Rating: 
Summary: Start Here
Review: As a jazz fan and a professional music retailer, I can recommend this book as a wonderful place to begin one's discovery of jazz or gain more knowledge of the cultural legacy of the music. In conjunction with the excellent video series and a box of cds by the titans written about by Ward, ie. Armstrong, Ellington, Davis, Parker, Holiday, etc., one can have a wonderful adventure either discovering the music for the first time or revisiting and expanding old passions. Those who quibble with its incompleteness run the risk of branding themselves cynics after the fashion of Wilde's definition: "A man who knows the price of everything but the value of nothing."
Rating: 
Summary: Out of Burns' league, I'm afraid.
Review: Burns has crafted a highly successful documentary career based on his own personal style and approach to presenting history, but he is clearly out of his depth in this beautifully illustrated but sadly unbalanced work on jazz. While they are certainly giants in their field, there is much more to the incredibly complex and multi-faceted world of jazz music than Louis Armstrong and Duke Ellington, who seemingly intrude on every page of Burns' misguided essay. Breaththrough artists such as Ornette Coleman, Cecil Taylor, and other "difficult" musicians are glossed over, and innovators such as John Coltrane and Miles Davis are sadly underrepresented given the scope of their influence. All in all, Burns seems to see jazz as a triumph of the mainstream rather than the rebellion against established norms that truly defines what the music is all about. The photographs are undoubtedly beautiful, and many have had rare circulation in the last century. For graphic presentation alone, the book rates three stars. But Burns' overall viewpoint is ultimately a cozy, yuppie-class look at a music that defies and transcends his eagerness to rein it in into a neat, tidy narrative. Seductively rendered, disappointingly researched.
Rating:
Summary: Jazz Did Not End in 1955!
Review: Geoffrey Ward and Ken Burns have produced another handsome book, featuring the same opulent look and feel as their earlier, best selling books on The Civil War and Baseball. Their writing on jazz's early history is outstanding. Burns & Co. have also done a magnificent job of culling the nation's photo archives for rare photos of jazz's most famous founding fathers along with many of its long since forgotten contributors. For me, this alone is worth the price of admission. The big problem with this book is that it provides, at best, a severely truncated and tendentious history of the music. The (generally crisp) narrative simply peters out about 1955. One chapter gives a cursory overview of several developments in the 1950s. The final chapter covers the remaining 40 years in a slim, almost perfunctory twenty or thirty pages. Perhaps the book should have been titled "Jazz: The First 50 Years." It appears to me that the authors - both autodidacts in the field of jazz - simply lost their nerve. Writing a jazz history in the years after 1950 admittedly gets harder. The music splits into many competing schools and styles. Much of it is simply harder for the uninitiated to listen to. But this is no excuse to gloss over or ignore the great music and musicians who mean so much to jazz fans born after 1940. (Would you believe that Charles Mingus only merits a piddling sidebar?) The authors seem to have signed onto the orthodoxy of Wynton Marsalis and his ilk. In a nutshell, this holds that jazz took (multiple) wrong turns in the modern era. It stopped featuring the familiar, danceable, toe-tappable shuffling swing that earned it its original popularity. In other words, modern jazz has turned into a musical dead end. The only hope for its salvation is to return to the earlier swing and bop forms and overlay them with a slightly more complex and refined sensibility. It is not hard to discern within the narrative the heavy hand of critics who comprise this school of thought: Albert Murray, Stanley Crouch, and Wynton himself. In sum, by embracing a cramped, severely circumscribed definition of jazz, the authors utterly fail to understand (much less elucidate) the modern era in jazz. Free jazz was/is more than just angry black nationalist ranting. Fusion, at its best, was not simply a sell-out to triumphalist rock. (And, no, Miles Davis did not "denature" the music when he plugged in.) For me, the elegiac tone of this book is both insulting and patronizing. Baseball did not begin to die when the Dodgers left Brooklyn. Neither did jazz when Ornette Coleman whipped out his alto sax in New York City in 1959. By all means, do buy this beautiful book. Just be aware of the stultifying orthodoxy emanating from each of its glossy pages.
Rating:
Summary: The rise and perceived fall of jazz!
Review: I agree with the previous reviewer that this book has the look...but not the feel, particularly for jazz's most recent half-century. What is so difficult to understand? What happened with--not to--jazz in recent decades is merely that most of its genuine creative spirits believed that it should reflect its era of creation. Not to run and hide from it, or adhere to an orthodox, rear-view mirror definition. Ironically Duke Ellington, Louis Armstrong and other celebrated early greats are celebrated for breaking/remaking the pop culture paradigms of their day. Miles Davis does the same thing in a later era and he gets accused by a vocal minority--given much word-time in this book--of something akin to treason. If in recent decades a particular "jazz" musician heard a connection with an avant-garde sensibility, then the better visionaries (Ornette, Coltrane) effectively bridged that gap. If one sensed a connection with other countries (Brazil, Nigeria, Japan, etc.), then some intuitive artists made THAT work (Stan Getz, Toshiko Akiyoshi, etc.). And if one had an affinity for the more creative efforts in contemporary popular culture, then you got a best-of-many-worlds hybrid, at least from such forward-thinkers as Davis, Cassandra Wilson, Monday Michiru (who is virtually unknown in the land that created jazz--FYI Toshiko is her mom), and others. Concurrently, some musicians seemed to react against this no-holds-barred eclecticism and pick up from points in the now-distant past. That's okay, too...but it's not the only "right" way to bridge jazz's past with it's present and future. Of course, a majority of tag-along musicians dumbed-down all of these valid scenarios, with results that ranged from commercial-lite to cacaphonic-heavy. Yet particularly the former was true in jazz's early decades, too. Bottom line: the best recent efforts are no less aesthetically timeless than the indisputable great moments of jazz's first half-century. Sorry to rant, but I think my opinions are far from unique among contemporary jazz fans...in fact, there was already a long line forming before I got in it. I would lukewarmly recommend this book to newcomers, because despite its faults it does attempt to deal with this unique art form in a serious manner, and with a stylish, photo-rich layout. I would just add that a lot of us fans would like to have seen our vision of contemporary jazz better-reflected, rather than not-too-subtly dissed. For one, the Grammy awards been there, done that.
Rating:
Summary: Nothing new here
Review: I didn't care for the book. Sure it's pretty and will get some folks interested in the music, but I found the treatment a bit heavy-handed. Talking about musicians as bold innovators and soul stylists and technical wizards is all a bit much for me. Many of the greatest jazz musicians were addicts and just generally not very nice people. Also, I really didn't see anything in that book that I haven't seen in other books. It almost looks as though Burns took a "best of" approach to a lot of other jazz history books out there. Personally, I've had enough of the who, what, when, and where that you can read any old dusty history book. What I want is the how and why and this book certainly doesn't answer either question. One last note: any jazz history book that talks about Wynton Marsalis more often than it mentions J.J. Johnson is not a book I'm going to spend money on.
Rating: 
Summary: Great overview of jazz.
Review: I enjoyed listening to this extensive overview of the history of jazz. The reader, LaVar Burton, was excellent in his reading of the text. The quotations and remarks from various musicians through the years were refreshing and interesting. My only wish, as this was an audiobook, was more musical examples of the artists. For example, after explaining a style of a musician, having a short interlude illustrating it would be nice. Overall, I enjoyed listening to it and found it very interesting and informative.
Rating: 
Summary: The Civil War Without Lee and Grant
Review: I haven't read the book but own and have listened to the 10 tapes many times. How does one write a history of jazz with no mention of Nat King Cole and dismissing Stan Getz as having robbed a convenience store to support his habit? That's like writing a history of the Civil War without mentioning Lee and dismissing Grant as a drunk. This "history" is a tribute to Louis Armstrong and Duke Ellington. Both were giants but jazz would have happened without either. All Ken Burns had to do was go to the old copies of Downbeat and Metronome to locate who all the giants were. It's known as research and cannot be replaced by going to Wynton Marsalis for a racist and biased view. Also ignored are Joe Williams, Shirley Horne, Carmen McRae, J.J. Johnson, Billy Eckstine and Oscar Peterson. Other than for Benny Goodman and Artie Shaw, the white bands are given short shrift. Les Brown, Stan Kenton and Woody Herman bands get only mention and little more. That treatment is accorded Stan Getz, Lee Konitz, Art Pepper, Lennie Tristano, Bill Evans, Kai Winding, Buddy Morrow, Frank Rosolino, Bob Brookmeyer, Shelly Manne, Buddy Rich, Charlie Bird, Anita O'Day and Joe Mooney to name a few. These were not just greats. They influenced musicians, white and black, and changed the sound of jazz forever. Getz took the Lester Young sound and style and developed it into one that was copied by every tenor man since, including Coltrane. The 4 brothers sound was everywhere. Bill Evans is considered by most knowledgeable critics as the finest jazz piano man who ever lived. The J & Kai recordings are among the greatest trombone works. Joe Mooney's group was 2nd (to Nat King Cole trio) in a 1940's Downbeat poll even thought they had never recorded. Anita O'Day was not only a great vocalist but also ran the High Note on North Clark Street in Chicago which was home to Monday night sessions for years. The influence of Tristano and Konitz cannot be questioned. Shelley Manne was widely copied and responsible for a style of drumming in which one felt more than heard the driving force of brushes. Bobby Brookmeyer continues to compose, direct and play to the present. Charlie Bird was the greatest of acoustic jazz guitarists and studied with Segovia. With all of those omissions, Burns still finds space to showcase Armstrong and Ellington on each of the 10 tapes. That appears to be at urging of a bigoted Marsalis. There are many fine sides on those tapes. They should be heard. But don't imagine that this Documentary even scratches the history of jazz.
Rating:
Summary: Not perfect, but wonderful nonetheless
Review: I loved this book; it's well-balanced and has plenty of cultural perspective. There were lots of anecdotes and photos that I have never seen before (the pictures of blacks dancing at an outdoor big band show at Randalls Island in 1938 are almost worth the price of the book alone). The main criticism about this book (and the Ken Burns Jazz series in general) is that it gives short shrift to jazz since the 1960s. First off, as Ken Burns has said himself, he's an historian, so this project will obviously focus more on the origins and development of the music rather than present-day musicians. And as much as today's jazz musicians and fans like to tell you otherwise, there haven't been too many groundbreaking developments in the music since the free jazz movement of late Coltrane and early Ornette Coleman, or the funk/rock excursions by Miles Davis. Furthermore, and more importantly, jazz is simply no longer a big part of the present-day American landscape. Although jazz records rarely sold as well as more pop-oriented music (a jazz record that sold 20,000 copies was considered a big hit), the music was always written about in mainstream publications and talked about by just about anyone. Heck, guys like Miles, Dizzy Gillespie, Charlie Parker, Thelonious Monk and Coltrane were occasionally featured on prime-time television. Today, the biggest (and perhaps only) jazz star is Wynton Marsalis, a bland neo-traditionalist who hasn't forged any new ground himself. For myself, I'd rather read about Satchmo, Bird, Billie Holiday and Monk.
Rating: 
Summary: The true story of jazz still hasn't been told.....
Review: I read this book because: of my love for old school jazz and the big "HOOPLA" over this publication! I can't say that I gained much knowledge from this book. If you are a true collector of jazz and know Duke Ellington, Louis Armstrong, Lee Morgan, Charlie Parker, Dizzy, Wes Montgomery, Freddie Hubbard, Billie Holiday, Coltrane and others then you already know more or as much as what is written here.You've got 512 pages to tell a story about a subject so diverse and complex that I don't know how he did it and felt that justice was done! What I would have preferred he did was to write several books on jazz EACH concentrating on a particular era. That way I think the public would get a true and comprehensive study of our most beautiful and natural resource--jazz. Sorry but I can't offer a rating higher than 2 - 2 1/2 stars.
Rating:
Summary: Should be "Jazz Origins: Popular Jazz & It's Evolution."
Review: I really liked this book because it gave great detail to the Founding Giants of Jazz. I get disapointed with books that try to be all things to all people and end up just skiming over everything. I like that this book went in-depth with the most popular artists. To try to fully cover the "Complete History of Jazz" would take about 10,000 pages of similairly over-sized books broken into about 20 volumes. Critics I have read on this page do a lot of name dropping to show off some knowledge. Perhaps they should write a book or two on the subject; I would love to read such a book. "Fusion: The Complete Evolution" would be a great volume in the above mentioned theoretical 10,000 pager, but most people have no interest in fusion. If you start going into Anthony Braxton's complex sheet music you are just going to loose people. This book sticks to the popular art form which is an evolution of sorts on it's own. An evolution of popular music and the evolution of the "musician's music" are two different things. I think the authors gave people what they wanted with this book. The REALITY of publishing a book like this is that it has to have broad appeal. You just aren't going to get funding to do a book that spends 25 pages on an extremely talented yet popularly obscure artist. This book is great for the novice or for the more educated jazz historian who wants to read some great stories and see some great photo's even if many of them are "common jazz knowledge" and repeats. (The story of Armstrong running into Oliver while selling tomatoes is a classic. I hadn't heard that one.) It is not as comprehensive with the modern era but I feel that it is proportional to the popularity of Jazz. If you want a complete Jazz history, you will need a library of about 100 books. This book should be in that library.
|
