Thelonious Monk's playing on the Columbia albums

[Guy Berger]

Well, there's a kind of verve - a spark - on his Riverside recordings, which I don't hear on his Columbia's. I mean, there's a thing that happens with young people - say people around 22 - where everything is fresh and new to them. Like there's this whole world of potential. And then, after a while, they settle down - and that newness goes. Because what is potential has eventually to be realised.

OTOH Monk was already 30 the first time he set foot inside a studio for a leader date... the Blue Note/Prestige/Riverside period captures him in his thirties and early 40s.

Exactly. The music WAS fresh (in the historical sense) on the Blue Note and Prestige recordings. On the Riverside recordings, not so much. Whether it was fresh (in the musical sense) is obviously up to debate.

I really wonder how much of our attitude on the relative "freshness" of Monk's music is a function of our knowledge of history. I wonder how someone without that knowledge would assess the music.

Guy

[JSngry]

I wonder how someone without that knowledge would assess the music.

You should read Kenny Dorham's Down Beat review of Misterioso, if you can find it.

[Chuck Nessa]

"Major label" studio time and money has messed up the music of (and in a couple of instances killed) any number of musicians after the '60s.

[mmilovan]

It is the same thing for Monk, as for Bud Powell, Lester Young... I can hear no sign of deterioration

of Bud, Pres... sure, they were ruined by the consequences of their attitude and theirs habbits, but...

[sidewinder]

For an interesting insight into the recording sessions for Columbia, it's worth checking out the 'Straight, No Chaser' video, some of which was filmed in Columbia's studio. Quite a relaxed session I recall, with repartee from Teo Macero and Count Basie actually staring the maestro out during one of his solos. Fascinating ! Not sure which that session was - 'Criss Cross', perhaps?

[Simon Weil]

Well, there's a kind of verve - a spark - on his Riverside recordings, which I don't hear on his Columbia's. I mean, there's a thing that happens with young people - say people around 22 - where everything is fresh and new to them. Like there's this whole world of potential. And then, after a while, they settle down - and that newness goes. Because what is potential has eventually to be realised.

OTOH Monk was already 30 the first time he set foot inside a studio for a leader date... the Blue Note/Prestige/Riverside period captures him in his thirties and early 40s.

Exactly. The music WAS fresh (in the historical sense) on the Blue Note and Prestige recordings. On the Riverside recordings, not so much. Whether it was fresh (in the musical sense) is obviously up to debate.

"Thelonious Monk is often called "inimitable" and for him the word seems completely justified."

Martin Williams 1967

I really wonder how much of our attitude on the relative "freshness" of Monk's music is a function of our knowledge of history. I wonder how someone without that knowledge would assess the music.

Guy

"Even the worst enemies of the man known as "The High Priest of Bebop" [Monk] are forced to admit that he is, after all, a remarkable fellow. It has become fashionable to think of him as a greatly overrated musician, something of a charlatan, a mystic whose very mysticism is calcluated to conceal a rather prosaic flaw: poor musicianship. That is utter nonsense...

I'll finish by saying that in listening to Monk, the same advice applies as is given to fans of traditional jazz, on hearing bop for the first time: forget what you know, don't compare - listen. Monk is likely to be as jarring a departure from Dizzy Gillespie as Dizzy is from Louis, and yet he may hit you right away. An open ear is a wonderful thing."

Paul Bacon: " The High Priest of bebop: The Inimitable Mr. Monk" 1949 in The Thelonious Monk reader ed van der Bliek pp57, 62

And from Martin Williams again, surely one of the key commentators on Monk:

"...although [Monk] has been heard from for years, [he] has been listened to probably more attentively than before...Almost anyone knows that Monk is supposed to be one of the founders of bop. Undoubtedly he made important contributions to the style, but it should be clear by now that this strikingly original musician has been working on all along is something different..."

Notes to Atlantic 1278 1957 [Monk/Blakey]

"Brilliant Corners...is so full of suggestions about the future of jazz that one may well despair of their assimilation."

Jan 1958

And finally:

"Thelonious Monk learned to explore and develop an original and unorthodox musical talent. And he endured years when his music suffered neglect and even disparagement. Neither of these things is easy, and especially not for an American. The Monk was signed to a major record company, and his appearances began to draw crowds, and he was faced with perhaps the severest test of all - success, personal popularity, the problems of facing an audience, night after nigh, the problems of sidemen and of keeping the right group together. Many a popular artist (and many a fine one), faced with the recognition he has awaited, is tempted to relax, admire his laurels, and pause now and then to count the house. And during the years of success there were indications that Monk was all too willing to coast a bit too.

The Jazz Tradition/Williams New and Revised Edition 1983 p168-9

Williams notes that it was Monk's 1957 engagement with Coltrane at the 5 Spot which turned to corner for him in terms of public recognition. It's interesting that we're now having this discussion about Monk's technical playing, given that line about poor musicianship.

I think that Williams is on fire in his Monk criticism.

Simon Weil

[Shawn]

For an interesting insight into the recording sessions for Columbia, it's worth checking out the 'Straight, No Chaser' video, some of which was filmed in Columbia's studio. Quite a relaxed session I recall, with repartee from Teo Macero and Count Basie actually staring the maestro out during one of his solos. Fascinating ! Not sure which that session was - 'Criss Cross', perhaps?

If I remember correctly the studio shots were of Monk doing "Ugly Beauty" which ended up on Underground. The clip with Count Basie staring Monk down at the piano is from The Sound Of Jazz(?) I believe.

Edited July 6, 2007 by Shawn

[mikeweil]

It's interesting that we're now having this discussion about Monk's technical playing, given that line about poor musicianship.

I have an interview with Jon Hendricks somewhere where he takes position against those criticizing Monk for lack of pianistic technique. That was around the time the Underground LP was recorded, which had a tune with Hendricks' singing his own lyrics to one tune. Hendricks was with Monk and he went to the piano and played a textbook arpeggio worth a classical pianist of Horovitz's staure, and said, he could play like that, but didn't want to, preferred to play his way.

I personally find Monk's pianistic approach unique and very attractive, and any attempt to replicate the exact attack and rhythmic phrasing, which is very intricate and anything but primitive, should blow away any doubts about his technical abilities. Wisely, all pianists playing tributes to Monk avoided this, 'cause they simply couldn't do it. This angularity, which at the same time swings like mad, is impossible to copy.

I simply do not get the point in all this discussion of Monk's pianist abilities - he could play what he wanted to, and it's outside of the pianistic mainstream, but it was what he wanted, and it works, so WTF?

Anyone wishing to hear to hear Monk's music played pianistically straight should go for for other pianists, but he won't get Monk, who was one of a kind. I love him for that. Anything else misses the point, IMHO.

[TedR]

In an interview before a concert here in Cleveland, Randy Weston said that, when he first heard Monk play, he felt he could play piano better. Soon after he understood how Monk was turning a European harmonic instrument into an ancient percussive rhythmic instrument.

[medjuck]

Isn't Monk's playing on his earliest recordings at Minton's pretty standard early bebop? So much so that there's some controversy as to whether it's Monk or Kenny Kersey on some numbers. (In fact are any of those recordings definitively Monk? If not, I guess it sort of invalidates my point. .

[Guy Berger]

I really wonder how much of our attitude on the relative "freshness" of Monk's music is a function of our knowledge of history. I wonder how someone without that knowledge would assess the music.

Guy

I should explain what I meant by this statement: while there are probably lots of "first time" responses to Monk in the jazz press from the 40s and 50s, there probably aren't many reviews by people listening to his Columbia and Prestige/Blue Note without knowledge of the historical context.

Guy

[mmilovan]

Isn't Monk's playing on his earliest recordings at Minton's pretty standard early bebop? So much so that there's some controversy as to whether it's Monk or Kenny Kersey on some numbers. (In fact are any of those recordings definitively Monk? If not, I guess it sort of invalidates my point. .

Definitely hard task to recognize. On some variations of "Topsy" it sounds like Monk, while on another occasion I believe it is Kersey.

Kersey was hell of a pianist, anyway.

Not standard bop by any means.

[medjuck]

Isn't Monk's playing on his earliest recordings at Minton's pretty standard early bebop? So much so that there's some controversy as to whether it's Monk or Kenny Kersey on some numbers. (In fact are any of those recordings definitively Monk? If not, I guess it sort of invalidates my point. .

Definitely hard task to recognize. On some variations of "Topsy" it sounds like Monk, while on another occasion I believe it is Kersey.

Kersey was hell of a pianist, anyway.

Not standard bop by any means.

You're right. The point I was trying to make is that Monk seemed to be able to play pretty well in a conventional manner back then.

It's like when people claim that Picasso paints like a 14 year old they should see what he did paint when he was 14.

[Late]

The more I listen to it, the more I think Underground (minus the vocal track, which I've never liked, and I like Jon Hendricks) is a condensation of all things Monk. While likely not the "best" Monk album, it may be the quintessential Monk album — if that makes sense. "Green Chimneys" is a masterful showcase in the subtleties of listening (as opposed to "improvising" or "inventing").

When Monk drops out behind Rouse on the Columbia recordings, Rouse often (though not always) steps it up a notch. Something to ponder.

[Harold_Z]

Gotta say I dig Monk under any circumstance - but what I find myself going for most often is the Riverside material.

[John L]

I also love Monk from all periods. I usually reach for something that I haven't heard in a while, hoping to be surprised. That is also the reason why I snatch up every single one of the many boots of his European performances from the 60s, despite the strong similarities. There is nothing like hearing fresh Monk.

[blajay]

In terms of solo performance, I also like the Columbia Solo Recordings, but when you listen to them right after the sick stride solo stuff on the Black Lion/Vogue Mosaic set (Edit: Does someone have the dates of these performances? I lack a booklet) or the Alone in San Francisco Riverside album, they lack a factor. Of course, it's still Monk, I love every key he played, and none of them were "wrong."

In terms of the band, The Straight, No Chaser film has been referenced a lot, and it is a great look into the Columbia studio and Monk's eccentricity when dealing with other people, but what gave me the best visual impression of that group is the Jazz Icons Live in '66 DVD. Rouse is ON FIRE in those performances. Whether people think Monk's playing and/or imagination was deteriorating at that time, I still enjoy the era. Plus, Underground has got to be the most badass LP cover of all time. Even more so than Number of the Beast!

Edited September 11, 2008 by zanonesdelpueblo

[blajay]

"Play The Piano Drunk Like A Percussion Instrument Until The Fingers Begin To Bleed A Bit."--Bukowski

[Soul Stream]

Monk was himself on the piano. He achieved the ultimate goal. Isn't that the end game?

[John L]

Monk was himself on the piano. He achieved the ultimate goal. Isn't that the end game?

That is indeed the end game for Monk. For us, the listeners, we are very fortunate that Monk "himself" was also a highly creative musical genius.

You still hear the opinion expressed in "educated" circles that Monk was a great composer, but not a great pianist (as in good Monk covers are better than Monk himself). I can't believe that anybody who holds that opinion can really hear Monk.

[jostber]

One of my all-time favourites(and the first Monk album I got) is "Solo Monk". A wonderful album, he plays great on that one.

Here is a list of all Monk's compositions:

http://www.monkzone.com/compositionshtml.htm

Of a total of 72 original compositions, it seems like 17 was first recorded from 1960 and on.

Edited September 11, 2008 by jostber

[BillF]

One of my all-time favourites(and the first Monk album I got) is "Solo Monk". A wonderful album, he plays great on that one.

Here is a list of all Monk's compositions:

http://www.monkzone.com/compositionshtml.htm

Of a total of 72 original compositions, it seems like 17 was first recorded from 1960 and on.

Interesting statistic!

[mikeweil]

I think there rarely was a horn player with a conception really adequate for Monk. Running phrases and scales over chord changes won't go anywhere. What you need is a definitive rhythmic conecpt - Phil Woods did that on some of the Big Band sides, as did Thad Jones. But no other sax player. When Monk comps behind you, you must engage in rhythmic interaction. But no sax player I heard with Monk did that.

[jazzbo]

So whose rules are those? I mean, if Monk didn't like what Rouse was doing he wouldn't have had him in his quartet in the first place, nor had him back for so looooooooooooooooong.

I think Sonny and Charlie and Griffin did Monk just fine.

Edited September 11, 2008 by jazzbo

[blajay]

umm... Coltrane. Even if you aren't a fan of the last Complete Blue Note Disc, nor the three studio tracks from the Five Spot era, you must admit that the rediscovered Carnegie Hall concert is superb. That is Monk and a horn at its greatest. Just imagine if more of the Half Note stuff had been recorded!