Rating: 
Summary: An Introduction to Jazz
Review: Ken Burns' epic "Jazz" series, though a great introduction to the music of Jazz, is not ideal for completists looking to see a broad scope of Jazz.It's primary focus is on the giants:Armstrong, Ellington, as well as Billie Holiday, and though the series briefly mentions others, the documentary revolves around these three icons. "Jazz",though great at describing the beginnings up into the be-bop era, skips about two decades worth of Jazz and ends abruptly with the unofficial Messiah of the show, Wynton Marsalis. Burns doesn't describe the fusion era of jazz (i.e. Herbie Hancock and the Headhunters)nor does he describe international forms of jazz such as an all important Latin Jazz. Instead, we mainly view the Jazz scene in New York from the early 1900's to mid 1900's. Brief anecdotes are given by artists who have played with other legendary musicians, scholars and musicologists who try to define the term jazz, and an almost superfluous amount of metaphors from Marsalis. After watching the end of the series, I had felt that Burns represented Jazz in a way that it is almost exclusively an African-American art form and that the only great Jazz musicians are African-American. I feel that this could have created some sort of bias that contradicts the artform, because yes, there is life for Jazz beyond Harlem. Despite some of these flaws, "Jazz" provides a great adventure into the past and it introduces mainstream audiences into an artform that is often overlooked.
Rating: 
Summary: Compelling Viewing Despite Flaws In History and Perspective
Review: I have bought jazz recordings for my whole life and really love them. Some of my favorite musical artists were not adequately covered in this series, or were not covered at all. However, for those musical artists who were covered, my husband and I found the material fascinating. The still photographs of the musicians were gorgeous as well and since those are the primary images in the series, they almost stand alone. We also enjoyed all of the performances throughout plus the feature that lets you see the title of a particular piece while it is playing, and other facts, as part of the DVD extras. Does this series slight white jazz musicians? Yes, it does that consistently throughout. However, I suppose the black part of the story, which is the bigger part, has been slighted all too frequently in the past. So this enabled us to grasp that portion of the story more fully then ever before. There are wonderfully human stories throughout about the people in jazz and those were among the best parts of the series, such as Duke Ellington's relationship with his mother and with Billy Strayhorn plus the bittersweet final musical number played between Billie Holliday and Lester Young and their soon-after deaths. It's hard for me to see how you would not enjoy this series despite the key musical artists it leaves out and despite its perspective on who was great. For visual artists, the series is also very worthy because you will easily see the mirror-like development of modern art that accompanied jazz throughout the 20th century. My advice? See it.
Rating:
Summary: WYNTON MARSELIS DOCUMENTARY AND VERY LITTLE JAZZ!
Review: Ken Burns had a fantastic idea and a wonderful collection of music, photos and historical memorabilia, then it seems he entrusted it to Wynton Marselis, a gifted musician and performer. That is the flaw in this otherwise magnificient effort to capture all the nuances of Jazz. Mr Marselis' opinions overshadows and omits contributions and performances of too many artists who shaped this ever evolving music art form. I like Ken Burns and I respect his work. "Jazz" could have been great; it was however, disappointing and divisive. Letting the audience hear the music might have made the difference.
Rating: 
Summary: What Do You Expect From Someone Who Has No Ear For Jazz?
Review: As with others, I found the reliance on the opinions of Stanley Crouch and Wynton Marsalis to be the undoing of the entire thing. The reason Bill Evans was completely glossed over is precisely because Stanley Crouch considered him "a punk" who "could not swing". Imagine: The greatest pianist, jazz or otherwise, who has ever lived virtually excluded because of Crouch! Burns does make some mention of Evans in the book, rightly referring to him as "the most influential jazz pianist". But where's the beef? Heck, you could do a documentary solely on Evans! But not while Crouch and Marsalis are given to America as the spokesmen for "what is jazz". They really represent what is wrong with jazz, or at least the general public's perception of it via this series. As Miles Davis said of Marsalis' verbosity, "Who asked him?" You can learn all you need to know about the art of jazz by reading Bill Evans' liner notes on "Kind of Blue". Then, just listen with your soul. In a hundred years, Crouch and Marsalis will be on the ash heap of history and the true giants of jazz - Davis, Evans, Coltrane, Lateef, Monk, Shorter, Getz, et al, will live on. God bless them all.
Rating: 
Summary: great stories
Review: I know this has been out for a while, now, but I can't resist... I am a musician, and have been a jazz fan for many years. I already know who these artists are, and, yes, it left out some of my personal favorites. But the stories told on this series are just wonderful! Newcomers to jazz will get a fine introduction to many of the main players and some of the music - but the stories about the musicians really drew me in. My partner didn't know jazz at all, didn't even know who Coltrane was - and now she's gone out and bought several cds... even introduced me to some new ones! If this isn't a comprehensive dissertation on Jazz, the music, it is an engrossing Movie: it tells stories, and I'm thankful for the time spent on those stories. It's especially effective as an introduction to jazz because it draws people in with the pieces about the musician's lives. It's called a Film, not a Documentary. :)
Rating:
Summary: Great for what it is.
Review: I recently received this set as a gift. And sat down with great anticipation to watch it. I'm very impressed, although it didn't delve to deeply into recent trend's [avante-garde, fusion, and contemporary.] What it did do was enlighten the average Jazz fan about the history and tradition, of what is America's only true art form. Jazz is all thing's to all people, and it is near on impossible to create the perfect series. As we would have to compromise the show with discussion's as to the validity of leaving out Kenny G and putting in Coltrane. Every one has their favourite musician, and you come to the problem of who do leave out? Granted the fusion, and contemporary styles are important. But more so than Bop, and Swing? I think not.. Maybe when Jazz moves out of this torpor it has been in, in recent year's [Kenny G and his ilk], Ken Burns or someone else in the business may make a series bringing us up to date. But for the moment it is a very well researched and [up to a point] all encompassing series. And the bottom line is, that if it makes one young person pick up Miles Davis, or Sonny Rollins CD's at a store instead of the Backstreet Boy's it is a success. Enjoy it for what it is, and don't criticize it for what it's not.
Rating:
Summary: Latter half a big disappointment
Review: While the material to 1939 was informative, the rest was a disappointment unless you think jazz after WWII happened only in New York. Burns has apparently said he was not even a jazz fan before doing this, so no wonder he bought the tastes and interpretations of traditionalist Wynton Marsalis so completely. But I loved jazz from 1945 onward, and the story was not just be-bop. To have no mention of Latin influences in jazz nor of the Stan Kenton band and the many streams of West Coast jazz that grew out of it, nor of the cool jazz that San Francisco nurtured out of the old Blackhawk club, makes this effort appear trivial. Where is Ralph Gleason, the great jazz critic, and Fantasy Records in Berkeley which nurtured Brubeck and Tjader? Where are Shorty Rogers, Shelly Manne, Bud Shank, the LA crowd in the fifties? Nat Hentoff is allowed to say that West Coast jazz was "pretty bland" and that is all we ever hear of or about it. And silliest of all, Norman Granz and his groundbreaking Jazz at the Phil are given credit solely for pressing hotels to accept racially mixed groups. Sorry, but this show was done by someone without perspective with no interest or history in jazz, and it shows. Still, it fills in the story on a lot of fine New York musicians of whom we may have lost track. All of what actor-fan Ossie Davis says in the series is wonderful. About half of Marsalis' quotes are truly enlightening; the rest veer into mystical nonsense. If this were a college project I'd give it a B minus.
Rating:
Summary: The good, the bad, and the ugly
Review: I think I understand the viewpoints of BOTH the harsh critics and the fanatical supporters of this series. Both have valid points. Both "sides" sometimes fail to understand the points of the other "side" (or fail to even try). Here, I'll try to explain why I think both viewpoints are legitimate. Briefly, what are the good vs. bad qualities of this series? GOOD: Music is often blended extremely well with visual material. There is much great music and great film footage. Anyone new to jazz will be exposed to these. Even those not so new to jazz will find interesting sounds and sights. The commentary by Gary Giddons throughout the series is unusually helpful, insightful and moderate, in contrast to some other commentators (see BAD below). The film is good at telling stories (although many of these blur into legend and myth, see below). This film will be entertaining to the general public; it will expose jazz to many people who would never have gotten into it otherwise. It will widen jazz's audience, and in this sense, it will be good for jazz. I don't know how many people I've seen posting on the internet recently who've said that because of this series, they've decided to buy more jazz CDs, go to some jazz concerts, and buy books on the history of jazz and various musicians. So many people are at least being pointed in the direction of exploring jazz on their own, this in itself is a good thing, which will eventually be more significant than the serious flaws in the series (despite that critics of the series feel otherwise at the moment). BAD: Very often historically inaccurate, blurring the line between history, legend, myth, and cliche. These sins are too numerous to list. See Francis Davis's recent excellent review in the Atlantic online. ("I Hear America Scatting", January 2001) The narration is full of simple, declarative _subjective_ statements which are presented as if they were concrete facts. The history of jazz is presented as closed, undisputed, and final, rather than open, alive, and fresh. The film is awash in hyperbole, overstatement, and blind sentimentality, which takes the place of solid analysis and explanation. Figures (esp. Armstrong and Ellington) are deified to such a degree that the deification they receive completely overshadows their musicianship, and hence trivializes any legitimate attempts to explain or describe their true impact. The music of both Armstrong and Ellington is enough to defend their contributions as some of the most important in jazz history; we don't need to be told that Armstrong "was sent from heaven to make people happy". The film has a definite bias in promoting the Marsalis-Crouch viewpoint. This is perhaps the most serious flaw -- Burns is trying to find abstract ideas (America, freedom, race, democracy, etc.) in jazz music, and ends up injecting race to an extent that is not accurate with social history. There's nothing wrong with having a viewpoint. The problem comes in presenting this viewpoint in such a way that the viewer is never aware that there IS a viewpoint IN THE FIRST PLACE. Evidence of this comes from the stream of newbies to jazz who, after watching the series, confidently reply to the critics: "But this series is well made after all, because NOW I have a good introduction to the history of jazz." Really. How could you KNOW, if this is your ONLY significant exposure to jazz? And that's the big problem, is that the series always gives the impression that it's "objective", giving viewers a false sense of security. The scat singing is annoying. And of course, the impression that jazz died and suddenly reawakened when Wynton Marsalis picked up a horn is patronizing. So, the series is good as mainstream entertainment and as a vehicle for getting the general public very excited about a neglected art form. The series is bad as an accurate, even somewhat objective history of jazz, and it's conceived with a social agenda that severely compromises its presentation. My own (admittedly biased) advice to jazz newbies interested in this series: I would rent the series from the videostore. Watch it, enjoy it, love it, and take it with a ton of salt. Then, take the money you would have spent on buying the series, and get several good CDs that interest you. Also, buy the three following excellent books, which together will give you a much richer, much more insightful, much more accurate, and much more representative history of this art form: The History of Jazz, by Ted Giola Visions of Jazz: The First Century, by Gary Giddons Collected Works: A Journal of Jazz 1954-1999, by Whitney Balliett
Rating:
Summary: Great Jazz Introduction
Review: I grew up in the rock and roll/R & B era. I knew of Duke and Louis but I did not know them or their music. This series opened my eyes (and my wallet) to the great men and women of jazz. After watching it, I have a better appreciation for not only the talent but the struggle these exceptional people had to endure. This is not just a history of jazz but a history of the 20th century primarily from an African American viewpoint. I now play Duke and Louis and Miles and Trane and Bird and Ella and can now appreciate what each recording represents historically. The series touches on the major players and leaves the viewer to do his/her own research. Once again, Ken Burns turns out a winner.
Rating:
Summary: Long live jazz! Two cheers for Burns.
Review: Ken Burns has attempted the impossible: a comprehensive video series on jazz. So, there is something to offend nearly everybody; but much much to delight many as well. It was a noble effort, however flawed. Television, misleading and basically untrue medium that it is, is seldom better. That in itself merits praise. The mastermind behind "Jazz" is not Ken Burns. He is the producer, and knew nothing of jazz five years ago. The philosophy and history of jazz is largely directed and inspired by trumpeter and band leader Wynton Marsallis, for better or worse. The take is that jazz is essentially black music, which is often appropriated by while interlopers. The gods of jazz, for Marsallis, are Louis Armstrong and Duke Ellington. There is some truth in this. Benny Goodman was not the "King of Swing." That title should have gone to Duke Ellington or Chic Webb or Fletcher Henderson, Goodman's forebears. With considerable talent, he popularized their ideas. However, talent in jazz is not a matter of pigment, but of soul, of brilliance, of spirit. That is colorblind. That is a Gift. Moreover, it is a stain on American history that many great, black jazz musicians could not stay in the hotels in which they brilliantly performed and had difficulty breaking into management and record production. As with "Baseball," "Jazz" often addresses the themes of race and class in America--so much so that one often wishes there were more pure music in this long series. The only complete cut, I believe, is a short Billy Holiday blues piece in which she touchingly reconciled with Lester Young. Why not a full piece by the classic Coltrane Quartet on "Jazz Casuals" or something similar? I would have appreciated more comments by Nat Hentoff, a key jazz writer in the bebop and beyond period. (He is also an excellent newspaper columnist.) Gary Giddens is consistently insightful and worth hearing, especially on Coltrane and Armstrong. Then there are the omissions. There is nothing on the blind, multi-instrumentalist (who played several reed instruments at once) and steller improvisor Roland Kirk. Although he is arguably the best living jazz guitar player, Pat Metheny is omitted (as is most of the last forty years of jazz). We find nothing on the recently departed innovator and virtuoso of the trombone, J.J. Johnson. There is nothing on the highly creative and passionate playing of multi-reed player (and bandmate of John Coltrane), Eric Dolphy. If Burns cut out about about ten-fifteen minutes of Pops, there would have been some room for these esteemed cats. I hope the effect of this series will be to revitalize interest in and love for jazz, the best uniquely American art form. Jazz ranks near last in music sales today, sadly. Consider the garbage (Eminem!) that outsells it. But jazz has a great history and is not dead; it has a future. Just listen to Joshua Redmond, James Carter, Branford Marsallis, or Pat Metheny... And watch "Jazz"--critically, but appreciatively. --Douglas Groothuis
|
