Jarre: Progressive Electronic or Prog Related?
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Other music related lounges
Forum Name: Proto-Prog and Prog-Related Lounge
Forum Description: Discuss bands and albums classified as Proto-Prog and Prog-Related
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=30597
Printed Date: November 28 2024 at 12:01
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Jarre: Progressive Electronic or Prog Related?
Posted By: I|I|I|I|I
Subject: Jarre: Progressive Electronic or Prog Related?
Date Posted: November 01 2006 at 21:25
|
Seeing my favorite progressive electronic artist getting demoted to Prog Related is something I take personally. Well, not exactly. But you get the idea. I mean, the guy is JUST AS progressive as Kraftwerk, Brian Eno, Tangerine Dream, and other artists at the top of the genre. So my vote goes to Progressive Electronic, not Prog Related. ------------- Go and listen to my music. http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=31725 |
Replies:
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: November 01 2006 at 22:37
| Jarre is indeed an electronic musician. Whether he's progressive or not is a matter of opinion. I do like his stuff, though. |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: November 01 2006 at 22:54
Well, that's the central point in debate, we're not talking about simple electronic because in that case we should add most DJ's, trance and a lot of Hip Hop.
The problem is if he's Progressive Rock artist or not, I believe he isn't, I objected his inclusion but had nothing to do with his move to Prog Related even when I agree 200%.
IMO Most of his stuff is just effectist music for a good show and nothing else.
Iván ------------- 
|
Atavachron wrote:Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: November 01 2006 at 23:13
Yes, but I think he kicks Mike Oldfield's ass. |
Posted By: I|I|I|I|I
Date Posted: November 01 2006 at 23:28
|
Well, by definition, I don't think progressive electronic necessarily means progressive electronic rock... I definitely wouldn't characterize Klaus Schulze, Tangerine Dream, or Brian Eno's ambient stuff as rock, but it's all certainly progressive. Jean-Michel Jarre is at least as progressive as these guys, if not more - meaning, it's more musically intelligent and adventurous than a lot of other music when it was composed. I would say Jarre's experimentation is certainly more musically interesting than some of Eno's highly regarded ambient work, at least. ------------- Go and listen to my music. http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=31725 |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: November 02 2006 at 00:21
|
Jarre's Experimentation???
He just plays mainstream music with a lot of pop elements and a lot of electronic bugs, that's all
Look at the people jump and clap mooving their booties at his encore or the boring Sax song for his friend the astronaut.
Oxygen from omne to the infinite are only variations over the same theme, his song with the huge children chorus is pompous and spectacular but not challenging at all.
Yopu can't compare him with Mike Oldfield who has Fusion and Symphonic elements or Eno and much less with the spacey Tangerine Dream.
If it wasn't for his spectacular show, would not be worth a listen IMO.
The case was discussed in the Collaborators section ad all the posts agreed, some really harsh about about his music and most agree he's very poppy.
Iván -------------
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: November 02 2006 at 01:10
| Well this brings us back to whether or not this is a "Progressive site" or a "Progressive Rock" site. I always believed this to be a "Progressive Rock" site. Otherwise we have become a mirror image of Bradley Smith's book "The Billboard guide to Progressive Music". I, for one would be disappointed if that were so. Although the inclusion of many of the artists already on this site would actually seem to infer the latter. Artists such as J. M Jarre, Tangerine Dream, Captain Beefheart, Eno, Kate Bush, 10cc, Roxy Music, Kraftwerk, Klaus Schulze and many, many others, I believe, have no place whatsoever on a Progressive rock site and should, if at all, be classified under prog-related (and some just are out-and-out pop IMO). With that in mind, where do you stop with "prog-related"? It seems like every Tom, Dick and Harry (an English term for all you who are saying "what?" - meaning seemingly everyone) is in that category. I have just seen a proposal for Tom Waits. The aurgument against was that he was "progressive" but not "progressive rock" - I would classify him as a viurtual twin of C. Beefheart - so, why one and not another? This type of debate will rage on and on, obviously, with people's perceptions and desires being what they are. I don't like seeing some of the classifications / inclusions on ProgArchives because of how I view genres, but I have to accept that it is NOT my site and I am a participating guest. It certainly does not mar my enjoyment, after all, I can just skip all that I do not agree with. It's all an a image of the democratic society that we live in anyway - so, live and let live. |
Posted By: Abstrakt
Date Posted: November 02 2006 at 01:13
| If he was prog related, than so would Kraftwerk be. |
Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: November 02 2006 at 01:14
I also got trouble over the move at first, but now I conceive the situation better.  Jean Michel Jarre has the problem of making popular sound for the mass and of having clenched long enough towards his own style. Electronic seems slightly the characteristic of technique and the mind movement that...creats them all. Then there is the techno issue of the last years, which resemble a change even more "obscure". I would say towards fan to don't get alarmed, as Jarre is still considered and cannot be considered anything else that an electronic musician, making electronic music within an electronic personal definition. The only thing was his progressiveness and his progressiveness by comparison with many others. Considering the entire spectrum of electronic music, Jarre is slightly but considerably isn't a prog entitled artist. Prog Related, the best compromise, as philippe said. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: November 02 2006 at 01:18
|
Somebody described Jarre as a POP artist who plays with Electronic instruments and I agree with that.
Iván -------------
|
Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: November 02 2006 at 01:26
I can't entirely go by that. The classic movements of Jean Michel Jarre sound only easy, it's not a pop "refinement". The early rubbish sound tests are even an experimental/sound manipulation thing. The 1986-1988 is the most accurate at easyness, but you don't find it in the Rendez-Vous emotions, only in the Revolutions' stagnation. Waiting For Cousteau the title track is an essence of ambient focused glance music; it's a great examples towards the fact that Jarre didn't do just easy stuff. Chronologie is a very constructive electronic performance. Metamorphoses is indeed a pop album, by the vocals and by the awfully soft illustration. Sessions 2002 a nice jazzy-attempt electronic (technically) composition. Geometry Of Love - a light ambient minimalism. Printemps De Bourges (has anyone bothered to hear this album? it's great and so different!). Four pieces that don't resemble anything at all from Jarre's usual, mutual, non-singular music passion. Experimental in the diffused way, of epic flavour, of a characteristic that draws parallels to Tangerine Dream sizes or to very intelligent music modelation. -------------
|
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: November 02 2006 at 01:45
|
Printemps De Bourges (has anyone bothered to hear this album? it's great and so different!). Four pieces that don't resemble anything at all from Jarre's usual, mutual, non-singular music passion. Experimental in the diffused way, of epic flavour, of a characteristic that draws parallels to Tangerine Dream sizes or to very intelligent music modelation.
That's the only one I haven't heard, but the rest IMO is popish stuff with some refinements.
Another Collaborator mentioned that his love life was more interesting than his music.
 Iván -------------
|
Posted By: erik neuteboom
Date Posted: November 02 2006 at 03:21
For me Tangerine Dream and Klaus Schulze are Coca Cola and JM Jarre is Coca Cola Light, the question is or Coca Cola Light still deserves to be mentioned Coca Cola 
|
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: November 02 2006 at 07:14
I would say in this case that TD,and KS are Coca Cola while Jarre is Pepsi light (I like Pepsi more), tries ro be Coca Cola, has the same color, a similar flavor but it's another thing,
Iván -------------
|
Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: November 02 2006 at 07:17
popish is slightly better.  well, Adjani is Adjani. -------------
|
Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: November 02 2006 at 07:18
no,no,no, Tangerine Dream are Pepsi Cola (I like Pepsi more also), Klaus Schulze is Pepsi Max and Jarre the Coca Cola (lightish). Kraftwerk are Mountain Dew.  -------------
|
Posted By: I|I|I|I|I
Date Posted: November 02 2006 at 11:46
|
I absolutely cannot believe people consider Jarre "popish". I've listened to Oxygene a million times and hear NO pop in this music - the "pop" of that day was disco and silly AOR-type stuff. If you consider a better grasp of melody a sign of "pop", you're sorely mistaken. In fact, some of the best prog songs have catchy melodies - listen to "Roundabout" by Yes or "Money" by Pink Floyd. And in my opinion, Jarre has QUITE a better grasp of melody than Schulze, Eno (well, at least, during Eno's ambient days), or Tangerine Dream. Not to mention he actually changes the chords once in while (one of my largest complaints with Schulze's "X"). And besides, even if his influences are obviously Schulze and that ilk, that doesn't mean he's merely prog-related. I think he successfully built upon their musical style and turned it into something even better. Hence, progressive electronic. ------------- Go and listen to my music. http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=31725 |
Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: November 02 2006 at 12:03
|
Jarre is very melodic indeed, but the conflict that goes around is regarding the rightousness of the melody, the superior quality of that melody and (I even heard) the art meaning of that melody. I like Jarre's melodies, but it's only a stereotypical regard. About catchy, it is either too much of catchy things or not the issue of being catchy. Again I say, Jarre has the popular tendency. Chords are barely modulated inside one piece. A-B-As and such. But you have a point in mentioning that there are dynamics. Yet again, dynamics wear the same conflicts from people desiring "more". "more?'> His influence isn't Klaus Schulze. -------------
|
Posted By: I|I|I|I|I
Date Posted: November 02 2006 at 12:49
|
I'm sorry, I read in a review somewhere that Michel was influenced by people like Schulze, but apparently I either misread it or the reviewer was wrong. But that strengthens my argument - Jean-Michel Jarre was creating better music than Schulze outside of Schulze's influence. ------------- Go and listen to my music. http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=31725 |
Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: November 02 2006 at 13:04
must be an understatement. I can't see both in connections. ah,I'd better go cool down my fanboy blood. Jean Michel Jarre influenced my electronic taste completely until Tangerine Dream and Schulze appeared. I think that, by this influence or by its possibility, Jarre shouldn't be neglected electronically. In fact, it would be dreadful for the related definition to make the electronic one obscure. Again, the prog in progressive electronic is debated over at Jarre. schulze is much more "'prog"", that's for sho. -------------
|
Posted By: DallasBryan
Date Posted: November 04 2006 at 05:55
|
In 1976 Oxygene set the rock industry on its ear, the British protested it was not progressive rock, because they seemed to feel they invented progressive rock, it was electronic with rock melodies.
Surely the genre grew and matured and needed more avant twists to it, but Oxygene and Equinoxe were revolutionary to progressive rock. JMJ had alot to do with the genre gaining exposure worldwide. Yes, he produced plenty of crap later, so did Genesis, Yes and Jethro Tull. So what, give him credit as the first mainstream progressive electronic artist from France.
|
Posted By: erik neuteboom
Date Posted: November 04 2006 at 06:11
|
I have read an interesting biography about JM Jarre: he grew up in a middle class enviroment (his father was a famous composer) but he was emotionally neglected. He compensated this by recording and taping in his own room, there was the foundation of his fascination with knobs and wires and his megalomaniac behavior on stage. This was deeply rooted when he fantasized, again alone in his room, about being widely appreciated.
Anyway, he deserves to be considered as a pioneer who made some great, very pivotal electronic albums (I love Oxygene and Magnetic Fields, this is absolutely no pop) and who contributed to a worldwide recognition of the synthesizer
 |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: November 05 2006 at 17:37
|
In 1976 I thought of JMJ as Electronic Pop - nothing more or less.
Now, I realise that it's fairly sophisticated Electronic Pop, but not really anything more than that - at least, in the 3 or 4 albums I own. He's not exactly Tomita, is he? ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: Bj-1
Date Posted: November 05 2006 at 17:39
|
Progressive Electronic. ------------- RIO/AVANT/ZEUHL - The best thing you can get with yer pants on! |
Posted By: I|I|I|I|I
Date Posted: November 05 2006 at 19:29
|
I still don't understand how one could consider Jarre to be pop - the pop music of that day was A) not instrumental, B) shorter, and C) based on more verse-chorus-verse-chorus-bridge-chorus structures. Jarre doesn't really have any of that, as far as I can tell.
------------- Go and listen to my music. http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=31725 |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: November 06 2006 at 17:53
|
Because Oxygene Pt 6 was a successful hit single and played in the discos with it's catchy little 4/4 beat.
Pop music "of that day" was instrumental if it wanted to be - just as it could be in the 1960s (Shadows) ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: November 06 2006 at 18:06
Christ almighty hahaha.. we do all see prog differently... but pop... sure I guess.. same as Yes I guess who are often called a 'trumped up' pop group. Look no further than their inspirations hahhaha. Lord knows I respect your opinion Cert but while my listens to Oxygene date back only to about 78 or so... it sure sounded like no pop I've heard. Not that I"m an expert on E.P. or pop for that matter ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: I|I|I|I|I
Date Posted: November 06 2006 at 20:16
|
Yeah, Yes had a few singles... as did Pink Floyd... as did a few other progressive bands. It CERTAINLY doesn't qualify those bands as Pop, however. ------------- Go and listen to my music. http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=31725 |
Posted By: I|I|I|I|I
Date Posted: November 07 2006 at 16:50
|
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. ------------- Go and listen to my music. http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=31725 |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: November 07 2006 at 22:58
This is Philippe's call as team leader and his team, this was already discussed and I don't believe there's turning back.
BTW: I absolutely support his decision and 12 votes are not really representative.
Iván -------------
|
Posted By: I|I|I|I|I
Date Posted: November 07 2006 at 23:58
|
Well, let's leave this poll going. At the very least, it proves that sometimes, even team leaders can be wrong. I understand that Progarchives is not a democracy, but still, the opinion of a majority can sway the opinion of those who are in power. I gaurantee you, we can leave the poll up, but the ratio of opinions will be about the same: 75% for progressive electronic and 25% for prog-related. It probably won't even journey outside of a 33%-66% ratio. ------------- Go and listen to my music. http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=31725 |
Posted By: Zac M
Date Posted: November 07 2006 at 23:59
|
I say Prog-related, as I initially said when his move was proposed by Phillipe. ------------- "Art is not imitation, nor is it something manufactured according to the wishes of instinct or good taste. It is a process of expression." -Merleau-Ponty |
Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: November 08 2006 at 01:10
Tomita's ouch and uh-oh (except one album and half of an other album) to my ears. --- okay,some thoughts over what has been recently posted:
-------------
|
(I know oliverstoned is in, but...) Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: November 08 2006 at 01:15
|
The real problem is that Progressive Electronic means 100% Prog and Jarre is far from that.
He's an electronic musician because he plays electronic instruments but this isn't the same than Electronic Progressive.
If it was for me, Jarre won't even be in Prog Related.
Iván -------------
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: November 08 2006 at 07:28
As I write, it's almost 50-50 - 12:5
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...
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.
Not sure what you're trying to say here - what is this "disastrous question?".
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.
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.
Philippe just KNOWS, you know ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: November 08 2006 at 12:09
|
okay, let's play the quoting game.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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. -------------
|
Posted By: I|I|I|I|I
Date Posted: November 08 2006 at 12:31
Sorry, 50-50 would be a 1:1 ratio, or 12:12. 12:5, even when rounded 12:6, is a 3:2 ratio or 66%-33%. So even as it stands now, we still have the ratios I predicted. 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. So really, our arguments over whether Jarre is "pop" or not are futile - both mine and yours, since no matter what, you have both pop and non-pop bands that have similar characteristics. Jarre is an artist that may have characteristics of popular music, but he is still progressive, much in the same way Pink Floyd is progressive or Kraftwerk is progressive. They also made relatively simple, easy music, but for some reason, it is still beyond "popular" music. Jarre is the same. And some of his musical ideas are actually not that "easy"... I hear a good amount of classical influence in Oxygene 1, some non-metrical experimentation, things like that - which is certainly "difficult". So how ever you want to argue it, the only way Jarre is "pop" is in that he was somewhat popular, but that is no mark of whether or not an artist is "progressive". ------------- Go and listen to my music. http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=31725 |
Posted By: Stefanovic
Date Posted: November 08 2006 at 12:35
from a french perspective, Jarre is no more than moody electronic elevator music... 
|
Posted By: I|I|I|I|I
Date Posted: November 08 2006 at 12:40
|
Well, no offense, but this is from the perspective of ALL western music. And when dumb disco and three-chord punk music is the most popular western music, Jarre is most certainly progressive. ------------- Go and listen to my music. http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=31725 |
Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: November 08 2006 at 12:43
 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. -------------
|
Posted By: I|I|I|I|I
Date Posted: November 08 2006 at 13:11
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. ------------- Go and listen to my music. http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=31725 |
Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: November 08 2006 at 15:10
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. -------------
|
Posted By: I|I|I|I|I
Date Posted: November 08 2006 at 16:03
|
I would still say that Floyd makes overwhelmingly consonant music, moreso than Jarre, even. "Wish You Were Here" and "Dark Side of the Moon" are incredibly easier to get into than "Oxygene", in my opinion.
------------- Go and listen to my music. http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=31725 |
Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: November 08 2006 at 16:11
|
I'll stop at answering with no, it's already a long discussion. sorry -------------
|
Posted By: I|I|I|I|I
Date Posted: November 08 2006 at 16:25
|
Yeah, it looks like very few can actually be convinced. Let's wait for some more folks to participate in the poll. ------------- Go and listen to my music. http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=31725 |
Posted By: Paradox
Date Posted: November 09 2006 at 12:10
|
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. ------------- 
|
Posted By: I|I|I|I|I
Date Posted: November 09 2006 at 12:15
Innovative is what prog is all about. And interesting doesn't hurt either. I would consider most innovative and interesting music progressive - especially innovative. ------------- Go and listen to my music. http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=31725 |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: November 09 2006 at 12:17
hmmm... curious as to how you would define 'prog' ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: November 09 2006 at 14:45
Curious and innovative does not necesarilly means Prog, REM was curious and innovative, U2 were curious and innovative at least in Joshua´s Tree, even Fleetwood Mac with Nicks and Buckingham were absolutely innovative to the style of POP being done in the mid 70´s.
But none of them is remotely Prog.
Iván -------------
|
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: November 09 2006 at 14:56
you've seen my definition of prog.. and it didn't include either of those words. I was curioius as to what Paradox thought... ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: November 09 2006 at 16:04
Curious and innovative does not necesarilly means Prog, REM was curious and innovative, U2 were curious and innovative at least in Joshua´s Tree, even Fleetwood Mac with Nicks and Buckingham were absolutely innovative to the style of POP being done in the mid 70´s.
But none of them is remotely Prog.
Iván [/QUOTE]really good analogies, mr. Iván? and really no chance of breaking a bit from the POP serious underline? cause that just makes me think that my already two pages arguments are a echoless said thing. -------------
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: November 09 2006 at 17:44
Oh come on, you're talking gibberish - 12:6 is 2:1. And it's currently 14:7 
Making things artificial is what happens when you try to squeeze music into a tired old tradition of chopping the natural interval of an octave into 12 unnatural steps which are by nature, unrelated - ie, not in tune with each other, hence we have equal temperament. A synthesiser is an artificial instrument - it produces sounds by manipulating tones through oscillators. In and of itself it has no emotion - and cannot have. Identifying emotion in music is not a science - for all you know, there might be a wealth of emotion in Tomita's transcriptions. In short - where music is concerned, it is all artificial, and yet none of it is artificial. It all contains emotion, and yet none of it does - the lack of either are not reasons to hate music.
And who are you to judge that a man is simple? Pop is short for Popular - that's all there is to it. Pop music isn't necessarily sweet, and intelligent people can like it as much as "simple" people. Don't forget that thousands of people attended his concerts and bought his recordings - especially the ones I mentioned.
I'm not devaluing Jarre's music at all - I would also throw in Cabaret Voltaire and the Human League for comparison - although it's a bit unfair, as I prefer the dark sounds of the latter to Jarre's happy "sweet" sounding music. ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: I|I|I|I|I
Date Posted: November 09 2006 at 23:08
In my opinion, REM, U2, and Fleetwood Mac may have done a few things that were "curious" and "innovative", but not to the degree that Jarre did. But that's really something that's more of an opinion than a fact. ------------- Go and listen to my music. http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=31725 |
Posted By: cuncuna
Date Posted: November 09 2006 at 23:11
|
Sleep related. Like this: "¡J. M. Jarré!" ZZZZ!!!... ------------- ¡Beware of the Bee! |
Posted By: cuncuna
Date Posted: November 09 2006 at 23:12
|
...¡¡¡ ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ !!!... ------------- ¡Beware of the Bee! |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: November 09 2006 at 23:15
|
Why wrong analogies Rico? I'm just talking about being curious and innovative: Joshua's Tree was an absolutely innovative album, solid from start to end a new and revolutionary guitar sound and pretty advanced for a POP band, they had from a straight Rock track like "Where the Streets have no Name" that adds an incredible intro and different elemnents, to almost Gospel like in "Still Haven't Found What Looking For" (As a fact they did an outstanding version in a Harlem Church with a Gospel chorus in the DVD Rattle & Hum) also had Power ballads like "With or Without You" and even an absolutely experimental track as "Mothers of the Disappeared"....If this is not innovative for a decade of bland boring POP, well, I can't get what is curious and innovative plus absolutely versatile. Rumors by Fleetwood Mac was the top selling album for years, they formed a band with three vocalists that were able to take the lead in any moment, with three different styles (Nicks was agressive and soft at the same time borderline with Bluies, Buckingham more Rock oriented and Christine Mc Vie was absolutely melodic), the bass and drums were from another era, with a clear Hard Rock sound, they blended all this and created a commercial but intelligent product in an era when Punk and Disco music were fighting for the audience and Prog was going down (sadly), Fleetwood Mac made something simpler (apparently) but reached heights that no Punk or Disco band dreamed of. Sometimes simple is innovative.
REM Out of Time was also a good album and very innovative (Except for Shinny Happy People), songs like Loosing My Religion were almost borderline with Prog, the use of ballaika is impressive, the change of tempos, the total breaks in two parts of the song were pretty advanced and ahead of mainstream and even than most alternative bands of the time.
If you want more, go with Meatloaf's Bat Out of Hell, nobody wanted to sign them because Jim Steiinman's compositions were miles ahead of the ABAB structure, they had two or three different verses with two or three different tempos, operatic piano stravaganzas plus a 150 Kgms guy who was closer to a tenor than to a Rock singer.....that was curious and innovative but not Prog at all. Probably saying Jarre was a POP artist is way too much, but he is mainly a mainstream Electronic artist not a Prog Electronic artist IMHO. Iván -------------
|
Posted By: cuncuna
Date Posted: November 09 2006 at 23:23
|
Well, with no Walter / Wendy Carlos comes no Jean Michel Jarré. ------------- ¡Beware of the Bee! |
Posted By: I|I|I|I|I
Date Posted: November 10 2006 at 00:32
Okay, Okay. In the case we take all of this as absolute fact (you do seem to know a bit more about the aformentioned bands than I do) we can assume that there are "mainstream" artists that did innovative and interesting things, and that you are counting Jean-Michel Jarre among them. But then why are artists like Klaus Schulze, who made some strikingly similar music to Jean-Michel Jarre (albeit in his own style), on the archives as progressive electronic? Unless you think that they should likewise be demoted to prog-related or not be on the site at all, of course. ------------- Go and listen to my music. http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=31725 |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: November 10 2006 at 01:00
Nothing is a fact, only opinions, I will never claim something I write (except historicall events) as facts, in music nothing is black and white, there are tones of grey, and precisely in those greay areas you can find why an artist is Prog and another don't, those slight differences make a whole point.
If you mention Shultze, just for his work in Tangerine Dream and Ash Ra Temple, deserves to be considered a Prog artist, while Jarre only does public concerst in which the visual effects are as important as the music, not just a visual aid, most of his songs are extremely reopetitive (Including Oxygene which is what consists mainly in variations over a same theme), his encore is a hand clapping and shaking booty piece, his solo for the astronaut is simple and boring, his performances with the laser harp are less than imaginative.
Don't misunderstand me, I have his albums and DVD's, like his music but still I can't find a strong Prog connection
I'm not so familiar with Shultze solo work but his album with Yamash'ta, Winwood and Shrieve is a masterpiece of Prog and DAS WAGNER DESASTER is also closer than Jarre will ever get.
But again, even when Shultze wasn't Prog, the if X then why not Y argument is something in what I never believed.
Iván -------------
|
Posted By: I|I|I|I|I
Date Posted: November 10 2006 at 01:20
In terms of Shulze, it is a logical fallacy to assume that merely because of his work with other bands/artists, his solo material is also progressive. That's like saying George W. Bush has worked with Democrats, thus he must be a Democrat! Shulze must be in the progressive electronic section on the merit of his own musical work, not his work with other bands, unless the people who put him on the site work in ways I don't understand. EVEN IF we say that Jarre is unoriginal due to his similarities to Schulze (though I think he is quite original, but for the sake of the argument) it would STILL follow that he must be in the same section as Schulze, much like the band Druid is in Symphonic Progressive along with Yes, a band they sound QUITE similar to. I mean, if my logic appears to have gaps in it, please say so! But I think it makes quite a bit of sense. ------------- Go and listen to my music. http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=31725 |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: November 10 2006 at 06:02
Please man I said I'm not so familiar with Scultze solo work but for what I heard I believe he culd be here but I will also quote myself because if we talk about fallacies....:
Schultze's inclusion has no relation with Jarre, each artist has to be here by his own merits and if somebody made a mistake (Not saying that necesarilly is a mistake), this doesn't justify another mistake.
Iván -------------
|
Posted By: Bilek
Date Posted: November 10 2006 at 06:26
OK, I'm here to back you up...
I already thought there was a proggy sense in JM Jarre's music, just before he was included in prog-electronic seciton. I didn't think of proposing JMJ, because this section was introduced just before his inclusion anyway! (bands like TD and Kraftwerk debuted elsewhere)
I partly agree with the Klaus Schulze similarity, because Schulze's music is far more innovative than Jarre. But Jarre has enough merits to stand here on his own than mere similarity to some other prog artist...
I find his overlooked and despised works very innovative, intriguing, and having whatever charecteristics needed to be considered as prog
 . The only thing which could have kept him outside Progressive Rock definiton is the lack of "rock" portion, which is since then justified by introduction of the prog-electronic genre; i.e. the other artists featured here hardly contain any "rock" elements in their music (with the possible exception of early TD and Kraftwerk); that means music can be "prog" without having to be "rock"...It's true that solo artists should be considered by their own "solo" works, not their previous participation in a prog band or their collaborations (I also agree that Stomu Yamashta - Go album is a heck of a prog album...). Otherwise Kitaro would have to be accepted here without doubt
 ...Jarre's music is much more than plain pop, or just "electronic" (whatever it might be, without "progressive" moniker!). One only needs to give an ear, extensively. Well, at least to his first handful of albums, anyway!
edit: apparently the parantheses above give the wrong impression: I simply meant I didn't understand what "electronic" without progressive title could refer to... Not to Jarre's highly innovative works, for sure! ------------- Listen to Turkish psych/prog; you won't regret: Baris Manco,Erkin Koray,Cem Karaca,Mogollar,3 Hürel,Selda,Edip Akbayram,Fikret Kizilok,Ersen (and Dadaslar) (but stick with the '70's, and 'early 80's!) |
Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: November 10 2006 at 09:01
In and of itself may have no emotion, but it can get within such a substance and such a ... "credibility"...that it's an emotional music. Of course there is no science in identifying emotion. It's an impression and ultimately you guide yourself towards the thing that speaks out more load, more appropriately or more profoundly. Music, by the general though may be, but in depth it's emotion, it's a human expression etc. Concerning Tomita (and electronists or musicians, why not), it's not the synthesizer being deeply artificial and sharply unsubstantial, it's the artist with his hands on the synthesizer, making out the music and modelating his intentions. I don't hate Tomita's synth artificiality, I dislike Tomita's general concept of doing plastic shapes from normally emotive reasons. ...in short.
popular isn't a prog qualificative or a dis-qualification. from here came my question, if there is anything wrong with Jarre gathering up an incredible audience and a general interest? - is this the true source of it being made pop, in a blatant close-minded way? cause I'm tired of...repeating questions.
Ways and ways...  In this, now accomodated, genre, I never implied Jarre is the obscure, the profound, necesarily the artist and so on...Happy "sweet" sounding music is a quality, not a reference.-------------
|
Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: November 10 2006 at 09:05
Everything sounds better. -------------
|
Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: November 10 2006 at 09:19
okay, another rounded-up thoughts post:
-------------
|
Posted By: I|I|I|I|I
Date Posted: November 10 2006 at 14:24
|
Congrats to Ricochet for summing up all the thoughts in a thread that grows more convoluted by the minute.
------------- Go and listen to my music. http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=31725 |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: November 10 2006 at 23:33
I think yopu're mistaken Rico, I'm talking about GO, an incredible Jazz/Fusion/Electronic/Prog album and Klaus didn't played percussion:
Klaus played Synth, Moog and keyboards.
Mind blowing album.
Iván -------------
|
Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: November 11 2006 at 11:00
Klaus played Synth, Moog and keyboards.
Mind blowing album.
Iván |
oh?
my bad in that case
but it's still unsubstantial. up in the Go and the Go Live albums, you can hear the magic of Lalou and Karen, of "Brother" James here and there and...uhm...of any implied guitarists. and of the three main mentioned: Yamash'ta, Winwood and Shrieve.
-------------