Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I'm Against Podcasts

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 300 posts

Re: I'm Against Podcasts

#131

Post by ds206 »

sureaboutthis wrote: post #57
freddie_mercury wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know why you're talking about "the ins and outs of audio recording". The author makes clear that's not what he's talking about. In the very next sentence after your quote he writes: >Forget the lousy microphones and the dinky interstitial stock music — the thing that derails most podcasts is the blab. And later on he explains again . >By “sound good,” I meant that I wanted podcasts to sound considered. Anyway…

I would hope that blab would not be the point. I've always thought to myself that, when I see a link to a video or podcast about some technical topic, I know that some large chunk of that cast will be "er, um, is this thing on?", stupid jokes and laughter, and I think to myself, "Are they incapable of writing this down?". I don't have time to watch or listen to these things and ignore them.

Blab is definitely the reason I listen to some podcasts. It's real. I get tired of the perfectly edited videos and television shows. Even better are LIVE podcasts where the show could go off the rails at any moment :)

Re: I'm Against Podcasts

#132

Post by rgrieselhuber »

nickelcitymario wrote: post #96

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…

Exactly. The same goes for news and political commentary. We are in a golden age of media creation and we have the tools to seek out the truth in many areas and spread the messages we think are worthy of spreading.

Whether an audience exists is up to the savvy of the podcast maker themselves. It is not uncommon to see independent YouTube streamers on a laptop with live audiences that put corporate media to shame.

Re: I'm Against Podcasts

#133

Post by Kye »

jcims wrote: post #58

Since we’re on the topic of podcasts and the article at hand has been pilloried to my satisfaction, I have an unrelated question for other podcast listeners. Have you ever listened to the same podcast twice and experienced strong, even intrusive visual recollections of what you were doing the first time you listened to it? I find it particularly true from when I’m walking or driving while listening, but my memory is…

Yes! Sometimes I play Minecraft while listening to podcasts. The episode becomes associated with what I was doing at the time.

Re: I'm Against Podcasts

#134

Post by del_operator »

Do the popular podcast styles eventually feel like a transform that muddles the truth of the experiences? I could see how it could cause some anxiety when actual experience isn’t condensed into truthy bits. I think that’s something I’d see more in writing, but haven’t personally expected from podcasts.

Re: I'm Against Podcasts

#135

Post by glerk »

> 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?

Re: I'm Against Podcasts

#136

Post by Darkstryder »

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 (or watch) a single one of them if they were presented in audio or video. And doing so I still have my ears available (for coworkers at work, for example).

Video can be interesting in a few specific cases : music production is a hobby of mine, and video can be interesting (but not always) as you can simultaneously watch somebody doing something while hearing how it affects the sound.

But most podcasts (and youtube videos) do not exploit the unique properties of audio or video enough to justify the tremendous requirements they ask on my attention span.

In my opinion audio and video emphasize entertainment over information, but most of them are not that entertaining (compared to an actual entertainment media), and not that much informational (compared to a text article).

I think newspapers made a tremendous mistake with the pivot to video and the pivot to podcasts. Vive le texte !

Re: I'm Against Podcasts

#137

Post by ben7799 »

Such a weird article, more of a waste of words than any podcast I've listened to in a long time.

The mainstream journalists/media have raced to the bottom in a clickbait orgy. Podcasts are one of the only areas where you still have deep in depth coverage of areas the mainstream has too short of an attention for.

Also funny he thinks it's bad for music. I listen to a lot of music podcasts. Mainstream/Pop music is in a horrible place, a lot of these podcasts help keep real musicianship alive. Lots and lots of knowledge transfer.

I play guitar, to use the guitar example if a famous guitarist goes on a podcast you're going to hear a very very different level of content compared to if the Washington Post interviews the guitarist. The podcast guy probably plays guitar and the audience is guitarists so the interviewer can ask intelligent questions and the musician doesn't have to dumb down everything they say to the point it all comes off as magic.

This article is the same kind of thing as someone lamenting we should go back to a 1950s music system where there are a few big companies that are able to play gatekeeper on everything.. so we end up with everyone stuck listening to the same stuff.

Re: I'm Against Podcasts

#138

Post by leftyted »

nickelcitymario wrote: post #96

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 performative in a different way, and you hear it on most round-table podcasts — a tone that people use at parties when they want to be heard by people that they aren’t necessarily talking to. And it’s pretty much one or the other. Be podcasted to in a cozy, overly considered way, or be podcasted at in a hastier, less-considered way.

There's something phoney about podcasts. I see most podcasts as similiar to TED talks or books by Malcolm Gladwell. These things are the opposite of Punk, which feels real, even when it's shitty.

That doesn't mean there can't be good podcasts or that there aren't any, but the dominant format seems pretty lifeless to me.

Re: I'm Against Podcasts

#139

Post by mistermann »

rgrieselhuber wrote: post #132
nickelcitymario wrote: post #96

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…

Exactly. The same goes for news and political commentary. We are in a golden age of media creation and we have the tools to seek out the truth in many areas and spread the messages we think are worthy of spreading. Whether an audience exists is up to the savvy of the podcast maker themselves. It is not uncommon to see independent YouTube streamers on a laptop with live audiences that put corporate media to shame.

Totally agree, I find it fascinating to compare how the media tells us things are in other countries and cultures vs how YouTubers show us they are.
Post reply on HN