Frankie Dunlop on Monk's rhythm sections
Posted: January 6th, 2015, 7:44 am
Ethan Iverson's Do the Math blog has a good piece on Frankie Dunlop and John Ore, who were with Monk in the early 60's. The blog links to an interview with Dunlop that another blog, Cruise Ship Drummer, got from a 1985 Modern Drummer magazine interview (whew).
Anyway, I was struck by the following observation by Dunlop:
I can see just what he means. Monk's harmonies and rhythmic quirks were very modern but the basic swing of his groups was strong, clear and emphatic. Even when he had bebop innovators like Roach, Blakey or Haynes, the bass was walking strong. None of that let's-all-converse rhythm section interaction for him. Function, function, function.
Here's Dunlop with Monk:
Anyway, I was struck by the following observation by Dunlop:
Monk always liked an exceptionally strong bass man and drummer. The reason you heard so much straight playing was because Monk didn't consider it a rhythm section—even though it was a quartet—unless it had the driving sound—the dynamics and the attack of a heavy, hard-driving section like those of Count Basie or Duke Ellington. That was the way Monk thought. Rhythmically, his conception was not like the average quartet. From the first beat, Monk's quartet would be just like the rhythm section of any good big band—just like Woody Herman stomping off "Woodchopper's Ball" or "Northwest Passage." We played a little louder than the average quartet, but basically we played with a lot of dynamics. We were just four pieces, but all of Monk's things would be hard-driving.
I can see just what he means. Monk's harmonies and rhythmic quirks were very modern but the basic swing of his groups was strong, clear and emphatic. Even when he had bebop innovators like Roach, Blakey or Haynes, the bass was walking strong. None of that let's-all-converse rhythm section interaction for him. Function, function, function.
Here's Dunlop with Monk: