I told Richard (and myself) that I was going to take a few weeks off from the blog while me and the missus move house. However, I’ve been tooling around the other whisk(e)y blogs and this week has been awash with controversy. Once again the topic of rating legitimacy has reared its ugly head. It seems to have started with a somewhat rant-like post by our friend . Like the rest of us, the good Dr. has noticed the explosion of whisky blogs (including ours) over the past 18 months. If only we moved as fast as we talked, we would have beat the boom. Dr. Whisky’s rant, fueled by disappointments in his own contributions as much as others, was mostly a call for some sort of worldwide database that catalogued all of our tasting recommendations into one source (he suggests a Rotten Tomatoes type of format). While Dr. Whisky’s heart was in the right place, it seems he inadvertently stepped on a few toes creating some lively commentary. It also prompted a fairly eloquent statement from Jeff at Scotch Hobbyist. While we have said much the same here (including the gentle nudge at Jim Murray), Jeff sums it up quite nicely. Jeff’s blog name says it all; he’s a hobbyist. That’s why we are “apostles” and not experts. We are proselytizing about whisk(e)y because we love it and think you should too.
The other bit of controversy came from one of my new favorites (the folks behind the increasingly popular “Say What!?” series). When Jason posted preliminary tasting notes of Washington state’s Ellensburg Distillery’s inaugural release (not Jason’s personal notes mind). He got some flack from an anonymous commenter for his negativity. I don’t know if it was a sense of guilt or the plan all along, but Jason did a more extensive tasting of Ellensburg (with multiple tasters). I’m afraid the results were not what the anonymous commenter was hoping for. I’m glad Anonymous posted his/her rebuttal to the first post. It is good to have opposing views. Although, I question whether it was the distiller since they failed to identify themselves and spoke rather positively. We encourage people to rebut our findings. We’ve been repeatedly called down for our dislike of traditional Canadian whiskeys, so chin up Jason.
Both of these issues are really the same thing. We all have different tastes. If you get six of us together, you’ll probably get seven opinions (especially if I’m in the group). I’m all for lively discussion, but we need to have thicker skins if we are going to maintain a semi-public lifestyle. I am a little proud of our community though. We have yet to sink to kind of douchery that seems to plague the online community. For the most part, we play nice.
On a semi-related note, I’d like to talk about microdistilling in America for a moment. If you will indulge me to quote myself, I commented on WHISKYhost’s Ellensburg post thusly: “Honestly, the only first release I’ve really enjoyed is the rye from Finger Lakes. Everyone else started off pretty rough (to varying degrees) and are quickly getting better.” It’s true. Tuthilltown, Stranahan, and Wasmund all keep getting better and I’ve heard that the stuff coming out of Death’s Door is improving. It’s bound to happen.
While at a press event a few months ago, I was privy to a conversation about spirits writers in America. The tone was decidedly uncomplimentary. To paraphrase: The problem with spirits writers in America is that they are all self-taught amateurs, they lack the education and training of European spirits writers. Needless to say, I threw up in my mouth a little. How is this relevant? Well, what can be said about American spirits writers can also be applied to micro-distillers. In Scotland, the majority of Master Distillers have advanced degrees is the sciences behind distilling and undergo years of apprenticeship. Most American micro-distillers are brewers or moon-shiners with an interest in making whiskey (many of them “self-taught amateurs”). So give these guys a break and help them find their legs. These are the guys that will change the industry and blow your mind. Just give them time.
Drink well, drink responsibly.
Matt
Thanks for taking the time to post about this, Matt.
After seeing Moscow Jim’s notes I’d decided that I would quietly taste this by myself and if I concurred with Jim I’d say nothing more (since I didn’t want to pile on). After reading the comments from our anonymous contributor and seeing how vastly different they were from Moscow Jim’s I decided that we needed the inaugural release in front of as many noses and in as many mouths as possible. Luckily, the timing was perfect for putting the release in front of 15 people at a whisky dinner. As you saw from the group notes, there wasn’t a lot of dissent.
I never set out with the purpose of burying a whisky; I always try to find the positive. If The Ellensburg Distillery wants to send me samples of their latest releases for tasting I will continue to offer honest criticism in the hope that that kind of feedback can lead to the production of a top quality spirit. And I recommend they get their samples in the hands of as many individuals as possible for the reasons you mention above.
Finally, the US has done incredible things with microbrew. I have no doubt that it will do incredible things with micro-distilling. And I hope WA leads the way!
Cheers,
Jason @ WHISKYhost
No problem, Jason. Personally, I hope every state opens up to microdistilling. It should not be too hard for states with large microbrewing cultures.
We never set out to sink a whisky either, but you can’t help your tastes.
Brother, you never relayed the comment about “The problem with spirits writers in America is that they are all self-taught amateurs, they lack the education and training of European spirits writers. ” I find that quite amusing. My apologies to our overseas brothers for us country hicks in the Colonies not offering Master’s degrees in Spirit Appreciation. That is funny as hell. Personally, I find “professional” writers’ commentary on spirits to often be unapproachable and useless. That’s part of why we started this site. If Matt or Jeff or Dr. Whisky tells me that I might like something because it’s tastes like …. then that tells me a hell of a lot more than the “treacle” and “christmas cake” tomfoolery of some of our European counterparts. Obviously, I’m not lumping all “professionals” in the same boat. People like John Hansell, Chuck Cowdery, Dave Broom, and the late Michael Jackson are shining examples of being professional and approachable. Kudos to these fine gentlemen. I guess the rest of us poor slobs will just have to muddle through the best that we can.
Nice post Matt. And not because you linked to my blog (thanks for that, though).
The discussion of amateur vs professional status, both in the practice of distillation and in writing about spirits is an interesting one. As far as writing goes, I’m guessing the conversation was geared more towards “professional” writers.
I see the burgeoning amateur whisk(e)y blog movement as something separate from professional journal/book writing. I know from my perspective, it’s not an attempt to come across as an expert (I mean, it says “hobbyist” in the title for crying out loud). It’s really more of a social thing…sharing thoughts and experiences as I progress from total newbie to a more experienced hobbyist. It opens up virtual relationships and discussions similar to what you might get from participating in a whisky club. However, doing it on the internet opens your club up to a lot of people you wouldn’t otherwise get to interact with.
Regarding Micro Distilleries, I’d recommend anybody interested in this topic to get the Malt Whisky Yearbook 2009, as it has a great article on this very subject.
The conversation was more about professional writers. Bloggers were not really mentioned. Specifically, it was a distributor lamenting that such and such a spirit won all sorts of awards in Europe, but American writers hated it (presumably because they couldn’t appreciate it with their inferior minds/education). It was all very silly.
Pingback: Crown Royal Reserve « Whisk(e)y Apostle