Ken Burns, "JAZZ"

[connoisseur series500]

PBS has been showing Ken Burns, "JAZZ" on Monday evenings. I find myself caught watching it eagerly and getting involved with all the stories. This is the first time since it first came out that I've been able to view it.

I recall that Chris had some serious issues with Burns and the job he did. I am curious if you could repeat some of that here, Chris, as I may benefit from your comments as I view the shows. Some other members have expressed criticism regarding Stanley Crouch and Wynton Marsalis, who do dominate this show.

Here are a few of my observations so far:

--Crouch makes some fantastic comments. I find him extremely interesting. I would really appreciate if others would comment upon what exactly they did not like about him and his contributions to the program.

--Seems an incredible amount of attention is paid to Duke Ellington and Louis Armstrong. I'm convinced that Louis A. deserves his share, but Duke's music often leaves me cold. He is a good songwriter, and I recognize that, but his big band sound seems so dated. Charley Parker comes on the scene and blows away all that big band stuff. Now there's one of my jazz heroes for sure!

--Marsalis makes some good comments, but I don't understand half of what he says. He is very enthusiastic.

--Giddens and the other black Academic are very interesting. I don't care for the female Academic's comments. She seems to stretch her points.

--Does Brubeck deserve all the attention he gets? Again, another one that leaves me cold.

[jazzbo]

Conn, I'll just say that a lot of jazz left me cold at the beginning, and what left me cold at the beginning is what I am hottest about now, and vice versa. . . .

I think Duke deserves the attention. Just one man's opinion.

[slsmcgrew]

I picked up the entire series on DVD awhile ago for the husband. The parts I've seen so far have been quite enjoyable and interesting.

[John Tapscott]

PBS has been showing Ken Burns, "JAZZ" on Monday evenings. 

I'm glad you're enjoying it. As for me, if I'm having a bout of insomnia Monday evenings, I know where to find something that will put me to sleep real fast. Usually jazz stimulates me and wakes me up, but for some reason I kept falling asleep as I watched the Burns series. Just me I guess, but the word "boring" keeps coming to mind.

[Simon Weil]

...for some reason I kept falling asleep as I watched the Burns series. Just me I guess...

Nope, that happened with me also.

Simon Weil

[Alexander]

Let me address some of your observations:

--Crouch makes some fantastic comments.  I find him extremely interesting.  I would really appreciate if others would comment upon what exactly they did not like about him and his contributions to the program.

To begin with, Crouch is hardly the boogie man some have made him out to be. When talking about early jazz through the swing era, Stanley (and Wynton) is solidly within his element, which is why you enjoy his contributions to the program. The problems come when the series moves into the bop era and beyond. Stanley becomes quite dogmatic at this point. He sticks to his theory that jazz is:

1) Rooted in the blues, and any music that does not acknowledge the blues is not jazz.

2) Swinging. Again, if it doesn't swing, it isn't jazz (Crouch once made an outrageous statement that Bill Evans was a "punk" whose playing could "scarcely be considered jazz" because he did not swing).

3) African-American (or, to use a term that Crouch himself favors, "Negro"). Crouch sometimes likes to play both sides of the fence on this one, occasionally praising a white musician like Joe Lovano, but Crouch has gone on record stating that jazz is a Negro creation and that all of the innovators in jazz have been black. It is true that the majority of jazz innovation came from blacks, but that shouldn't exclude white musicians from making significant contributions. Crouch's writing is particularly unenlightened on this point.

Is Stanley interesting? Of course. Is he knowledgable? Yes. Does he have a right to his opinion? No doubt about it. But he is also extremely conservative, and in the end I find his brand of conservatism extremely unpalatable.

--Seems an incredible amount of attention is paid to Duke Ellington and Louis Armstrong.  I'm convinced that Louis A. deserves his share, but Duke's music often leaves me cold.  He is a good songwriter, and I recognize that, but his big band sound seems so dated.  Charley Parker comes on the scene and blows away all that big band stuff.  Now there's one of my jazz heroes for sure!

This may seem like heresy, but I contend that far, far too much of "Jazz" is given over to BOTH Pops and Duke. Burns subscribes to the "Great Man" theory of history, and his method is to follow these "great men" from the cradle to the grave. Sadly, Armstrong's most significant innovations were made in the 20s and 30s. By the end of the 1930s, Pops was in the rut that he would stay in for the rest of his career. Not that he didn't continue to make great music. He did. But never again would he have the kind of impact that he had with his Hot Five recordings. Seems to me that Burns could have dropped Pops in the 40s, and only occasionally returned to him in the 50s and 60s, rather than reporting his every move. I have similar feelings about Ellington. Again, no doubt that he was extremely innovative at one time, but that time did pass (he had more comebacks than Armstrong, however). Again, we didn't have to have a day-to-day account of Duke's life. Seems we could have dropped Duke by 1950, coming back to him only occasionally. This would have freed Burns up to spend more time on figures like Bud Powell, who rated barely a mention in the series. Or Stan Getz, who is only mentioned in connection with his drug addiction.

--Marsalis makes some good comments, but I don't understand half of what he says.  He is very enthusiastic.

He is enthusiastic, and knowledgable. And talented. But why this makes him the single most important figure in jazz is beyond me. Burns practically moved in to Wynton's house for that series!

Seriously, as fun as Wynton is to watch (with his "gumbo" metaphors), he doesn't make sense half the time. His first line in the series (in fact, THE first line of the series) is "Jazz objectifies America." Nice, but it doesn't mean anything. I think he meant "Jazz EXEMPLIFIES America." I have no doubt that Wynton loves jazz, but he clearly has less love for the English language.

--Giddens and the other black Academic are very interesting.  I don't care for the female Academic's comments.  She seems to stretch her points.

Yeah, I like Gerald Earley a lot. He has some nice things to say. Funny that Crouch hates him so much...

--Does Brubeck deserve all the attention he gets?  Again, another one that leaves me cold.

Absolutely he does. Brubeck is a giant. There's a lot more to him than just "Take Five!"

Edited June 11, 2003 by Alexander

[Alexander]

...for some reason I kept falling asleep as I watched the Burns series. Just me I guess...

Nope, that happened with me also.

Simon Weil

Andrew Hill has reported that the "Jazz" series put him to sleep every night it aired.

[Soulstation1]

i slip this on, when i watch the burns series

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...&category=24911

[Alexander]

The major problem for me with Marsalis' prominence in the series stems not so much from his personality--I can actually understand why Burns chose him for a PBS-marketed series--but from (IMO) the sense that he, Stanley Crouch, and Albert Murray are all advancing the same notions of jazz history in the documentary, forming a hydrahead of ideology, as it were. A more diverse group of commentators, including perhaps somebody like Scott Deveaux, would have been welcome, from my POV.

Now you've done it, conn--opened up the dreaded & proverbial can o' worms!

Yes, I call Murray, Crouch, and Marsalis the Unholy Trinity, or the Axis of Lincoln Center.

[John Tapscott]

...for some reason I kept falling asleep as I watched the Burns series. Just me I guess...

Nope, that happened with me also.

Simon Weil

Andrew Hill has reported that the "Jazz" series put him to sleep every night it aired.

The series has lots of flaws for sure, though in places, it's not bad (enough to rouse me from my slumber for a few moments, especially some of the live performance clips). But the biggest mystery to me is how the series could take something as VITAL and INTERESTING as jazz and make it seem so DULL. Something got lost in the translation. Of course, with a few exceptions, jazz and TV have never meshed all that well. The apologists for the Burns series often say something like, well it's a good introduction to jazz for newcomers to the music. Personally, I doubt it. Can you imagine showing this series, as it is, video by video, to high school or college students? I may be wrong, but I think the converts to jazz from such an approach would be few and far between.

[BruceH]

This may seem like heresy, but I contend that far, far too much of "Jazz" is given over to BOTH Pops and Duke. Burns subscribes to the "Great Man" theory of history, and his method is to follow these "great men" from the cradle to the grave.

Not heresy at all, I agree with you. As Kevin Whitehead put it, I never thought I'd be complaining about too MUCH Armstrong and Ellington on American TV, but in Burns' "Jazz" they crowd far too many worthy figures right out of the documentary.

[P.D.]

In response to Alexander

This may seem like heresy, but I contend that far, far too much of "Jazz" is given over to BOTH Pops and Duke. Burns subscribes to the "Great Man" theory of history, and his method is to follow these "great men" from the cradle to the grave. Sadly, Armstrong's most significant innovations were made in the 20s and 30s. By the end of the 1930s, Pops was in the rut that he would stay in for the rest of his career. Not that he didn't continue to make great music. He did. But never again would he have the kind of impact that he had with his Hot Five recordings. Seems to me that Burns could have dropped Pops in the 40s, and only occasionally returned to him in the 50s and 60s, rather than reporting his every move. I have similar feelings about Ellington. Again, no doubt that he was extremely innovative at one time, but that time did pass (he had more comebacks than Armstrong, however).

Everyone has a different opinion.. I agree with the Armstrong evaluation.. The part in the Burns Show where they repeat the often mentioned fact that Hello Dolly Knocked the Beatles ( whatever it was ) off the charts always annoys me. It generally seems to be cited as a measure of how great a musician Armstrong was, which I think belittles his contribution to Jazz and music in general.

The Beatles hit had been on the charts for 4 weeks, by then I would imagine about 90% of all who wanted to buy it, had already done so. such was Beatle Mania at the time. Dolly purchasers were possibly Moms 'n Dads relieved that there was something they could buy.. also it was a SHOW tune etc. I don'y know any JAZZ followers who ran out and bought the record.

Ellington???

I think you are missing quite a bit. Ellington should almost be looked at in decades 20's/ 30's / 40's / 50's etc. each had innovative periods distinctive to the development of the music and the musicians. Only relatively later did his influence seem to dwindle, possibly 70's on.

Absolutely he does. Brubeck is a giant. There's a lot more to him than just "Take Five!"

Your Brubeck statement, in light of your dismissal of Ellington seems a little facetious. Brubeck was definitely more than Take 5, but his influence on the Jazz scene in both music and musicians, and the History of Jazz.. which is what the Burns series claims to be, is far less than Armstrong or Ellington.. or a whole host of others. If Burns spent a lot of time on Brubeck,( I'd have to watch it again to know for sure) then that too, is an extreme waste of time.

I guess it depends on how you define a Giant of Jazz.. which of course is what leads to the debates about the show...we get the Burns / Marsalis / Crouch etc. definitions which obviously don't always agree with our own.

Edited June 11, 2003 by P.D.

[Guest Mnytime]

A big waste of money. It's a shame someone beside that hack Burns didn't do this. On top of that allowing Crouch and WM to have anything to do with this made sure it would turn out the way it did.

And it's not just Jazz. All his attention getting Documentaries are the same.

Edited June 11, 2003 by Mnytime

[Claude]

Despite all the criticism, I would like to see this series (maybe with the sound turned off, as Chris suggests ). No way I am going to buy it on DVD just to watch it one time.

This series has never been shown here, and is not available in video rental shops either. It would be a nice documentary for BBC World, one of the few english programs available here.

[Simon Weil]

...for some reason I kept falling asleep as I watched the Burns series. Just me I guess...

Nope, that happened with me also.

Simon Weil

Andrew Hill has reported that the "Jazz" series put him to sleep every night it aired.

The series has lots of flaws for sure, though in places, it's not bad (enough to rouse me from my slumber for a few moments, especially some of the live performance clips). But the biggest mystery to me is how the series could take something as VITAL and INTERESTING as jazz and make it seem so DULL. Something got lost in the translation. Of course, with a few exceptions, jazz and TV have never meshed all that well. The apologists for the Burns series often say something like, well it's a good introduction to jazz for newcomers to the music. Personally, I doubt it. Can you imagine showing this series, as it is, video by video, to high school or college students? I may be wrong, but I think the converts to jazz from such an approach would be few and far between.

I did actually spend quite a lot of time researching the series before it came on - This was possible because of the large scale media blitz Burns and his cohorts indulged in - And one remarkable thing was Burns wasn't interested in Jazz until he worked out that, as a subject, it could fit into his conception of documentaries that explain America to itself.

For me there's a kind of worthiness, a "this is good for you" quality, to the films - and I suspect that comes, in part, from Burns' basic rather worthy conception of what documentaries are for. It's like the fun is squeezed out by the basic motivation.

I think Wynton also suffers from "worthiness", but that's another story.

Simon Weil

[Soul Stream]

I've enjoyed this much less this time around. It seems so sensationalized. Expecially Crouch and Wynton who, at one point last episode, is obviously just making stuff up. He was talking about Ellington and how he knew all about a woman without even talking to her. Her occupation, ect. Because he's such an obvervant perston....HOGWASH!!!! This is just not true, Wynton is talking like he was sitting in the room when all this went down day after day.... Come on. And Crouch....same sort of stuff. Totally unfounded speculation.

Burn's history of jazz aided by Crouch and Wynton is like Fox TV's version of current world events.

[Jim Alfredson]

Any documentary on the history of jazz that doesn't even mention Jimmy Smith is, in my opinion, not worth the cellophane it was filmed on.

[Guest Mnytime]

Any documentary on the history of jazz that doesn't even mention Jimmy Smith is, in my opinion, not worth the celephane it was filmed on.

Not only Jimmy Smith but Bill Evans and many more. Many musicians only get mentioned in relation to their Herion problem and not having anything to do with Jazz. Bud Powell and Mingus combined got about 90 seconds.

WM shows us how Buddy Bolden played and sounded like.

Sidney Bechet one of the greats only gets mentioned in relation to some duel that I believe never happened and a dog.

Out of 19 hours I think there was maybe 5 minutes with no one talking over the music. That is when they actually played music.

We also got the idiotic theory on how Satchmo playing live (in Copenhagen I believe it was) might have led to the discovery of Quantum Physics.

Cecil Taylor one of the few musician they show from the last 40 years not in the Murray/Crouch/WM sphere of influence in some way is the only musician a negative comment is made about.

Edited June 11, 2003 by Mnytime

[Green Dolphin]

Here in the UK we got a slightly truncated series-Alexander's comments above were on the money,the early episodes were engrossing and "curators" such WM and Crouch were enlightening but once we hit the 50's... I recall Burns hadn't gotten into the music for long by the time he made the programs,let's hope he's still "learning" and there's a Jazz part 2 somewhere on the horizon and he disowns that last woeful episode of the first series!

[Guest Mnytime]

Than there was the whole whites Jazz musicians need not apply feeling you got from this Documentary.

Edited June 11, 2003 by Mnytime

[shawn·m]

To tell the truth, I thought the screen time devoted to Armstrong and Ellington was an inspired stroke (boy, could somebody ever have fun with this sentence). Influential originators from two different sides of the same coin, yes, but they also provide a narrative thread that ties the series together. Necessary? Probably not, but it is an effective story-telling device.

And as for Branford’s “bullshit” quote... Branford was trying to say the idea of listeners having to prepare themselves before listening to Cecil (or jazz?) was nonsense –not Cecil’s music. The interview transcripts bare this out.

[connoisseur series500]

What bummed me about the series was relegating the last 40 years of jazz into the final episode. Little mention was made of soul-jazz, free-jazz and jazz-fusion. Like them or not, they happened and Burns, if he was making a comprehensive doc about jazz, should have included them.

Also, while excluding people like Stan Getz and Wes Montgomery, he felt the need to include the quote by Branford Marsalis that follwed a discussion of Cecil Taylor--that quote was "That is bullshit." He went on to say that if any thought needs to be brought to the music, then it is elitest.

The next day I sold all of my Branford Marsalis CDs.

Also, where was Chick Corea? Keith Jarrett? David Murray? Albert Ayler? etc...

This is so true. Definitely one of my biggest complaints when I first saw the series. Of course, the reruns haven't reached this time period yet. Add the shortshrift for Bill Evans and Jimmy Smith. Definite weaknesses for sure.

[BruceH]

What bummed me about the series was relegating the last 40 years of jazz into the final episode.

You are so on the money. The last episode of this series is by far the worst. In fact, it's a joke. Not only do they "cover" the last 40 years of jazz history in barely an hour, they give a very edited and distorted view of it, no doubt because MCM (Marsalis/Crouch/Murray) don't like much of it. That's like doing a history of the US but short-shrifting the last 100 years because you don't like cars. You can take the last episode and throw it out the window, for all it's worth.

And another thing: Why the hell didn't Burns & co. interview more MUSICIANS??? For Godsake, when this series was started Dizzy Gillespie was still alive...A lot of musicians passed away during the making of "Jazz" who could have given valuable insights into their times, their music, their fellow musicians, and we'll never hear that. Jackie McLean got some face-time, but it's mostly non-musician, non-critic talking heads when it's not the MCM trinity. And if they don't like Cecil Taylor, why not let him demonstrate what he's about by playing the piano and explaining what he plays? Were they afraid he might make sense? A lot of suviving musicians could have gone the Marion McPartland route, explicating and illuminating their music by playing portions of it, on the piano or whatever instrument. But this road not taken just tends to prove the thesis that Burns isn't really interested in jazz as MUSIC so much as an idea, another historical entrypoint to his favorite hobbyhorse, race in America.

And another thing....ahh, the heck with it.

[JSngry]

And another thing: Why the hell didn't Burns & co. interview more MUSICIANS???

When it comes to the Music Business And All Things Related, musicians are (usually) a necessary evil at best. Once the music gets made, they have served their purpose. Breeders, that's what musicians are, professional baby-makers for "the industry". Why would you want to interview THAT when there are obviously more qualifed people to speak with?

[Guest Mnytime]

To tell the truth, I thought the screen time devoted to Armstrong and Ellington was an inspired stroke (boy, could somebody ever have fun with this sentence). Influential originators from two different sides of the same coin, yes, but they also provide a narrative thread that ties the series together. Necessary? Probably not, but it is an effective story-telling device.

And as for Branford’s “bullshit” quote... Branford was trying to say the idea of listeners having to prepare themselves before listening to Cecil (or jazz?) was nonsense –not Cecil’s music. The interview transcripts bare this out.

That may be how the interview transcripts come out but not how the edited version came come out. It was just another way to screw the last 40 years of Jazz and musicians like Cecil who don't fall under the extremely small-minded and limited versin of Jazz that Murray/Crouch/WM worship at the alter of.

There are so many possible things they could have discussed in relations to Cecil and his music. But the spend the close to non-existent time to yet another idiotic subject. Right of there with Bechet and the dog, Duke and the Woman, Satchmo and the Discovery of Quantum Physics, and countless other useless half-assed facts. A good many of them either not true or dubious to say the least.