REVIEW JURI ES :
OPINION
A QUESTION OF BALANCE
Once more the jury system has caused controversy. Is it time to rethink the voting process again? Eurovision historian Chris West has doubts.
Finland’s Käärijä won the public vote
Isn’t it time to ditch the juries? Since 2016, when the current system of awarding points began, no artist apart from Kalush Orchestra has gained more public votes than Käärijä. Last year, six juries were accused of cheating, and Moldova’s Trenulețul was the second most loved entry by the public but gathered a measly 14 jury points. In 2019, KEiiNO were the public’s favourite but were ranked 18th by the juries. Juries came back in 2009 after a string of complaints about bloc voting and excessive gimmickry. Eurovision has moved on. However, I shall argue that the jury system is still useful – but needs to be reformed. Why is it still useful? First, it creates a broader contest. The public do tend to vote for extravagantly- staged entries. This year, Estonia’s
simple Bridges was moving, well-crafted and well sung, but only got a handful of public votes. Spain’s Eaea was creative, unusual and imaginative, and fared even worse. Eurovision is richer for songs like these, but to have them, it needs to incentivise artists like Alika and Blanca Paloma with the possibility of doing well. Juries provide this incentive. There is also the excitement of the current system of announcing the results. It really isn’t all over till it’s over – even this year, I felt Finland might be so super-popular with the public that it would triumph. That is a huge improvement on the old days when runaway winners could emerge after a handful of results. How could the system be reformed? Like creative agencies, Eurovision juries are only as good as the brief they
are given. The EBU website tells us that they are currently asked to vote on four criteria: l Composition and originality of the song l Quality of the performance on stage l Vocal capacity of the performer(s) l Overall impression of the act There was a rumour that this was being changed for this year. It wasn’t. Is this still helpful? Criterion three is particularly problematic. Some great artists have poor ‘vocal capacity’. Rappers don’t have a huge range – they don’t need it. Leonard Cohen? Bob Dylan? And don’t criteria one, two and four really all add together into one simple question: was the song three minutes of magic? The juries could be asked simply to rank the songs in order of ‘memorability’ – of impressiveness, ‘three-minutes-of-magic-ness’. The way the juries vote could change. Currently each juror awards places (and thus points) and these are then added up to create a master list. The process could be more collaborative, with members discussing and agreeing on one single list. Eurovision’s answer to the movie Twelve Angry Men . This process would be particularly effective if… …There was a fan on the jury.
Currently, there are five jurors in each country, selected by their broadcaster, all with (to quote the EBU) ‘a solid musical/artistic background and relevant professional experience (with proven track record)’. (Shouldn’t ‘knowledge of the contest’ be a criterion, too?) Adding a local fan would make the number up to six – half a courtroom jury. I suspect there would be no shortage of volunteers from OGAE branches all round Europe and beyond. The clamour to scrap the juries is understandable. Having loved the three songs to have suffered most under them in recent years, I am almost convinced. But not quite. Juries bring balance and artistic diversity to the contest. Let’s keep that good side, and evolve the worse side away. n
This graphic has been making the rounds on Facebook and shows Finland came top with the public in 18 countries, while Sweden, who won the contest, failed to get any top marks!
Trenulețul
KEiiNO
62
AUTUMN 2023 l VISION
VISION l AUTUMN 2023 63
Made with FlippingBook Annual report maker