Rating: 
Summary: Easy to criticize, but mostly to the point
Review: It is somewhat distressing to me that the majority of the reviews of this product have been negative, and have focussed around what Burns has left out. While I may agree that there is a great deal that is missing from this narrative, I believe that it is an excellent foray into the world of jazz, and that it serves its purpose extremely well. The primary purpose Ken Burns had in making this series was to introduce a large audience of newbies to jazz, and to do so in such a manner that they would become more interested in the music and continue their listening once the series was over. To this end it makes perfect sense for him to focus around the "greats" like Ellington and Armstrong. After all, if you are trying to interest someone in English theater you should begin with Shakespeare, no? As to Burns' cursory treatment of modern jazz, I believe that this has more to do with the fractious nature of jazz in its current incarnations than with sheer neglect. I mean, where should he start? The current diversity of the jazz scene, while a source of vibrance and interest to jazz-lovers, is extraordinarily difficult to chronicle. Burns beckons to his viewers to learn more about modern jazz for themselves, and I think this approach makes a great deal of sense. Overall, I believe that this series does an excellent job of introducing a new audience to the wonders of jazz, and that all of the criticism is really more nit-picking.
Rating: 
Summary: A GIGANTIC AND REWARDING EFFORT
Review: When I first heard of this collection I thought it was quite a gigantic enterprise. To tell the story of the music that arguably is the real soundtrack of the 20th century must have really been an awesome task. But it's quite rewarding as well. For long-time jazz addicts or newcomers alike it's a joy. It is full of useful information, didactic but not boring comments (Wynton Marsalis is specially remarkable in this department -- he manages to convey viewers not only his incredible knowledge but also his love of the subject matter), rare footage of giants such as Duke Ellington and Louis Armstrong and -- last but not least -- a keen sense of period in each segment. I saw only part of this on DVD. Most of it I saw on cable TV with Portuguese subtitles and comments by Brazilian specialists. Nevertheless, I feel I can recommend this DVD set to anyone anywhere who is interested in some of the best music produced in the last 100 years or so. I don't give it a 5-star rating because of only two shortcomings: this DVD set will undoubtedly be the object of desire of jazz and music fans all over the world, so why not have it released without any encoding and with as many choices of subtitles as you can get? It's infuriating to notice that DVD rights' owners have not yet realized how stupid it is to put this kind of barriers between consumers and their products. Don't they know other distributors already offer DVD titles without any of these stupidities? Also, in many countries you can get people who will "unlock" your DVD player so that you can watch DVDs from all over the world. Why keep on with this pretense that the world is still divided between "zones" in times of ever-growing globalisation? These shortcomings notwithstanding, "Jazz" is a rare delight for the ears or eyes of anyone in this world who cares for good music and a well done job of compilation.
Rating: 
Summary: Alright, 'til the historical revisionism sets in.
Review: I had read some of the more critical reviews of JAZZ before watching it, and expected it to be somewhat poor. Actually, I was quite surprised at how good the first three or four episodes were. My history on early jazz was not too good, and the documentary really helped me to put together the history of the music. I got annoyed with Wynton's comments a few times, but all in all, I learned a lot. It was well filmed, in Mr. Burns' style, even though that style has become a little cliched (the fault of other documentaries). But after the fourth episode or so, it got very repetitive. "Swing was very popular!" "A lot of people liked swing!" "America sure was swinging!" "Some people thought Louis Armstrong was an Uncle Tom!" "Boy, we sure liked that swing music!" I didn't need to hear that over and over. You know, after a certain point, Louis Armstrong, great as he was, wasn't revolutionary. He didn't need a huge feature in every episode (though he didn't get one in the first). What holds jazz together and advances it isn't as much personalities as it is the music that they create. I know Louis Armstrong made great innovations in jazz, but I don't need to be beaten over the head with it. Neither do I need to be constantly reminded that everyone and their pet ferrett danced swing in the twenties and thirties. At least an episode of this could have been cut. Now, this wasn't so bad, because eventually Mr. Burns had to turn his sights on to bebop. He did alright there, but he did leave out two towering figures: Bud Powell and Max Roach. Why didn't he interview Max Roach? He's still alive! He's the one of the founding fathers of bebop who didn't die in a car accident or die from liver cancer! Is it because he would call Burns on not recognizing Cecil Taylor and, in particular, Anthony Braxton? And Sonny Rollins! He's still playing concerts, too! Why not ask the experts, the guys who were really there?? And Bud Powell's contribution to jazz history was at least as much as Monk's, and rivaled that of Bird's. The second-to-last episode wasn't without redeeming moments: it covered Art Blakey's band (which, sadly, set up the historical revisionism of the last episode), and got to both John Coltrane and Ornette Coleman. But where were Bill Evans and Lee Konitz?? Miles Davis's sixties quintet would not have sounded as it did had not Herbie Hancock copped Evans's voicings, and jazz piano would not be where it is today without them. Lee Konitz, Paul Desmond, and Eric Dolphy were decisive forces in jazz saxophone history who were ignored. Clifford Brown, who had one of the greatest jazz groups ever with Max Roach, got about five minutes. Mr. Burns's reiterations of Louis Armstrong's greatness could have been curtailed to bring in more material on the people who actually came to maturity in the fifties. Then there was the last episode, which opened with that awful line: "In the new jazz, no one risked more than the bebop tenor saxophonist Dexter Gordon." What are you guys talking about??? Certainly, I love Mr. Gordon's records, but "no one risked more than"??? Gimme a break! But anyway, there is a good segment on Cecil Taylor (with a poorly-reasoned line about "self-indulgent [nonsense]" from Branford Marsalis). Now, Charles Mingus and Max Roach got about five minutes in association with the Civil Rights Movement. They should have had more (where was Sun Ra's big band?). And where in the free jazz segments was Albert Ayler? Miles Davis's marvelous sixties band got way too little time, as a stepping stone to his fusion experiments. Then there's the two long weepy segments when Mr. Armstrong and Mr. Ellington passed on. So, apparently jazz died for the seventies. Really? What about Anthony Braxton (who was totally ignored), Dave Holland, Keith Jarrett, Chick Corea (for a while), Weather Report, Carla Bley, Paul Bley, Miles Davis (he was alive then, right?), Gary Burton, Pat Metheny, Henry Threadgill, Sun Ra, Tony Williams, Derek Bailey, Evan Parker, Fred Frith, Charlie Haden, and David Murray, to name a few? Weren't they important for what is happening today? Oh, wait, I forgot. This messes up the thesis that Wynton Marsalis saved jazz in the eighties. When that segment about him came on, I was furious. How is he more important than Bill Evans, Lee Konitz, Anthony Braxton, Clifford Brown, and Max Roach combined (and I won't even add in any more people Mr. Burns left out)? That's some "self-indulgent nonsense" right there. To say that Wynton Marsalis saved jazz and is the most important jazz musician today is complete and utter historical revisionism. When one follows jazz through the seventies (even if some of it was out of the public eye), jazz history adds up to something quite different than Wynton Marsalis and the few other "current jazz artists" Burns put in at the end. If too many people take Mr. Burns's version of jazz history as gospel truth, jazz music will be hurting for a long time to come.
Rating:
Summary: History made Present
Review: What a wonderful world! Ken Burns has once again earned the title of "master" with the stirring videography and graceful score of "Jazz".
Rating: 
Summary: too exclusionist
Review: interesting in parts but too exclusionist to survive as a documentary. where is reference to bill evans, among others? blacks may have invented jazz, but they don't own it. the ethnic agenda underlying this history is deeply disturbing. ken burns should redo the documentary, but with several advisors of different persuasions, not just one with a colored ax to grind.
Rating: 
Summary: Decent, but could have been so much more
Review: Ken Burns Jazz does a decent job of introducing jazz, but suffers from many defects that keep it from being great. This is an interesting way to learn about the early history of jazz, in particular in the social context of how the music was evolving. Being a middle-class white guy from the West Coast, I really didn't have much exposure to many of the social movements that went on during the first half of the century. From that point of view it's an enligtening show, but it's neither a great jazz documentary, nor a great social history documentary. Jazz also does a reasonable job of exposing the various schools and movements within Jazz. If you want to know where Bebop fit in the grand scheme of things, and who it's main practioners were, it's a decent way to find that out. However, too much of this is focused on the early history of Jazz. As many have noted, Mr. Burns jams everything from 1960 onwards into one episode, after devoting a episode to nearly every 5 year period before that. It's a little too much of Wynton Marsalis' viewpoint that the only real jazz was the early stuff. Mr. Burns spends far too much time with the Great Man theory as well. Louis Armstrong comes into just about every episode, even when he was no longer a major innovative force in the music. Duke Ellington is similarly constantly mentioned. Other musicians drift in and out of the picture, usually to much lesser degrees. While hanging the series off of Louis Armstrong's life is an interesting way to frame things, it's really rather limiting. Many great and influential musicians never get mentioned at all. Miles Davis is almost glossed over, Nina Simone never shows up at all. Can't remember hearing Cannonball Adderly's name anywhere. And if they came of age after 1970, they're lucky to have a their name mentioned at all. All in all, if you know nothing about Jazz and you'd like to learn a rough history, this is a reasonable introduction. However, if you want a detailed discussion of the history of Jazz, look elsewhere.
Rating:
Summary: Jazz according to Wynton.
Review: Maybe I'm being a bit harsh, but jazz could and SHOULD be an interesting subject. I was first subjected to the torture of this documentary on a bus tour. You'd think anything different on a thousand mile bus trip would be welcome, but you'd be thinking wrong. We were forced to take control of the VCR, and watch "Def Comedy Jam" to keep our brains from rotting (yeah, I know this is a DVD review, but I'm just reviewing the content). I'm not going to get into the specifics of everything since I believe other reviewers have covered most of the bases. I would just like to make the observation that it is a testament to the extreme dullness of these videos that a guy who can listen to jazz for hours on end (like myself) can be so bored by a jazz documentary that he has to turn it off. That's just a little something to think about before you spend alot of money. It's certainly a bad investment as far as I'm concerned. If you want to get some knowledge of jazz history, find a good book on the subject. Peace
Rating:
Summary: so much info, so little time
Review: i greatly appreciate this series. if ken burns had interveiwed everyone with a professional opinion, this series would not have aired in 2001. mind you, all of this information and more was and is available to all in the free world. who out there will take on the task? i applaud mr. burns for having the courage and the know-how. episode nine (9) is my favorite. the Bible that we have today is not complete. it does not mention every person that lived and contributed before and after Christianity but everything we need to know is there. it is up to us to dig deeper. research. keith david was an excellent choice. as are wynton,gary, stanley and company. #9 is where i came in. i am now 52 years of old age. i was born and raised as they say here in los angeles. our jazz station was KBCA 105 fm this was for a time all i knew. a love supreme to a song for my father, this was music to me. sassy to lady day. all have a place in the soundtrack of my life.
Rating:
Summary: A Survey of Jazz according to Wynton Marsalis.....
Review: The subtitle of this documentary should read Jazz according to Wynton Marsalis or more appropriately A Survey of Jazz ( according to Wynton Marsalis). It is interesting to see Ken Burns own discovery of Jazz, but you can't help noticing that the musicians were chosen were all picked by Wynton Marsalis. This bias hurts the validity of the film that is called "Jazz". I am trained a jazz pianist and I have been a jazz fan for almost 10 years. I was surprised at how many jazz musicians, Wynton Marsalis left out talking about (Django, Stan Kenton, a section on the Latin influence in Jazz, Bill Evans, Chick Corea, Keith Jarrett etc). I still enjoyed watching this for the artists they did include talking about. The footage and the music chosen was really good.
Rating:
Summary: Wasn't there when it happened
Review: Being somewhat wobbly in the knees at my age has some advantages. The superficiality of two young men, neither of whom knows much about jazz or was alive when the major movements took place (Burns and Marsalis) set me back. The overwhelming emphasis on black musicians should be a little less whelming...for example, where are Pete Fountain and Al Hirt when discussing the New Orleans style(s) and the role of the black funeral tradition? I rate it two stars at best.
| 
