I’m a Monk fanatic and Monk scholar, and I wanted to add this: while I think it’s generally true that his best work is earlier, I’ve noticed that his working quartet from the later period (like the live recording you mention), contrary to the conventional wisdom, had many nice moments. My sense of it is that Monk, having improvised countless solos and accompaniments on the same repertoire, could still get inspired on a good night. There were certain tunes where he tended to play the same solos over and over, but he didn’t do that with all the material. Also— his less heralded quartets always swung like crazy. The virtuosity and invention of his ensembles that included people like Rollins and Coltrane was missing, but the flavor and swing of the later groups is undeniable.
I wholeheartedly agree. I really enjoy his ensembles with Rollins, especially their joint album together, but I agree that it’s not as innovate as the later groups, and that the flavor of those sessions is undeniable.
I’m a Monk fanatic and Monk scholar, and I wanted to add this: while I think it’s generally true that his best work is earlier, I’ve noticed that his working quartet from the later period (like the live recording you mention), contrary to the conventional wisdom, had many nice moments. My sense of it is that Monk, having improvised countless solos and accompaniments on the same repertoire, could still get inspired on a good night. There were certain tunes where he tended to play the same solos over and over, but he didn’t do that with all the material. Also— his less heralded quartets always swung like crazy. The virtuosity and invention of his ensembles that included people like Rollins and Coltrane was missing, but the flavor and swing of the later groups is undeniable.
I wholeheartedly agree. I really enjoy his ensembles with Rollins, especially their joint album together, but I agree that it’s not as innovate as the later groups, and that the flavor of those sessions is undeniable.