Ken Burns' "Jazz"

[Christiern]

It's embarrassing enough when he talks.

[Chuck Nessa]

So in all honesty, what best serves the jazz community? That the documentary was done or that it had never been done?

In my father's final years this documentary (I suggested he watch it) turned my father against me because it proved the music I was interested in was produced by "dope fiends". I take that to my grave.

So, hows that for "in all honesty"?

[mellowT]

I'm glad the insensitive comment was removed.

[Christiern]

Did you make an insensitive comment?

[Chuck Nessa]

No, not him.

I'm sorry the post and my response are gone.

[danasgoodstuff]

Whose? (I had to check it wasn't mine.)

[mikelz777]

It was mine. I revisited this thread to find that my post and what I'm guessing was a colorful and barbed response were deleted. Mr. Nessa opened a door and I merely pointed out a hard truth. I'm sorry if I offended the sensitivities of those who might have read it but I thought it was a fair observation though apparently not well received.

Edited September 25, 2010 by mikelz777

[Chuck Nessa]

I simply thanked you for pointing out this was my father's fault and for your insightful response.

Not edited by me at any time.

[mjzee]

This is a great price for the DVD box: $39.99

Amazon

[Christiern]

$39.99 is really not such a great price when one considers how much work is involved in extracting the great vintage clips and removing the audio from them.

[Rabshakeh]

Did the additional interviews and footage ever get released?

Also, is that Joe Goldberg crit still available? I've tried google but can't find it.

edit: Typos amended

Edited September 22, 2023 by Rabshakeh

[felser]

36 minutes ago, Rabshakeh said:

Did the additional interviews and footage ever get released?

Not that I'm aware of.  Amazon doesn't show any releases of this since 2005.

[Teasing the Korean]

59 minutes ago, Rabshakeh said:

Did the additional interviews and footage ever get released?

Also, is that Joe Gordon crit still available? I've tried going but can't find it.

I'm waiting for the version without the interviews. 😹

[Rabshakeh]

6 hours ago, Teasing the Korean said:

I'm waiting for the version without the interviews. 😹

The idea that there is another 400 unreleased hours of Wynton Marsalis making trumpet sounds then saying “that’s America” makes me salivate.

[gmonahan]

On 9/21/2023 at 11:08 PM, Rabshakeh said:

The idea that there is another 400 unreleased hours of Wynton Marsalis making trumpet sounds then saying “that’s America” makes me salivate.

🤣

[Andrea]

I'm not completely finished (I'm on Episode #9), but it's full of platitudes. And a ton of clichés, truisms, or empty aphorisms, mostly by Wynt Marsalis, who takes up the most time in this documentary. 

I do like some of the interviews, and the narration covers some good stuff, and I like the chronological approach. I think some might overrated this because I think any documentary on jazz would be cool.

I'd like to hear more about music. But I'm not "digging" Ken Burns. He seems guilty of something by his approach. I'd guess there's many black and white audiences who would complete this and think less of the other. Music is for everyone. 

 

Edited 8 hours ago by Andrea

[Stompin at the Savoy]

Just read this old thread after it came up.   I agree wholeheartedly with Christiern - Burns is a big fraud.  I've often wondered at the way people gush over his stuff, which is mostly panning still photos and repetitious music.  Slick tv with very poor interviews and scripts.  I watched some or most of the jazz series and found it frustrating because there was talking over the music and they never played a tune complete,  not to mention the dumb narrative he carves out of the interviews.

[jlhoots]

Some of Burns is pretty good -BUT not the jazz series which I didn't like.

[Ken Dryden]

5 hours ago, jlhoots said:

Some of Burns is pretty good -BUT not the jazz series which I didn't like.

I have only seen bits and pieces of it and it is little wonder how little Ken Burns knew about jazz. What was bizarre to me was having Wynton Marsalis talking about what it was like playing with Duke Ellington, the question would have been better asked of Clark Terry. 

[Stompin at the Savoy]

One of the things Burns does is ask all interviewees certain leading questions and get them to answer in much the same way.  This becomes the thread of his story and each of the interviews sort of confirms this thread.  Never mind that it's shallow and maybe even wrong.  In the jazz series he never really discusses what's different about this music, what's going on with each development, what's good about it, etc.  It's all just glossy panning of old photos and shallow generalizations... and praise, lots of praise!  Endless clips of various talking heads enthusing about some musician without any real attempt to explain why.

[Big Beat Steve]

I remember watching the entire series of videos (they were aired on one of our TV channels and I taped them to VHS) and I was truly impressed by the historic footage. And this is one of the reasons I've kept them and why I'd like to watch them again (but am not sure I'd want to find out how the VHS cassettes have stood the test of time and whether my VHS player might foul up  so somehow keep postponing it ).
But the interviews and narrations? I dunno ... And the skewedness of how and why (as if ...) the entire history of jazz could be hinged on Louis Armstrong and Duke Ellington ... Oh well ...
(The same goes for the accompanying book IMO, BTW, although on a different level it is an interesting and rewarding one, though to be taken with a grain of salt when it comes to how balanced the presentation of the history really is.)

Overall it really looks like one of those cases of someone succeeding in the media world by placing himself in the center of attention of "key players" and multiplicators in the business, regardless of how substantial and well-founded the KNOWLEDGE he has to offer really is. But isn't that what the media business has been all about for along time? Making waves and slinging easily digestible buzzwords is what counts above all. Something substantial? Not so much ....
As in most specialist areas (particularly when history and knowledge of same comes into play) there are plenty out there who are way more knowledgeable but they are not the ones who have endeared themselves with and therefore are called upon by the deciders.

[Stompin at the Savoy]

Don't you wish they had gotten some people who really know the music to give short talks about the various developments in jazz.  And not Wynton Marsalis, who is knowledgeable and a good player but should be taken in micro-doses. Without getting too technical they could have gotten somebody like Dick Hyman to play the same thing as swing, vs bebop for example and show the characteristics and some of the nitty gritty of it.  Instead we got non-musicians, enthusiastic but vague, going on about how great various players were. We have a notion they are great; tell us why.

[Rabshakeh]

For me it isn't Wynton. He is charismatic and he gets to explain some of what's happening musically. 

I agree with @Stompin at the Savoy - Much worse than Wynton are all the Wynton-adjacent critics, like Gary Giddins. They just wiffle on and say nothing at all.

The series has some major issues. The two worst elements for me are the absurd amount of time allocated to Louis Armstrong and Duke Ellington postwar, and the general collapse in coverage once you move past 1947. 

The best episodes are the ones on swing music, including early Ellington, but particularly on the swing music of the 1940s. Episodes 4, 5 and 6 are really quite strong. 

Edited 6 minutes ago by Rabshakeh