 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Bob Sparkman
Date: 2001-02-02 17:03
Now that the PBS/Ken Burns Jazz series has aired, is anyone else as bitterly disappointed as me?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Cass
Date: 2001-02-02 18:47
I don't know about "bitterly", but I'm disppointed. Well, my impression was the series wasn't made for real music fans. It was lowest common denominator. They kind of skimmed the surface and left out Latino artists almost totally. It bothered me that they minimized how much black and white jazz musicians cooperated and worked together long before people were doing that in the rest of society. Burns seemed to have the "accentuate the negative" attitude about the racial angle. There were plenty of problems that he was right to talk about IMHO, but between the musicians there were more good things going on than he says. (A lot of the worst problems were with artistic management and audiences, not between the jazz musicians themselves. Most of that "white men stealing the black men's music" thing was the fault of racist promoters and halls that insisted on segregating everybody, IMHO. Pretty stupid., but it wasn't coming from the musicians. So it was like sibling rivalry when the "parents" really are unfair and do favor one over the other.) Jazz and baseball were leading the way. Burns could have shown longer clips, I thought. I would have liked to hear a whole song once in a while, not these chopped up bits with too much of the announcer blabbering. The voiceovers started really annoying me during the music. It was like sitting in a rude audience. Let the music talk more!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bill F.
Date: 2001-02-02 18:51
I thought a number of things were curious. Artie Shaw never mentioned Goodman (but did discuss practically everyone else). Glenn Miller was unfairly dismissed. And the whole thing came off as a sort of dissertation on Louis Armstrong. The bits about Charlie Parker were pretty well done, I thought. One small but personal note: my partner knows the blonde who got up an danced at the Ellington Newport Festival. I loved the series but, yes, I was ultimately frustrated and disappointed. No Giuffre, no Pee Wee, No Tony Scott. HELLO!?!?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2001-02-02 19:14
Ken Burns is known for his sociological approach to his subjects (including the Civil War series), so I wasn't expecting a musical series but a "jazz as it affected society" series, and in that I wasn't disappointed. It wasn't meant as a "history of jazz" series, even though an awful lot of the advertising tried to play up that aspect.
I wish there <b>was</b> a "history of jazz" series, with the "who did what and how were they copied & modified" (more along the geneological lines) along with the geographical and social reasons why some areas had different types of jazz.
But no one's made that one yet, and someone else'd be complaining that they'd left a lot of other issues out 8^)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Robert Small
Date: 2001-02-02 19:31
I agree with Cass that the practically non-stop gab got pretty irritating at times but still the series was worth seeing.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Arney
Date: 2001-02-02 20:57
What really came home to me were the many lives wrecked and God given talent squandered through the use of drugs. If only our kids (and our adult population) take that message away with them, then the series was well worth it.
Bob A
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: J dowd
Date: 2001-02-02 22:28
In most of the newspapers prior to program presentation, Ken Burns made it pretty clear to interested viewers that his documentary would have many jazz "affecianatos" taking issue with him. He said that the program was aimed primarily for the lay person and his goal was to have people with very limited knowledge of the subject matter able to appreciate jazz and follow the general history (however narrow) of the art form. Ken Burns even explained in several newspaper articles that he was actually a Rock and Rock lover until recently!! I
could see how he follows similar styles in many of his documentaries (chronological formats plugging main heros, etc) I guess one has to do "what it takes " to get the message out even if it offends the experts. At least he provided many people who didn't have a "clue" what jazz even meant some continuity and substance to the matter. For what that's worth.......
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tootleman
Date: 2001-02-03 01:51
I enjoyed the series, but I recognize its limitations. I understand that distilling all of jazz into 10 shows necessarily limited what could be included, but I think he missed something by not including the effects that jazz, in the form of Bob Wills' "Texas swing," had on the development of country music.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: bob gardner
Date: 2001-02-03 02:44
i agree with bob's comments about the drugs and booze. However the same thing is happening with todays rock stars etc. History tells us that not much is ever new. We keep doing the same dumb things over and over.
Peace
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: jbutler
Date: 2001-02-03 03:04
I enjoyed the series for what it was. I wish that Leonard Feather had done something like this. Ken Burns did make a sociological statement with the series and I think that he had a right to do that if he wished. I was more disappointed with the last installment. It seemed like he was bored with it all and just wanted to finish it. There has been a lot happening in jazz the last twenty years and he just glossed over it in order to finish the series. He probably could have done better with adding another session, but perhaps production money was an issue that would not allow it. I believe it was informative as an introduction to jazz, beyond that it doesn't begin to tell the whole story....but who could.... it is such a complex idiom. I agree that a lot of greats were not mentioned or glossed over. I don't know if that was a racial thing with Burns or not.
John
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2001-02-03 14:38
A fine set of comments above on a very difficult-to-present, large-magnitude, historical "survey" . It answered many questions I have had over the years re: what really happened with and to a goodly number of the prominent musicians, before, during and after my own minimal jazz career. I too had reservations, on chronology etc, as you-all have expressed, but concluded Burns etc worked at separating "true Jazz" [highly innovative, "free" music] from the more-"commercial" forms which appeal to nearly all audiences-dancers. I hope there may be some follow-up as there is still life in jazz!! Just my thots! Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Sparkman
Date: 2001-02-03 15:49
Very pertinent comments. The thing that bugged me most was a complete ignoring of the traditional revival which took place in the 1940s as the Bebop revolution hit. Wether the reason was oversight, artistic selection, or sociological analyisis, it failed to note the second careers it gave many older jazzmen who had been prematurely discarded, many at the very height of their musical prowess. I particularly recall Herman Autrey, the superb trumpet player who appears on about 90% of the great Fats Waller recordings, paying inspired jazz at a midtown NYC club in the mid 70's; but he was just one of a legion of such great players. And to ignore the British "Trad" scene which poduced some marvelous jazz is hard to understand. Thank God the recordings are there for the proof of the oversight, and so enjoyable.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken
Date: 2001-02-03 16:13
Tough crowd as usual. Many valid points/issues raised here from the "geek" side of the house...it takes one to know one. As for me, watching the series and trying my best take it at face value, I enjoyed it thoroughly, found it very entertaining and educational as well as musically rewarding. There were a number of old clips, artist interviews and biographical information I never knew about. As a 25+ year performer and student of jazz the most important thing for me was I LEARNED something and came away jazz-smarter and with a much deeper appreciation for the people and idiom I love and devoted my professional life to.
I also had a few problems with it, being a traditionalist/dixieland enthusiast I felt Burns could've devoted more time retrospecting earlier & influential founders such as Jelly Roll Morton, Jack Teagarden and Fats Waller. His coverage of the 40's swing era and Glenn Miller's career/contribution were disappointing. However, I felt the spots with Wynton were brilliant, particularly where he explained how trumpeters improvise, create their musical ideas and solveged-it-out. Another personal highlight, was that I was able share the series with my 17 and 13-year old sons. As young musicians, they were riveted to the TV, inspired by the music and shocked at the demeaning social atmosphere and prejudices of the times. I had the most fun as I was able to interject my own stories, knowledge and experience on many subjects, artists and tunes as we watched. It was a good-spirited non-stop, healthy exchange of ideas that brought us closer together as a family. Isn't music WONDERFUL!!!??? Overall, a big thumbs up from me! We need more series like this to perpetuate and spread the good word on the universal art form known as jazz. <:-)))
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2001-02-03 16:14
J B's mention of Leonard Feather's writings on Jazz caused me to look in our "archives" [a fair sized library of many subjects] , haven't located Feather but did find an old "The Jazz Word" p-b with short chapters by many players, and "Jazz" by Langston Hughes. I recall our good local library has a lot for research and recommend pursuit of this fine subject. Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: R Hurlburt
Date: 2001-02-03 17:51
The series was very poorly done. Too much emphasis on the era of 1945 up. As much as I admire Ellington and Armstrong, there was too much repetition of them in each episode. The only commentator who in my mind had a legit right to be there was Artie Shaw. Very disappointed that there was very little about Fats Waller and Nothing about Django Reinhardt, not enough about great clarinet players. Too much Sax and trumpet at the expense of other instruments. After seeing this series too many lay people will now think that they are "experts" in jazz.....
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Sparkman
Date: 2001-02-03 18:52
Hey Richard !!! Good to see you on line! I pretty much agree with your comments, with the added observation that Artie Shaw's remarks were among the best of the whole series. My respect for him has increased immeasurably, especially after hearing him say Bix & Tram were his ear openers! And his music, and Benny's, was among the best played. But, not only did they short change Fats, the glowing words for Teddy Wilson were not matched by the amount of his music played. However, early on they did play the B.G. Trio "Body And Soul" a number of times, and Teddy and Benny both "masterpieced" the tune forever in that recording. Can't complain about too much Louis, tho' Marsalis' comments were very overcooked, to put it mildly. He should listen to his brother (Wynton) in the words department. Wynton's far hipper. Keep swingin' !!!! Regards. Bob
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: larryb
Date: 2001-02-05 15:48
I agree with most of the above comments about Ken Burns Jazz. What really scares me, though, is how often I've read reviews that insist that this series will be in schools and libraries for years to come and serve as the historical record of jazz. In fact, the series was nice to look at and hear, but incredibly inaccurate historically. The best it can do is whet people's appetite for the great music, and hopefully they'll dig deeper on their own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2001-02-05 21:19
I'm intrigued by your comment that it was historically inaccurate, especially considering Ken Burns' reputation as a researcher and historian. Where exactly did he err, or were there areas where historians disagree and he didn't present the conflicting opinion? Or is it the viewpoint that you are having problems with?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: charles
Date: 2001-02-07 02:08
ken burns is not an expert on jazz nor does it profess it. It is impossible to mention all the great jazzmen in 19 hours. Also we lack the footage. Garry Giddins is a wonderful and talented writer on jazz and I appreciated his input. the show was intended for the general public and not for jazz fans and in this respect the show was a success.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Joe Spencer
Date: 2001-02-07 15:55
I had to join the fray on this.
My main issue with Burns was the overall approach (often implied) that jazz was a progressive evolution with each new development rendering the previous style less valuable. I think that is why he paid little attention to the West Coast revival--because folks like Marsalis view current traditional jazz bands as retrograde, copyists, etc. The fact is that older styles of jazz can continue to inspire new musicians, and that they regularly play ENTERTAINING music at clubs, festivals, and some do so in a way that is tremendously creative.
Also, while impossible to cover everyone, it is important to note that in every period, you had many innovators and talented players. Thus, for example, while no one questions Armstrong's pre-eminence, you miss something if you don't appreciate the whole range of 20's trumpet players--Charlie Creath, Jabbo Smith, Red Allen, Joe Smith, as well as Red Nicholls and Bix.
Finally, I agree it was wrong to slight jazz since the sixties--for two reasons. First, because the omission reflected Wynton's bias against free jazz, and second because it actively tried to convey the impression that the fall-off in the popularity of jazz was due to the intrinsic quality (and supposedley unapproachability) of free jazz. The last segment should have explored the impact of sociological factors (such as TV) in turning jazz into a recorded and concert/festival music focusing on stars, and away from a club-based grass roots music. This trend has hurt many types of musics and warranted attention.
IMHO.
Joe Spencer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Sparkman
Date: 2001-02-07 20:33
Hi Joe -- I think you have articulated the essence of what important was missing better than all of us. The presumtion that each development invalidates what precedes it reflects one of the negative trade-offs in modern culture and society. And worse than that is the judgement that what sells is best. That's not even a sound theory for a business, though you'd never know it by today's business standards, as witnessed by the business end of music. Firestone's calamity reminds me of MTV.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
