Alright, I have to continue to rant on this piece of crap that Ken Burn's created and figured why not start a new thread, as to not hijack the thread on best documentary. I think many times other can speak better than I can on this subject, so here goes.
The point about the coronation of Wynton Marsalis is particularly interesting and points out why this documentary is not only a sham, but in many ways unethical.
I love this quite "A tone of breathless enthusiasm permeates his first nine episodes. Critique suddenly surfaces in the tenth and final one, when the implications for present-day music-making become urgent. Responding to the charge that he short-changed modern jazz, Burns has explained that he is not an historian: "How could I presume to tell, (in) the current jazz scene, who's great... History begins 30 to 40 years out." This is disingenuous, for Episode Ten is replete with historical judgments and thinly veiled agendas." This whole article is great and a must read for anyone who has watched or is going to watch the documentary
I do think that this commentary is a little too complimentary, but it is good nonetheless
http://www.allaboutjazz.com/articles/arti0201_03.htm
Great piece on the actual agenda of jazz and how it was not a documentary about the music. Also, this piece is critical of his other documentaries, and a good example of why I won't watch his other stuff.
http://www.gerryhemingway.com/jazzburn.html
Another nice article on the actual agenda on the film. Sure we cannot show anything about John Zorn, because a Jew bringing his cultural heritage to the music doesn't fit Burn's agenda. In fact, this is the only positive thing I can say about Burn's documentary. It was this article that introduced me to John Zorn.
http://www.slate.com/id/97997
The point about the coronation of Wynton Marsalis is particularly interesting and points out why this documentary is not only a sham, but in many ways unethical.
I love this quite "A tone of breathless enthusiasm permeates his first nine episodes. Critique suddenly surfaces in the tenth and final one, when the implications for present-day music-making become urgent. Responding to the charge that he short-changed modern jazz, Burns has explained that he is not an historian: "How could I presume to tell, (in) the current jazz scene, who's great... History begins 30 to 40 years out." This is disingenuous, for Episode Ten is replete with historical judgments and thinly veiled agendas." This whole article is great and a must read for anyone who has watched or is going to watch the documentary
I do think that this commentary is a little too complimentary, but it is good nonetheless
http://www.allaboutjazz.com/articles/arti0201_03.htm
Great piece on the actual agenda of jazz and how it was not a documentary about the music. Also, this piece is critical of his other documentaries, and a good example of why I won't watch his other stuff.
http://www.gerryhemingway.com/jazzburn.html
Another nice article on the actual agenda on the film. Sure we cannot show anything about John Zorn, because a Jew bringing his cultural heritage to the music doesn't fit Burn's agenda. In fact, this is the only positive thing I can say about Burn's documentary. It was this article that introduced me to John Zorn.
http://www.slate.com/id/97997
Comment