I’ve completed this excellent biography and now had time to consider what I have read and learnt.

1.A much superior biography than either the so-called autobiographies published over the last 3 years by fellow Cream players Eric Clapton and Ginger Baker. Clapton's was ghost written in a dull /dead style. I reached the end of that relating a dull and seemingly sheltered modern home life to the dullness of the music he produces nowadays. Baker's is bitchy almost from the word go and I was left believing there is little here to like about Baker as a person - hence my reiteration of the Classic Rock's words on the subject: ‘Whinger Baker’.

2. About the only real criticism thrown at Graham Bennett's Soft Machine biog, Out-Bloody Rageous was that the author was more interested in the band up until the point Hugh Hopper left than after - although I am aware that the post-Hopper players were either reticent or refused to be interviewed, inevitably leaving some gaps in the narrative and possible interpretation of the band's actions. I feel we have something similar here wrt getting more about the early days than the later. Approximately a third of the book of 300+ pages are devoted to the 60's (Graham Bond's Organisation and Cream - which I welcome after Baker and Clapton's limited inputs - although work with Manfred Mann was abbreviated), whilst we are rattled through the 80's 90's and noughties. The acceleration through facts, interpretations, characters leading to a reduction of detail, became increasingly evident describing the 70's. Lots of names, lots of different types of music - a few in some detail (e.g. West Laing & Bruce, but fortunately Kip Hanrahan), and then mere snap shots of working with Holdsworth and others. While I would like to have read more about working on several avant albums with Michael Mantler, I did find useful snippets of information about working with Sting on Kurt Weill’s Thruppenny Opera in Germany. Virtually every musician who contributes speaks of working with Jack Bruce post-Cream being a positive education (e.g. Chris Spedding, Mick Taylor, David Sancious), even suggesting in my mind this to be Miles Davis-like. Most of these guys (and indeed Carla Bley) state that they found a consummate musicians and leader because for instance  Bruce had mapped out arrangements before sessions started and session players were clear about what they had to do and where the space was for their contribution/improvs. To summarise: a book that provides quite some depth about Bruce until his mid 25/early 30's but then there is mostly a rush to get to 2008, meaning less detail and flurry of names wrt new bands, line-ups etc., although many words are found  to  discuss the musical aspects of Jack Bruce.

3. You get right from the start of this book, that Jack Bruce is an individual who clearly knows his own mind, nurtured because of his background and family politics. However, because author Harry Shapiro provides a coherent commentary here, I'm left respecting Bruce for what he stands up for - although I wouldn't necessarily agree with his politics - unlike what I get and so dislike wrt Ginger Baker. Baker I was significant as a non-contributor  but many of the rows/battles between Bruce & Baker are covered here. What goes against Baker's account of these is a handful of photographs and the numbers of times Baker is reported in Bruce biography to have gone back for gigs and recordings (even more than I imagined). Apart from the financial need to set up again after some or other financial disaster on Baker's part, there seems to be a perennial need for these gentlemen(?) to go sparring with each other again and the synergy that can result. One major area of importance covered pretty well here, if in increasingly depressing terms, is Bruce's move in booze and drugs and the long term effects on health. Overall I feel I’m getting an honest account of Jack Bruce the fallible man and master musician.

Composing Himself by Harry Shapiro is most strongly recommended as one the best accounts of a rock/jazz/blues musician. Therefore most strongly recommended

An aside on point 2. Perhaps we might get a more balanced history of a person if a biography was to be written backwards, i.e. starting with the present - often twilight years  - and eventually getting back to the peak period. Perhaps a writer's enthusiasm could be spread more evenly rather than be concentrated into a favorite period.......