Jazz: A Film by Ken Burns

As a jazz fan for over 20 years now, ever since I first encountered the 6-LP "Smithsonian Collection of Classic Jazz" in the library of the college where my father taught, I could go on and on about all the stuff Ken Burns and company left out. However, part of me keeps imagining some kid latching onto this program the way I did with the Smithsonian LP's, then searching out jazz recordings, books on the subject, and recent copies of "Down Beat" magazine. Multiply this scenario by an unknown number (hundreds? thousands, perhaps?), not just with literal kids but all kinds of people open to discovery in the same way, and you get some idea of how I feel about the program.

Speaking again as a longtime jazz fan, even though I was a bit disappointed that more "modern" and avant-garde jazz wasn't included, the portions of "Jazz" covering swing were a revelation--I've never had such a direct visceral connection to that music before, though I've enjoyed it from time to time. This illustrates the major merit of "Jazz", the way it puts the viewer inside the world in which the music happened. One reason the swing segments are the best in that regard is that not only do we get to see what else was going on in the world at that time, we get to see the audience's interaction with the music--specifically, the dancing. This may be why "modern" jazz isn't emphasized as much; the audience's reaction couldn't be captured on camera in the same way.

The one theme I would have liked "Jazz" to cover in greater depth was its decline in popularity after swing had run its course and most young musicians were either getting into bebop or dixieland (the postwar revival of the latter being one of the program's more mysterious omissions). I think part of the problem lies in the definitional boundaries some of jazz's defenders have drawn around it. It seems to me that jazz was at its healthiest when its practitioners drew upon other musical traditions for ideas; this could mean classical music, showbiz pop, or most often other traditions of black music, notably the blues.

Once jazz had been firmly defined as an improvised music emphasizing certain kinds of instruments and instrumental combinations, there developed a tendency among jazz musicians to draw almost exclusively from earlier jazz styles, often the "purer" styles of recent vintage. After a certain point, any attempts at a new style were open to criticism over whether they were "really" jazz. (It's interesting, in this regard, that most of jazz's innovators have resisted purists' expectations of "jazz" musicians; just try to think of any musicians who added to the jazz vocabulary without doing something along the way that upset some group of purists or another.) Some new styles were accepted as the real stuff, others were not, which is a pity since some of them, especially rhythm & blues, might have lead to the reinvigoration of jazz as a popular art.

Louis Jordan is singled out in "Jazz" as someone who led black audiences awa y from jazz, yet his music developed directly from the swing music of the 30's and early 40's. How differently would jazz history be written if Jordan's kinds of innovations, which kept the music true to the experience of urban blacks without alienating potentially curious whites, were accepted as "real" jazz? After all, it's only a short step from Jordan to early rock &' roll.

It strikes me that, if jazz is really central to American music, an honest portrayal of jazz would include a full accounting of its influence on other American musical styles. Louis Jordan is one such example; the hard bop influence on the great 60's soul bands (notably Booker T. & the MG's, James Brown's bands, and the guys at Motown) is another; the use of jazz-schooled musicians by such disparate yet seminal bandleaders as Bob Wills and Spike Jones is yet another. Finally, jazz purism has robbed the music of some potentially valuable innovators, the best example being Jimi Hendrix, exactly the kind of instrumental prodigy who would have been a natural for jazz in an earlier time, but who went from r&b bands to rock & roll instead (contrast Ornette Coleman, who went from r&b bands to the jazz avant-garde).

And yet the faults of "Jazz" don't cancel out its many fine points, though they do throw them into sharper relief. I can't imagine any jazz fan failing to enjoy the music, and only a few who fail to learn something new about it. The fallout from "Jazz" as an event--the numerous arguments over the program's merits as history (many of these arguments concerning, at bottom, the definition of jazz) and the recent spur of jazz record (CD, tape, whatever) sales--is icing on the cake. On my own personal rating system, "Jazz" ranks just shy of an A+ (a "perfect" film) because I can imagine it being done better. Nevertheless, I'm giving it an IMDB rating of "10" for its entertainment value, its educational value, its status as a ublic event, and on general principles.

It's very sad to read how many people were bowled over by this so-called documentary. Sadder yet to see how many were coerced into thinking that this was a legitimate history of jazz. Let us look at some facts:

Before beginning this project, Ken Burns had in his own words, "maybe two" jazz cds. Because of this, he looked toward Wynton Marsalis for guidance. As a result, the entire documentary was slanted in accordance with Wynton's beliefs--the strongest belief being that white people have nothing to contribute to the genre.

This in mind, it is obvious that taking all of one's cues from him is a rather large mistake, as evidenced in Ken's show. For example, the entire West Coast movement was written off. There is no mention of Stan Kenton, Woody Herman, and many of the other great artists and innovators, simply because they were the wrong color...white. In addition, the trombone is not considered to be relevant past the big band era (Sorry J.J. Johnson!! Sorry Kai Winding!). Then of course, there is the statement made that no worthwhile jazz was composed after (approximately) 1965...well...until WYNTON MARSALIS came along!! What a slap in the face!! This is just the tip of the iceberg.

Yes, there were some good things in the show. The old footage of the great ones: Armstrong, Ellington, Basie, etc. It's too bad that Burns neglected to interview many of the musicians who are still alive that played in these organizations. Clark Terry, one of the finest trumpet players to ever walk the earth, and who played in BOTH Ellington and Basie's bands, ended up having less than 2 minutes, speaking about things that were relatively trite.

The main message that permeated this series was this: Black people created jazz, and whites made only minor contributions. Wynton has stated before that there is nothing that a white person could teach him about jazz. This means in Wytnon's mind that Django, Kenton, Bill Evans, Bix, Brubeck, Chet Baker, Gerry Mulligan, Jack Teagarden, Kai Winding, etc., etc., etc...have nothing to contribute, because they're white. Sad, isn't it?

Hopefully, someday Wynton and Burns will see that two wrongs don't make a right. Until then, if you want a true history of jazz, pick up a book called "Meet me at Jim and Andy's" by Gene Lees.

Very useful view of the history of jazz but oddly limited. Perhaps that was unavoidable given the essentially amorphous nature of the beast. But don't let me quibble: after watching Burns's 12-parter I now have a far better idea of how jazz evolved and thus a framework on which to build other knowledge.

There is a great emphasis, necessarily I suppose given the route jazz took in the beginning of the 2oth century, on horn players, and that emphasis continues, again necessarily when we get to the evolution of bebop (which is pretty much where jazz burst out and asserted itself). But the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s also saw other instruments make their mark, particularly the guitar and piano.

The piano gets half a look-in with segment a segment on Thelonius Monk, and other pianists get a mention, but the focus is pretty heavily on the sax and the horn. What about the very, very many jazz guitarists - guitar is my instrument? Why no mention not just of the playing but the contributions made by Wes Montgomery, Grant Green and others? Mingus also gets a look-in, but . . .

Burns might respond that he wanted primarily to outline the development of jazz over the last century, and he has a point. But the topic does cry out for a broader, a far broader attempt.

As I say, though, here is not the place to quibble. Burns's Jazz does (as we say in Britain) what is says on the tin and I for one have gained from it. Now I look forward to similar broader enterprises.

I've never been one to send in any type of critique or review to any type of website, but after viewing the Ken Burns "jazz" documentary, I knew this was a call to arms. I've never been so moved before by any film/doc etc.. through the brilliant use of historical footage and expert insight that dances along with the music of the day it's a perfect marriage of sound and vision. I was actually brought to tears of joy several times throughout the series. if anyone is even remotely interested in any type of American history/music of any kind or just a lover of great programming ,this is a must for all. A true American classic! not only did this series reconnect me with such intricate American heritage, but introduced me to a whole new world of exquisite, fascinating music that I immediately fell in love with. For this I am forever grateful to Mr. Burns. the only thing I'm not happy about is the fact that now I've been on a constant quest and spending spree of most of my weekly paycheck on a jazz cd purchasing frenzy!!! Ohh well , it's worth every penny ,keep up the superb work and now its time to venture into the civil war series.

It takes guts and talent to put together an idea like this and execute on it. Producer and director Ken Burns pulled off something we all wanted see in a documentary film. If it weren't for him, we may not have seen the likes of it in our life time. This near 20 hour epic takes Jazz from its roots to its modern day incarnations. I've learned quite a bit about history of jazz by watching this mini series, but I think the story told is little bit lop-sided. What Ken Burns failed (or purposely omitted) was the entire history of jazz guitarists. There's absolutely none represented in this series - zilch (!), and don't tell me that guitar wasn't an important part of jazz history. What Ken told was the story of jazz keyboard, and horn virtuosos. Not bad, but I still wanted to see some guitar in this series.

Martin Scorsese filled some gap with his "Blues" mini-series about blues guitarists, but a comprehensive history of jazz guitar history is still missing. Would some talented and daring director please take on the challenge ?