Marsalis plays Monk

[Milestones]

You can refashion Monk in so many different ways. That's the beauty of it.

[paul secor]

From what I've read, Monk wasn't happy when people didn't play his tunes as he had composed them. There's something to be said for that attitude. The other side is that once a tune is out there, some people are going to play it in a way that's right for them.

[MomsMobley]

Monk leaves too much space for most trumpeters to fill, IMO.

Please explain?

Space is space, not sure if there is intrinsic "trumpet space" to be filled vs "tenor space". Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the notion?

Either way, Ray Copeland & Thad Jones both handled the spaces they were given just dandily...I'd add Joe Gordon too, but slightly less dandily.

And from a different instrumental approach, Don Cherry played him some Monk too.

[Scott Dolan]

So Miles was not very good at playing Monk?

Thad Jones?

Many others

Miles? Not really. Even he admitted that his style didn't fit well with Monk. And he was the one who I first saw talk about the wealth of space Monk left in his tunes. I believe it's in his "autobiography". I forget his exact words, but when he explained it, it made perfect sense.

Monk leaves too much space for most trumpeters to fill, IMO.

Please explain?

Space is space, not sure if there is intrinsic "trumpet space" to be filled vs "tenor space". Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the notion?

Either way, Ray Copeland & Thad Jones both handled the spaces they were given just dandily...I'd add Joe Gordon too, but slightly less dandily.

And from a different instrumental approach, Don Cherry played him some Monk too.

I never heard any trumpet player that interpreted Monk come close to Rollins/Coltrane/Griffin/Rouse/Lacy.

But, that may just be me...

Edited February 13, 2015 by Scott Dolan

[John L]

There are multiple concepts of "playing Monk." Just like you can play A blues and you can play THE blues, you can play A Monk composition or you can play Monk. There is nothing wrong with either, just that they are not necessarily the same.

[JSngry]

So Miles was not very good at playing Monk?

Thad Jones?

Many others

Miles? Not really. Even he admitted that his style didn't fit well with Monk. And he was the one who I first saw talk about the wealth of space Monk left in his tunes. I believe it's in his "autobiography". I forget his exact words, but when he explained it, it made perfect sense.

Was he talking about the tunes or Monk's comping?

[Scott Dolan]

His comping.

[Milestones]

It's well known that Miles had trouble with Monk comping behind him.

All I can say is Miles did some memorable stuff with "Straight No Chaser," "Well You Needn't," and "Round Midnight."

[jazzbo]

HELL YEAH!

[Guy Berger]

His comping.

There's also an interview where he said (I'm paraphrasing) "Monk writes beautiful tunes and then he ruins them." [Presumably with his playing?]

[Milestones]

Miles, of course, had a taste for the outrageous comment.

[Late]

The general feeling seems to be that his first three albums (along with his appearance on Hancock's Quartet) are his best.

The only Wynton album I've held on to is:

There's an insightful interview Ethan Iverson did with Wynton that goes over this club recording. Gave me a fuller appreciation for Wynton the person.

As far as Monk, I haven't heard the album in question. When I see Monk covers on albums, for some reason it's usually (and unfortunately) a turnoff. Not always, but in general. I guess I just like to hear Monk play Monk, which means I miss out on probably some very good music. I'm a huge fan of Steve Lacy, for example, but have very little of his Monk work. Lacy Plays Lacy — that's far more exciting for me.

[Scott Dolan]

Blues Alley, House of Tribes, and Village Vanguard are all top shelf albums.

Perhaps Wynton is simply more at home on the stage, as I've never heard a bad live album from him.

[Leeway]

Lacy is one of the few who can play Monk and make it interesting to me. That's because Lacy spent years exploring and getting deep inside Monk;s music; a long term apprenticeship. When he played a Monk piece, it was no hip shot, no one-off. Not only did Lacy validate his own approach to Monk, his playing also had the effect of validating Monk's approach to Monk, a case of the acolyte reaffirming the qualities of the Master.

[JSngry]

[Scott Dolan]

Both of those sounded "nice"

And that's really the point. there's nothing "wrong", but much better material exists. And it always has a sax player attached to it.

Though I will admit that first solo Monk played on the opening track from the Clark Terry outing was off the fucking charts sideways!

Edited February 13, 2015 by Scott Dolan

[JSngry]

Thad Jones did as much with Monk as anybody who actually played with Monk. Anybody.

And if what you're looking at is music played with Monk, hell, Monk didn't play with all that many trumpeters to being with, and of the ones that he did use, none, except maybe Thad, were at the musical mind-level of a Rollins, Coltrane, etc.

I can tell you with as close to objective certainty as I can that there's nothing about Monk's changes that favor tenor over trumpet. Heads are a little different ballgame because of the intervals, but that's only some tunes and some trumpeters. I got a trumpeter buddy who always bitches that tenor players just need a reed, trumpet players gotta actually have chops, physical chops. He's not entirely wrong, but I'm like, did your momma make you play trumpet, right?

So unless the point is that tenorists have an inherently higher ceiling than trumpeters, I'm still not sure what the point is. Although if that IS the point, far be it from me to disagree!

[JSngry]

It suddenly occurs to me that I have been extremely remiss in not mentioning Idrees Sulieman, a trumpeter who was very adept at handling Monk's music when a lot of players of any instrument were still just not dealing with it at all. There's a quartet broadcast from Philadelphia, early 1950 iirc, that bears this out to no small degree.

And again to Ray Copeland. I dig Ray Copeland, seems like he always brought something to the table with both Monk & Randy Weston.

[Scott Dolan]

Jim, I'd like to make a few points here.

1. I really wasn't looking to argue the point. I mean, I know that's what we're supposed to do per Intertubes Rules Of Engagement on a message board (a subsection that has since been archived). I guess that when I read that statement Miles made in his "autobiography" it forever altered the way I scrutinized and approached the subject. That's a mea culpa/fair enough two-fer, if you'll allow.

2. My opinion is naturally based on what I have heard/experienced. Granted, you have probably forgotten more Jazz than I've even heard. Which is saying quite a bit, since I've heard a healthy helping. But, the examples you've presented here have done nothing to change my mind. They've all been "nice", or "good", or "cool". Those are all peak adjectives at this point.

3. Monk's changes vs comping. OK, but even you have to admit that there is a lot of connective tissue there. For example, the Cootie Williams you posted above. Not to disparage Mr. Williams and his accomplished and capable band, but it struck me as a Hooked On Classics rendition of a Monk tune. Not that I'm above simplification. It's awesome! But, it does devolve into an apple vs oranges conversation.

4. As for "higher ceiling"? Did anyone ever get accused of playing "sheets of sound" on trumpet?

OK, now I'm just getting silly. But hey, I'm quite the minimalist these days. Why fill up space with unneeded clutter just because you can?

[JSngry]

Jim, I'd like to make a few points here.

1. I really wasn't looking to argue the point. I mean, I know that's what we're supposed to do per Intertubes Rules Of Engagement on a message board (a subsection that has since been archived). I guess that when I read that statement Miles made in his "autobiography" it forever altered the way I scrutinized and approached the subject. That's a mea culpa/fair enough two-fer, if you'll allow.

Not looking to argue either, just discuss.

3. Monk's changes vs comping. OK, but even you have to admit that there is a lot of connective tissue there. For example, the Cootie Williams you posted above. Not to disparage Mr. Williams and his accomplished and capable band, but it struck me as a Hooked On Classics rendition of a Monk tune. Not that I'm above simplification. It's awesome! But, it does devolve into an apple vs oranges conversation.

That was Joe Guy playing the solo, not Cootie. And Ken Kersey on piano. The Minton's gang, 1942. That's also the very first appearance of a Monk tune on record! The record was actually called "Fly Right", and Cootie got co-composer credit, possibly per the customs of the time. So..hooked on something, maybe, but not yet a classic!

As for comping vs changes, I was trying to figure out what you meant about there being too much "space" in Monk's music for any trumpeter to get into it. I see now that you're maybe thinking/talking two different subject at once, and I still don't get it, but ok. I will say that LOTS of people play Monk tunes, and a fair(ish) number of people play Monk Music, but the only way that ANY of them comp like Monk is by intentional imitation. Anthony Davis did a really good job of it, which to me just made the point. And it might be why a lot of the people who do play Monk Music do so minus piano. Not sure what that has to do with trumpet or space, I think it's not as much about space as it is sound/texture. Otherwise, you can end up painting yourself into the corner/dead end of "you can't really play Monk Music without "Monk" on the piano", and that's as right for the wrong reasons as it wrong for the right ones.

4. As for "higher ceiling"? Did anyone ever get accused of playing "sheets of sound" on trumpet?

Actually...yes, and actually "accused", albeit anecdotally, Freddie told the tale of Sonny stopping takes during the East Broadway Rundown session because he didn't want "that Trane shit" on his record. Freddie was pissed because it was his best takes, or so he said. And Freddie COULD play that shit. It's one of my biggest wishes that those session tapes still exist and that someday they find their way to light, because...well, just because.

But apart from that, Barbara Donald actually did do a "sheets of sound" thing on trumpet, although looking in the public records, I don't see where any formal accusations were ever filed. You can also make the case that Donald Ayler was doing that too, although I don't think he had the harmonic flexibility or "formal" underpinning with it that Trane did (then again, who in that time did? Trane was definitely a leading indicator, to put it mildly...). Donald Ayler's trumpet playing was truly a triumph of will over matter, he just willed that shit into being, amazing, really. Raphe Malik in peak form sorta "splits the difference" afaic.

[Simon8]

An interesting take on the subject from Ethan Iverson:

"What makes [Monk] so hard to play? For my money he is the most poorly-performed jazz composer. Walking around defeatedly after the gig, I came up with some possible answers.

Monk's material is always derived from the purest of jazz traditions, but his displaced accents and stark voicings are sometimes thought of as connected to European modernism. Indeed, Monk is a father figure to the avant-garde. But Monk’s own music is not pointillist, Webern-esque, or even particularly abstract. It is hardcore jazz with roots in the blues and Kansas City swing. Getting abstract with Monk can work -- the George Russell/Eric Dolphy "'Round Midnight" comes to mind -- but to do so takes serious consideration.

Monk’s surrealism has been interpreted as clowning around or startling. “Oh, look! I just clanged a minor second! Isn’t that funny!” The Tom Lord discography lists songs called, “Monkin’ Around,” “Monkin’ Business,” “Monk-ing Around,” and “Monking Business.” To the composers of these works I say: Fuck you. Monk never monkeyed around or did any monkey business. Sure, some of his renditions of standards like “Remember” or “Just A Gigolo” are among the greatest examples of jazz surrealism ever recorded. But they are still serious. And his clanging minor seconds come straight from boogie-woogie and Harlem stride, not the circus.

Monk’s music is more specific than many realize. Monk had very little to do with paper, although he could read music very well and write it, too. He just thought that paper missed the point, because you needed to learn it from him to get it all, and how was paper going to help you do that? Beginning with Miles Davis, many Monk interpreters have muddled the details.

Monk’s rhythmic concept is strong, obvious, and profound, and if you take that away, you miss the point entirely. Once in a while a ballad is out of tempo, although, even then, there is never any doubt as to where “one” is. Most of the time it marches and undulates, and there is also an Afro-Cuban or Caribbean element, brought out on Danilo Perez’s aforementioned Panamonkand Jerry Gonzales and the Fort Apache Band. But Perez and Gonzales really know what they are doing. The average jam session version of "Bemsha Swing" rendered as a humorous latin number evades the deeper meaning of Monk's special feel.

Am I saying that no one but Monk should play his music? No, he’s a great composer and a signal stylist who should be fair game for anybody.

Still, there are only two Monk tribute albums that I keep in steady rotation, and both of them feature special performances by great drummers. Evidence by Steve Lacy and Don Cherry has a divine turn by Billy Higgins. The horn solos are excellent, too, although they incorrectly reduce the melody of “Evidence” to a simple hemiola. (Who is Carl Brown? This mysterious bassist plays great, too.) I also appreciate Tommy Flanagan’s thoughtful Thelonica with George Mraz, especially for a rare occasion to hear Art Taylor swinging so hard in the early 80’s.

However, Flanagan was regrettably part of one of the least successful Monk performances I’ve ever experienced, the duo with Barry Harris in the movie Straight, No Chaser. It’s not that Flanagan and Harris aren’t heavy, or that this version of “Well, You Needn’t” is so bad. In its way it’s very good -- How could it not be, with Tommy Flanagan and Barry Harris playing the piano?

But after an hour of Thelonious Monk on video, Flanagan and Harris look and sound like cocktail pianists. Monk is a major 20th Century stylist and artist: Every word, every suit, every song title, and (especially) every note was thought out and delivered with maximum intensity. It would have been unfair to make any other modern jazz pianist follow Monk and play one of his tunes in Straight No Chaser.

To their credit, Flanagan and Harris couldn’t get on a bandstand without swinging. Martial Solal can swing, too, but he doesn’t seem to take that technique seriously enough. At least, I could have used a bit more of it from him last night, especially after he said that Monk couldn’t play the piano."

Much more here : http://dothemath.typepad.com/dtm/variants-on-a-theme-of-thelonious-monk.html

[SMB1968]

Lacy is one of the few who can play Monk and make it interesting to me. That's because Lacy spent years exploring and getting deep inside Monk;s music; a long term apprenticeship. When he played a Monk piece, it was no hip shot, no one-off. Not only did Lacy validate his own approach to Monk, his playing also had the effect of validating Monk's approach to Monk, a case of the acolyte reaffirming the qualities of the Master.

+1 - Lacy with Waldron did a fine version of Monk.

[Steve Reynolds]

Still amazed that no one else has referenced ICP - aka Misha Mengeleberg, Han Bennink, etc

Not surprised Iverson doesn't - as usual he is just a bit too smart for his own good. I like him but he doesn't know what he doesn't know

[JSngry]

Getting abstract with Monk can work -- the George Russell/Eric Dolphy "'Round Midnight" comes to mind -- but to do so takes serious consideration.

Serious consideration indeed.

or

These are the types of things that people can get real shaky about because on the one hand, what does that have to do with "Monk" (true, as far as it goes) but on the other hand, if Monk (not "Monk") can only have its reality confined to "Monk" then, where's the "universal truth" in it, does it not then remain and eventually become reduced to a chrono-cultural specific artifact of interest/relevance only to those who are interested in that specific thing?

Then there's the whole "it doesn't NEED to be anything other than it is" scene and, ok, but that too often reduces into lazy thinking about "it" and such, so...I don't know. Museum as church, not a fan.

My gut tells me that Monk can face anything and anybody on his own terms, and the results of the encounter will be of as much or as little benefit as the strength & clarity &...honesty of those who seek to engage him on terms other than just "Monk". There's a core architecture to his work that can bend all kinds of ways, but if anybody breaks, it will be the bender. You can not break Monk, but Monk for damn sure can break you.

Serious, indeed.

[Late]

Still amazed that no one else has referenced ... Misha Mengeleberg ...

Mengelberg's solo album on BUZZ, entitled simply Solo, reminds me of Monk in places. But Mengelberg feels to me more like an extension of Monk, as if he's absorbed the Monk he's interested in, and then moved onward. His chops are deep and serious, but his playing also reflects, at times, a certain amount of sarcasm that, instead of coming off as humorous, to me just feels obnoxious. But that's just a personal reaction.

No, [Monk]’s a great composer and a signal stylist who should be fair game for anybody.

Braxton would probably call Monk a "restructuralist" rather than a "stylist," though I think I get where Iverson's coming from. I can't say that Iverson's own playing has clicked for me, but I think, not unlike Wynton, he's an important ambassador for the music, which is not at all meant as damning praise.