Ken Burns' "Jazz" seems pretty "Silly"

[fasstrack]

However else I feel about Ken Burns, I will be grateful for his showing in its entirety the film clip of the famous circus act Charlie Parker was watching when he died.

For extra credit: what was the act's name?

Hint: it's not The Aristocrats...

[JSngry]

http://www.tv.com/sh...12-1955-814006/

Episode Summary

The Dorsey Brothers begin a two week fill-in stint for the vacationing Gleason show. Guests include Count Basie (performing "One O'Clock Jump"), singer Kate Smith, jugglers the Piero Brothers, comedian Charles Manna, tap-dancer Bunny Briggs, and singers the DeMarco Sisters.

Worth noting is that per here: http://lists.jazzwee...rch/002849.html Burns unstead used a slip of juggler Rudy Cardenas, who was not even on thee show that night, but who was on the following werk, 3/19/55 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1855000/

So what Burns is showing you that Bird was watching, Bird was already dead by then - and it wasn't evne the same act.

So much for meticulous research...

Edited March 3, 2012 by JSngry

[fasstrack]

http://www.tv.com/sh...12-1955-814006/

Episode Summary

The Dorsey Brothers begin a two week fill-in stint for the vacationing Gleason show. Guests include Count Basie (performing "One O'Clock Jump"), singer Kate Smith, jugglers the Piero Brothers, comedian Charles Manna, tap-dancer Bunny Briggs, and singers the DeMarco Sisters.

Worth noting is that per here: http://lists.jazzwee...rch/002849.html Burns unstead used a slip of juggler Rudy Cardenas, who was not even on thee show that night, but who was on the following werk, 3/19/55 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1855000/

So what Burns is showing you that Bird was watching, Bird was already dead by then - and it wasn't evne the same act.

So much for meticulous research...

Aw, shut up! When you seen one juggling act you seen 'em all. Same goes for jazz alto players. Wait---er---didn't mean that last one.

Oh. Shit....

[GA Russell]

Jim, that's a major bummer. It's fraud in my book.

[Christiern]

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

[medjuck]

http://www.tv.com/sh...12-1955-814006/

Episode Summary

The Dorsey Brothers begin a two week fill-in stint for the vacationing Gleason show. Guests include Count Basie (performing "One O'Clock Jump"), singer Kate Smith, jugglers the Piero Brothers, comedian Charles Manna, tap-dancer Bunny Briggs, and singers the DeMarco Sisters.

Worth noting is that per here: http://lists.jazzwee...rch/002849.html Burns unstead used a slip of juggler Rudy Cardenas, who was not even on thee show that night, but who was on the following werk, 3/19/55 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1855000/

So what Burns is showing you that Bird was watching, Bird was already dead by then - and it wasn't evne the same act.

So much for meticulous research...

That sort of thing is what I have against Burns. Then, again , most (though not all) documentarians seem to think this sort of thing is ok.

[Brad]

That''s obviously very bad. However, do we know that was done intentionally or was it an accident. 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."

Notwithstanding, are we saying because of that one mistake, the whole series is worthless. That would be exaggeration.

Edited March 3, 2012 by Brad

[fasstrack]

(Writes on blackboard. In BIG CHALK LETTERS

Aim: to understand who the intended audience for Jazz was.

'Anyone? Yes, Ms. Magillicutty?'

'Regular people who didn't know what it was but might be interested?'

'Right. Thank you. You guys are the smartest 10-year-olds I know!'

[Christiern]

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!

[fasstrack]

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!

Nice carom shot, Chris!

I never defended Burns, nor do I condone sloppy journalism. I don't care about Ken Burns one way or the other. Anyone getting the obsequious glad hand from noted airhead Charlie Rose is annoying in my book anyway.

But the real point: Why are we still talking about this in 2012, and does anyone else care?

Edited March 3, 2012 by fasstrack

[Chuck Nessa]

That''s obviously very bad. However, do we know that was done intentionally or was it an accident. 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."

I'm sorry I stepped on your dick. I'm really sorry your dick fell off. It was an accident. That other fellow over there (my boss) told me to walk this direction, or maybe he just told me to start walking.

Edited March 3, 2012 by Chuck Nessa

[Brad]

As Joel mentioned no idea why after all these years we're still discussing, other than some like to breast beat and show they were right.

So far from what has been posted in the last day I see one error that shouldn't have been made (but pretty insignificant otherwise) and one made in poor judgment. On the assumption that there were a few of those, does that invalidate the whole series. What if the series got a few people interested in jazz, then the series was worth it, warts and all.

[AllenLowe]

1) Larry, it wasn't Bill Byers who did that arrangement; it was Manny Albam.

2) Why are we talking about this in 2012? Why not? We still talk about 9/11, WWII, Vietnam, Mt. St. Helens, and other policy/political/natural disasters and examples of internecine warfare.

3) I happen to know that Bird was watching that later Dorsey show, on the big TV in the sky,

Edited March 4, 2012 by AllenLowe

[Christiern]

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.

Edited March 4, 2012 by Christiern

[Dan Gould]

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.

You may believe Ken Burns is a POS film maker, but its hardly a widely-held opinion. "Ken Burns" is a name that generates interest in a subject, way over and above what some piddly-shit documentary from someone else might have generated. PBS built their fund-raising drive around that film and continued to do so after the premiere. Or do you think some piddly-shit documentary from someone else could have just as easily been used to peddle Channel 13 canvas bags?

And let me just add another Albertson trope that you somehow managed not to include in this particular anti-Burns screech:

(paraphrasing):

Burns' film is a terrible missed opportunity because he's sucked all of the funding that a decent documentary about jazz might have ever gotten. When will a documentary be made that sets the record straight and does the job Burns should have done?

NEWSFLASH:

A documentary about jazz got made because KEN BURNS wanted to make it. It was never getting made otherwise.

[Christiern]

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.

[Dan Gould]

Not an ounce of vitriol to be found in my post, but you come back with a complete non sequitur about Saddam.

Well played, Chris, well played indeed. Promise to stay classy until the end.

Edited March 4, 2012 by Dan Gould

[fasstrack]

Brad: "What if the series got a few people interested in jazz, then the series was worth it, warts and all."

I "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.......

So big of you to acknowledge that. I'm sure they'd both be pleased as punch to hear it

OK, that's all I got on this waste of bandwidth. Good luck with that.....

As Joel mentioned no idea why after all these years we're still discussing, other than some like to breast beat and show they were right.

So far from what has been posted in the last day I see one error that shouldn't have been made (but pretty insignificant otherwise) and one made in poor judgment. On the assumption that there were a few of those, does that invalidate the whole series. What if the series got a few people interested in jazz, then the series was worth it, warts and all.

The series was worth it. Unlike this thread.

No wonder jazz (the music, not the film) is in the shithouse.

As Joel mentioned no idea why after all these years we're still discussing, other than some like to breast beat and show they were right.

So far from what has been posted in the last day I see one error that shouldn't have been made (but pretty insignificant otherwise) and one made in poor judgment. On the assumption that there were a few of those, does that invalidate the whole series. What if the series got a few people interested in jazz, then the series was worth it, warts and all.

The series was worth it. Unlike this thread.

No wonder jazz (the music, not the film) is in the shithouse.

[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.

[.:.impossible]

For those of you just tuning in, this is how the Ken Burns thread always ends. Please tune in a decade from now for more of individuals provoking, then insulting individuals.

This has been another episode of

The Best of The Internet

[AllenLowe]

can't we all just get along?

[Chuck Nessa]

No.

[Dmitry]

On 3/5/2012 at 7:47 PM, .:.impossible said:

For those of you just tuning in, this is how the Ken Burns thread always ends. Please tune in a decade from now for more of individuals provoking, then insulting individuals.

 

This has been another episode of

 

The Best of The Internet

I've woken this mother up 9 years later. Lots has transpired since then - at least one participant is dead, others have moved on elsewhere with their lives and opinions, hopefully for the better of it. In my convalescence I started to watch the KBJ again, for the first time since it premiered in 2000. Just finished episode 1, and as someone not keen on reading the academic history or memoirs of those involved in the early roots of the music, the Gumbo episode was engaging, well-edited, and dynamic. On to Episode 2, The Gift.

[Ken Dryden]

One of the silliest segments featured Wynton Marsalis describing what it was like for a musician to play in the Duke Ellington band. It would have made far more sense to have an actual Ellington veteran like Clark Terry describe the experience.

[mikeweil]

I bought these when my wife asked if there was some jazz history overview on DVD. While we were watching I could not help but comment with different opinions on the topics. After a while she asked what was the point with so many questionable views in the documentary. 

It really was Marsalis' failed attempt to re- write jazz history.

Edited January 15, 2021 by mikeweil