The Eurovision Song Contest Thread

1111214161736

Comments

  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Gerard wrote: »
    This show is on where I am currently, no idea what's going on since when was Australia in Europe.

    The contest is for countries that are part of the European Broadcasting Union, not only for european countries.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Broadcasting_Union

    Well, France didn't win. Again ! And next year, it will be the fortieth anniverseray of our last win in that contest. Maybe we should go. It's clear that we have no chance to win it again. Time to cut our losses, I say.

    Frexit from the ESC!

    Do you funny foreigners really take this bit of camp fluff seriously?


  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Poland and Russia were both absolute rubbish. Thank God for the juries, or Russia would have won.
  • Posts: 3,333
    This Contest only worked when Europe was seperated by the Berlin Wall. The day that came down the contest become null and void, and coincidentally very political.

    As a young kid my first memory was Sandie Shaw winning in 1967 with "Puppet on a String" up to Brotherhood of Man with "Save Your Kisses for Me" in 1976. The only worthy acts to come out of this have been ABBA and Céline Dion. Beyond that, apart from Bucks Fizz, I can't say I paid this contest much notice. Personally, I think it's as outdated as It's A Knockout which was also known as the Jeux Sans Frontières franchise. The fun was totally sucked out of this Contest by the mid-Eighties.

    Do I care who wins anymore? Nope, not at all.
  • TokolosheTokoloshe Under your bed
    Posts: 2,667
    Appalling song, voting and winner. They have a lot to sort out for next year...
  • Posts: 372
    Excluding our own Douwe Bob, the Belgian, Georgian and British entries were the only ones I enjoyed. Also douze points to Justin Timberlake.

    In the end I was quite happy with this rigged new voting system as it prevented the tacky Russian performance from winning.

    I don't understand any of the comments shaming Eurovison viewers. Nobody ever said it was high culture lol.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    @GG
    What are you smoking?
    Ukraine with 1944 will win?????
    It sooner will snow in Texas in July.

    https://brownwoodexaminer.com/2014/07/16/rare-july-snow-falls-in-central-texas/
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    @GG
    What are you smoking?
    Ukraine with 1944 will win?????
    It sooner will snow in Texas in July.

    https://brownwoodexaminer.com/2014/07/16/rare-july-snow-falls-in-central-texas/


    =)) =))

    Nobody expected a pity storm for the Ukraine :))
  • edited May 2016 Posts: 11,119
    @GG
    What are you smoking?
    Ukraine with 1944 will win?????
    It sooner will snow in Texas in July.

    https://brownwoodexaminer.com/2014/07/16/rare-july-snow-falls-in-central-texas/


    =)) =))

    Nobody expected a pity storm for the Ukraine :))

    I told you last week :-). Although later I really started to feel conflicted between a victory for Ukraine or Australia. This was my prediction on Saturday before the final:
    bwJWfEZ.jpg

    Anyway, I am astonished how many people complain these days. Almost in a sickening way. Probably it has to do with the dire situation Europe is in now (immigration crisis, Brexit, Russia-Ukraine tensions, financial crisis). Every country is locking himself up again. We lost the ability to see the positive things of Eurovision. We lost the ability to embrace internationalism. If Australia won, Europe becomes 'united' in a sickening way and speaks in one language by shooting off Australia. But if Ukraine wins, suddenly every country in Europe speaks for themselves and shoots off Ukraine. It saddens me to conclude that xenophobia, finger-pointing, ultra-nationslism and fear seem to win from self-criticism, positivity, internationalism and a healthy sense of unity these days.

    Having said all that, I truly loved the new voting procedure. It was as tense and exciting as many of the votings from the 1990's. And in the end one thing still stands: You have to do well with both juries and televoters to win it. Therefore my heartfelt congratulations from The Netherlands go to the wonderful Jamala from Ukraine. One of the most artistically relevant winners since Norway 1995. Bravo. BRAVO!


    Here are the full results sheets I made:

    The official results, with detailed Jury Score grid and added up Televotes:
    r6b1MhF.jpg

    The 100% Televoting results:
    OByD1f6.jpg

    Some conclusions:
    Running order matters more with televoters. That's an obvious fact and there's a simple explanation for this. Televoters -you people at home watching from the sofa- do not judge all 26 countries in great detail. Judges however are usually locked up in a TV studio and are asked to judge all 26 entries in great detail.

    Hence I was gutted when I heard Netherlands got a 3rd running order spot. That's a death spot with regard to televoting. Also, televotes are usually way more skewed to a few favourites, whereas with the jury results there is more disagreement about the scoring countries, thus making their results more exciting to present. One last fact is this: It seems that Western-European juries have more 'guts' to place their close neighbors lower than Eastern-European juries.

    An example: The Norwegian jury didn't give any point to neighbour Sweden and, as this seems to become a trend, the Belgian jury didn't give full marks to The Netherlands. All 5 Belarussian judges however placed Russia, as always, on 1st spot, giving them 12 points.

    WiG3gGk.jpg

    One last remark with regard to my country Netherlands. I feel extremely happy that in four participations Netherlands qualified for the final three times. Of these three times we ended 9th (2013), 2nd (2014) and 11th (2016). I am happy, extremely happy with that. In a contest of 37 to 42 participants it is actually more and more exceptional to end in the TOP 10. That's why I prefer to look to the TOP 13. Anyway, the results of The Netherlands shows that a new vision can bring your country back in the game. Do not forget, the years 2000-2012 were pure utter dogshit for The Netherlands. And we had ourselves to blaim for that! Period! I hope other countries learn their lessons, especially the United Kingdom.

    Here one last time the nailbiter of this year's voting procedure. Ughhh, still getting goosebumps with that background music in place :-P:
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    I hugely disagree. Artistically relevant winner??

    The EBU made a grave mistake in allowing this highly political song to compete.
    Ukraine only won because Europe feels pity for the country and to punish Russia.

    And of course Russia would have won easily if not 20 (twenty!!) juries gave Russia zero points. That is not professional, that is corrupt and 100% politically motivated.

    For me that's it as it is for many people. Maybe I'll watch the ESC next year, maybe not. Depending what the EBU will do about this. The media all over Europe already marks this win as the greatest error in ESC history.

    The biggest joke though is, that the EBU on every opportunity told the media that 1944 is not political. What a farce!

    If 1944 happened to be a love song it would never have won. If The Only One happened to be Swedish, Irish or whatever it would have won easily.

    And another thing. RUSSIA won the televote. AUSTRALIA won the jury vote.
    And which country won the ESC?
    That's something that many people don't get, it's confusing the way they presented it and it took way too long. They have to abandon that nonsense right away.

    Anyway congratulations to the Ukraine which happens to be my favourite ESC country overall from 2004 to 2014. Sadly the Ukrainian government already has started to ill-use that win in statements that are despicable.
  • edited May 2016 Posts: 11,119
    I hugely disagree. Artistically relevant winner??

    The EBU made a grave mistake in allowing this highly political song to compete.
    Ukraine only won because Europe feels pity for the country and to punish Russia.

    And of course Russia would have won easily if not 20 (twenty!!) juries gave Russia zero points. That is not professional, that is corrupt and 100% politically motivated.

    For me that's it as it is for many people. Maybe I'll watch the ESC next year, maybe not. Depending what the EBU will do about this. The media all over Europe already marks this win as the greatest error in ESC history.

    The biggest joke though is, that the EBU on every opportunity told the media that 1944 is not political. What a farce!

    If 1944 happened to be a love song it would never have won. If The Only One happened to be Swedish, Irish or whatever it would have won easily.

    And another thing. RUSSIA won the televote. AUSTRALIA won the jury vote.
    And which country won the ESC?
    That's something that many people don't get, it's confusing the way they presented it and it took way too long. They have to abandon that nonsense right away.

    Anyway congratulations to the Ukraine which happens to be my favourite ESC country overall from 2004 to 2014. Sadly the Ukrainian government already has started to ill-use that win in statements that are despicable.

    I hugely HUGELY disagree with you. I am sorry @BondJasonBond006. But you forget one important thing here. Ukraine was a favourite to win it. And I told you that. Why? Because they have a great song. And because their total package simply ruled other ones.

    Calling it a farce is exactly what I said in my previous statement: A call to victory of the underbelly, victory of resentment, xenophobia, finger-pointing, ultra-nationslism and fear.

    Moreover, this song '1944' was also about Jamala's personal history. Read whatever you want to read, but looking purely at the lyrics, there was NO mention at all of Crimea, De Krim or Putin. NONE! Yes, it was implied perhaps, but the EBU would have been slammed if they disqualified a song for lyrics that imply something, but not directly refer to current political affairs. Moreover, we live in a country of free speech, and if you are calling for disqualification, then WTF is next??? To make a long story short: EBU can never do something right it seems. I also think it's a pity you forget the wonderful tensity of the new voting procedure.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    edited May 2016 Posts: 9,020
    @Gustav_Graves
    So that's why EVERYTIME Ukraine was mentioned ANYWHERE before and during the ESC the annexion of the Krim got mentioned and the song explained. People just felt pity for that poor woman and her country.
    Do you honestly believe that this song, the song alone, has won over the audience??
    In that case I urge you to put down the rose-coloured glasses.
    Why do you have such a hard time accepting that this system is highly controversial since last year and now more than ever?
    It wasn't a song that won this year. It was a political statement people wanted to make.
    If she had sung the Swiss song, she would have won as well, if the message of the song stayed the same.

    Read the media. Read the social media. I am always collecting all the articles after the ESC since many years. It's shocking how this result is criticised everywhere. The ESC's image gets tarnished again which makes me sad.
    You will see, all this has consequences, like last year's upset win had too.
    Did you read the reactions on the official homepage? It speaks volumes.

    Again this very simple example shows that the system has to be changed and not only repaired or worsened again.

    Poland: Jury 7 points
    Poland: Televote 222 points
    Russia: Jury 130 points (20 juries giving 0 points, unprecedented)
    Russia: Televote 361 points

    And I'm not even saying the Jury has to go, I'd rather have a Jury only system again than a mix that obviously does not work. It just divides people and leaves bitter after taste with at least half the audience.
    The EBU has to act or the ESC is in danger of becoming a total farce.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    edited May 2016 Posts: 9,020
    @Gustav_Graves
    The already flawed old system still was infinitely better than the new catastrophic system that the EBU "invented" this year, because now a country that neither the juries nor the audience wants to win, will win. Bad, wrong and a big mistake and most people don't understand this.
    I wonder what stupid thing they will come up to for next year now that it's clear nobody is satisfied with this.

    This would have been the result with the old system: It shows nicely that the new system is defunct as the Ukraine trails Australia by 43 points!

    Australia 320 The Jury's choice
    Ukraine 277 Won the ESC
    Russia 237 The audience's choice
    Bulgaria 182
    France 165
    Sweden 156
    Armenia 139
    Lithuania 104
    Belgium 90
    Latvia 77
    The Netherlands 76
    Italy 70
    Austria 68
    Hungary 62
    Serbia 61
    Georgia 56
    Azerbaijan55
    Cyprus 54
    Poland 47
    Spain 33
    Israel 28
    United Kingdom 28
    Croatia 23
    Malta 19
    Germany 8
    Czech Republic 1
  • Posts: 4,617
    I am surprised that JT was allowed on, he just showed what star quality, professionalism and talent really looks like. A different league
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    You seem to forget that 12 points from san Marino counts more than 10 points from Russia. This isn t a democratic exercise. It is just some silly fun, and people will complain no matter what. My own favourite, Albania, didn t even make it to the final.Who cares? Ukraine was at least infinitely better than that Rusian and Polish dreck. Never heard anything worse.
  • M_BaljeM_Balje Amsterdam, Netherlands
    edited May 2016 Posts: 4,528
    Australia is the winner if you ask me. Both Jury and public like it. What there should have done is split the points in two. For example Belgium get 16 points from The Netherlands in total. 4 points from Jury and 12 points from the public. So i think final points should be 8 points and then those should have give a way by fames face of the country.

    I think biggest problem is that fames peope from the country's not give a way public points but jury points. I prefer to hear from Trijntje the points of public. So if next year again in two parts then the other way around please.

    If you ask me number 4 (Bulgaria) should created event next year if Australia (Runner up) don't whant it. No Unkraine (Winner), No Russia (3th place), No Belgium and Netherlands (10th and 11th place) and No Sweden (Created the event this year) and No France (6th place).

    Russia should do same as what Netherlands possible have done if Belgium won, created the event with both country's in country of winner.

    The song of Unkraine start as song like Skyfall from Adele, but after that it lost me. My choose go to Servia or Australia based on show of Saturday. I am predict the 3th place for Russia and it is also my thirth (or fourth) favorite. But if there are three (or four) songs i like see on Hitzone 78 compilation cd then it is Belgium, Russia, Unkraine and mabey Italy too. (Douwe Bob already be on Hitzone 77) Last year there be 3 songs on cd after event: Sweden, Belgium and Australia.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    You seem to forget that 12 points from san Marino counts more than 10 points from Russia. This isn t a democratic exercise. It is just some silly fun, and people will complain no matter what. My own favourite, Albania, didn t even make it to the final.Who cares? Ukraine was at least infinitely better than that Rusian and Polish dreck. Never heard anything worse.

    Albania got robbed of their chance to be in the final because of the Jury vote.
    The tele vote would have put it into the final.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    GASP!

    Oh well. Kudos to the UK jury for giving Georgia 12 points. These juries are as different as anyone else around. It all seems pretty random. In our national finales we have had juries that have made me roll my eyes. Dance band performers and such riffraff.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    GASP!

    Oh well. Kudos to the UK jury for giving Georgia 12 points. These juries are as different as anyone else around. It all seems pretty random. In our national finales we have had juries that have made me roll my eyes. Dance band performers and such riffraff.

    Georgia was "loved" equally by the juries and the audience. They got the same number of points from both. So that's one of the very view instances where this deeply flawed system worked.
  • M_BaljeM_Balje Amsterdam, Netherlands
    edited May 2016 Posts: 4,528
    I was suprised San Marino not was one of then 10 from Thuesday. Leonard Cohen sound and guy who look like on OHMSS Blofeld..
  • Posts: 11,119
    @Gustav_Graves
    So that's why EVERYTIME Ukraine was mentioned ANYWHERE before and during the ESC the annexion of the Krim got mentioned and the song explained. People just felt pity for that poor woman and her country.
    Do you honestly believe that this song, the song alone, has won over the audience??
    In that case I urge you to put down the rose-coloured glasses.
    Why do you have such a hard time accepting that this system is highly controversial since last year and now more than ever?
    It wasn't a song that won this year. It was a political statement people wanted to make.
    If she had sung the Swiss song, she would have won as well, if the message of the song stayed the same.

    Read the media. Read the social media. I am always collecting all the articles after the ESC since many years. It's shocking how this result is criticised everywhere. The ESC's image gets tarnished again which makes me sad.
    You will see, all this has consequences, like last year's upset win had too.
    Did you read the reactions on the official homepage? It speaks volumes.

    Again this very simple example shows that the system has to be changed and not only repaired or worsened again.

    Poland: Jury 7 points
    Poland: Televote 222 points
    Russia: Jury 130 points (20 juries giving 0 points, unprecedented)
    Russia: Televote 361 points

    And I'm not even saying the Jury has to go, I'd rather have a Jury only system again than a mix that obviously does not work. It just divides people and leaves bitter after taste with at least half the audience.
    The EBU has to act or the ESC is in danger of becoming a total farce.

    I shall be honest with you. I eprsonally disliked the Polish entry immensely. Same with the Lithuanian one. It was such dated Eurotrash if you ask me.

    And I tell you this: The system should NOT be changed! Because whatever happens no one will be happy in a contest this size. No one. Back in 2005 the West called for change, to re-introduce juries. Now we have it and we STILL dissect the contest to death.

    We lost the ability to swallow defeat and respect whatever outcome! THAT'S the real problem in this fucked up retarded social media age. NO one gets satisfied anymore.

    And I tell you this. If Australia won, people were also screaming "What a fake contest! Exclude Australia!". And if Russia would have won, we also would have criticism!

    Just swallow it, accept it and be happy! I'm done with all these whiners!
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Yeah, Lithuania was ridiculous.
  • Posts: 11,119
    Yeah, Lithuania was ridiculous.

    Having watched the Lithuanian entry and the Poish entry proves my case that juries should be there. Those entries make Eurovision look dated Eurotrash.

    By the way, if the system of 2013-2015 was applied, these would have been the results:

    CidL6Z6XIAAeJYZ.jpg

    As you can see, Poland would have done worse with that system. But again that's a minor hickup for me. I think jury's should be maintained. And I think people should tone down their criticism. It's sickening. Back in the 1990's we had 100% jury's. And when Netherlands was 23rd in 1997 with 5 points, we didn't complain back then. But now we get a nice 11th place and even in Netherlands people slam down Eurovision. Sickening!
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    The criticism that has multiplied since last year is justified.
    After last year the EBU should have kept the system.
    We still could have had the new presentation of the votes. Just the other way around. First the tele vote in detail then the Jury votes.

    Then Australia would have won and it would have been the exact same scenario as last year when Italy lost victory and got 3rd because of the Jury.
    This year it would have been Russia who lost victory and got 3rd because of the Jury.

    But no, the EBU had to worsen the system even more. Now it is possible that a country which doesn't get 1st with the juries nor the audience wins. This is simply wrong and nobody understand.

    @Gustav_Graves
    The way you talk about the Polish song is despicable. And you of all people talk of tolerance and accepting results???

    It's fact that the audience loved that song and performance. If YOU don't like it that's you're prerogative.

    There is only one way to have a fair voting system. If it is 100% televote or 100% Jury.
    The Mix was the biggest mistake ever, it just never was a topic up to 2015 because before the juries and audience always voted the same song as winner.

    I'm glad there is such an uproar. People now have realised that the juries are mostly politically motivated and are hurting the contest.
    Look at the televote results for Ukraine and Russia to each other. Look at the Jury vote for each other from those two countries.

    The juries have to go or there will forever be division and anger after each ESC.
    Still amazed that some people don't get this.
  • Posts: 11,119
    The criticism that has multiplied since last year is justified.
    After last year the EBU should have kept the system.
    We still could have had the new presentation of the votes. Just the other way around. First the tele vote in detail then the Jury votes.

    Then Australia would have won and it would have been the exact same scenario as last year when Italy lost victory and got 3rd because of the Jury.
    This year it would have been Russia who lost victory and got 3rd because of the Jury.

    But no, the EBU had to worsen the system even more. Now it is possible that a country which doesn't get 1st with the juries nor the audience wins. This is simply wrong and nobody understand.

    @Gustav_Graves
    The way you talk about the Polish song is despicable. And you of all people talk of tolerance and accepting results???

    It's fact that the audience loved that song and performance. If YOU don't like it that's you're prerogative.

    There is only one way to have a fair voting system. If it is 100% televote or 100% Jury.
    The Mix was the biggest mistake ever, it just never was a topic up to 2015 because before the juries and audience always voted the same song as winner.

    I'm glad there is such an uproar. People now have realised that the juries are mostly politically motivated and are hurting the contest.
    Look at the televote results for Ukraine and Russia to each other. Look at the Jury vote for each other from those two countries.

    The juries have to go or there will forever be division and anger after each ESC.
    Still amazed that some people don't get this.

    So what about Israel then? Are we 'nullifying' that country because Hovi Star did excellent with jury's and got grilled by the televoters? Or what to think of Netherlands, who got completely forgotten by televoters because they had a 3rd running order spot? It's just not fair that you are trashing jury's so much. The rules are simple and clear. In order to do well...or to do admirably, you HAVE to do well with both televoters AND jury's. Any discrepancy, in the case of Israel or Poland, will in the end give a result accordingly.

    You simply HAVE to accept the rules: Do well with BOTH televoters and jury's.

    By the way, you really loose the context here. Both systems, 100% jury's and 100% televoters, have disadvantages. In the case of jury's there's more disagreement and you have certain Eastern-European jury's who still dare to put Azerbaijan 1st whatever song they have. But on the other hand with televoters you have huge immigrant groups, like for instance Turkish and Polish immigrants across Europe....who always vote for themselves. Not to mention the fact that televoters are less detailed with voting (not all televoters are ranking all 26 songs. On the contrary).

    I think you are exaggerating greatly. You are an emotional guy. That makes your posts really nice. But at times you really loose your rationalism....and objectivity. You simply fail to mention advantages of jury's and the disadvantages of televoters. While I am daring enough to realize that jury's have disadvantages as well. In the end no system is perfect anymore. Especially not in this social media era.

    Let's agree to disagree then. I'm happy with the results. Ukraine won. And I told you that they were a possible winner. Move on.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    An hour ago the EBU felt forced to issue the following statement due to the unprecedented uproar the new voting system caused.
    It shows in how much trouble the ESC is.

    The statement:
    The 2016 Eurovision Song Contest was a spectacular show and a testament to a year of hard work by so many people from so many countries. The live shows were world-class television productions with a thriller climax on Saturday night.
    We understand the passions and emotions that are engendered through the Eurovision Song Contest. In light of this, we have taken notice of your petition and appreciate this opportunity to respond.
    The winner of the 2016 Eurovision Song Contest was decided by music industry professionals and you, viewers at home, each with a 50 percent stake in the result. Ukraine's Jamala won, thanks to broad support from both the juries as well as televoters. She did so with an outstanding performance of an emotional song, telling a personal story.
    Australia's Dami Im won the jury vote and Russia's Sergey Lazarev won the televoting. They both deserve credit for their world-class performances, their great songs and for taking their loss as true professionals. They may not have won the contest, but responded to the outcome as winners. We respect and appreciate them for that.
    The Eurovision Song Contest is a competition. There can only be one winner. We understand that not everyone agrees with the outcome of this year's Eurovision Song Contest however in a competition where the results are decided based on a subjective and often very personal opinions, there will always be people who do not agree. Regardless of this, the result remains valid by all means, in accordance with the rules as they were known to each participating broadcaster, each artist and each dedicated fan.
    Ukraine is, and will remain, the winner of the 2016 Eurovision Song Contest. Whether you agree or disagree, we call upon those who signed this petition to embrace the result, valid in accordance with the rules, and to continue a constructive dialogue about how to further strengthen and improve the Eurovision Song Contest.
  • GBFGBF
    Posts: 3,197
    @Gustave Graves

    I cannot agree more with you. You mention all the relevant aspects. Some people never understand or simply ignore that televoting is not neutral. Isn't it a big surprise that for three years now Lithuania and Poland have always won the televotes in Ireland and UK? May this have to do something with the many Polish people working there. If you look at the German televotes you get a list of the biggest minorities in Germany beginning from the biggest to the smallest. And what about Estonia and Latvia? 1/3 of their populations is Russian. So what a surprise, Russia always win the televotes there.

    @BondJasonBond,

    So why do you always try to explain that televotes represent the music taste of the European viewers. It is not the case. It is a heavily biased and diaspora driven voting system. There have been reasons why this system needed to be changed. Think of the time between 2003 and 2008 when the result was still due to pure televoting. Except for the Lordi-Phenomenon in all these years a diaspora country won the contest. And there were hardly any Western countries even in the finals. But in your eyes this was a fair contest? And by the way: It is not the task of the juries to replicate the televoting result. If this was their task, juries were not needed. Their task was to counteract diaspora voting and making a song a winner that can convince BOTH, the juries and the televoters. You seem to forget that Jamala also earned a very high number from both, juries and televotes. In fact, it was the only country that ended up in the top3 in both votings.
  • GBFGBF
    Posts: 3,197
    An hour ago the EBU felt forced to issue the following statement due to the unprecedented uproar the new voting system caused.
    It shows in how much trouble the ESC is.

    The statement:
    The 2016 Eurovision Song Contest was a spectacular show and a testament to a year of hard work by so many people from so many countries. The live shows were world-class television productions with a thriller climax on Saturday night.
    We understand the passions and emotions that are engendered through the Eurovision Song Contest. In light of this, we have taken notice of your petition and appreciate this opportunity to respond.
    The winner of the 2016 Eurovision Song Contest was decided by music industry professionals and you, viewers at home, each with a 50 percent stake in the result. Ukraine's Jamala won, thanks to broad support from both the juries as well as televoters. She did so with an outstanding performance of an emotional song, telling a personal story.
    Australia's Dami Im won the jury vote and Russia's Sergey Lazarev won the televoting. They both deserve credit for their world-class performances, their great songs and for taking their loss as true professionals. They may not have won the contest, but responded to the outcome as winners. We respect and appreciate them for that.
    The Eurovision Song Contest is a competition. There can only be one winner. We understand that not everyone agrees with the outcome of this year's Eurovision Song Contest however in a competition where the results are decided based on a subjective and often very personal opinions, there will always be people who do not agree. Regardless of this, the result remains valid by all means, in accordance with the rules as they were known to each participating broadcaster, each artist and each dedicated fan.
    Ukraine is, and will remain, the winner of the 2016 Eurovision Song Contest. Whether you agree or disagree, we call upon those who signed this petition to embrace the result, valid in accordance with the rules, and to continue a constructive dialogue about how to further strengthen and improve the Eurovision Song Contest.

    So what is wrong with the EBU statement? There are rules and the winner was decided by these rules. It is so awfull when people complain afterwards that they don't like the rules because they would have chosen a different outcome. Think of a football match when a team scores two offside goals and afterwards complain: "oh we scored two goals but because of the rules these goals do not count but we are the real winner of the contest". I always thought it would be a good idea if you have to agree on the rules of the games before starting the game and not to complain afterwards!!
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Nobody enters the contest without acknowledging the rules first. It is certain media that feed off uproar and scandals. Russian journalists are now absolutely spasmic and drooling.

    A few years back, Sweden didn t make it to the finals, and all Swedish papers demanded the whole competition should be dismantled. "Close down the shit" was a common headline over there. Didn t matter that they had picked a horrible song as winner.

    Childish.
  • GBFGBF
    Posts: 3,197
    And by the way, last year Polina who represented Russia with a modern, emotional pop ballad went second in the jury ranking. Everyone said it was a great performance. Now that Russia went only 5th with the juries with an outdated, unemotional, uncreative song combined with an overload staging, people blame the juries for being politically driven.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    Last year the system was different and Polina would have lost some places with todays system.
    It's not about Russia. It's about a system that already was flawed that got even worse.
    It's not about bad losers or one's favourite not winning. It's about corrupt juries. Each and every year at least one jury vote got disqualified.

    Juries are political only.

    2016:
    Russia: 12 points from Ukraine people, 0 points from Jury
    Ukraine: 10 points from Russia people, 0 points from Jury

    now tell me the juries from Ukraine and Russia voted objectively.
    And there are countless more such examples.

    The uproar by the people (it's not the media) is justified and needed if the ESC wants to be again a celebration of music love and friendship between the people.
    This way people will only get devided every year.
Sign In or Register to comment.