I got this as a b-day present last week. I caught couple of eposides from the original PBS airing and I dug what I've seen so far....


However, some 'purists' dismiss this film as a "Jr.High school essay", others have a problem with with "Jazz = Black music" theme which is lol one TOUGH problem to tolerate with coz its nothing but the doggone truth. But mostly, the problem most have complained from is the major involvment from Wynton Marsalis.


Anyway, what do you guys think of this film ya'll?

This was a daunting task to undertake considering all the tributaries the river that is Jazz can branch into.
It'd be next to impossible to give adequate time to them all.
Outside of the Wynton/Grouch bias against anything non-traditional, I thought Ken Burns did a good job.

At least he took the challenge of introducing the subject to the general public in a way that would keep their attention.

tA

Tribal Disorder

http://www.soundclick.com...dID=182431

I thought It was pretty good as an overview of the world traditional Jazz...I mean, it's not as though we have an abundance of documentaries on the whole subject....my only problem was that having Wynton as the major voice meant that any type of Jazz he didn't see as legitimate was gonna get short shrift... for example, you weren't gonna hear much about Jazz Guitarists, or really much after 1950...subjects like Avant Garde, Free, and Fusion Jazz got glossed over for the most part...(so they ain't gonna really get into Bitches Brew, )

So, IMO, it's really great as an overview of Jazz in the first half of the 20th Century...But If You want anything beyond that, you're kinda on your own....




...
[Edited 10/16/06 13:08pm]

I'm just gonna say...NAY ! and, leave it there.
My nerves are already shot from this weekend.
I'd lke this to be a "kinder, gentler" repsonse.

It was a great effort. I think they could have gotten more interview sujects. Not all of them were experts on every subject. Obviously Wynton likes early Miles & Louis Armstrong, but 70's jazz isn't exactly his strong suit.

They barely mentioned Kind of Blue. Kind of strange. Perhaps gave a bit too much time to Louis?

It also got old to hear them say so-and-so "played the horn in a way that had never been done before." That might have also been helped by not interviewing all the same people about so many great musicians. It felt kind of repetitive by the end.

But I enjoyed it and learned a lot from it, and I think almost anyone would. It's too big a subject to cover it all perfectly, but it was a great try.
[Edited 10/16/06 13:13pm]

It's a great resource and good survey of the history of jazz. Aficionadoes are going to be able to nitpick (justifiably) about how the set missed, underemphasized or overemphasized the importance of particular artists, albums, or trends in jazz. While I don't care for post-fusion jazz, it did get short shrift.

I love the set. At the end of the day, Ken Burns showed a lot of respect to America's greatest art form, and got a lot of people interested in it. That in and of itself is a great accomplishment.

My only nitpicks:

1. Bransford should have had WAY more camera time than Wynton. His summary of free jazz was KILLER.

2. I respect Crouch's opinion on jazz, but his apparent disdain for anything after bop is mystifying.

Nay, because there wasn't enough coverage on jazz fusion. And I hate it when "jazz purists" refuse to give fusion artists (Hebbie Hancock, Chick Corea, Miles Davis, Weather Report, etc.) the respect they deserve.

Ken Burns gets no respect for THAT shyt!

namepeace said:

Crouch gets no respect for dissing fusion.

TonyVanDam said:

I think the fact that fusion paved the way for smooth jazz is a reason "jazz purists" resent fusion so much, and lump it in unfairly with the r&b muzak most radio programmers call jazz these days.

I agree with you that the series didn't really address what happened with jazz after the early 70's, and how the popular music was heavily influenced by bop and fusion. But I admittedly have a bias for bop so I dug it.

Have to add to the "nays." As someone who doesn't know that much about jazz but wants to learn more...I found it pretty stinkin' dull. Just doesn't mesh with his style.

paligap said:

I can understand, if not agree with the prejudice against/short shrift given towards "non-traditional" jazz, but I don't understand why there was almost no mention of jazz guitarists. How exactly are they not "traditional" jazz? Other than Django Reinhardt, NONE of the jazz guitar greats were mentioned. Even if you exclude heavy/distorted fusion guys like McLaughlin and Di Meola you still have Les Paul, Lonnie Johnson, Wes Montgomery, Barney Kessel, George Benson etc. etc. etc.

Also there were a few jazz iconoclasts who were conspicuously absent from their coverage who i would've liked to have seen mentioned as well: Pharoah Sanders, Sun Ra, Rahsaan Roland Kirk? I fail to see what they did to deserve being completely excluded.

Otherwise I really like it and enjoy, and own it. I think there's a sort of interesting "relaxed excitement" vibe I get from it for lack of a better term, and I definitely learned a lot of things from it.

TonyVanDam said:

"I second THAT emotion" (c) Smokey robinson

Charlie Christian was mentioned

I can appreciete the effort he made for Duke Ellington,,,but it is true, I find the absence of the 70's abit disturbing.

My only complaint was the lack of info about Jazz female musicians(Mary Lou Williams gets a brief mention,,but what about Hazel Scott, Hadda Brooks and Camille Howard).

Other than that, Ken delivered a heartfelt film

Excellent treatise, but limited scope.

Harlepolis said:

oh yeah you're right

Never saw the film, but I got some of the Cds and they are good introductions to jazz music... at least for me...

It has loads of great, rare footage, and is a good general overview for jazz newcomers (up to 1950 at least!). However, I can understand why the series cut off more or less in the late '60s, as around this time, this thing called 'jazz' was fragmenting into so many different sub-genres (eg. jazz-rock, jazz-funk, world-jazz, Afro-jazz, free noise, folk-jazz, Scandinavian jazz, jazz-reggae and so on), it would probably have confused the general viewer (the target audience). Nobody can really agree what the 'central story' of jazz post 1970 should be, as jazz has become so wide-spread and diversified around the world.

Also, while Wynton Marsalis is well known for having, a 'limited' view of jazz, he speaks very eloquently about many of the figures of early jazz history.

But the programme certainly sinned when it failed to cover (or barely even mention?) Charles Mingus, only the 2nd or 3rd most influential jazz composer after Duke Ellington ...

namepeace said:

I also believe that "jazz purists" were hating on fusion because most of those fusion artists (especially Herbie) were becoming more popular after adding funk & rock elements to their sound. And yes, adding synthesizers increased the controversy.

namepeace said:

I think you're right, but it's also that fusion actually didn't last in the same way that bebop, cool, swing did.

It was a major movement and deserved mention, but it mostly changed into smooth jazz, as you say. It's not so easy to find some good live fusion nowadays, but you could easily find an acoustic combo that plays 'Round Midnight.

NDRU said:

Fusion didn't attract ladies much.
Most gigs were a sausage fest.
Musical trends don't last long if chicks can't dance.
That's probably why it degenerated into "smooth".
The muzakiness was more appealing to women.
They could sit back and sip on some pink wine and yak-yak over the music.

PFunkjazz said:

I watched a Steve Vai dvd and on the special features a bandmember took us backstage where he explained "Now, normally these backstage passes would be reserved for women, but since this is a Steve Vai concert, we don't have to worry about that!"

Fusion turned into what they always accused Miles of being--pop.