Ken Burns' "Jazz" seems pretty "Silly"

[AllenLowe]

if you look quickly, my name is in the credits. But don't blink.

Gerald Early is a good guy. His books are excellent.

Edited March 1, 2012 by AllenLowe

[Shawn]

I think the series is worthwhile for the performance footage and photographs alone. It's over-long, spends too much time in some sections and then glosses over the later years too quickly, but I would still recommend it to a newbie who was interested in jazz.

[Brad]

Definitely no need to apologize and keep the good threads coming.

[Chuck Nessa]

if you look quickly, my name is in the credits. But don't blink.

Gerald Early is a good guy. His books are excellent.

Nessa Records is in the credits too. I was told if I didn't say ok (for nothing) my material would be left out.

[Christiern]

So happens that my name is also in the credits, but that's not what bothers me the most.

It is bad enough that Burns distorted facts, rewrote jazz history, and showed poor judgement in his selection of talking heads—the real sin is that he not only didn't do justice to the music and those whose work it is, he spent a pile of corporate money and public air time on this crap. That severely diminishes and probably eliminates the possibility that someone with real knowledge and love of the subject will ever get an opportunity to do it right.

[GregK]

if you look quickly, my name is in the credits. But don't blink.

Gerald Early is a good guy. His books are excellent.

Nessa Records is in the credits too. I was told if I didn't say ok (for nothing) my material would be left out.

Wait, your work is in the series? I must have missed it. When/what?

I haven't watched it since it first aired 11-12 years ago.

[Chuck Nessa]

if you look quickly, my name is in the credits. But don't blink.

Gerald Early is a good guy. His books are excellent.

Nessa Records is in the credits too. I was told if I didn't say ok (for nothing) my material would be left out.

Wait, your work is in the series? I must have missed it. When/what?

I haven't watched it since it first aired 11-12 years ago.

turned out to be a record cover.

[colinmce]

That smirking little line about AEC was about the most obnoxious thing in the series next to the jab at CT.

As it is, I think the film is alright, if simplistic, up to bebop. Everything after that is a blur.

I got the book version as a gift, and I have to say it's leagues better than the series. It has tons of great photos and goes some places that I think we all wish the show did, which is frustrating. There are fine essays included by Early (on Kenton, Jarrett, and whiteness), Giddins (on the avant garde-- I know, but it's decent), and Crouch (on the NYC scene of the 70s and 80s), among a few others on early jazz whose subjects i don't recall but which are interesting Why they relegated this stuff to the book I'll never know. Though, of course, I do know exactly why.

[Christiern]

More obnoxious—outrageous, actually—was the segment where they name a list of drug addicts (Anita O'Day, et al), some of whom get no credit for their work or their importance to the music. People like Crouch and Wynton—neither of whom have made a real contribution to jazz—go along with this. They have Burns' ear, but speak only what he wants to hear.

Before someone questions my contention that these opportunists have neo contributed to the music, let me dare anyone to name a single positive input from Stanley, and point out that Wynton owes his fame to a PR hype and a job handed him when that charade worked as intended. Musically, he is technically proficient, but he plays without feeling. All gumbo and no guts. It is important to bear in mind that the Lincoln Center job made Wynton Marsalis and that truly qualified people were not even considered by the corporate world that called the shots. Stanley, he's just a hanger-on, a failed "avant garde" drummer who seized an opportunity and has been riding on it ever since.

I'm through with this subject for a long time, if not forever.

[StarThrower]

The ranting against the Burns documentary by jazz snobs was as predictable as the shortcomings of the film. Everybody was well aware that Burns knew nothing about jazz going into this project. With people like Marsalis for consultants, the focus on pre-1960s jazz should have been obvious.

Edited March 1, 2012 by starthrower

[AllenLowe]

what jazz snobs?

[StarThrower]

what jazz snobs?

The people who expect to find anything but mediocre bullshit on American television. At this point it's irrelevant. You can find anything you want on YouTube. Check out the Cecil Taylor documentary. It's a lot more fun and interesting than Ken Burns. As far as trying to lead the general public to water via TV, it's a waste of time.

[jazzbo]

More obnoxious—outrageous, actually—was the segment where they name a list of drug addicts (Anita O'Day, et al), some of whom get no credit for their work or their importance to the music. People like Crouch and Wynton—neither of whom have made a real contribution to jazz—go along with this. They have Burns' ear, but speak only what he wants to hear.

Before someone questions my contention that these opportunists have neo contributed to the music, let me dare anyone to name a single positive input from Stanley, and point out that Wynton owes his fame to a PR hype and a job handed him when that charade worked as intended. Musically, he is technically proficient, but he plays without feeling. All gumbo and no guts. It is important to bear in mind that the Lincoln Center job made Wynton Marsalis and that truly qualified people were not even considered by the corporate world that called the shots. Stanley, he's just a hanger-on, a failed "avant garde" drummer who seized an opportunity and has been riding on it ever since.

I'm through with this subject for a long time, if not forever.

Chris, I really respect your opinions, but I don't think that Wynton's career was "made" by his Lincoln Center post, but long before. His talent got him opportunities early on as a sideman then as a leader, and his tailoring of his image got him recognition beyond the cognoscenti and he made the most of it. And to say that he plays without feeling? That doesn't hold up if you listen to his work. I happen to like his writing and respect his arranging as well. I don't like a lot of his views on jazz, but I also more and more seem to think there's quite a bit to the idea that something isn't really "jazz" if it has fused too many non-jazz, electric elements. Doesn't make it any less quality of music, but I can concede that calling "Aghartha" or Sonny Sharrock's "Seize the Rainbow" or a lot of the work of Frisell and Zorn as "jazz" is a stretch.

Anyway, I just am a lot less bothered by Marsalis' and Crouch's spots in "Jazz" than you, and that's okay with me.

[fasstrack]

Wynton and Stanley are painfully opportunistic, Burns is a dishonest "documentarian", and the huge amount of money spent on this production was a sad waste.

Here we go again......

What the hell, it's only the 4,000th time.......

[fasstrack]

More obnoxiousoutrageous, actuallywas the segment where they name a list of drug addicts (Anita O'Day, et al), some of whom get no credit for their work or their importance to the music.

I agree with you there. I also remember being annoyed as hell with Wynton for talking about drug use, having never used. That was BS. I knew some great players---great people---who happened to be addicted, and would've straightened his ass right out, given the opportunity. Also I remember having an email discussion w/Branford about Wynton's 'mugging' on the film. I only knew Bran from his old nutburger website forum (an experiment in democracy that he ultimately closed down b/c the assholes took over, and that was a big drag) and he seems like a great guy. Always liked his playing.

My opinions (not about the above) changed about Wynton and Stanley when I met both. Both were gentlemen and Stanley is a friend---a guy who I've actually called when in trouble and was there for me. Wynton I've come to admire in many ways.

And, no, Chris, Stanley did not charm me, and I'm not 'trusting', as you've intimated before. I can get as dark as you or anyone about people. I just prefer not to anymore, plus I haven't yet encountered a preferable alternative in the animal kingdom. My guitar, maybe.... But Stanley proved himself a real human being---speaking only for myself---and my instincts re people have rarely if ever failed me.

Life is too short for the other shizzle. Also, the whole 'Jazz' discussion was a classic tempest in a teapot, mattering to no one except us intellectual weirdo commies---not to mention over long ago. Just my opinion.

Edited March 1, 2012 by fasstrack

[fasstrack]

[quote name .

And to say that he plays without feeling? That doesn't hold up if you listen to his work. I happen to like his writing and respect his arranging as well. I don't like a lot of his views on jazz, but I also more and more seem to think there's quite a bit to the idea that something isn't really "jazz" if it has fused too many non-jazz, electric elements. Doesn't make it any less quality of music, but I can concede that calling "Aghartha" or Sonny Sharrock's "Seize the Rainbow" or a lot of the work of Frisell and Zorn as "jazz" is a stretch.

Anyway, I just am a lot less bothered by Marsalis' and Crouch's spots in "Jazz" than you, and that's okay with me.

In 2004 I went to a club date audition for the (thankfully) defunct Stephen Scott Orchestras. Finally getting bored with the 12th singer in a black dress singing At Last a la Etta James (they wished) I headed for the exit door. I heard a sound of a band wafting down from upstairs and went to investigate.

I got off the elevator and saw Phil Schaap looking at a stop watch, timing something. I looked at the band rehearsing and saw Joe Temperly. I saw Wynton and figured it was a JALC rehearsal. Good thinking!

It turned out they were rehearsing for a performance of Ornette Coleman's music. I looked to the side of the room and Ornette was there, hand on chin, sitting pensively, listening. The arrangement---of Peace---as it developed, knocked my socks off. It was well-crafted, had great saxophone writing particularly, and just generally showed creativity and musicianship. I asked Phil whose it was. He pointed to Wynton.

They took a break, and there was Wynton headed toward me. I spoke to him, and even a bit arrogantly, looking back. Remember, he didn't know me from Adam, and could've walked past like I wasn't there. He didn't owe me shit.

'Wynton! I didn't know you could write like that! I was talking shit about you before'...

He smiled.

'That's OK. I've been writing for a long time'.

'So have I (what a prick I was to talk like that to anyone, let alone the most famous exponent of the music I play), and I didn't know you could write like that, man'.

He was not only every bit the musician I had been too prejudiced and jealous to acknowledge, but a gentleman to a guy he didn't know, and who was being more than a little smart-ass to boot. And I really meant well, however it came out. I was really impressed with that chart. Ted Nash also wrote a killer chart for that concert.

The happy ending came when I actually was able to speak to Ornette, who, as I said, sat quietly the entire rehearsal.

'Ornette, I was curious what you thought of it. Your music doesn't seem like it would lend itself to a big band.'

'That's the thing about music. It's so....'

And he paused to find the word. I thought he was going to say 'so pliable' and was really hanging on his every word now.

'So democratic'.

Edited March 1, 2012 by fasstrack

[RDK]

Great story, Joel!

[Chuck Nessa]

Hmmm...

[Brad]

Amazing story indeed.

[Larry Kart]

That chart was actually written by Billy Byers.

[paul secor]

Ornette is a poet - both musically and in his choice of words. 'So democratic' can have layers of meaning, especially in this context. Only Ornette knows.

[fasstrack]

That chart was actually written by Billy Byers.

What chart? Or are you joking? I think you are....

And nearly had me....

[fasstrack]

There must be a recording of the concert extant somewhere.

I forgot to mention that the late Dewey Redman was also there. As long as we're telling stories, it was the second time I met him. The first time was in the early '80s---probably '82 or '83. He walked into the Kettle of Fish---a bar in the Village (or maybe it was 55 bar---they're a few doors from each other). I was just at the bar and Dewey saw my guitar, smiled, and said 'guitar player. We gotta stick together'.

The point of all this to me is it's probably a good idea not to judge musicians---or anyone really---until you meet them. Better yet, not until you know them. Best of all, not at all. That's a tall order, I know. It may be impossible, I don't know. It's a goal, though.

And it's part of the Golden Rule, isn't it?

Edited March 3, 2012 by fasstrack

[Larry Kart]

That chart was actually written by Billy Byers.

What chart? Or are you joking? I think you are....

And nearly had me....

Yes, a joking reference to the Quincy Jones thread of a while back.

[GA Russell]

However else I feel about Ken Burns, I will be grateful for his showing in its entirety the film clip of the famous circus act Charlie Parker was watching when he died.