14 June 2006

ESPN or Univision?

Is it better to watch the World Cup in English, with insipid and uninspired announcing? Or to watch on Univision with expressive rapid-fire play-by-play in a language I don't speak?

This question seems to be on a lot of minds this week. "Talk about flavorless presentation," says Kabinti. "They are a bunch of condescending asses," says prescriber.gerk. "i can no longer tolerate the clueless announcers. they say mind-numbling grating things more often than the czech republic is getting flagged for offsides," says h m. "I would love to have just the crowd noise without the American announcers. They routinely make stupid comments, and the overall impression, whether it's fair or not, is that they have no idea how the game works. ... The Portugal match had European announcers, and it felt so much smoother and less cluttered," says Fuzzcat.

I also like the European announcers. Generally, I'm tending to favor Univision, in part for the attitudes of the announcers (is it wrong for ESPN announcers to let on that they're having fun?) and also because Univision has better crowd noise. And crowd noise can tell you as much about a game as any announcer, no matter how well informed.

Completely unrelated to the World Cup, here's a little good listening for you.
[mp3] Riccardo Tesi and Claudio Carboni: "Suite di Balli Antichi"
from the album Crinali

Tomorrow, if there's an upset, I'll post some soca. Go Trinidad!
Post a Comment