John Petrucelli Post 3

For our latest class, we talked a great deal about Ken Burns and the various problems associated with the making of the documentary. I decided to look further into Icons Among Us, often viewed as an opposition, or a response to Jazz by modern day musicians. According to an interview I found with executive producer John Comerford,

(http://www.npr.org/blogs/ablogsupreme/2009/06/icons_among_us_an_interview_wi_1.html) he states that “The urgency came from the directors' communication and relationships with musicians who were reacting to the historical portrait of jazz that had just been completed by the great documentary filmmaker Ken Burns. And I think that the contacts the directors had were feeling like jazz is primarily about spontaneity and improvisation, so we should pay attention to the moment. And the moment at the turn of the millennium was dictating that we listen to the voices of the living generation of musicians and we elevate them and explore their work and deepen their audiences. And their response to it was, "Hey, what about us?"

Primarily, the documentary follows twin conclusions about the nature of jazz in modern times and its direction for the future. First, they promote the view that jazz has irrevocably changed from the ‘good old times’ of swing and especially bebop, and argue that musicians should not seek to emulate and imitate these artists in an attempt to pay homage. I think this deemphasizes the mystique and “god-like” aura around these musicians in favor of the view that the music of today is equally worthy of the status given to the great musicians of the past. For instance, Ravi Coltane states something along the lines that it is not enough for a modern day musician to imitate and play like Sonny Rollins. But if that person can Sonny’s influence and mix it with what is going on with the sounds and concepts of his contemporaries, then the end result could be unique.

Secondly, they want to demonstrate that jazz has survived, it has become even stronger thanks to an wave of new players bringing fresh ideas to the music. Terence Blanchard sums it up, saying that “there is a movement of some young guys, that is like the quietest revolution in jazz that I have ever heard in my life. And it’s amazing, because they are a group of young musicians that definitely have vision. History will tell the tale that things have moved on and changed and we are never, ever, going back.”

However, I was also surprised to find a spot when we screened part of the movie yesterday where they also seem to attribute the ‘rebirth’ of jazz to Wynton and Branford Marsalis. As we demonstrated yesterday however, this view seems absurd considering the cast of players on the scene during this time. While we did mention that, I would just like to mention a few myself. Miles Davis was collaborating with sideman like Dave Liebman, Bob Berg, and many other players who also began successful careers as leaders. George Coleman collaborated with Billy Higgins, Cedar Walton, Mulgrew Miller and others. Horace Silver played with sideman Bob Berg, the Brecker brothers (who started their own band) and others. Blakey was collaborating with Dave Schnitter, Bobby Watson, Valeri Ponomarev. Woody Shaw released an album nearly every year through the 70s, including Rosewood, which was nominated for two Grammys. In fact, it seems contradictory that Wynton Marsalis, who stated in this interview (http://woodyshaw.com/Press/article_woodyshaw.pdf) that His[Woody’s] whole approach influenced me tremendously," would not push to include him or acknowledge his presence and role in Jazz. Rather, Wynton never seeks to correct the claim that he saved jazz in either documentary, which is a troubling conception that has permeated our culture as a result of both of these documentaries. I think it would be inappropriate to view the documentary as an opposition to Jazz. First of all, they do include Wynton Marsalis in the documentary, which I think was a way to present a more balanced view of the current state of jazz and to also demonstrate that they were not ‘taking aim at Wynton’ without him having a chance to respond.

Additionally, in the following quote, the author reveals his own tendency to ascribe to the idea that jazz is a conversation, an idea which stems from Wynton’s comment in the Ken Burns documentary that jazz is a dialogue. Michael Katzif states:

I think the film captures this somewhat spontaneous and conversational feeling, mirroring jazz music. It's more of a free-form look at the music and the philosophies behind it. How much did you plan in terms of structure and conveying certain points of view in that conversation?

In any case, I feel very conflicted about the status of Jazz the documentary. On the one hand, I think that having both documentaries is a truly great thing, and I think that it has and will continue to inspire a great deal of interest and participation in jazz. I think Jazz, for all its faults, is a good way to lower the barrier of entry for people looking for more information on jazz. If they get deeply enough into the music to seek out or learn about the errors in the documentary, that would be great. I think the most necessary thing that needed to be presented would be a documentary on the state of jazz currently, which now exists. But I also have deep reservations about information that is misrepresented in both films, especially in the academic context that the Ken Burns documentary is often used. This is because I think that a younger generation of people in jazz are taking Jazz as the truth, without doing further research. The person who was asked about jazz during in the 70s before Wynton and Branford hit the scene was a younger man who didn't look like he would have been there to witness it (I didn't catch his name on Friday) and I think that the mythos of Wynton and Branford "saving" jazz was solidified by the new documentary.