JSngry

Yeah, that's me as well. That Left Bank vibe always works for me, the band/audience interaction, sounds like what I knew as "live jazz" back around then.

Great news assuming that the tapes have held up. I've got a pretty low bar for that type of thing, but wasn't it once said that many are "unusable"...and those that mean the same thing today that it did then?

Wikipedia need y'all's help on this one.

Then you say no.

Booker is always good, but Ron Carter's groovelessness deflates that record to terminality imo (now THERE'S a dance with death!). It didn't have to happen, but it did. Looks like Wolff also did Lift Every Voce with Hill also. That one I like. I may or may not be in the minority on this, but I like BJP's Wolff records better than his Lion records. I do think he showed a deeper affinity for the genre than did Lion, although that's just a matter of degree.

I started listening to it today, in the car...I like it for sure, but it definitely sounds like a rehearsal tape, which I do like, but it's kind of like Free As A Bird...you know it's a record by a band that's never going to happen again, and it's not their best work, but the gesture warms the heart anyway. I mean, if it's between this and (insert name here of today's people who play in this way), hell, no question. But music has moved on quite a far bit since then (and on any given night, before then), so...I'll embrace my nostalgia without empowering it, ok?

It's not my list, it's Wikipedia's list. Looks like it could use your editing! No matter, that list still works for me, although neither of those Hill albums as released are any of my favorite. I did like the Grass Roots CD bonus session though. Why Wolff put the record out like he did...who knows? But Dance With Death...nobody wins all the time.

I got it, I knew most of the material and felt good about getting a Mosaic of it, especially since it was most of it that I already knew and not all. Since you like Jamal, it should be a happy thing for you to get the Mosaic. Not everybody likes Jamal, but everybody doesn't like something, and this is not Sarah Lee, this is Ahmad Jamal.

A Accent on the Blues Alive! (Grant Green album) All (Horace Silver album) B Blue Mode 'Bout Soul C Caramba! (Lee Morgan album) Charisma (album) Coalition (album) Common Touch The Creeper (album) D Demon's Dance Drives (Lonnie Smith album) E Easy Walker The Empty Foxhole Everything I Play Is Funky Extensions (McCoy Tyner album) F The Flip (album) G Genesis (Elvin Jones album) Ghetto Music A Groovy Situation H Hi Voltage Hot Dog (album) L Live at the Lighthouse (Lee Morgan album) Love Bug (Reuben Wilson album) Love Call (album) M Midnight Creeper Move Your Hand Mr. Jones (Elvin Jones album) Mr. Shing-A-Ling Multidirection N New York Is Now! O On Broadway (Reuben Wilson album) Our Man in Paris P Poly-Currents Pretty Things (album) R Reach Out! (Hank Mobley album) S Say It Loud! Schizophrenia (Wayne Shorter album) The Scorpion (album) The Sixth Sense (Lee Morgan album) Sonic Boom (Lee Morgan album) T Taru (album) Tender Moments That Healin' Feelin' Think! (Lonnie Smith album) Total Response Turning Point (Lonnie Smith album) U Understanding (John Patton album) The United States of Mind Y You Gotta Take a Little Love https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Albums_produced_by_Francis_Wolff That list is working pretty well for me. I think it was in the liners to Move Your Hand that it was noted that Wolff had more of a taste for the funkyorgancombo than did Lion, and this list would support that.

The really early ones (that have survived, anyway) threw me off at first, because the stories are very seldom things you'd associate with "Alfred Hitchcock", murder, suspense, all that. But they do make for good movies, I think, if that expectation is put away. And as you no doubt know, silents are their own thing, especially ones that have no score added. That's an adjustment, but one worth making. At least it was for me. The old music business adage that "people hear with their eyes" is not without merit, although my wife hates a fully silent movie. There's no doubt a lot of discussion to be had about ear vs eye when it comes to entertainment media. For a long time, the earliest Hitchcock film I knew was The 39 Steps, certainly a masterpiece by any standard, but by no means "early". Look at this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Hitchcock_filmography He had been involved in making movies in one role or another for 15 years before he did that one, and had already made the original The Man Who Knew Too Much!

I've been watching Hitchcock silents on a PD Roku channel (5-6 of them anyway} and find them all very much worth seeing. Champagne is a bit of a "romantic comedy" and is supposed to be Hitchcock's least favorite of his films, but I liked it. Betty Balfour was great, I thought. Another good one is Downhill, one of those riches-to-rags stories. And of course there's The Lodger. Seem like a lot of Hitchcok's British work is in the PD, so copies are easily found, although good prints are not. But a few have been restored (sometimes with scores added that distract from the visual, imo). Any Hitchcock fan who is interested in his technique would be well-served to check them out, if only becuase it's a good look at how this always visual director was that way more or less from the beginning.

Seinfeld says, " if you don’t get Jerry Lewis, you don’t understand comedy ". Just watched the episode today, and it's the warmest, least bitter Jerry Lewis in...forever, maybe.

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.

You mean past that?

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!).

It was blogged at one point, it's good. Don Myrick and David Young!

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

So, we don't know what the format of original tapes was then, correct? If it was radio that recorded it, it could easily have been in stereo? Has it been determined/stated that the original radio tapes were mono? Even if it was mono, the digital editing tools available now allow for all kinds of manipulations. I'll agree that the word in it's older/traditional sense doesn't really make sense in terms of working with a mono master, without knowing exactly what they did, I can entertain the possibility of cutting them some slack. I mean, if you're able to isolate instruments, clean them up, and then put them back into a mono mix...that's maybe remastering, but ok, remixing is not totally wrong either. What was Frankenstein if not a remix of pre-existing monster parts? Maybe they're doing that to old tapes now. Haven't heard the record in question, may or may not get to it eve, but I do know that the tools out there now allow for surgical tricks undreamt of by the human mind heretofore until now.

He was on RCA, right there with Sonny Rollins!