Jarre: Progressive Electronic or Prog Related?

Paradox wrote: I don't see why he should be considered prog at all. He made some innovative and interesting music on keyboards at the end of the day, thats about it.

hmmm...

curious as to how you would define 'prog' 

I don't see why he should be considered prog at all. He made some innovative and interesting music on keyboards at the end of the day, thats about it.

I'll stop at answering with no, it's already a long discussion.

sorry


Edited by Ricochet - November 08 2006 at 16:11

I|I|I|I|I wrote: Ricochet wrote: I|I|I|I|I wrote: Edit: Also, it appears a lot of you have a different concept of "pop" than I do. Apparently, your defition of "pop" is that the music is simple and easy. How absolutely incorrect is that! There is plenty of pop music that isn't necessarily sweet nor easy, and there is plenty of non-pop music that is sweet and easy. The correct definition of "pop" music is that it is "popular"... and even by that definition, many bands like Pink Floyd could be considered pop and yet we most definitely know they are progressive. let's try more profoundness into definitions. Pink Floyd made it out to a massive audience, but does that really resemble the "popular", fully, of it? Even more, how can the relation between Jarre and Floyd be possible, even in popular terms. I agree with some prog over at Jarre, put Floyd valences are indeed to high to think of, for Jarre. I think there are many similarities between Jarre and Floyd - not in style, of course, but in success of the musicians and their approach to music. Again, Floyd took a very "easy", sweet approach to music... as does Jarre... Floyd also reached a large audience, a large percentage of which that was the only "progressive" music they listened too... same thing with Jarre... Floyd was also quite experimental, despite their accessibility... same thing with Jarre. The similarity is that they are both progressive artists that were simply more accessible than other progressive artists. Many people think that BECAUSE Jarre was accessible, he wasn't prog. But I think he was simply accessible IN ADDITION to being prog.

nope, at least until the last years...

I also don't absolutely agree on Jarre experimenting much...perhaps in solid specific examples, but overall Zoolook was his most abstract thing and that's all.

again, for the n time, I'll say that accesability doesn't match progressiveness. yes.

I|I|I|I|I wrote: Edit: Also, it appears a lot of you have a different concept of "pop" than I do. Apparently, your defition of "pop" is that the music is simple and easy. How absolutely incorrect is that! There is plenty of pop music that isn't necessarily sweet nor easy, and there is plenty of non-pop music that is sweet and easy. The correct definition of "pop" music is that it is "popular"... and even by that definition, many bands like Pink Floyd could be considered pop and yet we most definitely know they are progressive.

let's try more profoundness into definitions.
Pink Floyd made it out to a massive audience, but does that really resemble the "popular", fully, of it?
Even more, how can the relation between Jarre and Floyd be possible, even in popular terms. I agree with some prog over at Jarre, put Floyd valences are indeed to high to think of, for Jarre.

from a french perspective, Jarre is no more than moody electronic elevator music...

okay, let's play the quoting game.

Certif1ed wrote: Ricochet wrote: Certif1ed wrote: He's not exactly Tomita, is he? Tomita's ouch and uh-oh (except one album and half of an other album) to my ears. Tomita is incredibly inventive - just not as good at choosing "nice" sounds as Jarre, so most of it sounds somewhat "ouch", and I would go as far as to agree with "uh-oh". However, I think it's not the packaging, it's what's inside that's important. Which brings us nicely back to Jarre...

I'm afraid I don't appreciate Tomita's transpositions (except the Pictures good resonance). Making things artificial is something I truly hate when it happens over at electronic. On the opposite factor, squeezing emotion out of buttons is a crafty thing.

Ricochet wrote: ---okay,some thoughts over what has been recently posted 1. even in music gets played in the disco or in the enviromental commerciality, I believe that exception can be made as to focus on the actual music, insight that means, and to reflect upon a composition that worths something - only that it is truly popular as to break into a mass.

Yes, I agree - but the difficulty is in quantifying this - after all, ABBA, the Bee Gees and Earth, Wind and Fire all wrote some very high quality Disco-oriented music to the point that all came up with worthy compositions.

Certif1ed wrote: Ricochet wrote: 2. I don't believe you really wish for a disastrous question as to why a major part of prog music didn't turn out for anything and for everything - Jarre's music, the "firsts" and the pinnacles, simply turned out within that orientation, nonetheless with a clear focus Not sure what you're trying to say here - what is this "disastrous question?".

I'm just asking if there's anything wrong with Jarre being popular, while many other - some pivotal - came and went with the period.
Disastrous by being a slightly flaming one. An inconvenient fact.

Certif1ed wrote: Ricochet wrote: 3. Prog-Related isn't pop, and I already argumented that Jarre, except Metamorphosis, isn't to the core pop. That's as may be, but Oxygene, Equinoxe and Magnetic Fields do have extremely popular elements - and they're the albums he's mainly known for.

I don't judge "pop" as "popular". I judge pop as sweet easy music that attracts the heart of a simple man. Jarre, to its most heartfull sense, is not the artist to slam some notes and to call that the kitsch effect. It's only an impression to me (or to you; or to them!) that an ABA composition such as the one on Jarre's classic album's hits relevates a pop sense.

Out of interest, let's just forget about Oxygene 4, Equinoxe whatever hits the best and Magnetic Fields ta-ra-ra-ta-ta-ta part 2. How does the rest of those albums, reaching from luminous to deep and from epic to succing, sound?

Certif1ed wrote: Ricochet wrote: 4. you've said very well "appears", because I still wonder how many people got the picture that's it's all about Jarre's progressiveness and not about Jarre's "electronicness" He uses electronic instruments - so do most pop groups. Shall we say that Soft Cell, Visage and Tubeway Army were Prog-Related or Progressive Electronic? They ONLY used electronic instruments and in a very progressive way. It's hardly their fault it caught on and became popular.

He does more than using instrument. He manipulated his style, he squeezed - as I've said - more that button,note and et caetera, he created a dimension out of the minimal range of his instrument. Technique being much more.
You're incredibly devalorizing Jarre's intentions as an electronic musicians, I'm sorry to say that.

The real problem is that Progressive Electronic means 100% Prog and Jarre is far from that.

I say Prog-related, as I initially said when his move was proposed by Phillipe.


Edited by Zac M - November 08 2006 at 00:00

I|I|I|I|I wrote: Well, I know this poll has only been up for a few days, but it *appears* as if most people agree that Jarre is progressive electronic. I'll wait for a few more votes, though.