News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Monk: The High Priest of Jazz (1964) by leephillips on Monday August 18, 2014 @03:47PM (#8194238)
In Robin Kelley's excellent recent biography of Monk, he discusses this article: "for all his defense of Monk's sanity, Lapham fell for the oldest myth of all: 'An emotional and intuitive man, possessing a child's vision of the world'". I highly recommend the book if you like the music. The context is a series of critics who failed to grasp Monk's sophistication and described him, incorrectly, as an untutored musician who had some original improvisatory talent. All these misapprehensions are almost comically reproduced in the Monk entry in Baker's biographical dictionary, for example.

I consider Monk to be one of the most important musicians of the 20th century.

Re:Monk: The High Priest of Jazz (1964) by keithpeter on Monday August 18, 2014 @04:25PM (#8194447)
The Transformer is a double CD of Monk's home recordings of practice sessions. He is iterating (I'm tempted to say hacking on) a 'standard' and leading to recordings of three live performances of the piece with a quartet. Taught me lots. A bit intense for non-pianists but will put paid to the 'random happy eccentric' stuff. This guy worked in a systematic way and lead his bands.

Kelly's book is just required.

Re:Monk: The High Priest of Jazz (1964) by datahipster on Monday August 18, 2014 @04:09PM (#8194375)
I'm delighted to share that I'm currently reading Kelley's book right now. Great read thus far!

It's refreshing to see a story on Monk make the front page of HN.

Re:Monk: The High Priest of Jazz (1964) by analog31 on Monday August 18, 2014 @10:27PM (#8195762)
Reading Kelley's book, I was just fascinated to learn about the process by which Monk created music. He composed on paper, at the piano, but was loath to let people see his charts -- possibly due to justified fear of having them stolen and used by others. Instead, he expected his sidemen to learn his tunes by ear, on the bandstand. That would have been a real trial by fire!

It's a lot different than how jazz players develop repertoire today. The standard repertoire has largely been codified in "fake books," mistakes and all. Reading and improvising from fake books has become part of basic training.

I'd like to learn more about what playing jazz was really like during that time period, and as a player, experience it that way myself if possible. I'm intrigued by the question: Would I have been able to hack it at all in that environment?