With the rehearsals for the 2024 Eurovision Song Contest starting in just a few weeks, we thought we’d have a little go at trying to make our own jury scores for this year’s contest. While there’s no way to accurately predict what the juries or televotes will decide next month, we can say how we would vote if we were jurors.
No Rules! (okay we do have to have some rules)
The 36 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. As well as opinions we have also guest Jurors from other outlets voicing their opinions. In line with our current editorial policy Israel will not be reviewed as part of this jury. You can read more about our stance here.
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 live shows and should not be taken as such.
Countries And Jurors For Part One
The five countries that make up the first segment being voted on are: Georgia, Norway, Cyprus, Australia, Germany, and Ukraine.
The jurors voting in this segment are: Georgia, Jonathan, Kittens, Angus, and Lewis
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
Georgia 🇬🇪 Nutsa Buzaladze – FirefighterÂ
| Juror 1 | Juror 2 | Juror 3 | Juror 4 | Juror 5 | Total | |
| Melodic Impact | 3 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 15 |
| Artist’s Presence | 3.5 | 4 | 3 | 3.5 | 4 | 18 |
| Individuality | 2.5 | 3 | 2 | 1.5 | 2 | 11 |
| Attention Drawing | 3 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 15 |
| Vocal Fit | 3.5 | 3.5 | 4 | 4 | 4.5 | 19.5 |
| Lyrical Impact | 2.5 | 2.5 | 1 | 1.5 | 3 | 10.5 |
Total score: 89
Positives
Georgia: Nutsa is an engaging performer and it’s nice to see Georgia trying something different at ESC.
Jonathan: When this genre is done well, it’s good, and Nutsa certainly shows her class and experience in how she delivers this song
Kittens: Lots of drama that can be used to full effect but still moves, clearly someone whos gonna have experience performing
Angus: Nutsa is a strong performer and her impressive vocals are put to good use on this track.
Lewis: Nutsa is an amazing performer. She controls a room whenever she is on stage. You cannot look away!
Negatives
Georgia: The song isn’t exactly something new and will have to go against several similar sounding songs in its semi alone, so may not stand out.
Jonathan: The song’s biggest failing is that it’s not hugely memorable – although it continues the tradition of slightly out-there Georgian entries, it doesn’t necessarially stick out in a very musically diverse year
Kittens: Nothing new, and quite a bit forgettable compared to other tracks this year
Angus: The thing that stands out most about the song itself are its lyrics, which are trite at best.
Lewis: This is such an acrobatic song with such high energy, and she could make use of a bit more stamina when she performs.
Norway 🇳🇴 GĂĄte – Ulveham
| Juror 1 | Juror 2 | Juror 3 | Juror 4 | Juror 5 | Total | |
| Melodic Impact | 4 | 3.5 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 18.5 |
| Artist’s Presence | 4.5 | 3.5 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 21 |
| Individuality | 4 | 4.5 | 5 | 5 | 4.5 | 23 |
| Attention Drawing | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 22 |
| Vocal Fit | 4 | 4.5 | 5 | 3.5 | 5 | 22 |
| Lyrical Impact | 3.5 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 16.5 |
Total score: 123
Positives
Georgia: Incredibly captivating performance. I feel like I’m drawn in from the first note and it’s maintained throughout
Jonathan: The visuals are there, the voice works, the song is true to what it is and does it well. I love the sense of drama to it, and that this kind of music and expression of culture gets its 3 minutes on stage
Kittens: Live performance really goes hard, puts a lot of extra punch into it – feel this could pick up lots of points with both televote and jury
Angus: The song is truly unique, with a memorable staging and melody to boot.
Lewis: Gunnhild has of the strongest live vocals throughout the competition this year, and the MGP performance is so incredibly atmospheric. I hope they channel elements of that performance in Malmö.
Negatives
Georgia: I feel like it runs the risk of many “artsier” songs at ESC and not connecting with first time viewers enough.
Jonathan: Is what it is trying to do going to be recognised and appreciated at Eurovision? Plus, the staging during the national final lacked variety, will they be able to elevate it in the actual competition?
Kittens: Can take a long time to click if people don’t get it straight away. Symbolism might be lost along the way.
Angus: The lyrics were rewritten during the National Final and while they came out passable, it is little more than that.
Lewis: The song is not as universally digestable in comparison to other songs in this year’s competition.
Cyprus 🇨🇾 Silia Kapsis – Liar
| Juror 1 | Juror 2 | Juror 3 | Juror 4 | Juror 5 | Total | |
| Melodic Impact | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3.5 | 12.5 |
| Artist’s Presence | 3 | 2.5 | 2 | 3.5 | 4 | 15 |
| Individuality | 2.5 | 2 | 2 | 2.5 | 2 | 11 |
| Attention Drawing | 3 | 1.5 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 13.5 |
| Vocal Fit | 3 | 3.5 | 3 | 3.5 | 4.5 | 17.5 |
| Lyrical Impact | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3.5 | 9.5 |
Total score: 79
Positives
Georgia: Silia is a strong performer and that can make the song fun.
Jonathan: It is impressive that someone so young is so accomplished in their field
Kittens: A lot of fun, easily relatable lyrics and the dance routine is very slick
Angus: Silia is a strong performer and she is more than capable of performing this song well live
Lewis: Despite all of the choreography that Silia has incorporated in her performance, her vocal remains stable!
Negatives
Georgia: There are several similar sounding songs in the contest which may make it get somewhat lost in all the noise.
Jonathan: This is a song with a generic personality, unconvincing lyrics, meandering production, and an artist that perhaps hasn’t yet built up the stage experience and presence to carry it into being enjoyable
Kittens: a bit generic as a song, relies on dancing/staging to pull attention.
Angus: The lyrics and melody are okay, but both lack the necessary punch to be memorable
Lewis: This song meets my expectations of a Cypriot Eurovision entry, but it does not exceed it. It feels safe given what’s worked for Cyprus in the past but I personally feel like I have heard songs like this far too many times now. It doesn’t feel original.
Australia 🇦🇺 Electric Fields – One Milkali
| Juror 1 | Juror 2 | Juror 3 | Juror 4 | Juror 5 | Total | |
| Melodic Impact | 3.5 | 3.5 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 19 |
| Artist’s Presence | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 19 |
| Individuality | 3.5 | 4 | 3 | 4.5 | 4.5 | 19.5 |
| Attention Drawing | 3.5 | 3.5 | 3 | 2.5 | 4.5 | 17 |
| Vocal Fit | 3.5 | 1.5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 20 |
| Lyrical Impact | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3.5 | 16.5 |
Total score: 111
Positives
Georgia: It’s a new sound for Australia at Eurovision. I love the aboriginal sounds and the Yankunytjatjara.
Jonathan: This definitely brings something a bit different soundscape and production-wise to this year’s contest. The vocals have great depth to them, and it’s wonderful to see a well done Dance track in the contest
Kittens: instantly hummable/singalongable tune with a toe-tapping feel
Angus: Between some of the musical choices and the use of the Yankunytjatjara language this is a unique song that really stands out from the other entries this year.
Lewis: Finally an Australian Eurovision entry that feels truly and unapologetically Australian! I love the inclusion of aboriginal sounds and the Yankunytjatjara lyrics are such a welcome addition to this song.
Negatives
Georgia: Negative – For me it lacks that big moment that makes me go “wow”. It just feels like it’s missing something, though I don’t know what that something is.
Jonathan: It loses all momentum at the start of the second verse, and the song doesn’t really recover from that enough to have the required impact
Kittens: doesn’t quite have the punch of some other tracks and might get ignored
Angus: Between the strong individual elements there is a lot of musical glue that is a lot less engaging.
Lewis: The songs lyrical content itself can come across as a bit repetitive as opposed to catchy.
Germany 🇩🇪 ISAAK – Always On The Run
| Juror 1 | Juror 2 | Juror 3 | Juror 4 | Juror 5 | Total | |
| Melodic Impact | 3 | 3.5 | 4 | 2.5 | 3 | 16 |
| Artist’s Presence | 3.5 | 3.5 | 1 | 2.5 | 2 | 12.5 |
| Individuality | 3 | 3.5 | 2 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 11.5 |
| Attention Drawing | 2.5 | 4 | 2 | 3.5 | 1.5 | 13.5 |
| Vocal Fit | 3.5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4.5 | 20 |
| Lyrical Impact | 3 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 11 |
Total score: 84.5
Positives
Georgia: Isaak as a performer is what really sells this for me.
Jonathan: This is a surprising hit for me – on the surface what seems like a pretty run of the mill male ballad builds into something dramatic, helped by Isaak’s powerful performance and vocal nuance
Kittens: really good voice and surprisingly memorable track
Angus: Isaak sounds great on this song, and his specific voice works well with everything else
Lewis: Isaak is a vocal powerhouse. This song requires a strong vocal, especially on the end of the bridge. Isaak posesses the vocal quality needed for this song.
Negatives
Georgia: This style of song has been done before and I worry that it lacks a moment that can latch onto viewers’ minds.
Jonathan: This style is a well-trodden path in Eurovision – is it doing enough to not be pidgeonholed as another dramatic male ballad, and will it impressive anyone more than any of the frontrunners?
Kittens: staging so far has been very bare and the artist struggles to engage with the audience
Angus: This song is truly the most unremarkable, inoffensive radio fodder we’ve seen in a while
Lewis: I don’t think this song possesses the uniqueness I’ve come to expect from a Eurovision entry. It feels very mainstream and radio friendly which can be seen as a positive but ultimately I don’t think I will be remembering this song when looking back at this year’s contest.
Ukraine 🇺🇦 alyona alyona & Jerry Heil – Teresa & Maria
| Juror 1 | Juror 2 | Juror 3 | Juror 4 | Juror 5 | Total | |
| Melodic Impact | 3 | 4 | 2 | 4.5 | 3.5 | 17 |
| Artist’s Presence | 3.5 | 3 | 3 | 3.5 | 4 | 17 |
| Individuality | 3.5 | 4.5 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 18 |
| Attention Drawing | 3 | 3 | 1 | 5 | 4 | 16 |
| Vocal Fit | 3.5 | 3.5 | 4 | 3 | 4.5 | 18.5 |
| Lyrical Impact | 4 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 4.5 | 18.5 |
Total score: 105
Positives
Georgia: alyona alyona’s rap gives the song a fresh addition of dynamism
Jonathan: Ukraine know what they’re doing, and consistently do it well. They have a sound, a way of mixing musical styles, and an authenticity to their contributions that is evident here. Add into that a fantastic rap section and a melody that sticks out, and it’s another Ukranian classic
Kittens: the artists are engaging performers and vocally flawless
Angus: This is the rare song that is both instantly memorable yet never predictable
Lewis: This song sounds so hauntingly beautiful. It is true to the Ukrainian sound but still feels like something that we haven’t yet seen from a Ukrainian Eurovision entry.
Negatives
Georgia: It feels like the song plods along at times thanks to a fairly monotonous, repetitive beat
Jonathan: Ukraine has set it self up so well that this entry, which doesn’t stand out in the pantheon of Ukrainian entries, ends up standing out less in the contest
Kittens: The song just passes me by – it’s a bit too low key and doesn’t really have a catchy hook or memorable moment.
Angus: Considering how strong they are as performers and how often they have worked together, alyona alyona’s and Jerry Heil’s vocals aren’t as well utilized or combined on this track as one might expect
Lewis: I think the one thing this song lacks is a much bigger pay off. By the end of the song, I am left feeling a bit half full.
You can find the part two, three, four, five, and six, and the full results linked respectively.
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 2024!
Information Source: That Eurovision Site
Header Image Credits: Valentine Ammon (Isaak), Ole Eker (GĂĄte), alyona alyona & Jerry Heil, Nutsa Buzaladze, Monsee (Silia), Morgan Sette (Electric Fields)
That Eurovision Site 
Rory Gannon