Jams_Runt

Anyway, so thanks to this thread I checked out Rouse's Bossa Nova Bacchanal for the first time in ages. (I tend to listen to Sphere or when he played as a side man with Waldron, when I want to listen to Rouse.) This is such a great little date. Kinda house Blue Note in style and kinda different too. A sweet spot for me. Will have to put this in the rotation more often. And for what it's worth, Rouse's playing here sounds a lot looser than with Monk. I've got to check out Yeah! sometime.

Easy there Scott, I had the wits to think you would have more to say about Rouse outside the context of Monk since that was originally the context of this whole discussion. Guess not. You must be really fun at parties.

I have no idea what the "when in Rome..." comment means. You made your point clearly, I just thought that you might have been interested in what else Monk's "most sympathetic and tuned in Tenor player" played throughout his career. I guess not. Cool. Wasn't trying to trap you, just trying to move the conversation along.

I love Trane with Monk, but I like Trane as Trane better on Impulse, even though I like Monk better than McCoy Tyner. We are talking about obviously subjective things here. I can see people not agreeing with the idea that Rouse was a better player after playing with Monk, but I don't see why such a statement is dissing Rouse in any way. Nor is saying Rouse is no Coltrane or Sonny Rollins. Who was? Scott, I'm glad you dig Rouse with Monk. No one is trying to stop you. Do you like Rouse's work after he was with Monk? Do you think his style evolved because of his time with Monk? A lot of the people you are arguing with think so.

Sphere got more interesting the further they strayed from Monk.

But we are talking about Monk and Rouse. The context of the discussion dictates that we are talking about the relationship between a band leader and a sideman. Words have literal meanings, and they also have meaning within specific contexts. What do you want out of this? That it is rediculous to say Rouse was enslaved by Monk? Um... Yep... we are all in agreement, that sure is a rediculous thing to say. So uh, Scott, what are some of your favorite Rouse albums within or without the context of Monk? I dig Criss-Cross and It's Monk time, as well as his run with Sphere.

It could mean that Rouse was a very decent if relatively uninspired sideman who stayed in his lane when he played with Monk and didn't bring the full force of his own personality to the gig. And to be clear I'm talking about uninspired next to folks like Trane, Rollins Griffin, Jones and Lucky Thompson. That slave talk is one extreme way of reading what is being said, but it's far too over the top for me. The Columbia's sound like the music of a working band, and I dig that, and it's straight up great Monk, but my only point was Rouse doesn't stand out to me more than Dunlop or Riley or Orr etc... he stays in his lane and solos when he is supposed to, but I've listened to these recordings dozens if not hundreds of times and I could probably hum a Dunlop solo before I could a Rouse one.

Oh I know it is Monk's show, but Trane at the Carnegie Hall date, and Rollins on Brilliant Corners are both great in ways that are fully if a piece with what we love about Trane or Rollins at that time. On the other hand, even Rouse's solos feel like a form of accompaniment. Nothing wrong with it, but as soloists even in a Monkian context I'll take Trane, Rollins, Henry or That Jones any day. While I'm at it, I'm down with Dunlkp. Art Taylor is my least fav Monk drummer, but Larry's point about the cutesy aspect of Dunlop's playing is well taken. Dude, Scott you bring up master/slave stuff, then bring up strawman arguments? That's rich.

By the time Monk was on Columbia Rouse kind of became part of the rhythm section in my mind. Everyone in the MG's added something to Otis Redding, but I don't listen to Otis for the MGs. Same thing with Rouse and Monk. Rouse is in no way the co-star of that band. Rouse 's voice is far stronger elsewhere. Weird how I like his playing on Monk tunes with Sphere better than his playing with Monk, though, of course, I like the Monk Monk stuff more.

My comment about Peterson not leaving space was during his comping for other soloists. I'll take your word for it that he leaves some space on "Georgia On My Mind". My ears have been wrecked by Monk. I listen to jazz for different things than Peterson is usually about, although Larry has me interested from his original post.

Guy, I couldn't agree more.

I should listen to some more of Peterson's stuff as a leader. I mostly know him as part of the rhythm section on old Verve albums, but he leaves so little breathing room in his comping that I've never really wanted to explore further. Maybe I'll check out some of his earlier work. As to the comments about Monk, surely OP and Monk had such different goals, it makes sense to me that OP never got Monk as a pianist. Can't really blame him.

http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/22961-monks-music/ It's Ben Ratcliff so you get what you get, but it's cool to see Monk get the Pitchfork seal of approval. With the circles I run in far more people read Pitchfork for music than the New York Times.

CJ, I may check it out if I ever stumble upon it. And seriously I think this backwards post-late Gil Evans thing would work much better with Hancock than Monk, and having said that, the Hancock disc looks like its a different thing completely. Though, after hearing Monkestra, its going to have to be cheap to get me to check it out, because oof! Oddly enough I checked Monkestra out after the grammy nod because some of the press talked about Monk for the 21st Century, but to my ears a lot of jazz in the 21st century just plain hasn't caught up with all of the implications of Monk. And then I hear the thing, and yeah, okay, that is 21st century jazz, but it is of such a specific and narrow time and place that it just doesn't feel like it really adds anything to the discussion other than LA Big Bands be LA Big Bands. I have now written way more about this album than I have albums I truly, deeply love. I'm off to listen to 5 by Monk by 5.

Hey, if people dig it more power to them, amazon reviewers, forum members, grammy voters etc... but as per usual it seems like Jim gets to the bottom of it for me. This is indeed some California shit. And sure, Monk's name sells, but Davis or Hancock would probably sell better. Just be glad you didn't post 'Round Midnight.