Posted on

Immigration – Governing With Nods and Winks

Dichotic Listening

One of my memories from college days at Rutgers a long time ago is of occasional participation in studies for nominal pay. One in particular that I recall was conducted by the Psychology Department involving dichotic listening. Through headphones were piped audio tracks from two different sources. The content in the left and right channels had little or nothing to do with each other. I would listen for a while and then answer written questions about what I had retained. Then there’d be more. This went on for an hour or two. It was an interesting enough way to grab a little pizza money.

I mention this because it reminds me of what I experience when listening to the debate we are having, if you can call it that, about immigration. Immigrants are hordes of rapists, murderers and thieves. Turn them away and expel the ones already here.  No, no, they are virtuous, law-abiding, victimized saints. All must be welcomed unreservedly. What’s the problem? As someone with no ties either to the left or the right, as such, I don’t need this dichotic listening. You can’t pay me enough.

Meanwhile, the most important big-picture issue is not being addressed: the disaster that ensues when governing with nods and winks. Refusing to say what we mean and mean what we say when formulating and implementing public policy leads to major, if predictable, problems in this or any area of law.

Nods and Winks

The mess we are in is most attributable to the intellectual dishonesty with which we have approached immigration for decades. We have been governing in this field with a series of nods and winks, which is always a bad approach.

“So, the harvest is over. Before you go back home, do you think you could stick around for a little while? OF COURSE, we all believe in obeying the law [wink, wink] but you’re a good worker and I’ve got this other little project I’d like you to help me with. If you’ll do that for me [nod, nod], I’ll take care of you.”

Then there’s another little job, and another. The next thing you know, it’s harvest time again. Hey, the work got done well, inexpensively, and on time; the workers fed their families; and everyone behaved themselves. Where’s the harm? Let’s do it again.

It’s my understanding that the great majority of “illegal aliens” are people who entered legally but overstayed their visas, rather than those who sneak into the country. As a people, we are less than eager to enforce the letter of the law – until something embarrassing happens. (Those presenting themselves to seek asylum aren’t illegal anythings, by the way, unless they’re turned down and stay.)

One of America’s great contributions to the world is the Rule of Law encompassed in our Constitution. Saying one thing and meaning another in governance is inimical to the Rule of Law.

It is not easy to get a green card legally, and attaining citizenship is downright arduous. Indeed, one of the arguments against creating a shortened path to citizenship is “What about all these good people who took years to do it the hard, but legal, way?” This concern is far from frivolous. It needs to be part of a serious, detailed discussion on the Immigration Policy that is best for the United States.

The problem is that no one seems interested in having the debate we so badly need. Arguing the merits on the complexities of immigration policy is hard work. It is for adults. Expertise would help.

I am far from an expert on Immigration policy. Good arguments can be made on both sides of its many complex issues; that’s what makes it a tough area.

Honing in on Some Realities

General Principle

Like any country, America has a right to determine a policy on immigration in its own best interests, to secure its borders, and to enforce its laws. “Let ‘em in!” is not much of a policy.

Yet, I also agree that we are a nation of immigrants. I’m pretty sure there were no Bossongs on the Mayflower. And, by the way, those on the Mayflower were immigrants.

In truth, we have allowed people to stay because we want them to stay, kinda. We don’t really believe it’s in our best interest to kick these people out, regardless of our stated immigration policies – except when it’s convenient to pretend we do. Then, it’s Law ‘n’ Order, damn it. The nods and winks do not amount to precedent; they can be withdrawn at any time. That’s why they are the opposite of the Rule of Law. What makes nods and winks tempting is what makes them wrong. The phrase “arbitrary and capricious” comes to mind.

The Economy

Our actual collective opinion seems to be that immigrants are good for our economy. The cost of planting, harvesting, cleaning, preparing, and serving food has been considerably less for all of us than it might have been, for example. I gather that there are industries that would verge on collapse in the absence of undocumented workers. For years, I’ve heard people joke that if the (then) INS drove down the middle of Main Street in Anytown, USA with a bullhorn announcing their presence, the town’s restaurants, hotels, dry cleaners, and construction and landscaping businesses, among others, would empty out each business’s back door.

It’s hard not to notice that the President’s business holdings are in industries particularly dependent on such labor for both construction and ongoing operation: hotels, country clubs, restaurants, etc. He is not alone.

While there may be some jobs for which the undocumented provide unwanted competition, the notion of Americans clamoring for the chance to, say, pick fruits and vegetables in the hot sun strikes me as far-fetched in an amusing sort of way. [How’s your son? He’s home from college for the summer, but he couldn’t get that job picking turnips that he wanted.] The job market is generally not the zero-sum game (see post of April 2) presumed to exist at times.

Interestingly, two different columnists in the April 14 edition of the Philadelphia Inquirer, one conservative and one liberal, made the same point: Our economy is being held back right now by a scarcity of labor at all levels of skill that, given our birthrate over the last few decades, can be satisfied only by immigrants. Trudy Rubin and Marc Thiessen would not agree on much, and they wrote their columns that day for very different purposes, but they agreed completely that the country is not “full”.

Crime

Then there is the criminal behavior issue. Most studies indicate that immigrants are somewhat more law-abiding on average than American citizens. This is hardly surprising, if for no other reason than immigrants are looking to avoid deportation. “Tell that to the family of a person slain by an undocumented immigrant” goes the argument. “Any crime by an illegal alien should not have happened because the perpetrator should not have been here.”

One problem with such argument is that it begs the question of whose presence in the country should be legal. My thesis is the need for policy we believe in enough to enforce. Illegal status is a relatively minor count in the indictment of a murderer – in a minuscule percentage of our senseless murders.

The Discussion We Really Need

Give all interests a seat at the table. Invite the best and the brightest, not the most extreme. Hammer out an Immigration Policy we can enforce with a straight face. It won’t be perfect, and not everyone is going to love it. If it is fundamentally fair and (can I dream?) even a bit wise, we’ll all be better off.

Here’s a proposed outline for an agenda:

  • In general, turn what we really believe and really want into fair, clear, coherent, and enforceable laws and public policies. Sweat the details.
  • Arrive at some reasonable level of consensus on the following: How many new people can this country do a good job of absorbing? Are the categories and priorities of persons considered for admission to the US in the best interests of this country? [Same questions for staying and for ultimately attaining citizenship] What is a fair, humane, and appropriate approach to considering requests for asylum? How arduous should the conditions and process of attaining citizenship be? What are the facts about the danger posed by criminal behavior of immigrants? Is there any reason not to deport or deny admission to genuinely bad actors? (Where do we draw the line between significant and trivial misbehavior?)
  • (Assuming we change laws substantively) create a smooth and rational transition from the old ways (the nods and winks) into the new laws
  • Anticipate, prevent, and solve problems inherent in enforcing the law.
  • Effectively address any genuine security concerns at the borders, or anywhere.
  • Determine if there is ever a reason to separate families. Indeed, is there reason to insist we deal only with entire families when possible?
  • How can we assist newcomers with assimilation (which, notwithstanding the rough ride given to Joe Biden on this subject, remains desirable for all)?

The Discussion We Really Don’t Need

See “Dichotic Listening”, above.

Worth the Effort

If the policies inherent in our current Immigration laws are found to be the best for our country after careful expert consideration, so be it. Let’s set about enforcing them in a fair, even-handed way. That result would be surprising, though, given that our collective behavior has evinced a need for immigration reform for years.

There have been some bad episodes in America’s past regarding immigration. Two immediately come to mind:

  • Being, inarguably and inexcusably, insufficiently open to European Jews seeking asylum from certain death in the 1930s and 40s; and
  • Our mad scramble to handle the Mariel Boatlift in 1980, when Castro unexpectedly announced that any Cuban who wanted to leave could do so. The perception that Cuba emptied its prisons and mental health facilities may have been overstated, but the impression persists that Castro badly outmaneuvered President Carter.

If doing the right thing for its own sake is not enough to motivate us, at least we should look to avoid deep future regret.

We have behaved as if we do not believe in our own Immigration laws for decades. Perhaps we’ve been too busy enjoying the benefits of inexpensive, reliable labor to worry about the niceties of governing with integrity. Or maybe we just haven’t gotten around to fixing this mess we’ve created. Make no mistake, though: the real issue is whether we are going to govern with integrity. However irresistible the posturing may feel, we need to stop this “Us vs. Them” nonsense (February 19 post). Now.

There’s too much at stake.

Ken Bossong

© 2019 Kenneth J. Bossong

Posted on

It’s Not Too Late To Learn From 2016

The 2016 election? Really?  Why write about that [shudder], now? Is there anything left to be said about the 2016 election?

It’s not just because I did not have a blog back then that I address it now. Looking forward convinces me of the importance of looking back. My impression is that we are not paying attention to the most important lessons to be learned from 2016. We should.

Our Discontent

In watching election coverage the night of November 6, 2016 and into the next morning, I bounced around from one station to another (CBS, ABC, NBC, PBS, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, CNBC, at least). The single most telling item I remember seeing was mentioned only once and quickly. A PBS exit poll asked voters willing to identify who had received their vote whether they believed their candidate was trustworthy. As I recall it, 63% of those who voted for Donald Trump said they did not believe him to be trustworthy. Only slightly fewer, 61% I think, said the same about Hillary Clinton despite having voted for her.

Think about that. Nearly two-thirds of those who bothered to vote did not trust the candidate they voted FOR. Imagine how they felt about the candidate they voted AGAINST. The most astounding thing about this is that I don’t doubt it. I, and almost everyone I know, couldn’t stand either candidate. I know a few, very few, who were happy, more or less, to vote for either Hillary or The Donald. The overwhelming sentiment was a visceral, almost desperate, need to vote against the other one. A friend put it succinctly the day before the election: “Do you realize I would gladly vote for Richard Nixon tomorrow?”

I don’t recall questions like this even being asked in past election exit polls. Another one was whether the voter would feel “scared” by a presidency of the other candidate. Of those who voted for Clinton, 70% said yes; for Trump, it was 60% for a Clinton presidency.  That questions of this sort were thought to be appropriate for this election speaks for itself.

Before and Since

I noticed in the months leading up to the election that I had never seen so few campaign signs on lawns, or bumper stickers on cars, for a presidential race. While there may have been more elsewhere, I did a lot of driving around that time. I do think a few more appeared after the election – the blue ones in defiance and the red ones to gloat. My overall impression remained a lack of enthusiasm for either candidate.

When people told me how depressed they were after the election, I said I had been depressed about the election for months before it happened. I never had to explain what I meant.

It was the “Vote for the Lesser of Two Evils” election to end them all.

Well, maybe not. That may be the optimistic view, believe it or not. It was the “Vote for the Lesser of Two Evils” election to end them all, so far.

Here We Go

Not long after the votes were counted in the 2018 mid-terms, we were under way for 2020. You could tell by the number of hats being thrown into the ring – more than following a hat trick at a hockey game. For a while there, it seemed like it might be easier to have announcements made by Democrats who were not running for president.

The declared Democrats, or as I have begun calling them, the Committee to Re-Elect the President, have been competing feverishly to see who can most quickly and thoroughly alienate voters like me. These folks, apparently lacking the wherewithal to realize the effect of what they say, usher in our latest silly season with grand pronouncements.

Meanwhile, in the coming months, notice how often and how gleefully President Trump makes reference to the following: “socialist”, “socialism”, and especially “Green New Deal”. He recognizes his best chance when he sees it.

Speaking of the incumbent, and his outrage-of-the-day approach to the presidency, it should not be a given that an individual who has demonstrated clear unfitness for office be the 2020 Republican nominee. It does not takes a far-left looney to suggest the incumbent does not merit re-nomination. Indeed, the most devastating analyses of Donald Trump’s behavior have been written by leading conservative columnists like George Will and the late Charles Krauthammer. If you have not had a chance to read them, you owe it to yourself – regardless of your political persuasion. These pieces should be required reading for GOP leaders.

We have more than a year and a half to go before the 2020 election, but already I can’t stop wondering, yet again: How low can we go? (See post of 1/25/19, “Doing the Limbo Inside the Beltway”.)

The Most Important Takeaway

I realize how irresistible it is to analyze the horse-race aspects of why and how the election was decided. (How did Hillary do with left-handed, suburban Asian women, by the way?) What political science experts should be studying most urgently, though, is how we ended up having to choose between two candidates most Americans detested. Who finds this acceptable? How could this happen? Is there a way of ensuring it does not happen again?

What is the purpose of major political parties if not to develop and provide excellent candidates for office? The worst thing about the 2016 election was the choice we had. In a nation of 327 million, many of whom are astonishingly accomplished, this is the best we can do?

Perhaps we have made the job of President, or the process of attaining it, so distasteful that no one who would be ideal to serve is willing to seek it.

Is the primary system so flawed that it is time to go back to the “smoke-filled rooms” (even if without the smoke)?

The Citizens’ Role

I have referred to “voters like me”. So, who are we? Perhaps I am alone, but I suspect there are millions who take one issue and one candidate at a time, judging them on their merits. For President, we are looking for someone who is smart, sane, honorable, effective, and sensible. If we can get some creativity and wisdom, great. Is this really too much to ask?

We are not sanguine about where the next crazy swing of the pendulum is going to take us. We’d prefer to tamp down the pendulum’s swing, and the rhetoric, using the available energy to find solutions that work. While we may tend to lean one way or the other, at our core we are neither red nor blue. We are sick and tired – of sleaze, foolishness, dishonesty, grandstanding, useless belligerence, and so forth.

We’ve got to act accordingly. We must hold both individuals and political parties accountable by refusing to reward bad behavior with mindless election or re-election of the sub-par.

We must understand that our votes in primaries are at least as important as in elections. As 2016 illustrates, there’s only so much we can salvage on Election Day if we have two unacceptable choices. If forced somehow to pick between primary and election to make sure we vote and get it right, we should choose the primary.

We need to encourage and nurture good people all along the way in the hope that one of them eventually makes it to President.

One Final Thought: Timing

There must be other problems with our primaries as well, but I believe I have never cast a vote that mattered in a New Jersey presidential primary. Effectively, I have been disenfranchised, as has everyone in the state.

The reason is timing. New Jersey’s primaries are so late that the identity of each party’s nominee is a fait accompli before we ever get to the polls. Thus, unless we have nearly a dead heat going into a convention, it is virtually impossible for our votes to matter. If, as argued, the primary can be more important than the election, this qualifies as a big deal.

Meanwhile, a good early showing in Iowa or New Hampshire can go far to propel someone to viability. That “good showing” need not even be a win; doing better than pundits predicted can do the trick.

This juxtaposition strikes me as ridiculous, and easily fixable. While fixing it, perhaps we can stumble upon someone who would make a fine president. How about at least one stellar candidate from each party? There’s still time, but only if we get busy.

Ken Bossong

© 2019 Kenneth J. Bossong

Posted on

Life as a Zero Sum Game: It Ain’t Necessarily So

As discussed in my welcoming post on January 13, and in “What’s the Matter?” on February 5, one of the reasons I write is to explore tendencies we have to make ourselves and each other unnecessarily miserable.

Today’s focus is on something that sounds academic and esoteric. It’s neither, actually. Approaching the interactions, relationships, and transactions of life as a series of zero sum games has consequences. Many of them are unfortunate.

Zero Sum games

Although academic tomes are written on the subject (see Economics, Psychology, Game Theory), zero sum is a simple concept at its core. It is a situation in which the value or benefit available is finite and fixed. With only so much to go around, it follows that for certain participants to get more, others must get correspondingly less. The pluses and minuses must balance out to the zero sum of the game’s name.

Often, zero sum works its way into our dealings sneakily, as an assumption. For me to do well, obviously, you must do poorly. One reason this thinking is prevalent is because it’s insidious. When this tendency grows into something out of hand, I am looking to destroy you, more than simply do well for myself.

Are there real zero sum games in life?

In a few situations, zero sums are probably unavoidable. Readers may think of other examples, but the following come to mind.

Elections have the fixed value of one and only one winner; all other candidates must lose. Elections can remain “too close to call” only so long. There will be no sharing of a mayoralty, Senate seat, or Presidency, so any tie must be broken.

Sports provide zero sum situations. For a team to win the World Series, the other must lose it. Ties were so undesirable in hockey that they instituted a brief overtime followed by a shootout that is found unsatisfying enough to be scrapped for unlimited sudden-death in the playoffs. Boxing does have the occasional draw, generally pleasing no one. Note, though, that if one boxer is jubilant with the result and the other is fuming, you probably have an indication of who really won.

Downside I: skewed perspective

Adopting a zero-sum approach can lead to peculiar perspectives, however, including with sports. Take the Buffalo Bills of the early ‘90s, who have received a lot of grief for losing four consecutive Super Bowls. They’ve been called “flops” and even “losers”. The latter is remarkable when you consider the accomplishment of winning four straight conference championships. They are the only team ever to do so. The truth is they lost in the Super Bowls to teams that were simply better than they were (the ’90 Giants, ’91 Redskins, ’92 and ‘93 Cowboys). Indeed, the NFC was far superior to the AFC back then. Could the Bills have avoided some vilification by losing earlier in the playoffs one of those years?

Music fans are notorious for this. It’s not enough to love so-and-so’s playing; he’s got to be “the greatest guitarist who ever lived”. I can’t tell you how many different guitarists I’ve heard fervent arguments for being the GOAT.

Critics are not exempt. In his insightful advocacy for the genius of Ornette Coleman, the otherwise superb Jazz critic Martin Williams would sometimes feel the need to write something snarky about John Coltrane. Is there really only so much greatness available to go around?

Now, it can be fun to argue like this, especially in sports and music, and even more so regarding performers from different eras. Zero sum’s skewed perspective is a counterproductive way of approaching public policy and viewing life, however.

Downside II: needlessly lost opportunity

While so many of life’s controversies are presented as zero-sum games, it ain’t necessarily so (with apologies to Gershwin) in at least two respects.

Interests that on first glance seem to be competing are not always diametrically opposed. In fact, it may be that the real interests involved need not be in opposition at all. This is a major underpinning of modern thought on negotiation, since Fisher and Ury’s 1981 classic Getting To Yes, at least. The simplest example they give is of two people negotiating over an orange. They eventually just cut it in half. One eats the fruit of his half orange and throws out the rind. The other uses the rind to cook and throws out his half of the fruit. With the slightest interest in knowing the other’s interests, each could have had all he wanted.

Secondly, if all anyone cares about is how the pie is to be split up, no one is thinking about increasing the pie so everyone can be fed. Who says the value available is set and limited to what we currently have?

Among concepts central to the training required of professional mediators, these two are prominent. First, carefully identify the parties’ real interests (as opposed to their stated positions). Second, look for creative ways to expand the pie.

It gets worse

Real trouble ensues when Zero Sum combines with “Us vs. Them” (see 2/19 post), as often occurs. It’s a bad combination. “You people are always the problem. You’re always wrong.  I’m going to make it my business to see that you never get what you want.”

Among the Us vs. Them scenarios that smack us in the face every day is The Right vs. The Left. On the hot button issues, each camp would have you believe they are entirely correct, those other people are not only completely wrong but evil, and you are either with them or against them. Each side has its orthodoxy and believes it must “win” at all costs.

Sorry, but rigid extremes are not our only choices, and are seldom the best ones.

Specific example: the Environment

It is useful to take a quick look at what passes for discourse these days in a specific area, the environment. Let’s portray a condensed version of what we’re likely to hear from both sides:

The Right: “These environmental activists are crazy. They’d happily forego 10,000 jobs to save the habitat of a species of worm that may or may not be endangered. For them, the risks of a project are never low enough and the environment cannot be clean enough. According to them, humans are the only creatures on earth that do not deserve to be here. Ultimately, if we do nothing with anything, progress will cease, the economy will grind to a halt, and no one will be feeding their families.”

The Left: “These huge corporations care only about maximizing profit and nothing about the environment. There’s nothing they won’t befoul to make a buck. If we leave them to their own devices, the planet will be unlivable before we know it . We’re already well on our way to catastrophe, so regulatory efforts to this point have been completely inadequate.”

My perspective

I am a big fan of both jobs and the environment. There may be a few exceptions, but in general this is not be a zero-sum game where economic development is possible only with corresponding environmental degradation. Likewise, environmental progress need not cripple the economy. To the contrary, there is great opportunity to create jobs in new technologies cleaning up our surroundings or in doing whatever we do more cleanly. After passage of the Clean Air Act, the invention, design, production, and installation of scrubbers formed a new industry. Jobs bolstered the economy and we all breathed better.

Some pipelines should be built; others not. We can figure this out, but not if we just yell slogans at each other across the chasm.

To Righties: Caring about people having safe air to breathe, clean water to drink and nutritious food to eat doesn’t make you crazy. To Lefties: striving to keep your company viable and profitable for the benefit of your employees, investors, and customers doesn’t make you callous. I have no doubt there are both environmentalists and industrialists who are both crazy and callous, of course, and other bad things as well. But, I don’t think most of the former get up in the morning saying “What industry can I wreck today? How many jobs can I end?” And I doubt many of the latter aspire to poison us all or kill polar bears.

Taking on tough issues is hard work. Gathering the facts, analyzing the evidence, creatively considering all the options, and consulting the experts is required to give us a chance to make sound public policy. Speaking of experts, excuse me while I pause for the following.

A brief open letter to scientists

Dear Scientists,

Please be scientists. Don’t fudge, don’t skew, don’t spin. Leave politics to the politicians. I don’t give a damn who you voted for. More importantly, I shouldn’t be able to tell from your work. You know better, from years of training and hard work in the scientific method. We’re relying on you for observations, critical information, and objective professional perspective. Give it to us straight; wherever the facts lead, we can take it. But we must have the facts. Thank you for your kind consideration.

Not just public policy

Other noisy, contentious issues abound in which our “leaders” are too busy striving to smite those fascists or communists, or whatever they’re calling the other side, to do the hard work of addressing the problems. (It hasn’t helped, of course, that media commentators on both sides of the divide have found it quite lucrative to fan these flames.) It is almost irresistible to write about Immigration, for example – and it will be the subject of a future post. For now, suffice it to say that we are not addressing the issue’s most important aspect.

Meanwhile, the damage inflicted by the Zero Sum approach is not limited to public policy. Any relationship, including marriage, in which a difference of opinion is viewed and treated as a zero sum game – requiring a winner and a loser – is heading for trouble. We can do better.

Ken Bossong

© 2019 Kenneth J. Bossong

Posted on

What Makes Jazz So Endearing And Enduring

America’s Special Music

I have loved Jazz (and Blues) music for as long as I can remember, virtually from first exposure. It has enriched my life more than I can say. Therefore, I take particular pleasure in explaining why and how this music is so special. I have done that for years in personal presentations and I’ll do so now in occasional posts. Since I’m covering a vast topic in manageable portions, this is the first in a periodic series.

In a well written piece for the Smithsonian (https://music.si.edu/story/jazz), Dr. John Edward Hasse says, “Often acclaimed as America’s greatest art form, jazz has become accepted as a living expression of the nation’s history and culture, still youthful, difficult to define and impossible to contain, a music of beauty, sensitivity, and brilliance that has produced (and been produced by) an extraordinary progression of talented artists.”

Agreeing that it is futile to attempt a formal definition of Jazz, I think of it as America’s ultimate melting-pot art form, with something for everyone. Rather than defining Jazz, I find it more useful to explore characteristics that enhance the music’s impact and the listener’s pleasure. Let’s consider seven of them.

1. Call and Response Patterns

A leader calls out a theme and a chorus responds. The response might reflect or amplify the call, or it might diminish or contradict. The pattern may repeat or change. The tone of the exchange can be worshipful or profane, affectionate or adversarial, calm or feisty.

There is something especially satisfying about call and response. It can occur in any setting – between a preacher and the congregation; the lead singer and the backups; the reeds and the brass; or a singer and his or her guitar – or someone else’s. The back-and-forth works so well because it reflects our human need to communicate, whether the content is intellectual (thoughts/ideas) or emotional (feelings/passions).

Even amid the glories of Louis Armstrong’s Hot 5 and Hot 7 recordings, “West End Blues” is above and beyond. One of several reasons I think of it as the most important three minutes of popular music ever recorded is an extraordinary call and response passage between Armstrong’s voice and a clarinet.

Jazz is not the first music form to benefit from call and response. Indeed, Jazz inherited the technique from field hollers, work songs, spirituals, and the Blues. The trail does not stop with Jazz, either.

I remember realizing one day why “Sincerely” by the Moonglows is one of my two or three favorite Doo Wop songs: the lead guitarist sets up an exquisite call and response with the vocal. It makes a good record truly great. It’s amazing what I learn when I really listen.

2. Tension and Release

Nearly equal to call and response in impact and pervasiveness within Jazz is tension and release. There are dozens of ways to create tension in the music and equal numbers of ways to satisfactorily resolve it. This is another remarkably effective way to engage the listener emotionally.

Devices utilized to achieve tension and release include: gradual increases or decreases in tempo, volume, or intensity; repetition; contrast; sudden changes in rhythm, key, or harmonic approach; dissonance; and almost anything unexpected that nevertheless works.

I love to play Duke Ellington’s masterpiece “Ko-Ko” in presentations not only for how many of the above techniques are used, but how well. The effectiveness of the dissonance is mind boggling, and it was recorded on May 6, 1940. Yes, 1940.

3. Rhythmically Compelling

It is generally difficult to listen to great Jazz without moving some part of your body. During the big band era of Jazz, so-called Swing was the most popular dance music in the world. Duke Ellington probably said it best with a song title: “It Don’t Mean a Thing If it Ain’t Got That Swing”.

So, why not just say “It’s got to swing” rather than “Jazz tends to be rhythmically compelling”? Because the pulse of the music can be thrilling even when it’s not the sort that lends itself to finger-snapping on that swinging 4/4 beat. (Though, that is exactly what happens when the music swings that way.)

An example is poly-rhythmic drumming. The great drummers who emerged during bebop and hard bop were masters in sustaining multiple rhythms simultaneously. It’s great fun trying to count how many different rhythms Art Blakey plays at once in his classic drum solos (as in “Free For All” on Blue Note or “I Mean You” with Thelonious Monk on Atlantic).

There are examples even post-bop, when the lines delineating measures were fading. Few sounds are more compelling than drummer Elvin Jones’s “circular rhythms”. He accents at the perfect moment given what the soloist is doing, rather than at predetermined intervals. So the listener does not tap every four beats, but sways with the music’s energy as one might with the ocean’s waves.

4. Instrument as Voice and Voice as Instrument

Great Jazz players consider the instruments they play extensions of their voices. There are many examples, of course. Eric Dolphy seemed particularly intent on “speaking” through his instruments, especially the bass clarinet. One of John Coltrane’s countless contributions to the music was to extend the “vocabulary” and the “syntax” available on the tenor and soprano saxophones.

Similarly, great Jazz singers consider their voices musical instruments. Horn players loved Sarah Vaughan, considering her one of their own. It’s not just the scat singing, by the way, although scatting (in which one sings wordless notes where words would be expected) has made the point most directly ever since Louis Armstrong’s “Heebie Jeebies”.

Then there is scat’s mirror image, vocalese, in which the vocalist inserts words while singing famous instrumental solos. Leading proponents include Eddie Jefferson, King Pleasure, and Lambert Hendricks and Ross.

Thus, the lines between the vocal and the instrumental blur in Jazz. Categorization is less important than effectiveness when it comes to communicating through music.

Whether singing or playing, though, having your own “voice” is critical to attaining greatness. One does not confuse other singers with Sarah, Ella Fitzgerald, Joe Williams, or Betty Carter. Charlie Parker and John Coltrane have innumerable followers and imitators; yet, it is almost impossible to mistake anyone for them after a few notes.

5. Improvisation

Composition and arrangement are vital to Jazz, and the genre has been blessed with many who are truly great at both. To this day, if one were to ask leading music critics from all fields to name America’s greatest composer, I believe Duke Ellington would win that poll.

Nevertheless, rare is the major work of Jazz in which improvisation is not an essential element. Improvisation is the lifeblood of Jazz; it is also the most misunderstood feature of the music. A friend, explaining why he does not like Jazz, did me the favor of articulating the perception: “Why would I want to listen to a group playing around with songs? Practice on your time, get it down pat, and let me know when you’re ready for me to listen.”

Improvisation is not a bunch of musicians with no familiarity with the material or each other just playing and hoping something good emerges, however. It is an approach that places the onus for developing all the best ideas inherent in a piece on the musicians as well as the composer. The performer has an opportunity, in fact a responsibility, to enhance the material provided. The player is creating, composing, on the spot. This requires tremendous technical skill (see Virtuosity, below), a nimble and fertile mind, and vast knowledge of the resources available for reference while improvising.

Astounding listening skills are also needed for artists improvising in a setting other than solo performance.

Legit Jazz musicians are almost always good at this, and often great. The potential for something special, profound even, always exists. When such magic happens, it’s unforgettable. Anyone who’s followed the music for a while has such stories to tell.

If the idea of composing on the spot seems puzzling, so (to a Jazz fan) does the notion of going to a concert hoping that an artist recreates a recent album without making “mistakes”. If that’s the goal, the best that can happen, why not listen to the beloved album in the comfort of one’s home and save the fortune it costs to attend a pop star’s concert?

6. Virtuosity

It is hard not to notice how good Jazz musicians generally are, technically, on their instruments. This is another area that is not as well understood as it could be, however. It is certainly true that all the greats have spent countless hours “wood shedding” (practicing) to attain their “chops” (skills/facility on their instruments). John Coltrane was famous among his peers for practicing incessantly, even between sets at gigs, and for falling asleep late at night with a sax on his chest.

It must be tempting after working so hard to get that good to simply show off with a blizzard of notes at every opportunity. While something like that can appear to be happening at times in a jam session, especially when it has turned into a can-you-top-this cutting session, virtuosity alone is never enough.

Virtuosity or near virtuosity, then, is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition of succeeding in Jazz. When we say someone “can play“, skill is a part of that, to be sure, but there is more.

Virtuosity is a means, not an end. The end sought is the creation of great music. (See Improvisation, above.) I have seen no better explanation of this than a quote from bassist/composer/arranger Charles Mingus: “Once you achieve technical facility, you’re either a musician or you’re not. You’re either a creative person or a stenographer.” He wasn’t kidding, by the way. Nicely playing cliches in the solos allotted was the surest way to get oneself fired by Mingus. This could occur not only in mid-concert, but in mid-solo.

One last thought: Virtuosity comes in many shapes, sizes, and flavors. When a true innovator comes along, critics and musicians alike can look foolish if they pounce before understanding. When Thelonious Monk first appeared on the scene, more than a few proclaimed that he couldn’t play. All Monk did was change our concepts of space and time in music. His oeuvre places him in the first rank of American composers, and the leading competition promoting excellence in playing for young musicians is named after him.

7. The Cry of the Blues

The last characteristic is hard to describe or even name. I know it when I hear it. Further, I miss it when it’s not there. I have wrestled with what to call it. Whether I read it some where, had it suggested to me in conversation, or simply came up with it, I have settled on the Cry of the Blues. (If appropriate, I’ll attribute in a future post.)

It’s a sound and a feeling, more than the song form known as the Blues with its typical characteristics (12 bar, AAB, etc.). Most of the material sung by Billie Holliday over the years was not, technically, the Blues, but our ears do not deceive us. Every note, every syllable, she ever sang was the essence of the Blues.

When the material being played or sung is felt and meant by the artists, a part of who and what they are, the music is more likely to be felt by, and mean something to, the listener. Hopes and dreams, frustrations and loss, triumphs and setbacks: it’s all in there. It’s the stuff of life.

Coda

These essential characteristics of Jazz came mostly or entirely from the cultures of Africa, especially West Africa. We know how they got here. Out of the suffering of a people emerged this magnificent art form. Its riches are always available for the taking – not just in April (Jazz Appreciation Month). And they deserve to be recognized and celebrated all the time – not just in February (Black History Month).

Ken Bossong

© 2019 Kenneth J. Bossong


Posted on

Us vs. Them

It’s those people; you know, Them. They’re the problem.

Something said as often as this – indeed, sometimes simply assumed without saying – is worth examining. Of course, we’re really motivated to think about it when the speaker is pointing a finger in our faces and saying “It’s you people. You’re the problem.”

It’s Us versus Them. While divisiveness is becoming our national pastime, it’s nothing new. Worse, perhaps, but not new. We seek to be part of an Us, and there must be a Them for there to be an Us. It’s less fun on the receiving end, being one of Them.

Collaboration

Let’s start with what the issue is not: collaboration. Human beings combine efforts to accomplish things, including survival. Whether a team, a community, a movement in the arts, a profession, or any number of other undertakings, being a contributing part of something greater than oneself can be a highlight of one’s life.

Obviously, there is nothing wrong with like-minded individuals gathering to pursue common interests (unless there is something wrong with those common interests, of course). Indeed, it’s how things get done and, every now and then, how greatness is achieved.

It does not have to be the ’27 Yankees or John Coltrane’s Classic Quartet for greatness to be within reach, either. We recognize the kind of Us we admire in a community group raising enough money for a child to receive necessary treatment, a team of fire fighters saving lives, or a staff keeping a business afloat despite adverse circumstances through hard work and skill.

Competition

As a fan of all the major sports, and not just at the professional level (high school basketball is one of the great entertainment bargains anywhere), I’m not the one to decry competition. Healthy, spirited competition pushes participants to greater heights. And, in general, no one better appreciates the effort it takes to strive to be the best than the similarly motivated opponent. Fans are sometimes surprised when intense rivals end up friends, but they needn’t be.

Urban blues reached some of its highest heights in the Blues clubs of ’50s and ’60s Chicago. A bit of Social Darwinism was involved on so-called Blue Monday; bands competed onstage Monday night, and the fans present decided who played there the rest of the week. The losers had to scramble for work, but the brilliance honed by the best of the best made for essential listening in its own right, and inspired rock ‘n’ roll and its “British invasion”.

One of the pillars of capitalism is the idea that competition in the marketplace tends to improve the quality, quantity and price of goods and services, to society’s general benefit. While recognizing it is not perfect, I support our system, but note with chagrin that an area of law called Antitrust is fading away. You may have heard of it. Younger readers, ask your parents or check it out; it’s fascinating.

The problem with Us vs. Them is not in the “versus”, as such.

Where the Problems Lie

Real problems arise in how and why we form the Us and, especially, how the members of each Us regard the Them.

Who is Us and how we form the Us

Consider the sheer number of the kinds of Us each person represents. Within any given conversation, it may be easy to say which group is Us and which is Them. The categories that provide an Us to belong to, however, are limitless, including one’s: ethnic background, religion, race, gender, family, political party, neighborhood, marital status, health, profession, socioeconomic class, education, personality traits, body habitus, lifestyle, and tastes and preferences in just about anything. Any difference will do.

As mentioned above, every Us needs a Them, and all these categories in which we differ are available.

How an Us regards a Them

A critically harmful error often occurs in how the members of an Us regard the Them. Follow the “reasoning” here:
(a) Something must distinguish Us from Them; there is a difference.
(b) If we’re not the same, one must be superior, and that’s gotta be Us.
(c) If we’re not the same, one must be inferior, and that’s gotta be Them.
(d) So, of course, those people are the problem; them. They’re inferior. What do you expect?

In the extreme cases, where humanity runs completely off the rails, it gets worse and goes like this: “They are so inferior, they are barely human…As a matter of a fact, they are not fully human.”

This is no stretch when one contemplates:
(a) the sickeningly effective representation, in the movie Cabaret, of Germany’s descent into evil madness when it became “entertaining” under the Nazis to depict Jews as apes; or
(b) the existence of slavery while the words “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….” were written.

Why we form the Us – and the Them

Even in the less extreme cases, why do we seem to need a Them? Are we so insecure in our self-worth that we need someone, anyone, to feel superior to? (“At least we’re not [_______]!”) Do we need someone to dislike, or blame, or even hate?

There are also economic incentives for devaluing others. It escapes me why, but somehow it is considered more palatable to steal from “inferior” beings. What, they deserve it? Maybe it’s just easier.

Science Fiction and Other Thoughts

Here is an exercise I find helpful: Consider as many individuals as is manageable – those on your block, in your town, in your state, in the country, or in the world. From the dozens to the billions of people, each complex, multi-faceted human being is a bundle of beliefs, experiences and aspirations and a member of any number and kind of Usses. Very few are members of exactly the same Us. (Indeed, it may not be possible.) Again, every Us has a Them, and there is a dizzying array of each.

The dizzying array

To state the obvious, all members of every Them we identify consider themselves an Us superior to our Them.

Everyone is a member of countless Usses and Thems. Which of these categorical differences really matter? It is intriguing how many science fiction books and movies are built on the following premise: The one thing that would bring human beings together is having hostile aliens as a common enemy. Those [_________] people aren’t so bad if we need ’em to have a shot at defeating invading Martians. I suspect the theme endures from The Day the Earth Stood Still to Independence Day and so on, because we recognize some rueful truth in it.

There’s another complication. Many people are going to be part of not only the Thems we must oppose for some categories, but also in at least one Us in which we must get along and work together. So, it is possible to collaborate with some of those people. Kind of. But if she’s one of Them, how can she be one of Us? Who’s keeping score?

Furthermore, if each member of every Us and Them knows their group is superior, who is correct? How can we tell? Who decides? Actually, the answers are easy: each of us decides. Our perspective is the correct one. Our group is not only right, but more worthwhile as well. The one trait universally shared, apparently, is hubris. As something to build on, this does not seem promising.

Pause

Amid celebration of our obvious superiority, a pause for some introspection might be in order. I’ve noticed, for example, that I am wrong sometimes. It’s a shocking revelation, I know, but I make mistakes. Perfection completely, persistently, and maddeningly eludes me. Maybe if you are different than I, you can help me muddle through. And vice versa. Just saying.

How’s that perceived need for Us vs. Them been working out for us all, anyway? From centuries past right up to the present, a tragic combination of economic incentive and the need to assert superiority has fostered war, tribalism, pogroms, and humanitarian crises. Conflict is inevitable, I suppose, and even some wars must be fought (e.g. the Allies in WW II), but who needs Us vs. Them as an approach to life’s interactions? It’s wrong. It’s destructive. It’s lunacy.

OK….So? The Merits Beckon

Is the point that nothing is ever better than anything else? Of course not. Some ideas are nutty; some are brilliant. Is there right and wrong? Of course. Honesty is right; lying and stealing are wrong – and we know it.

We also know what distinguishes the quest for excellence from the arrogant and mistaken assumption of categorical superiority: the merits. One of the most striking parts of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s Dream is for his children – that they one day “live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” This is one of history’s greatest speeches not only for its eloquence and its aspirations, but also for its wisdom.

Time To Move On

So, it should not be Us vs. Them, after all. Let’s move on, even as we continue to strive for excellence in all endeavors, alone or in groups. If the need to be “the best” (or first, or whatever) motivates someone to cure cancer, great. We cannot find our self-worth in the denigration of others, however; quite the contrary. As we look elsewhere, we can make ourselves and our groups the best we can be. We can enjoy our rivalries, and play the Super Bowl, the stock market, or a game of Yahtzee, to win.

No, it’s not “Us vs. Them”.

It is “We”. You know, “the People”. Why do We, the People, need to await the arrival of aliens to finally get it right? It’s time to catch up to the wisdom of our cherished rhetoric.

Ken Bossong

© 2019 Kenneth J. Bossong


Posted on

What’s The Matter?

Admit it. You dread reading or watching the news, avoid discussing politics with most people, and will do almost anything to escape conversation on any topic with some people. If not, you are probably one of those folks everyone else is avoiding.

It seems nearly everyone is either angry, upset, incredulous, or disengaged. Some are all of these, and more. Institutions to which we traditionally turn seem to be weakening, if not crumbling. Life has become satire, as if we were Yossarian living out the book Catch 22 every day. I’ve got to stop saying “You can’t make this stuff up”, because I’ve been saying it nearly constantly for quite a while, and it’s getting old.

What The Problem Is Not

Oddly, it occurs to me that the problem is not that everyone is acting in their own interest. First, as human beings, it seems to me, we have little choice. Self preservation is in our nature. Second, and getting closer to the point, doing well puts us in position to do more good. There’s a reason why the airlines tell us to get our own oxygen masks on before helping others in an emergency.

No, the problem is not people acting in their self interest. It’s just that we are so often wrong about what is in our best interest – and increasingly so – with consequences that range from frustrating to tragic to catastrophic.

It’s closer to the truth, actually, that what’s wrong with us is that we are NOT acting in our true best interests as human beings, when behaving badly, whether acting alone or in groups.

Individually

We make these mistakes as individuals in countless roles in various settings. Among them are as citizens, workers, neighbors, family members, lovers, friends, leaders, officials, public figures, thinkers, artists, writers, and other creators.

We err in big decisions and in small; in private or on the world’s stage; often or once in a while.

Collectively

One would hope that collective wisdom would help us get it right when it comes to discerning our true best interests. Herd mentality often sends the stampede in the wrong direction, though. Such mistakes are made, again, in any number of settings, as within neighborhoods, towns, counties, states, and countries; professions and occupations; religions; races and ethnicities; genders; clubs and associations; socioeconomic groups; and political parties.

Recurring Mistakes

So, what are we talking about here? What “mistakes”? What are we wrong about? There is no point pretending that the list is short, if we were to get into all the nutty stuff we human beings do, but there are some real killers worth exploring, as we will in future posts. Among them are these:

The perceived need for Us versus Them (If you’re not just like me, you must be inferior; the need for enemies.)

Regarding all interactions and relationships as zero-sum games (Since the good in the world is finite, you must do poorly for me to do well.)

Racism and other systematized, irrational hatreds (That it’s morally wrong is a given; the extent of the irrationality involved is staggering.)

Not dealing with people or issues on the merits (Making decisions on the merits requires hard work; alas, we are often lazy, at least.)

Where We Are

I have lost count of the number of people who have told me stories about incidents that have happened to them or someone they know that go something like this: “I can’t (be your friend, talk to you, work with you, etc.) if you (believe in, voted for, like, etc.) (fill in a the name of a person, an attitude, a belief, etc.).” While we’re busy creating the largest possible divides between us with name-calling, insults and the recitation of brainless slogans, genuinely and significantly bad stuff is happening in our communities, our country and our world. Raise your hand if you think any of this is in our best interest. I thought so.

But, enough about the Congress and the White House.

You don’t have to be a cynic or even a skeptic to notice that the unacceptable has become the expected. That is the biggest mistake of all, and we’re all complicit in this one. It’s time to call out the unacceptable for what it is and behave accordingly. Like Yossarian, I hate stewed tomatoes (my favorite line in the book).

Ken Bossong

© 2019 Kenneth J. Bossong


Posted on

Doing the Limbo Inside the Beltway

It was during the Kavanaugh hearings, as many friends of mine (conservatives and liberals) asked, “Is this as low as we can go? Is this rock bottom?” After saying “Probably not, unfortunately”, I found myself thinking of a record from the early ’60s. Having scored a mega-hit with “The Twist” and followed up with the requisite “Let’s Twist Again”, Chubby Checker climbed the charts once more in 1962 with “Limbo Rock”.

After singing the first verse, Chubby twice exhorts the dancers to “limbo lower now”, then bellows “How LOW can you GO?!”

Judicial Appointments

How low can we go? The hearings went pretty low, alright, with virtually all involved competing to see who could look worst. I found striking the response to complaints about Senator Feinstein’s apparently strategic use of Dr. Ford’s allegations and Senator Booker’s theatrics, for example, which went something like this: “Are you kidding? What about the Republicans’ refusal to even consider Merrick Garland?”

Well, what about that? Justice Scalia died in February of 2016. President Obama nominated Judge Garland on March 16, 2016. In a recent (1/22), lengthy piece by Charles Homans in the New York Times Magazine, there is (among other things) an account of how Senator McConnell used his renowned skills to block consideration. In the piece, Senator McConnell is quoted as thinking the decision not to fill the Scalia vacancy “the most consequential thing I’ve ever done.” It was President Obama’s constitutional duty to nominate a successor and the Senate’s corresponding duty to provide advice and consent. If a justice were to die a week before a presidential election, no one is reasonably going to expect full consideration for a rushed nomination. But eight months? Where does this end? There is always going to be another presidential election sometime in the future in which we can “let the people decide”.

“Are you kidding?” one can hear the reply. “What about the Democrats introducing the filibuster to obstruct President George W. Bush’s nominees to U.S. Circuit and District Courts?”

And so on.

How Low Can We Go?

Then there is – what else? – the Shutdown. The President of the United States has shut down the government, the executive branch of which it is his job to run. For this one, we get to hear from both the House and the Senate.

Before I get too deeply in the weeds of this foolishness, which has received all the ridicule it deserves elsewhere, (wall? fence? concrete? wood? slatted? continuous? paid for by Mexico? metaphor for border security?), I assume you see where I’m going. Conversations at this level weren’t impressive on the schoolyard playground when in third grade (Oh yeah? Yeah! Oh yeah? Yeah! Sez who? Sez me! Whadda ya gonna do about it? You’ll see! Oh yeah? Yeah!) and are certainly not impressive now. It’s not just the level of the discourse, though; it’s the content.

The Problem

My point here has nothing to do with how we felt or feel about Judges Garland or Kavanaugh, or the “Wall” or immigration. The problem is the people we are sending to Washington to serve in the executive and legislative branches of our government. Why are we talking about $5 billion to be spent on anything now? Is it budget time? Do we even do budgets any more, or is it just a series of never-ending spats over continuing resolutions? As far as I can tell, no one is even suggesting the serious discussion about immigration policy and enforcement we so badly need. The first principles that actually make America special aren’t even in play when grandstanding, obstructing, strategizing, spinning, outright lying, and the like take the place of the most basic functions of governing, like, you know, debating and approving a budget on time, or fairly vetting judges.

Note that this post could just as easily been about this: If it’s a terrible idea for presidents to rule by Executive Order when they can’t get the votes for legislation when it’s YOUR president, how can it be a great idea when it’s OUR president? Is it too much to ask for discussion of important matters on the merits? Why do we put up with this?

Why, indeed?

How low can we go? As low as we’re willing to tolerate. It is we who send these folks to Washington. Can you imagine “leaders” who think it persuasive to say, “The other side’s behavior is as bad, or worse”? Competition can be good when those acting in our interest push each other to greater heights. Lowering the bar – can you bottom this – is what we have had for quite a while. Those of us who are fed up need to make it clear we are paying attention and looking for opportunities to send home those who perform poorly and behave badly.

That’s our duty as citizens. No knock on the Limbo, where lowering the bar brings out greater skill and effort, but we need a new dance.

Ken Bossong

© 2019 Kenneth J. Bossong

Posted on

Otis Rush: An Appreciation

As Good As It Gets

Any New Year is awash in lists: best movies, best albums, notable deaths. I don’t know how many lists in that last category included him, but we lost one of the all-time greats, the irreplaceable Otis Rush, on September 29, 2018. Considering that he never received his due in either public fame or fortune while alive, the quality of the obits was a pleasant surprise.  Nevertheless, I am compelled to write. If you have never heard him, you owe it to yourself to experience all the Blues can be.

Rush was the singer/guitarist who had it all: a rich, versatile voice, a knowing way with a lyric, and remarkable skill on the guitar. Indeed, he is my second favorite guitarist – just behind Buddy Guy and a hair ahead of T-Bone Walker, B. B. King, and Earl Hooker (John Lee’s cousin and the greatest guitarist you’ve never heard of, unless you are a Blues aficionado; I’ll write about him someday).

Otis either wrote or was drawn to lyrics with a wry wisdom, and he knew what to do with those lyrics.

Then there was his voice. You don’t need a special voice to be a great Blues singer, but Rush proved that having one is no impediment, either. He could have been a pop star crooner, had he been inclined. Most assuredly, he was not so inclined, and his artistic integrity as a bluesman did his wallet no favors.

It’s tempting to delve deeper into the details of his brilliance. For example, no one could bend a note quite like Otis Rush. I am told that his playing a right-handed guitar upside down gave his note-bending a different sound. (Albert King, another great lefty who played a guitar strung for right-handers, was also justly renowned for bending notes, so there may be something to it.) Rush’s playing, like his singing, was not just different, though, but spine-tingling.

The details are secondary to his total impact as an artist, however. With Rush, the whole clearly exceeds the sum of his considerable parts. Why? What else is going on? All these skills were bound in a package of passion so powerful and authenticity so undeniable as to rivet the listener. He could play as fast as he wanted, but would not do so at the expense of a song’s integrity. Rush integrated the bent notes, the soaring voice, the perfectly chosen notes (and silences) not to show off but to convey feelings triggered by the music. This is Blues at the highest level. It is human communication.

Recordings

Otis neither recorded nor played live as often as would be expected for one so gifted. There were many reasons for this, some of which apparently involved his moods and his health.  The good news is that there are still plenty of opportunities to hear him, most ranging from very good to truly great.

It was a song by Otis Rush that made me a Blues fan long ago. I was very young, probably no more than 10 or 11, but my older cousins had gotten me into rock and roll already. I stumbled upon the Blues Show on Penn’s radio station, WXPN, on a Saturday evening (a show that is ongoing and still very well done, by the way).  It did not take long to have that “So THIS is where all the great stuff comes from” moment. That insight was not enough, however,  to prepare me for what I felt one night on first hearing a spell-binding guitar intro, followed by an impassioned vocal, an even better guitar solo, a clever “punchline“ vocal chorus, and a guitar “outro” that may be the best of all. I was hooked on the Blues for life.

The only problem was that the song was in the middle of a long set and the host never identified the song or the artist. That it was longer than a standard three-minute song and had something to do with gambling was all I knew. Over time, I realized that Otis Rush was the artist, the song was “Gambler’s Blues”, and the album was Mourning in the Morning on Cotillion, a subsidiary of Atlantic Records. It took me years to get my hands on that record, the first of many such quests that music fans know well.

The performance remains a marvel. One might have thought that B.B. King’s classic “Gambler’s Blues” on Blues Is King (his second greatest album, in my view, after Live at the Regal) would never be topped. One would have been wrong. The rest of the Mourning album is somewhat controversial among fans – some thinking it overproduced and containing material unworthy of Rush – but, in addition to “Gamblers’ Blues”, there are stellar remakes of two songs that had helped establish his reputation (“It Takes Time”, “My Love Will Never Die”) and his remarkable take on one of the genre’s recurrent themes, “Reap What You Sow”. True story about the latter: Someone for whom I once played it exclaimed, “My goodness! What did she do to him?”

Otis first recorded when bassist and prolific song writer Willie Dixon brought him to Eli Toscano, the owner of Cobra Records in Chicago. The result was a series of landmark recordings in the history of urban blues. Issued from 1956 to 1958, the best of these Cobra recordings, such as “I Can’t Quit You Baby”, “All Your Love (I Miss Loving)”, “Three Times A Fool”, “It Takes Time”, “My Love Will Never Die”, and the astounding “Double Trouble”, are essential listening, and a great place for listeners to start. (Quick aside: Any compilation of Otis’s Cobra recordings that is complete will also include a couple clunkers. Dixon apparently insisted that certain of his own songs be included for Otis to record despite not being up to the quality of others. It’s hard to imagine Rush would have chosen [shudder] “Violent Love”, for instance.)

One of nine artists to participate in a three-record series for Vanguard called Chicago/The Blues/Today!, Otis laid down only five tracks, but they are superb. Rush also shares the bill, with Albert King, on Door to Door (Chess); among his six sides on the album is the magnificent original of “So Many Roads”.

Other studio albums worth considering include: Right Place, Wrong Time (Bullfrog); Troubles, Troubles (Verve); Any Place I’m Going (Evidence); Ain’t Enough Comin’ In (Mercury); and Lost In The Blues (Alligator).

Among albums that capture Rush live: Tops (Blind Pig); Otis Rush and Friends Live at Montreux [the friends being Eric Clapton and Luther Allison] (Eagle Records); Double Trouble (Rock Beat); and Cold Day in Hell, All Your Love I Miss Loving, and So Many Roads, all on Delmark. The last of these was recorded in Tokyo in 1975, and the roar of a very large crowd of fans who really get what they’re hearing is exhilarating.

I’m tempted to say there is no such thing as a bad Otis Rush record. I do have this caution on one, though: Screamin’ and Cryin’ (Evidence) was recorded live at a time when Otis was clearly in a bad place in his life. It makes for uncomfortable listening, at least for me; in that sense, I cannot recommend it.

Seeing Otis Rush Live

I managed to see him twice. The first was at the Commodore Barry Club in Philadelphia, backed by a group of some of the better bluesmen in the Philly area, the Dukes of Destiny. From the looks on their faces, these musicians were as thrilled to play with Otis Rush as I was to finally see him. The second was at a Chicago blues club in Lincoln Park, backed by his Chicago blues band. In each case, he was in total, scintillating command.

No one is going to do better describing what it was like to see Otis Rush at his best than Robert Palmer did in his classic 1981 book Deep Blues (Viking), so I’m not going to try:

“The set…was devastating. The first tune rocked, with Otis snarling the words out of the side of his mouth, and then he settled down to slow, minor-key blues, an idiom in which nobody can touch him. ‘He’s so good, man,’ Muddy Waters had told me, and Muddy does not dispense praise lightly…That night at the Wise Fools [Pub], during one forty-minute set, Otis focused all his extraordinary talents. His grainy, gospelish singing carried the weight of so much passion and frustration, it sounded like the words were being torn from his throat, and his guitar playing hit heights I didn’t think any musician was capable of – notes bent and twisted so delicately and immaculately they seemed to form actual words…The performance, if you could call it that, was shattering and uplifting all at once, the way blues is supposed to be…Otis Rush had something else – an ear for the finest pitch shadings and the ability to execute them on the guitar, not as mere effects but as meaningful components in a personal vocabulary, a musical language. He was playing the deep blues.”

Coda

At the top of his game, Otis Rush had no superiors, and few peers. I have listened to the original “Double Trouble” (Cobra, 1958) dozens of times. The next time it fails to send chills down my spine will be the first. Not for nothing, as they say, did Stevie Ray Vaughan name his band.

Palmer was onto something with his aside “The performance, if you could call it that…” above. Such authenticity is all to the benefit of the lucky listener. Feeling at this depth is a rare, profound treat.

Ken Bossong

© 2019 Kenneth J. Bossong

Posted on

Welcome to Other Aspects

I am a night owl; it’s how I’m wired. For most of my life, I have done much of my best thinking, creating, and problem solving well after the sun has gone down. While I greatly admire morning people, my light bulb shines brightest in the dark. What keeps me up at night ranges from life’s engaging interests to the problems that beset us.

It really is not all negative, by the way. I remember when a good friend who shares my love of music mentioned that John Coltrane once appeared on the Soupy Sales Show. When I expressed astonishment, he sent me the YouTube link. I made the mistake of opening it around 11:30 that night. Know how YouTube feeds you one related video after another? Next thing I knew, I was watching clips I never knew existed of Django Reinhardt at 3 AM.

There’s a reason why Blues songs are written about 3 o’clock in the morning.

When I’m not being captivated by geniuses playing music, though, I am likely to be contemplating some recent outrage and wondering “How did this become acceptable?” or “We can do better than this, can’t we?”

Welcome to my blog. Why “Other Aspects”?

I write because I must. There are things that need to be said; they include both celebrations of unheralded good and laments of us going off the rails as a people. I don’t anticipate running out of material. Here’s the thing, though: When thinking about what I’ve heard/seen/read that enthralls or infuriates me, I’m often left wondering about other, sometimes crucial, aspects. This is where I aim to go.

Since I’m inviting you to spend some of your precious time here, you deserve a sense of what to expect.

Inevitably, the topics will be those matters that matter enough to me to keep me up at night – public affairs, government, and policy; law; music, language, and cultural trends; and sports. The music usually will be the genres that have most enriched my life, Jazz and Blues. In such posts, the goal will be to share those riches.

On the issues, I’ll not pretend to have all the answers, but I promise to do what I can to get the questions right – always the most important step.

I am tired of people yelling at each other and calling each other names, rather than having discussions on the merits of issues. I am tired of slogans substituting for facts, analysis, and common sense. The seemingly rigid orthodoxies of both the Far Left and the Far Right have little appeal for me. I like to think I take one issue at a time and wherever the merits take me, that’s where I am. I believe civility and respect to be signs of strength, not weakness.

I can’t be the only one who longs for statesmanship and leadership, who thinks facts, fair process and first principles matter, and who finds the unacceptable to be, well, unacceptable.

We can do better, and we must. It’s up to us. This will not be a venture into “ah, shucks” naiveté. (Problems that seem intractable are difficult for a reason.) Yet, much of the bad stuff seems maddeningly unnecessary and potentially fixable. Meanwhile, the underappreciated good in life needs the attention it deserves.

I welcome feedback directed to KenBossong@gmail.com. I considered doing Comments on the blog, but am persuaded that moderating spam, flame-outs, and the like can quickly become quite an undertaking. I’d rather spend the finite time available writing things worth reading. All feedback will be read; items that provide particularly helpful insight or factual info will be mentioned in a separate section following a future posting. If attribution seems appropriate, I’ll seek permission.

To state the obvious, I’m to blame for all opinions I express. I write for no other person or entity. Again, welcome, and thank you for considering other aspects.

Ken Bossong

© 2019 Kenneth J. Bossong