"A" for Entertainment, "C-" for History
Ken Burns is an effective filmakeer; if only he were an effective historian! Jazz is a deeply flawed project. The rise of recorded sound and the mass media compressed the history of Jazz. In less than a century, Jazz has seen as many movements/counter-movements and revolutionary outbursts as art or classical music saw over many centuries, but in Jazz, movements last years, not decades, and what was considered "radical" in 1945 was "traditional" or even "old hat" by 1960. Yet this rich tug of war between sub-genres is almost entirely absent in Burns' work.

Because Burns is not a trained musician, he relied on others to flesh out the idiom's history for him. In choosing Wynton Marsalis as his cultural beacon, he inadvertently chose by far one of the most conservative voices in Jazz. Mr. Marsalis is a formidable musician, but many in Jazz dispute his very narrow outlook on the art. In Mr. Marsalis' world, the only "real" jazz is blues infused. Blues is indeed a powerful component of jazz, but the 12 bar alternation of the three chords (I,IV and V) is just one of a panoply of styles. Styles that don't fall into Marsalis' limited stylistic orbit are either completely ignored in Burns' work, or dismissed as the peripheral musical ravings of a hack.

Burns' film only covers some aspects of Jazz from 1900 to 1961. It's like telling the story of Classical music but stopping short with Brahms, blithely ignoring anything that came after 1890, sweeping the huge burst of creativity that followed under the cultural carpet. Just as the history of classical music cannot ignore towering 20th figures such as Mahler, Stravinsky, Sehoenberg, Bartok, Hindemith, Copland, Shostokovich, Cage and others, a huge multi-part history of Jazz should not stop abruptly at 1961.

Just like a conservative telling of classical music (where Bach, Beethoven and Brahms rule over all) we are given cultural pantheons, most notably Louis Armstrong and Duke Ellington, while others, even remarkable revolutionaries, are ignored or denigrated.

Mr. Armstrong is indeed a powerful and influential figure in Jazz. He pretty much invented vocal "scat" and his early "Hot 5s and 7s" recordings are powerful statements of a folk tradition morphing beyond it's roots into a sophisticated art form. But Mr. Armstrong's influence waned, indeed one could argue died entirely, with the advent of "bebop" in the early 1940s. bebop is more complex harmonicially, replacing the simple chord progressions of the Blues with free-ranging progressions of dozens of chords, pushing the bounds of tonality with "substitution chords," rapid fire and complex improvisation, and chromatic flights of fancy.

Burns' romantic portrayal of Jazz masks what was often a very cantankerous battle among various factions. Mr. Armstrong passionately hated bebop. The practitioners of bebop, Charlie "Bird" Parker and othes, disdained in turn what they saw as the pedantic "moldy figs" of Armstrong's older generation. Ultimately, bebop tugged at tonality as aggressively as the late 19th century classical composers, and like in the classical traditional, it paved the way for a great tonal/atonal divide.

But in Mr. Burns' film its as if the tremendous atonal earthquake brought forth on the album "Free Jazz" never happened. The album was as influential as the huge controversy that greeted Igor Stravinsky's "Le Sacre du Printemps" in the classical genre. One can love or hate it, but one cannot ignore it. The battles music fans engaged in when John Coltrane embraced atonality with his album "Ascension" are lost on the Burns/Marselis collective imagination. Eric Dolphy's monumental "Out to Lunch" is...well...out to lunch in this miniseries. In Mr. Burns world of gentle jazz, there is little room for radicals.

But in the real world, the split between tonality and atonality shook Jazz to its core for decades. Musicians coming of age in the 1960s through the early 1990s, whether self-taught or emerging from colleges, universities and conservatories, would chose one of two pathways. On one side of the cultural fork, they could chose the tonal, blues and big band infused "inside" or "in" path, or they could opt for the more adventurous atonal, avant garde, "outside" or "out" path. For Jazz, this was *the* civil war. Mr. Burns film doesn't allow for civil wars; indeed, often the music comes off as gentle parlor music, approachable even to the most gentle ears.

Over time, the "out" path became linked to the cultural notion of Black Power. The American Academy of Colored Music (AACM) in Chicago issued manifestos reminiscent of those that radicals in the art movement put forth in early 20th Century Europe. The only true African American music, for the AACM, was "out" and aggressively so. They called for a rejection of classically influenced (and thus "white") tonality.

The inevitable influence of Rock and electronic music on Jazz doesn't exist in the Burns/Marsalis landscape. "Bitches Brew," which fused elements of "in", "out" and rock on a two album release that was, for a time, the darling of thousands of young teenagers who'd never listened to the blues, or to big band. The movement it spawned, Fusion, is not here either. Weather Report and other groups commited the cultural sin of mixing "pure" jazz with "polluted" rock. There is no place for them in Mr. Marsalis' world, and hence no place for them in Mr. Burns' documentary. Nor, it seems, is there room for important and emerging asian or latin american stylists, and fuggetabout "Acid Jazz," where hip hop, rap and jazz come together in exciting and suprising ways.

Perhaps the deepest iniquity we must endure with Burns' documentary is the "museum-ification" of Jazz. Jazz is a living art, indeed, many would argue that a new generation of young musicians are engaging today in an historic and lively dialog on both the tonal and atonal paths. But living musicians, such as Dave Douglas, Bill Frisell, Don Byron and Dave Holland do not appear. Jazz is presented by Burns as a dead art; we only hear from the dead musicians, even in the final episode. That does little to encourage increased exploration of LIVING musicians pracicing a LIVING art.

`

What Do You Expect From Kenny-Boy?
Those people who panned this series, gave it only 1 or 2 stars are absolutley correct: Burns shows his limited, biased view of jazz by virtually ignoring everything that came after 1961.

But, acknowledging the truth of that grave shortcoming, the series still is, for what it is, well-done and entertaining. It's not anything near an objective, comprehensive or even "fair" history of jazz, but -- it's jazz -- and that's all the title says it is.

Consider, too, that the personalities Burns chose, the biographies and sociology of the times he chose to focus in on, all these things must have been very, very hard to resist. While there are many great jazz performers post-1961, do they and the times they lived in compare to the drama and poignancy of what jazz was prior to 1960? Are the personalities as magnetic or as relevant, not just from a musical point of view but from an historical/sociological point of view?

Also, let's not expect too much from Ken Burns in terms of insightful, courageous filmmaking. Far from it. He's PBS' boy: he's their piano player, he just works there -- for PBS and its many corporatist sponsors. So to the degree jazz is radical, subversive and a danger to the status quo, well, Ken Burns or PBS'll have no part of it. They play it safe. Why? Because as Willie Sutton would put it: "That's where the money is."

PBS knows exactly what they're going to get when they sign Burns on. And if you think that "Burns' America" is going to be anything but mythology, then you haven't been paying attention to what PBS has become.

PBS' charter, way back when it started in the late 1960s, specifically stated that it would offer programming not available on commercial television. Now, given that pledge they made back in the 70s, look at how pathetic PBS has become. ... Cary Grant movies. ... Music programs of washed-up rock and roll singers who couldn't get on commercial teeveee nowadays with a car full of gangsters and three brigades of agents ... Biographies of Mario Lanza, Bobby Darin and, get this, 70s talk show host Mike Douglas! (Talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel).

So Ken Burns knew just what he was doing. How wonderful it is for all these "cruise missile liberals" (not a radical bone in their body) talking about race way, WAY after it took any kind of real courage to talk about it. Oh, how they flock to tell us about *past* racial injustices; and how assiduously they ignore current political maladies.

No, Ken Burns in their boy, that's for sure. So, for sure, "Jazz" is highly entertaining, but do I expect Burns, in league with PBS, to do anything more than entertain? Of course not. Burns is a safe liberal and knowing how PBS has caved every time anyone has offered anything to the left of "safe liberalism," what he produces here is simply par for his course: entertaining, arbitrary, ingratiating and sacharrine.

Very Worthwhile, Despite Some Flaws
Like other Ken Burns documentaries, this is a high-quality, entertaining, and educational film, well-worth viewing. However, if you expect adequate coverage of ALL the great jazz artists of the past 100 years, you'll surely be disappointed. Nonetheless, several dozen of the greatest and most influential artists do receive at least some--often very good--coverage. Perhaps not surprisingly--given their influence, popularity, and longevity--Louis Armstrong and Duke Ellington receive the most coverage. The evolution of jazz as an American art form, and its context in American history (especially Black American history), is very well-presented. To a great extent, Burns focuses on jazz as a part of POPULAR American culture; as a result, the documentary is weighted towards the 1920s through 1940s, when jazz was THE most popular form of music in America. Coverage of the 1950's and 1960s--arguably the most EXCITING time for jazz, at least musically--is actually quite good, but could have been more comprehensive. After the 1960s, Burns' focus unfortunately seems to have been the decline of jazz (in popularity, record sales), although the series does conclude on a more positive note about the present and future of the music, with a bit of attention to several contemporary artists. Throughout the film, many different musicians, jazz critics, promoters, and fans present a variety of perspectives (some more worthwhile than others). Wynton Marsalis has the most "air-time"-- and kudos to him for a very fine job. Despite some obvious shortcomings, this series is well-worth watching--and there's lots of good music, too! I've been a jazz fan for over 30 years, and have watched it in its entirety 3 times; some episodes 4 or 5 times. It's hardly the definitive word on jazz--but who really would expect that?? I contend that some Amazon reviewers are much too harsh (and sometimes irrational) in their criticism of a very good film.

Great Series, Very Educational
I am a music teacher and have been sharing this series over the last few months with some of my young players and I think it is absolutely fantastic!!!! I think that the commentary by such luminaries as Branford and Wynton Marsalis, Dave Brubeck, Albert Murray,Margo Jeferson (the list is endless)is just amazing. Many first person accounts and you really can't ask for better than that . I guess I should also add Artie Shaw, just brilliant!!!
I would highly recommend this for anyone who is an instructor of any musical instrument, even voice. It shows young people that jazz truely is (to quote Rolling Stone Magazine)"The Blues With Wings."

Pete Melkert
Socrates62

One of a kind
This is a lengthy and definitive history of jazz, with extensive research and pictorial material. My one complaint is that there are virtually no opportunities to listen to the music without voice over. For the music itself, you need audio recordings as a supplement.
Some viewers may prefer an earlier and shorter documentary, "The Story of Jazz" (BMG 1991), which is just 1- 1/2 hours long, nicely done, and--because it was made several years earlier--has footage with some jazzmen who had passed on by the time Burns's documentary was made.
Interested listeners should also check out the "Jazz Icons" series of DVDs (TDK), which offer rare AV footage of live performances by American jazz greats in Europe during the '50s-'70s.