WHAT DID KC THINK?

It was a major television event for jazz communities everywhere -- especially in a town where an important part of jazz history took place. What did Kansas City think? Here's what area viewers had to say about Ken Burns' "Jazz."


GEORGE ADAMS
Graduate student, KC Jazz Ambassador
"Jazz" is the best that television can offer. It educates, provokes, and excites the viewer. This series convinced me that if you find something you really love to do in life, you can overcome anything. And, geez! What these artists had to overcome!
Yes, Wynton may be an elitist to some (not to me), and yes, there is, believe it or not, more to jazz than Armstrong, Duke and Miles. But how much more? The series had to have some form of foundation, some pillars on which to build; why not these men?

BEN ANDERSON
Saxophonist/clarinetist, Shawnee Mission East High School
Ken Burns captured some of the most wonderful, exciting and memorable moments in the history of jazz. And the people he chose to report on were perfect for this documentary. I wish he would have chosen more.

Finally. A story has been made on everything (or mostly everything) that is true jazz.

VINCE BILARDO
Drummer, bandleader, KC jazz veteran
I have never been a jazz history buff. And I did not see all of the installments of "Jazz." However, I found the first few installments interesting and informative, but much too long for that time period. I felt that Burns spent too much time on Louis Armstrong and Duke Ellington and could have used more interviews with present day artists. Did Stan Kenton, Stan Getz, Jim Hall and Pat Metheny fall through the cracks somehow?

I also believe that the show has sparked some interest with everyday folks. And the "Coda" interviews with Burns were outstanding. He had answers for most of the criticisms.

BILL CRAIN
Saxophonist, bandleader, owner BRC Audio Productions
Ken Burns has supplied the public with a lot of information about the earliest roots of jazz, and that exposure to the public is good for the jazz community.

Unfortunately, he spent so much time going back to reiterate certain points again and again, that there wasn't time left to even skim the surface of the last 40 years of jazz development. This really hurts the jazz-player community, because the vast majority of the jazz that is being presented to the public today is mainly influenced by the players and ground-breaking bands that were ignored in the documentary.

LOU DARE
Booking Agent
I was quite impressed with Ken Burns' series. I found it totally intriguing and viewed it more from the perspective of a great biography of America's Black heritage than just the history of Jazz. What a great lead-in to Black History Month.

Burns' artful way of taking you on this journey left me wanting more... even after 18 hours!

MILLIE EDWARDS
Singer, recording artist
Everything old continues to be new again, and that gives me a good feeling. And how fortunate it is that there's still so much of that film footage left. It's amazing how much of it Ken Burns had. I remember seeing some of it as a child; seeing it again brought back a lot of memories.

I also gained a new respect for Ethel Waters and Louie Armstrong. And throughout the series, I was gratified and humbled by Burns' documented acknowledgment of Blacks as the creators of an American art form.

BILL FOGARTY
KC Jazz Ambassador, Kansas City Jazz Workshop
The first thing to remember is: Ken Burns wasn't just doing a history of jazz, he was doing more of an American history, just as he did with his Civil War and baseball series. He was getting a fix on America through a particular window. His "Jazz" series wasn't just for us jazzers; it was for people who didn't know much about jazz and wanted to learn more. And I think he got most of the important stuff right.

Yes, some important people were neglected or omitted, not all of them white. Maybe the bigger lapses were a) omitting the vast, mutually enriching contact between jazz people and the great Broadway songwriters, and b) not mentioning the enormous scope of jazz education.

But let's all thank God that Ken Burns did what he did.

DR. KIM GORMAN
Optometrist, jazz fan, pianist
I admire the obvious care and skill in this expansive effort. It elucidated what's compelling about some beloved artists, and for that reason alone, was a great course in early jazz.

The best part was learning the underwriters are funding an in-school music series, so a new generation can learn about our musical heritage.

Yes, Burns omitted an entire era in this truncated version of Jazz History. But the man "fell in love with the music" during the series' incubation. Isn't that what it's all about?

ANGELA HAGENBACH
Singer, bandleader, recording artist
It is my hope that the Ken Burns "Jazz" collection will spur the interest of people of all ages and walks of life so that it will ignite a resurgence of the importance of the music. Among many things, it recounts American history through the struggle and triumphs as well as the "complexion" of the growing nation, politically, sociologically and otherwise, as expressed through the music of the oppressed people.

My great disappointment is that, as with most historical accounts, be it music or otherwise, there was an omission of the contributions from women. Perhaps there was more historical documentation about those contributions in the episodes I missed. I do hope so. I'm no historian, but I do know with all certainly that the music grew out of the experiences of both men and women.

TOM HALL
Singer, songwriter, recording artist
The one thing that jumped out at me and warmed my primitive heart was that Charlie Parker would play country and western music on the juke box when the band took a break. Thank God the Bird himself was not a Jazz Nazi!

LUQMAN HAMZA
Singer, pianist, recording artist
I saw it as a positive thing for jazz. But I was concerned about how so many people got left out of the Kansas City segment. There are a lot of unsung heroes here who are still around -- and who have been around a lot longer than I have -- who should have been included.

And with all due respect to (baseball legend) Buck O'Neil, he's not a musician! They should have given that spot to someone who is involved in the music, and involved in the music all the time!

CONNIE "CRASH" HUMISTON
Assistant Director, Kansas City Blues & Jazz Festival
I was only able to catch two or three episodes, but just those few shows made the whole series a top priority on my shopping list.

Besides being educated, I was touched by the humanness of the jazz greats and their grueling work schedules. Many people tend to place these idols on pedestals and forget that they had to subsist on crackers, not steak! Many others have no idea of the racism these greats had to face.

From reports I've heard, the series has immensely increased the interest in jazz in Kansas City. Personally, I was pleased to see that Joe Turner was recognized, as I feel the blues element is often neglected. Kansas City was, after all, where the blues and jazz "met."

Criticisms I've heard are that there were many musicians left out. However, I feel that Ken Burns presented a wide range of artists in the allotted time.

HIDEO JEFFERSON
Manager/bartender, The Club at Plaza III
As a behind-the-scenes participant at a local jazz club, I learned much from the Ken Burns series about jazz and its history, from the beginning to the present.

I now appreciate the music on a different level. And I hope the popularity of the series will enable jazz to reach many more people and bring a renewed interest in this music.

BILL JESSEE
Retired UMKC psychology professor/music educator
The series by Ken Burns is important from an historical perspective. It was, for the most part, well done. I found it to be well documented and informative. It is a series that should be viewed for years to come by anyone interested in American music.

The two (musicians) who were most influential, and who dominated the scene for more than 50 years, got most deserved attention: Louis Armstrong, who changed forever the way jazz was played, and Duke Ellington, who was the greatest American composer/arranger ever.

Conspicuously absent were other important innovators. Where were Bunny Berigan and Roy Eldridge? Stan Kenton, Woody Herman, Claude Thornhill and Boyd Raeburn, Sauter/Finnegan, Hoagy Carmichael, and even Nat "King" Cole deserved to be included more than some others mentioned. I realize Burns could not include everyone, but this is supposedly a definitive work. I wonder what his agenda was.

And finally, Kansas City should have gotten more recognition! Following the demise of jazz in New Orleans during World War I, Kansas City and Chicago were the major conduits to the Big Time (New York), producing many great jazz musicians.

PAM HIDER JOHNSON
Wife of drummer/bandleader Sam Johnson, Jr.
From what I was able to view, the series appeared to be very relevant to jazz in general... meaning Burns' view was panoramic. He concentrated too much on Armstrong and Ellington, which was okay, but I was looking for more from the documentary.

The piece on Kansas City was accurate from the perspective of a person not truly knowing anything about the KC scene. Burns took his time with that portion of the KC piece, but it still lacked the home touch. I was a bit taken aback when (Wynton) Marsalis gave a scatting description of what the KC big bands meant and the rhythmical thinking of the time. It appeared to be the New Orleans sound warmed over. Why couldn't Burns have had a more in-depth interview with one of our own for at least that part of the documentary?

SAM JOHNSON, JR.
Drummer, bandleader, president, Elder Statesmen of Kansas City Jazz
The Ken Burns series was really good. It opened the eyes of the world at large to the intrinsic involvement of musicians in the make-up of the American community, from post-slavery to the Millennium 2001.

It could have had more about Kansas City, but that's just being a bit partial. I personally pray that our Kansas City jazz heritage can grow in the new millennium and that our great grandkids will be able to revel about and admire us all.

STAN KESSLER
Trumpeter (Sons of Brasil), recording artist
Overall, I think it was good for business and awareness. However, on the less-than-positive side, I would have preferred less of Wynton, and more of the many other qualified jazz spokespeople and luminaries who are still alive.

I was also dismayed with the blatant errors regarding the Kansas City scene, specifically the total omission of Benny Moten and the error of stating that Freddie Green was in Kansas City with Count Basie, which he was not! Claude ("Fiddler" Williams) was the guitar player here then. Freddie didn't join Basie until the band went to New York. So, Burns screwed up twice there, and that makes me wonder how many other errors there were.

STEVE KRASKE
Political correspondent, The Kansas City Star, KC Jazz Ambassador
It was a major disappointment. My criticism would begin with the most basic of faults: The series was way too long and desperately needed an editor. Cut it by a third, then we'll talk. And I would have eased up on the heavy focus on the 1920s and '30s.

Bottom line: The series failed to generate a buzz. For a production given as many hours as "Jazz," not to mention a to-die-for marketing campaign, that was a significant failing.

STEVE LAGER
Smooth Jazz 106.5, The City
The only thing that frustrated me was I ran out of blank video tapes! Think about it: 10 days of national exposure on the history of jazz. What impressed me most was the talk on the streets from people who previously could have cared less. It really hit home to them, and for that I think we all should congratulate Ken Burns.

BILL McKEMY
Bassist (Malachy Papers), recording artist
I watched every episode and I think that Burns relied too much on the Marsalis perspective. It didn't bother me until they got past the bebop era. Why even give a cursory nod to Ornette, Cecil Taylor, et al., if you intersperse it with commentary from Wynton and Branford about it "being a bunch of noise"? That material could have been presented with the same genuine affection as was given to Armstrong and Ellington. And to think, the name Sun Ra was not mentioned!

Also, the list of "up and comers" from the final episode was depressing! I would have preferred to see more detail given to this post-bop phenomenon of jazz as a "house divided" showing all the different ideological camps (purists who fixate on past stylistic eras, experimental intellectuals, Garveyite Afrocentrists, etc.) and how the genre manages to sustain it all.

JIM MONROE
President, Topeka Jazz Workshop/Topeka Jazz Festival
Many people I have talked to have said what a wonderful education on jazz Ken Burns' documentary presented. And others across the country tell me that attendance at concerts and memberships purchased for jazz series have increased. I suspect this is as a result of the awareness of jazz created by the series. WONDERFUL! Five years of intensive research and production produced a masterpiece.

I did feel that during the early segments, and for that matter, for the entire series, Louis Armstrong and Duke Ellington were featured too much -- as if the two of them were primarily responsible for the development of jazz. There's no question as to their huge contribution, but literally hundreds of musicians are responsible.

I also felt very strongly that Wynton Marsalis was very much out of place in the first few parts of the series. He is of the wrong generation, and he spoke as if he had lived and worked with Louis, Duke and the others, as he spoke often of what Louis and Duke were thinking about music, women, and so on. How could he be so presumptuous as to speak in those terms? He should have only been in the later segments, if at all.

And I also felt the last segment, covering the last 40 years, was totally wrong. After #9, the screen should have said "To Be Continued," with another series presented covering the last 40 years.

PETE MORRIS
General Manager, The Majestic Steakhouse
The "Jazz" series was fun for all of us here at the Majestic Steak House. And it sparked many hours of great jazz conversations. Hopefully it will spark many more hours of great jazz.

STEVE PAUL
Senior Writer and Editor, The Kansas City Star
All unhappy "Jazz" fans are unhappy in different ways. My disappointments have to do with the smothering and repetitive weight Burns gives to the past and the short shrift he gives to more recent players (Mingus, for instance) and currents.

Of course, it was better than nothing, which is what we usually get. And it had its moments of enlightenment. But hire that man an editor.

AL PEARSON
Trumpeter, bandleader, recording artist
Looking at the Ken Burns series from a musician's point of view, my era was not represented the way I would like to have seen. The '60s, '70s and '80s comprised only a few hours, and Burns didn't do a very good job with that part.

From a layman's point of view, however, it was probably educational. And people got to visualize a lot of popular music and entertainment that was passed off as jazz.

I do not think that the series was a waste of time, though. Many non-jazz listeners got a chance to experience some spotty performances by some very qualified musicians.

CHARLTON PRICE
Jazz aficionado, KC Jazz Ambassador
Why has the high-flying PBS Ken Burns videothon "Jazz" drawn so much flak (and not just from those whom Burns derides as the "jazzerati")? I think some of the main reasons are:

1) Burns' endorsement and documentation of an essentially political, racist premise for the series, apparently devised by Marsalis, Crouch and Murray, and scripted by Early -- all but Marsalis non-musicians;
2) Exclusion of all commentary and musical examples that
did not fit that premise, thus portraying the history of jazz as merely
one theme in the history of race relations in America;
3) Over-concentration on, excessive adulation of, and some factual inaccuracies about a few giants, with little or no mention of many other very significant artists, particularly some women (this is sexist!) and some whites (this is racist!), and particularly for the last half of the century;
4) Almost no explanation of the why and the how of the importance of jazz as music, in America and internationally.

The "Jazz" series was a significant and long overdue media event. But it could have been so much better!

ROBERT RANDOLPH
Finalist, 2001 Miles Davis Trumpet Competition
I enjoyed it. I thought it was very cool and interesting and educational. And I'm glad they had it on TV in order to get everyone involved and interested in jazz. There's also the "Jazz" CD series that came out that kind of does the same thing, by tracing the history of jazz.

RICK SILVA
Silva Foods of Kansas City, music enthusiast/musician
I read a rubeian comment somewhere that basically said "you could fill volumes" with what Ken Burns left OUT of his "Jazz" series on PBS. Duh!

What Mr. Burns succeeded in doing was beautifully present us with the highlights of how and why this musical force evolved. As an introduction and primer on this subject, I think his series was an unequivocal success. The vintage footage and recordings as well as the chronology, should be required viewing for anyone interested in this music. Other forms of music can only hope to have such a regal lineage.

SHARON THOMPSON
Singer, actress, featured performer in "After Hours"
I'm really happy to see jazz getting the attention it deserves. And I thought the series was very educational, especially for me. There were a lot of things in the series that I didn't even know! So, I'm sure it was educational for other people, too. And I wish they'd do more things like it!

LESTER "DUCK" WARNER
Singer, trumpeter, trombonist, bandleader
On the positive side, I thought it was a very informative program. And on the not-so-positive side, there should be more of this kind of thing. I really do believe the public would like to know more about these great musicians who have gone by. For instance, a lot of people didn't realize that Louie Armstrong was not only a great musician, but also a fine actor and a dancer, and he starred in a couple of movies. That was something a lot of people learned from the Ken Burns "Jazz" series.

BOBBY WATSON
Director of Jazz Studies, UMKC
I think the Ken Burns film has been good for jazz in the big scheme of things. Certainly many people have been given a new appreciation for jazz because of it. Unfortunately, I had a very hard time watching any segment all the way through, because I didn't like the exclusion of so many important figures who dedicated their lives to jazz.

I especially didn't like the limited coverage of the last 40 years! To me, yesterday is history as well. (Note the 2000 presidential election.) I also felt that on many topics and discussions, Wynton should have deferred to the many elders who were and still are living.

But Wynton is so busy, I am sure he taped his segments and then went right back out on the road. I am not certain how much actual control he ultimately had because of his schedule. Production schedules are hard to change, I have found, especially with something of this magnitude. So, I reserve my criticism of him because of this.

BLANCHE WILLIAMS
Mrs. "Fiddler," longtime jazz fan
I thought it was entertaining. I especially liked knowing some of the personal background of Louis Armstrong and Duke Ellington. I did think there was too much focus on them when there were so many notable artists during that period who made positive contributions to jazz and who could have been included in the piece.

Also, Wynton Marsalis overkill! Dr. Billy Taylor would have made a better choice. Credibility is the key word here. Dr. Taylor was there, and would know from whence he spoke.

Enough said!

CHARLES WILLIAMS
Pianist, KC jazz veteran
I enjoyed the whole series. Not only was it enlightening, but anything that has to do with promoting jazz is a plus in my book. I especially enjoyed the part about Kansas City. I learned a lot of things I didn't know about what was happening here in the '20s, '30s and '40s. I was really glad to see that, and I was glad to see the people I've known and have played with, too. Again, it was very, very enlightening, and I think it should be done more!

PAT WILSON
Singer, recording artist
I would have liked to have seen more of what happened after the '40s -- things I could have related to more personally. And I was a little disappointed with how so few white jazz musicians were shown, as if they didn't exist and didn't make contributions to the great world of jazz that we know today. But I did get some enjoyment out of it, and don't think it was all a bad thing. It was, after all, a documentary.


RETURN TO APRIL/MAY 2001 MAIN INDEX


© Kansas City Jazz Ambassadors 1996-2001. All rights reserved.