Monk and Powell
Martin Margulis
Preferences? Also for Monk fans: what makes his music unique? I'm doing
some research on these two and this post is my way of doing an informal
poll.
Any replies, either here or E-mail will be greatly appreciated.
Fathom
(Martin Margulis) wrote:
IMHO--the only thing they had in common was fame at the same time. Two
pianists could hardly have more different approaches to the instrument.
Monk was a genius at inventing new harmonic ideas, doing the unexpected.
He expressed this genius on the piano, but was not really a pianist in
terms of understanding the technique of the instrument. (This is evident
on some recordings of ballads like "Ruby My Dear" where he can be heard
pounding monotonously with no regard to expression or phrasing--an
inconceivable treatment of such a beautiful tune for anyone trained in
classical technique). His playing always seems to edge toward soloing--
with melody, bass, rhythm, and harmony, complete in itself, as Monk's
concept of music was so self-contained.
Powell was more of a technical virtuouso. His playing is more
conventionally geared toward ensemble work, emphasizing counterpoint, and
leaving lots of room for the other players. He is widely credited with
re-inventing comping technique. His career blossomed in the wake of
improvements in drum design, making old-style piano comping (on the beat,
stride style) redundant with the newly-conspicuous drummer. His playing
is almost always carving out fresh territory within the ensemble sound.
--
Fathom >8-)>
** Custom-designed reality is a labor-intensive product **
Andrew Homzy
(Fathom) wrote:
>
> IMHO--the only thing they had in common was fame at the same time. Two
> pianists could hardly have more different approaches to the instrument.
>
> Monk was a genius at inventing new harmonic ideas, doing the unexpected.
> He expressed this genius on the piano, but was not really a pianist in
> terms of understanding the technique of the instrument. (This is evident
> on some recordings of ballads like "Ruby My Dear" where he can be heard
> pounding monotonously with no regard to expression or phrasing--an
> inconceivable treatment of such a beautiful tune for anyone trained in
> classical technique). His playing always seems to edge toward soloing--
> with melody, bass, rhythm, and harmony, complete in itself, as Monk's
> concept of music was so self-contained.
>
> Powell was more of a technical virtuouso. His playing is more
> conventionally geared toward ensemble work, emphasizing counterpoint, and
> leaving lots of room for the other players. He is widely credited with
> re-inventing comping technique. His career blossomed in the wake of
> improvements in drum design, making old-style piano comping (on the beat,
> stride style) redundant with the newly-conspicuous drummer. His playing
> is almost always carving out fresh territory within the ensemble sound.
>
> --
> Fathom >8-)>
If I wrote such an ill-informed post as copied above, I too would consider
hiding behind an un-imaginative and mis-spelled moniker such as "Fathom".
Bud Powell loved Monk & vice-versa. Powell was practically the only *bop*
pianist to truly understand Monk's genius. More discussion?
--
Andrew Homzy
Music Department
Concordia University, Montreal
Dana Hall
> In article <jazzpsy-1404...@slip-10.nlis.net>, jaz...@nlis.net
> (Martin Margulis) wrote:
>
> > Any opinions re T Monk and Bud Powell? Similarities, differences?
> > Preferences? Also for Monk fans: what makes his music unique? I'm doing
> > some research on these two and this post is my way of doing an informal
> > poll.
> > Any replies, either here or E-mail will be greatly appreciated.
>
> IMHO--the only thing they had in common was fame at the same time. Two
> pianists could hardly have more different approaches to the instrument.
>
> Monk was a genius at inventing new harmonic ideas, doing the unexpected.
> He expressed this genius on the piano, but was not really a pianist in
> terms of understanding the technique of the instrument. (This is evident
> on some recordings of ballads like "Ruby My Dear" where he can be heard
> pounding monotonously with no regard to expression or phrasing--an
> inconceivable treatment of such a beautiful tune for anyone trained in
> classical technique). His playing always seems to edge toward soloing--
> with melody, bass, rhythm, and harmony, complete in itself, as Monk's
> concept of music was so self-contained.
>
> Powell was more of a technical virtuouso. His playing is more
> conventionally geared toward ensemble work, emphasizing counterpoint, and
> leaving lots of room for the other players. He is widely credited with
> re-inventing comping technique. His career blossomed in the wake of
> improvements in drum design, making old-style piano comping (on the beat,
> stride style) redundant with the newly-conspicuous drummer. His playing
> is almost always carving out fresh territory within the ensemble sound.
>
> --
> Fathom >8-)>
I would definitely disagree with this. Monk and Powell were very closely
related. It has been documented by those who were there, and sadly not on
any recordings I own or know of, of Monk's digital abilities on the piano.
Of course, anyone with Powell's mid-50s Verve sessions, and definitely the
late period Blue Notes, will hear his indebtedness to Monk, not only in
Bud's time feel, but also in the voicings he uses and Bud's own personal
adaptation of Monk's highly idiosyncratic way of playing the piano. The
same is true of Horace Silver's playing on the '50s quintet recordings
with his own band. While same may think he overcomped, Horace's
understanding of Monk's innovations in this area of ensemble work is
remarkably present on the recordings. Same is true of Randy Weston, Cecil
Taylor, Andrew Hill, Herbie Nichols....the list is long. If you want to
discuss two pianists with different approaches, you've got the wrong two.
Now, I won't even touch the disparaging remarks about Monk's way with
ballads, particularly HIS OWN TUNES! How in the world can you tell a
composer that he/she is playing THEIR songs all wrong? Check out "Memories
of You" on the Columbia recording _It's Monk's Time_.....that is pure
ballad playing, my friend.
Dana Hall
Don Herzog
We've been around the block on Monk's technique before. True, he does
not play very fast. But as an amateur player myself, I am always stunned
by his colossally confident command of the instrument and his ability to
extract sounds and voicings that no other pianist I know can pull off. I
am stunned by his unique sense of time, his ability to plunk down the
perfect (and perfectly weird) chord at a moment in the measure no one
else would choose that still works perfectly. There are plenty of times
where say Monk's comping behind Johnny Griffin is at least as interesting
as Griffin's solo.
So, to name an obvious technical wizard: think about the double-cut-time
rendition of Well You Needn't that Gonzalo Rubalcaba does on Discovery.
Could Monk have played the tune that way? I rather doubt it. But could
Rubalcaba pull off a persuasive execution of the ostensibly much simpler
and slower way in which Monk played it? I rather doubt it. There's a
lot more to technical command of any instrument, including piano, than
the ability to play very fast.
And I have *never* heard a version of Ruby, My Dear where Monk is just
pounding away, oblivious to the demands of the tune. And I think I've
heard every damned version of that tune he did.
--don
Ralph Geiger
HO...@vax2.concordia.ca (Andrew Homzy) wrote:
> If I wrote such an ill-informed post as copied above, I too would consider
> hiding behind an un-imaginative and mis-spelled moniker such as "Fathom".
"Fathom" is spelled correctly. However, neither "unimaginative" nor
"misspelled" has a hyphen.
> Bud Powell loved Monk & vice-versa. Powell was practically the only *bop*
> pianist to truly understand Monk's genius. More discussion?
I don't see how anything in Fathom's post contradicts this, since Monk and
Powell could have admired each other and still had radically different
techniques. But your contemptuous attitude rules out further discussion,
at least as far as I'm concerned.
--
Ralph Geiger
<gei...@email.unc.edu>
Dennis Mitcheltree
A jazz concert producer hired both Monk and Bud to perform seperately at a
concert in Philadelphia. Since both were not known to be the most punctual
of men, a limo was hired to drive them both from New York to the gig in
Philadelphia and back to NYC after the concert.
When the limo stopped to pick up Monk, Bud was already in the back seat.
Monk asked Bud how he was doin' and Bud just looked out the window and
ignored Monk. Monk finally gave up trying to get a response from Bud. Not a
word was spoken. They got to Philly and did the gig. On the ride back to
New York Bud still refused to say a word or even acknowledge Monk for the
entire 2 1/2 hour trip. As Monk got out of the limo he waved and and said,
"Nice talking to you Bud!"
Peace,
Dennis Mitcheltree
email: den...@pipeline.com WWW site:
http://www.users.nyc.pipeline.com/~dengor/
Dennis Mitcheltree's new CD release 'Brooklyn' available through:
dengor music
285 Fifth Avenue, Suite 209, Brooklyn NY 11215
Tel (718) 399-3407 Fax (718) 399-0726
Harvey J. Cormier
(Fathom) wrote:
> IMHO--the only thing they had in common was fame at the same time. Two
> pianists could hardly have more different approaches to the instrument.
>
I do think there's something to this, especially to the extent that it
challenges the idea that there was a monolithic movement called "bop" in
which both Monk and Powell participated. Powell was part of a trend; Monk
was an entity sui generis.
> Monk was a genius at inventing new harmonic ideas, doing the unexpected.
> He expressed this genius on the piano, but was not really a pianist in
> terms of understanding the technique of the instrument. (This is evident
> on some recordings of ballads like "Ruby My Dear" where he can be heard
> pounding monotonously with no regard to expression or phrasing--an
> inconceivable treatment of such a beautiful tune for anyone trained in
> classical technique).
Monk's command of the piano, and his suppression of that command in the
late '40's in search of a new way of playing, is one of jazz's often-told
stories. I see no reason to disbelieve it, especially after hearing his
Columbia recordings of the '60's: there's plenty of dazzling virtuoso
playing there, mixed in with the quirky styles and devices Monk created in
the '40's and '50's.
I think of Monk's "monotonous pounding", "missed notes", and
"inexpressiveness" the way I think of Picasso's or Jackson Pollock's "lack
of draftsmanship" in their painting and drawings. It wasn't that the
latter artists couldn't have painted or drawn "better", or that they
didn't understand what an academic realist painter knew about expressing
subtleties: instead, they forsook traditional ways of painting to express
new subtleties, to say things that hadn't ever been said before. Monk is
a Picasso of jazz.
Harvey
--
Harvey Cormier
Philosophy Dept.
University of Texas @ Austin
cor...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu
Fathom
> Any opinions re T Monk and Bud Powell? Similarities, differences?
> Preferences? Also for Monk fans: what makes his music unique? I'm doing
> some research on these two and this post is my way of doing an informal
> poll.
> Any replies, either here or E-mail will be greatly appreciated.
A few days ago I answered this post with an honest (and entirely personal)
opinion. I didn't expect my opinion (let alone my name!) to become a topic
of debate, or to be the last word. No one else has addressed the original
question. I really think Monk and Powell are both a lot more interesting
than any one person's opinion, so how about getting the thread back on
topic?
2 jazz pagans
HO...@vax2.concordia.ca (Andrew Homzy) writes:
>
>Bud Powell loved Monk & vice-versa. Powell was practically the only
*bop*
>pianist to truly understand Monk's genius. More discussion?
>
in 1973 (KG 32355). Side 3 starts with Monk playing "'Round Midnight"
solo, and it's followed by Bud playing a live trio version of
"Thelonious" in a very "Monkish" style (with a touch of pre-Jarrett
vocalism). The LP is very short on discographical info, so I'm not sure
of dates. Worth hearing.
- JRB
MSBeller
>Monk is a Picasso of jazz.
Excellent analogy.
What painter would most fit Powell and why? Not to change the original
thread, but I kind of like this concept/imagery. For that matter, what
painters would be associated with other greats such as:
Coltrane?
Bird?
Armstrong?
Cecil Taylor?
Ellington?
Miles?
Mingus?
Gayle?
Diz?
(and I'm sure we can can up with many more... for all I know, this may
have already been done in previous threads.)
- Mike Beller
msbe...@aol.com
MSBeller
Ornette
John Monroe
This sort of cross-genre comparison is hard to resist, though, I'm
afraid, of little value (except as a procrastinatory, pleasant
intellectual exercise). So, against my better judgement...
> What painter would most fit Powell and why?
If Monk is the Picasso of Jazz, I'd be inclined to call Powell the
Matisse. Matisse and Picasso were contemporaries, who, when they were
alive, were thought of as "rivals" (exponents of opposing trends in
modern art, that is). Like Monk's, Picasso's art (I'm thinking of 1907-1922
here) is heavy and full of playful/violent dislocations (eg. "Les Demoiselles
d'Auvignon"). Matisse's art is generally lighter, though some of his
pictures (eg. the "Blue Nude," some of the darker studio interiors) have an
intense, claustrophobic feeling to them. Powell shared both Matisse's
lightness of touch and his hint of barely-controlled frenzy, hidden
beneath a veneer of urbanity. Matisse was a great colorist; Powell was a
great manipulator of harmonies. Matisse's pictures are full of sly
allusions to the "Academic" tradition in art (eg. all those turkish harem
women, which were standard subjects in nineteenth century "establishment"
French painting); Powell's solos, similarly, are loaded with ironic
references to classical music.
Phew. That was fun. Time to get back to listening.
John Monroe.
Harvey J. Cormier
Charlie Parker: Constantin Brancusi. Not a painter, I know, but I hear
Parker's playing as metallic shapes in space. Especially appropriate
because of the bird and egg motifs in Brancusi's work, esp. "Bird in
Space".
Art Tatum: Piet Mondrian. Classical forms meet modernist abstraction and
boogie-woogie.
Ornette Coleman: Henri "Le Douanier" Rousseau. Emotive primitivism, and
dream imagery.
Cecil Taylor: Arshile Gorki. Surrealism on the way to abstract expressionism.
Ellington: Jacob Lawrence. Social and historical consciousness, Harlem
Renaissance aesthetic, modernistic use of deceptively simple forms. (That
one was too easy.)
Charlie Haden: David Alfaro Siqueiros, my favorite Mexican muralist.
Socialist modernism, Latin American images. (At least this is pre-Quartet
West Haden.)
Harvey
--
Harvey Cormier
Philosophy Dept.
University of Texas @ Austin
cor...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu
"One never knows, do one?" --Fats Waller
ahe...@forest.drew.edu
> Forgot to add one I would be most curious about painter association...
>
> Ornette
Jackson Pollock, gotta be...
Julie Miwa
>
>This sort of cross-genre comparison is hard to resist, though, I'm
>afraid, of little value (except as a procrastinatory, pleasant
>intellectual exercise). So, against my better judgement...
I agree with you completely, so put this under the heading of guilty
pleasures and take with the proverbial grain of salt.
Jazz artists: Bird and Diz
Painters: Monet and Renoir
Monet and Renoir, along with other like-minded artists, developed a
unique style outside of the mainstream "salon". Bird and Diz would also
be considered of the same school, and breaking through the traditional
bounds of harmony and rhythym from the swing era. They developed next
to each other, Monet and Renoir painting sometimes side by side.
Monet and Renoir innovated some new techniques (painting in "plain
air"), and their work calls into question some theories of perception
(the use of contrasting color to enhance the perception of light, that
discontinuous points can be perceived as colinear, coherent features,
etc.). The use of jagged rhythems and higher chord tones that Bird and
Diz used was definitely different, and could initially strike the
listener as discordant and non-melodic, but really did fit with modern
harmonic theories. One could argure that they provoked the listened to
"hear" in a different way.
Monet and Renoir, I suppose they would be considered non-realists,
while still being representational. Bird and Diz also could be
considered to straddle the extremes of melodicism (realism) and
atonality (deconstruction).
Initially provoking a visceral and somewhat shocked responses, they
became well-integrated into mainstream culture and are now considered to
be relatively accesible. Qualitatively, their works give the
"impression" of lightness and light.
>Phew. That was fun. Time to get back to listening.
Of little value, I expect, but very fun to do. And please, no-flaming,
as I have no schooling in either art or music, I do not pretend to
"know" any of these things in a literal way, but am going off my
impression of these artists by experience of their works.
Robert Stubenrauch
>cor...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu (Harvey J. Cormier) writes:
>>Monk is a Picasso of jazz.
>Excellent analogy.
However, it is Miles who is often called the "Picasso of jazz". I
think Miles fits better the idea of life-long creativity, while Monk
comes closer at the "abstraction" attribute.
While we are at that: how about Jazz artists who rellay paint. From
the top of my head::
Miles (Star people, a maxi sigle; recently there was an exhibition in
Germany)
Ornette (!): The Art Of The Improvisers, Empty Foxhole (a distorted
detail)
Bill Dixon: albums covers of most of his albums
Roscoe Mitchell: Lester Bowie's "Number one"
Robert
2 jazz pagans
(Robert Stubenrauch) writes:
>
>While we are at that: how about Jazz artists who [really] paint.
Pee Wee Russell was an excellent painter in the manner of Stuart Davis.
Of course, you can reverse the sequence and bring in the painter Larry
Rivers, who was at one time a professional sax player.
- JRB
Jeff Beer
Robert Stubenrauch <rstu...@hms.joanneum.ac.at> wrote:
>msbe...@aol.com (MSBeller) wrote:
>
>>cor...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu (Harvey J. Cormier) writes:
>
>>>Monk is a Picasso of jazz.
>
>>Excellent analogy.
>
>However, it is Miles who is often called the "Picasso of jazz". I
>think Miles fits better the idea of life-long creativity, while Monk
>comes closer at the "abstraction" attribute.
That is true. Picasso had many different styles, just as Miles did.
For Monk, how about Kandinksy?
Finally given that Miles painted and Schoenberg painted, who was a
better painter? :)
>
>While we are at that: how about Jazz artists who rellay paint. From
>the top of my head::
>
>Miles (Star people, a maxi sigle; recently there was an exhibition in
>Germany)
I have his book. The good ones are decent. It is interesting that
many of them are collaborations with another more studied painter, who
probably understood the form of painting better, but certainly was not
the "artist" in the pure sense that Miles was.
>
>Ornette (!): The Art Of The Improvisers, Empty Foxhole (a distorted
>detail)
>
>Bill Dixon: albums covers of most of his albums
>
>Roscoe Mitchell: Lester Bowie's "Number one"
Jeff
Thomas F Brown
Vinny Golia was a painter before he turned to playing jazz.
Jack Woker
>While we are at that: how about Jazz artists who really paint. From
>the top of my head::
>
>Miles (Star people, a maxi sigle; recently there was an exhibition in
>Germany)
>
>detail)
>
>Bill Dixon: albums covers of most of his albums
>
>Roscoe Mitchell: Lester Bowie's "Number one"
>
>
Both Pee Wee Russell and George Wettling were avid painters. Don't know
whether any of Wettling's work ever adorned an album cover, but I
believe one of Pee Wee's did show up on one of his Impulse LP's.
jack
Ralph Geiger
cor...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu (Harvey J. Cormier) wrote (among other
things):
> Dizzy Gillespie: Jackson Pollock. Modernism, abstraction, wild motion.
> Ornette Coleman: Henri "Le Douanier" Rousseau. Emotive primitivism, and
> dream imagery.
Interesting! But considering the cover of Free Jazz, wouldn't it make
more sense to link Coleman with Pollock?
--
Ralph Geiger
<gei...@email.unc.edu>
Marc Sabatella
> Interesting! But considering the cover of Free Jazz, wouldn't it make
> more sense to link Coleman with Pollock?
In general, I'd say Coleman is *much* less "abstract" than Pollack, but perhaps
when Coleman first hit town, he was considered more of a radical. Personally,
I liken him more to early Kandinsky. I'd go with Monk as Picasso.
--
Marc Sabatella
--
ma...@fc.hp.com
http://www.fortnet.org/~marc/
--
All opinions expressed herein are my personal ones
and do not necessarily reflect those of HP or anyone else.
Larry Koenigsberg
In article <4l96pd$7...@dfw-ixnews1.ix.netcom.com>, ste...@ix.netcom.co
says...
Larry Koenigsberg
>
>Any opinions re T Monk and Bud Powell? Similarities, differences?
>Preferences? Also for Monk fans: what makes his music unique? I'm doing
>some research on these two and this post is my way of doing an informal
>poll.
>Any replies, either here or E-mail will be greatly appreciated.
Both were excellent composers, utilizing both conventional and unusual
harmonies, writing tunes that use standards as a base our are completely
original. Monk was proud of Bud's appreciation of him, and Powell returned
the compliment in his later career by sounding very Monk-like, especially in
his treatment of Monk's tunes.
Monk seems to have been concerned not to play too many notes. Like
Ellington, he gets an orchestral sonority from the piano. Supposedly (e.g.
according to Mary Lou Williams) he could play a fluid piano style but chose
not to. He has few followers as a stylist: Randy Weston is the main
example that comes to my mind, as well as some late Powell. Everybody
copied Powell, who was much more the conventional bebopper with strongly
angular melodies, long lines, the "stabbing" left hand credited to his and
Monk's buddy Elmo Hope. Powell is definitely "pianistic" as opposed to
"orchestral" in his playing.
I had a somewhat naive friend who told me that he heard the same delicious
dissonances in Powell as in Monk but that they went by too fast.
Harvey J. Cormier
> [Monk] has few followers as a stylist: Randy Weston is the main
> example that comes to my mind, as well as some late Powell.
Nice post in general, but this claim seems very wrong to me.
Lots of Monkishness in Cecil Taylor and Andrew Hill, and in Taylor's
descendents Herbie Hancock and Chick Corea.
Several European pianists, e.g. Misja Mengelberg, have a lot of Monk
influence.
You mentioned Ellington: he, too, was impressed by Monk, and his late
playing reflects it strongly.
And think of the young lions: Marcus Roberts, Kenny Kirkland, and Geri
Allen all make it clear, at least at times, that they owe a lot to Monk.
These are just random names that popped into my head: Monk's playing has
been hugely influential. In fact, i think one could argue that much of
the mainstream of jazz piano playing now involves juxtaposition of
Monk-type angularities and sonorities with Powell-like fluidities.
Harvey J. Cormier
> Ralph Geiger wrote:
>
> > Interesting! But considering the cover of Free Jazz, wouldn't it make
> > more sense to link Coleman [rather than Dizzy Gillespie] with Pollock?
>
> In general, I'd say Coleman is *much* less "abstract" than Pollack, but
> perhaps when Coleman first hit town, he was considered more of a radical.
I agree: bad album cover, except insofar as it links Coleman to a jazz
"avant-garde" analogous to the avant-garde in painting represented by
Pollock. Coleman innovates by using earthy and concrete country blues
forms in a new way.
It's interesting: obviously, much of Coleman's music floats free of
traditional Western tonality, but that alone is not enough to make his
work strongly "abstract" or non-representational, not enough to break the
referential tie to particular feelings or situations. And, as I have
argued here before, a lot of the music--composition and playing--of Dizzy
Gillespie is very "cool" or abstract, though he never leaves traditional
tonality behind. That's why I think Gillespie was more of a "Jackson
Pollock" than Coleman was, at least in his best-known work.
Harvey
P. S.: How about this one?
Gil Evans: Robert Motherwell. Simple, serene, and massive forms in dark
colors, suggesting slow movement. (Evans is always at his best with a
medium to slow tempo, like his buddy Miles Davis.)
P. P. S.: Great website, Marc! I like your keyboard playing!
Thomas F Brown
>In article <4ldi5p$i...@mars.efn.org>, lar...@efn.org (Larry Koenigsberg) wrote:
>
>> [Monk] has few followers as a stylist: Randy Weston is the main
>> example that comes to my mind, as well as some late Powell.
>
>Nice post in general, but this claim seems very wrong to me.
>
>Lots of Monkishness in Cecil Taylor and Andrew Hill, and in Taylor's
>descendents Herbie Hancock and Chick Corea.
>
>Several European pianists, e.g. Misja Mengelberg, have a lot of Monk
>influence.
Stan Tracy, the british pianist, reveals a huge monk influence.
>
>You mentioned Ellington: he, too, was impressed by Monk, and his late
>playing reflects it strongly.
>
>And think of the young lions: Marcus Roberts, Kenny Kirkland, and Geri
>Allen all make it clear, at least at times, that they owe a lot to Monk.
>
>These are just random names that popped into my head: Monk's playing has
>been hugely influential. In fact, i think one could argue that much of
>the mainstream of jazz piano playing now involves juxtaposition of
>Monk-type angularities and sonorities with Powell-like fluidities.
>
>
>Harvey
>
Steve Schwartz
Waldron and Elmo Hope.
Among the younger generation I think Rodney Kendrick had done
the most with Monk in terms of playing and composing. Very
impressive. He has two CD's on Verve, "Dance, World, Dance" and
"The Secrets of Rodnet Kendrick". Did'nt they all begin with Duke?
Alaways Know,
Steve Schwartz
Eric D. Jackson
>Alaways Know,
>Steve Schwartz
Both Monk and Duke shared a love of James P. Johnson, I think. I know Duke did
and I think that Monk did too. He certainly played as if he liked stride
piano. Some Monk folks will know the story better but didn't Monk grow up near
a well known piano player? Was that James P.? I'm asking because I vaguely
recall something like that.
Eric D. Jackson
Giri Iyengar
>
> Forgot to add one I would be most curious about painter association...
>
> Ornette
Kandinsky.
Perfect!
..Giri
Pietro Polsinelli
.cc.utexas.edu (Harvey J. Cormier) writes:
>In article <4ldi5p$i...@mars.efn.org>, lar...@efn.org (Larry Koenigsberg) wro
te:
>
>> [Monk] has few followers as a stylist: Randy Weston is the main
>> example that comes to my mind, as well as some late Powell.
>
>Nice post in general, but this claim seems very wrong to me.
>
>Lots of Monkishness in Cecil Taylor and Andrew Hill, and in Taylor's
>descendents Herbie Hancock and Chick Corea.
>
>Several European pianists, e.g. Misja Mengelberg, have a lot of Monk
>influence.
how about Geri Allen? Don Pullen cited Monk as an influence, as well.
Gary Valentin
Giri> MSBeller wrote:
>>
>> Forgot to add one I would be most curious about painter association...
>>
>> Ornette
Giri> Kandinsky.
Giri> Perfect!
Depends which period, maybe Kandinsky's earlier stuff. But I like his
later stuff.
I would connect Ornette with Pollock
--
____________________________________________________________________
garyValentin IBM DB2 Optimizer
rud...@vnet.ibm.com
(416)-448-3467 Everybody makes me steaks,
(TL)-778-3467 even me.
ahe...@forest.drew.edu
> Ralph Geiger wrote:
>
>> Interesting! But considering the cover of Free Jazz, wouldn't it make
>
> In general, I'd say Coleman is *much* less "abstract" than Pollack, but perhaps
> I liken him more to early Kandinsky. I'd go with Monk as Picasso.
For Kandinsky, I'd have to say someone like Anthony Braxton. More
cerebral, you know?
Adam
Larry Koenigsberg
>
>Excellent analogy.
>
-- not to me. Picasso like Stravinsky was notable for repeatedly
changing his style and remaining at the top of his profession withal;
Monk's style remains so consistent that the Minton's recordings (e.g.
with Charlie Christian or Hot Lips Page) are very clearly the same
pianist of the quartet with Charlie Rouse. I think of Paul Klee as a
better analogy with Monk, with his playfulness and continual ironic
references to elements of traditional art.
For later Coltrane, maybe Jackson Pollock -- or would he better fit
Sonny Murray?
For Ornette (named in your later posting) I like Jean Dubuffet --
Harvey J. Cormier
> In article <4l3ahg$a...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, msbe...@aol.com says...
> >
> >cor...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu (Harvey J. Cormier) writes:
> >
> >>Monk is a Picasso of jazz.
> >
> >Excellent analogy.
> >
>
> -- not to me. Picasso like Stravinsky was notable for repeatedly
> changing his style and remaining at the top of his profession withal;
> Monk's style remains so consistent that the Minton's recordings (e.g.
> with Charlie Christian or Hot Lips Page) are very clearly the same
> pianist of the quartet with Charlie Rouse.
Monk wasn't only a pianist, he was also a composer and arranger. Thus
there is more to his style than how he played the piano, and that style
underwent many interesting changes over his career. The "Misterioso"
group he led in the '40's featuring Milt Jackson and Shadow Wilson sounds
very different from the whimsical-sounding band he recorded in the '50's
on "Brilliant Corners"; his band with Frank Foster and Art Blakey sounds
like neither of those groups; and the wonderful big-band arrangements by
Hall Overton that Monk elected to play in the '60's are another thing
entirely.
I also think that Monk's piano playing on the early Blue Note sides is
much stiffer and more intentionally awkward- and hesitant-seeming than the
playing on the Columbia records of the '60's. Monk's later playing is
significantly more fluid, and it's also much more danceable and swinging.
He is clearly identifiable as the same pianist over the years, but I think
that reflects the depth of his ideas and the strength of his personality
rather than a simple lack of development. (Compare the solo recordings
Monk made for Riverside with those he made for Columbia for a simple
illustration of how much his piano playing changed over the years.)
I think of Paul Klee as a
> better analogy with Monk, with his playfulness and continual ironic
> references to elements of traditional art.
>
A nice thing about analogies is that very different ones can all be right,
in that they can well illustrate very different aspects of an object. I
think the analogy to Klee is fine fror the reasons you suggest, but I also
think my analogy to Picasso, who suppressed his evident ability to paint
in traditional ways in favor of "primitivism", still may be useful.
One last thing: what early recordings of Monk survive, and where can you
find them? I bought a Laserlight CD that allegedly featured Charlie
Christian in a band with Monk, but I recognize several of the tunes as
recordings of Bird and Diz that don't feature either Christian or Monk.
Is Monk on this thing at all? And if not, did he make any recordings
before the late '40's, and where are they?
Jeff Beer
>In article <4l3ahg$a...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, msbe...@aol.com says...
>>
>>cor...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu (Harvey J. Cormier) writes:
>>
>>>Monk is a Picasso of jazz.
>>
>>Excellent analogy.
>>
>
>-- not to me. Picasso like Stravinsky was notable for repeatedly
>changing his style and remaining at the top of his profession withal;
>Monk's style remains so consistent that the Minton's recordings (e.g.
>with Charlie Christian or Hot Lips Page) are very clearly the same
>references to elements of traditional art.
While that is true, remember you would be making the connection on the
basis of Picasso's accomplishments as an artist, and not the aesthetic
of his art, just as I did in comparing Picasso to Miles.
But let us suppose we look at the cubist style of Picasso, its gestures
of creating a 3 dimensionality on canvess, and see if we get any hint of
Monk. I could see why people would make a connection, although I always
look at Anthony Braxton's version of You've Stepped Out Of A Dream and
get a cubist vibe.
As for Miles, I know that he liked Dali, and there is a certain dreamy
quality that one might a one connection to some of the late 60s Miles.
Of course the simplicity and ecstatic beauty of Klee would too make a nice
connection to Miles.
Now whoever is Vincent Van Gogh stands to make a ton of money in the
feature. Who is it? Trane? Dolphy? Ornette? Ayler?
Of course this is simply a fun excercise, and no jazz artist is to
match perfectly with a painter, but yet sometimes the way you experience
different parts of the music do make you think of a painter.
Jeff
Jeff Beer
I remember talking about this in rmb a few years back. Sometime back
around 1980, I borrowed some Cootie Williams big band recordings from
either the music library from the University of Illinois or the
Champaign Public Library. I am certain that Monk was on it. I taped
some of them, but didn't record any of the information such as the
record label and catalog number or the personnel. I think Monk was on
Honeysuckle Rose, and I know he definitely was _not_ on the Round
Midnight.
In subsequent discussions here on rmb, some people who had read
discographies of Monk couldn't find it, so it they concluded that this
was not true.
I also looked at the Jazz Record Mart to see if they still had vinyl of
these recordings, or if any new CDs came out. Nothing had Monk on, but
I don't think it is the ones I taped either. So I don't know, I would
like to see the vinyl that I taped, but I doubt it is findable at this
point.
Jeff
Spinhugh
ej...@user1.channel1.com (Eric D. Jackson) writes:
>Both Monk and Duke shared a love of James P. Johnson, I think. I know
Duke
>did
>and I think that Monk did too. He certainly played as if he liked stride
>piano. Some Monk folks will know the story better but didn't Monk grow up
>near
> a well known piano player? Was that James P.? I'm asking because I
vaguely
>recall something like that.
>
>Eric D. Jackson
>
>
Monk lived in the same neighborhood as James P. Johnson for a while, but
you're probably thinking of "Fats" Waller. I think he lived with Johnson
and definitely was a student of Johnson.
Monk does show the stride piano influence, though.
Hugh Barnett
North Carolina
Jack Woker
(Compare the solo recordings Monk made for Riverside with those he
made for Columbia for a simple illustration of how much his piano
playing changed over the years.)
>
Agree that Monk's playing did evolve over the years, and generally
agree with your assessment of the changes. I must point out, however,
that contrary to Columbia's claim on the blurb on the cover of "Solo
Monk" (CD) that this is the greatest solo piano record of all time (or
some such hooey), it's always seemed to me that Monk was somewhat
diffident, lighthearted, or perhaps somewhat uninvolved on this
session, whereas on "Thelonious Himself" (Riverside) he digs in a
little deeper. imo, of course...
>One last thing: what early recordings of Monk survive, and where can
>you find them? I bought a Laserlight CD that allegedly featured
>Charlie Christian in a band with Monk, but I recognize several of the
>tunes as recordings of Bird and Diz that don't feature either
>Christian or Monk.
>Is Monk on this thing at all? And if not, did he make any recordings
>before the late '40's, and where are they?
>
>
You can hear Monk on the Charlie Christian 1941 Minton's recordings by
Jerry Newman (available on numerous budget labels over the years, but
the Natasha CD is the best way to get it currently), and he also
recorded with Coleman Hawkins for Joe Davis in 1944 (currently
available on Prestige/Fantasy). Several other Jerry Newman sessions
were issued by Onyx and Xanadu on LP in the 70's, and Monk is
occasionally audible.
jack
Martin Margulis
I'm asking >because I vaguely recall something like that.
They lived in the same neighborhood near what is now Lincoln Center in NYC.
Larry Koenigsberg
cor...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu says...
>One last thing: what early recordings of Monk survive, and where can
you
>find them? I bought a Laserlight CD that allegedly featured Charlie
>Christian in a band with Monk, but I recognize several of the tunes as
>recordings of Bird and Diz that don't feature either Christian or
Monk.
>Is Monk on this thing at all? And if not, did he make any recordings
>before the late '40's, and where are they?
>
>
>Harvey
>
>--
>Harvey Cormier
>Philosophy Dept.
>University of Texas @ Austin
>cor...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu
>
>"One never knows, do one?" --Fats Waller
There is a track on the Charlie Christian sessions at Minton's
(recorded by a Columbia University student in 1941) which begins with
some stride piano -- definitely Monk. Coleman Hawkins first brought
Monk into the studio '44 or '45, listed in Penguin Guide as BEAN AND
BEN 1944-1945, Harlequin HQ 2004 CD; it was also reissued on LP as a
Coleman Hawkins two-fer from Fantasy. He also plays with Hot Lips Page
on a long-gone LP recorded at Minton's, no doubt early 40's, which I
haven't seen for years. As far as I know, any other of those Minton's
recordings (by Jerry Newman, the student) which survive would include
Monk, house pianist at Minton's.
Gil Plantinga
>For Ornette (named in your later posting) I like Jean Dubuffet --
But I really dig Ornette's painting "Circle with a hole in the middle"
which was on the cover of one of those early LPs :-)
Gil Plantinga "After it's over, it's gone, into the air"
New Paltz, NY -- Eric Dolphy
Larry Koenigsberg
In article <4lju4f$e...@ecom7.ecn.bgu.edu>, uj...@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu says...
>
>>And if not, did he [Monk] make any recordings
>>before the late '40's, and where are they?
>
>around 1980, I borrowed some Cootie Williams big band recordings from
>either the music library from the University of Illinois or the
>Champaign Public Library. I am certain that Monk was on it. I taped
>some of them, but didn't record any of the information such as the
>record label and catalog number or the personnel. I think Monk was on
>Honeysuckle Rose, and I know he definitely was _not_ on the Round
>Midnight.
>
>In subsequent discussions here on rmb, some people who had read
>discographies of Monk couldn't find it, so it they concluded that this
>was not true.
>I also looked at the Jazz Record Mart to see if they still had vinyl of
>these recordings, or if any new CDs came out. Nothing had Monk on, but
>I don't think it is the ones I taped either. So I don't know, I would
>like to see the vinyl that I taped, but I doubt it is findable at this
>point.
>
>Jeff
-- Bud Powell is on some early '40's sides by Cootie Williams -- presently
available on Philology, split over a couple of Charlie Parker live sessions,
part of Philology's exhaustive issues of the latter. From what I've heard,
it's not the emotionally expressive, exalted or manic Powell of the late
40's -- but it's clear that the occasional swing fragment in later Powell
comes from professional experience rather than just traditionalism. Powell
is, at any rate, a swing-era (or swing-to-bop) pianist in these early
recordings. Might this be what you recall as Monk?
R Shapiro
>>I remember talking about this in rmb a few years back. Sometime back
>>around 1980, I borrowed some Cootie Williams big band recordings from
>>either the music library from the University of Illinois or the
>>Champaign Public Library. I am certain that Monk was on it.
Your memory is playing tricks on you. This group recorded at least one
Monk *tune* (Round Midnight) in 1942 or so, which was the earliest
recording of any of his compositions (afaik), but there are no recordings
of Monk playing with the Williams orchestra, at least none that have ever
been made public.
Aside from some dubious (imho) bootlegs from "Minton's" (maybe) ca 1941,
the only Monk performances on record before the Blue Note dates are a 4tet
session led by Coleman Hawkins from 1944, and a Dizzy Gillespie big band
live bottleg from 1946. I haven't heard the latter, so I don't know how
audible Monk is. His presence is very clearly felt on the Hawkins date.
--
rs/rsha...@bbn.com
Harvey J. Cormier
A couple of people (Jeff Beer among them?) expressed interest in the
LaserLight CD I mentioned a while ago that claims to feature Monk with
Charlie Christian. The CD is LaserLight 17 032, "The Immortal Charlie
Christian", with listed personnel:
Charlie Christian, guitar;
Dizzy Gillespie, trumpet;
Thelonious Monk, piano;
Kenny Clarke, drums;
Joe Guy and Hot Lips Page, trumpet;
Don Byas, tenor sax;
Kenny Kersey, piano;
Nick Finton, bass.
The cover says the whole thing was recorded "at Minton's in Harlem, May 1941."
The first five tracks are evidently "live" recordings. They are
ostensibly titled "Swing to Bop", ""Up on Teddy's Hill" (composed by
"Baird"), "Kerouac" (in 1941? Come on, now), "Guy's Got to Go", and "Lips
Flips". The clumsy and unimpressive swing pianist playing on them could
imaginably be Monk: I hope it isn't, because that would blow the theory
that Monk consciously adopted his awkwardnesses.
I suspect that this is just some journeyman piano player whose sour,
off-key playing sounds "modernistic" in retrospect, but I'd be interested
to know (a) if this appears to be the stuff recorded by the Columbia U.
student Jerry Newman, and (b) whether there is any more evidence than an
album or CD cover's say-so that Monk really is playing here (e.g., is it
known for certain that Monk and Christian jammed together this early?).
The last five cuts on the CD, "Blue 'n' Boogie," "Hot House," "Groovin'
High," "Dizzy Atmosphere," and "All the Things You Are," are some of
Charlie Parker and Dizzy Gillespie's most famous studio recordings, old
Musicraft sides from the mid-'40s featuring Bird, Diz, Dexter Gordon, and
Chuck Wayne, with no sign of either Christian or Monk.
That bit of dishonesty makes it even harder for me to believe that Monk is
playing anywhere on this dubious little item.
R Shapiro
In article <cormier-2904...@heidegger.wag.utexas.edu>,
cor...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu (Harvey J. Cormier) wrote:
>That bit of dishonesty makes it even harder for me to believe that Monk is
>playing anywhere on this dubious little item ["Minton's"]
I've always been dubious regarding Monk's presence on these tapes. And
looking more closely into the 1946 Dizzy Gillespie big band live boot I
mentioned earlier, which may have Monk, I don't know how seriously I take
that claim now either.
The only *definitive* recording of Monk before his first Blue Note session
seems to be the 1944 Coleman Hawkins 4tet date. At least, that's the only
one I've ever heard of. Nothing with Cootie Williams, which I think was
the original question.
Maybe Jack Woker or someone else more up than I am on Monk discographical
data can comment: are any of these claims of recordings of
Monk-at-Minton's for real?
--
rs/rsha...@bbn.com
2 jazz pagans
The Minton's material has been around for years, almost always on a
budget label. (My LP copy is on Counterpoint/Esoteric, a subsidiary of
Everest.) Monk has consistently been identified as the pianist, along
with Christian, Joe Guy on trumpet, Nick Fenton (probably not Finton,
although it's occasionally spelled that way) on bass, and Kenny Clarke
on drums. With the exception of "Stompin' at the Savoy," most of the
numbers are loose jams, and it's obvious that titles were assigned
years later, when the material was issued. "Swing to Bop," for example,
becomes "Topsy" before it's through. The title "Lips Flips" (another
"Stompin' at the Savoy") would lead you to think Lips Page is on that
track, but he's not listed in the personnel on my copy (which doesn't
prove anything). Ira Gitler's "Jazz Masters of the Forties" says that
Kenny Clarke's Minton's band included Monk, Guy, and Fenton.
There wasn't enough to fill out an LP, much less a CD, so a few tracks
from other dates have been tacked on. In the case of the LP issue, it's
a Gillespie session with Don Byas and Kenny Kersey, among others. The
"Kerouac" title is a later add-on, certainly.
- JRB
Matthew Snyder
Jay Livingston <livin...@saturn.montclair.edu> writes:
>I think I recall hearing an interview with someone--maybe Mary Lou
>Williams herself--that at some time, probably in the '40s, she was giving
>if not lessons then at least pointers to both Monk and Powell. I think
>she said she tried to work with them on technique, more specifically
>touch. Anyway, I guess this means that Monk and Powell were hanging
>around together and probably exchanging musical ideas.
Monk was one of the first to discover POwell and was responsible for
bringing him to the attention of Bird , DIzzy, et al. Yes, they both
were friends and admirers of Mary Lou. SHe once said that she saw Monk
play when he was pretty young and said that he sounded the same at that
age (around 20, maybe less) as he did later.
Matt Snyder "Something's always happening,
hsn...@crab.rutgers.edu every googolplexth of a second."
- Thelonious Monk
Jack Woker
In <cormier-2904...@heidegger.wag.utexas.edu>
>That bit of dishonesty makes it even harder for me to believe that
>Monk is playing anywhere on this dubious little item.
>>
>Harvey
>
It has been documented that Monk, along with Nick Fenton(b) and Kenny
Clarke(d), was the "house pianist" at Minton's in 1941. To my ears,
anyway, I can hear a nascent Monk on these sides, especially "Swing to
Bop" (aka "Charlie's Choice") and "Stompin' at the Savoy". The
trumpeter is Joe Guy, by the way. Yes, these are the Jerry Newman
recordings, and they have been issued on numerous budget labels,
including Laserlight.
As far as the rest of the material goes, here's what I've pieced
together over the years; can't fill in the blanks but will pass on what
I know:
"Up on Teddy's Hill" - Joe Guy, Vic Coulson(tp), Don Byas (ts),
Christian(g)
"Kerouac" - Dizzy Gillespie (tp), Kenny Kersey(p), Kenny Clarke?(d)
"Guy's Got to Go" - Joe Guy (tp), Christian(g), Taps Miller (d)
"Lips Flips" - Hot Lips Page(tp), Rudy Williams(as), Christian(g)
On the last three sides, Pee Wee Tinney(p), Ebenezer Paul(b) have also
been listed/suggested.
As for the titling of "Kerouac", the explanation lies in the fact
that most of these sides were issued (and titled) for the first time in
the 1950's.
jack
Bhs55
I have a version of the recordings at Minton's issued on CD 373 by Legacy
International (whoever they are) which include all the usual numbers, but
also add versions of Groovin' High, Dizzy Atmosphere, and All the Things
(You Are). Christian is on these recordings, as are Gillespie and Parker.
Anyone know when and where these were recorded?
Jack Woker
Listen closely - you will not hear Christian on the tracks you named.
They were recorded in 1945, originally on the Guild label. Furthermore,
Bird does not play on the Minton's sides (from 1941).
jack
Lawson G. Stone
Bhs55 wrote:
>
> I have a version of the recordings at Minton's issued on CD 373 by Legacy
> International (whoever they are) which include all the usual numbers, but
> also add versions of Groovin' High, Dizzy Atmosphere, and All the Things
> (You Are). Christian is on these recordings, as are Gillespie and Parker.
> Anyone know when and where these were recorded?
These were recorded at Minton's Playhouse, where Charlie Christian jammed after
finishing his regular gig with Benny Goodman. They were recorded on amateur
equipment. The time is right about 1939-1940, since CC died around 40-41.
--
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Lawson G. Stone
Associate Professor of Old Testament
Asbury Theological Seminary
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"A truly wise man never plays leapfrog with a unicorn."