Inspired by recently
attending the first meeting of the new Manchester Whisky Club (which you can
read about on other blogs here and here), I’d like to revisit a theme from my Whatis it with whisky reviews? feature. The club is basically an [admittedly
excellent] excuse to mix with other people that have an interest in drinking
whisky, and taste some different drams. I think that’s the first time I’ve ever
used the word ‘dram’, not really feeling qualified to do so generally. There
were five to try at this first meeting – one from each of the whisky producing
regions of Scotland – and they were all of excellent quality, being selected as
they were by club founder, Andy.
Andy allocated us
five glasses each, and poured a generous quantity into each one. Each whisky
and region was then introduced, and we commenced with the nosing and tasting,
pausing to share our impressions.
Now, I don’t want to
get into too much detail about the club itself (that’s for another time), but
what is important is that none of the impressions any of us had of the various
scents and flavours in those five glasses were particularly outlandish, but as
you’ll see in the rest of this article, sometimes they really can be. I’m more
of a wide-eyed enthusiast than an expert, so it’s not for me to say whether any
of these flavours are actually in the drams in question, and there are no right
or wrong answers anyway, apparently. So no judging, please. Just have a look at
some of these examples, and marvel at the ingenuity and realms of possibility
within human experience.
Some of these
excerpts are from what we’ll call ‘expert’ reviews, and are therefore examples
perhaps of someone letting their imagination run away with them a little.
Conversely, some are ‘customer’ reviews, and therefore borne out of boredom and
naïve fascination, so some of them may be explained by error, lack of
experience or even facetiousness (much like this blog) – you know what people
on the internet are like. I think they’re all worth looking at and even
celebrating to some extent.
Combinations
A common practice
I’ve noticed is that of mentioning what I’m going to call combination
flavours. By that, I mean where someone doesn’t just mention a flavour, but
that flavour in a particular state, so for example, instead of vanilla, they
will say vanilla ice cream, instead of grass, they’ll say wet grass etc.
Grass? No, wet grass. You get the point. You can see real examples in
these next few entries:
Gibson’s 12 year
old – “on the nose; canned
fruits.”
Here’s a good one:
canned fruits. So generic fruit in a can? Does that seriously sound like a good
thing, notwithstanding that the smell of the canned fruit should differ,
depending on what fruit is actually in the can? I don’t think canned fruits was
supplied as a value judgement in this instance, more an observation. It is an
interesting one though. To me it begs the question: if you’re going to analyse
flavours, how specific do you need to be? Is ‘canned fruits’ good enough? Is it
in juice or syrup?
The Glenlivet 12
year old – ‘dark toast’ from
The Whisky Exchange
Dark toast. Again,
I’m just not sure whether some things people get an impression of are supposed to
be good or not – does it matter? Let’s imagine you’re considering purchasing
the whisky in question; are you supposed to ask yourself, do I like dark
toast? If you don’t, I don’t think that necessarily means you can’t enjoy a
whisky that someone has tasted dark toast in, so it’s not particularly useful,
but it is a real impression someone had, so there.
Perhaps you should
ask, whether or not I like dark toast, would I like it in whisky?
The book I’m
currently reading (but skipping through most of), Peat Smoke and Spirit by
Andrew Jefford also mentioned dark toast in a description of a whisky recently,
and in that instance it was a bad thing, so that at least clears that up. To
some extent.
Poetic Licence
Then of course,
you’ve got the people who take the whole thing a little too far. Like this guy:
Jura Superstition
– “I immediately noticed rich scents and aromas
climbing out of the glass to greet my nose. If I closed my eyes and held the
glencairn under my nose I could imagine I was in an evergreen forest with damp
moss covering the ground. A boggy meadow must be nearby as I smell the damp
peat under the meadow grass, with lush ferns and willow bushes clinging to its
edges. Saw grass and timothy are growing in the meadow with summer flowers just
beginning to bloom. Sweet malted barley smells have wafted in from beyond the
forest and light scents of marmalade, vanilla and baking spices have drifted
in. I find the overall effect to be marvellous.”
From therumhowlerblog
Now I don’t want to
ridicule that one (too much), but if I hold a glass under my nose, I can
imagine literally anything. The mind is a powerful thing – sometimes I don’t
even need to hold a glass under my nose. I can imagine for example, that an
otter is playing the trombone. Get that into a glass of whisky.
I might try that at
the next club meeting; [sniff…] I’m getting a sense of… an otter… playing a
trombone…
But seriously;
that’s got to be some fricking good whisky, in order to transport you to the
Land of Narnia, just by sniffing it. Alas, no; it’s just Jura Superstition,
which didn’t impress me much at all when I had a bottle of it. Maybe if I’d
been putting the washing away in the wardrobe, as Mrs Cake reminded me this
morning that I never do, things might have been different.
Maybe that’s a
good excuse, I just thought
to myself before common sense intervened and reminded me that fear of Narnia is
never a good excuse for getting out of anything.
The Whisky
Magazine’s review of Glenrothes Select Reserve also indulges in this flowery
opulence:
TasteTasting Notes:
Nose: Lots of zesty rich fruit on the nose. Thick Seville marmalade, bubbling on a hot stove with notes of toasted cereals.
Palate: Silky smooth and utterly supple. Gentle barley whispers sweet nothings to the/its honey. A little vanilla and malt with toasted cereal and sumptuous oak.
Finish: Long with mocchaccino and barley sweetness.
(Tasting Notes by Whisky Magazine.)
Nose: Lots of zesty rich fruit on the nose. Thick Seville marmalade, bubbling on a hot stove with notes of toasted cereals.
Palate: Silky smooth and utterly supple. Gentle barley whispers sweet nothings to the/its honey. A little vanilla and malt with toasted cereal and sumptuous oak.
Finish: Long with mocchaccino and barley sweetness.
(Tasting Notes by Whisky Magazine.)
Looks like someone’s
missed their calling as a poet. A few things stand out about that one. First
you’ve got a combination flavour – Seville marmalade, rather than just
marmalade. You don’t want to give the wrong impression, do you? I don’t know
what Seville marmalade tastes like, and how it differs from regular marmalade,
but it’s nice to be given something so specific. That’s better than canned
fruits, isn’t it?
Then you’ve got that
it is supple on the palate. How a liquid can be anything but supple
is beyond me. Let’s just look that word up…
sup·ple (spl)
adj. sup·pler, sup·plest
1. Readily bent; pliant.
2. Moving and bending with agility;
limber.
3. Yielding or changing readily; compliant
or adaptable.
Hmm… looking at
that, you could argue that a liquid can’t be supple. Moving on…
Finally you’ve got
the bit where gentle barley is whispering sweet nothings to the/its honey. That
is so annoying, how he’s chosen to suggest the barley speaks to the
honey flavour, and then suggests that perhaps the barley is speaking to its
lover [… bleurgh!] with the use of a forward slash to shoehorn both
those points into one phrase. I’ll tell you what though; I can imagine a stalk
of barley leaning over to some honey and whispering to it. What would it be
whispering, I wonder? I’m going to destroy you!
Tee-hee-hee-hee-hee!
That’s the honey
giggling, though there’s nothing about it doing that in the review.
Nutcases
If that wasn’t mad
enough, then you have the nutcases. When this next one says ‘pork’, I’m going
to give the benefit of the doubt, and assume he means port, though I can’t
really see the relevance here – unless he’s describing a meal. Maybe he had
pork for dinner, with a glass of wine, then decided to finish off with a
whisky. Whatever; he goes on to mention meerkats, and seems to think whisky is
made by baking, so whatever he says has already been undermined. I know
sometimes sarcasm can be lost in the written word, but I don’t think this one
is a joke. I think it’s safe to say; this guy isn’t a pro.
“After
trying Wine and then Pork I thought I would try whisky. The colour is almost
like a Meerkat when it is 2 year old. The taste was good to start but not
really baked enough. Not recommended by me!” from www.masterofmalt.com
The colour of a
meerkat? Is he a zookeeper? Perhaps I was misguided when I started comparing
the colour of my whiskies to a Dulux colour chart; I should have been
comparing them to animals – orangey-yellow animals like lions, hyenas and
foxes.
Communicating
enthusiasm
Finally you have the
reviews to which I give the greatest credence; ones that actually give some
semblance of what it is like to experience a whisky, rather than attempt to
impress you with a series of flavours. The way so many reviews rely on lists of
flavours reminds me of reading a menu in a vegetarian restaurant – that’s
not a dish, it’s just a list of vegetables!
Perhaps it helps
that this next one is a review of a personal favourite, but nevertheless, I can
identify with this one, and I find it amusing.
Caol Ila Cask
Strength – “Very strong stuff!The oils seep out of the
whiskey when you add a drop of water to your glass.Its Medicinal, carbolic,
salty fume fills the room and scares my wife into the next room. It’s beyond
comprehension that this whiskey was crafted by man.” From the whisky exchange
I suppose it takes a
particularly interesting whisky to inspire that kind of description, and
perhaps that’s the problem; most whiskies aren’t that interesting (to
me, at least… yet). They are enjoyable and mildly interesting, but they
don’t jump out of the glass and demand attention, so you’re left sticking your
nose in there going, “toffee? Caramel? Banana milkshake? Vanilla?...”
I’d like to leave
you then, with one more excerpt that I was made aware of by Andy of the
Manchester Whisky Club. He said he found this in a review on Twitter:
'I'm back in the
playground with bleeding knees after a conker match - I'm getting childhood
fruits'
Regardless of what childhood
fruits are, that one is just bizarre! How do you get bleeding knees from a
conker match? Do I have an impression of what it was like to be at school all
those years ago? Yes. Would I ever expect that impression to be reflected in
the flavour or aroma of whisky? Again no, but that would be interesting,
wouldn’t it?
I’m afraid I don’t
know what whisky was being described there, so I may never come across it. I
hope I do, just as I would like to understand this one day, and perhaps
experience such a vivid impression of my own. I’m going the right away about it
- in that I’m trying plenty of whisky – but sadly, I can’t say I’ve come
anywhere near yet. Drinking whisky tends to just remind me of another time I
was drinking whisky, though they do all smell and taste distinct from each
other.
I’m still slightly mystified
over what the point is, but since I understand that some whiskies are better
than others, and that you can get mad impressions from them, I suppose
you should at least share them. Otherwise, what’s the point in experiencing
anything? That there are no right or wrong answers almost renders the
practice redundant, but I think you should accept that as encouragement to
throw your own mad descriptions out there, rather than dwell on what you can’t
taste.
Well, all that
doesn’t matter. I’d be delighted of course to hear what you think about all
this. The important thing I think, is that whisky can be so complex, evocative
and enjoyable that it transcends simply being an alcoholic drink. You can get
lost in it, and when you get lost in it, getting drunk on it isn’t the main
motivation behind drinking it – and that’s got to be a good thing for those of
us who are approaching middle age and the onset of all manner of maladies and
deterioration. All this evolved because it’s fascinating and enthusiasts want
to communicate and share their experiences. So it’s all good.
That was quite fun,
then. I think I’ll return to this theme at some time in the future when I’ve
come across some more mad reviews, so keep an eye out for it. We can open this
up to audience participation if you like. If you see a particularly weird booze
review, let me know.
No comments:
Post a Comment