Charlie Rouse

[Soul Stream]

I'm too tired to go into much detail here. But I just got done wathcing the free DVD that came with the Monk at the Olympia CD. It's the classic footage, but I've never seen the whole thing. What really jumped out at me, beyond the fact that the whole band is so cohesive, is that Charlie Rouse really commands the music.

He's such a vital part of the Monk package that I have a hard time imagining the band without him. Griffin and Coltrane were great interpreters of Monk's music. But Rouse really fit like a glove. He didn't seem to interpret Monk's music...He WAS Monk's music.

...and NO band ever swung harder than this one.

[jazzbo]

Well, "this one". . . I think that Monk's bands with Frankie Dunlop swung this hard.

I do know what you mean about Rouse. I'm pretty sure that other saxophonists could have made the fit. Rollins was an amazing fit for Monk. I really like what Paul Jeffries did in the final Monk band. But Rouse had a lot of time to become that masterful with the music, a lot of time, more time than any other saxophonist. And it shows.

[Green Dolphin]

I know a lot a people go cool on this period of Monk's but I can only second the opinion about Rouse-great player and much underrated.I wonder how folks around here rate the Columbias?

[JSngry]

The thing about Rouse I've often pondered (and for no good reason, really), is how much of his true self he found in Monk's music, how much of it he sacrificed, and is there really a difference?

I mean, the guy was in NO way the "best" or most inventive tenor player Monk ever had. He had a comparitively limited vocabulary, and was prone to repeating entire phrases during the course of a solo, especially when he stretched out (there are, of course, exceptions to this). Taken at face value, he could often be called boring at times. Yet somehow, SOMEHOW, it works. There's an organic quality to Rouse's work w/Monk that the other tenorists didn't always have, like this was as much HIS music as it was Monk's, that in spite of his "limitations", he still got the core of the music and that THAT mattered more than what he actually did with that core.

It's weird, and I don't claim to even begin to understand it. Personally, when I want to hear a Monk record, I'll usually go for something with Rollins on it first and go from there. But when I HEAR those tunes in my head, away from a record, it's invariably Rouse that I hear playing them much more often than not. Wierd.

There's SOME kind of mojo going down there. It figures.

Monk...

[Green Dolphin]

Yeah,he "fits".I've always found the Columbia sets to be "commercial" almost-very accessible,great sound-the music isn't really pushing like,say Brilliant Corners,and revisting material as he always did,perhaps these became "definitive" versions for some.They were(sadly possibly)the first instances of Monk I heard,so maybe I associate those unforgettable tunes in their later incarnations better than the classic earlier sides.

[Joe]

It seems to me that, in order to have his music most fully relaized, Monk -- like Ellington and, less so, like Mingus -- required players like Rouse who, while identifiable and often unique -- especially in terms of TONE -- were not great individual "thinkers" as he was. I mean, Rollins and Trane and Griffin all apprenticed with Monk after a fashion. When we hear those players with Monk, we hear them on their way to something grander -- on their way to themselves, you could say.

Think about this, though... what if Lucky Thompson, who plays so knowlingly and so creatively on Monk's final Blue Note session (1952?), had remained a regualr member of Monk's band? If Rouse was most like another other tenor player that had worked with Monk, it was Thompson, who, like Rouse, crafted his instrumental voice from equal parts bebop and "swing".

[John L]

I think that the main point is the following: Rouse devoted himself to Monk's music completely. Rollins, Coltrane, and Griffin realized their ideas in the context of Monk's music. Rouse realized Monk's ideas in the context of Monk's music.

One of the greatest aspects of Monk's art is his manner of comping or hitting single-note accents behind horn players. (the very thing that Miles hated!) Sometimes Rouse's steady flowing lines sound to me like deliberate fodder for Monk's mischievous poking and bashing.

Edited October 14, 2003 by John L

[AfricaBrass]

Rouse to me, was very spirited. I think back to our first album of the week, Donald Byrd's "Byrd In Hand" - Rouse was a real highlight for me. I do agree that he sacrificed a lot to play with Monk.

[Late]

Jim's and Joe's second paragraphs, respectively, nail it for me. Rouse, especially on Bossa Nova Bacchanal, does often fall into repeating some of his pet licks, and — though I hear him doing this less with Monk — this kind of limited vocabulary still somehow works within the context of Monk's quartet. I actually think Rouse plays best, meaning most imaginatively, when Monk drops out.

Lucky Thompson! Now that would have been an interesting quartet to behold, say, 1960, 1961. I still love Rollins most as a Monk sideman, though this opinion doesn't diminish my enjoyment of hearing Rouse with Monk. Sometimes, however — and I don't even know why — I want to hear Rouse on baritone rather than tenor.

Edited October 14, 2003 by Late

[Green Dolphin]

Was it Coltrane who said that playing with Monk was like stepping into an elevator shaft?Maybe Charlie decided to take the stairs!

[John L]

Was it Coltrane who said that playing with Monk was like stepping into an elevator shaft?Maybe Charlie decided to take the stairs!

Somebody (I think maybe Albert Murray) once said that playing Monk's music is like riding a bicycle. There is something compelling about that metaphor, although exactly what is difficult to articulate. The rhythmic drive in Monk seems somehow circular.

They didn't call him Sphere for nothing.

Edited October 14, 2003 by John L

[Guest akanalog]

let me add that the rouse album "two is one" on strata east (CD reissued by charly) is pretty cool.

very soulful, funky at times, but never commercial sounding. i think it is from 1973 or 1974,

[Soul Stream]

let me add that the rouse album "two is one" on strata east (CD reissued by charly) is pretty cool.

very soulful, funky at times, but never commercial sounding. i think it is from 1973 or 1974,

Yeah, I keep seeing that as a reissued vinyl. Thought about picking it up, but heard some weired things about it as far as instrumentaion.

[Tom Storer]

Monk's music is pretty much sui generis, and Rouse fit that unique rhythm-melody space perfectly. Coltrane used that special Monkness to blast off towards outer limits, Griffin as a springboard for his spirited displays of virtuosity. Rollins was Rollins, perfectly compatible with the Monk universe but of comparable individual distinction. Rouse was the one who mined the groove in an easy but perfectly pitched way, his melodies spinning along with relaxed swing and just the right flavor. Listening to "Live at the It Club" is like a Zen experience for me, such a source of serene energy.

But Rouse didn't end with Monk. Don't forget Sphere! That was a beautiful, beautiful quartet.

[Lazaro Vega]

Charlie Rouse with Sahib Shihab, "Soul Mates," on Uptown, at Rudy VanG's 1988. One of his best...

[Brandon Burke]

Personally, when I want to hear a Monk record, I'll usually go for something with Rollins on it first and go from there. But when I HEAR those tunes in my head, away from a record, it's invariably Rouse that I hear playing them much more often than not. Wierd.

I've always really enjoyed the short-lived Johnny Griffin, Ahmed Abdul-Malik, Roy Haynes group heard on Thelonious in Action (Riverside, 1958).

[kenny weir]

In different ways I like all the folks mentioned so far playing with Monk, but I'd put Gerry Mulligan right up there them.

Their session is no real masterpiece but I dig the hell out of it anyway. B)

[mikeweil]

When I listen to Rouse's albums as a leader, e.g. this one:

I tend to think Monk was VERY important to develop his individuality. When I think of Rouse I think of Rouse playing Monk, not the other stuff, because that's him!

[paul secor]

I've always felt that Charlie Rouse captured the sound of Monk's music more than any of Monk's other saxophonists did.

[couw]

... when I HEAR those tunes in my head, away from a record, it's invariably Rouse that I hear playing them much more often than not. Wierd.

Same here. There seem to be very many "defining" takes on Monk tunes with Rouse on board. Monk with Rouse is somehow more Monk than without him. I remember many people heard some Monk vibe listening to Byrd in Hand when it was AotW. Rouse permeated that album with Monkishness.

Weird indeed.

[Lazaro Vega]

Rouse with Red Rodney, "Social Call," just reissued on CD, too...Great program of material....

[mjzee]

Does anyone know this album? Just made available on eMusic, from Douglas Records:

Brazil

[mikeweil]

I had the LP and sold it - a little over-produced, IMHO. Large background ensemble, strings on some tracks IIRC, and aimed at the same audience that bought Milton Nascimento's LPs of the day.

Not comparable to his Bossa Nova Bachanal on Blue Note, which was an intimate affair, in comparison.

For Rouse completists.

[analogak]

mr. jiz, i agree with mike...it is a bit stiff and heavy handed. overdone for sure.

has some good moments but not a very interesting performance overall. too tight.

[JSngry]

Does anyone know this album? Just made available on eMusic, from Douglas Records:

Brazil

Used to be this one:

I bought a promo LP for, like $0.99 when it was first released and got rid of it within a year. I just didn't understand what Charlie Rouse & the music on this album had in common, and still don't.