Talk:Jean-Michel Jarre/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

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?

• 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.

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)

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. — 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). — 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 :-) — 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)

External links

I did a thorough cleanup of the External links section yesterday, which was reverted today without reason. I'll explain why: External links policy is located at WP:EL. It states that Wikipedia is not a directory and an article is not a portal. Therefore, external linking must be sparse and generally limited to:

• The official website of the subject of the article
• Websites with RELEVANT ADDITIONAL FREE INFORMATION. These four terms must define the linked website. If it has additional information but is not relevant, it does not interest. If it has relevant information but is not new information, it does not interest. If you have to pay for it, it does not interest. If it has no information at all, it does not interest (this is an encyclopedia!).
• Photos, user forums, petitions, are NOT information. For photos, you can upload them (if allowed) to the Commons and use SOME to illustrate the article.
• If the website has relevant additional information but is not in English, it almost certainly is of no use in en.wikipedia but could be linked in that language version of the article.

Finally, DO NOT link your own website. That's judging in your own cause. Leave a note here in the Talk page so that others can evaluate your website. Using these criteria, I've taken out extra biographies that added nothing to the article (it's prestigious to show that Jarre has his bio done by UNESCO, but not relevant for WP), and every site that did not provide straight information (directories, user forums, and foreign language sites). What was a useless section of almost 20 links for someone looking for information about Jarre is now more digestible at just 4 links (that's how many survived the criteria, could have been more, could have been less). If you think a website was left out (but NOT yours!), put it back and the community will eventually evaluate it, but if you put the whole list back in, then you better explain it, after you've read WP:EL. If one of the removed websites was used as a source for the article, reference it in the appropriate paragraph and put in a Notes section (which should already exist, but that's another issue). Thank you. --maf 09:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that some links as the fan pages links are not relevant (even the jarreuk.com link), but some others as the UNESCO bio and the genealogy are, IMHO, relevant information, since the bio presented in the English version is incomplete. Equinoxe 05:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, no problem there. Relevancy is better ascertained by independent specialists in JMJ (never judging on their own websites). I have strong doubts on the genealogy, though. This article exists not because of the person but because of the artist. Genealogy is about the person and the family. If there's anything in the genealogy that helps better understand the artist, it is relevant. If only his father matters, then it is already stated in the text of the article. --maf 11:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Got your point. Then it could be a reference, IMO. BTW, why http://alnr.chez.tiscali.fr/toutjarre is included over and over? Equinoxe 14:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

That user stated his reasons in the mailing list today. Because they're relevant to the discussion, I'll transcribe them:

"Censure? I don't understand why the address of my site http://alnr.chez.tiscali.fr/toutjarre is erased each day from English wikipedia? Who is the author of this censure? I hope it's not a jealous fan, it wouldn't be Jarrian behaviour (remember Tolerance)."

If this user would care to register in WP, he would already have been warned and even blocked. He does not evidently know WP nor its principles or guidelines or editing tools, NOR DOES HE WANT TO KNOW. I have personally seen that reverts to his edits have been properly explained, with links to further reading, plus this discussion here. To no avail. Invoking "tolerance" will not serve as remedy for not following WP guidelines. Furthermore, about his site specifically: it's not up-to-date (it stopped in 2002), it doesn't offer new information either for bio or discography, and being in more than one language is totally irrelevant to the en.WP. WP is not for linkspamming - this user should go promote his website elsewhere. Finally, this user got an answer in that mailing list stating that he should NEVER submit his own site; rather, he should suggest it here in the Talk page. That alone is grounds for a summary removal. His repeat behaviour has now gone beyond senseless stubborness, it's called vandalism by WP guidelines. --maf 17:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. --Equinoxe 19:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

For me it's just censure because all the site are info for the wikipedia encylcopedia it's free so for all people. My site is complementary and an help for wiki, so people who block the address of Jarre site are just censure, it's not democratic. Wikipedia is like chinese internet !!!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.122.27.26 (talk • contribs)

WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A SOAPBOX. Please follow the rules, and DON'T add any links to your personal websites.--Endroit 21:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Please don't make this discussion page a flame war like those of the old Jarre mailing lists. Maf and Endroit are right, there are rules in Wikipedia, even when it's a wiki and anyone can edit it, and the reasons given by maf are good ones. It's not a question of censure, it's for making the article better and more professional. If one fan site is listed, then all of them should be, and this would became a "Yahoo!" and not a bio article.Equinoxe 21:56, 25 September 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:
   1. A studio album contains mostly previously unreleased tracks, not recorded in front of an audience;
   2. A live album contains mostly tracks recorded or performed in front of an audience during a single performance or tour;
   3. A compilation contains mostly previously released tracks, from several studio and/or live albums;
   4. Previously unreleased tracks may be either original compositions or re-recordings of tracks previously recorded by the same artist;
2. Facts:
   1. AERO contains only previously unreleased tracks, most of which were not recorded nor performed in front of an audience;
   2. Most of AERO's tracks are re-recordings of tracks previously recorded by Jarre.
3. Additional considerations:
   1. A live album, although usually consisting of re-recordings of tracks previously recorded by the same artist, is never considered a compilation;
   2. 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).
4. Conclusions:
   1. AERO cannot be considered a compilation because it does not contain previously released tracks;
   2. 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):

1. Fully unsourced: Wikipedia:Verifiability. No need to say more.
2. Fully POV: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Playback is assumed as fact. What is playback nowadays in electronic music?
3. Fully OR: Wikipedia: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: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material. Therefore, the section was summarily removed. Please get a reliable source: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Reliable sources, 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)