alexp

I suppose, then, there's no chance of engagement here on the issue of how techniques of narrative nonfiction were used in the construction of this book?

youmustbe's comments are malicious and best ignored. As for the criticism of Mercer's unattributed "re-creations": it's called literature, or narrative nonfiction. We know she interviewed the living members of the Miles Quintet--Herbie, Wayne and Ron--as they're quoted elsewhere in the book. We can assume she pieced together their accounts of those nights at the Plugged Nickel, supplementing this material with information previously published on the dates. Jodie Christian is quoted as an audience member so we know he gave her his account as well. Additionally, if she did her job right (and there is every indication she did) she visited the space in Chicago that once held the Plugged Nickel and also researched the Old Town scene at that time. If Mercer had quoted all her sources, it would have detracted from the narrative flow and made for a boilerplate bio. Here's a quote from the introduction to The Art of Fact, an anthology of literary journalism: "After-the-fact quotes, sound bites from the interview room, are antiliterary. They take the reader away from the moment in question to some vague and indeterminate present in which the quote is uttered . . . and they take away from the writing the deep-down appeal of once-upon-a-time storytelling. compare: 'I knew I had to get out of there,' said firefighter Ken Jones , with Jones knew he had to get out of there . The first is the boilerplate; the second a cobblestone in the road to art." Mercer's knows something about storytelling. She only quotes her sources when they say something characteristic, profound, or juicy. Her account of the Live At the Plugged Nickel dates is vivid and highly readable. She chronicles the dramatic invention of that great quintet in a way few other writers have. Since Wayne and Herbie both read and vetted the book, it's safe to assume it's also accurate.

An essay by Michelle Mercer, interview w/Wayne Shorter aired on NPR's All Things Considered this week. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4520032 This book continues to get a great deal of press, perhaps since it was directed to a more general audience. This brings up a question, for me anyway. Which books have done a good job introducing jazz to the uninitiated?

Footprints does not purport to be a musical biography, nor does it claim to be a definitive one. Its title seems to refer as much to Shorter's spiritual work as to his musical output. For example, this comes near the end of Mercer's introduction, when she's discussing what makes Wayne exceptional: "It's not just his legacy in music, though he is a living link to the last fifty years of jazz history . . . what makes Wayne truly extraordinary is his ability to find hilarity or profundity in almost every moment, often both at the same time." There are small errors in the book, for sure, which are likely the work of some overeager proofreader. However the misidentification of a couple folks in photos or one wrong date does not discredit the entire book for me. Clearly Mercer did consult Mr. Fitzgerald's fine chronology and made every effort to get the facts straight. The more serious charge here is Mercer's dismissal of Shorter's Blue Note period. Yes, those records have great stature today, but Mercer wrote the book to reflect Shorter's experience; his artistic development and creative process. She actually took the time to get to know him, so that she could write from his perspective. "Blue Note was like going to the bank for us," Wayne said. Though this is hard for fans to believe, Shorter didn't care about his Blue Note records half as much as his work with Miles Davis, and Mercer explains that quite clearly. And then she gets into the working method of the Miles Quintet in some depth, especially the musical interplay in the group. For me, her quick summary of the Blue Note period and focus on the dynamics of the Miles Quintet is a sign of just how well she got to know Wayne. His tenure in Miles's group had far more impact on the rest of his life and career than the Blue Note recordings did, because, as Shorter said of Van Gelder's studio: "There was nothing developmental as a band. A recording was just one movie, and then the next was another movie, in a kind of dream away from Miles." Mercer's reasoning on this matter is quite clear in the book. Surely there will be many more books written about Wayne's music. I can't wait to read them. He's worthy of them. (Though even if another biographer does also have Wayne's cooperation, as Mercer did, he'll be hard-pressed to pry any more musical discussion from Wayne. As we've seen in interview after interview, he just doesn't like to discuss it.) As Mr. Fitzgerald pointed out she's done an astute job with Shorter's personality, and has written a book that future studies can build from with confidence. From the L.A. Times review of the book, which is on the money: "More academic overviews of Shorter's career will be written, but it's impossible to imagine a book that would give any better understanding of this enigmatic man." Like this reviewer, I just accept Mercer's book for what it is, rather than focusing on what it isn't.

I read this book and thought it was one of the most sensitive portrayals of an artist I've ever come across in print. I came across this forum in a google search and was surprised by the enmity directed at both the author and Wayne here. This book has been quoted out of context in this specific thread in an argument about its utter uselessness. It was never implied in the text, for example, that Shorter had not met his Japanese-American wife before his first trip to Japan. The book was however still found worthy of citation (horace silver, publishing) in another thread. I've been hearing this book highly praised among musicians, and it's well established that Mercer had Shorter's full cooperation for the biography--after meeting him on assignment for the NYTimes and NPR, hardly an accidental entree to a biographical project. The book is certainly not a musical biography in any traditional sense, but the vitriol directed at it here is unwarranted. In my estimation.