DOUG TATUM

© 1997 Mike Metheny


JAM talks with the Folly Theater's Executive Director about bringing great jazz to Kansas City, roots as a player/teacher... and gigging with Bobby Watson.


JAM: Since becoming the Executive Director of the Folly Theater in 1993, you've been responsible for bringing to Kansas City some of the most important names in jazz. If you had to pick a few shows since '93 that really made an impression, which would they be?

DT: Of course, part of what we try to do at the Folly is present the Jazz masters who are veterans of the art form. So, I'd have to say bringing J.J. Johnson to town was a real thrill for me. Same for Sonny Rollins. Another part of what we try to do, though, is bring in artists who've never been to Kansas City. I personally enjoyed having Steve Turre and his Sanctified Shell Choir at the Folly. I think he is an artist a lot of people were not all that familiar with, not only Steve Turre the trombonist, but Steve Turre the "shellist." A lot of people thought that show was going to be something gimmicky, and I know they were pleasantly surprised. So, I guess in accomplishing something like that, you really feel like you've broadened people's horizons; and from a professional as well as personal standpoint, it's very rewarding to do that.

JAM: Which jazz greats would you -- in your Folly Jazz fantasies -- like to bring to the theater in the future?

DT: I have a long, long list of people under consideration. For pianists, I'd love to present Hank Jones and Tommy Flanagan, and someone who is probably less well-known here in the United States, the French pianist, Michel Petrucciani; that would be an example of bringing someone to Kansas City who I'm sure has never been here before. Saxophonists: we've been looking at possibly bringing in James Moody, Benny Golson and Joe Lovano. For trumpeters, certainly at some point we would like to bring in Art Farmer. Etcetera, etcetera! I could give you examples like these for every instrument.

JAM: You are well-known in the Kansas City jazz community for booking the Folly, but some may not know of your background as a musician and music educator. You have music degrees from CMSU in Warrensburg and Boston's Berklee College of Music, right?

DT: That's right.

JAM: Talk a little about your experiences and aspirations at both institutions as well as those as a player and teacher.

DT: Well, in my days at Central Missouri State University, I was a music education major, even though performance was always a primary aspiration. It was a case of "maybe you should get the education degree, because you never know when you might want to use it..." For me, that certainly turned out to be true. But my interest in the beginning was always in performance. I started out as a clarinetist, and then in high school I discovered jazz and began doubling on tenor saxophone. My education at CMS was very good; it grounded me in the principles of music and theory and they had a decent jazz band. After graduation, though, I knew that I wanted to pursue further studies in jazz education, so that's what eventually led me to Boston and the Berklee College of Music. In the two year program I was a part of at Berklee, I already had a bachelor's degree, so I knew exactly what I wanted to get out of it -- unlike some of the kids there who were right out of high school and who, if they weren't careful, could get lost in the shuffle. I stayed right on course, I found out who the best teachers were, which arranging and composition classes were the ones to take, and I accomplished what I went there to accomplish.

JAM: What about opportunities to perform in Boston? Did you pursue that?

DT: Well, I had opportunities to play in several bands, and do some gigging around Boston. But I found out very quickly that the competition there was so fierce, I was never going to be able to make a decent living as a working musician. So, that's when I got involved again in teaching.

JAM: Again?

DT: Yes. After graduating from CMS in '74, I did teach for one year in the Lee's Summit school system. But I knew then I eventually wanted to pursue my education in jazz. That's what took me to Boston.

JAM: And you got into teaching again while in Boston?

Clark Terry with Doug Tatum

DT: While I was going to Berklee, I also started working as a freelance woodwind specialist in the Boston suburbs. I did that for four or five years. But then I realized that, if I was going to teach, I should get a "regular" teaching job! So, that's how I ended up teaching in the public school system of Sturbridge, Massachusetts. I did that for another four or five years. So all together in the Boston area, I was teaching in the public schools for about ten years.

JAM: What were your experiences as a teacher like?

DT: I enjoyed teaching. And I think I was successful as a teacher. While I was in Sturbridge, I built up their (band) program from virtually nothing. I think when I went there they had about 30 kids signed up for band; when I left, it was up to 250. So I feel real good about getting a lot of those kids started, teaching them the fundamentals, instilling in them a real love for music, and exposing them to all styles of music. This far down the road, though, it's hard for me to gauge what lasting impact it had; but, I would like to think I made a difference.

JAM: Why did you leave teaching?

DT: I was beginning to look for alternate career paths in other music-related endeavors. I got involved in public radio at WICN in Worcester, Mass., starting out as an engineer for a lady who did a Saturday afternoon jazz program -- very similar, as a matter of fact, to the program Ginney (Coleman) and Ruth (Rhoden) do (at KCUR). And, after a couple of years, I had the opportunity to become the host of my own weekly radio program every Saturday from 9:00 p.m. to midnight. I did that for eight years, from '85 to '93.

JAM: What else were you doing besides radio during that time?

DT: While I was working weekends at the radio station, I also made the career-path switch to arts management. During the summer of '85, I took a course (at Central Connecticut State University) taught by Judith Allen who was then Managing Director of Bushnell Memorial Hall, a large performing arts center in Hartford, Connecticut. She and I hit it off really well, so I came back the following year for a second summer's worth of courses from her. It was at the end of that second summer she offered me a job to come and work for her at Bushnell. So I quit my teaching job and went to Hartford in the fall of '86 to become Booking Manager of the hall.

JAM: What were your responsibilities at Bushnell.

DT: Judith delegated a lot of programming responsibility to me. I was booking a major visiting orchestra series that included the great orchestras of the world: the Vienna Symphony, the Berlin Philharmonic, the Chicago Symphony, the Philadelphia Orchestra, the Boston Symphony... I was also programming a chamber music series, and a solo recital series, as well as children's programming and some film programming. So it was a great thrill for me, and a great training ground to be thrust right into the middle of what arts management is all about.

JAM: And excellent preparation for booking the Folly...

DT: It certainly was. One thing that Bushnell didn't do, however, was jazz. And, of course, jazz has always been my great passion. So when the position at the Folly Theater became open, and I heard about it, I was very interested. I should mention that my wife is also from Kansas City, so, even though we both loved New England, returning to Kansas City at some point was always a possibility, to be closer to family and all. So when the job opened up at the Folly, for both professional and personal reasons, it made a lot of sense to come back.

JAM: Let's talk a little about booking a season of jazz concerts at the Folly. How does that work?

DT: Well, like I said earlier, I have this thick file of artists who are under consideration. And I also have to look at the Folly Theater calendar and try to identify seven or eight Fridays or Saturdays throughout the season and block them, protect them. The Folly is so busy, if I don't block out and reserve some Folly jazz dates, other organizations will come in and eat them up. So, that's really the first step, to identify some dates that will work and that are spaced at least three or four weeks apart.

JAM: Then what?

DT: Next, we try to pick an artist who will be in kind of a "headliner" role who will add strength to the whole series. For instance, last year we had two in that category: Sonny Rollins and George Shearing; you know, names that have really broad recognition and popularity, names that will help sell and draw attention to the entire series. As soon as one person is confirmed, every decision that's made after that is influenced by what has come before, all in an attempt to come up with a balanced series. For instance, as soon as I got George Shearing booked as a headliner pianist, I wasn't really looking for another pianist. So, Sonny Rollins was perfect to fill the spot of featured saxophonist. And so on. Also, I do try to come up with a balanced instrumentation. We might have a major saxophonist and a major pianist and a trumpeter and a guitarist -- like a Kenny Burrell. And we try to do one larger ensemble every year, too. In other words, we try to come up with a lot of variety and balance, not only in terms of instrumentation and ensemble size, but also in terms of stylistic variance. We also look for appeal in different age groups; we don't want to bring in only the veteran jazz masters, but also the lesser known, emerging artists.

JAM: With Lila Wallace support coming to an end in 1998, how will that effect Folly programming?

DT: The Lila Wallace Reader's Digest National Jazz Network has certainly represented major funding in support of the Folly. And it's enabled us to take some chances, like bringing in Steve Turre, for example. If I were to book someone like Steve Turre without some kind of underwriting support, it would be risky to do it based only on projected ticket sales. So, the wonderful thing about the Lila Wallace funding is that it has allowed us to broaden our horizons and take some chances; to bring in lesser known artists, even when there isn't a proven box office track record. The absence of that funding is going to affect the reality of our bottom line finances. While I still like to take chances, and bring in lesser known artists, I will have to be careful to not miscalculate. And, after 1998, the margin of error will get much smaller. The Folly is a non-profit organization; it's just not in a position to lose money! We struggle not only to do the programming and services, but we also have this old building to take care of. That's where a lot of the finances get eaten up. There are those repairs you plan on, and then the unexpected things that have to get taken care of, too.

JAM: How old is the Folly Theater?

DT: It's 97 years old. Which means, of course, that in the year 2000, we'll be celebrating our centennial. My goal for that year is to do some more major repairs and have the Folly back in pristine condition.

JAM: Let's talk a little about jazz itself. Why, in your opinion, does this music reach such an esoteric audience?

DT: Jazz is an art form. And it's also been a popular music throughout much of its history. In its early years, jazz was the popular music of the day, especially during the swing era. But with the advent of bebop, and the styles that came after that, jazz began to separate itself from the popular mainstream of American culture. And now, even though it still remains a part of that popular mainstream, the audience has grown smaller. So, in answer to your question, I look at jazz as an art form and as a music that is aesthetically driven, versus pop music which is commercially driven. And I also look at the larger scheme of things and how that affects the mission of what we try to do at the Folly in presenting jazz, which is to offer balance to the cultural mix. Yes, what we do is largely aesthetically driven; we know that jazz doesn't appeal to the masses like rock music does. And that's OK. Jazz has a select audience, and we try to satisfy that audience while making sincere efforts for audience development, to build the audience for jazz. But I don't think anybody would believe that jazz is ever going to reach the masses like, say, the Rolling Stones. But again, that's OK. There's nothing wrong with music that's commercially driven. It's just in balance to that, what we're all about is that we want to serve jazz as an art form and the original part of American culture that it is.

JAM: What is it about jazz that has resonated with you personally all these years?

DT: In my mind, the real beauty of jazz comes from its improvisational element, especially when you think of the technical mastery alone it takes to be able to creatively and spontaneously improvise at a high level. So, for me, there is no higher art form than jazz. And I think people who really understand what jazz is all about know this to be true. You know, there's always the debate between classical music and jazz, and which is the higher art form. I love and appreciate classical music, but I think the typical jazz musician can do everything that a classical musician can do in terms of technical mastery of the instrument. And they can do so much more in terms of their ability to create music spontaneously. There's a quote from Charlie Haden that I've always liked where he talks about the music being "in the moment" -- the moment of creation. That's the part of jazz that has always captivated me throughout the years. And, as my love and knowledge of jazz continues to grow, my appreciation of the gift of great improvisation gets even deeper.

JAM: Are you optimistic about the survival of jazz?

DT: I am. There is so much great talent out there... all the young guys coming up, the so-called "young lions." I guess my only word of caution would be that for jazz to continue, it has to remain a growing art form. We have to continue to encourage and help develop innovators of the music. A lot of the young lion movement has been about going back to the hard bop years of post-Charlie Parker, Art Blakey, Lee Morgan and all the greats of that era. I'm not opposed to that; it's just that I always keep an ear out for the young musicians who are taking a step beyond. The ones who really add their own personal mark to the music. I think Don Byron is a good example of that. Here's a guy who's come along with a lot of fresh ideas while getting involved with cross-cultures. He's not only done jazz, but he's done a lot with Klezmer bands! And, apart from being a great clarinetist, he's also a great composer and he brings a fresh, innovative voice to the music. So, I'm always on the lookout for those artists who are furthering the art form.

JAM: There is a school of thought that says jazz, as we have known it for most of this century, is a music unique to its time. In other words, the great innovators have given way to imitators simply because jazz as an original art form has run its course. Your thoughts on that?

DT: Well, in every period of jazz, great innovators have been followed by imitators. And you can probably count on two hands the greatest jazz innovators like Louie Armstrong, Lester Young, Charlie Parker, Duke Ellington and John Coltrane. So no, I don't think jazz has "run its course." There are, as I said, fresh voices out there. Like guitarist Bill Frisell. I'm totally fascinated by his compositions and his approach to the guitar. And I should mention Pat Metheny, too. Pat is obviously an innovative voice in the development of the music. So I think there's much more new ground and new territory to explore. And I'm optimistic about how there are still more great innovators to come down the road and point the way.

JAM: One more question about your days as a saxophonist. Is it true you once played with Bobby Watson?

DT: Yes, that is true. It was the second year Worlds of Fun was open, the summer of '74. I auditioned to play in a band there, got the job, and it just so happened that a saxophone player by the name of Robert Watson was in that same band. We spent the summer working together. At that time -- and as an aside -- Bobby went by the name Robert; nobody called him "Bobby." Years later, I had the chance to ask him where the "Bobby" came from. He told me that when he joined the Jazz Messengers, Art Blakey said "you just have to be a 'Bobby'" (laughs); that "there aren't any 'Roberts' in jazz," but "there are lots of 'Bobbys' -- Bobby Hutcherson, Bobby Timmons..." So it was Art Blakey who named him "Bobby" Watson. Another aside: I also met my wife working in that pit orchestra; we sat next to each other in the saxophone section.

JAM: What do you remember about Bobby Watson from that summer?

DT: The thing I'll always remember is that, during every break, he'd be off in a corner with his tape recorder transcribing Charlie Parker solos. You could just tell that this was a guy who was really dedicated and who was striving to develop his talent. Of course this was before Bobby Watson was Bobby Watson! Nobody knew for sure whether he would make it or not, nor did any of us know where our career paths would take us. One afternoon everyone in that band was sitting around talking about their various aspirations in jazz, and I remember Bobby saying he just knew he was going to make it. He just knew he would. And that conversation really stuck with me. Of course, he was proven right.


RETURN TO OCTOBER/NOVEMBER 1997 MAIN INDEX

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