Customer Reviews

Ken Burns' Jazz (Full Screen)

5 star:		(43)
4 star:		(30)
3 star:		(19)
2 star:		(15)
1 star:		(17)

 

 

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.

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.)

It's surprizing how vociferously some "snobs" condemn "Jazz" simply because it's not as comprehensive as they seem to think it should be. From reading these reviews you would think Ken Burns is a half-step above a holocaust-denier for not including Roland Kirk or Eric Dolphy. "Jazz" is a wonderful, inspiring and, yes, traditional look at the art form. Newcomers shouldn't be dissuaded because it's not as complete as it should be.

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.

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.

This collection of DVDs is a wonderful thing. I bought it because I had seen an episode on PBS. I needed to see more. Ever so glad to have made the decision to see it all. Now I have friends over every Sunday to watch the next disc! Ten weeks worth of weekly entertainment. Beauty!

Generally, I would recommend this to the average person as a great starting-off point for learning about jazz. I am no expert on Jazz but I have played drums in a jazz band and have been listening to jazz for many years and this documentary worked for me. OK, maybe it's not perfect but overall it gave me a pretty good understanding of the history of jazz. There's some great footage and still photos of many of the jazz greats. Also, the series contains some very good interviews with the players and people who were there at the time. I am not aware of any other documentary that handles the history of jazz in such a comprehensive manner.

An excellent history of Jazz from it earliest beginnings to where we are today. Highly recommended to those who grew up in this time period.

This series is about the musical life and times of my parents' generation.

My parents were teenagers in the Depression, and young adults during the War. My father is a musician. He practiced this music, live, in our house, every day of my childhood. He still plays it, 70 years since he learned it. My mother loved to dance. Those guys in the band in the tuxedos? That's my Dad. Those young girls jitterbugging? That's my Mom. This is what they played, and sang, and danced to.

There are jazz aficionados here who think this series has flaws. Well, they can think whatever they like. I know this music pretty well, too, and I am in tears. These films aren't just about Jazz. They are about an era.

The films are about my parents.

This is a great series, and I don't care what flaws it supposedly has.

This ten dvd set of hour and a half and two hour videos covers in great detail the history of American Jazz musicians and their music. Rather more detail than the average person would want on the subject but a great reference source for serious students of Jazz.