Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Larry Kart

Charlie Rouse redux

163 posts in this topic

22 minutes ago, Dan Gould said:

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.

I wonder who is least appreciated. Rouse with Monk, or Coleman in his short stint with Miles? 

Share this post


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

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

 

oh i see i see!!!!!   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love Rouse. I also never really understood the disdain for Monks quartet and for Rouse. Favourite Rouse:

640x640.jpg

With the fantastic Rouses Point. Don’t really know the rest of the band all that well but they are all great.

favourite Rouse as a sideman:

51HaEb8Z0lL.jpg

Playing together with Woody Shaw... it doesn’t get much better than that.

Edited by Pim

Share this post


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

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. 

He worked for Monk, and what he did worked for Monk, too.  It's very hard for me to believe that even if Monk was coasting thru the 60s, finally acclaimed worldwide, that he would do it with someone in the tenor chair that didn't bring something to the music.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Big Beat Steve said:

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 ... ;)

Yup. While I admired and was friendly with Martin, as I once wrote, he could be quite the sober puritan. Tynan -- meh, or meh time three.

Share this post


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

Yup. While I admired and was friendly with Martin, as I once wrote, he could be quite the sober puritan. Tynan -- meh, or meh time three.

Well, Bob Rusch's review of Seven Standards and A Blues in the All Music Guide to Jazz book more or less duplicates Tynan's impressions. And he found Henry's interacting with his group on "Presenting Ernie Henry" "at times almost awkward" too.

Rusch meh too? ;)

I don't think, though, it is a "puritan" attitude to point out that apparently the chops to express what one hears inside oneself aren't always there.

I bought the Presenting and Last Chorus LPs a good twenty years ago when OJC special offers were all over the place and came across these reviews only several years later. But to me his playing did sound a bit off-putting at times. Time to relisten, maybe ...  (and yet ... ;))

Share this post


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

 

51HaEb8Z0lL.jpg

Playing together with Woody Shaw... it doesn’t get much better than that.

Agreed .... desert island material ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Big Beat Steve said:

Well, Bob Rusch's review of Seven Standards and A Blues in the All Music Guide to Jazz book more or less duplicates Tynan's impressions. And he found Henry's interacting with his group on "Presenting Ernie Henry" "at times almost awkward" too.

Rusch meh too? ;)

I don't think, though, it is a "puritan" attitude to point out that apparently the chops to express what one hears inside oneself aren't always there.

I bought the Presenting and Last Chorus LPs a good twenty years ago when OJC special offers were all over the place and came across these reviews only several years later. But to me his playing did sound a bit off-putting at times. Time to relisten, maybe ...  (and yet ... ;))

Don't have Martin's review in front of me, but I think he detected/intuited the strung out aspects of EH and was put off by how seemingly overt they were. I'll look for Rusch's review; I'm familiar with him mostly as a producer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As often happens in discussions of this sort, people begin to overstate the positions of those with whom they disagree and things veer off in directions rather different from where they began.

Saying that one prefers Rouse when he is playing outside the Monk Quartet becomes one has disdain for Rouse, or worse.

Speaking for myself only, I like the Playing of Rouse on quite a large number of recordings. In fact, in some cases I like his playing very very much.

When Rouse plays as part of the Monk Quartet, I am less thrilled by his performance. It is certainly not bad playing, but FOR ME lacks some of the loose less constrained playing I hear from from him in other settings.

It will perhaps bother some to hear that I prefer the playing of Wayne Shorter less with Miles compared to his many recordings on Blue Note and Vee Jay as leader as well as when he is a sideman with musicians such as Lee Morgan and Freddie Hubbard.

As for George Coleman with Miles, I received some nasty responses a number of years ago when I indicated I preferred Coleman over Shorter with Miles.

Share this post


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

As for George Coleman with Miles, I received some nasty responses a number of years ago when I indicated I preferred Coleman over Shorter with Miles.

Pure playing, I do also, but Shorter wrote some great music.  I prefer Shorter with Blakey myself, which will also bring me some grief, I'm sure.

Share this post


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

He worked for Monk, and what he did worked for Monk, too.  It's very hard for me to believe that even if Monk was coasting thru the 60s, finally acclaimed worldwide, that he would do it with someone in the tenor chair that didn't bring something to the music.

Quoted just because nobody else was willing to touch it. 

And I agree with Mr. Gould 100%. 

Rouse brought more to the table than most are willing to concede, and obviously enough for one of the most genius musicians of all time to keep on as a full time sideman. 

Let’s be honest enough to admit that Monk kinda knew great tenor men when he met them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, not me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is my impression that a number of factors go into decisions about who one should hire (and keep over time) as a sideman.

Things such as personal friendships, reliability, availability, and who you feel comfortable with making music. Selecting the best possible musicians  may not be the most crucial in decision making.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll posit that Rouse already had his sound and voice intact before Monk, but also that playing with Monk gave them a focus, putting something specific into something that was personal, but not really distinct, "personally generic" if you will (and that is in itself an accomplishment beyond). So yeah, that. But still...there's not a lot of there there, but what there is matters, perhaps more in the cumulative than in the specific (Lifetime Achievement Award!).

Share this post


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

I'll posit that Rouse already had his sound and voice intact before Monk, but also that playing with Monk gave them a focus, putting something specific into something that was personal, but not really distinct, "personally generic" if you will (and that is in itself an accomplishment beyond). So yeah, that. But still...there's not a lot of there there, but what there is matters, perhaps more in the cumulative than in the specific (Lifetime Achievement Award!).

As fate would have it, I ordered the above set after starting this thread and am enjoying it right now. Watkins is in fine form, Rouse, at least on the early tracks (from 1956), is not as warm and linear as he is on "Yeah!" (1960) -- his rather abrupt way of phrasing is quite distinctive at this point, it's kind of like he's running on tip-toe -- and he and Watkins blend handsomely on the varied, inventive charts. There's a certain delicacy to the group, akin to the sound of the contemporaneous Chico Hamilton Quintet. And the late Gildo Mahones contributes a number of sparkling solos. BTW Rouse's phrasing circa 1956 led me to wonder whether he ever played alto and, if so, dug Pete Brown.
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rouse's playing style always sounded to me like he's a trumpeter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pete Brown was said to have based his style on that of trumpeters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gotta remember too that Rouse had been around a bit even before Les Jazz Modes, he was with Ellington for a quick minute in 1950. If he had stayed "local", he'd be one of those guys that everybody reveres and regrets the lack of broader exposure. As it is, he was more "ambitious" than that and perhaps got over-exposed with Monk.

Make no mistake, the guy could play, hey. And one of my favorite tenor solos on any Monk record is his on the original "Jackie-ing". But over the years and over all the records (and now, live records)...again, always good for a chorus or two, but always played (as desired by the leader, obviously) significantly more than that. Like Sonny Stitt, he did not have an endless vocabulary. Unlike Sonny Stitt, you always knew pretty more more or less how he was going to say it.

If the LP hadn't happened, Rouse would have been a great 78 soloist. But it did, and there you go.

However...between Monk, him and Steve Lacy, that's how those heads (and I hate calling them that, they're full-on compositions, complete on/at every level at any/all times/ways), that's how that part of that music goes.

Share this post


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

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.

My point has nothing to do with what Rouse did or ddn’t do after playing with Monk. My point is that he was the most sympathetic and tuned in Tenor player that ever played with Monk. He was the ultimate team player. He wasn’t looking to step outside of the music and do his own thing, he was looking to become one with the music, the style, in which he was playing. 

Hey, when in Rome...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Peter Friedman said:

As for George Coleman with Miles, I received some nasty responses a number of years ago when I indicated I preferred Coleman over Shorter with Miles.

Couldn't say I prefer him over Shorter but definitely dig Coleman's recordings with Miles ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6.7.2018 at 10:47 AM, 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 

Well but I think Rouse was full time employed by Monk, and that meant a lot of touring and last not least Monk though he could be erratic at some times, he always payed his sidemen very well. Many of the full time BN artists had a harder time to find full time jobs.

Anyway that one little latin album is very nice and the most fascinating thing for me is that Rouse could hold his own. It must have been a challenge for him to do a bossa album withouth imitating others who made their bossa albums....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I presume no one got the chance to ask, or Monk was too damn oblique about it if someone did ask, about how he viewed his tenor player.  I am guessing that Rouse w. Monk wasn't any more popular among the cognoscenti than he is today.  There must have been reviews and commentary about how pedestrian Rouse was, or ill-served the music, or just wasn't named Griffin, Coltrane or Rollins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Scott Dolan said:

My point has nothing to do with what Rouse did or ddn’t do after playing with Monk. My point is that he was the most sympathetic and tuned in Tenor player that ever played with Monk. He was the ultimate team player. He wasn’t looking to step outside of the music and do his own thing, he was looking to become one with the music, the style, in which he was playing. 

Hey, when in Rome...

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.

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.