WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:02.899 Welcome back to The Deep Dive. Today, we're focusing 00:00:02.899 --> 00:00:06.080 on someone really interesting, Ben Ratliff. He's 00:00:06.080 --> 00:00:09.380 an American journalist, a critic, and his work 00:00:09.380 --> 00:00:12.539 gives us, well, a kind of map for understanding 00:00:12.539 --> 00:00:15.839 how we listen, especially now in this. you know, 00:00:16.500 --> 00:00:18.399 chaotic digital age. Yeah, that's a great way 00:00:18.399 --> 00:00:20.480 to put it. We're looking beyond just what he 00:00:20.480 --> 00:00:23.179 wrote about to how his whole career sort of led 00:00:23.179 --> 00:00:26.739 him to think about the the architecture of listening 00:00:26.739 --> 00:00:29.339 itself. That framing is spot on because, you 00:00:29.339 --> 00:00:32.179 know, Ratliff, he's got decades of really foundational 00:00:32.179 --> 00:00:33.840 work, especially at the New York Times. Right. 00:00:34.259 --> 00:00:36.039 But maybe his biggest contribution, the thing 00:00:36.039 --> 00:00:38.950 we really want to trace today is this. philosophical 00:00:38.950 --> 00:00:42.189 shift he made. How he went from being like the 00:00:42.189 --> 00:00:45.909 authority on the jazz canon to analyzing, even 00:00:45.909 --> 00:00:48.329 criticizing, how we consume music digitally. 00:00:48.990 --> 00:00:51.270 He basically gives us a way to handle all this 00:00:51.270 --> 00:00:53.289 information overload. Okay, let's unpack that 00:00:53.289 --> 00:00:54.469 journey then because we're talking about someone 00:00:54.469 --> 00:00:56.710 who spent, what, 20 years? A full two decades, 00:00:56.990 --> 00:00:59.590 yeah. At the Times covering jazz and pop. That 00:00:59.590 --> 00:01:01.810 kind of adaptability, well, it seems pretty rare. 00:01:02.350 --> 00:01:04.689 What sort of background set someone up for that? 00:01:04.790 --> 00:01:07.549 To be both, you know, a historian of a specific 00:01:07.549 --> 00:01:11.310 genre and almost a prophet of global pop. Well, 00:01:11.450 --> 00:01:13.870 his biography, it suggests this kind of natural 00:01:13.870 --> 00:01:16.329 cultural flexibility. He was born in 68 New York 00:01:16.329 --> 00:01:20.189 City. Okay. But the interesting bit is, English 00:01:20.189 --> 00:01:23.049 mother, American father, and he grew up between 00:01:23.049 --> 00:01:25.709 London and Rockland County, New York. Ah, okay. 00:01:25.959 --> 00:01:29.019 So diverse settings. Exactly. That early exposure 00:01:29.019 --> 00:01:31.700 to, you know, different cultural vibes probably 00:01:31.700 --> 00:01:34.200 helped him move easily between the, let's say, 00:01:34.340 --> 00:01:38.340 the structure of jazz history and the sheer dynamism 00:01:38.340 --> 00:01:41.859 of pop music worldwide. And academically, he's 00:01:41.859 --> 00:01:44.829 solid. Got his BA from Columbia in 1990. So the 00:01:44.829 --> 00:01:46.629 foundation's there. But the New York Times job, 00:01:46.689 --> 00:01:48.430 that's really where he becomes central, isn't 00:01:48.430 --> 00:01:51.769 it? 1996 to 2016. That 20 -year stretch, I mean, 00:01:51.849 --> 00:01:53.530 that covers everything. The internet explosion, 00:01:53.730 --> 00:01:56.750 the CD dying out, streaming being born. Totally. 00:01:57.090 --> 00:01:58.510 And think about the tension he was navigating 00:01:58.510 --> 00:02:00.609 there. On one hand, he's defining the jazz canon 00:02:00.609 --> 00:02:02.890 or genre rooted in performance and recordings. 00:02:03.150 --> 00:02:05.370 Right, physical things. Physical things. And 00:02:05.370 --> 00:02:07.989 on the other, he's grappling with MP3s, which 00:02:07.989 --> 00:02:11.189 felt so ephemeral then, and eventually Spotify 00:02:11.189 --> 00:02:14.050 playlists. He wasn't just writing. He was living 00:02:14.050 --> 00:02:16.610 through this huge technological shift. And he 00:02:16.610 --> 00:02:18.990 hosted the Popcast too? Yeah, the Times Popcast 00:02:18.990 --> 00:02:21.629 from 2012 to 2016. So he was right in the middle 00:02:21.629 --> 00:02:25.789 of the conversation about taste, trends, algorithms, 00:02:26.810 --> 00:02:30.229 all of it. And the fact that his early work got 00:02:30.229 --> 00:02:32.650 recognized pretty quickly, what does that tell 00:02:32.650 --> 00:02:35.250 us? It just confirms his authority, really. In 00:02:35.250 --> 00:02:39.169 2005, he got the Helen Dance Robert Palmer Award 00:02:39.169 --> 00:02:42.449 from the Jazz Journalists Association for excellence 00:02:42.449 --> 00:02:45.189 in writing. That award, it sort of marks the 00:02:45.189 --> 00:02:48.430 peak of his career as, let's say, pure genre 00:02:48.430 --> 00:02:50.550 critic. Ah, right before the shift. Exactly, 00:02:50.629 --> 00:02:52.490 right before his focus started moving towards 00:02:52.490 --> 00:02:54.550 this cultural methodology. It's a fascinating 00:02:54.550 --> 00:02:56.650 pivot point. And now he teaches this stuff, right? 00:02:56.669 --> 00:02:58.409 He's taking that analysis into the classroom. 00:02:58.550 --> 00:03:00.030 Yeah, it makes perfect sense if you think about 00:03:00.030 --> 00:03:02.750 it. Teaching is kind of the natural next step 00:03:02.750 --> 00:03:05.590 for his later work. He teaches cultural criticism 00:03:05.590 --> 00:03:08.490 at NYU's Gallatin School. So his career shows 00:03:08.490 --> 00:03:11.569 this cycle. Critic defines the art, then the 00:03:11.569 --> 00:03:13.949 critic defines the method of consuming it, and 00:03:13.949 --> 00:03:16.389 then the educator teaches others how to use that 00:03:16.389 --> 00:03:18.729 method. That tees up his books perfectly. Looking 00:03:18.729 --> 00:03:21.270 at his five major publications, you can really 00:03:21.270 --> 00:03:23.770 see that evolution you mentioned, from genre 00:03:23.770 --> 00:03:27.530 expert to almost philosophical inquiry. Yeah, 00:03:27.669 --> 00:03:29.710 definitely. And to make it easier for you listening, 00:03:29.870 --> 00:03:33.069 we can group them maybe into, say, three main 00:03:33.069 --> 00:03:35.389 themes, starting with those definitive jazz studies. 00:03:35.689 --> 00:03:38.319 OK, let's start there. The canon. What were his 00:03:38.319 --> 00:03:41.199 big contributions to jazz history? His early 00:03:41.199 --> 00:03:44.560 stuff was really about providing structure. First, 00:03:45.180 --> 00:03:47.759 the New York Times essential library. Jazz, that 00:03:47.759 --> 00:03:50.939 was 2002. Oh, greatest hits list. Sort of, yeah. 00:03:51.360 --> 00:03:53.860 A critic's guide to the 100 most important recordings, 00:03:54.479 --> 00:03:57.379 Ratliff defining the landmarks. Then in 2008, 00:03:57.500 --> 00:04:00.479 he did the jazzier conversations over music. 00:04:00.979 --> 00:04:03.099 That shifted things a bit, using interviews with 00:04:03.099 --> 00:04:04.960 musicians to try and get inside the creative 00:04:04.960 --> 00:04:08.500 process. that focus on process, on sound. Yeah, 00:04:08.539 --> 00:04:10.280 that does seem to hint at where he'd go later. 00:04:10.400 --> 00:04:12.620 And then the big biography that really cemented 00:04:12.620 --> 00:04:15.060 his reputation. Right. That's theme two. Critical 00:04:15.060 --> 00:04:19.519 biography. His 2007 book, Coltrane. The story 00:04:19.519 --> 00:04:21.860 of a sound. It wasn't just the history. It was 00:04:21.860 --> 00:04:24.899 this really deep dive into Coltrane's sound, 00:04:25.180 --> 00:04:28.019 his legacy. And it got serious recognition. Oh, 00:04:28.060 --> 00:04:29.819 yeah. It was a finalist for the National Book 00:04:29.819 --> 00:04:32.779 Critics Circle Award that really showed he had 00:04:32.779 --> 00:04:35.839 the depth. the analytical skill to take on a 00:04:35.839 --> 00:04:39.139 giant like Coltrane. OK. So established jazz 00:04:39.139 --> 00:04:42.040 authority defines the canon, writes a landmark 00:04:42.040 --> 00:04:44.000 biography, and then he starts looking critically 00:04:44.000 --> 00:04:47.279 at the digital age that was, in a way, making 00:04:47.279 --> 00:04:51.319 that old idea of a canon feel different. Less 00:04:51.319 --> 00:04:53.779 fix. Exactly. Which brings us to the third theme, 00:04:53.939 --> 00:04:56.220 the big philosophical evolution. The migration. 00:04:56.319 --> 00:04:58.040 Yeah, the critical migration. And it's perfectly 00:04:58.040 --> 00:05:00.540 summed up in his 2016 book, Every Song Ever, 00:05:01.079 --> 00:05:03.000 20 Ways to Listen in an Age of Musical Plenty, 00:05:03.240 --> 00:05:05.180 that title. That's the key to understanding why 00:05:05.180 --> 00:05:07.199 he's so relevant now. Right. Because he flips 00:05:07.199 --> 00:05:09.120 the script entirely. He's not telling you what 00:05:09.120 --> 00:05:11.279 records are important anymore. He's teaching 00:05:11.279 --> 00:05:13.040 you how to even deal with the sheer amount of 00:05:13.040 --> 00:05:15.860 music that's out there. The Age of Musical Plenty, 00:05:15.860 --> 00:05:19.819 it sounds great, but you're saying there's a 00:05:19.819 --> 00:05:23.850 catch. What's the paradox Ratliff sees? Well, 00:05:23.850 --> 00:05:26.350 he basically argues that infinite choice, it 00:05:26.350 --> 00:05:29.269 can lead to paralysis. If you can listen to literally 00:05:29.269 --> 00:05:31.610 anything, you might end up not listening deeply 00:05:31.610 --> 00:05:33.870 to anything, or you just let the algorithms decide 00:05:33.870 --> 00:05:36.910 for you. Right, outsourcing tastes. Precisely. 00:05:37.009 --> 00:05:40.310 So his book is a direct challenge to that reliance 00:05:40.310 --> 00:05:43.029 on algorithms. It's like a manual for taking 00:05:43.029 --> 00:05:46.129 back control for active, intentional listening. 00:05:46.329 --> 00:05:47.970 Can you give us an example? Like, what's one 00:05:47.970 --> 00:05:50.279 of these 20 ways he suggests? Okay, sure. One 00:05:50.279 --> 00:05:53.199 method he talks about is listening for duration. 00:05:53.600 --> 00:05:56.220 Think about it. In the streaming era, we're trained 00:05:56.220 --> 00:05:58.920 by the skip button. Oh, yeah. 30 seconds, maybe 00:05:58.920 --> 00:06:00.819 less. Right. If it doesn't grab you instantly, 00:06:00.819 --> 00:06:03.819 you're gone. Ratless says, try deliberately listening 00:06:03.819 --> 00:06:05.660 to things that are either really short, forcing 00:06:05.660 --> 00:06:08.259 you to focus intensely, or really long, forcing 00:06:08.259 --> 00:06:11.259 patience. The whole idea is to break that habit 00:06:11.259 --> 00:06:14.360 of just wanting immediate gratification, that 00:06:14.360 --> 00:06:17.060 fragmented attention span we all get. Yeah. That's 00:06:17.060 --> 00:06:19.079 powerful. Because it's not just about music, 00:06:19.199 --> 00:06:22.550 is it? It feels like a critique of how we consume, 00:06:22.550 --> 00:06:25.389 well, everything online. It all moves so fast. 00:06:25.550 --> 00:06:28.449 It absolutely is. Another one he explores is 00:06:28.449 --> 00:06:30.990 listening for silence. We're so used to music 00:06:30.990 --> 00:06:33.230 just filling space, right? Background noise. 00:06:34.189 --> 00:06:37.629 But if you consciously listen for the gaps, the 00:06:37.629 --> 00:06:41.209 rests, the moments where there isn't sound, it 00:06:41.209 --> 00:06:43.290 totally changes how you perceive the sound itself. 00:06:43.769 --> 00:06:45.769 He wants you to find the structure underneath 00:06:45.769 --> 00:06:48.040 the tune. These aren't just like... clever tricks, 00:06:48.360 --> 00:06:50.399 they're mental exercises. To make you an active 00:06:50.399 --> 00:06:52.720 participant. Exactly, not just a passive receiver 00:06:52.720 --> 00:06:55.220 of some playlist. And he's still exploring these 00:06:55.220 --> 00:06:57.779 ideas, even connecting, listening to, like running. 00:06:57.939 --> 00:07:00.319 Yeah, his upcoming book, Run the Song. Writing 00:07:00.319 --> 00:07:03.079 about, run about listening. For 2025, it shows 00:07:03.079 --> 00:07:04.899 he's still pushing these non -traditional connections. 00:07:05.199 --> 00:07:07.620 looking for insight through rhythm, meditation, 00:07:08.000 --> 00:07:11.180 physical activity, seeing how listening fits 00:07:11.180 --> 00:07:13.639 into everything else we do. That breadth is pretty 00:07:13.639 --> 00:07:15.740 remarkable. Let's look beyond his books for a 00:07:15.740 --> 00:07:17.740 second. Where else did his voice show up? What 00:07:17.740 --> 00:07:19.939 other platforms sort of amplified his ideas? 00:07:20.459 --> 00:07:23.519 Oh, the range is huge. Which really shows his 00:07:23.519 --> 00:07:25.079 ability to connect with different audiences. 00:07:25.439 --> 00:07:27.540 You see him in really prestigious places like 00:07:27.540 --> 00:07:30.339 the New York Review of Books, Granta, Lingofranca. 00:07:30.459 --> 00:07:32.720 So high intellectual culture. Definitely, but 00:07:32.720 --> 00:07:34.360 at the same time. He's also in Rolling Stone 00:07:34.360 --> 00:07:37.939 and Spin. Exactly. And the village voice, Slate. 00:07:38.639 --> 00:07:41.439 That versatility moving between classical jazz 00:07:41.439 --> 00:07:45.199 analysis, high brow cultural critique, and mainstream 00:07:45.199 --> 00:07:48.420 pop discussion. That's why he stays relevant 00:07:48.420 --> 00:07:50.939 his ideas aren't just stuck in some academic 00:07:50.939 --> 00:07:53.379 corner They get out into the wider culture and 00:07:53.379 --> 00:07:55.660 we know this influence is ongoing because people 00:07:55.660 --> 00:07:57.899 are still talking about his work engaging with 00:07:57.899 --> 00:08:01.240 it in You know modern digital spaces it confirms. 00:08:01.240 --> 00:08:03.699 He's still a key voice on modern consumption 00:08:03.699 --> 00:08:05.740 That's kind of the ultimate test of relevance, 00:08:05.879 --> 00:08:07.899 isn't it? He's the person people turn to when 00:08:07.899 --> 00:08:09.639 they want to connect that critical thinking with 00:08:09.639 --> 00:08:12.120 technology today Pitchfork interviewed him about 00:08:12.120 --> 00:08:15.439 every song ever right so he's translating his 00:08:15.439 --> 00:08:19.019 ideas for the music blog world. And maybe even 00:08:19.019 --> 00:08:21.560 more telling, he was on a 538 podcast talking 00:08:21.560 --> 00:08:24.980 about music algorithms. Wow, okay. So data journalists 00:08:24.980 --> 00:08:27.319 are engaging with his critique now. Yeah, it 00:08:27.319 --> 00:08:29.899 shows his work really bridges that gap between 00:08:29.899 --> 00:08:34.539 the humanities, like music, and the math behind 00:08:34.539 --> 00:08:37.139 the modern attention economy. So let's try and 00:08:37.139 --> 00:08:39.399 sum up Ratliff's trajectory. He starts as this 00:08:39.399 --> 00:08:42.340 essential jazz critic, spends two decades at 00:08:42.340 --> 00:08:44.620 the Times meticulously building up the canon. 00:08:44.740 --> 00:08:47.500 Mm, diligently. But his biggest impact, arguably, 00:08:47.840 --> 00:08:51.000 is that later shift, redefining how we even engage 00:08:51.000 --> 00:08:53.700 with music in this digital world, leading to 00:08:53.700 --> 00:08:56.379 things like every song ever. And the core insight 00:08:56.379 --> 00:08:59.720 for you. Listening to this is really that Ben 00:08:59.720 --> 00:09:01.899 Ratliff's value isn't just the jazz he reviewed 00:09:01.899 --> 00:09:04.460 or the history he wrote. It's the methodology 00:09:04.460 --> 00:09:07.220 he developed. He gives us tools. Tools to be 00:09:07.220 --> 00:09:09.240 a better listener. That are more active consumers 00:09:09.240 --> 00:09:11.860 of culture, yeah. He teaches us how to sift through 00:09:11.860 --> 00:09:14.480 all the noise and find meaning when we're just 00:09:14.480 --> 00:09:17.080 saturated with information. Okay, so since Ratliff 00:09:17.080 --> 00:09:19.139 is so focused on these critical listening methods, 00:09:19.399 --> 00:09:21.100 let's leave you with a final thought based on 00:09:21.100 --> 00:09:24.019 one of his ideas. He suggests listening for repetition 00:09:24.019 --> 00:09:27.399 not just in music, but anywhere. Right. patterns. 00:09:27.700 --> 00:09:30.639 So think about this. How often are the news feeds 00:09:30.639 --> 00:09:33.159 or the social media algorithms you use just playing 00:09:33.159 --> 00:09:35.860 you the same basic song, the same viewpoint over 00:09:35.860 --> 00:09:38.379 and over again? What does that kind of mechanical 00:09:38.379 --> 00:09:40.740 repetition tell you about how your own attention 00:09:40.740 --> 00:09:43.379 is being structured? And maybe more importantly, 00:09:43.679 --> 00:09:45.440 what's one critical choice you could make today 00:09:45.440 --> 00:09:47.919 to consciously break that loop? Something to 00:09:47.919 --> 00:09:50.500 mull over as you navigate your own age of, well, 00:09:50.860 --> 00:09:51.559 informational plenty.