Live data from Hacker News

I'm Against Podcasts

washingtonpost.com

141–150 of 300 posts

Re: I'm Against Podcasts

#141

This article is fantastic, because it lays out exactly why I love podcasts. Podcasts are to audio what punk rock was to music: freedom to be an amateur. Was punk for everyone? Nope. Were punks particularly talented? Some were, but mostly nope. Yet punk became one of the most influential genres of music of all time because it gave you permission to suck. It's like what's been said about the Velvet Underground: They ne…

Lou Reed made it pretty big though. I agree with the article. Especially this part: > Forget the lousy microphones and the dinky interstitial stock music — the thing that derails most podcasts is the blab. There are two kinds, more or less. The first is that soft, inquisitive staccato popularized by Ira Glass on “This American Life,” the source from which so much pod-voice appears to have sprung. The second mode is p…

> Lou Reed made it pretty big though.

Not compared to the influence he had on other musicians. The general music loving public is not THAT familiar with him. He was a musician's musician. (Also an asshole and abuser of women, which has nothing to do with this discussion, but I can't praise him without mentioning this.)

> There's something phoney about podcasts. I see most podcasts as similar to TED talks or books by Malcolm Gladwell.

Ironically, Malcolm's podcast "Broken Records" has an episode where Rick Rubin discusses this, in a way. He said something to the effect that all musicians start out copying their favorite musicians, until they find their own sound.

I think this is the same for podcasts. Most podcasters are new to the form, so they haven't had the time to find their voice yet. They're still figuring it out.

Ira Glass himself speaks to this point:

“Nobody tells this to people who are beginners, I wish someone told me. All of us who do creative work, we get into it because we have good taste. But there is this gap. For the first couple years you make stuff, it’s just not that good. It’s trying to be good, it has potential, but it’s not. But your taste, the thing that got you into the game, is still killer. And your taste is why your work disappoints you. A lot of people never get past this phase, they quit. Most people I know who do interesting, creative work went through years of this. We know our work doesn’t have this special thing that we want it to have. We all go through this. And if you are just starting out or you are still in this phase, you gotta know its normal and the most important thing you can do is do a lot of work. Put yourself on a deadline so that every week you will finish one story. It is only by going through a volume of work that you will close that gap, and your work will be as good as your ambitions. And I took longer to figure out how to do this than anyone I’ve ever met. It’s gonna take awhile. It’s normal to take awhile. You’ve just gotta fight your way through.”

Re: I'm Against Podcasts

#142
I pressed paused on podcasts because for every great one (first season of Serial) there were dozens of lousy ones.

Even the highly regarded podcasts are often surprisingly ineloquent. Take Maron's. Great guests, but I almost feel myself getting dumber listening to him fumble and pause.

Re: I'm Against Podcasts

#143
It's pretty clear what's happening here: the author prefers music to podcasts, and then tries his best to make some sort of argument to justify this. His arguments are at best nonsensical and at worst completely contradictory.

I was considering writing out a response to each of his points but it's honestly not worth my time. A lot of what the author says is a blatant slap in the face to podcasters that spend so many hours tinkering with their work. Quotes like "By sound good, I meant that I wanted podcasts to sound considered." and "...podcasters aren’t thinking hard enough about what their talk sounds like" are ridiculous if you know any serious or notable podcaster in person.

One reason why this might be happening [to the author] is because the author wants podcasts to be more like music, but the reality is that even though music and podcasts are competing for the same resource (ears) their goals are mostly different. The primary differentiating factor is that podcasts almost always aim to convey some concrete information to the listener, and this constraint will always limit the ways the information can be transmitted to the listener (as opposed to music, which is more free-form in nature and isn't necessarily subjected to any restrictions).

Re: I'm Against Podcasts

#144
I'm really confused by the author's arguments

> With all of the world’s unheard songs beckoning us with their endless mystery, why would anyone choose to waste their precious listening hours on a podcast?

Why is he trying to compare music to podcasts? Because they're auditory? By that same token, it could be argued why anyone would choose to waste their precious listening hours on music with all of the world's unheard audio books beckoning us with their endless mystery and wells of knowledge and information.

Re: I'm Against Podcasts

#145
Why is this taking up space on the Washington Post? Doesn't this belong on a personal blog or on twitter? Or better yet in private diary? My response is as follows: I'm against self-indulgent, curmudgeonly writing like this intended for public consumption being given the patina of approval by respectable publications like the Washington Post.

Re: I'm Against Podcasts

#146

I hate podcasts too. Or to put it more lightly, at the very least they are completely alien to me. In my opinion the elephant in the room when talking about informational podcasts or video is... text. As a medium, text is just so much more efficient (at least for me) that I can't begin to imagine why one would want to listen to a piece of content instead of reading it. I scan-read 20 articles faster than I could hear…

Can you read 20 articles while driving a car or walking to the store or cleaning your house? I find they're a great way to double-up with activities where I'd otherwise be bored out of my mind, and I can take the opportunity to learn about something, or at the very least not be bored.

TV might be more entertaining, but I've never heard anyone argue "Why would you sit down and watch the new Game of Thrones episode, you should listen to a podcast instead!" Being an audio-only medium makes them a lot more amenable to consuming while you do something else. They're only competing with music and audiobooks in that respect.

It's not like I get home from work and think "You know what I want to do this evening? Sit in a chair and listen to podcasts for an hour."

Re: I'm Against Podcasts

#148
post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having worked in broadcast and film, I sometimes laugh when I see these people using high end microphones as if they knew what they were doing by buying them.

The snark isn't really necessary but it's probably fair that there are a lot of people who obsess about pro-level gear and studio setups when that last 1-2% of hardware is pretty much indistinguishable in the final product unless everything else is REALLY nailed down.

Yup. I have a small studio (for podcasting, among other things) and my go-to microphones are $99 sE L7 dynamics because to my ear they're cleaner than SM58s. I have a few others available, like the AT2035 that sits at my desk, but the difference is so, so marginal for any spoken-word stuff that I don't know why someone would bother.

(The above is with one major caveat: I'd kick a puppy for a half-dozen RE20s. I love the sound of them.)

Re: I'm Against Podcasts

#149

This article is fantastic, because it lays out exactly why I love podcasts. Podcasts are to audio what punk rock was to music: freedom to be an amateur. Was punk for everyone? Nope. Were punks particularly talented? Some were, but mostly nope. Yet punk became one of the most influential genres of music of all time because it gave you permission to suck. It's like what's been said about the Velvet Underground: They ne…

Lou Reed made it pretty big though. I agree with the article. Especially this part: > Forget the lousy microphones and the dinky interstitial stock music — the thing that derails most podcasts is the blab. There are two kinds, more or less. The first is that soft, inquisitive staccato popularized by Ira Glass on “This American Life,” the source from which so much pod-voice appears to have sprung. The second mode is p…

Really? I hear that some people do not like the "NPR voice". OK, that's a criticism of the format, I suppose.

But to then compare Ira Glass/TAL with TED or Malcolm Gladwell stretches credulity.

TAL is the pinnacle, the granddaddy of storytelling, of many types, shapes, and colors. It can't be painted with a single brush. Ira Glass usually speaks for a couple of minutes of each episode.

I would challenge you to listen to some of the classic episodes and then tell me it still reminds you of TED:

https://www.thisamericanlife.org/513/129-cars

https://www.thisamericanlife.org/570/the-night-in-question

https://www.thisamericanlife.org/414/right-to-remain-silent/...

https://www.thisamericanlife.org/355/the-giant-pool-of-money

https://www.thisamericanlife.org/206/somewhere-in-the-arabia...

Re: I'm Against Podcasts

#150
post #135

> With all of the world’s unheard songs beckoning us with their endless mystery, why would anyone choose to waste their precious listening hours on a podcast? A better question is why would anyone listen to podcasts when there are millions of audiobooks out there? Why spend any listening time on endless rambling and ads, when I could learn something worthwhile?

with all the world's unheard podcasts out there beckoning us with their endless mystery, why would anyone choose to waste their precious listening hours to another 3-chord pop tune?
Post reply on HN