Ken Burns

[Dave James]

I know there are all kinds of Ken Burns fans out there in Organissimo-land, so you may be interested to learn that his next documentary will focus on the Prohibition Era. I for one, am looking forward to it but, then again, I've enjoyed everything he's done so far.

[tranemonk]

I think after that is one about the Central Park Jogger case from NYC in 1989. It was an extremely controversial high-profile case involving the wrongful conviction of several young African-American teenagers accused of a brutal gang rape of Trisha Melli.

[JSngry]

After his jazz series, the luster went away for me. His tricks became obvious, and his formula became transparent. I'm no longer a fan, to put it mildly, and I think he's part of the problem instead of the solution. Too emo, too softy and creamy.

And that haircut of his...I mean, still? Really? That shit just ain't right.

[BillF]

I like the jazz documentary, tho' I see what you mean about that haircut!

[Dan Gould]

I can't wait for Chris to point out how wrong Burns is. Who knew that it was mixers that were outlawed, not the alcohol itself?

[Christiern]

Ken Burns is someone for whom I have profound disrespect.

A note to Dan Gould: Have you had your refurbished crystal ball fixed since it misinformed you about Saddam's Weapons of Mass Destruction?

[JSngry]

Let me add that he does what he does very well, technically impeccable with a strong, unambiguous POV cleanly and clearly expressed. It's just that I don't trust him but to not use his skills to tell the unvarnished truth and let it speak for itself rather than to manipulate heartstrings and brainwaves (and of course, pocketbooks) with enough "truth" to make questioning his work come off as curmudgeonly. Oh well about that. Curmudgeons are a necessary and useful part of the food chain.

Tyhe jazz series was the first time that one of his major works had drawn serious scrutiny & criticism from the community which it portrayed, and it was interesting to watch how he kinda weaseled every which way on that one. But that whole process pulled the curtain back on his whole process, and...things haven't been the same since, at least not for me. Apparently, his vaunted Civil War doc had been receiving some of the same criticisms, but the emo factor there was so high that nobody paid attention. And the baseball thing, well, yeah, I watched it & I loved it, but subsequent viewings leave a stickier taste in my mouth than I'd like. Again, too emo. The facts are strong enough to stand on their own, and he did do a damn good job of putting them out there. But geez, enough with the "sentiment", ok?

Whatever heartstrings I have left to pull, I don't want Ken Burns pulling them.

Edited July 6, 2011 by JSngry

[Dan Gould]

Ken Burns is someone for whom I have profound disrespect.

A note to Dan Gould: Have you had your refurbished crystal ball fixed since it misinformed you about Saddam's Weapons of Mass Destruction?

I'd like to nominate Chris for Best Non-Sequitur Comeback Ever.

[Man with the Golden Arm]

I still prefer the short form piece on NASSA most of all.

[JSngry]

I've always thought that "Non-Sequitur" would be a great name for a drink, kinda like "Onion Sour".

In both cases, though, any actual drink that would truly fit the name would probably not be a particularly pleasant product.

Mixologists, any ideas?

[Dan Gould]

I still prefer the short form piece on NASSA most of all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PX_687HwX9c&feature=player_detailpage

[paul secor]

Whatever heartstrings I have left to pull, I don't want Ken Burns pulling them.

Pure poetry.

[Neal Pomea]

I thought his documentary on World War II was well done. Will never surpass World at War, but it had a different focus altogether. It was seriously off the mark by not including country music, especially in its coverage of Mobile, and the fact that charging Japanese waves shouted to hell with Roy Acuff.

[Dave James]

My response to those who didn't care for Burns' jazz documentary. Would you prefer that the subject be left alone entirely, or is it a good thing he did this, however flawed it might have been, in terms of getting the music in front of a largely indifferent audience? Keep in mind, he didn't do this to satisfy the small sliver of the public that's already into jazz, he did it for the 99.9% that isn't.

[Guy Berger]

My response to those who didn't care for Burns' jazz documentary. Would you prefer that the subject be left alone entirely, or is it a good thing he did this, however flawed it might have been, in terms of getting the music in front of a largely indifferent audience? Keep in mind, he didn't do this to satisfy the small sliver of the public that's already into jazz, he did it for the 99.9% that isn't.

Dave, I'm somewhat sympathetic to your view - but the series' presentation as "a history of jazz" instead of "a very slanted history of jazz with many key lacunae" is what leaves a sour taste in people's mouths.

[JSngry]

My response to those who didn't care for Burns' jazz documentary.Would you prefer that the subject be left alone entirely, or is it a good thing he did this, however flawed it might have been, in terms of getting the music in front of a largely indifferent audience?

Ultimately, I'd rather it not have been done at all.

The audience remains "largely indifferent", in no small part because they've had it presented to them as something that's already happened and is over with, and they've "got" it, just like any other story with a beginning, middle, end, and neatly tied-up moral.

They're pretty much right (that it's over), but not like (or why) they think they are.

I'm all for death with dignity. Mummification and necrophiliac pimping...not so much.

Net gain for jazz from Jazz? Pretty much zero, at best. Probably a net loss, actually.

Net gain for "the jazz industry"? Who knows, who cares?

But - are sales up? Are there more venues now? More gigs? More people clamoring to hear them some jazz, any kind of jazz, anywhere, be it live or recorded? How many people can anybody here name whose interest in jazz was stoked by Burns and had it become a major part of their cultural palette? Outside of this board, how many non-musicians can most of us name who are really into jazz anyway who come to it from a completely "civilian" standpoint (and how many of those people are likely to be dead - even if of natural causes - within the next 25 years?)?

All I see is that some/a (very) few "jazz names" have been added to the "collective consciousness", names that people have heard, but really know little, if anything, about. Louis Armstrong = Babe Ruth = Abraham Lincoln = Paul Bunyan = Any Other American Myth You Can Think Of (based on real life or otherwise).

If that's all a gain, then I'd hate to see a loss.

Edited July 6, 2011 by JSngry

[BERIGAN]

My response to those who didn't care for Burns' jazz documentary. Would you prefer that the subject be left alone entirely, or is it a good thing he did this, however flawed it might have been, in terms of getting the music in front of a largely indifferent audience? Keep in mind, he didn't do this to satisfy the small sliver of the public that's already into jazz, he did it for the 99.9% that isn't.

Dave, I'm somewhat sympathetic to your view - but the series' presentation as "a history of jazz" instead of "a very slanted history of jazz with many key lacunae" is what leaves a sour taste in people's mouths.

But any history of Jazz is going to be slanted, to some extent. We can just hope that people that never heard jazz before, were turned on to it...And when can you expect anything related to jazz to get even 1/4 the viewers this did???

Ken Burns is not perfect(Pretty gutsy call for me to make, I know! ) but when he is at his best, like the Civil War Documentary, he is a great filmmaker....

Edited July 6, 2011 by BERIGAN

[BruceH]

Let me add that he does what he does very well, technically impeccable with a strong, unambiguous POV cleanly and clearly expressed. It's just that I don't trust him but to not use his skills to tell the unvarnished truth and let it speak for itself rather than to manipulate heartstrings and brainwaves (and of course, pocketbooks) with enough "truth" to make questioning his work come off as curmudgeonly. Oh well about that. Curmudgeons are a necessary and useful part of the food chain.

Tyhe jazz series was the first time that one of his major works had drawn serious scrutiny & criticism from the community which it portrayed, and it was interesting to watch how he kinda weaseled every which way on that one. But that whole process pulled the curtain back on his whole process, and...things haven't been the same since, at least not for me. Apparently, his vaunted Civil War doc had been receiving some of the same criticisms, but the emo factor there was so high that nobody paid attention. And the baseball thing, well, yeah, I watched it & I loved it, but subsequent viewings leave a stickier taste in my mouth than I'd like. Again, too emo. The facts are strong enough to stand on their own, and he did do a damn good job of putting them out there. But geez, enough with the "sentiment", ok?

Whatever heartstrings I have left to pull, I don't want Ken Burns pulling them.

I'm pretty much with you on this, Jim, although I found the baseball miniseries very hard to get through even on first viewing. Way too long, overindulgent, and sentimental. I mean, hey, I expected those things, but jeeze....enough's enough.

[Shawn]

The Jazz Series, it seemed like he was really interested in telling the story of the very beginnings...but once he told the introduction, he got bored with the body of the story and just wanted it to be over.

[Bill Nelson]

From the cumulative hour I sampled Ken Burns' 'Jazz', I found KB's decisions were driven by what could be rendered neat, tidy, and easily digestible. Burns' impulses weren't necessarily revisionist -- he just didn't want to GO THERE if the territory was complex and 'difficult'.

Still, the 20 or so CDs which were spun from 'Ken Burns JAZZ' are harmless enough. Otherwise, the audience would still be clutching their pablum of 'I Heard It on NPR'.

[Christiern]

My response to those who didn't care for Burns' jazz documentary. Would you prefer that the subject be left alone entirely, or is it a good thing he did this, however flawed it might have been, in terms of getting the music in front of a largely indifferent audience? Keep in mind, he didn't do this to satisfy the small sliver of the public that's already into jazz, he did it for the 99.9% that isn't.

I would have preferred that the subject be left alone rather than mishandled by Burns. His not doing this would not have meant the end of jazz documentation on TV. His spending that enormous amount of money and air time on a half-assed job does probably mean the end of such generous grants going to jazz. Burns' so-called "documentary" undoubtedly sparked an interest in jazz where none had existed, but that cannot justify the waste of a very rare opportunity to do it right. Using Wynton and Crouch as advisers was only one mistake, albeit big one.

[Larry Kart]

Gumbo

[GregK]

Let me add that he does what he does very well, technically impeccable with a strong, unambiguous POV cleanly and clearly expressed. It's just that I don't trust him but to not use his skills to tell the unvarnished truth and let it speak for itself rather than to manipulate heartstrings and brainwaves (and of course, pocketbooks) with enough "truth" to make questioning his work come off as curmudgeonly. Oh well about that. Curmudgeons are a necessary and useful part of the food chain.

Tyhe jazz series was the first time that one of his major works had drawn serious scrutiny & criticism from the community which it portrayed, and it was interesting to watch how he kinda weaseled every which way on that one. But that whole process pulled the curtain back on his whole process, and...things haven't been the same since, at least not for me. Apparently, his vaunted Civil War doc had been receiving some of the same criticisms, but the emo factor there was so high that nobody paid attention. And the baseball thing, well, yeah, I watched it & I loved it, but subsequent viewings leave a stickier taste in my mouth than I'd like. Again, too emo. The facts are strong enough to stand on their own, and he did do a damn good job of putting them out there. But geez, enough with the "sentiment", ok?

Whatever heartstrings I have left to pull, I don't want Ken Burns pulling them.

what is "emo"? I don't know the kids' slang these days...

[JSngry]

emo = excessively "emotional", originally used to indicate "angst-y", but now used to describe anything "gushy" beyond normal (whatever that is, but if you have to ask, etc.). Anything where emotion masquerades as reason, more or less.

My daughter's 20, still lives with us, and has friends over all the time. I hear it quite a bit these days, and have come to appreciate the concept.

Edited July 6, 2011 by JSngry

[PHILLYQ]

The Jazz Series, it seemed like he was really interested in telling the story of the very beginnings...but once he told the introduction, he got bored with the body of the story and just wanted it to be over.

He wanted it over fast, too. What did he spend, 25 minutes on the last 40+ years?! At the least he could have solicited opinions from those not under the sway of Marsalis/Crouch/Murray(NOT DAVID) and present something more complete. It seems like Burns got taken for a ride to some degree, he just took whatever those three said as gospel without looking any further.