differences in qualifiers and those minor changes are generally improvements to the Saturday show.

Finland snubbing Sweden in the televote, when it's heading for No.2 in their charts behind their own entry and when they pretty much always vote for the country every year, is ridiculous really :lol: The only possible explanation is that they didn't want to shoot themselves in the foot.

im surprised why Sweeden isnt part of the big 5 it should replace spain or uk

because... popular songs tend to do well commercially?

 

Eurovision songs shouldnt be commercialized is a contest not Top of the Pops, the entries shouldnt even be the streams/charts during the competition, only after.

Edited May 15, 20232 yr by Odaisul

im surprised why Sweeden isnt part of the big 5 it should replace spain or uk

 

It’s based on monetary contribution so why should they replace a country that is contributing vastly more than them?

I think it’s a bit unfair that the Big 5 seemingly struggle all the time (unless you’re a Italy it seems lmao) I think them plus the Auto Qualifier should have their performances in the semi’s that their country is voting in too and not just a random little clip. I always felt like that was a bit of a disadvantage personally.

Being in Big 5 used to be a disadvantage but there have been even winners (Lena and Måneskin) and several #2 finishes (UK last year, France in 2021) so with the right song it doesn't seem to matter any more.

Finland snubbing Sweden in the televote, when it's heading for No.2 in their charts behind their own entry and when they pretty much always vote for the country every year, is ridiculous really :lol: The only possible explanation is that they didn't want to shoot themselves in the foot.

Oh absolutely - by all accounts the Finnish broadcasters/hosts were telling the public not to vote for Sweden, presumably as they were their biggest rivals