I voted! It's true for me! I'm thinking of Jean-Claude Ellena because I couldn't think of other minimalist perfumers but if you know of any, please identify and discuss them.

The only minimalist perfume I liked for a long time was Paprika Brasil and even that one I would tire of after a short period of wearing it because the notes did not seem complex enough to retain my interest. The breakthrough came with Un Jardin Après la Mousson which, though minimalist, seemed to have more complexity, without having all the spaces filled in. Kelly Calèche I find more minimalist than classic perfumes as well and I am liking it although at first I found it "thin." Now after wearing the latter two for a while, I'm finding some of the greats to be too "thick" and heavy. Is this a permanent shift or just a temporary preference? I don't know.

Where do you stand in the minimalist spectrum? What are some of the other minimalist perfumes by other perfumers? Do you give them a thumbs up or down? Have any minimalist perfumes changed your perception of some classic perfumes?

i voted true also.
it is always hard for me, as if i am doing smt wrong and un-aesthetic. i know it is funny to feel this way but i do. i am not a minimalist soul i guess. love abundance, authenticity, maximalism, sillage, antiquity in every kind of form : )

Sadly, I vote T-
But only because there needed to be a few more choices...
It's not so black and white.

If they are done very well, then it's no problem !
It's all about the quality of execution, materials.

Chaya, I purposely limited the choices in the poll to get a black and white "snapshot." But please feel free to elaborate all the nuances of this question. I know there is a lot more to it than just yes or no and I hope the posts will reflect many points of view.

I voted true as well, though I've been making the transition of late. Classic scents are not always easy to wear: their very complexity demands attention. Not to mention the reformulation plague that has affected so many classics.

I'm not a huge Ellena fan but I'm starting to appreciate more transparent, simpler compositions -- although I'm often disappointed by their poor lasting power. I don't usually carry a decant in my handbag!

In the minimalist school, apart from Ellena, you've got lines like Chanel Exclusives (though I find them somewhat more complex than the Hermessences, especially 31 rue Cambon) and Armani Privé.
Olivia Giacobetti definitely qualifies with her ethereal textures, both in her work for L'Artisan and IUNX. So does Bertrand Duchaufour, again for L'Artisan but also in Sienne L'Hiver and Paestum Rose.

I have fun with SECRETIONS MAGNIFIQUES.... a mod, linear, linen/milk type scent. It's niche-y and minimalist, to be sure. I wear it with a sense of quotidian wit and do not expect it to be anything it's not.

But when I bathe myself in, say, Rochas FEMME, it's a whole 'nother world.

Kinda like the difference between watching a modern teen movie.... and watching GONE WITH THE WIND.

But mod, tricky, synth-y scents can have oomph, too... ANGEL is a case in point. And I actually believe ANGEL's great success is partly due to its oomph and power. I've voiced on previous occasions my conviction that, if L'Artisan's TIMBUKTU had been made very strong? It'd be a million-selling smash hit, not just a niche-y thing known to a few cognoscenti. TIMBUKTU treads exciting new ground in the "exotic woody" category... but then fails us by being so weak in body, staying power.

Funny you should mention Timbuktu, I'm just testing it today, but a little dab won't do ya. I'll have to transfer the few drops of the sample in a mini-atomizer and really have a spritz! But I agree, it's a beautiful, intriguing scent.

I'm going to reveal my working-class, Texas, Scottish roots by saying that I do appreciate "bang for the buck".


If I'm going to drop a C-note on a fragrance, I do want it to rock my world and curl my toes with its drama and strength.

I voted false. I'm a huge a fan of the grand classics some days I need to take a break and wear something very simple. It's like opening a window in a stuffy room. After a day in L'Heure Bleue parfum a little splash of Hiris at night can be very uplifting

Oh no!!!! To me, it would be a terrible loss to become averse to the thick, heavy scents. Not only in an aesthetic sense, but financially too! What would I do with my bottles of Mitsouko, First, and Opium if I suddenly didn't like them?

There's lots of new scents out there that are nice - maybe even nice enough to wear - but I just can't bring myself to take to most of them. I simply don't want to smell like everyone else.

I own a bottle of Un Jardin Sur le Nil, but I only wear it occasionally. Usually on the hottest stickiest days, or I wear it to sleep when I want something uncomplicated and restful. That's not to say that complicated isn't restful sometimes too. I often wear Chamade, Youth Dew or Mitsouko to bed.

I must be a hardcore 'heavy' perfume lover because to me, L'Heure bleue is on of my 'light' choices. LOL!!

I voted F. True to my Gemini nature, I find it easy to turn my back on the classics and go with new things. I'm pretty fickle.

I voted true.

I end up having to have vanilla or amber to make me happy.

Minamalist, when it comes to fragrance...is hard for me to 'do'.
Also...the word "classics" doesn't apply so much as..."complex".
Minimal, to me, would be wearing something like Amazing Grace or Lovely, both light and very fleeting on my skin...and there are days I find myself craving scents like this, but once they've departed the scene, so to post, I apply one of my more substantial fragrances.

Truthfully, I'd rather wear no scent at all than something with two notes -- some barely there scent.

Not hard to transition! Love some classics, a fair number of wide-spectrum, large compositions, and flee others, yet not for their fullness per se; love some minimalists, wish some of them smelled the same 'but stronger,' am anosmic to at least two Ellenas but find the others a good strength, panting to get full bottles of two more. None of this has me reacting to the largesse of Boudoir as too much, nor had lighting on Boudoir seen me find minimalists necessarily thin in the aftermath.

TRUE!!!

I'm not sure I understand the question. For me, it's less minimalist compared to whether it feels artificial, which of course, we know almost all are. But if they smell like they are, then they are a no-go for me.

And I'm with Dave, it's gotta really resonate with me before I'll drop a C note. Unfortunately so many are C notes and above nowadays. It doesn't have to be strong, but it has to have interest to it. Mostly I wear fragrance very because too much of my own sillage bothers me, it's too strong for me to be around. And I've had family members that are bothered by strong fragrances. Plus I like to layer up with different things through the day.

So I have no idea how to answer. I wear both, but not the teen fragrances, because they do smell artificial as they dry down.

Funny -- I just posted on a similar thought at the UJALM thread before I read this one. It seems, to me, as if the more recent, minimal fragrances are created predominatly for non-Western markets.

With the industrialization of Asia, there's a growing consumer base that could easily outstrip the West (barring insufficient petroleum reserves) and this has given rise to new styles in consumer design, from movies to soft drink flavors to fashion and perfume, as global corporations shift their attention.

I think we're going to hear a lot of "I don't get it!" in the coming years, with quite a bit of it coming from our own mouths. Yet any shift from the big boys will leave voids that niche companies will happily fill -- we're certainly not in danger of losing out on the creation of new perfumes that cater to our demographic, but we'll find fewer and fewer of those from Dior, Armani and Chanel.

I think Hermes is a good example of this trend, since they're a smaller company and can turn direction faster. The article that was posted at the UJALM thread regarding the recent surge in perfume sales for Hermes (an over 20% increase in the first half of 2008, which translates to about $100 million dollars in fragrance sales alone) is going to send a strong message to LVMH and PPR.

This is the article that Six posted a link to:

http://www.cosmeticsdesign-europe.com/news/ng.asp?id=86677

" Perfume sales drove double-digit sales growth for Hermes . . . Perfume was one of the best performing product segments with sales leaping 20.1 per cent to €63.5m for the first half of 2008 at reported exchange rates. The company said the continuing strong performance of Terre d'Hermès and the recent launches of Kelly Calèche and Un Jardin après la mousson helped boost its perfume sales."

The author goes on to speculate that perfume sales may have risen because perfume is the cheapest way to buy into a luxury house, but I don't necessarily buy that argument as Hermes growth over-all was solid, and flashier companies like Dior and Chanel have been traditionally more successful than Hermes at roping in the aspirational consumer.

I personally think the hiring of Jean Claude Ellena and the consequent shift in fragrance orientation to the more minimalist Asian market was what really drove sales for Hermes perfumes. IMHO.

*whew* I'm climbing down off my soapbox now . . .

Nathan, that sounds like prophecy. After an internal process of several years, I'm finally coming to terms with the reality that the perfumes I knew and loved are no more. The choice has been to spend the rest of my life in mourning for perfumes gone by or go with the flow and take an interest in new perfumery technology and concepts. I think I've decided on the latter and it's becoming an interesting if bumpy ride. It's a challenge to wrap my nose around new scent molecules and concepts and, after not liking a lot of the initial scents in the newer style, I believe perfumers are beginning to hit their stride. The problem with some of the early minimalist perfumes may have been using the new molecules in traditional perfumery formulae where they jarred. It may be that now they're starting to use them in more adept and inventive ways, be it for Western or Asian markets.

Scents as 4711 and Yardley English Lavender, are those considered minimalist or not?

4711, though fresh and light, is actually a cologne complex in notes, and thus cannot be called minimalist... (Our dear Germans here say they detest it, yet on a long airplane flight, it is glorious to splash this on a hot turkish towel! I can't diss it!)

Yardley English Lavender is a soliflor, and thus no-one is expecting it to have a cascade of notes.

I would call the ETAT LIBRE D'ORANGE's "minimalist".... quite a few of the COMME DE GARCONS.... The BPALs... the NEIL MORRIS...


Even the MONTALES (of which there are surprisingly many titles, have you counted 'em all lately?) could be called "minimalist". What makes MONTALE (LUTENS as well?) so different is the extreme purity and authenticity--- and strength--- of the parfum oils used. Even a simple Montale structure of "rose, aoud, sandalwood" can read as a symphony if the oils sourced are of the utmost quality...


It is often the case--- though not always, of course (think of CHANEL)--- that the graphic art/fonts on the emballage and the style of the flacon will be "minimalist" artistically if the juice inside is also "minimalist". OTOH, FLOWERBOMB has an emballage, and name, which makes you think the juice inside must be a femme-fatale, bombshell, knock 'em dead fragrance... when really, it's a just a wan little synth-y oriental... meh...

At least FRACAS promises you a "fracas".... and delivers on it.

I have to praise Andy Tauer's LONESTAR MEMORIES in the context of this thread... A Swiss niche designer, he could have very, very easily put out a range of wan, "not there" little "let's pretend" numbers, but LM is BIG! In every way.


Big audacious concept
Big pyramid
Big boldness
Big strength
Big staying power
Big novelty
Big naturalness


I just have praise for this one...

Could we clarify "minimalist"? Because a lavender water is minimal, but the smell is itself quite complex, whereas something like JCE's Eau d'Hiver is simple in its smell, but it seems very complicated to execute.

I had to vote true as well. It's not anything personal, but complex classics are easier to maintain interest in over time.

I have to agree with Rasputin here, those two are not minimalist, they're actually survivors of pre-modern perfumery. Minimalism, as I understand it, is a modern aesthetic. I don't think it's only got to do with short formulas : it's also about transparent, impalpable textures.

Helg and I have been reflecting, not precisely on the topic of minimalism, but of originality in perfumery, touching on the minimalist school and its history :

http://perfumeshrine.blogspot.com/2008/07/...t-original.html

http://graindemusc.blogspot.com/2008/07/ye...t-original.html

I voted "false". Most of my favorites are heavy, dense and opulent but there are times I find myself craving a reset or a palate cleanser, something like Hiris.

Constantin Brancusi, BIRD IN SPACE (1923)

This is something like food. If "maximalist" perfumes are like a cassoulet then the newer, "minimalist" ones might be something like sushi, or even sashimi. One might be best for cold winter nights, the other for warm humid days (which there are lots of in the developing markets like Asia and India, incidentially, or maybe not...)

Could it be that the simpler formulas fit the warmer climates, and continue to be simplified as these markets grow?

Cassoulet and sushi, as long as it is well made, are both delicious. Why should there be any need to choose between them?

Fascating, fascinating comments on the nature of minimalism. I agree that 4711 and Yardley's Lavender are not minimalist. They were made originally with "whole" molecules (although I wouldn't be surprised if reformulations became more minimalist). To me minimalist means using "fractionated" molecules. It's not just the formulae that are simplified, it's the complex molecules themselves that are stripped to leave a single molecular note. That was my understanding from reading Chandler Burr's explanation of Ellena's method of paring down molecules.

Mais pourquoi faire, on demand?

I switch back and forth between maximalist and minimalist fragrances, depending on my mood that day. I enjoy both.

Although I live in a minimalist-ish environment (most people think it looks like an art gallery) I'm afraid I can't get along with minimalist scent, even though I've tried. I suppose that I'm very contradictory in that sense, loving modern design, yet crazy about "old-fashioned" perfume. Mr F on the other hand is very minimalist and able to enjoy his Ellena scents quite happily along with his Guerlains and Carons.

I am a chameleon & can enjoy & wear both when the whim strikes me.

I've actually had more difficulty going in the opposite direction. I can appreciate the classics - many of them are brilliant - but to wear them is another burrito entirely. They can easily overwhelm me or seem too...serious, maybe?

Rasputin, très bonne question! Chandler Burr cites fewer molecules to be allergic to as the ostensible reason. I guess you'd have to ask Mr. Ellena about his own reasoning but my surmise is that his artistic bent toward pared-down scent molecules dovetales very nicely with Hermès' bent toward pared-down costs and the nuisance of accessing consistent natural ingredients.

Ellena does explain the why in an interview about Brin de Réglisse: in his opinion, if you just draw out the molecules that interest you out of an essence or absolute, you can control the outcome better, and reduce the "parasite" smells you don't want, or would have to deal with by adding something else to counteract their effect, thus lengthening the formula.

Some of those products, like the 5-molecule lavender the Laboratoires Monique Rémy created especially for Ellena, aren't necessarily cheaper, but if you've got a shorter formula you cut down the costs anyway. And you simplify the sourcing and manufacturing processes.

I voted "false" because I enjoy many of JCE's scents, but I don't think I could identify perfumes with "half" molecules if my life depended on it. So I'm not sure I really know the difference between "classic" and "minimalist."

I did get pretty sick of rich, complex scents when I was younger, and I thought I just didn't like "perfume" since that was all there was in the stores. When I discovered bath shops, I was thrilled to find bright, sparkling scents that were sheer and relatively simple. I fell in love with citrus scents in particular; I wore Origins' Ginger Essence for years. And Davies Gate Mandarin oil.

It has only been recently that I've found myself loving the complex, thicker scents again. So these days, at least, I switch frequently between the two.

I voted false, even though I can really understand those who didn't. And "minimalist" is very hard to define. The grandfather of minimalistic perfumes has to be Edmond Roudnitska. The way he dealt with formulas was really groundbreaking at the time. I can hardly believe Diorissimo is a 1950's formula for example

But then if you compare Ellena's L'Eau d'Hiver with it's inspiration Aprées L'Ondée, the latter wins in my book. And how! There may be a clarity to L'Eau d'Hiver, but it's just lacks the emotion of Aprés L'Ondée.

When I think of my own favourites, it's hard to find anything minimalist. Feminité du Bois has a definite structure to me. There's a sense of space between each note, even though it's not lightweight. Dzing! also strikes me as "restrained" without losing it's mystery.

Also, a short formula doesn't necessary mean a perfume is minimalist. Apparently Mitsouko has very few ingredients (as does other Jacques Guerlain perfumes, or so I've heard), and Mitsouko is hardly minimalist.

Excellent points, Accolon. Roudnitska was indeed JC Ellena's master, and Diorissimo is an amazing feat of short formulation (see Octavian Coifan's 1000fragrances for a recent post on the matter).

Although my perception of minimalist does include "a sense of space between each note", it isn't a matter of short formulas, as you say. More a spareness of effect, a sequence of easily read notes.

I've just blogged on JC Ellena's style. It's an English translation of an article to be published this fall in a French art review. It does touch on the topic of minimalism, and I hope it can shed some light on this discussion...

http://graindemusc.blogspot.com/2008/08/je...ound-water.html

P.S. Blogs using the Blogger software have been crashing all week-end for users who have Internet Explorer 6 and 7. If you get an "operation aborted" when you try to access mine, would you PM me? I'd really appreciate it.

Well said! This is what I really love best in a perfume. I appreciate busy and seemlessly blended fragrances, but they aren't what I reach for when I want to be most comfortable in my skin.

"Although my perception of minimalist does include "a sense of space between each note", it isn't a matter of short formulas, as you say. More a spareness of effect, a sequence of easily read notes."

This has been an interesting read. And in my early stages of becoming a perfumaniac, I've begun to notice one thing that stands out, regardless of whether I like a scent or not. I don't think it specifically relates to minimalism as currently popularized by a lot of houses, since it holds true for frags from the 80s and 90s. Here's what I've noticed:

More "classic" scents (as in 1970s and before) that I've begun sniffing have a depth and warmth to them that seems to be missing from modern frags - whether they be Terre d' Hermes, Polo, Grey Flannel, or L'artisan's lines, or Diptyque's scents. All of which I love, but all of which seem to have a quality of shallowness to the scent. Nothing connected with sillage or longevity or clarity (as in the Hermessence line), just a lack of depth (for lack of a better descriptor).

This past weekend, I sniffed a number of older bottles of frags at antique stores (only a few of which had turned bad, surprisingly), some of them just had a few drops left in the bottles.

One thing that really came across over the two days was that they had a depth that's not present in modern formulations. It wasn't a heaviness or a complexity (those were separate things to me). But they had a quality that just filled the nose and the mind - the scents had a fullness to them. It was a quality more than a common ingredient, as far as I could tell. It was present in Shalimar, Joy, Cabochard (I loved this one), older bottles of 4711, even an older sample of Old Spice. There were several "off name" scents in presentation boxes from the 50s that also had this quality. It's also true of the three frags I have from before the 80s: Monsieur, Audace, and Bandit.

So, I bring this up in the sense that I don't know that minimalist scents (as defined by others above) are a hard transition as much as it is that the "classics" may have qualities to them that modern frags just don't have. I'm finding myself becoming more interested in pre-70s fragrances while I definitely enjoy the minimalist offerings we have today. They seem to be two very different animals.

What do you all think? Am I totally off my rocker? (On this point, anyway. )

No, you're rocking just fine. There is a depth in older fragrances. Some is brought by the use of naturals which have been replaced by synthetics over the years. Some by the length of the formulas: you could have several bases in one composition that were mini-perfumes of their own. All of this gives a richness that shorter formulas and 90% synthetic compositions can't possibly have.

Also, there are the types of materials used in the base notes: for instance, natural musk give a resonance to other compounds that just can't be duplicated. So does real oak moss.

Hoos, ITA with your two different animals theory. I don't think we're talking about the same thing any more than a 78 record player is an ipod.

Interesting Poll!

I answered FALSE.

I can and definitely do switch between classics or perfumes with ooomph and simpler more minimalist fragrances.

This happens due to my seasonal perfume schedule...in the summer, with all the heat and humidity I must resort to simple sheer soliflore type fragrances. I wear all sorts of Jean Claude Ellena scents (Un Jardin Sur La Nil and Mediterranee) Jo Malone, Annick Goutal, Dawn Spencer Hurwitz and many others.

In the cooler months, Fall & Winter, I switch to classic/heavier perfumes.

Towards the end of each season I start longing for the opposite category. So I very much enjoy both types of perfume.

This is a fascinating point of view. I can't remember where I read it, but somewhere recently, I read that JCM's La Mousson is a big hit with folks in India. The aroma of La Mousson strongly reminds them of something and they LOVE it! So if JCM's La Mousson was meant to resonate with folks in India and Asia I believe he really hit the mark.

I have an Indian friend, albeit one who's been living in Europe for several years -- a true perfumista, in fact a former perfume blogger -- who positively loathes Un Jardin après la mousson. Only goes to show...

hehehe... I figured N. would hate Mousson, carmencanada. She's not into the vegetal thing.

I am dying to stick this one under hubbies nose for the same reason, I have a sneaking suspicion he is going to say "cool name for a fume but where's the monsoon , I dont see ( smell ) it" . I went through this with Shalimar , Shalimar bhag being practically his childhood playground he thought that was the coolest fume name ever , BUT and this is a big but , he felt it was not the best of scent to go with the name.

It's true for me. For example, Pure White Linen smells so wimpy to me, compared to impure White Linen.