Jean Claude Ellena vs Francis Kurkdjian - Page 2

Originally Posted by pour_monsieur

it is silly to compare them .... However francis kurkdjian speaks to me more

Originally Posted by Birdboy48

Speaking of perfume critics, I wonder who's style he thinks has become "anorexic" ?

Golly, I can't imagine who it might be....

Originally Posted by SculptureOfSoul

It's funny that Kurkdjian wants us to consider the "frame" - which is nigh impossible since we have no access to this information and the industry surely does all it can to keep all of this secret so that they can keep selling their illusions. Of course, the kicker is, he has his own company now, and he could disclose tons of behind the scenes info on the creation of his scents and really allow us to see and consider this frame which is - according to him - so important for the consumer to keep in mind. But does he do this? No.

I understand his feelings towards the egocentrism inherent in many of the blogs, along with the chemical name dropping and other posturing to inflate the perception of the reviewer by their audience (and I admit, I'm prone to doing these things, too), but I don't see how responding in an equally egocentric manner is furthering his cause any.

It's funny how he talks about reviewers attempting to "prove their legitimacy" by dropping chemical names and such, when he's essentially doing the same thing in parallel by now (finally) jumping on the oud bandwagon. Next up, MFK Vetiver?

Also, he contradicts himself left and right. We, the consumers, don't know what it is to compromise for a brand? Ok - perhaps true (but I think we all have an idea of the compromises, budgets, etc that go on in the business.) Then he arrogantly dismisses the question he gets asked "over and over" about if he's free to create what he wants, and states that he's entirely free to do so during the early stages of a brief. And then, in the next sentence talks about knowing what the brand wants, and working within that frame. Working within the frame of the brand, whether you are choosing to do so or being forced to do so, is not the definition of 'entire freedom.'

Honestly, his responses really piss me off. He's biting the hand of the people who at least try, within the confines of their knowledge and the knowledge available to them (and again I reiterate that the world of perfume is one of the most secretive around), to treat his creations as art worthy of a deeper-than-surface analysis and exploration. Maybe he really does prefer those who just treat it as a product - it is those same people that made him "famous" by buying up Le Male in droves, after all.

Originally Posted by SculptureOfSoul

It's funny that Kurkdjian wants us to consider the "frame" - which is nigh impossible since we have no access to this information and the industry surely does all it can to keep all of this secret so that they can keep selling their illusions. Of course, the kicker is, he has his own company now, and he could disclose tons of behind the scenes info on the creation of his scents and really allow us to see and consider this frame which is - according to him - so important for the consumer to keep in mind. But does he do this? No.

I understand his feelings towards the egocentrism inherent in many of the blogs, along with the chemical name dropping and other posturing to inflate the perception of the reviewer by their audience (and I admit, I'm prone to doing these things, too), but I don't see how responding in an equally egocentric manner is furthering his cause any.

It's funny how he talks about reviewers attempting to "prove their legitimacy" by dropping chemical names and such, when he's essentially doing the same thing in parallel by now (finally) jumping on the oud bandwagon. Next up, MFK Vetiver?

Also, he contradicts himself left and right. We, the consumers, don't know what it is to compromise for a brand? Ok - perhaps true (but I think we all have an idea of the compromises, budgets, etc that go on in the business.) Then he arrogantly dismisses the question he gets asked "over and over" about if he's free to create what he wants, and states that he's entirely free to do so during the early stages of a brief. And then, in the next sentence talks about knowing what the brand wants, and working within that frame. Working within the frame of the brand, whether you are choosing to do so or being forced to do so, is not the definition of 'entire freedom.'

Honestly, his responses really piss me off. He's biting the hand of the people who at least try, within the confines of their knowledge and the knowledge available to them (and again I reiterate that the world of perfume is one of the most secretive around), to treat his creations as art worthy of a deeper-than-surface analysis and exploration. Maybe he really does prefer those who just treat it as a product - it is those same people that made him "famous" by buying up Le Male in droves, after all.

Originally Posted by Dorje123

...........I'd have a hard time personally judging who the better perfumer is, but technically I think it's JCE for his expertise in synthetic aromachemicals. It's just that I'd rather my frags be mostly natural materials with synthetics used only where really needed, and JCE along with most designer perfumers are the opposite, producing primarily synthetic frags....

Originally Posted by SculptureOfSoul

It's funny that Kurkdjian wants us to consider the "frame" - which is nigh impossible since we have no access to this information and the industry surely does all it can to keep all of this secret so that they can keep selling their illusions. Of course, the kicker is, he has his own company now, and he could disclose tons of behind the scenes info on the creation of his scents and really allow us to see and consider this frame which is - according to him - so important for the consumer to keep in mind. But does he do this? No.

I understand his feelings towards the egocentrism inherent in many of the blogs, along with the chemical name dropping and other posturing to inflate the perception of the reviewer by their audience (and I admit, I'm prone to doing these things, too), but I don't see how responding in an equally egocentric manner is furthering his cause any.

It's funny how he talks about reviewers attempting to "prove their legitimacy" by dropping chemical names and such, when he's essentially doing the same thing in parallel by now (finally) jumping on the oud bandwagon. Next up, MFK Vetiver?

Also, he contradicts himself left and right. We, the consumers, don't know what it is to compromise for a brand? Ok - perhaps true (but I think we all have an idea of the compromises, budgets, etc that go on in the business.) Then he arrogantly dismisses the question he gets asked "over and over" about if he's free to create what he wants, and states that he's entirely free to do so during the early stages of a brief. And then, in the next sentence talks about knowing what the brand wants, and working within that frame. Working within the frame of the brand, whether you are choosing to do so or being forced to do so, is not the definition of 'entire freedom.'

Honestly, his responses really piss me off. He's biting the hand of the people who at least try, within the confines of their knowledge and the knowledge available to them (and again I reiterate that the world of perfume is one of the most secretive around), to treat his creations as art worthy of a deeper-than-surface analysis and exploration. Maybe he really does prefer those who just treat it as a product - it is those same people that made him "famous" by buying up Le Male in droves, after all.

Originally Posted by pluran

Some smell more natural than others but most of today's fragrances are close to 85% synthetic, regardless of how much they cost.

Synthetics can also smell more natural than naturals, but it would obviously be better for perfumery if perfumers were able to use whatever quantity of naturals (and other things) they need. Most of the time they're just working around IFRA restrictions.

Originally Posted by Dorje123

A lot of my favorites these days are either all natural or mostly natural. By Kilian is actually some of the most synthetic of what I enjoy now, and they range from 70-90% natural ingredients depending on the frag (from what I read online, not directly from Kilian's mouth so IDK if this is 100% accurate). I have no idea what Puredistance M is composed of, but I still like it a lot............my Oud Chypre has beautiful, natural oakmoss in it.

I don't have anything against synthetics per se, but I find most designer frags come off as "synthetic smelling", and frags that feature synthetics as a main accord that I used to like (Terre d'Hermes, aquatics etc) I am losing interest in... mostly because the synthetic accords aren't interesting....

Originally Posted by Dorje123

Yes. Good post. I agree on all points but didn't want to say too much, considering he will be reading it. I think you put it very diplomatically and it will hopefully give some food for thought. IMO, it sounds like he's whining a lot, and as I said before, HTFU Francis!

Originally Posted by pluran

Perfume houses say all kinds of things. By Kilians are no different than the rest. Same with Puredistance, Creed and most others. If you run their fragrances through gas chromatography–mass spectrometry they'll almost always come out at 80-85% synthetic.

Real oakmoss isn't banned, but it can only be used in small amounts. Many people use it, just not in the same quantities as they used to. Same goes for a long list of other naturals. You're right, complex naturals like oakmoss are always hard to replicate with synthetics, and Evernyl and other substitutes don't smell anything like oakmoss.

Perfumers need to be able to use more naturals, but without synthetics fragrances wouldn't have any backbone. Synthetics have been doing that job for over a hundred years. But these days synthetics are relied on to do almost everything. That's why over the last fifteen years especially there's been a move from complexity to simplicity. Many of them make a big smell, but there is far less complexity in modern fragrances. It won't be long before what's 80-85% synthetic is 100% synthetic.

Originally Posted by Dorje123

And frags like TdH that feature it are mostly iso-e super in the drydown, which is annoying.

Originally Posted by pluran

But these days synthetics are relied on to do almost everything. That's why over the last fifteen years especially there's been a move from complexity to simplicity. Many of them make a big smell, but there is far less complexity in modern fragrances.

Originally Posted by hedonist222

I kept thinking it was a joke. I kept checking whether to see if it was April 1st.

Wasn't he blatantly , what's the word, rude ?

Originally Posted by SculptureOfSoul

It may not be just entrepreneurship that explains his departure from the industry into his own startup!

Originally Posted by moore

Hey, Jean-Claude Ellena! Are you out there? I'm waiting for your PM, man. I need to know what you've created without my help.
Huuuum, I guess he's not here! He may be at his wonderfull French-top-of-montain-house, laughing surreptitiously from FK's words!
Please, can someone translate this to French, please? Thanks since now.
And I forgot, tell him:
- If he doesn't PM I will take back the formulas of Terre D'Hermès and Un Jardin Sur Le Nil!
- I will report him;
- I will add him to my ignore list.

Originally Posted by Marais



Now I wonder if anyone will step forward & claim responsibility for Eau de Gentiane Blanche?

Originally Posted by Mondamin

They are both excellent perfumers!