Jazz - A Film by Ken Burns

The film is also potent in arguing that the history of race in the 20th-century U.S. is at jazz's heart. But a few problems arise. First is Burns's reliance on Wynton Marsalis as his chief musical commentator. Marsalis might be charming and musically expert, but he's no historian. For the film to devote three of its episodes to the 1930s, one expects a bit more historical substance. Also, Jazz condenses the period of 1961 to the present into one episode, glossing over some of the music's giant steps. Burns has said repeatedly that he didn't know much about jazz when he began this project. So perhaps Jazz, for all its glory, would better be called Jazz: What I've Learned Since I Started Listening (And I Haven't Gotten Much Past 1961). For those who are already passionate about jazz, the film will stoke debate (and some derision, together with some reluctant praise). But for everyone else, it will amaze and entertain and kindle a flame for some of the greatest music ever dreamed. --Andrew Bartlett

Description
The story, sound, and soul of a nation come together in the most American of art forms: Jazz. Ken Burns, who riveted the nation with The Civil War and Baseball, celebrates the music's soaring achievements, from its origins in blues and ragtime through swing, bebop, and fusion. Six years in the making, this "soundbreaking" series blends 75 interviews, more than 500 pieces of music, 2,400 still photographs, and over 2,000 rare and archival film clips. The 10-part musical journey spotlights many of America's most original, creative--and tragic--figures, including Louis Armstrong, Jelly Roll Morton, Duke Ellington, Benny Goodman, Billie Holiday, Charlie Parker, and Miles Davis.

Why buy the DVD? There is a minor amount of extra footage. More significantly, the program can be altered so that whenever a piece of music appears, one can display the discographical info. As such, one never has to wonder what they are listening to. Furthermore, the sharpness of the DVD video picture and clearness of the audio is a selling point, particularly when you're looking at vintage photos, videos, and audio that are often not in optimal condition. Plus, with the DVD you can watch the series at your own pace.

I might have thought beforehand that a series which takes six hours just to get to Armstrong/Hines' 1928 landmark recording WEST END BLUES might be a little too obsessive. Yet I remained riveted to the television screen as jazz's history unfolded, from Buddy Bolden to Cassandra Wilson. Jazz has a VERY compelling history on many levels--emotionally for one given the periodic mist in my eyes. I would have preferred a bit less commentary over the clips of jazz's great artists, but occasionally Burns does let the music speak for itself. I was impressed that we get to know a lot of the primary artists in a fair amount of detail. The likes of Armstrong and Ellington (but surprisingly not Miles Davis) are followed from the beginning to the end of their lives.

My first significant exposure to jazz was in the 1970s, and I believe that if this series has an achilles heel, it is that jazz's impact on contemporary popular music could have been examined, which would have provided younger generations a logical entry point that we can relate to, irregardless of our prior degree of exposure to jazz. Instead, the impression-by-omission left here is that jazz has virtually no ties to contemporary pop culture, which I strongly dispute. I think the majority of the viewers of this program are ultimately going to be those who reached adulthood in the 1970s or later, and there is so much that could have been exposed to these generations to indicate that jazz is not a museum piece, but has significant links to contemporary popular culture. For example, I hear a considerable jazz influence on artists as diverse as Stevie Wonder, Sade, various "acid jazz" artists (particularly in Japan--one of many indications of jazz's global influence), early Earth Wind & Fire, Joni Mitchell, Steely Dan, and countless others.

Many will compile their list of JAZZ's omissions (Toshiko Akiyoshi would lead mine). Yet even with these relatively minor quibbles, Ken Burns has done the music a great service with this project. I wouldn't be surprised if this series ignites a substantial increase in interest in the music by consumers who otherwise might have never given jazz music much thought.


It's Gumbo-riffic!   January 22, 2004
82 out of 104 found this review helpful

It's interesting that the majority of positive reviews, here and elsewhere, come from people who A) confess that they are relative newcomers to the music, and B) find space to take potshots at jazz "snobs" who don't like the series. Well, derogatory word or not, shouldn't a snob or elitist have a better idea of whether this film does justice to its subject?

Let's pretend that I don't know the first thing about the Kennedy assasination; in fact, let's say I didn't even know he was shot. Until I see Stone's JFK movie. And then when people who have explored the story for years start poking holes in Stone's account, I dismiss them as snobs. Or let's say I've watched Tammy and the T-Rex and I start going on about how realistic it is, and I shoot down any scientific or cinematographic objections as elitist party-pooping....

Look, this is not a great film, and the jazz-initiated needn't apologize for saying so. You've got a filmmaker who didn't know the slightest thing about the music when he started, and who relied heavily on the biased ear-whisperings of two of the most conservative, narrow jazz spokesmen you could find. If you want a lengthy bio of Louis Armstrong, it's here. If you want to learn about the Blues, you will. But if you want an in-depth look at what happens in bop, post-bop, free jazz, and early fusion, you won't learn much, if anything. You may walk away thinking that Elvin Jones played on Giant Steps, that Cecil Taylor was a charlatan, that "Hello Dolly" is more worthy of discussion than any of the high water marks of the 1960s, that there was only one true jazz record released in the 1970s. I mean, the more I think about this, the worse it gets. There is no shortage of critical reviews on the web (try the All About Jazz site for a start) that bring numerous valid complaints to the table, and the viewer is encouraged to find them and think about what they say.

The point of my review here is to steer away any newcomers until they can approach this series with a critical eye. Find a "snob" friend, express your genuine interest in the music, and most likely this friend will be happy to get you started with certain recordings and specific explanations as to what's going on in the music. Read Martin Williams' book the Jazz Tradition. Check out the All Music Guide to Jazz. Check out Milestones by Jack Chambers. Go to clubs, hear the music in the moment. Learn something about music theory and try to get behind the thought processes of the men and women who made this music and continue to do so. Keep your ears and mind open. After a while, you might check out this series and realize how certain authorities keep their minds closed.

When asked in interviews why this series covered the last 40 years of jazz in the space of two hours (!!!), and why so many significant musicians were left out, Ken Burns would reply, "name anyone in the last 40 years who was as big as Louis or Duke." You know, turning the tables on the interviewer like he had the slightest idea who belonged where in the canon. This rehearsed line from Burns and his interviews in general cemented the deal for me. He came off as someone who had had the first act of Hamlet explained to him but had never bothered to read the rest of the play, if you follow my analogy. And then he goes off to teach a course in Shakespeare.

The star is for the production values.


truly excellent   December 12, 2000
Randolph Dudley (Atlanta, GA USA)
76 out of 93 found this review helpful

Having been fortunate enough to be the interactive designer who worked on this particular DVD (the DVD, not the film), I can only say that this documentary is truly excellent. While I already had some interest in jazz, watching this film opened up plenty of new doors and really brought the history of this American music to life for me. Jazz is exciting to watch, informative, and completely engaging, and I would recommend it to anyone who had even a passing interest in jazz music. It's been a great honor for me to have had a part in bringing this great film to DVD. Don't pass this one by.


Less Gushing, Less Marsalis, More Exposition   January 11, 2001
41 out of 56 found this review helpful

The documentary is very good and, for those willing to clock the hours, as good an introduction to the subject as there is. It's a natural multimedia candidate, and the creators have risen to the occasion admirably.

The problem I have with Jazz is its omnipresent and thick layer of fawning. The superlatives and hyperbole cancel each other out after a certain point, and at that point, description becomes meaningless. Louis Armstrong was "sent from Heaven to make people happy." Ah, whatever. Those kinds of statements are very much the expositional norm, and they eat into time that could be better used for analysis and explanation. Duke Ellington: America's greatest composer. These epithets would be less objectionable if they were followed up by something substantive, by the kinds of examples high school students are taught to use in term papers, but they're not. Neophytes and dedicated fans alike would be better served with critical analysis and not an extended press release for what some think is a dead genre. Indeed, it's as if Burns and company are doing PR for Jazz itself. And I, for one, would respond better to an editorial than to advertising.

Isn't that odd, when you think about it? A documentary that substitutes superlatives and hyperbole for critical analysis? And it's not as if we're getting "just the facts." Those presenting the facts are very, very biased and have a collective career interest in promoting the mystique and mythology of Jazz.

A corollary of this first complaint has to do with Burns's over-reliance on Wynton Marsalis for commentary. Marsalis's presence here is nothing less than tedious. It gets real tired real fast. And Marsalis is another gusher. He gushes about every single figure in the history of jazz. Nobody has any shortcomings and jazz is nothing less than "procreation." That's all well and good, but Marilyn Manson fans probably say the same thing about his collected works.

When I think of all the musicians who were excluded from this canon-affirming summation -- Bill Evans comes to mind -- the extent to which Burns lets Marsalis and company have free reign really rankles.


Distorted View of Jazz Creates a Flawed & Offensive View   October 1, 2001
37 out of 71 found this review helpful

I caught most of this series when it was broadcast on TV here in the UK. I have to say that as a jazz afficianado I find this a deeply ill-informed and misleading production which is blinkered to many of the key messages in jazz. Ken Burns clearly has a very narrow view of what jazz is. While everybody is entitled to have their own perspective on what is, after all, a very wide genre of music the documentary maker with such a broad canvas should not be fogiven for producing such a misleading and downright wrong view of their subject. Here are some of Mr Burns cardinal sins:

1. This series moves up until the start of the 1960's just when jazz was due to enter it's most creative period. This is a little like giving a history of classical music and stopping at the end of the Baroque era thereby leaving out Mozart, Beethoven et al. This is totally ignorant and misleading and suggests that jazz "stopped" in 1961 when in fact it was just getting started...
2. The series is deeply racist in that it portrays jazz almost as an exclusively black experience. This seems to be the central thesis. While many of it's greatest early exponents were black there is little appreciation of the basis for jazz in the folk and popular idioms of the US and Europe, created by generations of white musicians. An analysis of the greatest jazz musicians of our current era reveals it to be an open arena for Blacks, Whites and Hispanics - all important contributors. Maybe this is the reason for Burns' stopping at the 1960's as his central theme of jazz being the exclusive arena of black people looks even shakier after this period. I find this racist view simplistic, patronising, offensive and deeply ignorant. Here is a production with a major axe to grind - beware!
3. Why all the reliance on Wynton Marsalis? Do people who like jazz actually listen to this guy? I certainly don't even though I recognise him as a fine trumpeter. How he has managed to set himself up as Mr Jazz is really rather bizarre as he has very little in common with any of the great jazz musicians, past or present. He is a preserver of jazz, not a creator; a curator in the art gallery of jazz, not the Picasso or the Pollock. Why weren't more significant jazz musicians consulted?
4. Jazz before the 1960's was great music at the time and in many ways was creative but as it has since grown in subtlety and complexity as well as all-round creativity, pre-1960's jazz now looks pretty pale by comparison with more recent jazz. While there are those who do still listen to Louis Armstrong, Duke Ellington, Dizzy Gillespie and other luminaries from jazz's formative years the majority of jazz followers are looking at newer musicians and styles. That is the essence of jazz; it's creative, always trying to move forward, find new ways of expressing, looking for a new vocabulary. Let's hear more about what jazz IS not what it WAS.

All in all, then a major two thumbs down from me, a deeply ignorant and offensive production by someone who clearly has poor taste and a rather questionable agenda. If you are interested in finding out about the great musical genre called jazz and what it really is don't go down this route. Here's a better suggestion: go to some of the Amazon recommended lists and do your own research. Two things are sure - you'll save yourself $... and you'll end up with far more interesting and relevant music.