You got to show me something more!

"I wish we had a lot more about the individuals and what influenced them musically.

I've watched the entire series. I suspect you'll receive a lot more of what you might be looking for in the later episodes. 9 and 10 are a must see.

"If you have seen Ken Burns' other documentaries, a lot the civil rights stuggle information is a re-hash of the same material over and over again. The history of the USA is the history of civil rights all the way back to the Pilgrims who where escaping religious discrimination. Just for a point of reference, my financee' is of a different race and she finds the civil rights coverage a little too much also. "

I'm failing to understand why the issue of race included in this documentary is effecting so many people to the degree that it is turning them off to it. If one chose to view a biography about Elvis, wouldn't one want to hear about his early childhood in Tupalo, Mississippi?

I applaud your openmindedness towards integrating people into your life beyond the basis on their skin color. You my friend, obviously do get it!

I began this thread in the context of addressing a mind that didn't obviously get it. I'll end it by saying that if you don't understand jazz, fine...acknowledge this as a shortcoming, and you have the choice to, or not to, use that as a basis for educating yourself more about it. But by all means, don't dismiss the ONLY true art form ever created in this country as something irrelevent. To me, that only shows ignorance. Now I know there are those of you that will read that statement and see it as a put down. It's not meant to be, for a lot of people in this country are ignorant about jazz, and history. And yes, ignorance too is a choice.

Enjoy!
Coltrane1

Coltrane: Actually yes, you did make a blatent attemp at dweedling. So now we have established that you are capable of self denial and that I am capable of being a big prick.

Dekay: Man, your comments suggest you to be a serious mind reader. It always amazes me how one person can write a statement, another read that statement, and the person that read it automatically presumes their interpretation of it is what the Author was trying to say! Not to worry man. You are not alone.

I also assume

Exactly! Your very assumptions are what clouded you into misinterpreting what I was saying from jump street. Your perception is not my perception, and as such have yet to express anything remotely close to what I was attempting to convey.

"that we are both here because of our interest in music and perhaps gear (I do not know where you stand on this, I am interested in both)."

Finally something we can agree upon! Hey, I've got hope for you yet man. But to tell you the truth, I'm really here to enlighten this mainly rock audience that their world would not exist without the music that it was created from.

"Let's keep it clean without the cheap shots from now on."

Cheap shots? Man, now you're really beginning to worry me. Name one cheap shot I've taken? I've been the consumate gentleman. However, that doesn't mean that I have to remain silent when ignorant comments are made, for fear that I may incur the rath of a predominantly rock minded audience.

"I am currently into "Bella Ciao" but I am not going to force it down anyone's throat:-)"

I applaud your openmindedness. It's too bad more people don't have your same openmindedness. Folks can listen to whatever floats their boat. We've only so much time. For the last time, I've not said anything to suggest what someone should be listening to. What I did say is that if you don't believe jazz to be worthy of exploration, so be it, but do not dismiss it as inferior to rock music, or any other just because you don't understand it. Truth be told, there's so much more happening there if one actually spends the time to equate themselves with the structure of the music. But don't get me started on a technical lecture. Next thing you know I'll be commenting on Block chords, Upper structures, Tritone substitutions, etc., and we don't need to go there, as most viewers wouldn't have a clue as to what I was talking about.

Enjoy!
Coltrane1

Originally posted this in the JAZZ on PBS thread, but this is where the action seems to be-I'll just paste the post in here: I'm a little late to the party here and in "you got to show me" thread but would agree with many of the "live and let live" posts. I think, however, Coltrane, that you're engaging in some serious historic revisionism when you state above that rock was born out of jazz. It's pretty clear that both rock and jazz were originally spawned by blues (although we could engage in endless chatter about how all these various forms of music have evolved). Whether it was Ellington or Armstrong, Presley or the Stones, they all started playing variations on themes originally presented by Handy, Johnson, Dixon and Waters. Personally, I am waiting for the Blues series on PBS, but not holding my breath. Jazz may not get the respect it truly deserves, but Blues gets even less.

I could be unappreciative and self-centered but "Ignorant-stoopid", I ain't. but, I took a second sighting on your babbling and figured, in manner or speech, you were just coming on as a so-called tough to impress me. I am not impressed. It is dangerous word, baby, that one, and if you use it against somebody standing in the same room with you there is a good chance you are going to get your lights turned out. Maan!

On a long thread last month regarding jazz recordings, I made a number of posts. Rather than try to recap my comments, let me quickly offer than I have been an avid jazz enthusiast since high school (late 1950's), and have taught a college course in jazz appreciate. Some of the remarks made on this thread either miss some important points about this extraordinary music, or are well-intentioned but misleading. For example, HiWaves commented that jazz musicians are imitators of the classical genre, and that jazz musicians do not really understand counterpoint. Nothing personal, HiWaves, but most GOOD jazz musicians go substantially beyond imitation by spontaneously creating music as they play. That, in essence, is what sets jazz apart from virtually all other major musical forms. Ken Burns' "Jazz" makes the valid point that jazz is an amalgam for forms: marches, late 1800's dances, blues, ragtime, negro work songs and chants, French operatic aria, etc. With regard to the comments about Bach: I also love Bach, as well as Mozart, Handel, Beethoven, and probably 100 or more great classical composers. But none of them combined extraordinary instrumental virtuousity with the ability to spontaneously created syncopated, polythmic music derived from a broad confluence of musical tradition. Listen to any good jazz drummer, for example, and you will hear 3-4 simultaneous rhythms. I have two references that I recommend to anyone interested in learning about jazz the music, not just the musicians who play the music. First, find the tape recording (or LP) titled "Jazz", which is a 1956 TV program from the Omnibus series, narrated by Leonard Bernstein. Lenny discusses the forms of jazz and the improvisational styles, with support from musicians such as Miles Davis. It's a great tape, and one that is always well received in my jazz appreciation class. The other reference source is the definitive college text on jazz: "Jazz Styles: History and Analysis", by Mark C. Gridley (published by Prentice-Hall). This book is easy to read, highly informative and interesting, and provides an excellent basis for really understanding America's only original art form.