Jazz : A Film By Ken Burns
|
List Price: Our Price: $49.25 You Save: $50.70 (51%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $35.00 (click here) Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
Canada
Movie Reviews of Jazz : A Film By Ken Burns
Movie Review: Decent Social History, Bad Intro to the Music
Summary: 3 Stars
This whole project would have been better had Burns stuck to what was probably his initial goal--to make a documentary on the social history of jazz. I say "social history" because that's what Burns' other documentaries are about, it's where his interests lie, and it's what he's good at. The problem is that people know something about the Civil War, they know how baseball is played, but they don't know anything about jazz. Neither did Burns, for that matter, by his own admission. So, in order to make a documentary about the "dance between the races" (I think that's the term he used) in American society, as manifested in jazz, Burns had to teach the audience (and himself) about the music of jazz as he went along. To do this he enlisted the aid of consultants from Jazz at Lincoln Center--Wynton Marsalis, Albert Murray, and Stanley Crouch.
Somewhere along the way the whole thing started to see itself as a massive music appreciation project. But if I were going to put together a user-friendly and inviting introduction to the sometimes-daunting world of jazz, I certainly wouldn't do the following: (1) crank out a 20-hour production that can try the patience of even the most passionate jazz fan (2) taint the whole discussion with a highly judgmental slant about what constitutes "true" jazz (i.e. the controversial views of Murray, Crouch and Marsalis) (3)rigidly enforce the "true jazz" ideology by censoring the selection of musicians featured and trashing unfavored musicians (like Miles)--a real Soviet technique, when you think about it (4) clutter all the musical discussion with all of the social history.
This documentary has lots of great footage, and sometimes despite itself it has some good commentary (e.g. Gary Giddens), and even the social history part is pretty good. The historic interaction between black and white musicians/audiences is a rich topic usually ignored by the bulk of the American public. Burns did a decent job of introducing the topic. But if you're wanting to learn about the music, well--like I say, it's a heck of a way to welcome someone into the world of jazz, to drag them into an ideologial dispute and to trash some of the legendary figures of the art. All the slick production values and inviting visuals can't cover up the ugliness of this mean-spirited side of the documentary.
If you want a piece of the Ken Burns party, then just buy the "Best of Ken Burns Jazz" CD--it's about $13. Then buy the book "Jazz 101" by John Szwed, which is complete, non-partisan, and a great introduction to jazz. Listen to it all and decide for yourself what you like. Later you can plunge into all the culture wars you want to (or not).
Movie Review: Fun, but has to be taken with a grain of salt
Summary: 3 Stars
As a musician, starting out in rock and becoming interested in jazz, I was interested in this series to give me a greater understanding of how the music evolved over time. It succeeded to some degree because it explained the differences in the musical approaches behind the different movements and attempted to put them in historical context (to varying degrees of success). At its best, it is very aesthetically pleasing (although monotonous in places) and highly entertaining.
However, I came away troubled by a contradiction I perceived. The series keeps refraining that jazz is about freedom, self-expression and self-discovery, but by the end of the series, it seems as though the writers and commentators (especially Wynton Marsalis) are bummed that nobody is really "doing it right" anymore and nobody is moving it forward. Looking into it further, I'm beginning to feel that this is a problem plaguing the Jazz genre altogether. How are you going to get innovators and artists who take risks when you are highly precriptive about how things should be done? Maybe there's something I'm not understanding, but it seems like anything interesting happening in jazz now isn't even going to be called jazz, because that label has been bogged down with a traditionalist construct. Then I thought about the piece within the documentary where they discuss the Northeastern Music Academics baffled about where they are going to find the quintessential "American Composer." They accuse them of not seeing it in Luis Armstrong because he didn't fit in with their tradition. It seems like this is the same thing that Jazz is now doing to itself. I sense that this music called Jazz can certainly provide inspiration and ideas to build from, but maybe as a genre to work inside of, it has become too limiting.
Please keep in mind that this is simply an impression I came away with. If anyone cares to comment, I'd appreciate other perspectives.
Movie Review: Ken Burns didn't S#@8 about jazz when he did this and it shows
Summary: 3 Stars
My main issue is that Wynton suggested after seeing Civil Wars and Baseball that Burns should do a series about the only truly American art for that being Jazz (or black music from field hollers to blues etc).Wynton is sort of neo-con about jazz and I am not into totally free jazz or commercial fusion or jazz light.I agree that the innovations after 1964 into atonal free jazz or more akin to avant garde classical like Schoeneberg or Cage.But when covering be-bop into the important "New Thing" that fit politics and culture of time iot was like "Coltrane and Miles had gone into modal jazz but newer ,younger players started an avant garde "New Thing....but wait in 1964 Louis Armstrong had his last big hit with "Hello Dolly".All of the critics were referred to Burns by Marsallis or the themes and emphasis were his own as Burns didn't know what to do but photo research.You've heard this I am sure but in case you haven't there it is.I think Armstrong (and actually Bechet before him to lesser degree) revolutionized everything with the solo in jazz and he and Ellington then Bird and Diz,Monk,and Miles and Trane were the main figures.But jazz is so rich from post beatles avante-garde,the Loft Scene,European players and critics that for as long as it was many voices were left out and that's a shame.
Peace
Chazz
Movie Review: A slanted, one-dimensional view on a complex subject
Summary: 3 Stars
The Ken Burns Jazz series attempts to compile the entire history of jazz and the world surrounding it into ten two-hour films. You have to give them credit for trying, but the series has some serious flaws and presents a view on jazz history that many, including myself, would consider inadequate or just plain wrong. Biased views are presented as fact (such as the comment that Miles Davis' electric period was not innovative and that he was "playing tennis without a net"). Also, much time is wasted on commentators who seem to have nothing interesting to say, and who present their opinions on the music and their musings on the musicians, most of which are entirely speculative and out of place. PLUS they try to cram everything after '61 into one film, while any jazz fan knows that a whole lot was happening to the music during and after that time. They spent three films on swing; couldn't they have given some of that time to the 60's and 70's?
All that being said, these films are informative in some parts and contain some AMAZING footage. Worth seeing, but be wary: this is just one way to look at jazz, and not a great one in my opinion.
Movie Review: This Is a mess,made by non Jazz People
Summary: 3 Stars
The worst thing about this mess,isn't that there's way too much Wynton Marshals making BS sound like History,Or the Fact that Burns and the
People who put this together aren't Jazz People,
Its the fact they were too cheap to buy any full clips of Jazz artists
preforming!!
Something's will make a true Jazz Fans stomach turn,One talking head
made some stupid statement about Bix being held back because there
weren't any White Musicians who were up to his level,
They are good at History not Music,
Want to learn something about Jazz get the Jazz Icons series