Dr. Billy Taylor

JAM talks with the acclaimed jazz authority, pianist and radio/television host about Bird, jazz on TV, and the current state of "America's Classical Music."

Dr. Billy Taylor

JAM: You've come to Kansas City the last two years for the American Jazz Museum's Charlie Parker Symposium. Why is such a gathering so important?

BT: For me, to come together with people who are knowledgeable and who have experienced history first hand is something we have not documented enough. I think the more we do this, and the more we get people like Max Roach and Milt Jackson and the people who really knew Charlie Parker, worked with him and did specific things with him... if we can come together and talk about those things, we can have a better grasp of the man, his contributions, and how he fits into the historic period in which he lived.

JAM: There are those who would say Bird's music in particular, and bop in general are unique to a certain period of time in jazz history and may not be that relevant today. How would you respond to that?

BT: I think they're wrong. The vocabulary that is being taught right now in the schools, and many of the things that are part of the language that we use today, are based on the experiments of Charlie Parker, Dizzy Gillespie, Thelonious Monk, Kenny Clarke and many others in the late '30s and early '40s. When you look at the way they experimented with things like they did, they set the pattern for much of what is going on today. And when you look at the way that they rhythmically expressed some of the longer lines that evolved out of the 1930s, you realize how indebted we are to them in terms of the manner in which we approach melody and harmony.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The vocabulary that is being taught right now in the schools, and many of the things that are part of the language that we use today, are based on the experiments of Charlie Parker, Dizzy Gillespie, Thelonious Monk, Kenny Clarke and many others in the late '30s and early '40s."
------------------------------------------------------------------------

JAM: You actually worked with Charlie Parker. When and where did that take place?

BT: Well, I met Charlie Parker when he was with the Earl Hines Band, but I never worked with him until more than ten years later. The first time I worked with him -- I jammed with him on many occasions -- but, the first time I worked with him was when we opened at Birdland with "Charlie Parker and Strings."

JAM: What are your memories of playing with him?

BT: He was a startling player. And I mean that literally. He'd play something and you'd say, "What?!" (laughs) The kinds of ideas that came to him spontaneously were just fascinating. I mean, he'd really thought about and worked through many of the harmonic and melodic patterns that he'd heard from his predecessors like Coleman Hawkins, Lester Young and other saxophone players. But he put all that together with the experiments he'd done on his own (while) listening to Art Tatum, European classical music, and people who were not the normal fund of information that young musicians were dipping into in those days.

JAM: Do you think we will ever see an innovator of that caliber again? You know, someone who takes the music in a whole new direction?

BT: I don't know whether we'll have anyone again who will have that kind of influence, but we do have a lot of people right now who are adding things to the repertoire as well as to the whole language that we use. The problem is that someone can be doing something and no one will know about it! Charlie Parker and Dizzy Gillespie get credit for things they learned from other people. What they really did was personalize those things and put them into something we now identify as Charlie Parker's style, or Dizzy Gillespie's style. There were other people who came along in those days -- and will come along in the future -- who will add things to the music we play. And we'll never know who they are!

JAM: Interesting.

BT: I can give you a good example of that. Some of the things that Dizzy Gillespie is famous for I know were originated by Fats Navarro. Now, Dizzy didn't steal those things; what happened was those things were part of the language of the day. Dizzy was working on something, Navarro heard it... even though he had learned to do it before Dizzy had mastered it. Same thing in reverse. Navarro thought of something that Dizzy liked and Dizzy said, "Yeah, I can do that." And since Dizzy lived for a longer period, and did more recording, he gets the credit for putting those things into a perspective that we can use.

JAM: One of the images of jazz musicians that still seems to linger is that of the junkie and boozer. What do you think has caused so many of the music's pioneers -- like Bird -- to abuse themselves like that?

BT: Actually, I think the writers have romanticized the fact -- and unfortunately so -- that musicians have had problems and have abused themselves with drugs and alcohol and so forth. It's true, we lost so much in terms of what could have happened because musicians prior to Charlie Parker used and abused whiskey. A lot of guys (then) were fall-down drunks, and they were some of our great players. That was unfortunate. But, human beings are human beings. And they'll have faults and problems. (With jazz musicians) the problems have been amplified and taken totally out of perspective by writers who decided that "to play like Bird, you've got to live like Bird. He suffered, therefore his music is so-and-so..." That's malarkey! I don't smoke and I don't drink. And that's not because I was stronger or different from anyone; I had a lot of help with not drinking. When I came along, booze was the narcotic of the day. And I give credit to Jo Jones for stopping me from drinking. I went to college, and I'd hang out on Saturday night with the other frat brothers and we drank! But Jo Jones said, "You shouldn't do that." And when he introduced me to all of my idols -- like Coleman Hawkins and all the people I looked up to -- he said, "This is Billy Taylor; he can't drink." And they didn't know if I was sick or what it was. But those guys were nice enough -- and they respected Jo Jones enough -- that, when I was with them, they wouldn't let me drink. I'd go to the bar where everybody was hanging out, and I'd say, "Mr. Hawkins, can I buy you a drink?" And he'd say, "Sure." And he'd say (to the bartender), "I'll have a double, and he'll have a Coke." (laughs) So, there are two sides to this! Nobody ever talks about (jazz musicians who didn't drink). And I wasn't the only one who got that treatment from Jo and other people. I was lucky.

JAM: In your career as a performer, which jazz greats have you enjoyed playing with the most?

BT: That's hard... That's really hard. In my early days, I was blessed. I came to New York on a Friday, auditioned on that Sunday, and had a job with Ben Webster at the Three Deuces. If I'd ever been able to play the tenor, that's the way I wanted to do it. He was just awesome to me; nobody played a ballad like Ben Webster. And I just loved the way he swung. To work with that guy every night... man, it was a masterclass. And, I was working opposite my piano idol, Art Tatum! So, the jobs I've enjoyed the most have been with, or around people like that. And with people like Eddie South, the great jazz violinist. And Stuff Smith. Back in my formative years, those are the ones who immediately come to mind. After every job, I couldn't wait to get to the piano the next day and try to remember some of the things I'd learned.

JAM: Who do you wish you could have worked with but never did?

BT: Oh, now that list is endless. And at the top of the list would be Benny Carter. Benny and I have been friends for many years, but I've never worked with him. When I was working with Eddie South, I used to go over to his (Benny's) rehearsals, sit in the audience and listen to his big band. That's when I got to know him, and he was very kind to me -- a very open and giving kind of guy. He showed me different harmonic things -- he's not only a good arranger, but also a good pianist. Today, he's forgotten all about showing me those things. (laughs) I told him about that recently. He said, "I did?!" (laughs) But, he was really important to me, and he helped me to understand some harmonic things I was having problems with in those days.

JAM: You should do a gig together!

BT: Well, I don't think he's doing much playing these days. So, I guess I've blown my chance. But, Benny is one of those people who just stood out from the pack for me. The first time I ever saw him he was leading a big band, playing saxophone... playing all these brilliant things. And right in the middle of the show he picked up the trumpet and played the most gorgeous version of "More Than You Know" I've ever heard in my life. I still play that tune because I love the way he played it.

JAM: For the performing jazz musician, there is a body of songs referred to as "standards," most of which have been around for decades. Of the songs that have been written in recent years, can you think of any that have the potential to become as "standard" as, say, "Stella" and "All the Things" are today?

BT: Oh sure. There are many. The first one that comes to mind is "A Child Is Born," the Thad Jones tune. I mean, that one is remarkable. What makes a standard is that it's pliable enough make musicians want to do something with it. It has harmonic and melodic patterns that stimulate you to do something in your style and mold something new in a personal way. For me, there are two kinds of standards. There are jazz standards, and there are standards from the pop repertoire. The reason we don't have as many things coming out of movies, Broadway and nightclubs as we once had is that in the '60s the record companies separated things and put everything in little boxes. They made pop "this"... and they put "tags" on everything. That had never happened before in our musical history. I mean, yes, there were tags before -- at one point there was "race music" -- but they didn't segregate the music in the way that, later, in the '60s, became the fashion. So, for the last 40 years we've had, "It's gotta be this, or it's gotta be that." "Smooth jazz" is not jazz. For the most part, what they're talking about (there) is instrumental rhythm and blues. I don't have a problem with any of the titles. I mean, there's good music and there's bad, I don't care what the style is. But when they put something into a category, they make that category smaller and smaller, and they refine it more carefully and more carefully until it's out of fashion. "It doesn't have enough of this; it doesn't have enough of that." And then they go, "I've had enough of that," and they move on to the next thing.

JAM: Let's talk about some of the other parts of your multi-faceted career. You've had a high profile on television dating back to your days as a bandleader on "The David Frost Show" in the mid '60s and continuing through nearly 20 years as a contributor to CBS' "Sunday Morning." What lead you into that part of the business?

BT: I backed into it. In the '50s every jazz musician you knew was on television. Many of them even had their own local or regional shows. There was just all kinds of jazz on television then. Timex had jazz specials, as did other sponsors. Dave Garroway, Steve Allen and any number of talk show hosts had guests on nightly... like Sarah Vaughan, Ella Fitzgerald and Tony Bennett -- people who sang pop-oriented jazz, or were just out-and-out jazz performers. I was lucky enough to get some of those gigs, playing jazz on TV. And one of the things that led to that was the fact that we were always on the air on radio! If you worked at any of the major clubs, they had a "wire" in the club. At Birdland, every night somebody was on the air. The only records I have out there now with Miles Davis and John Coltrane are from one of those broadcasts.

JAM: It does seem like there was a lot more jazz on television in those days than there is now. There was also Johnny Carson's reign on the "Tonight Show," when there was a strong jazz presence, both in the house band as well as with the musical guests. And you mentioned Steve Allen...

BT: Of the people who were the hosts of those shows, Steve was the hippest and featured the most jazz artists. He had Erroll Garner, Art Tatum... You name 'em, they were on his show. Sarah, Ella, everybody. Instrumentalists, in particular, got a chance to do things. Buddy DeFranco, Chet Baker...

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Television is moving in another direction and jazz fans aren't doing anything about it. We sit there, we don't complain. We say, "Gee, I wonder why they stopped doing that." But we don't write, we don't yell, we don't do anything. So (the producers) figure there's no interest."
------------------------------------------------------------------------

JAM: But now, on Leno and Letterman and most of the others, the jazz factor seems to be greatly reduced...

BT: That's because the people who are running those shows are young people who don't know anything about jazz, and don't care anything about jazz. That has permeated television, and it's why so little good music is presented on major television networks. You know, for the last 20 years I've been the only guy doing profiles on jazz musicians, and even I, right now... instead of doing two or three a month, I'm doing one a month. Or one every six weeks. Television is moving in another direction and jazz fans aren't doing anything about it. We sit there, we don't complain. We say, "Gee, I wonder why they stopped doing that." But we don't write, we don't yell, we don't do anything. So (the producers) figure there's no interest.

JAM: It's also kind of interesting to see how jazz is handled on the big music awards shows, like the Grammys. Usually it's some kind of token, two minute jam with people who never even work together. Is that kind of exposure good or bad for jazz?

BT: Well, any exposure is good, even if it's only a couple of minutes. Little Eldar Djangirov was part of a spot (this year) and it really helped people understand that jazz is something young people are interested in... something that someone from another country can become so fascinated with that he can become very good at doing it. I think Michael Greene made a masterful gesture (that night), as he's done several times as (NARAS) president, where he's made a personal statement about good music of one sort or another to a national audience -- and in the face of a business that really couldn't care less. The Grammys are run by the representatives of the major record companies and (for them) it's all about money. It's a billion dollar business. And they're quick to tell jazz musicians, "You guys don't make any money." Well, the reason we don't make any money is because they don't give us any attention! They don't do things (with jazz) as they used to do them. When they supported Benny Goodman and Artie Shaw and the great bands of the past, it was because those bands made money for them. So, they could see a way to do it. Again, it's all about money.

JAM: Also, many of the older musicians now get completely cut out and overlooked...

BT: Yes, but we know who the people are that we respect. And we should get together and celebrate them, as we do Charlie Parker and those who are no longer with us. It would have been nice for an Art Farmer to have smelled the flowers while he was still here, you know what I mean? I see the kind of attention many musicians get as soon as they pass away! Al Grey passed not long ago, and all of the sudden these records are coming out of the woodwork and everyone is saying, "Oh man, this guy could really use the plunger!" Come on! Where were you when the guy was alive and sick and needed somebody to say, "Man, you sure play well and we love you."

JAM: Who was it who said, "Death is the best career move"...

BT: (laughs) Unfortunately, that's true!

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Jazz is America's classical music. And it is America's classical music not because I said so, but because it takes all of the elements that are a part of our culture and puts them into a personalized musical statement..."
------------------------------------------------------------------------

JAM: It seems that jazz today tends to be a pretty esoteric art form that reaches a fairly limited number of people...

BT: (interrupts) But, that's not true. That is not true. I have spent my entire career fighting this (perception). Jazz is America's classical music. And it is America's classical music not because I said so, but because it takes all of the elements that are a part of our culture and puts them into a personalized musical statement that celebrates something we say we believe. And, if we really believed it, it would be even stronger! For a kid like Eldar Djangirov to hear this music on records in a remote area of the Soviet Union and then want to be able to do this sort of thing... that transcends esoterica. All around the world this music means something very special to people. It means "Americana." It means what we say we believe in. And people everywhere take it at face value. "America believes in personal freedom; that music speaks to that, too." But musically -- and not on that kind of cultural basis -- musically, you've got 40,000 jazz bands in this country alone. You have 550 or more festivals that go on in Europe in the summertime. You've got festivals in this country in almost all the major cities. So, we're not counting! We're not looking at what we've got! We're listening to what the music business tells us: that there's not a certain kind of money changing hands, and not a certain kind of audience listening.

JAM: Maybe the original question had more to do with the art form itself and how it tends to appeal to a smaller audience than, say, country, rock, and the other genres. And there are those in the jazz world who would prefer to keep it that way, so the music can keep its integrity, rather than softening its edges in order to reach a wider audience...

BT: I still think we're going about it in the right way. And I think what we have to stop doing is looking to the past. Nightclubs are gone; they can't be financially sustained anymore. The new venues are schools. The new venues are museums. The new venues are concert halls. But that doesn't mean you have to alter your music. I don't alter my music when I play at the Kennedy Center! Not at all. And the reason I mention this is that in the last six years I've created an audience (for jazz) in Washington D.C. I grew up in Washington D.C. and I know what that audience used to be when I was a kid. I was appalled when I went home (later) and saw that nothing was being done. What I've been able to do is put many of the names of people I look up to right along side of Bach, Mozart and Beethoven -- the people that concert audiences come to hear. I have an "Art Tatum Panorama" series, which is five concerts featuring a (different) pianist. There's the "Louis Armstrong Legacy" series, which is not about his influence as a trumpet player, but his influence as a singer. There's the "Mary Lou Williams Women in Jazz" festival that celebrates the fact that, though we have gender bias in jazz, there are people like Mary Lou who overcame that at the worst possible time! She overcame that (bias) along with race prejudice and everything else! And because of her example, there are hundreds, maybe thousands of women now who are ready to take their places -- rightfully -- beside guys who can play. Look at Diva... and the other fine groups. Kansas City was one of the first places to do this years ago, and nobody picked up on it.

JAM: The Women's Jazz Festivals of the late '70s...

BT: That's right! So, what I'm saying is -- and I'm just one guy -- if people will take the positive approach and say, "What can I do in my area to make a difference..." Just recently it was announced that Joshua Redman will be the new musical director of the San Francisco Jazz Festival. Hey, he's a young guy from that area, the festival has to progress, and Joshua is going to appeal to people of his generation, as well as other people. His music already does that anyway.

JAM: A good segue into the next question. Which of today's established jazz musicians do you think are in the best position to take the music into the 21st century?

BT: Well, I don't subscribe to The Great Man Theory. We're always looking for a Messiah. I think what can happen (next) is the same thing that made jazz the kind of music that it is -- when one person is doing a lot of 'A', and someone else is doing a lot of 'B', and they both survive and prosper. That's healthy.

JAM: We usually conclude these interviews with the proverbial "desert island question." And, we've learned that most lists change by the day. But, if you could pick five recordings today to take to the island, which ones would they be?

BT: Five Art Tatum records.

JAM: Which five?

BT: Any five! (laughs)

JAM: You know, some people agonize over that list. You've given us a pretty simple answer!

BT: Well, that's just my personal opinion. And it doesn't mean that Art was the greatest musician ever. But, he was for me. I mean, I was highly influenced by Duke Ellington, and other people I've had the honor and joy of knowing and working with. But, you know, it's like family... there are other (important) people, and you recognize their important qualities, but then there's that feeling you get when you say, "That's my brother!" That's how Art Tatum's music affected me.

JAM: Well, Dr. Taylor, thank you very much for talking with us.

BT: And I thank you. I have read JAM magazine and you're doing a helluva job. This is the kind of thing -- and maybe you don't realize it -- where you're documenting things that, from your perspective, are important. You're making a record of things that can serve people in the future.

JAM: We appreciate hearing that. And thanks again for doing this interview. We hope you'll come back to Kansas City again soon.

BT: I hope so, too. Thank you.

©Mike Metheny 2000. All rights reserved.


RETURN TO JUNE 2000 MAIN INDEX

------------------------------------------------------------------------
© Kansas City Jazz Ambassadors 1996-2001. All rights reserved.