|
|
Post by rick on Jan 1, 2010 12:42:58 GMT -5
One thing that bugs me to no end is watching a game on TV and the announcer thinks he's speaking on the radio and gives play-by-play as if the folks watching can't see what is happening. This often insults the intelligence of the viewing audience and reveals a lack of sophistication of the announcer. Radio and TV play-by-play should be different and when you listen to and compare the national guys on TV with the typical bush league local yokel on TV who can't tell the difference, you get a flavor for how it should be done and how woefully inept many locals are. There should be a different amount of time devoted to the following when broadcasting on radio vs TV: 1. Action Description 2. Game/Player Report 3. Play Recap 4. Evaluation 5. Background 6. Strategy 7. Hypothetical There is an interesting study on these factors at: www.scribd.com/doc/2568914/Sports-Announcer-Talk-A-Linguistic-Analysis-of-Basketball-Broadcast- |
|
|
|
Post by valporun on Jan 1, 2010 17:53:35 GMT -5
Could you provide a couple of examples, particular games, announcers, networks, where you find these issues are too heavy for your individual liking, rick? I mean I agree with you in some cases, but I guess I want to get an idea of a game or announcer that you're finding this kind of problem with?
I know if you're talking about HLN, most of those audio connections are with the radio announcers for the individual schools, so they have to present the game as though they are on radio only. I'll have more comment about this topic with some kind of idea of what you're feeling upset about with it, rick.
|
|
|
|
Post by rick on Jan 2, 2010 15:44:42 GMT -5
I wasn't talking about those HLN games where the radio guys call the TV games. I'm talking about TV commentators who think they are [should be] doing a radio play-by-play, or simply don't know the difference.
|
|
|
|
Post by valporun on Jan 2, 2010 18:36:22 GMT -5
That's fine that you weren't talking about HLN specifically, but I guess I want some specific cases where you really felt this was an issue in your watching of the game.
|
|
|
|
Post by rick on Jan 2, 2010 19:28:49 GMT -5
That's fine that you weren't talking about HLN specifically, but I guess I want some specific cases where you really felt this was an issue in your watching of the game. You wouldn't know them. |
|
|
|
Post by stlvufan on Jan 4, 2010 0:53:30 GMT -5
One thing that bugs me to no end is watching a game on TV and the announcer thinks he's speaking on the radio and gives play-by-play as if the folks watching can't see what is happening. This often insults the intelligence of the viewing audience and reveals a lack of sophistication of the announcer. Radio and TV play-by-play should be different and when you listen to and compare the national guys on TV with the typical bush league local yokel on TV who can't tell the difference, you get a flavor for how it should be done and how woefully inept many locals are. There should be a different amount of time devoted to the following when broadcasting on radio vs TV: 1. Action Description 2. Game/Player Report 3. Play Recap 4. Evaluation 5. Background 6. Strategy 7. Hypothetical There is an interesting study on these factors at: www.scribd.com/doc/2568914/Sports-Announcer-Talk-A-Linguistic-Analysis-of-Basketball-Broadcast- Unfortunately, I've never noticed this problem because I'm too distracted by the opposite problem all too often: announcers who have no interest whatsoever in the game going on in front of them, too busy talking about the Heisman Trophy voting, the Big Ten/ACC Challenge series, or some completely different game in a completely different conference from the one being represented in front of them. However, I do agree that it is not necessary to call a game as if you're on the radio. At the same time, I do think it is appropriate for the TV play-by-play guy say the name of each player who touches the ball because it is not always easy to tell who the players on. This depends not only on the quality of the video but also on where the camera is in relation to the court. If what you're seeing on TV is the camera that's perched in the rafters, you're squinting your eyes to see who the players are. A little help from the TV play-by-play guy is still needed. Probably doesn't need to paint word pictures on dunk plays, though, I'll agree. |
|
|
|
Post by agibson on Jan 7, 2010 11:23:10 GMT -5
My complaint's usually the opposite of rick's. (Didn't rlh and I hash this out a year or two ago?)
I'd mostly be happy with a radio play-by-play, even if I have a video feed. Maybe that's because I'm mostly watching over the internet (HLN, slingbox of a DVR recording, etc.).
Perhaps if it was a real TV feed, especially HD, I'd feel differently.
But, generally I'd be happy to have a lot of talking, rather than a lot of silence, and plenty of technical details and analysis.
I guess I can well imagine a shift in balance between the play-by-play announcer and the "color" (e.g. analysis) commentator.
But, I'm pretty annoyed when the TV play-by-play guy doesn't tell me who took a shot, who committed a foul, what the foul was, etc.
|
|
