i agree, matt. it's hard to put such a definitive tag on certain parts of
history that are primarily word-of-mouth ... but to burns' credit, most of
what i heard (as far as these extremes are concerned ... ie buddy bolden,
etc.) had been already accepted as truth in the jazz community.
i was impressed with the filmmaking on the first part. i think it was
informative and well-put together, although listening to wynton marsalis
makes my hair turn gray, but i'm still not convinced about the historical
lopsidedness of the series. what went on in the 60s and 70s, ie 'new
thing,' avant-garde, even coltrane, is, in my opinion, extremely important
history for understanding the direction of the music.
i also know that wynton marsalis doesn't even consider musicians like
anthony braxton to be jazz musicians, so if he's going to be pointman for
this series i think things like that need to taken into consideration. i
really don't want to criticize this series from a biased point of view, i
just don't necessarily think it's complete, and i'm really not convinced
with burns' defense of the historical scope.
what i've seen already, though, is excellent, and i'm taping the whole
damned thing for sure ...
we'll see how the rest turns out ..
p.
On Tue, 9 Jan 2001 GlesneM@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 1/9/01 12:36:39 AM Central Standard Time,
> elson@westworld.com writes:
>
>
> am i the only one appalled every time they say stuff like "the first..." or
> the "most important/greatest....?" etc, etc. their eagerness to put their
> necks out on the line is astounding. i'm sure there are more than a few
> scholars out there who would question some of their supposed certainties.
>
> I mean in this age of information, it is still a very impossible thing to say
> that this artist did this particular thing first - and that it was completely
> neccessary and/or important. i mean look at the difficulty in putting
> together any sort of year end lists. half the stuff out there is lost by
> anyone who claims to be a critic - espescially a critic relying on previously
> written history (which is dubious in early jazz).
>
> matt
>
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 09 2001 - 19:50:51 CET