Date:	01-Feb-2001 09:58:02
From:	Tom Sanders (tsan775914@msn.com)
	I loved the photos and historical information. I thought Burns relied on his sacred pantheon of artists too much while completely ommiting some very major artists. Latin artists have been in America making really significant music since at least the forties, for instance. I'm sorry that Mr. Burns has never heard of artists like Zoot Sims or Bill Evans, because he really has missed a lot about jazz and missed completely the point that jazz is not just about superstars whose names are in the minds of mainstream America. These criticisms are not to imply that I didn't love the series, I just think that Burns could do another special on artists he neglected the first time around.

 

Date:	01-Feb-2001 10:40:51
From:	Carol (mskitty2@hotmail.com)
	I really liked the documentary Jazz; as a child of jazz musicians I was raised surrounding many of them in the 60's. Mr. Burns gave tribute and used some reliable and entrenched sources to describe the time, dues and abilities of the major contributors he profiled in the series; of course he didn't (nor couldn't or it would have taken at least 17 more hours at minimum) profile EVERY contributor but by focusing on Duke Ellington, Louis Armstrong--BRAVO! for giving us some Dizzy Gillespie (who never gets is due for his contribution from the sedgeway from swing to bebop (my favorite period) and of course the illustrious Miles Davis. I think the point was to show how wonder the creation has been, it's metamophisis and how black people, once again, have contributed to something, how it's adulterated by some whites but how jazz mainly has no matter how it's attempted "dilution" has remained a pure art form. The only thing I disliked about the documentary is the repeated use of Wynton Marsalis, Stanley Crouch, and other opininated resources to tell the tail; there are so many resources (and he did use some like Arvil Shaw and Ossie Davis) that were involved and around the art forms when the art form was in it's nucleus form during certain periods of change. For Wynton (and his stupid, untalented brother Branford) to say that jazz was reaching a period where it was 'dying' BEFORE HE PLAYED WITH ART BLAKEY shows the lack of intelligence and the closed mindedness of a musician that doesn't see that jazz is like the things in this world that will outlive all of us as a contribution to the world. I think that the world will forget Wynton Marsalis long before it ever forgets the creation of jazz and its various languages within it as an artform. Thank you Ken Burns for creating an encyclopedia, Volume 1; may you give us all 26 volumes and continue to educate the world one person at a time.

 

Date:	01-Feb-2001 11:29:55
From:	Donna Shore
	I disliked the excessive inclusion of Wynton Marsalis as the 'World's Foremost Authority on Jazz', the exclusion of so many white contributors, the abundance of dancing - wasn't it supposed to be about the history of jazz in america? What I liked about it was the early details of Louis Armstrong but it soon became a diatribe and ditto Billie Holiday.

 

Date:	01-Feb-2001 11:36:32
From:	Randy McElligott
	Of couse what I loved about the documentary was the music. Louis Armstrong's contribution to music overall. Interviews with people who actualy lived through the evolution of Jazz in all it's varying incarnations (Milt Hinton, Ossie Davis, clark terry etc...). What I didn't like was Wynton and Stanley Crouch's ongoing commentary. especially Wynton's. Very aggrevating. He should of covered more of the contributors like Bill evans, George Russell etc... i think what he should have done is at the end of each episode, roll a montage of artists who contributed during a specific period, with their music playing in the background. It's easy to criticize a work of this magnitude. i just focused on the positive aspects, and of couse the music. after all, that's what it is all about.

 

Date:	01-Feb-2001 11:50:47
From:	Leigh Francis
	I was disappointed that Ella Fitzgerald received next to no mention at all! What's up with that?! Billie Holiday was great, but Ella was a far more talented singer with a much longer career. Maybe if they would have cut out a few of Winton's long winded comments they might have had more room for Ella.

 

Date:	01-Feb-2001 12:39:00
From:	Gary Toney
	Lighten up people! This show was not to be ALL THINGS TO ALL PEOPLE about jazz. It was one man's take on the subject. And Burn's has admitted he is NOT EVEN THAT FAMILIAR with the subject. Why can't we just be thankful that an art form that rarely get's any serious treatment in main stream media actually had people that don't own one jazz record discussing the Lunceford band, Chick Webb,Cecil Taylor et al at the water cooler the next day! It has to have a positive effect for the music in the long run. But why the shortchange on Mingus and bass players generally? You see, we all can find something to dislike about the program but I will miss seeing it and I'm sorry it has concluded.

 

Date:	01-Feb-2001 12:51:33
From:	william r. smith (william.smith@compaq.com)
	i thought the series was awesome. i didn't know that stanley and ossie were such jazz enthusiasts! i think that wynton was great and i salute all of the contributors and i especially thank ken burns for his passion. whether he is an authority or not does not diminish his fantastic ability to tell a story!

 

Date:	01-Feb-2001 12:52:10
From:	BJ Dunn (lakeshore@pinehurst.com)
	Contrary to the above comments, I really liked what Wynton Marsalis had to say--and the way he said it. As wonderful as Armstrong and Ellington were, there was just too much of them, and I couldn't believe no mention of Stan Getz or Zoot Sims when talking about great tenor men. All that aside, it was a fabulous series, well done, with some great music.

 

Date:	01-Feb-2001 12:56:59
From:	gregg cook (cookgregg@hotmail.com)
	I believe that the best thing about Ken Burns JAZZ was just the fact that he did it in the first place. Putting even passing mentions of the protest elements of Mingus and Archie Shepp was excellent and I wouldn't ev en take Burns seriously if he did not include this. But the worst thing about the entire film was the coronation of Wynton's opinion as all that matters in the revisionist view of jazz, as everyone has noted. As an alternative it would have been nice to have heard Ellis Marsalis and Alvin Batiste at least half as much as Wynton and Stanley Crouch. At least they played with and had first hand knowledge of the music's finest players. The best comments of the series were from the players that had that kind of knowledge.(Jackie McLean, Milt Hinton, Arvell Shaw and Charlie Haden for instance) Perhaps the worst thing that was unsettling about the whole thing was Wynton talking about Miles, Because given their animosty (and horrible confrontation in the press and at the concert in1989 in New Orleans)seems that Miles would be rolling over in his grave at the comments, especially saying that he was a relentless innovator all of his life and stopping at Bitches Brew era. If someone less biased unlike Wynton would have handled this we would have had at least a few seconds of trailer with some of the rap funk fusion music he did in the 80's and 90's to illustrate. If Burns did his homework he would have realized the distaste of using Wynton instead of Herbie Hancock or someone Miles didn't hear call him a race baiting woman hating person that didn't deserve respect from the likes of him.

 

Date:	01-Feb-2001 13:45:14
From:	Andreas
	I must say that I actually really enjoyed episodes 1 through 7. To be honest I hadn't paid much attention to the stuff made prior to 1930 and I think it helped me get a better appreciation that music. I found episode 8 and 9 lacking. How do you justify spending 3 episodes on swing and whizzing by 10 years from WWII to Parker's death in one episode? I think not only Bill Evans was slighted. Gerry Mulligan led some groundbreaking groups throughout the 50's & 60's. The only mention of Stan Getz is that he once robbed a liquor store while he was addicted to drugs. Is that his main contribution?!?! Episode 10 was attrocious and painful to sit through. "Hello Dolly" gets more time than Coltrane (are you nuts?). As part of the Crouch/Marsalis propaganda against styles that they don't happen to like, it is conveniently left out that Coltrane embraced free jazz in the last two years of his life. The 60's are portrayed as this grim and sad time for jazz, when in fact I think it was one of the most creative periods. The fact is that many of the most creative innovators at all times, even at the height of jazz's popularity, were generally not represented in the Top 40 charts. Coltrane's "A Love Supreme" just now went gold. In the coverage of avant-guarde and fusion I was astonished at the complete lack of balance in the treatment of the subject. Every new development and every inovator, from Ellington to Parker to Miles to Coltrane was criticized by members of the old guard who couldn't cope with his innovations. Marsalis et al defend the inovators - until the last chapter. All of the sudden we get comments that perhaps we don't need to push the boundaries of the conventions to innovate. In the discussion of Cecil Taylor we are left with Branford Marsalis using profanities and some critic making some disparraging comments. The historical revisionism was at its worst in regards to Miles Davis's going electric. Burns contends that Miles was concerned about low album sales, attended a Sly and the Family Stone concert, and decided to make Bitches Brew to get rock fans to buy his albums. Give me a break! Miles had already made 3 albums using electric istruments and rock & funk influences by 1969. In fact during the late 60's rock musicians like Hendrix and Sly Stone were pushing the boundaries of their music (and being criticized by the old farts), and so at that time rock presented interesting possibilities to Miles (rock is basically spent as a creative force now, but that's another rant), just like Cuban and Brazilian music presented interesting avenues in previous periods. Maybe you like "Bitches Brew" or not, but there's no way that you can conclude that the dense, complex, dark music contained in the album is an attempt to go commercial. I think it's one of his best albums. I feel that an inordinate number of brilliant musicians were ignored, particularly in the last episode. Part of it is because Burns bought into the Marsalis/Crouch/etc. contention that only black musicians made significant contributions to jazz. Contributions by latinos (there are many) were all but ignored. There was no mention whatsoever of Keith Jarrett, Chick Corea, Tony Williams (except briefly)and many others who continued to make exciting music, both electric and accoustic, and who made more significant contributions to the music than Marsalis (any of them). Finally there is the contention that jazz was resurected in the early 80's by the great savior Winton Marsalis, and we are told about his many great achievents and that he is on the same plane as Armstrong, Ellington, Parker, and Miles. Give me a break. The show ends by saying that eventually someone will come along and continue to evolve the music in an unforseen direction. That's true, but it certainly won't be any of the Marsalis clan! As for the assertion of jazz's current vitality, what concerns me with the majority of these "young lions" is that the music is not going anywhere. A lot of it sounds like second rate copies of the stuff that was done 40 years ago. Where are we going? To summarize this long diatribe, the series has had a positive effect in that it presented the music in a very attractive, appealing way and, according to news stories, has resulted in an uptick in sales of jazz CD's. I think it will raise the music's visibility at least for a while, and at least some of those people exposed now will become long-term fans. I just regret that the series ended on such a sour note for me.

 

Date:	01-Feb-2001 14:50:21
From:	Don Jarvie (djarvie@mediaone.net)
	After seeing most of Ken Burn's Jazz Series I came away with a few observations. 1. It could have been more balanced. the whole series could have given equal time to all the era's. I enjoy swing, but 5 episodes was a little too much. 2. Too much Duke Ellington and Louis Armstrong. I understand they were the "fathers" of jazz, but it seemed like it was a program on them and it left out many other contributers. 3. To same commentators. As the series progressed Burns should have tapped more musicians who played with the stars. Where was McCoy Tyner to speak on John Coltrane (If Tyner was asked and refused my apoligies). Most musicians from the 50's to present are still alive and should have been heard from. After a while Gary Gliddens was starting to get annoying. To Give Burns some credit. He incorporated how the music interacted with the politics of the country. He scored there. I guess Burns could have just done a program on the music itself and not anything else. I'm sure that would have made some of us happy. I'll give Ken Burns this, He tried and done a pretty good job. Now let's have someone take the ball and improve on whats been done.

 

Date:	01-Feb-2001 14:55:29
From:	john gilbert (johnnyjazz@webtv.net)
	Ode To Louis Armstrong..Burns' Fiasco Ken Burns at the outset said that he knew little or nothing about jazz, that much is accurate. Dragging these ancient musicians out of the firmament and pronouncing them all "geniuses" is a study in ignorance. Even Lester Young traveling with Norman Grantz' Jazz at the Philharmonic had to endure nightly humiliation at the hands of Charlie Parker, who simply cut him to ribbons. Can you imagine Satchmo trading fours with Dizzy Gillespie? or Jelly Roll Morton vs. Bud Powell? It would be like the N.Y. Yankees playing the Toledo Mud Hens. My Aunt Nancy could play boogie woogie/ ragtime/stride and knock your socks off, and do it a helluva lot better than Morton. Parker and Gillespie changed the whole course of jazz, they, along with Monk, Bud, Max et al, did more for music than ANYONE had ever done before or since. Armstrong, and his contemporaries were fine for their era, but essentially it was simple music for a simple society. Every Jazz player the world over should fall on their knees and give thanks to Bird and Diz for paving the way for them, and for influencing every instrument and jazz performer in existence... Ken Burns hardly acknowledged them in his Opus de Bunk..... update..episode 8 a bit better...

 

Date:	01-Feb-2001 15:43:38
From:	Mark Milano (mintmilano@aol.com)
	I was offended by a segment of episode 10 dealing with Miles in the 70s. After wrongly implying that Miles' change of direction was done for crass commercial reasons (the opposite is true - after Brew, Miles' sales went to hell- he lost his old audience and didn't get a new one), they played a tantalizing extract of a video that I had never before seen of Miles in about '73 or '74 with Pete Cosey on guitar - and then muted the audio and proceeded to include a voiceover from one of Burns' nitwits slamming Miles' music from that time, saying that it lacked the interplay of his previous work and that the musicians weren't listening to each other. Talk about adding insult to injury. While this is certainly a subjective matter, I don't see how anyone who is familiar with that music can miss the heights of interplay that exist on On the Corner, for example, and I don't think it is reasonable to suggest that a piece like 'Prelude' from Agharta could have been created without the musicians listening to each other, with it's on-a-dime occasional pauses by the ensemble.

 

Date:	01-Feb-2001 17:10:03
From:	Ron Stewart
	First, let me say that I enjoyed the series a lot, but I've also appreciated the balanced perspective this web site and its commentators have provided. One thing I finally realized in the last episode--and I'm surprised Ken Burns himself hasn't said this (maybe I missed it) in defense of the series--is that this is obviously a history of jazz as a POPULAR music form. By that I mean Burns has emphasized those artists and styles that were/are the most widely recognized, received the most attention and airplay, and, frankly, sold the most records. I realized this when the last episode paid so much attention to Armstrong's recording of "Hello, Dolly"; not because it was Armstrong's, or Jazz's, best work (not by a long shot), but because it was the last time a jazz record achieved that level of popularity. You can still take issue with this approach, of course. But consciously or not, I think it's the basis for Burns' handling of jazz history, especially since he wanted to emphasize how jazz has both reflected and influenced society, especially American society. (Although that makes me disappointed that the last episode didn't analyze what the diminished popularity of jazz says about America.) Yes, there have been a number of great artists ignored by the series, but I consider myself a moderate jazz fan (I own about 3 or 4 dozen jazz CDs, and NO, none of them by the dreaded G-man), and I hadn't heard of most of them until I checked reaction to the series on this web site. The series managed to cover the artists I'm most familiar with (Davis, Parker, Holiday) while still managing to introduce me to some artists I wasn't familiar with (Webb, Hawkins, Brown) and expanding my knowledge of others (Ellington, Armstrong, Basie). I enjoyed Marsalis' commentary on the music, especially when he illustrated his point by playing it. I could have done with a little less of his more philisophical commentary, which got stretched a little thin in some places. And I think some of Marsalis' biases came out in the last episode, mostly by who was left out. Whatever you think of them artistically (I happen to like them), George Benson and Pat Metheny have been two very popular jazz musicians over the past 25-odd years, yet they weren't even mentioned--this when popularity seemed to be the main criteria for inclusion in this series, as I said above. What I liked most was how the series "connected the dots" for me. I knew some of the names and some of the music, but I didn't understand how they fit together historically. The series gave me a basic understanding of jazz styles and influences that I felt I was lacking. Ken Burns' Jazz did what I think it set out to do: it entertained and informed me, and heightened my enjoyment and appreciation of jazz. It's encouraged me to revisit the music and explore it some more. But I also recognized that the series was in no way comprehensive; how could it be? I feel inspired to explore what it left out. It might not inspire others in that way, but I can only speak for myself.

 

Date:	01-Feb-2001 17:11:04
From:	scott vander werf (vanders@gvsu.edu)
	The treatment of Cecil Taylor was a supreme insult; the only master presented without superlatives from either critics or colleagues; some ambiguous remarks from Giddins and a story from Hentoff,the criticism of Gene Lees and the condescension of Branford (who seems to be a master of the gesture ---I've witnessed him condescending to an entire auditorium in Kalamazoo, MI) Marsalis; no mention of his McCarther(sic?) Grant, or his FMP celebrations, or his collaborations with the great drummers ---Max Roach, Elvin Jones, Andrew Cyrille. (I heard an interview recently where Max said playing with Cecil was like playing with Bird ---too bad Burns couldn't get an interview with Mr Roach.) Also, the brief entry on the Art Ensemble of Chicago left the impression that they evaporated after their return from France ---that their audience consisted of white French college students, and three people in Chicago, totally ignoring the fact that they triumphed at the Ann Arbor Jazz and Blues Fest in the early 70's, recorded prolifically for ECM and DIW, and were a dominant force through the 70's and 80's, and still perform today! But I forgot, jazz died in the 70's... to be resurrected by SURPRISE!!! Executive Creative Consultant Wynton Marsalis!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Date:	01-Feb-2001 18:16:00
From:	scott vander werf (vanders@gvsu.edu)
	On the positive: the photos, the footage of the musicians performing, the cultural/social/political tie-ins; regardless of my criticisms or nitpicking, I watched every episode with pleasure, knowing this wasn't for a jazzgeek like me, but the general audience. I have enjoyed every Ken Burns production before this, studied filmmaking in college and understand how monumental the task of producing this film must have been. In regards to Wynton's influence on this film, and in the music, here's an interesting fact: radical poet, playwrite and critic Amiri Baraka has said he's a positive force for jazz and Black American heritage. From a gentleman who recorded Sun Ra, Ayler and Sunny Murray in the 60's, this is something to ponder.

 

Date:	01-Feb-2001 20:52:02
From:	Alan (aburnce@thecia.net)
	A comment about Wynton: if there is one thing going on in jazz music today that depresses me, it is Wynton. Contrary to what some folks are saying, I find him to be an incredibly fascinating and eloquent speaker on jazz music. He speaks with passion, with a knowledge of the music's roots, and with true intelligence. And he is a brilliant trumpeter as well. To me, that's the whole problem. If he was not such a vibrant mouthpiece for the music and was a crappy player, no one would care about the fact that he completely dismisses some of the most electrifying music (no pun intended) that jazz ever produced. No one would be listening. I hear him speak so thrillingly about jazz, and see the attention he gets from the media, and am just plain saddened that someone with his talents and his platform also has to have his views on what jazz is. He deligitimizes vast amounts of amazing music and the musicians who create it. He could have been the late-century Dizzy Gillespie; instead he became jazz's own worst enemy: a stifling force from within.

 

Date:	01-Feb-2001 21:05:58
From:	Roger Handy III
	I missed one or two episodes (lost count), yet Cecil Taylor was relegated to a passing fancy, a novelty or gimmick and some ludicrous suggestions included on the last episode.........etc, however, if Burns was more knowledgeable with the subject he could have tightened up some rather lengthy sequences and paid more attention to others ........yet I think Marsalis surfaces as the clear winner from a financial standpoint. More like Ken Burns/Wynton Marsalis' documentary of Jazz ....Simply put, it was Wynton's show whether you like it or not! bleh!

 

Date:	01-Feb-2001 23:48:07
From:	jim long (jimdr@earthlink.net)
	Ken Burns knows documentary. We are fortunate to have any film footage, or recordings of the artists who have given us their life in this form so that we all may learn what life lived in the moment is. But Ken Burns doesn't know Jazz. For that he relied on others, and it's too bad he relied so much on Wynton Marsalis. Too much has already been stated about the distorting affect Marsalis' take on Jazz History has had on the overall presentation. It doesn't make sense to me to belabor it. I accept the work on it's merits and not try not to get too hung up on whatever personal agenda WM may have had going on in his mind. I found my self muting the sound when WM spoke and just listened with pleasure to the recordings and video footage of the key players. If you listen with intent, and can block out the dense sensibilities and opinions of WMs self serving and self glamorizing commentary, it is still a worthwhile effort. Any Miles fans who have read Ian Carr's biography of the artist can see that this is personal for WM. It is not surprising that 'Jazz' as an historical document is revealed to be as flawed as any other historical document that we humans have ever tried to write. In the end it is just the opinions of the makers. The truth of Jazz is that it is all about this moment. Long Live Jazz!!

 

Date:	02-Feb-2001 11:18:46
From:	Teri Laverne
	I just wnat to comment on the series Jazz which concluded this week on PBS. As far back as I can remember there have been family feuds about the purity of jazz, what's real jazz, etc. As a rock & roll baby, I listened as an outsider. As I've gotten older, I've come to develop a greater appreciation for jazz and blues. I don't have extensive knowledge of the music, but I anxiously awaiting the airing of this series to offer more insight than I would ever pick up on my own. I knew Billie, Duke, Louis, Count, etc. But I never knew much about Coltrane or Hawkins or early Miles. I enjoyed this series immensely. Maybe it had holes in it, what documentary wouldn't but how would it be possible to cover each and every facet of this music with such an extensive history without it going on for weeks on end and even then I can assure you someone would feel slighted. I agree it probably was overly dominated by the opinion of Wynton, but all in all as someone who is too young to have experienced most of this great music first hand, it was an intense academic experience. In order for the music to continue to grow and evolve, it has to bring in new listeners and I can tell you that as soon as I finished watching the last episode, I logged into my napster account and downloaded some Billie Holliday and Dave Brubeck. That's why the series was important. No everyone didn't get their due, but alot of people who have been lost and/or forgotten had their moment in the sun one more time. As someone who grew up more interested in Motown and funk, it was a pleasure to tap my foot and bob my head to the swing of Webb playing at the Savoy. That can't be criticized.

 

Date:	02-Feb-2001 11:36:59
From:	J-F Rioux (rioux.jf@uqam.ca)
	As a whole, I was disappointed by the content of the series. At the level of the form, I must say that it was very good television. I loved the pictures and the music. Most of the interviewees were excellent. I learned a lot, even though I have read about jazz for thirty years. However, jazz since 1960 has been covered basically in one episode and even that episode dealt more with the last days of Armstrong and Ellington than it did with whole styles of the music. Ken Burns would probably answer to his defence that it is too early to judge what is important after 1960, but this is irrelevant. Why is 1960 the cutting point, and not 1950, or 1970? Who does Burns think he is? An Ivy league historian? He's a filmmaker, for God's sake. He should not pretend to be bound by that kind of historical prudence. He should have attempted a personal reading of the whole history of jazz. However, he was not competent to do that, and, this brings the second big problem. He decided to rely on the Marsalis brothers and Stanley Crouch for content. These people influenced the whole documentary with their own view of jazz, which is exclusionary and historically debatable. This being said, I do not object to their presence and to their point of view. Wynton was truly excellent in the series. (Brandford did not fare so well, however, as he showed again how embittered and angry he is). The musicians who want to stay in the tradition like Wynton have their place in the music (I personnally enjoy their work a lot). However, as a complex and universal art form, jazz is pluralistic. This was not well covered. I do not want to extend this critique for too long. Here are some of the biases of the Marsalis/Crouch school of thought that Burns swallowed, hook, line and sinker: -almost total neglect of West Coast jazz -negative treatment of free jazz -absence of the fusion schools (except for the part disparaging Miles Davis'Bitches Brew) -neglect of string instruments -and, ignorance of non-American musicians. (For the seasoned amateur, the absence of the French, Japanese of German luminaries of jazz was surreal). This brings to the third bias of the series: the relentless "Americana" tone of the series. We know that Burns has made his name with his commitment to explain American history. That is how he attracts sponsors' money. However, this goes a bit far when the jazz genre is presented as a American music, period. Everyone familiar with the music knows that jazz has been far more popular in Western Europe and Japan than in the US since the fifties. I believe that the Americana bias in the documentary explains in part the neglect of the post 1960 period, as it is since that period that jazz has ceased to be a uniquely American art form, and Burns' sponsors wanted something about America. In sum, the conjonction of Burns' relative uninterest for the subject matter, the Marsalis/Crouch ideology, and the Americana imperative gave a truncated view of jazz. The average viewer of the series will have concluded that jazz was a music of the American blacks that almost died with Ellington and that was somewhat revived by Wynton Marsalis. How reductionist of jazz! In my reading, jazz has become a universal artistic form in which several schools coexist (including the traditionalists) in different countries. To Ken Burns, jazz is an American folk tradition. That is not what the great majority of jazz fans think it is.

 

Date:	02-Feb-2001 17:47:40
From:	Leon Wieseltier
	Who's afraid of Wynton Marsalis? Except for people with ears and brains, everybody. Or so it would appear from the reception of Ken Burn's stupefying "Jazz," for which Marsalis served as "senior creative consultant and as senior on-camera exegete. In a symposium in the Arts and Leisure section of The New York Times, the centrality of Marsalis in Burn's epic provokes resentment from a jazz historian ("...with Wynton Marsalis arriving like a jazz Dalai Lama, after the deaths of Elliington and Armstrong...") and "angry blues" from trumpeter Jon Faddis, who is incensed that the "philosophy" of Marsalis is "presented as fact, rather than opinion or interpretation." Faddis is also "angry that the music from 1961 until now was given only one episode of two hours.": this is the old complaint about the neo-classsicism of Marsalis and its allegedly reationary character. Meanwhile The Weekly Standard reached all the way to The Washington Times to find someone to aaccuse Marsalis of racism -- pardon me, of "racialism." The writer, who seems to think that Mel Powell was the equal of Thelonious Monk, cites the "searing" opinion of the freelance philistine Terry Teachout that Marsalis propounds "an ideology in which race is a primary factor in the making of aesthetic judgments," and reports that the "racialist ideology has played out in a series of jazz programs [at Lincoln Center] based on the work of black players, composers, and arrangers." Jazz programs based on the works of black players, composers and arrangers? Imagine! In truth, the attempt in recent years to deny African Americans pride of place in the evolution of jazz has been stupid and ugly. Bix and Benny and the rest notwithstanding. And the imputation of racialist standards to Marsalis's view of jazz is a willful misrepretation of his music and his institution. In this regard, his livid brothers on the left understand him better than his livid brothers on the right. It is precisely because he has chammpioned an aesthetic point of regard toward jazz -- as a serious art that is pledged, like all serious art, to the beauty of structure and the morality of structure -- that Marsalis hs not pioneered a reconsideration of the achievement of Albert Ayler. Unlike the downtown expressionists, Coltranes's idiot children, Marsalis does not consider feeling the enemy of form. But formalism is a variety of universalism. It establishes itself at the highest level of generality: at the level of the human. For this reason, an aesthete who is a racialist is a bad aesthete, but an aesthete who is a democrat is a good aesthete, and Marsalis is one of the most accomplished aesthetes of his time. "God don't like ugly," he wrote in Blood on the Fields. Maybe God don't like the Weekly Standard. Is it really controvesial to suggest that jazz is historically more black than white but spiritually neither black nor white: that personal expression is the beginning but not the end of art; that spontaneity is hardly a promise of truth; that improvisation is an activity of the intellect; and that the alto playing of John Zorn represents a falling off from the alto playing of Johnny Hodges and Lee Konitz and Jackie McLean and Ornette Coleman? But fall off, I say, fall off. This is a free country, and everybody can produce any noise that he wishes to produce. Still the noises will be judged, because judging is what minds do. From the standpoint of pleasure, the judgment will not be severe: my pleasure is not more valuable than your pleasure. Indeed, I will confess gladly to the pleasure that Lester Bowie's version of "The Great Pretender" brings me. But I will not mistake my emotional attachment to that slumming masterpiece for its musical excellence. For decades Chet Baker's singing has furnished the soundtrack for my imperfect man's heart, but I will concede that, artistically speaking, it is just junk that I love. Distinctions of quality may be nothing more than classifications of delight, but still they must be maintained. And no apology need be offered for the belief that the art that asks more of you is the art that should be more precious to you. We are here for more than fun. In Burn's 19 hours of hollow hagiographies, Marsalis stands out like a soloist whose rhythm section is lost somewhere behind him. His is the only analytical voice in this interminable startstruck rhapsody. (His little lesson about "Episrophy" alone is worth a sea of sepia.) Sure, there are good things on these tapes: I will not soon forget the sight of Coleman Hawkins watching Monk sublimely poke the piano; or of the battered and lovely Lester Young stepping up to play a pellucid chorus of "Fine and Mellow" before the battered and lovely Billie Holiday; or of Soupy Sales introducing Clifford Brown. But Burns suffocates the jazz tradition in his superlatives. He deadens everything with his wonder. He had come to be ravished. A helpless hero-worshiper, his success thrreatens to make hero worship into a respectable historical standpoint. He is really just a fan: Bob Costas with an NEA grant. In the book that accompanies "Jazz," Burns admits that "when I began the project, I had perhaps two jazz records in my fairly large music collection," and it shows. The music in these progrms is mainly the background for its edifying narrative; I do not remember a single piece that Burns allows to be given in its entirety. Alas, you cannot have the mystic chords of memory unless you have the chords. So piety stands in for comprehension, and the music is made into a parable of everything good and beautiful and true. Jazz is freedom, love, joy, sorrow, creation, destruction, risk, responsibility, sex, friendship, the body, the soul. Burns's series is another document in the religion of jazz, which is a fine bulwark against the experience of jazz. After eight hours or so of these doxologies, I wanted to reach for Journey's greatest hits, for anything with the integrity of being only what it is. But jazz for Burns is, above all, America. This accounts for the vaguely official tone of Burns's script. This is the story of our nation told by a national trasure. "in 'Jazz'" he says, "we complete our trilogy on American life," after The Civil War and Baseball. His trilogy on race in American life, he should have said. IN any event, Burns finds "in the music's lines and phrases and riffs...not only a meditation on American creativity, but a joyous and sublime celebration of its redemptive future possibilities...[J]azz has kept the American message alive." There are many such homilies. They sound rather like the citations on presidential medals. There is also too much celebration in "Jazz." For a fearful quantity of pain, individual and social, went into the making of this music. Burns is not comfortable with pain. He turns it into tragedy, which is the condition of triumph. Jim Crow was terrible, but here is Armstrong; dope was terrible, but here is Parker. Burns makes you almost grateful for their adversity, which is indecent. The happiness of sad people is ot so easily grasped. Jazz is the sound of stoicism, and it, too, is not so easily grasped. There are secrets even in the swing.

 

Date:	02-Feb-2001 19:03:17
From:	James McCollum (jimac51@hotmail.com)
	As a former record retailer who took pride in his little jazz dept.(the reason I am a former retailer is not because I stocke jazz) I know the problems of putting art into a customer's hands and part of what Mr. Burns(and Smithers,too)needed to take into account when putting this together. Who is the intended audience ,who is the actual audience and who you would like the audience to be are always in question. My personal problems with the show are varied but they focus on his time line. I came into jazz in the mid-60's through Ramsey Lewis,Herb Alpert and,mopst important,a 24 hour all jazz radio station. The station at the time was struggling with this same set of questions andthey had to sell time too. Consequently,they never played Louis,Duke or even much Miles or Coltrane. They did play a lot of soul-jazz and ,to this day, it is my achilles heel. Thank God for that and thank God for Joel Dorn and Sid Mark for doing it. It wasn't pure,it might not even be great jazz but it sure sounded great and opened doors for me. This journey had led me to create altars to Bill Evans and Thad Jones/Mel Lewis. I am not a purist butI still love this stuff passionately and will even beyond death(I'm requesting "In a Silent Way" at my funeral). The point is,cause I gotta go soon,you gotta opena door somewhere. You gotta start somewhere. You gotta ,gotta,gotta get it into your blood. Maybe,quite,possible,Mr. Burns didthat. It is up to all of us fans to help who is coming through the door to see that there are lots more than just "Jazz:A Film by Ken Burns" but it can be part of it. Keep listen' and explorin'.

 

Date:	02-Feb-2001 21:31:45
From:	Joe M. Hayes (joesblue@webtv.net)
	I'm reminded of an incident recalled by Miles Davis in "Miles: The Autobiography." In his last years, Miles was playing a gig, when into the club, walks a young and well-known Wynton Marsalis. After some encouragement from some fans (I rather suspect it didn't take very much), Mr. Marsalis, horn in hand, strolled onto the bandstand to "jam" with his fellow "great." Miles wrote that he felt a tap on his shoulder while playing a solo and turned to find a grinning Marsalis waiting expectantly for his cue. Too bad Ken Burns wasn't leading the group that evening. Miles remembered turning on this interloper and saying something to the effect: "What the f--- you doing up here? This is my gig. You get the f--- off my stage." Thus ended Marsalis' chance to indulge in a cutting contest with one of the real giants of all music, not just jazz. In contrast, my son reminds me of the time Bix Beiderbecke was in a club and someone pointed out that Maurice Ravel was also present: "Go ahead, Bix. Ask him for his autograph," knowing that Beiderbecke admired Ravel highly. As legend has it, Bix replied: "No. I'm not worthy." I suspect that "Louis" Marsalis, as Mr. Khan of AAJ, calls Marsalis, in one piece, would know the EXACT words of that long ago conversation, but the legend will suffice to make my point. Marsalis believes his own liner notes! I could almost hear Marsalis' teeth grind as he admitted the influences of Beiderbecke on jazz but as Lester Young openly acknowledged the influence of Bix's pal Frank Trumbauer he had no choice. I'm sure Wynton is more than ready to explain to we mortals how lonely it is at the top. And, well it must be. Alone with Louis (pronounced Louie until Marsalis decided it was too demeaning and started this trend toward pronouncing the name "Lewis") Armstrong, Charlie Parker, Dizzy Gillespie, Miles Davis, et few others. Wynton Marsalis? Will someone please explain to me his musical contribution to this world music, jazz? Chet Baker on a bad night had more style than Marsalis at his best. And Jon Faddis, no less, agrees (see a piece above by Leon Wieseltier). As for Ken Burns it seems quite likely that once he and "Louis" Marsalis decided to reinvent jazz, they went on a shopping trip at Tower Records in New York, and the result is entitled "Ken Burns' Jazz." This pretender to the throne of jazz historian has filmed the CD collection selected for him by Marsalis. If Wynton don't like it can't be worthwhile. Right, Ken? Jazz Education. Hold me back. Marsalis prides himself on his work as a jazz educator, and for that I do applaude him, however, jazz education was not invented by Mr. Marsalis any more than was jazz. Yet another major figure, omitted from the film, Stan Kenton, took his orchestra into countless colleges, universities and high schools for many years before Marsalis had even developed an embrochure, and using his unparalleled sidemen worked with students of all ages and skill levels in understanding this most American of art forms. Stan should also receive some mention for his use of a full concert orchestra of strings, woodwinds, et. al., in conjunction with his jazz orchestra during his Innovations period of the late forties and early fifties. I realize that Mr. Burns had only 19 hours and therefore is justified in omitting a few names but...is he serious, 19 hours? David Lean did the entire Russian Revolution in 3 hours...see Doctor Zhivago. Burns seems to feel that because no history of jazz can cover every single figure, therefore he's justified in omitting many who have achieved virtually universal recognition as MAJOR figures. How about Woody Herman and the Herds. The Four Brothers? Zoot, Getz, Serge, etc. Getz' take on Ralph Burns "Early Autumn." Woody truly attempted to meld bop and swing and succeeded at every level. No mention. Wynton says "God don't love ugly." And, Wynton don't like Coltrane's later stuff. I'm sorry for Mr. Marsalis, he's missing out on some great jazz. Albert Ayler, Ornette Coleman. The list goes on and on. These men are not foot notes to jazz history, they are jazz history...as much as Miles or Louie or Duke. Jazz, the sound of men communicating with one another...and with you...me....us. Please Mr. Marsalis, don't set yourself up as arbiter of taste -- and beauty -- and Mr. Burns don't spend grant money to proselytize for the personal tastes of this dilettante. As for Ken Burns' Jazz, I'm going to stop writing and listen to Coltrane's "A Love Supreme." I know it don't swing for Mr. Marsalis but it speaks to me. So do Art Pepper, Clifford Brown, Rahsaan Roland Kirk, Stan Kenton, Charles Mingus and all the rest who have been excommunicated by Pope Marsalis. Who next Mr. Burns? Kenny G.?

 

Date:	03-Feb-2001 22:53:44
From:	Les Pacholski (lesjo@pitnet.net)
	Overall, I'd give the series an A for effort and a C for a final grade. Let's face it folks, it was tedious and pedantic. How many panoramic views and street scenes of New York City can the human brain absorb? Was I imagining things or did Wynton have on the same suit, shirt and tie for his many talking head features? Doo-wop-de-bop! Somewhere back in the middle of the series, they were gushing over Ellington. As the commentary droned on, we were treated to an exciting two or three minute run of home movies showing members of the band playing stick ball! Excuse me! What the hell did this have to do with the music? I agree that what they did to the last 40 years of the music was terribly shortsighted, but what we did see could have been done much more crisply and professionally.

 

Date:	04-Feb-2001 01:43:24
From:	vmd (inspctrd@bellsouth.net)
	I truly enjoyed Wynton Marsalis' exuberation in his discussions with the interviewer. I think the thing I disliked the most was the frail attempt to address those who create, perpetuate and advance the music today. Maybe there's room for another series...

 

Date:	04-Feb-2001 10:25:08
From:	k.conner (kellyconner65@hotmail.com)
	In general, I liked the idea that jazz music was on television during prime time hours, something that hasn’t been seen much in recent decades. It wasn’t so much the musicians who were omitted (and there were many) from Ken Burn’s “Jazz” that bothered me; it was the trivialization of some of the ones who were included. A case in point is Art Tatum. The narrator remarked that Tatum’s hearing was so sensitive that he could identify the sounds of various coins dropped on a tabletop. This is really not very impressive. Why include this? I imagine that almost anyone could do that with a little practice. Why not instead remark that he could play entire compositions back after one hearing and could add variations on the spot if he wished? If one of Burns’ aims in this series was to introduce/reintroduce the legendary jazz figures to an uninformed or apathetic public, anecdotes like the coin story run contrary to his aim. What should have been stressed is the fact that Tatum to this day is revered by many as the greatest jazz instrumentalist of all time. It is well known that Vladimir Horowitz and Arturo Toscanini used to go hear him play nightly in New York and were floored by his unparalleled virtuosity, inventiveness, and stunning harmonic imagination. A more meaningful anecdote that might have been included would have been to relate the details of the famous cutting session that took place when Tatum first came to New York. He went up against James P. Johnson, Willie “The Lion” Smith, and Fats Waller. The outcome of that session could have helped put Tatum in the proper perspective. Bud Powell was given a scant few moments of recognition and once again subjected to the same old notion that he merely did what Bird was doing on the piano. Anyone familiar with Powell’s music knows that Powell was a brilliant writer of tunes and had his own unique style, deeply personal and powerful. Once and for all: HE DOES NOT SOUND LIKE CHARLIE PARKER ON THE PIANO! Let’s get it right. He influenced virtually all pianists coming up in the fifties including Bill Evans who regretfully was not featured in the film. As a jazz musician I learned nothing from the series except a few little details here and there, and that’s okay. I was hopeful however that Burn’s would seek to capture for the general public the esteem and veneration that many modern day jazz musicians, both black and white hold for the legendary figures. I think a layperson could have viewed this documentary and still not come to the awareness that the giants of jazz attained levels of musicianship that are inaccessible to most other musicians. This was accomplished in most cases (Parker, Powell, Clifford Brown, Tatum, and others) by about the ripe old age of 25. We are talking about the full flowering of staggering musical gifts on the order of Mozart, brilliant minds, genius minds. This point should have been driven home again and again like a mantra for the general public because they are certainly not aware of this. I suspect Burns himself is not aware of this or doesn’t fully appreciate the level of musicianship required to play great jazz music. It seems he relied heavily on the input of others (particularly non-musicians) to tell the story from their point of view, which largely emphasized Jim Crow laws and racial divisions. If jazz is going to cast off all the negative baggage of the past, drugs, alcohol, and all the rest, it will only happen if the uninformed become informed about the music specifically because that is the enduring legacy. The music and the musicianship of many of the greats was not appropriately elevated in this film and played second fiddle to a nostalgic chronology focused heavily on Louis Armstrong and Duke Ellington --- cut to Wynton once again.

 

Date:	05-Feb-2001 13:04:34
From:	Jay Piccirillo (jaypitch@aol.com)
	I wanted to say thank you to Mr. Burns for providing a piece of historical entertainment that will surely bring attention and opportunity to an amazing art form. Great job! Although the critcal aspects posted here may be relative to those doing the posting, I am fairly certain none of these people have ever tried to document anything of this magnitude (on paper or in film). Even though people may have their own areas of expertise, one cannot deny all of the positive aspects of this incredible undertaking. Those who can...DO! Those cannot...criticize those who do. Relax people, this film did nothing to hurt your artform. Be thankful that it reached out and grabbed some new fans who will surely contribute financially to Jazz and help keep it alive and moving forward.

 

Date:	05-Feb-2001 13:58:29
From:	BlueMiles
	Good to see some level-headed comments over here. I basically liked the series, even with the shortcomings. If it leads to exposure of jazz and increases sales--that's all that truly matters. I think I most liked the stuff on Count Basie and Chick Webb.

 

Date:	05-Feb-2001 14:18:47
From:	Edward Agnew (edagnew@hotmail.com)
	In general this was a thrilling and even brilliant documentary. In reponse to other peoples remarks: Performers other than Louis and the Duke WERE covered in some depth: Miles Davis, Coltrane, Dizzy Gillespie, Parker. Wynton Marsalis' comments were frequently quite wise and showed extensive knowledge and study. I think some people's remarks about him show a hidden agenda or an axe to grind. Weaknesses in the series were an inadequate discussion of the evolution of the big band, from Art Hickman in 1919 to Stan Kenton and Woody Herman in the 1940's/50's. Also the swing revival of 1996-present was not even mentioned. Nor was the development of Latin jazz, Sandoval etc. Nevertheless, a great series.

 

Date:	06-Feb-2001 11:02:43
From:	Pete Kirchoff (pkirchoff@yahoo.com)
	Those who say that Ken Burns' "Jazz" will generate interest among those who are not too familiar with the music certainly make a valid point. Anyone involved in jazz should welcome new fans. However, I feel that, for whatever reason, Mr. Burns chose to offer viewers one part of jazz history. We see many examples of jazz history shown against the backdrop of discrimination and the struggle for civil rights. Certainly that's a story that deserved to be told. But the story NOT told, except in passing, was how musicians, black and white, listened to, played with, and were influenced by each other from the beginning. To miss that is to leave out much of what the history of the music tells us. You simply can't speak about Louis Armstrong's revolutionary vocal recordings without once referring to Bing Crosby's pioneering efforts as well, or mention Ella Fitzgerald without Connie Boswell, Lester Young without Frank Trumbauer, or Herbie Hancock without Bill Evans. The list is long and their stories are too intertwined to overlook or discount. And what stories they are! Perhaps it will be left to others to fill in what Ken Burns left out. "Jazz, Part II"?

 

Date:	06-Feb-2001 14:27:59
From:	Paul Mettewie (nerazzurri@mediaone.net)
	I am not very much more than a novice jazz fan. I have some Miles, Coltrane, Mingus, Montgomery, Parker and other bop and post bop artists, some big band in Basie and Ellington and then some fusion like Weather Report and Return to Forever. And there are a few other modern jazz musicians as well. So that is my jazz background - not a whole lot. Having said that I find some of the criticism of the series here a bit overbearing. Great musicians were bound to be left out - that is the nature of any attempt at as huge a subject as Jazz is. Even a novice like I can note the shortchanging of modern jazz forms and the complete omission of the influence of foreign jazz forms and artists ranging from Django to Airto. But I didn't expect Burns to write the history of Jazz with this documentary, he just helped shed a little more light on it. And he has kindled (or more correctly, re-kindled) some interest in some areas I really was not aware of - the impact of Louis Armstrong, the transition from swing to bop. And I still think the influence and power of Burns doing a documentary of jazz is more positive than any of the negatives. Yes, Wynton Marsalis apparently has some blind spots when it comes to jazz - but doesn't everyone? I guess the real fault was not Marsalis himself, but that he was so often made a centerpiece of the commentary. And even for a virtual rookie like myself his leading the inference of Miles' later works as "commercial" was galling. Bitch's Brew may have sold a lot of records, but I am convinced that many of the people who bought it never listened to it more than once (if that.) In fact, personally, it took me twenty years to like and appreciate what that album has on it! I guess we all grow up sometime! This comment is not a "defense" of Burns, nor more than it is a "prosecution" of those who apparently are incensed at him, his documentary, or those in it. Jazz, like all art, is a deeply personal experience, and to perceive the slighting of some aspect of it can provoke deep emotional reaction. So some of the other rather angry commmentary here should be not only be expected, but also carefully noted and respected. But the overall effect of the documentary is very much in the positive for jazz - it has people talking and thinking about a great music that currently lies buried under layers and layers of incessant marketing blather for other modern popular music. A little more light has been shed indeed on geniuses like John Coltrane and Charlie Mingus (yes, more time should have been spent on him!) and there is nothing wrong with that at all. Hopefully someone will also direct people to also pay attention to those who currently play jazz as well.

 

Date:	06-Feb-2001 19:12:47
From:	Dawn Jacobson (dtjacobson@yahoo.com)
	OK, since I am the lucky (?) recipient of the book, the 5-CD soundtrack AND the 10-DVD set of the series (I just had a birthday), I can comment on each. The Book Good Stuff: A nice "coffee-table" book, particularly if you want to impress the "Culture Vultures." It's full of the photos used for the series, along with the narration (almost verbatim). Big Problem: most of the pictures don't have captions, so you don't know when the photo might have been taken, or, in some cases, who it is. Example: the wonderful photo of Frankie Trumbauer (the one where he's looking down at his sax and used extensively during the titles of the series) is reproduced in the book with absolutely no information, except for the ownership information in the credits at the back of the book. If you're going to buy the book for someone, get it at a membership warehouse; it's less than $40. The 5-CD Soundtrack Good Stuff: This is a good set to buy a novice jazz listener, who might be just starting out. Most of the really familiar pieces used in the series are on the soundtrack, including a few pieces that were not completely used or talked over in the series. The liner notes (in microscopic type in a book that fits inside the storage case) are adequate; the players are listed for each piece, but little information about the pieces are included (am I the only one that is fascinated by the fact that "Sing, Sing, Sing" is partly based on a Louis Prima song?). Big Problems: The above-mentioned liner notes, the exclusion of some pieces used in the series ("Blue Rondo a la Turk" is not included, but "Take Five" is), and the plethora of individual-artist CDs. You would be far better off getting CD versions of the original albums. Again, get this at the local membership warehouse; it's a lot less money. The Series My biggest disappointment was that I didn't get a chance to watch this with the guy who introduced me to jazz, my dad. It would have been great to hear his comments, particularly regarding the examination of jazz since WWII by Burns et al. The whole history of jazz includes the history of my own family: my grandfather was a musician; my father played clarinet, but prefered racing cars to actually playing; and I was brought up on a diet of Bach, Beethoven, Brubeck, Davis, and Evans. Good Stuff: This series (episodes 1 through 9) will probably serve as a decent primer on the history of mainstream American jazz. At some point, if they're interested, I'll sit down with my niece and nephew and introduce them to "Grandpa's music." It seems pretty accessible, in spite of all the "talking heads"; most people I watched it with managed to stay awake. Visually, it's a nice piece of art. Big Problems: Jazz as a genre is huge, encompassing influences from the past 150 years, and from all over the world. Because Burns et al were trying to cover so much territory, far too many things were glossed over, particularly in the last episode. Some mention was made of Ella Fitzgerald's early work, but her later career (considered by many to be the best part of her career) was almost completely ignored. There are many others, but that one really stands out in my mind. Unfortunately, through the extensive use of writer Stanley Crouch and trumpetist Wynton Marsalis, the series appears to have a somewhat ethnocentric, East Coast bias. While no one is denying the tremendous importance of African-American composers, conductors, and musicians, and the importance of places such as Kansas City, New Orleans, Chicago, and, particularly New York City, as epicenters of great changes in jazz history, to dismiss Latin jazz with 30 seconds of "bossa nova" and refer to West Coast jazz as "music for white college students" does a tremendous disservice to the many brilliant Latino, South American, and Cuban composers, and ignores the contributions of many great artists based in Los Angeles and San Francisco. The fact that many contemporary and near-contemporary artists were completely ignored (besides Pat Metheny, John McLaughlin and Chick Corea, there was no mention of Wes Montgomery or Stanley Clarke) was only to be expected. I was only perturbed by the frequent comments of Marsalis, Crouch, and other writers and critics who were used a bit too frequently for my own taste. I must admit, I was amused by Branford Marsalis' repetition of the comment by one jazz musician when referring to playing with (I believe) John Coltrane, "You gotta be willing to die for the MF." I personally would have preferred more interviews with musicians and others who were actually there; in this way, we might have some additional information preserved before so many pass away (an interview with Lionel Hampton or Tito Puente before their passing would have added a great deal, and been more interesting than others comment on them). I can easily ignore the controversy over whether Wynton Marsalis is the "great savior" of jazz; almost 20,000 people were showing up at the Hollywood Bowl on Father's Day weekend to listen to jazz while Marsalis was still in high school, playing in "garage bands." Jazz never died; it just isn't the "popular" music, any more than classical music isn't the "popular" music. The last time I checked, no one was claiming to be the "great savior" of classical, rescuing Vivaldi from the evils of the Moog synthesizer. Is it possible to cover this large a subject and do it well? Probably not, but my own wish is for a continuing series, perhaps similar to A&E's "Biography" that focuses on individual jazz artists, styles, and events. Hmmm: maybe an all-jazz cable station? 8-) Keep listening and playing, and jazz will always live. Dawn

 

Date:	06-Feb-2001 20:24:15
From:	Von Babasin (von@onoffon.com)
	"There are some people in the industry who would like to manipulate it and they want to take credit and say that we didn't do it. They'll steal your ancestors here if you let them." Quote from Abbey Lincoln - final episode, Ken Burns' 'Jazz' After watching every episode of Ken Burns' 'Jazz', I felt that this quote, although being completely true, above all, was the most ironic statement made. My name is Von Babasin and I'm the son of one of the most creative, innovative bassists in jazz history, Harry Babasin. While he was raised and schooled in Texas, attending North Texas State Teacher's College, as it was called then, and touring extensively through Chicago and New York from 1941-1945, he eventually settled in Los Angeles in 1946, becoming one of the major definers of the 'west coast jazz movement'. But, in Ken Burns' 'Jazz', Harry's identity was stolen. In fact, the entire west coast jazz movement was discounted, embodied in this series almost entirely by Dave Brubeck and Ornette Coleman. It's funny how history chooses who to remember and who NOT to remember. In my father's career, he played, and recorded with, most of the great names in jazz. Louis Armstrong, Charlie Parker, Lionel Hampton, Benny Carter, Ella Fitzgerald, Oscar Pettiford, Sarah Vaughn, Harry 'Sweets' Edison, Maynard Ferguson, Buddy Collette, Billy Ekstine, Bill Douglas, LeRoy Vinnegar, not to mention Benny Goodman, Woody Herman, Stan Kenton, Bill Evans, Chet Baker, Boyd Raeburn, Buddy Rich, Charlie Barnet, Gene Krupa, Joe Pass, Tal Farlow, Bud Shank, Roy Harte, Shorty Rogers, Shelley Manne, Barney Kessel, and the list goes on.... He appeared in a 1947 movie with Danny Kaye and Virginia Mayo called "A Song Is Born". It featured many top jazzers: Louis Armstrong, Benny Goodman, Charlie Barnet, Tommy Dorsey, Lionel Hampton, Mel Powell, with Harry on bass. He was a member of the orchestras of Benny Goodman, Stan Kenton, Charlie Barnet, Boyd Raeburn, Woody Herman, Skinnay Ennis, Bob Crosby. He formed groups with Oscar Pettiford, Benny Carter, Charlie Barnet, mostly centered around his group, The Jazzpickers, as he fronted the group on the instrument he introduced to jazz in 1947, pizzicato jazz cello. He formed a group with Laurindo Almeida and Bud Shank in the late 40's, early 50's, that played the beginnings to the style later known as the 'bossa nova', a dozen years before Getz and Jobim. "Look straight ahead and strive for tone." Growing up with such a man as my father, he taught me many important lessons. "The beauty of music, especially jazz," he said, "is that it is color blind. It doesn't matter what color a person is, if you can play, you can play." So, as a white child growing up in the volatile 60's in a suburban 'barrio' of L.A. called Pacoima, I got along with almost everybody, no matter what race. I knew that when I hung out with my dad, meeting people like LeRoy Vinnegar and Bill Douglas and Buddy Collette, there were no racial problems in music. This was a world that could racially coexist on a deeper level than anywhere else. Even today, players of all colors tell me what a great player and, more importantly, what a great man my dad was. This is his legacy to me, my family, and the world, through his music, if his story gets told. But the more histories that ignore his accomplishments, the more his message gets lost. "East coast vs. West coast." There's always been a strange conflict between east and west coasts. Not just in music, but in all aspects of life. One interviewee says, 'the west coast was bland.' That's just an opinion and I don't care who may share that opinion. The best analogy I can make is with basketball. Any avid fan of basketball in the east feels that the tougher, more aggressive style of ball played by eastern teams is the only basketball. While those on the west coast pride their style as 'finesse' ball, playing basketball as the non contact sport it's 'supposed' to be. In the jazz of the 50's, you had the aggressive, dissonant, almost atonal style of the easterners and you had the intricate, contrapuntal style of the westerners, played on instruments like alto flute, vibes and cello. Much softer voicings, in a jazz type chamber music, certainly equivalent to modern classical music. Those who think it's anything less are guilty of musical discrimination. Again, these styles should coexist, appreciated on the levels in which they were played. "If you didn't play piano, trumpet or sax, or sing, you didn't effect change in jazz." According to this series, if you didn't play one of those three instruments or sing, you couldn't innovate the artform. They mentioned just a handful of bassists, drummers, vibraphonists, etc. etc. etc. They barely got to Charles Mingus, one of the finest bassists of all time. "They'll steal your ancestors here if you let them." My mother is 72 years old, a chronic emphysemic, and lives on an extremely fixed income, social security and medicare. My father had no money when he died, nearly penniless, in Pacoima. The only obituary written about him was by his old friend, drummer Bill Douglas, in the Musician's Union paper. Accompanying all those great musicians for all those years, with so many contributions. This documentary crushed her. Another insult by those who have a voice and the power to tell their side. Unfortunately, people look to Ken Burns as, "the guy who does it right." I now know he isn't. I prayed that someone would finally give my dad the recognition he so richly deserves, as well as the rest of the west coast jazz community. So - I will continue to seek funding - to give west coast jazz the voice it's never had. Maybe bring respect it's always deserved and never gotten. Thanks for your time, Von Babasin Curator of the Jazz In Hollywood Jazz Museum

 

Date:	07-Feb-2001 12:41:35
From:	Pete Kirchoff (pkirchoff@yahoo.com)
	As a brief addition to the comments made by Von Babison, I strongly recommend the book "West Coast Jazz", written about 10 years ago by Ted Giola. Not only will you find out all that Ken Burns decided to leave out on the subject, you'll discover some of the best jazz being made on either coast, in any era. The book led me to check out recordings by Sonny Criss, Art Pepper, Hampton Hawes, Teddy Edwards, Cal Tjader, the Mastersounds, Chet Baker, Curtis Counce, Harold Land, Shelly Mann, and scores of other great musicians. Many of their recordings, by the way, are readily available on cd. This is a rich and rewarding legacy by any standard, and one that warranted much more than a few brief profiles on Dave Brubeck and Dexter Gordon, and a dismissal as being bland or boring. The music tells a far different story.

 

Date:	08-Feb-2001 12:32:13
From:	Von Babasin (von@onoffon.com)
	Thanks to Pete for his additional comments in appreciation of west coast jazz. I have created a page at Mp3.com with a few tracks from my father's 1954 label, Nocturne Records. For those interested to hear these tracks, here's the link: http://www.mp3.com/jazzinhollywood Enjoy, Von Babasin

 

Date:	08-Feb-2001 21:30:42
From:	Scott J.
	OH COME ON PEOPLE COULD WE JUST BE A LITTLE APPRECIATIVE Any and everyone can find something wrong with the documentary, but as jazz lovers how bout we be thankful that we get to publicize even a few musicians, of course there are people left out, I mean even if every great jazz artist was given 15 minutes of fame we would still complain, someone-somewhere would have to sneak in somebody like Kenny G, in fact how's bout we be proud that there are too many greats to be famed in this tribute, how bout not being so pissed off that the doc. was ONLY about Duke, Louis, Dizzy, Miles, ... Most of the public can only name Louis when asked to name a jazz artist (some can't name him)

 

Date:	08-Feb-2001 21:32:30
From:	Scott Foster (scott.foster@fpiny.com)
	The single worst thing about the "Jazz" series was the moment in Episode Ten when the narrator said that in the seventies, "Jazz died for awhile." This appeared to be an excuse to skip over the period and get right to the Marsalis Era in the eighties. Then Branford Marsalis said "to be honest...the generation that was supposed to come up (in the seventies) was doing something else." Ken Burns has said that the reason he gave such little time to the recent past was that he was doing a history and the recent past lacks the requisite perspective for history per se and is more the province of journalists than historians. But the little that they did say about the period in the film makes it clear that Burns' stated justification for the omissions is a blatent dodge. Obviously the period is omitted because the filmmaker and his consultants don't have a clue about what was going on then. In the time they spent telling us that jazz (temporarily) died, they could have provided at least a few morsels of actual information about the music of the period and let the viewers judge for themselves. But I imagine they had so little understanding of it that they didn't know where to begin. The film did, however, find plenty of time to cover Dexter Gordon's mid-seventies return from Europe, which is certainly a worthy topic, but even this was handled in a distorted manner. For instance, much was made of the fact that Dexter's homecoming gig at the Vanguard was greeted with lines stretching around the block, but never was it pointed out that the popularity of the fusion movement clearly spilled over into mainstream jazz and directly contributed to the popularity of Dexter's return. In fact it was the fusion movement that made it possible for not only Dexter but the subsequent new arrivals of mainstream jazz, including that of the Marsalis brothers, to reach large audiences. It certainly didn't hurt that Columbia Records was promoting Dexter at the time, using revenues from all their Miles and Weather Report records. Fusion also increased the popularity of avant-garde jazz. What many forget is that much of the early fusion music was avant-garde in its harmonic vocabulary even while drawing in rock fans by using instruments and beats associated with rock. Some of the music by Miles' "Fillmore" band, for example, even abandons rock beats and is so rhymically avant-garde that in retrospect it seems amazing that it was as popular as it was. Burns and company may believe that fusion crossed the line making it unworthy for inclusion in a jazz documentary, but it is simply inaccurate to portray subsequent resurgences in mainstream jazz as being due to mass audiences suddenly demanding mainstream jazz after years of their needs being neglected by the irresponsible fusionistas. I was around th

 

Date:	08-Feb-2001 21:41:32
From:	Lizzy
	I AGREE WITH SCOTT Go anywhere in America today and only 3% of the peeps there have ever even heard of Dizzy or Miles (God bless em if they know who Bird is) so what's wrong with a little focus on the great greats. I understand that some have been disregarded, but I hope we all agree that the ones featured certainly deserve it.

 

Date:	10-Feb-2001 00:33:59
From:	Ralph O. (ralpho2001@yahoo.com)
	I had been looking forward to the "JAZZ" documentary since last year. I remember reading in a jazz journal that Ken Burns was not making a documentary that would only appeal to the knowledgeable jazz fan, but that he wanted to present a story that would appeal to a mass audience. So my expectation of "JAZZ" was that we would be presented with a basic history of jazz and for this very reason I was very pleased with the end result. It was necessary to leave the semantic studies of the various jazz genres and music theories in the college classrooms, because otherwise "most" people would have tuned out. Burns is first and foremost a film maker who understands that the best (and quite possibly the only) way to present his medium, is by telling a story. In this case there were literally hundreds of stories to tell; but even in 19 hours, they had to be presented in their most condensed form. Those stories that were told, taught me a lot & they personally sparked a curiosity in me to look further into the music and lives of certain individuals like Bix Beiderbecke and Charlie Parker. Perhaps this was the goal that Ken Burns was trying to attain and not so much a definitive "Set in Stone" history of jazz. As an aficionado, I don’t really understand what everyone’s problem is with Wynton. Ok was there too much of Marsalis or Crouch? Yes maybe. But, still so what?! These guys are likeable and they discuss jazz with a child-like enthusiasm & excitement that is necessary to sell the music, not to those who visit sites like “All About Jazz” but to those individuals who couldn't even name two of the top 10 most influential figures in jazz. Would I have preferred interviews with Sonny Rollins, Kenny Burrell or Gerald Wilson? or other musicians/composers from that "era" who are still alive today? Yes, but I believe Burns was trying to appeal to the masses. Just be glad it wasn't Kenny G. who was being interviewed, because believe me that's what the "masses" think is jazz. Why spend more time on the “Golden Age” of Jazz?, I think because that’s where the foundation is. A time when jazz was the popular music of the day. And why? Because it was danceable! Is it possible to have an appreciation for be-bop, cool, fusion or even free jazz without a solid appreciation of its foundation? What every one’s complaint with the tenth episode appears to be is that obviously Burns & company continue the tradition of failing to ultimately define what is and isn’t jazz (people did you really expect a guy who previously owned only 2 jazz records to have the final say on this argument?) . I was born in 1967 right at the time when this documentary pretty much ends, but I grew up with jazz. We all did. It is deeply rooted in our culture and in our subconscious. One of my first records as a child was a collection of Disney's Merry Melodies which included a tune by Armstrong doing "10 Feet off the Ground" and The Jungle Book’s King Louie doing "I wanna be like You". This was my introduction jazz in its most popular and least complex form. Danceable and digestible enough for even a five year old kid to enjoy. Anyone new to Jazz has to start there and not with the Avant Garde art of Coltrane, the cerebral Free Jazz of Ornette and Cecyl or Miles’ fusion. As a guitarist I too regret that some of my favorite musicians like Kenny Burrell, Jim Hall or (I can't believe!) even Wes Montgomery were not even mentioned in “JAZZ”. It was through jazz guitarists records that I learned to appreciate John Coltrane, Ben Webster, Stan Getz, Johnny Griffin and countless of other Jazz figures. I still applaud Ken Burns and company for a job well done, really! if the first ten minutes of the series’ opening scene didn’t bring chills up your spine!

 

Date:	10-Feb-2001 22:21:08
From:	Boris Lichtenstein
	I think the show is good for attracting a new audience, regardless of what the highbrow critics say......granted there are flaws, but the exposure should or hopefully help renew interest!

 

Date:	10-Feb-2001 22:22:53
From:	Lingara Shamuck
	Burns' constant utilization of Wynton Marsalis intimates that he is the pre eminent authority on jazz music.............as if few others would qualify!

 

Date:	12-Feb-2001 13:53:07
From:	nusouth (fbeylotte@mindspring.com)
	Kenny Burns bit off more than he could chew and tried to wash it down with a tall glass of Stanley Marsalis...and he still choked! Big time. In his letter from a Birmingham County Jail, the late Dr. King, suggested that half hearted efforts by "the white moderate" could actually do more harm than a racist. I feel that Burn's half-assed jazz documentary will do nothing for the artists that struggle everyday to find paying gigs and have their music recorded and distributed. Like it or not Uncle Wynton, these are the Armstrongs, Birds, Monks and Miles of the future. Cause they're not coming out of you JLCO frat house! Jazz was saved by who? Puh-leez! Thats' bullshit, complete bulshit, Branford!

 

Date:	12-Feb-2001 18:23:07
From:	Keith Jarrett
	"Regarding Ken Burns's (or is it Wynton Marsalis's?) "Jazz": Now that we've been put through the socioeconomic racial forensics of a jazz-illiterate historian and a self- imposed jazz expert prone to sophomoric generalizations and ultraconservative politically correct (for now) utterances, not to mention a terribly heavy-handed narration (where every detail takes on the importance of major revelation) and weepy-eyed nostalgic reveries, can we have some films about jazz by people who actually know and understand the music itself and are willing to deal comprehensively with the last 40 years of this richest of American treasures?" -- Keith Jarrett - from a letter to the editor, New York Times Arts section

 

Date:	12-Feb-2001 23:39:25
From:	dan markowicz (dmarkowicz@earthlink.net)
	without sounding too repetitive in my disdain for this documentary - but i feel the main problem was the burns's agenda of showing jazz as representative of the democratic spirit of america (without critiquing this assumption) and harping heavily on the racial harmony found within (how many times must we be reminded that white people danced at the savoy as well) is presented as THE TRUTH - the "definitive" history of jazz. so burns can tell us that fletcher henderson wrote benny goodman's scores - but forget to mention that goodman lived very comfortably off this music while Henderson died in poverty. and louis armstrong can be highlighted as the pinnacle of protest for canceling his state department tour over the "fables of Faubus" but completely ignore max roach's "freedom suite". where was amiri baraka to contest the conservatism of stanley crouch? i've been told that burns's omissions were a sacrifice to accessibility for a new audience - but i would think that showing jazz as central to a large cultural debate would excite audiences to explore more its dymanic nature. just a few quick words where was sun ra?????

 

Date:	13-Feb-2001 20:42:52
From:	Walter W.
	How could Burns have not had somekind of footage about the Bugsy Ipsell/Duke Ellington battle of the bands at the Poughkeepsie, New York Armory in 1932? This was a historic moment if there ever was one in jazz - the great saxophonist band leader Bugsy Ipsell with his Polka Express facing off in a battle of the bands with the Duke and his great band!! It's now almost forgotten that Ipsell was the King of the Upstate New York polka and Catskill/Borsch Belt bands in the late 20s and 30s. Ipsell later played in a trio with Art Tatum in Brooklyn Heights, and some say he was playing bebop-polka before World War II even started! But was he on the Burns-Marsalis Show - No - was ANY of the great Upstate New York Polka-Jazz big bands of the time even mentioned? I'm not saying featured - notice I'm just saying mentioned!! We all know the answer to that tragic question. The sands of time sigh at the loss of our collective memory, pray for us.

 

Date:	13-Feb-2001 20:48:59
From:	ScottN@hotmail.com
	What about all the great jazz bands from Rhode Island!!!

 

Date:	13-Feb-2001 21:11:18
From:	Max DeLucas
	Wynton's narrow minded conservatism was directly responsible for the shameful omission of nearly everything great that happened in jazz since the 60s. But the complete disregard for the "chromatologic" movement led by the genius Dick Mellow in Bath, Maine in the late 70s is the great tragedy of the series. Right there in the shadow of the hulking supertankers at the Bath Iron Works some of the best jazz of the 20th century was pioneered. Burns' oversight is patehtic, but understandable; he claims to have had little knowedge of jazz when he began he series. But Wynton's disregard smacks of racism and worse, discrimination against Mainers. I'm appalled.

 

Date:	13-Feb-2001 21:42:26
From:	Rick Banales (riczen@hotmail.com)
	This documentary was not made for us. It was made for the soccer mom who thought that Louis Armstrong was only a singer in Disney and Bing Crosby movies. It was made for the teenager who will never hear jazz, classical, or any music in school because we have decimated the american educational system so severely. It was made for the 30-ish American male or female of color who thinks that jazz is basically Boney James and Kenny G, and is completely unaware of their own people's contribution to culture. Sure, there were a lot of people I was hoping would get covered that were not, and the narration and talking heads were a little on the stuffy side, but face it, WE NEEDED THIS. If more kids get turned on to Dizzy, Bird, Trane, Lady Day, and others, they will probably hear less in trash like Eminem and Kenny G. Class and culture are timeless. All it needs is a chance to be heard.

 

Date:	13-Feb-2001 22:05:27
From:	Rick Banales (riczen@hotmail.com)
	And, of course, there was the complete neglect of the Mariachi-Jazz movement in Los Angeles, started by my father, Guillermo Anatasio Pancho Gonzales de Banales Smeeth, that came up with innovations like mariachi versions of "Take the A Train", called "Take Angels Flight". Of course, the big problem was fitting all those guys with sombreros and guitarrons on a bandstand...

 

Date:	14-Feb-2001 05:36:28
From:	Holly (hollyh@internetwis.com)
	Let's not forget Ty Webbleton and his Polka Warriors whose innovations included a Polka and Western Swing cross that still has Wisconsin talking. He packed the lakeside clubs and the summer outdoor festivals along Lake Michigan for nearly a decade back in the forties. An unverified, by me anyway, rumor has it that the young Charles Mingus once sat in with the band and sang the Webbleton hit original "The Accordian Fling" - switching off between the bass and the tumbleweed squeezebox accordian during the number. Rumor has it that there is a radio out-take of the performance floating around the Milwaukee polka circles!! It's amazing what Burns missed.

 

Date:	15-Feb-2001 13:24:15
From:	Paul Mettewie (pmettewi@juf.org)
	It is all I can do to contain my rage over the omission of the Montana School of Jazz by Burns. No mention of the infamous/famous cutting that occurred in 56 (?) between Miles and Kiezer "Clem" Kiddelhopper, scion of the Montana School trumpeters. It was said that no one harvested for two months after the cutting due to the general ruckus raised by the encounter. For Mr. Burns to have missed this milestone in his so-called opus goes beyond negligent, bounding into the obscene. Not to mention missing making ANY mention of Frank Zappa, who had moved to Montana (or at least he told me so....) to become a dental floss tycoon.

 

Date:	16-Feb-2001 14:08:38
From:	WTK
	As impressive and as majestically beautiful as the first 9 installments were as a paean to the history of jazz and its role in 20th century America, the 10th episode was so baldly dishonest in its reading of more recent history, especially the ‘70s, and so self-serving on the part of some of its participants, that it diminished everything that came before it. The nadir was the gratuitous attack on Cecil Taylor by B. Marsalis and, to a lesser extent, Gene Lees; not even such advocates of CT as Giddins and Hentoff could mitigate this, at least not after going under the editor’s knife. The uninitiated viewer is left with an impression of an eccentric crank performing ‘imaginary concerts’ while learning nothing of the acclaim and, yes, vindication that has come Taylor’s way in the decades since. Mr. Taylor, as one of the giants of American music, is worthy of much better than this. I agree with those who say that Burns owes him a personal apology. As for the ‘70s, Burns’ reading gives passing mention to fusion as the bastard progeny of jazz’s fatal encounter with rock, etc., but completely fails to mention the work of musicians who continued to experiment in other ways, using more conventional jazz instrumentation — Braxton, Hemphill and the WSQ, etc., etc., etc. This would muddy the principal story line at this point, i.e., the death of jazz, from which a messiah figure would arise at the beginning of the ‘80s and singlehandedly bring it back to life. That the messiah figure is also Burns’ ‘senior creative consultant’ is, of course, mere coincidence. As a novice in jazz-related matters, one surmises Burns is more a pawn of certain of his trusted advisers than a willing accomplice to such intellectual dishonesty. If I were someone like Burns, undertaking such a venture as his, I would no doubt seek out Wynton Marsalis myself — he is famous, successful, aggressive in his dedication to educating others in matters of jazz and has, indeed, helped give a whole new generation of musicians viable careers in the music. His credentials are impressive on their face. But to rely so heavily on his version of jazz history and related matters is like undertaking, say, a history of the federal government and engaging someone with an equally impressive resume — like a distinguished history professor with experience as speaker of the house — Newt Gingrich.

 

Date:	16-Feb-2001 15:46:39
From:	Frank Burns
	Stop your whining! You think the 70's and 80's American greats were slighted by Burns? That's nothing compared to his absolutely shocking disregard for the incredible Nunavit Caribou Loin Quintet. They could rip through an uptempo bebop stanza, then turn around and play a shivering, captivating ballad like nobody before or since. They possessed formidable technique and fertile imaginations, probably best manifested in their compositions, in which they merged his jazz roots with European classical and Inuit influences. Rumour has it that Hemphill and Bluiett caught them at the Blubber Miley Room on Southwest Bylot Island in '66 and were blown away. In fact many think that Hemphill's Dogon A.D. is a direct rip-off of the Caribou Loin's "Polar Bear Rag". So don't tell me how Burns neglected Evans or Bugsy Ipsell (whom I argree are masters)!

 

Date:	17-Feb-2001 10:53:59
From:	Aaron Schwoebel
	I am trying to put an optimistic face on this series, despite its many, many flaws. So many people have detailed these flaws (Wynton's strong influence, lack of interviews with still-alive performers, complete exclusion of some huge names) that I don't want to pile on. Instead I want to try and figure out what Burns was up to, besides just being a newbie to jazz. First, I think this was a sociological story, not a musical story, and that is huge. You can't look at this documentary from a musical perspective and say "he had to mention X but he didn't." That wasn't its goal. For example, someone pointed out they were shocked that Hello Dolly received so much attention, until they realized that Burns was making the point that this was the last jazz single to get mainstream airplay. That's an essential part of the story of jazz losing its mainstream appeal it had in the Swing Era and becoming a niche product. Second, I think Burns felt he had to include Armstrong and Ellington as central figures because that tied the series together, and as someone who hasn't ever tried to make a documentary film, I can't disagree with him. Let's guess that Burns spent 10 hours on Armstrong/Ellington and 10 hours on 100 other people. What if instead he had spent 20 hours on 200 or 300 people? It would be a series of lost 5 or 10 minute vignettes on various people, and it wouldn't feel like a story. Now certainly someone could counter that Parker or Monk or Davis should have been the centerpiece then, instead of Armstrong and Ellington. In essence, I think this documentary will do more good than harm. Lots of people will say "I liked that Dizzy Gillespie guy" and go out and buy the Ken Burns Best of Dizzy CD, and from there find other things they like. Would I want to put my name on this documentary as my definition of what is important in jazz? Certainly not! But my name isn't on it--Burns' and Marsalis' names are, and they are ultimately responsible for it. I don't think the doc is ever really *wrong*, it just has a taste that many of us disagree with. But it is not inconceivable for Ellington and Armstrong (and, remember, Parker DOES get a lot of airplay too) to be considered the founding giants--they might not be the people you'd pick, but it's not *wrong*.

 

Date:	18-Feb-2001 11:51:09
From:	Mark Romano (zouktime@aol.com)
	i think that ken burns' jazz has spawned (is that montana lingo?)some great take-offs? the jazz fans all knew who should have been included, i don't want to beat a dead montana horse. i enjoyed the footage of hal miller who spent all his money to fly to tokyo many years ago to buy up much of the footage we enjoyed in the series. he said he was broke for months. i enjoyed ralph ellison's eloquent in-the-pocket talk. i enjoyed langston hughes, that great poet. i enjoyed mr. glaser's commentary. i enjoyed the whole spectacle of music pitted against skin color. the music wins every time. i did not the enjoy the monotheistic line of wynton & stanley. gary what's-his-name from the ny times got tired after the first few episodes also. i liked the idea of people goign out and buying jazz albums because of the show. hopefully, all the royalties won't go to the record companies which they will glady gobble up. i hope the relatives of the dead musicians will garner some of the rewards that most of these musicians never saw in their all too brief lives. keith jarrett's letter to the ny times was something to seek out. it'll cost you for the online ny times. this series made a lot of money for ken burns' and the record companies. and what about those bands from rhode island? paul gonsalves was from rhode island and so is scott hamilton and so am i. jazz is good and so is life and red rioja.

 

Date:	18-Feb-2001 12:01:26
From:	Mark Romano (zouktime@aol.com)
	part of the keith jarret letter that i mentioned is posted by him above on feb. 12. missed it.

 

Date:	20-Feb-2001 10:43:33
From:	WTK
	Where are Pip