In defense of “Jazz”

Hipster critics say Ken Burns offered up only penny-ante sociology and sops to Wynton Marsalis. They're wrong.

Topics: Television,

Long before “Jazz” hit the air, you could hear the grumbling. And once Ken Burns’ 10-episode, 16-hour behemoth began its broadcast run, the dissing was all over the place — in letters to the New York Times, on jazz sites on the Internet, in the Atlantic, in the New York Review of Books.

“Jazz” was penny-ante sociology. It rolled over for Wynton Marsalis. It bought into the Albert Murray-Stanley Crouch party line. It deified Louis Armstrong. It presented legends as historical fact. It didn’t cover contemporary jazz. It misrepresented Duke Ellington’s compositional process. It shorted Latin jazz. It was anti-Semitic. It was racist. It didn’t give Charles Mingus (Sonny Stitt, Keith Jarrett, Bill Evans, Sun Ra, etc., etc.) his due. And so on.

Some of this criticism was legitimate — Francis Davis’ tough but fair appraisal in the Atlantic stands out — and most of it was more or less understandable. A bit of irritation could be expected at the genuflecting proclamations that announced the latest white-horse arrival of St. Ken, the documentary apostle of Big Serious Subjects who, armed with a list of corporate sponsors as long as a Cecil Taylor solo, was going to do for jazz what he had done for the Civil War.

And in any case, the naysaying hardly represented the majority opinion on “Jazz” — most of the mainstream reviews were favorable, and many of them were glowing.

Still, much of the caviling left the distinct impression that people who really knew jazz hated the show, and only neophytes or casual fans could be expected to like it. Well, as a jazz fan for 30 years, I have to say that I loved “Jazz.” It isn’t a masterpiece, but it’s an exceptionally fine documentary about one of the great American subjects. It’s hugely informative, well crafted and often moving — and even if you don’t agree with all of its occasional grand pronouncements, they’re basically harmless.

And “Jazz” also manages to achieve a few moments of genuine artistic transcendence, moments in which its formal elements — music, photography and narrative — inform each other in a strikingly original way. Oddly, the form that ends up on top of the aesthetic mountain isn’t necessarily music — it’s photography. There were moments, watching “Jazz,” when I felt that I was seeing photographs deeper, with a clearer, more fatalistic eye, than I ever had before.



The actual experience of listening to the music in “Jazz” is odd. It’s framed: The photographs and the narration give it an aura, a whiff of something beyond itself. There’s something artificial, falsely elevated, about all grand narratives about art, just as there’s something faintly suspicious about the aura that paintings acquire when they’re hung in a gallery. Listening to it on “Jazz,” the music ceases to be merely what it is — a matter of fingers and timing and sweat and intuition, a very specific mastery of craft — and goes aloft, floating above the world like a sublime soundtrack of the American soul. Or something.

Paradoxically, this very sublimity is inseparable from the music’s secondary role. Duke Ellington’s “Satin Doll” becomes the illustration of a certain ineffable sophistication, Bird’s “Koko” a metaphor for artistic integrity in the face of personal dissolution, John Coltrane’s “Chasin’ the Trane” a signifier of sheer, tortured intensity. This is not exactly what we heard when we heard the music in clubs, or on records. Then they were just tunes. Magnificent tunes maybe, major works of art perhaps — but not meaningful.

But if endowing 12 choruses of a tenor solo with the fatality of history is a lie, it’s a worthwhile lie — the same lie performed by all art. It’s a lie in the service, if not of truth, then of beauty.

The fact is, even art needs stories. Even art needs aura. Even art needs magic. And “Jazz” provides those things. It takes something great and treats it as if it were great. It grabs an ancient, scratchy Louis Armstrong solo and puts it under glass, treats it like it’s “Petruschka” or “Water Lilies” or “Ode to Autumn.” We are forced, at aesthetic gunpoint, to listen with a different ear. And it pays off.

For in the end the artifice just allows another perspective. You don’t have to stay there. The grand story Burns tells and illustrates with such relentless dignity — All these heroes! All those masterpieces! All those deaths! It’s as if life were played for keeps! — lets you have your musical cake and eat it too.

Listening to Paul Chambers’ bass introducing the theme to “So What,” we still ski over the same familiar drifts of sound we have so many times before — but now, looking at a photo of Miles’ etched, disturbingly noble face, we have a story to hang it on. Those tunes we’ve heard a thousand times suddenly become double: They seem to embody the distilled yearning shown on a young Negro boy’s face, the innocence of two exultant jitterbuggers, the weary grace of soldiers coming home, in photographs that break your heart because of everything they promised about America.

“Jazz” isn’t perfect. There’s some grandiosity, and some too-pat equations between musical evolution and social change, and some windy philosophizing. All of these are predictable deformations, resulting from Burns and writer Geoffrey Ward’s sociological-historical approach. Yes, not that many people would watch a 10-part documentary about harmonic developments in post-bop jazz, but sometimes a soprano sax is just a soprano sax, not an emblem of all the yearning and hope and pent-up racial ambiguity that has haunted this mighty, wounded land since its birth. But a big story needs a big theme, and in a way it almost doesn’t matter what that theme is, as long as it’s suitably austere and stays out of the way. When the narrative rhetoric gets too high-blown (which isn’t often: Ward is a very good writer) you can just tune it out, treat it like a temporarily square set of chords laid down by a good pianist. The melody keeps going.

The commentators are, in general, first-rate, from the reflective Gerald Early to the pungent Stanley Crouch to the encyclopedic and passionate Gary Giddins. Wynton Marsalis, the musician who does the lion’s share of the commentary, is mostly charming — actually, far more than I expected — with his boyish enthusiasm for the Old Masters. (Although I’m not convinced by his assertion that the musical negotiations between jazz players have anything at all to do with democracy.) The wet kiss Burns plants on him at the end, crediting him with virtually single-handedly “saving” jazz, is a little irritating, but only a little.

Speaking of “saving” jazz, the biggest gripe “Jazz’s” detractors have is that its story essentially ends after Miles’ “Bitches Brew” (1969), giving only the most cursory of nods to the last 30-plus years of the music. But Burns and Ward made a conscious and, I believe, legitimate choice not to deal with the contemporary scene: They didn’t want to be put in a position of making critical judgments that weren’t sanctioned by history.

In any case, once you’ve dealt in some depth, as Burns and Ward do, with the two masters of the avant-garde, Ornette Coleman and Cecil Taylor, there just aren’t that many purely formal, experimental avenues to pursue — those cats kind of burned up the territory ahead of the rest. (Not everyone agrees that Burns and Ward do justice to the classic avant-garde. In an oddly uncharitable review in the New York Review of Books — odd because his criticisms do not quite seem to justify his evident irritation, which prevents him from saying a single positive thing about the series — David Hajdu complains that neither Coleman nor Taylor get the “full profile treatment” accorded to Miles, Satchmo and other giants.)

Of course, one can quarrel with “Jazz’s” exclusion of the contemporary scene, and quibble with the figures omitted. I myself would like to have seen a lot more of Bill Evans and Sarah Vaughan, as well as acknowledgment of the impact of fusion masters like John McLaughlin or Pat Metheny. But most of this kind of complaining strikes me as nitpicking, an excuse for partisans to beat their breasts — or to bash Wynton Marsalis, whose icy, free-jazz-hating hand they see behind every false note in “Jazz.”

Besides, let’s get real. Any mainstream TV program beamed into millions of American homes that devotes even a few minutes to celebrating Miles’ second quintet, which made some of the greatest art of the 20th century and which until this show was broadcast hardly any Americans had ever heard of, deserves a lot better than sectarian whining.

In the end, what you take away from “Jazz” is not who is in and who is out, but the epic sweep of the music’s history. And the stories:

The inscrutable triumph and tragedy of Charlie Parker, terrifyingly summed up in an unforgettable scene in which his wife Chan recalls the four telegrams he sent her after learning their young child had died — each more incoherent than the last. (When the telegram reading simply “Chan/ Help” was shown on the screen, it hit like an electric shock.)

Dave Brubeck, whose black bandmate and fellow World War II vet was turned away from a whites-only restaurant in the South, recalling the first black man he ever met, who at the request of Brubeck’s father opened his shirt to reveal a brand on his chest. Brubeck recalls his father telling him, “These things can’t happen.” Then, fighting back sobs, the aging pianist says, “That’s what I fought for.”

Ellington’s trombone player John Sanders, now a Catholic priest, regretting not being able to tell the Duke how much happiness playing with him, just knowing him, had given him. His voice swelling with emotion, Sanders remembers how the Duke used to look at the band every night before their first number and smile, as if saying, “Here we are, all together again.”

“Jazz” doesn’t tell the whole story of jazz — what could? But it celebrates a difficult art, and eloquently chronicles one of the America’s lasting achievements. That’ll do.

Gary Kamiya is a Salon contributing writer.

More Related Stories

Featured Slide Shows

  • Share on Twitter
  • Share on Facebook
  • 1 of 14
  • Close
  • Fullscreen
  • Thumbnails

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Hannah and Adam, "Pilot"

    One of our first exposures to uncomfortable “Girls” sex comes early, in the pilot episode, when Hannah and Adam “get feisty” (a phrase Hannah hates) on the couch. The pair is about to go at it doggy-style when Adam nearly inserts his penis in “the wrong hole,” and after Hannah corrects him, she awkwardly explains her lack of desire to have anal sex in too many words. “Hey, let’s play the quiet game,” Adam says, thrusting. And so the romance begins.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Marnie and Elijah, "It's About Time"

    In an act of “betrayal” that messes up each of their relationships with Hannah, Marnie and Elijah open Season 2 with some more couch sex, which is almost unbearable to watch. Elijah, who is trying to explore the “hetero side” of his bisexuality, can’t maintain his erection, and the entire affair ends in very uncomfortable silence.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Marnie and Charlie, "Vagina Panic"

    Poor Charlie. While he and Marnie have their fair share of uncomfortable sex over the course of their relationship, one of the saddest moments (aside from Marnie breaking up with him during intercourse) is when Marnie encourages him to penetrate her from behind so she doesn’t have to look at him. “This feels so good,” Charlie says. “We have to go slow.” Poor sucker.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Shoshanna and camp friend Matt, "Hannah's Diary"

    We’d be remiss not to mention Shoshanna’s effort to lose her virginity to an old camp friend, who tells her how “weird” it is that he “loves to eat pussy” moments before she admits she’s never “done it” before. At least it paves the way for the uncomfortable sex we later get to watch her have with Ray?

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Hannah and Adam, "Hard Being Easy"

    On the heels of trying (unsuccessfully) to determine the status of her early relationship with Adam, Hannah walks by her future boyfriend’s bedroom to find him masturbating alone, in one of the strangest scenes of the first season. As Adam jerks off and refuses to let Hannah participate beyond telling him how much she likes watching, we see some serious (and odd) character development ... which ends with Hannah taking a hundred-dollar bill from Adam’s wallet, for cab fare and pizza (as well as her services).

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Marnie and Booth Jonathan, "Bad Friend"

    Oh, Booth Jonathan -- the little man who “knows how to do things.” After he turns Marnie on enough to make her masturbate in the bathroom at the gallery where she works, Booth finally seals the deal in a mortifying and nearly painful to watch sex scene that tells us pretty much everything we need to know about how much Marnie is willing to fake it.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Tad and Loreen, "The Return"

    The only sex scene in the series not to feature one of the main characters, Hannah’s parents’ showertime anniversary celebration is easily one of the most cringe-worthy moments of the show’s first season. Even Hannah’s mother, Loreen, observes how embarrassing the situation is, which ends with her husband, Tad, slipping out of the shower and falling naked and unconscious on the bathroom floor.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Hannah and the pharmacist, "The Return"

    Tad and Loreen aren’t the only ones to get some during Hannah’s first season trip home to Michigan. The show’s protagonist finds herself in bed with a former high school classmate, who doesn’t exactly enjoy it when Hannah puts one of her fingers near his anus. “I’m tight like a baby, right?” Hannah asks at one point. Time to press pause.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Hannah and Adam, "Role-Play"

    While it’s not quite a full-on, all-out sex scene, Hannah and Adam’s attempt at role play in Season 3 is certainly an intimate encounter to behold (or not). Hannah dons a blond wig and gets a little too into her role, giving a melodramatic performance that ends with a passerby punching Adam in the face. So there’s that.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Shoshanna and Ray, "Together"

    As Shoshanna and Ray near the end of their relationship, we can see their sexual chemistry getting worse and worse. It’s no more evident than when Ray is penetrating a clothed and visibly horrified Shoshanna from behind, who ends the encounter by asking if her partner will just “get out of me.”

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Hannah and Frank, "Video Games"

    Hannah, Jessa’s 19-year-old stepbrother, a graveyard and too much chatting. Need we say more about how uncomfortable this sex is to watch?

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Marnie and Desi, "Iowa"

    Who gets her butt motorboated? Is this a real thing? Aside from the questionable logistics and reality of Marnie and Desi’s analingus scene, there’s also the awkward moment when Marnie confuses her partner’s declaration of love for licking her butthole with love for her. Oh, Marnie.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Hannah and Adam, "Vagina Panic"

    There is too much in this scene to dissect: fantasies of an 11-year-old girl with a Cabbage Patch lunchbox, excessive references to that little girl as a “slut” and Adam ripping off a condom to ejaculate on Hannah’s chest. No wonder it ends with Hannah saying she almost came.

  • Recent Slide Shows

Comments

0 Comments

Comment Preview

Your name will appear as username ( settings | log out )

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href=""> <b> <em> <strong> <i> <blockquote>