Michael Fitzgerald

As I mentioned before, the book DOES purport to be a musical biography. Here are the quotes again: "Filled with musical analysis by Mercer...." from the dustjacket (on the promo sheet it reads "Composed of insightful musical analysis by Mercer....") "My musical analysis is based on study of Wayne's original scores whenever possible." p. 273 Such analysis is not to be found. I will NEVER agree that the author "made every effort to get the facts straight" - that's a joke as far as I am concerned. As I said, sources like my chronology were NOT checked for everything, so there are minor flaws that could have and should have been avoided. And I wouldn't place the blame on a proofreader. The buck stops with the author - that's whose name is on the cover. I also never used the word "confidence" in describing how other writers could use this book. I have great skepticism about it considering the errors and omissions. It's *not* a reliable source. Regarding the importance of the Blue Note records, these records are what have Shorter's name on them. These are filled with his compositions. We have quotes from people like Hubbard saying "I did some of his best records, Speak No Evil and The All Seeing Eye" but almost nothing to elaborate on this. The dustjacket and promo sheet tell us that "Shorter's compositions have helped define the sounds of each distinct era in the history of jazz" - so where's the supporting evidence for this? P. 105 has a quote from Rudy Van Gelder stating that Blue Note's frequent recording of WS "allowed Wayne's music to develop". OK - develop how? P. 107 states: "The chance to make an extramusical statement as a leader was as important to Wayne as the music itself." Sounds to me like the Blue Note records offered something that he did not get as a sideman in the Miles Davis band. And even if Shorter doesn't consider them his best work, these are incredibly important contributions to jazz. OTHERS consider them high points in the music - and not just today, it's been this way for decades. They demand discussion. This is gross negligence. If I cared more, I would go through the post-Blue Note stuff and point out the problems with the Weather Report discussion. I haven't listened to a lot of that music in quite some time and it's not my favorite period, but the WR coverage is nothing all that spectacular. It's glossed over like most everything in the book. Mike

Chris Capers came back to play with Sun Ra - in the early 1990s he was playing soprano saxophone (as well as trumpet or flugelhorn) with the Arkestra. I recall speaking with him about this. He started off on saxophone before he became a trumpeter, actually. Mike

It's pointing out the flaws that are *in the book* - most of which were the kind of thing that could have been caught by a competent editor, or by a reader with a reasonable knowledge of the subject. With a good book I don't need to pick out all those problems while reading. But with a bad one it's just one thing after another. But they are *in the book* - I'm not making them up. Again, don't kill the messenger. I would have LOVED to have read a wonderful, well-researched, thorough book on the life and works of Wayne Shorter. I started reading it with nothing but optimism. But anyone who's paid any attention to WS for any length of time ought to know his basic output. That forms the framework for the discussion - the historical artifacts that have been left for us. Then there's the biography, then there's reflection on the life and works, then there's the people that are involved and how the interactions worked. So much of this stuff was missing. Good jazz biographies take a *very* long time. They cannot be done properly in a couple of years. Just can't. Crappy writers *can* put a book together very quickly. It's like an assignment. They don't have anything really invested in the subject, they just slap together some quotes, regurgitate what has been published elsewhere in various sources, and - wham - there it is. Another Leslie Gourse fast food monstrosity. On the other hand, quality biographies are cultivated, they stem from a long-standing familiarity with the subject. Every avenue is explored, you dig into every nook and cranny. Sources are interviewed and re-interviewed, conflicting stories are heard, considered, and evaluated; conventional wisdom is challenged with hard evidence; all the recordings are gathered and listened to, over and over. All the interviews, all the photos, every reference - it all goes into the mix. After this long process starts to wind down, then the writing begins (and the research still goes on in my experience). But first and foremost, it's got to be a subject that you love, that you have a passion for, that you are not only willing to learn *everything* about, but that you feel you *must* learn everything about. The bad books are the ones where I as a reader go in knowing *something* about the subject and then I realize that - uh oh - I know more than the author. That shouldn't be...... Which brings up another reason why I'm not even considering writing a book about each and every jazz musician I'm interested in - it's too much damn work! Even if I might be more qualified than some others, might be more competent than some others - I just don't have the time and energy! Regarding the Brown book, I'm not going to tell you what to look for - instead, see how much your knowledge has grown since the first time reading it. Hopefully you will notice quite a few things. Mike

Don't you get it? The last part is what YOU say - "if you have problems with it, why don't you do it yourself" - I don't need to see your writings. I'm not making that point. That was YOUR point. Now, of course, it's great that you're writing and I wouldn't mind seeing your stuff at all. But I'm not going to lay any kind of ultimatum on you - "you can't say anything negative because I haven't seen YOUR version of whatever (Wayne Shorter biography, etc.)". If it interests me, I'm going to comment on whatever and it's going to come from my perspective. You can give that whatever credence you wish. I'm not out to sell you anything. No skin off my back if you don't agree. You're going to comment on whatever and it's going to come from your perspective. That's all swell. The problem I have is when you start making assumptions about my perspective and implying that I should keep my mouth shut unless I've got something better than whatever I'm critiquing. Mike P.S. - If you got a lot out of the Brown bio, I would be very careful. What you got might be totally wrong. And that's where everyone's opinion *isn't* equal. You could say it's a great book, but your perspective going into reading it wasn't informed enough to know. You are entitled to your opinion, but I'm glad that I know that when you "got a lot out of it" you didn't know much about jazz. That gives me insight as to the relative value of your opinion on the subject of that book. P.P.S. - No, I don't hate you.

Bruyninckx (and Lord) list an unissued session by Dewey Redman taking place on December 19, 1969 - titles include Look For The Black Star, previously recorded for Fontana (1966); and Innerconnection and PS, both later recorded for Impulse (1973). Final tune is Apple-itis, not recorded elsewhere as far as I can tell. Can't determine composer either. Now, the situation is: this session is NOT listed in either edition of the Cuscuna/Ruppli Blue Note book. The BN session listed for that date is Lonnie Smith (also unissued). Anyone know anything on this Dewey Redman thing? Where did this rumor start? Is there any substance to it? Mike

No - and btw, it is the *issue* numbers (not the matrix numbers) that differ between the stereo (Candid 9005) and mono (Candid 8005) versions. I don't believe that the Candid label used master numbers (and certainly not matrix numbers, which are a pre-tape artifact). At least I've never seen documentation of such. Mike

LP - Mastering engineer: Rudy Van Gelder CD - Digital transfers: Malcolm Addey (made from the original master tapes) Mike - damn, another factual post!

Have you read my book? What was your impression of "what really matters" there? Facts are either right or they're wrong. Going way back in this thread, I said that getting the facts right was the STARTING point. You still seem to think that this is where I believe everything should stop. I've never said that, and I believe that my book and other writings don't support this interpretation of my outlook. Now, I do discography work. It's *one* thing I do. Discography does NOT deal with "the personal aspect of things" - it's not supposed to. There are a lot of other things I do that *aren't* discography. Please don't compare apples and oranges. Besides, a judgment based on some posts to bulletin boards isn't going to be an accurate one. I'd bet that at least half my responses here ARE just answering factual inquiries. Doesn't prove anything. I also think you trivialize factual accuracy by talking only about "getting the dates correct" - in this discussion, *the facts* are that Wayne Shorter made a lot of music before Weather Report and it is NOT addressed in this book. His contribution to music is *a fact* and it does not receive attention. If Wayne Shorter is such a wonderful musician and composer (and I think he is) - WHY? This is NOT answered in this book. Could it have been? Yes. Should it have been? Yes. My position on critiquing jazz biographies is one of experience - I've done it. I know what it takes. That I haven't written one on EVERY single artist isn't relevant. I do know that it's not possible to be perfect. But it's possible - even *easy* - to do a better job than what some writers have given us (and this WS book is just one of many that falls very short of the mark). The basic thing is, it takes a lot of time and a lot of research BEFORE writing - and I just have a feeling that this WS book was done in a couple of years. How much did the author know before starting the project? Doesn't seem like much. I have a sad feeling that the author hasn't even listened to everything that WS has done. The grapevine tells me that important resources were offered to her and she didn't take advantage of these. Recipe for a bad book, in my view. Oh, btw, going by *your* standard - please don't tell any of us that "writing should have soul" - what have YOU written lately? How do YOU rate on the soul-o-meter? See how that comes across? Mike P.S. - I would be interested to know what you thought of the Roland Kirk biography. Or the Clifford Brown one.

Cuscuna/Ruppli 2 says: Alphonse Mouzon; Bobby Hutcherson; McCoy Tyner; Chico Hamilton; Jean-Luc Ponty; Eddie Henderson; Jack McDuff; Ronnie Foster; Gene Harris; Bobbi Humphrey; Freddie Hubbard; Donald Byrd. Mike

Have no fear, now that it's 2005, Lonehill will get you a copy.............. Mike

"I got scruples, too, you know! You know what scruples are?" "No, I don't know what it is, but if you got 'em, you can sure bet they belong to somebody else!" Mike (pondering the use of Michael T. S. Fitzgerald a la John R. T. Davies)

Wait and see. But apart from that, I think it's a nonsensical response to say, "Well, if you don't like it, you should do your own!" So unless someone writes his own book, pointing out flaws in an existing one is off-limits? Yeah, that's real productive. Besides, *I'm* not the one who left out something like three-quarters of Shorter's pre-1970s output. Don't kill the messenger. (Helen More did that.) Mike

Brecker and Metheny worked together in the touring band for Joni Mitchell in 1979. Mike

Evidence proves you wrong on this - look at Art Blakey's recordings in the 1958-1961 period when he was recording in the U.S. exclusively for Blue Note. He recorded in Europe for Fontana (Paris Olympia, Des Femmes Disparaissent, Paris Jam Session) and for RCA (Club St. Germain). And until you have seen those contracts, you can't say what the stipulations of the radio contracts were. Mike

Give me a break - if it's not implying something about the Japanese wives, WHY is it there? I've quoted the entire relevant passage. Nothing out of context. Next, it's nice that you think it's a sensitive portrayal. I agree it tells a lot about his personality - but where is the discussion of his *work* - leaving aside all my comments on what's wrong in the book, how about defending what's just plain ABSENT? Refer to my earlier posts on this. And just because the artist is involved in a book project doesn't mean the end result is going to be any good. I hope you can distinguish between my comments and those of others here. I haven't made any personal attacks on either the author nor WS. "Worthy of citation in another thread" - what the hell does that mean? It had a relevant quote that I mentioned. Big deal. Please don't try to imply that *my* views on this book are anything but what I have set forth in this thread. It's fundamentally an appallingly shallow book. A great disappointment. A missed opportunity. It does a good job of dealing with Wayne's personality. How about we title it "Footprints: The Personality of Wayne Shorter" - because "The Life and Work of Wayne Shorter" is just not applicable. It's deceptive advertising. Mike

I'm not being funny. There's a right way and a wrong way to deal with eyesight problems (yes, I have glasses too). If you have trouble reading small type, set your web browser's "Minimum font size" to something larger - in Netscape this is Edit, Preferences, Appearance, Fonts. Having everything in bold is just as difficult to read and it rudely distracts from the contributions of others. Thanks - Mike

I do mind the bold print. Are your words - EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM - so very important that they require this? Use emphasis when appropriate, please. Mike

The accusation was made that Miles "never saw a penny" - the evidence that I presented from Lohmann suggests otherwise. Mike

You are so very sure in your pronouncement. How? Have you seen the accounts books? Here's what Miles researcher Jan Lohmann had to say when this was discussed in 1998: Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 05:54:25 +0200 Sender: Discussion of Jazz trumpeter Miles Davis & his vast musical career <M...@NIC.SURFNET.NL> From: Jan Lohmann Subject: Dragon contra boots. The Dragon records is legitimate except that Miles then had a contract with Columbia. Miles was satisfied with the recordings and had his lawyer send Dragon a letter of thanks (addressed "Gentlemen") when Dragon payed the yearly 'royalty check'. Jan Lohmann

Yes, member. Never attended any conferences - can't get work to let me go to IAJE when it's in NYC and various music education things AND something only marginally related to my "real" job. Some good articles in the Journal over the years, but still a bit biased against jazz in terms of discography (see their articles and panel discussions on "Formulating Guidelines"). Vincent Pelote, who is on the ARSC board, asked for some help improving this area and I look forward to discussing things. Mike

I think they sound like what I expect from Gryce in that period, but I'm the last person who would say that Gryce is run-of-the-mill. Mike

The phrase "run-of-the-mill" was used by you, not me. Mike

Here is my old mail on this: Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 17:57:47 -0400 Reply-To: Discussion of the life and works of John Coltrane <COLTRANE-L@LISTSERV.UH.EDU> Sender: Discussion of the life and works of John Coltrane <COLTRANE-L@LISTSERV.UH.EDU> From: Michael Fitzgerald <fitzgera@ECLIPSE.NET> Subject: An interesting tidbit Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" While working on my Gigi Gryce book project, I decided to take a break from Gryce and listen to "the other part" of a record I've been digging into. The album: Art Farmer Septet (Plays The Arrangements and Compositions of Gigi Gryce and Quincy Jones) The details: Prestige 7031 (OJC CD 054). The track: Mau Mau (Quincy Jones & Art Farmer) starting at about 1:44 The date: July 2, 1953 The tidbit: the middle section of this is darn close to the "riff" from Acknowledgment (the part that goes "A Love Su-preme"). It's at more or less the same tempo (not in the same key, though). It's most striking at the beginning when it's coming out of an Afro-Cuban vamp. The music is rather forward-looking, heavily Gillespie-influenced, but still neat to hear modal stuff this early. I checked with Lewis Porter because I was surprised that it didn't come up earlier. Particularly since source material is a specialty of his. Here's his response. >I'm listening to Mau Mau right now at your suggestion. Nobody has mentioned > this before?-good going Mike! Though I must agree with you that the basic Love > Supreme motive is rather generic and I'll bet you can find it in other Latin > pieces, so this isn't as surprising as it may seem. It's what Trane does with > it (of course). >lewis If this were done after ALS, I'd think it was a reference, unquestionably. But it's 11 years earlier so I was slightly shocked and amused, perhaps you will be as well. The album is great on its own merits, anyway. But the rest sounds like 1950's music and Mau Mau sounds way ahead of its time. Mike

I was the one who brought the Mau Mau similarity to the attention of Porter and Khan. I believe I am appropriately noted in the Kahn book, the Porter I think had already been published. Monk was early, but not the first - Roy Johnson, his predecessor in the Hampton band played electric before him. Mike

Unfortunately, the Complete set is incomplete. (Missing at least 1 take of Victory Ball by Metronome All Stars.) Thanks, Orrin. (Still a good set, though.) Mike