I wouldn't go basing the "current nature of humanity" on the fact that other people enjoy an album you view as rudimentary and lacking.
I often find things connected in such a way actually. And it is not an elitist statement, but one simply of quality. And quality from each level of perception is defined differently. For someone something very simple is of high quality. There is no condemnation in that. Simple observation.
One could become elitist about quality, but I simply define it as the amount of originality, innovation, inspiration, imagination and actual translation of those into a tangible reality.
Quality could simply mean, the expression of self to the best of one's ability, from that point of view, it becomes entirely subjective according to the circumstances and states of being. Even within a single individual. So while much effort might have been put into something earlier in one's life, perhaps one is satisfied with less effort but with more heart at a later stage in one's life.
Quality could also be defined as the ability to express something, and have that be understood by someone else in exactly the same way that the person expressing it, meant it to be understood and taken in. From that point of view, if one created a very minimalistic album and it was exactly what one intended, and it is understood exactly as that by another, then it has utterly succeeded.
But my point was that people used to enjoy and demand higher quality products in the past, in general. No matter if it was music, or something else. And if they have moved towards accepting less and less quality and still see that as acceptable. This gradual movement means that you would eventually be able to sell to them something that is worth nothing, and they would still accept it. Not recognizing how much they had lost, because they had become accustomed to so little. Now take that analogy and apply it to the whole of life. It is detrimental to the self and society.
Finaero wrote:Maybe he has a pamphlet that will change our minds?
It cannot be changed with pamphlets, and it does not only involve the mind.
Elf wrote:Or maybe it just says that we like it much better than you do (and that we are right and you are wrong)
Well, the problem with this statement is that it missed the entire point being made, hence its deduction into the simplicities of right and wrong. This is not a moral choice, to be deduced as such. This is a little more complex. There is no need to have emotional knee jerk reactions my friend.
Analog-Umph wrote:Or as Ming the Merciless said it: "Let's say, they'll be satisfied with less."And that is sad.
He also said he was bored and terrorized an entire planet because of it.
Now you know why I chose a villain, to express the analogy.
Please enlighten me with an example of an artist, that do just that. I'd like to hear sounds I've never heard before, performed in a way I've never heard before. Is this/these artist/s from another planet?
No problem. Only at a better time when one is naturally curious, and not seeking to defend one's own opinion by subtly taking a dig at another's.
The thing is, that those of us who use synths on a daily basis, we've heard Oxygene 14-20 a million times, by playing it ourselves. When you have synths, it is easy to come up with the kind of sounds and simplistic chord progressions that this latest album offers. I can do it in a couple of minutes. In fact, synths themselves, nowadays come with much more beautiful and interesting sounds that what I find on this album. Not to mention that nowadays the world is a flood with synths of all kinds, both hardware and software. Which is why it is quite interesting that Jarre went in the complete opposite direction, and delivered something a little to minimalistic, both timbrally and melodically. Which puts it in the territory of not even being an album, or what people once used to define as being an album. As soon as you switch your synthesizer on, or launch it on the computer, you yourself, without much musical skill, can whip up this same album. That's how minimalistic it is.
The same however cannot be said of the first Oxygene album, which requires a lot of work, A LOT of work to get those sounds firstly, and then to play it right. And get it all to sound/feel right.
As someone commented elsewhere: "Oxygene 3 sounds like the sort of bland, generic electronic music that you might find on stock music sites or VST demo tracks."
That's kind of harsh, but to tell you the truth, some synth demo tracks out there are masterpieces in themselves and are better than most tracks on this album.
Once again, the same cannot be said when comparing those demo tracks to the tracks of the original Oxygene album.
I'm listening to Oxygene 3 for the sixth time now, and it's an album that gets better every time I listen to it. And that's the best kind of albums, and music. Instant "hits" gets boring fast. This album is Oxygene with a modern twist, and I like it a lot. I wasn't sure to begin with, but now I am.
Oxygene Pt. 20 is a beautiful piece of music, and almost feels/sounds like a requiem. I like that there's a little snippet of pt. 6 in there.
That's great. Glad you're enjoying it. As for instant hits getting boring real fast ---- jeez where would that have left Oxygene 1-6 in my heart, if things always worked like that. Yet it was both a hit with me and it also grew on me. I got to experience both "sides" with Jarre's earlier work.
Yes O20 is real nice, it also reminds me of this great 2011 track:
Without faith nothing is possible. With it, nothing is impossible.