Flambo @the cribbo · @Flambeezy
3rd Apr 2020 from TwitLonger
Commentary in Smash
Every so often I see the same things circulate on Smash Twitter and as someone who's been freelancing commentary for 7 years now but also isn't considered a "top caster" in the eyes of the general public, I thought i might have some insight to provide. I've also directly been in charge of hiring talent, (Shine) so I have perspective from both ends.
It usually stems down to these three things.
1. People complain that commentary is not good but do not acknowledge that there are no objective metric (CommsPGR lmao) to determine what good commentary is.
2. People assess that the system for rising the "ladder" in commentary is not fair and not about one's skill.
3. People feel their time invested into commentary is not directly correlating with their improvement in slots/opportunities provided.
The first issue this is something that makes judging commentators difficult. I used to do commentary review streams (back when I had more time) and I would use a rubric for "grading" commentators. I used this rubric to try and be as objective as I could be about an ultimately subjective thing. Whether you like someone's commentary or not does not dictate whether or not they are a good commentator.
I repeat, whether you like someone's commentary or not does not dictate whether or not they are a good commentator.
I stress this because this is the number one most overlooked thing I see online. Just because YOU don't like someone's commentary does not mean that their commentary is bad. Commentary is a lot like food or any other opinion that you have. Some people like bananas and some don't, but just because YOU don't like bananas doesn't mean that bananas are somehow objectively a bad fruit.
(feel free to skip this next section if you don't care about this)
So the metrics I used for grading commentary were:
- Digestible: How easy to understand is what is being understand on a comprehensive level
- Clarity/Enunciation: How easy is it to understand what's being said strictly in regards to articulation. Is it easy to HEAR you (think like listening to Jcole vs Young Thug or something idk)
- Knowledge: Are you able to display understanding and familiarity with game concepts and interactions? Are you familiar with the players? Are you familiar with the tournament series or the history/story lines and is this being portrayed through your commentary? What does winning/losing mean for the players in the grand scheme of things and not just this one tournament? What is the impact of a set?
- Enthusiasm: Do you sound like you want to be there? Are you able to adequately excite the audience with your presence/are you able to actively mirror the feeling of the audience in a way that makes your commentary relatable. Are you charismatic? Funny?
- Synergy: How well do you work with your co-caster? Does your style of commentary lend itself to make it so that you'd be easy to work with for multiple casters?
-X factor: What makes a commentator's commentary unique? This could be a range of things from representation to style. Examples include: Being funny in a way considered uniquely yours, having an accent, being part of an underrepresented community or minority. Basically what do you have to offer that should/could cause me to hire you over someone else aside from raw skill.
Now some of you may read this and think that's stupid. Why should someone get hired for anything other than their skill? And while I understand that, all I can really say without diving too deep is that representation is important. it is a GOOD thing when we try to make things more accessible for groups that have little to no representation. But also quirks and unique traits are exactly that. They help something stand out against a sea of mundane.
(continue here if you skipped)
People are also really stupid. I see the comment, "these commentators aren't even talking about the game," often and then go and watch the VOD myself. I discover that aside from maybe a 15 second bantering tyrade, the entire rest of the match is indeed the commentators talking about the game.
In the aforementioned example it's clear that the end user did not like something about the commentary but when looking at the objective facts, (aka the commentators ARE actually talking about the game) it reveals that in genera,l this individual and several others was not strong at specifically articulating what about the commentary was disliked. This is I'd argue 99% of most scenarios I see where people complain about commentary on a public forum.
What this kind of feedback says to me is that " this caster IS talking about the game but isn't talking about the game in the way that I specifically want." Without explicitly stating what "that way" is the feedback falls on deaf ears and just comes across as annoying and needlessly negative.
Similarly people just hate on things regardless of how good someone actually is. For example if the content of what your saying is mediocre or even bad but you have a very good natural sounding radio voice it's easier to be well received. This applies inversely as well. If you have a squeakier or raspier voice haters will generate regardless of the actual content of what one says. There's so much bullshit that goes into trying to figure out makes one's commentary good or bad that all commentators can really due is rely on trusted friends for reliable feedback and be their own biggest critic.
"Smash commentary is SO BAD"
This is a phrase I hear/see often but personally do not believe. When I see that phrase to this day it has yet to be substantiated with specific scenarios or instances used as support (pretty good way to farm twitter analytics tho if that's your shit). If a match is 5 minutes lets say, someone will point out something a commentator said in 6 seconds of that match but nothing about the overall performance over the course of the given match.
People are also afraid to reference specific people. Every time the phrase, "Smash commentary is SO bad" arises there's one thing that remains true and that thing is there will be an amendment comment saying "Outside of obvious good people like EE, TK, Vikki, D1, Coney, Korean etc."
First off, do understand that just because the aforementioned are considered established does not mean you HAVE to like them. But also these people and some others are chosen to be on the mic during prime viewership hours and various moments through out the weekend. At large they essentially represent average Smash commentary experience in terms of what the average viewer sees. This isn't to say they haven't had their bad days. Top commentators are NOT immune to criticism, and perhaps some have gotten complacent. But I'd still argue on average that their commentary is superb and that there is actually no incentive to get better other than self-fulfillment.
Soooooo.......
Alright well then who the fuck are people ACTUALLY talking about? I feel like there's always this obese ass elephant in the room when people talk about commentary. Easy to say it's bad all the time but never are people specifically named or advised. Is it me? Gpik? Hazmatt? Brosa? Censored? Austy? Slep? Koopa? Comona? Ajax? Actual Garbage? Hangman? Jdawgs? Logic? Script? This list only goes on. And I mean it it's a real fuckin long list. Anyone who isn't "at the top" in Smash commentary knows the feeling of being in constant competition with their friends to try and get hired for events. All the aforementioned people have worked hard to get where they are and are open to feedback. I'm not saying that these people are even good, but rather that they've worked hard and often for free or a net loss.
Rarely if ever will people just "appear out of nowhere" on the mic. People will, however, stay acting like someone is brand new and doesn't deserve a spot over their favorite local caster. Anyone saying Chia popped out of nowhere, for example, would know that's not true. I don't even mean this in terms of in the scene, but strictly in terms of commentary. Only more recently has she gotten more active, yes, but she's been hopping on the mic long before this. No one is actually checking people's resume before making this statement, so they probably shouldn't be saying it.
To use myself as an example, I think my commentary is pretty damn dope most of the time but never really felt like it was validated (for myself) until Brawlhalla started hiring me for events. At that point I was given a firm baseline of knowing that my commentary is the the very least good enough to get hired within the industry. Without some point of reference in smash commentary, it's really hard to know your worth or how good you actually are. Unless you explode into the medium like lets say Slime or Cinn, the experience for most is a painfully slow numbing climb. For many it often feels like you're getting nowhere at all. If will feel it doesn't matter how good you are. And guess what? To some extent it's true.
Unless you're so groundbreaking universally phenomenal, have pre-established clout of some kind, or have the finesse of the gods, you're likely gonna feel stuck for a long time. People will often state that they hate that clout and popularity matter but fail to recognize that we are essentially the entertainment industry. Doesn't it make sense for the people hired to have fans to some degree? Clout is the only metric that is easily tangible to determine if someone is liked by a community. Now I don't think I'd personally start hiring Trihex for top 8s, but it's easy to understand why someone would. The important thing is to ensure that in these moments we aren't ragging the person who gets the slot. They only get the slot because it was offered to them. If you don't like that take it up with who hired them, not with them for getting hired and securing a bag.
2 &3. "Climbing the commentary" ladder if you will is not entirely about connections but having connections sure is a large part of it. What one has to understand though is that the people at the top didn't have these connections either when they started. Any connections I have, for example, I got on my own by going to a shitload of events and talking to people. The world is not fair. Where you live and what you have access to plays a big part in your ability to get hired and the exposure you'll have. I'll detail my personal experience a bit.
I have exactly two DMs from Gimr on my facebook. One is him leaving me on seen back in 2014 after asking if I could be on commentary for NSA2 (a regional in MY home city) and the other is him giving me my hotel info after being hired for Glitch 8. I started off as a melee caster in New England. New England has and still has no viewership for melee events. I had to travel out of region A LOT before I was able to get any kind of traction. I picked up casting Smash 4 and started casting CS: GO, Overwatch, Brawlhalla, Tekken, and DBFZ. I had to do a gofundme to have New England Melee fly me out to CEO 2018 to work for 15 bucks an hour with no housing accommodations? What I will say ultimately got me a spot at CEO was NOT having a Jebailey connection. In fact I had someone try to intro me to Jebailey in an email and he never answered (I don't take it personally he has a million emails a day). What got me that slot was my commentary reel being seen by the coordinator for that CEO and them giving me a shot. So yea reels matter a lot. Especially to me. But of course it's importance will vary depending on the one in charge of hiring.
Imagine if I had started as a commentator in California or MDVA? Would I have had to work as hard to gain visibility? Imagine being an aspiring commentator from like Idaho trying to compete with people that have 2GG events and locals down the street. Everyone does not have the same resources starting out and that's just how it is. There's also only so many spots at the table. There are more commentators than there are slots and there is no such thing as "deserving" anything in commentary. The quicker people come to terms with that the better. People will say others aren't given a shot but who are they suggesting fall in their place? There's well over 100+ people trying to be commentators and for an event
I had a sit down dinner with RJ maybe a year ago now where we talked about commentary and he said something that really stuck with me. He said that people always feel like they are entitled to something or deserve something, but at the end of the day he is going to hire who he wants to for Collisions.
It's his event. He pours his life force into the event. Who he picks for his event is his right and this applies to any other EO. If for a random example, EE and Logic both show interest in my event and I hire Logic, I don't believe it is owed to anyone aside from EE to know why I did not hire him. Even then I'd argue even that's a bit of a stretch. If you don't get hired for a job the assumption is the person hired instead can do the job better (but in this case EE is my guy so I'd at least give him a DM lmao). If the EO doesn't like a popular commentator's commentary and does not wish to hire them for their event based of that alone that is valid. Just because someone's resume is OD does not make them a sure fire pick. At least for me anyway. As a commentary coordinator I try to pick what I think is overall best for the event and the mood I want to portray to the audience. I will also try to extend an opportunity if I can to someone to work at a reduced price (even if I think they're worth more) to at least give them the option. EE is obviously gonna cost more than a randy local but I personally feel if budget is the issue I should at least give the commentator the choice to say no than to outright decline them assuming I can't afford them. But once again, that's just MY philosophy.
Alternatively, if your choices are to hire someone you know who is reliable and consistently does good enough, versus someone you do not know but has the potential to be better than the aforementioned individual. I'm picking who I know over who I don't. Perhaps that's flawed thinking but my mindset is that it is my job as a freelancer to MAKE myself someone EOs know and don't have to think twice about hiring.
To be completely honest, most of the large opportunities I've gotten has been a result of always showing up when others with more prestige just choose not to. I'd imagine this is exactly what happened with Chia at CEO. I'm not ragging on anyone for not going to CEODL, but rather stating that this is a result of that.
This is why I always tell people who ask about getting into Smash commentary to NOT do it. Unless your goal is to have fun talking about what you love don't do it. The moment you start feeling like you're owed something by the community or that you don't have the opportunities and glory you deserve, either understand that this scene is GRASSROOTS or leave. Smash commentary serves as a pivoting point to other career paths esports related or as a fun hobby on the side. That's it.
I don't think the infrastructure of Smash and it's grassroots nature really allow much wiggle room for the landscape to change. The one thing I do not like is that more and more events have been removing the open application process and instead just reach out to those they want to hire directly. Genesis has been doing this for a while and others have started to incorporate this as well.
I think this specific change feels like a big middle finger for commentators working hard in their respective regions and don't know someone on the inside to advocate for them. This is, however, a right that EOs have and while I don't love it I respect it.
Anyway I think this came off more of a rant of my thoughts and a bit of detailing of my own experiences, but I feel every time the topic of commentary comes up on teh TL i start writing something like this then choose not to post it. SSo now I'm choosing to post it and my only contribution going forward will be pictures of RJ. Thank you.
So my advice to anyone aspiring to be a commentator is:
1. Make a reel. Short concise no more than 5 minutes IMO. The EVO cutoff is 3 minutes.
2. Make a commentary resume showing events worked , slots, and references of people who can vouch for you.
3. Go to events, and be prepared to work for free a lot or to loose money. NOTE: This fucking sucks and I'm not saying that you or I should be celebrated for taking megabuses for 12 hours round trip to lose money working an event. As someone that has been able to get some mileage out of this though, I'm sharing this as an anecdote for any success I've gotten.
4. If longevity and sustainability is something you want, branch out into other games.
5. Create some other kind of content. Youtube video guides, match analysis, articles, etc. Trust me it helps.
6. If you bitch about not getting commentary slots on Twitter I promise you I and other commentary coordinators will see that and then DEFINITELY not hire you.
7. The agency provides Thanks for coming to my Ted Talk.
TL;DR Yup commentary infrastructure sucks and I don't have a solution either but there's definitely a lot more to it than people on the viewership end understand. Also if you want to give feedback literally dm or @ any caster. It's that easy. We're smash this ain't Hollywood.