Jazz: A History of America's Music

Ignore the petty sniping by some of the reviewers complaining about the abbreviated treatment that jazz from the last 40 years receives. This is a book which aims to provide a panorama of jazz AND society. So the focus, understandably, is on those musicians who have had the greatest impact on American culture (e.g., Louis Armstrong, Duke Ellington, Benny Goodman, Miles Davis). Just hearing those names immediately evokes a certain place and time in American history. Sadly, many jazz musicians of the past 40 years have chosen to marginalize the music: the names "Lester Bowie" and "Pharoah Sanders" don't resonate for the public-at-large because, and this may be hard to take for some, the influence and popularity of the so-called avant-garde outside of the jazz intelligensia is minimal.

The purpose of this book is to present a history of America's music. It overwhelmingly succeeds. I don't think the music has ever received a finer treatment in print.


An excellent overview.....   December 12, 2000
 6 out of 7 found this review helpful

I thought this was a terrific overview that captures the spirit and beauty of the music. It gave wondeful insight and depth to the people behind the music...innovators such as Louis Armstrong, Duke Ellington and others. I think some people will be disappointed in the book simply because it does not adhere to their particular viewpoint (there is very little coverage of fusion....no great loss in my book). But for people who want to get the background of the music and peer into the origins of it, who want to understand the passion that lies within it, this is a must read.


Nothing new here   November 29, 2000
 29 out of 59 found this review helpful

I didn't care for the book. Sure it's pretty and will get some folks interested in the music, but I found the treatment a bit heavy-handed. Talking about musicians as bold innovators and soul stylists and technical wizards is all a bit much for me. Many of the greatest jazz musicians were addicts and just generally not very nice people. Also, I really didn't see anything in that book that I haven't seen in other books. It almost looks as though Burns took a "best of" approach to a lot of other jazz history books out there. Personally, I've had enough of the who, what, when, and where that you can read any old dusty history book. What I want is the how and why and this book certainly doesn't answer either question. One last note: any jazz history book that talks about Wynton Marsalis more often than it mentions J.J. Johnson is not a book I'm going to spend money on.


The rise and perceived fall of jazz!   November 19, 2000
 38 out of 51 found this review helpful

I agree with the previous reviewer that this book has the look...but not the feel, particularly for jazz's most recent half-century. What is so difficult to understand? What happened with--not to--jazz in recent decades is merely that most of its genuine creative spirits believed that it should reflect its era of creation. Not to run and hide from it, or adhere to an orthodox, rear-view mirror definition. Ironically Duke Ellington, Louis Armstrong and other celebrated early greats are celebrated for breaking/remaking the pop culture paradigms of their day. Miles Davis does the same thing in a later era and he gets accused by a vocal minority--given much word-time in this book--of something akin to treason.

If in recent decades a particular "jazz" musician heard a connection with an avant-garde sensibility, then the better visionaries (Ornette, Coltrane) effectively bridged that gap. If one sensed a connection with other countries (Brazil, Nigeria, Japan, etc.), then some intuitive artists made THAT work (Stan Getz, Toshiko Akiyoshi, etc.). And if one had an affinity for the more creative efforts in contemporary popular culture, then you got a best-of-many-worlds hybrid, at least from such forward-thinkers as Davis, Cassandra Wilson, Monday Michiru (who is virtually unknown in the land that created jazz--FYI Toshiko is her mom), and others. Concurrently, some musicians seemed to react against this no-holds-barred eclecticism and pick up from points in the now-distant past. That's okay, too...but it's not the only "right" way to bridge jazz's past with it's present and future.

Of course, a majority of tag-along musicians dumbed-down all of these valid scenarios, with results that ranged from commercial-lite to cacaphonic-heavy. Yet particularly the former was true in jazz's early decades, too. Bottom line: the best recent efforts are no less aesthetically timeless than the indisputable great moments of jazz's first half-century.

Sorry to rant, but I think my opinions are far from unique among contemporary jazz fans...in fact, there was already a long line forming before I got in it. I would lukewarmly recommend this book to newcomers, because despite its faults it does attempt to deal with this unique art form in a serious manner, and with a stylish, photo-rich layout. I would just add that a lot of us fans would like to have seen our vision of contemporary jazz better-reflected, rather than not-too-subtly dissed. For one, the Grammy awards been there, done that.