Tonight, we're looking at two topics very close to my heart: the exclusion of certain types of "jazz" beginning in 1960 from popular treatments of the history, and how that reflects the exclusion of certain modes of Blackness in common/popular Black spaces.
In 2001, Ken Burns Jazz introduced a whole new generation to the history of what many have deemed "America's Classical music." This monumentally important documentary was the primary means by which many younger Americans were educated on an important part of its art.
...But it was incomplete. And deliberately so, too. In the wake of the schism that happened in the jazz world beginning in the 1950's and worsening in the 60's, the definitions of what "jazz" actually WAS became splintered, at best contradictory, and at worst, hostile. Infighting was the new language of the music, and in this environment, a few undeniably talented musicians took the opportunity to steer the popular retrospective down a route they favored in the 90s, culminating in--you guessed it--Ken Burns.
So how WERE these "Young Lions" defining the music? WHY did they define it that way? What parts of the tradition were excluded? WHY did those parts appear? And most importantly, WHY does this stuff matter?
Part 1 focuses on arriving at a suitable definition of "jazz" as it's commonly understood, an abbreviated timeline of the attitudes and circumstances that led to the creation of "The New Music" in the 60's, and the primary musical forebears who bridged the gap between "acceptable jazz" and "The New Thing."
Buckle up, y'all. This is a ride I've wanted to take people on for a long time.