Rating: 
Summary: History will always cause arguments.
Review: But like the music itself, Jazz is musicians arguing with their instruments but being happy afterwards. The series deserves 4 stars but for sheer size of the project, it gets 5. Sure some people were left out of the show but this was a overall history, innovators, the basics. A very good show that anyone who loves music should enjoy. Even those who think they know better. In the end, after all our arguing, we would have swung the night fantastic.
Rating: 
Summary: Educational
Review: I am not going to attempt to lay down some philosophical meaning to this documentary or on the history of Jazz or who was left out, but in my mind this was a great series. After reading some of the expert/aficianados posts, there is thought that the series has skipped over a lot of good artists. They may be right but I was a relative Jazz rookie before this series, and what I have gained from the documentary is a solid overview of the history and development of Jazz. The past few years I have had an increased interest in Jazz. I started with the big names and albums, Time out, Love Supreme, Kind of Blue, Blue Train. After that I was sort of lost, I would pick up a CD if it was recommended to me or if I had heard a song in a movie or show. To say the least many hours were spent wondering the Jazz section trying to figure out what artists played what instrements and styles. Eventually, I picked up on more names, however, I am by no means an expert. After watching this series, I can walk in to a music store and pick out an album from a large handful of artists and know what I will be getting. Bebop, swing, cool, etc. Prior to this documentary, I barely even knew all the different styles of jazz, let alonge which artists created them. I imagine that if this were to focus on every artist, such a series would be 1000 hours, and would probably include a BA degree in Jazz after such a documetary. I am not sure if this was Burn's goal. I am coming away with a solid introductory of Jazz, something that I lacked until now. With this knowledge base, I will be buying more CDs of the artists I already like, and I will be buying new CDs of artists that I hadn't been exposed to before. If you love Jazz music and want to learn more about many of the prominent artists over the past 90 years, see this documentary and buy their music. (Not necessarily the Burns CDs either) This will make you a more engaged Jazz fan, something that can be appreciated by neophytes and the aficianados.
Rating: 
Summary: Fascinating- but only for jazz fans.
Review: In his Civil War film, Ken Burns brought to life an era that most Americans in truth really know very little about, and he did so it a way that engaged a lot of viewers. In "Baseball", many have noted, he took a pastoral game and put people to sleep with it. For fans it was a wonderful collection of trivia and rare photos and interviews. For those who weren't fans it was tedious and boring. Much of this criticism also holds true for "Jazz". Forget the criticisms that it was spotty, or that it had way too much Wynton; "Jazz" has problems that go way beyond that. Marsalis may not be the best musicologist in the world, but he does know and love the music. The really big problem is this: I get a very strong impression that "Jazz" was written by people who weren't really jazz fans. They had a lot to say about the sociology of jazz, and the lives of the players, but almost nothing to say about the music that didn't sound like a quote of an album jacket. We were treated to endless, sometimes nonsensical statements about music and players from critics who didn't seem to be able to express anything meaningful about the music. And a lot of the discussions of the music were woefully inept. Listening to the show a naiive listener might get the impression that Jazz is nothing but the blues played at swing tempo. Now the blues is central to jazz, but so is 19th century European classical music. Jazz gets its flatted 5ths from the blues, but those m7b5 and dim7#11 chords didn't come from a field holler. The great genius of the Jazz musicians is how they took all these different traditions and created something more than just an amalgam of styles. Some of the greatest early jazz tunes were built on military marches. Even country music has its influence on jazz- look at Ray Charles. Here's a man who incorporated gospel, blues, and country into his style. But the producers of "Jazz" missed that. A lot of the critism has focused on what figures were selected to present. Sure, you can't feature every important artist, but with all the time spent on some musicians, the omission of otehr figures was almost comical. A music educator friend of mine said, after the first three episodes, "Where the hell is W.C. Handy?" Handy was the composer of St. Louis Blues, the first great Black American music publisher and by any measure a major figure. He was celebrated not just in this country, but all across Europe. Yet they spent more time on Ossie Davis's recollections of a movie he appeared in with Louis Armstrong than they did on W.C. Handy. Even despite all these criticisms I enjoyed much of the show. I saw film clips I'd never seen before, like Diz leading his big band, or Duke at Newport. Some of the interviews with musicians done for the film were excellent. Charlie Haden talking about the first New York gigs of Ornette Coleman's group was a favorite. But every friend I've spoken with who wasn't a fan of jazz to begin with found the show, well... boring. So if you're a fan of Jazz, by all means, there's a wealth of rare footage to see here. If not... get a copy of "The Civil War" instead.
Rating:
Summary: The Real Deal!!
Review: Musicians, jazz lovers, and historians will be greatly inspired by this series. Finally, someone tells the true story!!
Rating:
Summary: For the Musician or the Layman
Review: First of all, I am rating the series, not the DVD set. (I'm trying to scrape together enough cabbage to buy it) From what I have seen on PBS, the series speaks to people from any perspective be they musicians (like myself) or not (like my wife). We both had a great time watching the series unfold as history was retold through the lives of the early Jazz musicians. Yes, there are some tidbits included that probably only musicians would "get". Nevertheless, the effort put forth in the compilation has enough material to interest the viewer in several genres: music, history, race-relations, and even politics. I was a little tired of the constant reminding of race in the series, but from the perspective of history, that's where jazz started. Burns did a fair job of conveying that jazz melded the black and white societies, albeit with many problems along the way. Perhaps where "Jazz" leaves the history timeline in 1961, we have other avenues to pick up the race theme. (consider that the civil rights movement has nothing to do with music, but from a historical perspective, it is incredibly important; "Jazz" helps carry this theme of race to the beginnings of the civil rights movement) It all depends on the filmmakers intent which I believe is to present American history THROUGH jazz music. As to the music; if you are a hard-core musician, set in your beliefs about who was the "greatest" or "most influential", you'd best leave your money in your wallet. To musicians, every historic figure has a place and chances are your placement of jazz musicians in the annals of history will NOT agree with Burns'. If you think, as I do, that the pioneers of modern jazz style were Armstrong and Bird, then this is the series for you. But if you're interested in jazz's evolution since 1950, you will not want to buy this set. Strictly speaking, this is a HISTORICAL documentary not a MUSICAL documentary.
Rating:
Summary: Portrait of America and the Legacy of an Art Form...
Review: I wrote a review earlier on, but had to add something based on numerous e-mails I've gotten and numerous reviews I read about this series. I noticed a lot of people, especially hard core Jazz lover friends, and Jazz musicians were very disappointed with this series. I understand why, but disagree with their criticisms in the context of what this great film is about... yes, it is true that there are many artists and topics that the series skipped. I happen to be from Philadelphia and a Jazz organist, and both Philly and Jazz organists didn't get much coverage - - HOWEVER, I still stand by my 5 star review, because as I mentioned earlier, this show wasn't meant to rewrite Jazz history... in fact, in many ways its not about "just jazz" - - what its about is impact of Jazz upon American Society and American Society upon Jazz. - - It really introduces people to what Jazz is, was and has been about and the social conditions under which it grew and also the people who it effected. I mean really, 10 hours might not sound a lot, but really that's merely an hour per decade in the entire history of the music... and do you really think an hour would suffice to tell the story of any one artist alone, let alone the entire story of one particular instrument or artist ? This is a documentary film... not a TV series. You get to witness its evolution from birth to * * * (don't know exactly what you'd call the state of it today) and how it grew from 'Negroe' Maching Band and Minstral music in New Orleans in to America's Classical Music despite forms of prejudice (and even cultural xenophobia) that effected everything in it, especially in the era of Jim Crow from the artists themselves - - to acceptance of the music... as a result, it provides a true appreciation to people who normally may not have even listened to the music... And also, what about "mainstream" jazz lovers, who as a result were suddenly able to experience Charlie Parker... or even "straight" Jazz who might know a lot about bop and post-bop music, but have little insight into the roots, or musicians who only know "white" or "Black" figures in the music and think its only white or black ? - - Look, if you want an exhaustive picture of the music, there are millions of books around Amazon and I could reccomend a few (lot's of lucking trying to track down the footage !) - - Sure, I would have loved to see entire episodes on some of my unsung heroes and their unsung hero's, but the fact is, this is a picture of our music, presented to America. - - Its a FILM (alebeit one roughly the same length of Shoah) and it tells a story and doees so very well. For this purpose, I plea with you that if you truly love the music, don't knock it. Be thankful... Jazz is not in the best of shape these days. Do you realize that only 1% of all recording industry sales count for Jazz purchases and that's down from 4% a few years ago ? - - We should be thankful to Ken Burns, who admitted to having NOT been a Jazz fan before doing the documentary (but recognized its vital roll in American culture. His journey is our journey - - ergo JAZZ is a momentuous accomplishment, both for the music and the director.
Rating:
Summary: DISAPPOINTING REPRESENTATION OF AMERICAN JAZZ
Review: On the plus side, Ken Burns is still a leading artist when it comes to the visual elements of documentary filmmaking. But maybe since his CIVIL WAR series Burns' research has weakened. There's a lot more to 20th century American jazz than Wynton Marsalis and Louis Armstrong, but Burns doesn't seem to have discovered it. What about the outstanding women of jazz? How could Burns have overlooked jazz great Marian McPartland (and Mary Lou Williams and ... well the list is seemingly endless). I found myself wondering whether there wasn't some connection between Burns accepting millions of dollars from corporate America and the soullessness of this album. Certainly CIVIL WAR (which was underfunded) had more completeness and humanity than JAZZ. But don't worry. With all of the marketing reaching all the way from PBS to Borders book stores JAZZ will surely be a COMMERCIAL success.
Rating: 
Summary: Should have quit while he was ahead...
Review: I admire anyone attempting to document such a versatile artform such as jazz but the truth is that with this sort of hype several things needed to happen that didn't. Ken should have turned to more jazz musicians that had hands-on experience, rather than relying on "writers" whose credibility is never recognized. Watching this series, I felt like I was at a party, witnessing cocktail conversations between questionable minds - conversations consisting of quirky anecdotes but without anything concrete to back them up. I mean, "genius" is a strong word to use, and how many could there have been? And why? It would have been nice to have had that question answered at least once in a while. I know plenty about jazz history, being a jazz musician myself, and I found much of the series personally offensive and plainly ignorant. It was made clear that the importance of the major jazz figures mentioned was not measured by their musical creativity and innovative influence, rather by their commercial and financial success. This is plainly angering. And why didn't he consult such living jazz figures such as Anthony Braxton, Keith Jarrett (well, I know the answer to that one), Wayne Shorter, Sonny Rollins, Kenny Wheeler? I feel that they could have contributed much more than the people chosen for this humble, but wasteful attempt at a Jazz documentary. It should have been called: "Ken burns' Jazz: As it mirrored the life of Louis Armstrong" Or: "Jazz, as told to me by Wynton."
Rating:
Summary: Ken Burn's Version of Black America - Part III
Review: While I like the way Ken Burns films his documentaries, this documentary out of his 3-part version of American history culminates his idea of how blacks have been wronged in America. There were some parts of this documentary where I thought it was about the whoas of the black race vs. how jazz evolved. Once again, "blacks started this, blacks started that..." For as much as they tried portraying how jazz became a part of American heritage, Ken Burns came across as being devisive by making sure all viewers know that jazz is strictly the copyrighted material of blacks. I view all of us as Americans. Ken Burns likes to think he's bringing Americans together, but once again, he creates that divide that keeps racism alive. He does nothing through his portrayal of jazz history in bringing people together. At least a couple of times when talking about new white jazz musicians taking on a form of jazz, he made sure viewers realized that they were copying black artists. Believe it or not, other than his tiresome portrayal of racism, it was an interesting documentary. One can easily understand, though, that Marsalis could not possibly be an authority on all of the musicians highlighted.
Rating:
Summary: Sound quality
Review: Some of the reviews below complain about some recordings not being in stereo. I don't know if the complainers realize the original recordings up till the mid/late 1950s were made in mono or if they're complaining that they weren't electronically reprocessed into fake stereo. I'm glad the mono recordings were left as mono. One issue I wish was addressed in the series is recording technology. Up till about 1925 the music was recorded mechanically, not electronically. That's the reason why so many of the early recordings sound muted/tinny. Everyone has someone they wish was included in the series but wasn't, my wish: Eddie Lang & Joe Venuti. They were the original Django Reinhardt & Stephane Grapelli I think. They were recording guitar/violin duets in the 1920s, long before Django & Stephane. The series even went as far as to claim Django & Stepnane were the first to pair guitar/violin.
|
