Although this documentary doesn't cover every artist who's ever contributed to the cannon of jazz music as a whole, it's a great overview and does an excellent job of following the early history and development of jazz as an American art form. I've read complaints in these reviews that the documentary focuses too much on black musicians and doesn't allow enough time for discussing the contributions of white musicians. Given the fact that the documentary's purpose is to trace the origins and early history of jazz, I think the documentary struck a fair balance. Jazz is an art form which was primarily created by and developed by black musicians, with white musicians largely following their lead and standing on their shoulders as they continued to develop their art. I'm not saying that white musicians don't have a place in jazz history, but the true jazz giants- the true innovators and the developers of jazz- have been African American for the most part, with white musicians learning from them and expounding upon their knowledge. Without Louie Armstrong, Duke Ellington, Sidney Bechet, Charlie Parker, John Coltrane, Miles Davis, and the like, jazz as we know it simply wouldn't exist. This isn't to say that white musicians didn't make contributions to jazz as an art form, but the documentary pays homage to a fair number of white musicians as well (Artie Shaw, Bennie Goodman, Dave Brubeck, and others are all discussed at some length). And a number of the white musicians who are discussed actually acknowledged how much they had learned from their black counterparts and expressed embarrassment that they received much more press coverage for their work than did the black musicians whom they studied while developing their skills (Bennie Goodman and Dave Brubeck both fell into this category).
It just seems like there are people on here who are upset that their particular favorites didn't get the attention that they wanted them to, so they're attacking the documentary as a whole because of it. The documentary does a good job at examining the history of jazz as a whole, but in doing so, it has to limit its subject matter to some of the most central innovators of the art form. Some artists who were more important to side movements within the overall jazz community may not have been discussed at length (i.e., the "cool jazz" movement or what have you), but the figures who laid down the foundations of the art form are all there.
It's a shame that people can't judge the documentary on its own merits rather than looking for the things in it that suits their own personal tastes.
It just seems like there are people on here who are upset that their particular favorites didn't get the attention that they wanted them to, so they're attacking the documentary as a whole because of it. The documentary does a good job at examining the history of jazz as a whole, but in doing so, it has to limit its subject matter to some of the most central innovators of the art form. Some artists who were more important to side movements within the overall jazz community may not have been discussed at length (i.e., the "cool jazz" movement or what have you), but the figures who laid down the foundations of the art form are all there.
It's a shame that people can't judge the documentary on its own merits rather than looking for the things in it that suits their own personal tastes.