Generations in Jazz Part One - Mike Boone

Last week I wrote about the generation gap in jazz and alluded to the conversation that started me thinking about it, a message board discussion that had started with the question, "why don't African American fans turn out to commercial jazz clubs in very large numbers?" That initial question provoked a side discussion of great interest to me: why is there so much misunderstanding between generations of jazz musicians?

If you've been on Facebook, Twitter, or any jazz discussion group lately, you've likely seen comments from "established" musicians about the younger generation, and many aren't very complimentary. But my brief encounter on the discussion board made me feel a lot of the animosity is based on misunderstanding. That's why I set out to find musicians of different generations willing to speak to me, and engage them about the past and future of the music.

The first who graciously agreed to speak with me is bassist Mike Boone. Boone is well known as one of the busiest bassists on the Philadelphia scene. Right out of college Boone played with Broadway star Ben Vereen and drummer/bandleader Buddy Rich. More recently, he's played with John Swana, Bootsy Barnes, Sid Simmons, Orrin Evans, Sean Jones, vocalist Evelyn Simms, drummers Bobby Durham, Billy James, pianists Sam Dockery, Uri Caine, John DiMartino, saxmen Larry McKenna, Pete Chavez, Rudy Jones, and trumpeter Johnny Coles. Boone can be seen regularly in Philly, at Ortlieb’s Jam Sessions on Tuesday and Sunday nights.

Mike's musical experience spans more than three decades and encompasses a range of styles unusual by today's standards. As such Mike was the perfect person to begin my discussions about the last three generations in jazz and the future of the music.

Nate Smith:
Mike Boone thanks so much for joining me.

Let me start with something provocative...Do you see a big difference between the skills, experiences, and tools you had when you graduated from Eastman School of Music and those of today's jazz school grads?

Mike Boone:

To answer your question, the musicians back in the day where more versatile. They didn't have "walls" separating different music genres. [When I graduated from college] you played everything, and tried to play it well.

NS:

Can you talk a little about your early education in music? What first inspired you to first pick up the bass? Who were your first teachers?

MB:

I was originally a pianist. When I got to the High School of Music and Art in New York City, if you played piano or sang, the school required that you take up a secondary instrument. When I got to sign-up class, I saw that all the girls had picked the cello, and all the boys had picked the bass. I think it was peer pressure (on my part) that made me choose the bass. I was only playing "classical" music: my goal was to be the first Black bassist in the N.Y. Philharmonic, thus being a "credit to my race".

I listened to a little jazz while in high school. My upbringing was Seventh-Day Adventist. At that time, we weren't allowed to listen to ANY secular music; only church hymns. Classical music was okay to listen to: my step-father had an extensive collection of albums, and sheet music. He was trying to teach himself to play the piano. I didn't start playing jazz, or anything else [beside classical music] until I got to Eastman.

NS:
So you listened to a little jazz in high school. When you were at Eastman, was it your own desire to pick up jazz, or did someone encourage you?

MB:
Both, I guess. A pianist named Greg Turner had a lot of records; we would listen all night to different things. I should add that, at the same time, I was hanging around some of the "bad boys" at Eastman. ha ha. These guys would smoke pot, and listen to heavy metal music. Even though they were classical players, or so I thought.

Kent Jordan, a flutist from New Orleans, came to school during my junior year. He would practice all the time. He would also go around telling everyone that 1) jazz was black music, 2) New Orleans was going to take over jazz in the coming years (this was 1976), 3) there was family of musicians, including a tennage trumpet player who could play classical and jazz music. We thought he was crazy, but as it turned out, he was right!

NS:
So Kent Jordan prophesied the coming of the Marsalis brothers? Wow.

I want to come back to something I'm likely going to revisit again and again (cause that's why I'm doing this)-you said musicians back in the day were more versatile, and hinted that people were thrown into situations where they had to learn a lot of different stuff on the fly. What were some of those early experiences that helped you grow?

MB:
Actually, I left school after my junior year to go on the road with Ben [Vereen], then came back to Eastman to finish up my studies. I have a Bachelor's degree in Applied Music from Eastman, although I couldn't tell you where that degree is today hahaha...

I picked up an electric bass for the first time my freshman year. I literally had to place the bass on the bed and try to figure out the fingerboard. It took a couple of months for me to get the hang of it. I started playing in a top 40 band in my junior year. We played straight- ahead and commercial jazz, R&B, funk, quasi-Latin stuff, as well as some of the vocal hits that were out. We worked on average 4 to 6 nights a week. I learned a lot on that gig, and gained an appreciation for all kinds of music.

When I went out with Ben, we played with orchestras, and pit bands. My second gig with Ben was with the Boston Pops, under the direction of the great Arthur Fiedler. I also did some session work in Los Angeles on some TV specials with Ben.

NS:
How long after hitting with Ben did you play with Buddy Rich?
What did that experience teach you?

MB:
Ben actually fired me in 1981, I believe. We were trying to get a raise. We got it, and then he fired us two weeks later! ha ha.

I got called to join Buddy's band in March of 1982. At my "audition", on a gig Buddy had in New Haven, CT, I literally read sight-read the second set. I learned a lot about playing time from Buddy, and at any volume. With intensity.

NS:
And this was on electric, right?

MB:
Yeah, with Ben, and Buddy, it was on electric bass. I was getting good at playing traditional Jazz on electric bass. I could actually SWING on that instrument.

NS:
So you get on the audition with Buddy, and as you say, sight-read the second set. Did your classical training come into play? There's no pressure like orchestra playing...

MB:
When I was at Eastman, I was in several ensembles, as well as one of the 4 big bands we had. So, I had some experience with reading charts.I used to memorize the classical stuff, anyway. That way, I figured, I could pay more attention to the conductor.

NS:
You mentioned dreaming in high school of joining the New York Phil. By the time you were touring with Buddy it seems like that interest had waned. What happened to change your mind?

MB:
I soon realized that in all this other music I was playing, there was more freedom. Sure, I was holding down the bottom, but I had way more options. And, with playing the electric, as well as acoustic, the possibilities seemed endless.

NS:
So right out of college you're playing electric with Buddy Rich. Fast forward to '92, and you're doing primarily gigs on upright. (I've heard you say you were "coerced" into buying your first upright.) What changed to cause you to adopt the upright after so many years on electric?

MB:
Well, let's rewind back to the 1980s. With the coming of the "Wynton" regime, the electric bass was outlawed from jazz, and the acoustic bass was unplugged. After my second stint with Buddy, in 1985, I settled in Philly, and started working some. However, the primo gigs in town went to the upright players. After 3 or 4 guys made the conversion, I took the plunge. Bought a plywood bass, struggled through the first five months just to get the strength to get through a set, and then an entire gig.

NS:
Okay - good opportunity to inject some politics: I remember [from an earlier, off-the-record discussion] you saying the "classicalization" of jazz began before Wynton. Do you think a backlash against electric music was just in the air in the '80s? Were the audiences just waiting for someone to come around and take it back to the old days?

MB:
First of all, this is just MY opinion. And, maybe, it was those around Wynton that influenced his views and rhetoric. Yes, someone didn't like the direction jazz was going. Personally, I think some top brass had a beef with Miles - after all, Miles left acoustic jazz music in favor on a more inclusive kind of music. I also think Miles was slowly but surely getting back to his blues roots; that's why he needed the guitars.

Also, at that time, jazz really wasn't thought to be on the same level as "classical" music. Classical was commonly referred to as "legit" music. So, the implication that Jazz was not. I guess calling Jazz "America's classical music" "legitimized" the art form. (Funny, we already had African-American "classical" composers like William Grant Still, Coleridge Taylor, James Reese Europe, and others.)

Wynton's "in" was that he could play European classical music. In fact, he had already, as a teenager, practically mastered that idiom. I don't, however, think he was the best jazz trumpeter at the time, but it didn't matter. Eventually, he did grow into the jazz player he is today, but back then, I don't know.

NS:
I see. And the end result was your need to play upright to continue to get gigs. You practiced madly to transition to upright, bought a plywood bass and "took the plunge." What was your first major gig on upright?

MB:
Darryl Hall, who at the time, was a fine electric player made the switch. Then Lee Smith and Steve Beskrone started playing upright. I knew it was just a matter of time. It seemed that Arthur Harper didn't want me to sit in. It took about a year before he let me on the bandstand with my electric. When I was done, he whispered, "Good, now do it on acoustic".

I should also add that early on I played a lot with the great Trudy Pitts. We did this gig in Wilmington with singer- guitarist Judith Kay. I didn't drive at the time, so she would pick me up. I learned so much from her: in the car, on the bandstand, at her house, etc. Her husband, the notorious Mr. "C", played drums with Trudy. He would tease me, and Lee about playing what he called a"f-----t" bass. I guess we both got tired of hearing that!

NS:
Small world. I was actually in grad school with Darryl Hall - he was sort of the "star" of the class, or one of them. A lot of people were going back to get their degrees - I guess so they could make more money teaching. I remember Darryl being of the "generous" guys in the class too. Darryl, Steve Kirby and John Benitez were like mentors to the younger guys in the class - always generous, always encouraging.

MB:
Well, Darryl, like so many of us in Philly, had a slew of mentors who always encouraged us. The Jazz community was equally involved in the nurturing that took place. At this juncture, I should mention people like saxophonists [Anthony H.] "Tony" Williams and Bootsie Barnes. Those guys mentored so, so many of us, and they still do.

This was in the Mt. Airy section of Philly. We had just moved into that neighborhood. There were two clubs within walking distance of my house. Slim Cooper's Lounge on Stenton Ave, and Carter's on the corner of Stenton and Washington Lane. Tony played at Slim's. Tony's group and fans later moved over to L G's Blue Note, just a half mile up the road on Washington Lane. Carter's is where I first heard Joey DeFrancseco, Bootsie Barnes, and Jeff Lee Johnson playing bass. (He's primarily a guitarist.) I remember one night where Bootsie lectured his band for the entire break for messing up a tune.

Tony Williams' band was he first group I heard after moving into town. (This was after my second stint with Buddy, which ended March of 1986.) He had Eddie Green on piano, Tyrone Brown on bass, and Al Jackson on drums. I had heard of Eddie and Tyrone from recordings with Pat Martino: I was aware of the group they were in called Catalyst, which also had Odean Pope on sax, and the late Sherman Ferguson on drums.

Also, as long as we're talking about mentors, I have to mention pianists Gerald Price, Eddie Green, Don Wilson, Jimmy Gaskins, bassists Tyrone Brown, Bob Blackwell, Benny Nelson, Stan Wilson, Don's brother on tenor sax.

NS:
Most recently, you've been featured in the documentary Philly Jazz. You're on the board of directors for a foundation called Jazz Bridge, that discreetly helps jazz musicians through tough times. You've been playing regularly with Byron Landham, John Swanna, Sid Simmons, Orrin Evans - I heard you on Sean Jones' excellent CD Kaleisodcope along with drummer Obed Calvaire. What haven't you been doing in the last ten years?

MB:
What have I been doing the last 10 years? Trying to stay out of trouble haha. I've also been teaching at Temple University for the last 5 years. I really enjoy it. And, basically freelancing in the area, doing various jam sessions and original music gigs. I work with Marlon Simon's Latin jazz group on occasion. I'm on his latest record, along with Boris Koslov.



NS:
That brings up an interesting point - in our prior discussion you had mentioned seeing the local Philly scene decline beginning as early as '79, but from what you say (and what I know about the cats you still play with) it sounds like at least a part of that scene is still going strong. How does today's scene compare to when you first moved there in '82?

MB:
I mean, there are fewer places to play, but that's everywhere, I'd imagine. I feel the level of musicianship has gone up, due to the Jazz programs at Temple and the U of the Arts. Combining that with the few clubs that offer music, I am seeing a new generation of players.

NS:
That seems to contrast with the opinions of some other musicians who think there's less talent nowadays...

MB:
The downside to that is there aren't as many seasoned players and fans as there seemed to be back in the day. Many of those folks have passed on. Those who are still around are trying to pass on what we've learned. (And we are still learning.)

NS:
I can see what you're saying about the change in "scenery". Sometimes I feel like there are more dedicated musicians than ever, but it's as if somebody has drained all the money out of the system - lots of gigs but many fewer paying gigs. Does that ring true to you?

MB:
Yeah, and the club owners know this, and use it to get more music, while paying less, or NO bread. WE musicians have to get creative. We also need to collaborate with each other and other like-minded folks. (We do something like that on Sunday evening in the Germantown section of Philly, and a jam session down in Old City Philly...on Wednesday nights, featuring Byron Landham on drums.)

NS:
(I've heard Byron. He's a bad dude.) I agree completely with what you said about needing to consolidate our resources within the scene, and that's one reason I'm trying to "push back" against what I see as some of the misunderstandings between young players and the previous generation.

MB:
It seems to me that some of the younger players don't feel the need to reach back. It's almost as if think what they've learned in school is the end-all. And, maybe, some of the older players need to engage the younger players as well. Find out about harmonic, melodic, and rhythmic devices, and incorporate them into what you already know. Also, this is the computer generation. (I am just now dealing with the computer.) Today's musicians are "cyber-ready", if you will. We who aren't computer savvy can learn form the younger guys, and girls.

NS:
More and more, it seems like some parts of the jazz scene can exist wholly apart from the tradition. Part of that "computer generation" is that people can create their own CDs, their own fan base, so they don't rely on record labels or word-of-mouth so much to get a reputation. This is especially true in New York. It can have great results sometimes - allowing really great musicians to get out there without having to go through a label. For better and worse it also allows more and more different kinds of music united under the label "jazz" - no gatekeepers to "police" the genre. (No jazz "cops".)

Some older musicians I've talked to have postulated that the audience members who grew up with the traditional idiom are turned off by what they see as declining standards of "swing" in some of the popular "jazz" today's young musicians are playing. (I would submit that a great deal of the new music is fantastic and the artists genuinely humble and creative, but that some of it has been easy to caricature.) Some of the younger artists - like Orrin Evans - who are plugged into the tradition, are really expensive to see if they're playing at the Vanguard or the Jazz Standard.

MB:
I like your "cop' comment. Orrin and Rodney Green used to accuse me of "policing" the beat whenever we played together; ask him about that haha.

All the academia has pushed the traditional audience out the door. As far as people doing their own CDs, I've always felt that a CD was basically a business card. A means to an end. Of course, it's your music, your passion, and u may have put a lot of time, effort, and MONEY into it. But, it's merely a documentation of where u were at that time. Hopefully, we grow and evolve, and we don't keep putting out the same stuff.

NS:
Hahaha CDs were a point of contention in a piece I wrote about Branford Marsalis. Some people were saying "don't put out a CD until you can play." I think that rubs youngsters the wrong way because we see CDs as just what you said: a business card. There's this catch 22 where we can't go on the Jazz Messengers to learn to play, so we have to create our own performances and we can't do that without a CD. At the same time you do have to be humble and learn the music - if you haven't done your homework your CD isn't going to sell anyway...

MB:
I'd like to ask Branford if he thought he mastered jazz before he put out his first CD.

It is a catch 22. But you have to seek out those older people, to get what was given them by their predesessors. That is the only way, in my opinion, that these younger guys wil gain a real sense of authenticity in the feeling of their playing. A feeling that rings true to those who really know this music.

NS:
There's a real precarious balance - clearly there's some music being made today that's just BS - most of it not by jazz musicians. But some people aren't interested in learning the tradition - they're only interested in playing "guitar hero". But there's a distinction between that and people who are really interested in learning but still have to amass knowledge and experience. I guess I worry the whole generation is being painted as lazy and self-aggrandizing.

MB:
It's really your own personal odyssey. My philosophy is this: let me reach back, as far as I can, to those who are still here, while embracing those who are just starting out, and be aware of what is currently happening in music. I should mention Orrin Evans's time at the Blue Moon club that flourished during the mid 1990s. A lot of younger guys worked their stuff out there. I was probably the oldest regular there, 'cause I wanted to be on top of this newer approach from the young cats. I guess I was a stabilizing factor, as well, so they let me hang. It was a good time for the music.

NS:
Mike Boone, it's been a pleasure speaking with you and hearing your thoughts. Is there anything else you'd like to add?

MB:
You are going to be old one day, lord willing. So, it is important to have the right info so you can pass it on. That's the oral, or aural aspect of this music that needs to survive.

Moral Hazard and the Public Option

Today Glenn Greenwald pans progressives for "falling in line" with Rahm Emanuel on a Health Care bill without a public option.

Emanuel's assumption [was] that there was absolutely no reason to accommodate
progressive objections to the health care bill because progressives (despite
their threats) would automatically fall into line and support whatever the White
House wanted, even if their demands were ignored. Is there really any doubt that
Emanuel was right about this point?

Dennis Kucinich, who yesterday came out publicly in support of the Senate bill - a striking reversal from his long-held pledge to oppose any bill without a robust public option- was the probably the proverbial "last straw". If Kucinich, one of the most outspoken Liberals (and, in my opinion one of the few ideologically consistent members) in congress, is falling into line, opposition from the Left is essentially dead. Sure enough, poll numbers of Liberals in support of the bill have ticked up.

The idea behind Moral Hazard is that as soon as people learn there’s no negative consequence for a behavior they’ll do it like it’s going out of style. Great recent example: the financial crisis.
Before we beat up on Dennis too much, let's remember why we had Liberal opposition in the first place. It's something I feel like I deal with everyday at my office: a little thing called Moral Hazzard. The idea behind Moral Hazard is that as soon as people learn there's no negative consequence for a behavior they'll do it like it's going out of style. Great recent example: the financial crisis. Banks take dangerous risks, they lose money, the government bails them out. Result: ding ding the risk taking continues unabated, even increases!

What does moral hazard have to do with Liberal opposition to a weak health care bill? Plenty, if people are thinking strategically. Liberals threaten to oppose the bill if it doesn't include a public option or medicare buy-in. Rahm Emanuel assumes they're bluffing, that they'll just fall in line and deep throat whatever he feeds them. Now that just such a bill is set to pass, Liberals must oppose it! (Or so the thinking goes.) Otherwise Emanuel and triangulating administration strategists will get the idea that Liberal threats aren't worth a damn. And hence you've created a Moral Hazard, incentivizing the continued bitch-slapping of Liberals.

There's just one thing we should remember - these strategies are a means to an end: that end being passing strong health care reform and strengthening the progressive agenda long-term. With respect to the bill itself, we've probably gotten as good a bill as we're going to get. Any positive results Liberal pressure was going to produce with the present bill, it's already produced. Opposing the bill from the Left now might make sense if, as Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi suggests, everyone will pick themselves up, dust themselves off, and promptly start again - with the lessons from this defeat in mind - to make a stronger bill. But what is the likelihood of things going down that way? Not high, if you're a student of history. Nope - if this bill doesn't pass it will be years before Democrats will have the moxie to try again, and it might well be even worse.

It's this bill or no bill.

As to the other part of the argument - that "centrists" will have greater incentive to ignore Liberals' demands in the future if this bill passes - that may be true, but remember the second goal is strengthening the progressive agenda. Does anyone really thing the progressive agenda will be strengthened in any meaningful way if health reform fails?
Hate to say it but this is the end game. Build on the passage of the bill, make it stronger, implement its major reforms sooner. Then elect some people with actual balls in the next primaries. But for now, this is what we're stuck with.

What if Health Care Reform were really Socialist? - how great would THAT be

So Health Care has passed.

And Liberals are getting ready to eat it for the next nine months. To put yourself in our particular frame of mind, imagine you're in a castle (c'mon indulge me). You look outside and you've got William Wallace' screaming hordes of angry Scots amassing outside the gates. Now imagine your own soldiers are over 65, incontinent, and don't particularly give a @#$%.

Finally, imagine you're just house-sitting the castle for your evil uncle who never really did @#$& for you anyway.

We know the bill sucks (though it's "still a vast improvement over the status quo" - quotes aren't because I don't believe it but because it's now kneejerk, drummed into me over months and months).

• State Exchanges!!?! No. State exchanges with opt out. (It's truly perverse, because Republicans argued for competition across state lines, but made it impossible to include in the bill.)
• Obviously, no public option, no medicare expansion. (While it's true the PO wasn't the "be all and end all" of the bill, it was a powerfully symbollic to Liberals, as one of the few elements not written by and for the corporations.)

The whole thing's a Rube Goldberg contraption, assembled at the behest of the lobbies to avoid offending anyone. (Just watch the comically well-meaning reporters at PBS try to sus it out.) And this is what we're being asked to defend. And this is what's being decried as tyranny, Frank Luntz-ified into a "government takeover."

Imagine, just for a moment, what we could have done with an actual government takeover.

Medicare for all? I'm picturing a parallel universe where Liberals didn't run from the Luntz phrase "government takeover" but embraced it, using the phrase as often as possible to talk about about all the benefits of simplicity, cost savings, portability allowing more dynamism in the economy, the moral imperitives and all the rest. What if politicians (beside Alan Grayson, Dennis Kucinich and Anthony Weiner) would stand up and invert Reagan's mantra: "government doesn't have to be the problem - it can be the solution." God what if we had actual socialists counterbalancing the far right?

What could possibly go wrong?

Would people be oiling up their guns? Would people be throwing bricks through windows? Would Sarah Palin be using none-too-subtle allusions to gun violence in her tweets?

The same mixture of sensible philosophic objectors, militia members, rank-and-file neocons and cynical media stars would be lined up saying exactly the same things (because what else could they say?), and the average people like you and me could pick a position in the true center, deciding which forms of government involvement we wanted (health care) and which we didn't (warrantless surveilance, costly overseas occupations of countries not posing an immediate threat, "too big to fail" corporate welfare).

What's stopping Democrats from adopting such a "radical" stance? Obviously not the polls-

• The public option has consistently polled above 50 percent, whereas the Senate Bill polls at something like 35 percent.
• According to a recent CBS News poll 54% of respondents believe the Senate Bill will not effectively cover Americans, and pluralities believe it will not effectively control costs or regulate the insurance industry. If, however, you add up the respondents feeling the bill is adequate and those feeling it doesn't go far enough, the equation changes: 54 - 39 covering Americans, 45 - 39 for controlling costs. Across the board, only minorities believe the bill goes too far.

As a Democrat, would you not want a majority on your side? Why would you decide to pass an unpopular bill that could easily be made extremely popular and then run on that in 2010? Do you have any idea how many Liberals would mobilize to reelect to you if you showed even the most cursory interest in pleasing anyone beside Signa?

As a bookend, I received another email from Organizing for America this morning - a champagne-lubricated victory party for New York area supporters. It was the first thing in the morning, and I strained to see the text through blurry eyes.

This Thursday, March 25th, OFA supporters will be gathering in Manhattan to celebrate the historic passage of health care reform -- and our role in making it happen. We'll get together with OFA staff and volunteers to talk about how far we've come and what we've accomplished together.

No offense guys but I think I'll sit this one out.