Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Larry Kart

Charlie Rouse redux

163 posts in this topic

8 hours ago, paul secor said:

I like Charlie Rouse's playing with Monk. I think he captured Monk's sound more than other saxophonists did.

And I'll thrown this Rouse date into the mix. Very fine playing by Red Rodney too.

71UJM0g2qmL._SL1067_.jpg

Social call as played by them is a great tune. I’ve heard a few others do it but not as well, imho, of course. 

This thread is a bit strange with notions of submission, master/slave, etc. Those are loaded words in our society and without knowing more of how these men operated — unless we do and are completely on solid factual ground — I’d hesitate to use them.  Otherwise, it’s all very speculative.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

btw this is one of the 1st jazz records i ever had-- also one of my favorite art covers- very vibrant colors, the jpg doesnt do it justice

 

Image result for charlie rouse takin care of business

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


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

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? 

 

27 minutes ago, Scott Dolan said:

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.

No, you're not being at all literal. "Slave" has a very literal meaning, and it does not in any way apply to anything that anybody has said or inferred in this thread.

There's a lot of places to stop at in the implication of Peter's words- your own point, their implication, not their literal meaning - as it relates to the inter-personal/personality dynamics of leader/follower, aggressive/passive, dominant/submissive, etc. before you get to master/slave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yikes.  Supercharged argument over some sub-par music.  I wish Monk was able to rethink his music and band, and have some organic growth instead of trotting out the same formula through most of the Sixties.  But he couldn't or wouldn't.  I think Monk in concert in the Sixties was similar to Louis Armstrong in the Fifties: a known quantity, providing a predictable performance to audiences who came to hear exactly that.  Rouse was just an employee, but so was Jack Teagarden with Louis.  Monk was trapped inside the same formula as Rouse.  Rouse was never sub-par within that formula, though.

And speaking of formulas, the band Sphere was more of the same, a nostalgia band for people who wanted to hear exactly that.  Considering the players, that band could have been so much more.  But they weren't.

If you want to hear Charlie Rouse and what else he brought to the music, stay far away from Monk.  There's enough other stuff out there to do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sphere got more interesting the further they strayed from Monk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I did see Sphere live once. As I recall they played mostly original music. I recall the two sets I heard as sublime, performed before a tiny audience. There was nothing nostalgic about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always loved his latin album for Blue Note "Bossa Nova Bachanal" or some title like that. Really fine.

And other Non-Monk stuff , well you might start with his playing for Tadd. The 1947 Band (I think they called it the "Onyx-Band") had Rouse, you hear him on the Savoy and BN sides.

Good Rouse also on some Donald Byrd from 1959 , also for BN.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why was it his only BN album. i wonder why they only gave him a one hot deal.  

blue not were kind of bastards sometime, like not signing barry harris 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Jams_Runt said:

Sphere got more interesting the further they strayed from Monk.

I believe the main impact was not material but the(ir) access changed (got more loose and/or edges) the longer they`ve performed together ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, mjzee said:

Yikes.  Supercharged argument over some sub-par music.

This has always amused me, the disdain so many have for Monk's Columbia period. And Rouse, more often than not being the focal point as to why.

Sorry, but Live At The It Club, Live At The Jazz Workshop, as well as Monk In Tokyo are arguably the best live Monk albums in existence. 

That band was super tight, super sympathetic and played some really wonderful music together. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, mjzee said:

 

And speaking of formulas, the band Sphere was more of the same, a nostalgia band for people who wanted to hear exactly that.  Considering the players, that band could have been so much more.  But they weren't.

I've been acquiring Sphere recordings and I'm astonished by this statement. You really need to expound on your feelings here but if I interpret it as a matter of repertoire, the records have far more originals than Monk tunes and only a slightly higher percentage of bebop standards than Monk tunes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Gheorghe said:

I always loved his latin album for Blue Note "Bossa Nova Bachanal" or some title like that. Really fine.

Forgot to mention that one. I think it’s outstanding. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Listening to it now, prompted by these posts.

First track "Back To The Tropics" seeming particularly apt as London swelters in our heatwave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours 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. 

To perhaps answer your question: Because Rouse was Rouse, and Griffin, Coltrane, and Rollins were Griffin, Coltrane, and Rollins. The latter two were not Monk's full time employees, for one, as Rouse was, and while Griffin was his FTE for a fair amount of time, JG clearly was irrepressible -- indeed his cadenza-like "I got it" solos with Monk are regarded by some as borderline outrageous/intrusive ego displays. Rouse may well have seen what I've described as "shadowing" Monk as part of the gig, but the results IMO are nowhere near as interesting as Rouse's work away from Monk -- before, during, and after.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, chewy-chew-chew-bean-benitez said:

why was it his only BN album. i wonder why they only gave him a one hot deal.  

blue not were kind of bastards sometime, like not signing barry harris 

BN made at least two other attempts at CR albums, check the discographies.

Share this post


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

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.

That's beautifully said. :tup  Q

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Larry Kart said:

To perhaps answer your question: Because Rouse was Rouse, and Griffin, Coltrane, and Rollins were Griffin, Coltrane, and Rollins. The latter two were not Monk's full time employees, for one, as Rouse was, and while Griffin was his FTE for a fair amount of time, JG clearly was irrepressible -- indeed his cadenza-like "I got it" solos with Monk are regarded by some as borderline outrageous/intrusive ego displays. Rouse may well have seen what I've described as "shadowing" Monk as part of the gig, but the results IMO are nowhere near as interesting as Rouse's work away from Monk -- before, during, and after.

I understand what you're saying. I disagree, but you've made your point clearly and I respect your opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve always dreamed/fantasized about hearing tenor saxophinists other than Rouse playing with Monk - but in altered reality tenor players who came after Monk - many of whom have covered Monk in amazing ways with post-Monk musicians or bands - all of whom to my ears are much more interesting players than Rouse.

Share this post


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

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.

OK -- but just to be clear, I didn't mean that EH set out to dramatize his latter-day states of being, but that some listeners responded to his playing of that time in part as though aspects of his playing did dramatize/point to aspects of his states of being in a powerful, moving manner (not that this was all of EH, by a long shot,  but it was IMO part of the package). After all, at that time, when so many notable players were affected by drug use, one couldn't help but be aware of that fact and be curious (if that's the right word) about the social/emotional/artistic realities of this.

I rest my case:
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Larry Kart said:

OK -- but just to be clear, I didn't mean that EH set out to dramatize his latter-day states of being, but that some listeners responded to his playing of that time in part as though aspects of his playing did dramatize/point to aspects of his states of being in a powerful, moving manner. After all, at that time, when so many notable players were affected by drug use, one couldn't help but be aware of that fact and be curious (if that's the right word) about the social/emotional/artistic realities of this.

I suppose you are aware of  the DB reviews of "Last Chorus" (by Martin Williams) and "Seven Standards and A Blues" (by John A. Tynan)?

Ouch ... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As someone who was around during Monk's Columbia period I recall his recordings were often regarded as being  too samey, especially after the variety of what came before.  I'll admit I felt the  same, concerts included.  Now I get an enormous amount of  pleasure from listening to Monk and Rouse. A great partnership. Time changes everything. 

Rouse's outings as leader are terrific too.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, paul secor said:

I understand what you're saying. I disagree, but you've made your point clearly and I respect your opinion.

I disagree as well. There’s simply too much projection involved. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we're lucky Allen hasn't jumped in here. I believe he hates Rouse in all ways, with Monk, away from Monk, it don't matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Larry Kart said:

To perhaps answer your question: Because Rouse was Rouse, and Griffin, Coltrane, and Rollins were Griffin, Coltrane, and Rollins. The latter two were not Monk's full time employees, for one, as Rouse was, and while Griffin was his FTE for a fair amount of time, JG clearly was irrepressible -- indeed his cadenza-like "I got it" solos with Monk are regarded by some as borderline outrageous/intrusive ego displays. 

Larry’s second sentence, for me, explains it all. Rouse worked for Monk.  The others didn’t. When you work for someone else, while you may have your point of view, ultimately your boss is setting the agenda. 

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.