Okay then. While we’re on the whole “whisky reviews” thing, why don’t we discuss various whisky reviewers and their reviewing styles?
For example, we made an observation in a recent post that Jim Murray rates many young whiskies very highly.
I believe it was also brought up this past week that Michael Jackson scores didn’t vary much from a given distillery. For example, if he was going to rate Macallan highly overall, most of the ratings would be within a relatively tight grouping of high scores. And he didn’t go back and re-taste that much. The reviews were pretty much cast in stone.
And I believe someone brought up that they like Dr. Whisky’s tasting descriptions (as do I), but someone commented that he never really pans a whisky, which he would like to see.
What have you noticed about a given whisky reviewer’s style? It might be something you like or something you don’t like. Or it might just be an observation and you are indifferent.
Everyone is fair game here, even those of us rating whiskies and contributing to this blog. (That includes me.) I think we’re all mature enough to handle it. Maybe we’ll even learn something and become better at what we do.
I just have one request. If there is something you don’t particularly like, please express yourself in an appropriate and professional manner. And remember, we are discussing reviewers’ styles. I don’t want anyone to attack or say anything negative about the actual reviewer or the character of the reviewer.
Given these ground rules, let’s hear your comments. You can address the observations I posted about the above reviewers, or you can post up a completely different observation.
I’m not going to pan any particular reviewer, I’ll just say what I look for in a “good” review is:
1. Some sort of contextual information. I want more than a few tasting notes and an (arbitrary, in my opinion) score. What does the reviewer think about a particular style, for instance? How does it compare to other expressions for that distiller?
Why do these matter to me? First, because there are some reviewers I avoid because I know they don’t care as much for Islays as I do and I won’t normally agree with their assessment. Second, because I don’t drink 100 rare whiskies a month. I drink my core collection, whatever I can get in bars, and maybe a rare one or two if I go out to a whisky bar. Knowing how a whisky compares to something that is familiar to me, or readily available for a reasonable price, is USEFUL information to me.
2. I like people who link to reviews by others that they trust – especially if those reviews don’t agree with their own assessment. More information is better than less.
3. I also look for information on the price of a bottle, and love to see comments about the relative quality to the amount a bottle will run me. Very few writers talk about that, but it’s a calculation that 99% of whisky drinkers have to make. It’s just downright odd that more professional reviewers don’t use it as a metric. There is a huge market for that kind of information.
4. Finally – and this has less to do with individual reviewers than the overall state of whisky reviewing online – I want a really clean interface that is intuitive, easy to use, and searchable. On the web, this is just as important as good writing or a good nose.
So who are my go-to reviewers at the moment? Those of you who read my blog know that I link to most of the major scotch bloggers, but I get the most enjoyment/information out of Whisky For Everyone, Scotch Hobbyist, and Whisky Notes. They tend to meet most of my criteria on a regular basis.
All good points, Whisky Party.
John,
Thank you for the excellent question. Just like with movie reviewers, I can tell how I will like a whiskey based on both positive and negative comments from various reviewers. When one reviewer says a certain whisky is too woody or maybe a bit tired I generally find I will probably like that whisky. If another particular reviewer finds a whisky to be too woody or a bit tired I generally find I agree. Different reviewers, as individuals, have different thresholds for these things.
One of my favorites is Dave Broom. Dave, more so than some reviewers, seems to like whiskies with a bit more oak and bolder flavors, especially rye. His reviews got me to start with rye a couple of years ago and I thank him for it.
Dave mentions grip (or lack of grip) in many of his reviews and I can get a feel for the oak, tannins, and mouthfeel of a particular whisky from his comments.
As with many other European reviewers I love the taste profile comparisons with items unfamiliar to the American palate like treacle, Wheatabix, and toasted crumpet (see Dave’s review of Berheim Straight Wheat for the last). I’ve searched down both treacle and Wheatabix at a local British goods store to help me better follow those reviews.
The best thing about Dave’s reviews, though, is his joy in talking about whisk(e)y from everywhere (particularly rye and Japanese) and beyond, especially rum. He doesn’t expect a bourbon to taste like a sherried Speysider. Both can be good (or bad) on their own terms.
I also liked it when Michael Jackson, either after giving a detailed review of a taste profile or mentioning a whisky in a column, would sum up a whisky with a non-taste comparison, like what song it brought to his mind, a place he had visited, or person he had met, or simply “temptation in a bottle.” He once described a Wild Turkey as “cerebral.” From that I got a picture of what he thought of that particular expression, which I think is what all reviewers want to convey to their readers.
WP, on point #3, there’s not much more a reviewer can do than post the approximate price. Relative value is something only the consumer can decide, because only the individual consumer knows what the money means to him. For some people, $60 is an awful lot to spend on a bottle; some others think nothing of dropping $200 or $300 or more. (What’s more, retail price varies quite a lot from place to place.)
Sorry, we’re digressing again…to be honest, I have no thoughts on the question at hand, because I don’t really pay much attention to reviewers. (Sorry, John!) But I will be interested to read what the rest of you think about it.
Totally unrelated, but I wanted to thank John for posting all of these great discussion topics lately. The conversation has been a huge learning experience.
Please keep it up!
Steve – regarding “non-taste comparisons,” I hear that the new book 99 Drams of Whisky is filled with such comparisons. I haven’t read it yet, but you might want to check it out.
It’s hard for me to say, overall, if I really dislike Jim Murray’s style of reviewing a whisky, or if it’s simply a limitation of the format of his book. For me, his tasting notes tend to be scattered, haphazard, terse, and, on occasion, utterly indecipherable. Sometimes, I can clearly understand what he’s saying as I follow his train of thought. But more often than not, it seems as though he’s trying to use as few words as possible to convey a thought (limitations of the book, perhaps), and it ends up meaning very little to me.
John, your style is nice in that you describe a whisky with a little more freedom of space and expression, and the format overall of the web allows for greater leeway in terms of a solid picture (links to distilleries, comments from users, etc). The only thing I DON’T like about your reviews, really, is that I’ve found it as yet impossible to find 80% of the whiskies (both native to the US and foreign) that you review — for any amount of money. That’s not really a fault of your review as much as it’s simply a fault of the system here, but it does leave me feeling at an unfair advantage on occasion.
Michael Jackson’s reviews I loved. His tastes and mine were very much in sync, and the best parts of his reviews were the notes about the distilleries themselves coupled with the almost poetic quality of his tasting notes. Again, I feel he was constrained somewhat by his book’s format, but I found his notes to be far easier and clearer than JM’s — perhaps because there were fewer reviews in a larger book.
The whisky world, like any other semi-exclusive group, is jargon-filled and rampant with those who try their damnedest to sound as highbrow as possible. It’s sometimes difficult for me to read a blog or an article without wiping off the snobbery and disdain afterward. I won’t name any names in this regard, but I’ve seen it far too often.
I was lucky, I think, to have found MJ’s reviews first when exploring whisky (after my father’s, who’s written an article or two). His reviews and writings lack pretension, and invite discovery. Yours as well, John (which is why I keep coming back), do an excellent job of speaking plainly, and talking to us as though we were your average friends, out to share a dram.
That’s missing a lot in whisky reviews — humility. And it’s through that basic personability that one builds trust.
It’s true that reviewing only $200+ whisky is not interesting, but there’s no fun in reading tasting notes of all the classic malts over and over again either. So there should be a balance between standard malts and special stuff.
I agree with WhiskyParty that pricing is an important part of a review, and it is in fact rarely mentioned. Even if prices are never up-to-date nor correct for all of the countries, I prefer some kind of indication rather than just nothing. If whisky A scores 90 and costs € 50, than it’s way more interesting than whisky B which rates the same and costs € 150.
Personally, I prefer to read actual flavour associations rather than just vague indications like ‘powerful’, ‘lovely’, ‘youthful’, ‘pleasant’, ‘disappointing’… which don’t help me in knowing whether I will like it or not. In fact, I care less about the reviewer’s personal opinion, I want to know if it is likely to fit MY personal taste.
John,
I look for 3 things in a whisky reviewer:
Independence
Experience
Similar Palate
Currently, I rely on Serge for all three of these reasons. My only critique is the use of obscure (though I don’t doubt genuine) taste descriptors to which many people in North America would find hard to relate. Nonetheless, I think that Independence is by far the most important.
It’s also the thing which can be found aplenty on Serge’s blog!
P.S.: This is not to say that I do not feel the same way about you!
I use your notes frequently as well.
Oh, I almost forgot. Humour and self-relativation make any writing more interesting. Serge is great in this respect.
John, excellent question!
From a whisky companies perspective I like the variety of writers with their own loves and hates of whisky. Some prefer smoky, some prefer sweet and that helps give people perspective as consumers with similar tastes can follow along and learn as they go. I always try to look at 2 writers minimum to give me a balanced opinion of a product and only read the ones I believe to have the greatest independence and integrity. What is always important to remember is that it is an opinion and although their opinion can hold weight, people should not be turned off or turned on too much by them. I liken it to movie critics, my wife suggested we go and see Mamma Mia as it was getting rave reviews and being a stupid man I followed her lead…needless to say, that won’t be happening again.
If I was going to offer advice to an new whisky writers I would say keep it simple, find a balance between the more obscure tasting notes and descriptors to help inspire people to taste with the more simplistic to help the new drinkers find their feet.
Thanks Gerry, for offering an industry perspective.
I agree that it’s important to check out more than one review when researching a whisky to purchase, for the reason you state above (i.e. Mamma Mia). However, I think it is also helpful if an enthusiast can find a reviewer whose palate and preferences are similar to theirs. When I was learning about whisky, I really connected with Michael’s tasting notes, and it really helped.
From a reviewer’s perspective, I have always tried to keep my reviews simple and approachable. This is by design. Having said this, I do appreciate other reviewers whose tasting notes are a bit more eccentric. I find them entertaining.
I think we are blessed with so many different reviewers and reviewer styles. Too bad that only a small percentage of whisky drinkers read the reviews, although this will continue to increase in the future.
I kind of like Jim Murray, although I don’t always go along with his ratings, but that’s going to happen.
He is very (over) confident, but I don’t think he’s snobbish, like it’s easy to be when rating whisky.
I also like Dave Broom and Jackson, for the same reason. And Paul Pacault and yourself.
I believe that Whisky Magazine tasters taste semi-blind, but they are told the region and a few other things about the whisky. I’d like to see a lot of proper blind tastings.
I like to see enthusiasm too.
John
I’m a Serge follower also and i seem to like this straight-forward “i tasted these whiskies and that’s what i have to say”,without any other misleading infos.
Of course i like the sense of humor he has.
If there’s something i may dislike about his reviews is some extraterrestrial aromas that he discovers from time to time and also the pretty unbelievable or “buy a car or buy a bottle” whiskies that he tastes.But this must be probably my envy of him and not a true critic.
Dr.Whisky is my second favorite for whole different reasons.It’s my whisky relaxation when i read his blog and also tastes more human available whiskies.
Please Doctor get more frequent like the old days.
I’m a fan of Gary Regan’s lyrical style. He described Old Charter Reserve (a hidden gem in the 90′s, now greatly diminished in quality) as “like fine old paper”. Perfect.
It’s each to his own, I think for whisky reviewers. I enjoy Serge for the esoteric aromas (not to mention the esoteric whiskies!); Dr. Whisky for straight talking, great history summaries and fun; and Dave Broom for precision and enlightening flavour notes (I’ve lost count of the times I have been reading one of his reviews and find he has nailed some aroma I was trying to identify in a totally different whisky the week before).
Sorry forgot to mention yourself, John! Your style is great as well: a no-nonsense tell-it-like-it-is review. You and Dr. Whisky are the only guys I read who talk about value as well. You get to the heart of the matter and your comments are always well-judged without being insulting even if you’re giving a low score. Respect to that.
Tim F: Thanks for the kind words. I learned from Michael that there’s a right way and a wrong way to say you don’t like something.
I appreciate honesty, experience and independence in a reviewer. I also appreciate straightforward notes rather than the ones that try to describe a distant childhood memory that person had once when they were 5 in the South of France in the middle of June. Or something.
Pretty much everything that’s been said already.
[...] Yet again, John Hansell at Malt Advocate has sparked a big discussion. This time he wants to know your thoughts on whisky reviewers styles. [...]
i like Jim Murray & Serge Valentin best
because:
1. they seem to be after everything that
comes their way. for them tasting/talking
isn’t just pleasure, it’s a mission
2. in a regular everyday language they take it where it takes them. relaxed but, when appropriate, passionate, they can be as expansive or curt as the expressions themselves. & I LOVE RAW CASKS^
3. in various ways they often group relevant or similar things..in tastings of bunches, in cross references to apparent relatives &, in general, as they somehow manage to convey the sense that what is before them is part of a continuum that ultimately best comes to be understood as a forest to the trees & back loop
4. because they understand so well that the shorthand of numerical ratings is an excellent, practical tool that helps their readers accumulate, remember, relate &
build the kind of mental library that’ll
enable them to come to each subsequent
experience with a back story that in a
strange wonderful way automatically pops
up & helps direct the focus, they’re able
to better conduct that concert which can be the more perfect integration of the extended experience. think of them as the
Verizon man…the guy in front of that big support group that makes it possible for
you to be Passepartout^
5. they’ve mastered the art of painting you into the picture with them without
giving up any of their individuality or
implied authority. ‘hey friend, pull up a chair & have a dram or four WITH me!’ it’s mostly an old bard’s trick that put’s you at ease. it takes a natural charm &
the ability to project absolute honesty,
not to mention a solid self confidence.
6. the extras: Murray because he’s so
close to current/complete & organized. i
mean, even if you have a whole year to do
it, can you imagine what it takes to put
that many things together? Valentin for
his support group & the links. more cool
other stuff happens on his site than all
the others i know combined.
7. they both just come on/off to me more
like me, myself & i. what you see is
what you get but, somehow over time, they
have just kept on growing/expanding in my
eyes. it’s like they’re often able to
bring off the illusion that the whole is
greater than the parts. strangely, when
you are lucky enough to come by say a cask
strength single cask item they’ve come to
grips with too, you might not agree with
them about a substantial part of it..BUT>
with them it’s like another taster at your
table…it goes with the territory…it’s part of the fun.
8. &, since both the reading & writing of
these wonderful things is the archetypical
subjective exercise, it ALL comes down to entertainment. for me, these guys simply put on the best show going^
i should say that, for the most part, i’m the kind of drinker/collector who already has the actual bottle (i may not have opened it yet) or has tasted a cask or bottle sample before the review shows up.
so, even though i read everything that
comes down the pike, i’m doing it for my
ongoing knowledge more than as a buying
guide. indeed, with a few exceptions,
such as JH getting samples & immediately
passing on what he [WDJK] tastes, if you
wait for the review, you’ll have the devil to pay finding a bottle.
my second favorites are John Hansell &
Dave Broom. over the years they’ve both
come to represent the sort of straight
up, impartial, patient, even tempered & just plain good everyman sort of writer
you’d want looking out for you when the
chips (your bucks) were down. if that
means they’re more direct, predictable or
down the middle, it’s probably because
that’s exactly how they’d prefer to be
thought of. i read everything both of
them write & would be much the poorer
without them. but, i think of myself as
a reasonably competent gambler who is
often in the game as much for the rush of the action as the thrill of some ultimate
victory. what happens on the road will as
likely be more interesting than anything
waiting for you at the end. i DO like
Dave’s adventures with the Japanese. i’d
just like to hear more about the contents
of the bottles & less about the reviewer, his climb up the mountain & the landscape
in general.
on the downside i’m only gonna mention 2
people:
1. LIVING: Martine Nouet should stay in
the kitchen. i know the industry will go
for any angle that helps sell more whisky
& that’s fine up to a point. but gimme a
break, who drinks whisk(e)y with food?
outside of guys already drunk when they
come to the table, i’d venture not 1 in
a thousand actual drinkers have even tried
it out…unfinished mixed or other drinks
brought to the table cuz it was time to
sit down, sure…but do you see how your
Lagavulin goes with the asparagus?….not
unless you don’t like asparagus & it’s a
neat way to stomach th’stuff or appear to
be polite? i could play with this all day
but it’s probably not quite in the spirit
of John’s ground rules. let’s just say
there’s one place WINE properly RULES.
my main problem with Nouet is she seems to
have a problem with alcohol itself. it’s
hard for me to take seriously anyone who
can quip: ‘it certainly cleans a blocked nose but where is the enjoyment’ on a 37 year old Karuizawa bottled at 65%. that’s about the 3rd or 4th such cue i’ve seen
recently. i’d be scared to look if they
ever gave her some of the Staggs<
2.DEAD: Michael Jackson. in the intro.,
John very acurately summarized much of what
i had to say in an earlier thread. &, for
sure, for sure, i owe the man an enormus
debt. if nothing else, he was the 1st one
to make me aware of the huge size & scope
of what has become an obsession..he quite simply opened the map & helped me dive in
head over heels. unfortunately, as i grew
he seemed to be content marking time. in
short, i don’t think he kept up with much
of anything in an industry that probably
changed more in the last 10 years of his life than it had since his grandfather was born. enough, i’ll wait to expand when i
can put it in a more positive form.
my parting shot for all who would review:
i’m interested IN WHISKY: where, when &
how it’s made +, most of all, WHAT’S IN
THE BOTTLES & how they relate to/stack up against each other. all the myths, cute
stories & travel guides are acceptable
filler & bridges only as they serve to
advance the story of the sauce itself.
HEY, YOU GUYS, COULD YOU PLEASE TAKE A FEW MORE CHANCES? like they say in the shoe
stories: ‘JUST DO IT!’^
Anyone out there agree/disagree with Harvey? I agree with how you described me Harvey. And like you said, that’s intentional. I am a scientist by profession (MS in Environmental Science), so my tasting notes tend to be fairly straight forward and not very eccentric.
Let me just pick one point Harvey mentioned.
“how they relate to/stack up against each other”
Yes. I get quite good understanding of Balvenie X, when someone describes it as something like Balvenie Y, a little drier and with more power on it, even being a touch like Glenmorangie Z. If someone just writes tasting notes “honey, malt, apricot, raw apples and very slight hint of smoke”, it tells me something, but probably the same reviewer could go “vanilla, peach, hint of honey and citrus” the next day for the same whisky (at least if tasted blind).
I understand Harvey’s affinity for Jim’s approach (don’t know enough about Serge’s yet) and they both have more skill then I at discerning the nosing and tasting experience.
I wonder, however, if something gets lost in making the whole from its ranking parts. What is the overall sense of the experience as opposed to its individual components (Nose, Taste, Body, and Finish)?
Not sure the answer to this – The other qualifier that concerns me is that whisky changes dramatically when water is added (I know Harvey you rarely do that – its blasfamous
) and it also changes dramatically – especially on the nose- once it sets for 1/2 hour or 45 minutes. What are we really ranking here?
Anyway, I certainly appreciate Jim’s detail but I also enjoy a less “quantitative” approach to the experience.
Quite honoured to be cited next to Michael Jackson, Dave Broom, Jim Murray, and you, John. My main inspirations (and early nosing educators) are Robin Laing, Charlie Maclean, and SMWS-era Annabel Meikle and I take my cues from them. PRESENT do not PASS JUDGMENT.
Dr. Whisky is, and has never been, about expressing my opinions in tasting notes but rather to present and describe the whiskies so that others can get information and make their own decisions to try, buy, or gift whisk(e)y. To proselytize, to be a MALT ADVOCATE, to encourage whisky enjoyment, not promote my own status as critic or be the author of any “bible”. My whisky gods practice Whiskyvangelism, never judgment.
I love whisky and give every producer the benefit of the doubt that if they bothered to put it in a bottle it can never be BAD.
That being said, keen readers can certainly read into my posts when I do not think highly of a given whisky. Examples are abundant but I can cite the more obvious Littlemill, Whyte & Mackay 12, Corriemhor, Aberlour 12… etc.
Am working on getting more regular, Maltakias. Thanks!
And again, thank you all for the kind words.
Sam, it makes sense that’s who you learned from. Most of those who inspired you write very colorful, tasting notes, like you. I learned from Michael Jackson, but I also have a heavy scientist background. For this reason, my tasting notes tend to me more straight-forward. It’s nice to see the variety of different reviewers’ tasting notes out there, that’s for sure.
Now, regarding your comment: “I love whisky and give every producer the benefit of the doubt that if they bothered to put it in a bottle it can never be BAD.”
Sorry, but I have to disagree with you on that one. Maybe you haven’t been drinking whisky long enough, but there have been some whiskies that were bottled that were undrinkable. The were back in the 1990s, though, and were from independent bottlers.
This is a good discussion topic, though, and I will use your comment as a springboard for discussion.
[...] Whisky added a late comment on my blog posting on whisky reviewers, which included this thought: I love whisky and give every producer the benefit of the doubt that [...]