Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Paul Jackson Bad Pocket???
- Thread starter Mumwup
- Start date
The jazz point is a valid one. "Pocket" playing, as I would typically think of it, is more about "maintaining" a very clearly delineated pulse. That's not so much what is going on here. There is a pulse, but the focus is on "reacting" more than on "maintaining". The musical context in which Jackson typically performs (on the above mentioned records at least) is one that involves constant change. In that way it's much closer to jazz than to funk. Instead of just "holding it down" Jackson is part of the evolution of the music, responding to what the other players are doing on the spot. Thinking about his playing in the aforementioned terms I can definitely appreciate it more.
Paul Jackson is so funky that if he moved in next door, your lawn would die.
Seriously, Paul and Mike are about the funkiest pair imaginable, I can see this going over your head if you are not well vested in funk.
Seriously, Paul and Mike are about the funkiest pair imaginable, I can see this going over your head if you are not well vested in funk.
I agree with everything you just wrote
...except for the part about "Pocket" playing...is more about "maintaining"
I've never heard the term "pocket" refer to anything other than the temporal placement of notes in relation to the beat (either an explicitly implied beat or an implicitly agreed upon beat). If a player is "in the pocket" they could be maintaining a figure or they could be deconstructing & reassembling a figure, or they could be staunchily avoiding any sense of "figure" whatsoever; what determines whether or not they're "in the pocket" is simply where their notes fall, irrespective of what their notes are.
And I know I can't be the only person who understands "pocket" to mean that.
Cool. After four pages of chest thumping, we finally get around to some discussion of what people actually mean when they say "pocket". This thread has some hope after all 
.
So to the above, I'd agree that's necessary but not sufficient. Pocket requires more than one participant, wouldn't you say? It's not just where the bass puts his notes in relation to the beat; it's the combination of where the bass and drums (as an example) do. In other words, pocket implies interaction.
/rick
.So to the above, I'd agree that's necessary but not sufficient. Pocket requires more than one participant, wouldn't you say? It's not just where the bass puts his notes in relation to the beat; it's the combination of where the bass and drums (as an example) do. In other words, pocket implies interaction.
/rick
Yes Roscoe that's it! "...temporal placement of notes in relation to the beat."
As I listen to PJ more, I realize it is Jackson's embellishments that sound awkward. Take Bass12's example, "Hop Scotch" by Harvey Mason." Jackson's embellishments sound clumsy in relation the the awesome feel he presents otherwise. It's like his embellishments don't have the same rhythmical accuracy as the essential pattern. Or as Roscoe may describe it, his embellishments have less than accurate "temporal placement of notes in relation to the beat."
But I'll repeat, "funky" and funk/pocket/groove are not the same thing. One can play a lot of funky things that don't necessarily contribute to the groove in a positive way.
And let me add, I get that it's jazz Bass12. I understand and do play in front, or behind, of the beat as appropriate. But this is done typically when I'm swinging. The implied rules of funk/pocket/groove almost demand that any exploration must have accurate "temporal placement of notes in relation to the beat"-hence, holding the groove.
To the poster who suggested that I "don't dig PJ." I do. But, I wanted to get a sense for how others were "hearing" PJ's work. And I wanted to "sharpen" my analysis by getting feedback from others. This thread has exceed my expectations in that regard.
I'd like to thank everyone for the feedback. This is an interesting conversation that only bass players could have.
Holy God thanks man.. Im gonna listen to this once a day for a month!!! This is killin!!!
You're seriously overthinking this, mista! So much so that you're missing the point. Does it make you wanna grab your bass and get fonkay? Is yo' hip slippin'?
You can't simply solo a track and say 'there, I'm right. The bass line is not in the pocket!' It's the interaction - the sum of the parts - that make the music happen.
"...Funky and pocket/groove ain't the same thing."
This comment is truly baffling
If you don't dig Jackson, that's cool. But please don't lecture us on the groove when you don't seem to know what it is.
Cheers
I disagree. I think not enough people analyse what we refer to as groove. This discussion is great!
"...Funky and pocket/groove ain't the same thing."
This comment is truly baffling
But they're not necessarily the same thing. All kinds of music that isn't funky can be "in the pocket" and groove.
The phrase "In the pocket" is devoid of meaning, just like all the other buzzwords. And not all funk music is supposed to be behind the beat, or play repeating figures, or whatever nonsense standards too many folks try to apply to others without any shred of context. I would bet money that if you dissected Paul Jackson's influences, you would find lots of boogaloo involved, which is kind of a forerunner to funk that bridged the gap between funk and 60's soul music. With boogaloo, the bass does get on the beat rather than behind it.
But who cares...bottom line is Paul Jackson is way better than most of you naysayers
But who cares...bottom line is Paul Jackson is way better than most of you naysayers
I have to thank the OP, actually. I've always known who PJ was, and I've heard recordings with him on them, but I've never really delved into his work. I am now. And I am happier for it. Just plain awesome. And I have to say, it doesn't require a dissection, just to listen and enjoy...
I don't think the term "in the pocket" is devoid of meaning, but I'm pretty sure that not all of us agree on what the precise definition of the term is. I do agree with your point regarding approaches (behind the beat, on top of the beat, etc.). There's definitely more than one way of being funky.The phrase "In the pocket" is devoid of meaning, just like all the other buzzwords. And not all funk music is supposed to be behind the beat, or play repeating figures, or whatever nonsense standards too many folks try to apply to others without any shred of context. I would bet money that if you dissected Paul Jackson's influences, you would find lots of boogaloo involved, which is kind of a forerunner to funk that bridged the gap between funk and 60's soul music. With boogaloo, the bass does get on the beat rather than behind it.
But who cares...bottom line is Paul Jackson is way better than most of you naysayers
I think it's actually an interesting question: can someone have a funky feel while not being "in the pocket?". I guess that would depend on how one defines "funky feel" and "in the pocket". That's part of the problem with this thread though: the terms haven't necessarily been agreed upon. We can all debate until we're blue in the face but if we're not arguing about the same thing then we aren't getting anywhere.
