This One's For Sisco

[Jimmy Cantiello]

A while back, on the infamous Crouch thread, my friend Gary and I got into a little disagreement about a thread I remembered where he and HL Jones got into a little bit of an "exchange" due to a misunderstanding. At the time of the Crouch thread both Gary and HL swore that no such exchange took place and Gary insisted that I offer proof. Well, I finally dug up the thread that I remembered from way back. It took awhile because I had to trudge through almost 3900 threads to hopefully stumble upon what I remembered. As dumb luck would have it, I did just that. No surprise that it was a Wynton Marsalis thread (Ken Burns Documentary). Below is the exchange between the two. As I originally said, it wasn't a big deal and Gary was totally innocent and didn't threaten HL but HL seemed like he was ready to do battle. I'm glad that my memory was basically intact and I didn't imagine this small but, to me, memorable incident.

Hayward Jones


Sisco my friend,
Since you called me out you must feel that you are one of those jazz experts I was talking about.Damn man you are good mind reading all the way to The Hood.I guess you used those same psychic powers to see a program that has not been shown yet. If the powers that be thought Burn's program was that whack they wouldn't have put big bucks behind it.Man this is America cats who got money ain't going to put cash down without getting paid back large.If you got skills somebody will recognize.Spkie had a idea and a credit card made "She's Got to Have It" and somebody recognize he didn't have to wait around for so called access.Now since you have already looked into the future you don't have to watch the show you can spend that time developing your own and maybe like Spike somebody might recognize.Sisco my friend be careful when you call me out if I don't mention you by name.Peace and all that.
Old Post 11-15-2000 02:48 PM
Booker Brown


I recently scanned many of the posts here and I can understand the stance taken by many of you. It IS arrogant to suggest that jazz is an art form that essentially died post 1960. Perhaps if Ken Burns had put the damn thing in context there wouldn't be a need for 340+ postings of grief. He should have called the documentary "Jazz - From it's Beginnings through 1960" or something to that effect. This would give him or someone worthy an opportunity to do another 20 hour's, this time a post 1960's sequel.
Old Post 11-15-2000 03:27 PM
steve(thelil)


There may have been enough errors in "Baseball" to make Steve R's stomach turn (now there's an image), but I thought it was essentially VERY informative and wonderfully entertaining.

One wonders of the concept of "entertaining" as a legitimate end itself is as foreign to him with respect to documentaries as it is with respect to music.

(Unable to resist the cheap shot, and immaturely proud of it, baby)
Old Post 11-15-2000 03:38 PM
Chris A


Strictly speaking, documentaries are so called because they document fact. It is one thing to make factual errors, quite another to do so deliberately. Burns' path is clear when he consults the self-appointed Lincoln Center gang over some of the many musicians who are still around and have not only actual first-hand experience but also the knowledge only years can give you. PBS or not, this is strictly a commercial venture--let's bear that in mind.
Old Post 11-15-2000 06:07 PM
Heraclitus


This web link might be of interest to those following this discussion. (Apologies in advance if it has already been
mentioned here.}

http://www.public.iastate.edu/~kortbein/musicnotes/burns.html
Old Post 11-15-2000 09:23 PM
Gary Sisco


<>

HL -- You can't be serious. They put mad bucks behind wack television 24-7. And I have only commented on *what Ken Burns has actually said* about his film, and about the CD box songlist, which I have actually seen. So if you have a problem, my man, you need to talk to Burns about it. Until then, I will feel free to comment on statements that are a part of the public record for anyone in the US who is willing to read and who is interested in the subject of jazz.

Everyone -- I know I said I'd bow out, but I can't help asking the following question. If the goal is to expand jazz's audience in America, presumably they ought to find out sometime during the movie what jazz actually sounds like, as it doesn't sound today like it sounded in the periods covered by the film. But, look what is *not* covered in the film, according to the same DB which HL can read and so can the rest of us, if we choose: No mention of Blue Note *at all* in the 60s. Nothing at all about Weather Report, Sun Ra, the Loft Scene, the Downtown scene, or soul jazz. Nothing at all!

Now, I submit to you that the jazz of today and in fact of the last thirty years or more -- *including HRM's own music*, I might add -- simply cannot be understood without reference to that period of Blue Note and Miles's 2nd Quintet, never mind the rest of that extraordinary list of what is *not mentioned* in a 19-hour documentary.

Never mind "free jazz," how can you even discuss the so-called young lions and retroboppers without reference to Blue Note and Miles' 2nd Quintet? For Jah sake, man! Between those two things, that's 85% of what the entire young lion ting combined ever had to say. In fact it's 100% of what most of that movement had to say.

At least the moldy figs of yore *mentioned* bebop when denouncing it or rebelling against it.

This is an air brush that would take the breath away from a Stalinist.
Old Post 11-16-2000 09:39 AM
shrugs


the Ken Burns box sets are selling like hot cakes over at e-bay.
Old Post 11-16-2000 02:53 PM
bobetterblues


I've been working in documentary television for over four years, researching and producing, mostly for the History Channel and A&E, and I can say that it is very hard to please the experts on any show that I've ever worked on. You guys should hear the bickering of the Civil War enthusiasts! Now there are some critics!

I will say two things: Burns is an independent film maker who recieves grants in the millions from all over the place to make his films......he's really the only one out there doing it this way. So it is sad that we have ONE GUY with the freedom and resources to do these comprehensive takes on Baseball, jazz, and the Real West, etc.......The music licensing alone is an enourmous expense that only he could afford. I don't think we would all be in such a tiffy if there was more than one voice out there doing this kind of stuff....

That said, it is unfortunate that Burns has consulted a very conservative and stiff crowd for this huge project....BUT there will be some very cool things throughout this documentary. THe visuals will be top notch and the social and historical contexts, will be new and refreshing.

Its too bad that he doesn't consult the experts in "Fact-checking" at least. I know from first hand experience that it is very hard to get one expert to agree with another the majority of the time and that's maybe why he avoids them, but in terms of being accurate, you can't go without them.....hence the reason for his glaring mistakes, which have been consistent in almost everything he's done.

I'm going to watch it and will cringe when they leave out the obvious and love it when I see a picture of Bird eating some grub with Dizzy but, I'll remember in the back of my mind that this stuff is not easy and NOBODY can please everyone, especially when it comes to the history of jazz.

Old Post 11-16-2000 03:17 PM
Jasontis


All this chatter reminds me that I was working at WGBH at the time it produced its Rock & Roll series a few years ago. The "expert" was Robert Palmer (the late writer, not the palefaced singer) and no one can argue his credentials. Still, while the series was widely praised among critics and viewers, there were many people who wanted to know why their favorites got short shrift. My friends, in particular, wanted to know why progressive rock was completely ignored (as though there was anything I could do about it). Personally, I felt the near-total exclusion of Buddy Holly was pure heresy but taking the project as a whole, I was proud to be associated with the station that birthed it.

Similarly, I think the easiest thing in the world is to take potshots at someone else's mammoth undertaking. Put yourself in Burns' shoes; even if you made different editorial decisions the project would still be a bear.

I agree wholeheartedly with bobetterblues that, while I admire Burns, it is a shame that he is virtually the only documentary filmmaker in America who can name his project and his price and get what he wants without selling his soul or compromising his concept. There are many talented non-fiction filmmakers (mostly on PBS, and most of them working on WGBH series like The American Experience and Frontline), but Burns is the only one to have had such commercial success that he is able to pay back his grants (which is why the money comes so freely to him). For other documentary projects, funding is almost purely philanthropic, which only extends so far. In general, Burns' success has helped other documentary filmmakers in that there is more public interest in them than there used to be, but so long as millions more people tune in to crap like Survivor than Frontline it will remain difficult.
Old Post 11-16-2000 03:59 PM
stuckinagrooove


>>the Ken Burns box sets are selling like hot cakes over at e-bay.<<<

mmmmmm...hot cakes.

Old Post 11-16-2000 04:01 PM
Hayward Jones


Sisco my friend,
You can comment on anything you want makes me no difference.In my first post I didn't mention your name you took it apon yourself to call me out.In the hood that I live in I'm careful if I Call a Man out because I might have to defend that call out be any means nesscery. Don't want none don't start none.I read the DB article I have no problem with it if you do don't watch it.Peace and all that.
Old Post 11-16-2000 08:28 PM
Gary Sisco


Such mellodrama. Try unplugging the pay-per-view. I'm glad, however, that you have no problem with my saying what I like. I'll remember to ask if it's okay again next time I feel like saying something, boss.

Jasontis -- I would agree with you if it were a matter of simply leaving out one favorite or another. That is hardly the same thing as leaving out entire periods of history in the music *on purpose.* If, as someone suggested above, the film were billed as, say, Jazz's First Half Century or something, I'd be interested in a lukewarm sort of fashion, in much the same way I've reacted to his other films. Unfortunately, it is being billed as The History Of Jazz. In fact as Jazz per se. And that it is not. I don't see how any serious discussion of jazz can take place that purposefully leaves out Blue Note's 60s output. Come on. Why not a history of America's 20th Century that leaves out WW2? Or a history of American In The 60s that leaves out both the civil rights movement and Vietnam?

Another question: Which is the elitist position: Americans are capable of understanding musical developments in jazz since the 50s. Americans are not capable of understanding musical developments in jazz since the 50s, so better not to deal with it as it's too complicated or controversial. ?

[Jimmy Cantiello]

Here's the entire thread. Lots of amusing stuff in it......

http://www.jazzcornertalk.com/speake...p?forumid=2740

[stonemonkts]

Hahahaha...this is a good one:

Jazzooo-Anyone want to try an experiment?

Outline the history of jazz and list the artists you think should be mentioned.

Everyone else, think of all the people you would have mentioned who didn't get mentioned.

Then multiply that number by 90% of all jazz fans who came into jazz one year before or after you did.

Reply from steve(thelil)- Too hard.

Try this. Divide my IQ by the number of hands I have up my butt. Then subtract the total from 50. Then subtract the number of times I've posted about posting with both hands up my butt (a clue towards an earlier component.)

The answer should still be greater than 4.

[Dr Dave]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Cantiello

Here's the entire thread. Lots of amusing stuff in it......

http://www.jazzcornertalk.com/speake...p?forumid=2740

Thanks, Jimmy. A lot of blather, but some entertaining stuff also. I particularly enjoyed the cameo from Matt Glaser, and his comment on the commentary:

"I'm disturbed by the level of vitriol that is rampant in the jazz community. It really has the feeling of people standing around in a circle shooting at one another."

Of course, the best part is that this long, long diatribe peters out into a discussion of gumbo.

[Gary Sisco]

Thanks for your archaeology work, Jimmy. I knew that I'd never threatened HL because I happen to like the guy and we've been online friends, here and in private exchanges, for years, now. He's another JCer I hope to meet one of these days, maybe when we move south.

Anyway, now that that's settled, let's return to our regularly scheduled broadcast ....

[Jimmy Cantiello]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

I knew that I'd never threatened HL because I happen to like the guy and we've been online friends, here and in private exchanges, for years, now.

And if you go back to the Crouch thread you'll see that's what I originally said, my friend. Except for one guy, who shall remain nameless, I've never known you to threaten anyone. Anyway, I accept your apology.......................

[Gary Sisco]

Alright, then.

And now to give the horses some out time before a predicted nor'easter blows through, threatening 70 mph gusts, this here contraption's weather site predicts. Damn. Guarantees yet another power outage. Just had one the other day for 16 hours.