Charlie Rouse

[Joe]

Skippy took 3 takes but take 2 is the master.

Hornin' In took 4 takes.

Sixteen took 2 takes.

Carolina Moon took 1.

Let's Cool One took 1.

I'll Follow You took 1.

Much grass. Those numbers are somewhat surprising... though BN was in the habit of sponsoring rehearsals even at that point in the label's history (I'm assuming).

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".

Not to be a narcissist or anything, but, apropos of Larry's observation re: Lucky & Monk... I'd completely forgotten I'd written this.

[JSngry]

but we're talking RECORDS, and one's life as Listening Artist.

cornpone anti-intellectual sports obsessives will likely cry "Foul!"

I'll not pretend to speak for all cornpone anti-intellectual sports obsessives, but I really am laughing out loud at the notion of a self-proclaimed "Listening Artist" willfully and knowingly reaching for an album chock-full of prolonged Charlie Rouse-isms and then getting indignant enough about hearing what he certainly knew he was going to hear to resurrect a three-year-old thread to bemoan hearing what he should have already known (and surely did know) was going to be there..

Dude, do you also go to the sock drawer looking for shoes and then get pissed off at the shoes for not being there?

[Larry Kart]

Skippy took 3 takes but take 2 is the master.

Hornin' In took 4 takes.

Sixteen took 2 takes.

Carolina Moon took 1.

Let's Cool One took 1.

I'll Follow You took 1.

Per Chuck's info above, listen to Thompson on the released alternates (Sixteen, Carolina Moon, Hornin' in, Skippy) for evidence that his interaction with Monk on this date, as effective as it is, is also not formulaic. In addition to innate musical gifts, they both had "Swing To Bop" sensibilities that really rhymed. Forget which track it's on (though I heard it last night, maybe Skippy) where someone who's probably Monk makes a definite cry/moan of approval toward the end of Thompson's solo.

[.:.impossible]

Did you just coin the term "listening artist"? Ha. I know/hope you are trying to be provocative, but I think that notion perfectly defines the modern "hipster that is often railed against. Curators of, like, life.

Perhaps you do consider yourself as such; the modern-day ghost writer's nom de plume's alter ego's ghost writer's nom de plume, curating life in multiple shades of anonymity.

Hm. All that from "listening artist". Provocative fo sho.

[Simon8]

re: "Locomotive"

I think nobody mentioned the first, excellent version of this tune on Monk's MONK (Prestige, 1953) with Ray Copeland and Frank Foster. I wish that quintet would've recorded a lot more. Foster sounds great (and Copeland has a most remarkable solo).

Regarding Rouse, I love his sound and directness, and I like Monk's Columbias, but for me the tunes tend to run too long for both Rouse's and Monk's good.

Edited November 21, 2011 by Simon8

[Dan Gould]

You better put on a helmet if you're going to say that, Simon. Don't you know that Monk, as a Genius, never submitted a pedestrian or over-long solo but Rouse, as a hack, or at best, a dependable work-a-day musician, always soloed too long with diminishing returns?

[Simon8]

Thanks for the "warning", Dan

[jazzbo]

Well this week Charlie Rouse is the most talked about jazz player in the forum. He did something right.

I think Charlie was doing exactly what the boss wanted.

Edited November 21, 2011 by jazzbo

[Dan Gould]

I agree and think the point made by Cary is also a good one. If Rouse was that bad what does it say about Monk that he kept him so long? Reliability isn't that valuable if he truly sucked.

[Clunky]

Poor old Monk/Rouse, their "stable" artistic vision for around a decade attracts complaints of complacency whilst Keith Jarrett has managed to stick to pretty much the same formula for 30 years.... None the less it is a matter of regret that Monk's Columbia output was so unvaried but each individual entry is strong. I recall the Tokyo set not quite jelling for me, i'll need to re-listen to see if Mom's is right.

[danasgoodstuff]

Charlie's not 'Trane or Sonny R, but he's not Claude Bartee either...he's as close to Lucky Thompson as Monk could get to show up for gigs for 10 years running. Groundbreaking performances are great, but do we really want that every time out? I think not.

[fasstrack]

...But Rouse really fit like a glove. He didn't seem to interpret Monk's music...He WAS Monk's music...

Could not agree more-or have said it any better. Would humbly add only the work I so enjoy beyond the realm of being Monk's muse: Benny Carter's Further Definitions-inspired choice; his own date, can't recall any particulars but an old friend, Paul Metzke, was on guitar; Sphere must be good at the least-no slouches for miles...

[Harold_Z]

Never understood the negativity about Rouse. He always sounded fine to me.

[AllenLowe]

I'm glad Moms already said it, because I hate Rouse's playing, and almost never listen to that era of Monk BECAUSE of those damned tenor interludes. Moms is also onto something; with digital editing it would be easy to clip Rouse right out; unfortunately he would still be there on the heads.

he is just dull; dull sound, dull rhythm, dull ideas; yuck.