Jazz

Don't bother with the U.K. version (12 hours) buy the USA version (19.5 hours) it contains more and can usually be found at lower cost.

Covers the birth of jazz, swing era, move to bebop, free modal very well, but there is only scant coverage of more modern moves in the field of jazz.

Mr Burns has argued that he is more of an historian than a critic and as such he can only really deal with the phases of jazz that are from the past. This line of reasoning is, I think, not un-reasonable.

A nice touch on the DVDs is that when a piece of music is playing then pressing the "info" button on the DVD or its handset, brings up a screen about the music being played, e.g. title of music, who wrote it, who is playing, when was it recorded, etc.

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.

I am neither a musician nor a serious scholar of jazz, just a fan,but even I could see the flaws in Ken Burns' sometimes fascinating, other times infuriating documentary on the history of "America's music".

Spanning the century, this nineteen hour documentary is most effective at the beginning, when Burns' gift for research is most apparent. You can see the pains he took searching documentation and rare photographs to paint a picture of the roots of the music. However, as the narrative moves on, his over-reliance for third and fourth hand accounts and his own ignorance of the genre becomes apparent.

I am not going to go into the laundry list of "should have" musicians (Lionel Hampton, Stan Getz, JJ Johnson, Charles Mingus gets only ten minutes!) and others that got short shrift or weren't even mentioned. I'd be here all day.

However, I will say that Burns obviously relied too much on critics and writers in putting together his material. Towards the end, especially when they begin to talk of the 50's and 60's, the whole program begins to have the taint of academia all over it.

For example, the 50s phenomenon of the wildly popular California-based "cool jazz" is dismissed by critic Nat Hentoff as "bland" and then never mentioned again.

I am sorry to disagree with the distinguished Mr. Hentoff, but as anyone who has heard the recordings of such greats as Gerry Mulligan and Chet Baker can atest, the music they were producing was just as creative and exciting as their East Coast, black contemporaries.

To people like Mr. Hentoff, the west coast musicians committed the ultimate sin of being white and somewhat popular. Much of the documentary continues along the same "us vs. them" vein.

It seems the people who assisted Mr. Burns took advantage of his ignorance and stamped their orthodox biases on what could have been a great work. Whole genres and types (fusion, Cubano, Brazillian) are either dismissed outright or ignored. It reinforces my view that critics are the most useless species on the face of the planet.

However, I do have to admit that many parts were fascinating. When Burns does interview eyewitnesses to certain events, it shows the flashes of "what might have been". I just wish that he wouldn't have blindly followed the opinions of the the critics and academics and let the audience discover for themselves what to think.

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 ?