Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Larry Kart

Charlie Rouse redux

163 posts in this topic

I don't know about lumping EH in with those other giants, including Rouse. Intonation is one of the few objective aspects of music.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll ask a little more directly... Where the hell did Two Is One come from??

Or is there more lineage between it, and some Rouse that preceded it -- and if so, what?? -- than I'm aware of.

Serious inquiry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, sgcim said:

I don't know about lumping EH in with those other giants, including Rouse. Intonation is one of the few objective aspects of music.

But an in-tune Ernie Henry wouldn't have been Ernie Henry, nor IMO would an in-tune Jackie McLean (a less extreme case than EH) have been Jackie McLean. Further, in both of those cases, one notes certain vital aspects of their expressive packages (e.g. the way phrases are both attacked and "attacked") that are not wholly separate from their intonation habits (if you will). And what about Lee Konitz, especially in latter days? For me, that's a bit different, in that I don't find much in Lee's playing sharp that is part of his expressive package; it's just  there, take it or leave it. But  I think Lee has said that he needs to/wants to play a bit sharp for specific practical reasons -- though I don't recall what he said those reasons were. Perhaps to differentiate himself more strongly from the rest of the band than would be the case otherwise?

BTW, I admit that even apart from intonation, EH is a special case -- the awkwardness and patent effort of his playing speaks to some of nothing but lack of competence, to others it's also a kind of moving dramatization of stress or even distress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really like this one:

Image result for rouse the chase is on

And I really, really like this one:

Image result for charlie rouse unsung hero

 

And this one makes its way into the CD player quite often:

Image result for arthur taylor taylor's tenors

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, Larry and Peter. But I find those arguments completely absurd. 

“Took over Rouse”? 

“Decreased his creativity”? 

There was a “submissive/suppressive” quality? 

So tell me, gents. Why didn’t Monk do the same thing to Coltrane? Or Rollins? Or Griffin? If he had, then you both would have a legitimate argument. Instead all you have is baseless projections. 

I’ll go back to something a buddy of mine once said to me when I was ripping on a Smooth Jazz artist he was fond of: Maybe he plays that way because he LIKES to play that way. 

Edited by Scott Dolan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the "sour toned" Ernie Henry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Kevin Bresnahan said:

And I really, really like this one:

Image result for charlie rouse unsung hero

Then you've got to have/get these:

R-6000552-1429817825-2345.jpeg.jpg

R-7923063-1451744972-5231.jpeg.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Scott Dolan said:

Sorry, Larry and Peter. But I find those arguments completely absurd. 

“Took over Rouse”? 

“Decreased his creativity”? 

There was a “submissive/suppressive” quality? 

So tell me, gents. Why didn’t Monk do the same thing to Coltrane? Or Rollins? Or Griffin? If he had, then you both would have a legitimate argument. Instead all you have is baseless projections. 

I’ll go back to something a buddy of mine once said to me when I was ripping on a Smooth Jazz artist he was fond of: Maybe he plays that way because he LIKES to play that way. 

Thanks that the word of God has spoken. I just remembered I am agnostic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm one who digs Frankie Dunlop's playing with Monk. He made the music dance - which is what Monk wanted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Scott Dolan said:

Sorry, Larry and Peter. But I find those arguments completely absurd. 

“Took over Rouse”? 

“Decreased his creativity”? 

There was a “submissive/suppressive” quality? 

So tell me, gents. Why didn’t Monk do the same thing to Coltrane? Or Rollins? Or Griffin? If he had, then you both would have a legitimate argument. Instead all you have is baseless projections. 

I’ll go back to something a buddy of mine once said to me when I was ripping on a Smooth Jazz artist he was fond of: Maybe he plays that way because he LIKES to play that way. 

The reason he did not do the same to Trane, Rollins or Griffin is that they were much stronger players who had well formed personal musical identities. Their place in the jazz world was at a much different level than Rouse. That is not meant as put down, as i do like many of Rouse's recordings. But when the other 3 played with Monk they could and did bring much more to the music.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Larry Kart said:

EH is a special case -- the awkwardness and patent effort of his playing speaks to some of nothing but lack of competence, to others it's also a kind of moving dramatization of stress or even distress.

I think it's a question of having a deep pocket to begin with, and then getting even deeper into it when high. There's nothing awkward or effort-ed or dramatized about it, it's deep in that pocket.

I love Ernie Henry, unconditionally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Peter Friedman said:

The reason he did not do the same to Trane, Rollins or Griffin is that they were much stronger players who had well formed personal musical identities. Their place in the jazz world was at a much different level than Rouse. That is not meant as put down, as i do like many of Rouse's recordings. But when the other 3 played with Monk they could and did bring much more to the music.

Whatever you wish to believe, brother. Rouse already had several dates as a leader under his belt before the Columbia years with Monk. 

Your master/slave argument is actually quite demeaning and insulting towards Rouse. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Jams_Runt said:

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.

"Rouse is in no way the co-star of that band."
I don't believe that anyone said he was. The name of the band was the Thelonious Monk Quartet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Scott Dolan said:

Your master/slave argument is actually quite demeaning and insulting towards Rouse. 

I so don't know what that means.

I'm with Peter as far as relative places and individuality of voices, but I do like Rouse for a chorus or two with Monk, Problem is he generally plays more than a chorus or two. As did Monk, btw, and in both cases, I think they both got very comfortable sounding like they had already sounded. Nothing wrong with that, and god love a person who is comfortable being themselves in this life. Just sayin'...

But then again, Rouse kept the gig longer than anybody else. Who's to say that that's not an indicator of Monk's comfort with him as player and person. Monk didn't seem to be comfortable with all that many people, really. But he was comfortable with Charlie Rouse.

And consider this as far as that - there was no real "Monk gig" in terms of getting out onto the road until Charlie Rouse's time, right? Comparing Rouse to any of his predecessors who "just" did record dates and NYC club dates with Monk is really not a legit comparison. I mean, yeah, no, Charlie Rouse was not Johnny Griffin or John Coltrane or Sonny Rollins or Lucky Thompson - but none of those guys played that gig night after night after night. Nobody else did except Monk, and Monk was comfortable with Charlie Rouse, so...think about that.

And oh yeah, anybody who doesn't like Frankie Dunlop is wrong about that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Rooster_Ties said:

I'll ask a little more directly... Where the hell did Two Is One come from??

Or is there more lineage between it, and some Rouse that preceded it -- and if so, what?? -- than I'm aware of.

Serious inquiry.

My serious answer is - hell if I know. You can ask the same thing - and even more so - about Cinnamon Flower. I lnow I have!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Jams_Runt said:

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.

Is it? 

What do things like “took over Rouse” and “submissive/suppressive” imply? “Took over” implies ownership, and “submissive” implies giving in to your superior. 

Can’t imagine how one would see that as a master/slave dynamic, right? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When it comes to Monk/Rouse, no, I can't. More like leader/dedicated sideman, or even master/follower. But master/slave? Nope.

Those are loaded words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, JSngry said:

When it comes to Monk/Rouse, no, I can't. More like leader/dedicated sideman, or even master/follower. But master/slave? Nope.

Those are loaded words.

So are the words I highlighted. 

Let’s not play make believe here, fair enough? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not playing at all.

Master/disciple, ok.

Master/slave, not okay.

If nothing else, Rouse got paid, and probably more than fairly. And he was no doubt free to leave when he wanted.

To say that Monk "took over" Rouse's personality or that he became "submissive" to Monk's vision (or whatever) is not accurate, I think. To say that Rouse subsumed whatever larger macro-identity that he had to Monk's own personality and demands is, I think. But in neither case do you need to auto-complete to master/salve. You're talking about a dynamic that is exists, and often beneficially (and sometimes not) to a wide array of employment and/or learning dynamics, none of which involve one person actually owning another as legal property.

That's not at all make-believe.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Take the words on their own. Seperate them from Monk/Rouse. I’m taking them at their literal meaning. You’re apologizing and quibbling because it’s Monk/Rouse. 

I’m talking about the language being used. 

1 minute ago, clifford_thornton said:

Jesus christ. 

Yeah, language counts. Holy fuck, right? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.