Posted in Media
1 comment
01/5 2011

Call of the Day: Do ESPN Highlight Packages Actually NEED The Background Music?

Posted by Dan Levy.

I’ve always wondered if ESPN throws down the cheesy music in the background of highlights more out of habit — or perhaps some strange infatuation with Joe Satriani — than actual highlight-enhancing necessity.

So, now we have our answer: it’s necessary. Here are two clips of, basically, the same highlight package. The first is embedded from ESPN’s Highlight of the Night on ESPN.com (link to page) with Steve Levy recapping the Sugar Bowl sans music.

Now, here’s ostensibly the same package, with overnight host Stan Verrett explaining the pictures. This set, however, has the classic ESPN music bed.

So, which is more exciting? I have to admit, watching the highlights without the tunes was…oddly off-putting. It was just weird, wasn’t it? Maybe I’ve become classically conditioned to expect the music so it was simply more noticeable that it wasn’t there on the first highlight. Or, maybe listening to a guy tell you what you’re watching for four straight minutes is actually pretty boring, making some musical distraction inherently necessary.

What do you think?

Share
Posted on January 5, 2011 at 6:41AM
This Post tags: , , , ,

 

USER COMMENTS

Track comments via RSS 2.0 feed. Feel free to post the comment, or trackback from your web site.

  1. Kirk
    01/5 2011

    Dan, I agree with you. I did not see the whole game so i jumped on ESPN.com today to watch the highlights and something was missing. At first i thought it was just that it was steve levy doing it but it was the music. thanks for pointing that out. I like the music better. Also, if there is music, it does not force the reporter to fill in every second with noise.