Thelonious Monk's playing on the Columbia albums

[Larry Kart]

For some reason, I actually find Rouse to be a more interesting tenor player on a number of the recordings he made as leader without Monk.

These four are probably my favorites.

Takin" Care Of Business - Jazzland OJC

Moment's Notice - Storyville

Soul Mates - Uptown

Social Call - Uptown

I agree, though I don't know that Storyville date. The reason may be that Rouse came up with a series of formulas/licks that allowed him to negotiate Monk's pieces on virtual autopilot (Rouse being a rather formula/lick-inclined player anyhow). On the other hand, there are moments with Monk when he is inspired or at least fully engaged (much of "Live At The It Club" IIRC, but then Monk himself is inspired there). Also, Rouse is in very good form on Art Taylor's "Taylor's Wailers" date, which includes several Monk pieces, and, again IIRC, on some of the Sphere albums, where Monk pieces are a near constant. Maybe it was less the pieces themselves and more Monk's habits as a comper during the years Rouse was with him that led Rouse to sound so formulaic so often.

[coreymwamba]

On Rouse:

When does a lick stop being a lick and become "vocabulary", like for Coltrane or Parker? Or Monk, for that matter?

I have to say that I do have a preference for Rouse over the other saxophonists Monk used, who to my ears sings through the melodies rather than negotiating each chord; I enjoy the fact that his language, which I think straddles swing and bop, fits so well with Monk's thematic approach. I'd have loved to have heard Rouse on Trinkle Tinkle [the only chance of that is on the Oliver Nelson date - yikes!] in a quartet context.

Whenever anyone mentions Monk and technique, play them "Work" with Percy Heath and Art Blakey; that normally sorts them out. Monk's solo on that song left me spellbound the first time I heard it.

[mjzee]

Rouse does have a distinctive sound, almost like he's playing a trumpet rather than a tenor. The spaces between the notes give the music room to breathe, much like Monk's playing does.

[randissimo]

On Rouse:

When does a lick stop being a lick and become "vocabulary", like for Coltrane or Parker? Or Monk, for that matter?

I have to say that I do have a preference for Rouse over the other saxophonists Monk used, who to my ears sings through the melodies rather than negotiating each chord; I enjoy the fact that his language, which I think straddles swing and bop, fits so well with Monk's thematic approach. I'd have loved to have heard Rouse on Trinkle Tinkle [the only chance of that is on the Oliver Nelson date - yikes!] in a quartet context.

Whenever anyone mentions Monk and technique, play them "Work" with Percy Heath and Art Blakey; that normally sorts them out. Monk's solo on that song left me spellbound the first time I heard it.

I am of the same feeling.. Charlie Rouse to me always played great and especially with Monk. Rouse's solos were always a delight,, consistantly creative and full of color, humor, and stories..

[coreymwamba]

I realised in my last post I hadn't answered the question of the thread. My feeling is no, Monk's playing didn't decline, it just changed as he did [like I feel Shorter's sound has changed from when he was first recorded to now].

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EywdPsnJxQ

The question itself is curious: how does one measure the "decline"? If relative to his earlier playing, which aspects of his playing are supposed to have diminished? If the individual is still present in the sound, can one really say that the musician has declined, or that the listener just doesn't like that sound anymore?

[Late]

Thanks for posting that video, Corey.

Maybe "decline" might actually be considered in a different perspective: as maturation. Like Louis Armstrong, I think Monk's playing in later decades was less facile, but more idiosyncratic. They both became more inimitable later in their careers. Armstrong wasn't pulling off the same type of pyrotechnics from his 20's playing during the 50's, but his sense of nuance, to me, developed immensely.

There's this obscure trumpet player, I think his name is Wynton Marsalis, who said: "Pops could play one note, and it would be jazz." The same concept (despite the source) might be applied to Monk.

[AllenLowe]

well, it depends what you saw - I heard monk in Central Park, 1969 maybe, and he was basically catatonic - played virtually nothing, a few themes, basically sat on the piano bench -

[televiper]

While I do think that Monk tempered himself a bit on the Columbia recordings, they are still my go-to albums from him because, as many others have noted, his empathy with Rouse was stunning. I'm just listening to "I Didn't Know About You (Take 4/Album Version)" and the interplay between the two men is hauntingly beautiful.

If I want Monk to dazzle me on the piano, I might grab a Riverside instead but overall, 'Straight No Chaser,' 'Monk,' and 'It's About That Time" are the albums I dig best. I can discern no decline in Monk's overall playing abilities even if his innovation isn't on the same levels as earlier.

[RDK]

I realised in my last post I hadn't answered the question of the thread. My feeling is no, Monk's playing didn't decline, it just changed as he did [like I feel Shorter's sound has changed from when he was first recorded to now].

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EywdPsnJxQ

The question itself is curious: how does one measure the "decline"? If relative to his earlier playing, which aspects of his playing are supposed to have diminished? If the individual is still present in the sound, can one really say that the musician has declined, or that the listener just doesn't like that sound anymore?

Among the comments re: that youtube clip...

excuse me but...if you define this T Monk as "great" how would you call the divine and sublime "LIBERACE"????LIberace was and remain the greatest of the gratest piano player who ever lived!!!!!!!

[RDK]

That just may be my new sig line after this election.

[coreymwamba]

well, it depends what you saw - I heard monk in Central Park, 1969 maybe, and he was basically catatonic - played virtually nothing, a few themes, basically sat on the piano bench -

Yes, but catatonia isn't evidence of "creative decline". And it's the term "creative decline" that's I think is the issue. The catatonic state is more likely to be evidence of decline in Monk's general well-being though. Does that sound reasonable?

Maybe "decline" might actually be considered in a different perspective: as maturation...

I agree with that completely. I sometimes feel that there is an expectation from some listeners to hear a musician to have exactly the same idiosyncrasies, no matter what point he or she may be in life. But that point of view negates growth or change, which are elements of creativity.

[Late]

LIberace was and remain the greatest of the gratest ...

It's true. He could really grate.

[7/4]

LIberace was and remain the greatest of the gratest ...

It's true. He could really grate.

Hell yeah, use the right tool from the job.

[Peter Friedman]

well, it depends what you saw - I heard monk in Central Park, 1969 maybe, and he was basically catatonic - played virtually nothing, a few themes, basically sat on the piano bench -

Yes, but catatonia isn't evidence of "creative decline". And it's the term "creative decline" that's I think is the issue. The catatonic state is more likely to be evidence of decline in Monk's general well-being though. Does that sound reasonable?

Maybe "decline" might actually be considered in a different perspective: as maturation...

I agree with that completely. I sometimes feel that there is an expectation from some listeners to hear a musician to have exactly the same idiosyncrasies, no matter what point he or she may be in life. But that point of view negates growth or change, which are elements of creativity.

It seems logical that if "growth" can occur, it is also possible that "decline" can also take place.

The reasons may vary, but there is no question in my mind that a musicians playing may decline.

Some of Coleman Hawkins last recordings show clear evidence of decline. Yes, his health and mental well being may have been the reasons why, but nonetheless his playing had declined.

[John L]

well, it depends what you saw - I heard monk in Central Park, 1969 maybe, and he was basically catatonic - played virtually nothing, a few themes, basically sat on the piano bench -

Yes, but catatonia isn't evidence of "creative decline". And it's the term "creative decline" that's I think is the issue. The catatonic state is more likely to be evidence of decline in Monk's general well-being though. Does that sound reasonable?

That sounds to me like games with semantics. Maybe Monk's creative juices kept flowing strong within his body and soul. But if he became physically and mentally unable to realize that creativity in his piano playing or writing, we generally tend to call that "creative decline."

On the other hand, some of what he played on the later Black Lion and Giants of Jazz recordings was pretty nice. By the mid-1970s, however, those who heard him recognized unmistakable decline. Apparently, his mental illness reached an acute state around that time. He would just sit in his room and not communicate with anybody.

Edited September 28, 2008 by John L

[coreymwamba]

It seems logical that if "growth" can occur, it is also possible that "decline" can also take place.

The reasons may vary, but there is no question in my mind that a musicians playing may decline.

Some of Coleman Hawkins last recordings show clear evidence of decline. Yes, his health and mental well being may have been the reasons why, but nonetheless his playing had declined.

Yep, I agree with that: my point was that being in a catatonic state couldn't be used as evidence of creative decline. General decline perhaps, but not specifically creative. And on listening to later playing of Monk's [especially solo, and the Black Lion trios], I'm not sure "creative decline" can be applied. But then as I said before, that's a listener's perception. And I also happen to think that putting all of those bits together make the musician more real; how can you gain an insight into the musician as a person if you don't hear the "failings" as well as the "high points"?

I haven't heard any later Coleman Hawkins... I haven't heard enough, which is silly since I love listening to him; I may do a search on here for a thread...

[AndrewHill]

"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.

This is an excellent point. Maybe Miles was the exception??? But ultimately, this sums up Monk's career at Columbia. I don't think its a matter of decline but a polishing of the rough edges, which on the contrary, made the Prestige and Riverside dates so special; they were rough and unpolished. Nonetheless, I like the Columbia dates for different reasons than the Riversides because of, in large part, Rouse's contributions (he smokes on Monk's Dream!) but you can still hear the quirkiness, which is uniquely Monk, and they are definitely still Monk records and for that reason, thus, they shouldn't be overlooked.

[Guy Berger]

I found this great interview with Robin Kelley in which he addresses this topic:

AAJ: And any or all of those elements can make for a memorable recording. Now, the next question was actually stimulated by a lecture that Lewis Porter gave in Philadelphia on Clifford Brown. Porter played several different recordings that Brown had made of the song "Cherokee" and showed how the latter's playing matured over the time between the first and last versions. Now with Monk, it's hard for me to tell if his music developed significantly over time, or whether, once he got his groove, he pretty much stayed on the same wavelength through most of his career. Do you have your own take on that?

RK:That's an excellent question, one of the best questions anyone has ever asked me. It may seem strange, but I'm going to say that both are true. Early on, meaning the 1940s, on the Blue Note recordings, he developed an aesthetic for both his compositions and his improvisations, and he pretty much stuck to it through the end. On the other hand, I do think there is a development in his approach that has to do with tempo and the number of notes he would play. If you listen to the Blue Note recordings, as much as I argue that he is not a bebop player as such, that although he contributed to bebop, he really had his own unique approach, he plays a lot of notes, and although the 78 rpm format is short, they're full. Over time, especially later in life, by the end of the '60s, he likes slower tempos, he ends up playing longer solos, partly because of the 33 rpm LP format, but also because he had more to say, and he also is more aware of economy and space. There's less space in those early recordings than there is when we get into the '50s and '60s. The other thing that happens is that while he did play stride piano in the '40s, he becomes more wedded to stride piano, returning to those old fashioned yet still modern techniques that he grew up playing. My argument is that what he's trying to do is to distinguish himself from the jazz avant-garde. And here is one of the strange ironies. Here's a man whose music helps usher in what becomes free jazz, I mean, Monk is one of their heroes. On the other hand, he didn't like what they were doing. And so he is trying to remind listeners, this is what it means to swing. This is where I come from. I'm not Ornette Coleman, I'm Thelonious Monk. So he records more solo pieces, more solo LPs. It's not producers asking him to do it; he wants to do it. He wants more solo pieces. He wants to slow the tempos down. He wants to remind listeners of those great pianists of the past.