Charlie Rouse

[mjzee]

I always thought Rouse was told to take long solos, followed by the bassist and drummer doing likewise, in order to give Monk a break. Not sure Rouse really wanted to solo that long, or that he had a say in it.

As for Monk selecting Rouse, and Rouse being with him for 10 years, it reminds me of what Frank Zappa said about musicians. To have someone on a tour, you want to select the best musicians you can, but you also need musicians with "portability" - someone who doesn't mind touring for months on end, years on end. Rouse fit the bill with Monk much like Tommy Flanagan fit the bill with Ella (and George Duke fit the bill with Zappa).

[paul secor]

Pre-Monk Rouse could be quite tasty/soulful/inventive. Hear him on Louis Smith's "Smithville" and his own "Takin' Care of Business." About Rouse with Monk, I pretty much agree with Moms but without the hyperbole. The typical Rouse solo with Monk was like eating cardboard, though there were exceptions. Also, IIRC he played quite well on one of the albums (probably the first) that he made with the post-Monk tribute band he had with (I think) Kenny Barron, Buster Williams, and Ben Riley. To me, all that suggests that for the lick- and groove-oriented Rouse, actually playing with Monk usually cut across the grain of what he could do best.

Takin' Care of Business was recorded in May of 1960. Charlie Rouse joined Monk in November of 1958. So TCB is not actually pre-Monk Rouse.

[John L]

I always thought Rouse was told to take long solos, followed by the bassist and drummer doing likewise, in order to give Monk a break. Not sure Rouse really wanted to solo that long, or that he had a say in it.

As for Monk selecting Rouse, and Rouse being with him for 10 years, it reminds me of what Frank Zappa said about musicians. To have someone on a tour, you want to select the best musicians you can, but you also need musicians with "portability" - someone who doesn't mind touring for months on end, years on end. Rouse fit the bill with Monk much like Tommy Flanagan fit the bill with Ella (and George Duke fit the bill with Zappa).

Good point. Touring with Monk in the 60s like that must have been quite challenging in more ways than one. Perhaps Rouse's greatest asset for Monk was his total dedication to both the man and the music. He did a much better job than most tenors would have in his shoes.

I almost always enjoy hearing Rouse with Monk even though I never expect that he is going to come up with lots of new and inventive choruses. I think of him as a rather predictable, but soulful, bluesy, and correct backdrop against which Monk can work his magic.

Not every tenor has to be Sonny Rollins.

Edited November 20, 2011 by John L

[.:.impossible]

I hadn't thought too much about this, but Jim brings up an interesting point. How many choruses do you need to be able to remain inventive until you become a second or third tier jazz musician?

I actually have a fairly high regard for Charlie Rouse, and I'll need to listen very closely once I get home tonight, based on his opening on "Locomotive" from STRAIGHT NO CHASER. My memory is that it sounds as if he has just jumped forward at me and the band really engages there.

I'll he back to you. Promise. Until then, do absolutely nothing.

Quoting myself here. I see that a few of you did not honor my request. Either way... I stand by my opinion here. I'm now listening to Monk's solo on "Locomotive". Rouse plays well here, for me. Fluid, sometimes smooth, sometimes hardened soul, often bebop, and it serves the leader well with an easy transition into his turn. Perhaps I'm over-simplifying in y'all's world, but there it is. Whether or not Rouse was pushing the limits of Monk's music is irrelevant for me. Apparently, whether or not Rouse was pushing the limits of Monk's music was irrelevant for Monk as well.

We can agree that Monk knew his own music? Portable or not, Monk chose Rouse for studio dates as well. Surely he had his pick of musicians for those Columbia dates. I can't imagine he chose Rouse because he was just available to record all the days that Monk was scheduled with Columbia.

If we are dividing work by master, tradesman, and novice and nothing but master is worth our time, no one would take the time to read your work. No offense please, but your stance on criticism is just hypocrisy. Where do you rate yourself? 1, 2, or 5?

[Larry Kart]

We can agree that Monk knew his own music? Portable or not, Monk chose Rouse for studio dates as well. Surely he had his pick of musicians for those Columbia dates. I can't imagine he chose Rouse because he was just available to record all the days that Monk was scheduled with Columbia.

But surely it would be virtually impossible Impossible, in practical human terms, to substitute another tenor saxophonist for Rouse on studio dates. The implicit insult would have been obvious and hard for Rouse to deal with.

[.:.impossible]

Ok, replacing Rouse for EVERY date... I can understand the insult. For one, two, five? No offense. It's a record. Or two. Or five. I know what you mean though, and I considered that.

[JSngry]

Wouldn't have been impossible to add another horn player, though.

But that didn't happen, as didn't lots of other things. Columbia Monk is, by and large, the sound of everybody getting and staying comforatble with their appointed routines.

Oh well!

[mjzee]

Rouse always sounds to me like he's playing a trumpet, but on a tenor. Those individual notes, with the tiny spaces in-between.

[Chuck Nessa]

After establishing a reputation of some kind, musicians frequently build bands around "reliable" musicians - show up, look clean, don't mess up on the job. I have witnessed this numerous times.

[jeffcrom]

Well, going back to a previous point, I've decided to go ahead and declare JSngry and myself to be geniuses, saving subsequent generations the trouble of deciding for themselves.

[JSngry]

Rouse always sounds to me like he's playing a trumpet, but on a tenor. Those individual notes, with the tiny spaces in-between.

Yeah, very percussive attack and rhythmic pulse. That's why when him and Frankie Dunlop were bouncing off of each other, the relative lack of "melodic invention" wasn't particularity troublesome, there was another type of activity/engagement going on. And on Ben Riley's best moments with the band, the same type thing happened.

Well, going back to a previous point, I've decided to go ahead and declare JSngry and myself to be geniuses, saving subsequent generations the trouble of deciding for themselves.

Can I go ahead and get my money now, please?

[JSngry]

After establishing a reputation of some kind, musicians frequently build bands around "reliable" musicians - show up, look clean, don't mess up on the job. I have witnessed this numerous times.

Yep.

And at the same time use more "difficult personalities"(who can also up the ante creatively) on record dates.

How many "classic jazz recordings" of the post big-band era were made with working bands? Not too terribly many, and there's a reason for that besides just "star power".

[.:.impossible]

I guess that's where I am Chuck. Do I seem cooler if I talk shit about somebody doing their job, or do I seem cooler talking shit about their employer setting expectations that don't meet mine?

I'm having a great time listening to Rouse right now. I don't at all wish he were someone else. I'm not much of a complainer anyway. It is what it is. Heard that for the first time up in New England. People don't say shit like that down South. They just smile. And complain to folks that can't change it. Shit. That's such a generalization! Who am I trying to convince?

Rouse does his job well, but I don't think he is a threat to his boss.

So, my question is who y'all think did challenge Monk creatively?

[Chuck Nessa]

Monk did not need "challenging" when he was recording for BN, Prestige and Riverside. He probably wouldn't have reacted to "challenging" after that.

[.:.impossible]

Hm. I actually get that. Thanks for laying it out so plainly. I do feel like the Monk/Coltrane Carnegie Hall music sounds like ((and perhaps challenging is not the word (putting quotations around a word to change the meaning is So Sangrey by the way))), Monk is being inspired beyond his own imagination.

You know I'm no good at this, so please bare with me. This has become a Brian Berger thread, so any syntax/punctuation rules are out the window. Pardon the paranthetical excuse/accuse.

[JSngry]

(putting quotations around a word to change the meaning is So Sangrey by the way))),

Credit where credit is due - I got it from Bennett Brauer. God only knows where he "got it from".

[.:.impossible]

Credit Where Credit Is Due, I also got the initial caps thing from you. Just goofing around tonight. I love reading y'all's shit. Moms incl.

Prob. thread-killing right now, but this thread was already dead. Ethically, it's ok to kill a zombie, no? Legally, it's still grey area.

PS that Bennett Brauer reference... just fucking impressive Jim.

[JSngry]

Yeah, I've watched some TV and allegedly don't read books. That's the true stuff of genius!

Seriously, it's not just this thread that is dead, it's the whole idea that it really matters how great/ungreat/mediocre/hideous a player Charlie Rouse was, with or without Monk, or more to the point, is thought to be.

Here's the deal - if all you want is The Transforming Genius Of Thelonious Monk, you don't have to deal with Charlie Rouse. Ever.

And if you want to delve with any kind of depth at all into The Full Life And Times of Thelonious Monk, you'll have to deal (and come to terms with) with Charlie Rouse, a lot, just like you do a cousin who does a lot to help the family out in day to day matters but will never be particularly clever in conversation, much less be able to deliver a memorable toast at a state dinner.

You said it - it is what it is. And they're both dead, so it will stay what it is.

Only "interpretations" will change, and as always, what is found will be based largely on what is being looked for.

Edited November 21, 2011 by JSngry

[six string]

Well, I'm going to spin a little Monk and Charlie in "It" land.

[cih]

All Monk’s compositions sound to me like they could have been drawn with a ruler on graph paper - and the Columbia recordings showcase this kind of self-restriction very well - Rouse’s playing doing nothing to spoil it for me with its own kind of constricted sound... (though i still probably prefer just Monk, bass and drums - ‘Raise Four’ on Underground starting with that repeated phrase which seems to say “this is all we have to do to”... but if I want to hear some ‘inspired’ saxophone I go to the earlier albums - there’s certainly nothing on Columbia that has the effect on me of Coltrane’s entrance on the first track of the live one at Carnegie hall (can’t remember the title) but then nothing on that album puts me into a nodding trance like ‘Teo’ on the It Club one. As was mentioned earlier - the rhythmic approach of Rouse is what fits - he sometimes sounds like he’s not 'trying', but I guess that’s the idea - kind of a facility or a disengagement or something. If the idea of it was to create some kind of reverie, it would be less Coltrane's intense exaltation and more the strolling crunch of sanctified piano - maybe - maybe not

Edited November 21, 2011 by cih

[Larry Kart]

FWIW at this point, and based on limited evidence (the four-tune 1952 date that gave us ""Let's Cool One," "Carolina Moon," Hornin' in," and Skippy") the most mutually compatible tenor saxophonist that Monk recorded with was Lucky Thompson. And I'm not forgetting Rollins. Everything from that '52 date is superb.

[Peter Friedman]

In my view Rouse was often a bit dull sounding with Monk, though at times his playing was much more interesting.

His lengthy solos with Monk were part of the problem. Had his solos been shorter I suspect I would have

found them more enjoyable.

The strange thing is that I dig Rouse far more when away from Monk. That includes both pre and post Monk

recordings. Perhaps as Larry suggested, it is that Rouse was more successful as a licks and blues player.

I am with Jeff on the idea that viewing all players as GREAT or TERRIBLE makes no sense.

Though Ben Riley was not the best drummer for Monk, in later years he became one of my very favorites

on that instrument. I have seen Ben Riley live with the Kenny Barron Trio a number of times, and also have

all the recordings that trio made. Riley with Kenny Barron is to my ears the ultimate in good taste in his

solos, fours and playing in general. His solos and fours remind me often of the way a top level tap dancer

would sound.

[Joe]

FWIW at this point, and based on limited evidence (the four-tune 1952 date that gave us ""Let's Cool One," "Carolina Moon," Hornin' in," and Skippy") the most mutually compatible tenor saxophonist that Monk recorded with was Lucky Thompson. And I'm not forgetting Rollins. Everything from that '52 date is superb.

Funny; I was prompted by this discussion to revisit that same date to remind myself of Thompson-as-Monkian "fit." This date -- along with the Signal / Savoy quartet session featuring Gryce -- features some of Monk's most demanding / knotty compositions... Thompson is, of course, as graceful as ever, but I sure would love to know how many takes it took this ensemble to produce these performances.

[Chuck Nessa]

Skippy took 3 takes but take 2 is the master.

Hornin' In took 4 takes.

Sixteen took 2 takes.

Carolina Moon took 1.

Let's Cool One took 1.

I'll Follow You took 1.

[MomsMobley]

workman like musicians are fine-- if they are workmen, as i said: section player, reliable gig making, pleasant enough personality, etc. also younger musicians figuring stuff out or local, regional players providing some % simulacra of the ultimate, rare thing... live music making has its own set of conditions, critical parameters but we're talking RECORDS, and one's life as Listening Artist.

clearly and at often painful length, Rouse is in no way up to the implicit and explicit demands of Monk's concepts; this is everywhere painfully evident. I ** DARE ** anyone spin "Monk In Tokyo"-- or the horrideous Keepnews-ance version of "Straight No Chaser"-- and not wanna hide all Rouse's mouthpieces & reeds and put on an Eddie Miller, Sam Butera or Billy Harper record instead. (Billy is Overlooked Giant of course.)

also please listen, by comparison, to nearly any performance of Hugo Wolf "Goethe Lieder" and/or read the score.

cornpone anti-intellectual sports obsessives will likely cry "Foul!" but those of us deeply interested in the myriad forms of compositional genius can both hear/see the (coincidental) links between Wolf and Monk, Monk and Wolf. Some have compared Monk's sense of compositional compression to Webern but there I disagree. The hyper-aware play of voices (try also Wolf "Italienesches Liederbuch")-- hot damn!

Charlie Rouse is great for piss breaks but otherwise, in the wide world of music that anyone with a library card or posting to an internet message board now has access to, his dreary bleating is less "necessary" than ever and no "better" than it ever was.

Skippy took 3 takes but take 2 is the master.

Hornin' In took 4 takes.

Sixteen took 2 takes.

Carolina Moon took 1.

Let's Cool One took 1.

I'll Follow You took 1.

Edited November 21, 2011 by MomsMobley