[danasgoodstuff]

For what it's worth, I love the tympani. Also love everything Sonny R & monk did together.

[Chrome]

Regarding the title tune, what do people think of James Spaulding's version, from his CD also called "Brilliant Corners"? I'd be especially curious to hear someone with a music background compare (briefly) the technical aspects of the two bands' playing (Spaulding vs. Monk) ... I've been listening to jazz heavily for about 6-7 years and I'm trying to get a better handle on this kind of thing.

Thanks in advance.

[Larry Kart]

Just listened to the Spaulding "Brilliant Corners." It's pleasant, sincere, but a little lightweight -- interesting, perhaps, that S. resorts to some bluesy cliches in the regular tempo portion of his solo but becomes more inventive in double time. Spaulding aside, when placed next to the original recording, the greatest difference (provided Monk himself is left aside too) is in the bass and drum teams: Pettiford and Roach think and play with a compositional intensity; sounds like Ron Carter and Kenny Washington (esp. KW) sense that something special is called for but didn't have enough rehearsal time to work it all out. And even then...
BTW, on the original "Brilliant Corners" (the title track and the other two he's on) Pettiford is fantastic IMO -- not unlike Wilbur Ware in his sense of what fits with Monk; though OP's sound and articulation are different. During Rollins' solo on "Ba-lue Bolivar Ba-lues-are" the interaction among Rollins, Monk, Pettiford, and Max is something else, kind of mythic I thought while listening just now, after an image popped into my head of four of those giant Easter Island stone figurines, grouped together and engaged in conversation. (No, I wasn't smoking an Easter Island cigarette.)

[couw]

Larry Kart, on Jan 6 2004, 11:36 PM, said:

During Rollins' solo on "Ba-lue Bolivar Ba-lues-are" the interaction among Rollins, Monk, Pettiford, and Max is something else, kind of mythic I thought while listening just now, after an image popped into my head of four of those giant Easter Island stone figurines, grouped together and engaged in conversation. (No, I wasn't smoking an Easter Island cigarette.)

I just listened to this on the train to work, and believe it or not, that image makes a whole lot of sense to me.

The pushing and pulling and shoving of (the rhythmic part of) the melody the horns engage in during the theme statement of Pannonica is another thing that makes me connect to my prehistoric self and smile a lot. This is MONK in capital letters. They seem to really touch on the essence of what Monk is all about. And it's definitely not the only time they do on this album.

This post has been edited by couw: 07 January 2004 - 05:38 AM

[Rooster_Ties]

SOURCE :ph34r:

Quote

Blue Note Bulletin Boards
--Miscellaneous
-----Jazz of the Week - Brilliant Corners

Author  Topic:  Jazz of the Week - Brilliant Corners 
Joe Christmas
Member  posted March 15, 2000 07:13 PM             
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This was my first Thelonious Monk album. What first attracted me to it was the lineup. Sonny Rollins and Max Roach. Clark Terry and Oscar Pettiford. Not to mention the Marvin Gayesque cover art. I was also interested in hearing Ernie Henry, whom I'd never heard before.
It seems that in the ten years that had passed in Monk's recording career, his style had not evolved much. Although the sonic differences between this album and his early Blue Note and Prestige recordings are mentionable, the music itself retains what is Monk. Brilliant Corners has all the elements of a small set of musicians, but at times it feels like earlier big band. There is often a New Orleans march quality to some of the progressions. When I listen to this and other Monk albums I'm always left unable to describe his arrangements. I'll attempt it now.

Take the head to "Brilliant Corners". The riff is very long and creative and reflective. It would be easy to imagine other musicians, had they composed this song, taking only a fraction of the riff and calling it good enough for a melody. Monk stretches these boundaries. That characteristic, I believe, is prevalent in nearly all of his music. Unorthodox I guess is the best word for it, as mentioned in the liner notes. Ernie Henry's opening solo is a killer, then comes Monk, then Rollins. At least that's what I hear. The third solo is vintage Sonny. His tone is cascading in the fact that his tone dies and becomes dissonant at times at the end of his phrases. And Monk's solo is almost disturbing in single note arpeggiated chaos.

"Ba-Lue Bolivar Ba-Lues-Are" is the New Orleans sound I described earlier. Ernie Henry nails that feel in his wailing solo. I think I might have rather heard Henry's and Sonny's solos back to back on this tune. The contrast between the two horns is amazing. As in "Brilliant Corners" the importance of Max Roach in this song is apparant. I can't think of many other drummers who could keep time so well and let their personality show within the difficulty of playing simultaneously. His complicated statement follows Oscar's beefy solo nicely.

It would be hard to pick a favorite composition on the album, but I'm leaning toward "Pannonica". But for cheesy reasons. I'm supposing that the use of the celeste was spur-of-the-moment. Or at least on the day of the session. The celeste alone makes the song. Or is it the harmony of the horns? Or is it that I think this song would be labeled a ballad, but I would call it something else? It's played slow, that's for sure. But to me a ballad is supposed to convey more than one emotion, almost with a harmonic story behind it. I've listened to this song a hundred times and am left with only one feeling: one of pleading. Nothing else. For what, I don't know either. Just pleading. Interesting? Monk's and Rollins' solos are amazing if only because they have the exact same effect on my ears. They are different, of course, but it's almost as if they were telling the same story, only in a different language. And the crescendo in the last quarter of the song is only fitting. Beautiful. A desert-island song.

I'm not much on solo piano, and that doesn't change with "I Surrender, Dear". I appreciate it, but probably not to the extent that others will. Perhaps I should get those solo recordings from Monk and lock myself in a closet with it? I will say that there is a lot of music and a lot of space being gainfully employed here. I can also tell the "classical" aspects that Monk chose in his playing on the song. There is far more use of chords here than in the other compositions on the album. But I suppose that comes with using only one instrument. Anyone?

I have several versions of "Bemsha Swing" at my disposal. This is the choicest. There's that lazy marchish head with Clark Terry heard to my pleasure. What an appopriate song to revisit for this album! It fits in nicely. There is no swinging here though, unless it's a mood swing. The feel seems uneven, but in a good way. And the sparse solos are unique. Monk's comping in the last horn solo is cool. It sounds like he wants to be heard in conjunction by proxy.

Definitely a favorite of mine. I'm glad I had an excuse to put it ahead of all the new music I have over the past week. Like I said, I started my Monklove with this album and wouldn't have it any other way. It's the perfect starting point. The compositions are unique and never get tired and are so, well, MONK. I have also enjoyed knowing that other people in the world were enjoying the same music at the same time for similar reasons. Weird connection there, but pacifying. As has happened with many albums, the concentration I was able to give Brilliant Corners this week enhanced my appreciation of the music and the artist(s). I found new loves of the music and new quirks as well. It should be interesting to hear what others have to say and to hear this album under the light of other opinions.

Al

IP: Logged

Scott Lasser
Member  posted March 16, 2000 04:40 AM             
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe C.
Let me first say that this was a terrific choice for the first album to discuss. I traded my original CD copy of BC when I bought the Complete Monk on Riverside, and since then, I haven't really played it much. So, it was a real treat to be able to sit down and give the ol' disc a few spins -- especially when I was trying to pick it apart piece by piece!

There are two points I would like to focus on:

First, Max Roach. Now, to be fair, let me state that I do have sort of a bias because Max is my all-time favorite drummer. That said, I really feel that his performance on this album is just stunning. In particular, his tympany playing on "Bemsha Swing". To me, that's really the focal point of the piece -- such a rich, deep sound that just commands attention. And, of course, it is incredibly tribal and raw; I've often felt that Monk himself played this away, and that if given the opportunity, he would have made one hell of a drummer himeself!

I was also very taken with Pettiford's performance, especially on the title cut. In parts where the band picks up the pace a bit, Oscar's bass really shines. Again, a very deep sound that seems to jump out from the rest of the musicians. The story is that Monk and he didn't get along very well during the session, and as a result, they never played together again. What a huge shame. It really seems as though he and Monk were on the same wavelength.

As for Monk and the compositons: I couldn't agree with Joe's assesment that they were so Monk! The one thing I've always loved about him is the space he would leave been two complete thoughts...as if to say: "Ok, here's this. Now think about it a second before I wow you with someting else."

I think "Brilliant Corners" is a lot like "Blue Train" in the respect that it was one of those times where everything in the Jazz universe seemed to connect at just the right time -- and left us with one of the most classic of sessions.

Scott


IP: Logged

uli
Member  posted March 16, 2000 07:27 AM             
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
had not have a chance to give it a few spins. Hopefully comin weekend.
but even without renewed familiarisation i can agree that it's hard to pick a favorite out of all the Monk tunes. Each one is a gem.

nice pick, nice review.

IP: Logged

Joe
Member  posted March 16, 2000 07:34 AM             
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The thing that strikes me about BRILLIANT CORNERS is that it offers some of the best proof tha Monk was not just a sculptor (engineer? that perfect analogy escapes me), but a master colorist as well. It seems to me that because of his compositional stature and the fact that he led a standard quartet for so many years, attention has been delflected from his qualities as an original band-leader fond of non-standard instrumentation. Sure, Monk liner notes always emphasize the seeming "spontaneity" of his choices (think of the accidental, so-to-speak, presence of Julius Watkins on those Prestige dates that gave us "Friday the 13th"), but I think Monk was more deliberate than that. Here's one of the first people to appreciate Art Blakey, a master of tonal possibilities on the drums. Here's someone who led a band featuring alto sax and vibes on the front-line (Sahib Shihab and Milt Jackson). Here's someone who led a two-tenor septet -- and so on. Which is my way of saying that, as much as Monk's compositions are structures that can both resist and accept a wide range of interpretive personalities, one of the enduring values of his original recordings -- beyond his piano playing, of course -- is to hear his music as he intended it to be heard. I can easily see him altering the program of BRILLIANT CORNERS, or even writing its original numbers, with these specific colleagues in mind. The way the saxes (another unusual front-line for its time) are voiced on the title tune -- they sound like a single horn, somewhere in the high range of a baritone. The substitution of trumpet, specifically the sometimes pinched but still airy trumpet of Clark Terry, on "Bemsha Swing". Plus Max Roach getting big, "African-beat" bombs with his tympani on this one... The use of celeste; its adds that European feel that was an aspect of who the Baroness De Koenigswarter was. Monk was a rare portraiturist, but one in the league of Duke Ellington. Apparently Oscar Pettiford and Monk had a testy relationship, but Monk allots him solo space for obvious and not-so-obvious, architectonic (I think) reasons. Excuse the fragmentary presentation of these examples; I trust you all get my point.
This album, for me, is simply one of the best showcases for Monk as a total composer and a uniquely private artist. "Pannonica" and the blues both have deep biographical significance, are in some ways quite spedifically defined by a set of long-gone circumsatnces and relationships, but their resonances haven't faded yet. Even when Ernie Henry and Rollins are blowing (and blowing some of their best work, esp. Henry; IMHO), they are externalizing those Monkish ideas they have internalized. Listening to this record -- I mean really listening to it -- I believe you and I inevitably perform in a similar, if smaller and quieter and way.

Ciao.


[This message has been edited by Joe (edited March 16, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Joe (edited March 16, 2000).]

IP: Logged

william vint
Member  posted March 16, 2000 08:05 AM             
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven't read reviews like this in ANY publications.
Administrator, this forum should have it's own FORUM HEADER and not be subject to sink in the miscellany of "miscellaneous".
beautiful stuff, beautiful words...
IP: Logged

Joe Christmas
Member  posted March 16, 2000 09:54 AM             
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Joe:
Listening to this record -- I mean really listening to it -- I believe you and I inevitably perform in a similar, quieter way.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Joe, you left so many interesting things to consider in your comments, and I am floored by the truth in this particular statement. You have earned my total respect (not that you didn't already have it) with this angle of insight. Cheers to you.

Al


[This message has been edited by Joe Christmas (edited March 16, 2000).]

IP: Logged

Joe
Member  posted March 16, 2000 10:08 AM             
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Al -- that's a very kind comment. Thank you. (see, I'm blushing...) Anyway, I gave it a necessary revision.
Ciao.

IP: Logged

Diane B
Member  posted March 17, 2000 05:32 AM             
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You guys are a hard act to follow! Excellent comments and insights, and some of your knowledge of the relationships between the musicians I find interesting! No disharmony detected in the playback!
I'm going to focus for a moment on the "Brilliant Corners" (track 1). The saxophones (particularly the tenor) are playing at the bottom of their ranges on the head of the piece. (Rollins has never feared honking out those low-register blasts on his horn!) For me this really gives the opening melody a sort of comical sound. Add the convoluted, tempo-shifting writing and these players all seem to "run the gauntlet" supplied by the rhythm section. Rollins' playing here is a great example of how well his style suits Monk's music (and vice-versa!). He returns often to the melody during his solo, sort of grounding himself now and then for further exploration....and with Monk's chords and intervals there is so much to explore! Monk takes a brilliant spot separating the two sax solos; all the color that can be extracted from this piece seems to be laid out in his playing here. Ernie Henry here plays with a very expressive tone-bending blues style that really works well after Rollins and Monk take their breaks. The playing of Pettiford and Roach has been well described in the above posts, but Pettiford really displays the art of the bass player firmly grounding all the twists and turns that "Brilliant Corners" provides.
This piece is great fun to hear and I'm sure it is a joy to play!
I think I'll lay out for a while, read a few more of your posts, and ponder another track, after all, we have plenty of time.
IP: Logged

dorshe
Member  posted March 17, 2000 12:36 PM             
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brilliant Corners is one of the first Monk recordings I bought around 15 years ago, if not THE first. This was on Milestones' *Brilliance* -- part of their two-fer series of the mid '70s. After that, I attempted to collect all I could of Monk.
Having had the opportunity to reacquaint myself with this recording, I am ready to post some comments. I first listened to it all the way through in one sitting and made mental notes of my impressions. I played it once more, this time looking over Bob Blumenthal's liner notes accompanying the Analogue Productions' *Riverside Tenor Sessions* box.

Each time I hear the opening piano of the title track I either smile or laugh out loud; I can just picture Monk sitting behind the piano and grinning himself as he played it. The initial blast of the two saxes as they state the riff is rather jarring. The meandering melody is a challenge for the listener to follow -- it must have been IMPOSSIBLE for the saxophonists to play it in unison. In fact, the liner notes state that 25 takes were required with a (very audible) splice just before the out chorus at the close of Roach's fantastic solo.

The tune's difficulty resulted in a heated exchange between Monk and Oscar Pettiford during recording. Quoting Blumenthal: "... On a subsequent take, Pettiford went through the motions of playing his bass without actually striking any notes..." And quoting from Orrin Keepnew's Producer's Notes from the Milestone 2-LP: "...created what I still recall as one of the eeriest moments of my recorded life. During an entire first chorus, we in the control room were convinced that the bass microphone was broken -- or something: Pettiford was obviously playing, but no sound was registering. The explanation turned out to be that, in pure pique, Oscar was just expertly pantomiming! ...understandably, he was not invited to the next session." This explains Paul Chamber's presence on Bemsha Swing.

Also, Clark Terry's appearance on Bemsha Swing was a result of Monk's firing of Ernie Henry, according to Keepnews. Henry had just joined Dizzy Gillispie's big band, quitting Monk's "infrequently-working quartet," in the middle of this session. "Thelonious decided, understandably enough, that out of his band meant off his record date."

Back to the tune itself: I had a hard time identifying the first soloist. I didn't know Henry's style as I do not have many recordings by him. This sure sounded like a tenor; but it didn't sound like Rollins' style to me. Blumenthal confirms indeed it IS Rollins. The fast segment does sound more like him. After Monk's solo, Henry is next, accompanied by just by bass and drums. Perhaps due to Rollins presence, he seems to sound a bit like Sonny in this solo.

The BA-LUEs that follows is named after the Bolivar hotel where Monk's friend, the Baroness Nica de Koenigswarter, was staying at the time, according to Bluementhal. She is also, of course the subject of PANNONICA.

Henry solos first and he seems more confident here than on the title track, even though this was recorded before BRILLIANT CORNERS. (The difficulty of playing the title tune could perhaps wreak havoc on anyone's confidence!) Monk's solo here is my favorite on the record as I find more humor in it. Also of note is Monk's comping under the soloists throughout the record. Rollins provides a beautiful segue from the piano solo to his own. He sounds more 'himself' on his solo here, IMO. As Pettiford's solo comes in, he is almost inaudible; but quickly the gain is turned up and he turns out a nice solo sticking basically to the melody line.

PANNONICA is unique for the presence of the celesta as noted in other posts above. The decision to use it was spur-of-the-moment as Monk found it in the recording room. It is interesting how he plays the two simultaneously using the piano as bass primarily -- presumably the celesta was on his right with him using his right hand on it while his left hand played piano.

The solo piece I SURRENDER, DEAR was chosen by Monk when Keepnews thought a solo track was needed for the album. It's always nice to hear Monk 'play around' with a melody. I compared this version to the briefer version found on *Solo Monk*. I found this one preferable to the later version as I found the shorter one a bit more somber. Both have their differences, which is as it should be with improvising jazz musicians.

BEMSHA SWING features Roach playing tympani in addition to his regular kit. IMO, I find the tympani here a bit tiresome -- a case in which the maxim "less is more" should have prevailed. It is interesting to note the differences between the two bassists, especially evident in the brief Chambers solo.

As Blumenthal notes, the album makes a cohesive whole. It begins with the tricky title track, which is followed by the rather relaxed blues, then the colorful ballad(with the addition of the celesta), followed by the piano solo (almost stark by contrast), and finally, the uptempo closer. A great record indeed!

After playing this, I was inspired to play Anthony Braxton's *Six Monk's Compositions (1987)*. I'm sure I will be playing more Monk whether by Monk himself or others playing his tunes...

Great choice, Joe C.!

IP: Logged

Joe Christmas
Member  posted March 17, 2000 03:16 PM             
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow, this is fascinating. Diane, dorshe, I could go either way on the solos in the title track. Blumenthal's been wrong before right? However, there is a questionable, single *low* note hit in the first solo that could easily identify it as the tenor. Either way, they both sound like Sonny. There are Rollins licks all over that second horn solo. How interesting though. I think this is a prime example of the Monk's ability to generate ideas among his sidemen, particularly concerning their comfort and ease in letting go within such a complicated envelope of space.
IP: Logged

amikula
Member  posted March 17, 2000 04:01 PM             
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think we should hand out an Oscar to Joe for "Most Excellent Idea" award. I'll send you one of the Oscar's I picked up off of a truck last night.
When I first heard Monk I didn't understand his music. To me it was as if notes were coming out of nowhere and just as quickly they were gone. It made no sense to me why he was playing what he was playing. Over the course of a couple of years as I started going deeper in the shed, it made sense. His body of compositions is astounding. Beautiful songs. Some are so simple sounding but are quite complex underneath.

First I spent quite a bit of time listening to this through headphones. Typically I don't do this as I don't like wearing headphones but it helped me to concentrate on the music. I noticed that the recording itself seemed to be alive. At times I almost got the feeling that I was in the studio with the musicians. I listened to some studio recordings made recently and they did not convey the same feeling. I don't know if it is because of the recording process used today where instruments sometimes are isolated or what. I just got a greater sense of interaction and visual communication between the musicians.

As a few have pointed out the opening on Brilliant Corners is pure Monk. Right away he comes at you with this melody that takes unexpected turns. Ba-lue Bolivar Ba-lues-are is a great tune to listen to Monk play behind the soloist. I always enjoy listening to Monk play behind someone. His way of providing support is unique.

I know I am in the minority here but I really dislike the celeste. Actually I dislike anyone playing the celeste. Pannonica is a beautiful song but I just don't like the celeste.

I do however really enjoy listening to Bemsha Swing. Max Roach playing the tympani makes this song for me. This is probably my favorite version of Bemsha Swing.

In listening to this recording closely two things really jumped out at me. The first is Max Roach. The support he provides is excellent. As time has shown he is a master of the drum kit. I really enjoyed listening his brush work. The second was the difference between Pettiford and Chambers. To me it seemed that Pettiford has a rounder tone than Chambers. It is interesting to really sit down and focus on their different sounds. Generally I am not very good at picking out musicians on a recording unless it is someone like a Miles Davis. I think I am being to understand the subtle nuances that allow people to identify the player.


IP: Logged

jones
Member  posted March 18, 2000 02:54 PM           
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Brilliant Corners” turns on “the way back machine.” Almost ten years ago, I wrote a paper about Monk in college for a French Lit in Translation class. We were on surrealism and cubism. I can’t remember what, exactly, the topic of the paper was supposed to be, but mine was regarding Thelonious Monk as a Cubist in Sound. (Based on “Monk’s Music,” my first Monk disc.) Now, these were the early jazz ed days, so I have no idea how those particular musings hold up. (The “wacky ta-backy” was never far back then.) I might have to start digging through boxes to try and unearth that paper, if it’s still around.
Listening to “Brilliant Corners,” though, I still might call Monk a cubist. At first glance/listen, everything sounds splintered and out of place. But, like a good cubist painting, a closer look/listen reveals a design. Improvised in parts, but certainly not sloppy and amateurish. A different way around a still life. Or a melody. Here, “Ba-Lue Bolivar…” illustrates it for me best. You don’t lose track of the melody during Monk’s solo, but see how he’s working around it—taking it apart and putting it back together. It’s fun humming the melody right on beat with Monk. (Well, I hope that hasn’t thrown a wrench in the discussion—I swear it’s not deconstructionist. Out of left field, more like!)

Actually, you can see why the designers tried to get, shall we say, “interperative,” with some cover art. Brief aside: In a design magazine a year or two ago (I’m a graphic designer), there were some quotes from Reid Miles saying that a lot of the Blue Note design traits came from creatively working with a small budget. Hence, the creative use of large type, etc.

As for the title track, my money’s on Sonny for the first solo. Just a gut feeling—it’s got his wit. To my ears, the second horn is an alto, even though he’s doing some good Rollins impersonations.

ps This should be it's own forum! Great idea, Joe. I've learned some stuff and been pleasantly reminded of other things!

IP: Logged

Victor Christensen
Member  posted March 18, 2000 03:14 PM             
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi guys and Diane.
Did you know that the title track(Brilliant Corners) is spliced together from several takes, because they could not make one complete master take, because the tune was so difficult to play so they almost gave it up. (Oscar Pettiford told me that about forty years ago. He was living here in Copenhagen for his last couple of years and died here).
BTW I also love that record, it gets a spinning every time I come to think of it.

Vic

IP: Logged

Joe Christmas
Member  posted March 18, 2000 03:58 PM             
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jones if you ever unearth that paper I wouldn't mind hearing some excerpts. It would be interesting to see if your views have changed much since then. Your interpretation of this album to a cubist work is golden. That makes what we've been listening to almost tangible. I have to mention that when I was listening I would frequently think of James Joyce. More specifically, Finnegan's Wake. I can't help to think that their recreations of their own languages (one musical, one literal) are similar. To my way of thinking, they employed some far-out angles that magically fell together to form a single, abstract, cohesive work of art.
IP: Logged

Diane B
Member  posted March 20, 2000 04:38 AM             
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello again...
After reading some of the comments about the saxes on "Brilliant Corners", I gave them another listen. I have no problem discerning the two...of course Rollins on tenor and Henry on alto are a given! (of course with all the subterfuge that some of you have pointed out about this session maybe I should not assume that!) Anyway perhaps the difficulty the players had getting this tune down might very well have influenced the solos here. If the piece is uncomfortable then the solos might be too...Rollins sounds perhaps like he his staying with the root structure of the piece...making sure he has established the "checkpoints" along the way...finding his way more conservatively...sounding more like an earlier incarnation of himself. Henry is in the same situation but more tentative, relying on his more vocal blues based approach, but here Monk's piece cries out for something different ...very likely Monk has really "messed up" these musicians!
These same two players seem far more comfortable with "Ba-lue Bolivar Ba-lues-Are", but here after playing the head, they really are playing on a blues structure...in this instance, Rollins is playing off Monk's angles and intervals....he knows what is going on with the structure and is free to really explore. Henry just plays the blues...and that works too!
Lastly, Monk's performance on "I Surrender Dear" adds so much to the music presented on this disc. Monk's elastic time sense here seems to be created by his search through the harmony of the tune....like he is "working it out" but in a positive sense. It sort of creates a suspense and anticipation for the listener. And his use of what I would call a "ghost of stride piano" as the piece develops obviously recalls earlier styles while setting up so many opportunities to break up this song into so many wonderful fragments!
I like the analogy to "cubism" or any relationships with other expressive media that have been mentioned. I use these comparisons a lot when trying to help people understand the music, particularly the so-called "avante-garde", creative improvised, non-tonal composed. etc. I have listened to Monk for a long time now, and it has always been comfortable to me. Some people have an ear for dissonance and some don't, and that goes for odd time and structure too I suppose. One has to listen to a lot of other good music from 1956 and stand away objectively to really get a feeling about Monk and the effect he might have had.
Thanks everyone!



IP: Logged

uli
Member  posted March 20, 2000 05:41 AM             
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You people have kind of covered it all for me. Leaves me with thanks to the great idea and for making me listen to that great album again.
IP: Logged

mikeb
Member  posted March 20, 2000 08:44 AM             
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, coming in late, I think the reviews so far have been excellent, and well beyond anything I could come up with! Unfortunately, I've never studied music (I played drums for several years, but I just got back there and thrashed around!  ), so I can't bring that experience into it. This is actually my first exposure to Monk's music as a leader (I've heard the work he did with Milt Jackson for BN back in the late 40s -- is that date right?), and after a couple of listens, I was very much enjoying it.
The celeste in Pannonica is interesting -- don't know if I like it or not.

I Surrender, Dear to my ears has a bit of a latin-flavored tinge to it in spots. This may actually be my favorite of the tracks.

I'd like to tip my cap to Ernie Henry, Oscar Pettiford and most of all, Max Roach. They all play wonderfully, and in my opinion, Max steals the show. I really enjoy his playing up to about 1960; after that, it's pretty much hit or miss for me. Henry and Rollins together make a good combo, but Rollins' solos, especially in Brilliant Corners, are a bit harsh to me. I either really like his work (Saxaphone Colossus, Tenor Mandess), or I can't take it. I wish Pettiford had been given more room to solo; what a brilliant musician! I just picked up Pettiford's recent Bethlehem release, Another One, and it hasn't left my CD player. A heads up: this may be my pick for Week 15!

Thanks to Joe C. for the great idea, and to everyone for helping me to digest this great album! The Paul Horn CD just arrived this morning, so I'm looking forward to tackling it in the next day or two!

IP: Logged

Fats Navarro Fanatic
Member  posted March 20, 2000 12:03 PM             
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I hope you folks don't mind an interloper chipping in. I didn't sign up because my schedule is too erratic to commit myself on a long term basis. I think it is a great idea though and it has encouraged me to give a more careful listen than I might otherwise have done. What strikes me most about this disc is that Ernie Henry, the least heralded of the group, holds his own with some of the truly greats of the music. I am familiar with his more orthodox bebop sounds with Tadd Dameron earlier and with Kenny Dorham from around this peroiod but here he sounds different. The slurs and growls foreshadow the direction which Jackie McLean would take in the 60's. What a pity Ernie wasn't around to participate in that exciting era. Great idea Joe C and kudos to everybody else for your articulate contributions.
Ciao

Alan

IP: Logged

dorshe
Member  posted March 20, 2000 12:39 PM             
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would hope we are not excluding those who didn't happen to participate in the first 'Jazz of the Week' thread. I feel, the more who participate the better these discussions will be.

[Chrome]

Thanks for the feedback ... quite helpful.

[mikeweil]

Very appropriate comments about the Spaulding version as compared to Monk's. This is the one Monk album that has a very specific aura and sound, like no other LP he did, and it's not only for the band members or the reputedly difficult compositions - it's the whole thing, like sculptures with very bold and edgy outlines - that's why the Easter Island image is so fitting.
Maybe Monk took some extra time out to write the new pieces, after two LPs for the label with none of his own. Keepnews wanted to show to the world that Monk was a COMPOSER, and deliver he did! He looks like he's in very good spirits and healthy on the cover!

[mikeweil]

http://www.maxreactor.com/images/3d%20Backgrounds/Gallery%2010/Easter_Island.JPG

http://www.mackaway.net/Mark/travels/SouthAmerica/images/easterisland/thumbnails/images/Easter%20Island%20Moai%2001.jpg

[king ubu]

The "New Wave in Jazz" CD also has a Spaulding version of "Brilliant Corners". How does that compare? (I have lent my CD, can't check it out).

ubu

[Nate Dorward]

Been a little while since I listened to this one. I wonder how often the title-tune has really been covered all that successfully since the original recording was made--I've heard various stabs at doing it "straight" which haven't worked for me all that much (don't know the Spaulding): in many ways the best version I know is the remarkable two-take presentation on Georg Graewe's Monk album on Nuscope, which totally reconceives the tune as delicate solo piano. -- Am I right to think the piece was never rerecorded by Monk? I've always thought it a great tragedy that Monk seemed disinclined to play more than a handful of his own compositions with any regularity.

Incidentally re: the fineness of Pettiford: notice that when Monk drops half a bar in the middle of his solo on "Brilliant Corners" Pettiford almost instantly corrects for it. (This isn't the result of splicing: you can hear Pettiford play one bar out of sync before he gets back in sync.) -- It's surprising how compelling & logical the track is as a continuous performance despite its being pieced together via splices.

[JSngry]

Nate Dorward, on Feb 2 2004, 12:53 AM, said:

Am I right to think the piece was never rerecorded by Monk? .

No.

He recorded it on his lazt Columbia album, the big band thing w/uncharacteristically horrible Oliver Nelson arrangements.

[Nate Dorward]

Oh jeez, I was trying to forget about that one I think. I've heard it once (a friend with the LP lent it to me).

Speaking of arrangements of Monk, who exactly was Hall Overton & what else did he do?

[couw]

Nate Dorward, on Feb 3 2004, 02:10 AM, said:

Oh jeez, I was trying to forget about that one I think. I've heard it once (a friend with the LP lent it to me).

Speaking of arrangements of Monk, who exactly was Hall Overton & what else did he do?

there's a nice write up on AMG

[Joe Christmas]

RT, how did you find that Blue Note thread? I'd love to read the one on Paul Horn's SOMETHING BLUE again.

[JSngry]

Al, rooster's away from the board a lot these days due to personal business, but somewhere on this board, somebody said that if you click on the link in his post and start putting in different numbers at tthe end of the URL, that you'll get a different topic with each number. Tedious, yeah, but that's the best info I have to give.

[couw]

http://www.bluenote....TML/000001.html

start typing away I'd say

change the 000001 part

This post has been edited by couw: 11 February 2004 - 03:13 PM

[Joe Christmas]

found it! Thanks, guys. Wasn't too hard... I figured it couldn't have come that long after the Brilliant Corners topic. In looking around I realize that:

1) I needed a life in 2000. I posted a shitload back then.
2) That board was a lot of fun.
3) I need a life in 2004.


SOMETHING BLUE JOTW

BIG 6 JOTW

This post has been edited by Joe Christmas: 11 February 2004 - 03:31 PM

[Roundsound]

Of course, this was the first Riverside session to emphasize Monk's compositions. I've listened to it enought that it doesn't give me the umphh that initial listenings provide. Max Roach certainly makes this session extra special. His solo on Brilliant Corners is a great example of drumming to the melody and changes. I like the tympani's as providing extra color and would note that Max Roach used tympanis on Booker Little's session on CAndid (which is real good and has Dolphy) Also I understand that Ernie Henry was in Monk's group at the time. Also I believe that there was some session problems with Oscar Pettiford.
I would also point out that this is the session that DAvid Rosenthal highlighted in his great book Hard Bop. Hardbop provided my roadmap to the world of jazz as it was, when I first stared collecting jazz.

[Larry Kart]

Hall Overton (1920-1972) was primarily a classical composer (studied with Riegger, Milhaud) who also played decent "arranger's style" jazz piano and was associated with some of the more intellectually inclined jazz musicians of the '40s and '50s (Teddy Charles, Jimmy Raney [both studied with him] etc.) I particularly like the album he did for Jubilee with Charles and Oscar Pettiford, "Three for Duke," which AFAIK has never made it to CD. He also plays on at least one of Raney's early Prestige dates. I have a CRI label LP with an Overton classical work on it, Pulsations." It's dedicated to Monk and is definitely jazz-influenced, though not in any "jazzy" way. He wrote a lot of other things, including an opera based on "Huckleberry Finn," but "Pulsations" is all I've heard. I'll listen again and report back if there's anything worth adding.

[Larry Kart]

Overton's "Pulsations" is even better than I remembered. His final work, it's stylistically akin to Stefan Wolpe's great Quartet for Trumpet, Tenor Saxophone, Piano and Percussion (1950). It's for chamber ensemble (number of players not specified in the liner notes, but it sounds like about 12 -- maybe five strings [including both arco and pizzicato bass], two woodwinds, tpt., trb., piano, and percussion), lasts 17 minutes, and is based, says the composer, "largely on a strong, steady beat." Though I wouldn't call that beat "steady" by jazz norms, its definitely active at all times (again, akin to to the way Wolpe's Quartet works.) The piece seems more loosely knit than Wolpe's, but I think that was Overton's intent -- I especially like its enigmatic sotto voce conclusion -- and while there are a few moments that smack of the generic gestural modernism of the time, I'd say its a heck a lot more personal and potent than anything I've ever heard from, say, Charles Wourinen. Wish there were more Overton available, though I guess "Pulsations" isn't available now. At least it was recorded.

[birksworks]

I have a friend who asked me to turn him on to jazz. He has an extensive classical music collection. He's one of those guys who has 5 sets of the late Beethoven piano sonatas and claims he can tell the difference between them. (Me, too...but sometimes I wonder if our discernment is limited only to the broad strokes.)

So I lent him Brilliant Corners: minimalism, complexity, humor, invention. What could be better?

He didn't get it. Could this be a vitamin deficiency?

[Nate Dorward]

Larry--a belated note to say thanks for digging out Pulsations--that sounds fascinating...!

[Big Al]

Yes it's me, bringing up yet another old AOTW thread:

connoisseur series500, on Jan 4 2004, 06:55 PM, said:

As a non-musician, it's hard for me to comprehend how difficult or otherwise it might be to play the music on "Brilliant Corners."

I guess the best way I can explain it, as someone who plays an instrument despite not being able to read music, is to try and hum along with the title cut. I've tried numerous times, and it still baffles me. I can't imagine how difficult it must've been to try and SOLO around that.

I will state, for the record, that Max's solo on this cut is my absolute favorite Max Roach drum solo, no small statement Icantellyou! Count me in as someone else who digs Roach on the tympani on "Bemsha Swing."

Anyone else dig the celeste on "Pannonica?" That song has a real Christmas-y feel to me.

[JSngry]

Big Al, on Nov 25 2007, 12:45 AM, said:

Yes it's me, bringing up yet another old AOTW thread:

connoisseur series500, on Jan 4 2004, 06:55 PM, said:

As a non-musician, it's hard for me to comprehend how difficult or otherwise it might be to play the music on "Brilliant Corners."

I guess the best way I can explain it, as someone who plays an instrument despite not being able to read music, is to try and hum along with the title cut. I've tried numerous times, and it still baffles me. I can't imagine how difficult it must've been to try and SOLO around that.

That's a tune I've played a bit, and I can tell you that, like most Monk tunes, you can break it down into components which aren't really all that unusual. In this case, it's the old I-bVII7-bVI7-V7 (think "Topsy" or some such), that's the core harmonic motif of the song. Aside from that it comes in some relatively "uncommon" (in terms of "general usage"), hey, no big deal, right?

Wrong. The use of this core is not symmetrical. Monk throws in all sorts of harmonic "detours" that result in the changes themselves being easy enough to get a handle on, but not their placement in the form, their symmetry if you will. That's the part of that tune that's a real bitch, because as soon as you start into a phrase that you think is going to lay one way over the changes/bars, OOOPS, GUESS AGAIN! Up pops a pivot chord that sends it off somewhere else just for a bar or two before it comes back and/or starts over, and not where you need it to for your idea to kinda work anyway.

It's just struck me (literally) that perhaps, that's what the title is refering to, how the tune is a walk down a (harmonic) route that is full of unexpected yet ultimately logical "corners", corners that you have to make in order to stay on course, corners that come out of nowhere, at first seem illogical or even "dangerous" or "wrong" yet corners that ultimately get you to where you needed to get and in a highly, in retrospect. logical and "colorful" ("brilliant") fashion/

In a way, it's the Monkiest of Monk tunes (although I'd leave room on that list for "Work" and a few others, in that you have to be aware of the macro form at all times. It's not just enough to know where you are at any given monment, you gotta know where you came from and where you're going too, and all at the same time. You need to develop an acute awareness that where you are at any moment is never just that, it's part of an ongoing continuum that exists whether you realize or not, and will have its way whether you recognize it or not, becuase it's bigger and more unshakeable than just one person.

"Always Know" and "All Ways Know".

If that's not a metaphor for life and a definition of true hipness, then I don't know what is. It's no wonder that Monk survives, and its no wonder that a lot of people latch on to the superficialities for cachet, and its no wonder that people who go deeper with his music never find an end to the truths it reveals.

This post has been edited by JSngry: 25 November 2007 - 07:12 AM

[RubenH]

Greetings all,

I've got the K2 of BC and was wondering if the SACD hybrid that came out around 2004 improves on it in any noticeable way. If anyone's heard both and would like to offer an opinion, I'd appreciate it!

Regards