|
Post by pjohns1873 on Dec 7, 2013 6:40:30 GMT
Seriously.
Whenever I watch college basketball on TV, the game features at least two color commentators--in fact, one game I watched, just the other night, boasted of three "commentators," according to the graphic at the beginning of the game--but there is a depressing paucity of play-by-play announcing.
Even when nothing of special note is occurring, this is not really good. Serious in-depth analysis--the various players' strong points and weak points, and their respective histories--makes for good pre-game and post-game commentary; but such matters are best suited to a calm and dispassionate demeanor--whereas the game itself is conducive to passions that are simply incompatible with detached analysis.
Moreover, these commentators often disregard what is actually happening, and leave it to the viewer to try to decipher just what has occurred. (Was it a charge? Or a traveling violation? Or...well, what?)
Has anyone else noticed this shift away from actual play-by-play announcing in recent times?
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Dec 16, 2013 14:32:23 GMT
Play-by-play was really a necessity of radio broadcasting and not a necessity for television broadcasting where the person is expected to actually watch the game. The TV viewer doesn't need someone to say the player is "rounding first" as they can see it with their own eyes.
Play-by-play still exists on the radio and often it is fun to watch the game on TV while listening to it on the radio. Try that out some time.
There is a funny story about doing this though that goes back to the 1970's in LA where a radio station (KPPC that doesn't exist anymore) used to do a parady "play-by-play" broadcast of the Rose Parade. It was a humor based radio broadcasts where, for example, when the "equestrian" riders went by the same foley sound effects of galluping horses was played in the background and all of the "bands" played the same "John Philip Sousa" marching song. It was a crack-up.
|
|