> Podcasts are bad because podcasts sound bad — and podcasts sound bad because podcasters aren’t thinking hard enough about what their talk sounds like.
But this is exactly why we should cherish podcasts! They're one of the last vestiges of the old, weird, free Internet that we have left.
Podcasts (mostly) sound bad because the people making them are (mostly) amateurs, which means they don't know the ins and outs of audio recording. They just hooked up a crappy USB mic to their laptop and started podcasting. And once they did that, there was no central corporate gatekeeper who could turn them off and tell them to come back when they knew what they were doing.
All of which, yes, results in a lot of crappy podcasts. But consider the alternative. Do we really want to see one more wide open indie publishing channel turn into bland, pre-digested corporate mush? Is the problem with podcasting that it's not enough like Facebook? Because that's the alternative: one more medium where all the weirdness has been wrung out, except for those random bits of weirdness that happen to tickle an algorithm that makes some corporate overseer another nickel.
Maybe that is what you want, I dunno. If so, don't worry! Now that people with money have taken notice of podcasts, there are plenty of would-be corporate overseers lining up to give it to you as we speak.
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 think this is just a matter of taste. I imagine the author also hates talk radio/sports radio. You know those 2-hour shows about the Philadelphia sports or whatever?
Much of podcasting is essentially the modern take on that. Of course, it isn't "considered". Of course it has "blab". That's kind of the whole point -- it is filling in a connection/emotional gap that people aren't getting in their day to day lives.
I, too, dislike the "eavesdropping on other people's tipsy pub conversation" genre of podcasts. I generally don't love the professionalized "least common denominator of an NPR listening audience's tastes, delivered in carefully rehearsed NPR voice" podcasts, either.
My solution is to not bother with those podcasts. There are so many others that I find to be more worthy of my time. Admittedly, it's probably a small fraction of all podcasts, but it still amounts to more than I could possibly find the time to listen to.
I don't like aimless blab, I don't like the NPR style, but I've still got a huge list of podcasts that I regularly listen to. A podcast is just an RSS feed of audio files. There might be fads and fashions like any other medium, but there is also limitless possibility to do mad and brilliant things. The accessibility of a decentralised online medium combined with the intimacy of radio has IMO sparked a creative renaissance.
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.
Hell, I can deal with shitty microphones, I just wish people would figure out that you need to record all speakers' audio independently and not rely on Skype or Discord or whatever relaying it to a single location. Robovoice is the worst.
You don't need to necessarily have independent audio streams to have good audio, just independent sources. I did a podcast up until January, and as the person doing the editing, I found zero benefit to having one input stream per microphone, and ultimately I eventually just started outputting the multiple inputs as a single dual channel stream. Podcasts that aren't in person are rough to listen to though, for sure. The ability to read body language and respond without weird little timing idiosyncrasies just isn't there with Skype.
I just listened to an interview podcast that was clearly done on Skype. Interviewer on the left stereo channel, interviewee on the right. Despite the sucky sound quality of Skype and mics, the stereo separation made it relatively easy to follow.
Of course, this one is all about kitchen remodeling. I don't expect kitchen remodeling experts to also be audio engineers.
You're setting up a false dichotomy between decentralized & centralized, where the real concern here is quality vs. careless. The same technological advancements that have allowed everyone to have a voice have also made it trivially easy to obtain decent recording equipment and software to edit out the useless parts of the conversation. Not to mention the concepts of research and planning have been around since time immemorial, which are both free and the greatest contributors to producing a quality podcast. But that's more work than just using your phone mic to record a meandering hangout with your mates.
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 never made it big, but almost everyone who went to one of their concerts or bought one of their albums started a band of their own. (The same was later said of The Pixies.)
Sure, there's a lot of garbage. But it's real. It's raw. It's people finding their voice.
I couldn't be happier to see the elites complaining about podcasts. Just add it to the pile of people complaining about punk, YouTube, ebook self-publishing, blogging, and all the other ways we're free to express ourselves today.
>I couldn't be happier to see the elites complaining about podcasts.
Especially when the elite's journalistic production (e.g. WP articles) are not really higher quality: just follow some long established conventions, are self-congratulatory, follow the norms of polite talk, try to not ask the "wrong" (elite-wise) questions, put into use all the BS they've learned on "essay/creative writing" class, etc, which is why they pass for "serious" by people conditioned to seek those traits.
Some print media podcast productions are super amateurish production wise. You can hear it's two persons in a tiny conference room with no sound proofing (so it's really echoey) and a third person phoning in so you can barely hear what they are saying. No editing whatsoever. Maybe recorded with a cell phone?
They should get a summer trainee who has been in a band, or even watch a youtube video on how to do podcasts. It should be easy to set up a normal microphone and put some foam rubber on the wall. And please, do get all the people in the same room!
But the content can actually be good - ie some enthusiastic reporters actually know widely about their subject and can discuss it in an interesting way. Vi Hart of youtube fame was invited to a journalist conference and was saying just the same - that we need good quality journalism and content should be front and center - and stop with the gimmicks and forced video features.
> 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.
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:
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.”
Weird. The podcasts I listen to are mostly improvised long form conversations between interesting people: EconTalk, Partially Examined Life, Primo Nutmeg, The Henry George Program, Software Engineering Daily, A16Z, Track Changes, Joe Rogan, Tyler Cowan, and so on. Mainstream anything is kind of bad, but the supply of truly interesting podcasts is quite tremendous.
I agree that a lot of the major podcasts don't focus enough on clarity. That said, I've found more high quality content than I'll be able to listen to by digging a little deeper.
I've gotten into music composition recently, and I've been completely blown away by the number and high quality of music writing podcasts like SongExploder. I'm constantly and pleasantly surprised by what I find.
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.
punk also gave you a way to connect with the artist. you saw DK at a shitty club in the bad part of town, and Jello was 3 feet from you, and he'd talk to you after the show. (Instead of going to see Zeppelin at a giant stadium)
With podcasts, a lot of them are Extremely Online and so interacting with the host is easy. They'll talk with you on Twitter or Reddit or here.
For me, it beats having to listen to top 40 music interlaced with commercials. Yes, podcasts have their own commercials, but you can always forward past them.
There is some really interesting stuff out there, and podcasts are just another great learning format for people.
Exactly right. Any way we can find to create low barriers of entry into media is a good thing. We have to find a way to preserve the manic weirdness of the old internet.
I think this whole piece is a pretty bizarre exercise.
> I consider [podcasts] an enemy of music. [...] 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?
This isn't just comparing apples and oranges, it's arguing that apples are the enemy of oranges. "With so many delicious oranges uneaten, why should anyone waste their time consuming a mealy, flavorless apple?" At least apples and oranges are both types of fruit. I don't think there is anything to be learned by debating the relative worth of two different types of media. He has his reasons for disliking podcasts, but they sound very personal. If he is annoyed by how podcast hosts talk, for example, that is simply how he experiences it. Others will have a completely different perception.
The commenters over there are falling into the same trap hard. So many variations of "Why would I listen to this when I could just read the information quicker?" Who are these people who cannot fathom that people may want to listen to something mildly informative while they are otherwise unable to focus on reading? Or just have an easier time absorbing information audibly rather than visually? Or even that someone would listen to something because hearing another human voice provides a value beyond pure information?
Really though, I just wonder how valuable these people think their time really is? I assume their "I need to be absorbing optimal information at all times" shtick is supposed to come across as smart, but it just comes across as a little slow.
It's part of the whole tech self-important "Always be hustling" schtick. The same people who want an abstract at the beginning of every article that isn't written in inverted pyramid style.
That said, I've never liked talk radio (or even radio in general) very much. And am certainly not a fan of meandering chit-chat style podcasts. A lot of podcasts could also probably stand to be shorter as could many presentations. But even a simple 20-30 minute interview conveys information and nuance in a way that a transcript or article doesn't necessarily.
ADDED: There are of course also produced shows that are more than just the words spoken just as a film is more than a paragraph synopsis of the plot.
It's not about valuable time, it's about the low bandwidth. That's why I also, in general, don't watch Youtube videos that try to explain theoretical concepts. It's like watching paint dry, when I could just read it in a small fraction of the time if the material is available in written form. At least Youtube videos are useful where the visual is important, e.g. repair instructions. Podcasts don't even have that. The only time (in my particular situation) where podcasts could be an alternative is when I'm driving my car, but my commute is very short, so in practice there's never a time where I would want to listen to a podcast. How each of us feel about bandwidth is, of course, completely individual.
It's not solely about 'time value'. I have an inherent dislike for reiteration and meandering, which is easy to skip in written works by scanning ahead. But with podcasts I have to do a skip-dance without cues.
On the contrary I've found that listening to air traffic control recordings is relaxing and helps with task-concentration because it follows strict procedures and no-one wastes time blethering. It's like a verbal metronome. You really have to make your own if you want high quality, though, since LiveATC is an earsore.
Is he though or is this an attempt to discredit a competitor? This guy is a journalism in a era when newspapers and other forms of tradition media are dying. Journalism is seen as a joke, partisan, propaganda, and even an enemy of the State by large swatches of the public.
As if where you listen to some music the "first time" matters?
(Like the first time one has sex, which has rom-coms and romantic fiction instill on us that it has to be "special"?)
I've discovered and first heard all kinds of great music on the tube and other casual places, and didn't hurt my later re-listening and appreciation of them...
I think they are actually apples to apples when you consider that the apples are 'attention' and that we live in an attention economy where every piece of media is trying to maximize the time you spend with it. So what he's saying is that your attention is being wasted on shitty podcast, instead of trying to find good unheard music. I disagree with this, because I find that knowledge should get more attention than art/entertainment. But that's not to say that there aren't shitty time-wasting podcasts, but you can say the same about music.
> "With so many delicious oranges uneaten, why should anyone waste their time consuming a mealy, flavorless apple?"
Well, you're not wrong, apples are a garbage fruit. And podcasts interviewing people via cellphone lines is a garbage podcast.
If any podcaster is worried about inconveniencing their guests by asking for quality recordings, consider that the viewership takes a lower view of their guests when audio quality drops: https://psychcentral.com/news/2018/04/14/scientists-often-di.... You practically owe it to your guests to insist on a quality line to avoid disadvantaging themselves in the marketplace for ideas.
I'm fine with the rest of your comment, but no, no NO you just don't get to say apples are a garbage fruit without contention, just no. Apples are great. Not all (I'm looking at you, Red Delicious), but I'd much rather eat an apple than an orange. (I'd much rather have fresh orange juice than any form of apple juice, if that takes the edge off my orange-hate.)
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).
His half explained defence of music being less listened to was pretty strange.
Who cares if people listen to less music? Most people were listening to recycled top 40 trash on radio before podcasts became accessible in cars and on smartphones. I’d personally rather people learn stuff or hear about interesting topics while they drive than hear the same song for the 30th time.
A lot of crap passes for podcasts but so does modern journalism where the click baity headlines are the only interesting part of the story.
> Most people were listening to recycled top 40 trash on radio before podcasts became accessible in cars and on smartphones. I’d personally rather people learn
Thank you! Personally I'm very disappointed by Top-40...I view music as a medium which has inspired me with confidence, empathy and curiosity.
What's more, music, like porn, should get credit for having bootstrapped open-source data sharing.
It plays a huge role in my life personally. I like to think that certain lyrics and artists gave me back a thirst for spirituality after a dogmatic, puritan upbringing brought me to nausea at the mention of the word. (FWIW, I wouldn't describe myself as a "worshipper"...but rather I've a fresh appreciation for the potentials of meditation and storytelling)
I enjoy curation of Podcasts, and more pointedly...seeking out interviews with people talking about what I want to learn about...this has taken what I love about "edifying music" and does it in a more distilled and long-form format. Allow me to name a few off the top of my head who just ooze wisdom:
Henry Rollins (In his older age esp.) is a profoundly well-spoken and inspirational traveler and writer. I intend to read all his books someday; but for now getting a distilled version of his wisdom from his spoken word or interview on JRE is hugely empowering and inspiring during a workout or long commute.
Jordan Peterson; Big disclaimer here: I don't love his conclusions. Instead, I immerse myself in his thought-experiments, remaining skeptical, smirking at his casual dismissal of activism. I've listened to his audiobook (12 rules) back-to-back when biking to work, it got me asking questions, which reinforced my own pursuits. This is the opposite of apathy, so agree with him or not...he's a voice I like to have around.
Alan Watts: Philosophy, Taoism. I mention this because there's a very interesting trend going on: Philosophical Chillstep; aka rhetoric set to a rhythm. The paranoid might cry brainwashing...I've been critical of that dynamic and I conclude that it's a nice way to get someone's talking points...it's encouraged me to seek out the long-form original versions of the oration.
Zoog Von Rock / Amelia Arsenic of Angelspit: The top commenter mentions punk, so allow me to include these Auzzie-gone-murrican cyberindustrial rabblerousers. What's funny is that I see correlation between some messages in Angelspit's lyrics and aforementioned JP's rhetoric (both consider the consequences of a world that liquidates human quality of life in pursuit of productivity)
Edit: Example of some of Zoog's helpful vlogging: https://youtu.be/WYDjNKESS5A
Adam Yang 2020: Obama rode on Facebook. Trump ran on Twitter. I'm watching Yang on Youtube with particular interest...this is a guy with 75 policies...and at rallies there seems to be a sentiment for returning to respecting intelligence and a thirst for leaders who can back up their ideas with numbers. Feeling hopeful, might streetteam l8r.
I hope the author of the article takes notice of him, in fact, because for how formulaic pop-music is...one wonders how long it will be before generating reviews and top-lists of pop-music songs will be entirely automated...
> It's pretty clear what's happening here: the author prefers music to podcasts
So true. It seems like people fall pretty hard in to one or the other, music or talk. People like the author here doesn't seem to understand or accept this? Or he just has a word count quota. I fall in to the talk side of things, my husband falls in to the music side of things. He gets to arrange all bbq, get-together playlists and I get to arrange our road trip queues that keep me awake at the wheel.
> I was considering writing out a response to each of his points but it's honestly not worth my time.
I, too, want to talk at length about this. Ultimately, that would cut in to my podcast time so I'll just grumble to myself and leave my reply at this.
"I have strong feelings, and therefore I will invent rational-sounding excuses to justify my feelings, and I know they are right because they are mine!" kind of writing.
Are you just listening to popular stuff or looking for podcasts about your more obscure interests? Or just randomly sampling?
I like storytelling podcasts for example, so something like "Re:Sound" was great. It is compilation of the best from other sources: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/re-sound/id135072877 (hard to find it actually) This can lead you to a number of podcasts from all over the world.
Critical Role is an amazing very long form podcast of a DnD game: https://critrole.com/ And if you like it, there is another bunch of similar content discoverable by association.
A lot of top-level stuff targets general audience. If that does not appeal to you, keep digging. Possibly treating it the same way you may look for technical information, with specific keywords, exclusion patterns and following the cross-referencing links. Once you hit the niche you like, you can then test different things within that.
Jocko Willink puts out an excellent podcast focusing on learning leadership and discipline lessons via military history books from the perspective of a Navy SEAL.
I don't listen to it too much because it gets pretty dark (My Lai, WWI, Chechnya), but every episode I've listened to has been worthwhile.
Let's not use "edgy and contrarian" like Britain's working class use "pretentious". E.g. to criticize any attempt to divert from the norm and be more inquisitive.
It's perfect fine to be "contrarian". If anything, we need more of those.
>And being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian is a TERRIBLE idea. I'm all for thoughtful criticism, but simply disliking things for no intelligible reason is grounds for ridicule.
It makes as much sense as liking things because they're the norm, which is the default for most people. So hardly "grounds for ridicule".
Plus, "being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian" adds contrarian voices, which are by definition few (if they were many, they wouldn't be contrarian but "the norm") -- and are thus sorely needed in a mono-culture of agreement (or shallow bi-partisan splits of opinion, like Dems and Reps).
If not for anything else, to serve as the devil's advocate, since few ever consider points outside the norm.
Notice that I said contrarian, not stupid/crazy. E.g. it should be a contrary opinion to popular opinion/norm, but that doesn't mean any contrary opinion will do (e.g. "I believe we should all be eating rocks").
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 ubiquitous NPR Voice/Sound is really what turns me off from podcasts/audiobooks/etc. While I love NPR, their sound is absolutely grating to listen to. Too HD, rife with extremely loud and detailed plosives and sibilants. I don't want to listen to the speaker suck the spit back down their throats in excruciating detail after every sentence.
NPR's sound quality is too detailed. It's like if you watched a video of someone talking and could see the aftermath of a popped zit smack in the middle of your screen.
The U87 is a classic mic first made in 1967 and used on everything. Lots of famous pop song vocals are still recorded with a U87 to this day. And they're expensive, they cost $3200 new at Sweetwater.
The U87 is a Condenser microphone, while the RE20 mentioned in the article is a Dynamic - I wonder if maybe you don't like the sound of condensers mics in general. They typically have a crisper high-end that catch a lot of detail.
I imagine if you listened to the vocal stem it would sound as extreme. It's just masked by other noise or gated/sliced out most of the time. Some people make a feature of those noises; Muse is an obvious example and they certainly divide people.
So don't listen to NPR? I don't understand how any of this is a reflection of podcasts as a whole. There are so many different podcasters and organisations all doing it completely differently. It's one of the most democratic forms of media consumption that I'm aware of - you can pick any platform, you can pick whatever you want to listen to, you're not locked into a certain player or anything else. If you don't like the way one podcast sounds, listen another podcast.
My understanding is that, more specifically, it's a sound that's very carefully tailored to the acoustic environment in which NPR is typically consumed: a moving car.
I once heard an interview with an NPR audio engineer where he related how he'd epoxy the studio microphones' bass roll-off switches in place because the setting that most people thought made their voices sound better also made them harder to understand over highway noise.
I was never really into podcasts until I started my current job and commuting regularly. After a while I noticed that listening to music was beginning to fuel my frustration with other drivers and I'd get to work already stressed out. I started listening to talk radio and podcasts and that has really improved my feelings on the road and my state of mind walking into the office.
I honestly don't think it has really impacted my music listening either. I'll toss something on at work and listen while I work through a problem or while reading. The type of music I listen has shifted to fit my purposes but it is still there and I don't see it going away either.
I too have a commute, and find podcasts a nice way to stay current with news, learn something new, or hear about new stuff in areas that are interesting to you.
I can't really listen to podcasts while working since I can't really focus on the the talking while thinking about what I'm doing, so music is perfect. It can help keep me focused and gives me plenty of time for exploring new music.
The author's stance on Podcasts is just so odd. That you somehow can't enjoy both? Seems like he has an axe to grind or something.
The single word that comes to mind when reading this: "Waaaaaaah!!!"
I listen to podcasts because I learn from them or am entertained by specific people with insights and expertise I appreciate. The whole bit about eavesdropping on a conversation is the essence of what makes a good podcast: it's a conversation that if you caught a part of it in real life you would stop and stand at the edge to listen and learn more. And the best podcasts involve listener feedback, sometimes in real-time.
Perhaps the ultimate irony of the assertion that podcasting is killing music is that podcasting was INVENTED by an MTV VJ and former disk jockey, Adam Curry, and that the ORIGINAL podcast -- The Daily Source Code -- was heavily focused on music and ultimately shut down because RIAA lawyers leveled a massive legal threat at Adam even after he had purchased online music licensing to cover his podcast.
What podcasting does is decentralize the exchange of information: it destroys the ability of a powerful few to be the gatekeepers of information or "pick the hits." That's why "they" hate it and why it will only increase as a medium over time.
Actually, Ben Hammersley seems to have come up with the name. Adam Curry and Dave Winer are usually credited with the concept but it certainly wouldn't surprise me if you had embedded media in RSS earlier.
Readit News
But this is exactly why we should cherish podcasts! They're one of the last vestiges of the old, weird, free Internet that we have left.
Podcasts (mostly) sound bad because the people making them are (mostly) amateurs, which means they don't know the ins and outs of audio recording. They just hooked up a crappy USB mic to their laptop and started podcasting. And once they did that, there was no central corporate gatekeeper who could turn them off and tell them to come back when they knew what they were doing.
All of which, yes, results in a lot of crappy podcasts. But consider the alternative. Do we really want to see one more wide open indie publishing channel turn into bland, pre-digested corporate mush? Is the problem with podcasting that it's not enough like Facebook? Because that's the alternative: one more medium where all the weirdness has been wrung out, except for those random bits of weirdness that happen to tickle an algorithm that makes some corporate overseer another nickel.
Maybe that is what you want, I dunno. If so, don't worry! Now that people with money have taken notice of podcasts, there are plenty of would-be corporate overseers lining up to give it to you as we speak.
>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 think this is just a matter of taste. I imagine the author also hates talk radio/sports radio. You know those 2-hour shows about the Philadelphia sports or whatever?
Much of podcasting is essentially the modern take on that. Of course, it isn't "considered". Of course it has "blab". That's kind of the whole point -- it is filling in a connection/emotional gap that people aren't getting in their day to day lives.
My solution is to not bother with those podcasts. There are so many others that I find to be more worthy of my time. Admittedly, it's probably a small fraction of all podcasts, but it still amounts to more than I could possibly find the time to listen to.
https://www.beefanddairynetwork.com/
https://www.imaginaryadvice.com/
https://athleticomince.com/
https://play.acast.com/s/blindboy
I don't have time to watch or listen to these things and ignore them.
Of course, this one is all about kitchen remodeling. I don't expect kitchen remodeling experts to also be audio engineers.
Dead Comment
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 never made it big, but almost everyone who went to one of their concerts or bought one of their albums started a band of their own. (The same was later said of The Pixies.)
Sure, there's a lot of garbage. But it's real. It's raw. It's people finding their voice.
I couldn't be happier to see the elites complaining about podcasts. Just add it to the pile of people complaining about punk, YouTube, ebook self-publishing, blogging, and all the other ways we're free to express ourselves today.
Especially when the elite's journalistic production (e.g. WP articles) are not really higher quality: just follow some long established conventions, are self-congratulatory, follow the norms of polite talk, try to not ask the "wrong" (elite-wise) questions, put into use all the BS they've learned on "essay/creative writing" class, etc, which is why they pass for "serious" by people conditioned to seek those traits.
WP isn't "the elites". They're journalists. They have a trade, which is on a completely different plane and set of standards than a random blog.
They should get a summer trainee who has been in a band, or even watch a youtube video on how to do podcasts. It should be easy to set up a normal microphone and put some foam rubber on the wall. And please, do get all the people in the same room!
But the content can actually be good - ie some enthusiastic reporters actually know widely about their subject and can discuss it in an interesting way. Vi Hart of youtube fame was invited to a journalist conference and was saying just the same - that we need good quality journalism and content should be front and center - and stop with the gimmicks and forced video features.
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.
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...
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.”
I've gotten into music composition recently, and I've been completely blown away by the number and high quality of music writing podcasts like SongExploder. I'm constantly and pleasantly surprised by what I find.
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.
With podcasts, a lot of them are Extremely Online and so interacting with the host is easy. They'll talk with you on Twitter or Reddit or here.
There is some really interesting stuff out there, and podcasts are just another great learning format for people.
> I consider [podcasts] an enemy of music. [...] 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?
This isn't just comparing apples and oranges, it's arguing that apples are the enemy of oranges. "With so many delicious oranges uneaten, why should anyone waste their time consuming a mealy, flavorless apple?" At least apples and oranges are both types of fruit. I don't think there is anything to be learned by debating the relative worth of two different types of media. He has his reasons for disliking podcasts, but they sound very personal. If he is annoyed by how podcast hosts talk, for example, that is simply how he experiences it. Others will have a completely different perception.
Really though, I just wonder how valuable these people think their time really is? I assume their "I need to be absorbing optimal information at all times" shtick is supposed to come across as smart, but it just comes across as a little slow.
That said, I've never liked talk radio (or even radio in general) very much. And am certainly not a fan of meandering chit-chat style podcasts. A lot of podcasts could also probably stand to be shorter as could many presentations. But even a simple 20-30 minute interview conveys information and nuance in a way that a transcript or article doesn't necessarily.
ADDED: There are of course also produced shows that are more than just the words spoken just as a film is more than a paragraph synopsis of the plot.
On the contrary I've found that listening to air traffic control recordings is relaxing and helps with task-concentration because it follows strict procedures and no-one wastes time blethering. It's like a verbal metronome. You really have to make your own if you want high quality, though, since LiveATC is an earsore.
(Like the first time one has sex, which has rom-coms and romantic fiction instill on us that it has to be "special"?)
I've discovered and first heard all kinds of great music on the tube and other casual places, and didn't hurt my later re-listening and appreciation of them...
Well, you're not wrong, apples are a garbage fruit. And podcasts interviewing people via cellphone lines is a garbage podcast.
If any podcaster is worried about inconveniencing their guests by asking for quality recordings, consider that the viewership takes a lower view of their guests when audio quality drops: https://psychcentral.com/news/2018/04/14/scientists-often-di.... You practically owe it to your guests to insist on a quality line to avoid disadvantaging themselves in the marketplace for ideas.
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).
Who cares if people listen to less music? Most people were listening to recycled top 40 trash on radio before podcasts became accessible in cars and on smartphones. I’d personally rather people learn stuff or hear about interesting topics while they drive than hear the same song for the 30th time.
A lot of crap passes for podcasts but so does modern journalism where the click baity headlines are the only interesting part of the story.
The writer here is a pop music critic, so his paycheck comes from people listening to and being interested in music.
Thank you! Personally I'm very disappointed by Top-40...I view music as a medium which has inspired me with confidence, empathy and curiosity.
What's more, music, like porn, should get credit for having bootstrapped open-source data sharing.
It plays a huge role in my life personally. I like to think that certain lyrics and artists gave me back a thirst for spirituality after a dogmatic, puritan upbringing brought me to nausea at the mention of the word. (FWIW, I wouldn't describe myself as a "worshipper"...but rather I've a fresh appreciation for the potentials of meditation and storytelling)
I enjoy curation of Podcasts, and more pointedly...seeking out interviews with people talking about what I want to learn about...this has taken what I love about "edifying music" and does it in a more distilled and long-form format. Allow me to name a few off the top of my head who just ooze wisdom:
Henry Rollins (In his older age esp.) is a profoundly well-spoken and inspirational traveler and writer. I intend to read all his books someday; but for now getting a distilled version of his wisdom from his spoken word or interview on JRE is hugely empowering and inspiring during a workout or long commute.
Jordan Peterson; Big disclaimer here: I don't love his conclusions. Instead, I immerse myself in his thought-experiments, remaining skeptical, smirking at his casual dismissal of activism. I've listened to his audiobook (12 rules) back-to-back when biking to work, it got me asking questions, which reinforced my own pursuits. This is the opposite of apathy, so agree with him or not...he's a voice I like to have around.
Alan Watts: Philosophy, Taoism. I mention this because there's a very interesting trend going on: Philosophical Chillstep; aka rhetoric set to a rhythm. The paranoid might cry brainwashing...I've been critical of that dynamic and I conclude that it's a nice way to get someone's talking points...it's encouraged me to seek out the long-form original versions of the oration.
Zoog Von Rock / Amelia Arsenic of Angelspit: The top commenter mentions punk, so allow me to include these Auzzie-gone-murrican cyberindustrial rabblerousers. What's funny is that I see correlation between some messages in Angelspit's lyrics and aforementioned JP's rhetoric (both consider the consequences of a world that liquidates human quality of life in pursuit of productivity) Edit: Example of some of Zoog's helpful vlogging: https://youtu.be/WYDjNKESS5A
Adam Yang 2020: Obama rode on Facebook. Trump ran on Twitter. I'm watching Yang on Youtube with particular interest...this is a guy with 75 policies...and at rallies there seems to be a sentiment for returning to respecting intelligence and a thirst for leaders who can back up their ideas with numbers. Feeling hopeful, might streetteam l8r.
I hope the author of the article takes notice of him, in fact, because for how formulaic pop-music is...one wonders how long it will be before generating reviews and top-lists of pop-music songs will be entirely automated...
So true. It seems like people fall pretty hard in to one or the other, music or talk. People like the author here doesn't seem to understand or accept this? Or he just has a word count quota. I fall in to the talk side of things, my husband falls in to the music side of things. He gets to arrange all bbq, get-together playlists and I get to arrange our road trip queues that keep me awake at the wheel.
> I was considering writing out a response to each of his points but it's honestly not worth my time.
I, too, want to talk at length about this. Ultimately, that would cut in to my podcast time so I'll just grumble to myself and leave my reply at this.
Watch as the author translates his criticisms of some podcasts that he doesn't like into a global criticism of all podcasts.
I wonder if this guy still insists on listening _exclusively_ to LPs and lossless audio formats.
Here are some things about podcasts that I love:
* some podcasts are true gems -- extremely high quality content
* free
* no ads or ads are trivial to avoid
* blather that I (and apparently the author) don't like can be trivially skipped
* rule 34 for podcasts: someone is making podcasts about everything
Did I mention occasionally extremely high quality, free, and no ads?
I have been trying to get on the podcast bandwagon but having a hard time finding something to like.
I like storytelling podcasts for example, so something like "Re:Sound" was great. It is compilation of the best from other sources: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/re-sound/id135072877 (hard to find it actually) This can lead you to a number of podcasts from all over the world.
Critical Role is an amazing very long form podcast of a DnD game: https://critrole.com/ And if you like it, there is another bunch of similar content discoverable by association.
A lot of top-level stuff targets general audience. If that does not appeal to you, keep digging. Possibly treating it the same way you may look for technical information, with specific keywords, exclusion patterns and following the cross-referencing links. Once you hit the niche you like, you can then test different things within that.
It's not even that this podcast is perfect, but I think it hints at the immense promise of what the format could become!
I don't listen to it too much because it gets pretty dark (My Lai, WWI, Chechnya), but every episode I've listened to has been worthwhile.
http://jockopodcast.com/
Making Sense
This American Life
Serial
Heavyweight
Imaginary Worlds
Reply All
More Perfect
Intelligence Squared US
The Black Tapes
Within The Wires
Myths and Legends
Ear Hustle
The Allusionist
The top four there are fiction if it matters to you.
Drifter's Sympathy
S-Town
Let's not use "edgy and contrarian" like Britain's working class use "pretentious". E.g. to criticize any attempt to divert from the norm and be more inquisitive.
It's perfect fine to be "contrarian". If anything, we need more of those.
It makes as much sense as liking things because they're the norm, which is the default for most people. So hardly "grounds for ridicule".
Plus, "being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian" adds contrarian voices, which are by definition few (if they were many, they wouldn't be contrarian but "the norm") -- and are thus sorely needed in a mono-culture of agreement (or shallow bi-partisan splits of opinion, like Dems and Reps).
If not for anything else, to serve as the devil's advocate, since few ever consider points outside the norm.
Notice that I said contrarian, not stupid/crazy. E.g. it should be a contrary opinion to popular opinion/norm, but that doesn't mean any contrary opinion will do (e.g. "I believe we should all be eating rocks").
Dead Comment
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 ubiquitous NPR Voice/Sound is really what turns me off from podcasts/audiobooks/etc. While I love NPR, their sound is absolutely grating to listen to. Too HD, rife with extremely loud and detailed plosives and sibilants. I don't want to listen to the speaker suck the spit back down their throats in excruciating detail after every sentence.
NPR's sound quality is too detailed. It's like if you watched a video of someone talking and could see the aftermath of a popped zit smack in the middle of your screen.
https://current.org/2015/06/a-top-audio-engineer-explains-np...
The U87 is a classic mic first made in 1967 and used on everything. Lots of famous pop song vocals are still recorded with a U87 to this day. And they're expensive, they cost $3200 new at Sweetwater.
The U87 is a Condenser microphone, while the RE20 mentioned in the article is a Dynamic - I wonder if maybe you don't like the sound of condensers mics in general. They typically have a crisper high-end that catch a lot of detail.
I once heard an interview with an NPR audio engineer where he related how he'd epoxy the studio microphones' bass roll-off switches in place because the setting that most people thought made their voices sound better also made them harder to understand over highway noise.
I honestly don't think it has really impacted my music listening either. I'll toss something on at work and listen while I work through a problem or while reading. The type of music I listen has shifted to fit my purposes but it is still there and I don't see it going away either.
I can't really listen to podcasts while working since I can't really focus on the the talking while thinking about what I'm doing, so music is perfect. It can help keep me focused and gives me plenty of time for exploring new music.
The author's stance on Podcasts is just so odd. That you somehow can't enjoy both? Seems like he has an axe to grind or something.
I find Reggae to be the best music for commuting, some Bob Marley, Peter Tosh or Toots and I am way more chill.
I listen to podcasts because I learn from them or am entertained by specific people with insights and expertise I appreciate. The whole bit about eavesdropping on a conversation is the essence of what makes a good podcast: it's a conversation that if you caught a part of it in real life you would stop and stand at the edge to listen and learn more. And the best podcasts involve listener feedback, sometimes in real-time.
Perhaps the ultimate irony of the assertion that podcasting is killing music is that podcasting was INVENTED by an MTV VJ and former disk jockey, Adam Curry, and that the ORIGINAL podcast -- The Daily Source Code -- was heavily focused on music and ultimately shut down because RIAA lawyers leveled a massive legal threat at Adam even after he had purchased online music licensing to cover his podcast.
What podcasting does is decentralize the exchange of information: it destroys the ability of a powerful few to be the gatekeepers of information or "pick the hits." That's why "they" hate it and why it will only increase as a medium over time.