Ken Burns Jazz-worth watching?

[dalej42]

I’m thinking of adding Ken Burns’ Jazz documentary to my Netflix queue. I’ve seen *Baseball * 3 times now and also enjoyed The Civil War.
Seems to have gotten quite mixed reviews. What are your opinions?

[MovieMogul]

Like Baseball, some thought it gave short shrift to more recent jazz artists, and it has a lot of Wynton Marsalis (similar to Shelby Foote’s role in The Civil War), but overall I found it worth while.

[Hodge]

Personally, I really enjoyed it but it definitely has its weaknesses.

It can be a very illuminating history of Jazz but it gives short shrift to a lot of musicians and, IMHO, underplays the importance of Jewish and classical music in contributing to the artform.

It also over-relies on the life of Louis Armstrong as a narrative device to give the documentary an over-arching story arc. Armstrong, no doubt, is a towering giant, but, honestly, there were periods when he just wasn’t that relevant or influential but we’re still breathlessly informed of his families very first Christmas tree.

Also, Stanley Crouch, who can be a huge asshole, is a major contributor to the so the documentary tends to reflect his opinions and biases.

Finally, it pretty much writes off most of the music after the 1970s. I agree that alot of post-70s jazz has been abysmal, but there are pockets of brilliance that could have been addressed like the avant-garde New York underground and the Knitting Factory scene of the 80s and 90s.

That said, it’s still well worth watching as an entertaining but flawed history of the origins and golden-era of jazz.

[lissener]

Ken Burns is an idiot. Someone should send him a copy of the BBC’s History of World War II to show him how a documentary series is done. And a gift certificate to Supercuts.

But I haven’t seen his baseball series, so I have nothing substantive to add.

[WordMan]

@Hodge

Personally, I really enjoyed it but it definitely has its weaknesses.

It can be a very illuminating history of Jazz but it gives short shrift to a lot of musicians and, IMHO, underplays the importance of Jewish and classical music in contributing to the artform.

It also over-relies on the life of Louis Armstrong as a narrative device to give the documentary an over-arching story arc. Armstrong, no doubt, is a towering giant, but, honestly, there were periods when he just wasn’t that relevant or influential but we’re still breathlessly informed of his families very first Christmas tree.

Also, Stanley Crouch, who can be a huge asshole, is a major contributor to the so the documentary tends to reflect his opinions and biases.

Finally, it pretty much writes off most of the music after the 1970s. I agree that alot of post-70s jazz has been abysmal, but there are pockets of brilliance that could have been addressed like the avant-garde New York underground and the Knitting Factory scene of the 80s and 90s.

That said, it’s still well worth watching as an entertaining but flawed history of the origins and golden-era of jazz.

+1 - it would be a shame for this to be a person’s sole source of jazz history, but if a person brings some of their own knowledge to it, it can add insights…

[Chefguy]

If you’d like to buy the series on VHS, I can make you a good deal. Only one tape watched, the others still in plastic…

[monstro]

It’s entertaining for people who know nothing about jazz–like people such a myself.