Christiern

I am beginning to think that a certain security guard was, indeed, provoked. Joel, if these threads bother you so, why don't you just skip past them? It's easy—any fool can do it.

Dan Gould: "A documentary about jazz got made because KEN BURNS wanted to make it. It was never getting made otherwise." Probably so, but that might well have been a blessing, for if the Burns series had not been made, the field would still be open to someone with the knowledge and concern Burns never had. You obviously don't understand that. I don't know what you mean when you describe a "piddy-shit documentary," but you could be referring to my "The Story of Jazz," which also ran on the PBS network. It is not perfect, but I only had 90 minutes and a very low budget, so I make no excuses for it not being an awesome fund-raising tool. In fact, the fund-raisin aspect never entered my mind when I wrote the script, nor do I think it should have. There have been several fine documentaries that dealt with the subject of jazz, but I guess they are all "piddy-shit" in your little mind, because they were the work of dedicated filmmakers and did not raise a pile of money for some corporation. I didn't listen to you years ago, when—against all reason—you insisted that Hussein really did possess Weapon of Mass Destruction. Since I have no reason to believe that your judgement and/or objectivity has improved, I readily take the above vitriol with a ton of salt.

Brad: "What if the series got a few people interested in jazz, then the series was worth it, warts and all." I think you may be missing the point—mine, at least. Any series on any subject that is given the promotion and exposure Burns' received, will—by that mere fact—generate or renew an interest in the subject, even where non previously existed. So, no special kudos to Burns for that non-accomplishment. My point is that Burns wasted so much money and time on a half-assed, misleading "documentary" that skirted known facts by twist or omission. Both are inexcusable, eminently avoidable, and antithetical to the basic tenet of documentary filmmaking. In short, Burns wasted an unique opportunity to tell a vital story, set records straight, and give overdue attention to many people whose contribution to American music stands in sad contrast to their relative or total obscurity. "Jazz" is not the work of a man who loves the music and feels a strong need for others to share his passion, but that is the line we were handed through media hype. Burns is an invention of hype, just as Wynton Marsalis is. That is not so say that they are without talent, but when one's fame is mostly the product of commercial interest, it is also wide open to question. In short—as I see it—Ken Burns is, indeed, a fraud. As long as he continues to be a shoe-in for prominence and generous financing, and his product continues to have a high ersatz factor, I don't see why we should not continue to put the spotlight where he and his promoters least wish it to be.

Reading this resuscitated thread brings back memories. Does anyone know what become of Patricia?

Brad: " Moreover, although maybe the Ken Burns enterprise is blameworthy, do we know that Ken Burns the person said something like 'we know this is wrong but let's do it anyway.'" Yes, I do—at least in one case where I pointed out that a man in a photo Burns borrowed from me was NOT Louis Armstrong. He told Shola Lynch to use it anyway, and this was not an isolated incident, regardless of what Joel Fass might assume!

Fraud has never discouraged Ken Burns. Didn't I say somewhere that his work is dishonest? Well, it is.

My original post here, claiming that Mark Miller had not contacted me in connection with his book, should be stricken from your memory. Mark reminded me that he did indeed call me and that I was helpful. See, that's what can happen when one is racing through one's 80s with a full memory. My apologies for that. To reiterate, Mark did a fine job on the book, so I wasn't complaining, just wondering without cause to do so.

Sorry about the old link that I posted earlier on. It takes you to my blog, but not to the Lil Armstrong on Oliver input. I have corrected that, but here it is again.

That is sad news.

More obnoxious—outrageous, actually—was the segment where they name a list of drug addicts (Anita O'Day, et al), some of whom get no credit for their work or their importance to the music. People like Crouch and Wynton—neither of whom have made a real contribution to jazz—go along with this. They have Burns' ear, but speak only what he wants to hear. Before someone questions my contention that these opportunists have neo contributed to the music, let me dare anyone to name a single positive input from Stanley, and point out that Wynton owes his fame to a PR hype and a job handed him when that charade worked as intended. Musically, he is technically proficient, but he plays without feeling. All gumbo and no guts. It is important to bear in mind that the Lincoln Center job made Wynton Marsalis and that truly qualified people were not even considered by the corporate world that called the shots. Stanley, he's just a hanger-on, a failed "avant garde" drummer who seized an opportunity and has been riding on it ever since. I'm through with this subject for a long time, if not forever.

So happens that my name is also in the credits, but that's not what bothers me the most. It is bad enough that Burns distorted facts, rewrote jazz history, and showed poor judgement in his selection of talking heads—the real sin is that he not only didn't do justice to the music and those whose work it is, he spent a pile of corporate money and public air time on this crap. That severely diminishes and probably eliminates the possibility that someone with real knowledge and love of the subject will ever get an opportunity to do it right.

He was interested in making money and keeping his name out there. PERIOD!

Wynton and Stanley are painfully opportunistic, Burns is a dishonest "documentarian", and the huge amount of money spent on this production was a sad waste. The film footage, however, was great, but—considering the budget—no feat. Silly? Yes, but "sad" describes it better, i.m.h.o. I've said it before and I will undoubtedly say it again

A reproduction in spats.

While doing some research today, I came across this as in the Nov. 18, 1985 New Yorker. I wonder how many of these players remained faithful to Baldwin...

Good grief is better than bad grief—no?

Ward Kimball he was a very important animator, going back to Snow White. His deep interest in trains became shared by Disney, he played trombone and started the Firehouse Five. Died in 2004. The Firehouse 5 and, indeed, Kimball himself were very well known. - Google him!

I guess you're right, Joel. As my esteemed countryman, Hans Christian Andersen, wrote "Only from drunks and children does one hear the truth." I do not drink beyond the occasional glass of wine with a worthy meal, but I do tell the truth—so, yes, I acted childishly. BTW, I was hardly attempting to have "the last word." I count six posts between my last one and your gratuitous assumption. Makes me wonder who really felt a need to have that word.

Welcome back, Jeff! Don't leave again. As you can see, not much has changed, although I was elected the head of the Wynton Marsalis fan club and I sometimes go under the name John Hammond.

I have now posted Part II of Sam Wooding's recollections in his own words. Here he takes us up to 1923.

The drought is over?

Joel Fass: "Wait till the body's cold. Show a little respect, man. Jesus......" Joel, you need to step into reality. I said the same thing many times while she was still alive. Should I rescind? ...and don't call me Jesus! BTW, Please note that Clive Davis is still very much among us as I repeat my discomfort with his claiming to have "discovered" Whitney Houston. He did no such thing. Except for one interview, I do not see any mention of the man who brought Ms. Houston to Clive's attention. Clive and I always got along splendidly and he was once very helpful to me, but that does not alter the fact that he has always relied on other people's ears when making decisions of this sort. The other day, I heard a media numbskull say that he discovered Janis Joplin!

Rather childish, I think. Am I supposed to feel a loss?

It grieves me that I am so ignorant after spending a lifetime in the music business. It grieves me that you are so much of a grudge-holder that once somebody gets on your Bitch List (even if for good reason) that you look for any and every opportunity to discredit anything they do To imply that Quincy Jones played no role in the Michael Jackson albums other than standing back and "letting it all happen" while he put his name on it is just pitiful. I know people who were around for those sessions, and your claim is just pitifully wrong. There were teams at work (as is true with any project of the scope of these), but Quincy Jones made the "executive decisions" and guided the process all the way. But in the World Of Chris Albertson, no, Quincy Jones did some of my friends wrong 50 years ago, so Quincy Jones will never ever accomplish anything on his own volition and ability, no matter what. Anything with Quincy Jones' name on it is tarred with fraudulence. You will never be convinced you otherwise. I take it back, I'm not grieved. It's not sad that you've become so myopic in your hate and paranoia, It's just...irrelevant to the real world. Michael Jackson records didn't get made in basements, with one guy and one tape recorder in one afternoon. They were very much corporate affairs. Stick to the world you know (and I know, you once roamed the halls of Columbia, full of loathing for John Hammond & Clive Davis). To be sure, you have had a good life in the music business and can be proud of what you've done. But to think that you have any valid insight into the part of the industry that makes things like Michael Jackson records other than "It's full of bad people", hey, sorry, but...go pick on someone your own size, like Orin Keepnews. You are letting your assumptions get the better of your judgement, Jim. I happen to be quite outspoken and unwilling to play the industry game. That may be a fault, but I prefer honesty when it comes to giving creative people their due. You may have noticed that I have expressed much admiration for the real achievement of John Hammond, and I have on several occasions voiced my gratitude to Clive Davis for the help he gave me by correcting some of John's less admirable moves (ones that affected me adversely). "Loathing" is not something I wander around with, not even in the "halls of Columbia." Disrespect? Sometimes, but that is something else. Apropos giving or not hiving praise, I have made and published positive observations regarding the work by Quincy (although not his trumpet work), but only when I thought the work was his. Ego-driven exaggeration is commonplace in the entertainment industry, so I accept that as a fact of life, but when it impairs someone else's career, I feel a need to speak up and tell it like it is. You seem to find fault with that—c'est la vie. As for your assumption that I don't have "any valid insight" into the Michael Jackson (i.e. pop) side of the business, you would probably be surprised (shocked?) to learn how close I was to that scene. Sorry to have rattled you so, but callous conjecture does not sit well with me. Well, at least your posting count went up.