Monk plays Ellington

[take5]

I just picked up the complete Monk Riverside box set and listened to the first session, a trio date with Pettiford and Clarke playing Duke Ellington numbers. An... interesting listen.

The liners explain that this was an attempt to make Monk seem less esoteric, but these are hardly straight cover tunes. Monk's extremely angular, percussive approach to Duke's lyrical melodies produces some odd results.

The most successful one, to me, is Caravan, where the herky-jerky melody is perfect for Monk. The ballads come across as forced and awkward, and I say this as a Monk fan who appreciates his solo performances.

[Harold_Z]

I've had this on vinyl since the 70s. Always liked it (and the companion lp where Monk plays standard such as Tea For Two and Just You, Just Me ). For me the track that always comes first to mind as "yeah - that's what happens when Monk plays Duke....." is It Don't Mean A Thing

I like Monk's take on Ellington. It seems clear to me that Ellington had some influence on Monk's playing in general and hearing him do Duke's tunes is interesting and enjoyable for me.

Edited January 11, 2005 by Harold_Z

[Alexander Hawkins]

I really love his voicings on 'Solitude'.

[jazzbo]

I've loved this session for years! It works entirely to me. . . . There was a lot of mutual admiration between Duke and Thelonious over time and it's a combination (Monk at keys and Ellington tunes) I'd like to hear reversed in as much detail (Ellington at keys with Monk tunes) but don't think there's enough material. . . .

[RDK]

Hmmm. Interesting, Lon. I don't know if I've ever heard Duke play any Monk tunes. Any recommendations?

[jazzbo]

What I know of is the arrangement for Monk's Dream and an original "Frere Monk" that Strays did (I think it's Strays, maybe Duke) and appears on one of the Private Collection disc on Atlantic/Saja (Volume 3 ) And the Monk's Dream piece performed by the Orchestra behind Monk himself at the keys at Newport (private tape circulating about). I think there may be other examples, but those are the only ones I've ever heard.

Edited January 11, 2005 by jazzbo

[Guest ariceffron]

IS IT TRUE MONK DIDNT WANT TO DO A COVER ALBUM BUT ORRIN MADE HIM? I ASSUME MONK WOULD HAVE RATHER RECORDED HIS ORIGINALS? IS THIS AN URBAN LEGEND OR IS THERE SOME TRUTH TO IT////

[jazzbo]

Let's ask Orrin. . . no that won't work.

Let's ask Monk. . . no can't do that.

I don't know if we'll have a definitive answer! I wouldn't myself be surprised if Monk wouldn't rather have done a different album, especially after the standards album, but I don't know anything definitive; I'd be surprised if anyone here ddid.

[mikeweil]

Keepnews never made a secret out of the fact that it was his strategy to prove Monk had some serious connection to the jazz tradition and conventions by having him play established material, thus the first two trio LPs.

To my knowledge there are no Monk covers by the Duke, but many of the originals Duke wrote for his trio sessions on Capitol, Columbia, United Artists or Fantasy show the common roots. Duke was clever enough to know that even he couldn't cover Monk. IMHO it has rarely been done satisfactorily.

[Spontooneous]

To my knowledge there are no Monk covers by the Duke

There's a Strayhorn arrangement of "Monk's Dream." No kidding. Recorded on one of the early volumes of the "Private Collection" series.

[jazzbo]

Yes Volume Three, as I noted above. I think there may have been other performances unrecorded, it's just a thought. There is that same arrangement with Monk at the piano from Newport and I only have a short tape of that performance, there could have been more. If anyone could do Monk, I think Duke could, but Duke was more interested in getting his music out there for many reasons. I still would like to have heard more interpretations though.

I'm not one of the opinion that very few do Monk right, I feel there have been a number of interesting interpretations of Monk, done "satisfactorily." Waldron. Powell. Harris. Holman. Flanagan. Weston. Many another.

Edited January 12, 2005 by jazzbo

[JSngry]

Seems like I've read somewhere that Monk was willing to do the two cover albums, if only as a "strategy". But I could be wrong.

Some of my favorite Monk covers (outside of Lacy's) were done on that Steve Duke/Joe Pinzarrone thing, simply because they didn't copy the mannerisms, but looked at the music "objectively", if that makes any sense, and treated it as "music" instead of "Monk". I think if you try to cover Monk by focusing on the mannerisms, which is what a lot of people seem to do, that you're doomed to end up with a pale imitiation of the original. The music's way to meaty to "settle" for that, and is really no tribute at all.

[jazzbo]

I can agree with what you're saying. . . but not if you are saying that Monk interpretations by Powell, Flanagan, Weston, Harris and some others are just based on the Monk mannerisms. . .

[RDK]

The problem I have with most Monk covers is that Monk's music is so individualistic that even when otherwise fine artists attempt them - even such as Powell or Weston - they often still sound like "pale imitations." That's why I much prefer Monk covers that don't feature pianists - like some of the Lacy's. That might be why, too, that I can tolerate Wynton's Monk album. The fact that it hardly sounds like genuine Monk is, oddly enough, a plus in my book.

[JSngry]

No, Lon, that's not it. Those guys were close enough to the source. It's all the "tributes" by people who come to the music strictly by records that bug me. It's like they're trying to make new Monk records, and you can't do that. Either that or they treat the songs like regular blowing vehicles, which is nice enough, but still kinda misses the point, I think.

Is the Holman really that good? I just heard a few cuts on the radio and wasn't sure. Seemed a bit "fussy" at the time, although driving like a bat out of hell because I was running late might not have been the best circumstances to evaluate it, if you know what I mean.

Edited January 12, 2005 by JSngry

[jazzbo]

The Holman deserves serious mention and scrutiny. It's very HOLMAN but it's a nice Monk program . . . it took me a while to warm up to but I think it's worth listening too. It has sat on my shelves about four years and annually I rediscover it. . . .

I sort of think in some ways it's not necessarily correct to expect incredible reinventions of Monk in a way one doesn't of Ellignton or Powell or Parker or Garner or Mulligan. I really loathe most "tributes" of Monk or almost anyone. I don't view the Monk Riverside disc as a tribute, or the Walter Davis Mapleshade of Monk as a tribute, more these folks doing the music of another creator. And that's the way I like it. To me if Monk tunes are done on an album by an artist in much the same manner a Coltrane or Evans or a Carter or a Timmons tune would be. . . well that's good enough for me.

[JSngry]

Yeah, I hear ya'. It's just that Monk's music usually brings more to the table (for me, anyway) than just hip melodies and good changes to blow on. It does offer that, but it offers so much more. The challenge, I think, is to find what that "more" is, and when I hear people seemingly not attempting to do that, I'm just not that interested. It's kinda like "Why are you doing this?" for me. When I do hear that, like the Arthur Blythe Columbia album, or to a lesser extent, the recent Tony Kofi thing, then I can get engaged.

Same's true with any music, really, even tired-but-true Bebop or Trad tunes. But the element of "more-ness" is just so, uh, BLATANT in Monk's music that a superficial reading just seems that much more superficial from the git-go.

You know what else I'm tired of? Cats playing Ellington tunes like that - play the heads and then just treat 'em like they're just any old thing. Some of them you can do that, because they were meant to be jamming vehicles in the first place, but with others, I get like, "well, if the piece itself isn't that important to you, why not just use the changes and write your own head?", ya' know? Certainly no need to be "traditionalist" about it, but c'mon, touch base with the music as SOMETHING other than a rack to hang your blowing coat on. PLEASE!!!!

Guess I'm getting grumpy in my middle-age...

[DrJ]

Re: the Holman, I'm still not quite into it yet, and I've listened off and on now for several years and do plan to continue trying periodically. At this point, I still am feeling like he missed the mark ultimately, although it's a fascinating angle and he deserves definite kudos for trying to bring something new to the music. "Fussy" is a pretty good word actually - I might have said "self-conscious" too.

[B. Goren.]

I like almost everything Monk recorded, but IMHO Monk was at his best when he played Monk and not Ellington.

[danasgoodstuff]

As i believe I've mentioned previously, I love trib albums: when the're done well they tell you some things new about both ends. i love Monk playing Ellington, WSQ and Clarinet Summit playing Ellington, Blythe Playing Monk, That's the Way I Feel Now (VA play Monk), Lefty plays Jimmie Rodgers, etc. But the most important thing to remember 'bout Monk playing Ellington is that it worked, i.e. it helped Monk actually make a living from playing music and helped Riverside get back the $ they'd invested when everyone else (Prestige & Blue Note) had given up on him as even marginally commercially viable. If the much cursed Orin deserves any credit for this, them bless him!

[mikeweil]

Is the Holman really that good? I just heard a few cuts on the radio and wasn't sure.

Of course you can treat Monk's tunes the same way you can treat any modern jazz standard, but methinks that misses the point. That's why I find Holman's or Wynton Marsalis' Monk beneath it - the problem start when you start improvising on the changes rather than on the tune itself, which regrettably is what the average musician does.

Lacy, Weston et.al. played the tunes, that's why they succeeded.

Bud Powell did, too, but he transformed Monk's music into his bebop piano world, as if it were the same tunes written by another man.

I intended to provoke some discussion of Monk interpretations with my statement above - nice to see it worked .

[mikeweil]

It's just that Monk's music usually brings more to the table (for me, anyway) than just hip melodies and good changes to blow on. It does offer that, but it offers so much more. The challenge, I think, is to find what that "more" is, and when I hear people seemingly not attempting to do that, I'm just not that interested.

Just my thoughts!

p.s. nothing to do with gettin' grumpy with age B-)

[jazzbo]

Well, I don't disagree in principle with what you're both saying except. . . I don't know I feel some sort of elitist standard applied to Monk music. . . . I'm just so against jazz elitism these days, it just makes me ill. I'm still saying that a lot of Monk treatments work without trying to tie new ribbons all over his hats. . . . I like some treatments others don't (for example Wynton's is alright with me, if for no reason other than I have literally seen it introduce Monk to listeners that hadn't heard him or grasped him before), and I don't think that the perceived "more" going on in Monk music means that only exceptional care and effort must be put into it. . . .Sheesh.

Anyway that's me.

[JSngry]

Bud Powell did, too, but he transformed Monk's music into his bebop piano world, as if it were the same tunes written by another man.

Monk was Bud's mentor, remember.

A lot of mess gets focused on Bud's paring down as the years went by, like it's all a result of physical and mental problems, and no doubt there's some of that there sometimes. But you also get, it seems to me, a return to a lot of values that he learned from Monk, especially in terms of touch/attack. It's almost like he started from Monk, went out into the Wide World of Bebop to see what he could see, saw it, did it, and then got hit by some personal changes that made him retreat to the core of what he knew was always going to be there for him nomatter what (sort of like the Prodigal Son, only without the fancy banquet happy ending... ). That core, it seems to me, was quite often Monkian in nature. It served him quite well, I think. Bud nearly always knew where "there" was at some level, and a lot of it was in Monk.

Edited January 12, 2005 by JSngry

[jazzbo]

"Bud Powell did, too, but he transformed Monk's music into his bebop piano world, as if it were the same tunes written by another man."

So, Monk's music has to remain in Monk's world? The man was unique, but no one can play his music and pull it out into the common world?