Jazz - A Film by Ken Burns | Charles J. Correll, Freeman F. Gosden

Jazz - A Film by Ken Burns | Charles J. Correll, Freeman F. Gosden | Nice Smile With a Missing Tooth!

vhs video:

Jazz - A Film by K...

	Jazz - A Film by Ken Burns Charles J. Correll, Freeman F. Gosden Pbs Home Video, 2001 average customer review:based on 147 reviews view larger image
	for more information click here

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.

for more information click here

It's not perfect, but its pretty much all we have

I will admit that this series has its shortcomings, however no one else has even attempted to produce anything better. I'm no great lover of Ken Burns, but he did at least attempt to bring the history of Jazz to the masses in some form or another. It's not perfect by any means, but if it can spur the interest of even one person to delve into the music itself then the doc and Burns have done their job. To all the naysayer's I propose that you shut your traps unless you yourselves are planning to raise the money, do the research, conduct the interviews, edit the material and produce a "more definitive" documentary on the history of America's only original art form? And to those morons that claim that this doc is somehow "racist" towards whites, you should all just shut the f*** up!

for more information click here

Nice Smile With a Missing Tooth!

The greatest compliment to this series is that it has created a torrent of discussion and the debates are still raging. I enjoy this series so much, I watch it nearly every year.

My critique has been discussed at length, so I summarize this way:

I appreciate Wynton Marsalis' discussion of the jazz with which he is familiar. This does not qualify Wynton Marsalis to decide, for everyone else, what constitutes jazz when the question of "fusion" comes up.

Much of fusion, both then and now, is largely rhythm section dominated (electric bass, drums, guitar and keys). Therefore, it may have been difficult for a Marsalis, a horn player, to appreciate.

Why refer to Marsalis and not Burns? Because nearly all of Burns' analysis depends upon the viewpoint of Wynton Marsalis.

Fusion (I call it "hard fusion") is not that difficult to document nor define, but Burns exits the discussion altogether when the subject of fusion is mentioned. Perhaps Ken Burns did not want Chick Corea, Joe Zawinul, Al DiMeola, John McLaughlin, Billy Cobham or Stanley Clarke to have the last word on how Fusion helped to keep the creative juices of jazz flowing.

Not all of fusion is rhythm instruments, however. A case could have been made for tenor sax player, Michael Brecker (RIP), who appeared regularly on many of fusion's finest releases including his own group, Steps Ahead. Brecker went on to produce outstanding post-bop jazz and could very likely have credited fusion for the role that it may have played in his developmental journey.

Instead we get a conspicuous argument from silence on the matter.

By the time Jazz went to the presses, classic fusion had already been established as a part of the story whether the Marsalis brothers approved it or not.

Ken Burns Jazz, without an attempt to account for fusion, is like a very pretty smile with a missing front tooth.

for more information click here

Ken Burns didn't S#@8 about jazz when he did this and it shows

My main issue is that Wynton suggested after seeing Civil Wars and Baseball that Burns should do a series about the only truly American art for that being Jazz (or black music from field hollers to blues etc).Wynton is sort of neo-con about jazz and I am not into totally free jazz or commercial fusion or jazz light.I agree that the innovations after 1964 into atonal free jazz or more akin to avant garde classical like Schoeneberg or Cage.But when covering be-bop into the important "New Thing" that fit politics and culture of time iot was like "Coltrane and Miles had gone into modal jazz but newer ,younger players started an avant garde "New Thing....but wait in 1964 Louis Armstrong had his last big hit with "Hello Dolly".All of the critics were referred to Burns by Marsallis or the themes and emphasis were his own as Burns didn't know what to do but photo research.You've heard this I am sure but in case you haven't there it is.I think Armstrong (and actually Bechet before him to lesser degree) revolutionized everything with the solo in jazz and he and Ellington then Bird and Diz,Monk,and Miles and Trane were the main figures.But jazz is so rich from post beatles avante-garde,the Loft Scene,European players and critics that for as long as it was many voices were left out and that's a shame.
Peace
Chazz

for more information click here