From "Missy" to "Ma'am"

Talk about race is everywhere these days. Or, more precisely, talk about racism is everywhere these days. From Barack Obama's run for the presidency and the Reverend Jeremiah Wright controversy, to the 40th anniversary of the death of the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., Americans are trying to engage in a conversation about race and racism. It hasn't been easy. If there is one topic that freaks most of white America, it's race. Many insist race doesn't matter, and that Blacks are obsessed with the topic. Others acknowledge the effects of race and racism, but feel no responsibility or culpability for the situation and want to move on. The final group acknowledges race and racism, are color-blind to the best extent any of us can be in America, and try the best they can not to discriminate against people of color, or take advantage of the inherent advantages whites enjoy in America. This is really a small group of whites, but they do exist.

I believe the primary reason many white Americans freak out about racism is denial. Their legacy must be extremely difficult to reconcile. This country was built upon the backs and blood of a group of people through their free labor, brutally against their will. Those same people were then systemically marginalized, brutalized, de-humanized, disenfranchised, and discriminated against. This was all done by, and to the advantage of, white people. The vestiges of slavery and its aftermath continue to this day to the detriment of Black people, without question. No sane person could deny it, and that's a hard pill to swallow for whites.

The good news for whites is, "we ain't mad at you." Black Americans have to be the most forgiving people on the face of the earth, ever. While at times we may seem angry or bitter, the overwhelming majority of Blacks are just trying to make it in this society. We're not currently enslaved, and we realize that you, personally, are not responsible for this shameless history. We want the same things as you: good schools, good jobs, and good housing. To dwell upon race, racism, and discrimination is inefficient, emotionally draining, and probably counter-productive. All we want is our chance(s), and a level playing field. We can forget the past, if White America will stop repeating it and perpetuating its effects. That's a tall order for whites, and not nearly as simple as it sounds. And that is why the struggle and the discussion continues, to this day.

Mind you, just because we don't trip over race doesn't mean that we won't go off on, slap the shit out of, or even pop a cap in, a current practitioner of racism. Our anger and resentment, though suppressed, isn't that far from the surface, and it doesn't take much to set it off. Our memories are not short. Do you feel me?

It is against this backdrop and all of the "playing the race card" nonsense attendant to the presidential nominating contests that I was surprised, and encouraged, to see the recent remarks of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice regarding race in America. Secretary Rice's remarks were part of a more comprehensive interview with Sun Myung Moon's Washington Times editorial board, and her comments were based in part on her reaction to Barack Obama's speech about race in the aftermath of the flare-up over his former pastor and spiritual advisor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

Before I get to Ms. Rice, an interesting side note to the Reverend Wright controversy is how quickly certain media and other certain segments of white society wanted to jump on Reverend Wright's comments as evidence of racist and/or un-patriotic aspects of Black America. A similar rush to judgment was seen in the phony reactions to Michelle Obama's remarks about being proud of her country for the first time in her adult life, speaking of the country's acceptance of her husband's candidacy for the President of the United States, and their hunger for change.

This is an interesting paradox, and additionally a tired political trick on a gullible American public. A variant on the old divide and conquer stratagem, this ruse attempts to paint blacks as undeserving of a chance or for favor because they exhibit some of the same qualities that they condemn us for, or that they're really subversive and disloyal to the country. Please.

Back to Condi. I haven't though much of Ms. Rice, and I still probably don't. A discomforting fact for Blacks is our history of sell-outs, from African tribal complicity in the European slave trade, to the Uncle Toms of the slavery era and thereafter, to the modern-day phenomena, which I'll call the Black Republican Role Model (BRRM). The Black Republican Role Model is a painful (for Blacks) device used by Republicans to remind us of our history. They find a twisted or opportunistic Black person willing, for whatever reasons, to play ball with their agenda, and they then promote and maneuver them into a position of prominence - usually political - to show Blacks how they need to act to sit at the table in their society. The BRRM is also used to demonstrate how hard work, self-reliance, and a willingness to carry water for the Republican party, is rewarded. For Blacks, it is a reminder that we can sometimes be our own worst enemy.

The earliest example of a BRRM I can remember was J.C. Watts, a former congressman from Oklahoma, who also played college football as quarterback for the University of Oklahoma. Perhaps the most recent example would be former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Alphonso Jackson. Other notable BRRMs include former Ohio Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell, and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Because I'm extreme, I would also include in this group Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Secretary of State Colin Powell (West Indian, incidentally) and his son, Michael, former Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. The senior Powell has recently exhibited signs of redemption, in his willigness to acknowledge the mistakes in going to war against Iraq.

I'd long considered Rice to be a BRRM, primarily because of her relationship and allegiance to the Bush family. When Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez once called her "Missy, " I found his remark funny and appropriate, in view of her fraudulent peddling of the Bush foreign policy agenda, and her silly clothing affectation. As such, I've been particularly dismissive of her and have found her to be distressingly, albeit brilliantly, enigmatic. However, she earned a lot of props with me with her comments about America's "birth defect" and how she spoke with clarity about the subject. Now I know Rice has often spoke about her own and her family's personal struggles with race and racism, growing up in Birmingham's Titusville's neighborhood that also produced notable black educator Freeman Hrabowski, III, a chilhood friend of Rice's, who is working wonders at nearby University of Maryland, Baltimore County. But I also know that Rice has used those same stories to publicly trumpet Republican themes of self-reliance and godliness. I just couldn't, and still can't, take her seriously. She was, in my view, merely a shill for the Bush clan, and not to be trusted.

I encourage you to read her remarks. Yes, she tows the line and was careful not to offend. She also bent over backward not to give Barack any props politically, but you can feel her passion. And you think; underneath all her bullshit, she's might just be real and feel the same conflict and pain we all do.

I'll be glad when Rice either returns to academia, or business, or whatever, after the end of this disgraceful administration. Hopefully, she's just lost her way and needs to re-discover herself. I guess what would be most disappointing would be if she entered politics, running for office and promoting some conservative agenda. But for the meantime, I'll stop calling her Missy. I'll now call her something which is a sign of respect in the Black community. I'll now call her "Ma'am.

No Diggity

What Makes A Great City?

It happened to me again yesterday. I was meeting with a woman from the Connecticut/New York City area, and we were discussing how much we liked, or didn't like, D.C. Anybody that knows me knows that I'm from great city of Chicago. In the 12 years that I've been living and working in the D.C. metro area I've come a long way, from intensely disliking Washington, D.C., to passively tolerating the existence of the city. There was a time I was the President of the D.C. haters fan club; now, I'm more like a disinterested observer.

In any event, the woman I was meeting with didn't like this place either, and she looked forward to the time she would be able to get out. Fortunately for her, she had only been out here about two years, and she thought she'd be able to get away in a year or two, max. When I found out that she was from the NYC area, I would have bet money that she wouldn't like D.C. You see, there are basically two types of people in this area, despite its diversity and multinational population. The first group are those who came here from someplace of a lesser profile than D.C. This group includes most of the people who live in the area, including members of Congress and the massive federal government workforce, and nearly all of the people who came here from foreign locales.

The second group are those who, for whatever bizarre reason, have relocated here from places with a greater profile than D.C. This group is admittedly a distinct minority. I include myself in this group. In my opinion and on a totally arbitrary and non-scientific rating scale from 1 to 100, Chicago rates about an 85, whereas DC checks in at about a 72.


Why did I come to D.C.? Simple, for a job, and it turned out to be a pretty good one at that. Didn't know at the time I'd be downsized out of my position nine years later. Additionally, I had the good fortune of the opportunity to visit D.C. for an extended period three years before I moved out here. This trip was entirely on someone else's dime, was predominately recreational, and I had big, big, fun. In the vernacular, I was young, dumb, and full of ,well, you know. I visited museums by day, and partied by night. I saw only the best of D.C., and left with a entirely distorted view of the real nature of the town. I thought, "Wow, what a great town." I was misinformed. Didn't get a real taste of what it would be like to live and work with the people of this region.

Why do I stay? Good question. First, I got married out here, and Mrs. Diggity's family and work are here. Secondly, and most importantly, where am I going? Although this area will never be home, no place else is, either. I've been gone away for enough time that Chicago at times seems distant and foreign, even though on average I get back there three to four times a year. Unless a killer job or opportunity presents itself somewhere else, I'll probably be here.

The conversation with the woman reminded me of a question that I have tossed around in my head for at least as long as I have lived here: "What Makes A Great City?" I've decided to post on the question, fully aware that my criteria are entirely subjective. As usual, you're free to agree or disagree, or even call me a bigoted, uninformed snob. The discussion herein applies only to United States cities. Sorry, Paris, London, or Baghdad doesn't qualify.

I really believe that a catalyst or enabling factor of a great city is its close proximity to a substantial body of water. Chicago, of course, is anchored by Lake Michigan. Although I'm not particularly a water lover, I can't help but appreciate the Lake's beauty, its vastness, its impact on land and real estate values, and its recreational opportunities. New York has the Hudson and the Atlantic. San Francisco has the bay and the Pacific. Austin, Texas (trust me) has the Colorado River and three man-made lakes wholly within its city limits. D.C has, well........the Potomac. I'm so sorry D.C., but that would be a no.

A great city must also have an active and viable downtown business/shopping district, which doesn't roll up its streets after 10:00 PM. If D.C. has this, please let me know. I don't know where it's located.



Although I'm not a huge fan of food, I'm sure a general consensus would be that a great city has to have great restaurants and a variety of dining choices and options. When I first came out here, I thought the food of the city was vastly overrated. From what I know and hear now, the situation has improved tremendously, where D.C. is now a first-rate city for dining. Mind you, I do find the 10% restaurant tax repulsive and a disincentive to dining in D.C., but I really can't talk here. Chicago has one of the most byzantine tax structures imaginable, having the highest sales tax of all major U.S. cities, 10.25% on non-perishable goods, although it is considerably lower on food and drugs (2%). Car rentals in the city are taxed at 30%, hotel rooms at 15.4%, and soft drinks at 13.4%. Boy, am I glad I don't live there anymore.

I feel that in a great city, the occupants have a fashion consciousness and a sense of style, and the shopping choices available to those occupants reflect that sense of consciousness and style. D.C. is woefully lacking in this regard. First, the people seem relatively unconcerned about such matters. Admittedly, D.C.'s steambath-like climate is a factor. I mean, I've never seen so many jacketless professional men in short-sleeved shirts, and if it's April 1st, the women must be wearing their white or bone-colored shoes. Another factor is that it seems that D.C. is predominated by young people, i.e., those under 30 years of age. Perhaps I feel that way because I'm old (relatively), but my point is that really young (15 - 20) people's sense of fashion, if that is what you would call it, doesn't matter. And in this town, the folks older than that just have a clue.

The problem with living in a fashion-challenged environment is that eventually, you become lax in your habits. "When in Rome...."

Except for the last five years, my professional career has been spent exclusively in white-collar professional environments. There was a time in my kife where I was more comfortable in a suit than a pair of jeans. In Chicago,you developed a sense of pride in your appearance because others exhibited that same sense of pride. Hell, even the receptionists had it going on. And people didn't dress to "front" or to compete, it was just a manifestation of their professionalism. Here, nobody seems to care. After a while you may say, "If they don't care, I don't care." If I can get away with it professionally and it has no effect on my career, why bother?" I can save some money and some time. I've vertainly fallen into this type of thinking. However, I do have my limits. Minimum standards must be maintained. It's just that its all so easy here.

Even if I needed to be "clean" on a regular basis, it would be hard to find anything within D.C. to maintain. Although I won't speak to women's shopping options in the city, I can say there is nothing for men in this town that would approach the caliber of a Wilkes-Bashford in San Francisco, or a Syd Jerome in Chicago, or any other quality men's store. Hell, there isn't even a Barney's in the area, to my knowledge. Now don't get me wrong, I didn't always shop at men's stores of such quality in my previous environment. I can and do do Nordstrom's, Bloomingdale's, or Neiman's, and I look for sales. But when you're used to dressing well, periodically you went the extra mile when you had the cash. Here, having the cash wouldn't matter, there's nothing in the city. But wait, I did see an Allen Edmonds store on Connecticut recently (woo-hoo!). Maybe the lack of city options is why the damn suburban malls are always so crowded. I wonder where the boys who work on "K" Street get their goods? Possibly bespoke?


A great city must also have a viable public transportation system. It must move massive quantifies of people to work and play in a relatively safe and efficient manner. On this count, D.C., does well. Upon moving here, I often remarked that the Metro (train) system was the best thing about this place. I still feel that way. The Metro is clean, safe, and for now, affordable, and will get you to most of the places you need to get to in this town. Now, it does have its problems. It seems to suffer from the usual mismanagement big city transit systems experience. Inexplicably, it doesn't operate on a 24-hour basis. And the ridership has some of the quirkiest transportation behavior I've ever experienced - moving from destination-to-destination in an efficient and comfortable manner doesn't seem to be a priority. But all in all, the Metro works and I can work with it.



As for the town's bus system, I'm almost entirely unfamiliar with its operation. I've seen buses and have been on a handful of "downtown" buses, but I'm not knowledgeable about the services to the neighborhoods. Feel free to comment and inform the discussion. As for the feeder commuter trains into the city, the MARC trains, with which I'm very familiar, are a painful joke. The less said about them, the better. Have never taken VRE. Again, I welcome your comments.

Any great city should also have all the major sports teams - baseball, basketball, football, and hockey - and should have attractive sports venues that can suck up consumer surplus from the residents. Here again, D.C. is spot on. Although I have entirely no interest in its sporting teams, you have the Nationals, Wizards, Redskins, and Capitals, with the attractively new Nationals Park, Verizon Center, FedEx Field, and Verizon, respectively. No problem here.




When I made the decision to relocate to D.C., I thought the move would be lateral in terms of arts, culture, and nightlife. I mean, this was the nation's capital, wasn't it? I couldn't have been more misinformed. For all it offers to the nation in terms of museums and galleries, it lacks in other areas. First, the city has no resident symphony orchestra. Although I'm not a huge classical music or opera patron, I do appreciate the music and managed to attend two to five performances per year in Chicago. The Kennedy Center and its offerings are overrated. The jazz scene is also lacking, although Twins Lounge does try. There are no jazz festivals in the city and the area festivals are more R&B oriented than jazz. Blues Alley, which has a wholly undeserved national reputation, would have to pay me to set foot in their venue for most of their sorry lineups.



As for major popular entertainment, in can be curiously inexplicable why many performers choose to totally bypass D.C., when they make stops only hours away in New York or Philadelphia. Maybe it's because of the tastes of the resident D.C. crowd, which can lend itself to Peaches and Herb retrospectives at Constitution Hall.

The theatre scene is similarly disappointing, but perhaps this is my issue. I basically want available to me good quality local theatre, coupled with a venue that offers major plays that tour from Broadway. I'm fairly certain that the economics of Broadway have limited the number of plays that go out on the road these days, but you hardly ever see a major work coming down to D.C. from New York. I've recently learned that the D.C./MD/NOVA region is second only to New York in the number of community theatres, which was surprising. The collective quality of all those theatres, however, is another matter. About a year ago, I was able to catch a good production of an August Wilson work, "Jitney," at Ford's Theatre.

Although I love movies, I usually don't attend film festivals (too lazy), but I do appreciate them. I hear the D.C. Independent Film Festival and Filmfest D.C. (International) are pretty good. Kudos to the town.

To its credit, D.C. does seem to have more than its share of clubs for young people to get their dance on, and even an old fuddy like myself has caught an act or two at the seemingly excellent 9:30 Club. I'm sure their are many others like it for the young'uns.

The nightlife is a mixed bag. Being over 50, I've lost my old desire to party like I did when was age twenty to forty. However, I still like to occasionally move among the shadows, if you know what I mean. However, there are no shadows in D.C. - the town is so small and provincial that if you're on the scene, the whole town will eventually know your business. While D.C. seems to be a great party town for college students and younger people under forty, it seems to lack similar scene, venues, or niches for more mature people. Your choice: either party with the kids or stay at home. I'll stay at home, thank you, for the most part. I don't want to be the old guy in the club.

A great city should also have first-class institutions of higher education, and again, D.C. hits the mark with Georgetown and American Universities and, to a lesser degree, the vastly overpriced George Washington University.

Washington is woefully lacking in its absence as a center for headquarters of major business(es), or the presence of a financial sector (the Fed doesn't count). Its local politics are uninteresting, and the local politicians are comically amateurish. This isn't surprising for a city which has only had a local government since 1974. Many D.C. residents don't know it, but their current mayor isn't particularly bright (I used to work with him when he was an aide to a Councilmember, albeit on opposite sides of the fence). Fortunately, brains aren't a prerequisite to becoming a great mayor. The jury is definitely still out on Adrian.

Is D.C. a great city? In a word, No. Is it close? Maybe. For young people and those fascinated by the machinations of politics, and government, it's great. D.C. represents one of the better playgrounds in the nation for young people - it's a great place to be in your 20s and 30s, and D.C. has per capita more attractive women than any city in the country (my personal opinion). But is it held back from greatness by a variety of factors - lack of style, lack of shopping, its parochialism, it's lack of sophistication, its lack of neighborhoods of identity, and so on.

To my credit, I've not used the words or phrases "country," or "southern" or "unjustified pretentiousness" in my narrative. I've come a long way.

In the interest of full disclosure, I've never lived in D.C. But I have worked there for over 12 years, and I have lived close enough to D.C. (Arlington) to walk across its border. For this particular post, I'd like comments from those who may disagree with my views. I'd like for D.C. to be great. As any "born and raised D.C. native," a vastly overrated badge of honor here, will tell you, "it's the Nation's Capital." It should be great. It just isn't.

No Diggity

Ten Jazz Names Even You Should Know

I had one of those moments with my daughter recently. I was driving her to the airport - she was returning to her Alma mater, The University of Michigan, for Founder's Day activities for her sorority. She had the radio was on as I drove. As usual, there wasn't much to my liking on regular old radio, but I was being patient with her. At some point, the latest version of some trashy, non-musical, "dirty south" style mindless nonsense came on the air, and she began to bounce and sing-song along with the inane lyrics. It struck an old nerve with me. I asked, "Why do you listen to this shit?" and she came back at me with the usual arguments - that she listened to all types of music, that this music was popular with her set, that it was the beats and not the lyrics, that it was fun, that they played it in the clubs, and so on, blah, blah, blah.

I went way overboard. I told her that endorseing and accepting this kind of misogynist, putrid crap was retarding her development, and that as long as she was a blind follower of popular tastes, she would never lead. I went on further to say that at some point in your life, you have to decide not to go along with the crowd, and make choices that may not be popular or in vogue at the moment. I explained that I had made such a decision and choice in my twenties, when I became a fan of jazz, probably the most unpopular choice of music in America today.

She grew quiet. I could tell she was tired of this discussion, which I have been periodically revisiting with her since she was a teenager (she'll soon be 24). I let it die, realizing that I'll probably never persuade her to abandon the more base of her musical tastes; that if this moment were to ever occur, it would have to come naturally and of her own accord. My daughter has given me a world of reasons to be proud of her, notwithstanding this very limited defect. If she never outgrows that type of music, and i do think she will, it wouldn't be the end of the world. Count your blessings, as they say.

Why is jazz so ignored, and possibly even reviled in the United States? It shouldn't be. It is the only music genre that is truly and entirely American in its origin. We invented it, and there ain't nobody who can play it like us. Talk about beats, jazz has beats. It's brilliant, diverse, timeless, and more than capable of sustaining a lifelong love affair. Most Americans don't know what jazz is, and what it is not. Ignorantly, many think all jazz sounds alike. Not true. They think Kenny G is a jazz musician - he is not. They believe that "smooth jazz" is jazz. Wrong again. The sad fact is that most Americans have a fundamental misunderstanding of jazz that is fatal to them ever acquiring an appreciation for the music. Yes, like any other music, it has its clunkers and charlatans, but true admission to the fraternity requires musicianship, dedication, intelligence, and most importantly, a passion for the music itself.

I have my own opinions as to why most Americans either ignore or do not like jazz. First and foremost, it is music for a thinking person. I have never, ever, met a jazz aficionado who was not bright. Admit it, you do have to cringe at the state of the American intellect today. Additionally, jazz requires a commitment. A commitment of time, scholarship, and intellectual curiosity that is probably lacking and beyond the reach of the overwhelming majority of music fans. Jazz is an acquired taste. Further, it's primarily music that should be listened to - there's very little dancing to jazz, although much of it is eminently danceable. Sadly, but predictably, there's also a racial component. Jazz was invented by, developed by, and is excelled in primarily by the Black Man in America and, as such, it was/is subject to the usual simpleminded prejudices of Americans - to the point where Europeans and Asians are far more devoted and enthusiastic connoisseurs of jazz than most Americans.

That being said and getting down from my soapbox, I offer for your edification a primer of sorts for jazz - a list of ten jazz artists of which every serious music fan should be aware. The Golden Age of Jazz was basically from the 1930s to the 1970s, with a sharp decline in popularity and marketability thereafter. Although there is still plenty of good stuff out there, you've got to hunt to find it nowadays. New York City was once the jazz Mecca of the universe during the 1940s and 50s and probably still is the best city in the world to catch jazz today, but at nowhere near the quantity and extent of years past. Many will argue that jazz is dying, and you'd be hard-pressed to argue alternatively. Jazz clubs, once the staple of live jazz performance and the lifeblood of the genre, are virtually non-existent in major American cities these days. Most cities also had one or more 12 to 24-hour jazz radio stations on the mainstream radio spectrum. Today, your only hope for such is the Internet or satellite radio. Commercially, the jazz industry is difficult in many aspects. Jazz record sales, always a relatively minor component of the music industry, have declined further. It is extremely difficult for a jazz musician to make a living playing jazz exclusively today. It is truly a sad state of affairs for this great American art form.

Without further ado, here is the list, not necessarily in order of influence, importance, or badassedness:

1. Louis Armstrong - Considered by many to be the founding father of jazz, I realize that having Louis at the head of the list could be a non-starter for many people, whose only knowledge of Mr. Armstrong relates to the "Satchmo" images. I myself admit that Armstrong isn't somebody that I turn to for the best of jazz, but the fact of the matter is that Armstrong was a musical genius, and both an excellent trumpet player and vocalist. He deserves his props.

2. Edward "Duke" Ellington - The most important composer in the history of jazz, Edward Kennedy "Duke" Ellington was a bandleader for over 50 years. Forever linked with the brilliant arranger Billy Strayhorn, Ellington is responsible for some of the most memorable and popular American compositions of all time, such as, "Take the "A" Train;" "Satin Doll;" "It Don't Mean A Thing (If It Ain't Got That Swing);" "Sophisticated Lady;" "Caravan;" "In A Sentimental Mood," and "Do Nothing Til You Hear From Me," just to name a few of his many great songs. A native Washingtonian.

3. Miles Davis - Perhaps the greatest trumpet player of all time, many consider the enigmatic Davis to be the most important figure in the history of jazz. Although not a personal favorite of mine, it's hard to argue against the point. Davis was extraordinarily creative and innovative, and constantly pushed his craft and the music to refreshingly new and different levels. Skilled both and a musician and a bandleader, Miles was a difficult person, as many geniuses are. An excellent biography of Davis and the history of jazz can be found in Miles: The Autobiography, by Miles Davis and Quincy Troupe.

4. John Coltrane - Fiery, euphoric, serene, brilliant, eclectic, cerebral, introspective, expressive - all of these adjectives could be used to describe the works of the man - J.C., - John Coltrane. Though his career in jazz was a brief 11 years (he died at age 40 in 1967 from liver cancer), John Coltrane influence the music perhaps unlike any other musician. Plagued early in his career by heroin addiction that made him difficult to employ, the alto, tenor, and soprano saxophonist "Trane" had periodic affiliations with other great men of jazz - Dizzy Gillespie, Duke Ellington, Miles Davis, and Thelonius Monk, being the most notable. Arguably, his greatest work came as the leader of, in my opinion, the baddest jazz bands ever, with Trane fronting such personnel at various times which consisted of Trane on saxophones, Red Garland or McCoy Tyner on piano, Paul Chambers or Jimmy Garrison on bass, Elvin Jones or "Philly" Joe Jones on drums, Lee Morgan on trumpet, and trombonist Curtis Fuller. His seminal album, A Love Supreme, is considered one of the most important jazz albums ever. My personal favorite jazz recording is Coltrane's rendition of the Rodgers and Hammerstein classic, My Favorite Things. Ladies and Gentlemen, this man was the shit.

5. Wynton Marsalis - Considered by many to be the finest musician of his generation, this trumpet savant saved and rejuvenated jazz, albeit temporarily, during the 1980s and 1990s. The premiere talent of an extremely talented musical family [pianist father Ellis, who taught Harry Connick, Jr.; brothers Branford (saxophone); Delfeayo (trombone), and Jason (percussion)], Marsalis is currently Artistic Director of Jazz at Lincoln Center. He is also an accomplished and Grammy-winning composer. Marsalis is a strident and persistent defender of straight jazz and has criticized the attention other popular music forms receive from young Americans. His strongly-held views have caused him a fair share of criticism, even from fellow jazz musicians. Even though his harping can wear on you, he is a brilliant musician and has been a steady champion for the cause of jazz for years.

6. Art Blakey - My favorite jazz artist, not for his drumming ability, but for what he meant to jazz and how he preserved the hard-bop art form of jazz for a span of over thirty years. Founder of the quintessential jazz group, The Jazz Messengers, Blakey began as a not-very-good piano player who switched to the drums. It was there he found his niche, and his calling as a leader and nurturer of young talent. While he was a force in the jazz world in his own right as a drummer from the thirties to fifties, it was as the hard-driving percussive leader of the Messengers that he became a giant. Never a static jazz group, the Messengers more closely resembled the ensemble talent of a theatre company, serving as an incubator for young talent, who would rotate through the group and later became important players in the jazz world in their own right. Almost every major talent in the jazz world from the fifties to the nineties played at one time or another with Blakey's Messengers, including the membership of the "Young Turks" movement in jazz spearheaded by Wynton Marsalis in the 1980s. Only five-foot three, but yet an aggressive and powerful drummer, Blakey was a strict taskmaster of the these young men, pushing them to stretch the limits of their talents. The roster of the members of the Messengers, as well as the personnel with which Blakey has played as a sideman, reads like a Who's Who of jazz. I enjoyed his music so immensely that I nearly cried when he died in 1990 from lung cancer. Blakey, also known as Abdullah Ibn Buhaina, or simply "Bu," was still playing and leading a band shortly before he passed away in his 70s.

7. Thelonius Monk - Eccentric, laconic, and sometimes uncommunicative, many people of his time thought pianist Thelonius Monk was a nut. But beneath the sometimes impenetrable exterior lay a compositional genius. Responsible for some of the great jazz standards - Round Midnight, Straight No Chaser, 52nd Street Theme, Blue Monk, Well You Needn't, In Walked Bud, and others, Monk was ahead of his time, both in his playing and his compositional skills. After being misunderstood both personally and professionally for a number of years, his greatness was recognized by Alfred Lion of the Blue Note label, and he was a fixture on the jazz scene until he suddenly retired in 1973, suffering from mental illness. He died in 1982.

8. Charlie Parker - "Bird," the brilliant yet self-destructive saxophonist, probably had as much an influence on jazz and horn players than any other musician in the jazz pantheon. Addicted to heroin as early as his teen years, Bird was a saxophone virtuoso admired and copied by his peers and by ensuing generations. In unison with his frequent collaborator Dizzy Gillespie, Bird and "Diz" provided the definitive saxophone and trumpet solos, and pioneered and mastered the jazz genre known as bebop. Abusive of both heroin and alcohol for years, Charlie Parker died in 1955 at the age of 34. According to reports, the medical examiner who presided over his body reasoned that he was a man twice that age.

9. Dizzy Gillespie - The aforementioned collaborator with Charlie Parker, Dizzy Gillespie is considered by some jazz aficionados as the finest trumpeter ever (Not, that would be Wynton). In addition to being a first-rate trumpeter, Gillespie was known for his management and organizational skills in putting together successful large bands which earned a living in jazz, always a challenging proposition. During his time, while so many jazz musicians were unpredictable and irresponsible, primarily due to drug use and addictions, Diz was a steadying hand. He also a key proponent and introducer of Afro-Cuban elements to jazz music.

10. Herbie Hancock - Perhaps no other musician in the history of jazz has been more experimental and spanned more genres of music than the pianist Herbie Hancock. A mentee of Miles Davis, Hancock exhibited his virtuosity at the tender age of eleven when he performed his first public solo of a Mozart piano concerto with the Chicago Symphony. His jazz career took off thereafter, and he joined Davis' band at 23, where he was a major influence on Davis' evolving musical directions. also quickly established himself as a leader and composer - his Maiden Voyage is still considered one of the finest jazz recordings in history. Trained in engineering and a lover of gadgetry, Hancock was an early adopter of electronic music in jazz through his experimentation with the Rhodes electric piano. Moving through various idioms and later blending funk into his music, Hancock later recorded the top-selling jazz recording of that time, Head Hunters. Throughout the balance of his career, Hancock continued to experiment with the limits of electronic, popular, and jazz music, and to this day is still a force in the recording industry.

Well, there you have it, ten names in jazz every American who loves music of any kind should know. Some jazz purists may disagree with a choice or two of mine, but I hazard to guess that most would agree that I got the majority of them right. Jazz is the soundtrack of life. You can sing to it, dance to it, clean your home to it, make love to it, exercise to it, or just plain listen to it and love it. To prove that jazz is a truly great music, I guarantee that if I were given five, non-consecutive hours with anyone who likes and loves music of any kind, I could turn them on to jazz to an extent that they would gain an interest and appreciation of the music, and perhaps they would come to love it, as I do.

No Diggity