Amazon.com essential video

Accompanied by a menagerie of products, Ken Burns's expansive 10-episode paean, Jazz, completes his trilogy on American culture, following The Civil War and Baseball. Spanning more than 19 hours, Jazz is, of course, about a lot more than what many have called America's classical music--especially in episodes 1 through 7. It's here that Burns unearths precious visual images of jazz musicians and hangs historical narratives around the music with convincing authority. Time can stand still as images float past to the sound of grainy vintage jazz, and the drama of a phonograph needle being placed on Louis Armstrong's celestial "West End Blues" is nearly sublime.

The film is also potent in arguing that the history of race in the 20th-century U.S. is at jazz's heart. But a few problems arise. First is Burns's reliance on Wynton Marsalis as his chief musical commentator. Marsalis might be charming and musically expert, but he's no historian. For the film to devote three of its episodes to the 1930s, one expects a bit more historical substance. Also, Jazz condenses the period of 1961 to the present into one episode, glossing over some of the music's giant steps. Burns has said repeatedly that he didn't know much about jazz when he began this project. So perhaps Jazz, for all its glory, would better be called Jazz: What I've Learned Since I Started Listening (And I Haven't Gotten Much Past 1961). For those who are already passionate about jazz, the film will stoke debate (and some derision, together with some reluctant praise). But for everyone else, it will amaze and entertain and kindle a flame for some of the greatest music ever dreamed. --Andrew Bartlett ... Read more

Reviews (118)

The Best Series on Jazz, Despite Its Flaws
I am a jazz musician, son of a jazz musician, am conservatory trained, and this series stands toe to toe with the best lectures by the best music historians and music theory experts I have studied with. If Ken Burns chose to follow a the pillars of jazz in depth rather than give ten minutes to every musician to come along in the past hundred years, we are better for it. If you want ten minutes on each musician, read liner notes. Mr. Burns series will be remembered precisely because it does go into such depth. Bird, Duke, Pops and Dizzie do not come clear to you without much study. We should be grateful for the fact that this series is anything but shallow. It is true to the art. If this series, because of such depth, asks more of viewers than they want to give, then let such viewers only seeking entertainment seek that. Americans, everything is not entertainment.

Jazz itself, from its outset and to this very day, asks more of you than any other music. A series about it should do no less.

This series is not perfect. Jazz is also imperfect. As Thelonius Monk said, there are no wrong notes. So are there no bad jazz documentaries, as long as they are unflinching, whole, and about the forces that shaped the music. This one is. It's only real flaw is that it is too in love with its own story and the music. That is entirely forgiveable.

If you have any interest in jazz, buy or rent this series and watch each one like a student, and learn in wonder at the extraordinary music brought to us by African Americans. It is one of the glories of American culture, and of the world, and we should join Ken Burns, his historians, critics and musicians in joyously celebrating the collective creation of the geniuses that graced our land in the past 100 years.

"History," "Documentary," "Theory of" are not in the title.
The negative reviews of this series assume that Burns is compiling a documentary, writing a historical survey, or undertaking some theoretical analysis of jazz. Burns is above all a biographer. His primary interest is in the life of a particular artist, solider, athlete, explorer, etc.: the overall trajectory of their lives--the choices they make, the risks they are or aren't willing to take, their sufferings in the face of prejudice, misunderstanding, and failure--and how the individual life fits within the larger social context. Hence his emphasis on annecdote, personal letter and photograph, character analysis, and why he has baseball players and actors and club owners as well as scholars and musicians commenting on these people. And why he traces the entire career of someone like Louis Armstrong or Billy Holiday, rather than devoting more time to contemporary muscians whose story it is still too young to be told. Everything else is secondary to this main concern, and to miss this focus is to miss the point of all Ken Burns' documentaries. To grasp it is to experience life within a wider, wiser, almost epic, context. The so-called jazz expert who is miffed over some apparent omission, or overemphasis, or seeming bias, is like the librarian who has all the books catalogued and all the facts at their fingertips but can't see that they might refer to something outside the four walls of their narrow expertise.

Provides a very useful orientation
Jazz is a relatively recent interest for me--maybe half a dozen years. I'd learned about scattered fragments of jazz, but never developed a systematic understanding, a clear orientation--though a couple of times I'd tried: I bought Gary Giddons' "Visions of Jazz," for instance, which is very good but just didn't capture my imagination.

Ken Burns' "Jazz" gave me what I've been wanting for years--a clear, evocative, comprehensive way into the genre as a whole.

Okay, it may not be the last word on the history of jazz. Yeah, some things really irritated me--like the slighting, mentioned by many, of Bill Evans, and the excessive excision of many white musicians to make the generally accurate point that jazz springs more from the experience of Black Americans. (Hint to Burns: You make your argument stronger by showing how apparently contrary data fit, not by leaving them out.) But over all, I found this a very helpful overview. And I enjoyed getting to know the biographies of, and the personal relations among, the players.

You won't likely get such an orientation from buying a few of the original CDs *instead* of the "Jazz" series. Few of us have the ears or training to discern what's taught in this series. You'd be highly unlikely to realize that, for instance, what was new with Be-Bop is improvising on the underlying chord changes rather than the melody. You'd really have to be perceptive and paying attention to notice what distinguishes Kansas City jazz from New Orleans jazz from New York jazz from West Coast jazz. And *no* album can place *itself* in history. For instance, you cannot learn from listening to an album featuring Coleman Hawkins-or Charlie Christian or Kenny Clarke--that *before* that album people played very differently. In short, you'd have to be far better trained musically and far more observant than most of us are, and listen to dozens (if not hundreds) of albums, to learn what this series teaches.

As I watched over a period of a couple of weeks, I bought several of the CDs that Burns produced to survey the music, and I found them very instructive. No, as listening experiences, they're not as good as some of the various albums on which the cuts originated. But that's not the point: They are very good ways to get an overview, to get oriented, to know where to go next.

After seeing this series and studying the accompanying CDs, when I go into the music store and start perusing the jazz disks, I find that I recognize a whole lot more and can surmise a whole lot better what's what and what would interest me. For instance, tonight I saw "From Spirituals to Swing," a three CD set of Carnegie Hall jazz concerts in 1938 and 1939. A month ago, the list of personnel would have meant near-nothing to me--I probably wouldn't have even known what I was looking at, and I doubt I would have looked at the thing for more than thirty seconds. Now, though, I studied and comprehended the personnel and got all excited--"This I gotta hear." So I bought it, and it's great.

Now, isn't that reason enough to recommend this series?

That the overall interpretive framework of the series may need correction is not a trenchant criticism, in my opinion. To get a comprehensive understanding of anything, you have to start with *some* systematic framework, which you can then modify, maybe even refute, as you encounter further data. Logically, the first such framework you acquire has to come from someone else, unless you are a genius of extremely wide learning.

No, Ken Burns' "Jazz" isn't the only guide to jazz you'll ever need--as others have noted, some of the omissions are glaring. But it's fine place to start.

If you really want to get a sense of jazz, this is an excellent investment, in my opinion. Yeah, it's pricey--but cheaper than, say, an adult education course on jazz appreciation at your local community college (if you include texts and other supporting material). And if you don't want to spend the money--well, you can hint real hard to your significant other that you'd like it for your birthday or Valentine or some such thing.

Postscript: I almost didn't buy this because of the characterization of Wynton Marsalis's role by several other reviewers here. I'd never much liked his music--it always seemed too cerebral, almost architectural, for my tastes--chilly, not very visceral. (That's just my personal taste--I also find most of Ella Fitzgerald--except her duo wok with Armstrong--a bit emotionally distant, unlike Sarah Vaughan or Billie Holiday or Carmen McRae or many others.)

I was skeptical about any documentary that made Marsalis the central story teller.

Well, two things: (1) He just isn't the central story teller here. He does not have anything approaching the majority of commentator air time. It is certainly true that he plays a role analogous to Shelby Foote's in "The Civil War"--he is a unifying presence, especially in the early going and toward the end. This is just good film making--to establish "characters" whose presence throughout helps give unity to the piece. (2) I really liked Wynton in this documentary. He came off as much earthier, more laid back, mischievous, funnier and more fun, than I ever would have imagined. And he is really quite illuminating, especially when he explains various musical concepts--like the "Big 4." (I went back and listened to "Thick in the South," thinking maybe I'd like his music more now. Nope. Still feels too thought-out, too chilly, to me. Oh, well.)

Could have been so much better
I guess it says something that I have gone back and watched Burns' "Civil War" documentary more than a dozen times since I first saw it, and have only watch "Jazz" once since the first time. The Civil War documentary certainly is rife with factual inaccuracies but by & large gets the essential story of the conflict right. "Jazz," on the other hand, treats its subject as though the last 40-50 years never happened. It is as though the Civil War documentary would have lingered over the years 1861-1863 incessantly, then sped through the last two years ("Oh yeah, there were a couple of battles, Atlanta burned, Lee surrendered, the war was over. The end." Something like that) as though they didn't matter.

As I found the documentary going into its umpteenth hour and we STILL weren't out of the 1930's yet, I had a bad feeling about where this was going. You would have thought that Louis Armstrong had been annointed as the Jazz Pope and he ruled over the world of jazz for 40 years. In his proper context, Armstrong is very important, but Burns seems positively fixated on him. He dwells on every facet of Armstrong's upbringing & early career. Unless he planned on making a 60-hour documentary, there was no way Burns could hope to do justice to the more recent history of the genre, and sure enough he basically hits the fast forward button once the be-bop era is coming to a close.

Personally, I cannot stand fushion jazz, but nonetheless some mention needs to made of a style that was dominant in jazz for almost as long as the swing style, for crying out loud. Also, relying almost exculsively on Wynton Marsalis (doing his best impression of a crochety old man on his front porch, railing at a world that has passed him by) really was not a good idea & imbues the entire documentary with a hopelessly retrograde flavor.

I watched it once, and came away disappointed. I watched it a second time, hoping that I could find more to appreciate, but only found that it continued to disappoint. I don't know if it merits any future viewings, and that is indeed a shame, because it is a subject that deserves better treatment than this.

Excellent for what it is
It's surprizing how vociferously some "snobs" condemn "Jazz" simply because it's not as comprehensive as they seem to think it should be. From reading these reviews you would think Ken Burns is a half-step above a holocaust-denier for not including Roland Kirk or Eric Dolphy. "Jazz" is a wonderful, inspiring and, yes, traditional look at the art form. Newcomers shouldn't be dissuaded because it's not as complete as it should be. ... Read more

Reviews (144)

The greatest Rock N' Roll Film of all time.
From start to finish this film captures everything that is, or was, rock n' roll.You have Blues with Muddy Waters, Eric clapton and Paul Butterfield.You have Rockabilly with Ronnie Hawkins. You have Countryfied rock with Neil Young ,Joni Mitchell and Emmylou Harris. Then there is the soul of The Staple Singers and Van Morrison.The singer/songwriting of Neil Diamond.Last but not least, Bob Dylan.Who shows up at the end of the movie to put it all together with the stars of the show, THE BAND.All the styles mentioned above can be found in any given BAND song. I highly doubt that if you are reading this that you are unfamiller with the music of The Band. MArtin Scorsese does a great job of capturing the raw emotion that could take place at a real rock n' roll show. I could go on forever, but I won't. The main reason I'm writng this is to say that Robbie and Mr. Scorsese are finally getting together to work on the DVD Version of this fantastic document. No word on when it is to be released, but I will be one of the first persons to buy a copy and you should be too.

ONE WORD - AWESOME
This film's music has had a lasting effect on me from when I first saw it with my father at the movie theater as a young teenager, through the time I could not wait to get back to the states from my summer vacation to listen to the LP again, to this day as I order the DVD.

A few highlights; 1. Rick Danko's soulful and honest singing of "It Makes No Difference", "Stagefright" and many others. God bless his soul. 2. Levon Helm's "americana personified" singing on "The Night They Drove Ole Dixie Down" and his perfect drumming. 3. Dylan's God-like presence and powerful performance. 4. Vann Morrison's deep and electrifying performance that raised the hair on my arms. 5. Neil Young's sincerity with a haunting behind the scenes Joni Mitchell singing "Helpless, Helpless". 6. Clapton showing his usual class by letting Robbie outduel him in their guitar solos. 7. Robbie Robertson's guitar on Van's song "Caravan" and many others. 8. Garth Hudson's unique keyboards and Richard Manuel's spirited piano and singing.

[Forget] the imperfections, this is a musical masterpiece, showcasing many of the greatest musical talents of the last 40 years. The Band are simply one of the greats of all time. John X. Condos

Presentation overshadows music
I must say I'm not a huge fan of The Band, but I like "Before the Flood". However, I was amazed at how poorly The Band played, and sang even worse, in this, their farewell concert. It is hard to believe they had played together for 17 years.

Even the guests, such as Bob Dylan, seemed to use their worst voice. Only Eric Clapton was really any good, though Van Morrison was acceptable. Otherwise, fairly embarrassing musical performances. At the end, *everybody* is onstage singing "I Shall Be Released" - killing an otherwise nice song.

Obviously Scorsese got all the good film people and photographers to work on the project, and it was well done. So well done that the presentation outshines the music.

There are some nice extras, including multiple commentaries. Hard to recommend it unless you are truly a Band fan.

Not bad for a fiver
I got this DVD at my brother's recommendation for a fiver in Heathrow Airport, and it was good value at that. Good American music and a very well shot concert movie (well, it is Scorsese!) The interview sequences are intersting and as a Chaucer fan I delighted at the intro to the Canterbury Tales being read out. I was unfamiliar with the group's music before seeing this, and whilst they aren't a patch on Creedence Clearwater Revival I still admire their music. An interesting insight to a little segment of rock history.

when the best rock band and movie director collide ...
It's a worn-out formula nowadays. Bob Dylan did it, Chuck Berry did it, and Luciano Pavarotti does it all the time. They also do it every time somebody dies, and in this case you don't even have to be a musician. Yeah, I'm talking about that dreary event, the celebration concert with guest musician buddies. But there are exceptions to the rule, and this is definitely the case here.

To celebrate that they were quitting the 'god---n impossible' life on the road after 16 years, The Band gave a farewell concert in San Francisco, on Thanksgiving Day, 1976. To join them, they invited artists who represented the rich and varied array of styles that went into their musical melting pot: Rock'n' Roll, Blues, Folk, New Orleans R'n'B, Country, Gospel, Rockabilly ... who would sing their own numbers backed up by them. They, noblesse oblige, brought in their first mentor, Ronnie Hawkings, a man who sure knows how to entice a teenager into joining a rock'n'roll band, and Bob Dylan, of course, (who had just released Blood on the Tracks and Desire), Joni Mitchell (The Hissing of Summer Lawns and Hejira her most recent albums), Neil Young (Tonight's the Night and Zuma were his latest solo efforts), Muddy Waters (who would release Hard Again, his best late day work the following year), and many, many more I have no space here to mention. All top-notch and in their musical prime. Well, and Neil Diamond.

The result was a concert that can only be described as dazzling and magical. The Band do ecstatic versions of some of their best songs and the guest appereances are also amazing, Van Morrison does what's probably the best version ever of Caravan, Muddy Waters proves why he is the M-A-N, chile, The Staple Singers send a shiver up your spine that can rend you comatose for life, and Robbie Robertson and Eric Clapton bring the house down with their scorching six-strings and then they burn the ruins to ashes. All this just to quote a few. But I have a minor complaint here, the movie only features one song (The Shape I'm in) sung by Richard Manuel, one of the most soulful and moving singers that ever walked the face of the earth. This gives the newcomer a somewhat off-balanced account of how vocal duties were shared in The Band, as one can deduct that Levon Helm sang almost everything with a little help from his friends Rick and Richard. And Levon is darn good, but Richard is the shhh ....sheer top of the heap.

Casting these trifles aside, the movie is a masterpiece. Direcrted by a Martin Scorsese in a state of grace (those were the days of Taxi Driver and Raging Bull), and beautifully darkly photographed by Michael Chapman (Taxi Driver, Raging Bull), Michael W. Watkins (later X-Files direcror and producer), and Vilmos Zsigmond (Close Encounters of the Third Kind, The Deer Hunter, Heaven's Gate), this was to be more than your average rock concert documentary.

The filmmakers were set on an ambitious goal, to show what it is and what does it feel to play great music. And they achieved it in such a way that we mere mortals get to feel what it is to be up there on the stage, enraptured, playing that great music to an enthusiastic and receptive crowd. The featurette that is one of the DVD bonus add-ons shows how Scorsese had these sheets of paper with the lyrics of each song to be played written down in one column, the main moments of each performance in another (when a singer would join in the chorus, or the guitar solo was to begin, or a special part of the lyric would be sung, etc), and the camera shots and movements for each moment in a third column. This is called making the best of the means of your art instead of just doing anything that would do, and it shows on the screen in a way that leaves you breathless. Watching Scorsese frantically directing the movie like a tightrope walker with no net to fall down on must've been worth another documentary. They had only one take for everything, mind that, and I guess that's what might have attracted such a brave and audacious director as Scorsese: Jumping into the unstopping swirling midst of life and trying to extract art out of it with just spotlights and cameras. Souns enticing, isnt't it? And for no money nor any promises of getting more you-know-what than Frank Sinatra. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Always absorbing and frequently brilliant, Leonard Bernstein's TheUnanswered Question is a very lucid and convincing discussion of music'shistory and forms, with particular emphasis on modern music. It addresses theaverage intelligent listener who is not musically trained but wants to know whatmakes music work--what is meant, for example, by "tonal" and "atonal." Itrequires some concentration, but Bernstein, a superb teacher, keeps technicaljargon to a minimum, illustrates what he means with musical examples andgraphics, and repeats key points.

Delivered in 1973, the talks were transcribed for a book, but in it Bernstein insists"The pages that follow were written not to be read, but listened to," really anendorsement of the video edition. The talks are, in fact, performances.Television was always kind to Bernstein; he had magnetism and knew how to useit. To illustrate various points in his analyses, he plays the piano frequently,sings occasionally, and conducts significant works of key composers: Mozart,Beethoven, Berlioz, Wagner, Ravel, Debussy, Ives, Mahler, and Stravinsky.

Bernstein traces the development of music from its origins to the 20th-centurystruggle between tonality (championed notably by Stravinsky) and atonalism(represented mainly by Schoenberg). The last two talks, devoted to thesecomposers, are particularly enlightening, but all six are outstanding. He arguespersuasively that humans are born with an ability to grasp musical forms, andthat rules of musical syntax are rooted in nature--in mathematically measurablerelations between tones and overtones.

These talks are a key document. They coincide chronologically, as cause and/orsymptom, with the movement of America's leading composers back fromSchoenbergian forms toward a tonal orientation. Bernstein predicts and promotesthis movement, which is still in progress. He is clearly an advocate oftonality, but he discusses atonal music with sympathy and understanding. --Joe McLellan ... Read more

Reviews (9)

I'm glued to the screen
All technical and musical matters have been discussed by other reviewers, so I'm just going to say that this collection of lectures is a delight to watch and listen. Some of them run nearly 3 hours, but I never become bored of them. Bernstein, with his contageous energy, enthusiasm and excellent communication skills, shares his views and thoughts with such pleasant ways; it is just irresistible. Just to prove my point, my husband, who has no musical background and had no idea what the maestro was talking about when he watched the first lecture with me, gave a delightful cry of amazement each time Bernstein demonstrated on the piano. Needless to say, he was glued to the screen and watched it till the end without a hint of boredom.
The lectures are highly intellectual, and to understand what he's talking about, you need musical background, but even if you don't understand at all, it is still very enjoyable.
Humphrey Burton writes in his Bernstein's biography that Bernstein was having such good time being with young people at Harvard, he kept on delaying and delaying to complete these lectures. You can see that the maestro enjoys so much sharing what he knows with not only Harvard students but with all the world. His theme is universality of music and brotherhood of human kind through music. Some of his thoughts and ideas are so very unique and different; they amuse me at the same time make me think.

Even though the questions are not all answered (the more he talks, the more questions arise, I have to admit), his spirit is well delivered, and that alone makes this DVD a treasure worth having.

The theory of everything
Its quite interesting that in the late 20th century, there was a progresive tendency to look for a number of grand schemes, many of which would be familiar to you guys, perhaps some of which would not be. One obvious example is that tremendous effort to find an underlying theory of physics which would combine relativity and quantum mechanics - another are more obscure attempts to reconcile set theory with certain models within category theory which had been giving trouble to a certain set of number theoretians - etc, etc.

But the human dimension to this appeared, almost as one man in the form of Chomsky. His book, "Aspects of the theory of Syntax" was the tip of the iceberg of a huge number of papers published on the deep structure of language while he was working at MIT. This appeared to offer clues as to aspects of the structure of ANY human language, an utterly amazing claim. Some of his later works give clues to the possible existence of a universal paradigm for language which has massive implications for people in so many disciplines, I couldn't begin to enumerate.

This all started, by the way, on the route to attempting the final cataloguing of the North American indian languages, some of which had only one remaining speaker. The task was huge and unapproachable until Chomsky evolved a system for abbreviating certain grammatic structures, which, to his surprise, evolved into a powerful predictive theory.

Anyone exposed to this at the time would have been impressed, but what was to follow was even more amazing. Chomsky's ideas swiftly melded with other theories of semantics and syntax transformations in different fields, and became de-rigeour for many PhDs in computer science and anthropology, uniting what was up until that time two very, very different disciplines. Citations to his work began to appear everywhere, and in the most amazing places.

An illustration of what was to follow THAT is basically contained here. no less, a unified theory of language and music!

[You ought to get this - it is undoubtedly a brilliant scholarly work in any case, even if you don't concur with Bernstein on all points - and few would exactly agree with him on all, nor, importantly, would you need to, to benefit from this.]

The argument presented is quite intuitive, but is nontheless compelling. Music is shown as being a byproduct of our humanity, extended from need in whatever form, as an infant, or an adult, from utility into sophisticaion, and finally inspiration. Bernstein makes sure the listener is in no doubt that there is something way, way beyond necessity in our provision for the experience of music. His explanation of the physics of music is flawless, and ... awe inspiring. And, watching the man traverse this enormous gap between logic, physics, liguistics, and the unnameable majesty of Beethoven and Debussy (both of which he performs as a conductor, and is moved greatly and visibly) is utterly breathtaking. I would doubt that anyone watching his exposition of the 6th would be any less moved in this way.

Apart from any of this, Bernstein entertains enormously. There are parts of his explantions that truly defy you not to laugh. He has an honesty and self effacement that is quite unusual, this comes out particularly in his efforts to sing, which he pokes quite a bit of fun at. It's obvious how passionately his audience is involved. (He describes at length a discussion with a student after one lecture in the next one - and its clear that both student and teacher really have learned quite a bit but have obviously been a little combatative, at least, at first)

From there on, you might care to differ a bit. The history of the 20th Century is described rather neatly as the showdown between Schoenburg and Stravinsky, two schools of thought, two very different philosophies. He enters this very complex consideration fairly gently. I agree with his approach - and understanding of the environment of the early 20th century is essential if one is to understand its music - and so he described Debussy, who is ... sort of.. at the end of the Waagnerian era, stretching ambiguity and tonal resources to the uttermost. Can one go further? Yes indeed, and here we have the entry of the Viennese school of 12 tone technique, illustrated with Schoenburgs six little piano pieces. But oddly enough, Bernstein shows very clearly that the appearance of 12 tone technique is not unequivically Schoenburgs' alone, but appears in the guise of mists and mirages in Chopin, Wagner, even Beethoven, but grasped once and for all by Schoenburg.

Given another five or so lectures, one might imagine that one could explore the use of bitonality, not just in the context of the Rite of Spring (which is most EXCELLENTLY explained), but the mid century English composers, who use this technique. Such people as Holst, Grainger, Williams, Strauss, and of course, Britten. But there isn't time. The end point of these complications is the resolution into a robust defence of neo-classicism, such as the ebony concerto, and of course, Oedipux Rex. But I think that this is a sad way to end - Rex is a sombre, hard work, and doesn't quite illustrate the end that either Schoenburg or Stravinsky seem to have unknowingly appointed for that part of the 20th century. In this, Bernstein may have overlooked that really recent developoments in Europe, that of an emerging new impressionism (even, perhaps, Romanticism), exemplified by Xenakis, Maderna, Berio, and others, who in some sense share some parts of both ends of the bipolar world which was the basis for all this in the middle part of that century.

All this is debatable. For instance, not a mention is given to either those very radical spirits like Varese, who seemed to eschew both ends equaly - or those, like Sibelius, Delius or Neilson, who didn't seem to mind either way, and continued to write what is now known as the mid century symphonic repertoire.

That is a long, long story, and could form the basis of a lot of commentary. Where, for instance, is Shostakovich in all this? Or Bartok, for that matter? I think this is all dealt with elsewhere, but I would have given a great deal to have seen these composers discussed at length.

But this set of lectures is so valuable as a signpost, I would never do anything other than highly, highly recommend it.It's absolutely magnificent.

In some ways brilliant, yet the sum isn't up to the parts
This series of talks presented by Leonard Bernstein at Harvard in 1973 has many fascinating components, but the overall thesis seems like an argument in search of a point. Bernstein is always interesting and enthusiastic in these sorts of things, but he also tends to ramble and drag in everything but the kitchen sink in order to buttress his points. He attempts to connect his musical theory of "innateness" to the development of speech patterns--unnecessarily in my view, and the connection is never really fully explained. In the end he concludes the 20th century characteristics in art--of irony, existentialism, and self-reference--are a result of the horrors of modern times, of the Holocaust, the two world wars, and the nuclear age. It's a premise put forth in his "Age of Anxiety" Symphony and I didn't buy it then either. Never does he explain *why* one leads to the other, he just seems to assume the relationship is evident. And, I hate to appear to be upstaging Bernstein, but I think I have a simpler and easier-to-defend thesis (and it's not my original idea, either).

I agree the modern artistic age is characterized by irony, references (self and other) and a revisiting of the old in new clothes. However, I don't see any link to the "horrors of the 20th century" as to why we can't directly say "I love you" when we mean "I love you." Rather, I think the reason irony and assorted deconstructionist techniques sprang up in the 20th century is because we finally had the history and the heritage for them to exist and make sense. Musical language was direct in Mozart's time, in Bach's time, in Beethoven's time, because they were inventing it. By the time we reach Mahler, it is fully developed and we find ourselves in the process of "deconstructing" it (or he did). Before that time, there wasn't the heritage and history *to* deconstruct. To make my point, jazz, despite coming of age in the ashes of World War I, didn't become ironic and deconstructionist through the first half of the 20th century, until the 1950s. Its deconstruction was borne not from any of the horrors of the Holocaust or the atom bomb, but from its own accumulation of tradition and technique. Ditto the cinema. In short, you can't deconstruct until the construction is complete.

So Bernstein's argument, in my view, doesn't hold water, but is the very sort of Romantic and poetic vision that appeals to him. (On another documentary I have, he waxes poetic on the anguish and turmoil trapped in the person of Gustav Mahler while never bothing to back up his thesis with a shred of documentary evidence.) However, while I don't agree with his conclusion, the journey he takes to get there is fascinating, filled with analyses of such landmark works as Mozart's Symphony No. 40, Beethoven's Pastorale Symphony, Wagner's Tristan and Isolde, Berg's Violin Concerto, and Stravinsky's Le Sacre, just to name a few. Also, his discussions of tonality, the "Circle of Fifths" and the evolution of Western harmony are fascinating. There's a certain amount of annoying preening--there are times when he's really milking his little Harvard audience for applause, and you'd think that by that point in his career he wouldn't need it--but this is easy to overlook. The video is clean and the audio is quite good for the time. Overall this is a set worth getting, despite my reservations about Bernstein's overall argument and his attempts to strengthen it by linking it to linguistics, a melding I think is artificial and unnecessary. (It reminds me of early jazz scholars trying to make their work appear more solid by forcing analogies between jazz and classical music.) I do recommend this set, but beware Lenny's excessive Romanticisms!

This is awesome...
This lecture series is great for all levels of music lovers, from the beginner to the expert, because of the broadness of material covered. Bernstein is captivating, the lectures are wonderful. It is a delight. You will want to have been there, that is for sure. Recommended highly.

Wow.
I originally viewed these lectures on vhs, and found the content very interesting, and the resolution adequate, but the dvd version is very crisp, visually.

Content - 5
Video/Audio - 5 ... Read more

Amazon.com

This 1970 concert documentary captures Elvis Presley midway through afateful transition, seeking to reclaim his musical primacy after a decade ofself-imposed exile from concert stages. Sidelined by his big-screen career,eclipsed by rock's mid-'60s transformations, the King had begun his return twoyears earlier with the relatively lean attack of his fabled network televisionappearance, '68 Comeback Special. Now the Memphis legend was poised toreposition his performing profile by pursuing the top rungs of headliner statusin Las Vegas, a career choice that seems even more ephemeral in hindsight thanit already did at the time.

Elvis: That's the Way It Is follows the show's genesis from rehearsal tostage, with the performance footage that provides its inevitable climax shotover six nights. The rehearsal footage, expanded for this special edition,offers further proof that Presley's band was simply superb: stripped of theorchestrations and lush choral arrangements that would be grafted onto the stageshow, the sextet sounds both tough and nimble. In performance, we're treated toa mostly riveting glimpse of Presley in top vocal form, poised at the brink ofbombast. This is Elvis before the onset of portentous Richard Strauss overtures,karate kicks, and tossed scarves, kicking off the show with the classic "That'sAll Right." If he risks undercutting the punch of his early songs with self-deprecating clowning, he attacks two Ray Charles classics with gusto. Thespecial edition also boasts digitally remastered visuals, crisply remixed Dolbyaudio, alternate versions that replace the original performances of severaltracks (including the extended vamp of "Suspicious Minds"), a theatricaltrailer, and a new documentary on the restoration of the film. --SamSutherland ... Read more

Reviews (114)

A Dinner Date With Elvis In Vegas
ELVIS: THAT'S THE WAY IT IS is a great documentary about Elvis' classic stage show in Vegas. Actually, there are several parts to it. The first half is devoted to the practice sessions. In July of 1970 we see Elvis at the MGM studios in Culver City with his band (James Burton- Lead guitar; John Wilkerson- rhythm guitar; Ronnie Tutt- drums; Glenn Hardin- Piano; Charlie Hodge- acoustic guitar/vocals, water & scarves) going through various numbers. Elvis had just completed a marathon recording session in Nashville, and we hear Elvis & band honing these tunes for the stage show. Elvis is apparently having a lot of fun, joking around with his friends and musicians. He had an amazing personality & presence that really comes through here. By August 1970, Elvis moved into his residency: the International Hotel (now known as the Hilton). After a few weeks of further rehearsals (he is now joined by backup singers The Sweet Inspirations, Imperials, Millie Kirkham), the Elvis Summer Festival starts. The second half of the film is the stage show, recorded August 10,11 & 12 1970. Elvis sings these songs: THAT'S ALL RIGHT, I'VE LOST YOU, PATCH IT UP, LOVE ME TENDER, SWEET CAROLINE, I JUST CAN'T HELP BELIEVIN, TIGER MAN, POLK SALAD ANNIE, ONE NIGHT, HEARTBREAK HOTEL, YOU'VE LOST THAT LOVIN FEELIN, BRIDGE OVER TROUBLED WATER, SUSPICIOUS MINDS, CAN'T HELP FALLING IN LOVE. It is obvious that Elvis was still passionate about the music. He was in good shape, and still young in appearance. I love those classic white jumpsuits. A few more notes: The opening credits sequence of the original movie was filmed at the Phoenix Coliseum on September 9, 1970. I hope that more footage of this can be found, there does seem to be a bit more excitement going on there than the formal confines of the International Hotel. Check out ELVIS: THE LOST PERFORMANCES for additional footage from this movie, and ELVIS ON TOUR (1972).

The updated 30th anniversary edition contains a lot of alternate footage, which is welcomed, but the new presentation does NOT replace the original 1970 That's The Way It is, which remains the ultimate Seventies Elvis documentary.

Elvis - TTWIS Special Edition Beyond Description!
I first watched the new edit of Elvis - That's The Way It Is On Turner Classic Movies. I also ordered the video from Amazon and had it rush delievered. This movie is so exciting and fresh that it's beyond description. Elvis never sounded better or looked better, and this movie takes advantage of previously unused footage and milks the Elvis experience for everything it's worth (and that's a heck of a lot). Long gone are the previously included interviews and odd fan moments. This movie is pure Elvis. The movie starts with rehearsals and works its way through a Vegas performance. The first 30 minutes are rehearsals and Elvis backstage, providing a glimpse of Elvis rarely seen. Elvis is seen goofing around, and he is seen instructing his band and backup singers in the fashion of a true master. The last hour of the show is an Elvis Vegas performance from start to finish (spliced together from 6 different shows). The Vegas shows culminates in a performance of Suspcious Minds that is alone worth the price of admission. This is a must have. The price is low. The sound and picture quality is excellent, and the editing and production value is first rate. This video is Elvis - the way it really was. Be aware that the TCM tv presentation was in wide screen. The video is available in wide screen and full screen / normal. If you like wide screen be sure to order the correct version of the video package. But either version you get - you will play it over and over and over. It's beyond comprehension! It's so fresh and alive you'll almost forget it wasn't recently filmed. The fade outs and the camera angles are excellent. Hats off to Turner and Warner Brothers for this delightful video!

Turner Travesty
This is a Turner Entertainmnet/AOL/Time/Warner film. It is NOT the MGM film. Turner has destroyed my memory of the original film. There's lots missing, nothing has been added except a (for the most part) horrible sounding soundtrack. A travesty. Stick with the old MGM VHS.

Elvis That's The Way It Is DVD
This Music dvd of the king is fantastic. In the beginning there are some studio takes, and the group from elvis with james burton, john wilkinson, ronny tutt and others are practice for the concert he give in 1970 known as that's the way it is. The concert is flawless, Elvis sings so very good here you should almost forget that it is live recorded. One thing you can say about elvis if you hear this dvd. He was really THE KING

THE GREATEST PERFORMER IN HISTORY
What can I really say about this documentary ?.Just buy it and see for yourself. Absolute magic from start to finish !!!!!!!.Ive never seen such an incredible performance by a singer before.BUY IT NOW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ... Read more

Reviews (61)

The Sex Pistols
I truly enjoyed this film. I first heard the Sex Pistols a few years ago becuase my best friend is obssesed with them. If you enjoy the Sex Pistols then you will enjoy this film. It is a movie for fans really, it would not be a good introduction to the band. Or if you enjoy punk rock but haven't heard the Sex Pistols then this would be good. The accents are difficult to follow occasionally but in general it flows well.
Some of the best parts of this movie are the live concert footage. I've not seen many good representations of punk shows on film and these all were excellent. I also like how much time was spent showing the audience, each of them as individuals. I just loved seeing all the kids out there with their mohawks and leather. Its really very much a documentary of the rise of the youth culture in Britan. Punk is a culture within itself and this film documents that rise in England. Also the audience is always being shown as nice, not as scary people like punks are often shown. It sends a message that the punk youth culture is not a bad group of people. The movie gives a very positive image of the youth culture becuase mostly only the band is outrageous.
I feel the film really captures the realities of teenage youth culture as a punk in England in the late 70's. The movie is still relevant today becuase the culture is still thriving tody and its a documentary of its roots. Its an excellent film that anyone with an appreciation for punk culture will enjoy.

Whether you like The Sex Pistols or not...
...The Filth and the Fury is an amazing documentary, and is as good an account of the rise of punk music as it is of the social and political landscape of England in the 70's.

Every aspect of the 26 month long Sex Pistol phenomenon is covered. From the birth of the band, through their most imfamous escapades, to the tragedy that came to be with Sid and Nancy. Band interviews, live footage, news coverage, it's all here! A ton of Sex Pistol info and documentation.

The DVD also contains a bonus documentary about the birth of punk music in general. Made up of interviews with everybody and anybody in and about the punk music circle, it was a nice surprise when I was done watching the main feature.

BOTTOM LINE: If you like the Sex Pistols and think you know everything about them, think again. This film will open your eyes to some great little known facts about the band. Buy the DVD if you haven't already. If you're interested in punk music in general, I also recommend this film, as it has as much to share about the style of music as it does specifically with the Sex Pistols. THUMBS UP!

Get down and dirty
It's not immediately apparent where Punk stands in historical terms. There were only a handful of great bands, the music was rarely memorable, and the whole thing (the real thing I mean, not the post-punk posing) was practically over within four years. Compared with the sixties, when the pop movement encompassed a revolution in sexual habits, drug-taking, fashion, music, film, civil rights, concepts of individuality and community, and even took on and managed to end a major war, it looks like Punk was just one of a number of notable ripples (another being Red Brigades-style terrorism) which extended outwards after 1969.

But ripple or not, it had a bigger cultural impact than anything else on my teenage years: I clearly remember in 1978 a friend pulling out his latest purchase, a record called "Never Mind the Bollocks" and how completely staggered I felt when I looked at this luminous urine-yellow cover, took in the ransom-note font and then heard the noise - I couldn't comprehend it as music at first - of the first few tracks. These bits of vinyl and card seemed at the time as dangerous a thing as a shipment of heroin.

Basically I and most of Britain was in a daze when the Pistols appeared. The sixties had been a huge upheaval, but the energy seemed to dissipate as rapidly as it had appeared. By 1974 the oil embargo, massive inflation, strikes, terrorism, pomp rock, et. al. had all but crushed the mod movement and the airwaves were jammed with coma-inducing pop like the Bay City Rollers and Abba. Moreover, the "establishment", that is the traditional structures of power, having been battered halfway to oblivion in the sixties, were gradually and rather insidiously reasserting themselves.

What this film captures is the electrifying effect the Pistols had on a country that had become complacent in its own dismalness. The famous Grundy interview is as notable now for the toe-curling triteness of daytime TV of that time as for the naughtiness of the Pistols. Footage of the housing estates from whence the group emerged reveals the brutal starkness of urban working-class Britain. With the rubbish piling up on the streets thanks to another strike and utter shabbiness seemingly everywhere, there's a strong impression of a country at the nadir of a massive multi-year hangover. The Pistols woke the country up like an exploding alarm clock, caused an outcry that seems almost funny in retrospect, and made flares, permed hair on males and Emerson Lake and Palmer utterly unfashionable for a couple of decades.

On a more serious note, it is also worth considering that Punk probably helped Mrs. Thatcher get elected in 1979. Much of the population was shocked into believing that a strong law and order Government was the only hope for Britain. So perhaps a bit more than just a historical ripple, albeit in a very ironic manner?

As for the Pistols themselves, it is not hard to see why they only lasted a couple of years: they are the (mostly) living proof that anarchy is great in theory but hard to sustain in practice. There is a lot of bitching between the boys twenty-plus years on, and while most other reviewers seem to have found Rotten inspirational, I thought he was full of s***, moaning about just about everything including bizarre things such as once having had to stay in a motel. Apparently blind to irony, he even at one point launches a heartfelt attack on the people he considers let Sid down: "they had no respect" he wails.

Good film of a fascinating time with well-chosen footage, witty asides (nice idea to compare the Pistols with Richard III), wild music and interesting interviews. My only complaint is that it was difficult to work out who was talking in the voiceovers and not always easy to hear them either.

Never Mind Anything Here's the Sex Pistols
Somewhere in a Snow-White-and-the-Seven-Dwarfs suburbs a soccer mom just unloaded her brood for the match after the Soccer-mom 7-3 shift at the office and now has to go home help the digital-literate Nascar dad with the dinner and hope that the kids are home and the plates are in the dishwasher in time for American Idull, only to find a friend of a friend's copy of The Filth and the Fury laying about, daring you to pop it in the player and find out what rock'n roll was meant to be about before she swoon's to another syrup drip balladeer over-singing supper club karoake standards. Maybe it would be of interest to the aspiring American consumer stereotypes that much of Simon Cowell's ubersnob delivery can be attributed to Pistol's head snarler Johnny Rotten. Their curiosity peaked, they drop it in and discover the Amercian consumer's lifestyle is under bombardment, even though the Filth's recollecting anti- establishment and chaos in the 70's.
Remarkably, one of the instant revelatory moments in this film is how up to date the Pistols look compared to the ridiculously vomitous slabs of polyesteryear fashions their supposedly hip hosts were wearing during the old interview clips. What's more, this is exactly what Lydon (Rotten) hates the most about the Pistols legacy: the mall culture they so deplored finds "punk fashion" cool and watered it down to flavorless damp 4/4-time whining while doing nothing to deconstruct the world into a better place. This is also where the Pistols couldn't last. They were too messed up to fix a world they wanted to destroy. Rotten remains gloriously disgusted throughout the film often leaving your Mom and Dad (who grew up familiar with the Pistols and continously failing to understand them) wondering why he's still in it (to give bollocky pissoff to mums and dads of course).
The other Pistols will continue to provide vigor towards their old antics in rollickingly funny interviews. The serious viewer will understand that Chaos was their goal and not making punk fashionable. And if the soccer mom and Nextel Cup Pops take a second or two to think about how this film and the Chaos that was the Pistols' true legacy are meant to affect them..just imagine..perhaps the world may be a little more dangerous, but it won't be boring and we won't feel cheated.

"drunken prophecies, libels and dreams"
Wow. The Sex Pistols? Never heard a more perfect name for a band. Immediately conjures up all sorts of images. Then seeing photographs of the band and the environment they spawned: like walking into a cultural junk shop and finding some wild, interesting things. Then you hear the music, and you KNOW that things will be all right. The documentary was like watching a wildly painted, gravelly sounding, busted-up auto running laps around the neighborhood grandstand. I sat on the couch, popcorn and soda handy - and watched this documentary twice in one night.

Memories of this sort are like a giant bonfire that everyone throws logs on to keep it going. For the first time, the Pistols toss there own logs onto the fire. Just the thought of the backdrops, colors and possibilities attached to that time and place are wondrous enough. It seemed so open, raunchy and ugly that you can run a million scenarios in your head and still have room for more. The Sex Pistols were at the apex of all this: an accident, a force of nature.

The title alone, THE FILTH AND THE FURY, suggests so much about what you are about to experience. You are told a story in a chaotic manner, images hurled at you - grainy, black and white concert footage; crazy, young English kids acting like they just don't care; seedy bars, streets and garbage dumps; representatives of various government, media and church organizations. Lots of news reels and garish lights. The surviving band members tell their own versions of what happened; their faces cast in shadow to keep you carefully tuned in to the images of the time period. Essentially a history lesson taught by the people who created, and were created by, the moment. I thought it was well done - but left me wanting more. But that was OK, too. Their career was so abrupt, 26 months from start to end - which I think has much to do with interest in them to this day.

"High drama" as John Lydon describes it - is exactly it. Everything suggested by the Sex Pistols, all the random images and brilliant simplicity of the music just feeds the imagination. You can't create that kind of magic with high gloss and untouchable superstars. For my money, Steve Jones was the best interview in the whole thing. The guy is hilarious! He seems like someone you'd hang out with for hours and hours at a bar, drinking beers and exchanging war stories. The commentary by Julien Temple is extremely dull and doesn't add much. The other punk documentary, if it serves any purpose at all, illustrates where they could have gone wrong in the making of THE FILTH AND THE FURY. So, you may want to rent first, but you'll probably want to pick up a copy for yourself. It doesn't wear thin with repeat viewings. ... Read more

Description

Called "the greatest rock film ever made," this landmark documentary follows the Rolling Stones on their notorious 1969 U.S. tour. When 300,000 members of the Love Generation collided with a few dozen Hell's Angels at San Francisco's Altamont Speedway, direct cinema pioneers David and Albert Maysles and Charlotte Zwerin immortalized on film the bloody slash that transformed a decade's dreams into disillusionment. ... Read more

Reviews (86)

Brilliant companion piece (and antidote) to "Woodstock" doc
I don't have much new to add here, but I will say this documentary is a very important historical document of its time and scene. I would suggest watching the "Woodstock" documentary first. After that makes you feel high, lovable, and loved, put this one in; it will bring you back down to earth. "Gimme Shelter" left me thinking that the hippie bliss realization of Woodstock was confined to just that one single weekend. Although the music and performances at Woodstock were some of the absolute best ever captured on film, the hippie ideals that filled that festival were nothing but ideals. And what we saw in Altamont, however, left me thinking that the disaster of Woodstock '99 didn't seem so bad compared to Altamont '69.

"Gimme Shelter" is not at all a concert film, which is okay because that's not even its purpose. The Stones sounded pretty bad live throughout the film. They were experimenting with drugs and new equipment (not a good combination). I wouldn't have minded, however, if the filmmakers had included more footage of a knockout Tina Turner. And couldn't they have put the camera on Gram Parsons (with The Flying Burrito Brothers) for at least a few seconds!!. Little did they know how valuable that footage would have been! But those are just questions, not quibbles.

So as a concert film don't expect much. But as a document of the end of an era (and its ideals), I can't imagine a better one. This is a must-see documentary. Easily one of the best ever.

Angels Not to Blame/The Truth is Shown !!
Everyone shold not be on the Angels ass. They did what they were hired to do - protect the stage from idiots " who shoudn't have been there, zapped out on the drugs some of them could not handle".There were a few great musical moments at Woodstock, but it was the "peace and love crowd" and the promoters were just money hungry freaks.

The Rolling Stones have always had a dark side, and just because a few hippie types couldn't handle the scene, it has gone down as the "end of the Sixties". Well, my dear friends, the sixties were a time of change, but the rot had set in way before Altamont. I know, as I was there. Where are all the "share the world, wealth, and love" folks now? Sitting in places they protested, greedy and nothing like they were in the Sixties, towing the line like their parents and others they wanted to overthrow then. Greed, greed, greed. That's where the "peace and love" generation is now, not caring about their "bros and sisters". Power to the people my ass.

a strong film with many bonus features
This review is for the Criterion Collection DVD edition of the film.

Gimme Shelter is regarded by many as the most important rock film of all time. It follows the Rolling Stones on their infamous 1969 US tour. It covers the Madison Square Garden concert and the near-disastrous Altamont Speedway concert, along with actuality footage of the band in meetings with their lawyer, Melvin Belli (also known for defending Jack Ruby and for a guest appearance in a Star Trek episode) It remains one of the most popular rock films ever made and is as thought-provoking today as it was 35 years ago. An actual now-famous homicide was caught on tape and is featured in this film (as well as nudity), making it inappropriate for children.

The Criterion DVD includes many special features also.

There is a theatrical trailer and a re-release trailer for the film as well as the films, "Salesmen" and "Grey Gardens" also directed by the Maysles brothers.

There is film restoration deomonstration, several deleted scenes and outtakes, audio commentary by the directors and collaborator, Stanley Goldstein. There are also 80 minutes of excerpts from the 4 hour call-in radio show done after the Altamont concert and a photo gallery of the Altamont concert.

As an added bonus the accompanying booklet is many times larger than normal (this one is 44 pages) and contains several essays by many different people.

This DVD is a MUST for Rolling Stones fans as well as Criterion Collection DVD fans alike.

Superb look at The Rolling Stones' ill-fated 1969 tour
Gimmie Shelter is The Rolling Stones' documentary on the band's ill-fated 1969 North American tour in support of the album Let it Bleed. We see the band performing at Madison Square Garden playing songs like Jumping Jack Flash and Love in Vain among others, which was also released on the classic 1970 live album Get Yer Ya-Ya's Out. We also get to see the band record Brown Sugar and Wild Horses from their 1971 album Sticky Fingers at the legendary Muscle Shoals Studios in Alabama. However, the most famous bit from this classic movie was the ill-fated performance in Altamont in December of 1969 which was toted as a West Coast Woodstock but turned out to be anything but when a fan was killed by The Hell's Angels and rioting by the crowd caused the band to stop performing a few times. Musically, this film has great versions of Sympathy For the Devil, Under My Thumb, Jumping Jack Flash, Love in Vain and many other great Stones classics. I first saw this movie when I was 9 in 1985 and enjoy this film seeing as my mom is a huge Stones fan. Highly recommended!

the late 1960s, without the rosy spectacles
Despite the bad sound and grainy film quality, this is a riveting, brutal documentary that focuses on the 1969 free concert at Altamont Speedway that was envisioned by the Rolling Stones as a fun time for everyone to "get it on", and ended with chaos and someone being killed, which is shown in the film. With the Hell's Angels in charge of security, and a vast crowd in a senseless and often aggressive drug induced stupor, watching this evolve is like looking into the abyss of the damned. The mid and late '60s were not the flower-power love generation years some remember through rose-tinted lenses, they were very often violent and hateful, as anyone who saw the rabble "express themselves" at the 1968 Democratic Convention can attest. There are people who blame the outcome of this concert on the Hell's Angels, but this film proves that they were only a part of the problem.

There is also much pretension: Guys in suits trying to be hip and cool, and Melvin Belli, the celebrity attorney of his day, making sure he gets his 15 minutes of camera time. The Rolling Stones (at this point Mick Taylor had replaced Brian Jones, who had died in July of that year) seem to be out of place in dealing with their fame, and trying to "act the part", as well as being in a fog of substance abuse. Mick Jagger is the one that appears to be the most "in control", and he tries his best to bring calm and order to the concert crowd, to no avail.
There are short sequences of other groups, like the Jefferson Airplane, and musically, perhaps the best part in the entire film is Tina Turner, as she sings "I've Been Loving You Too Long" all the while using the microphone as a substitute love interest.
Total running time is 91 minutes.

All or in part, the songs performed by the Stones are:
"Honky Tonk Man"
"Brown Sugar"
"Gimme Shelter"
"Jumpin' Jack Flash"
"Love in Vain"
"Satisfaction"
"Street Fighting Man"
"Sympathy for the Devil"
"Under My Thumb"
"Wild Horses"
"You Gotta Move" ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

Part concert documentary, part pop-cultural time capsule, Bert Stern's Jazz on a Summer's Day chronicles the 1958 Newport Jazz Festival with an approach as deceptively relaxed, even impulsive, as the music itself. Still photographer Stern sidesteps more formal documentary conventions such as narrative voiceovers to wander purposefully from festival stage to boarding-house jam sessions, taking in the parallel color and motion of the America's Cup preparations when he isn't capturing rich color footage of the performances and the celebratory mood of the concertgoers. In the process, he documents American jazz at a notably golden moment in its development--diverse, adventurous, and still broadly popular, this was jazz not yet under the shadow of rock and youth culture, played by an integrated artistic community a few short years away from social and political turmoil that would boil divisively to the surface during the '60s. To say Stern was rolling film in a jazz Camelot is overstatement, but only slightly so.

Stern's circular approach and wonderful eye achieve a breezy languor at the expense of more comprehensive coverage of the festival's bumper crop of strong jazz, blues, and gospel musicians. Perhaps inevitably, the camera lingers on Louis Armstrong, Anita O'Day, Mahalia Jackson, Dinah Washington, Thelonious Monk, Gerry Mulligan, and George Shearing. Avid fans of later styles may be frustrated by the fleeting glimpses of other musicians such as Eric Dolphy and Art Farmer, or the honor roll of classic jazz stylists whose Newport sets weren't included in the film, but such omissions seem forgivable, if not necessary, to Stern's serendipitous design. --Sam Sutherland ... Read more

Reviews (25)

This isnt a "Concert Film", it is a time Capsule
A great Film, my only dissapointment was the ommision of theDuke Ellington set, closing the actual event. This is an art film, thecinemaphotography is outstanding. The use of shape and light is masterful. Musical Highlights that ARE included in my opinion, are Anita O'Day, Louis Armstrong, Mahalia Jackson, and Monk.

If you are a (open minded!) jazz fan, and a art genre fan this is the film you have been waiting for!

DVD Info: Excellent color and sharpness. Audio is in Dolby Digital Mono. Crisp clear tone. Extras include a complete playlist for all three days of the festival. An interview with Bert Stern (both text and audio) with accompanying documentary imagery relating to Mr. Stern's other works mentioned in interview. Much insightful discussion about the planning, filming and post production of the film. Very fascinating and well worth the price.

Now, it may be me, but it seems that i noticed some brief segments of footage in the DVD release that i never noticed on my VHS copy. But im not running the VHS again to check, this DVD is so much better!

Phenomenal Work of Art
Contrary to some comments on this list, this film is not a documentary or concert film. It is a visionary work of art. It's like Robert Franks' book THE AMERICANS coming to life. If you don't know what that is about, see for yourself. This is the America that Kerouac loved. And if you don't know what that means, find out before it's too late.

This film is really about a summers day in America in 1958. As a musician, a Jazz lover, a poet and a film buff, this film is the best of all worlds. It is pure poetry. It is like seeing the world through Kerouac's heart-filled eyes. Eyes we all have, but forget in our daily malaise. Notice the minute particulars, the spontaneous nature of life. Speaking of Beats, if you look real close you can see Gregory Corso in a couple of audience shots.

Jazz on a Summers day is about time and place. It freezes a moment in time and makes it eternal. A time when jazz was common music of american culture. A summers day when people living in the cold war and the Eisenhower era kick off their shoes and truly live. It is filled with moments of deep sighs, AH. Like, the shot of the young girl singing along with Satchmo, if that's not art I don't know what is. The performers too, Mahalia Jackson is a great bodhisattva/angel. The cinematography is vibrant. You've never seen the fifties this real.

I actually love the parts that digress from the festival. Even though I regret not seeing all of Monk. But it's still magnanimous, and contrary to another comment, the stage announcer that says Monk is "unconcerned" should be understood as Monk is on a different level. He makes music for different reasons. If you don't what that means, just listen. Monk will whisper to you in a dream.

This was a time when the music was more than just refined listening for museums and chamber halls, it oozed into everything. Seeing the boating footage with the Jazz, it's just poetic. Jazz is part of life. It is the expression of life. The people are having a good time on a summers day. A day that seems so far away. This will never happen again. Not like this. This is what great films and art are made of.

There is beauty in every waking moment my friends. Just look. Breathe. Feel. Thank you Bert Stern.

As hip as they come
Bert Stern has both an eye and an ear for jazz, par excellence, capturing the spirit of the Newport Jazz festival in its heyday. This is a wonderful showcase of performances, ranging from the detached Thelonius Monk to the super cool Anita O'Day. But, without doubt, the performance that stands out is that of Mahalia Jackson who brings the crowd to their feet with "40 Days" and then brings them to their knees with her closing psalm, so passionately felt.

The movie takes you through a figurative day, capturing the sea air of Newport, the quiet practice sessions, the ebb and flow of the crowd as it grows to its evening peak, with a rocking performance by Chuck Berry. The Satchmo takes a wonderful turn at the mike with Jack Teargarden joining him in a fun duet. Chico Hamilton is there in all his seriousness with Eric Dolphy highlighting the band's performance. George Shearer looks like he could be playing at the Hollywood Bowl.

I was hoping for more extras on the DVD. The movie leaves you craving for more music. The 50's were the peak of the hip jazz scene and this movie is as hip as they come.

An absolutely wonderful documentary of Jazz
While I've not seen other Jazz movies or documentaries, I've seen Jazz on a Summer's Day on both VHS and on DVD and enjoy it so much that I've watched it several times and just had to purchase it on DVD.

I have always loved the classic Jazz of the 1950's and 1960's and this film documents one of the best Jazz festivals around, and I think this was the first Jazz festival in what we now know as the Newport Jazz festival.

What I love about this film is how Bert Stern uses his movie camera to shoot the film, much like a still camera and framed the shots just the same. I find it works on motion film as on still photography, especially in this kind of documentary where your documenting a concert. I love the B-roll shots of kids playing, grown ups sunbathing, the dixieland jazz band, the couples driving their vintage autos, and of course the Yaught(sp?) club races and overall, I find that Bert Stern does an incredible job of showing the general atmosphere of the concert and the weather of late summer in Rhode Island.

I find this an incredible film that is worthy of multiple viewings. Not just for it's incredible of shooting techniques, but for the music that is represented here. Lots of great names such as Anita O'Day, Thelonious Munk, George Shearing, Dina Washington etc. I love Bert's use of the reflections of the boats on the water for the opening sequence, mated to Jimmy Giuffrie's live rendition of the Train and the River. All in all, I rate this film a definate 5.

A piece of yesterday, live and in color
Bert Stern was a still photographer who got the opportunity to take a film crew to the 1959 Newport Jazz festival. With limited time and film, Stern and his crew set out not just to record a musical event, but to record a social experience.

For the most part, he succeeds, although there is more than enough footage of a boat race on Chesapeake bay that day to last me for the rest of my life.

The film cuts from performances to reactions of the crowd, as any concert film would. It's interesting to see the wide difference in clothing styles that appealed to people in 1959. Everything from men in suits to greasers in denim can be seen dancing and grooving along with the music.

People living nearby the festival can be seen partying on their roofs and dancing, booze in hand, to the music. People of every age are shown bopping along with whoever is on stage at the time.

Highlights: Anita O'Day's spot-on performance, in spite of the fact that she's well into her much-ballyhooed drug and booze habit (in a recent radio interview she said she couldn't remember doing this gig after even watching the film); Louis Armstrong, Jerry Mulligan, and the rather out-of-place, clearly there-for-the-kids but dressed to the nines and behaving himself, Chuck Berry. Older jazz guys have no idea what to make of Chuck, and one guy, in an attempt to "jazz up" Berry's "Sweet Little Sixteen," starts playing some rather odd clarinet runs. Think "Sweet Little Bar Mitzvah."

There's a nice bunch of extras on here, too, including an interview with Stern that expalins a lot about what was going on.
If you like jazz, or documentaries, or just good music, this is a keeper. ... Read more

Reviews (11)

A window into a frequently unseen aspect of theatre.
Nearly every aspect of theatre has been written about and documented extensively, yet the production of cast recordings has sadly received short shrift.

Though this documentary following the recording of the original cast recording of Stephen Sondheim's musical Company is over thirty years old, it still feels fresh and important. While you shouldn't buy this expecting to hear all the great tunes from the show (that's what the cast recording itself is for), if you want the inside story on how it was put together--filled with as much humor, drama, and tension as a play itself--then you have to check this out. Though the most thrilling (and harrowing) segment deals with Elaine Stritch's struggle with her big solo, "The Ladies Who Lunch," this recording grips the imagination and is a vital historical record of a fascinating and important musical from the 1970s.

If you love theatre, particularly musicals, this should be required viewing.

Nathan's Review of the Original Cast Album of Company.
This DVD was great, I watched it smiling and singing along to all the wonderful lyrics by the master Stephen Sondheim.

When I ordered it I was under the impression that it was a stage production recording. I looked over it again and found that it was a film of them recording the cast album for the musical of Company. I was no less eager to still see the film.

I enjoyed the camera work of Pennebaker, he was able to catch the mood of the actors and actresses that were certainly giving all that they could to make this record work. It was also wonderful to see Stephen in his element - making words to music to work. As I said he is the master.

Portions of the film are quite humourous, most of it though is quite serious as they are only recording this in one night and finishing late in to the morning.

One thing I have learnt is that Elaine Stritch is one hell of a performer.

If you have listened to the original recording and want to see more, I would recommend this DVD.

I hope you found this helpful.

A must for Sondheim fans
I'd heard of this documentary and was thrilled to be able to finally see it. A real "behind the scenes" documentary. While there's no continuous narrative, it's interesting to see the process and to later hear the commentary of Pennebaker, Prince and Stritch. You can see the joy the performers had singing these songs and you cheer when you hear Elaine Stritch sing a successful take of "Ladies Who Lunch." Recommended for those who loved Company, Sondheim completists and those who care about musical theatre.

Behind the scenes of a classic
Stephen Sondheim's "Company" was a revolutionary show in the American Musical Theatre - not unlike "Show Boat," "Porgy and Bess," "Oklahoma" and "West Side Story." It broke new ground and expanded the medium. It set a higher standard. Considering Sondheim's genius it isn't possible to label a single score his "best" or his "masterpiece." Truly, when you listen to the various and varied Sondheim scores one inevitably thinks "this is the greatest of his achievements" - which is only true until you listen to the next score and find yourself having the same thought. This DVD offers a unique look behind the scenes of the recording of the "Company" album. All of the best remembered songs from the score are represented - "You Could Drive a Person Crazy," "Another Hundred People," "The Little Things You Do Together, "Being Alive" and the incomparable "The Ladies Who Lunch" featuring Elaine Stritch's knock-out performance. If you love Sondheim or Stritch or the American Musical, you shouldn't be without this DVD. Order it now!

Great fun, but too short
What a great idea: record the cast album for Stephen Sondheim's "Company" live, as it were--no overdubs, no artificial mixdown. What a great idea: get a documentary crew to record the record session. The filmmaker caught 15-and-a-half hours of bleary-eyed cast members giving their all for a tough record producer and an even tougher composer/lyricist. (It had to be one marathon session because it would be too expensive to assemble all those singers and musicians for multiple sessions.) This is a great documentary that shows how hard it all is. If you've only seen her on the incipid show "Alice," you'll have no idea how talented Beth Howland is till you see her in "Getting Married Today." Donna McKechnie, Susan Browning, and Pamela Myers spoof Rogers and Hart (and not the Andrew Sisters as everyone seems to think) with verve in "You Could Drive a Person Crazy," which also finds Sondheim at his most clever. Charles Kimbrough would go on to do Murphy Brown and Barbara Barrie would briefly be in Barney Miller, and both shine here as effortless, "natural" actors. Star Dean Jones is perfect as the slightly dopey Bobby, even if some of his singing will make you wince. What's perhaps most remarkable is that the numbers that sound so fresh and improvisational actually took 8, 10, 15 takes. Especially "The Ladies Who Lunch." Elaine Stritch's famous song was the last number they recorded. By the time they were ready, it was after four in the morning and everyone was exhausted. Stritch tries, but after about eight takes it's clear she's not going to make it that night. With everyone getting punchy, they decide to record her music track separately, bringing her back the next day to knock the song out of the park.

The DVD has a commentary track, as Stritch, Hal Prince and the filmmaker reminisce about the session 30 years later. There's also a strange feature where one of the songs not covered in the doc can be listened to over B&W stills from the theatrical production. This didn't do anything for me, but there's no harm in having it there, either.

So this is a very good documentary. But it could have been even better. Two of the most complex and interesting songs, the opening number and "Side By Side/What Would We Do Without You," are barely covered in the film. I really wanted to see how they pulled off these extraordinarily complex numbers with the complete cast "live," but the documentary doesn't show it. Too bad. A 90 minute documentary with this material would hae been so much better than a 60 minute documentary without. It's probably true the 60 minute limit was imposed by ABC, which originally aired the documentary, but I'd be surprised if the filmmaker didn't save material that could have been added back for this DVD.

Still, this is worth owning, if a little pricey for a 53 minute CD (not 58, as advertised on the case). In some ways this musical is a classic, and in others it's incredibly (and amusingly) dated. Both qualities just make it all the more wonderful. ... Read more

Amazon.com

The most phenomenal recording in rock & roll history is thoroughly examined in Pink Floyd: The Dark Side of the Moon. The Floyd's 1973 masterpiece remained on bestseller charts for nearly 14 years, and its enduring importance is honored here by all four members of Pink Floyd and key personnel (engineer Alan Parsons, mixing supervisor Chris Thomas, sleeve designer Storm Thorgerson, and others) who played essential roles in the landmark album's creation. Produced for the Classic Albums series that originally aired on VH-1, this thorough and thought-provoking study highlights a track-by-track dissection of the LP's master tapes (including the spoken-word passages that bookend the album), superbly interlaced with archival footage, early demo tapes, concert animations, and latter-day acoustic performances by David Gilmour, Roger Waters, and Richard Wright to demonstrate each track's contribution to the final mix--a sonic exploration that extends to the illuminating bonus features. Informative interviews abound (including Rolling Stone senior editor David Fricke), and much-deserved credit is given to saxophonist Dick Parry, solo vocalist Clare Torry, and former Capitol Records chairman Bhaskar Menon, who fostered the album's U.S. commercial success. For Floyd fans, musicians, and studio technicians alike, this is a must-have addition to any DVD library. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (62)

A must have for Floyd fans (especially Dark Side fans)
When I heard this was coming out on DVD, I knew I would be purchasing this. Dark Side of the Moon is one of my 3 favorite albums of all time.

That being said, the DVD (for the most part) does not disappoint. It is essentially an hour-long documentary with some extra features adding another 20 minutes or so. It has all 4 original members talking about how the songs were recorded and written. It also includes the original engineers, a few journalists, and Strom Thurgeson who designed the unforgettable artwork on the album.

What stood out to me was listening to Roger Waters talk about his thoughts on the songs and life in general. He had some very inspiring comments. Also, it was fun to see David Gilmour perform an acoustic version of Breathe and show off some other guitar parts. Waters even performs a little acoustic bit of Money and Brain Damage. These performances alone are worth having this DVD.

As a long-time Floyd fan, my only gripe is that it wasn't longer. Pink Floyd interviews are pretty rare... I would have liked to hear even more, although there is plenty of great stuff on here.

And if you haven't heard Dark Side of the Moon before, you need to do that immediately. Your life will never be the same!

A great look back at a masterpiece
Being that Dark Side Of The Moon is my favorite album of all time, I was very excited to hear about the release of this DVD. I absolutely love it. This DVD tells the story of Dark Side of The Moon from it's creation, to it's aftermath with live performances, acoustic performances, early demos, music videos, rehearsal tapes, individual tracks from Alan Parsons mixing board(very cool), and in depth interviews with band members. My only complaint is that they did not even mention one of my favorite instrumental tracks from the album entitled "Any Colour You Like". Why it was forgotten in the DVD baffles me.

The sound mix is not in 5.1, but it's one of the best stereo mixes i've ever heard. Hearing Roger Waters explain what the song "Time" is about then hearing David Gilmores' amazing guitar solo was worth the money alone. Thank you Pink Floyd for releasing this DVD and making an album that changed my life! Don't hesitate, buy it now!

The workings of the Floyd and more...
This is one of the best "Classic Albums" series on video. I think for people just discovering the band and picking up the SACD CD, it's a nice way to see how they made the album and what it took (lots of teamwork behind the console as well as in the studio). The video has the original made for TV part, but the best parts are in the extras, which are about as long.

It's unfortunate that the band never filmed the "Dark Side" tour, and resorted to using a "Set the Controls" promo from the same time period, even though there is 8MM footage out there. Thankfully, some of the "Live at Pompeii" film showed the making of at the time, which they used to great effect, and then showed them in the present day. It's too bad PF neglected to film any of their shows from DSOTM to Animals... there's probably some "lost" footage floating around somewhere that they never knew about. But a lot of the "video" footage they used for the screen during the shows is also shown throughout the show, hopefully one day can be used as part of a video collection (supposedly, Nick Mason is putting one together).

It's too bad they weren't willing to be in the same room with each other during the filming of the show though. A lot of it is really interesting to see Roger, Rick, and Dave break down their songs. But I did think that Dave's voice is starting to show wear, which may be why he is reluctant to do a full Floyd tour and is doing the acoustic shows. Hopefully they can do one show together for posterity at least, covering all eras.

Overall, I don't know if this is something that will be played on the DVD player that often, but it's definitely worth watching at least once.

Superb document on a classic album
Pink Floyd's The Dark Side of the Moon had a well deserved 30th anniversary. First was the SACD issue and then came this DVD documentary which looks at how the album was made. All four members of the band's classic lineup Roger Waters, David Gilmour, Nick Mason and Richard Wright are featured in new and exclusive interviews. Roger, David and Richard play songs and demonstrate themes from the album. Rick demonstrated on Breathe how he came up with that weird chord to go to E minor after hearing Miles Davis. David's hilarious demonstration of the On the Run synth loop and Roger's funny country twang version of Money. Original engineer Alan Parsons sifts through the original multi-track tapes isolating some parts of songs. Also, rare concert footage from 1972 and pictures and interviews with Chris Thomas(mixer), David Fricke(Rolling Stone and life long Floyd fan), Storm Thorgerson and many others flesh out this great docunentary. There are also extra features with more demonstrations from Dave on guitar parts, unplugged versions of Brain Damage and Breathe and more interviews. I got this DVD the day it came out and had to buy ano