Ken Burns' "Jazz"

[AllenLowe]

he definitely does NOT wear a hair piece.

[Christiern]

I love Apple and have used its computers for close to 40 years, but I cannot forgive Steve Jobs—a man whom I admire immensely—for giving the idiotic label, "Ken Burns effect" to a generic pan of the camera across a still picture. Notice how the clueless interviewer in Mark's clip includes that tag in her introduction.

Imagine what real, dedicated, honest documentary film makers could do with just a fraction of the funding this little media-generated creep gets. As it is, many less endowed film makers have demonstrated that integrity and cinematic skill can produce better results than Burns with his mega funding and corporate support. There is definitely a parallel to be drawn between Burns and Marsalis.

So is the general consensus in the jazz community that he is a phony? He seems genuine enough in the interview that I linked to.

The "jazz community" is much larger and more diverse than just those who post here. There are many, including myself, who enjoyed the series - who were greatly appreciative of the many clips provided, and also got a lot out of the talking head interviews (including Wynton's - turns out he's a much better teacher than composer or bandleader).

Ultimately, the series is a good resource. Most posters here are simply encouraging you to watch the series and form your own opinion.

Don't mean to insult, but ignorance is, indeed, often bliss. It is said that one brief visit to a sausage factory might forever keep that product off one's menu.

[Guy Berger]

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.

For what it's worth, the transcripts of many (all?) interviews are (were?) available on the PBS website, and they confirm that Burns was very selective in favor of quotes that furthered his thesis.

I agree with Ted Storer. A generally enjoyable viewing experience, but a very poor history lesson.

Guy

[B. Clugston]

Was the jazz community unified in its condemnation of Ken Burns's bad hair piece?

Not a hair piece, though the cut appears to be inspired by one of the Muppets.

[papsrus]

Visual reference:

[ejp626]

Visual reference:

Ric Burns (Ken's brother)

You be the judge.

(My hunch is the Ken has done something to his hair.)

I actually met Ric Burns at a talk/screening he gave at the Museum of the City of New York. I believe this was right before PBS screened New York, but I could be wrong. He seemed like a decent guy. No question I have far more respect for his films than his brother's...

[cih]

ok I changed my mind - probably unwise to follow that line of inquiry. Post edited

I will comment on the hair instead - surely a wig. A traitor to baldies.

Edited September 22, 2010 by cih

[Christiern]

It is good that you found the interviews "illuminating," but that light did not emanate from a halo. That Ken Burns' bullshit isn't limited to his formulaic film work s something that became obvious many years ago, even before he rewrote the history of jazz.

[cih]

It is good that you found the interviews "illuminating," but that light did not emanate from a halo. That Ken Burns' bullshit isn't limited to his formulaic film work s something that became obvious many years ago, even before he rewrote the history of jazz.

Ok - so you saw it already... to be honest I didn't know what the etiquette here was on commenting on such things

[cih]

It is good that you found the interviews "illuminating," but that light did not emanate from a halo. That Ken Burns' bullshit isn't limited to his formulaic film work s something that became obvious many years ago, even before he rewrote the history of jazz.

Ok - so you saw it already... to be honest I didn't know what the etiquette here was on commenting on such things

As none of this makes sense now I'll repost my original post, even if it is already obvious anyway:

(something like...) I read an illuminating interview on www.religion-online.org which seem to explain somewhat Ken Burns' agenda and seemed relevant to the Jazz film:

"interested less in the organized forms of religion than in spiritual pursuit as a way toward the perfectibility of an imperfectible species called human beings.

I would hope that spirituality does not succumb to the logic of reason and empiricism. We are all faced daily with mysteries beyond our comprehension. Part of what we do in literature and in art, as well as in religion, is attempt to superimpose some order, some meaning, on what seems to be the randomness of the cosmos. In that superimposition are often the most beautiful things that human beings do--not just in the production of art and literature or the glory of cathedrals but in human relations. I would hope with every fiber of my being that that would not leave us.

My mission--and I'm happy to say that there is a huge evangelical dimension to what I'm doing--is preaching the gospel of Americanism, but one that is mindful of the fact that it is not separated from questions of the spirit and the soul's survival."

and also on the PBS site:

"Each time we did an interview for the film, whether it was with musicians who played with him years ago or musicians struggling today to come to terms with his legacy; whether it was critics, writers or historians, friends, hangers-on or people in management, each would in the end shake their head and say that Louis Armstrong was a "gift from God" or "an Angel." Near the end of the editing process, I happened to be out on the road and came across a women who for lack of a better word is a psychic, a medium familiar with things not of this world. When I told her of the interviews and how each person had called Armstrong an angel, she closed her eyes and smiled and said softly, "biggest wings I've ever seen."

But maybe Wynton Marsalis, a great trumpet player in his own right, said it best when I asked him about Louis. He had already insisted that Armstrong was chosen by God "to bring the feeling and message and the identity of jazz to everybody."

I left no opinion on my original post because I didn't think it necessary, and still don't.

Edited September 22, 2010 by cih

[clifford_thornton]

The Goldberg article is great; I still have not seen the series and don't feel much loss.

[Big Beat Steve]

@cih:

With all due respect:

It is pretty silly to pretend one can go about presenting HISTORY in a way that skews, distorts, misrepresents and falsifies this same history in the name of "spirituality" (or whatever). If K.B. had wanted to do a film about the (in HIS VERY OWN opinion) supernatural stature of Louis Armstrong in jazz then he would have been welcome to do his own portrait of Pops. But do it all while pretenting this is a history of "Jazz" at large? Nah!

(And yet the somewhat excessive spotlight on Pops is nowhere near the most criticable detail about this series).

I am not as overly bugged by all these misrepresentations in this series as some other around here seem to be as this problem of diluting and trivializing history prepared for showing it to the masses on that little screen is a recurrent one and I have long since come to take it more or less for granted that hardly anybody goes to the trouble of really presenting the facts in a historically balanced way anymore. A hefty grain of salt and and/or some "beforehand knowledge" of the subject is always called for. So series such as this just aren't to be taken at face value. Because EVERYBODY of those who do such productions (and who usually are not diehard lovers of the subject but rather are "in it for the story") has his OWN "agenda"! And that might be a VERY far cry from any historically adequate presentation of the FACTS.

What makes it worse in this particulary case IMHO is just that blurb that you quoted. I for one won't buy into this one bit.

To me the essence of what the skewwed narrative is all about is just one thing - effects for effects' sake.

Reminds me a bit of that quip heard elsewhere:

Expert spectator says to self-appointed historian: "That history did not happen the way you presented it!"

Self-apppointed historian replies to expert spectator: "No, it didn't, but the story was too good to pass up!"

Except that K.B. probably believes that what he screened was indeed the real thing.

So increase the dose of that grain of salt, everybody!

[cih]

ironic that my purely objective presentation of an interview should be seen as an endorsement of the opinions contained therein...

Edited September 22, 2010 by cih

[Big Beat Steve]

ironic that my purely objective presentation of an interview should be seen as an endorsement of the opinions contained therein...

I did not say your post was an endorsement but I did feel any such repeated presentation of this pseudo "reasoning" to be ... well ... ambiguous. You know ... there might be those who, upon reading these statements BEFORE having seen the JAZZ series, might indeed be too much in awe of the oh so sublime motivations of K.B. after all.

[Larry Kart]

ironic that my purely objective presentation of an interview should be seen as an endorsement of the opinions contained therein...

Well, you did say it was "illuminating." While that's not a blanket endorsement, the word does suggest that you think that Burns' words throw light on something of importance. To me, the words you quote reveal that Burns thinks vague, sappy, more or less self-serving thoughts -- e.g. "My mission--and I'm happy to say that there is a huge evangelical dimension to what I'm doing--is preaching the gospel of Americanism, but one that is mindful of the fact that it is not separated from questions of the spirit and the soul's survival."

Also, I'm glad to know that the women Burns ran across "who for lack of a better word is a psychic" and whom he told "of the interviews and how each person had called Armstrong an angel," not only responded "biggest wings I've ever seen" but also said this "softly" and after she had "closed her eyes."

In the words of that Snickers' commercial of a few years back, "Great googly-moogly."

[mikelz777]

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

[cih]

Fair enough – I was being mischievous really – and changed my mind but Christiern already saw my post before I deleted it… I watched the first part again yesterday – the sickly sweet mix of pre-destination, nostalgia and sentimentality (it’s the absence of these things that I like in blues music particularly – unless you count tongue-in-cheek pessimism) made me curious about Ken Burns’ ideas so I was just looking at various stuff about him as I knew nothing… I didn't mean to piss anyone off with that post - I genuinely thought those interviews explained quite a bit about his motives, and misdemeanours :blush2:

I thought Wynton Marsalis was very photogenic on camera, and oddly old fashioned (intended of course) and all that slightly prudish way of putting things (about Storyville – “people gambling, showing their behinds in different various ways…”!) was quite funny – you can see why a film maker would want him quite prominent from a presentation angle – like somebody transported from the good ol’ days. Then all that stuff about the blues arriving in New Orleans in 1890ish, fully formed, with backing music from 30 odd years later…

Erm... just to be clear, I naively thought that Burns' words were so daft it was unecessary to comment - and everyone knows Utah Smith had the biggest wings anyway

Edited September 22, 2010 by cih

[Larry Kart]

Erm... just to be clear, I naively thought that Burns' words were so daft it was unecessary to comment

OK

[Christiern]

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

The mere fact that it has generated your question says much about this "documentary." It needed to be done, but not in such a shallow, biased way. The fact is that it still needs to be done and that—considering the enormously generous funding and air time it received—should answer your question. A small amount of truth outweighs a heap of lies, imho.

CIH, thank you for your explanation_I feel comforted by it.

Finally, although it has by no means influenced my low opinion of Mr. Burns and his work, I should disclose that I wrote a 97-minute TV documentary, "The Story of Jazz", almost twenty years ago.

[cih]

Finally, although it has by no means influenced my low opinion of Mr. Burns and his work, I should disclose that I wrote a 97-minute TV documentary, "The Story of Jazz", almost twenty years ago.

Gets good reviews everywhere...

Excerpt from allaboutjazz.com:

"Various documentaries have been made about jazz over the years with mixed results. While the 1993 DVD Masters of American Music: The Story of Jazz is only 98 minutes long, it ends up being far more wide-ranging, less repetitious and better written than the much longer and somewhat controversial Ken Burns' Jazz released the following decade. The Story of Jazz covers the early cross-cultural roots of jazz then every major style by blending focused writing, plus careful choice of photos, music, film, video and interview subjects...."

Edited September 23, 2010 by cih

[papsrus]

Finally, although it has by no means influenced my low opinion of Mr. Burns and his work, I should disclose that I wrote a 97-minute TV documentary, "The Story of Jazz", almost twenty years ago.

Thank you for mentioning this. I guess I should have known about it, but did not. Will make a point of viewing it.

On Burns, I haven't seen the documentary but do have the over-sized book, which I enjoy as a coffee-table type thing to flip through, but certainly don't regard as the gospel.

[skeith]

I was visiting Boston this week and went to Fenway Park on Tuesday night. Guess who threw out the first pitch? Ken Burns!!

And then on the screen on the scoreboard they showed a segment from his new baseball sequel called the "10th Inninng".

[Christiern]

That figures, but why did Wynton not play the Star Spangled Banner?

[colinmce]

That figures, but why did Wynton not play the Star Spangled Banner?

Or sing it, if you've seen Spike Lee's Katrina doc.

[gmonahan]

That figures, but why did Wynton not play the Star Spangled Banner?

Or sing it, if you've seen Spike Lee's Katrina doc.

Wynton singing the anthem? I think I'll take Rosanne Barr....

gregmo