Rating: 
Summary: Very fine overview--helpful avenue into jazz
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. If you're serious about understanding jazz, I'd recommend this adjunct effort. 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. 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: Don't mind those negative reviews
Review: I'm not gonna go on a pro-Burns rant or anything, but in his defense (and in response to the many negative reviews you may have already read) along the way of "making of" stuff that was totally shown on TV, he did mention that he's only covering a small portion of a HUGE and often misunderstood genre. Seriously people, do you think one guy could put together an affordable documentary covering ALL the genres of jazz in detail on top of that? Be realistic. If this set is 10 discs and its just an overview of the general jazz genre, what do you think it'd be like with fusion, much of the afro-latin genres and (need I say it?) the "smooth" jazz phenomena? Basically, the point of this DVD set is to fill people in on the history and roots of Jazz as we know it today. It doesn't go into too much detail about the Jazz masters who are still living but pretty much focuses on the Jedis who have passed. I gave it five stars because it does its job really well. It informs newbies without boring you and there's always rad music backing often rad commentaries. You come out of it going "man, that was pretty rad." If you're HARDCORE into jazz, maybe its not your thing...this is aimed towards "everyday" folk I suppose. I really dig jazz AND I dig this documentary, so its possible to work both out.
Rating:
Summary: A gift to American culture
Review: Let's start with the criticisms and get them out of the way. For one, what you may have heard about Ken Burns skipping a great deal of the past four decades of the history of Jazz is true. He did that, ostensibly, in order to focus on the existential continental drift initiated by the invention of "Free Jazz" by saxophonist Ornette Coleman in 1961, and what that has meant for both the future of the music and its very definition. But yes, the overarching presence of Wynton Marsalis and "the bull in the African-American intellectual's China Shop" writer Stanley Crouch (the Wagner/Nietzsche duo of the jazz world) is evidence that the condensing of the past forty years onto one disk (or a little more than two of the nineteen plus hours of this documentary) is actually a function of their philosophy. Not, per se, any embryonic one of Ken's (who said repeatedly he knew little of the subject matter before taking this on) or the foundational perspective of every jazz musician. Crouch and Marsalis' perspective (as many know) to a large degree excludes much of what happened after 1961 via declaring it not legitimately being part of the art form that is Jazz. My second complaint--a more important one: the glory of doing a documentary on a living art form is that there are so many seminal artists of it still performing today, let alone still living and wanting to talk about it. It was amazing to hear such special communicators like Wynton, Stanley Crouch, Gerald Early, Giddins, Jon Hendricks, Branford, Charlie Parker's first drummer Stan Levy, Artie Shaw, or Bird's widow Chan Parker and the like share powerful insights and stories. Yet it could not replace--or even equal in retrospect--the value of hearing from even more living musicians than he interviewed throughout the documentary. For example (if not especially), Max Roach (who I have performed with in New York and Europe, still lives in midtown Manhattan, and is arguably modern jazz' most important percussionist. He is inexplicably absent from this collection, despite his 60 year Protean career and overarching influence being featured on more than two of the ten chapters of this documentary). Or, Jimmy Heath (who took over Coltrane's spot in one of Miles Davis' 50's combos and with whom I studied jazz composition in college: brilliant). Or the incomparable Oscar Peterson: the ultimate jazz pianist link to both the genius of Art Tatum and the early stride pianists of the teens and 20's, connecting us to the dawning of the art form in New York. Or pianist Ahmad Jamal: possibly the biggest influence on the artistry of Miles Davis. Or Dr. Billy Taylor, pianist protege of Ellington--to say the least about his career. Or Sonny Rollins, who is prominently featured on one chapter, and is still gigging around the country--probably as you read this. Or BOBBY MCFERRIN, the Coltrane of jazz singing today, who is unconscionably not mentioned at all in the entire series. Or ORNETTE COLEMAN HIMSELF--the subject of the schism of jazz in its entirety seen on the ninth disk....I could go on; and so could most jazz musicians. The final critique is the history of heroin and drug use in jazz after the 30's Swing period, told brilliantly by Burns throughout the Be-bop and post Be-bop era discs. Told brilliantly, yes. However, the previous disks consistently and responsibly put all of the seminal figures of the art form's quixotic behavior and troubled lives into the profoundly definitive context of the racism and morally schizophrenic social fabric of the 20th century in America. When drugs came up, little to nothing was said about where exactly this heroin trade originated (nationally and internationally speaking), how it began inexorably coming into the Black communities, via what clandestine criminal organizations, etc. In other words, it wasn't for my taste responsibly linked to the same social dynamics he previously underscored. All that said, you simply have to see this entire series to know, despite me giving you a bunch of paragraphs worth of b**ching, why this documentary is worth SIX stars. Ken Burns will be the subject of a documentary himself in the not too distant future, to be sure. His genius in putting this entire series together--blending the drama, pathos and emotional panoramic of great film storytelling with the attention to the historical detail and objective character study of documentary--is, as far as I know, unparalleled. The portrait of Louis Armstrong alone is worth the price of the entire set. Before this DVD series I thought I knew what his contribution to American culture was. Now I know Armstrong was among the greatest of us all, INCLUDING Mark Twain AND the Founding Fathers. Burns work on Ellington, also, will help you lay to rest any difficulty you may have with hearing Duke compared to Copland, Gershwin, Bernstein and all the rest of the American composers--and be found to tower above them. And Burns' work on the early days of jazz is almost overwhelming. And then there is Wynton. Wynton's work on this set is nothing short of poetic. There are moments where his perspectives are so eloquently rendered on camera (even for him) that it nearly forces you to agree with them if you didn't already. There are other moments, while explaining the significance of singular people and the incomprehensible beauty of this music, where he bares his this-is-why-I-play-jazz soul...and you come off feeling as if you are a better person from just listening to it. In one of the later discs, Wynton explains that what keeps musicians playing, giving their entire lives to Jazz, is that it gives them "a taste of what America will be when it becomes ITSELF." "...and it WILL become itself...that's a sweet taste man." Ken Burns' JAZZ--like Jazz itself--is high art. A collector's item for anyone who just loves Music.
Rating: 
Summary: Educational Yet Flawed
Review: For anyone wishing to learn about the origins of jazz, it's a wonderful documentary, taking you on a whirlwind tour throughout jazz's history. Unfortunately, as with any historical survey, certain things get left out. First of all, the series focusses heavily on earlier jazz (20s through 40s), and pays much less attention to later decades. Second of all, even once the series has reached later decades, they continue to devote time to the stars of earlier jazz (Satchmo, et al) and how they are faring in later times. While I agree that this is important, I think more time could have been spent on any number of 60s and 70s artists rather than hearing more about Lady Day and the like. Nonetheless, Burns manages to bring us a well-edited combination of live clips, interviews, and narration with still photographs. Anyone would have trouble addressing the issues I outlined above in only 10 discs. However, I think the film REALLY suffers from one main problem: The series is heavily biased by Wynton Marsalis and his famed mentor/jazz critic, Stanley Crouch. This is not to say that these two very influential men have any sort of malicious agenda, but rather that Burns relies far too heavily on their vision of jazz. Because of this subtle bias, many great white musicians are either ignored or glossed over. As a minority musician myself, I am by no means trying to champion white jazz, black jazz, or any other sort of silly and racist categorization. What I do think, however, is that CRUCIALLY influential artists like Stan Getz and Bill Evans are glaring omissions from the series. Getz (along with Charlie Byrd and a few others) was almost single-handedly responsible for bringing bossa nova into the jazz fold, and remains one of the most distinct saxophonists in jazz history. Similarly, the only reference in the series to Bill Evans is a passing one to his historic participation on Miles' seminal album "Kind of Blue". Even there, Evans' contribution is reduced to an example of Miles' inclusion of a white pianist. Completely lost is the European/Classical influence that Evans helped bring to jazz, along with his numerous other contributions. Even with these sorts of glaring omissions, Burns deserves much credit for the admirable scope and power of his documentary. Rent it and watch it, but don't follow it as a definitive guide to jazz. Please don't buy the ridiculous CD set that goes along with it. Your money is better spent buying a few (or a lot of!)seminal albums from each era.
Rating:
Summary: An Ambitious Film on a Larger-Than-Life Art!!!
Review: In order to really appreciate this film, you have to be one of two things 1) a novice to jazz and its history wanting to learn more or 2) a jazz fan already who understands that this film is made more for group (1). Yes, veteran jazzers will be stimulated and moved, but there's not much here that will be new to them. I mean, nothing except a beautiful and entertaining salute to a true American art! Like a Titanic history buff watching the blockbuster film, jazzers already know about Charlie Parkers lonely death, Miles Davis's struggle to re-reinvent music and Louis Armstrong's artist/sell out (depending on who's asked) reputation. If you're a novice, 'Jazz' will introduce you to this exciting world of history and sound. Those more at home in the house of jazz will still be treated to the magnificent storytelling, cinematography and production that Ken Burns is known for. Like listening to Coletranes' 'A Love Supreme' or Monk's 'Live at the Five Spot,' it's not about the notes, but about the overall effect. From jazz's ragtime and second-line beginnings to the many false pronouncements of 'Jazz is Dead' that sprinked the 60's, 70's and 80's, this film gives good treatment to jazz's many 'periods' and 'movements': Dixieland, Big Band, Cool, Bebop, Hard bop, Fusion, Free. Of course a music as rich as jazz offers us too many styles, sounds and musicians to study completely- just ask the 40+ year jazz fan how many records she HASN'T listened to. Of course, everyone can come up with a laundry lists of omitted or barely mentioned artists they wish had taken starring roles... With all these 'oversights,' why give it five stars? BECAUSE IT DESERVES 7 AND AMAZON ONLY ALLOWS 5! This film is designed as a condensced history of jazz to stimulate the old fans, and whet appetites creating new ones. As the oldest (and possibly only?) American art form and, sadley, one controlling less than 1.5% of the record market, Jazz has been in need of a lasting tribute for quite some time. It will be clear to anyone, old or young, jazzer or rocker, American or not- Ken Burns has filled that void many times over.
Rating: 
Summary: Jazz with a Straightjacket
Review: Ken Burns-Jazz is something of an oxymoron, if you associate the term jazz with expressive freedom and experimentation. Specifically, by the way that Mr. Burns ignores and even denigrates the brilliant work of the sixties and seventies, he seems to pigeonhole the music into a rather narrow format of musicians improvising on mainly traditional european song construction. He can't understand Mile's brilliant manipulation of blues and African influences, and so labels what was perhaps that last great burst of jazz innovation as "selling out". Lord knows what he would have thought if he had ever had the nerve to attend one of Sun Ra's rapturous sessions. I mention these two artists because during this time of stagnation and purified recreation the re-issues and release of concert performances of the two stir more fan enthusiasm than anything going on right now. Give this a couple of stars for its discussion of the early history.
Rating: 
Summary: Buy jazz CDs instead
Review: If you are interested in learning about jazz,buy (1) a decent jazz history, such as Ted Gioia's A History of Jazz, and (2) eight or ten representative recordings: Louis Armstrong's Hot Fives and Sevens, Duke Ellington, Coleman Hawkins, Lester Young, Charlie Parker, John Coltrane, Thelonious Monk, Miles Davis are all good places to start. Or buy the Smithsonian Collection of Classic Jazz (is that still available?). Burns' bloated product, while containing plenty of nuggets, is too unreliable and biased to be worth your money. Rent it if you must, glean it for what it's worth, but please, there are better ways to spend that kind of dough.
Rating:
Summary: "Jazz"
Review: A tour de force. In Australia many reviewers unkindly referred to this 19 hour series as the world of jazz according to Wynton Marsalis. I say "So What?" There is no one better to guide us through the series, the history of jazz will be well-known to him. The reviewers are doubtless in the main ignorant that Wynton comes from an enormously big and musically knowledgable & talented family. So, who better?
The other criicism is that the series ceases in the early sixties. That's great I say! That's when Jazz arrested. As the narrator states, when Ornette Coleman et al came along, that was the most devisive thing for Jazz. That's where I arrested jazz-wise and I'm happy. There is such a poor output by most current "jazz" musicians, that the record companies are tearing their hair out at the lack of good, new material and are therefore dredging thorugh their vaults and reissuing all the wondrous stuff described in the series PLUS bonus tracks and alternate takes, all on digitally cleaned up CD's.
Rating:
Summary: Stop your complaining!
Review: Yes, this documentary does not mention much about jazz after 1961, but jeesh, did you really want to sit through a 40, 50, 60 hour documentary? 20 hours is enough! Jazz since 1961 has exploded into so many different styles and merged with so many other types of music that it would take FOREVER to cover, and you would still have people complaining that Billybob Buckmaker's highly influential Peoria, IL jazz jug playing from September 1982 wasn't included. For what it covers, Jazz is an exceptional documentary. This film was made to teach folks who know nothing about jazz the basics, dig deeper for folks like me that know a bit about the music, and show great rare footage for jazz lovers. It did a superb job on all three. I can almost guarantee that every post '61 artist that someone complains is missing from the film was influenced by Louis Armstrong, Duke Ellington, Billie Holiday, Miles Davis, and Charlie Parker in one way or another. That is the point of the film, to show where it came from, and who the major players were that determined everything that came after. It went even further by delving into how society, politics, and other factors affected the music and musicians. What makes Jazz so great is that it looks at racism, drugs, the civil rights movement, war, booms and busts in the America's economy, and other factors to show how it changed jazz music. I learned a lot from watching this. I was only a mild fan of jazz before watching this, and I got to learn about Bix Beiderbecke, Clifford Brown, Sidney Bechet, Lester Young, Coleman Hawkins, Sonny Rollins, and many others (yes I know, I don't know all so much about jazz). The exhaustive information on Armstrong, Ellington, Davis, Parker, and Holiday provided brilliant insight and great stories from all. The footage is remakrable, the interviews with musicians and people who were in the scene back then (fans and business folks) are great, and the stories bring the film to life. Aside from all of the information the series provided, there were also very emotional and interesting moments that were simply riveting. Charlie Parker learneing in Los Angeles that his young daughter in New York had died, then sending his wife 4 telegrams as he went into a bender. Watching Dave Brubeck moved to tears as he recounted a lesson his dad taught him about racism. Branford Marsalis' strange and bitter rip on a jazz artist that requested audience members prep themselves for concerts. These and many other moments are what elevate Jazz from a merely informative documentary to a great film. This is a long film, but a valuable educational tool, and great entertainment.
Rating:
Summary: A severely lacking view of jazz from a narrow minded purist
Review: The only reason I didn't give this DVD set 1 star is because I feel that it does a good job with the material that it presents about the roots and history of jazz and how it relates to American history and culture. Having said that, Ken burns gives a sorely incomplete picture of jazz in these series. How he can leave out whole styles and subgenres of jazz such as jazz-fusion (which I'm sure he doesn't even consider jazz), the whole latin influence and free jazz (sure he covered a bit of Ornette Coleman but he just scratched the surface of a subgenre that was a substantial influence on modern jazz) is beyond me. And where are all the guitar and bass players like Pass, Montgomery, Haden, Green, Holland, Metheny? Is it because some of these guys aren't african americans? And what's with Burns' fixation on Wynton? Since when does Wynton have the final word on all-things-jazz? Jazz is about being musically open minded and exploring new influences to create new exciting synergies between things traditional and modern. It is NOT about exclusivism. I could go on and on about how much of a purist Ken Burns is and how this DVD set does more harm than good for Jazz but I think reviewers before me have covered that already. Bottom line: Buy it if you want some jazz history but as you watch, keep in mind that there is so much more to jazz that what that narrow minded purist Ken Burns has to say.
|
