thumbnail of 
     1996 Monterey Jazz Festival Interviews ; Gar Alperovitz on Hiroshima ;
    experimental music ; Mexican drug problem 
  ; MJF Interviews #2
Transcript
Hide -
If this transcript has significant errors that should be corrected, let us know, so we can add it to FIX IT+
Well, at the Monterey Jazz Festival, we're very fortunate to have in the KUSP Van Roy Hargrove. Roy, welcome to KUSP in Monterey. Now you, Roy, are a testament to the value of education, education being the main purpose of the Monterey Jazz Festival and what underlies it all. And you started as a young man through an educational program back in Texas, is that right? Yeah, I went to a performing arts high school. At the time it was called the Arts Magnet, I believe they've changed the name of the school now. It's the high school for the performing and visual arts at Bucket T. Washington. And there I learned about trumpet players like Clifford Brown and Lee Morgan and Freddie Hubbard and Woody Shaw. And now you are here at the Monterey Jazz Festival as an artist and resident, which involves education, jazz education from the other end as a teacher.
So you've kind of come full circle with the whole jazz education thing. Yeah, well, I'm working with this all-star youth band, which is on stage right now actually. And we're going to play a trilogy that I wrote for Big Band. I arranged it for Big Band. It's also on my new CD, my latest CD family. Although on the CD it's just a quintet, but I arranged it for Big Band and this group is going to play it today. Oh, wonderful. Now what's involved? Maybe you could tell us about what are some of the other things that are involved in being an artist in residence, running clinics and all those other types of deals. How do you go about that work? Well, I mean, basically I'm just on call to do whatever they ask me. I've been doing a lot of playing. I did a thing last night with Billy Childs. It was a duet. And let's see, I'm also playing a piece that was written by Cedar Watson, which is a commission
and work, and that'll be happening later on this evening. And I'll be performing Joshua Redmond and I, I'm going to perform with Herbie Hancock and his trio. Pretty exciting with the festival. You get an opportunity in one weekend to cram and performances with a real wide variety of musicians. What's it like? Is it jamming? Is it getting to? Oh, no. I'm having a great time. It's wonderful. I'm having a wonderful time. I'm learning a lot, and I always love to play, so it's no problem there. It was a great show last night with Billy Childs. Have you had an opportunity to play with Billy before last night? I had only worked with him once before. We never really got to really stretch out. The one time I worked with him was on a recording date called Pride of Lions, produced by Sony. We were basically reading a lot on that date, so we didn't really get to stretch out.
So it was a had a good time playing with him, and it was a chance for us to get a chance to play together. He's really brilliant. I really like doing those duets with him because he's kind of kept his whole orchestra on his fingers. Have you had a chance to perform with Herbie before the scheduled performance tonight, Herbie Hancock? Oh, yeah. I played with him a few times. I mean, basically sitting in with him, who worked together a couple of times. So what's in the works for you? So you got any big projects that are really exciting that you're looking forward to in the next six months of year, something that's happening? Yeah, but I'm not at liberty to talk about them this morning. I'm not at liberty to see the sun glasses on. I tell you, I've got to kill you. Well, listen Roy, thanks a whole lot for coming by, and I think you want to say to our listeners. Well, I mean, just keep supporting jazz. We need all the support we can get, you know?
All right. Thank you very much. Roy Hargrove. Thank you. One of the pleasures of the Monterey Jazz Festival is seeing all the young artists, the up and coming members of the high school bands playing. We're very fortunate to have with us, Jeanette Harris, who cooked some nail and saxophone solos for the Bullard High Big Band. Hi, Jeanette. I'm fine. Maybe, maybe you can tell us about why you chose a saxophone, how long you've been playing and a little bio information. Okay. I started on the piano. My parents wanted me to play some kind of instrument. I did not like that. So they was like, what do you want to play? So the first thing I thought about, Kenny G, I always eat them with the soprano. And so I was like, I just want to play a sax, anything but the piano. So they put me on it. So I started in the fourth grade, all the way to now.
I liked it. Yeah. So obviously from the sound of the solos, you've gone a little bit beyond Kenny G. He's not like my idol, you know, when I was young, I was like, okay, I'm going to play that. You know, he's a good player, though. I enjoy listening to him. But yeah, I don't play the style. He plays or anything like that. Oh, listen to it. And I enjoy it, but I'm more into the real jazz. Real jazz. How are your influences? That's a saxophone player. A young saxophone player today. Who do you listen to? I listen to Kenny Garrett quite a bit. Boy, I'm not boy, because his name, I'm not going name, let me see. That one. Yeah. Right. That one. Quite a few people. Norman Brown, I know he played the guitar, but I love him. Now, this is one thing I'm interested in because I'm an older generation jazz fan. As a young person and as a jazz player, do you listen to Bird and Coleman Hall? Oh, yeah.
That's where I get all my licks and everything from. It's like I like it, but I don't, you know, I don't want to play exactly that type of music, you know, I want kind of newer age, but with the old style to it. It's cool. Yeah, but yeah, that's where I learned all my stuff from, coaching, bird, all of them. Wonderful. So what do you plan to stick with music as a profession? Oh, yeah, I do. I plan to go to Berkley College of Music and Boston, that's where my brother is. And hopefully be a performer the rest of my life. All right. Well, that's great. Well, just like a lot of performers who are now professional, they got to start at Monterey. Oh, really? Yes, indeed. Joshua Redmond for one. Yeah. That's the guy I was talking about. Yeah. Right. Him. Okay. Well, thanks a lot, Michelle, and good luck in the future. Yeah. Okay. How many times did I call you, Michelle? What? Oh, okay. Well, yeah. I mean, I was here with the Berkley High Jazz Band, and I was also here as part of the California or the Monterey All Star Jazz Band.
You know, my experience with music education has been rather limited in the sense of a formal music education. I mean, yes, I'm a product of the Berkley School System in the sense that I started playing saxophone when I was 11. Immediately when I was 11 in fifth grade, I was able to, you know, start playing and improvising in a jazz band that they had at Longfellow School, which is very unusual, I think, for a public school to offer improvisation, to offer jazz at such an early age. So I definitely took advantage of the opportunities which the Berkley Public School System gave me to explore improvisation and to explore performance of jazz. But in terms of, you know, having like an academic background in music, I don't have that much of one. Like I said, I played, you know, in all the bands in the Berkley School System, but that was really the extent of the education I had.
I didn't take private lessons, you know, I never had formal private instruction. And as you probably know, I never went to music school. So the education that I've had has been an education of experience rather than an education of academia. You know, the education that I've had has been playing in school bands, outside of school bands, through listening to records, through asking other musicians about their craft, through getting, you know, direct, you know, little tips from musicians who my admire, you know, I'm kind of self-taught in that sense. So, you know, I feel that music education is, like I was saying before, incredibly important. And for me, you know, the most important thing is simply the exposure. You know, I think there's many different ways you can structure a music curriculum, but the most important thing is that you expose children to the music and early age. Expose them by allowing them to listen to the music and expose them by giving them an
opportunity to play the music. Beyond that, you know, I think there's many ways to go about it. We got a taste last night in New York, which officially gets released on Tuesday. You talk a little bit about your roles and the concepts you had in mind with yourself. Sure. And whether Steve is not going to be a regular part of the tour, you know? You mean Peter? Peter Bernstein? Peter Bernstein. Yeah. Well, for me, this record was a very important record, I mean, every record is important, you know, at the time, but for me, you know, I've always been a musician who's been uncomfortable with the idea of barriers, of stylistic boundaries and music. I mean, I love jazz music and I've always seen myself as a jazz musician and I've always had a tremendous amount of respect for the jazz tradition, but I've never wanted to be limited to that tradition.
And I'm someone who grew up listening to all forms of music and being influenced by all forms of music. I think that's a part of growing up in the kind of multicultural environment that I grew up in in Brooklyn, California. And you know, I mean, throughout my career, throughout my short career, I've always tried to, you know, take any opportunity to play as many different kinds of music with different people as possible. But I've never seen myself as, you know, a traditional jazz musician. But that being said, up till this record, I think one could argue that, you know, the bulk of what I've done as a leader falls within what people would consider traditional straight ahead jazz. For me, this album is a step out of that area because what we've tried to do is take what we consider to be the spirit of jazz, which is the freedom of jazz, the improvisational aspect of jazz, the spontaneity, the interaction, and the context of a group. That, to me, is the essence of jazz. We've tried to do is take that and extend it beyond, extend it into stylistic territory, which isn't traditionally considered part of the jazz idiom.
And specifically, take that spirit of jazz and apply it to rhythms and grooves, which are different and may be very different from, you know, straight ahead, full force swing. So to the extent that there's a concept in the album, that's the concept. And for me, of all the albums I've done, I'm the happiest with this one. I mean, I still can't listen to it now, you know, but because I've listened to it enough and it's, oh, I hear some mistakes at this point. But, you know, I really feel that we were able to accomplish what we had in mind. And I feel that really, we were really able to express and document the sound we were and the identity we were developing as a band. It's actually the second time I was here in, I think, 93 with the liberation orchestra with Charlie Hayden's liberation orchestra.
It's an honor, I mean, you know, it's an honor and it's an inspiration. And, you know, of course, it's an honor to be a part of the same festival with my aisles with people like John Hendrix and Joe Williams and George Benson and Herbie Hancock. I mean, these are the people that I grew up listening to. These are the people, you know, who, they're kind of like my gods, you know. But for me, it's, you know, it's an honor to play music, period, for people, you know. I mean, that's what it's all about. And, you know, of course, being part of a great, wonderful, you know, very respected festival like this is a great honor. But for me, any opportunity I have to play for people, you know, I try to attack it with the same relish and treat it with the same respect. As usual, one of the visual treats to go along with the music at the Monterey Jazz Festival
is the jazz art. And one of the artists has been here for many, many years is Ramisees. As a matter of fact, how many years has it been now, Ramisees? It's 14 years now. So it must be something special here at Monterey that keeps you coming back. Well, the people, the music, the food, I mean, to me, it's just a party weekend. It's my chance to get away from the city and come up here and enjoy the people. Mixed business with pleasure, so to speak. Now, Ramisees does black and white drawings, he specializes in those of all the jazz artists and also color drawings, but lately I see you've been branching out into stained glass and other mediums. Yeah, stained glass, I started playing with stained glass about three years ago in Mosaic tile, which is my latest piece last year was the Great Dean Harlem, which was a eight feet, eight foot by four foot mosaic of the Great Dean Harlem. So this weekend is Lester in Billie Holiday. And describe it to us the process that went into this wonderful mosaic as a matter of fact
of praise and lady day, colorful and huge. Well, what it is is I go around the tiles stores and I get discarded tiles, they're going to throw away and I take it and I break it up and put it into an image and the saw all the tiles that you see here, which is gold, yellow, browns and pinks or tiles that they're going to throw away. So I basically just break them up and put them within an image and recycle tile. And a wonderful way. And how big is it? It looks huge. What are the measurements? It's ten feet by five feet and it's going to be a, it's going to be a mural in L.A. on the wall. It's going to be five panels and lady day and Lester are the beginning of the panel, which is going to go up in October. Wonderful. Great work. And we'll be mixing business with pleasure here at the Monterey Jazz Festival also. Well, one of the most important places at the Jazz Festival is the bar. And one of the most important people is the manager of the bar and I've got that guy
with me. It's Dennis Schaefer. So what's the deal about the bar at the festival? Well, we're here to make sure that everybody has a good time, that they get the proper service and the proper amount of drinks, not too many. And I've been working here for about six years. This is the first year that I'm managing, usually ten bar here, but this year I'm managing the bar out here. All right. So you've been coming here for six years. What's your favorite part of the Monterey Jazz Festival? I like the blues on Saturday afternoon because it's more of an upbeat. Sometimes jazz can get a little cerebral and I like the rhythm that they put down on Saturday afternoon. Tomorrow we got Taj Mahal and I'm really looking forward to that. All right. And I would just bet as a bartender that you probably sell a few more drinks on the blues afternoon. Oh, yeah. And plus it's during the afternoon, a lot of people are drinking beer and everybody's having a good time. He's really, really my favorite time.
Yes, indeed. Well, thanks, Dennis. And it's going to be lots of fans' favorite time, too. This is Peter Weiler. I'm backstage at the nightclub here at the 1996-39th annual Monterey Jazz Festival. And I'm talking with Henry Robinette, who just stepped off the stage after a fabulous sextet performance. Henry, congratulations on an outrageous performance. Thank you very much, Peter. It's a great being here. Are you having fun? I'm having a blast. This is a very symbolic occasion for me. Yeah. Is this your first Monterey Festival? First Monterey Festival. I mean, you can come here for years and first time actually being here as well as playing. Great. Are you kicking up in Sacramento or up in the Bay Area, or both? Both.
Both. I'm in a situation now where it's hard for me to transplant myself, you know, a family and everything else like that, so my band is based in the Bay Area. The only person that's not in the Bay Area is myself. Getting a lot of work? Starting to. Starting to. Yeah. Yeah, I've reorganized some things and I'm coming out swinging. How long has this sextet been together? Well, in this configuration, this has been together probably about three, four months. The whole band has been together for about ten years. That sounds like it actually, but yeah, it does. You always play in bare feet? Always. I, you know, a lot of people ask me why and multifaceted question, probably multifaceted answer actually, probably mainly because my feet are so big. I am about size 13 and a half. When I'm on stage, it kind of looks like a bozo of a wearing shoes, so I take them off and it just feels much more comfortable. Actually, it's kind of like I like the feeling because it makes me feel like I'm playing in my living room.
Very relaxed. You mentioned Cedar Walton as a major influence in your past, is there somebody else who comes to mind without whom this would not have been possible? Well, yeah, that goes back to the fact that Monterey is so symbolic for me because my cousin was Charles Mingus and he was the primary person who influenced me and I don't know whether he made me want to play music, but he gave me the feeling of legitimacy when there really was no legitimacy for me being able to play music, but they were, you know, right there on the mantle, you know, I saw all these CDs about a foot long on the CDs. I'm sorry, records. And one of his best as far as I was concerned was Mingus at Monterey. Well, the echoes of Mingus are all over the Monterey Jazz Festival this year and I'm enjoying it. I hope you are too. A couple of, just quickly, Cedar Walton is going to be here tomorrow, I believe you're going to be at that show?
Unfortunately, I can't make it. You've got to show somewhere else. Yes, I do and I wasn't able to procure those tickets, those ever valuable tickets. Yeah, but, you know, I was kind of hoping that, you know, someone might appear and say, oh, this guy over here wrote a tune called Cedar, maybe we should get him together over here. I haven't worked that line yet. That angle. Well, Henry, thanks so much for talking with us and thanks for a great show. Hope to see you again before the festival is over. I've enjoyed it. You're welcome to the KUSP remote van, my name is Geo Warner and I'm here with Larry Blood and Bob Hartnett, the president of MCI Business Sales and Service. Welcome, Bob. It's great to be here, Geo. Thank you. So, you're involved in the Monterey Jazz Education aspect of the festival, right? Through our foundation grants and our investment in the Monterey Jazz Festival, we absolutely see one of the most important aspects is the education, the arts to the middle schools,
the high school students in the area that received that benefit. It's one of our main criteria. Yeah, and it's such a wonderful focal point, I think, of the festival itself. The kids are just so inspired when they come and play and you can see that the result of the input, basically the monetary input to give these kids the opportunity to develop the dedication that they have to the music. Absolutely correct. In fact, that aspect of the festival lives on year round, even though the festival takes place over the next few days here, what's most important not only through the years, that they get the training, but the performances, the education, and the balance in the lives and of the children that take part of that. So it really helps us as we make our philanthropic, philanthropic, excuse me, donations in different areas to have education as a key part of that. And Monterey Jazz Festival certainly fills that bill.
This is your 12th year, 12th consecutive year doing this sponsorship, is it not? That's correct. We've been very committed to this event for a number of years, and if I have anything to say about it, it'll be a number of years in the future also. I know last year, I think your contribution was in the neighborhood of $300,000, I think it's up to 360 now, is it not? I believe that's correct on a cumulative basis that that amount has been invested in the education of those children. I just think that's beautiful. So that's over the number of years that, or is that all this year? I believe that's over the term that we've been involved with the festival. Okay. That's the investment in the education. How do you decide each year, how much money you're able to pass through to the Monterey Jazz Festival and the education program? Yes, it's an amount that, as we subscribe to be the title sponsor for the event, that's an amount that's set through that relationship for the educational portion. I think one thing that had been bandied about a number of years back, whatever your political
ideas may be, I don't think that the trickle down theory actually ended up working that well overall. Most corporations did not really take up the challenge, so it's nice to hear about one that that has. In fact, over the 12 years, this event was probably more driven by our California organization and it now has become an integral part of the total MCI commitment, not only to the arts and the Jazz Festival itself, but as part of our educational endowment. So it's really viewed as a key part of MCI's strategy in this area as a corporation. Do you have to bring back reports to your boss and say, look, this is what it's really doing. I mean, I imagine I hear it in your voice that you really feel strongly about the educational program, but you probably have to then go and convince some other people about that, don't you? I think the only way I need to convince them is have them attend, take part, see what happens, see the stage with the high school players on there, see the involvement of the
community, the excitement from our customers who are here, both local and that attend as part of that relationship. And although I'm a salesperson, that job is already done once they've taken part and they have all been here and been part of the Monterey Jazz Festival. Bob, are you catching a lot of music this weekend? Yes, I am. In fact, I'll be here pretty much the rest of today. We are going to have some dinner with some folks that are joining us and here throughout the evening. In fact, I think we present our check tonight. Great. There's something we'll probably be hearing about. What have you enjoyed so far and what are you looking forward to? Well, I think, to be honest, I think tomorrow I'm really looking for my top event will be tomorrow in the high school students play. And as you said, you see a little bit of the benefit of that commitment and the training really pay off as they perform on stage. I know George Benson will be on tonight, so it's also exciting to see one of the real truly global names in jazz, which is truly an American art form that's enjoyed around the world. And we see a nice tie in there also, that MCI is a truly an American company, but global
and stature. So, a great relationship and it's going to be wonderful evening, a great day tomorrow. Thanks. Bob, thanks a whole lot for coming by. We really appreciate your stopping in. Larry, it's great to be here. Geo, a pleasure to meet with you both and you guys have a great spot here right outside the arena in the stage, so I'm looking forward to a wonderful event and thank you for inviting MCI to join you here. All right. Thank you. All right. All right, this is Pete Falico here at the nightclub stage of the Monterey Jazz Festival and we're going to catch Robert Stewart, tenor saxophoneist, Robert Stewart, at the close of his set. Now, it was hot out there, wouldn't it? Oh, yes, it was most definitely hot up there. And you were hot, my man. Yeah, all right. How you doing? Yeah. All right. People talking to you.
Robert, it was a perfect opportunity to talk about your CD, wouldn't it? Oh, absolutely. I mean, you know, Monterey is one of the oldest and largest jazz festivals in the world, so I had to take advantage of the opportunity. All right. Now, Robert, you have been playing all over the place and you've been doing it, not just the organ trio, the organ thing, but your own projects. This has got to rank about some of the most fun playing. I mean, playing with the organ is fun for you. Oh, absolutely. I mean, I've always enjoyed, you know, the organ trio concept, you know, as a lockjaw Davis, Gene Ames, all those cats, you know, and I had the pleasure of playing with Jimmy Smith and then McDuffell for it. So I had a lot of experience with the organ, you know. And you even play a little bit, too, you do let it. Yeah, I do let it. All right. Yeah. All right. Yeah. Talk about Ed a little bit while he's walking off there, Robert. Oh, Ed Kelly. It's too much for words. I mean, he's the great one. He's Ed Kelly. I mean, you know, one of my mentors and teachers, we hang out and he's just a wonderful musician, wonderful person. You know, he's just something else. Now, Ed's doing Friday and Saturdays at the first stop in Oakland on the Embarcadero. Are you with him on some of those gigs? No, not at the first stop, but we worked together at a place called Club Deluxe on Thursdays
in San Francisco. And we do a place called Bruno on Saturdays. So, you know, whenever I'm in town, I make sure I make sure the community gets the music, you know. Well, you see, that's why I asked you because, you know, sweet Jimmy's has got to be three in there now, it seems like there's going to be a more and more demand, yeah, for you, for you and his organ combo thing. And I know you're ready for it. Oh, yeah, oh, absolutely. I mean, you know, even though the record's been out about six months now, so I'm about to do my second one for Quest, which won't be organ. But I mean, from time to time, I'm still going to use the organ concept. All right. Yeah. And let's be honest, and Larry Bradford was with you on the record. You're going to use Ed. You're going to do other organists. I mean, who have you been conceptualizing for your next CD? For the next CD is going to be, you know, a quartet setting, you know, back to the standard jazz setting. And it's going to be mostly like jazz stuff. I mean, you know, away from the, because I've documented the blues already. You know, we're in the gutters. So I just wanted to get that out of the way and move on, you know. All right. Listen, for people who don't know our hearing about Robert Stewart for the first time, just a brief little thing.
You're out of the East Bay. You came up out of the same groove that Joshua did, right? Yeah. And the energy is right there. Do you feel as if you're in this wave hitting the scene? Well, yeah, you could call it that. I mean, a lot of us do to went in Marcellus, you know, because he was like the first young person I had seen playing jazz. So I guess he kind of got me involved in, you know, with the visual aspect, like television, that kind of thing. But the radio records, I mean, it's so much out there now, you know, for young people. I mean, you got video tapes and all this stuff, whereas in the old days, you didn't have all of that. So it was a little harder to get to it. So it's a big way. I mean, all ages, you know, getting into this jazz music. And you got it all, my man. I want to thank you. Is your drummer around here? He just went to the bathroom. Oh, I want to talk to him around himself. I'm trippin' him around himself. All right. Well, we'll stop this and we'll get ahead. Thank you very much. Robert Stewart. All right. One more thing. I'm here at the 1996 Monterey Jazz Festival. I'm standing backstage at the main stage, the arena.
And I'm talking with security guards. What's your name? Rodney. Rodney? Yes, sir. Is this your first year at Monterey? No, sir, my second. Are you enjoying the music while you're, because I'm tired. Are you enjoying the music while you're here? Yeah. Are you doing jazz today? You got a chance to hear much, or is it just from backstage? Sure. Oh, it's a kid to hear it from backstage. He has to see it from backstage once in a while, but... Great. What's your name? Sergeant Haynes. Sergeant Haynes, what's your biggest security problem at the Monterey Jazz Festival? Well, that's why backstage the biggest problem been just keeping people back a little bit. No rush for autographs. Guys with tape recorders in their hands? Is that ever a problem? No, that's not usually a problem. Usually it's the cameras, and the papers, and the pins. Are you hearing any good shows while you're here? Oh, yes. Pretty much all of them have been good, but I... George Benson, of course. Yeah? You got to... You really turned it out, but... What is Clay?
It was good, also, yes, sir. Did you have to work while you were listening to these shows? Or did you get to go in? Oh, yes. Well, I work backstage upstairs, so I get to work and see... and meet and greet with all the performers. Well, great. Thanks very much to both of you, and I hope you enjoy the rest of the afternoon. Thank you. Pete Falico on the grounds of the Monterey Jazz Festival, and one of the nice things is I can see musicians gather together like Ralph Moore, Marvin Smitty Smith, and Bob Mincer, and I'm going to see if I can intrude on this information, which is an exchange of information right now. Ralph Moore, how are you, man? I'm very good. How you, sir? I'm fine. And this is going to be something for KUSP, Marvin Smitty Smith here. Hi, how are you? I'm fine, Marvin. And Bob Mincer. Hello, man. Hello, hello, hello. This is great. I know you guys are just talking.
This is one of the beauties, man. Musicians getting together. You haven't seen one another in a while. Maybe you're chit-chatting about things that are going on. Talking about radio. What is it about radio, Marvin? I think radio is in a peculiar situation right now. As far as I'm concerned, what I hear on the airwaves is a lot of very limited rotation. And a lot of the formats for jazz, as we know it, are just very few and far in between. So it's kind of slim pickings out there. And even the radio stations that do play jazz, as we know it, categorically speaking, you know, I think we're polarized as well. You know, we've kind of gone into like our own device of camps and the element that really makes the music what it is is the inclusion of a lot of different stylistic views and sounds and approaches. So, you know, I think we need to get back to that. Yeah. Well, when you go to City to City, you naturally tune in and you're in your hotel room.
You try to figure out what's going on. What do you think, Bob? When you go from one city to the next, is there a continuum? Or are there like voids? It varies from place to place. But I find that without, if we hadn't, didn't have national public radio and nonprofit radio, we'd be sunk because they seem to be the stations that are keeping an open mind about the music and playing some of the more adventurous things and not necessarily sticking to a format that some commercial entity decides is the most lucrative format, you know, for that particular station. I mean, I started hanging around the scene in New York in the early 70s and at that time, there was really a converging of styles and opinions and people were kind of mixing and matching stylistically and there was a certain open-mindedness to the music that is different today. I don't see that same open-mindedness. I guess there's business structure that has determined that by keeping the music pure in a certain way, it will be more attractive to the audience
and they'll sell more records. Yeah, that's beautiful, Bob. Now Ralph, with you, with the roots over there, what's it like when you go back to England and you compare the states? Is there more of an appreciation or what? Well, first of all, let me say, I don't really go back there very often. I've been here for about 25 years now and as a matter of fact, funny enough, I'm going back there next month for a week just to visit family. But I don't think there's any place like New York or the states for creative music. And that's not to diss anybody else's music. I mean, obviously there's creative music all over the world, but jazz in particular and blues and say music that comes from America has the ability to include everybody else's music. I mean, you can listen to a jazz concert and you can hear elements from South America, you can hear elements from Africa,
you hear elements from Europe, you can hear almost anything. You can hear somebody quoting Joe B, one minute, and you know, quoting Bach the next, and it is, you know, so it's kind of a new world and a new music in that regard. I mean, I think as far as what I hear on radio, I think Bob kind of said it all. And I think, you know, NPR has sort of like a pro and a con. I mean, they don't have the funding to go in the air like a lot of the big stations, but at the same time, they're not under the pressure to adhere to the corporations and the big companies. Okay, you have to play this and you have to play that because that's when everything becomes homogenized. And you know, just go from city to city and everybody's playing the same 10 songs and it's like 7-Eleven, you know. There's no longer any room for, you know. Yeah, that's it.
All right, Ralph Moore, man, you speak the truth. You're talking about it. Before we leave you, Marvin, any projects, anything we're supposed to look out for for Marvin Spinney Smith? Oh, Joe, just keep turning into the tonight, Joe. You'll see Ralph and I there and let you know that we're still alive and we're still keeping the spirit going for the music. So that's all we're doing. We're just trying to just keep playing and just keep being creative and even though, you know, you see us on the TV show, you know, we're doing our homework still. All right, and I love what you did with Lonnie Smith and John Abercrombie, man. Oh, yeah, that's some hip stuff. The Hendrix Records and tribute the Coltrane record. That was the first one we did, the Coltrane record. But the Hendrix records were real nice and it was just real spontaneous studio. We just went into the studio. We just heard like a track of like the original and then we just like made up our own arrangements of that. So that was a lot of fun for me. Yeah, thank you, man. And Bob, what's on the plate for? You got a full plate. I know you. Well, I will continue to work with the yellow jackets and I have a big band in New York
and we do an occasional performance and I work with big bands all over the world who thankfully have some of my music and I'm lucky enough to have the opportunity to go and play with them. And one thing another, I'm going to Japan with Mike Minieri for a week and just a wide variety, writing some classical music, a saxophone quartet, some orchestra music and trying to be a parent and a husband and a cook and dinner and enjoying life a little bit. So trying to integrate all these various elements into a life. Keep the read wet, man. Well, I'll try. And Ralph Moore, man, speaking of reads, I told you, I first saw you with Horace Silver. I know you've been a long ways. You've been doing a whole bunch of things since then. What's the 1996 September date with you going on? Well, I'm with Smithy at the tonight show right now and ironically, that puts us in a situation sort of like NPR, not to backtrack, but we have the luxury of backing off the scene and not having to play by the rules and play the old games
or we can back off and take life a step at a time and decide for ourselves what direction we want to go in. Instead of being under the pressure to produce whatever the current flavor of the month says we're supposed to produce, which is kind of nice. So you ain't going Hollywood. How hell no? No, no, no. I just got to say, I mean, for years, I did Broadway shows in New York and my cronies in the jazz world. I remember Mel Lewis saying, now, what are you doing that for? Man, what do you need to do that for? I said, Mel, what did you need to do studio work for? All through the 60s, you know, and you went, oh, yeah, I forgot about that. But I mean, if you have some sort of steady work as a creative musician, you then have some freedom to, as Ralph said, to kind of step back and plan your direction and take some of the pressure off in terms of getting out there and working constantly. You have a steady means of employment. Yeah, yeah. You don't necessarily have to lose your integrity,
your musical integrity by doing these types of jobs. You know, as a matter of fact, I think I've benefited, you know, from the time that I've already been there, I've benefited as far as the things that I have learned so far that I can include and incorporate into the stuff that I already had before I got there. Exactly, man. And don't even think about it in terms of defensiveness because what you're doing is what you're supposed to be doing, man. All right. I think for all of us, you know, I can probably say that, you know, we've definitely earned the right to be at the places that we are. You know, I mean, we put in the time and, you know, blood, sweat, and, you know, tears in the hours. So, you know, I think, yeah, you know, when I stopped to think about, when I first got to the show, I looked around and said, man, you know, I don't know, man. You know, am I supposed to be here? And then I thought about it. I thought about all these years, I practiced and all the stuff that I went through and all the bands. And I said, I absolutely have a right to be here. So, you know, so I'm happy where I'm at.
That's a good perspective. Ralph Moore, thank you, man. Thank you. Oh, there you go. Marvin, it's Betty Smith. Oh, thank you very much. Bob Minster, thank you, man. You're welcome. All right. That's it. And it's another element in the puzzle, but let's go back to it. Remember, I said that there was another way to end the war, which is when the Russians come in, the shock of the Russian Army entering the war by itself seemed likely if the bomb wasn't available to end the war. There was a problem, however. If the Russians came into Manchuria and North China with the Red Army, possibly Red Army and Russian political influence might follow with the Russians.
So, American policy makers, quite apart from these European issues, on the one hand, one of the insurance policy of the Russians coming in. And on the other hand, they didn't want to encourage them too soon until the bomb was tested. So, it's a complicated situation. We might need them. And besides, we don't know quite how strong the bomb is. So, it might work, but it might not be strong enough. We may need the Russian insurance policy. So, how do you encourage the Russians to come in but keep them hanging out in a tactical way during this period? Just to give you a little bit of flavor of how that one is described in the diary of the Secretary of War. This is the next day, May 15th. He says, it may be necessary to have it out with Russia on her relations, now this is not Europe, this is Asia. It may be necessary to have it out with Russia on her relations to Manchuria and Port Arthur,
which is the port in the area, and various other parts of North China and also the relations of China to us. Over any such tangled wave of problems, the atomic bomb, he calls it S1 in his diary, S1, secret would be dominant. And yet, we will not know until after that time, probably whether this is a weapon in our hands or not. We think it will be shortly afterwards. But it seems a terrible thing to gamble with such big stakes in diplomacy without having your master card in your hand. That's May. So, what in fact is done is through a complicated set of negotiations over the conditions of Russian entry with the Chinese Foreign Minister TV Sung, we'll just refer to it as the Sung negotiations. And negotiation is started with the Russians about exactly what will be the terms of reference
for their entry into Manchuria, based on an understanding that was generally agreed at Yalta. And the idea is to keep the negotiation going, and the one hand keeping them in, and the other hand stalling them until you know exactly what happens. And as soon as the bomb is tested and is shown to work as successfully as it was, it was a great success, more power than they had expected, and more psychologically impressive than they had expected. Then what happens is the United States policy shifts and gets very rigid in the negotiations and stalls the negotiations as long as possible, quite the reverse, to keep the Russians out, even though you'd wanted them in earlier, and even though you knew they could end the war. So there's a turnaround, 180 degrees turn when the bomb works, to try to keep the Red Army out by stalling this complicated negotiation with TV Sung. Now what I've just said I think is not in dispute amongst historians who studied this as well. This is common ground of the expert literature. So now let's back up to what's going on
in the period that really counts. Remember now we've gotten the atomic test July 17th. The president is in Europe meeting with Stalin, July the test is the 16th. He's in Europe the 17th meeting with Stalin for the Potsdam meetings, Churchill's there as well. And then Churchill is defeated in the next Prime Minister Attlee comes into the middle of the conference. And you've got a technical problem about what are you going to do. In that context, the key questions are threefold and three decisions are made at this time. The first one is rarely noticed by many specialists, but it's very obvious when you look at the documents. First, if you want the Japanese to surrender, if you're not thinking about using the bomb, but you really just want to surrender before a landing or an invasion, if the goal is to try to end the war without casualties of an invasion, if that's what you're talking about, then the Secretary of War and the Acting Secretary of State, the Undersecretary of the Navy and the Secretary of the Navy
and every major policymaker with one exception will come back to who says, look, you've got to start the game early and tell them they can keep their emperor well in advance so they can digest it politically and think about it and come to terms with it. So the one of the questions that's posed is, do you make any moves early timing or do you wait till the very last minute to say anything and then drop the bomb on? The decision is made not to do anything early but to put any kind of a warning way down the track so there's almost no time to consider it. That's one decision. It's made after July 17th and it's quite clearly recorded in the Secretary of War's diary when he talks to the Secretary of State. The second decision, which is widely discussed and everyone understands it who studied literature, is the following. Every member of the United States government and the British government, and one exception I'm going to come back to, says, look, if you want the war to end,
you must tell them that they can keep the emperor explicitly. A proclamation has been drafted. It is unanimously agreed by all officials at the time, shortly thereafter, one of the officials changes and it is the famous Potsdam proclamation. Some of you who know this story will know that a proclamation was issued at the Potsdam Conference and it is a warning to Japan to surrender or else. It's a very general warning. I've just talked about that warning and one of the questions was when it would be released and the decision was made to release it at the last minute rather than to give it a time. But the most important element of that warning was whether or not it would say explicitly you can keep the emperor, we're not going to harm him. The draft Potsdam Proclamation recommended to the President in paragraph 12, it's one of the very few technical things you ought to take back from this talk, paragraph 12, says, recommended by all the cabinet officials involved,
essentially you can keep the emperor. At the Potsdam meetings, once the atomic bomb was tested under the advice of Secretary of State James F. Burns and against the advice of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the British military leaders, Prime Minister Churchill, every other major American leader, every other major American leader, paragraph 12 is eliminated so that the Potsdam Proclamation, as it was put out on July 26, does not contain any assurances for the emperor. And in so doing, we know, from many diaries, that the President fully understood it could not be accepted. This warning proclamation could not be accepted and it was understood, well-documented, that it could not be accepted. As one historian scholar Leon Siegel in a book called Fighting for the Finish puts it, it was put out as a propaganda device. It had nothing to do with a real warning that anyone could accept. So that's the second decision it's made.
The third decision it's made at the Potsdam Conference, we've already talked about, but I want to underline it. It is to try to keep the Red Army out of the war as long as you could, even though you had wanted them earlier, by stalling these complicated negotiations with the Foreign Minister of China, the Sun Negotiations, to try to back the Russians out as best you could. So that's the context in mid and late July in which we approach the very final end of the war. The only other thing to know about that context is there are new cables intercepted, showing again renewed Japanese desire to end the war, the Emperor sends another cable, which we intercept. And the decision is then made. If you, the decision to use the atomic bomb, let me sharpen this because sometimes those of you have studied it or will study it, may find people saying that there is no decision to use the atomic bomb. It just happens.
Well, the reason people say that is, if you look carefully, you do not find, as you do in almost every other major government decision, you don't find a very complicated set of policy papers saying, should we or shouldn't, we should or shouldn't, we use the atomic bomb. What you find, you don't find anybody saying, let's decide to use the atomic bomb, though there is a recommendation of how to use it by a committee, well, the interim committee. You don't find this kind of paperwork. You don't find the Joint Chiefs of Staff studying the decision. You don't find any actual meetings where anybody really goes through it that we have on record. It just seems to happen. Now, how could that be? The reason it seems to happen, if you look back at what I've just said to you is that what happens is major decisions are made which make it the only possible thing to do. That is to say, one option to end the war without an invasion is to have the Russians come in. And you take that away.
The second option to end the war is tell the Japanese that you can keep the emperor. And you take that away. Then you know, since the emperor is threatened, they will fight forever, meaning there will be an invasion, meaning a lot of people will get killed. And if you eliminate the two options, and the president says, we aren't going to do A and we're not going to do B, then the only thing left is either an invasion, which is crazy, total loss of lives, or to use the bomb. So it's in that context by the process of elimination that that's all that's left. That's, as I said earlier, when I read you the summary of the modern literature, there were alternatives. They were eliminated. And the bomb was the one that was left. Or put it another way. Supposing you are a policy maker, like Secretary of the Navy, for a stall, or like Secretary of the War of Stimpson, possibly General Marshall, though he's very difficult to pin down, he's very, plays his cards close to his best. And you don't believe this ought to be done.
And the president has decided, no, we're not going to use the Russians, and no, we're not going to tell them they keep the emperor. You've got to march into the president's office and say, Mr. President, don't use the atomic bomb. That's the equivalent in that situation of saying, lose 500,000 men, or whatever the number will be, because that's all that's left, once he's made the decisions to eliminate the two options. And that's essentially what happened. I think President Truman wavered a great deal about all of this. I think he personally, every time you find someone on record in May, in June, in July, he seems to want to tell the Japanese that can keep the emperor from every diary. And the man who is the dominant figure in all this is the Secretary of State, James F. Burns. He's the one exception I've mentioned several times. Who it seems, at this point in time, was overwhelmingly dominant in influencing the president. He was a much more senior political figure than President Truman at the time, who was not an unknown, but he was not nearly as powerful as the man
who was Secretary of State who had been his mentor in the Senate. It's Burns who is dominant in these decisions. He's the man who helps eliminate paragraph 12, and in most historians now agree as the dominant influence in the decision to use the atomic bomb. His concerns, we know as Secretary of State, are very much focused on the Russians, particularly on Eastern Europe, but also on Asia, and his dominant concerns are not necessarily the same as the concerns of other people, but he's the main figure. So what happens at this point in time, and I'm not giving you the basic chronology, the Potsdam Proclamation is issued July 26th. It is issued without paragraph 12, which means it says that it's a threat to the Japanese emperor. It is a demand for unconditional surrender. The Japanese moku satsu the decision. I probably pronounced that badly for those of you who are Japanese speakers, but the term issued by the Japanese government
is important, it's moku satsu, which means either reject or ignore or take under advisement or study. It's a complicated word. We later say what it meant was reject. The intercepted cables say what we meant was studying it. We've got to figure out whether we can do this. The dates trigger long were at July 26th, 27th, 28th, is the moku satsu date. The bomb is ready on the 1st of August. The president says you can use it any time after the 2nd of August. Whether intervenes, it is used on the 6th of August. Nagasaki is the red army comes into the war as planned on the 8th of August. Nagasaki is destroyed on the 9th of August. Japan says it will surrender on the 10th of August, they say one condition, we have to keep the emperor they've been saying that all year. On the 11th of August we say you can keep the emperor and the war is over. Those are the sequences.
What's this got to do with us and me or is it just an interesting history lesson? I want to just go to a couple of points that are often raised in these conversations that you at least thought of flag and think about. One has to do with the casualty estimates. Many of you have seen probably the argument that President Truman many other people have made a new book by McCullough repeats this argument that 500,000 perhaps maybe even a million lives could have been lost. I just want to sharpen what the expert understanding of that is. In the first instance, if what I've said is valid and if what the literature summary said is valid and if what the official study said is valid, the war would have ended without any more major casualties. Zero. Now I'm exaggerating. There may have been a few people lost. There was very little fighting going on because the Japanese didn't have any fuel in any ammunition. They were conserving it. And we were trying to get in position at this point possibly to have an invasion. So there was very minor fighting going on.
Some accidental things happened. But there was no invasion. And if the war could have been ended as all these other documents said in August or September or October before the first landing, the casualty rate in an invasion would have been zero. Not 500,000 and not a million. Zero. It's very important to get that really sharp because that's the major number. Zero. If there had been a landing which was highly unlikely as this war department study says was a remote possibility, particularly if they told them to keep the amber and the Russians came in, the maximum number of casualties anyone has found in a full invasion and all the planning estimates within the official papers we now have and the three historians have studied it. Barton Bernstein, a professor at Stanford, is the expert who studied it most. Another man named Rufus Miles has studied it and recently another professor, a military historian named Skates. John Ray Skates has studied it. And the reason I mentioned is they come from different parts
of the political spectrum. Skates is a military historian. Bernstein's on the political, liberal, or left and the other man is more neutral. But the maximum number anybody's ever been able to find and any of the documents at the time, as opposed to what was said later, is 46,000. Then if you look at what might have, that's in a full invasion. If you look at what might have happened, had you only had the November landing into you shoot, the maximum number of anyone's found is 25,000. Very different from the exaggerated numbers that most people believe and were told. And as I say, this is pretty much no longer disputed in terms of the estimates that were made at the time and the advice given to the president. So that's another thing to get sharply in focus. The last thing I want to mention, and it's related to who was advising at the time and who had what views, as you may have noticed, I'm critical of this decision. But I want you to understand that the criticism that I've given you so far is very much the same as the criticism that was offered so far as we can tell
oddly enough, to me it's the most interesting thing about this story, not the most critical thing but the most interesting development, is that some of the top US military leaders, conservative generals, conservative admirals, were saying virtually the same thing modern historians are saying. Now let me just give you a little flavor of this because only if you hear the documents at the time, do you get some sense of what it felt like to be a top level that is a military leader who knew what was going on, who knew about the intercepts and who knew what was really happening, not a lower level guy, guys in the field didn't know at all. Here's General Eisenhower, later President Eisenhower, saying what happened when he was told by the Secretary of War that the bombs in fact were going to be used against Japan in these circumstances which Japan deteriorated. During his recitation of the relevant, this is Eisenhower,
of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression. And so I voiced to him my grave misgivings. First on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated, that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary. And secondly, because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion, by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. Japan was at that very moment seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of face. It wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing. That's Eisenhower. Give you another one. The then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the 1945 structure was slightly different, was a conservative admiral.
His name was Admiral Leahy. He was also Chief of Staff to the President of the United States. He wore two hats, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, conservative admiral, and Chief of Staff to the President. This is what he had to say publicly, publicly after the war. Think of Colin Powell after the bombings in the Iraq War, publicly saying something like this about his friend, the President, and this man was a friend of the President, not a critic of the President, very good friend of the President, Admiral William D. Leahy. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. The use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan at all. The public statement. In being the first to use it, we adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the dark ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion. Wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.
I want to give you one more. These are all conservative military leaders of that generation. It's a different generation. The commanders and morals and ethics about who you killed and who you didn't kill. They did not think just bombing any city was on. This is an interesting one. I'm going to read it to you and then tell you who it's said. This is the last one I'm going to read you. The commander-in-chief in the Pacific was General Douglas MacArthur, again a conservative general. General MacArthur once spoke to me very eloquently about it, facing the floor of his apartment in the Waldorf in New York. He thought at a tragedy that the bomb was ever exploded. MacArthur believed that the same restrictions ought to apply to atomic weapons as to conventional weapons, that the military objectives should always be limited and should limit damage to non-combatants. MacArthur, you see, was a soldier.
He believed in using force only against military targets. And that is why the nuclear thing turned him off. That's former President Richard Nixon recalling a discussion, private discussion with the Carthler in his apartment at the Waldorf. Related to this, as I said, the final aspect is, by the way, the bomb was used against cities. Des Moines, Milwaukee, Chicago, Mexico City. That was not the only choice. Other people, in the last military figure I want to cite, with General MacArthur, raised the issue of, did you have to use it against the city? Many of the scientists said, let's have a demonstration. But usually people think about demonstrations as maybe in a desert island or maybe in a redwood forest as Louis Strauss, the special assistant to the Secretary of Navy said. But General Marshall, who was Chief of Staff of the United States Army,
had an obvious suggestion which is rarely discussed in terms of the possibility of demonstrating it. He said, why don't we hit a major military target in Japan, like a Navy base? We can show the bomb, we can destroy everything, and we can accomplish all our objectives without destroying a city. What a city was is where old folks and young kids and cripples were because the young men were off the war. That's who mainly died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and that's who would mainly turned off these military leaders at that time because they knew what it was all about. So I want to sharpen that aspect of it by reference to the military leaders of World War II who understood the distinction and the Hiroshima bombing is often thought of as the use of the atomic bomb and the abstract. It was not abstract at all. It was the destruction of civilian targets as a major shock. And they understood that's why they did it. So it can't be just left the use of the atomic bomb,
the bombing is a choice that was made to hit cities. So I think I've probably exhausted the time level and maybe exhausted your patience, but I suspect that last set of conversations particularly as it appeared to these eminent conservative military leaders, I think opened some of the more profound questions which still faces as we approach the end of this century with nuclear weapons still all over the world. Thank you very much. That was Gar Alperovitz on Hiroshima, New Facts and Old Myths. He spoke at Iowa State University in Ames on November 7th, 1994. Gar Alperovitz is one of the leading authorities on Hiroshima and the events leading up to it. His new book on the subject is The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb. If you'd like to place a visa and mastercard order
for the program you just heard, Gar Alperovitz on Hiroshima, New Facts and Old Myths, call the following toll-free number, 1-800-444-1977. Again, that toll-free number is 1-800-444-1977. Or you can send in your check, printed transcripts or $7, cassettes or $11, the address, alternative radio, PO Box 551, Boulder, Colorado, 80306. Again, printed transcripts or $7, cassettes or $11, the address, alternative radio, PO Box 551, Boulder, Colorado, 80306. Special thanks to Public Radio Station W-O-I in Ames, Iowa for recording the program. I'm David Barsamyan.
Thank you for listening. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much. Thank you very much. The male incubates them and cares for the babies.
The male incubates them and cares for the babies. There is some doubt as to whether these great apes actually have the power of speech. However, one study has classified meaningful sounds into those which have to do first with food, including waiting to be fed in actual eating. Among themselves, zoom in who work with chimpanzees can recognize individuals and their moods by voice alone. Several chimpanzees await their morning meal.
The apes are very active, jump up and down, and loudly slap the sides of their enclosures with their hands and feet. Breakfast consisting of milk and fruit is being served. It is amusing to hear them grunt as they peel and eat their bananas and oranges. Listen to what happens when the chimpanzees are interrupted while eating, and their food taken away.
The male incubates them and cares for the babies. The male incubates them and cares for the babies. The young chimpanzee is told to sit on a chair alone. Please, please, and try to slide a lot of the feet. We're not committed to do so.
During the daily flight period, some chimpanzees roll and tumble out of the floor with their teeth open. The male incubates them and cares for the babies. The male incubates them and cares for the babies.
The male incubates them and cares for the babies. The male incubates them and cares for the babies. The male incubates them and cares for the babies. The male incubates them and cares for the babies.
The male incubates them and cares for the babies. The male incubates them and cares for the babies. The male incubates them and cares for the babies. The male incubates them and cares for the babies.
The male incubates them and cares for the babies. The male incubates them and cares for the babies. The male incubates them and cares for the babies. The male incubates them and cares for the babies.
The male incubates them and cares for the babies. The male incubates them and cares for the babies. The male incubates them and cares for the babies. The male incubates them and cares for the babies.
The male incubates them and cares for the babies. The male incubates them and cares for the babies. The male incubates them and cares for the babies. The male incubates them and cares for the babies.
The male incubates them and cares for the babies. The male incubates them and cares for the babies. The male incubates them and cares for the babies. The male incubates them and cares for the babies.
The male incubates them and cares for the babies. The male incubates them and cares for the babies. The male incubates them and cares for the babies. The male incubates them and cares for the babies.
The male incubates them and cares for the babies. The male incubates them and cares for the babies. The male incubates them and cares for the babies. The male incubates them and cares for the babies.
The male incubates them and cares for the babies. The male incubates them and cares for the babies. The male incubates them and cares for the babies. The male incubates them and cares for the babies.
The male incubates them and cares for the babies. The male incubates them and cares for the babies. The male incubates them and cares for the babies. The male incubates them and cares for the babies.
The male incubates them and cares for the babies. The male incubates them and cares for the babies. The male incubates them and cares for the babies. The male incubates them and cares for the babies.
The male incubates them and cares for the babies. The male incubates them and cares for the babies. The male incubates them and cares for the babies. The male incubates them and cares for the babies.
The male incubates them and cares for the babies. The male incubates them and cares for the babies. The male incubates them and cares for the babies. The male incubates them and cares for the babies.
The male incubates them and cares for the babies. The male incubates them and cares for the babies. The male incubates them and cares for the babies. The male incubates them and cares for the babies.
The male incubates them and cares for the babies. The male incubates them and cares for the babies. The male incubates them and cares for the babies. The male incubates them and cares for the babies.
The male incubates them and cares for the babies. The male incubates them and cares for the babies. The male incubates them and cares for the babies. The male incubates them and cares for the babies.
The male incubates them and cares for the babies. The male incubates them and cares for the babies. The male incubates them and cares for the babies. The male incubates them and cares for the babies.
The male incubates them and cares for the babies. The male incubates them and cares for the babies. The male incubates them and cares for the babies. The male incubates them and cares for the babies.
The male incubates them and cares for the babies. The male incubates them and cares for the babies. The male incubates them and cares for the babies. The male incubates them and cares for the babies.
The female incubates them and cares for the babies. The male incubates them and cares for the babies. The male incubates them and cares for the babies. The male incubates them and cares for the babies.
The male incubates them and cares for the babies. The male incubates them and cares for the babies. The male incubates them and cares for the babies. The male incubates them and cares for the babies.
The male incubates them and cares for the babies. The male incubates them and cares for the babies. The male incubates them and cares for the babies. The male incubates them and cares for the babies.
The male incubates them and cares for the babies. The male incubates them and cares for the babies. The female incubates them and cares for the babies. The male incubates them and cares for the babies.
Clip
1996 Monterey Jazz Festival Interviews ; Gar Alperovitz on Hiroshima ; experimental music ; Mexican drug problem
Title
MJF Interviews #2
Contributing Organization
KUSP (Santa Cruz, California)
AAPB ID
cpb-aacip/380-644qrnbj
If you have more information about this item than what is given here, or if you have concerns about this record, we want to know! Contact us, indicating the AAPB ID (cpb-aacip/380-644qrnbj).
Description
Clip Description
The first portion of this asset consists of short interviews with various artists, vendors, attendees, and employees at the 1996 Monterey Jazz Festival (approx. 40 minutes). The second portion is part of a program titled Gar Alperovitz on Hiroshima: New Facts and Old Myths, which consists of a speech given by Alperovitz at Iowa State University in Ames, IA on November 7, 1994 (approx. 25 minutes). The third portion of this asset is experimental music (approx. 15 minutes). The fourth portion is part of a speech about the drug problem in Mexico (approx. 20 minutes).
Created Date
1996-06-02
Asset type
Clip
Genres
Special
Interview
Topics
Music
Social Issues
History
War and Conflict
Recorded Music
Media type
Sound
Duration
01:42:59
Embed Code
Copy and paste this HTML to include AAPB content on your blog or webpage.
Credits
Speaker: Alperovitz, Gar
AAPB Contributor Holdings
KUSP-FM
Identifier: 362 (KUSP Archive)
Format: DAT
Generation: Master
If you have a copy of this asset and would like us to add it to our catalog, please contact us.
Citations
Chicago: “ 1996 Monterey Jazz Festival Interviews ; Gar Alperovitz on Hiroshima ; experimental music ; Mexican drug problem ; MJF Interviews #2,” 1996-06-02, KUSP, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC, accessed March 28, 2024, http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-380-644qrnbj.
MLA: “ 1996 Monterey Jazz Festival Interviews ; Gar Alperovitz on Hiroshima ; experimental music ; Mexican drug problem ; MJF Interviews #2.” 1996-06-02. KUSP, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Web. March 28, 2024. <http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-380-644qrnbj>.
APA: 1996 Monterey Jazz Festival Interviews ; Gar Alperovitz on Hiroshima ; experimental music ; Mexican drug problem ; MJF Interviews #2. Boston, MA: KUSP, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-380-644qrnbj