I have a complicated relationship with Ken Burns' Jazz documentary. On one hand, I've always found the early episodes very comforting, like mashed potatoes (I'll even watch sometimes just to relax myself). But on the other hand, once it reaches the end of the swing era, I get tired of the focus on Armstrong at the expense of younger innovators, and I get right pissed about the dismissal of 60's avant garde and free jazz. I found this article that does a good job of encapsulating my issues with "Jazz": http://www.gerryhemingway.com/jazzburn.html Can't say I disagree with too much of what the author says. What do you guys think?
I agree than Burns gives short shrift to pretty much everything after 1959, and my favorite period of jazz is probably what Miles, Coltrane, Shorter, Dolphy, etc. were doing from roughly 1960-67. So I wish there were two more DVDs focused on that era, and that Eric Dolphy got more than the 30 seconds of screen time I remember him getting. However, I'm secure enough in my understanding and appreciation of jazz to know what I like and ignore some of the more extreme anti-New Thing statements in the Burns documentary, and just enjoy the episodes from the beginning of jazz to 1959, which I find very well done.
I watched it when it was on TV in the UK. My memory is that Ornette Coleman gets about 10 seconds, which is weird for an epic series on jazz.
I just watched the entire Jazz series for the first time last summer and I came away dissapointed. Reading the article, I have to agree with a lot of what he says, especially about giving short shrift to Miles Davis' later work, as well as Coltrane and Coleman. I don't know enough about Burns to question his motivations or agenda, but he did spend too much time on some artists and not enough on others. I did learn quite a bit about the beginings of jazz, which I didn't know much about. I would have liked more depth in the later eras I am more interested in though.
I remember reading this at the time - it's pretty funny...esp. this bit. Narrator: In 1964, John Coltrane was at his peak, Eric Dolphy was in Europe, where he would eventually die, the Modern Jazz Quartet was making breakthrough recordings in the field of third stream music, Miles Davis was breaking new barriers with his second great quintet and Charlie Mingus was extending jazz composition to new levels of complexity, to name just a few. But we’re going to talk about Louis singing “Hello Dolly” instead.
I appreciate the newsreel quality of the Jazz documentary. Of course it has its own propagandizing/point-of-view storyline going with it, but what narrative doesn't? I don't consider Jazz necessarily definitive or authoritative (even if Burns does - which is the scary part). I mainly just like the old photos and footage that are used, put to a jazz soundtrack.
Just watched the whole thing on Amazon Prime last week.... and, thought THE SAME THING! Glad to see I'm not alone......
As we've discussed, there's obviously a very evident bias in Burns' account of jazz. But Coltrane, Dolphy, Mingus, Davis, etc. aren't exactly lacking in appreciation from jazz fans. In a way, it was a refreshing alternate perspective to see Armstrong's later career taken seriously. It's been a while since I watched the whole series, but I recall the last footage of Armstrong from 1970? bringing a tear to my eye.
He did nothing wrong. Louis was THE greatest jazz artist of any era. Why not focus primarily on this outstanding genius?
Because that would be like reading the first 1/4 of a great novel and then putting it down and never finishing the rest.
If he was only interested in telling that story, why didn't he just do a documentary about the life and work of Louis Armstrong? That wasn't what Burns did--he was seeking to tell the broader story of Jazz and while parts of it were very well done indeed, it sometimes came off seeming one sided and dismissive of alternative perspectives.
A n0t-very-good documentary. Had it stopped around 1950 and been "a history of jazz, part 1" or something like that, I think it would have been excellent. But it didn't. The '50s and '60s were arguably the two most important decades for jazz (the refinement of jazz going from being a pop music to an art music, which began with bebop in the '40s) and Burns didn't do a great job with the '50s, and he whiffed completely on the '60s. His treatment of the 70s was so abysmal that it doesn't even merit mention. It's not really Burns' fault, though - he's admitted that he didn't know very much about jazz before starting the project. The fault is with Wynton Marsalis, a reactionary ideologue whom Burns gave a lot of creative control over the project. Marsalis not only overstated his own contribution to the genre, he didn't allow anything substantive to be said about anybody else who came to prominence between the '70s and '90s.
You guys are too fast. lol As for focusing on Louis Armstrong, that's totally fine, if, Ken Burns had made it all about Satchmo.
I had my own issues with Ken Burns' Jazz. Felt like he was pushing favorites and not covering some artists in depth that I love..... See, that's the problem with these type of shows that cover the history of ...whatever music. After I watched Ken Burns' Jazz I thought to myself, Ken should stick with war/sports. Art is tricky. Think Jann Wenner/RaRHoF.
This thread has a recent discussion on Burns' documentary: http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/please-help-me-get-into-jazz.365718/page-4#post-11003974
He clearly had a point of view. Again, I understand enough about jazz to substitute my point of view for his when I disagree with his point of view. However, I give Burns a lot of credit for getting any long-form documentary about jazz, no matter how biased, on TV at all, and the footage from the 20s to the late 50s is priceless.
Bingo! Although, if Marsalis had been in complete control, there would have been almost as much time spent on Monk as Armstrong, Wynton is very serious about his Monk.
He was pretending to make a documentary about jazz, not just Armstrong, so he did a lot wrong by omitting so many important people.
You can add Stanley Crouch to the blame for how badly that documentary derailed once it hit the 1950s. If you put Marsalis and Crouch into a rocket and launched them into the sun I'm sure a lot of jazz fans would rejoice.
Ah ok, so Crouch and Wynton were involved, that explains lot. Have no interest in Marsalis and academic jazz.
Sigh. Everyone knows everything. I couldn't stand the thing, personally BUT I was so very happy that the people that the show was aimed at, newbies or jazz virgins, got to see Louis, Artie, etc. in prime time. That will never happen again, trust me. So, while I know more about the history of jazz than most and was frantic about the slow pace of the thing, etc., I was thrilled that jazz was on the air for so many hours. All my "non-musical" friends loved it and wanted to hear more. That's a victory for jazz, my friends.
Honestly, I can't claim to be any kind of expert about jazz, so while the early installments about the development of the form were very interesting, after seeing the later episodes, I couldn't help but wonder what other biases were slipped in throughout. I would certainly be up for viewing a well done documentary covering the development of jazz from the 50s up through the 70s from a more sympathetic, inclusive perspective.