Jazz - A Film by Ken Burns

Rating:
Summary: The Best Series on Jazz, Despite Its Flaws
Review: I am a jazz musician, son of a jazz musician, am conservatory trained, and this series stands toe to toe with the best lectures by the best music historians and music theory experts I have studied with. If Ken Burns chose to follow a the pillars of jazz in depth rather than give ten minutes to every musician to come along in the past hundred years, we are better for it. If you want ten minutes on each musician, read liner notes. Mr. Burns series will be remembered precisely because it does go into such depth. Bird, Duke, Pops and Dizzie do not come clear to you without much study. We should be grateful for the fact that this series is anything but shallow. It is true to the art. If this series, because of such depth, asks more of viewers than they want to give, then let such viewers only seeking entertainment seek that. Americans, everything is not entertainment.

Jazz itself, from its outset and to this very day, asks more of you than any other music. A series about it should do no less.

This series is not perfect. Jazz is also imperfect. As Thelonius Monk said, there are no wrong notes. So are there no bad jazz documentaries, as long as they are unflinching, whole, and about the forces that shaped the music. This one is. It's only real flaw is that it is too in love with its own story and the music. That is entirely forgiveable.

If you have any interest in jazz, buy or rent this series and watch each one like a student, and learn in wonder at the extraordinary music brought to us by African Americans. It is one of the glories of American culture, and of the world, and we should join Ken Burns, his historians, critics and musicians in joyously celebrating the collective creation of the geniuses that graced our land in the past 100 years.

Rating:
Summary: All that jazz???
Review: After watching the documentary twice now and with the benefit of hindsight, I believe that I can give an honest and impartial opinion of this series by documentarian, Ken Burns.

Good: The series does have a good entertainment factor that borders on sensationalism. The rare historical photographs and footage is extremely interesting. Because this was the first documentary I had seen by Ken Burns I still found the panning of photographs visually stimulating. The objective and insightful commentary from critic, Gary Giddons was the only one worth having in the film and if this had of been coupled with more muscianal commentary the documentary may have filled itself out more eloquently.

Bad: Grouch and the Marsalis' brothers incesant pontification and romanticism. Burns' reliance on Wynton as musical director and historian destroys what could have been an impartial, albeit brief, history on jazz. To not include actual living musicians who took part in the evolution of jazz throughout the sixties and seventies is unthinkable. There are glaring omissions of seminal artists but the most slighted would have to be the jazz guitarist...after watching this one would think you would have to be, not only black to play jazz, but a horn or piano player as well.

Overall, this is a racist, incomplete history of jazz. Three episodes of swing and ONE for the last forty years? Regardless of public opinion jazz did not die in the sixties and Wynton Marsalis certainly did not revive it. Which brings me to my last point. The list of conservative revivalists at the end of the film was sickening. Whilst it is questionable whether the avant garde artist plays what could be called jazz, they certainly had a background in it and their music evolved out of jazz. Why weren't they listed as carrying the torch. Jazz is an evolutionary artform, not a nostalgic, sentimental and classical ideal as some would have you believe.

Rating:
Summary: Burn's best (I think)
Review: I own every Ken Burns documentary and watch them continually, so my expectations were high for "Jazz". In my biased opinion, this is better than Baseball or The Civil War as far as the depth in which it delves into the personalities of the many jazz artists. Armstrong, Ellington, Holiday, Parker, Davis, etc. I have never really listened to "classic" jazz music, but this documentary really whetted my appetite to explore to the roots and pioneers of jazz. I think it will turn a lot of new people on to the older artists for the first time. Jazz is the grandfather of rock and roll, so it's interesting to hear the early artists that created the syncopated beat that started it all. Some more random thoughts. 1. HANDY TIP: If you buy the DVD, go to SCENE SELECTION at the startup screen and choose INTRODUCTION. If you choose PLAY JAZZ, you have to sit through about 2 minutes of "Funds for this program were provided by..." which is on every PBS program but this one is annoyingly long and it's on all TEN of the discs. 2. A neat feature of the DVD is that you can display the title of the song that's playing as background music. VERY NICE. This feature should be on every DVD documentary. 3. For those of you who watched "BASEBALL", notice how serious Gerald Early is in "JAZZ", he was so animated in "BASEBALL", constantly smiling, he's gloomy here. 4. There are little connections to other Burns' films, like "BASEBALL" or "Empire of the Air", it's fun to pick those out if you've seen them. 5. Every recent Burns film has a least one swipe at Republicans. Try and find the one in "JAZZ". 6. As it was in "Civil War" and "Baseball" the theme is the struggle against racism, and there's some pretty ugly examples of it here. White Americans prepare to feel guilty. Watch it on PBS first and see if you like it. I'd say it's a must for Burns fans.

Rating:
Summary: It's Gumbo-riffic!
Review: It's interesting that the majority of positive reviews, here and elsewhere, come from people who A) confess that they are relative newcomers to the music, and B) find space to take potshots at jazz "snobs" who don't like the series. Well, derogatory word or not, shouldn't a snob or elitist have a better idea of whether this film does justice to its subject?

Let's pretend that I don't know the first thing about the Kennedy assasination; in fact, let's say I didn't even know he was shot. Until I see Stone's JFK movie. And then when people who have explored the story for years start poking holes in Stone's account, I dismiss them as snobs. Or let's say I've watched Tammy and the T-Rex and I start going on about how realistic it is, and I shoot down any scientific or cinematographic objections as elitist party-pooping....

Look, this is not a great film, and the jazz-initiated needn't apologize for saying so. You've got a filmmaker who didn't know the slightest thing about the music when he started, and who relied heavily on the biased ear-whisperings of two of the most conservative, narrow jazz spokesmen you could find. If you want a lengthy bio of Louis Armstrong, it's here. If you want to learn about the Blues, you will. But if you want an in-depth look at what happens in bop, post-bop, free jazz, and early fusion, you won't learn much, if anything. You may walk away thinking that Elvin Jones played on Giant Steps, that Cecil Taylor was a charlatan, that "Hello Dolly" is more worthy of discussion than any of the high water marks of the 1960s, that there was only one true jazz record released in the 1970s. I mean, the more I think about this, the worse it gets. There is no shortage of critical reviews on the web (try the All About Jazz site for a start) that bring numerous valid complaints to the table, and the viewer is encouraged to find them and think about what they say.

The point of my review here is to steer away any newcomers until they can approach this series with a critical eye. Find a "snob" friend, express your genuine interest in the music, and most likely this friend will be happy to get you started with certain recordings and specific explanations as to what's going on in the music. Read Martin Williams' book the Jazz Tradition. Check out the All Music Guide to Jazz. Check out Milestones by Jack Chambers. Go to clubs, hear the music in the moment. Learn something about music theory and try to get behind the thought processes of the men and women who made this music and continue to do so. Keep your ears and mind open. After a while, you might check out this series and realize how certain authorities keep their minds closed.

When asked in interviews why this series covered the last 40 years of jazz in the space of two hours (!!!), and why so many significant musicians were left out, Ken Burns would reply, "name anyone in the last 40 years who was as big as Louis or Duke." You know, turning the tables on the interviewer like he had the slightest idea who belonged where in the canon. This rehearsed line from Burns and his interviews in general cemented the deal for me. He came off as someone who had had the first act of Hamlet explained to him but had never bothered to read the rest of the play, if you follow my analogy. And then he goes off to teach a course in Shakespeare.

The star is for the production values.

Rating:
Summary: Well Done But Missing Important People
Review: When I first heard that Ken Burns was going to do a documentary on Jazz I was so excited. I thought his documentary on the Civil War was just wonderful, and as a jazz lover I looked forward to seeing what he would do with jazz. It was a mixed blessing.

The series starts out well. Getting into the roots and history of where jazz started and the early pioneers, like Buddy Bolden. Yet as Ken Burns moves on he seems to get stalled in the swing ear. Now I agree that it was important because of the likes of Duke Ellington and Count Basie, but come one three or four episodes on the swing era. It was a little much. The other place where this documentary lacks is on some artists. Ken burns is fair with some and goes on and on about others. I agree that Louis Armstrong helped make and shape jazz, but there were many others who should have received more credit. These include Miles Davis, Chet Baker, Dave Brubeck, and many others. Ken Burns's sort of speeds through the 50's and 60's. He points out great groups and albums, but does not give much credit to some of the amazing sidemen who helped shape jazz during the 50's and 60's. One of these people is bassist Paul Chambers. This is partially do to the fact that as I have said before she spends to much time in the swing era.

If there is one place that I cannot forgive Ken Burns is just totally skipping the 70's and the Jazz / Fusion era. To just skip over this is saying that groups like Weather Report were unimportant , or the work of Joni Mitchell's Mingus, Don Juan's Reckless Daughter were nothing. He also skimps out on people like Jaco Pastorius, Chick Corea, Wayne Shorter, and Joe Zawinul. To Ken Burns that that happened in the 70's was Dextor Gorden's coming home concert. Now as important as this is it was not the only thing. The same is to be said of the 80's and 90's. Ken Burns not talking about people like Pat Metheny, John McLaughlin, Bela Fleck and the Flecktones to name just a few.

Yet for all the of that, it was still enjoyable. I learned a lot of new information that I had never know before. The cinematography was fantastic. Hearing stories from musicians was great to hear tell what happen in their own way. It made the whole thing more personal. The adding of history also played well. And how world and US history helped shaped the sound and style of jazz in the early years was great. It is important piece of work I would show this to any teacher teaching music history or jazz. This is simply great to watch if you are not a die hard jazz lover, like myself. But well done over all.

Rating:
Summary: Not Perfect -- But What Is?
Review: Let me ask you a question: Would it have been any better if this documentary was two hours long instead of nearly twenty, and if Wynton Marsalis hadn't been involved? These seem to be the two major objections the reviewers I've read have to Ken Burns' epic series about one of the greatest forms of American music. Burns admits to knowing little about jazz when he began this documentary...but since he didn't write it, it hardly seems fair to fault him for the shortcomings of the script. As it is, I think both Burns and his writer did a pretty good job. Yes, only the major players in jazz are covered -- so what? If Burns had taken time to profile every great or semi-great jazz artist who ever played in a nightclub or a recording session, we'd be talking about a fifty-hour movie! Let's get real here, folks. As to the complaints about Marsalis...I quite frankly don't understand them. His love of the music is obvious and his enthusiasm seems genuine to me; the major problem most of the reviewers on this page seem to have with Wynton Marsalis is that he's Wynton Marsalis. Why? The man obviously knows his stuff; he's a brilliant musician in his own right, and has championed jazz at times when jazz has seemed to have few champions. To say there is no soul in what he's saying, or that he lacks knowledge (I loved the implication that Stanley Crouch was coaching him from off-camera), seems entirely unfair, even a touch cruel. He may be a bit of an exclusionary purist at times (see, now you've got me doing it!), but at least he respects the form.

As regards the talking heads (of which there may indeed be a few too many) talking over classic songs of the genre, I too wish there had been a little less of that. "Sing Sing Sing" is one of my all-time favorite swing tunes, and I would have loved to have heard it in its entirety here. Still and all, this is a documentary, and overdoses of commentary are to be expected if not embraced. I can live with it as long as it doesn't get too annoying...and some of the commentary here, such as the first-hand accounts of great artists like Artie Shaw, Lionel Hampton, and Dave Brubeck, and writers like Nat Hentoff, Studs Terkel, and Stanley Crouch, are priceless.

Overall, this series is not perfection -- but hell, what is in this world? Maybe if Hentoff had written it, there would be more about some of the lesser-known but equally respect-worthy jazzmen, and maybe more attention would have been paid to the post-1961-to-present time period, which is admittedly lacking in Burns' film (indeed, it's the weakest point of Jazz, much as the final episode of Baseball was in its attempt to cram almost 40 years of history into two hours). Maybe if Burns had known more about his subject, I would be giving Jazz five stars instead of just four. Who knows? More to the point, who cares? In my mind, it's a wonder a film like this, with all its admitted flaws, was made at all. If nothing else, it can serve as a primer (and a darned good one) for those who don'e know much about this amazing body of music -- and perhaps it can win even more people over to loving jazz. I know for my part it's made me pull out all my old John Coltrane, Miles, Monk, et al, and give them several good listens...and if Jazz can accomplish that, then I think it's probably done its job pretty well.

Rating:
Summary: Provides a very useful orientation
Review: Jazz is a relatively recent interest for me--maybe half a dozen years. I'd learned about scattered fragments of jazz, but never developed a systematic understanding, a clear orientation--though a couple of times I'd tried: I bought Gary Giddons' "Visions of Jazz," for instance, which is very good but just didn't capture my imagination.

Ken Burns' "Jazz" gave me what I've been wanting for years--a clear, evocative, comprehensive way into the genre as a whole.

Okay, it may not be the last word on the history of jazz. Yeah, some things really irritated me--like the slighting, mentioned by many, of Bill Evans, and the excessive excision of many white musicians to make the generally accurate point that jazz springs more from the experience of Black Americans. (Hint to Burns: You make your argument stronger by showing how apparently contrary data fit, not by leaving them out.) But over all, I found this a very helpful overview. And I enjoyed getting to know the biographies of, and the personal relations among, the players.

You won't likely get such an orientation from buying a few of the original CDs *instead* of the "Jazz" series. Few of us have the ears or training to discern what's taught in this series. You'd be highly unlikely to realize that, for instance, what was new with Be-Bop is improvising on the underlying chord changes rather than the melody. You'd really have to be perceptive and paying attention to notice what distinguishes Kansas City jazz from New Orleans jazz from New York jazz from West Coast jazz. And *no* album can place *itself* in history. For instance, you cannot learn from listening to an album featuring Coleman Hawkins-or Charlie Christian or Kenny Clarke--that *before* that album people played very differently. In short, you'd have to be far better trained musically and far more observant than most of us are, and listen to dozens (if not hundreds) of albums, to learn what this series teaches.

As I watched over a period of a couple of weeks, I bought several of the CDs that Burns produced to survey the music, and I found them very instructive. No, as listening experiences, they're not as good as some of the various albums on which the cuts originated. But that's not the point: They are very good ways to get an overview, to get oriented, to know where to go next.

After seeing this series and studying the accompanying CDs, when I go into the music store and start perusing the jazz disks, I find that I recognize a whole lot more and can surmise a whole lot better what's what and what would interest me. For instance, tonight I saw "From Spirituals to Swing," a three CD set of Carnegie Hall jazz concerts in 1938 and 1939. A month ago, the list of personnel would have meant near-nothing to me--I probably wouldn't have even known what I was looking at, and I doubt I would have looked at the thing for more than thirty seconds. Now, though, I studied and comprehended the personnel and got all excited--"This I gotta hear." So I bought it, and it's great.

Now, isn't that reason enough to recommend this series?

That the overall interpretive framework of the series may need correction is not a trenchant criticism, in my opinion. To get a comprehensive understanding of anything, you have to start with *some* systematic framework, which you can then modify, maybe even refute, as you encounter further data. Logically, the first such framework you acquire has to come from someone else, unless you are a genius of extremely wide learning.

No, Ken Burns' "Jazz" isn't the only guide to jazz you'll ever need--as others have noted, some of the omissions are glaring. But it's fine place to start.

If you really want to get a sense of jazz, this is an excellent investment, in my opinion. Yeah, it's pricey--but cheaper than, say, an adult education course on jazz appreciation at your local community college (if you include texts and other supporting material). And if you don't want to spend the money--well, you can hint real hard to your significant other that you'd like it for your birthday or Valentine or some such thing.

Postscript: I almost didn't buy this because of the characterization of Wynton Marsalis's role by several other reviewers here. I'd never much liked his music--it always seemed too cerebral, almost architectural, for my tastes--chilly, not very visceral. (That's just my personal taste--I also find most of Ella Fitzgerald--except her duo wok with Armstrong--a bit emotionally distant, unlike Sarah Vaughan or Billie Holiday or Carmen McRae or many others.)

I was skeptical about any documentary that made Marsalis the central story teller.

Well, two things: (1) He just isn't the central story teller here. He does not have anything approaching the majority of commentator air time. It is certainly true that he plays a role analogous to Shelby Foote's in "The Civil War"--he is a unifying presence, especially in the early going and toward the end. This is just good film making--to establish "characters" whose presence throughout helps give unity to the piece. (2) I really liked Wynton in this documentary. He came off as much earthier, more laid back, mischievous, funnier and more fun, than I ever would have imagined. And he is really quite illuminating, especially when he explains various musical concepts--like the "Big 4." (I went back and listened to "Thick in the South," thinking maybe I'd like his music more now. Nope. Still feels too thought-out, too chilly, to me. Oh, well.)

Rating:
Summary: Unbalanced and highly predjudice attempt!
Review: Not wanting to provide another lengthy review, as there are already many for you to read, I will try to keep it short.

I found myself wanting through a great deal of this presentation. The people being interviewed had such limited views, and were trying to express what Jazz is in words, which doesn't work. They just kept doing it injustice and mostly ended up talking about race and politics, and very little about music.

For me, it would have been much more interesting to present many full length performances and let the music do the talking, and spend about 25% of the time on pre 1945, and 75% on post 1945. This was a very unbalanced view of Jazz and left out so many great artists. Jazz is not what is being shown here.

Ken Burns seemed to think that music can be explained by using some kind of historical time line, but it can't! Many times he would have dialog about an artist during a specific year, and be playing music from 10 years after or 10 years before, supposedly being an example of the persons art at the time he was describing. You will be able to see what I am talking about by using a very nice feature which is on the DVDs. If set, it allows one to see a pop-up showing the music being played, and by pressing the Title button, one can then see more detailed information.

He presented some of the influences and events, but didn't do a very good job of truly sharing the music. Maybe this wouldn't have been made without someone like Ken being involved, which would have been sad, as it has a lot of important information. I just wanted it to get deeper into the music and the people. Historical presentations can be so shallow!

Rating:
Summary: Terrible
Review: This a very biased collection of history on JAZZ. NO RHASSHAN ROLAND KIRK? ARE YOU CRAZY. HE IS ONLY THE MOST TALENTED JAZZ MUSCIAN OF ALL TIME. He mastered for instruments in his lifetime, played many at the same time, was blind, had a near deaf producer, played for up to 21 min. without breathing, helped spread the message of jazz to the masses with many fun engaging recorded concerts and to top it off wrote AMAZING MUSIC. YOU MENTION WYNTON ! AND NOT ROLAND KIRK? This is like a bio on Louis Armstrong, Duke, and Charlie Parker. We need more

Rating:
Summary: An excellent retrospective.
Review: I like jazz music; I'm not a "snob" or an "elitist" but i may be someday. All I can say is that this series is brilliant in its chronology of the formation of jazz music. One could complain (and many do) about the exclusion of certain artists, and the very brief description of jazz in the past 40 years. However, this is obviously intended to be an overview of how jazz was formed, and it focuses largely on the earlier years of the genre. People argue about the strong emphasis on blues and swing, but these are important genres, and they are not to be discounted only because they are not one person's favorite style. I myself don't particularly like listening to swing music, but it was important not only to the formation of jazz, but also to the United States, especially in its times of World War.

Basically, this is not a musical overview of jazz, it is a historical one, and it is subject to the opinions of the people involved in making it. Maybe Ken Burns left out your favorite musician, but it was his opinion that the ones he included were somehow more important. All in all, this documentary is very informative, and elevated my knowledge of jazz just at a time when i was becoming interested in it. It is a foundation on which I will build my knowledge, and a very entertaining one I might add.