Talk:Jean-Michel Jarre/Archive 1

Traduction?
I'm sorry but to an Anglophone this page reads very badly. Nothing fundamentally "wrong" but it really doesn't flow at all well on EN.wikipedia.org...e.g. talking about record breaking "spectacles" is like talking about someone with very large sunglasses...time for a cleanup? No disagreeement with the excellent factual content, just the syntax! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.179.91.199 (talk) 01:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This no traduction, this good English pretend. Anyway, be bold and clean it up yourself, but pass by spectacle first. --maf (talk-cont) 01:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Name spelling?
Is his name spelled Jean-Michel or Jean Michel? Both spellings are used on my albums.

Can we make the titles into articles? Or would that be Wikipedia-overkill?

BjarkeDahlEbert 00:25 Jan 20, 2003 (UTC)


 * The website says "Jean Michel Jarre" -- Tarquin


 * I've made Jean Michel Jarre into a redirect page to here. --Camembert


 * It is officially Jean-Michel
 * Where does this information come from? It's probably correct, but I'm just curious, for example as most news sources seem to use it, but it's a bit funny that his own site writes it as Jean Michel. And album covers seem to use both.


 * Redirected to Jean-Michel :)


 * The dash was dropped over 15 years ago. It's time for the title of the article to reflect that. maf 11:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

- But, what about the pronounce? ('Jar or Ja'rré)
 * Why would it be pronounced "Jarré" when it is written "Jarre". French people pronounce things the way they are written :) --feline1 15:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Not indeed. It's not pronounced as written. Jarre it's pronounced 'Jar, because there's no tilde on the "e". -- unsigned
 * It is pronounced (in French) how it's written. It is not pronounced (in English) how it's written. Now that I've stated the obvious for you, we can move on... -- abfackeln 02:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Since this is the English wikipedia, some one could assume that the name is pronounced in English (!). An IPA note could help (I'm not an expert, so if someone could add it it would be thanked :) ).

Album pages
I've done a great deal of work to get all the studio albums up plus The Concerts in China, which I think is an important one. Now we have all the studio albums plus China Concerts and AERO. To make the whole thing flow I've chosen to link one album to the next album we have a page for. That way you can start with Oxygene and end up with AERO without having to go back to the main page.

My question here is: Should we link to the nonexistent (page wise) albums, which now is live albums and greatest hits albums? There is a third option where we leave the current linking and only when a new album page is being created we insert the album in the order. --Maitch 15:48, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * If we do: The user can't go from one album to the next important one without having to go back to a different page.
 * If we don't: The user would be missing the chronological order of his albums.


 * Personally, I feel that all of the albums should have links, as removing them discourages people from writing articles on the albums. An exception would be the box sets, which would be rather pointless, as each of the albums included in those should have decent descriptions in their respective articles. I can see that you have also been removing the "red links" from other parts of the article, which I don't believe to be a good idea – an important part of Wikipedia's wide topic coverage is the incentive to write up something new (only things definitely too trivial for articles should probably have their links removed). In any case, I'm willing to write up articles on the remaining albums, and perhaps some of the concerts, once I get the time.   &mdash; Peter L [ talk|contribs]    19:23, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * I might have been to quick in some cases for red links, but for most I didn't believe anybody would write an article about e.g. the Jarre asteroide. For the albums and concerts I believe that links should be added when the pages is created. Anyway, if the majority of people who comes here prefers the red links on the main page, we can revert it back. Anyway, the question was whether the album chronology should follow every single Jarre album or only the "important" ones. --Maitch 20:38, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I believe the album chronology should follow each Jarre album (as with my opinion on the links from this article), as not presenting "unimportant" albums doesn't very much encourage new articles on them, and it may give quite some cleanup work to do once they are written. I feel it is more important to present the user with accurate information on Jarre's proper album chronology in the album articles than allowing easy browsing between a selection of the albums.
 * Putting the red links back into the article would probably be best IMHO. I don't think that any of the concert articles would have been written if they hadn't been "red-linked" from here. Of course, the "non-links" can be changed back, but not explicitly showing missing parts of Wikipedia probably gives people an impression that the things in question are too unimportant for their own articles. As for the asteroid example, people are willing to write about stuff that may have been hard to imagine – and many other "trivial" asteroids have articles on them (see List of asteroids named after people for a comprehensive listing).   &mdash; Peter L [ talk|contribs]    21:56, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * So, do you want to make a page for each greatest hits album and box set he has ever released, because I just think it's overkill. --Maitch 21:59, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * As for the most mainstream compilations (Images at least), yes. (The live albums do deserve articles, I believe.) But as I said before, simple box sets would probably be pointless. In my opinion, Wikipedia is overkill :-)   &mdash; Peter L [ talk|contribs]    22:18, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * Wauw, that list you gave me, talk about dead link heaven. Anyway, the discography and concert list have been reverted to a couple of dead link lists. Right now I would rather have somebody writing about some of big concerts instead the remaining albums. --Maitch 23:04, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Discography?
Shouldn't we split the discography section in the following sections?:

Albums Videos


 * I agree --Equinoxe 03:54, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I think that discography section here could be modeled on the one used for Vangelis article - both Jarre and Vangelis have some similarities in this regard (studio albums; soundtrack albums; limited releases etc.).

The discography is getting too long, please consider forking a new article for the discography. Equinoxe 16:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Equinoxe (talk • contribs)
 * Consider? I will be bold! Totnesmartin 21:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Chart Positions
I've added a section for chart positions on the main page, i think this is relevant info for someone who has sold so many albums! If anyone has anything to add to it then please do :) - Modulus86 23:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think they should be formated as the charts from the Alizee article. - Equinoxe 17:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

9 1/2 weeks
Does Jarre appears in the credits?, if not, please remove the reference to it in the discography section.
 * Yes he does, in the end credits, as Jean-Michel Jarre/"Arpegiator" from "Concert en Chine" 1982 maf 09:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Awards and recognitions
I don't quite like the way the years are listed (even when I made the first list). Would it be better to place the years after the award, like this?:


 * Award (1991)
 * Award (1991)

Equinoxe 19:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I like the years of the left side, because they line up nicer that way.--Endroit 21:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Since it's a list in chronological order, then the year is better placed first, imo. But narrative is still preferable to a list, in an article like this. WP does not need to be comprehensive - the recommended article size is 30K and that is not for technical reasons, it's for readability reasons. It would be much more interesting to select and group some of those awards and write the context about them. There's always the possibility of indicating an external source for a comprehensive listing, or even creating a companion List of awards received by Jean Michel Jarre. So much to do, so little time... --maf 10:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Photo
Would be great to get a better photo of him. Icemuon 11:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Musical style and trends
There's an inconsistency in describing JMJ's style. In the Career section, the album Zoolook is described as his first foray into sampling. However, the page for Magnetic Fields (two albums prior to Zoolook) describes itself as one of the first albums to use sampling. Now I have neither album, so I can't correct it, but could someone who does make this consistent, please. StaticSan 07:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll fix it, thanks for pointing it out. --maf 11:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Format
I feel the 2 column format a bit weird, specially in the discography Equinoxe 06:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

New album (2007)
Please cite trusted sources when you post details on the upcoming album. Preferred sources are jarreuk.com, jeanmicheljarre.com or some official press release by Warner. Equinoxe 00:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

What kind of album is AERO?
User:Equinoxe puts AERO under "Compilations" and has reverted my move to "Studio albums". I therefore put it to a vote so solve the question. My rationale:
 * 1) Definitions:
 * 2) A studio album contains mostly previously unreleased tracks, not recorded in front of an audience;
 * 3) A live album contains mostly tracks recorded or performed in front of an audience during a single performance or tour;
 * 4) A compilation contains mostly previously released tracks, from several studio and/or live albums;
 * 5) Previously unreleased tracks may be either original compositions or re-recordings of tracks previously recorded by the same artist;
 * 6) Facts:
 * 7) AERO contains only previously unreleased tracks, most of which were not recorded nor performed in front of an audience;
 * 8) Most of AERO's tracks are re-recordings of tracks previously recorded by Jarre.
 * 9) Additional considerations:
 * 10) A live album, although usually consisting of re-recordings of tracks previously recorded by the same artist, is never considered a compilation;
 * 11) Albums by other artists consisting of re-recordings of tracks previously recorded by them are not considered compilations. Google for ["re-recorded new material" compilation] (5 results, of which only one refers to an album with only re-recorded tracks as a compilation), and google for ["re-recorded new material"] (an additional 40 results, none of which mention the word compilation).
 * 12) Conclusions:
 * 13) AERO cannot be considered a compilation because it does not contain previously released tracks;
 * 14) AERO can be considered a studio album because it contains previously unreleased tracks even though they are re-recordings of tracks previously released by Jarre.

So, AERO is not a compilation but it is also not an original studio album like Jarre's other studio albums. Therefore, I propose that you vote to agree on moving AERO to the category "Studio albums" with an explanation that it consists of mostly re-recorded material. Thank you.--maf 12:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Since Téo & Téa will be the first studio album since Metamorphoses (that's the official statement from Aero Productions, AFAIK), then AERO can not be considered a studio album. Following your logic, then Images or Sublime mix would be studio albums (and even Les Concerts en Chine would be, since it was mostly recorded inside a studio). Since Aero is a "best of" with just rearrangements for making it high quality stereo (and 5.1) and just 2 new tracks plus a bonus "live" track, it should be considered a compilation, just as Images is, IMHO. --Equinoxe 15:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * In fact, neither GoL nor Sessions 2000 should be "official" studio albums, for the first reason I gave ;-D  --Equinoxe 15:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

His musical style?
I'd say it's firmly in the vein of Kraftwerk and later Tangerine Dream. What do you think?--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 15:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No. Kraftwerk is jazz-based, Jarre classical. He is much closer to minimalist composers. Look at his musical education, you will find most of his influences there. 82.176.216.87 11:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Kraftwerk jazz? most of the melodies are very much classical, and this doesnt address tangerine dream, he most certainly was influenced by these groups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.36.38 (talk) 07:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Playback/Miming
I feel that something should be added regarding Jarre's more than obvious miming at his concerts, as this has been a subject of regular criticism throughout his career. --Modulus86 11:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I was thinking about that (it's something that bothered me about Jean Michel ever since I attended what pretty much amounted to the album playback of Revolutions at Destination Docklands), however it was made aware to me by audio technicians at the Paris La Defense concert (buy 'em a hotdog, they'll tell you everything!), that Jarre's band, for the most part, play live - certainly percussion, orchestra and backing instrumentation is. Jarre was, at that time, primarily in control of the lighting and projection elements through MIDI triggers. Whether this is still the case, I'm not sure, I'll have to go to the live DVDs again (I'm not in that much of a rush...!!!) --Thumbsucker-UK 12:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed in the Houston video a technician can be seen adjusting the circular keyboard (it sounds, then it works). Then, in an interview Jarre says that he controls the lights, fireworks and lasers from that keyboard. We can admit that in that age he actually "plays" the visuals. Docklands, with the water... don't  think they even play a single note live. However during his last events (1998-now) it's more than obvious that he mimics most of the time. Equinoxe 18:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You are correct - But as discussed below nothing can be said on the subject becuase (incredibly!) there is no explicit proof that he mimes, ie. Jean Michel himself saying words to the effect of 'Yes, I mime at concerts'. Modulus86 23:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd only go so far as to say that only that the acoustic instruments (like bass,guitars, drums e.t.c) are live, with the odd bit of improvisation on the electronic instruments. It wouldn't be so bad if he could mime well but he is truly dreadful! I actually find most of his videos embarassing to watch! It's absolutely undeniable that he mimes, the only question is to what extent. Modulus86 23:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added a section regarding the use of playback to the main page. I know that it's not brilliantly written but i'm hoping that other editors will contribute and make it as balanced and informative as possible. I'd like this not to turn into a debate about wether he mimes or not, we all know he does. I know some will try and delete that section because the feel irrelevent - but it is not. It is probably the biggest point of contention between his fans with much heated debate surrounding the issue. Thus, it is worthy of note 80.47.158.222 18:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The section will be removed. Here's why (anyone can read it here):
 * Fully unsourced: Verifiability. No need to say more.
 * Fully POV: Neutral point of view. Playback is assumed as fact. What is playback nowadays in electronic music?
 * Fully OR: No original research. It is an essay, period, despite the attempt to portray "the other side" (which would be the pro-playback side, not the it-is-live!-side).
 * Therefore, per WP:LIVING, the section will be removed.
 * --maf (talk-cont) 19:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Surely the fact that it is discussed so heatedly between fans is worthy of note? The rest of what is said is difficult to put in the page becuase as you say, it's all unsourced. I find that extremely frustrating personally, every Jarre fans knows for a 'fact' that Jean Michel mimes to some extent (one only has to watch one of his concerts to realise how blatant it is and it IS blatant) but becuase Jean Michel has never explicity said 'I mime during concerts' it can never be taken as 'fact' according to the wikipedia rules. As I said just before, surely the fact that it causes so much debate is worthy of note? Modulus86 20:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Get sources: WP:ATT, and make sure they are reliable as this is a living person and the subject is potentially libelous: WP:RS. Always remember, from WP:LIVING: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space."
 * --maf (talk-cont) 20:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yup, I do agree. The only trouble is *finding* sources, other than putting links to concert videos and saying 'look how none of the keys he presses on the keyboard correspond to the music - like in the Houston video' but that won't be acceptable methinks. Jean Michel, or at least people in his entourage have definatly commented about playback (or 'tracking' I think they call it) but the wording is always chosen carefully to avoid explicitly saying that he mimes. I think the gist normally is 'theres a backing track but it's just there incase something goes wrong' I'll have a look around....i've definatly seen mentions like that somewhere. Modulus86 21:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I just removed a section with this header (text can be read here). It was about what "some fans believe", as discussed in a fan forum, which is presumably used as a source to assert verifiabilty. However, the fact that "some fans believe" not only is unsourced in itself but is speculation: Biographies of living persons. Therefore, the section was summarily removed. Please get a reliable source: Biographies of living persons, BUT get a reliable source on the fact, not on the discussion around the fact. --maf (talk-cont) 11:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Miscelanea = Trivia?
There is a section in article titled Miscelanea. A fancy name for trivia perhaps? In any case an effort should be made so that the contents of this section would be incorporated in the article. --RockyMM (talk) 13:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)