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 Pippy and Helge when we need them?

 

Date:	20-Feb-2001 11:11:54
From:	Tim Givens
	I just finished Ken Burns' "Jazz". My work hours forced me to tape it for future viewing. Given Burns' admission that he knew nothing about jazz before the project, he did a very fine job on the film. I myself don't know enough of post-1945 jazz to give an informed opinion, but I do see two problems with the earlier years. First is the lofty position Burns gives to Duke Ellington. Sure, Ellington wrote some wonderful songs, and he made some advances in the form. But to place him second only to Louis Armstrong in importance ? I think that is a bit of a stretch. I won't recommend my choice here, or I will open another can of worms. My favorite jazz man is Benny Goodman, who certainly did a lot toward making jazz THE popular music of the 1930's and 40's, plus his breaking the race barrier was of great importance. But many other musicians made contributions, too. A numbered list of who was most important to jazz would be purely a matter of opinion. I know some people may disagree with Burns putting Armstrong at the top. My second problem with "Jazz" concerns Count Basie. Burns' gives the impression that Basie just jobbed around with different bands until putting together his own band. Wrong ! Basie was a pianist with Bennie Moten's Kansas City Orchestra. When Moten died in April 1935 from an infected tonsillectomy, Basie took over the band. Had this fact been presented, Burns could have also given Moten's band coverage, which would have been good as Moten's was the most important Kansas City band. So, all in all, with only these two complaints, I feel Burns did a wonderful documentary. I know, lots of people will complain that this musician or that one was left out. Really, EVERY jazz musician was important, weren't they?

 

Date:	20-Feb-2001 15:18:54
From:	Edward Agnew (edagnew@hotmail.com)
	With regard to the above comments, I think Ellington as No. 2 is probably ok because his career spanned most of the history of jazz from 1920 to 1973. Most other band leaders, both black and white, Goodman included, gave up in the late 1940's and 1950s, unlike Duke and the Count and Woody. My only question is whether Ellington was America's "greatest composer", ahead of Gershwin, Rogers, Porter, Kern, Berlin, and a few others. Only a musicologist could determine this: attaching weights to the number of songs that became standards, the quality of the long works and other factors. I don't know how it would come out. Someone with the proper credentials should undertake it. One last comment, Red Nichols should have been mentioned.

 

Date:	20-Feb-2001 17:37:05
From:	Scott Foster
	To Edward Agnew: You are imagining some hypothetical musicologist with proper credentials to determine the greatest composer, but the truth is that any musicologist would know that this is impossible to do objectively. The scenario you are imagining, of someone devising a formula based on a series of weighted factors, is more of a parlor game than a serious undertaking. The best one can hope for is a consensus of informed opinion. It's safe to say there is a consensus that Ellington was the greatest jazz composer. But some jazz enthusiasts want to give him the more encompassing designation of greatest American composer. Maybe, but once we start comparing him to composers of other types of music it becomes difficult to find a clear consensus. You mention the famous songwriters such as Cole Porter, but what about the American classical composers such as Elliott Carter? Both Carter and Ellington could have learned things from each other, if they were interested. Personally, I think Ellington is much, much greater than Irving Berlin, for example, but it's silly to think there exists some kind of objective formula for

 

Date:	20-Feb-2001 20:44:10
From:	Andreas
	Here's an interesting article that reflects my opinion that the contributions of latinos to jazz were much more significant and plentiful than was depicted thru Burns' "jazz as relection of black/white relations myopia (sp?). One-Note 'Jazz' Goes Flat Without A Latin Beat By Fernando Gonzalez Special to The Washington Post Saturday, January 27, 2001; Page C01 Popular music offers a window into the society that creates it. But in "Jazz," Ken Burns's 10-part, 19-hour documentary that winds up its PBS run next week, the filmmaker Ken Burns peered at life in the United States through a narrow window. He has construed jazz -- and the society that created it -- almost completely in terms of black and white. In the United States of "Jazz," the Latin music and musicians who were so important to the development of this art form -- and Latinos and their culture in general -- barely merit a footnote. This failure, of course, reflects the biases and cultural limitations of Burns and his advisers. Their perspective, however, is one widely shared: In its obsession with race, the United States is stuck on the idea of an imaginary country populated only by descendants of white Europeans and their former slaves. Nobody else counts. This is an astounding notion, especially given that, with more than 30 million Latinos living within its borders, the United States is actually the fifth-largest Latin American country. Racial issues between blacks and Latinos, and the balance of political and economic power both between those two groups and in relation with the white majority, will help define life here for this century and beyond. But in the nation Burns explores in "Jazz" -- after hours of music, images from all over the country reaching back to the 19th century and interviews with 58 subjects, none of them Latino -- Latinos are simply not relevant to the story: not then, not now, not musically and certainly not socially. "If you can't manage to put tinges of Spanish in your tunes, you will never be able to get the right seasoning -- for jazz." So said, in the late 1930s, Jelly Roll Morton, who knew something about the subject but was no longer around to serve as a consultant for the PBS series. As a result "Jazz" barely alludes to the Latin influences in New Orleans -- and even then, "habanera" is mispronounced in the narration and described as a "dance rhythm from the Caribbean," rather than from Cuba. Other mentions of Latin contributions to jazz include a 2-minute-and-32-second sequence about bossa nova; a nod to Cubop that focused on Dizzy Gillespie, the non-Latin champion of Latin jazz; a passing mention in a discussion about jazz "combinations" with other genres of music; and a glance at Cuban pianist Gonzalo Rubalcaba. Not much more. There is no mention of historic Latin jazz figures such as trumpeter Mario Bauza (who played a decisive role in the birth of Latin jazz), popular timbalero and band leader Tito Puente or arranger Arturo "Chico" O'Farrill. And when looking forward, Burns does not see fit to include, in his list of 11 new artists, figures such as Panamanian pianist Danilo Perez or Puerto Rican saxophonist David Sanchez. These are not Latin-jazz players working in some stylistic ghetto, but superior musicians who happen to be Latinos and who, for the past decade, have been developing a pan-Latin view of jazz that might very well be the music's future. As it surveys the evolution of jazz, Burns's opus also purports to trace the momentous events and social trends of the century just ended (wars, the Depression, the growth of suburbia, drugs, etc.). If omitting Latino musicians is a peculiar choice, ignoring Latinos more broadly in the life of the United States is just plain troubling. For all the lip service to census statistics, for all the politicians blithely mangling Spanish as they look for votes every couple of years and for all the money made on Ricky Martin's bonbon, Latinos remain largely invisible to mainstream America. And for Burns, a terrific storyteller obviously in love with the myth of America, such an oversight also represents a missed opportunity. He rightfully sees jazz as a made-in-the-U.S.A. cultural product. He has acknowledged not being a longtime fan of the music, but he clearly appreciates jazz, especially as a marvelous metaphor for democracy at work. He hears it in each musician expressing his or her individuality and creativity within the group, in the tensions between personal freedom and common good. But Latin jazz offers its own insights about American life. Early on in "Jazz," Wynton Marsalis -- who had an enormously influential role in shaping the series -- speaks about how "the real power of jazz is that a group of people can come together and . . . negotiate their agendas with each other, and that negotiation is the art." Drawing from several cultures and traditions, played by groups made up of musicians with often profoundly disparate backgrounds, Latin jazz is a prime example of such negotiation -- and more. Here is a music with old, deep roots embracing the New World, a music rich with memories but looking for a future unburdened by history, a music streetwise and brash but also touchingly fresh, hopeful, generous. It is a soundtrack for a nation of immigrants. Pick a name, any name: Bauza, Puente, Frank "Machito" Grillo, Leandro "Gato" Barbieri, Jose Curbelo, Ray Barretto, Airto Moreira, Paquito D'Rivera, Jorge Dalto, Michel Camilo, Lalo Schifrin, Mongo Santamaria or "Chocolate" Armenteros, just for starters, and behind each you'll find a story, an American story. But you won't hear any of them in "Jazz," and that's too bad. By perpetuating the notion of a United States and an American culture drawn only from two races, "Jazz" doesn't just fail Latinos or Latin music fans. It fails us all. © 2001 The Washington Post Company

 

Date:	21-Feb-2001 15:13:43
From:	dave wayne
	Like: 1) ANYTHING that increases the visibility of jazz cannot be all bad. 2) seeing & hearing Abbie Lincoln, Cassandra Wilson, Artie Shaw, and, Herbie Hancock on TV. Ossie Davis had some interesting things to say as well... 3) the detailed coverage of Duke Ellington. He is, after all, the greatest! Dislike: (apart from the obvious stuff which has been mentioned by numerous others...) 1) the fact that Ken Burns - who admits he 'knows nothing about jazz' gets to make a major documentary about jazz. To me, this was like asking someone who 'knows nothing about the human heart' to perform a quadruple bypass. 2) the obvious double standard applied to favorite chosen artists (Louis Armstrong). For example: Armstrong records a pop tune with a pronounced backbeat ("Hello Dolly") which makes it into the pop charts. This accomplishment is hailed as a sort of 'jazz triumph' (...never mind that the tune has , at most, a peripheral resemblance to jazz!). Then, Miles' "Bitches Brew" is raked over the coals as some sort of compromise or sellout! 3) The inclusion of Cecil Taylor solely to insult him. That was really smarmy... 4) Seeing the same old stock footage we've all seen hundreds of times! Anyone who has seen a few jazz documentaries has seen 20% to 50% of the images (still & moving) used in Burns' program. I thought Burns was supposed to be a super-researcher, but it seems that all he did was put David Chertok's Film Archive on his speed-dial. 5) Perpetuation of falsehoods such as "there was very little going on in jazz in the 1970s - it was all fusion then" (this is complete crap!), and "free jazz is when a bunch of people get together and just play any way they want" (yeah! right! now, you go try it!) 6) who the hell is Matt Glaser, anyway?

 

Date:	21-Feb-2001 17:06:13
From:	Joe (jgwoulla@hotmail.com)
	I think some people may be misunderstanding the strong reactions against Ken Burns' take on Jazz. It isn't just about who he did or didn't cover, who he placed importance one, etc. The bigger issue is that is philosophy was all wrong, which was no doubt aided by the tastes of the Marsalis family, Stanley Crouch, and assorted critics. Ken Burns chose to portray the history of Jazz as a "God" model rather than an evolutionary one. By this, I mean simply that too much was focused on certain individuals without respect to the environment and other players that surely forced innovation as well. He placed Satchmo, Wynton, and Duke as the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. I happen to love the music and innovations of Ellington and Armstrong, but that frame cuts off too much of the picture. As for Marsalis, I am largely indifferent to his music, because he hasn't done anything I haven't heard elsewhere. It's nothing personal, but I've just heard more than two trumpet players in my lifetime, and proficientcy does not a master make. If Burns had painted the larger picture of jazz as a breathing society pushed forward by a pantheon of often conflicting views, he could have spoken to both the ardent fan and the intimidated newbie. This does not mean that he had to cover every single important musician; despite what he displayed, there are more than enough legitimate legends to place Wynton firmly in the middle of the pack. What I would like to have seen is the way that jazz has tended to branch into vastly disparate directions that have a way of meeting up once again in strange places. For example, much of today's "mainstream" jazz commonly uses extra musical effects that were unheard of until the innovations of free and avant guarde areas of jazz. The same goes for the appropriation of Latin rhythms and harmonic patterns, which is quite popular among today's mainstream players. According to Wynton's dynamic swing theories, Latin rhythm = not jazz. It might also be unbeknownst to outsiders that many instruments that are common in jazz today, like electric guitars and bass, were once subjects of hot debate. Just like religion, no one can end the arguement. Definitions of what is or isn't jazz work only to exclude. I found it interesting that the improvisational nature of jazz was not cited as a basis for classification in this series. Certainly, adopting improvisation as a basic tenet makes it much harder to exclude what happened in the 60's up to today. However, would anyone argue that improvisation has no importance to ANY so-called "definition" of jazz? Not all improvisation is jazz (in classical terms "interpretation" is a more apt description), but what other form emphasizes the development of one's own unique improvisational vocabulary? And given that common goal, if it can be agreed on, just how much did Burns leave out? Rather than observing the worth of the music at hand, the series seemed to cast a narrow definition of what is jazz. This left out much that was of great importance to jazz; individuals, events, and movements both from the past and living right now in a city near you. That's what jazz is as far as I'm concerned, a living, breathing expression made by musicians who are not only talented but are empathetic to the minds and feelings of their companions, enemies, fans, critics, society and anything else that makes one want to express something in the first place! The chaos and paradoxes are not the enemy, but rather the reason why we create, why we question the purpose of life and our time here. To deny that such differences have much importance in jazz is to deny that in life, no one is born knowing every possibility imaginable. But Ken didn't know about any of that. To paraphrase the words of his man-dubbed-as-God, Louis Armstrong, "If you have to ask what jazz is..."

 

Date:	21-Feb-2001 21:38:07
From:	Ignatz Welk (ignatzw@hotmail.com)
	It's difficult to believe that as a composer that Ellington is in the same league as Ives, Sessions, and Eliot Carter. He struggled with longer forms. Certainly, these three composers (and many others) were far more successful than Ellington. I say this loving Ellington's music. There's nothing wrong with being a master of shorter forms. John Keats, Baudelaire, Mallarme, Neruda, Flannery O'Conner, and Zora Neal Hurston were all great masters of shorter forms.

 

Date:	22-Feb-2001 13:44:10
From:	Andreas
	Ignatz: Since when does the length of the composition have anything to do with the quality of the music? Obviously if you judge Ellington (or anyone else) by some arbitrary standard that doesn't apply, he'll come up short. Ellington says "It Don't Mean a Thing If It Ain't Got That Swing". Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart don't swing. Does that detract from their significance? Of course not - it's irrelevant. The same goes for your comments on Ellington.

 

Date:	22-Feb-2001 15:28:21
From:	Scott Foster
	I don't think one can apply those irrelevant standards either, but actually this goes back to the point about judging Ellington as not only the greatest jazz composer but the greatest "American composer," as was suggested in Ken Burns' Jazz. What irrelevant standard were they using in the film when they made that judgment in Ellington's favor? You see, this can go either way. ............................................

 

Date:	22-Feb-2001 17:39:06
From:	Ignatz
	Perhaps the greatest master is one who writes superbly in both shorter and longer forms. That was my point.

 

Date:	23-Feb-2001 15:08:38
From:	Andreas
	Your points are well taken. Quite frankly the issue of "single greatest" composer has very little meaning to me. It may work for baseball, but not for music. Just appreciate an artist on his or her own terms. I don't go for this ranking business. How do you keep score anyway? Perhaps my comments were not so clear. What I'm suggesting is that if Ellington's strength is the short form, he ought to be judged/appreciated for his best work. If perhaps at some point he tried his hand at polkas or gamelan music or whatever, and didn't succeed, that shouldn't detract from his greatness.

 

Date:	23-Feb-2001 16:18:41
From:	Ignatz
	Andreas: As far as "single greatest composer" goes, you are mixing up Scott Foster's comments and mine.

 

Date:	23-Feb-2001 16:32:09
From:	Andreas
	I'm responding to both

 

Date:	23-Feb-2001 16:57:52
From:	Andreas
	Let's get back to the subject matter, shall we? Here's an interesting outtake from the interviews that Ken Burns did for the series. It's Branford Marsalis refuting the disinformation about Miles' alleged sellout with "Bitches' Brew". RANFORD MARSALIS: Man, whether or not it was selling out is really ridiculous because I’m a fan of pop music and if you put on "Jack Johnson" or you put on “Agartha” or you put on “Bitch’s Brew”, ain’t nobody going to buy that shit. No one’s going to buy those records. You know, you got the choice of, you know, well, who do you like? Oh, I like, you know, The Beatles, Sly Stone, Jimi Hendrix and Miles? Those records don’t sound anything like the popular music of the times. They still have this strange jazz sensibility, and he hired all these jazz musicians who would have been the young generation of jazz musicians and got them to start playing this stuff. So, when you put on a record like, like, like “Bitch’s Brew”, you know, Miles runs the voodoo down, man, that’s popular. Maybe more acceptable to a bunch of kids who are listening to all kinds of music and are looking for an alternative to the stuff that’s out there, but certainly not popular. I’m pretty sure that you’re notgoing to find that in the record collection of the average American. So, it’s absolutely an absurd notion to say that he was going for the bucks. I mean, it’s ridiculous. Because if he was going for the bucks, he would’ve started trying to sing, or got a singer in his band, you know, or, or done that stuff but he was intrigued by popular music and he was more intrigued by the lifestyle. But in the end, he still had to be Miles about it, so he hired musicians who played that stuff with a jazz edge to it. You know, I mean, when you think about it, I mean, Joe Zawinul was in that band, Herbie Hancock, Wayne Shorter was in that band, John McLaughlin was in that band. Billy Cobb, man, [Billy Cobham] was in that band. Jack DeJohnette was in that band. These weren’t pop musicians. These are like really great musicians and if you’re going to play in, in that, like the pop style, you don’t hire those guys, you hire pop guys. So, I mean, of course, that’s a convenient thing to say that they were going for the bucks, I mean, there were no bucks in that, and I, I mean that’s an easy one, that’s a no-brainer. There were no bucks in the stuff that Miles was doing.

 

Date:	24-Feb-2001 11:36:05
From:	Cecil J Barnette (cecilb@vci.net)
	I loved the documentary from Ken Burns, "JAZZ", and I'm sure since reading the comments that there could have been more on the Latin player's. I too liked Gato Barberi, Tito Fuentes, etc. And one of my main men growing up was one, Herbie Mann. Maybe these guys were mentioned, as I missed some of the shows due to work. But the package will be in the home soon, and it will be one viewed over and over again. The history of the time periods is worth the buy, for during the times of desegragation and Jim Crow, many of the youth need to know just how it was back then. Where the music came from, what the musicians went through, and how they persevered, to make things as they are now. And still its not as right as rain. I cried, I cheered, all types of emotions overflowed me. Remembering how my father used to come home with those stacks of albums under his arm, and would put the tunes of Dizzy, lionel, Duke, Cab, Earl Bostic ( and early favorite of mine), Paul Shearing w/ Dakota Station, Trane, Count, Dave Brubeck, Tommy Dorsey, lady Day, Dinah Washington (my Mom's favorite); the list goes on and on. Dad had a ear for the tunes, hence my effection for all types of music. Blacks have played such an important role in the efforts to create happiness to their people, to the world, during times when things weren't even close to being even. That effort from those individuals made life a little less difficult to bear, and off that music (jazz) spawned other types of music especially blues, C & W, R & B, bluegrass, rock & roll. Now today its called everything from grunge to hip hop, to metal, zydeko, reggae. Which came first blues or jazz ? According to who you talk to, probably no one could tell you exactly. And that was due to the submissive nature of slavery and its shackles. But one is as close to the other as brother and brother, sister and sister; father and mother. You can't have the one without the other. Ken Burns did a great job, there will be some criticism for there is no way all could be taken in with the amount of time there was. Hopefully there will be more to come, from the author, or someone else and the music will continue to get the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth out to everyone that will listen. And give us something to be happy in this world to smiel and be happy about. Peace out, CJ

 

Date:	24-Feb-2001 18:53:34
From:	Ignatz
	Andreas: But both were not saying the same thing, however you muddled it.

 

Date:	26-Feb-2001 02:52:35
From:	Scott Foster
	There is a basic consensus in the jazz world that Ellington was the greatest jazz composer. I agree, but I would add the words "so far." We should be hoping that someone will eventually come along who will be even greater. But to reach that level of greatness one would have to be as radically innovative in one's own time as Ellington was in his. The music would therefore have to be so different that when or if it finally arrives, Burns/Marsalis and company would probably say it isn't jazz, and reject it. The Next Ellington, if such a beast ever arrives, will write music that should qualify for all those Wynton buzzwords like swing, soul, etc. It could be a different rhythm from swing as we know it, and the people at that time might not call it swing, but it will swing. But this new swing, thus transformed, will likely not be recognized by people who share the Burns/Marsalis philosophy today. And that's the problem. .................................

 

Date:	01-Mar-2001 13:56:44
From:	Aird Hyde (abe_frohman@hotmail.com)
	I was terribly upset by the series! Why was Wynton and Stanley considered to be the experts! Why did Ken Burns not interview LIVING musicians?!?! I think it is VERY important that Ornette Coleman refused to be interviewed, simply because he knew of Wynton's involvement in the project...That says alot to me!!! As for Wynton; I have a theory: When Wynton burst upon the scene, he was seen as a bringer of light to the decaying world of "mainstream" jazz. His early recordings showed a young man full of piss & vinegar spouting off lines that meant something. His early use of the mid 60's Miles Quintet approach was refreshing (at the time) but then something happened! It seems that Wynton could not find a "new" thing to say in this format. It is here that he began his long retrogression. I believe that Wynton realized that he could only mimic and not create a living-breathing art form. He began to speak of "What is Jazz" and all of that high-art-mumbo-jumbo. He began COPYING older and older forms. It seems that once he tried a style, he would listen to a recording of one of the greats and realize that it was better then his effort and next thing you know, he speaks of how they (whatever great musician he's copying) "Lost their direction"! In an interview in the January, 2000 Jazz Times, Wynton speaks of the style of Bird as being not out of the jazz tradition! He states: "...there's going to be an end to the old style of jamming on the bandstand that was initiated in Charlie Parker's time. That was never part of jazz music." Well, once Wynton realized he couldn't play Bop, he had to say how Bop was never part of the jazz tradtion! So, he keeps going back and back and back until he finds a music that HE COULD NEVER LISTEN TO so that means he has become the ONLY VOICE IN THAT FORM!!! Of course, I'm talking about his Buddy Bolden syndrom. Now Wynton has finally found a legend that NEVER recorded (Bolden stopped perfoming all together in 1907!) and because their is no document of his playing, Wynton can site him as a major influence on his playing and their is nothing to compare it to! Finally Wynton has travelled back far enough that he's become hip! And to think that he calls the avant garde school of playing adolecent! As one last point: -Ken Burns should have titled his project JAZZ TO 1960. If he had done that my only problems would have been the negative light in which he presented Bird (the whole idea that he poisoned the jazz community wiht heroin) and THE DAMN TALKING OVER THE MUSIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If you are going to do a presentation on Picasso, you wouldn't stand in front of the painting, right?

 

Date:	02-Mar-2001 22:28:40
From:	Arthur Goodman
	PBS Reminds You --------------- Now folks, when you are being led Through Jazz's moss-hung palace, Just shut your mouth and bow your head Toward kindly Marse Marsalis.

 

Date:	03-Mar-2001 18:02:09
From:	Terry Horton (terryhorton@usa.net)
	As with others, I found the reliance on the opinions of Stanley Crouch and Wynton Marsalis to be the undoing of the entire thing. The reason Bill Evans was completely glossed over is precisely because Stanley Crouch considered him "a hack". Imagine: The greatest pianist, jazz or otherwise, who has ever lived virtually excluded because of an ass like Crouch! Burns does make some mention of Evans in the book, rightly referring to him as "the most influential jazz pianist". But where's the beef? Hell, you could do a documentary solely on Evans! But not while Crouch and Marsalis are given as the spokesmen for "what is jazz". They really represent what is wrong with jazz, or at least the general public's perception of it. As Miles Davis said of Marsalis' verbosity, "Who asked him?" You can learn all you need to know about the art of jazz by reading Bill Evans' liner notes on "Kind of Blue". Then, just listen with your soul. In a hundred years, Crouch and Marsalis will be on the ash heap of history and the true giants of jazz - Davis, Evans, Coltrane, Lateef, Monk, Shorter, Rollins, et al, will live on. God bless them all.

 

Date:	05-Mar-2001 15:44:54
From:	Frank Burns
	I have read and appreciated the comments here but I feel I have to remark that I find them as biased towards post-1960 music as Burns is to pre-1960. Yes, Cecil Taylor deserves better than he got from Burns BUT the all-knowing tone I see in some of these posts about marginal players is even worse in my opinion. I love the lists of good players with a bunch of the posters favorites stuck in as if they are the natural evolution. Come on people! Jazz has drastically declined from the height (my opinion) of Bird and Coltrane. Very few people care about it and to harp on how Burn ignored someone like Yusef Lateef is truly pathetic.

 

Date:	05-Mar-2001 17:03:00
From:	Andreas
	I would basically concurr with Frank that these lists of artists left out are getting quite silly. I too have my opinions on who should have been mentioned (Eric Dolphy & Rahsaan Roland Kirk), but I can deal with that. I think that the first 7 or 8 episodes were probably as good as you could reasonably expect. Remember that it is television after all - the Great American wasteland, even if PBS is a step above the rest. I have to say that I actually enjoyed the first 7-8 episodes at lot, despite all the flaws. My real problem related specifically to some of the disinformation that was dished out towards the end. It seems as though Burns included some artists simply to disrespect them. Some of the "information", such as the sequence of events leading to Miles's "Bitches Brew" are just plain lies (either that or a severe lack of fact checking). In other cases, Cecil Taylor's being the most extreme case, he is directly insulted. The only four-letter words in the entire series are directed at him. Highly insulting to Cecil Taylor and unprofessional! That last episode really left the series on a sour note for me.

 

Date:	06-Mar-2001 09:53:04
From:	aldo
	Cecil Taylor will be listen to for centuries. Marsalis will forgotten a decade after he is gone. Yes, that sounds harsh but hey it's the truth.

 

Date:	06-Mar-2001 15:13:05
From:	Scott Foster
	Just as a matter of perspective, I don't think Marsalis will be forgotten altogether. As a musician he will probably end up considered on a par with someone like Thad Jones. He won't be considered on a par with Miles or Dizzy. But to be fair, we do remember people like Thad Jones, sort of the B-list of valuable-but-not-quintessential players and composers. He will, however, be remembered, as one of the most controversial figures in the history of jazz, more significant to the story about the music than to the actual music. To the people who keep writing in to say "Hey, at least we got a jazz film on TV, don't complain," that is intellectually lazy. If the project had been given to someone who decided to feature Kenny G as the long closing chapter, I think you would take issue with that and wouldn't be telling us just to be grateful jazz was on TV. ............................................

 

Date:	06-Mar-2001 19:29:43
From:	aldo
	Scott: I respect your opinion but when's the last time you've listened to the Thad Jones & Mel Lewis Big Band or any of the Thad Jones small group sessions (Mosiac for instance), not to mention his work with Count Basie. Frankly, I think Marsalis has a long way to go in the jazz world before he's anywhere near Thad Jones. And I don't think Marsalis is insignificant, he's just not first rate.

 

Date:	07-Mar-2001 01:03:40
From:	Scott Foster
	I like Thad, but he's sort of second-tier. First tier is for people like Miles and Dizzy. And Louis. -----------------------------------

 

Date:	07-Mar-2001 01:18:30
From:	Scott Foster
	By the way, in the part about being one of the most controversial in history I was referring to Wynton, not to Thad. There's nothing very controversial about Thad - he's sort of like Sara Lee, nobody doesn't like h

 

Date:	07-Mar-2001 12:45:21
From:	aldo
	Scott: I assumed Wynton was the controversial one. If Thad is 2nd Tier, then Wynton got to be a tier or two down from there. I think Thad deserves a whole lot better than Sara Lee.

 

Date:	07-Mar-2001 13:30:58
From:	Terry Horton (terryhorton@usa.net)
	re: Frank Burns' comment (apparently about my earlier post, 'cause no one else mentions him), "...harp on how Burn[s] ignored someone like Yusef Lateef...", all I can say is: You must be kidding! Yusef Lateef is a giant. Wynton Marsalis is not fit to loosen the straps on his flute, oboe, sax, etc. cases. Also, I did not "harp". I mentioned Yusef. And, my God, there was plenty of jazz post Bird and Coltrane.

 

Date:	07-Mar-2001 13:48:24
From:	Andreas
	My comments were not based on intelectual laziness, but rather on realistic expectations. I didn't mean to dismiss the citicisms, as I share many of them, it's just that I don't think you can expect all that much from TV. This applies to the superficiality issue. It does not apply to the disrespectful and inaccurate treatment which some artists received in the later episodes (Stan Getz, Cecil Taylor, Miles Davis), which is just plain mean-spirited and highly unprofessional. Your point is well taken and, yes, I was very relieved that the "G-man" and his "smooth" compadres were not included. I think that by definition TV will deal with subjects in a superficial manner which will ultimately frustrate the people who are more knowledgeable of the subject, regardless of what it is. This is especially true of artforms which have some many aspects that are intangeable and not easily classified into pidgeon holes. On the upshot, as a result of the series, a number of my friends who previously had only a marginal interest in jazz are now asking me for recommendations or to borrow some of my CD's.

 

Date:	07-Mar-2001 16:28:16
From:	jay harvey
	Two points responding to particular points raised: 1) A complicating factor in where to place Ellington in the "America's greatest composer" derby is the crucial role played by Billy Strayhorn in a major portion of Ellington's career. The close relationship, incidentally, was pointedly described in Ken Burns' Jazz, a fact overlooked by people making claims for Ellington alone. Thus, we have to put an asterisk by Duke's name (or hyphenate him as Ellington-Strayhorn) to fairly inscribe him on the honor roll of great American composers. 2) I agree with many of the Wynton detractors, particularly as regards his Svengali-like hold over Ken Burns. Musically, however, he deserves credit as a minor innovator for his writing for the septet he fronted for so many years. That ensemble and its book are derivative to a degree, I'll admit, being based on Ellington and a sort of buttoned-down version of Charles Mingus. Was it Artie Shaw who said, Quick, someone hum a Wynton Marsalis tune? Touche! No memorable melodies, granted, but a tight, ebullient sound that romps and stays with the listener -- in addition to being a great vehicle for the soloing of the leader and his expert sidemen.

 

Date:	08-Mar-2001 06:29:21
From:	bud
	Nobody doesn't like Art Tatum - does that make him like "Sara Lee." What a ridiculous statement.

 

Date:	08-Mar-2001 22:17:21
From:	Scott Foster
	Yes, it does make him like Sara Lee, in the unlikely event that you have a sense of humor. But is Tatum at all comparable to Thad Jones? No. Art Tatum is one of the greatest giants of the piano, and deserved more than the two or three minutes Burns gave him in the film. A lot of these complaints about people's personal favorites not getting into the film (Yusef Lateef, Thad Jones, etc.) are silly, but Tatum towers over these people. Bud Powell got shafted too. ..............................

 

Date:	09-Mar-2001 17:08:29
From:	Max DeLucas
	Bugsy Ipsell. Not a mention. Shameful.

 

Date:	10-Mar-2001 20:28:11
From:	aldo
	In the unlikely event that someone

 

Date:	10-Mar-2001 20:33:36
From:	aldo
	like a Scott Foster has any respect for someone who has truly accomplished something with their life - like Thad Jones. Sara Lee - give me a break. This was supposed to be a joke after the fact of a stupid statement.

 

Date:	11-Mar-2001 08:05:55
From:	Mrs. Foster (Mom@hotmail.com)
	Scott: quit being a weenie.

 

Date:	12-Mar-2001 01:40:41
From:	Scott Foster
	Someone is going to an awful lot of trouble to defend Thad Jones from an imagined slight. While nobody doesn't like Thad, it's fair to say that (almost) nobody places Thad on the same level of importance in jazz history as Louis, Miles, and Dizzy. Thad was a fine trumpeter and composer but his work is not usually considered groundbreaking. He is not generally associated with any particular new movements in the development of the music. He's fairly important but not extremely important. Much the same could be said about Wynton Marsalis. One wishes that Wynton might think of himself as today's Thad instead of today's Louis or today's Ellington. .....................

 

Date:	12-Mar-2001 13:18:52
From:	Max DeLucas
	Personally, I think Entemmans wipes the floor with Sara Lee. Entemans is ready to eat- tell me who the hell has time to defrost a cake. The kind of person who anticipates having an attack of the munchies?- now there's some kind of sicko for you. Or maybe you are planning in advance for an elegant dinner party. Are you really going to serve Sara Lee? See Scott, I'm afraid your analogy is way off the mark. Sara Lee is frozen and rigid and when you get down to it, pretty mediocre unless you have been hoisting a bong or two. (in which case, shall I dare say, one even begins to contemplate the finese of a Kenny G) Thad, on the other hand, is the antithesis of frozen and rigid, indeed, a tremendous improvisor. Open up your ears man, and stop thinking about pastry.

 

Date:	12-Mar-2001 19:26:14
From:	Grand Wazoo
	Actually if you've been hoisting a bong, the last thing you want to deal with is baking a cake, so Enteman's wins out on that count.

 

Date:	15-Mar-2001 18:53:51
From:	Beatty
	I think the issue is who you would rather hoist a bong with, not how to deal with the munchies. So who would I rather hoist a bong with- Wynton, Thad Jones, Scott Foster or Sara Lee? Thad wins hands down. And after hoisting a few, I'd enjoy his music the best too!

 

Date:	15-Mar-2001 21:24:14
From:	Joseph K. (joekaf@ntelos.net)
	What I liked about the Burns was that for many weeks in the early part of this year I could turn on the tube and see great photos and footage of great jazz musicians and hear some fine music . . . hey, I've been surfing the tube since, and it's been mighty slim pickings. Whatever anyone thinks about Burns/Marsalis/Crouch (including me) the fact remains that for a short while jazz was in vogue.

 

Date:	21-Mar-2001 18:47:06
From:	Terry Thomason
	I'm not sure I know why there's all this stuff about pastry in here, but I thought this thread was supposed to be for discussing the Jazz film. I'll comment on some of these comments though. I agree with the people who didn't like how much Marsalis dominates the film but I think some of the people who said his music is worthless are letting their hatred for the man get in the way of their ears. He's not up there with Miles but you have to admit he plays the trumpet pretty well. Then you could say that about a lot of the trumpet players like Freddie Hubbard, Woody Shaw, Thad Jones, these guys who came in after bebop was already invented and didn't invent another new style. Miles did that two or three separate times. So I think you can put Marsalis in with Hubbard-Shaw-Jones etc. These are all great trumpet players but they didn't change the music like Miles did. Also, the point someone made about Ellington and Strayhorn was a very good point, as far as who was the greatest jazz composer, you'd have to keep th

 

Date:	21-Mar-2001 23:46:30
From:	Scott Foster
	Max: Actually, I wasn't thinking in such detail about pastry until I read your meticulous posting about it. And now I'm really, really hungry. But it has since dawned on me that I may have confused you poor fellows with the artful use of the double negative from an antiquated advertising jingle, and the subtly sagacious and slyly hilarious irony of its being thus invoked. I erred, in that this is certainly no more the proper forum for such challenging wordplay than would be a private conference with George W. Bush. You see, "nobody doesn't" means the same thing as "everybody does." Everybody does like Thad Jones. I thought I had that covered by also referring to him as a "fine trumpeter and composer," but apparently that is a significant shade of meaning apart from your phrase, "tremendous improviser." Now, my main question is: is the objection that I don't put Thad in the same class as Armstrong, Ellington or Tatum, or is the objection that I put Wynton in the same class with Thad? It's not clear to me what we're arguing about since we all say we like Thad. .................

 

Date:	22-Mar-2001 22:48:25
From:	Jo
	Let's move on,please.

 

Date:	27-Mar-2001 15:16:54
From:	Tim Givens (timothygivens@netzero.net)
	This Commentary has degenerated from intelligent comments to arguments over pastry ? I think the final word comes from the marketplace. All the Ken Burns JAZZ CDs seem to be on sale, and I've seen the companion book as low as 50% off list price, and markdowns on the video sets as well. Looks like Burns didn't win over the general public very well, and the apparently over-optimistic merchandisers will do well to break even. Let's just be glad jazz got some exposure, even if it was incomplete, uneven, and sometimes biased.

 

Date:	29-Mar-2001 11:13:35
From:	Joel Glassman
	Yes, I think it was somewhat flawed, in it's focus on the big names, and I would have liked more music and less sociology. These are the things which appeal to a public who are less "jazz-educated" though. It seems to have inspired quite a few friends/students/family members into following-up on the topic. This is great. One thing which disturbed me was the section on "other musicians who were drug addicts". Someone like Art Pepper gets mentioned only by name, and only in this context. I would have liked to have seen demonstrations of jazz styles by contemporary musicians, in a workshop setting. Have Ray Brown w/a trio show how bass styles evolved. Showing instead of endless talking... Aside from likes and dislikes, the show reminded me that I'm proud to be a part of this tradition of improvising. Also of the dedication (and costs paid) by people who have cared so much about it. --Joel

 

Date:	29-Mar-2001 11:20:53
From:	Joel Glassman
	By the way, Matt Glaser is Chairman of the Strings Department at Berklee College of music. He was on the soundtrack of the Civil War documentary.

 

Date:	29-Mar-2001 12:42:45
From:	nusouth
	This just out... March 17, 2001 Associated Press Recently appointed a United Nations "messenger of peace" by United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan, outspoken trumpeter/composer/gumbo chef Wynton Marsalis has decided to continue in the path of "peace: that has brought him this prestigious recognition. Like his fellow UN "messenger of peace" appointee, retired basketball superstar Magic Johnson, Marsalis will continue as an envoy promoting the global organization's agenda through his craft. Often steeped in controversy over his harsh comments regarding other musicians and artists, Marsalis claims those years are behind him. "Man, I be lookin' up on my mantel and what do I see? Mutha-fuckiní Pulitzer Prize, Grammys and now a Messenger of Peace Statue, ain't nobody gotta tell I'm bad," Marsalis scatted during a recent interview from his Park Avenue penthouse. "But I tell you this, if them free jazz niggas want to step up to bat, I'll give 'em a piece." In his first peaceful mission, Marsalis has extended an olive branch to pianist/composer Cecil Taylor. The only artist in the recent Ken Burns/Wynton Marsalis 10-part series Jazz to be directly ridiculed, Taylor has been lambasted amid the swarming controversy regarding the documentary's treatment of the last 50 years, in which Taylor played a large part. Critics of the series suggest that Burns owes Taylor a formal apology. However, Burns was unavailable for comment due to his tight schedule, working on his upcoming documentary on mayonnaise. So it's all up to Marsalis to make amends. "I felt like this man should get a chance since my brother [Branford] seems to like that [David S.] Ware fucker," Marsalis says. Ware, a former Taylor sideman who was recently evicted from his Bronx basement apartment, sees great promise in the Marsalis turnaround. "That's nice, but I'm still waiting on my check for those Columbia releases." As artistic director of Jazz at Lincoln Center (JLC), Marsalis has scheduled an extended series of Cecil Taylor concerts for the fall of 2001. "Bullshit, Complete Bullshit: 50 years of Cecil Tayor Music," a title inspired by Branford Marsalis' eloquent comment describing Cecil Taylor during the PBS 'Jazz' series, will span nearly eight weeks of concerts. Furthermore, "we plan to record all of it for release in a 50 CD box set and accompanying pop-up coffee table poetry book," Marsalis boasted. Noting the almost instantaneous collectors status given to Taylor's equally voluminous 1988 FMP boxed set, Marsalis plans to keep at least 40 copies himself for later sale on eBay. After the Taylor concerts, JLC will continue with a winter series paying tribute to Taylor sidemen including Andrew Cyrille, William Parker and Raphe Malik. "These muthafuckers can't play worth a goddamn, but since they're black I gotta send them a peaceful message from up here." Already in the late stages of scheduling, the Taylor concert series press release outlines the musicians that will be present to honor Taylor's "work." Scheduled are a series of piano duets with Marcus Roberts, Ellis Marsalis and Sir Roland Hanna. Also, small groups will perform, featuring a quartet with trombonist Ron Westray, bassist Reginal Veal, drummer/writer Stanley Crouch and Taylor. "We recognize Taylor's recent interest in his poetry/vocal improvisations so we are setting him up with some vocalists and poets for another series of duets," Marsalis said. "So far the list includes vocalists Cassandra Wilson and Wycliff Gordon, who does ìa better Pops than Pops did," Marsalis claims. Also on the schedule are a series of re-performances of the many great Cecil Taylor concerts captured on record, including the CafÈ Montremarte concerts from 1962, which will feature Jason Marsalis (drums) and Wessel Anderson (alto sax) sitting in for the deceased Jimmy Lyons and the unavailable Sunny Murray. "Stanley [Crouch] said Taylor made some decent records, so we thought we'd give the nigga some props," said Marsalis. "He's black, ain't he?" Marsalis will kick off the series with three nights of trumpet duets with Taylor featuring Marsalis himself, who plans to include piccolo and baritone trumpets for in his duets with Taylor. "[I] figured I'd need something to fuck around with if I'm gonna be on stage for two hours, with no pre-organized music and a crazy son of a bitch like him." The series with conclude with a huge commissioned Cecil Taylor work featuring the LCJ Orchestra, The Little Huey Creative Music Orchestra, The Sun Ra Arkestra, and the Count Basie Orchestra performing simultaneously with Taylor suspended from the Lincoln Center ceiling hovering over the performance on a kind of robotic arm. Stanely Crouch, providing evidence of his free jazz roots, claims Taylor is easily "300 years" of ahead of his time. "Man, when most cats were going 'shee-boop-wee-bop-skee-doop-wap,' he was going 'frp-brump-shroxt-plink-hupdt-bonk-tring.' And you know," Crouch continued, "most people couldn't understand that." Marsalis also alluded to his next adventurous outing tentatively scheduled for spring 2002 in which he'll cover the work of Anthony Braxton. Already scheduled for release this winter is Marsalis's "Standard Time Vol. 15: Mr. Honkey Wanna-Be" where Marsalis performs Braxton's seminal For Alto compositions on a specially designed contra-bass trumpet. When asked how far he's willing to take the series, Marsalis replied plaintively, "Fuck man, you know we got a lot of catchin up to do!"

 

Date:	05-Apr-2001 16:36:02
From:	Max DeLucas
	Scott: Peace man. I think we have the whole thing settled now. If you agree that Thad, while not in the same class, I concede, as Armstrong, Ellingon and the other dieties, bests Wynton (I concede the use of the phrase "tremendous improvisor" may have been slightly excessvie, but the bottom line is who would you rather hear blow on some changes, play a ballad, even (dare I say) compose for, arrange and lead a band and I think we have to agree that our team would choose Thad, not Wynton). If you agree, let's deep six the pastry. Besides, I like your politics.

 

Date:	15-Apr-2001 22:31:44
From:	Egyptian (commanderdesslock@earthlink.net)
	I think it was a mistake /not/ to include Kenny G. *waits for the shouting to die down* You may be reading that and you may feel Kenny G doesn't deserve to be compared with the greats of the genre. And in a way maybe you're right. But he's popular. People like him and they buy his records. He's getting his message across to his audience and entertaining people, which after all is what music is all about. You might argue that what he's doing isn't really jazz. Again, you might be right. Remind me what jazz is again? If you tried to make the case that he isn't popular enough to deserve inclusion you won't get far. Based on record sales he far outstrips almost anyone you could name. Would I have enjoyed seeing more about him in a documentary. Not really, his music does nothing for me. But I can't help but wonder if he was on a series that included luminaries like Coltrane, Armstrong, Ellington and so forth if more of his fans might have tuned in and been opened up to something they normally wouldn't have tried. Something to think about anyway.

 

Date:	18-Apr-2001 12:10:54
From:	Andreas
	Whatever, dude! The Backstreet Boys are very popular as well. Should they have been included too?

 

Date:	19-Apr-2001 21:55:17
From:	Max DeLucas
	And not a single solitary mention of Wayne Newton. I'm sick of jazz elitism. Wayne is the most popular performer in Vegas, the citadel of life itself. He brings more smiles to people's faces than Wynton does, that's for damn sure!

 

Date:	12-Jun-2001 11:44:44
From:	Tiki
	Ken Burns is the Wayne Newton of jazz and Wynton Marsalis is the Liberace - quite a pair.

 

Date:	13-Jun-2001 12:06:03
From:	Andreas
	I wish my brother George was here!

 

Date:	02-Jul-2001 14:24:23
From:	Saxophonus
	Likes: Great historical background on roots of jazz as well as cornocopia of beautiful photographs. This 41-year-old lifelong jazz mania/musician learned a lot of facinating new information. The most moving thing: the unbelievable unfairness that African American musicians managed to rise above to make this precious music as well as the price paid. Equally moving is the story of white musicians driven to the brink and beyond as the times did not allow them to play in public on a regular basis with their brothers/sisters/collegues of color. Heroic and tragic! Dislikes: Wynton Marsalis as the self-appointed "Savior of Jazz." While I share the man's passion for the history and splendor of the music, I cannot take his self-satisfied and smug attitude. Wake up, Wynton, jazz does exist after 1960! I often marvel at the way he happens to be listening in events that took place decades before his birth: "Duke Ellington says to himself....", etc. Often find myself either turning off the sound every time he opens his mouth, or yelling at the screen, "Shut up!" We get to the end of the show and Burns fawns over Marsalis as this "unbeleivable talent.." As a classical trumpeter, yes. He will always be a mediocre, cold, self satisfied jazz soloist who owes his career more to Columbia's A&R people and Daddy's connections rather than breathtaking talent. Has never had an original thought in his jazz careeer.

 

Date:	06-Jul-2001 12:56:35
From:	Dan Welty
	I agree with your last statement. He is medicore but at least he's that good, and that is an accomplishment especially considering the level of talent that it takes to be a great jazz musician. Marsalis the Medicore the King of Technique.

 

Date:	08-Jul-2001 15:03:50
From:	Kiki
	Hey, like Ken Burns is so last week. Now, don't get moldy . . .

 

Date:	09-Aug-2001 10:30:29
From:	Magnesium
	First off, what I liked: early jazz was covered well. I was annoyed with Wynton's pretentious "know-it-all" commentary, but I learned a lot from those first couple of episodes. However, the swing episodes kept emphasizing the popularity and fun of swing, to the point where I skipped the last episode on swing music to save my own sanity. Burns kept on talking about swing, Louis Armstrong, and Duke Ellington without addressing anything new about the music. Much, much time was wasted. Coverage of Bop left out Bud Powell except for a quick photo. Max Roach and Sonny Rollins were not interviewed, for reasons which must be beyond my comprehension. Clifford Brown got a token five minutes or so. Lee Konitz, Lennie Tristano, and Warne Marsh were pretty well ignored. As we get into the fifties and sixties, there was coverage of Miles, Trane, Ornette, and the Jazz Messengers, some of it quite good. Cecil Taylor's bit was pretty good, but Branford's analogy entirely misses the point of Cecil's comments about audiences preparing for his concerts (for those of you who watched, I don't think Cecil intends for people to practice polytonal arpeggios for a few hours before his concerts; just be ready to hear his music). But compared to the inane ramblings on Louis and Duke, it was pretty thin. Miles' great mid-60's quintet and Coltrane's post-LOVE SUPREME music were glossed over; Albert Ayler and Sun Ra were nowhere to be found; Mingus got a very, very short segment; Bill Evans was mentioned in regards to KIND OF BLUE, but was seen nowhere else. Ken Burns says that the last forty years of jazz music is too recent for his film to make any judgements on it. I don't think that's the case, but let's go with this anyhow. As much as I love Ayler, Braxton, Jarrett, etc., I wouldn't mind so much if Burns entirely left out post-1960 music, maybe left it as a mystery for potential new listeners to jazz. He would still have a lot of changes to make to the remainder. But the truncation at 1960 would have to mean NO judgements about the post-1960 music, which means Burns couldn't say that jazz died in 1970 (completely untrue; some of the greatest jazz albums ever were produced in that decade) or that Wynton Marsalis saved jazz around 1980 (also untrue, since it didn't need saving). I do think that an authoritative history on jazz after 1960 could be done, but I think waiting for that is better than a shoddy, untrue history today.

 

Date:	10-Aug-2001 12:35:25
From:	Al
	Well said, intelligent commentary. That's what these threads are supposed to be about. Thanks.

 

Date:	31-Aug-2001 14:04:53
From:	The Blowfish
	How many people who are jumping all over the Jazz film are actual musicans? I mean those calling Wynton a second rate player and better be able to bloodly well at least play a scale or something before opening their mouths! Calling Wynton second rate or boring is almost the dumbest thing I ever heard. Anyone who can play like that guy can deserves some level of respect. I thought the series was great. So Sun Ra and John Zorn didn't appear. Big deal. Find me a work of history that is complete, that does cope with every last person, nuance or quirk. It doesn't happen, because subjects as big as jazz or too big to contain in a single film or book. As for the focus on Pops and Duke, this is really a brilliant bit of story telling. As a full time journalist, I know how hard it is to distill a complex subject into something your everyday man can understand. What Burns did was to use Armstrong and Ellington as primary threads that connect all the different parts of the series together. Threads like that make a story easier to digest, and learn from, especially if you are learning something new. Plus, we all know that jazz after the 1960s, while some of it is very good (lots of it very, very bad) lost more of an already dwindling audience. Why? because so-called free jazz, while meaningful to the performer, just turns people off the music. For your average person, free jazz is just a bunch of noise, devoid of form, chords, melody, harmony, and so on. So if you're making a film about Jazz, from a practical point of view are you going to dwell on stuff most people hate? Partically when the jazz world can't even make up its mind about what the hell free jazz is. Finally I would say this. I've been playing trombone and trumpet, mostly in jazz bands, since I was 13. I'm almost 30 now and somewhere along the line life got in the way and I stopping playing about 5 years ago. Since watching Jazz, I've become excited about the music and starting playing again. If that is not a mark of success for that film, to excite someone to play the music, th

 

Date:	09-Sep-2001 17:49:07
From:	Tom
	I can't play basketball very well but I can't call some guy in the pros second rate? I think it's a compliment to call Marsalis second rate, he's certainly not first rate and by calling him second it does make him better than third rate. I'm further down the scale as a basketball player but hey I'm not a pro. And if you are a pro listening to some criticism now and again is part of the game - if you can't stand the heat simply get out of the kitchen. Marsalis certainly can dish out the criticism. I imagine he'll survive this thread.