Alex, I agree with you about the film; I saw and commented on it a few months ago. I was also surprised with how unimpressive Don Cheadle was as an actor in that role; regardless of the quality of the material.
What you say about our preferences is true and is something that, as you know, we have been futilely trying to "conclude" here for quite some time. We can, as you say, "argue" about which period is "best"; but, ultimately, "best" is still about what our own individual favorite period in the music is. That is why I object to the idea of a "best" jazz player and the use of the term "jazz-jazz"; it implies that one period is more "jazz" than another. Try and tell a swing music or Lester Young devotee that Monk is "more jazz" than Lester Young. The (arguably) granddaddy of jazz Louis Armstrong famously once referred to bebop as "Chinese music"; that says it all. Personally, I don't have a "favorite period". I am not suggesting that there is anything wrong with having one; only that I get as much satisfaction from listening to a fantastic traditional or swing band as I do from Coltrane or the best electric-period Herbie Hancock. My feeling is that it's the quality of the performance that matters more than the particular style. We have a tendency to deem a style that we don't like, or understand on the same level as one that we do like, as automatically inferior. IMO, this goes to why some of our discussions here go off-track and we go, as you say, "in circles". Take the Miles/Gillespie debate:
Putting aside how anyone of us may feel about Miles' last few recordings (which I don't like much; certainly not as compared to his earlier things) and using your 1969 date as a benchmark, Miles was doing things leading up to 1969 that was far more innovative than anything Dizzy ever did and which was still squarely in the "jazz-jazz" (😒) category. That didn't make him "better" than Dizzy. Dizzy was tremendously important, but most of what he did right to the end of his career harkens back to HIS "golden period"...bebop. Sure, he reworked "Night In Tunisia" different ways; but, it's still "NIT".
No player is or was without flaw or subject to criticism of some kind. A big problem with out discussions is that we tend to put our favorite players (or styles) on a pedestal and when anything remotely critical is said all perspective is lost. Why all the drama and insults from some(one) when, AFTER A MUSICIAN'S PERSPECTIVE IS ASKED FOR for comparison, it is pointed out that Miles was a better TRUMPET PLAYER than Dizzy? Especially when details explaining why and additional corroboration is given? Seems to me that a far more productive and insightful approach would be to try and understand the difference between "trumpet player" and "musician" as Learsfool correctly stressed. THEN we can really get somewhere if a comparison must be made. Even better would be to abandon the bulls%#t and arrogant notion that anyone one of us has a deeper insight into the "soul" of any music and that because someone can speak to the technical aspects of music that this somehow means that there is less appreciation of the "soul". What a bunch of self serving cr*p! How does anyone of us know how music touches someone else and why? This is unfortunately the fallback position for some. Those are things in the subjective realm. Things like what makes a better instrumentalist than someone else or which music is more advanced harmonically or compositionally are not subjective (mostly); there are many verifiably objective ways to make those assessments. Is any of this necessary to enjoy or love any music or musician? Of course not. But, to dismiss these very real issues while insisting on making judgment calls and comparisons is foolish.
What you say about our preferences is true and is something that, as you know, we have been futilely trying to "conclude" here for quite some time. We can, as you say, "argue" about which period is "best"; but, ultimately, "best" is still about what our own individual favorite period in the music is. That is why I object to the idea of a "best" jazz player and the use of the term "jazz-jazz"; it implies that one period is more "jazz" than another. Try and tell a swing music or Lester Young devotee that Monk is "more jazz" than Lester Young. The (arguably) granddaddy of jazz Louis Armstrong famously once referred to bebop as "Chinese music"; that says it all. Personally, I don't have a "favorite period". I am not suggesting that there is anything wrong with having one; only that I get as much satisfaction from listening to a fantastic traditional or swing band as I do from Coltrane or the best electric-period Herbie Hancock. My feeling is that it's the quality of the performance that matters more than the particular style. We have a tendency to deem a style that we don't like, or understand on the same level as one that we do like, as automatically inferior. IMO, this goes to why some of our discussions here go off-track and we go, as you say, "in circles". Take the Miles/Gillespie debate:
Putting aside how anyone of us may feel about Miles' last few recordings (which I don't like much; certainly not as compared to his earlier things) and using your 1969 date as a benchmark, Miles was doing things leading up to 1969 that was far more innovative than anything Dizzy ever did and which was still squarely in the "jazz-jazz" (😒) category. That didn't make him "better" than Dizzy. Dizzy was tremendously important, but most of what he did right to the end of his career harkens back to HIS "golden period"...bebop. Sure, he reworked "Night In Tunisia" different ways; but, it's still "NIT".
No player is or was without flaw or subject to criticism of some kind. A big problem with out discussions is that we tend to put our favorite players (or styles) on a pedestal and when anything remotely critical is said all perspective is lost. Why all the drama and insults from some(one) when, AFTER A MUSICIAN'S PERSPECTIVE IS ASKED FOR for comparison, it is pointed out that Miles was a better TRUMPET PLAYER than Dizzy? Especially when details explaining why and additional corroboration is given? Seems to me that a far more productive and insightful approach would be to try and understand the difference between "trumpet player" and "musician" as Learsfool correctly stressed. THEN we can really get somewhere if a comparison must be made. Even better would be to abandon the bulls%#t and arrogant notion that anyone one of us has a deeper insight into the "soul" of any music and that because someone can speak to the technical aspects of music that this somehow means that there is less appreciation of the "soul". What a bunch of self serving cr*p! How does anyone of us know how music touches someone else and why? This is unfortunately the fallback position for some. Those are things in the subjective realm. Things like what makes a better instrumentalist than someone else or which music is more advanced harmonically or compositionally are not subjective (mostly); there are many verifiably objective ways to make those assessments. Is any of this necessary to enjoy or love any music or musician? Of course not. But, to dismiss these very real issues while insisting on making judgment calls and comparisons is foolish.