Rating: 
Summary: No Keith Jarrett? No ECM Artists ? No European Musician?
Review: No Keith Jarrett? No ECM Artists ? No European Musician?
Rating: 
Summary: Be grateful!
Review: Before taking seriously the backbiting by musicians and the deconstructing by "informed" critics, try to understand exactly what it is Burns has accomplished and for whom. This is not a "history" of jazz--it's a "story" of jazz, as effectively communicated as any that has hitherto been constructed. Moreover, it has managed to engage not only the PBS audience that normally watches Louis Rukeyser and Lawrence Welk re-runs (with John Tesh brought on for fund-raising). A diverse audience with little knowledge of jazz, of jazz and race, of the importance of Louis, Duke, and Bird has suddenly started to question, talk, purchase--and, above all, to listen. Ken Burns is a myth-maker in the best sense of the word, making masses aware of a tradition, a legacy, an art form that frankly did not previously exist in the consciousness of most Americans. Thank goodness he didn't present a "catalogue," stage a "jam session" with hundreds of musicians, or drydock the journey with all sorts of sociological-revisionist history-musicological scholarship and jargon. The series is simply indispensable, a starting point for any further conversations about the subject. Burns is no less a storyteller than the great John Ford. If like Ford he gets some of the "facts" wrong, the power of the narrative and the "truth" of its central meaning remains unassailable. Thank you, Ken Burns! And thank you, Wynton Marsalis, for giving him the idea.
Rating: 
Summary: Noble Failure
Review: The film is potent in arguing that the history of race in the 20th-century U.S. is at jazz's heart. Such an idea is absurdly ridiculous, but presented by Burns who thinks that the Civil War was the greatest event in our nations history, it's not suprising.A few problems arise. First is Burns's reliance on Wynton Marsalis as his chief musical commentator. Marsalis might be charming and musically expert, but he's no historian and he's quite monolithic which makes for a boring visual. For the film to devote three of its episodes to the 1930s, one expects a bit more historical substance. Also, Jazz condenses the period of 1961 to the present into one episode, glossing over some of the music's giant steps. Burns has said repeatedly that he didn't know much about jazz when he began this project and he sure didn't know much aftewards. So perhaps Jazz, for all its glory, would better be called Jazz: What I've Learned Since I Started Listening. For those who are already passionate about jazz, the film will stoke debate (and some derision, together with some reluctant praise). But for everyone else, it will amaze and entertain and kindle a flame for some of the greatest music ever dreamed. We deserve a much better film.
Rating:
Summary: a must own and/or borrow series
Review: This is a series which needs several viewings to absorb the history and important events in the development of Jazz. We plan to circulate our copy to family and friends.
Rating: 
Summary: A very good overview
Review: I have been a fan (and player) of jazz for most of my life, and I found the series to be both entertaining and informative, especially for a newcomer. Reading a book about the history of jazz won't help as you need the music, and just buying CD's is a waste unless you know what to get (and what to listen for).I would like to point out that the USA is not the only country in the world that plays jazz (lets face it, you're NOT the only country in the world!). Much of the technical foundation came from European immigrants and most of the rest was from the lowest class in your society, so if it's an American music, it's certainly not the one that the society WANTED And stop complaining that certain later figures were omitted or glossed over (isn't there a quote somewhere that your influence on society can't be determined until 30 years after you're dead?). He couldn't talk about EVERYONE (although I agree WC Handy should have been there)
Rating:
Summary: Say WHAT??!?
Review: Apparently, my first review of this mockumentary got lost in the shuffle, so we'll try again. Without trying to duplicate much of what has already been said negatively about this series, I would like to add a few opinions to the mix for your consideration. #1: When we say that the series is racist, we are not just referring to omitted white musicians. We are referring to the fact that there were several white musicians who greatly influenced blacks, not just the other way around. Miff Mole and Jack Teagarden, for instance, set the standard of trombone playing for about a decade until Dicky Wells came along (and, after him, J.J. Johnson). Lester Young was influenced not by Armstrong and Benny Carter but by Bix and Frank Trumbauer. Billie Holiday and Ella Fitzgerald based their styles of singing on Connee Boswell, not Ethel Waters (who they both detested, by the way). Benny Golson, who played with Art Blakey in the '50s and '60s, was most influenced by Glenn Miller saxist Tex Beneke. Now, this isn't to say that this kind of thing was always the case, but BE FAIR! #2: There is a definite sexist bias throughout the 19 hours of "Jazz." Except for Mary Lou Williams, female jazz musicians are ignored completely. Only the "girl singers" are praised. And, when women are mentioned at all, it is in a way that demeans their intelligence and says that they were too dumb to appreciate the subtleties of the music (i.e., "Women loved to have a copy of 'Miles Ahead' laying around because it was soft, sexy music"...not because they understood what Miles Davis was doing). And for that matter, where are the male jazz singers? Where were King Pleasure, Dave Lambert, Jon Hendricks (except for when he was talking about Bird), Mel Torme, Leo Watson?? #3: While it is true that "not everyone could be included," there were just too many major innovators left out - really important ones without whom certain jumps and links just don't make sense. Aside from my own personal prejudices, I think that most jazz fans and critics would have included Red Norvo, Nat King Cole, Woody Herman, George Russell, Lennie Tristano, Eric Dolphy and Ahmad Jamal (I would also have included Tiny Parham, Eddie Sauter, Boyd Raeburn, J.J. Johnson, Buddy DeFranco, Antonio Jobim and some actual sounds from Freddie Hubbard). And, of course, we have little or nothing of post-1970 jazz, which is totally unfair (where were Arthur Blythe, the World Saxophone Quartet, Rabih Abou-Khalil or Tania Maria?). What worries me most is that all previous jazz histories will now become obsolete. Only the Burns film and the Burns-Marsalis-Crouch agenda will be pushed. Schoolchildren will grow up believing that Louis Armstrong's "Hello Dolly" was a more important and influential record than Dolphy's "Out to Lunch" or that Ellington's "Afro-Eurasian Eclipse" was a major work while Mingus's "Black Saint and the Sinner Lady" was insignificant. Oh my, the list goes on and on. Valuable for some extremely rare photos and clips of performers (Bird talking on TV, Clifford Brown playing, etc.) Worthless as a history of jazz. Better to buy one of the many fine, compact jazz histories on the market. My favorite is "Discovering Great Jazz."
Rating:
Summary: Forget the critics -- another brilliant effort by Burns!
Review: Gerald Early once said that in the future, America would be known for three things -- the Constitution, Baseball and Jazz. This is the second effort by Ken Burns of this aptly named "American trilogy" and another outstanding documentary made by one of Mrs. Burns very talented sons. JAZZ is a worthy next step, and admirably follows his earlier work. The genre which Burns has mastered is best characterized by the ability to take still photographs and transfer them seamlessly to another element based upon movement. He is able to do so here as in Baseball and The Civil War admirably. Burns integrates stills as well as old film footage with music and interviews. The series is wonderfully narrated with the deep baritone of Keith David. Ossie Davis and a host of other narrators combine to offer their eloquence. Contrary to what some other critics say, Wynton Marsalis does a terrific job as a second narrator. I don't know (and don't care) what his educational background is (unlike another), but he certainly knows the techniques of jazz almost as well as he knows the luminaries Burns profiles. Most importantly, as Burns is able to explain the import of some performers, Marsalis dissects the music first in words, and then with his horn. Without this technique, we would have nothing but words to explain that Dizzy Gillespie "doubled up" when he played melodies on his trumpet. With Marsalis, it comes alive via his playing. This gives insights that no words ever could. The tragedy which seems to have befallen many great jazz musicians, like the story of Charlie Parker is positively heart-rending. He and Lady day diedlooking twice their natural age. It is too bad that Burns (like any other man) could not discover why so many jazz giants had substance abuse problems. When Keith David goes through the litany on musicians who were destroyed (or at least wounded) by narcotics, it is nothing short of a who's who of jazz music. Damn the critics! This is great work. One complains about the length. Another complains because a personal favorite is left on the cutting room floor. Some are upset because Louis Armstrong was lauded, while others complain because his influence is somehow not adequately explained, like this was some junior high school essay. Of course, those reviewers who complain about the discussion of race could complain that a documentary about World War Two made more than passing critical reference to those pesky, misunderstood Nazis. Name one artist who was allegedly not given his props, and there are two here justifiably. The haunting melodies made famous by Billie Holiday are well represented, as is the earthy classic Ethel Waters. The Duke is as smooth and majestic as his nickname implies. Another two hours would have been well spent on him. Double that for Louis Armstrong, rightly called a gift from the jazz gods, and in spite of the critics, every artist seemed to acknowledge his influence. Of course, it only took a few minutes of listening to his oh-so-sweet horn to make plain the reason why. Like another, I thought that the three minutes of Louis Armstrong's "Tiger Rag" were worth the price of the discs. And I defy anyone to EVER hear La Marseillaise again without thinking of the way it sounded when first played by Harlem's own Fifteenth New York Regiment Army Band in 1919. The bottom line? Another critic asked if this work will be an adequate introduction for those persons who do not know much about jazz. The answer is a most emphatic YES, YES, YES!
Rating:
Summary: Ken Burns Jazz
Review: With all of it flaws and despite all of the complaints, this is an important series for many reasons. I tuned in to the PBS series every night that it was on and learned a lot from it. This was like a jazz appreciation course. I agree that Burns should have interviewed more artists and not focus so much on Wynton Marsalis' views on jazz. After all, guys like Keith Jarrett, Wayne Shorter, etc are still with us. However, it was important to hear a musician's point of view and Marsalis served his purpose. The 'jazz' we hear nowadays is the stuffed labelled as 'smooth jazz' or 'new age'. It was great to learn about the importance and impact of the music throughout the ages when jazz was the most popular style and was bursting with creativity. While Burns omitted some of my favorites, it was grand to see footage of Louis Armstrong, Charlie Parker, and Miles Davis. The footage of Armstrong taking the stage against doctors' orders at the end of his life was especially touching. One of the things I appreciated most about Jazz was that it introduced me to a number of artists who I never heard of before. I've heard a lot of jazz but never before realized the importance of people such as Fletcher Henderson, Bix Beiderbecke, King Oliver, Clifford Brown, or Lester Young. Nor did I realize just how huge Count Basie or Benny Goodman were during their prime. I am well aware of the flaws in this series, especially in the way it skims over jazz artists after 1965 and how it fails to comment on the diversification of jazz in the past 40 years. Still, if this music and the history of these artists can be exposed to people, particularly youngsters, I can put up with the flaws.
Rating:
Summary: Jazz from the Heart
Review: Ken Burns' Jazz is not a complete, detailed history of jazz. Nor is it an academic survey of jazz. It isn't even a review of jazz meant for a jazz aficionado. It is rather a glimpse into the feeling of jazz, the creativity of its greatest artists, the emergence of a native American art form interwoven with the history of 20th century America. It's a glimpse at toe-tapping music, soul-searching music, plaintive music. Most of all, it's about joy (Louis Armstrong) and love (Duke Ellington) and human resilience. I recommend it to all who would like to learn more about jazz or to anyone who yearns for a positive look at our people and our life. I hope that our nation's youth - many of whom do not receive many messages of joy, love and resilience - are inspired to carry on the tradiiton of great jazz creators and appreciators.
Rating:
Summary: A fine documentary
Review: Contrary to the naysayers, "Jazz" is a fine social history of the music. It is not by any means a dangerous or destructive film. Intelligent people are not likely to be brainwashed by Mr. Marsalis or Ossie Davis, et. al., or to assume that Ken Burns is telling his tale the only possible way it can be told. The sheer effort involved in making this monster of a film, broadcast FOR FREE over public television, deserves the public's approbation. The music is almost endless and affecting, even when you can't hear it very well over the observations of Burns' various talking heads, most of whom have interesting and insightful views to share with us, whether they're "correct" or not. The central episodes focus on the Swing Era, when jazz was nearest to being America's "popular music," and that structural point suggests that "Jazz" should be viewed as a social history of the music, not as a strict history of jazz music. There is a place for serious work of exactly the sort "Jazz" represents, alongside the musicological studies that are already available to interested people. "Jazz" is both entertaining and educational, and deserves at least one attentive viewing by anyone who makes a habit of watching television. Others will probably enjoy it more, and often.
|
