> Podcasts are bad because podcasts sound bad — and podcasts sound bad because podcasters aren’t thinking hard enough about what their talk sounds like.
Isn't this how most people get good at things... by doing them badly a bunch of times, and gradually improving?
> 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.
> Unless I was keenly interested in the subject material.
That's what I was thinking! Most of the time people who stick with podcasts stick with it because of content and/or creators, so that's more the case I was thinking of.
The terrible mics would probably become a shared joke, if anything -- though you'd lose some people like you who really expect at least a good mic out of a podcast (which is a very reasonable expectation!)
> But thanks for publicizing this. It's good to know that it exists, and what it sounds like.
> I wouldn’t go as far as to say it would tank a podcast
I would. It seems like you have a rosier impression of how this sounds than anyone else who listens. It's not completely unintelligible, but it's worse than "not good" to me. It just sounds plain bad.
If I started listening to a podcast, and it sounded like this, I would just turn it off. Unless I was keenly interested in the subject material. Subpar audio recording is a peeve of mine, particular in a medium that's all about information via audio.
But thanks for publicizing this. It's good to know that it exists, and what it sounds like.
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’ve been using this for several weeks now and it’s replaced podcasts for me. I’ll just pick a topic and then ask for a summary
This is why I could never get “into podcasts”
Which apparently can mean 100 different things, but some popular radio talk show style ones I’ve been exposed to are just two guys rambling about a topic for two hours with lots of filler, where one person is essentially reading a Wikipedia article but getting interrupted every 5 words by the other, to go on - what are supposed to be - comical tangents.
Like, this could have been a 30 second sentence.
Far too frustrating for me.
I get exposed to them on long car rides with other people and that’s shaped my entire opinion.
> Podcasting started with a mix of radio drama and some really incredible radio journalism—a lost art.
Wasn't the first popular show the Ricky Gervais show? Which -- and I say this as someone who has listened to both the podcast and radio for years on end & on repeat -- is the most pointless drivel there is?
> The Apple podcast app has gotten continuously worse over the past few years
Can you name a few specific ways in which you think this is true? (I personally think it's come a long way from the awful skeuomorphic reel-to-reel metaphor, but I'd love to hear your thoughts.)
>Money killed (or is in the process of killing) podcasting.
I see a whole lot of podcasts out there. They're mostly either something that someone does on the side either for fun or as part of their jobs or they're ad supported. (Honestly, I'm often a bit surprised that modest advertising supports obviously sizable staffs--even if I'm sure no one is getting rich.)
> "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.
How are we measuring that? Firstly, as a nitpick, the mainstream media these days is Russel Brand. He has an audience comparable to a group like CNN. Possibly slightly larger.
Secondly, the quality of the podcasters is generally better on net than the big media companies. They tend not to be gung-ho all-weather war supporters for example. People like Brand might get a lot of details wrong but have more coherent takes on big issues.
Thirdly, and related to secondly, the podcasters tend to take less money from big entrenched interests in the military-industrial complex or big pharma. They rely less on being spoon fed access to powerful people. It is easier to follow their incentives and style than work out what a media company is trying to push this week.
No, they aren’t. Of course anyone can put up a podcast, but the successful ones tend to cluster into podcast networks of like shows or join the big podcast groups like Nerdist, Wondery, or Earwolf. Or be a part of an established media company like NPR or Slate.
It’s easy to start a podcast but very hard to survive and expand alone.
> Compare the Apple Podcast experience to something like TikTok or even the YouTube algorithm.
I've compared these and Apple Podcast, as bad as it is, is miles better. YouTube shorts is a waste of screen real estate and TikTok is a waste of time altogether. I want a tool for finding things, not a funnel for delivering ads.
>Probably but I have no way to turn this off and be happy with myself.
I can appreciate this, but...
>It has gotten to the point where after 2 years of running my podcast I'm seriously considering *stopping the show* because I'm getting burnt out from editing and without sponsors it's not feasible to hire an editor, but even with the show making no money I would happily pay triple your asking price if I could click a button and have the problem solved in a way that matched a human's ability to edit out filler words.
(emphasis mine)
I don't think it's actually the case, but extrapolating a list of priorities from this, I can only arrive at the following:
Priority #1 - no aahs, umms, slurps or smacks
Priority #2 - no ads or obvious sponsors
Priority #3 - surfacing hard-won lessons from experienced folks for the world to learn from
Maybe that resonates, maybe it doesn't, but to me it seems upside down.
I'm only commenting because what you're describing used to be me. I used to do this type of editing for recordings of live audio production and I've gone down the rabbit hole you're describing above. The problem is there's no obvious point of 'done', and chasing perfection in the output can become a pathological obsession. You can get so lost in mating phase angle at each end of a trim or taking an eraser to get rid of a sleeve drag across the desk that you lose sight of the totality of it. Ultimately you end up in a weird uncanny valley, like those folks that keep 'fixing' their face with plastic surgery. Once you get to that point, you can no longer identify specific issues to correct, you just fall into a diffuse unease.
For me podcasts are a way to join a conversation that I wouldn't otherwise have an opportunity to listen to. I don't see them as a show or corporate media product, and the more they start moving that direction the less inclined I am to listen to them. Julia Childs had a quote that I've found oddly applicable in this context: 'It's so beautifully arranged on the plate, you know someone's fingers have been all over it.'
Hope this doesn't come across as negative. Good luck!
Isn't this how most people get good at things... by doing them badly a bunch of times, and gradually improving?
reply