Eurovision 2011(Germany)

[spyretto]

oh well, perhaps next year the Azerbaijanis will finally learn how to sing their song properly cause those vocals at the end were embarrassing. But well done to them.

[spyretto]

It's a better idea if they divide the semis between East and West instead of all those restrictions they have currently imposed and get 10 songs from each "bloc," then in the final we'll have a fairer representation of Europe. And for that they will have to do away with the "big 5" nonsense or add Russia to make it big 6 and get the winner of the previous year to automatically qualify. The basis of having 5 big rich Western European countries going straight to the final is fundamentally wrong. Italy was out of the competition for 14 years, they couldn't be bothered and then you qualify them automatically?
So I would propose:

1)Divide Europe into 2 blocs for the semi's , one Eastern and "Asian" countries, the other West and Scandinavia and lift ALL restrictions with regards to voting - except for the own country restriction of course.
2)Do away with the big 5 concept or if that is not possible for the contest to be viable, add Russia and the winner of the previous year to automatically qualify. Russia is a rich country, yes?
3) Keep the same format for the final, let them do their neighbouring voting, it would be embarrassing for them to see a top 10 comprised of all the Eastern countries in the final, and they will eventually mend their ways, especially if we make the "big 5" thing more fair for the Eastern Europe
4) get rid of the nonsense jury voting, it was a load of bollocks in the first place. It's a democracy, let the people of Europe decide again.

Now is that Lithuanian guy still around to pass him my recommendations?

Another thing, it would be interesting to see how they can stop this from being a karaoke show, I mean you don't have to have a big orchestra but if the Italian guy wants to play his piano, let him. It's embarrassing to see air guitars and air pianos in the contest

[Argos]

Originally Posted by spyretto

It's a better idea if they divide the semis between East and West instead of all those...

Not so easy to draw the line between east and west. Both sides should have the same amount of countries, but it doesn't solve the problem of the minority/migrant voting in neighbouring countries. Russia would benefit on cost of it's neighbours, for example.

Originally Posted by spyretto

... having 5 big rich Western European countries going straight to the final is fundamentally wrong.

Completely unacceptable, if we talk about fairness and equality. But who would pay the bills, if there were not this foul trade-off?

Originally Posted by spyretto

...get rid of the nonsense jury voting...

The jury voting should correct a few flaws of the public voting: reducing the chance to cheat the audience with cheap show effects instead of quality, reduce the effect of neighbour/minority/foreign worker voting, give good singers a better chance.

Well, in reality nothing has changed for the better. This year saw the biggest amount of block voting of all time. Good singers were rare because they already knew from the last 2 ESCs that good singing doesn't get you more points from the jury. The good singers were hopelessly behind. What the jury voting brought: good singers are less, interesting show performances are less, mainstream pop gets the bigger points (no wonder, jury members are mainstream pop people), neighbour voting has increased in west and central Europe.

Originally Posted by spyretto

It's embarrassing to see air guitars and air pianos in the contest

Chease pop and live instruments - sit down and reconsider!

Well, I made some statistics and there are a few interesting results.
- In a west-only voting Ireland would have won.
- The ranking of the western as well as that of the eastern side of Europe each had 7 of their own among their top 10.
- The UK entry though was more favoured in central and eastern Europe.
- There's a clear sign of political voting in the west. Except for Azerbaijan (swedish song) and Moldova (more considered Romanian than Russian) the ex- Soviet countries had the last places in western votes, without counting Switzerland, which got into the mud too.
- the ex-Soviet countries 'boycotted' the Balkans. Never before seen so few points from them.

Another observation concerns the foreign workers votings. Turkey got into a semifinal group where they could not get points from the rich countries, where many Turkish workers live. Consequently they had no chance to reach the final with their not so ESC-fit candidate. Bosnia on the other hand could draw on opulent ressources. 57% of their semi-final points (and 48% of the final) came from their guest countries.

[spyretto]

Originally Posted by Argos

Not so easy to draw the line between east and west. Both sides should have the same amount of countries, but it doesn't solve the problem of the minority/migrant voting in neighbouring countries. Russia would benefit on cost of it's neighbours, for example.

Yeah but I don't think there will be a problem for them to solve out their differences between themselves, on the contrary it's gonna be just fine, I reckon. It's the Western countries who are bitching the most. As for drawing the line, we can just use geography. So, for instance, Greece's old motto "we belong to the West" is not gonna cut it for Eurovision, they will be the Easterners.
It's also gonna be interesting to get the best of the East v the best of the West in the final. It'll be a bit like a boxing fight, a bit like the playoffs in American sports, East v West
Do you think the current pool system, with its fascist-like restrictions does a better job? Who can't vote for what? To me it looks like a total joke.

Completely unacceptable, if we talk about fairness and equality. But who would pay the bills, if there were not this foul trade-off?

The jury voting should correct a few flaws of the public voting: reducing the chance to cheat the audience with cheap show effects instead of quality, reduce the effect of neighbour/minority/foreign worker voting, give good singers a better chance.

Well, in reality nothing has changed for the better. This year saw the biggest amount of block voting of all time. Good singers were rare because they already knew from the last 2 ESCs that good singing doesn't get you more points from the jury. The good singers were hopelessly behind. What the jury voting brought: good singers are less, interesting show performances are less, mainstream pop gets the bigger points (no wonder, jury members are mainstream pop people), neighbour voting has increased in west and central Europe.

Chease pop and live instruments - sit down and reconsider!

Well, I made some statistics and there are a few interesting results.
- In a west-only voting Ireland would have won.
- The ranking of the western as well as that of the eastern side of Europe each had 7 of their own among their top 10.
- The UK entry though was more favoured in central and eastern Europe.
- There's a clear sign of political voting in the west. Except for Azerbaijan (swedish song) and Moldova (more considered Romanian than Russian) the ex- Soviet countries had the last places in western votes, without counting Switzerland, which got into the mud too.
- the ex-Soviet countries 'boycotted' the Balkans. Never before seen so few points from them.

Another observation concerns the foreign workers votings. Turkey got into a semifinal group where they could not get points from the rich countries, where many Turkish workers live. Consequently they had no chance to reach the final with their not so ESC-fit candidate. Bosnia on the other hand could draw on opulent ressources. 57% of their semi-final points (and 48% of the final) came from their guest countries.

Interesting reflections. I haven't given it much thought but to me your reflections tend to showcase that the West/East thing is not such a bad idea. I'm talking about the semis only of course, the final has to be untouched...as for the big 5, yeah it's preposterous but what do you think of the idea of adding Russia to the biggies and getting the winner of the previous year reinstated back into the final? It's gonna be from Eastern Europe most of the time anyway, so that will balance things up a little bit, will it not?
As for the jury: what is the point of "correcting" what the public thinks? To me it seems standoffish, and arrogant, if the public likes something because it's got flashing lights, let them vote for it...give the choice back to the people, this is what it is all about. Juries follow the rehearsals and already have cast their vote before the final night, isn't that a bit rigged?
We got our politicians to decide for our lives we don't need them to decide what to vote for Eurovision either. But if you think the juries is a good idea how about reinstating them completely rather than have it half and half?
Cheesy pop and instruments , is what you meant to say? Why not? or , by the same token, why live voices and fake music? Lets do it by playback, then they can mime while doing acrobatics at the same time. It's a musical extravaganza, Argos and I would like to have seen the Italian guy play his piano, or Rybak play his violin, or Ruslana play her tribal drums for real. What's wrong with having some live music back to it?
Let me remind you that this competition used to include live singing and music for a few decades, a jury from each country that would decide upon the voting. We did away with the music, we turned it into a karaoke competition. We did away with the jury but we let the people decide. Now we're bringing the jury back because supposedly we're not fair enough and they can correct us. I don't like it. And we had a kind of elitist show where Eastern Europe - the ones who were participating anyway back in the day - could hardly get a break due to the partisan voting from the West, now we went the other way and the East is taking its revenge on the West...but we still rubbing it off and having the big 5 who all together can't amass enough points to save their lives.

Since we can't stop the political, neighbouring voting lets embrace it totally! It's reverse psychology, my dear.

[spyretto]

Originally Posted by Argos

Chease pop and live instruments - sit down and reconsider!

Completely optional of course, it makes no difference to have a live drum machine
But if you remember, there was a time where they were doing it...it's not always cheesy pop, we had jazz this year, we have had folk winning in the past, I was talking about those cases where the instrument plays a leading part, of course.

Well, I made some statistics and there are a few interesting results.
- In a west-only voting Ireland would have won.
- The ranking of the western as well as that of the eastern side of Europe each had 7 of their own among their top 10.
- The UK entry though was more favoured in central and eastern Europe.
- There's a clear sign of political voting in the west. Except for Azerbaijan (swedish song) and Moldova (more considered Romanian than Russian) the ex- Soviet countries had the last places in western votes, without counting Switzerland, which got into the mud too.
- the ex-Soviet countries 'boycotted' the Balkans. Never before seen so few points from them.

Another observation concerns the foreign workers votings. Turkey got into a semifinal group where they could not get points from the rich countries, where many Turkish workers live. Consequently they had no chance to reach the final with their not so ESC-fit candidate. Bosnia on the other hand could draw on opulent ressources. 57% of their semi-final points (and 48% of the final) came from their guest countries.

-Yeah, Ireland for me would have easily been in the top 3 if it came from Eastern Europe. People would go: wow, how cool, if it came say, from Russia. It was also a Swedish song
-I think the jury voting had a lot to do with that when it comes to that parity. As you said, they favor traditional pop and who does that the most? the West. Normally the West does not collude so blatantly, perhaps even because their musical tastes differ from country to country...see? it's not just political voting. Ireland only gave the UK 6 points and it's been like that almost every year, it's not a given at all that Ireland will vote for the UK or the UK for Ireland. Then we had Zdob si Zdub, another example: the BBC commentators hated it with a passion, that Mills guy was like "you gotta be kidding me x3" when it made the final, Norton was saying "Europe, really?
Then lots of people in the UK simply loved them. You see, musical tastes in such a big, cosmopolitan region like the UK can vary tremendously. What did Norton like instead? Denmark
- Well, the situation with Balkan and ex-Soviets is volatile, I think. See what happened to Turkey? There's no guarantee that the ex-Soviets will vote for the Balkans or the Balkans for the ex-Soviets.
Actually the Balkan countries seem to suffer a lot due to the new rules, for instance Bulgaria couldn't get much love from anybody. There are many neighbours in the region. Greece on the other hand - which has good ties and diaspora in pretty much everywhere and can do both East and West at the same time - faired pretty well.
- So Bosnia got most of its votes from neutral countries? Strange, considering that the German audience were hating them, booing them every time they got points. I can't imagine the West getting behind such a song, they have their own aging folk singers

[Argos]

Originally Posted by spyretto

It's the Western countries who are bitching the most.

They pay the bills, they want the raisins. Capitalistic thinking.

Originally Posted by spyretto

Greece's old motto "we belong to the West" is not gonna cut it for Eurovision, they will be the Easterners.

Eastern mediterranean, according to their voting habits.

Originally Posted by spyretto

It's also gonna be interesting to get the best of the East v the best of the West in the final.
...to me your reflections tend to showcase that the West/East thing is not such a bad idea.

The EBU wanted to overcome all this East vs. West, but with every new rule they make the gap bigger. From that view point an honest East-West competition would make rules simpler and it wouldn't look so hypocritical. And finally we would have equality for the finals.

Originally Posted by spyretto

...as for the big 5, yeah it's preposterous but what do you think of the idea of adding Russia to the biggies and getting the winner of the previous year reinstated back into the final?

The second best solution after completely abandon the participation without qualification. For a while I considered another modus: Drawing lots for the composition of each semifinal, and a negative list for each country (5-6 countries which are not votable, decided by the voting characteristics of the last 3-5 years). This would reduce the influence of neighbour voting or guest workers' voting close to zero. If the west or the east have more qualified in the finals is decided by the performers, not by geography, politics or cultural affinities. Sounds complicated though..

Originally Posted by spyretto

As for the jury: what is the point of "correcting" what the public thinks?

People in charge want control. Complete democracy kills the power of the establishment. The people are already fit for democracy, the leaders not. So simple.

Originally Posted by spyretto

Juries follow the rehearsals and already have cast their vote before the final night, isn't that a bit rigged?

That's a technical issue. It would prolong the waiting time until the results are gathered and evaluated, if they judge the actual performance of the competition. The odd thing is of course, they don't decide about a competition, but a rehearsal, which is pure nonsense.

Originally Posted by spyretto

But if you think the juries is a good idea how about reinstating them completely rather than have it half and half?

Completely against. Juries manipulate and cheat. That's a fact. They should not have a voice in the competition. We saw the consequences: a reduction of diversity, creativity and entertainment.

Originally Posted by spyretto

Cheesy pop and instruments , is what you meant to say? Why not? or , by the same token, why live voices and fake music? Lets do it by playback, then they can mime while doing acrobatics at the same time. It's a musical extravaganza, Argos and I would like to have seen the Italian guy play his piano, or Rybak play his violin, or Ruslana play her tribal drums for real. What's wrong with having some live music back to it?

What's wrong? Europe has shown that they don't even have enough good singers for this competition. If you add incompetent musicians, then you will need lots of ear plugs, and by the way - Zdob si zdub would have won in that case. They can really play!

Originally Posted by spyretto

We did away with the music, we turned it into a karaoke competition.

The point is: do we want a singing competition, a show performance competition or a music competition? It all depends which direction people want the ESC to go. All we can do is try something, and if it's not accepted, then try something different, until finally (that is: never!!!) everybody is happy with the ESC.

[spyretto]

Originally Posted by Argos

They pay the bills, they want the raisins. Capitalistic thinking.

They want more votes, they should tailor their songs to appeal to a larger demographic. Well, Germany found Lena at the end, not bad considering the trite they had been sending previously. Common, what are the UK bitching about, they were sending rubbish after rubbish, year after year while Blue - with their nice song and all, as I said before, my favourite - are a reunited boy band from 2001-2004. Not quite current then is it? A legitimate artist in the UK would simply not do it.

Eastern mediterranean, according to their voting habits.

the Cyprus thing swayed it I reckon

The EBU wanted to overcome all this East vs. West, but with every new rule they make the gap bigger. From that view point an honest East-West competition would make rules simpler and it wouldn't look so hypocritical. And finally we would have equality for the finals

they turned it a little bit like politics, a 10% of "the undecided" deciding on the winner every time. So if it's politics, let us be the ones who cast the final vote.

People in charge want control. Complete democracy kills the power of the establishment. The people are already fit for democracy, the leaders not. So simple.

They could allow it for the ESC, it's just a yearly song contest at the end of the day.

That's a technical issue. It would prolong the waiting time until the results are gathered and evaluated, if they judge the actual performance of the competition. The odd thing is of course, they don't decide about a competition, but a rehearsal, which is pure nonsense.

Yeah, of course but still they could allow SOME room for last minute alterations, could they not?

Completely against. Juries manipulate and cheat. That's a fact. They should not have a voice in the competition. We saw the consequences: a reduction of diversity, creativity and entertainment.

It'll be a little like going back from democracy to the dark ages..

What's wrong? Europe has shown that they don't even have enough good singers for this competition. If you add incompetent musicians, then you will need lots of ear plugs, and by the way - Zdob si zdub would have won in that case. They can really play!

You got me wrong on this one, as I said it would be completely optional and if a virtuoso like Rybak decides to use his live violin he shouldn't be forbidden. The karaoke singers can remain karaoke singers of course. Total freedom to be whatever you wanna be.
Damn it, I wanna see Zdob si Zdub win it the 3rd time. Just get a better song and a big preposterous party on stage!

The point is: do we want a singing competition, a show performance competition or a music competition? It all depends which direction people want the ESC to go. All we can do is try something, and if it's not accepted, then try something different, until finally (that is: never!!!) everybody is happy with the ESC.

A little bit of everything, really. It's a musical extravaganza, and it could be up to the participants to decide...within reason of course, you shouldn't be able to bring an elephant on stage.

[spyretto]

Originally Posted by Argos

The second best solution after completely abandon the participation without qualification. For a while I considered another modus: Drawing lots for the composition of each semifinal, and a negative list for each country (5-6 countries which are not votable, decided by the voting characteristics of the last 3-5 years). This would reduce the influence of neighbour voting or guest workers' voting close to zero. If the west or the east have more qualified in the finals is decided by the performers, not by geography, politics or cultural affinities. Sounds complicated though..

Interesting, I think I got it but then again that creates restrictions. We could say for example, oh Austria can't vote for Germany this year because they have been voting for them in the last 3 years.
With the non-votables being carried into the final? It will complicate things a lot, people won't know who they are supposed to vote for.
I don't know, it's a little bit like what the EBU has in place at the moment, isn't it? Historical data to segregate each country into a special "non-voting" zone.
There could be alternatives but this simple East -West thing for the semi could sort things once and for all.

How about a language barrier for the final? Restrictions put upon each country's first language, for example Russia can't vote for Ukraine and vice versa. We can do away with half of the neighbouring voting straight up. It's not very fair, of course, but it will eliminate a lot of the tit-for-tat scenarios, especially the annoying Greece/Cyprus thing, but not only that.

[Argos]

Originally Posted by spyretto

They want more votes, they should tailor their songs to appeal to a larger demographic. ... Common, what are the UK bitching about, they were sending rubbish after rubbish, year after year ...A legitimate artist in the UK would simply not do it.

That's the point. They are blaming others for their own failure. With bad choice after bad choice the people in the western countries got so disinterested that they didn't vote and their minorities took charge and decided the points, which made the results of the west even worse. The east sends regularly their best horse to the ESC. If this attitude doesn't change the east will always be the winner on avereage, no rule can change it.

Originally Posted by spyretto

I have to admit I don't quite get the modus: Is that to do with the way each country has voted in the past and are we to punish them on the basis of that? You mean a situation like the Greek/Cyprus one - which is going on from time immemorial - creating some kind of a handicap that would effect their qualification chances?

Oh yes, you got it right. A 'friends-list' for every country according to former votes, and those friends simply don't count. But as I said, too complicated.

Originally Posted by spyretto

yeah, of course but still they could allow SOME room for last minute alterations, could they not?

Pfff, they could simply spare us the judgment of the stinkers. I don't need them.

Originally Posted by spyretto

...as I said it would be completely optional and if a virtuoso like Rybak decides to use his live violin he should be forbidden. The karaoke singers can remain karaoke singers of course. Total freedom to be whatever you wanna be.

I think almost no country wants that. Choosing a competitive candidate would be even more pain than it is already. It distorts the competition if there is free choice. People will of course prefer the live performance, and those singers, who don't have a professional live band (especially young singing talents), will be handicapped. It's a singing contest after all, at least 'historically'.

Originally Posted by spyretto

A little bit of everything, really. It's a musical extravaganza, and it could be up to the participants to decide...within reason of course, you shouldn't be able to bring an elephant on stage.

As for my part I love a wide variety of music styles, different ways to perform on stage (like Bilan's violinist and skater, or Mika's sand artist), and various moods of the songs from calm to ekstatic, and everything that gives (back) this kaleidoscope of European music culture.

[spyretto]

Originally Posted by Argos

I think almost no country wants that. Choosing a competitive candidate would be even more pain than it is already. It distorts the competition if there is free choice. People will of course prefer the live performance, and those singers, who don't have a professional live band (especially young singing talents), will be handicapped. It's a singing contest after all, at least 'historically'.

So you reckon because the live performer would be preferred countries would have a hard time picking decent performers? But that could be good thing in the long run, wouldn't it? It could raise the standards of the competition altogether or, if not, punish those who are lazy and reward those who are not. But don't be so sure that the karaoke singers won't be preferred, Eurovision works in mysterious ways, you know

This is what I think about the final: A single restriction, based primarily on native languages ( so we got Greece/Cyprus (amen!) Austria/Germany, Belgium/France, UK/Ireland, Russia/Ukraine, Spain/Andorra, Croatia/Serbia? is that right? etc etc )
and if that doesn't apply b) a single restriction based on the country they historically give most points to - because we somehow have to stop the Scandinavians from what they're doing for several years now, voting for each other, then pretending they're fair while the East is not ).
There will still be considerable neighbouring voting of course, but at least 50% could be eliminated eventually.

That's the only thing I can think of that wouldn't drastically alter the nature of the voting, while still ensuring a more fair representation.

[fanoff]

Guys, what you do is just great!! But, it's the Eastern Europe countries that take ESC much more seriously than the Western. It's also not that Western countries can not win, Finland, Norway and Germany won it recently. I thought that Azerbaijan had a decent song and a good show that is enough to win this competition, I have no problems with the winner. I wouldn't be sad if Italy won, because they had a decent song too and the background was just good.

My votes for the night were for:

Ireland, Bosnia, the UK, Germany, Azerbaijan, Slovenia

[Argos]

Originally Posted by spyretto

So you reckon because the live performer would be preferred countries would have a hard time picking decent performers? But that could be good thing in the long run, wouldn't it? It could raise the standards of the competition altogether ...

Yes, of course. But you can't enforce it, if most of the members don't like it, and I don't see a way to convince a mayority of more than 40 countries to vote for this rule. The ESC is far from such a future. Let's be happy for now that we don't have playback or autotune for the singers!

Originally Posted by spyretto

This is what I think about the final: A single restriction, based primarily on native languages ( so we got Greece/Cyprus (amen!) Austria/Germany, Belgium/France, UK/Ireland, Russia/Ukraine, Spain/Andorra, Croatia/Serbia? is that right? etc etc )
and if that doesn't apply b) a single restriction based on the country they historically give most points to - because we somehow have to stop the Scandinavians from what they're doing for several years now, voting for each other, then pretending they're fair while the East is not ).
There will still be considerable neighbouring voting of course, but at least 50% could be eliminated eventually.

How ever we try it, it gets either too complicated (more than one restriction) or doesn't quite serve the purpose. That's why I said, that I considered this for a while. It's no good in the end. More rules, and doesn't solve the problem, at least not without creating new ones. The East/West showdown is still more promising, though against the desired reduction of the polarity thinking.

[fanoff]

Originally Posted by Argos

Azerbaijan doesn't have the money for hosting

Do you really think so? They almost spent 10 mil. $ just for 2010 Eurovision entry. And as far as I know, some price around 20 mil. could easily organise the event.

[spyretto]

Trust me, they take it seriously in the UK, otherwise 6 million people wouldn't tune in for the final while their entries are getting thrashed year after year, otherwise the BBC wouldn't show both semis live and then a rerun in the early morning - I mean seriously, what do they care, if they don't take it seriously.

And did you see the reaction of the German audience last night? I haven't seen such positive reaction to EVERY participant before. It's a big party, and they loved it.

I think the rigged voting IS a bit of a issue fanoff, it's not such a big deal but lets just say that a country from the West goes into the show with a bit of a disadvantage. Having said that, a song destined to appeal to a large democratic with a good performer can certainly win.
The UK situation is pretty much that they are left a little behind the times- it's not so much a patriotic issue for them. The English are the rulers on this island they are in a position to dictate things, if we allowed Wales and Scotland to participate as individual countries you'd probably see a more patriotic approach to the whole thing and possibly some better acts.

[spyretto]

Originally Posted by Argos

Yes, of course. But you can't enforce it, if most of the members don't like it, and I don't see a way to convince a mayority of more than 40 countries to vote for this rule. The ESC is far from such a future. Let's be happy for now that we don't have playback or autotune for the singers!

You wouldn't enforce it as a rule but allow the freedom to do it if you opted for. For example, restricting the performers to 6 on stage, well, that's a rule. Allowing a live piano as an option is not a rule, it's lifting a restriction. As I said there was a time - for a couple of years - where they would allow some live music to go alongside the prerecorded one - then they abandoned it altogether, probably because of the costs. But if wouldn't cost anything for a performer to play a real instrument on stage, when the instrument is already there as a prop, it's a little bit like deciding to go for the video wall to support your performance or simply use some props, there was a mixture of that yesterday. I see no problem in reinstating some of the musical aspect of the competition, and certainly it wouldn't be a rule to be imposed, it would be just lifting a restriction. Nobody would be obliged to do anything if they didn't want to.

[Argos]

Originally Posted by fanoff

Do you really think so? They almost spent 10 mil. $ just for 2010 Eurovision entry. And as far as I know, some price around 20 mil. could easily organise the event.

Hard to tell from my side how much they can spend. Last time I checked, Azerbaijan suffered from heavy inflation, so I don't know if the state is willing to take the burden to invest much into the project, although where is oil there is multi-millionaires. Perhaps they will have less problems with the hosting than I assume. We'll see.

Originally Posted by spyretto

As I said there was a time - for a couple of years - where they would allow some live music to go alongside the prerecorded one - then they abandoned it altogether, probably because of the costs. But if wouldn't cost anything for a performer to play a real instrument on stage, when the instrument is already there as a prop...

The costs, that's one of the main things, costs, time and technics. The problem here is, there is need for much more time for rehearsals and soundcheck for more than 40 acts in the worst case, with all the technical issues. They can't even get a good overall sound for the event, if you remember the competition. Some countries would be able to do a decent job, others not. I can understand the fear of the hosts.

[spyretto]

Originally Posted by Argos

How ever we try it, it gets either too complicated (more than one restriction) or doesn't quite serve the purpose. That's why I said, that I considered this for a while. It's no good in the end. More rules, and doesn't solve the problem, at least not without creating new ones. The East/West showdown is still more promising, though against the desired reduction of the polarity thinking.

Ok, so we have East v West, the big 6 and the winner of the previous year qualifying for the final

Western semi: Slovenia, Switzerland, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Belgium, Netherlands, Ireland, Malta, Portugal, Austria, San Marino just 14 countries

Eastern semi: Albania, Bosnia H, Croatia, F Macedonia, Serbia, Estonia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Israel, Moldova, Ukraine, Armenia, Cyprus, Greece, Turkey, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia.

23 countries!!! The semi would take forever! We need to divide the East into 2 semis

However you see it with the East bloc spreading all the way to Syria and Iran, the divide remains the same


It's just not feasible.

[Argos]

^^
East Mediterranean in the West group: Israel, Cyprus, Greece, Turkey and Albania (yes, they are/vote more Levante than Balkan, as well as Bulgaria - WTF!)

[spyretto]

Originally Posted by Argos

^^
East Mediterranean in the West group: Cyprus, Greece, Turkey and Albania (yes, they are/vote more Levante than Balkan, as well as Bulgaria - WTF!)

How about the Baltics too
Since there will be no Russia to vote for, we might as well, you know

Turkey in Western Europe

[Argos]

Originally Posted by spyretto

Turkey in Western Europe

Things get out of hand, I knew it!