LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  April 2013

ARSCLIST April 2013

Subject:

Re: revisiting an old thread -- jazz anthologies

From:

Roger Kulp <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 4 Apr 2013 19:30:40 -0600

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (1 lines)

I can only contrast this,with the interest in very obscure R&B,older rock,ska/reggae,and black gospel that continues to grow and grow all the time with no end in sight,or for that matter the (somewhat) revived interest in forgotten,and nearly unknown classical musicians of the 78 and early LP eras.Are you saying there is nothing comparable in Jazz? Roger > Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2013 20:51:14 -0400> From: [log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] revisiting an old thread -- jazz anthologies> To: [log in to unmask]> > Hi Arthur:> > I don't disagree with you about Burns' documentaries, mainly those after "The Civil War" (which > actually DID educate many people because it presented some first-person history that was obscure > except to scholars, plus it presented the Southern interpretation of things on equal footing with > the Union history, and thus presented some facts and themes not taught in most schools north of the > Mason-Dixon Line and vice-versa).> > So my critique of his "Jazz" documentary would be a larger point that applies to many other of his > documentaries -- he's using the publc trough (via PBS and CPB) to present entertainment rather than > educational programming, which really goes against the whole point of PBS. I blame both Burns and > the PBS feifdoms and their backers in Congress. Restating pat consensuses with pretty pictures is > not educational and thus shouldn't be funded. The only kind of documentary that should be worthy of > the public dime should be something that breaks new ground on scholarship of historical > investigation, or a striking new interpretation of facts.> > Going back to my original thread -- PUBLISH OR PERISH ALERT ... I think there's an interesting > scholarly paper or ARSC Journal article about the history of Jazz history/anthology collections. It > seems this actually goes back to the Hot Jazz Revival so forgotten by modern consensus history. > Because guys like Lu Watters revived the old music, guys like George Avakian got hired to go into > the vaults and reissue the originals. Then the LP era came along and albums like "I Like Jazz", "The > Jazz Makers," the original Riverside and Emarcy reissue anthologies, the "RCA Victor Encyclopedia of > Jazz" were issued. I would say the next thing was the first Smithsonian Collection of Classic jazz > in the early 70s. Then along come artist-specific all-inclusive reissue labels like Mosaic. Then two > more Smithsonian products and the Ken Burns documentary and accompanying many-CD reissue series. It > would make for an interesting article, looking at the focus and agenda of each > anthologizer/historian and looking at how various artists are considered over time (some have become > more "important" and some less as time has moved forward).> > -- Tom Fine> > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Arthur Gaer" <[log in to unmask]>> To: <[log in to unmask]>> Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2013 5:23 PM> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] revisiting an old thread -- jazz anthologies> > > I don't know, one could argue that the later understandings are the revisionism!> > But I think some of the criticisms (though not all) are setting aside the realities of this sort of > long form, broadcast, documentary filmmaking.> > No surprise to anyone who watches his docs, Burns pretty much always follows the conventional, > received wisdom approach to whatever topic he's covering.  Likely that's simply the approach he > prefers, but likely that's also the approach that draws an audience and funders.  Armstrong, > Ellington and Parker are well-known to those who barely know jazz--and their artistic longevity lets > their careers be used to touch on others less known who they overlapped with.  *Also* their > popularity means there's likely more extant footage, recordings, remembrances, etc. that can be used > in the work.> > If one goes to the less well-known performers where there's less material to work with, would one > then lose the casual audience while having to leave out some great material on the better known > performers and movements?  Often available funding--and available broadcast timeslots--dictates the > length of a documentary work.  I haven't seen the series since it was broadcast--and I have no idea > what might have ended up on the cutting room floor--but what should have been cut out in favor of > the musicians and genres that were slighted or outright ignored?> > If one is writing a book, one has the time and pages to cover a lot of less well-known paths and > performers, but one can cover *so* much more in a book than one can in a film.> > I do agree that Burns' frequent rush to cut off history in 1960 or 1970 is really annoying.  Burns' > "Baseball" doc similarly lumped 1970 to 1993 in one final episode (with prior episodes covering a > decade each) while focusing far, far too much on the Red Sox and New York teams (and I say that as a > huge Red Sox fan) to provide a narrative thread.  Having heard Burns talk more recently (about his > Dust Bowl series) it seems he's of the opinion that one can't get proper perspective on more recent > events--that when it's too close, it's journalism, not history, and the judgement of that history > hasn't yet been made.> > Again, that's a very conventional approach, but it's the approach that appeals to the casual viewer, > not the sort of specialists who would be reading this list (or attending the SABR conventions).> > However, I agree that stopping in the 60's for a broadcast over 40 years later is far too much > perspective.  Enjoying the soul-jazz I've  heard I'd have loved to know more, as I would about > genres like acid-jazz of which I'm ignorant (I'd skip the soft jazz, though).  And I'd love to know > more about the different early strains of syncopation, and the revivals and how they influenced > their contemporaries and those that followed, and the other things mentioned in this thread that I > really know nothing about.> > The question I'd raise is: should one judge "Jazz" for what was on the screen, or for what wasn't > there?  It was conventional history, but was there much wrong with what was actually shown, or is > the issue more what was excluded (including the far too early cut-off date)?> > Arthur Gaer> [log in to unmask]> > > On Apr 4, 2013, at 4:10 PM, Tom Fine wrote:> > > Hi Arthur:> >> > See, this makes sense. The "establishment" has always been along the same lines as the college > > course and the anthologies -- indeed, they are the creators of the college courses and the > > anthologies. I don't think Martin Williams was reflecting radical new opinions in the early 70s > > when he put the Smithsonian stamp on the Satchmo/Duke/Bird line of history. This was pretty much > > the established view of jazz books and magazines in the 50s and 60s.> >> > The problem with Ken Burns' approach was that he was basically being fed and then adopting a 1970 > > view of jazz history in the mid-1990s. A lot had happened, and there was the luxury of time passed > > to re-examine everything, including the early days, swing and bebop. Enough time had passed since > > the 60's to see how important soul-jazz and acid-jazz had been to the music business (and to the > > buying public). And the link was never made that the alleged "dead end" of fusion-jazz had > > actually evolved into the very popular "smooth" jazz, which was at full popularity around the time > > Burns started working on his project. Net-net, I think that's lazy documentary-making. And, > > because he was imposing an earlier understanding of history on a modern audience, willfully > > ignoring a lot of subsequent data, it's historical revisionism.> >> > -- Tom Fine> >> > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Arthur Gaer" <[log in to unmask]>> > To: <[log in to unmask]>> > Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2013 3:41 PM> > Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] revisiting an old thread -- jazz anthologies> >> >> > Good thought!> >> > Many of the critics and writers were interviewed in 1996 and 1997, while Wynton Marsalis wasn't > > interviewed on camera until June 12, 1999.  A lot of the other musician interviews were also in > > the middle of 1999.> >> > What was said off camera and when can't be determined by this evidence, of course.> >> > Arthur Gaer> > [log in to unmask]> >> > On Apr 4, 2013, at 2:46 PM, Tom Fine wrote:> >> >> I haven't had time to do this.> >>> >> Here are transcripts of some of the Burns interviews for "Jazz":> >> http://www.pbs.org/jazz/about/about_transcripts.htm> >>> >> It would be interesting to analize them by date, because I think it's reasonable to surmise that > >> those who spoke first had more influence on the shape of the emerging documentary than those who > >> spoke last -- unless Burns went in with a fully-baked pre-supposition and did interviews just to > >> fit his "narrative."> >>> >> Regarding Don Cox's statement:> >>> >>> I think what we see is one of the bad effects of college courses in> >>> jazz. The Ken Burns/Marsalis story is a typical study curriculum.> >>>> >>> The standard story of 20C art history is a similar simplification. But> >>> one has to start somewhere.> >>> >> I don't think it's ever a good idea to start at a place of misinformation or agenda-driven > >> opinion masked as "history." Regarding art history, one thing that I've noticed is how the > >> promoters and gallery owners get to write this history, if they live long enough. I guess that's > >> no different from record label owners and A&R folks.> >>> >> -- Tom Fine> >>> >>> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Arthur Gaer" <[log in to unmask]>> >> To: <[log in to unmask]>> >> Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2013 2:20 PM> >> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] revisiting an old thread -- jazz anthologies> >>> >>> >> Just a quick note: I saw Ken Burns speaking about his Jazz series on a panel with Stanley Crouch > >> at Harvard at the time of the initial broadcasts.> >>> >> Burns was pretty emphatic that Wynton Marsalis had little to do with the content or structure of > >> the series.  That they didn't talk to Marsalis until they were well into the production of the > >> series when the content and structure had already been established, and that they basically just > >> did one three-hour interview that was interspersed throughout the series.> >>> >> I probably have some of the details wrong (the talk was twelve years ago) but Burns was quite > >> adamant that Marsalis did not guide the series.  So Burns may have adopted Marsalis's outlook as > >> part of his conventional narrative, but unless Burns was deliberately dissembling in his > >> discussion, Marsalis wasn't the one who was controlling the history in the series.> >>> >> So it may be that Marsalis *would have* or (even did) discuss the traditional revival movement, > >> Bunk Johnson, etc. but if so, it was likely Burns who wasn't interested in putting that in his > >> series, rather than Marsalis.> >>> >> Arthur Gaer> >> [log in to unmask]> >>> >>> >> On Apr 4, 2013, at 12:38 PM, Cary Ginell wrote:> >>> >>> I might also add that the early world music efforts of Herbie Mann and Stan Getz and the bossa > >>> nova movement are also excluded from these so-called representative anthologies, more detritus > >>> from the ill effects of Ken Burns' "Jazz," which ignored all of this, probably because the trad > >>> jazz, world music, and boss nova movements were all spearheaded by white performers. You'd think > >>> Wynton Marsalis, a traditionalist himself and the Svengali behind Burns' myopic rewriting of > >>> jazz history, would have embraced the coming of Lu Watters, the rediscovery of Bunk Johnson, and > >>> the British trad movement of the 1950s, but I have not seen acknowledgement of this period at > >>> all from him.> >>>> >>> Cary Ginell> >>>> >>> 		 	   		  

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager