Geeziz Peter........In a way, I can easily agree. On the other hand, I don't have the money or the anything to put one of these things together and if I did I'd probably be doing 30+ hours on the '55-'65 period alone! did they mention the MJQ? A passing nod to Brubeck perhaps? Yet the "cool" sound of that period was directly attributable to one friggin' alto player.

I'm never happy with everything they DON'T include, but I'm overjoyed that at least some are being covered and hence remembered. Burns' CW series left out so much material and yet it still managed to convey a history and time and a heritage to those who had nothing before. After watching 18 hours of "Baseball" I was overjoyed with what I saw and tremendously disappointed with the many players and things that were not there. And of course in the end it gets down th the point of view of Ken Burns.

Maybe it is playing to the lowest denominator, but at least its playing and is not more of the Barry Manilow or Snoop Doggy crap! Whethewr these things are done in one, ten, twenty, or a hundred hours, real enthusiasts will feel shortchanged and want something more or different. When was the last time anyone on the tube even mentioned Django? Maybe somebody gets a taste that breeds a curiosity. How bad is that?

Read some of those threads you started on folk lists and tell me we here at the 'Cat could put together a collaborative effort and tell the tale in, say, 15 or 20 hours. Never happen. At least it might trigger something in somebody and make them want more. Would we all agree on the material to include? No way! But at least it would be a taste. I mean when was the last time anyone mentioned Cisco on the tube?

Spaw