With the live shows for the 2023 Eurovision Song Contest starting tomorrow, we thought we’d have a little go at trying to make our own jury scores for this year’s contest.
Rules
The 37 countries competing this year have been randomly sorted into seven segments. Each segment will be voted on by 5 jurors. They have assessed based on six categories: Melodic Impact, Artist Presence, Individuality, Attention Drawing, Vocal Fit, and Lyrical Impact. Exact specifications of these criteria can be found below. Our five jurors have given a score of 1 to 5 on each of the six topics, allowing each juror to give a maximum of 30 points to each song. In total there are up to 150 points available to each song. Once every song and score has been presented a full breakdown with a ranking of all 37 of this year’s entries.
Additionally, all of our jurors were asked to give one positive, and one negative comment about each song in a constructive manner.
These are our personal opinions based on the criteria outlined. This is in no way attempt to accurately predict what will be the outcome of next week’s shows and should not be taken as such.
Countries And Jurors For Part Two
The five countries that make up the second segment being voted on are: Iceland, Slovenia, Ukraine, Spain, and Armenia.
The jurors voting in this segment are: Rosie, Angus, Ben, Helen, as well as a guest Lou from Éirevision.
Voting Criteria
Criteria 1: Melodic Impact
How lasting is the beat of the track. The more the beat stays, the higher the ranking.
Criteria 2: Artist’s Presence
If a national final is used, how their presence on stage affected the performance. If an internal selection was used, and no pre-party of other live footage is available then their presence is assessed based on their history.
Criteria 3: Individuality
How different is the song compared to the rest of the acts participating this year.
Criteria 4: Attention Drawing
How drawn in are you by the song. Are you waiting for it to finish, or completely engrossed.
Criteria 5: Vocal Fit
Assessing the vocal fit of the artist to the song rather than judging their technical ability in full. ie. X singer may have a wider range to Y singer, though singer Y may utilise the range better in their song and therefore should be ranked higher than X.
Criteria 6: Lyrical Impact
How lasting are the lyrics to you. Has listening to it left you singing the song.
The Results
Iceland
| Juror 1 | Juror 2 | Juror 3 | Juror 4 | Juror 5 | Total | |
| Melodic Impact | 3 | 3.5 | 4 | 3 | 2.5 | 16 |
| Artist’s Presence | 4.5 | 4.5 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 21 |
| Individuality | 2.5 | 2.5 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 15 |
| Attention Drawing | 3 | 4 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 16 |
| Vocal Fit | 5 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 4.5 | 22.5 |
| Lyrical Impact | 3.5 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 15.5 |
Positives
Angus: Diljá delivers the song with confidence and competence, creating a compelling live package that goes well with the lyrics of the song
Ben: The real power is her voice. It really makes the song.
Rosie: Diljá is an absolute powerhouse of a vocalist. Her technique is excellent, and she’s an absolutely delightful presence on stage – I love watching her perform. The moment towards the end where the huge bass section kicks in is A Moment and I love it.
Lou: She has amazing style and presence, as well as one of the stand out vocals of the year.
Helen: Dilja has a ton of infectious energy in her national final performance while maintaining her vocal quality throughout.
Negatives
Angus: Although there are elements that keep the track fresh, it isn’t doing really anything new musically
Ben: The song is a grower and not a heavy hitter, so it may not get the votes it deserves in the semi.
Rosie: The song itself sadly feels a little too repetitive for me, while also feeling like a very standard empowerment song. Diljá sells it completely, but her performance doesn’t quite do enough to make me ultimately forget that.
Lou: The chorus can prove very grating and the repeated “p, p, p” isn’t pleasant on the ear.
Helen: While the song has a memorable hook, the rest of the song doesn’t quite stick in my memory and could get lost in semi-final 2.
Slovenia
| Juror 1 | Juror 2 | Juror 3 | Juror 4 | Juror 5 | Total | |
| Melodic Impact | 4 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 4.5 | 21.5 |
| Artist’s Presence | 5 | 3.5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 23.5 |
| Individuality | 3.5 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 20.5 |
| Attention Drawing | 4.5 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4.5 | 20 |
| Vocal Fit | 4.5 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 20.5 |
| Lyrical Impact | 4 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 4.5 | 19.5 |
Positives
Angus: Joker Out are bringing back a popular style of indie rock that never got its time to shine on the Eurovision stage during its heyday, while also giving it their own spin
Ben: I don’t know any slovenian, but I live for the song. The flow is amazing.
Rosie: Carpe Diem is such a stylish song, and it is brought to life by Joker Out’s outstanding stage presence. They’re charismatic, they’re great performers, and it’s a song that actually works even better as a live rather than a studio track. It’s made to dance along to in a crowd at a gig and share an experience to.
Luo: It’s so hard to fault this incredible package. Without a doubt, the most charismatic group we’ve had at Eurovision for some time.
Helen; The live song performance highlights the band’s ability to connect to a tv audience.
Negatives
Angus: Although it is great that Slovenia is sending something in their native language, the lyrics are not very catchy or particularly impactful
Ben: It walks the line of potentially having bad staging or potentially having great staging. They need to make the right choices to be on the good side of the line.
Rosie: Carpe Diem is a song that sounds nostalgic. Listening to it is very much a case of me thinking back to the bands I was listening to back in the late 00s and early 10s. If you’re wanting something fresher, it may not be for you.
Lou: They keep making eye contact with me through the camera and it is very distracting. (Joker Out I am free on Thursday to hang out)
Helen: It’s a song I enjoy when it comes on, but I don’t always actively seek it out.
Ukraine
| Juror 1 | Juror 2 | Juror 3 | Juror 4 | Juror 5 | Total | |
| Melodic Impact | 3 | 3.5 | 5 | 4 | 1.5 | 17 |
| Artist’s Presence | 4 | 4 | 5 | 2 | 4 | 19 |
| Individuality | 3 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 3.5 | 18.5 |
| Attention Drawing | 3 | 2.5 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 15.5 |
| Vocal Fit | 4 | 3.5 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 16.5 |
| Lyrical Impact | 4 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 3.5 | 20.5 |
Positives
Angus: The chorus of Heart of Steel is astoundingly catchy, and can be picked up on first listen or get stuck in one’s head even weeks after last hearing it
Ben: I love the addition of the Ukranian lyrics, and I always love a good organ in songs.
Rosie: There are some textures in the instrumental of this song that I adore. The strings towards the end sound amazing, and I love the thing in there that sounds like an organ to me (I might be wrong!). I also love Jeffrey’s voice – it’s so calming to listen to.
Lou: This is very different for Ukraine and showing another side of their music industry. The performers bring this mediocre song alive.
Helen: This is a completely unexpected style of music for Ukraine in recent years and still has a powerful message without making it super obvious.
Negatives
Angus: The song has some truly standout elements, but that makes the moments between those elements at times feel like waiting for the next (again, excellent), element to pop up
Ben: I worry the mid-tempo feel of the song might not connect with everyone.
Rosie: I always just want a little more when I listen to this song – I feel like I’m waiting for A Moment to hit that just never comes. A bit of variation in the vocal line or a few extra layers of instruments in the final chorus would just give the song a little more variation in structure for me, which I feel would give it more impact as a whole.
Lou: As aforementioned, the song is painfully mediocre (to me). There is no stand out moment for me in this.
Helen: The song plods along a bit at the same tempo, although I appreciate the variation brought in by the revamp.
Spain
| Juror 1 | Juror 2 | Juror 3 | Juror 4 | Juror 5 | Total | |
| Melodic Impact | 5 | 4.5 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 21.5 |
| Artist’s Presence | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 25 |
| Individuality | 5 | 4.5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 24.5 |
| Attention Drawing | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 24 |
| Vocal Fit | 5 | 4.5 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 23.5 |
| Lyrical Impact | 4 | 4.5 | 5 | 3 | 4.5 | 21 |
Positives
Angus: Throughout the performance, Blanca Paloma manages to create a transformative and emotional atmosphere that utterly draws in the
Ben: I find my brain going EAEAEAEAEAEAEA at random times of the day, its amazing.
Rosie: Eaea is beautifully-composed, full of such interesting textures and rhythms and elevated by Blanca’s immaculate vocals. Her performance at Benidorm felt like a complete package, and I find her a captivating performer.
Lou: This song isn’t for me but I’m finding it really hard to mark it down in any categories. It is just so unique and captivating.
Helen: There is absolutely nothing like this in the contest this year, and it showcases a uniquely Spanish style of music.
Negatives
Angus: While the song obviously isn’t trying to be catchy beyond the “EA EA”s, this lack of catchiness can at times make it hard to remember the full song and performance
Ben: It is very etheral and may not connect with all of the viewers.
Rosie: “Artsier” songs at Eurovision really have either done incredibly well, or failed to connect with the audience. I hope Eaea falls into the former category, but it’s a song I feel you have to “work” for, and I worry that not enough people will take to it enough over other songs to pick up the phone and vote.
Lou: The melody of the repeated “eaea” in the chorus could be unappealing to some ears.
Heleh; This may unfortunately be a bit too weird for an international audience to latch on to.
Armenia
| Juror 1 | Juror 2 | Juror 3 | Juror 4 | Juror 5 | Total | |
| Melodic Impact | 4 | 3.5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 16.5 |
| Artist’s Presence | 4 | 3.5 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 17.5 |
| Individuality | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 19 |
| Attention Drawing | 3.5 | 4 | 3.5 | 3 | 3 | 17 |
| Vocal Fit | 3.5 | 4.5 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 18 |
| Lyrical Impact | 3.5 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 15.5 |
Positives
Angus: This song beautifully updates the power ballad for 2023, and Brunette’s vocals really tie the whole song together
Ben: Her voice is good and it’s a soothing melody
Rosie: Every layer of this song is so atmospheric. Brunette’s beautiful vocals over the choral elements and the gorgeous instrumental – each bit of it fits together beautifully and I feel like I tune into a new, lovely thing every time I hear it.
Lou: Brunette seems like a fantastic artist and I love the idea of writing a song to your future lover.
Helen: This seems like a very personal song to Brunette and it shows off her lyrical talents.
Negatives
Angus: It’s a fittingly and stunningly bombastic production, but at the times the music makes it a tad difficult to actually understand what Brunette is singing
Ben: It can get a bit wordy at times, and her diction isnt the best making it even harder to understand.
Rosie: The song suffers a little bit structurally in the three minutes – I would have liked it to have a few more seconds to provide a more complete ending, as I sadly don’t feel quite as satisfied as I’d like to at the end of the song. A less sudden denouement, something a bit more gradual or slower, would help the lovely atmosphere last.
Lou: I find it difficult to connect to this song and find it very cold. I fear Walking Out 2.0 could happen here and upset many fans.
Helen; I find that the song takes a bit too long to find its groove and come alive for me.
What do you think of our scores? Are there any countries you’d score differently? As always, let us know what you think by commenting below. Also, be sure to follow “That Eurovision Site” on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Tiktok as we cover the rehearsals of Eurovision 2023!
Information Source: That Eurovision Site
