Mark,
on the one hand it has to be "touche" Keith! On the other hand not everyone
has the trans-universal overview that someone like Keith has of music. Very
few people, I would wager, living today have the vast depth and latitude
that someone like Jarrett must have but this series was not necessarily made
for these few people. To my mind, this series was made for a people from a
broader and probably less-informed strata of all the people who might be
engaged by this history.
I can recall clearly the first time that I heard Keith Jarrett playing solo,
it was a piece called "Ritooria", if my memory serves me well, off of his
first solo album on ECM but I really think he was a little harsh in his
letter to the NY Times.
you know, I am unable to refute the statements about the heavy-handedness of
the narration, or the occasional pomposity that arose from the mouths of a
few of the commentators and I have not tried to do that at any time through
the unwinding of this thread on the AJ board. I have chosen to overlook for
the most part that side of this production for the sheer joy of coming into
contact with a host of brilliant artists and the evolution of the
extra-ordinary music they have played. For me to have been able to soak up
loads of information and facts that grabbed me was a juicy learning
experience. I would venture to say that productions of this size and scope
would almost inevitably have some flaws and this one certainly did but, they
are not inordinate flaws from my perspective because of the beauty and
wonder of the music and the people who play it.
No amount of over-exuberant verbiage and fluttery adjectives from some
self-important and self-anointed expert could detract from the connection
this series provided for me with the music that it portrayed even as
incomplete as it might have been. I daresay that many thousands of people
have been spurred into at least considering jazz as something worth knowing
more about and treasuring as a result. This makes Burns' work valuable in a
broad context and while it might not prove to be the Bayreuth Tapestry of
the ethos occupied by jazz on a certain level it works.
There is no reason whatever why someone should not make an extraordinary
film about jazz in the last 40 years. There are probably people thinking
about it even as we exchange our thoughts here. I sure hope they do it and
before too long!
One thing I would also like to say is that I have really appreciated some of
the threads on this board and coming into contact with the people and the
music that I have connected to here! Thank you to all of you, I love reading
your views and hearing about the music you love (and hate!), please keep it
coming!
----- Original Message -----
From: Mark Turner <nugroove@pacbell.net>
To: <acid-jazz@ucsd.edu>
Sent: Friday, February 09, 2001 9:26 PM
Subject: FW: Keith Jarrett on Ken Burns
> FYI...
>
> > >From NY Times Arts section
> >
> > To the Editor:
> >
> > Regarding Ken Burns's (or is it Wynton Marsalis's?) "Jazz": Now that
> > we've been put through the socioeconomic racial forensics of a
> > jazz-illiterate historian and a self- imposed jazz expert prone to
> > sophomoric generalizations and ultraconservative politically correct
> > (for now) utterances, not to mention a terribly heavy-handed
> > narration (where every detail takes on the importance of major
> > revelation) and weepy-eyed nostalgic reveries, can we have some films
> > about jazz by people who actually know and understand the music
> > itself and are willing to deal comprehensively with the last 40 years
> > of this richest of American treasures?
> >
> > KEITH JARRETT New York
> >
> _____________________
> Mark Turner
> nugroove@pacbell.net
> www.jazzadelica.com
> _____________________
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Feb 10 2001 - 08:41:45 CET