There seems to be a sweet spot of about 20--40 minutes for a good information-dense presentation, and I find that most of the podcasts I find myself gravitating toward aim for this duration, though some may extend to about an hour.
Over that, and both the production is slipping and my attention wanders or is interrupted.
There's also only so much that can really be absorbed in one sitting.
I do like the interview or "issues and ideas" format, though there are also scripted monologues (Peter Adamson, History of Philosophy) which can be quite good. HoP is interesting in that it also features fairly frequent interview segments which ... on the whole are less captivating than the scripted episodes (though there are some exceptions).
Shorter than 20 minutes and there's usually too much structural framing around the key bites, over 60 minutes and either the episode is poorly-edited (there's a lot of cruft which should have been cut out) or there are multiple key concepts being presented. There are exceptions to this, but they are rare.
I'm generally not interested in hearing a multi-person ramble, even on what is otherwise a topic of interest. Panel discussions can work, though those tend to fall into either (1) a series of individual lectures or (2) a multi-party interview when they do work, and rarely work past about 3--4 participants.
Dave Weinberger: "Conversation doesn't scale very well." This has multiple dimensions, in participants, duration, audience, time, and more. True conversation is ultimately intimate: small, immediate, and private.
Over that, and both the production is slipping and my attention wanders or is interrupted.
There's also only so much that can really be absorbed in one sitting.
I do like the interview or "issues and ideas" format, though there are also scripted monologues (Peter Adamson, History of Philosophy) which can be quite good. HoP is interesting in that it also features fairly frequent interview segments which ... on the whole are less captivating than the scripted episodes (though there are some exceptions).
Shorter than 20 minutes and there's usually too much structural framing around the key bites, over 60 minutes and either the episode is poorly-edited (there's a lot of cruft which should have been cut out) or there are multiple key concepts being presented. There are exceptions to this, but they are rare.
I'm generally not interested in hearing a multi-person ramble, even on what is otherwise a topic of interest. Panel discussions can work, though those tend to fall into either (1) a series of individual lectures or (2) a multi-party interview when they do work, and rarely work past about 3--4 participants.
Dave Weinberger: "Conversation doesn't scale very well." This has multiple dimensions, in participants, duration, audience, time, and more. True conversation is ultimately intimate: small, immediate, and private.