JSngry

http://hepcat1950.com/mdiv8504.html

There was talk back in the day of it being a French child's song, a playground riff of sorts. This could still be accurate, no?

What would happen if you just never went to the site any more?

That's some fucked up shit.

...when you break into somebody's house and steal their shelving instead of what's on it.

Exactly.

And inquire about transcriptions!

Yeah, Bernadette is another one... "how can they control you when they can not control themselves"...that's something right there...

There's a movie in the works too!

Maybe they've only been selling 4 or 5 a year?

Mofo Sumbitch Cahsukker

No, the live big-band recording is necessary too. More than the Riverside one.

So the original Prestige LPs contain all of the music and none of the noise reduction?

Yeah,totally badass...imagine Lyons as Bird-after-Varese, Murray as Roy Haynes interacting, and Cecil as the World That Made Them Both. Or something like that. "Totally badass" is more to the point at this juncture in time.

True beauty.

I'm not saying that John or I are "right" here, just that this is what two such people thought at the time, when we and Monk and all were still alive in the same continuum, for whatever that's worth. Well, on the one hand, you get to react to what you were used to hearing (which was no doubt what you thought - and understandably so - you should continue hearing) vs what all of sudden you started hearing. On the other hand, maybe what was actually going on was different than all that. Definitely was, but...how old were you in 1941 when Monk was playing all that "swing" style piano @ Minton's? Did the idea of Monk maybe wanting to have a more "danceable" (i.e. - "populist") feel to his music now that he was playing for more people more often enter your assessment? Not saying that it should have, but it makes sense to me. I mean, Dunlop played like Monk danced! To me, the Ore/Dunlop rhythm section was the full-flowering of Monk's happiness at finally being "discovered" and appreciated. The Warren/Riley rhythm section feels more like the resultant comfort/complacency. I know the notion of Monk as "popular artist" flies under (or over?) the usual "critical radar", but...why not? Why the heel not? Why shouldn't Monk ahve been happy playing for larger crowds, making more money, getting some respect outside the "inner circle", and why shouldn't he hire a drummer who fit that mood? The real fault I find with all those 60s bands is with Monk as a bandleader. He let everybody play too goddamned long. Rouse was always good for 2-3 tight choruses, but after that...not so much (OOOF!) Same thing w/Ore's choruses. With Dunlop, I find no fault, but on every tune? That band would have relentlessly kicked ass for a set of five minute go-rounds, but...Monk was enjoying himself...double-edged sword. But Frankie Dunlop, HELL YEAH! (and FWIW, I really don't know what "real rhythmic interaction" is when just used as a description of people who did their things in their way. What, then, is false rhythmic interaction? To me, that means not being inside the music, Just because it's "flashy"(and Dunlop was certainly that) or "clever" (ditto) doesn't meant that it's not "real" (same again) or that it wasn't, most importantly) musically organic. Dunlop's shit sounds incredibly & totally musically organic to me, just not 1941-Minton's musically organic or 1953 broke-ass piano Prestige musically organic, or even 1958 the-sun-starts-coming-out-again musically organic. For that matter, Riley is musically organic in his own way (and sounds pretty good sometimes, just never...dynamic...not like he did w/Jaws & Griff). Frankie Dunlop w/Monk in 1951 would have been weird. Frankie Dunlop w/Monk in 1961 was totally cool. Then again, what I lack in the real benefits of having "been there at the time" I make up for with the equally real benefit of having come to it while "it" was still happening in (some kind of) real time, but also when there was an accumulated-enough sense of back-story to look at it all as one piece instead of some kind of breaking-off/away point. On the whole, I'll take what I got, because it's all I do got. Not for nothing was Breakthrough! one of all-time favorite Mobley sides, & not for nothing do I dig the shit out of Frankie Dunlop (although Monk let everybody play too long). Just my opinion, but in this case it's also the truth! Nonononononononono... Dunlop was encapsulated! Compact! And yeah, flashy. Quite. but so what? His shit was in there.

Wrong!

But not a Drama Queen!

Need to follow up on that...might sound "mean" or something, not intended to...just mean that in some worlds, for some peoples, rhythm is its own reward & makes its own world, and its a world that runs deep...rhythm can contain all the energy/direction/etc that harmony, melody, or anything else can, if it's where you're at. And I think that that's where Monk, Ore, & Dunlop were at - just swinging the hell outta the music and letting that rhythm be its own end, as deep as it went. You gotta remember - Monk played hard, Monk swung hard, and no matter how "abstract" he got, his time was always deep in the pocket. Monk's pocket was deep than many/most, so just laying it down so it could be all that it could be was not small feat and called for no small reservoir of resources and character. It's an expression and creativity all its own.

Maybe listen less & dance more? To the Monk music, that is. Lots of people "swing". Not all that many swing.+ Just a thought.

A "redo" in terms of arrangement, and maybe general melodic contour, but those lyrics...like "Poor Side Of Town" only darker, maybe. Or maybe Bill Medley was by definition darker than Johnny Rivers? And let's give fullest props to Spector on this one..that shit is magic, pure magic, as in "cannot occur in nature".

No, but I will. Thanks for the tip!