Saw the trailer for that Don Cheadle Miles Davis movie, which looks positively dreadful. It's supposed to take place between 1975-80, which is when Miles was musically inactive and doing nothing but shaggng chicks and snorting cocaine. They also show about ten gunbattles in the trailer which are all news to me. Miles does gloss over this period in his legendary, foul-mouthed autobiography, but did mention how depraved he was during that time. It figures that Hollywood would make yet another film set in an era where they could slap ugly '70s wigs and muttonchop sideburns on a bunch of actors.
I can only hope that this film, however good or bad it really is, will at least get a few Millennials to explore Miles' one redeeming value: his muthafuckin' music.
What a shame. His early ( 40's - 50's ) life would make a far more interesting film. So much to take that would make great filming from his autobiography, not least the great artists he worked with from Coltrane to Parker to Evans and many others.
p.s. How many times is the word M***** F***** used in his autobiography?
"Clark Terry, right? You know, I’ve always liked Clark. But this is a sad record. Why do they make records like that? With the guitar in the way, and that sad fucking piano player. He didn’t do nothing for the rhythm section – didn’t you hear it get jumbled up? All they needed was a bass and Terry.
That’s what’s fucking up music, you know. Record companies. They make too many sad records, man."
It sort of makes you wonder how much of Miles was really a composer at heart. The point of most of those mix records is to hear what happens spontaneously when two artists mix it. Miles wants each to be reflecting the other to produce a sound that's good by some aesthetic criterion, as in a set composition. But is jazz always meant to be like that?
And can you blame the record companies for what happens when two folk jam? Maybe you can blame them for what they choose to put out. But do you argue with legends?