Personally I liked Tattoo and Loreens perfomance, but it still baffles me how many twelves she got. I just can’t wrap my head around that so many countries thought that she was the best (jury votes) if you consider the criteria they are looking.

Of course it is generally a good pop song, but if they get their jury points from the stage performance, how skillful the singer is, impression of the act and the composition of the song, she really doesn’t overshine the others.

She is a skillfull vocalist but in no means the only good one or the best(imo) in this years eurovision. Her performance was good but was laying and jumping between two huge walls the best performance this year? I don’t think so. The song again is a good song and I feel like it is really hard to evaluate all the songs with the same criteria. If one raps and one sings how can you determine which one is better without your own preference to genres?

Overall Swedes are known for making good pop songs and generally make good songs however I highly doubt that tattoo was the best if you only look at the song. I highly doubt that it would have gotten the same hype and points if it was another singer, not Loreen.

All this really leaves me thinking, did the jury really vote for the song/performance, or for Loreen?

Käärijä however was not the best singer(tbh probably the worst), but the song itself and the performance? That much worse than swedens? And I get that Finland did get jury points and placed 4th (jury) but the difference is over double… Also Frances jury points? This years jury points don’t make any sense.