Rating: 
Summary: Distorted View of Jazz Creates a Flawed & Offensive View
Review: I caught most of this series when it was broadcast on TV here in the UK. I have to say that as a jazz afficianado I find this a deeply ill-informed and misleading production which is blinkered to many of the key messages in jazz. Ken Burns clearly has a very narrow view of what jazz is. While everybody is entitled to have their own perspective on what is, after all, a very wide genre of music the documentary maker with such a broad canvas should not be fogiven for producing such a misleading and downright wrong view of their subject. Here are some of Mr Burns cardinal sins: 1. This series moves up until the start of the 1960's just when jazz was due to enter it's most creative period. This is a little like giving a history of classical music and stopping at the end of the Baroque era thereby leaving out Mozart, Beethoven et al. This is totally ignorant and misleading and suggests that jazz "stopped" in 1961 when in fact it was just getting started...
2. The series is deeply racist in that it portrays jazz almost as an exclusively black experience. This seems to be the central thesis. While many of it's greatest early exponents were black there is little appreciation of the basis for jazz in the folk and popular idioms of the US and Europe, created by generations of white musicians. An analysis of the greatest jazz musicians of our current era reveals it to be an open arena for Blacks, Whites and Hispanics - all important contributors. Maybe this is the reason for Burns' stopping at the 1960's as his central theme of jazz being the exclusive arena of black people looks even shakier after this period. I find this racist view simplistic, patronising, offensive and deeply ignorant. Here is a production with a major axe to grind - beware!
3. Why all the reliance on Wynton Marsalis? Do people who like jazz actually listen to this guy? I certainly don't even though I recognise him as a fine trumpeter. How he has managed to set himself up as Mr Jazz is really rather bizarre as he has very little in common with any of the great jazz musicians, past or present. He is a preserver of jazz, not a creator; a curator in the art gallery of jazz, not the Picasso or the Pollock. Why weren't more significant jazz musicians consulted?
4. Jazz before the 1960's was great music at the time and in many ways was creative but as it has since grown in subtlety and complexity as well as all-round creativity, pre-1960's jazz now looks pretty pale by comparison with more recent jazz. While there are those who do still listen to Louis Armstrong, Duke Ellington, Dizzy Gillespie and other luminaries from jazz's formative years the majority of jazz followers are looking at newer musicians and styles. That is the essence of jazz; it's creative, always trying to move forward, find new ways of expressing, looking for a new vocabulary. Let's hear more about what jazz IS not what it WAS. All in all, then a major two thumbs down from me, a deeply ignorant and offensive production by someone who clearly has poor taste and a rather questionable agenda. If you are interested in finding out about the great musical genre called jazz and what it really is don't go down this route. Here's a better suggestion: go to some of the Amazon recommended lists and do your own research. Two things are sure - you'll save yourself $... and you'll end up with far more interesting and relevant music.
Rating: 
Summary: Good education for teenagers ...
Review: One of the main things I've noticed about this series is that it has had a tremendous effect on the self-esteem of young African-Americans, who so rarely get to learn about the vital importance of their predecessors. It is wonderful that this series was made, demonstrating how brilliant and ingenius these people were (I would say "are" but it mostly covered musicians who have passed away) how important they still are to the development of music, and hence, to our daily lives, and how exciting they and their lives were. As as a musician, I found the series perplexing. Why has Ken Burns, who has access to so many brilliant theorists, limited his scope exclusively to the opinions of the "Wyntonites"? And, most of the interviews were not about the actual music or the musicians, but repetitious anecdotes from non-musicians talking about social events. While I appreciated the historical perspective, I wondered why he didn't interview more working jazz musicians for their ideas about the music itself. Of course you will get to see and hear great clips by all the greats, though you won't get to hear Jazz violin, which is too bad. On the whole, though, I think this series is extremely important and I hope everyone gets to see it at least once.
Rating:
Summary: Full of information, full of Winton
Review: I bought this set of videos because where I live, I cannot tune into PBS and I thought it would be educational for my 17-year-old son, an aspiring jazz musician. We watched almost 20 hours of tapes over a few months period of time. The first few tapes were facinating, but one grows weary of hearing from the same few commentators throughout the whole series. There must be more people with an opion and knowledge of jazz besides Winton Marsailas & party. As a boomer, I never appreciated Louis Armstrong as a top notch musician, but rather as an entertainer on the Ed Sullivan show in the 50's. It was good to get deeper insight on the man, but the way he is presented on each and every video, one imagines he's the jazz god, which he is for Marsaillas. The stills, especially in the beginning, along with the history of the evolution of New Orleans jazz scene were mesmerizing. Info on Miles Davis, Charlie Parker, and a few others was insightful, but I felt some great names in jazz were merely mentioned or skimmed over. Maybe some of the time spent on Louis could have been more evenly distributed. We also get no feeling of Latin jazz, or contemporary jazz in anyway. I mean, define jazz? There are so many greats out there in todays music scene, and some really wonderful things are being done on a World scale. This detail was totally overlooked, which is a pitty. The last few videos dragged. There's a lot of repetition, I guess for the sake of those who didn't follow the series closely. When I started again on tape one to watch it with my husband, beyond tape three, I was bored, my mind wondered and I found myself doing other things. Also, there is just not enough music to listen to in the series. Big mistake. The series needs more music, not just little snippets of music, but real examples of compositions and improvisations.
Rating:
Summary: another obnoxious Ken Burns ego trip
Review: The worst thing about these obnoxious Ken Burns ego trip (Produced by KEN BURNS) documentaries is that someone, in the future, may confuse his stilted, slanted idiocyncratic prejudices for history! (Written by KEN BURNS) His Civil War documentary, while stilted away from the men who actually fought the war, was tolerably good, but since then, each documentary has gotten worse. Sure, all this happened, his history of Louis Armstrong, Duke Ellington, Count Basie, Miles Davis but Ken Burns tells us more than we ever wanted to know about certain Jazz greats (like Louis Armstrong). Then he totally ignors many other equally important Jazz greats, mostly the white and latino artists. And then Jazz for him stopped 30-40 years ago! (Edited by KEN BURNS) Stop him, before he strikes again! Perhaps next time PBS will ask for the script and make liberal use of the editorial red pen before giving him free hand to produce whatever he pleases. (Montage by KEN BURNS) "Ken Burns History of Jazz" - not to be confused with the real thing.
Rating:
Summary: Has its good points, and then...
Review: I didn't use a stopwatch, but it looks to me like Cassandra Wilson got as much time as Bill Evans, Charles Mingus, and the Modern Jazz Quartet put together. That is what I would call "imbalance." The list of musicians who were left out or shortchanged is long. Most of the complaints in this regard in reviews before mine are quite justified and are not limited simply to personal preferences among listeners and viewers. Probably the most notorious example is with Bill Evans. One of the most influential pianists in all of jazz, and one of the most popular among jazz pianists themselves, he was granted a still photograph (from Miles' "Kind of Blue" session) and about 45 seconds of narration. There's no reason for that. No good reason, that is. And does anyone remember Wes Montgomery even being mentioned? Or Albert Ayler? Or Sun Ra? Or Lennie Tristano? J.J. Johnson? Mildred Bailey? Betty Carter? Jim Hall? Joe Pass? (Except for Django, guitarists were pretty much ignored.) And for a film that placed a lot of emphasis on earlier, more "classic" forms of jazz, it's odd there was no mention of the traditional jazz revival of the forties and fifties, which had two phases - one was a San Francisco-based music deriving from the New Orleans/Chicago style of King Oliver, and the other was the return to the limelight of some original New Orleans musicians who had been around all along, such as Bunk Johnson, George Lewis, and Kid Ory. The impression left by the segment on Ornette Coleman was that he made some waves for a while but was not too significant in the long run, when the fact is he's one of the greatest innovators in a short list. Jelly Roll Morton, who gave jazz written form and was its first great composer, among a total of three (the others being Ellington and Monk), was almost as important a figure as Armstrong in laying the foundations of the music, but you'd never know it from the film. Maybe there would have been time for a more thorough treatment of so many musicians and their accomplishments if there had been less time devoted to Satchmo's later stage appearances and fewer photographs of lynchings. I would also have preferred that the principal "authority" had not been Wynton Marsalis but rather Dr. Billy Taylor - if he's still around - , someone who's more articulate and has been lecturing on jazz for a lot longer than Marsalis. The latter was probably picked for the job for reasons I'd rather not hear about. On the positive side, though, this is one entertaining film to watch. If I had the time I could sit through six or seven hours of it uninterrupted. The music almost never stops, whether it's presented alone or with narration. The old films and photographs, not only of musicians, but of the American scene, are fascinating. The critics interviewed are generally quite enlightening, and there are many musicians on camera speaking of their music and that of others: Artie Shaw, Milt Hinton, Lester Bowie, Abbey Lincoln (in a particularly unpleasant mood), Charlie Haden, Clark Terry, Lionel Hampton, Arvell Shaw, Branford Marsalis, Herbie Hancock, Jimmy Rowles, Jay McShann, Dave Brubeck, Joshua Redman, Jon Hendricks, and more. (Some that could have been interviewed, I understand, asked for too much money and were turned down.) My comment above about imbalance does not apply to the general pacing of the series. I know enough about jazz history to realize that the film moves at a rate comparable to the reality. If there were several episodes devoted to the swing era, for example, it's because it lasted for years and was important not only in the musical scheme of things but also as a part of American life. Despite its flaws, this is quite an achievement. As for the infamous final episode and the way it rushed through the last forty years, one can make the case that it has to be that way: it's too soon to tell how influential the last couple of decades will be, and no big movement has arisen to compare to those in the past (The Advent of St. Wynton notwithstanding). As Gary Giddins put it, no one in bebop predicted the avant garde, no one in the avant garde predicted fusion...Fusion had its beginnings in the late sixties. Nothing since then that we can put a label on has come about. Yet jazz continues, in one form or another. It bears mentioning that every style of jazz that's ever been played is being played now somewhere in the world. It's safe to say it'll be around for a while. (BL, Tucker, GA)
Rating: 
Summary: Jazz: The Quintessential Black Expression
Review: There are critics of all kind, music theorists and, or social scientists, who attempt to define Jazz in some form or the other. They write about Jazz, make films about Jazz, interview Jazz musicians, and still remain dissatisfied. This major film by Ken Burns is yet another attempt to define jazz which is impossible, but there is an important aspect to this film. It mentioned the importance of jazz as it relates to American History. It reflects on the African-American experience because that is the obvious center of Jazz, that is the reason, that is Jazz. However, even though Burns gives a reasonable intro to how Jazz sprang out from the blues, he did not go back far enough. I guess, it is understandable considering the way the eurocentric audience have been reacting. But why should the audience control history? Commercialism? Most definitely. No matter what anybody says, Jazz is the creation of Blacks. The fact that they allowed it to be learned by folks "across the lines" is a testament of their open-mindedness and free spirit. Musically, Burns avoids (or, forgets?) Max Roach, Bud Powell, Sonny Rollins, Bill Evans, Herbie Hancock, Eric Dolphy, Clifford Brown's band with Max Roach, Sun Ra's Big Band, to name a few. I personally think it was criminal to leave out these artists and bands from such an important film. W. Marsalis' role in latter Jazz is unquestionable, especially at a time when commercialism was attempting to degrade the intellectual art form, but that doesn't necessarily put everyone else in second position, or in this case, in no position at all. *(see GRAYMCN's review on this film titled "Alright, 'til the historical revisionism sets in..") Burns surprised me! So, if all I have is complaint, why am I giving 3 stars to this film? Firstly, this was the first major film on Jazz. Thank you Burns for bringing back Jazz into media-spotlight. Secondly, it is a nice intro for those interested in the art form. And, thirdly, although not absolutely accurate, it summarizes the important times in American history. My suggestion is, watch this film closely but don't dig it. There are some flaws. So, pay attention to only the the facts presented. Keep your interest alive and then move on to the historically accurate books on Jazz, most importantly, Amiri Baraka's "Blues People". Many years from now, if America doesn't exist anymore, people will remember America for few things- baseball, the dynamic nature of the U.S Constitution, and most definitely- Jazz.
Rating: 
Summary: Fantastic!
Review: A brilliant and inspired rendition of the history of jazz. Although a long-time fan of "non-fiction" videos, I have never viewed a better documentary of any kind, ever. And, the music is absolutely first-class!
Rating:
Summary: Incredible Documentary...until Episode 10
Review: I'm not a Jazz historian, but I bought this DVD because I figured I would learn alot about the music. Ken Burns does a thorough job covering the history of Jazz all the way up until 1960. But in the case of this documentary, the cramming of 40 years of Jazz into one episode just didn't work, Miles Davis and his fusion movement were pretty much limited to a couple minutes and then Davis just disappeared for the rest of the movie, in fact the last 25 years of Jazz got about 15 minutes and Burns spent part of that time covering some high school band practicing for a concert. I liked the extensive time spent on Louis Armstrong and Duke Ellington, but it seemed like several artists got left behind on the cutting room floor. Icons like Dizzy Gillespie and Benny Goodman just disappeared and the great Thelonius Monk got about five minutes. Bottom line, Burns botched the end of Jazz with the final episode, after all the hours I sat through the film, I was left with a bitter taste at the end.
Rating:
Summary: Don't miss it
Review: I'm a child of the the 60's. My memory of elvis is only of his later movies. I wouldn't have imagined that the music that would inspire me most would pre-date me by 40 years. I listen to Duke Ellington and I'm nearly in tears. Rock and Roll is great, but boy did we throw away something special when we forgot about this music. I love it. I rarely get beyond disk 7. My Grandparents met dancing in Chicago in the late 1930's. Disks 1-7 are amazing and will be familiar in the most abstract and fullfilling ways. They preceeded me by 2 generations. It took me another generation to realize that they got it right. You think music is a power now. Look back 70 years.
Rating:
Summary: GREAT GIFT FOR A PICKY GIFT RECEIVER
Review: My children and I bought this in March of this year as a birthday gift for my husband and he loved it and has watched it several times since. We all got caught up in watching it. He is usually not so effusive about gifts. But with this one he can't stop talking about it. He has recommended this series to some of his friends who love this music and is considering buying a copy as a gift for a friend. It's a well made film that covers all aspects of the development of jazz, without sugarcoating the life and times of the people who created this art form. The film can, at times, be brutally honest. However, the brutal elements weren't added for shock value, but are a concise recount of the events going on during the creation and expansion of this art form. I have enjoyed Burns' work since the Civil War series. With this series he has outdone himself. If your love Jazz, music or even history or just want something fascinating and intelligent ( no not boring) to watch, buy this. If you have a DVD and surround sound, the sounds and visuals are even more compelling.
|
