Rating: 
Summary: Ken Burns "Traditional" Jazz
Review: I think the addition of that one word would solve a lot of contreversy. If you look at the series that way, then it's pretty good, hence the 4 stars. Burns would have been wiser to have added that word, then the omition of fusion, avant-garde, electronic jazz et al could be forgiven. Of course, it's not quite as snappy and "epic" sounding, which is the aim of this series, bombarding you with so much detail of so many seemingly insignificant events and the glorification to deity status of some very excellent musicians (Armstrong, Ellington, Parker) that you think you are witnessing the birth of civilization itself.
So to all the people that mourned the abscence of guitar players, keep in mind that the guitar as a solo instrument did really come to the for in Jazz until the 50's, with the widespread use of amplifiers, which is near the tail end of traditional jazz.
The choice of Marsalis has been criticized, but it's understandable because he is the one contemporary jazz musician that most people have heard of, and yes he is an accomplished player, he's also a good speaker and pleasant to look at, which is more important for a documentary, albeit the accuracy may have been somewhat sacrificed.
It would be nice to see a "Ken Burns Jazz: part II" with all the missing elements from this series, but that probably won't happen. I liked the fact that he did include a pretty balanced view of many movements, and the contreversies that were happening at the time, too many times you read history as "first there this movement, then came this movement" thinking that it's very block like and orderly. It's good that he mentions that a lot of people didn't like the direction that be-bop took Jazz, that it turned jazz into music for musicians, that you couldn't dance to it anymore or even understand it. I found this interesting since it's a very similar to the way the classical music evolved into intelectual constructs that were lost on the average listener. I think that's what so fascinating about the swing era, is that the music was both technically complex and fun to listen to. That to me is the best music can achieve. Other conflicts are mentioned, such as the beat poets naive and simplistic view of Jazz music, that in the words of Ginsburg "anyone can pick up an axe and let it out". Uh yeah, have you tried Mr. Ginsburg? It aint that easy, trust me.
The series does get bogged down after a while, and if you're not a horn player (i'm a pianist and guitarist) you will soon get barraged with a seemingly endless string of rapid fire sax/trumpet solos, which to me, I'm ashamed to say, all the sound the same. The glossing over of avant-guarde is a shame, but is expected, after all, the majority of the viewers that Burns is targeting probably don't have a taste for this music and he knows it. I am musician and I actually agree with Branford Marsalis' view that it's "self-indulgent bullsh*t", cause it is. And yes, I've done it, and frankly the whole experience is empty and devoid of musicality. Same with jazz fusion, much of it is pretentious indulgent garbage, and no it's not because I don't understand it, or because I'm a snob, I DO understand it and that's what makes it all the worse.
Anyway, to sum up, take the series for what it is, if you are interested in traditional acoustic jazz and don't know much about it, you might find it worth while. If you are a fusionist, avant guardist or whatever, I would give it a pass, see if you can find a documentary that suits your interests, I'm sure there a bunch out there. For the rest of us, enjoy the old photos and a glimpse into an organic musical form that is worth much praise.
Rating: 
Summary: This an excellent documentary who loves jazz
Review: Pretty to say this is one of my favorite documentaries I have seen on PBS. I first watch this since they did stories on Duke, Coltrane, Miles (who is my inspiration), Count, Herbie, Billie, Satchmo, Dizzy, Bird, Ornette, Wynton and on and on which told by the narration of himself, Mr. the actor Keith David. Keith David was a good speaker when he narrated the history and culture that going besides jazz. I appreciate on what he accomplished and look forward of him doin' more of this on other documentaries in the future. Yeah Keith will live on my heart for now on 'cause he good with that baritone kinda voice.
Anyway, as I was saying this a good documentary whether you love it or hate it, I think it's talking about what jazz became popular in the United States. Artists like Satchmo aka Louie Armstrong, Duke Ellington and Ella Fitzgerald became the first to create that generation. Same with others like Dizzy, Bird, Coltrane, Davis, Count, Billie, Ornette, Blakey, Wynton, Freddie, Herbie Hancock, Clifford, and many others who created that sound of jazz.
Like to say I'm a huge jazz fan and I'll always gonna live around it until the day I die. I'm especially a trumpet player so I know the details about it. One of the things I worried is that a lot of people are missing out some information about it. Simple, they don't read books about it or else pick up some albums from them that made it. I think the matter of it is we should learn to appreciate how we put into our music today like in R&B, hip-hop, rock, gospel and all kinds of music that are playing right now all have a feature on where we left off back in those days.
This is definitely a must-have who wants to read or learn more about it. I recommend this documentary in addition to "Higher Ground: Voices of Contemporary Gospel Music", "Say Amen, Somebody", "John Coltrane: The Coltrane Legacy", "The Miles Davis Story", "Tupac: Resurrection", "The Diary of Alicia Keys", "Grover Washington Jr. in Concert", "Ray Charles in Concert", "Gil Evans and His Orchestra", "Royal Ellington: Royal Fesitival Hall Concert", "Kind of Blue: The Making of the Miles Davis Masterpiece" by Ashley Kahn, and so on and on.
I appreciate Ken Burns 4 putting out a documentary that is so blessed and thankful.
Rating:
Summary: Slaughter of the Innocents
Review: Ken Burns readily admitted that he was a neophyte when he started the project, and that is evident from his 'kid in a candy store' approach to American jazz. He focuses his paean to jazz on a combination of themes and performers, and follows those threads well. This is a fascinating opus, and the reviews are just as fascinating, and very apt.
Several reviewers lamented Mr Burns' reliance on Wynton Marsalis as a guide, and they are right. The proper guide would need to be articulate, well-respected for his contributions to jazz, recognizable to those who are also neophytes, and someone knowledgeable in the history of jazz (and the importance of the many contributors to its history). That defines Wynton Marsalis, so Mr Burns was right to rely on him.
One reviewer compared "Jazz" to the wonderful documentary about the Day In Harlem photo, and he was right. The buoyant spirit of jazz is lacking in this documentary at times. The joy of creation is difficult to portray, but that documentary portrayed it well. Instead, Mr Burns seemed overwhelmed at times by the importance of the social contribution of jazz and the breaking of barriers evidenced by the Harlem scene (particularly at the Savoy). The focus on America's ethnic tribulations has been at the core of Mr Burns' "Civil War" and "Baseball", so that isn't surprising.
Is this racial focus misplaced? I have long believed that, for all the great work that Dr Martin Luther King did, the fiery genius of Louis Armstrong did more to shatter the myth of a genetic color-based inferiority than any other single force in American history. The great tragedy of Louis Armstrong is that he was belittled as an Uncle Tom in the 1960's. Mr Burns' study of Louis Armstrong is fitting and very well done.
In summary the reviewers who find fault with Ken Burns' Jazz are right. There is so much he missed. Mr Burns was probably guilty of hubris in trying to wrap his cinematic arms around a subject that never could sit still. In identifying key themes and contributors, following these through to capture their impact on a fluid society, Ken Burns was smart. His choice of experts was the choice of a neophyte looking to instruct neophytes. Looking to provide the thread of Ariadne for such a challenging subject, he accomplished far more than I expected. He tackled a thankless task, and did a superlative job.
In jazz there are no wrong notes, to paraphrase Thelonius Monk. I fully recommend this series to anyone who loves music, whatever that music is. To historians and sociologists this set is vital. Young people would do well to study this cinematic essay to better understand the nature of the torch that is passed to them. Jazz is not the voice of a group of people, but of individuals celebrating their unique individuality. Sometimes you aren't meant to understand it. Just to appreciate that it is an individual's voice.
Ken Burns is a scholar. He gives a scholar's presentation. In doing so, he sometimes misses the boat. But he tries, and succeeds often. But hey, that's Jazz! This series will encourage the listener to make his or her own explorations into this unique group of art forms. That is the true value of Ken Burns' Jazz, and why it is worth the full price. Enjoy!
Rating: 
Summary: ACADEMIC VIEW OF JAZZ
Review: I've been a life long jazz fan and I looked forward to this series. Although I respected it on a technical level (great photos and music), there seemed to be something basic missing that I couldn't put my finger on. Sometime later, I saw another jazz documentary, A GREAT DAY IN HARLEM. That film explores a famous group photograph taken of most of the jazz musicans working in New York City in the mid '50's. Most of the musicians still living were interviewed. What came through on this film was the joy these guys had making music and working with one another. In less than 2 hours of running time, this film made you understand why people love to play and listen to jazz. That sense of joy never came through on the Burns film which seems dry and academic in comparision.
Rating:
Summary: Superb Tribute to the Fathers of Jazz
Review: This documentary was the most comprehensive view at what Jazz was meant to be. From traditional to combos to big bands to be-bop to "The Birth of the Cool," this series covers the IMPORTANT forms of jazz. These forms have soul. They created inspirational songs using improvisation and STRUCTURE. Those who point out that the series focuses on jazz's early forms and not the contemporary forms are correct. After Coltrane, Davis, Rollins, and other innovators of the cool form of jazz, jazz was used to identify with Fusion. Playing wildly without purpose and hitting wrong notes is not jazz. Hell, it's not even music. Jazz was not meant to be a bunch of perverted scales with an indistinguishable melody. That is not meant to demean Fusion entirely. When done correctly, fusion can be a great form of jazz. However, there are few artists who have successfully mastered fusion to where it's enjoyable to listen to or has a REAL purpose. There are many great jazz musicians today, but they aer rarely recognized. There are too many mainstream chums carrying the jazz logo but don't have a clue as to what jazz is. Look in the French Quarter and in other parts of New Orleans and jazz still thrives in its purest form, but with contemporary flavor. As for the moron that said Wynton has done less for improvisation than Sun Ra, that's a matter of opinion, and my opinion is that Wynton is a jazz genius. He respects the great players that paved the way for jazz. Anyone who doesn't appreciate the early forms of jazz has a very unsophisticated pallate. Ken Burns' purpose was to highlight the early forms of jazz and revive American and world interest in the great music that has long been forgotten by two generations. He accomplished that, and had not intention of delving into cheap imitations of jazz.
Rating:
Summary: Could have been so much better
Review: I guess it says something that I have gone back and watched Burns' "Civil War" documentary more than a dozen times since I first saw it, and have only watch "Jazz" once since the first time. The Civil War documentary certainly is rife with factual inaccuracies but by & large gets the essential story of the conflict right. "Jazz," on the other hand, treats its subject as though the last 40-50 years never happened. It is as though the Civil War documentary would have lingered over the years 1861-1863 incessantly, then sped through the last two years ("Oh yeah, there were a couple of battles, Atlanta burned, Lee surrendered, the war was over. The end." Something like that) as though they didn't matter.As I found the documentary going into its umpteenth hour and we STILL weren't out of the 1930's yet, I had a bad feeling about where this was going. You would have thought that Louis Armstrong had been annointed as the Jazz Pope and he ruled over the world of jazz for 40 years. In his proper context, Armstrong is very important, but Burns seems positively fixated on him. He dwells on every facet of Armstrong's upbringing & early career. Unless he planned on making a 60-hour documentary, there was no way Burns could hope to do justice to the more recent history of the genre, and sure enough he basically hits the fast forward button once the be-bop era is coming to a close. Personally, I cannot stand fushion jazz, but nonetheless some mention needs to made of a style that was dominant in jazz for almost as long as the swing style, for crying out loud. Also, relying almost exculsively on Wynton Marsalis (doing his best impression of a crochety old man on his front porch, railing at a world that has passed him by) really was not a good idea & imbues the entire documentary with a hopelessly retrograde flavor. I watched it once, and came away disappointed. I watched it a second time, hoping that I could find more to appreciate, but only found that it continued to disappoint. I don't know if it merits any future viewings, and that is indeed a shame, because it is a subject that deserves better treatment than this.
|
