I'm surprised it was so one-sided as I thought both were very alike, had the second one not had the extra notes I think it would have been much closer for me. If anything they slightly detracted from the story and I would have preferred rather than having stage directions it had followed a more normal route: The man stood on the edge of a cliff, his hair streaming behind and raised his guttural voice into the wind, "I sense the call. I feel it in the air, howling, as it blows towards the sea. I see it in the snow, ...." rather than tell me in an aside, that's how I see it in my mind, the man yelling into the wind and rain/snow. Though I see what the intent was it just did not flow quite so well.
That said it was still a very close call so I wouldn't be too disheartened.
I agree with Ybbon, the narration doesn't breaks up the story more than it adds effect. I think in the same way, most people would rather watch a play than read the script. That said, the numbers of the first one (that probably have a fancy name I don't know) always stop me reading to find out what they say. Out of two great narratives, I voted for the one that disrupted my reading the least.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
I am me. You are not me. You are you. If I was you, I wouldn't be me.
If you were me, I'd be sad.But I wouldn't then be me because you'd be me so you wouldn't be me because I wasn't me because you were me but you couldn't be because I'd be a different me. I'd rather be any kind of bird (apart from a goose) than be you because to be you I'd have to not be me which I couldn't do unless someone else was me but then they would be you aswell so there would still be no me. They would be you because I was you so to restore balance you would have to be me and them meaning all three of us would become one continously the same. That would be very bad.