Ken Burns' "Jazz"

[musicplease22]

Has anyone seen the Ken Burns Jazz documentary?

I was going to add it to my Netflix but I wasn't sure if it was worth it.

I've heard all good things from other places, though.

In this interview he seems like a really good filmmaker, too.

Thanks,

Mark

[J.A.W.]

See this thread.

[AllenLowe]

I was paid handsomely to serve as a consultant - it enabled me to buy my yacht and my summer home in Trenton.

[Christiern]

Ken Burns is a slick hack, stuck in a routine that totally lacks imagination when it comes to the technique of film making. He does, however, use imagination when it comes to storytelling, and that is contrary to the basic principles that true documentarians adhere to. Their job and goal is to tell the story based on known and uncovered facts—not to make things up or hire talking head who are known to do so. Burns is another corporate darling, like Wynton (whom he uses ad nauseam). Talent did not achieve for them the enormous recognition they enjoy—that was the work of clever promoters, abetted by gullible media whose aim it is to bamboozle a trusting public. It's all about the bottom line, which is why we see standards steadily lowered beyond the pale.

The only (stress on only) worthwhile aspect of this series is that it contains a wealth of extraordinary footage. Burns had the money to acquire such footage, but he lacked the knowledge and will to use it with integrity. If only all that money and air time had been given to people who knew the music and were dedicated to its creators and the preservation of its history, but that is too much to ask in an era of declining standards and ethics. As it is, "Jazz" only tells the first half of the story and he dishes that out with serious gaps and facts that have been twisted to either fit in a clip that caught Burns' fancy or to accommodate personal biases.

Because I allowed them to use some of my photos, I received a free copy of the series. I would not have lent them anything had I known what a disservice they were going to do the people who created this music. The set was still sealed when I gave it away.

So, my advice is to watch "Jazz" for the interesting clips it contains and to ignore the idiocy of talking heads (Wynton and Crouch are particularly dishonest).

As for that interview you link to, it is nauseating pap. The interviewer typifies the gullible, bird-brained media that has been a part of the Burns hype from the beginning. We have in this country a plethora of people who pose as journalists, thinkers, or both. They are given exposure that is far beyond any that their ability deserves, and they are paid by the very same corporations that fund the mediocrity they promote. An honest, independently thinking interviewer would have challenged rather than swallowed whole the "greatness" tag that media has embedded in the empty recesses of wannabe journalists and sellouts.

I don't know from what "places" you have heard "good things," but I would promptly scratch them from my list.

[gmonahan]

Well, I'm not quite sure I'm as down on the series as Chris!!! I agree with him that it concentrated over much on the early period and was way too sketchy on the later one--almost nothing on the avante garde, nothing on Bill Evans, etc. (We've gone over this in the other thread), and the over-reliance on Marsalis and Crouch is *really* irritating. But I think the clips and some of the other talking heads--when they get a chance to talk--make it worth watching. But I absolutely agree with Chris that it represented a great lost opportunity in too many ways. Keep your fast-forward button at the ready when Crouch and Marsalis are babbling away. It'll make the series go much faster.

gregmo

[mikelz777]

Ignore the naysayers. It's absolutely worth the time and effort of requesting through Netflix. Take people's opinions with a grain of salt, watch it and then form your own opinions. In any event, yes, do watch it.

[Larry Kart]

And that Bird recording, played IIRC while some talking head is praising his miracles of construction, is on a tape loop! It's as though Burns had panned across Leonardo's "Last Supper" and repeated what was to the left side of the fresco as though it also were on the right side, all while someone was discussing the formal layout of the work. If you're dealing with music, it helps to have ears.

[musicplease22]

@chris That did seem particularly negative, but I can see where you're coming from. It's cool that they used some of your photos for it, at any rate. Unfortunately, based on what everyone else said, I'm definitely Netflix'ing it.

[Tom 1960]

No problem in renting it. It's a free country. I'd be interested in your opinions once you viewed the entire series.

[Big Beat Steve]

I'm just an "ordinary" jazz fan and collector (though of relatively long standing ) and far afield from the States so of course I DID take in the series from one end to another.

As for its relative merits, I guess I am somewhere between the "naysayers" and the "aye-sayers" (though maybe just a WEE bit towards the "Nay" side ).

Being sort of on the outside (of the producers/behind the scenes jazz in-crowd people), I'd summarize my impressions like this:

- Narrative to be taken with a grain of salt - yes (but only to be expected when something like this is produced for general public media consumption- YES, CONSUMPTION! ).

- Historical facts: A bit too much slanted towards Pops and Duke as the all-encompassing continuum. A few stereotypes - yes, but to those who are moderately knowledgeable the presentation of historical facts is fair enough to spur them into doing their OWN reading. Again, a grain of salt is in order. But would the newbies remember the oversimplified facts as such later on anyway? So the harm done isn't THAT immeasurable IMHO.

- Interviewee bigwigs: Marsalis, Crouch and that other one (white, short-bearded assistant college fesser type - can't think of his name right now) often came across a bit as "I am so important that only I can give you the lowdown on this" to me, but a lot of their comments made me automatically think of "To whom are they again and again stating the obvious"? Which in turn calls for that grain of salt as oversimplification goes with mass audience target groups. Not perfect but all too normal and to be expected.

BUT - the footage is priceless and deserves to be taken in again and again. And this footage alone is worth the price of admission (free in my case as I taped it straight off the TV set ) And the image sequences do conjure up a fitting atmosphere IMHO.

Now as some feel the narrative is doing the subject a disservice and as the music does not very often come directly from the footage but is a (non-sync) overlay of studio music, the excellent footage might even work with different (but stylistically related) jazz sounds after all.

In fact, these visual impressions that might even work with slightly different sounds remind me of a rock club I used to visit for live concerts quite often in the 90s. They had a habit of having MTV run continuously on their overhead TV sets all across the dancefloor - video clips of hit parade fare, Beavis and Butthead toon sequences in between, and it did make for some nice stimulation, even though the music spun by the DJs was quite different style-wise.

So why not try this with the Ken Burns series for a change in the same manner? Just turn off the sound, let the film run and put on your favorite jazz from the respective era yourself?

It's all there. Imspiring jazz stills and footage, sequences that do create an intense atmosphere at times, Beavis and Butthead in between , it's all there. So what more do you want?

Edited September 14, 2010 by Big Beat Steve

[AllenLowe]

anybody interested in a time share?

Edited September 14, 2010 by AllenLowe

[Ted O'Reilly]

As Chris notes, the series has great footage. The money allowed Burns to search for originals and 'best copies' and I appreciate that aspect.

What I would love is to have the Burns Organization now make available the complete interviews that had been done for the series. It's a shame that only a minute or so of great jazz contributors like Benny Carter is included. Since they must have spent hours taping them, that talk and insight should now be available to everyone. I'd say that likely won't happen "Officially", because the unused material might undermine the premise of the series. (Is there a real jazz fan in the Burns Organization with access to the company's archives?)

Having interviewed Benny Carter (and many others over the years), I know there's a lot more to the discussion and history of jazz than Burns used. We should have access to it.

[Christiern]

In Burns' film on Jack Johnson, there is a very rare film clip that, amazingly, is move for move in key with a story told by Crouch as having been witnessed by his father. This is so obviously a faux segment wherein Crouch's story was made up to justify the clip. Burns is a shameless, dishonest film maker.

[B. Clugston]

Worth watching, but take it with a serious grain of salt. The series was interesting at times, particularly the earlier episodes, but later episodes focused way too much on Louis Armstrong and I wish Burns would have tracked down more veterans of the hard bop era rather than having the Marsali opine endlessly. The final episode was ridiculous: the slights against Miles Davis and Cecil Taylor, ignoring the loft scene, turning Dexter Gordon's return to the U.S. into High Noon, etc., etc.

I think George Lewis sums it up best in his book about the AACM, A Power Stronger than Itself: "Newer histories of the period often uncritically recapitulate the corporate-supported tale told by the heavily funded Ken Burns Jazz series, a story which goes something like this: John Coltrane went mad in 1965 and a mysterious virus that he and others were carrying killed unwary musicians until Wynton Marsalis arrived in 1983, carrying a powerful mojo from the birthplace of jazz that put the deadly germ and its carriers to flight."

[medjuck]

I think the series is worth watching for some of the interviews as well as the great film clips. (Also I'm a big fan of EKE and Pops so appreciated the perhaps over-emphasis on their importance. ) HOWEVER: I completely agree that given their funding the film makers should make the out-takes of their interviews available elsewhere. Also as good as much of the footage is its provenance is almost never given and that makes me suspicious of some of it. Eg. The footage of the Benny Goodman Carnegie Hall Concert: Was all of that really shot during the concert? EVen if it's newsreel footage it may not have been. Things like that were often restaged for newsreels. Very often the footage just t seems generic and the music added to it indiscriminately. The musicians are sometimes obviously playing something different than what's on the soundtrack.

[Chuck Nessa]

The money allowed Burns to search for originals and 'best copies' and I appreciate that aspect.

They contacted me for materials and when I asked about budget they said something like "If you don't want to cooperate, we will drop the inclusions. We don't really need you".

[AllenLowe]

I think all the money went to Driggs.

[Patrick]

Conversation with Jackie McLean and a moving story from Brubeck about race relations were worthwhile. I even liked Wynton's demonstrated enthusiasm for Monk. Agree that the narrative clung to Armstrong for way too long (especially with so much other interesting events/styles completely ignored or quickly glossed over).

Fortunately, I don't think historian Doris Kearns Goodwin was consulted for this Burns extravaganza...

[Christiern]

Patrick: "Fortunately, I don't think historian Doris Kearns Goodwin was consulted for this Burns extravaganza."

Sad to say, Ms. Goodwin would probably have done better than most of the people Burns used.

[Ted O'Reilly]

The money allowed Burns to search for originals and 'best copies' and I appreciate that aspect.

They contacted me for materials and when I asked about budget they said something like "If you don't want to cooperate, we will drop the inclusions. We don't really need you".

Hmmm. Bad. I guess the money was spent on the researcher's fees, and long distance calls. (And, yes, Allen, Driggs...)

[Shawn]

Great photos, performance footage and recollections from famous musicians make it worthwhile. No comment on Marsalis/Crouch.

[AllenLowe]

"I guess the money was spent on the researcher's fees"

see above. still looking for renters.

[Teasing the Korean]

Burns is a shameless, dishonest film maker.

He has a bad hair piece, too.

[Neal Pomea]

As with all Ken Burns' documentaries, besides the subject matter of the title you will also get a lot about race relations in the United States, and it can be quite moving. I remember a story about a Supreme Court justice who, as a young man, heard and recognized the genius of Louis Armstrong, which changed his views on race forever and contributed to civil rights.

It's puzzling that since the time period covered is so long, from the 1910s onward, there is no real mention or discussion of copyright or the public domain and how attitudes about them have changed. Those are issues that would seem to be important today and not too off the subject at all. It makes the documentary seem quite dated already.

I definitely wish Burns had included more points of view. It could have been a far different documentary if it had traced the way the word jazz has been used and how ownership of the word has been claimed by so many people making such different kinds of music.

Hope you enjoy the series and let us know your thoughts once you're done.

[Larry Kart]

Don't know if it's been linked to before, but here's an interesting 2001 review of Burns' "Jazz" from the late Joe Goldberg:

http://www.jazzhouse.org/gone/index.php3?view=1264890487