Disharmony in perfumery, - Printed in Soap, Perfumery & Cometics, June 1968 Options

[Le Jardin Retrou...]

DISHARMONY IN PERFUMERY

By Yuri GUTSATZ, chief perfumer, Roure-Bertrand Fils & Justin Dupont, Paris, France.

This paper was read and discussed at the February 13 meeting in Paris, of the Société Technique des Parfumeurs de France. Translated from the French.

Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen,

I would like first of all to thank the Chairman for doing me the honour of asking me to prepare an introductory paper for the present Round Table concerned with Disharmony in Perfumery.

From the very first, I had expressed some doubts about my qualifications, feeling that it would be difficult to find much to say on the subject since I was not quite sure whether it would be possible for all of us (myself included) to come to a ready understanding of what is actually meant by Harmony in perfumery. Without this basic understanding, it seems to be rather venturesome to attempt a discussion on Disharmony.

Therefore, to facilitate my work and make up for my shortcomings on the subject, I suggested rather timidly to Messrs. Guglielmina and Cornon that the broad scope of the discussion be extended by incorporating Novel Odours. In this respect, at least, it would be possible to exchange views and to discuss extensively novel odorant materials; the benefits provided by organic chemistry that make it possible to broaden the scope of a perfumer's creative ability; novel and heretofore unsmelled "accords" . . . ... and many other things.... Thus one could express any opinion and play the fish of disharmony under floods of eloquence devoted to the inexhaustible topic of novel odours.

My offer was accepted, and we meet to-night to discuss also the topic of Novel Odours.

I expect much from this, and rely upon it a good deal to help me out of my present predicament!

However, do not consider in any way that I have called novel odours to the rescue because I feel like saying that since these are not "harmonious" odours they must necessarily provide some element of disharmony when introduced into a conventionally harmonious - or harmoniously conventional - composition, and that their very presence would provide an explanation of Disharmony in perfumery ! By no means. It would be too easy, and even dishonest, to state that disharmony in perfumery results from the introduction in a conventional formulation of some novel, heretofore unsmelled "accords" obtained by means of such new synthetic aromatic materials exhibiting unusual notes, as yet olfactorily unknown. First of all, a novel odour is theoretically obtainable by an original combination of well-known odours; secondly, there is no proof that the effect of Disharmony is automatically attained by an attempt to break the circle within which our odorant constructions are becoming increasingly enclosed, such constructions consisting of clever combinations of entirely reliable, well-tried, long tamed raw materials that may be handled quite safely.

In my opinion, should we arrive at a common understanding of what is actually meant by harmony in perfumery, it would then be possible to attempt to arrive at a definition of disharmony without automatically involving novel odours which result from new, synthetically produced materials or from "accords" based thereon.

At this point, I would like to be permitted to philosophize somewhat, to broach my favorite topic.

DISHARMONY ELSEWHERE

It is said that our "poor" art of perfumery can be understood and appreciated only by comparison with other arts such as music, painting, and literature. These major arts which so it is commonly admitted - are much more readily understood by everyone than the art of perfumery, have been seeking, for about half a century, for new ways of expression. Picasso, abstract painters, cubists, those who "paint" with bread crumbs or stick odd objects on canvas; Bela Bartok, Schoenberg or the creators of concrete music entirely made of clashing sounds, miscellaneous noises; the supporters of new literature such as Robbe-Grillet or Michel Butor, and, before them, the Dada movement - André Breton or Aragon in such times - all, for forty years or so, have sought to modify the shape and content of their artistic expression by getting away from long-established harmony, and actually breaking it by introducing new elements drawn from the contributions of a world under-going tremendous evolution. And how about perfumery? The "classics" that have met with heretofore uninterrupted success were created at the time of cubism in painting, of the lucubration's of Dadaists and of the Art Deco style. While disharmony was becoming established everywhere else, perfumery produced its purest masterpieces of harmony that are still being duplicated nowadays while Dadaism and Cubism are already part of art history.

It is true that, although one of the older arts in the world, perfumery did not undergo a Renaissance in the 16th century. Its own Renaissance occurred during the twenties, in our present century. This being established, is it possible for our poor art of perfumery to afford the luxury of seeking for new routes by breaking with tradition and search for evolution in clashing dissonant "accords"; in brief, by introducing the notion of disharmony in its structure to attain, after trial and error, bursts of enthusiasm, abandonments and multiple crises, at a new dimension, a new harmony, a new structure adapted to our times and their requirements?

PERFUMERY AND CLASSICAL VALUES

If this new route passes through a certain disharmony in painting, music and literature, if evolution occurs in circles or in spirals - downwards or upwards - what is then this harmony which has to be broken in order to progress? Because it appears that there is no place for any renewal without breaking the old harmony. Therefore, a question is in order, at this point: is it possible that, in perfumery, deliberate disharmony may ultimately lead to a renovation (by absorption and digestion of the novel odours that are a token of things to come), and why, may we ask, are we still turning round and round antiquated concepts?

You will be fully justified in answering that the public at large is responsible for such a situation, because one does not purchase a vial of perfume as one buys a painting by some innovating painter or the latest "new-wave" novel. True. But why, in perfumery, does the public hang on to well-tried values and appear to mistrust bold innovators? For my part, I think that no matter how deep-rooted, the short-lived craze for so-called modern art does not affect the deeper layers of the public, the major part of which remain attached (essentially, viscerally) to the well-tried notions of beauty and harmony. All over the world, Raphael, the Flemish Masters, Watteau, Boucher and the impressionists are still admired ; Vivaldi, Mozart, Chopin and Berlioz, to name but a few, are still listened to with rapture, and the poets, from Villon to Verlaine, are still passionately read. The psychic "mutation" which will make men at large prefer lettristes to Verlaine has not occurred yet - and in perfumery, which is so much closer to physical life, the harmonious classics and their grandchildren are almost unconsciously sought for. Undoubtedly, there could be found amateurs-interlocutors - for clashing, jerky, disharmonious perfumery - as disharmony is understood nowadays ; but these would prove to be a minority, and we must needs believe that every-where that which is harmonious and beautiful is admitted and liked, and that which is admitted and liked is harmonious and beautiful. This must be a question of sensitivity, generally, and of sensuality, where perfumery in particular is concerned.

I shall say that "classics", in perfumery, are perfectly harmonious constructions, which are beautiful and sensual just like Verlaine's verse, Chopin's music and Cezanne's pictures. In the second half of the twentieth century, Man, in spite of spatial adventure, atomic research, data processing and computing, has not yet undergone this "mutation" that will enable him to understand and love - love with his guts - a music made of brutal shocks, grating and mewing sounds, a poetry consisting of onomatopoeias, and a painting that seeks to break the harmony of the human body and of nature that, until we have proof to the contrary, are still among the most harmonious things in creation.

Maybe that time will come, and more rapidly than we expect. Therefore, in the silence of our laboratories, perfumery should prepare itself for this evolution from which it cannot escape. Since this route has to pass through disharmony - to continue the comparison and the parallel with the other arts - let us attempt to find how such disharmony can be obtained, because, so far, it is nonexistent, properly speaking, except for some marginal exceptions. All that which is admitted by the public is harmonious, although more or less happily so.

ELABORATING DISCORDS

Technically, the creation of disharmonious perfumes should present little or no difficulty. Suffice it, maybe, to distort well-tried "accords", to exaggerate where caution was in order, to combine reputedly incompatible notes - although, what is actually incompatibility between notes, in perfumery? - in brief, to hack out, or on the contrary, to fiddle over the job so that, instead of retaining such ideally pure lines, just as the arch of a bridge or a vibrant melody, the evaporation curve will break, become distorted in angles and bristling with asperities. True, you may be fully justified in saying that such a mixture will merely have a bad smell, or that the most violent note will be predominant over all others, or yet that this masterfully created disharmony will find enthralled "fans"! All this is true.

It is my deep conviction that, in some rather close future, the average man will find true beauty in all that is repulsive to us nowadays, whether it be the hammering of a machine or the blow of an alarm siren (sounds that are to be found in some advanced music compositions). Why could there not be a deliberate "olfactory cacophony" between perfume notes? All is merely a question of convention. We are all agreed that the Rose has a pleasant smell. But is this true, absolutely? Will some being from a far-away planet find that the rose has a pleasant smell and is a dream-thing for poets? Our notion of harmony is a matter of convention (although of long standing), therefore, according to admitted standards, our notion of disharmony is also purely a matter of convention. A change in standards will result in a change of appreciation. Where does all this lead us where disharmony in perfumery is concerned?

At present, any construction breaking too suddenly apart from admitted notions and criteria will remain totally misunderstood by the public at large. Where the technologist is concerned, or the person "in the know", who is able to predict the broader lines of future trends, this type of construction, free from the usual type of harmony, may open new vistas and it is in such a direction that an inquisitive mind should direct his research (while not expecting an immediate answer). Because very few indeed will dare market a prospective creation which appears disharmonious to the majority. However, a little stone will have been added to the new building... .

I have insisted, above, on the contribution that could be provided by the notion of "novel odours" for the definition of disharmony; however, having lost myself in mental speculations, I have somewhat forgotten novel odours. How can these be connected with the notion of disharmony in perfumery? Quite naturally, provided the novel odour whatever its origin - is introduced to modify some olfactory harmony and becomes a major, if not the major constituent of the new construction. It is up to the novel odour, to the heretofore never smelled olfactory combination, to transform gradually our familiar harmonies into the disharmonious harmonies of the future.

I suppose that while not inexhaustible, this is a very vast subject which is undoubtedly of concern to many of us. Much has already been said and written on materials having a novel olfactory character and, so far as I am concerned, I consider that, at present, novel odours can result only from combinations with newly discovered synthetic materials (some of which may have been known for a long time as constituents of a naturally occurring material but have only recently been prepared synthetically).

NOVELTY AND THE DESIRABLE DISCORD

I do not think that we should, within the scope of this Round Table, pass an unfavorable judgment or on the contrary speak in praise of new products, but, rather, merely attempt to establish whether their presence in "conventionally harmonious" formulations could create some kind of Harmonious Disharmony.

In other words, is it possible, by means of novel odours, to introduce into well-tried concepts, notes which, while providing a novel factor, would break, the harmony sought for heretofore by means of the armamentarium at our disposal and would make it possible to attain some unorthodox structure, disharmonious with respect to the admitted standards, although technically and commercially valid ?

More precisely: the problem is not to amalgamate novel odours so as to render them practically inoperative and unobjectionable, but to recreate, by means of these, unusual, a priori disharmonious structures possessing, however, some intrinsic value that would prove acceptable by current standards, so that such "never smelled" combinations will not become an obstacle but, on the contrary, a means to achieve success. Therein lays the entire problem, to my way of thinking, at least.

Up to the present, original creations were obtained, for the major part, not with novel odours, i.e., with heretofore unused materials, but with skillfully equilibrated known materials, and therein lies precisely the art of creative perfumers. In this respect, I would like to mention the example of the fatty aldehydes. They were known at the end of the last century, but were left aside until a man of great talent made use of them, and then only found an application as starting materials for an entirely new line, creating a novel harmony which has been appreciated and desired by millions of consumers for more than forty years. At the time the first aldehyde type perfumes appeared on the market, did one talk of Disharmony? The older perfumers will well remember such times. Rather, did one not discover a New Harmony, and did not the provision of aldehydes break the former concepts relating to harmony in perfumery?

Can such a result and similar success be expected from currently novel odours? Is it possible to create new harmonies, by disharmonizing, by means of novel odours, our present concepts? This is the subject I suggest be discussed by this Round Table.

DISCUSSION

M. Louis GUGLIELMINA (Chairman): While there is actually no revolution in the art of perfumery there is nevertheless some evolution because all the great perfumes that are currently successful would, I think, have been deeply unpleasant to our grandmothers, fifty or sixty years ago. They are no longer with us to say so. (Laughter)

M. Constantin WERIGUINE: I think that even in the old perfumes there was already, to start with, some degree of discord, as in the first Piver perfumes. A study of the history of perfumery shows that the forerunners of the new present-day perfumes are the Piver perfumes and that the father of these modern perfumes was Professeur Darzens.

Darzens discovered methylnonyl-acetic aldehyde, and Piver perfumes, not Chanel, were the first to use the fatty aldehydes in perfumery. However, when M. Beaux created Chanel's No. 5, there was a most marked discord in the top note of his perfume, and it was this top note that perturbed our mothers.
In fact, the perfumes that followed, whether those by Guerlain or Crêpe de Chine, the green top note of which was felt to be rather clashing; later Shocking and, more recently, Bandit, contained novel notes which created a shock at the time. And if, nowadays, there is a demand for increasingly violent perfumes, this may be due to the environment, to the smell of fuel oil, of automobiles that perturb our olfactive sense, that give us a choking feeling, and it is quite possible that new accords in perfumery should be developed quite imperatively.

However, in the background of such violent notes, harmonious constructions were to be found in all those perfumes, and we are still working in the same direction. Nevertheless, if conventional harmonious perfumes are beginning to lose some ground, this is due to the replacement of valuable synthetics and of expensive naturally occurring materials by substitutes which destroy their harmony.

M. GUTSATZ: It is purposely that I have omitted to mention our grandmother's perfumes. Some starting point had to be found. What M. Wériguine calls the disharmonious notes of a Crêpe de Chine were only, it seems to me, a tentative effort to find new ways and not a flagrant break with harmony. The top note held new excitement. That happened during the twenties, the high time of new creations; however, my own feeling is that there was no sharp break, no deliberately developed disharmony.

Using the more recently discovered materials, or those which had sunk into oblivion and were unearthed by relentless searchers, perfumers made an attempt at creating some impact-laden top note, because it is well known that a perfume's sales appeal is immediate. A woman opens a perfume vial, smells it, and is pleased, or not. It is impossible to explain to a prospective buyer "only wait about three hours, and you will see how splendid the evaporation curve is once the true type of the perfume is fully apparent!" A new perfume owed its success to this first impact; however, so far as I am concerned, there was no disharmony, but merely an attempt to introduce galbanum or styrallyl acetate, or any other material, in an audacious ratio to draw the attention of the public on to an already harmonious construction. Thus, the slight disharmony became a component of an overall harmonious assembly.

M. Rene CORNON: Is it possible for a perfume to be both pleasant and disharmonious?

Professeur Marcel GUILLOT: I shall answer YES to this question because, in this field, the most extraordinary things have some colour of verisimilitude.
Here is an example I always mention: it concerns an American woman who had travelled all over the world, had seen the most beautiful things and who was happy to come back to her native Texas, and see again the derricks standing over the oil fields. She used to say, "At last ! how wonderful it is to feel at home again !" This is a most human feeling and extends too many things. Thus, you can understand that anything is possible. In particular, when one has become accustomed to some odour during one's childhood, one finds it pleasant, even if it proves highly objectionable to most.

I think rules are difficult to set forth in such a matter; it is mostly a question of familiarization and adaptation. Concerning what has just been said on the subject of disharmony, it seems that the most marked examples of disharmony, to my knowledge, correspond to pure materials. There is a disharmony between the original odour perceived either at low concentrations or immediately on the first contact and the odour which becomes subsequently apparent. Taking isoborneol as an example: the first odour is that of celluloid, which is fairly pleasant initially and which becomes immediately covered by a horrible odour reminiscent of that of a cellar and of mould. Good results may be obtained with isoborneol, on admixture with other materials; however, used alone, it is entirely unpleasant and there is extraordinary contrast between the original odour and that which follows immediately. This is due to the fact that the olfactory mucous membrane is highly sensitive to a certain quality of odour. This complicates matters, and, generally, such materials are difficult to use; they cannot be used safely.

Such examples are inherent in the very nature of materials useful in perfumery. Such materials have always existed, and I believe that disharmonies have also always existed . . . only, they were used in a happier manner.

To revert to painting. There have always been painters who liked to place clashing colours side by side; however, this is precisely the way to achieve a work of beauty and significance, when one knows how to handle such juxtapositions, when one has talent. The same is true in perfumery.

M. Gutsatz: Therein lays the entire problem of novel odours. Most recently developed synthetic materials have not yet penetrated the perfumer's sub consciousness. There is such a deep-rooted taste for a certain form of harmony that it is extremely difficult nowadays to develop new accords, to change, break, orient differently such harmony by introducing a never-yet smelled novel odour that can be connected with nothing known.

The example of isoborneol can be repeated ad infinitum with a large variety of chemicals which are being tentatively introduced at present in perfume formulations, to open up new vistas.

Either one uses a novel material and "surrounds it" in such a manner that it has no longer a smell of its own and does not offer much to a formulation, or, in contrast, when one exaggerates and uses it in a predominant ratio, then - although I do not wish to consider this a final statement - disharmony becomes such that, on the basis of currently accepted standards, the composition does not have a pleasant smell!

Professeur M. Guillot: This is a matter of environment. I have worked for a fairly long time with M. Delepine on thioglycollic compounds. For example, I felt that the odour of thioglycollic acid or of thioglycollic esters was objectionable. However, when I visited Brazil, I discovered that the Brazilian forest smelled of thioglycollic esters. This produced a great change in my impression and, now, I consider something could be achieved with this material whereas, previously, I would have thought that it was not useful in perfumery.

M. Gutsatz: You had become conditioned.

Professeur M. Guillot: Yes, I had become conditioned.

M. Sebastien SABETAY: Louis Pasteur used to say that "to-day's heresy is to-morrow's truth". To paraphrase, I will say that "to-day's disharmony is to-morrow's harmony". What do you actually mean by novel odours? Novel where nature is concerned? No! Novel for those skilled in the art? No! To the laymen? Quite recently, a panel was held, with some very clever women taking part. They were asked to distinguish between various odours: mint, lemon, parsley and the like. Very few could tell mint from lemon. Therefore, how could it be possible for women to distinguish so-called "novel" odours among hundreds of thousands of odours?

All odours resemble something known, and I would be unable to name ten odours different from those already produced by nature. When, in 1928, I discovered ionone in oil of Boronia, I thought that this was a synthetic material that did not occur naturally. Ionone is a most common material, and is to be found everywhere in nature. Except for isobutyl quinoline, everything occurs in nature. Indole, skatole are naturally occurring materials. There are no truly novel odours, and therein would actually lay the value of a new material. The problem is to discover some material that would not occur naturally.

M. Gutsatz: Since the purpose of perfumery is to please the public I agree with you, and, when I use the term of "novel odour", I mean an odour that is novel for the public, for the consumer. There are a great variety of odours which are known to specialists and which occur in nature, but which have never been associated with the perfume concept. Do you agree with me?

M. Sebastien Sabetay: Which, for example? The quinolines?

M. Gutsatz: You mentioned iso-butyl quinoline. At some time, this was a new material. It has lost its novel character. There are other such materials.

M. Sebastien Sabetay: When M. Darzens discovered isobutyl quinoline, it was used in Pompeia, which met with great success; Pompeia, however, was a disharmony.

M. Cornon: I was thinking, a few moments ago, of a certain disharmony. For example, I loathe the odour of privet flowers. A friend of mine finds this odour most pleasant because it reminds him of the odour of a hedge near which he used to play when a child, and he becomes actually enraptured when he encounters this smell, while I find it objectionable.

A moment ago M. Sabetay said that everyone accepts the green hair painted by Van Gogh. This is not so. Many have never accepted them, and have never accepted the orange-coloured field.

That which is remarkable, however, is that a long education, long polish - this is known as civilization - have led people to consider some odours as pleasant.

Everyone agrees that the odours of Rose, of Jasmin are pleasant. However, some odours that are qualified by us as being disharmonious are found pleasant by some novelty-lovers, spontaneously infatuated with anything new. New things are never unanimously accepted, except after a very long time.

M. Sebastien Sabetay: How about Wagner? How about Civet?

M. Gutsatz: I agree: what is disharmonious nowadays will eventually be found harmonious, after some mutation in human nature. But I do not agree with you where civet is concerned. No perfumes are built around civet. The material is actually only an extremely valuable contribution.

M. Sebastien Sabetay: This is obviously a matter of dosage.

M. Gutsatz: But no perfume containing 15 per cent of pure civet was ever marketed anywhere in the world, to my knowledge.

Voices in the audience: But, yes, but yes!

M. Gutsatz: All right. Let us say 25 per cent.

Professeur Guillot: The problem is: could one achieve something pleasant with 80 per cent of Civet. I think so. (Laughter)

M. Sebastien Sabetay: I am convinced that if skatole were removed from civet, one would obtain exaltones, macrocyclic compounds, and a so-called refined, skatole-free civet.

Voice in the audience: And at a prohibitive price!

M. Ernest MEUNIER: You mentioned civet. All this is a matter of civilisation and social standing. In Africa, in some tribes, females are found extremely pleasant when rubbed with civet before offering themselves to males. This is a fact. In certain African tribes, a woman smelling of civet will have much appeal. She would have none whatever if she smelled of Rose or Jasmin.

However, to revert to civet and its use in perfumery. A famous perfume company I shall not name may be said to be a champion civet user. Civet is used massively and is, nevertheless, so cleverly dosed that if civet were removed from the perfumes developed by this company they would lose their character entirely. In other words, civet is used in just the right ratio to contribute much, so that the perfume would exist no longer if it were removed.

M. Gutsatz: I agree with you. But civet cannot be said to provide disharmony; on the contrary, it is a contributing factor to the harmony of the perfume. This is entirely a matter of art, of know-how, of talent.

M. des PELLIERES: If we take into consideration the desires of the public our client, I am not convinced that there is a demand for disharmony. I think it is ourselves who are in search of something new and since, on the whole, harmonious perfumes have resulted heretofore, it is felt that some disharmony will provide the desired novelty. When we introduce a new raw material, without deliberately searching for disharmony, a new harmony may result, and I personally shall use new materials to attain this New Harmony.

M. Sebastien Sabetay: The same thing has been done, over and over again for the past forty years. Finally, the odours are always the same.

M. Gutsatz: What I meant was, all our technologists are not obstinately in search of disharmony or of a break with harmony. The important, interesting thing, in my opinion, is to attempt to turn aside from the beaten track, the circles, the spirals within which perfumery has become enclosed, with the contribution of so-called novel odours, new materials for the purpose of creating this slight something that the past generation of perfumers has been able to discover about forty years ago. M. Weriguine has mentioned the example of Crêpe de Chine. Crêpe de Chine is a Chypre. How was this Chypre disharmonized? Probably by the provision of one or two synthetically derived materials that were outside the scope of conventional Chypre formulations. A slight break was created, especially in the top note, and it appealed to the public.

M. Weriguine: Crêpe de Chine is an entirely new Chypre; if you study its structure, you will find that from beginning to end it is a new structure which has nothing in common with the original Chypre by Coty which is one of the wonders of French perfumery.

M. Gutsatz: All right! However, starting from known postulates, the creator of Crêpe de Chine readapted them so as to provide new accords, to direct it in a new direction. A slight break from old harmony resulted in a new harmony. For example, I would like to find that incorporation of new synthetics in a conventional Chypre would result in a perfume that would be to Coty's Chypre what Crêpe de Chine was to the same Chypre, but in a new direction.

M. Meunier: Break with harmony or disharmony, whatever you choose to call it; what is apparent, however, is an evolution, some bold touches the perfumer experiments with and which are made possible by the availability of new materials that had not been provided for his old colleagues. It is obvious that, in 1968, the perfumer's armamentarium is much more valuable and complete than in 1920. Therefore, a new perfume will be developed in 1968 that could not be achieved in 1920, since the novel 1968 chemical was not available in 1920; however, this new 1968 perfume will be a mere extension of the overall trends in perfumery, an evolution of tastes in perfumery; it will probably contrast strongly with the 1920 perfume, slightly less with the 1940 perfume, much less with the more recent perfumes, so that there will be a continuous progression between the perfume developed at the beginning of the century and the present perfume. In this respect, I believe in an evolution of taste, as a whole, and I do not believe in a revolution.

Besides, I wanted to mention the following example. Discord does in fact exist in a very famous perfume the name of which I shall not mention, since its author is not here with us. In this perfume, the top note is plainly unpleasant, and this had not escaped the author of the perfume. For six months he re-worked his perfume to remove this top note and, whenever some result was obtained, the remainder was found to have collapsed. This originally amazingly beautiful remaining portion of his creation was reduced to a mere nothing after the modification of the top notes. Therefore, the author felt he must abide by the following philosophy: "A perfume cannot be a successful achievement throughout; one should sacrifice some portions of it; I shall sacrifice the top note of my perfume which will remain unsatisfactory for some seconds, so that the remainder conforms to my creation".

This perfume, which is one of the three most successful perfumes at present, has a frankly unpleasant top note. In this case, possibly, one can speak of this discord between odours that we have met to discuss to-night.

Professeur Guillot: I wonder whether, when in search of new and interesting combinations, one could not keep to already existing naturally occurring compositions.

Take an odour such as that of vanillin. Previously, there was a marked tendency to use it in the form of a perfume such as Heliotrope, i.e., to combine vanillin with benzaldehyde. Nowadays, this type of perfume appears vulgar and unpleasant; one is tired of it.

When considering which are the natural products in which vanillin is present, you will find that some are partly pleasant, while others are frankly unpleasant. Vanillin occurs in benzoin, in combination with other constituents; this is by no means unpleasant. In Asafoetida, however, the combination is frankly horrid, for most people, although not for all. Some like it. As in the case previously mentioned by M. Meunier, there are countries where Asafoetida is used in cooking. If the public could somehow become accustomed to this odour, new effects could possibly be obtained by combining Asafoetida with other odorants which would suppress that which is repulsive to us. Maybe there would be about 10 to 20 per cent of the people who would like it, and they would like it very much, because a phenomenon of a biological order is found to take place. When people are made to become accustomed to some odour for a long time, either they will ultimately have a loathing for it or they will begin to like it.

M. Guglielmina: To revert to new products : when a chemist has created a new product which exhibits a novel odour, and offers it to a perfumer, he has little chance to find his novelty readily accepted since perfumers are actually most conservative and like to deal with odours reminiscent of a natural product. When the new material is reminiscent of Jasmin or Rose, he will give it some consideration; however, if the odour is very different from anything occurring in nature... .

Professeur Guillot: The same is true in painting. When you ask for a pink and find you are offered a Blue ... the only answer is the expected "this is not what I asked for!" It is difficult to arrive at just the right moment.

IN CONCLUSION

The discussion proceeded in an animated manner and several contributions stood out. In particular, an exchange of views was launched on the comparative quality of synthetic materials now available to the perfumer, with respect to those used several decades ago. It was unanimously recognized that the quality of synthetic materials has tremendously improved, with the result that modern perfumes have derived great benefits there from.

In the audience, some voiced their regrets - which are almost nostalgic - that contemporary perfumery, owing to economic considerations, is deprived of the unparalleled contribution of natural products such as floral absolutes and products of animal origin which, in the past, had been the key to the most successful achievements of French perfumery.

A discussion was also opened on what could be termed the public's education, to accustom people to new odours, and the fact was deplored that those responsible for launching a perfume on the market do not exhibit more boldness, a state of things that can also be explained by requirements that are more of an economical than an aesthetic order.

There was a digression on the art of appraising a perfume, generally speaking, and a highly original per-fume (exhibiting some disharmony with respect to current concepts) in particular, but all agreed that a "bad" perfume, unsatisfactorily constructed or exceptionally discordant, could by no means ever become a durable commercial success.

This led M. Gutsatz to pose the following question: Is it possible to devise a valid theory involving what is actually "harmonious" and accords which are ultimately found to recur in most famous perfumes and, consequently, can be said to please the public?