Last night after the first part of the excellent PBS documentary on Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton PBS filled up the remaining 25 minutes of the hour with stuff about Ken Burns and the documentary. The last ten minutes were a preview of Burns' "Jazz" which is scheduled for fall of 2000.

It looks like another Marsalis hype job is in the works. Burns'projects a "Gee whiz" attitude when speaking about Whynnie - "He mimicked the whole Basie band, Sweets Edison, the trombone section. . ." Oh boy, oh boy, oh boy!

I hope the documentary turns out to be an honest attempt at demonstrating our great music and not just another Crouch/Marsalis propaganda job.

Let's see how they treat Brubeck, Kenton, West Coast jazz, Archie Shepp, Charles Mingus, Eric Dolphy, Ornette Coleman and (fill in the blanks.)

But if they achieve the same results they did with the "Civil War," "Lewis and Clark" or Anthony and Stanton and not the borefest that was "Baseball," my reservations will be answered.

I work for a PBS station, and I fear what this may hold.

I wonder if JOLLY JOE MANERI will be profiled.

He may not photograph too well.

In fact it would be impossible to tell whether he's WALKIN' or ROLLIN'.......unless he wears a hat.
Unhook'em

DEEP

A friend of mine is a consultant to Burns on this thing. He said that one of the problems they had in conceptualizing the show was Burns' tendency to want to structure things for their dramatic value, sacrificing accuracy. Thus, he wanted to posit Ornette as the great revolutionary figure whose influence was paramount on the free jazz scene. All well and good, except those supposedly under this influence included Mingus, Taylor, Coltrane etc. In other words, he seems willing to overly neaten a complicated scenario for the sake of a good story.

However this film turns out, I'm willing to predict few will be satisfied. Free fans will feel shortchanged as well as swing fans, bop fans, etc. I'm going to take the pollyanna approach on this one and just be happy that a program like this is finally coming to light.

I'm with Darryl on this:
This documentary isn't being made for fans, it's being made for people who aren't fans.
It's bound to focus on dead people at the expense of the living and to posit a sort of Great Man Theory of Jazz.
A bit of romantic twaddle about Jazz aimed at those who aren't Jazz fans won't hurt us much as long as Burns tosses in a clip from somebody saying essentially "Jazz is a living art-go see your local improvisors play soon" or something like that. That's the only real drawback as far as I'm concerned-that Jazz will simply be portrayed as a quaint artifact of the past. But anybody serious about music already has to wade through the reissues in the New Jazz Releases bins in stores in order to get perspective. At least this documentary will get Jazz talked about by non fans around the water cooler for a few days.

On the other hand,
it might really be a mess and run our blood pressures up.
To be fair, I liked the baseball documantary but probably only bacause I know nothing about baseball. But it DID hepl make me feel why baseball is so important to so many people and make me want to feel a bit of that joy for myself.

I'll reserve my scorn at least 'till after it's aired.

Funny, we are already knocking Burns, yet I would love to see all the posters here try to agree on a script for a Jazz documentary. I fear it would be quite ugly, and few if any would be happy with it.

The last serious, multi-part documentary on jazz that I can recall was the American Masters profile of Duke. That was mid-'80s I think. As Chaz stated, what we must all realize is that this series is not for us, the jazz fan. We are not the intended audience. Then there was the Miles Davis profile that evolved into a two parter when the Montreaux concert with Quincy was done. Off the top of my head that's like two documentaries in like 15 years.

Even if it has to be somewhat simplistic, it would have been nice if the Marsalis mafia didn't have so much influence.

I caught that program and the 15 minute post segment too. A softball.

Chris, which station do you work for? I was at WGBH in Boston from 1993-98. From that experience (we put out the Rock & Roll miniseries), I can tell you that outside of the icons (i.e., the ones everyone knows and non-fans would be disappointed not to see: Louis, Bird, Dizzy, Miles, Coltrane, Duke, Ella, Billie, and, of course, Wynton, who likely will hog a lot of screen time as both talking head and profiled artist), specific personalities will take a back seat to the overall narrative, which likely will deal with the Black Experience in America and specific places in America where this Great American Music was made (St. Louis, Chicago, NY, LA, etc.). It will be a too-large canvas filled with too-vague factoids and achingly small snippets of music, most of which will be "safe" and familiar to the general viewers (PBS average prime-time audience age is in the mid-50 to mid-60s). And this is from someone who generally likes Ken Burns (although I liked his brother Ric's The Way West better than Ken's The West). "Art" on PBS is opera and ballet; Ken Burns' Jazz will be American History, (too) pure and (too) simple.

Burns' baseball documentary rotated among 6-7 talking heads. I can just see the jazz documentary rotating from Marsalis to Crouch to Albert Murray back to Marsalis. The documentary may give some welcome popular exposure to jazz but if it is basically the Marsalis view, the viewers may mistakenly think that jazz is boring.
Why couldn't Gary Giddins have come have beaten Burns to the punch with a jazz history? He is one of the few critics who can wax eloquently on the music of Louis Armstrong and David Murray.

Hey Jasontis----did you know Ron Della Chiesa???

Amazing. You guys are bashing a show not yet seen (is it even finished?), partially on the grounds that it might make Wynton look good. Folks, I'm not a Wynton fan, but he's done a tremendous amount for the public and institutional visibility of jazz. He's good looking, charismatic, well-spoken, and can play his instrument, and if he gets exposure on Burns' jazz show it will be good for the music (I just hope they keep Crouch off screen - he is one of the most ugly men I've ever had the misfortune of seeing). Why can't those of you who hate Wynton just ignore him? Better yet, ask yourself why you hate him so much. All the bashing is tiresome and, frankly, rather ugly.

I'm at Wisconsin Public Television -- six stations, including flagship WHA in Madison.
I know very well how Ken does things, and that's what scares me on this one. But if he snared Nat Hentoff, that will at least get a solid voice involved.

If the Wynton-Crouch gang becomes a dominant factor, jazz will be dealt a revisionist blow. Yes, no matter what they do, it will probably generate an interest in jazz, but doing it right is not going to lessen the potential positive impact of a series. Let's hope Nat and others can counteract the myopic views of the Lincoln Center mafia. Letr's hope that we are all pleasantly surprised when the series airs.

The reaction of some jazz fans to this project cracks me up. I've read very little of "great, a historical series on jazz." Mostly I've read complaints about Burns, who'll get the most air-time, which genre of jazz will get the most exposure, etc. Sometimes I get the impression that many would prefer the project to not get off the ground so that the "wrong" people don't get too many props.

I'm planning on a followup "talking heads" documentary to be called "Jazz II" which will focus (thematically) ONLY on blasting Wynton, Reynolds, Myshopnow.com and Certs.

Visually, it will focus on different portions of a large woven tapestry that depicts the history of jazz (which,like baseball, was actually based on the English game of rounders)

I believe that it will add the needed perspective.

James-maybe some of us want to be able to say I told you so-:)

or maybe some of us, like Gordon, really get upset when people think jazz is boring-maybe because maybe the only living person they think of when jazz is mentioned is a really boring guy.

And I DISAGREE that any old exposure is good for jazz. Many potentially interested people will be turned off by Wynton's ass backwards musical attitude-his reverence of the old masters in contrast to his almost complete lack of respect for the more current innovators and creators. Many will be bored to tears by his band's musical performances. Why not expose potential new listeners to the vibrant new music that abounds?

How about a clip of Dave Holland's band-or Charles Gayle or Trio 3, Murray or Ray Anderson?

Am I out of line-or is there ANY chance that artists like these see the light of day in this film?

I hope I'm wrong-but I seriously doubt any space will be given to anyone that has done anything to build on Ayler, Taylor or Coleman.



Hopefully they will give Murray, the saxophone player, equal billing and air time to the famous trumpeter.

and I understand we should wait to see what is actually on the film, but I don't see what's wrong with voicing our concerns now.

and with all due respect, James, if they don't they have the history of jazz over the last 20-30 years all mixed up.



and anxiously awaiting what Wynton's disc(from the 7 CD live at the vanguard) sub-titled 'avant-garde' actually sounds like.

I don't like Burns. I also don't like Spielberg, or Oliver Stone, or any other filmaker who takes a grossly simplified narrative, beats you over the head with it, and tells you what to think about it.

What bothers me about Burns is that the audience believes they're seeing a film about baseball, or the civil war, or Lewis & Clark, and what they're really seeing is a film about Ken Burns's documentary film-making techniques. Burns is not a historian, he's a filmmaker. And every movie he makes has the same subject: "Watch Ken Burns make a documentary."

And yes, from the promotional material I've seen, I'm afraid that the movie will communicate that jazz is boring, and that it's relevance is primarily historic and not artistic or entertaining in and of itself.

What PBS needs is live jazz, from the clubs.

Steve,

Then why not just call the whole thing off and have PBS do what it's always done, the occasional Marsalis special, Shirley Horn/Sarah Vaughan/Harry Connick with The Boston Pops, or "so and so" at the White House?

Has it ever occurred to any that if this series is a success ratings wise that maybe, just maybe some of Steve's favorites may show up on PBS in the future?

Let's be realistic, a lot of Steve's faves are going to get passed over, along with a lot of Stanley Dance's, John McDonough's, Chris Albertson's, mine, D'Imperio's, and on and on. That's going to happen unless Burns is allowed to air segments every night for a month. There are going to be injustices, mistakes, historical screwups, etc. But I refuse to throw the baby out with the bath water.

<<maybe some of us, like Gordon, really get upset when people think jazz is boring-maybe because maybe the only living person they think of when jazz is mentioned is a really boring guy. >>

Wow.

You know, Gordon, it really isn't your responsibility--nor even within your control--to keep jazz from being boring to someone else. You could put your absolute knockout lineup, handpicked by none other than you, and someone will find it boring.

Meanwhile--and I do not argue the merits of what I am about to say--Wynton's CDs have sold at a very healthy clip for a jazz artist, and even for an artist in another genre. It is very possible that those people who buy them will think what he has to say isn't boring at all.

OF COURSE, I hope for a more balanced view than just his. That would be a crime, even if the exposure is good for the music.

<<How about a clip of Dave Holland's band-or Charles Gayle or Trio 3, Murray or Ray Anderson?

Am I out of line-or is there ANY chance that artists like these see the light of day in this film? >>

I don't know that Ray Anderson deserves a mention in a historical series about jazz. I'm not sure that any of the artists you mentioned do, unless he does a single segment on what is around the bend for jazz lovers, where the music is going today.

It's history to him, not a promo piece. Do you think he was promoting the Civil War?

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.

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.

With all due respect, if Wynton is featured prominently, David Murray deserves to be featured prominently.

Murray is a much more important figure in the history of jazz.

I didn't really want to get into this-and I know I *should* delete this post now-but as time goes on-and more and more musicians make their mark on jazz, the hype surrounding Marsalis becomes more and more obscene-jazzman of the year in 1999-when he recorded nothing that didn't look strongly to the past.

and despite what he and others might say, that is NOT what jazz is about.

Despite the hype, it's not even close

Doug-if Murray isn't featured, what modern tenor saxophonist(or saxophonist of any type) from his peer group, would be featured in a film about jazz?

You might say Michael Brecker-and besides Murray, he might be the other guy.


helplessing hoping for a good film

Steve, are you seriously suggesting that a PBS documentary should show Charles Gayle? For every punk-rock teenager who might like it, 100 middle class adults would say "wow, if that's what modern jazz is like, I think I'll stay home and watch Antique Roadshow". YOU may find Wynton boring, but to someone who's never heard modern jazz (and that is what he plays, Steve) it could be thrilling. Retro or not, Wynton and his group swing, and even a sophisticated fan like me doesn't find them "boring" (although, given what else is available, I don't go see him at Lincoln Center or buy his CDs).

Here's an anecdote for you: I went to a ballet last spring at Lincoln Center, and sat next to a very smart, culturally aware 60-something woman. When I told her I mainly listened to jazz, she spoke with incredible enthusiasm about Wynton's performance at the NY City Ballet, playing behind modern dancers. She said she'd never seen anything like it, and that the crowd went wild. It's THIS type of person that Wynton's music can reach, and who would run screaming, as would I ;), from Charles Gayle. If his music gets people like her out to see (say) Tommy Flanagan or buy some Ellington records, more power to him.

yes-I am saying that a PBS documentary should show Charles Gayle.

If not they ought to feature someone who is carrying on the tradition of Ayler-David S Ware would be an excellent candidate for a feature, if not Gayle.

and I understand that this music is extreme-but does that mean it should not be featured? Should we leave out Cecil Taylor because it might turn off middle america?

If people go running from the room, isn't that what happened with late period Coltrane, Ayler, Taylor & Coleman?

and I'm sure these artists might be featured.

well-at least I hope so.

Steve,

Is there a formula for deciding which musician is the more important figure in the history of jazz? Other than personal taste? I'm willing to bet doughnuts to dollars that if you'd asked 20 jazz fans who was the most important post-Colotrane tenor you'd get ten-fifteen (or more) different answers. Murray's prolific and some would say that a lot of his early popularity was as much to do with hype as Marsalis's. Why Murray, why not Chico Freeman? James Carter, Eskelin?

If you decide to include the great "unwashed" (non-jazz fans) Marsalis may be the man as far as acoustic jazz goes. I mean let's look at the last 15 - 20 years. The big complaint is that the Marsalis clones have taken over jazz. If that's true (you don't hear that about Murray clones) then that means the one person who has had the most profound effect upon jazz is Marsalis. It's his clones who are getting all the pub, all the club dates, all the awards, blah, blah blah. The BET supplement in my Washington Post suggested that he's the most powerful (and controversial) man in jazz. Well, if that's so then Murray's a blip on the radar screen.

Let's take it a little further. Who are Murray's followers if he's so influential. Does his clones outnumber Wynton's? Murray's not even a clone of himself anymore. Last time I looked he was getting into world music, some hip-hop, etc. In other words he's becoming Steve Coleman!

The reason Wynton may get more face time on the documentary than Murray. Ellingtonia and bebop are still the two main currencies of jazz and Marsalis is considered the most famous proponent of both. I love free jazz, but for the audience that Burns is trying to reach it does not compute.

And that's the whole point of the exercise. Trying to teach and reach those who know nothing of jazz. I've read the books and bought the records. I hate to sound egotistical, but chances are there is very little for me to learn from Burns's flick. I'm looking at the big picture. How many people may be turned on to jazz. Hopefully enough so that documenatries on jazz become more common place and that alternatives to what we've had on PBS up to now are offered.

I've been checking out BET on Jazz a lot lately. The other night, there was this old black and white network show from the '50s hosted by Gary Moore which featured Lionel Hampton and Gene Krupa. In other words there used to be a time when mainstream jazz was on network TV and it wasn't a big thing. It was considered normal. Imagine that.

As you implicitly acknowledge, Steve, Gayle and Ware are very traditional artists. The type of free blowing they do is now 30 years out of date, with most jazz musicians having long ago decided that that type of music is a dead end. If we should show contemporary figures following in what is, by any measure, a narrow (if not blind) side alley of jazz, why not show artists like Marsalis (or Roy Hargrove or Renee Rosnes or whoever) who are working in the broad mainstream? Who is a more representative modern player, David S. Ware or Joe Lovano? I mention Lovano because he's a professed fan of Ayler, but has enough sense to see that reproducing Ayler-style music is boring.

And yes, I have one Ware CD and have seen him in concert. The CD is OK, but the concert was a snooze - what a waste of a great rhythm section (Shipp, Parker, Ibarra). I've heard Gayle at a friend's house, and also thought it was deadly dull.

maybe this should be a new thread, but...

James said:

<The type of free blowing they do is now 30 years out of date, with most jazz musicians having long ago decided that that type of music is a dead end.>

That's what I thought until for a long while-before I gave the music some serious time. I used to think that Ware's greatest band-the trio you mentioned-was *much* better without Ware. 2 years ago-I could barely stand his playing. Today-I hear something different-and the music-despite having strong roots in the jazz of the mid to late 60's-does not really sound very much like that music.

For one example, his columbia release-Go See The World-could never even existed even 10-15 years ago-the musical ideas are so fresh and unique.

The rhythmic sophistication and the technical mastery of both Ware and Charles Gayle(and Perelman, too) really goes far beyond what even Coltrane was doing in 1966.


Oblations and Blessings

<<Doug-if Murray isn't featured, what modern tenor saxophonist(or saxophonist of any type) from his peer group, would be featured in a film about jazz? >>

None.

I don't really think this is supposed to be an ad for "jazz today!" It is a historical look at the development of jazz. writing about someone who is coming up today is like writing about a fly in a hurricaine, or something like that that I'm not clever enough to think of.

Besides, anything "today" that he focuses on will be out of date instantly. It isn't relevant to the bigger picture.

This is why the very best filmmakers are filmakers first and fans second.

Steve --

Come back to earth. It's Ken Burns. It's PBS. It's a documentary made for non-jazz fans. Be grateful that such a documentary is being made, period. I, too, hope that it does not turn into a Marsalis-fest -- definitely not a Crouch-a-thon.

This is the HISTORY of jazz -- not where jazz is today, not where jazz should be today, but a HISTORY. The history will most likely be VERY mainstream. Deal with it.

It's Ken Burns.
It's PBS.

Let's just hope that Burns doesn't have Susan B. Anthony trading fours with Bird..............

This has only partially to do with this discussion, but if it was up to me, I would rather reach 1 punk-rock kid (or hip hop kid) than 100 middle class adults. Ideally, it'd be both, but if I had my pick I'd go for the kids.

Here's the deal as i see it. the program/series didn't come about because PBS had $5 million (or whatever it's costing) allocated to jazz programming - and they decided to use it on a Ken Burns documentary.

I'd bet that they wanted to spend/invest those million$ on another proven successful Ken Burns product, and Mr Burns pitched jazz and they agreed.

So it's not coming out of "jazz's budget" and could probably only help jazz by getting such exposure for jazz. Even if it unduly hypes Wynton in the process,it will at least expose real jazz to the broader PBS audience. That can only be good in a world where outside of major cities, the majority of the radio listening music buying public may associate "jazz" with the stuff played on smooth/contempo jazz stations.

(Maynard G. Krebs was my first exposure to jazz)

James, re you post # I'll bet you anything that your 60-something woman and the crowd that surrounded her that night would be at least just as enthusiastic if a better jazz player had been in Wynton's place. You seem to imply that Wynton was the key here--he wasn't. jazz was the key, and jazz is not in the best of hands when Wynton expresses it. So, let's not give the credit to Wynton, let's give it to the music he played, and the person who conceived the idea to use it in the context she described.

I'm sure we won't get much Gayle or Ware in Burns' series, but--as Randy points out--this is not about jazz today as much as it is about jazz so far. Let's wait and see if our worst fears are confirmed. In the meantime--for those who accuse the pessimists of jumping the gun--I think we have every right to be worried given the fact that Florentine has recruited the business-conscious Lincoln Center bunch.

I think Ware's music has a certain power to it. I for one, do not just throw on a Ware cd. I have to be in a certain mood. I love what he has done with songs like The Way We Were or Autumn Leaves. Another side of the ballad that we don't always see. His own compositions are once again very powerful. To me he does not just "free blow". He brings you into his world and you are not released from it until the cd ends. I think the song Godspelized is one of the most beautiful songs written this decade.

Ken Burns will be available in a public forum at the next IAJE Convention in New Orleans. For those of you attending, a good chance to make a statement before editing is done.

Wow, Chris A, you've outdone yourself this time! In my innocence I thought my anecdote about the woman at the ballet was pretty compelling evidence that Wynton was having - maybe only once, for god's sake - a positive impact. The creativity, and single-mindedness, of your Wynton-hatred is something to watch.

Just for the record, the event in question was a ballet co-produced by Wynton and choreographer Peter Martins (my ignorance of dance is near-total, but I think Martins is a well-known guy). Wynton wrote all the music. I believe Wynton has also collaborated with (that is, written music for) Alvin Ailey, who even I know is a giant in the field of dance. Now, I can't refute the argument that someone else besides The Antichrist Himself might have done a better job, but normally when someone writes and plays music which is well received we give him or her credit...

Please, this is NOT a Wynton thread.

OK, folks?

Steve said (to Chris A's comment that the documentary will not tell the story of jazz now, but the story of jazz "so far):

>>I agree, but again, my hope is that "so far" does not mean A) up through 1964 or so or B) up through 1964 plus the supposed 1980's renaissance led by Wynton and his folowers.<<

I hope so too, Steve. But I'm pretty sure that it will not cover that period with sufficent detail to please you, my friend. :-)

And, for the hard of hearing...

THIS IS NOT A WYNTON THREAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ken Burns is doing a Wynton Bio-Doc?

;-)

Randy, if Burns is leaning heavily on Wynton and his Crouch--as appears to be the case--then this thread can hardly avoid some mention of these people.

And James, I do not hate the guy, but I have no regard for him as a jazz performer. I never said that he has not had a positive influence--he certainly has, but I feel that it is outweighed by the negative aspects of his attitude towards jazz, and the importance he is given. If it is true that Ken Burns has fallen victim to the WM hype, I see it as yet another blow to jazz by a person whose claim to fame lies not in his performances or his compositions, but in his ability to throw himself into the spotlight. That, I think is sad and, because it is not pure conjecture on my part, it does not qualify as venomous bashing.

Enough about Wynton--believe me, I wish he could be ignored.

I know, Chris -- I wasn't aiming my request at you. I know that, given the context of this thread, mention of the LCJO Group is unavoidable. However, I dd see some threads that mentioned Wynton (pro or con) without dealing with the subject of this thread!

One thing I'm concerned about -- will Burns fall for the Sudhalter/Teachout "party line" of jazz history? As much as I would not want a LCJO-controlled history, I sho-nuff don't want the "other perspective" to control the documentary.

I think Ken Burns should think about having Security at IAJE and after the release of the documentary, will have to look into the FBI's witness protection program.

<<I would rather reach 1 punk-rock kid (or hip hop kid) than 100 middle class adults. >>

Jesus. Why? That sure seems like a weird sentiment to me. Is "middle class" some kind of dirty word in your mind? How about "adult"?

Regardless, remind me not to appoint you as my PR person! ;)

Having just had a lengthy talk with my contact at Florentine Films, let me just say that I feel more optimistic now. Won't go into details, because I don't wish to stir up trouble for anyone, but I say we wait and see.

Randy, of all the photos the Burns people borrowed from me, none have been of Teachout's faves.

Jazzooo,

What I believe Omar is saying, and I agree, is that we need the youth to carry jazz into furthur generations. Not that jazz will die if the hip hop or punk nation is not targeted, but their support would help. And not that the adult-middle-class is a dirty word, but they are less likely to pick up an instrument and learn the language or buy 5 CDs at once than a teenager. Yuck, I'm starting to feel like an advertiser.

First, to the poster wondering how PBS is spending its money vis a vis this series: PBS doesn't invest in programs, it's a distribution service owned by the stations. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting gives out seed grants for promising productions but in the case of Ken Burns, he signed a long-term deal with General Motors, which is pretty much paying for everything.

Second, there was a Blue Note documentary done a few years ago and it's absolutely awful. So unsatisfying that in spite of some good clips, I wished I had never seen it, so I don't buy the argument that a bad Jazz series is better than no Jazz series. People who don't dig jazz won't be converted by a good TV series because they won't watch it, especially if it's a multi-part marathon a la Baseball and The Civil War. I agree with another poster who said what PBS should do is air live jazz performances (and not from Lincoln Center, but from a real jazz venue). WGBH had such a series in the early 60s.

Third, to Steve, I have met Ron a few times. He's a great guy. My uncle was his school science teacher and they often see each other at Tanglewood.

Funny, but my experiences listening to Ware are very similar to Steve's. I do agree that there should be some mention of Ayler and at least one example of a post-Aylerian player. I think there are more Ayler influenced saxophonists today than Ornette influenced saxmen. That's a subject for another thread.

I don't mind Marsalis' Septet being included in the documentary. I mind Burns using Marsalis/Crouch as principle sources to explain jazz to the viewers. Marsalis is probably more exclusionary than db critic John McDonough. Marsalis is dismissive of entire genres of jazz. My other fear is that wide eyed documentary viewers will think that the jazz canon is fixed, that the great stars today are recreating the past, much like Symphony Orchestras.

From what I am told, the dreaded Marsalis/Crouch duo is not Burns' main source.

Jasontis, I agree with you re the Blue Note documentary--it was horrendous and it completely missed the mark.

<It's bound to focus on dead people at the expense of the living> That shouldn't surprise anyone. When WBGO asks its listeners to name their "favorite musicians," the answers are overwhelmingly the names of "dead musicians." I believe 10 of the top 12 favorites are dead, and the all time fave is Coltrane -- dead about 35 years, now. And we're talking about REAL Jazz fans here. Most of the posters here also -- talk predominantly about listening to and buying the music of dead musicians....

<It's bound to focus on dead people at the expense of the living> That shouldn't surprise anyone. When WBGO asks its listeners to name their "favorite musicians," the answers are overwhelmingly the names of "dead musicians." I believe 10 of the top 12 favorites are dead, and the all time fave is Coltrane -- dead about 35 years, now. And we're talking about REAL Jazz fans here. Most of the posters here also -- talk predominantly about listening to and buying the recordings of dead musicians....

Burns is a filmaker, who happens to produce documentaries. However, the history in his films often takes a back seat to the filmaking.

The following is an excerpt from an article on the Salon web-site concerning the controversy surrounding the film "Dogma" and the Catholic League:

"If reading about a movie can be equated with seeing it, then why should any of us ever leave the house? How much credence should artists of any stripe -- painters, filmmakers, writers -- give to the views of people who simply can't be bothered to evaluate their work based on direct experience? But the bigger question is, if we're fixated on running every movie, every painting, every book through our own personal-affrontery filters (that is, assuming we actually bother to see or read what's in front of us), how are we ever going to be able to evaluate art intelligently and openly?"

The above doesn't just apply to film of course. How many times have some us gone up in arms over a poster stating they have no intention of listening to a piece of music because the artist in question is a free jazzer or a neo-bopper?

<<[middle-class adults] are less likely to pick up an instrument and learn the language or buy 5 CDs at once than a teenager>>

AnthonyB,
While they may be less likely to start learning an instrument, adults are far more likely to buy the 5 CDs. Disposable income is a big factor. Take a look around next time you're seeing some live jazz - middle-aged people are the primary supporters of jazz in this country.

I still don't think dead guys play that well.

There's little or no chance that the contemporary artists you guys mentioned will get much,if any, time. Hell, they're pretty obscure to most of the jazz audience today, including yours truly.

It will surprise me if the documentary allots much time to such great players of the past as Jack Teagarden, Charlie Shavers, Pee Wee Russell, Lucky Thompson, Wardell Gray, Herbie Nichols, Stuff Smith, Elmo Hope or Hampton Hawes. It probably won't give much time to survivors like James Moody, Teddy Edwards or Harold Land.

Does anyone have Burn's email address? Maybe we could send the thread along to him so that he can read about the concerns of true jazz fans.

Doug,

What Anthony said is pretty much correct, with a few modifiers. I used the phrase 'middle class', because I was responding to someone (James, I believe) who used it to. Technically, I'm middle-class now myself, and I've bought a lot more CDs since I graduated from college than before. But that wasn't my point.

It's not so much consumption that I'm thinking about, but rather the idea that by reaching younger people, even if it's a relatively small portion, jazz can be a stronger cultural force than it is (I know that sounds a little highfalutin, but I'm not sure how else to say it). In general, I think kids are more passionate about music than adults. I think if we have a larger pool of passionate listeners and players, it can only be good. Of course, I think educators, musicians, we fans, and anyone else interested in the continuation of this music should try to reach as many people as possible. Adults do have the bucks to spend, and are an easier 'target', but if this is the only group of people listening to jazz, I'd be worried about the future of the music. I'm not implying that all grown-ups lose their passions, but most start prioritizing things a little differently as they grow older.

But I'll grant you that my initial statement, if taken literally, is somewhat exaggerated (once again, as a response to a statement made by James H).

Well, that's my theory, and I'm always right.

<<What I believe Omar is saying, and I agree, is that we need the youth to carry jazz into furthur generations.>>

I don't disagree...perhaps he was just being dramatic when he said he'd take 1 punk rocker over 100 middle class adults. That makes no sense, and it has a kind of "ageist" edge to it.

<<And not that the adult-middle-class is a dirty word, but they are less likely to pick up an instrument and learn the language or buy 5 CDs at once than a teenager. Yuck, I'm starting to feel like an advertiser.>>

Actually, if you really wanted to sound like an advertiser you'd been busting your balls to sell a CD each to 100 middle class adults, each of whom have enough bread to buy CDs without asking their parents. PLUS you'd be trying to get some jazz/funk crossover bands playing at the next youth happening.

>>

<<Second, there was a Blue Note documentary done a few years ago and it's absolutely awful. So unsatisfying that in spite of some good clips, I wished I had never seen it, so I don't buy the argument that a bad Jazz series is better than no Jazz series. >>

Because...you didn't like it?

What does that have to do with how it affected jazz record sales in the next 3 months? Do you have any idea of the impact of the program you didn't like, before you say it did no good?

I don't meant to sound harsh, but this seems like another reason why fans shouldn't be the final decision makers about any artforms, including documentaries.

Hmm... The dialogue here is shaping up to "avant-garde vs. neo-con." But there are a lot of historical aspects of jazz that I suspect will not make it into the documentary in significant amount. Beyond "Bitches Brew," how much fusion do you think will make it in? I'm not a fusion fan by any stretch, but it's a part of the history of jazz that's rarely been dealt with intelligently.

And where in the history of jazz do we fit Maynard Ferguson, circa 1978, wearing a jumpsuit and playing "Gonna Fly Now" in a high school gymnasium? There's a whole slightly tawdry, slightly trashy history of jazz in the 70s that's never been told, as near as I can tell. Should it be left out just because it's distasteful? Ken Burns is about my age, and I imagine his first exposure to the music was to this sort of thing.

Here's a question: Will a documentary film like this even begin to touch on the idea of "local jazz"? That there are, throughout the world, hundreds of thousands of musicians creating jazz within their communities who aren't stars? Is the history of jazz really the same thing as the history of the stars of jazz? Or is it deeper than that? Is jazz a tree, with roots and a trunk and branches, or is jazz is a fungus--acres of invisible threads supporting a handful of visible fruit?

and if I have my facts right, I believe that people under 25 or 30 buy a huge percentage of the music sold in this country.

So it is *much* more important to reach the young people.

<It's bound to focus on dead people at the expense of the living>

What is wrong with you people? Isn't Burns' documentary a HISTORY of jazz? Last time I checked, HISTORIES (particularly HISTORIES discussing time periods a distance from ours) tend to FOCUS ON DEAD PEOPLE AT THE EXPENSE OF THE LIVING!!!

I'm sorry I'm shouting, but I think that we're missing the boat here. Just look at how many jazz greats have passed on this year alone -- Lester Bowie died this very morning! Many of the greats of jazz history have passed on. Note that I did NOT say that there are no great players living today -- but if Burns focused on today's players (whether "neo-con" or "avante-garde") his documentary wouldn't be a HISTORY, would it?

Repeat after me, folks; "it's HISTORY."

OK, rant over. I do hope that, while surveying the history of jazz, that the avante-garde, fusion, and other genres that are often marginalized would be mentioned. However, I'v come to grips with the fact that the so-called "mainstream" will probably get the bulk of the screen time. Now, either we can bitch and moan about that, or do all we can to to encourage filmakers, writers, critics, musicians, just plain jazz fans, etc., to document ALL of this great music we love. Who says there should be only a handful of jazz documentaries? Who says that someone can't do a documentary focusing entirely on the avante-garde, for instance?

<,And where in the history of jazz do we fit Maynard Ferguson, circa 1978, wearing a jumpsuit and playing "Gonna Fly Now" in a high school gymnasium? >>

In the same closet my mother hid my grandfather's death from syphillus?

Howard, great points about "local jazz." not to take anything away from the stars, but the music is definitely alive in more individuals and communities than a handful of well-known artists can reach.

<<and if I have my facts right, I believe that people under 25 or 30 buy a huge percentage of the music sold in this country.>>

They do, but they dont buy it all. And they don't buy the majority of jazz by a longshot. You want to sacrifice the existing sales in order to chase a bunch of kids? You might not like the music that resulted. The last time there was a major effort in that direction, they called it "acid jazz," which boiled down to looping drum rhythms and noodling in a pentatonic scale--all attitude and no substance.

<<So it is *much* more important to reach the young people.>>

I believe that children are our future...but fuck 'em. Artists should make the art they want to make.

Let's face it, it's not like we're going to boycott the program or anything. When it comes on, we'll watch, hope for the best, and if need be, turn it off and fire up the stereo or pick up a good book about the history of jazz that is more complete.

I think the best way to spread the gospel of jazz is by using interpersonal persuasion, i.e., turning on someone you know to music they might like if they had a good sample of it. I think jazz should be emphasized in schools (to the non-musicians as well as to the members of the high school jazz band) and it should be on television as a normal, dynamic, living, ongoing happening in America, and not as a fragile relic or museum piece that represents a bygone era.

The truth of jazz is in the playing, and if Burns gets his talking heads to demonstrate with their instruments what they're talking about, he'll be moving in the right direction.

Randy-
You make a good point about the documentary being a Jazz HISTORY. I grant you that point.

And interestingly you make the wish that the "avante-garde"
not be passed over.

I'd make a couple of observations:
first-the well circulated one that the "avante-garde" is a word (like "modernism") that refers to something that's somewhat codified by now-35 years on.

But perhaps more importantly I'd say that (please somebody-supply the author for this one!) "living art resists schematic interpretation". It's an important idea.
I simply want to avoid having the impression made that Jazz already happened at some point in "the dear departed past" (Dave Frishburg's song title).
Jazz IS a music with a history. But IT'S ALSO A PROCESS.
JAZZ has a way of interacting with popular music and various other musics-enriching it in some fundamental way.
Baseball can be played artfully-but Jazz itself IS art and subjects it's subject matter to a process that is only possible when the future is a glittering promise,
not merely an obligation.

Ponderously,
Chaz

I'm in the hangout and wait crowd;let those of us who are immersed in this music hope that he does an overall good job(maybe a great one).

Let us not forget,as has been mentioned, that he's not doing this film for jazz fans.

This being said,a film buff friend who is movie journalist in several areas,tells me that he read where Burns has the viewpoint that jazz is an amazing form;that it's development here in the U.S. and the spreading across the globe, as well as it's adaptability to seemingly any culture or music style,makes it more than worthy of a large scope project like this one........MS

burns past style just doesnt play for an artistic doc, it needs to b done by a more daring stylist. we'll see if burns can even move a mm from his packaged approached. i thought the susan b anthony doc was a complete snooze on a presentation level. D-


I wonder if dogberry dimperio will be profiled.

He does not photograph.

In fact it would be impossible to tell whether he's WALKIN' or ROLLIN'.......unless he wears a
hat.

Chaz used the line-

<I simply want to avoid having the impression made that Jazz already
happened at some point in "the dear departed past">

this is always my fear about what people think about jazz. They think it *was* "happening" back in the old days.

>>this is always my fear about what people think about jazz. They think it *was* "happening" back in the old days.<<

But the cold, hard truth of the matter is that it *was* happening in the old days. More than it is now. I won't argue with anyone who says that musicians continue to make great strides, and that the music that is being made now can stand up to what was being created in the 40s and 50s. But the glory days *were* nearly a half century ago, when jazz was America's popular music. It has since been relegated to an "art form", one that is constantly studied, disected, and argued about. We've intellectualized it to the point where the average American believes that jazz is a music for the culturally elite.
I'm not convinced that *I* am going to enjoy the Burns documentary, but I sure as hell will enjoy it if it sparks anything like the consumer mania that surrounded the Civil War documentary!!! The more people who are talking about, buying, and listening to jazz (in any of its forms or sub-genres), the more chance we have to keep the music alive.

Advertisers shy away from Jazz because of the demographics. Therfore, Jazz has little value in business. Thus, jazz gets little or no exposure. Middle agers are more (or perceived to be) tight fisted when it comed to money. That is why advertising is aimed at the youth. Middle agers spend their money at WalMart, the youth spend their money at Tower Records (and they are not buying Ella Fitzgerald CD's).

But the cold, hard truth of the matter is that it *was* happening in the old days. More than it is
now>>


wrong, just cold wrong, imho! twisted: kelsey, oliver lake, rova, milo fine, perelman, braxton, gnitka, whitecage, zorn, bennink, evan parker, duval, maneri, hemingway, ganelin trio, ryan kisor, paul smoker, cecil taylor, eskelin, & others are putting out more energy and innovation in jazz history NOW!

frankiepop - did you read the rest of my post? I wasn't at all referring to what's happening artistically, but rather what's happening culturally. Do you still think I'm wrong?

I agree with your last post, Twisted, if onlz it was happening culturally as well as artistically.

and as you know, it didnt mean it wasnt happening in the old days, I meant that the music and acen is still verz exciting today.

hoping to get into the city to see Misha / Milfordßlive in person

and if that isnt happening, I dont know what is

People --

Looks like I have to say it yet again:

It's not a survey of current jazz styles (though that is needed) --

It's not a "marketing manifesto" designed to get people(whether young or old) purchasing jazz (whether at Wal-Mart oe Tower Records) --

It's not a program designed to teach that jazz is "a process yet 'in process'" (although I expect this concept may be mentioned, at least at the end of the series).

IT'S AN HISTORICAL DOCUMENTARY -- so there's a good chance that many, if not most, of the people mentioned (particularly early on) may be dead. When's the last time you saw Baby Dodds at a club?)

IT'S AN HISTORICAL DOCUMENATARY -- so a certain amount of "codification" is unavoidable, and need not be feared. Unless any of you have a time machine and can go back to interact with the music's forefathers, that music ain't gonna change -- it is what it is (anyway, bad things happen when you screw with the space-time continuum...).

IT'S AN HISTORICAL DOCUMENTARY -- and, being limited in the time it has to deliver that history, cannot go down every branch, twig, and rabbit-trail of jazz where we might like it to go. While surveying the history, a determination will have to be made of who are considered "major figures" and whom, among the plethora of these figures should be spoken about on this program. In other words, there will be some folks, folks that you think should be profiled, that will be left out. Deal with it. The program's not a continuing series -- and I doubt if even a continuing series can deal with the height, the depth, the length, the breadth of this great music.

Randy - what made you feel like you needed to reiterate your perspective? I keep reading and rereading the most recent posts, and I can't find anything that would run contrary to what you stated.

Why, twisted?
Pure cussedness, perhaps.

Randy, a couple of points:

First and foremost, Ken Burns is a filmmaker, not a historian. His primary interest is in making films, which happen to be documentary films, which happen to choose historical subjects, but which first are foremost are films. Content is secondary--a good story is important, but ultimately the story is just a skeleton on which the filmmaker hangs his art. If you like Ken Burns films (I don't), you'll probably like Jazz. But what the film will be about (what The Civil War was about; what Baseball was about) is filmmaking.

Secondly, history is not about objectively presenting "facts" and saying, "See, this is what happened." To paraphrase Keith Jarrett, history is a verb. History is a way of creating the past, of inventing the past, in order to learn about the present. History, when it's done well, invents the past in a way that makes it easier to understand the present and to predict the future. That's why the same events are told and retold in history. The past hasn't changed in some ontological sense; it's what's happening now that shapes and creates the past. That's why new histories are always necessary. History is a process, and the past has to be continually reinvented.

Right now, we live in a age where jazz is going through some dramatic changes. How we invent the history of jazz--the public discourse on what jazz is and where it came from--has a tremendous impact on where jazz goes in the future. Many of us see jazz going in directions we don't like--toward increasing elitism and popular irrelevance. And we're rightly fearful that a film like Burns's, with its built-in viewership and mainstream authority, might reinforce that.

Howard, I disagree that all of Burns' films are about filmmaking. The Civil War, though not complete and with a smattering of factual errors, stands as a useful and effective resource for learning about the Civil War, and has been and will continue to be used in schools for a long time to come. I say that having studied the subject for my entire life (I was born on Lincoln's birthday and am a tad obsessed with the era). Baseball, I grant you, is more about collective memory than a chronicle of the game, but still, only when his subject is not compelling (and that's a subjective call) does his style overwhelm the material.

The ending will be key. If it's a closed book, that's a missed opportunity; if it's an arrow to the future, then it will invite follow-up.

Well, Howard, it's obvious that I do not agree with your view of history. And, where and when did I say that Burns is a historian? I merely said that the expressed goal of the documentary is to illustrate the history of jazz.

As far as Burns goes, I'm ambivalent -- I neither "love" or "hate" his work. I'm content to wait and see what will be produced. And, whatever he produces, if it has the effect of toppling over the "house of jazz," perhaps that will indicate a deficiency in the "house" rather than the man painting the house.

Frankly, I think the film will, perhaps, stir up a bit of interest in jazz by those not familiar with the music, stir up a bit of controversy among those jazz musicians and fans who do not agree with Burns' point of view, and all of us -- jazz fans, jazz musicians, jazz non-fans -- will get on with life.

Water will still be wet.
Sugar will still be sweet.
The nature of jazz will still be argued.

Jasontis said:

<The ending will be key. If it's a closed book, that's a missed opportunity; if it's an arrow to the future, then it will invite follow-up.>

perfect

I've never seen so much conjecture in anticipation of something which NONE OF US has witnessed as yet. This pre-reaction is absolutely amazing to me.

I truly hope that non-jazz listeners and marginal supporters of jazz get half as passionate when the show actually airs!

Lois might need to start a separate conference area AFTER the show actually runs on PBS.

I'm not even considering polishing my crystal ball. I have a working television, and I've made a contribution to our local PBS affiliate,so I'll just wait,watch and ruminate.

Thank you, Ron.

In order to evaluate something from an historical perspective you need "psychic and temporal distance" (Thank you David Baker). It is very difficult to evaluate contemporary, or even recent, events in jazz because we are too close to have a clear vantage point. I know how I FEEL about Winton and most of his fellow (not so young anymore) lions. However, I don't think I can remove my personal feelings and emotions from the picture to clearly evaluate how history should view them. In other words, in discussing current events one must editorialize rather than chronicle.

Jazz is a living and breathing ORAL TRADITION. A documentary film or a history book is a literary thing. When you impose a literary (Western) evaluation on an oral (non-Western) history or tradition you are steeped in paradox. This creates tremendous difficulties. I know. As someone who is both a jazz musician and a jazz scholar/educator I live in the middle of this paradox everyday and fight to reconcile the inherent problems.

Burns has done a tremendous job (IMHO) with documentaries such as the Civil War & Baseball. However, these were about things that are far more empirical. His task was to interpret the meaning and implications of certain documented facts and events. With jazz he will have that same task, but it will be greatly complicated by the fact that he is dealing with an art that is not usually literal and representational in its meaning/content and he is trying to create a literary document of (an ongoing) oral culture.

I'm sorry if I got too egghead-oriented for you folks!

Pat, your points are well taken. Many of us are obviously going to find fault with this series--that's inevitable. However, the mere fact that so much airtime is being devoted to jazz is something we ought to celebrate, and even if we wish they had included this one or that one, it matters little what we think. The important viewers will be those who find the series of sufficient interest to begin pursuing jazz on their own. There is no doubt but that the Ken Burns series--flawed or not--will stir up interest in jazz, and if it does that, I have no quarrel with it.

Anyway, we have a whole year before it airs.

I would disagree with Pat on calling documentaries "literary" devices. Especially on a project like this, the oral history (along with documented performances) will be the crux of the piece. The rub is who will be giving voice to those histories.

I propose that they use the voice of Homer Simpson.

Is this a definite fact that Burns is using Marsalis as a main source for the project? Although it was interesting, I found the letter a bit reactionary, not really helping his position, yet less abrasive than his Open Letter to Stanley Crouch a few months back. I did like the way he compared Marsalis to James Cameron & Aaron Spelling - ouch. But can we really blame J@LC for the state of jazz today? Certainly there are other factors that have led to the present. I think it's more of the way corporate anti-culture has colonized and homogenized culture in general in the name of $$. And it's from that cancerous motive that we have things like J@LC being funded which itself is conceived by the notion that if anything is going to be a legitimate artform it must be killed, embalmed & encased in glass to present to the public in a most restrained manner.

Hal Galper's newest monologue was also very interesting. I like the way he went into detail about the business. I'm looking forward to the third installment where he'll go into possible solutions.

"I know one major label who's
flagship
artist is not selling enough records to keep him on the label. They
are
keeping him on the label however, because they don't want
anyone else to
get him and he makes the label look good."

Now I wonder what label and flagship artist he's talking about?

The following is an open letter sent to Ken Burns by Marty Khan. I must say that I share his fears and hope that we are both wrong. It does, however, look as if Wynton and his dark shadow, Crouch, will set the direction. We ought not prejudge the series, but what do you think of Kahn's letter?


Dear Mr. Burns:

I have been a jazz professional for 33 years. As a producer, I have produced concerts and festivals from Carnegie Hall to the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion, along with dozens of records. As a manager and agent I have set up hundreds of tours and thousands of concerts for many fine artists of major and minor repute.

I AM NOT LOOKING FOR A JOB. I am only informing you of this to give validity to what I am about to say, and hopefully to correct an enormous oversight on your part as well as voicing a concern that I and many other jazz activists have felt since the announcement of your project.

I’ve just been informed that you do not intend to include the great composer and visionary George Russell in your documentary. As a great admirer of your Baseball series, I can only say that omitting Mr. Russell would be the equivalent of having ignored Curt Flood, one of my great heroes and a man whose impact on the state of the game (for better or worse) is beyond question. While I understand that your documentary cannot include every musician, Mr. Russell, however, is not only a living member of the pantheon and a veteran of over 50 years, but has also profoundly influenced many of our greatest jazz artists, including John Coltrane, Miles Davis, Charlie Parker, Dizzy Gillespie, Ornette Coleman, etc. etc. etc. He has also been the recipient of world-wide acclaim, awards and respect, and influential on countless performers and composers outside the jazz idiom.

I can only assume that you are getting some very poor advice and serious misinformation. The concern that many of us have about your documentary is that you may be relying too heavily upon Wynton Marsalis, whom I presume is very much at the core of your project. Unfortunately, Mr. Marsalis is an artificial product of much hyperbole and has been placed in his exalted position by people with no real interest or knowledge of the art form. The great jazz artists have always risen to their position naturally and with total respect of their peers. Even through the controversies that have surrounded every great artist, from Duke Ellington to Ornette Coleman, their superior talents and contributions have been recognized by musicians, professionals and fans. Mr. Marsalis is not viewed this way by musicians, professionals or knowledgeable fans other than those who are looking for personal gain by doing so. And this is especially true of Lincoln Center, whose revisionist historical approach to this great art form is substantially responsible for the sad state of the art form today. And if you don’t believe that the art of jazz is in serious trouble, then maybe you should leave this subject matter to someone who understands it better.

Jazz has a history of enormous exploitation. Even Duke Ellington was exploited from his earliest days by having to credit a businessman, Irving Mills, as a co-composer of many of his greatest works and continues to be exploited today by Lincoln Center. Great artists like Mr. Russell, Benny Carter, Eric Dolphy, Charles Mingus, The Art Ensemble of Chicago and countless others have had to rely upon European audiences for proper recognition. Just because the new exploitation includes the participation of a few mediocre and minor jazz artists who’ve been appointed as “greats” by cynical and disinterested arts industry insiders, does not make this exploitation any better. In fact, it’s even more outrageous and disheartening.

Mr. Burns, you are clearly a man of substantial talent. Imagine if ALL of filmmaking was represented by James Cameron, or ALL television by Aaron Spelling. That will give you a sense of how those of us who’ve devoted our lives to this great American music labeled Jazz feel about the “coronation” of Mr. Marsalis as the only spokesperson for our art form.

I assume that Mr. Marsalis and/or his cohorts are at work here because he and they have always had a history of diminishing the great jazz artists (except for those they choose to exploit by using them to promote themselves as their equals). We are at a time in history where the truly superior is either buried, ignored or criticized in order to promote the mediocre as greatness. Please don’t allow these people to influence your work. The music deserves better.

An enormous amount of money is going into your undertaking. Please don’t use it to further muddy the waters regarding this great art form which is already so confusing to so many. I beg you, please don’t make matters worse and add to the destruction of this wonderful music.

I hope that you will give serious thought to the contents of this letter. I am including our Company History and my personal resume simply to support my position in view of my own participation in the creation of opportunities for musicians and a clearer understanding of this incredibly rich, complex and diverse art form.

Sincerely,

Marty Khan

very naive to say the least, & i fear the worst & hope the least, but i repeat burns is not the creative or imaginative madman that jazz deserves to have a documentary made by for pbs. burns is mediocre at best. he is best in a historical straight for sense. this doc deserves a spirited film maker.

Whether or not Russell is really that important is subject to debate. Nonetheless, I'm sure plenty of worthy constituents will be left out of the film.

As much as I've enjoyed some of Ken Burns' previous work,the following thought occurred to me while contemplating his jazz project;"it's likely that at sometime in his life Ken played baseball,and researched it from A to Z,however . . .?"

I also wonder if Mr. Khan hasn't started to "shut the barn doors" after the animals have already escaped?

I hope that his and Chris' fears are unfounded,but likely are based in a certain reality.

This thread seems like a waste of time. None of us has yet seen Ken Burns' documentary, so it is a little premature to be criticizing it. And that letter about George Russell was obviously sent out too late to do any good, a case of incompetence. So let's reserve judgement until we actually have an idea how the finished product looks.

What Scott said. (Except the part about the about the Khan letter being a case of "incompetence" - a little harsh IMO).

ADR
The Devoted Jazz Fan(atic)

didn't we have a long thread about exactly this topic some time ago?

He says "Mr. Marsalis is not viewed this way by musicians, professionals or knowledgeable fans other than those who are looking for personal gain by doing so."

We've been through this before, but I can't help but react. I'm no Wynton lover, but I like a lot of his music and appreciate a lot of what he does for jazz. I'm a knowledgeable fan, and if I could get some personal gain out of feeling this way, I wish Marty would let me know how! I also know from personal conversations that many excellent musicians have a lot of respect for Wynton, and not because they are in his orbit. Of course many other excellent musicians can't stand the guy and/or think he's the Spawn of Satan...

"And this is especially true of Lincoln Center, whose revisionist historical approach to this great art form is substantially responsible for the sad state of the art form today. And if you don’t believe that the art of jazz is in serious trouble, then maybe you should leave this subject matter to someone who understands it better."

Double BS. First, jazz is NOT in serious trouble - it's in the middle of a very healthy period artistically, and while it will always be economically marginal, it's better off than it once was (say, 1975). Second, Lincoln Center just ain't that important or influential to what goes on artistically in New York. It brings in new fans, some of whom then venture outside the LCJO orbit, and it employs some good musicians. It's NOT stifling anyone else.

By the way, who is Marty Khan?

James, I'll bet some of the "many excellent musicians" with whom you have had conversations about Wynton have less respect for him than they are willing to indicate in public.

Isn't it odd that people who view the business from the inside tend to be rather cynical when it comes to Wynton? Could it be that we know something that isn't general knowledge? Could it be that we have had an opportunity to view this man's rise from a vantage point that gives us the whole unsavory picture?

Chris, I really don't want to get into it with you on this subject. As a purely rhetorical question, though, why would people I am friendly with - in a private conversation with me - feel the need to dissemble about their views on Wynton?

But Chris, I do have a sincere, non-rhetorical question which you probably know the answer to: who is Marty Khan?

Genghis' more affable younger brother?

Hey, I took a shot, ya never know.......................

>>...why would people I am friendly with - in a private conversation with me - feel the need to dissemble about their views on Wynton?<<

Perhaps they don't, but I have noticed that musicians tend to be more careful when speaking to the general public--I think it is called political correctness. This was also the case with John Hammond, whose position of power kept many musicians from voicing their true feelings about him. They spoke more freely after he died, but they were not inhibited when they spoke to me, because I already knew what a fraud he was and how vindictive he could be.

Marty Khan? I don't know him personally, but he is someone who has worked on the inside of this business, producing concerts, etc.

I'm an optimist. I'm taking a wait and see position here.

By the way, I'm sure a hundred names could be substituted for George Russell's. Khan's wasting his time. Plus I'm wondering how many similar letters Burns' crew has had to deal with? They probably feel they're dealing with nut cases on this one. I can see it now, "How dare you ignore Joe Sullivan?!!!"

Darryl, you are probably right about George Russell not being an isolated case of omission--he may not even represent the most glaring omission. Still, I have heard from various informed sources that WM and Crouch play an important part in this presentation. I hope not, but it is probably so. There was a time when white theatrical and film producers ignored many truly talented actors and actresses and went straight for Ben Vereen and Cecily Tyson because they--through good promotion--had become (in the white producer-type minds) the household names that one couldn't go wrong with. I'm afraid that, when it comes to jazz, Wynton holds that position today.

I felt sorry for the many talented black thespians who were bypassed because of such shortsightedness. I feel the same for many excellent jazz musicians today.

BTW, I think Ken Burns is too intelligent to regard Khan as a "nut case." The documentary series is too far into its development stage for Khan's letter to make any difference, but I hope it gives people something to think about.

I'm not sure what all the fuss is about--Burns just completed a nice 15 minute segment all about me for the documentary. Seems like he's got all the important bases covered.

How long is this documentary going to be?

I'll bet the farm that Cecil gets the perfunctory thirty second hose just as Musial did. . .and I can't even attribute that to East Coast sway!


Go Redbirds.

Marty Khan was the manager for numerous avant jazz musicians during the late 70's--early 80's (perhaps he still is) including many of the AACM musicians who made the move to NYC. He was the first to demand guaranteed money for many of these players, instead of them working off a percentage of the door, as had been customary in the loft scene. Made it difficult for those of us trying to book gigs for the lofts (it was tough to guarantee money when it was likely only 10 people would show up!), but presumably made life better for his musicians and he deserves props for that.

re Marty Khan, very interesting Brian, thanks. You note that his negotiating stance "Made it difficult for those of us trying to book gigs for the lofts [...], but presumably made life better for his musicians and he deserves props for that."

I wonder if it did make life better for his musicians. What if they ended up with fewer gigs as a result, and perhaps even less total income? I don't know what happened, and I'm all in favor of musicians making as much as possible, but you often hear stories in jazz about musicians making demands which are simply unreasonable given the size of the market, and playing and/or recording less as a result. What was your experience, Brian - did you find that you were able to put on fewer shows of Khan's artists, given that you had to bear all the risk of a tiny turnout?

James--For a few years, in the late 70's, the loft scene flourished due largely to the relatively sudden influx of AACM and BAG players into NYC, that is, great players who had an advance reputation whom people were eager to hear. As enjoyable as it was, I always held the belief that one of the lofts' main functions was to serve as a springboard for these musicians to one day be able to play at "better" clubs, concert halls, etc. where they could, possibly, be paid at rates somewhat more commensurate with their abilities. More or less, this is what occurred, with musicians beginning to play venues like the Public Theater, Carnegie Recital Hall, the various clubs etc.

I recall the specific occasion when we (this is Environ I'm talking about) had a little bit of money due to some grant or another, and we called Khan to try and book Leroy Jenkins and were told he required a guarantee of...I think it was between $250-500. Now Leroy, imho the finest improvising violinist alive, was lucky to draw 40 people at $5 a head, so we had to say no. Whether or not this tack led, in general, to increased prosperity among the musicians involved I can't say, but I can certainly understand, and applaud, the motives.

Unfortunately for our loft (and, likely, for others) that influx of talent from the Mid-West was a one-time deal. Once they became impossible to book (for whatever reasons), or had established strong enough reputations to tour pretty regularly, there didn't seem to exist sufficient local players (or funds to invite Europeans and others) to allow for the continued functioning of the loft. Other mitigating factors were also at play, like the owners of the loftspace switching from the supportive Brubeck progeny to some drug channeling scum. If only, at the time, I knew Zorn as something more than an odd-looking fan in football nickers! We might have been able to salvage something!

thanks a lot Brian - very interesting.

This has nothing to do with Burns, but I'm totally fascinated by the loft era. There seems to be a romantic air to it don't you think?

In the '70s I was lucky enough to be exposed to the Wildflowers LP set which was recorded at Sam River's loft space. Unfortunately I didn't own the set (and couldn't buy it) but I was able to record the LPs. Unfortunately I recorded them on Memorex tapes (which 20 years later work like those Mission Impossible tapes from the '60s - dissolve upon contact). Luckily a former poster named Jan (Denmark? Sweden?) had the LPs and recorded them on some nice Maxells. A great documentation of that era. Are there any books on the NYC Loft Scene out?

another great recorded documentation of this scene is Hamiet Bluiett's Im/possible To Keep with Pullen, Hopkins and Moye. No editing-a couple of 35 minute plus excursions and they close with a Miles tune-Tune Up-with a wink and a smile.

Who woulda thunk?

2 CD's-on india naviagtion-and great up front sound.

and Hopkins holds the whole thing together-quite a musical performance by everyone.

and Hamiet's comments are something else. He talks about the first time Pullen played with Mingus-and it has someone like me wishing I could have been around in those days.

Reading this thread has made me wonder what kind of threatening letters the Civil War fanatics - surely as whacked out and feisty a crowd as we are - were sending Burns when word leaked out about what he was planning for their baby.

I mean a lot of those guys are armed, aren't they? They were probably writing stuff like "Lose Jeremy Irons'voice, spend more time on the Monitor, and stop listening to Commager, or I'm coming down to the studio with a vintage gattling gun in a General Sherman outfit."

All we can do is threaten a date for his daughter with DEEP and a handshake with thelil.

Come to think of it, those are probably worse.

Walter,

I live across the river from Virginia and believe me they're still fighting the Civil War over there and they take their battle reenactments very seriously. I can imagine the heat Burns took for that one.

Steve, I got the Bluiett CD too. It's probably the best I've heard him on record (don't own that musc Bluiet). One thing about the Wildflowers LPs, you get to hear Stanley Crouch on drums. Bluiet mentions in the notes you talked about how Crouch's ego got in the way of him becoming a good drummer.

There's surely much bitter revisionism, but the fact is that Crouch _was_ a pretty good drummer back then. I caught him several times with David Murray, often in duo, and Crouch stood out as a sensitive and imaginative player. He booked the shows at the Tin Palace, a great little bar on the Bowery, including fondly remembered performances by the Revolutionary Ensemble and a Braxton quintet with George Lewis, Muhal, Fred Hopkins and Steve McCall.

Brian,

I may have paraphrased incorrectly. I haven't read the notes to the Bluiet CD in awhile. When I think about it I can't say that Bluiet was calling Stanley a "bad" drummer. Maybe that Crouch's ego had gotten in the way? Of course Bluiet's comments may have been colored by Crouch's prominence today.

I have Walter Davis' permission to post the following. He would, however, like me to point out that these are his personal views, and that he makes certain assumptions and is addressing an audience that knows him and thus gets the references he makes that relate to past discussions. In other words, he can cut a lot of corners because it is written for folks who already know his stance on some issues, etc.

I look forward to your comments:

As part of the Doubletake Documentary Film Fest held in Durham this weekend, Ken Burns gave us a sneak preview of one 2-hour segment of his upcoming jazz documentary. This episode was titled "Risk" and covers the years 1945-55.

As some of you may remember, I'm conflicted about this whole project. While I liked his Civil War documentary, I felt his Baseball documentary was awful. I feared he'd go the "jazz is America" route, overly feature Wynton, mostly ignore the avant-garde, further idolatrize our idols, etc. As you know, I worry that jazz is overly obsessed with its past, to the detriment of its present and future. [I should note that During his brief intro, Burns did say this was the history of "jazz in America" (and I think I noted a slight emphasis on "in America") so he's covered himself for including nothing on European, Asian, Latin American, orAfrican jazz musicians, which I assume to be the case.]

And I'm sad to say that based on this episode, it’s all true. Heck, I think it’s worse than I feared. It got off to a bad start for me. Before showing this episode, they showed us the first 8 minutes of the first episode (to set the stage). "Swing," "blues," and "democracy" All appear in the opening monologue. Wynton gets the first 2 talking head slots and Albert Murray gets the fourth. There were some hints here that the early episodes may look a bit beyond the standard story – a pointed reference that jazz reflects "America’s people -- all of its people" and explicit references to the backgrounds of early musicians which are far more varied than the stereotype of poor and neglected (e.g. Ellington’s & Miles’s middle-class backgrounds). Still, the opening roll call of great jazz musicians included only the obvious --Morton, Armstrong, Ellington, Miles, Parker, Holiday, Goodman and I think that's it. So far things were tolerable, but not good.

Burns spoke briefly after this segment while "Risk" was being loaded. He mentioned that this episode was centered around "that son of a Pullman chef from Kansas City [a quote from the first part], Charlie Parker." I found it a little odd that he thought it necessary to name Parker. But given that the entire episode we saw was clearly aimed at folks who know nothing of jazz, it’s consistent. He also made an odd comment along the lines of how pleasantly surprised they were to discover what an important role Armstrong plays throughout the music’s history, that he's the most important figure in 20th century music ("I didn’t say jazz, I said music" -- how bold of you Ken :-). I’d have thought that someone setting out to make a jazz documentary would already know this, not discover it during the process.

So "Risk" gets underway. Of the 2 hours, Parker is the centerpoint of at least 1 hour of it. Monk gets about 10 minutes (presumably he’ll show up a bit more in later episodes). Billie Holiday gets 10 minutes. Heroin gets about 15. Miles, including a segment on the Birth of the Cool Sessions, gets about 10 minutes. JATP gets a couple minutes, focussing on Granz as a force for integration and without a mention of, say, Illinois Jacquet. Louis Jordan gets a nod. "Cool" or "West Coast" jazz gets about 5 minutes, all centered around Dave Brubeck who, just to make sure we all understand what's really important, spends most of his time talking about Ellington and how embarassed he was to make the cover of Time before Duke did. Bud Powell "who some called the Charlie Parker of the piano" gets 30 seconds. Gerry Mulligan is mentioned briefly 2 or 3 times (his quartet with Baker gets mentioned by Giddins at the beginning of the cool jazz segment -- without noting it was kinda radical to not have a piano). Stan Getz is mentioned twice I think. Fats Navarro, Tadd Dameron, Sonny Stitt, Art Pepper, Chet Baker, Max Roach(!!) and others are mentioned only during the roll call of those who lost their lives or significant chunks of their prime careers to drugs. Kenny Clarke is mentioned only during the couple minutes on the MJQ (John Lewis is mentioned a few other times). Clifford Brown isn’t mentioned at all (but now I'm thinking maybe his year was 56). Neither is Lennie Tristano. Nothing on the 4 Brothers, though they do point out that half the Herman band did time for drugs at one time or another. There’s nothing of importance on Ellington -- nothing about the later Carnegie Hall concerts, leaving Bluebird, the early 50’s recordings, etc. Except for Charlie Parker getting stranded in LA (Moose the Mooche practically gets top billing) and the brief West Coast jazz section, nothing happens outside NY.

Of course, if you have 2 hours to cover a decade dominated by Parker, You’re gonna make some tough choices. But the thing is, the story they tell is the standard jazz story, the "mythology" that every jazz fan learns within the first couple of years they're a fan. Parker is the troubled self-destructive soul, whose appetites rage out of control, who led the triple life of jazz genius, junkie, and family man (though we get few details). Bop was born whole at Minton’s, Parker's favorite composer was Stravinsky, Armstrong smoked lots of marijuana, etc. You can sum up 45-55 in two words: Bird and heroin. I learned zilch --there wasn’t a story I hadn't heard before (though oddly enough the second reference I’d seen in a week to Parker’s appreciation for country music), no insight into his personality that went past the surface. As one acquaintance of mine put it afterward: "It’s like Time-Life would have done it."

Perhaps particularly troubling is the way in which Dizzy is largely ignored. He’s not totally ignored of course. But he plays not second fiddle, but like 3rd or 4th fiddle to Bird. They almost make it sound like he abandoned Parker in LA out of spite. The only non-Bird performance clip he gets is one in which he's dancing in front of his big band (he never even gets trumpet to lips). They acknowledge him as the one who "popularized" bop, and although they note his incorporation of Afro-Cuban music, other than a photo of Chano Pozo and "Manteca" playing in the background, they don’t note how important it really was. There's not really anything demeaning to Dizzy, but there's a fair amount that sounds like damning with faint praise to me. Of course, if your take on a decade is all about one man, you've got to downplay everyone else.

There are also numerous mentions of how boppers didn’t like dancing, including repeated shots of "no dancing" signs in clubs. It’s presented as if the musicians wanted it this way. Of course, it was the clubs who put up the signs, and that was probably because they were all tiny and if people danced, they'd only fit about 10 people in there. But this is offered as the primary reason why jazz became unpopular (another straight from Marsalis/Crouch). It’s not that the music was unpopular because they played in small clubs that didn't allow dancing, it was played in small clubs because it was unpopular. Popularity determines size of venue, not the other way around. They also don’t bother to
explain at all why the big bands broke up (maybe that’s in the previous section), nor is any mention made of the recording ban.

In addition to Marsalis, Murray, and Crouch, other talking heads include Gary Giddins, Phil Schaap (much younger than I thought), Gerald Early, Jon Hendricks, Branford Marsalis, Cassandra Wilson, Quincy Troupe, Chan Parker, Jackie McLean, and Stan Levey. I’m sure I’ve forgotten some. The only inspired choice (and one of the few outside the Marsalis circle to my knowledge) is drummer Stan Levey, who was on the scene and was even Parker’s roommate for a couple years. McLean is also a very good, though obvious, choice. Nothing wrong with the others, but it’s not a very wide array of opinion. Where was Max Roach?

And now another big problem. This was episode 8 of 10. 8 episodes to get up to 55. The 9th episode covers 55-60 (or maybe it was 65) and the 10th covers everything after, including "things which grew out of Jazz." So a serious disservice to current jazz and obviously something close to completely ignoring the avant-garde. Oh, don’t get me wrong, I’m sure we'll hear about Albert Ayler washing up and maybe Cecil Taylor will get a nod as the "Coltrane of the piano."

But beyond all that, even if you agree with the decisions Burns has made about what gets priority, this is disappointing, judging by this episode. It’s the surface history of jazz, intended to hook newbies with jazz’s intriguing story and satisfy social conservatives by dressing it up in democracy and America. Marsalis’s prints are all over it. He’s third in the credits, as "senior creative consultant." Heck, in this thing we even get a brief nod to the discussion we had here recently, that "after the war, the informal jam session became the model for public performance" -- I was waiting for Marsalis to chime in with "solos didn't exist before then." :-) Just as I thought we were gonna make it for the full 2 hours, "gutbucket" came swinging through the Monk segment. Whether you agree with the Marsalis/Crouch version of history or not, I’d hope you'd agree that a multi-million dollar, 20-hour documentary on jazz ought to find room for some additional opinions, especially since it’s not like the Marsalis/Crouch version doesn’t get plenty of exposure already.

And I now realize that this is a big part of the problem with this documentary and some of Burns's other work. In the Civil War, you have 2 sides, different viewpoints which were expressed at the time, and you can both contrast those positions, and take note of the common humanity which managed to show itself despite those contrary positions. Quite obviously, civil wars are reflective of society. In Baseball, Burns simply reached too far, equating a simple, beautiful game with a complex, often ugly society, but with the further problem that once you take as a premise that baseball reflects America, there’s no counter-point to be made. Burns makes the same assumption here – jazz is what Wynton says it is: swing, blues, democracy, America. If that's taken as a given, then there's really only one story to tell here, only certain individuals to be heard from.

Of course, there’s a huge flaw in Wynton's view which no one seems willing to tackle. On the one hand, jazz is the ultimate in musical democracy; on the other hand, it’s dominated by a handful of giants which we must worship and the story of jazz is the story of those men.
(It’ll be interesting to see what role women play in this documentary. The only woman musician mentioned in "Risk" is a nod to Melba Liston as trombonist and arranger for Dizzy ("he liked some of her arrangements as much as his own.")) If jazz is democracy, equality, a "negotiation" (a word used twice within the first 5 minutes), then where are the other voices? In the Civil War, we heard stories of low-level soldiers, civilians, abolitionists, slaves, generals, and all the rest. Here we get the story of Charlie Parker and almost nothing else. The notion of the pantheon of greats is antithetical to the notion of jazz as a music of open democracy. The story is so much richer.

And of course the "great man" approach hinders the film as well. When They’re reading off the list of the victims of heroin, the jazz fans in the audience are indeed saddened -- but the neophytes to whom this is pitched will have absolutely no idea who any of these people are because they’ve been completely ignored. Sure, they can tell from the context
that these are supposed to be good musicians, but they won’t have anything close to a real sense of what it means to have lost Tadd Dameron. Gerry Mulligan's name is mentioned a few times in a context which conveys "this was an important musician" -- buy why? It’s ironic -- they actually take a swipe at Dean Benedetti! They mention that "fans" would follow Parker from gig to gig, turning on their tape machines as he started to solo and turning them off when he stopped, ignoring the other musicians. This is portrayed as bad, as a sign of how the worship wore on Parker and wasn’t fair to other musicians. Of
course, this episode is the height of Parker worship and ignores other musicians. [and for god’s sake, a documentarian above all else ought to be grateful that someone bothered to preserve a huge chunk of Parker’s live work -- though I don’t think we got to hear any of it.]

And I’m disappointed with the lack of new footage and unfamiliar photos. Heck, I believe I’ve seen every one of these photos and film clips before and I’m hardly a jazz film/documentary/photography buff. It’s like they've recycled Bravo’s jazz documentaries. Seriously, take that cycle of documentaries, add Straight no Chaser, that American Masters piece on Parker a couple years back, and you've got everything these 20 hours are likely to have, without as much of the "jazz is America" stuff. Later this week, there’ll be a presentation on the jazz photos of W. Eugene Smith, a photographer for Life who quit that job to live in a NY loft during the 50's, made it a popular hangout for jazz musicians (reportedly Sonny Clark was "house pianist" and Miles and Monk both hung out there for a time), including wiring the whole house for sound. We'll be seeing his photos and hearing some of the music he recorded. How come stuff like that didn't find its way into Burns's documentary? Maybe they're in the next episode, but I didn't even notice any Miles Wolff photos. [note I probably won't be able to make that presentation of Smith's work, because we've got a concert that starts almost immediately after -- but folks in the Triangle can easily make both the presentation and the concert: Matt Darriau's Paradox Trio and Uri Caine's Zohar]

And the Benedetti swipe makes me realize how oddly they’ve treated recordings (as distinct from music) in this documentary. When Parker’s on the West Coast, he "managed to produce a few recordings for a small label called Dial" and we get the story of the producer having to hold him up to the mike and a Dr. giving him some (phenobarbitol?) to get him through it. There’s no mention made that these are considered legendary recordings by Parker. They play "Loverman" through this. Maybe they were being uncharacteristically subtle (relying on the music to convey its greatness), but there’s no mention that this is one of his more famous solos. The strings recordings, on the other hand, are treated with the utmost respect, bringing in Branford to defend Parker against any charges of selling out. As I mentioned, Monk’s Blue Notes aren't mentioned, while "Brilliant Corners" is showcased, noting it was recorded after emerging from the isolation arising from his cabaret card problems. I’d think a newbie would come away from that thinking that Monk was ignored until 55. And there's no mention of the folks running the labels. Maybe they show up in the next episode, but y’know Lion/Wolff, the Erteguns, that small Dial label, and those obsessed fans running around with their tape recorders were responsible for giving us anything to remember these great musicians by. They deserve some props, especially from an historical documentary filmmaker.

Which isn’t to say they got nothing right. Burns is a good documentary filmmaker who can tell a story in a captivating way. Neophytes should find this very entertaining and of course those who think the last 40 years of jazz deserves no more than an hour or two won’t mind its absence. And Burns has an uncanny knack for making still images come
To life (this was true in Civil War and Baseball too).

Most importantly, they almost treat the music right. Pieces are allowed to play pretty in full!! Granted, you'll have talking heads yammering over most of a piece, but they don’t play 30 seconds of a song then kill it when someone starts to talk, they just turn it down a
bit. And the music sounds excellent. I'm no audiophile to begin with and am not particularly experienced with various releases of the material of this time, but the music is crystal clear and sharp. I gotta give ‘em props for that.

Still, when I think of how much this cost, of how many jazz concerts could have been produced, filmed/recorded, and put on PBS with that money, of how full a view of the jazz reality of today could have been given, I am sorely disappointed. Don’t get me wrong, this will spark interest in jazz, especially Armstrong, Ellington, and Parker, among those unfamiliar with it. But based on this episode, it will give those new fans absolutely no reason to look beyond jazz's history. They’re ignoring the last 40 years and telling only a small piece of the story up till then. This does not do justice to the artform.

walt davis

Walter's comments verify what most of us feared. I just hope that the series generates some interest among the general public and that they will have their curiosity piqued enough to explore our music and see that there's a lot more to it than the Marsalis/Crouch/Murray narrow view.

PBS has become less and less willing to explore anything controversial after Newt's nazis threatened them and with their corporate sponsorships being necessary to their survival, they will get even more fearful of their own shadow.

Ovation and Bravo are about the only places where there's any jazz of substance and most of their stuff deals with the "giants."

Not a very promising outlook.

A couple of weeks back, I learned from a consultant to the series that the 9th episode will, essentially, focus on the 60's avant garde, with Ornette as its incarnation. Some time might be shared with fusion. I'm not expecting great things (last year, said consultant had to dissuade Burns from the notion that Ornette was a primary influence on Mingus!).

The last episode is presumably wall-to-wall Wynton and disciples.

Remember a couple years ago when "The English Patient" cleaned up the Oscars. Whomever the producer was. . .I'll never forget his (and his lackeys) speech, boasting of his contributions to jazz/jazz criticism. Perhaps this fellow had some good things to bring to the art form. . .but I'll never forget those ten or so corpulent white men in white tie boasting of their contributions to jazz. Matthew Shipp alludes to these fellows in tuxedos in discussing Wynton Marsalis.
It's very easy to play the cynic here. . .but I think most of us are dead-on as to this documentary. I can't help but think of Buell Neidlinger's comment on Cecil stating that he was the most spectacular musician he's ever seen. . .including Stravinsky. Perhaps Burns does interview Cecil. . .that alone would usher in the aforementioned 'contrast' in perspective so ostensibly lacking in this film, don't you think?:)
One last citation from Don Byron's recent NPR interview comes close at hand to the argument in question:

"Do you think that Thelonious Monk could win the Thelonious Monk competition?"

Cheers, and no, I haven't seen any of the documentary yet:)

Michael.

To Clint Hopson:

"Walter's comments verify what most of us feared. I just hope that the series generates some interest among the general public and that they will have their curiosity piqued enough to explore our music and see that there's a lot more to it than the Marsalis/Crouch/Murray narrow view." - Hopson post 118.

"It's always easier to be a critic than a creator." - Hopson on Brilliant Corner thread, post 47.

Ooops, you dropped something.

I more or less agree with you, but I figured a I'd tease you a little. Don't take it personally,

Rob Damen

There's nothing inherently contradictory in those statements.
How thin IS your skin?

Not having seen what Walter saw, I have to say that I think his "review" of the series, or his prediction of the overall quality of the series based on a single episode, is presumptuous and unfair.

Even if the episodes do move chronologically, it's not clear that omission from this one means that an artist will not get his or her due. Burns may make a decision to highlight an artist when he debuts, at the time of a particular project or collaboration, at his peak, or at some point after that. Without seeing treatments or descriptions of all the episodes, one cannot reasonably bemoan the limited scope of any given one.

Also, Walter seems upset that the documentary may be targeted at "newbies." I'd like to know what he was expecting: that a high-profile television series would cater to a small, select demographic as opposed to a broad national audience comprising both the curious and the committed? That's just absurd. And keep in mind that PBS's mission is to educate, not simply entertain. If someone thinks they know all this already, then by all means don't watch it; or better yet, watch it with a child. But just because it covers ground you already know, that doesn't mean it's a failure. It just means you assumed it was for the hard-core jazz lover and perhaps that's simply not true.

Finally, even given the marathon air-time PBS is willing to commit to a Ken Burns production, there is no way everything can get the coverage it may deserve. I'm sure there are rights issues involved with certain material, and there likely are artists or whole movements that are important to us but that take the narrative off on a tangent it can't support. Give everybody at Jazz Corner the money and equipment that Ken Burns got for this series and ask them to make their own, and you'd see hundreds of wildly different films, each giving greater emphasis to something different. No one would be wrong, necessarily, that's just the way it plays out. Burns probably isn't a massive jazz fan; that could turn out be a good thing.

My point is, we just have to wait and see. And in the meantime, check your hopes and assumptions at the door. Put yourself in the shoes of the film's creator and the PBS brass and ask yourself, what's the story we tell America - not you personally - about jazz?

I echo Jasontis' comments.

Again, judge the film when it comes out.

How many sub-genres of jazz are there? Each could take an hours-long documentary to cover most the bases. Swing fans are bound to be cheated, the same for bop, free jazz, fusion, you name it. A person like myself, who's bought a couple thousand jazz recordings and dozens of books on the history of jazz music, is not the target audience. This film should be viewed as an introduction for those who have only a casual (or no) interest. In otherwords about 90% of the American public. After seeing the film I'll probably have several complaints, but I'm not going to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Hopefully, this project will lead to others that will cover the artists and music who will inevitably be ommitted from Burns' film.

Chris DuPre.

Not contradictory, hypocritical.

No biggie. Just messing around a little,

Rob Damen.

i presume this article display was a caveat of what to come. And not to pick, chris a, but did i not see a video that u were involved in a short doc on the history of jazz. or u may have just been involved in the world according to coltrane video.

the outline as i remember displayed more ellington that parker, then covered coltrane heavily for the 60s & as the free jazz rep. fusion got the 70s & the neo-cons got the beyond. how does that differ? i realize the time frame that u worked was condensed but i see a similar outline.

frankiepop, you may have seen me as a talking head on any of several documentaries, but I have nothing to do with the script, structure, or any thing else--I am just someone they interviewed. If, however, you saw "The Story of Jazz,"--a 90-minute film that was made for retail stores, but also was shown by Bravo--I am responsible for that, because I wrote the script and, selected the talking head clips, and had a hand in selecting historic photos and footage.

As for the Ken Burns review by Walter Davis, I obtained his permission to pop it in here because so many of us have wondered about the forthcoming series. Now we at least have an inkling of the direction taken. You seem to be critiquing me, but here I was merely the messenger.

So what's your problem?

PUL-LEEZE, folks!

Davis has seen part of the documentary, which puts him one up, at least, over any of us.

He offered his opinion. Since when has an opinion been deemed presumptuous? You mean that none of us has ventured to offer an opinion on a CD, a movie, etc., after only getting a "taste" of it?

Of course, we will all wait to see the documentary, to judge for ourselves. But we do have a bit more info about the thing than we did before. Rather than slamming Davis (and Chris, who was only the "mailman"), simply take Davis' review under advisement, and wait to see the thing for yourselves.

I'm not slamming anybody, I just feel that it's premature to judge a 10-episode series after seeing just one episode. And Davis clearly was extrapolating his impressions of that one episode to assume the whole thing will be filled with Marsalises. That may or may not prove to be true, but why be cynical about it? Knowing PBS as I do (I used to work at WGBH, which produces NOVA, Frontline, The American Experience, and many more), there likely will be an extensive educational outreach program that will bring the series into classrooms across the country. This is a great opportunity to spread the gospel of jazz to the next generation; if the series doesn't satisfy the hard-core fans, then that's cool. IMO, it's more important to promote the form than satisfy the current devotees.

any series that spends 80% of it's time on pre-1955 jazz will do little to sell the next generation on the future of the music.


this may be premature, but I say this will be a gigantic lost opportunity for the future of the music





You Forget To Answer

To get to the future, you must know your past.
It does sound like some of our worst fears about the series may be realized. As I will have to promote it, I sincerely hope not.

With the many problems reported from this one episode and seeing Marsalis credited as "Senior Creative Consultant", do you really think the last four decades of this music is going to a fair shake? Will there be even one mention of the AACM?

I sincerely doubt it.

<Hopefully, this project will lead to others that will cover the artists and music who will inevitably be ommitted from Burns' film.>

Well put, Jasontis. We'd be well advised to hold our comments until we see the whole....

I have two "surmises" about the upcoming series...
1. it is not aimed at the hard core Jazz Fanatic
2. it will probably not include my "twin," Joe Williams. [these documentaries are notorious for omitting MOST singers, anyway, but somehow.... oh well.. just my own personal sour grape.]

Jasontis, what's really to be gained if you have a 10-series show concentrated on the blind deification of four or five people(bear mind, that is if everything seems to go as indicated)?! Is that what jazz is all about? If you're introducing jazz to new people, is that what you'd like them to do?

If I know next to nothing about a subject, but am interested enough to invest 10 hours of my life to learn about it, then I will want as much of the whole story as possible with several different perspectives.

I do not want to see one revised glossed-over diet-reader's-digest perspective.

Is this FOX, where we're dealing with a braindead lead-in audience from "Ally McBeal"? Or is this PBS, whose viewers expect a more concise and broad perspective?

>>Is this FOX, where we're dealing with a braindead lead-in audience from "Ally McBeal"? Or is this PBS, whose viewers expect a more concise and broad perspective?<<

You mean the same viewers who watched John Tesh Live at Red Rock?

Hmm.

Omar - and John Bradshaw and Deepak Chopra and Andrew Weil and the Eagles....

Alright, I forgot about their collective love for John Tesh. Good point.

Or a fucking Andrew Lloyd Webber marathon last w.e.

Or the most superficial series ever done on U.S. presidents.

See my earlier post #118.

<<...the blind deification of four or five people...>>

??????????????????????????

In your frequent intimate lunches with Ken Burns, is this what he outlined as his vision for the series, or are you just taking the most profound leap to judgment in modern times?

LET'S TAKE A COLLECTIVE CHILL PILL, PEOPLE. IT'S ONLY TELEVISION!!!

What you see on pledge is there for a reason. It WORKS.
All of us in public broadcasting wish we didn't have to air at fund-raising time shows about which we are ambivalent. But with cutbacks in federal, state and local monies, we HAVE to amass enough cash to keep on keeping on.
Tesh helps us keep "Frontline." The Webber fests pay for the Metropolitan Opera. Jazz shows in pledge -- with Ella Fitzgerald as a notable exception -- usually tank.
Sad, but true.
(This is personal opinion, not to be confused with a public-TV party line of any sort.)

chris a,

<<"The Story of Jazz,"--a 90-minute film>>

that is it if ur merely reporting ok, but i thought u had some misgivings urself on a thread about the possibility of the direction burn's may take. i dont have a problem i just thought that as a general outline of burn's jazz or of what is to be expected from the above noted information on this thread, would it be much different than your outline that is if u have misgivings.

as for chillin' i think i know what to expect from this. rather than fite the battle, i repeat that i dont like burns and rather a more creative film maker make this documentary.
i think that it would b more practical to have a film done on avant garde music that included 12 tone, chance, minimalism, cecil. ornette, aacm etc rather than adding avant garde heavily to a jazz history format. the exclusion or inclusion seems to create futile stress. the larger mainstream just is unaccepting of this form yet.

Jasontis, thank you for noticing my disclaimer as follows:

<<(bear in mind, that is if everything seems to go as indicated)>>

Now who's overreacting?

Funny thing. I'm an admitted Marsalis fan. I've stated that many times. However, the criticism I've read concerning him here and at JCS has affected my opinion of him somewhat. I'm not afraid to admit that. So in some ways I'd be disappointed if his presence dominates Burns' film as much as some of you fear.

On the one hand, I wouldn't mind if the avant-garde got short changed. A concentration on the decades from the '50s on back wouldn't bother me too much because that music IS largely ignored. All you have to do is look at the Record Review area here, or the Recommended Listening board back at the old JCS site. The stories of Armstrong, hawkins, Young et al, fascinate me because they're about this music in its infancy. They also talk about a time I can only imagine. Many of the avant-gardists of today (the current generation, not Cecil's) have the same story as me: grew up in a middle-class neighborhood, took music lessons in school. There's not much romance in that. I know that story. The only diffrence between them and me is I put down my intrument in junior high school.

My (their's) story can't tell me how it was to travel through the Jim Crow South trying to earn a living. I don't know what it means to hear the Basie Orchestra on some cheap radio and being inspired to play jazz. Anything like Minton's and Monroe's Uptown House going on now? The K.C. Jam sessions? I lived the '70s, '80s, and '90s. That's not history to me, the music of that era is just the soundtrack of me growing up. I want to hear how this complex music grew from spirituals and field hollers. I want to know how Ellington, with very few (if any role models) basically created the template for the jazz big-band. I know Dave Douglas's story, Eskelin's too, because I kind of lived it even though I'm not a professional musician.

A lot of us give lip-service to the "old masters" but how many of us actually listen to the music other than for historical reference? How many of us know their stories? The odds they had to overcome to become a musical genius? Louis Armstrong was a miracle when you consider his background. Mary Lou Williams too. They came along at a time when choosing to be a musician was not a casual life-styke choice like it is for many of today's players. It was a choice between taking a chance or being dirt poor. Those are the stories I want to hear.

I'm going to reprint a personal e-mail I sent to Chris when i read the Davis comments.

I find Davis's diatribe as hard to read as he found the Burn's segment to watch. No kidding around here--every word seems to drip with hostility and an insider's lack of objectivity. I am NOT saying that Wynton deserves being 3rd in the credits--please believe me when I say that this would have been fine without his input altogether in my mind. But for Davis to go on and on about things like "He doesn't even begin to deal with what the loss of Tadd Dameron meant" (I paraphrased), I just say "PLEASE!" People live, people die. Dameron was definitely one of those, just like everyone else. What would he have Burns do, spend 15 minutes on Dameron's last days? At the cost of 15 minutes on Parker? Why? Who says it is as important, or more important?

As he points out, this is NOT for rabid jazz fans--it is for people who don't know dick about jazz, just like most documentaries are meant to educate an unenlightened audience about the subject at hand. If everyone knows about it, why bother making a documentary, right? I believe that there wasn't a chance in the world that Davis would have been pleased with anything Burns could have done. Davis listed off so many names that it almost took me 2 hours to read it! ;) It is as if he is suggesting that throwing those names around would have enriched the work immensely. Again, says who? Some fanatical insider (who has probably never put together a wide-ranging documentary himself) who is obviously keeping score to see how many times Burns dissappoints him.

That last sentence is key: he was looking to catch Burns screwing up, and that's what he did. That's what most of us encapsulated, self-destructive jazz fans will do--ignore any potential benefits and trash the thing for months to come for all the many ways we were disappointed. Some of us will even make folks who enjoyed it feel stupid for saying so--you know this will happen, don't you? Now, if I hate it, I'll say so too. But Davis's rant is far too petty and personal for it to influence me ahead of time.

I hope you're not pissed that I didn't get behind what he was saying, Chris. The one thing he mentioned that truly alarmed and saddened me was that this was 8 out of 9 and it was only up to 1955. That sucks bigtime, especially since I believe that there has been boundless innovation and development within (and because of) jazz since then. It would be interesting to examine why today's advertisers and pop stars feel that jazz adds an air of sophistication to their product, especially when contrasted by jazz sales!

Anyway, I'm sure we'll all have a lot to say about this down the road.

I'm sure all eleven people who like avant-garde will be disappointed. ;)

Do you think that greats like Hank Mobley, Vic Dickenson, Red Norvo, Paul Gonsalves, Shorty Rogers, Art Pepper and Phineas Newborn will get any air time at all? I doubt it.

<<Do you think that greats like Hank Mobley, Vic Dickenson, Red Norvo, Paul Gonsalves, Shorty Rogers, Art Pepper and Phineas Newborn will get any air time at all? I doubt it.>>

Now, I'm not being a smartass, but I want to ask a question: what possible difference could it make whether Art Pepper "gets any air time"? Does anyone really think that every single great player will get mentioned, and that the series is a failure if they don't? (And do you feel the same about players *I* think are great but you don't?)

Some might not agree, but there have been lots of important players whose names are not destined to become household words, and no one I've run into yet has heard everyone. A history of jazz is somehow incomplete without 5 minutes on Art Pepper? How many weeks worth of tape would we need to explore the lives of every terrific saxophone player, let alone jazz bassist, drummer, trombonist, guitarist, pianist, vibist, violinist, arranger, bandleader, producer, record label, concert, promoter, studio recording, live recording, concert, witty/interesting story?

And who is to say that the piece be more effective overall by throwing in everyone who ever made a contribution to jazz just so we insiders could say "Hey, at least they mentioned Rufus Reid's name!" I just think that it is horribly unrealistic to be disappointed by such things.

Well, we'll all see, won't we?? So when are the air dates for this, does anyone here know??

I too think it's a little unrealistic to expect it to cater to we hard-core jazz fans (which seems to be Mr. Davis' expectation). It would make no sense to produce such a lengthy documentary were that the case. And, personally, I really dislike documentaries that become nothing but a list of names. I'd rather they sharpen their (and the audience's) focus on some central figures than take the "oh and him too" approach. One can only hope though that it's somewhat more substantive and informative than the horrible Presidents series they're running now. These days most PBS programs almost seem to be going out of their way not to say ANYTHING of importance or relevance.

Perhaps that's part of the reason it looks as if they decided to steer clear of the divisions in present-day jazz and treat the music as primarily a historic phenomena. Just once though I wish someone would make a documentary that treats jazz as a living music instead of some form of "Americana" nostalgia (which is Mr. Burns' specialty). Music with a great and fascinating history yes, but a history that leads up to and includes the various creative movements and musicians of the present. These people, as those of us who see them on even a semi-regular basis know, are the ones who are out there right now creating new and exciting possiblities for this music every night, and really shouldn't be shorted their due in the history of jazz.

Dear Mr. Burns,

Your reputation precedes you, as does a host of critical reviews of your new work for PBS even before it airs. Aren't you impressed with our foresight?

By the way,please say hi to Wynton for us,ok?

Cheers,

Ron

***NEWSFLASH***

Wow,this thread could go on ad nauseum,based on information I just got from the PBS website. Looks like Ken Burns' documentary is slated to air in January,2001.

It would appear that PBS has also created a pretty ambitious online "Jazz" Website companion, a prelude to the documentary,including an interactive classroom offering for K-12,scheduled to be unveiled this October. That sounds pretty hip to me.

For more details,here's the link:

http://www.pbs.org/jazz/index.html

The only solution would be to take an Encyclopedia of Jazz approach. Start at the letter "A" and do a two-hour profile on every single person that's ever played jazz.

Of course there would never be a final episode and John Zorn'll be dead a few decades before his show pops up. I might not make it to the "F"s.

<<Looks like Ken Burns' documentary is slated to air in January,2001.

>>

I find this terribly disrespectful to jazz in general--more evidence that Ken Burns doesn't know what he is doing, that he would put this eagerly anticipated program on the back burner, so to speak.

;)

Darryl G. in #145 -- so superbly stated. I, for one, cannot wait. Ironically, the series will be most disappointing to jazz fans. As was the Civil War series most disappointing to Civil War buffs. It was a very biased, and victory-tilted and hindsight-ridden depiction of the war (esp. in mimicking Shaara's gross distortion of Gettysburg). But I guess we NEED to think of the Civil War in that way. Same for baseball, where nostalgia (esp. for the Brooklyn Dodgers or the BoSox) trumped fact at almost every turn. Real baseball fans cringed in their living rooms. We will all do the same with the jazz series. But still, I think the programs are/will be highly worthwhile, and I learned (and will learn) a hell of a lot. Better for America.

<Wow,this thread could go on ad nauseum,based on information I just got from the PBS website. Looks like Ken Burns' documentary is slated to air in January,2001.>

Thanks for THAT info, Ron! Now we here have a whole year (almost) to conjecture about what it will REALLY be like! :>)

Gary T: your comments about the Civil War and Michael Shaara make me wonder: you wouldn't happen to be from Richmond, VA, or Charleston, SC, by any chance, would you?

I've studied the Civil War all my life and found Burns' series far from disappointing. In fact, while there are some factual errors (inevitable, wouldn't you admit?), it is a valuable resource on the subject.

And yes, I'm a Yank from Boston.

Oh, I agree it was a very valuable series, and Baseball too, all the errors notwithstanding.

I'll bring this back to jazz, but first Jasontis, what you said was a real knee jerk. I have lived most of my life in WDC & points North (some in the South) and have also studied the war a fair bit. So much for your ad hominem. There is little doubt that the political situation after the war affected how it was told. Longstreet became a Republican, and thus helped control how the story of the South's defeat was told. No shock, he didn't point out his own errors. In the battle, Longstreet failed to follow thru on the lower flank on day 2, and most importantly, on day 3 failed to support the frontal charge, exposing Pickett to slaughter (that's a fact). He was cautious and did not follow Lee's bold plan. Longstreet would have made a fine Northern general. On the other end, the North's bottom flank basically ended at the rocky hill protected by the New Yorkers. Off-flank skirmishing on Little Round Top was minor. Chamberlain's bayonette charge grew to mythic proportions, and now it is told as the pivotal moment of the battle. It was not a big deal in the battle itself. Look, in all wars, the victors re-tell the facts. It is not a Southern-Northern thing. These events are close enough to recorded history that we can discern the true facts of the battle. Shaara/Burns tell a myth. It is a good myth and it is the myth we need to have for today's understanding of the war. In truth, the war was a long series of Northern defeats and blunders; cowardly generals and bureucratic waste of life. They won by pure attrition. Thank god they did, no denying that. Count me first on that front. But what happened, happened.

Now I'll tie it back to jazz, because there's a moral here. History, at least in TV documentaries, is not about telling facts. It is a telling of how we need to perceive history, how we need to TELL the story to OURSELVES. Ken Burns will TELL the history of jazz in a certain, coherent way, that makes the most sense to the viewers in the year 2001. It will not be accurate, even in his dramatizations. But it will be soooo good, and you'll wipe a tear or two. Yet, just picture King Oliver, Earl Hines, etc. teleported to the present day and watching the thing. I'd bet they would sit there and watch it, scratching their heads and saying: what history of jazz is this guying talking about? Truth is, Burns won't be talking to them, he'll be talking to US. I rather like the modern version of the story of the history of jazz. We've made it very linear and it makes a great, clean story. As with Baseball and The Civil War, Burns is a Master at this thematic stuff. This one will be about art, so this will really be a cinch for him. The Civil War, though, that's about facts. Shaara/Burns are not historians and they clearly over-dramatized a mythical version of those very factual events.

I'm sure all eleven people who like avant-garde will be disappointed. ;) >>

smile noted,

& yes it does seem that way at times, although it is the most important jazz development in the last 30 yrs, & a sold out over 5000 bought $20-40 at the last cecil taylor concert that i attended in minneapolis & hargrove couldnt sell out a club.

<<I'm sure all eleven people who like avant-garde will be disappointed. ;) >>

smile noted,

& yes it does seem that way at times, although it is the most important jazz development in the last 30 yrs, >>

Steve Reynolds masquerading as Frankipop.

<<The Civil War, though, that's about facts.>>

Jazz is about facts too, and what's wrong with them? As was said before, what happened happened. Must jazz be reduced to a heathen mythology?

I agree. Didn't mean to imply accurate facts are not important in the story of the history of jazz.

Gary, I disagree with much of your conclusions about the Civil War and the Killer Angels, but I can tell you have studied the materials and so I respect your opinion. What you say about Longstreet is certainly true and is mentioned both in the TV series and the book. Certainly Jackson would have been more aggressive; that doesn't mean he would have been any more successful. Lee was not going to win that battle; he lacked JEB Stuart's scouting reports, he didn't have the high ground (moral or otherwise), and he didn't have the manpower or supplies. If Meade wasn't yet another bumbling Northern general, the war could've ended on July 5. Chamberlain's move (I thought Jeff Daniels did a pretty good job in the movie) may not have been a key strategic factor, but it certainly raised Union morale at a critical point, saved a lot of Union lives, preserved Union-held ground, and obviously advanced his own career.

Getting back to jazz and Burns, I agree with you but have no qualms with being told a story about where and how this African-American art form originated and evolved in a racist country that never got over the Civil War. Never underestimate the importance or validity of myth in understanding a society's culture and history.

Jasontis, well said. those observations are all dead-on, esp. re Stuart & Jackson Chamberlain. Like with McClellan at Antietam, it is amazing that Meade didn't just finish it off right there and then. If your third avocation is baseball, we could be best friends. Civil War, Baseball, and now Jazz. Truth is, I am just envious of Ken Burns. Who wouldn't want his job?

<<Must jazz be reduced to a heathen mythology?>>

As if it hasn't been already.

I just read a post by someone who called one of Keith Jarrett's solos "revealing." Um...revealing of what, and how would the listener know?

We do this all the time, impose our own emotional responses on an artist who may or may not have been feeling what we feel when we listen--most likely not.

Ken Burns is easier to take once you accept his American myth outlook. The Civil War, Baseball, Jazz, are all topics not only in and of themselves, but also patches in an American quilt (sorry for the banal metaphor). He's also done films on the Brooklyn Bridge, Thomas Hart Benton, and the settling of the West, and he puts everything in the larger American context. That may not be everyone's cup of tea, and in some cases, it may actually do a disservice to the subject at hand, but it's his art, his perspective, his interpretation. It's what makes a Ken Burns film so identifiably his. Like I said, I don't mind going on his ride but then I'm aware and accepting of what route he's going to take (eek, another rotten metaphor!).

The problem with Burns is that he invariably transforms whatever subject he tackles into something less interesting that it really is.

The events and circumstances leading up to the Civil War are hotly debated by scholars to this day, but Burns was content to regurgitate the standard High School textbook explanations.

Thomas Jefferson was an extraordinarily complex and contradictory man, but what you mainly remember from Burns's documentary are the spiffy shots of Monticello.

Frank Lloyd Wright was immensely controversial in his day, not just with the general public, but also with his fellow architects. Burns tried as hard as he could to cover that up, because it didn't match his image of Wright as an Unqualified Genius (though an irrepressable Philip Johnson brings it up in the film's best interview segment.)

The history of jazz is thrilling, tragic, funny, complex, contradictorary, and fascinating. Based on what I've seen of his other work, I'd guess that Burns will paper over all of jazz's rough edges, weed out the contradictions, and remake it to suit his own needs. He'll create something that's attractive, easy to digest, moving, and with a clearly stated moral.

It will bear the same resemblance to jazz as the Cliff's Notes version of HAMLET does to Shakespeare's.

Just my own prediction. I would love to be pleasantly surprised.

Frank Lloyd Wright was immensely controversial in his day, not just with the general public, but
also with his fellow architects. Burns tried as hard as he could to cover that up, because it didn't
match his image of Wright as an Unqualified Genius (though an irrepressable Philip Johnson brings
it up in the film's best interview segment.) >>

i thought a lot of focus was his controversy and inability to gain acceptance in that documentary. poor filming job tho.

frankiepop, I guess I was referring to two features of Wright's career that Burns did not explore in any great detail.

First, while Wright managed to become the most famous architect in the world, he never was the most influential. Today's American landscape is more heavily influenced by European modernists like Le Courbusier and Mies van der Rohe than Wright...even though more people recognize Wright's name! Many architects of the time thought Wright was downright old fashioned compared to the Europeans. This is what Johnson was alluding to in his interview.

Second, Wright has been criticized by many for creating buildings that were beautiful but unlivable. In some cases the problem was poor building materials, in others it was poor design. All Burns did to address this is quote some architect as saying, yeah the buildings aren't perfect, but they're brilliant. However, this didn't address the core question: *can* a building be brilliant if it's unlivable? Buildings are built to be used, after all, which is what makes them fundamentally different than art-for-art's sake like painting (or jazz, to bring this back on topic.....)

Now Hear This!

If you're in the NYC area on May 3rd, you will have a chance to preview Burns's "JAZZ" at the Museum of Television & Radio at 25 W 52nd St.

At 6pm, as part of the Television Documentary Festival, a "Preview" will be shown. There will be guests on hand including: Ken Burns, Gary Giddins, Mark Gould & Bruce Lundvall, president of Blue Note Records.

I understand that it's already sold out.

This topic has been discussed at the old Jazz Central Station chat and at the Speakeasy for the past 2 years (by some of the same people) and yet, not one of you jackasses has seen the film. Amazing.

To me, that speaks to the sincere love of jazz by all of you. God (not Trane) bless you all. Keep on fightin' and speakin' the truth about this incredible, under-appreciated art form.

Rodney

What's your problem, Rodney? Much of the discussion has been centered around an account by someone who at least saw 2 hours of this series. Any jackass who has read this thread knows that!

No problem at all Chris. You missed the point of my thread. It was a comment on the sincere love of jazz by everyone here.

Glad to hear that, Rodney.

<<No problem at all Chris. You missed the point of my thread. It was a comment on the sincere love of jazz by everyone here. >>

Not really, Rodney--you were being insulting, in what you thought was a sly way. I've certainly expressed frustration with folks condeming the show before they've seen it, but calling us all jackasses is just lame.

So sorry you were frustrated. Start a thread.

I am with Rodney here. Jackasses may be as mildly an insult as deserved.

Not surprising, Uli. You are becoming boringly predictable.

Agreed, Doug, I was being facetious in my response to Rodney.

True nuff that I haven't had the opportunity to see the film, Rodney. But I rarely have to actually read a NYT editorial on a given issue to know what it's going to say, either, if you get my drift. Nevertheless, your point is acknowledged.

Jazooo-

Sorry if you felt I was being insulting, that was not the intent of my post, I assure you. I have the utmost respect and reverance for the vast majority of jazz fans, critics, and musicians around here.

My point was, and still is, to be that passionate about something that has not been released yet, and which none but a select few have seen maybe 5% of the finished product, speaks volume to the love of the art form. I was not saying that you should not be discussing the series before it comes out.

Gary, I do not disagree with your point.

<<My point was, and still is, to be that passionate about something that has not been released yet, and which none but a select few have seen maybe 5% of the finished product, speaks volume to the love of the art form. >>

Really? I thought your point was that we are all jackasses.

I guess it's like if I call you a "sarcastic shmuck," it's really just my commentary on how impressed i am with your insightful posts? I love language...

Anyway, we'll see what we'll see. There's a lot of nervous anticipation about the series. I read similar threads when Wayne Shorter's tour was being talked about in advance--people used it as an excuse to talk about what they liked/didn't like about his more recent work.

Chris A,
predictable? here you go: Wynton

If you are saying that my critique of Wynton is predictable, you are absolutely correct. It is no secret that Wynton's performances in recent years tend to make me cringe, so it does not take a rocket scientist to predict that my comments re him will--in the main, at least--be unfavorable.

In my post, I was referring to a general attitude on your part. Perhaps I misunderstood your comment in post #176, but I don't think so. Anyway, I really don't care if you think we jackasses--let's get back on track: the Burns series.

Just received an Episode Synopsis which I will synopsize here for you now...hope this doesn't duplicate anyone else's efforts!

Episode One -- "Gumbo"
(Beginnings to 1917)
90 minutes

[mentions pre-Civil War New Orleans, Buddy Bolden, Jelly Roll Morton, Sidney Bechet, James Reese Europe, ODJB, and Louis Armstrong]

Episode Two -- "The Gift"
(1917-1924)
120 minutes

[Jazz Age, Ellington, Louis Armstrong, Paul Whiteman, Fletcher Henderson]

Episode Three -- "Our Language"
(1924-1928)
120 minutes

[Louis goes back to Chicago; Bix rises and falls; we meet Benny Goodman, Artie Shaw and Ethel Waters; Europeans become fascinated with the perceived "primitivism" of African Americans]

Episode Four -- "The True Welcome"
(1929-1935)
120 minutes

[the Depression; the Lindy Hop; Chick Webb; Fletcher Henderson falls on hard times, Duke prospers; we meet and worship at the feet of John Hammond; we meet Fats Waller and Art Tatum; the Swing Era begins]

Episode Five -- "Swing: Pure Pleasure"
(1935-1937)
90 minutes

[swing bands; musicians become celebrities/sex symbols; John Hammond "discovers" Billie Holiday; Benny Goodman integrates the band; racism; "The Music Battle of the Century" between Goodman and Webb]

Episode Six -- "Swing: The Velocity of Celebration"
(1937-1939)
100 minutes

[regional big bands; COunt Basie, Lester Young, Ella, Benny Goodman plays Carnegie Hall; Billie goes on the road and is horrified by racsim, writes Strange Fruit; Hawk records Body and Soul]

Episode Seven -- "Dedicated To Chaos"
(1940 - 1945)
120 minutes

[WW2; more swing; bebop is born; Ellington meets Strayhorn]

Episode Eight -- "Risk"
(1945-1956)
120 minutes

[more Bird and Diz; innovations splinter audiences into different camps: cool and hot, east and west, trad and modern; singers overshadow instrumentalists; big bands break up; Bird dies; Louis speaks out against bop; Monk gets recognition; Bud Powell is profiled; Gerry Mulligan and other west-coasters create "cool" jazz; we meet Brubeck & Desmond, Miles & Gil Evans]

Episode Nine "The Adventure"
(1956-1961)
120 minutes

[rock and roll and soul overshadow jazz, audience for jazz shrinks dramatically; definitiion of jazz gets blurred; sonny rollins; ellington re-emerges; miles signs with columbia; clifford brown; sarah vaughan; civil rights; louis risks his career to speak out against racism; blakey and silver and "hard bop"; "The Sound Of Jazz"; Coltrane; Billie and Lester die; ornette coleman; free jazz emerges ]

Episode Ten "AMasterpiece by Midnight"
(1961 - present)
108 minutes

[jazz divided into "schools": dixieland, swing, bop, hard bop, cool, modal, free, avant-garde; many musicians leave for Europe; Max Roach "Freedom Now Suite"; Mingus; COltrane; Getz launches Bossa Nova craze; Miles goes electric; avant garde spreads; by the 70s jazz is only 2% of music sales; Dexter returns for triumphal gig at Vanguard which signals rebirth of acoustic jazz; by mid-80s jazz begins to bounce back; new generation of jazz musicians, including Wynton, rediscover traditions; jazz is still alive...blah blah blah...]

and that's it
...of course, the interpretations of the synopses in my words in most cases...
sorry for the typos - i'm late for a softball game!!

Thanks twisted, that bears out what we have heard so far re the limited scope of this project.

Heaney (remember that one?) saw and reported on the Ken Burns preview that took place recently at the Museum of Broadcasting. His assessment appears on another BBS and is totally depressing. Apparently, the Murray/Crouch/Wynton school of limited thought dominates not only the series, but--according to Heanious--Ken Burns' own thinking (he has apparently become a jazz fan hwile working on this project). In his usual childish way, Heanious revels in the high exposure give the Lincoln Center Mafia.

And definitely nothing on AACM, Black Artists Group, M-Base, LA 60s avant scene, NYC 70s Loft Scene, 80s-90s Downtown. Yeah great. 40 years covered in two hours. Wonderful.

Thanks twisted for the post.

That synopsis really seems "limited" to you, Chris? I mean, lumping an almost 40 year period into one segment while other segments focused on periods as short as two years is ludicrous, but as an ancient history lesson, what high points were noticeably absent to you?

108 minutes on the last 39 years-or half the history of jazz is given less than one tenth of the time of the presentation.

more of the same.......

no wonder why jazz has died commercially

what a fuckin' joke

a travesty...reminds me of the names that wern't listed in the recently issued jazz encyclodedia

no listing for Gerry Hemingway?

or Joe Maneri

did the mention Julius Hemphill by mistake?

well at least I picked up at least 5 or 10 unopened soul note or black saint CD's that Ira Gitler sold to crazy rhythms over the years

maybe Ira was part of the team that Burns consulted with in making his silly movie

I guess I can forget about seeing Dr. John Carter play the clarinet.


and we can mention alot of people that won't be featured-but any supposed documentary of the history of jazz that doesn't spend a portion of the time on the Association for the Advancement of Creative Musicians is obviously *not* a documentary on the history of jazz.


As the AACM is *the* most important force or organization or group of musicians that has existed in this music over the last 35 years.


and it's philosophy has energized jazz musicians world wide-and it's founders are worthy of legendary status-Roscoe, Muhal, Anthony, Lester, Joseph, Douglas, Alvin...etc...






and especially Fred





now if the dude had any fuckin' guts or brains, he would have panned the camera past Indiana Avenue - maybe even for 10 seconds-and given us something like the cover to the okkadisc CD that has Fred standin' in front the broken down door to his little place.


But as usual, the ignorant elite knows nothing about what they speak - If they had any intention of coupling the history of jazz to what it is and what it means today to the people who love it and live it, they certainly blew it.


Jazz is ceratinly about the past and the tradition-but that is not what it is all bout-and this midset and attitude is killing the music.

Bird, Prez, Bean, Monk, Mingus & Coltrane are turning in their graves-witnessing what the powers that be are doing to destroy this music.








I won't even bother to watch it







Get Ready To Receive Yourself

I knew it. The last 40 years gets presented as an addendum, and the unsuspecting, of course, will assume that nothing much important so far as jazz's development has occurred during that time, as opposed to the monumental importance of all that came before it. The only thing that surprised me, given Crouch and Marsalis' fetishization of the past, is that anything after Miles and (preALS) Coltrane is mentioned at all.

It sounds like one of those annoying US History, Civil War To The Present survey courses they like so much in college curricula, where the prof spends 75% of the semester on Reconstruction alone because that's what he did his thesis on, and the semester ends before the material even gets to the Depression, never mind WW2, the Cold War, Civil Rights Movement, Vietnam and etc ...

Well, folks, perhaps the task ot documenting the last forty years of jazz history should be done by someone else. As Sisco said, that's the problem with survey documentaries -- the emphasis will always be on the writers (or undewriter's) preferences. But lets be honest -- would we like the documentary any better if Steve R was the producer? :-)

(You know I love ya, Steve, but you are just as "opinionated" as the Marsalis crew.)

This is why we need more "voices" out there. It is only through the multiplicity of voices that the "whole story" will be heard. Perhaps we're going about it the wrong way -- instead of spending our time trying to "silence" particular voices with which we don't agree, we should be agressively supporting those voice with which we do agree.

Anyone surprised isn't very smart.

Or else is an optimist beyond all logic and reason.

There is an audience for this series.

You ain't it.

Get over it.

Steve,
You've got the fire in the belly. Get a digital Hi8 camera, interview your heroes, get permission to use their music and make your own doc.
I'm only half-joking. WIth your fervor, you COULD do it, with some tech help. Talk to Bravo.

Doug, I think you may have misunderstood my post. I suggested that the series was limited in scope because short shrift is given the new paths taken in the last 4 decades.

I recently read an interview of Burns in Off-Beat magazine. Based on what I read, analysis and documentation of jazz is not his primary concern. Like his documentary on baseball, he's mainly looking at jazz in way that reveals what Americans are like, the problems that exist, our growth as a people, etc. One of the main questions Burns seems to be asking is What can we learn about America when we look at jazz.

If that's his intention, we shouldn't be complaining about how he has documented and analysized jazz and it's history because that's not his main intent. As a jazz fan, I would have preferred an analysis and thorough documentation of jazz and it's history, rather than using using jazz as a means to learn about America and it's people. But that's not what he's trying to do.

Good point, Reid. That's what Burns does in every project: How can we use this prism to see what it reveals about America?
In that sense, it's no surprise he spends so much energy on the time when jazz really mattered to the most people.

It does seem laughable,if not ludicrous, that the past nearly four decades of jazz expression and the dynamics surrounding those years could possibly be told in the last 108 minutes of any documentary. Certainly there will be *many* important stories left untold, not only in this last segment but throughout this series,I'm certain.

Having said that,however,how long and detailed should a documentary on jazz be to satisfy all concerned? That's unanswerable,I'm afraid,since each have their own agendas/needs in this regard.

However,after all of the chest-pounding and rhetoric is over,Jasontis pretty much "nailed it" in post #190,in my opinion.

Watch it,don't watch it, and/or figure out a way to make a more meaningful jazz documentary yourself, then GO TO IT!

And as Reid pointed out,we may just learn something along the way, . . .about ourselves(Americans). I never viewed Ken Burns as an expert on baseball,either. His approaching the subject from a sociological angle(if that's the case) shouldn't surprise any of us,frankly.

I'll be watching in the hopes of seeing,hearing and learning something new and insightful as well as those things nostalgic. Seems worthwhile to me.

Chris Dupre,

I believe he mentions that point you raise about focussing on jazz at it's most popular. He also explicitly stated that he wanted to avoid the question, What is jazz.

I think as long as we don't expect an analysis and documentation of jazz and it's history then we should be fine. Still, I'd really like to see a documentary that did.

When I first heard of this project, I guess I envisioned a couple of episodes covering material pre-bebop, a couple more covering bebop, one for the 50's, a couple covering the Coltrane revolution and the fall-out from that, one for the 70's and 80's and a final episode covering the 90's or some such thing.

But if you think about it, that was a pretty unrealistic expectation. Jazz, like classical music, had its day. With the advent of bebop it was no longer palatable for the masses. With the advent of rock-n-roll, well, forget about it.

So with that in mind, it looks like Burns pretty much followed the natural progression of advent, rise, climax, denouement. Looking at how he allocated time to the subject, it looks about right.

I'm still looking forward to it. I'm sure he's found some interesting stories to tell. I thought he did for "Brooklyn Bridge", which is the only work of his that I've seen.

Reid -- Burns has a point but I might add that given his presentation, what we will learn (if anything) about America from this jazz perspective will be about an America that ceased to exist half a century ago. In short, we might learn something about America as viewed through jazz during the first half of the 20th Century. Ok. So there's nothing in itself wrong with that. But there will be few lessons to draw from that that will be relevant today. Hell, it's not even the same New York, much less the same U.S. If you don't get my drift, visit 52nd Street today.

Also, giving the last half century -- half a century! -- short shrift tends to reinforce in people's minds that jazz is a thing of the past, when obviously it is a music that is still vital and evolving. Indeed, it is even more evolutionary now than it was then, as the "schools" today are more numerous and simultaneously more fluid than they were then. Hence, there is more cross-fertilization going on. Diversity is always more evolutionarily creative than its opposite. But the main thing, is that, in the minds of those who do not follow jazz as we do, it will, again, be presented as a part of America's past, not its present. That's really too bad, as there are many, many people making music that is every bit as good and original as was the case in the Marsalian-Crouchist Golden Years Fantasy.

GOD, LET'S HOPE NOT. -- "...Jazz, like classical music, had its day...well, forget about it.>>

I don't know about the rest of you but I'm going to SCREAM if I hear another pop diva Whitney Houston wannabe over the airwaves.

"Jazz" may not be what you or I consider a viable interpretation, but if it drives more people into the music stores to explore the jazz music for themselves that's a good thing. Isn't it? Weak or not its going to create a resurgence.

it will drive few or no people into the record stores - as it is being presented as a documentary about a music who's time has come and gone.

nostalgia based historical bullshit

kinda like the series on baseball-but at least that was broken down by decades farirly evenly.

as Gary Sisco so eloquently noted in his posts on the subject.

and I like that- Golden Years Fantasy

what will be missing(as Reid noted) is looking at jazz from the perspective of the *actual* music. Not how sociey saw or responded to jazz, how about form the musicians or the musical perspective.

The most disturbing aspect(and there is much that is disturbing about this travesty) is the short-shrift that this film implicity gives to the creative musicians of the last 40 years. It implies that thye don't rate in the pantheon of the great 20th century artsists-and this is an absurd premise.

One that is, of course, repeated as a mantra here and everywhere else that jazz music is discussed.

If this film will do anything, it will reinforce the misconceptions about what jazz is all about-and what it's artistic value is today in context of it's history and tradtion.

I see your point. But I'm looking at it like this: "my jazz" isn't "my dad's jazz" by a long shot! I started with his perspective but moved into my own realm. I'd like to think that the newly converted (via "Jazz" or some other avenue) will start exploring from the documentary's view (tainted or not) then open themselves up to listening to a wider selection of music and discussions with other jazzers.

Gary,

Personally I don't like the notion of perpetuating the idea that jazz is of the past. It's something I would not like to see happen. But I don't think it's fair to blast Burns for making a film that doesn't promote jazz effectively when that was never his main intent. That's what's been happening on this thread.

Now when you criticize his approach because he's only covering one half of the century, that's a different kind of criticism (and fair imo) that has been going on. Without having seen the film, it's hard to respond responsibly to the issue you raise, but let me say that I feel that what the first half century of jazz reveals about America, does have relevance to the America of today. What you seem to be saying is that the past can't inform us about the present, and I don't agree with that.

<<it will drive few or no people into the record stores - as it is being presented as a documentary about a music who's time has come and gone.

>>

Actually, the is quite a large segment of the population who likes buying antiques, so anything is possible. ;)

Reid -- It isn't that I don't think the past is important. Obviously, the past informs the present. But that is not a reason to fetishize it. Obviously railroads, for example, were important in the history of the US, and jazz for that matter, but making train noises with one's trumpet in 2000 is anachronistic at best and purposefully references a long ago that was more eloquently reflected in the music of the masters of the time. Do you see what I mean? I view the film's attitude in the same way.

Thing is, like the history courses 101 I described above, it's not like nothing extremely important to the US -- and jazz -- didn't happen in the *last* half of the 20th century. For example, the legacy of Vietnam and the racial conflicts of the same period hangs heavier over the population, like it or not, rightly or wrongly, than does the legacy of WW2 which for most of the population now is a dim memory or no memory at all. Musically speaking, post-50s developments in jazz inform the music of the present more than the swing era, etc. This concentration on the period before the 60s -- something that is not in any way limited to Burns or to the Marsalis-Crouchist axis -- often feels to me like a kind of Leave It To Beaver or Ozzie And Harriet or even Private Ryan view of history. In short, an illusion that apparently gives many people some sort of comfort and security, ok. Americans are not the first to subscribe to a created memory of a nonexistent golden age.

I mean, why *would* a survey course concentrate 75% of its efforts on Reconstruction and half an hour on Vietnam and the Civil Rights Movement combined?

But my major concern is that, whether the film is good or not (and personally speaking I happen to look forward to some footage of Ellington et al, what the hell), by concentrating on the rapidly receding past of the music -- overwhelmingly concentrating on it -- it gives shortshrift to the actual music itself. Which still exists and is still developing and evolving. It has changed very much since the 50s and early 60s, and these changes are as important in the history of jazz as the constantly repeated to the point of truism Chicago-to-swing-to-bebop version of events and musical development (which itself is nowhere near as cleancut and tried and true as certain people would have everyone believe -- nothing in history is that neat and clean). For example, Ornette Coleman's shadow falls deeper over the music of the present and the way it is actually played than Count Basie's, however much I love Basie (and I do -- I play some of his Decca sides once a week, minimum). Yet, Coleman is a mere footnote in the film. Never mind the shadow of Coltrane *post* ALS. Or the influence of post-65 and post-68 Miles, which is huge. Huger than his pre-65 shadow as far as the way the music is actually played over the past 40 years goes.

It's not like the 60s or 70s are recent times, though from the perspective of Crouch you would think they happened yesterday. They, too, are part of history -- and the major part of history so far as its influence on the present is concerned, socially or musically.

You know, I'm just thinking.

If I were a historian looking at the evidence, and not a jazz fan, I would definitely conclude that jazz was far more important to American culture in the first half of the 1900s than in the second half, and thus focus mainly on that period. Where jazz was once almost universally accepted, danced to, played on radio and in films, etc, it is now less than 2% of all records sold (if you believe those numbers, which I do, give or take a couple of percentage points). We flatter ourselves by maintaining that we haven't been dumped by America to a large extent, and that we are somehow connected in an important way to whether or not this country goes one way or the other. But none of the music's heroes are known to more than a handful of Americans, except for a few (who many jazzers reject anyway).

As a fan of the music, I believe that there has been tremendous innovation and excitement since 1960. But I would have a hard time linking said excitement to the important changes and events in our society, such as Viet Nam and other politically charged times throughout the 60s and 70s. After that, jazz's impact, if it has been there at all, has been was almost subliminal. In fact, every style of music has taken a huge dip in cultural impact once it became 99% entertainment and 1% art, imo. It would take 1,000 Alan Jackson's to fill the boots of one Hank Jones. Even 1,000,000 Spice Girls couldn't amount The Beatles (hell, even to just Ringo).

In the sense that it is good for the world to have an artist like John Zorn or Ornette who is uncompromising in his vision, I see the importance in the long term. but these guys are even further removed from America's everyday life. Yes, the last 50 years should get way more time than what seems to be allotted, and the contributions of many more modern and incredible artists should get more attention than it seems they will. But I would only argue that for a sense of telling a more complete story of jazz, not because it has been a genuinely important part of American life in the last 50 years. I really don't think it has, even though it's been a major part in my own.

I wonder if anything will be made of the history of "not being jazz." Pops didn't call what he was doing jazz, he called it folk music(music for folks). Duke disdained the term, and Bird and Diz were pretty adamant in their day that what they were creating with bebop wasn't jazz. And alot of great players have done the same. But now they're all jazz musicians, and legends at that.

But that brings up the obvious questions: What is jazz? Is jazz really what we think it is, or have we been ignoring or shunning alot of things over the past 30 or 40 years that should really be fitting into jazz's definition rather than being excluded from it?

Gary,

I haven't seen the film so I don't know if Burns fetishizes the past as Crouch and Marsalis do. I believe Burns mentions that he focusses on the 30's and 40's for the same reason Jazzooo mentions above (It doesn't sound like he's really going to get into hardbop much).

Now it will irritate me if Burns basically adopts the same attitudes as Marsalis and Crouch, but I'll withold judgement until I see the film.

On a site called offbeat.com, look for Backtalk with Ken Burns, it's a lengthy interview that might clarify a few of this thread's many speculations.

It is kind of worrysome that the man only had one jazz title in his CD collection in 1994. Pitty he does not say what is was. Does the involvement of Giddins leave some hope?

Not sure what kind of history of jazz it can be if it only mentions Monk in one episode and according to Walter Davis that is for 10 mins.

Then the fact that I didn't see Cecil Taylor's name at all makes it even more obvious what kind of history of jazz it will end up being.

30 Seconds on Bud Powell? How is that possible?

Makes you wonder how much time Marsalis will get on his career?

Up until 1956 every 10-15 year period gets 2-3 episodes which is why the last 44 years get 3hrs 48 mins.

4 Shows don't even get the full 2hrs which comes to 92 more minutes they could have used for the last 44 years.

As much as I enjoy Bird a full hour only for him at the expense at so many others is a bit much. Monk, Miles, Trane, Mingus, and Ornette have been just as important as Bird.

I am hopping those new to jazz that watch this show, who start off listening to those mentioned will come to a BBS like this. To find out about all the others who deserved to be mentioned or didn't get as much time as they deserved.

Whilst others may think that Monk, Miles et al as just as important as Bird, in my opinion CP was the single most influential post war jazz figure. One wonders what "Jazz', would have become without him.

I suspect if one broke down the Burns minutes by period and sub-genre of jazz and then do the same thing for the aggregate minutes listened to jazz by JC posters in the last year(admittedly an impossible task), then correlated the Burns minutes with the JC minutes, the correlation would be strongly negative.

To each his/her own jazz history. An hour on Bird is by no means too much. 3 minutes on Bud is no way enough.

What a bunch of dweebs my buddies here sound like! Measuring minutes--"This one got more minutes than that one!" Geez. As if 30 boring minutes on an artist would make a better documentary than a well-written 5 minutes. It doesn't work that way. God help us when the audience starts dictacting how many minutes a filmmaker has to spend on each subject--it's art, kids--Burns is doing what he was born to do, and that is make his version of art. Lighten up.

"Burns is doing what he was born to do, and that is make his version of art. Lighten up." completely in agreement with you on Burns. but even at my litest i feel like saying ' fucking three minutes on Bud only? who are you trying to kid, man!

"Burns is doing what he was born to do, and that is make his version of art. Lighten up." completely in agreement with you on Burns. but even at my litest i feel like saying ' fucking three minutes on Bud only? who are you trying to kid, man!

after all, in the interview he claims to be a HISTORYIAN.

Uli:

I was not saying an hour was to much for Bird. I can watch even more on Bird. My point was that at the cost of time to all the others that got little or no time at all an hour was to much in that case.

Jazzoo:

What can anyone learn about Bud in 3 mins? I don't care how well written it is. There is no way to hear even one of his songs and get any kind of bio on him in that time.

Not sure how 30 mins on Bud or any of the greats that are short changed could be considered boring? Even if they didn't have any commentary about them and just showed them playing or let the audience listen to them playing while showing some stills of them.

Cecil Taylor is arguably just as imporatnt as Charlie Parker


a jazz documentary without anything concerning Cecil Taylor is *not* a jazz documentary worth watching or litening to if the listener is hoping to gain any persepctive on jazz music of the 20th century.

<<Not sure how 30 mins on Bud or any of the greats that are short changed could be considered boring? Even if they didn't have any commentary about them and just showed them playing or let the audience listen to them playing while showing some stills of them. >>

That's why you're not a director, Uli. <G> Playing a 1950s recording while looking at stills and listening through a shitty little TV speaker would definitely be boring to most people. Jazz fanatics such as you and me excluded...I think. Aren't you capable of getting bored watching stills? I am.

I mean, really. Steve Reynolds saying that a documentary about jazz that doesn't feature his favorite artists isn't worth watching. He doesn't give a darn about who I think is an important figure in 20th century jazz, just his own personal preferences. I'd be willing to bet (and he can easily trip me up on this) that of all the people he thinks "should" be featured, there isn't a single one that he doesn't like himself. He thinks that is defensible, yet let anyone else do the same thing and complain that Joe Zawinul, for example, is obviously getting a short shrift, and he couldn't care less. He'll argue against it probably. He's not standing up for the inclusion of anyone who did anything he doesn't dig, as if that's the main criteria for being featured, no matter what impact he or she might have had.

That's what diffuses all this discontent--the elements of it being a popularity contest, that we want our favorite artists represented. I don't think that is the main criteria for assembling a documentary.

Anyway, this isn't being made for us. And frankly, and I hope I don't eat my words after I see it, I'm relieved it is aimed at someone else. We are too dysfunctional a community to enjoy anything like this.

Cecil Taylor is not as important as Charlie Parker, IMO, but he is 200 x as important as Wynton Marsalis. It would have been interesting for CT or Ornette to have been one of the talking heads, commenting on Armstrong, Bird, etc.

JazzLovers,
Man no place on earth is there a love for the art form like here on The Corner.I don't think Burns is trying to reach or impress the jazz fantic just like he wasn't trying to reach the baseball puriest or An authority on The Civil War.I think he target group is the mainstream cat that may know little or nothing about jazz and may wet an appite or two.He has only a limited amount of time and money and he could not make all who post here happy if he had Jesus producing the show.I feel I'll learn somthing just like I did from his other programs.I guess I try to look for the positve instead of the negative.Peace and all that.

thank you Gordon

imagine having a massive documentary and (apparently) *not* having Taylor or Coleman as commentators and having(apparently) having Wynton expound on jazz and it's history.

and Doug, it has NOTHING to do with it being about or not about *my* favorites.

We are talking about Cecil Taylor, not Paul Dunmall, Han Bennink or Fred Anderson.

then again, Wynton's place in the history of this music pales in comparison to their's, if only from a purely "musical" perspective.





It Is In The Brewing Luminous

<<and Doug, it has NOTHING to do with it being about or not about *my* favorites.

We are talking about Cecil Taylor, not Paul Dunmall, Han Bennink or Fred Anderson.

then again, Wynton's place in the history of this music pales in comparison to their's, if only from a purely "musical" perspective.>>

Steve, unfortunately, I think every debate has to do with your favorites when you get right down to it. The above statement speaks for itself--I could have written it for you and been dead on. But I'm willing to back away from this--I don't want to fight with you about it.

and I don't mean to start a fight, but......

there is a consensus of musical opinion about Cecil Taylor was in place long before I ever heard him play the piano.

and the consensus is well known.

As we all know, his music isn't for everone-but his place in the history of jazz and improvised music is secure-as a genius and giant of 20th century music.

Again, it has *nothing* to do with my opinion - other than me agreeing with people who have far more experience with his music than I do.

and I have over 30 recordings - but my knowledge and appreciation of his music is limited compared to people who have listened to him (and seen him) perform for decades.

So maybe I shouldn't express my opinion about him as strongly as I do, but it's in no way a radical opinion, expect when viewed by poeple who havn't listened carefully to his music - or can't come to grips with it - which, btw, is just fine.

Nobody, especially me, has ever ever implied that they don't understand why more people don't listen to Cecil Taylor.

this aspect of his music, though, has no bearing on it's validity.

And I can imagine that Cecil Taylor's music is of not much, if any, interest to you, so I understand your frsutration with me.

then again, I've listened to Michael Brecker play on numerous recordings, and I've yet to hear a thing that can give me any clue that he's a giant of music. A terrific technician and impressive when the listener first hears a piece or a solo or two, but ultimately not of interest to this listener.

like I said, maybe Taylor has the same, or similar, effect on you.

and unless there is a paralell between the two artists, I wonder why you fight my assertion about Taylor's place in the music.

Or maybe you might go as far as believing Brecker is(or has been) as critical to modern improvised jazz as Taylor is or has been.

and that's your right, but being of my objectavist nature, I would dispute that notion entirely.




Nailed, baby

HL says "I guess I try to look for the positve instead of the negative.Peace and all that."

what is wrong with you, man? Lois, I demand that this disruptive personality be kicked out of Jazzcorner!

by the way, the New York Times' best columnist, Bob Herbert, raved about Burns' film in this morning's paper.

Every time this thread dies for a month or two, it heats back up again with the exact same arguments. This is the worst kind of deja vu, or like those dreams where you're running to get someplace but you never actually get any closer to it.

By the time this thing airs we'll all be so burned out on it that any chance of a fair viewing will be impossible. All I'll add is that Burns' style is not to give the full bio treatment to each of his subjects. They'll be introduced at the moment of primary historical impact and whatever time is spent on them will be in assessing the ripples they left in the Pond of Americana, not in digging the technical minutiae of their art. This ain't about jazz, the musical cosmos encompassing Bird, Taylor, and [your favorite artist here], it's about JAZZ, THE AMERICAN POST-CIVIL WAR ART FORM SPRINGING FROM A COMPLEX SOCIO-ETHNIC CONSTRUCT BLAH BLAH BLAH.

An artist working with paint can paint a person on a boat and all it looks like to me is a random assortment of splotches. But it's what he says it is because it's his personal artistic impression of and statement about the subject. Burns, using film, photography, and commentary, is giving us his own personal impression of and statement about jazz in the context of 20th-century America. It may not look like jazz to us, but that's not for us to say. It's his interpretation.

Burns may be an impressionist, as Jasontis suggests, but he appears to be working with a limited palette. If what we hear is true, much of the advance criticism may turn out to be valid. The problem,of course, is that we are pre-judging. A criticism of *that* does indeed have some validity.

So, I guess we should all wait a few months, catch the show, and reawaken this thread.

BTW Steve R, I think your remarks about Brecker vs. Cecil is right on. I absolutely cringe when I hear Cecil's extended vocal utterances, but one concert of his keyboard work is more meaningful than the sum total of everything either Brecker has done to date. Jazz is richly endowed with good musicians like the Breckers, but there is only one Cecil Taylor.

If Burns does not spend a lot of footage on Cecil, I can understand it, but I hope he gets more than a mere mention. If time is given as an excuse for omissions and abbreviated mentions, you can bet that some of us will find too much time given to a certain prominent talking head's simplistic, narrow take on jazz history. I doubt if we will find much balance in what Giddins says, as he himself shares a need to be in the spotlight, and has--on previous occasions--twisted his views in order to get there.

Well, I have critiqued the critique and proceeded to add to it.

Guilty (but honest)!

Folks, you don't have keep reading the thread if it bothers you!

<,And I can imagine that Cecil Taylor's music is of not much, if any, interest to you, so I understand your frsutration with me.>>

It is not of a whole lot of interest to me as a musician right now, but I definitely respect him and recognize him as an important contributor to jazz.

<<then again, I've listened to Michael Brecker play on numerous recordings, and I've yet to hear a thing that can give me any clue that he's a giant of music. A terrific technician and impressive when the listener first hears a piece or a solo or two, but ultimately not of interest to this listener. >>

Three things: 1) Michael Brecker? Who brought him up? Why suggest that I would pit him against Cecil Taylor in your imaginary competition for Dominating Jazz Artist of the Universe? 2) the description of your reaction to Brecker is about how i feel about Sun Ra. Except for the "terrific" and "impressive" parts. Yet I wouldn't deny him his place in the jazz pantheon; and 3) i believe the fact that you don't get more from Brecker's playing has less to do with his playing as it has to do with how you feel about the sustained level of interest in him and his playing (while your own heroes go unnoticed by so many). And of course, musically, he has an approach that doesn't jive with the approach you prefer. But I can and do definitely get lost in some of his work, repeated listenings and all. Therefore, it all boils down to your preferences vs someone else's. Like I said.

Nobody around here goes out of their way to put down the musicians you think are special and important, not very often at least. People (including me) defend you and your special tastes. I buy albums by artists you recommend.

<<So maybe I shouldn't express my opinion about him as strongly as I do, but it's in no way a radical opinion, expect when viewed by poeple who havn't listened carefully to his music - or can't come to grips with it - which, btw, is just fine.
>>

I love it! So, the only two possible alternatives are that we haven't listened carefully (whatever that means--are we supposed to wear a safety helmet or something?), or we "can't come to grips" with it. uh huh. I guess simply disagreeing with you doesn't count--it has to be some kind of definciency on our part, right?

And no, I'm not disagreeing with you about Cecil Taylor specifically, and I never have. That isn't what this thread is about, nor what my post was about.

<<Nobody, especially me, has ever ever implied that they don't understand why more people don't listen to Cecil Taylor. >>

Sure you have.

"...we haven't listened carefully (whatever that means--are we supposed to wear a safety helmet or something?)...."

Now THAT is fucking funny! BTW, I keep reading this thread BECAUSE it annoys me, but a little humor now and then always helps to diffuse the tension.

I agree with Chris. All this pre-judging is getting us nowhere. And it could be that the series does suck, is an injustice, whatever. Or we could be pleasantly surprised. Maybe it will in fact convert a bunch of people to jazz. We won't know until to comes and goes, so let's just wait it out.


"If the end brings me out all right, what is said against me won't amount to anything. If the end brings me out wrong, ten angels swearing I was right would make no difference."
Abraham Lincoln

Well, I hope I can get someone to tape it for me, as I don't have a tv.

But I hope he manages to allow a bit of abstract expressionism to disrupt his impressionism or we'll be in the wrong century altogether!

Talking about jazz is like talking about sex.

How so, Fish?

Burns takes on all that's 'Jazz'

By Manuel Mendoza Dallas Morning News, 7/14/2000

PASADENA, Calif. - Jazz may be one of those indescribable wonders, something that's easier to feel than to articulate. Ken Burns will try anyway - for 18-1/2 hours.

America's premier long-form documentary filmmaker is returning to PBS with his first epic since 1994's equally lengthy Baseball. Jazz completes the American trilogy he started with The Civil War in 1990.

Enthusiastic and eloquent as ever, Burns met with TV critics Wednesday to explain why this unexplainable music is key to American life.

"I'm a child of rock 'n' roll and soul and R&B, but when you hit jazz," he said, "it's suddenly like bursting into something in which the possibilities are so much greater. I don't know how to describe it other than there are no child jazz prodigies. ... It's an adult sensibility."

As usual with his work, race is at the center of the story, symbolized by the presence Wednesday of two people he interviewed for the series: white pianist Dave Brubeck, who wrote the legendary song "Take Five," and black dancer-choreographer Norma Miller, one of the original Lindy Hoppers at Harlem's Savoy Ballroom.

At age 12, dancing among the crowd that regularly gathered outside the Savoy, Miller was plucked from the street - she lived behind the club - and taken inside to compete in a contest. She described the universality of swing, which accounted for 70 percent of record sales in its heyday and now enjoys a revival, in her own way.

"If you don't dig swing," she said, "you don't dig fried chicken."

Jazz was originally supposed to air this fall, but Burns and PBS decided to delay it until January because of potential competition from the Olympics, presidential election debates, the baseball playoffs, and PBS's pledge drive.

Divided into 10 parts, the series debuts Jan. 8 with Gumbo, a look at the roots of jazz through 1917. The balance will air two or three nights a week for four weeks.

Burns and co-producer Lynn Novick, who are known for the thoroughness of their research, say they dug even deeper this time. They conducted 75 interviews while compiling 500 pieces of music, 2,000 vintage film clips, and 2,400 photographs, some of which had never even been printed before.

My spies tell me the thing stops at Coltrane.
I just browsed a local record shop and found mainly 30 year old music and recent reissues and a little "contemporary" stuff tossed in for colour. Is Jazz just a novelty from the past, or a living art-resisting schematic interpretation?

On the other hand- folk above have made the important point that Burns work is not for specialists-it's an attempt to give historical perspective to folk who are merely curious.
And for that Burns deserves praise.

But stopping at Coltrane? Say it ain't so.
That would be ludicrous.

BTW-Sisco: I'll have my mom tape it and we can find a VCR sometime and get hammered and watch the whole thing! We may need beer to endure it...but actually I'm predicting it will be charming in it's own way.

Chaz

I think I will need more than Busweisers-:)

Steve, I think you'll need a lot more than Buds after reading this piece:

http://www.calendarlive.com/tvent/lat_burns000806.htm

Yuck. I love his encapsulation of Mingus, Shepp and the AEC as "protest" music. My source tells me the highlight of the production is a back-and-forth series of Benny Goodman's band and Chick Webb's orchestra playing the same piece, ie. four bars of Goodman, four of Webb, where it's stunningly obvious how superior and harder-swinging Webb's band is to (a still very fine) Goodman's.

I dig the discussion, but geez, give the guy a chance...It hasn't even aired yet!!!! Any jazz recognition I see on television, and I'm a happy man (or manchild if you prefer).


A friend once told me assumption is the lowest form of knowledge...

Ok, disregard the last post, I just checked out Chris A's link.

I didn't even bother to check out the link (chronic laziness) but Stuckinagroove's last two posts made me laugh out loud.......................................

My chronic laziness made me just skim the article. So my impression that the series ends when jazz was dead in the 70's only to be resurrected by WM might be unfair.

So jazz died in the mid-70's but was reborn in 1980, after Art Blakey signed up Wynton for the Jazz Messengers. Hmmmmm, who was the major consultant for the project, Ken, did you say Wynton?

I still say that either Ornette or Cecil should have been one of the talking heads instead of Stanley Crouch.

I bet the program leads to a surge of cd sales for reissues and cds by Wynton.

can someone copy and paste the article here-my old computer keeps freezing up.


although I will say that I told you so-as did Chris A and a number of others...

SUNDAY CALENDAR
Not Exactly All That Jazz
Even at 19 hours, Ken Burns' new opus couldn't cover everything about the
music, and that is causing some static.

By DON HECKMAN

Ken Burns: Behind the Documentaries

NEW YORK--Two gunshots shatter the
stillness, a violent collision of silence and
sound.
Images of Paris in the 1920s flicker on a
screen as a narrator describes an incident
in which hot-tempered soprano saxophonist
Sidney Bechet pulled out a revolver and fired
at a musician who accused him of playing a
wrong chord.
In the isolation of a Manhattan mixing
studio, documentary filmmaker Ken Burns,
producer Lynn Novick and the episode's
editor, Craig Mellish, watch closely,
discussing possible ways to make the shots
fit: to move the narration, for example, or
adjust the picture. The exchange continues
for nearly 15 minutes before Burns and
Novick reach a decision. The shots, a
sound-effects addition intended to create
dramatic ambience, don't work. They'll have
to go--at least for the moment.
It's just one deliberation of a great many
that have taken place over the past five
years, as thousands of sounds, stories and
images have been fused into a massive
19-hour, 10-episode documentary, "Jazz,"
scheduled to air on PBS in January, the
latest work from the creator of "The Civil War"
and "Baseball."
Beyond the doors of the studio, another
argument is begin ning to unfold, one of
ideas and interpretations as dissonant
voices within the jazz community confront the
question of how the story of the music
should be told, and whether Burns is
framing it from a limited historical
perspective. Specifically, questions arise
about the influence of trumpeter, composer
and Jazz at Lincoln Center creative director
Wynton Marsalis, whose views on jazz have
already triggered years of infighting around
the jazz community, and whether "Jazz"
glosses over the last four decades, leaving
out key figures and musical styles.
The sniping will undoubtedly increase,
long before the actual airing of "Jazz," in part
because of advance screenings Burns has
and will continue to present around the
country.
It's not surprising, of course, that the
documentary is already evoking some
critical reactions. Jazz has always had its factions. Fans who recall the '40s can
remember the wars of words between swing musicians and beboppers, in
which the boppers referred to mainstream players (or to anyone who didn't
support the new music) as "moldy figs."
But a work as large and ambitious as "Jazz" obviously presents an extremely
large target. Burns' acknowledgment of his ignorance of the music when he
started the project makes it an even easier mark. Jazz, after all, is neither as
manifestly historical as the Civil War, nor as popular with the mainstream as
baseball. And the challenge Burns has faced with the project has been the need
to understand that--whatever happened historically--the music's essential
creativity is the core of the story, simply because it is the factor that has always
been the fuel that drove the players, both the great ones and the lesser known.
That's a difficult task for a filmmaker who has
tended to emphasize chronological, historical
points of view. Burns has worked hard to keep
the music central to the story. But he also views
jazz and improvisation as a metaphor for
American society and a device to explore African
American history in the 20th century. It's a useful,
if arguable, technique that frequently makes
extremely effective points. But it also tends at
times to place the music at the service of Burns'
(and his advisors') historical perspective.
Like the multi-episodic and much-honored
"The Civil War" and "Baseball," "Jazz" has been a
long time in the making, in part because of the
vastness of the subject, but also because Burns'
approach to filmmaking calls for the
accumulation of huge amounts of minutiae.
Burns, a slender, smallish bearded man whose dark, Beatles-style bangs
make him look considerably younger than his 47 years, is surely America's
best-known documentarian. His "Brooklyn Bridge" was nominated for an
Academy Award in 1981, and "The Civil War" drew an audience of 40 million
during its premiere in September 1990--the largest audience ever for a public
television program. It received two Emmy awards. "Baseball" attracted 45
million for its 18 hours and received another Emmy.
Curiously, he found himself irresistibly drawn to jazz while making "Baseball."
"I realize now that it actually incubated for a long time," says Burns during a
lunch break in the mixing, which is taking place at a studio in Manhattan's
legendary Brill Building (interestingly, a center, in the '50s and '60s, for the pop
and rock 'n' roll songwriters whose music would eventually help draw young
people away from jazz).
"There was a comment by Gerald Early, a
writer we interviewed for 'Baseball' as well as
'Jazz,' " says Burns. "He said something to the
effect that, a thousand years in the future,
America will be remembered for three things:
the Constitution, baseball and jazz.
"That gave me an intellectual rationale to
pursue a jazz film. But it wasn't until the editing
of 'Baseball,' when we found we were using
throughout the central episodes [the music of]
Count Basie, Duke Ellington, Clarence
Williams, we realized that we absolutely had to
do it."
At that point, Burns experienced what can
best be described as an intellectual epiphany,
triggered by Early's comment, but driven by his
own sudden awareness that he had been
working toward an American trilogy and that
jazz was the final, missing piece.
"If the Civil War defined us, as [historian]
Shelby Foote says," Burns says, "and baseball
was a way to understand what we've become,
then jazz--in addition to being a pretty objective
witness to the 20th century--was also a vision
of the redemptive future possibilities of our
republic. Because embedded in the message
of jazz is a finely tuned constitution at work: all
people listening, incorporating, dealing with
the question of the individual as well as the
collective. And you have essentially in jazz a model of what we might become
when we live out, as Dr. [Martin Luther] King [Jr.] would say, the true meaning of
our creed.
"And so, this represented a very logical progression, even though it came to
me in a very emotional fashion."
Even though Burns is far and away the most visible figure in the productions
of Florentine Films--the New Hampshire-based organization he co-founded in
1976 with two other graduates of Hampshire College, Roger Sherman and
Buddy Squires (both of whom continue to work with him)--the actual
nuts-and-bolts work of the documentary-making process is very collaborative.
"The first thing we try to do," says Novick, "is
immerse ourselves in the subject through
meetings with the scholars, reading all the books
we can get our hands on and so forth. And, in the
case of 'Jazz,' that process also meant listening
to the music, looking at the archival visual
resources that are available and trying to come
up with a concept that would make sense as a
film."
That process is considerably fine-tuned by the
need to create proposals to generate financial
backing. General Motors, a Burns associate
since 1990 and a sponsor of, among others,
"The Civil War" and "Baseball," is the sole
corporate underwriter of "Jazz." The company
also has signed an additional 10-year contract
with Burns, running from 2002 to 2012, to provide
35% of the funding for all his projects.
"Ken's work is an attractive package because
it's about the American experience," says John G.
Middlebrook, GM's vice president and general manager of vehicle brand
marketing.
"It relates to people's personal lives, and it certainly fits a lot of the American
ideals we're trying to support here at GM," he says. "Some people say
Americans get more of their history from Ken Burns' work than any other source.
I think that's probably true, and I think it's good for us to be associated with him."
"Jazz," which has a budget of more than $3 million, also received funding
from a long list of other sources, including PBS, the Corp. for Public
Broadcasting, the Park Foundation, the Pew Charitable Trusts and the National
Endowment for the Humanities.
"The NEH is the most demanding
in terms of proposals," Novick says.
"They require you to do an extensive
process that involves a conceptual
essay, a treatment of every episode
and a breakdown of all the elements
that are going to be included. It ends
up being about 600 pages or so.
But, in all honesty, it actually became
our original blueprint."
At this point, Geoffrey C. Ward,
who has written most of the Burns
documentaries since 1984, stepped
in. Of the many subjects he has
covered, jazz was perhaps the most
appealing.
"The one I knew squat about was
baseball," Ward says. "My dad was a
fan, but not me. In fact, when I called
him up and said I was doing the history of baseball, he said, 'Boy, you don't
know a god----- thing about baseball.'
"But jazz is something I've been quietly obsessed with since I was a little boy.
I always loved the sound of it, and I loved the sound of Louis Armstrong
especially."
While the various elements--footage, stills, audio, interviews--were being
assembled, Ward wrote a working script.
"At the same time," says Ward, "Ken was thinking about the whole project on
his own. Then Ken and I sat down with the script and went through it. He made
a lot of wonderful suggestions, we rearranged, cut and pasted, and went at it all
over again, producing two or three drafts. When we reached a point at which we
were reasonably happy that the story had been told, it went to the producers and
editors."
Aside from his collaborative involvement with the script-writing, Burns, Novick
says, "doesn't like to get too involved in the nitty-gritty of the initial part of the
process."
"Because he doesn't want to be an expert,"
she continues. "He'd rather be a representative of
the audience, so that he can watch the film, not
knowing about the parts that we decided not to
put in. And that's very helpful, because there's a
tendency to not see the forest for the trees when
you're putting material together, thinking that you
have to tell every single story, or you have to be
sure to mention these 10 things, or conversely
that you can assume that everybody knows that
so-and-so did this."
What one senses in conversations with the
various contributors--Burns, Novick, Ward--is the
extent to which each brings in his or her own
perspective. Clearly, Burns is the filmmaker, the
sole individual whose name headlines his films.
As such, he has the final word.
"You can be sure about that," said Marsalis in
a backstage conversation at Los Angeles'
Playboy Jazz Festival in June. "Ken's the guy, and
the ultimate decisions are his. We had a few
differences, and I wouldn't have done everything
exactly the way he did, but it all comes back to the
fact that he's the filmmaker."
Novick agrees. But her day-to-day, continuing contact with Burns (she has
worked with him since July 1989, was associate producer of "The Civil War" and
producer of "Baseball," "Frank Lloyd Wright" and "Jazz") gives her a somewhat
broader perspective on his methodology.
"In terms of the visual storytelling and the musical storytelling," she explains,
"he puts a stamp on a film, to a very great degree. But with something of this
scope, it's not possible for him to sit down and look at every picture and pick
what to use for every scene. So the editors and the producers will map things
out, and then he'll come in and say, 'Oh, this doesn't work,' 'Fix that,' 'Change this
around.'
"One of the great joys of working together for a long time is that we know each
other really well, and no one's afraid to say what they think. . . . But in the end,
Wynton's right, Ken is the director, and he will make the final decision about
whatever the issue is."
Each of the final decisions Burns makes is based upon the fundamental
canons of his work as a filmmaker--that his pictures tell entertaining stories,
that they have compelling narratives and that they educate via illumination. In the
case of jazz, however, Burns is dealing with a layering of elements considerably
different from those of "The Civil War" and "Baseball."
Jazz has repeatedly been described, with considerable justification, as the
soundtrack of the American 20th century. But Burns also sees it as "an
unusually curious and objective witness to that century."
"In that sense," he adds, "our picture is also about two world wars, it's about
the Great Depression, about sex and the mating call between men and women,
it's about drug abuse and its terrible costs, and, of course, it's about the
extraordinary building blocks of creativity."
That's a tall order, but it is a perspective that allows Burns to function in the
manner he finds most comfortable--as a narrative historian. Which, almost by
definition, meant that the story of jazz would be told in chronological fashion.
"We could have organized it completely differently," Novick says. "We could,
for example, have done thematic episodes. But what we find is that, for a
general audience, a story that has characters can be easier to grasp. If you're
already a jazz fan, you might prefer to not follow a linear progression, and
instead hear an episode about bebop because you love that particular kind of
jazz. . . . But we felt it was a bigger challenge and a better opportunity to reach
more viewers if we told the story via a chronological narrative."
Burns elected to take the route of following his principal characters--Louis
Armstrong, Duke Ellington, Charlie Parker, Miles Davis and, to a somewhat
lesser extent, Billie Holiday and Count Basie--over the course of their careers
rather than focus solely upon the creative high points. That decision displays
Armstrong, for example, throughout much of his life, exploring the complex ways
in which he has been viewed--musically and personally--by successive
genera