Even the name possesses an obtuse ring: Thelonious Sphere Monk, words beyond reproach in the annals of the English language.
When I typed “Thelonious” into Microsoft Word, the jagged red lines of the “spell check” function instantly alerted me of a misspelling and offered ZERO suggestions for a correct spelling. That scenario perfectly encapsulates Thelonious Monk: the man, the musician, and the legend.
Far ahead of his time, Monk preceded the avant-garde phase of jazz by a full ten years; thus, critics bestowed heaps of scorn, as they mocked not only Monk’s angular music but also his offbeat, hipster style of dress with his block-rimmed glasses, tailor-made suits, and an assortment of hats. The portrait at left exemplifies his style and attitude.
The career of Thelonious Monk, despite all of its eccentricities and irregularities, is one of passion, perseverance, and finally, redemption.
Born October 10, 1917 in Rocky Mount, North Carolina, Monk began playing piano at the age of nine. A high school dropout, Monk was in his late teens when he cut his niche in the bebop landscape as a house pianist at Minton’s Playhouse in New York City, where he participated in the club’s legendary after hours “cutting competitions.” Frequent contributors to these late-night jam sessions included Charlie Parker, Dizzy Gillespie, Kenny Burrell, and Miles Davis.
Monk’s self-stated influences were Duke Ellington, James P. Johnson, and other stride-style, or, boogie-style pianists in the early days of jazz in the 1920s and 1930s. He also toured briefly with evangelists, where he played church organ. Any notion of Monk’s influences or inspirations, though, is entirely irrelevant when his playing is taken into consideration. I’ll make a bold assertion: if you have never heard of Thelonious Monk, I guarantee you have never heard ANYONE who played like him.
Largely self-taught on piano, Monk abstained from classical training and formal education, instead developing his own unique, highly idiosyncratic style. This style, as this clip plainly displays, was hardly conventional. Emphasizing dissonance and redefining the traditional rules of harmony, Monk’s playing was bold, shocking, and uncompromising when he burst on the jazz scene in the 1940s.
In addition to his playing, Monk was a premiere jazz composer, writing percussive, corky compositions that featured wild tunings, odd time signatures, octave-jumping melodies, humorous, rat-a-tat syncopations, and very unusual titles. Some call it weird; I see it as unique, and song names such as “Hackensack,” “Rhythm-a-Ning,” and “Crepuscule with Nellie” are unlike anything in the jazz canon and immediately signify one thing: Monk.
The compositions were also unspeakably difficult, to the point where Sonny Rollins—probably the second greatest tenor saxophonist in jazz history behind John Coltrane—threw his hands up in the air during a recording session and proclaimed, “This stuff is impossible!”
Though Monk’s most important recordings were his landmark sessions for Blue Note in the late 1940s, it was not until the 1956 release of Brilliant Corners that Monk’s genius was appropriately recognized. Ironically, during that time period, Monk had not changed a single quality of his music. Riding this new wave of critical acclaim, Monk would continue to make brilliant music into the 1960s, gradually fading away at the close of the decade and becoming a recluse of sorts (Monk’s son, T.S. Monk, attributed his disappearances to mental illness and subsequent hospital visits).
The redemptive quality of Monk’s career, though, represents the schizophrenic nature of jazz. This was a style of music embroiled in controversy from its inception. Prospering in the bootleg speakeasies of the prohibition era, the loud, fast, and above all, confrontational style of jazz was threatening to the conservative (i.e. WHITE) establishment, and it did not take long for a string of ridiculous rumors to surface on the supposed ill-effects of jazz music. One rumor, for example, alleged that jazz led to mental illness. Another warned that pregnant women should avoid the music, as the potential side effects to the child’s health could be devastating.
Clearly jazz was on the cutting edge at birth, but once business became involved, and powerful recording companies such as Columbia and Prestige began producing jazz for the masses, much more care was taken with what product was being released to what audience.
Now, it would be unfair for me to simplify the roles of record companies in the jazz canon as white capitalist fat cats reaping the profits from the music of poor black men, because jazz labels such as Blue Note, Columbia, and Impulse released some of the most earth-shattering music of the 20th century.
However, some of these efforts were not without their difficulties. Time Out, for example, a legendary 1959 album by the Dave Brubeck Quartet, was stalled by Columbia, who feared that the experimentations on the album with time signatures would ruin its commercial appeal. It went on to be the best selling jazz album of that time. Miles Davis, a musician who was never a stranger to controversy, fought viciously with Columbia regarding personnel, funding, and musical direction.
Monk, though, was a quiet protestor. Call him the Mahatma Gandhi of jazz; instead of dismissing his critics with fire and brimstone, Monk simply kept on playing. Monk presented a radical, forward-thinking style of jazz, one that would anticipate some of the major stylistic breakthroughs of the 1960s avant-garde movement. His percussive playing style, with its thundering dynamics and abrupt pauses, redefined bebop soloing. And his varied repertoire of original compositions included a handful of some of the more cherished jazz standards in the American songbook.
All of these remarkable qualities are indelible characteristic of what we now consider “jazz,” yet it took years before the public recognized Monk’s talents for what they were: brilliant, ingenious, and in a class of their own. I guess Monk proves the age-old adage: patience is a virtue.





rod warner:
November 18th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
Nice overview… what got me into Monk (as a precocious 14 year old) was when I saw ‘Jazz on a Summer’s Day’ and became instantly obsessed (a lifelong endeavour!). It was his SOUND as much as anything else - and I think that is sometimes overlooked. Perhaps he anticipates over areas of contemporary music as well as jazz…
Anyway - good stuff!
jmucci:
November 18th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
Great article. Not only did Sonny Rollins have trouble playing with Monk, but Miles couldn’t stand having Monk playing with him. Even though he liked his stuff. Monk could only really play with his own band. He never made a good backing player. His playing was too idiosyncratic for that. Anyhow…very good. I wouldn’t mind posting this on my own site.
MMM:
November 19th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Nice article. This true American genius’s essence is capture in this quote of his - “For years, they were telling me to play commercial, be commercial. I’m not commercial. I say, play your own way. You play what you want, and let the public pick up on what you were doing, even if it takes 15, 20 years.”….BRILLIANT.
Al Heller:
November 20th, 2008 at 9:48 am
Hi Peter
Very interesting & well written article - much more informative than most sleevenotes I’ve read!
Ron S.:
November 20th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Peter,
Right now, I’m listening to Trinkle, Tinkle after reading your piece. Leave it up to Monk to find any space available between Trane’s notes. Monk while working is a perfect analogy of my dissonant contributions to the workplace. Great article. Keep it up. From your old pen pal.
Kevin z.:
November 20th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
Nicely done Pete. I’m infinitely impressed with the depth and breadth of this tribute to Thelonious himself. Great article!