|
|
pet-services.net - Jazz - A Film by Ken Burns
pet-services.net is the where to go for the great discount prices on hundreds of
leading worldwide brands. Our catalog is large and updated frequently with products that you want.
With thousands of products, you are sure to find what you are looking for.
Why pay regular prices when you can buy discount items
online from pet-services.net? To start browsing our catalog, click on one of our categories on the menu
on the left under the section marked "Products", or use our search utility on the top menu to search using keywords.
|
List Price: $149.88
Our Price: $68.98
Your Save: $ 80.90 ( 54% )
Availability:
Manufacturer: Pbs Home Video
Starring: Charles J. Correll, Freeman F. Gosden, Edward R. Murrow, Richard Nixon, Franklin Delano Roosevelt
|
Average Customer Rating:   
|
|
Audience Rating: NR (Not Rated)
Binding: VHS Tape
EAN: 9780780631472
Format: Box set
ISBN: 0780631471
Label: Pbs Home Video
Manufacturer: Pbs Home Video
Number Of Items: 10
Publisher: Pbs Home Video
Release Date: 2001-01-02
Running Time: 999
Studio: Pbs Home Video
Theatrical Release Date: 2001-01-08
|
|
Buy this item today
|
|
|
|
Spotlight customer reviews:
|
Customer Rating:
Summary: Nice Smile With a Missing Tooth!
Comment: The greatest compliment to this series is that it has created a torrent of discussion and the debates are still raging. I enjoy this series so much, I watch it nearly every year.
My critique has been discussed at length, so I summarize this way:
I appreciate Wynton Marsalis' discussion of the jazz with which he is familiar. This does not qualify Wynton Marsalis to decide, for everyone else, what constitutes jazz when the question of "fusion" comes up.
Much of fusion, both then and now, is largely rhythm section dominated (electric bass, drums, guitar and keys). Therefore, it may have been difficult for a Marsalis, a horn player, to appreciate.
Why refer to Marsalis and not Burns? Because nearly all of Burns' analysis depends upon the viewpoint of Wynton Marsalis.
Fusion (I call it "hard fusion") is not that difficult to document nor define, but Burns exits the discussion altogether when the subject of fusion is mentioned. Perhaps Ken Burns did not want Chick Corea, Joe Zawinul, Al DiMeola, John McLaughlin, Billy Cobham or Stanley Clarke to have the last word on how Fusion helped to keep the creative juices of jazz flowing.
Not all of fusion is rhythm instruments, however. A case could have been made for tenor sax player, Michael Brecker (RIP), who appeared regularly on many of fusion's finest releases including his own group, Steps Ahead. Brecker went on to produce outstanding post-bop jazz and could very likely have credited fusion for the role that it may have played in his developmental journey.
Instead we get a conspicuous argument from silence on the matter.
By the time Jazz went to the presses, classic fusion had already been established as a part of the story whether the Marsalis brothers approved it or not.
Ken Burns Jazz, without an attempt to account for fusion, is like a very pretty smile with a missing front tooth.
Customer Rating:
Summary: It's not perfect, but its pretty much all we have
Comment: I will admit that this series has its shortcomings, however no one else has even attempted to produce anything better. I'm no great lover of Ken Burns, but he did at least attempt to bring the history of Jazz to the masses in some form or another. It's not perfect by any means, but if it can spur the interest of even one person to delve into the music itself then the doc and Burns have done their job. To all the naysayer's I propose that you shut your traps unless you yourselves are planning to raise the money, do the research, conduct the interviews, edit the material and produce a "more definitive" documentary on the history of America's only original art form? And to those morons that claim that this doc is somehow "racist" towards whites, you should all just shut the f*** up!
Customer Rating:
Summary: Ken Burns' Hyperbole Jazz
Comment: I saw some of this series when it first came out on PBS, and now I'm seeing it again, having finished "The Gift" up to this point. Frankly, I don't know how much more of it I can take.
The subject matter is fine, but the amount of gushing hyperbole from the Talking Heads is close to unbearable. I suppose it's perfectly OK to be enthusiastic about something, but such total lack of restraint renders anything they have to say suspect; there's no judgment here, no sense of balance.
I teach a music appreciation class at a large university, and if there's one thing I've learned about effective teaching over the years, it is to refrain from telling your students how they're supposed to feel or react. Don't go around telling them that Mozart is a Great Composer and therefore they are supposed to feel ecstatic or moved or whatever when they hear Mozart. Present Mozart -- with affection, however much or little you can in the time you have, and let them make up their own minds.
But that's precisely what these talking heads -- and presumably Ken Burns -- absolutely refuse to do. They tell me what I'm supposed to feel or think about these figures in question. By their careless tossing around of hyperbolic phrases, overstatements, and ridiculously pompous pontificating, they leech out a great deal of the value of the subject.
Which is truly a shame, given that the subject is a truly engaging one, or can be. The series contains a wealth of images and recordings -- longer music examples would have been good but the accompanying CD set helps to ameliorate that problem.
I would rate Giddins as hands down the most irritating of the bunch (smug pomposity), with Marsalis coming in a close second; despite his musical credentials, he just didn't have any business handing down his seemingly endless series of ex cathedra statements.
Customer Rating:
Summary: Ken Burns didn't S#@8 about jazz when he did this and it shows
Comment: 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
Customer Rating:
Summary: "A" for Entertainment, "C-" for History
Comment: 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 Creative 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.
`
|
|
|
Editorial Reviews:
|
The story, sound, and soul of a nation come together in the most American of art forms: Jazz. Ken Burns, who riveted the nation with The Civil War and Baseball, celebrates the music's soaring achievements, from its origins in blues and ragtime through swing, bebop, and fusion. Six years in the making, this "soundbreaking" series blends 75 interviews, more than 500 pieces of music, 2,400 still photographs, and over 2,000 rare and archival film clips. The 10-part musical journey spotlights many of America's most original, creative--and tragic--figures, including Louis Armstrong, Jelly Roll Morton, Duke Ellington, Benny Goodman, Billie Holiday, Charlie Parker, and Miles Davis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
