Jazz - A Film By Ken Burns

Rating:
Summary: An impressive, in-depth course on jazz history!
Review: After several days of marathon video viewing, I'm happy (and relieved) that, despite some inevitable imperfections, JAZZ: A FILM BY KEN BURNS is an amazingly broad and detailed exam of the music's history. Despite having read many excellent jazz-related books, I think that video rather than the printed word is the preferred medium to get initial or even remedial exposure to the music, because here you have as the centerpiece the actual audio and video of the art and artists. If you read a book about jazz, you don't have that essential evidence of the music itself, but merely descriptions of it.

Why buy the DVD? There is a minor amount of extra footage. More significantly, the program can be altered so that whenever a piece of music appears, one can display the discographical info. As such, one never has to wonder what they are listening to. Furthermore, the sharpness of the DVD video picture and clearness of the audio is a selling point, particularly when you're looking at vintage photos, videos, and audio that are often not in optimal condition. Plus, with the DVD you can watch the series at your own pace.

I might have thought beforehand that a series which takes six hours just to get to Armstrong/Hines' 1928 landmark recording WEST END BLUES might be a little too obsessive. Yet I remained riveted to the television screen as jazz's history unfolded, from Buddy Bolden to Cassandra Wilson. Jazz has a VERY compelling history on many levels--emotionally for one given the periodic mist in my eyes. I would have preferred a bit less commentary over the clips of jazz's great artists, but occasionally Burns does let the music speak for itself. I was impressed that we get to know a lot of the primary artists in a fair amount of detail. The likes of Armstrong and Ellington (but surprisingly not Miles Davis) are followed from the beginning to the end of their lives.

My first significant exposure to jazz was in the 1970s, and I believe that if this series has an achilles heel, it is that jazz's impact on contemporary popular music could have been examined, which would have provided younger generations a logical entry point that we can relate to, irregardless of our prior degree of exposure to jazz. Instead, the impression-by-omission left here is that jazz has virtually no ties to contemporary pop culture, which I strongly dispute. I think the majority of the viewers of this program are ultimately going to be those who reached adulthood in the 1970s or later, and there is so much that could have been exposed to these generations to indicate that jazz is not a museum piece, but has significant links to contemporary popular culture. For example, I hear a considerable jazz influence on artists as diverse as Stevie Wonder, Sade, various "acid jazz" artists (particularly in Japan--one of many indications of jazz's global influence), early Earth Wind & Fire, Joni Mitchell, Steely Dan, and countless others.

Many will compile their list of JAZZ's omissions (Toshiko Akiyoshi would lead mine). Yet even with these relatively minor quibbles, Ken Burns has done the music a great service with this project. I wouldn't be surprised if this series ignites a substantial increase in interest in the music by consumers who otherwise might have never given jazz music much thought.

Rating:
Summary: Pleasantly surprised
Review: Although I am a Jazz-Rock fusion fan, and have been since discovering jazz in college, I was pleasantly surprised by the series up to now. Even though I've only seen the series up to Episode 5(I don't own the DVD set)the rich history and background of Ken Burns Jazz has made me aware of the importance of and significance of Jazz to American History and Americans, period. Jazz before the BE-bop era has been a unknown entity to me, you know, some stuff my parents listened to. But since viewing the Jazz series, heck, I think I'll go out and buy some Artie Shaw and Benny Goodman CDS!And this is coming from a hardcore fusion fan(MAHAVISHNU, WEATHER REPORT, RETURN TO FOREVER, TRIBAL TECH, PAT METHENY). Why am I only giving this series four stars? Well,Ken and Wynton only gave a small mention of the modern era(I read about the subjects covered in other articles)and they left a lot of important people(Stan Kenton, Eric Dolphy etc.)out of the series. But, what the heck, maybe somebody else can fill in the gaps. It would have been nice to see 1 or 2 Episodes devoted to jazz-Rock. But, anyway, thanks, Ken and Wynton(even though I disagree strongly with Wynton's opinions about jazz-rock).

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.

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: Could have been so much better
Review: I guess it says something that I have gone back and watched Burns' "Civil War" documentary more than a dozen times since I first saw it, and have only watch "Jazz" once since the first time. The Civil War documentary certainly is rife with factual inaccuracies but by & large gets the essential story of the conflict right. "Jazz," on the other hand, treats its subject as though the last 40-50 years never happened. It is as though the Civil War documentary would have lingered over the years 1861-1863 incessantly, then sped through the last two years ("Oh yeah, there were a couple of battles, Atlanta burned, Lee surrendered, the war was over. The end." Something like that) as though they didn't matter.

As I found the documentary going into its umpteenth hour and we STILL weren't out of the 1930's yet, I had a bad feeling about where this was going. You would have thought that Louis Armstrong had been annointed as the Jazz Pope and he ruled over the world of jazz for 40 years. In his proper context, Armstrong is very important, but Burns seems positively fixated on him. He dwells on every facet of Armstrong's upbringing & early career. Unless he planned on making a 60-hour documentary, there was no way Burns could hope to do justice to the more recent history of the genre, and sure enough he basically hits the fast forward button once the be-bop era is coming to a close.

Personally, I cannot stand fushion jazz, but nonetheless some mention needs to made of a style that was dominant in jazz for almost as long as the swing style, for crying out loud. Also, relying almost exculsively on Wynton Marsalis (doing his best impression of a crochety old man on his front porch, railing at a world that has passed him by) really was not a good idea & imbues the entire documentary with a hopelessly retrograde flavor.

I watched it once, and came away disappointed. I watched it a second time, hoping that I could find more to appreciate, but only found that it continued to disappoint. I don't know if it merits any future viewings, and that is indeed a shame, because it is a subject that deserves better treatment than this.

Rating:
Summary: Missed opportunity
Review: I'll be honest; I'm a "jazz snob". I was really interested in this project when I first heard of it, though it seemed a bit ambitious. After seeing it (and trying to put aside any expectations I may have had), here's what I though:

The good: this series got people talking about jazz. Up to the time of Miles' "Kind of Blue" this is a pretty good documentary. This series covers the early jazz years pretty well.

The bad: lesser accomplishments of early jazz figures (Armstrong's "Hello Dolly") are featured at the expense of coverage of many influential musicians. Too many musicians who are still alive (Max Roach, Sonny Rollins) weren't interviewed, yet we have a Marsalis or Stanley Crouch speaking of them. There's a pretty blatant basis against free jazz and fusion which, like it or not, were the major innovations of the 60s and 70s.

The ugly: Branford's caustic comments on Cecil Taylor (hey, when you've contributed something original to jazz, I might care what you think.) Suspicious lack of white musicians featured (even Coltrane admired Stan Getz, why is he not here?)Almost sensational coverage of who had drug problems. Too many film clips of performances cut short or talked over. Through out the series as a whole there is too much talking about jazz and not enough listening to it.

To all the people who think we "jazz snobs" are being too hard on the series just because we're "snobs", you have to understand this, for many people this will be their only exposure to jazz. Though Burns may say he doesn't intend this to be the gospel of jazz, for most viewers who will never explore jazz outside of this series, it will be.

It's not some petty dislike for Marsalis and Crouch, its disappointment that the rich and varied scope of jazz is filtered through those men's narrow definition of jazz. I also feel it was laziness on Bern's part that rather than seeking alternate view points (and in many cases speaking to the still living musicians) he just accepted the pre-packaged history of jazz according to those two. There are many other people, though not as famous as Wynton, who are equally qualified to give their opinions (which is what Wynton was doing, after all) that in the interest of bringing balance to this series should have been consulted.

Though I can see some merit in this presentation, the fact that this is being used in educational situations and that there are so many people with no prior knowledge of jazz who will take this at face value really make the slant of this project that much worse. It is my hope that people who watch this series would be interested enough to investigate jazz on their own in a less biased outlet.

Rating:
Summary: Jazzed
Review: Ken Burn's documentary about THE American art form is from the first instance a monumental saga of undaunting honesty and the definitive history provided on film. If we could all get our heads out of our ***es, we would see that the insignificant quibbling and pedantic criticisms about this and that are exactly what they are: nonsense. No one will ever make a jazz documentary that covers every aspect of the movement, so if it stops around 1961, SO WHAT? My personal opinion is that most jazz after the 60s has been fairly insignificant compared to what happened in the decades before-- I mean really, will jazz ever make the groundbreaking never heard before strides in art that it did when Louis or Bird came out etc? All art forms reach the epoch and then slowly decline, as all empires do I might add. And what about Winton? Whatever my views are concerning his music, he provides an intoxicating energy to the film, partially due to the fact that yes he is an Historian when concerning jazz. Really, can you say that someone with all of his knowledge about jazz playing (which comes from studying the masters) is less informed than some white kid studying books at Yale about the history of jazz?
Which brings me to my one criticism of the film -- the boring monologues by the WHITE HISTORIANS. Hey, I'm white, I've got no problem with color, but jeez these guys could put you to sleep with their "intellectualized" ramblings which were seldom worth listening to.

All of this being said, I've yet to run across any comments about the true significane of this film. FIRST: sure, it's about the music, and the footage, perofrmances, and interviews alone are invaluable. HOWEVER: this film is also undeniably an historical achievement, not only about jazz but about the history of America, dating back to before the Civil War. It's a history of the US, a history of African Americans, a history of white/black relationships in America, and a history of the incredible virtuosos that forever changed our world. More power to Ken Burns; those involved in the making this documentary; and foremost without question the special souls that created the music.

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

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: 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.