EUROVISION 2009 - MOSCOW, RUSSIA

Yep - though it is a brave person who suggests that good songs still don't do well. The truth is that good songs do still win - but the breakdown of countries eligible to vote means that not all good songs are in with an equal chance of winning. (Though "good" is probably a loaded word - as a "good" Eurovision song is one that will appeal to the right cross-section of voters - and these days that requires something that will play well in Yerevan and Tibilisi as well as Stockholm and Dublin)

The televoting system didn't usually select bad songs - though I'm not convinced that Dima Bilan and his song were that great this year I think that Ukraine and Norway were both worthy high-scorers, and I can see why people liked Greece and Armenia...

I think that the addition of the juries will just mix things up a bit and make it a bit more interesting to watch.

more details of the juries has been announced ...

Moscow 2009: Televoters and over 200 judges to vote

Earlier this week, the European Broadcasting Union announced that in the Final of the 2009 Eurovision Song Contest, professional juries in all participating countries will have 50% influence on the result. Televoters will deliver the other 50% of the outcome.

Each national jury will consist of five people, including a chairperson, who all are professionals in the music industry, such as composers, radio DJs and artist managers. There should be a variety of jury members (age, gender, etc.). All jury members must be citizens of the country they are representing, and none of the jury members must in any way be connected with any of the participating songs or artists at the 2009 Eurovision Song Contest.

Practically, this means the winner of the upcoming Eurovision Song Contest will not only be chosen by millions of televoters across Europe, but also by more than 200 music industry professionals - five per country - of various cultural, linguistic and demographic backgrounds. To secure credibility of the jury vote, their work and voting procedure will be supervised by a notary in each country.

Have they said whether the juries will be based at the event itself or in their home countries?

Practically, this means the winner of the upcoming Eurovision Song Contest will not only be chosen by millions of televoters across Europe, but also by more than 200 music industry professionals - five per country - of various cultural, linguistic and demographic backgrounds. To secure credibility of the jury vote, their work and voting procedure will be supervised by a notary in each country .

Juries will be located in Country not at the event

Okay, let's look back at the five countries you quoted noggin: Russia, Ukraine, Norway, Greece and Armenia. I notice they all finished top five.

Russia (1st): Originally I thought Sweden would win with Charlotte Perelli's ABBAesque song "Hero", and I voted for it, but when that was going nowhere, I was routing for Russia. "Believe" by Dima Bilan was quite a good ballad, with one winning gimmick: ice skating. Doubt if it would have won without that. Will next year's Eurovision take place on a full size ice rink (permanent or temporary), with over half the countries including skating in their entries?

Ukraine (2nd): A good catchy song, and well sung. Also it had a great dance routine. Not as good as Verka Serduchka's "Dancing Lasha Tumbai" of last year. I guessed it would finish top ten, if not top five, but was surprised to see it get quite as high as 2nd place and 230 points.

Greece (3rd): A catchy, memorable song, with a good dance routine. One of the better songs of the night which deserved top ten, if not top five, but didn't deserve to win. 3rd place, 218 points.

Armenia (4th): The first decent foreign entry (song 5), really catchy with easy to remember words "Qele Qele"and on-floor dancing by the backing group. No wonder it was so popular with the voting viewers across the board. It definitely deserved 4th with 199 points.

Norway (5th): a ballad with a memorable, catchy chorus, and flowing arm movements. One of the best of the night, which deserved a top five placing. It finished 5th place and 182 points.

Contrast those with some of the others.

Good ones:

Latvia: their entry "Wolves of the Sea" was the adult kids' version of the Boogie Beebies dance "Pirate Gang". Catchy, immediately memorable lyrics, easy to sing. The essential ingredients for a good Eurovision song. Great fun to join in and copy the dance routine. Deserved better than 12th with 83 points, ought to have been top ten or even top five. Just think though, if they'd won, do you think all next year's countries would submit songs that resemble Pirate Gang, Brave Prince, Sporty Boogie and other Boogie Beebies dances, thereby resulting in the ESC 2009 being an adult pan-European edition of Boogie Beebies?

Sweden: Charlotte Perrelli was unfairly deprived of points there. Her song "Hero" was an excellent ABBAesque song which should have won with flying colours. As mentioned earlier, that's the one I voted for. I don't think the UK gave Sweden any points, if I remember rightly.

Denmark: another good song whose beat sounded decidedly similar to "Have I The Right?" by The Honeycombs. Deserved better than 15th with 60 points, possibly top ten.

Georgia: an excellent protest song, a ballad about peace . A catchy chorus with an instantly memorable title "Peace Will Come". Little did anyone think the summer troubles in South Ossetia were just around the corner. It deserved better than 11th place and 83 points, certainly top ten, if not top five. Much better than Georgia's JESC 08 counterpart "Bzzz", which didn't deserve to win the JESC. I reckon Georgia won JESC 08 on sympathy grounds in the aftermath of South Ossetia.

Serbia: excellent ballad "Oro". Better in my opinion than their 2007 winning entry "Molitva". Well done coming 6th place, 160 points, I think it deserved top five.

Awful ones:

UK: To me it seemed like a poor imitation of 2001 winner from Estonia "Come On Everybody" sung by Tanel Padar and Dave Benton. Never mind Terry Wogan's claim it was the best UK entry for years, I didn't think much of it in our national selection in March. In fact, I hated all six UK national finalists. "Even If" was the best of a bad bunch. That said, I expected it to come 10th to 15th, not ourtright last with 14 points.(separated out under tie-break rule). We haven't submitted an outstanding entry since "Love Shine A Light" in 1997, have we? The now closed site "TV and Radio Bits" had a page looking ahead to ESC 2009, and one suggestion for improving the UK's chances was "Enter a decent song, well it might just help". Couldn't agree more there. What we want is something of similar standard to "Love Shine A Light".

France: Poor imitation of "Hippy Hippy Shake", in my opinion. 19th place, 47 points was more than it deserved.

Spain: Nauseating trash. Though not as bad as their 1983 entry, I still think it deserved last with nul points. No way did it deserve 16th with 55 points.

Azerbaijan: More nauseating trash. It didn't even deserve to qualify, let alone finish the final 8th place with 132 points. Who gave it the high placing it didn't deserve?

Well, does anyone else agree with me or disagree with me on my analysis of some of this year's ESC songs?

This changes very little for the broadcasters showing the ESC - AIUI they've always been obliged to have a jury present in their country watching the contest in case the televoting procedure fails in some way.

Reread the article, it's clear that this 'new' jury has nothing to do with the standby one.

No, what I meant was that broadcasters having to provide a viewing facility for a jury with actual voting power is not a new organisational thing. They've always done it.

Yep - and they've always had to have a means of returning the jury votes to the EBU. I've always assumed every country files their jury votes, and the EBU decide whether to take the Digame phone-vote or the jury based on the advice of Digame (who provide televoting services across Europe for the contest)

Does this now mean that Televoting will still be backed up by a jury (who will be used in the event of televoting failing or not being significant) with this jury being totally separate from the "national jury of music experts" rather than the "national jury of music experts" awarding 100% of the marks if the televoting is not acceptable?

Wonder how many countries will get this wrong on the night behind the scenes?

Happy new year! Now that 2008 is dead and gone, we can now start talking seriously about Eurovision Song Contest 2009.

The UK's national selection "Eurovision: Your Country Needs You" gets underway this coming Saturday 03 January, 7:10pm - 8:10pm on BBC One.

This Saturday's programme is background info about the Eurovision. The following Saturday (10 January) will be the start of a six week search for the artist to perform the UK's song, which will be written by Andrew Lloyd Webber.

Let's hope Andrew Lloyd Webber has the knack of writing a winning Eurovision song, and that the ideal candidate to sing it will be picked. Will you be watching the series on Saturday evenings in January and February? I certainly will. Will the UK get a high placing at Eurovision 2009? Time will tell. Perhaps the combination of jury and televoting might help.

Seriously. Eurovision. Tumble Tower.

Something doesn't quite make sense there.

So I guess next year Eastern Europe will be shunted off to Asia when the UK come 23rd again this year.

In what way does something not make sense there?

I'm not certain of how "Eurovision Your Country Needs You" is going to work, all I understand so far is that over several weeks, they are going to choose a singer from a selection to perform the UK's entry which will be written by Andrew Lloyd Webber.