Use of descriptive terms in Bourbon tasting

[Mike]

I wonder about this, and also wonder if I am bringing up something that needs no discussion.........just let folks take what they want and leave what they want.

Do those of us who do tasting notes and use descriptors such as 'complex', 'balanced', 'rich', 'creamy', 'fruity', 'spicy', etc. owe it to our readers to offer any explanation as to what we mean when we use them? I use them often and think I am saying something that will mean something to bourbon tasters.............am I wrong and am I only talking to myself?

Is John Lipman right in saying that tasting notes are essentially bunk, i.e. drink and enjoy your bourbon, Leroy, forget what anyone else says about it (John, feel free to correct my interpretation of your position)?

Is doing tasting notes so subjective that the best one can hope to do is either to entertain or to connect with those of like palate, or maybe help someone not used to tasting bourbon find a new taste experience?

I have seen it opined on BE several times that the greatest strength of BE is its reviews and tasting notes. Is that so?
Does it matter? Is this worth anyone's time to discuss (I will be quite surprised if this post draws any responses at all.........if it doesn't, I will delete it).

Would it be worthwhile to attempt to compile a kind of glossary of tasting and reviewing terms to help those who may be unfamiliar with them, or is it better just to keep it like it is?

[bourbonv]

Mike,
You are a wonder. In just a few short lines you opened a whole can of worms on several different levels. I am taking a break from working on my book this evening (I am almost finished with chapter one so staying home from the Sampler has been good to me!), and I will try to answer your questions.

Is John right about saying tasting notes are worthless? Yes he is right! There are no two people who are exacly alike and what one person experiences no other person can truely experience it the same way. In time the same person will experience the same whiskey differently because taste buds age, the person's tastes will change and the bourbon will be different. In a pure logical manner John is 100% correct. The real answer is that he is wrong! The fact that no two persons taste are exactly alike is of little consequence. If you describe the taste of caramel toffee in the bourbon and I know what caramel toffee tastes like and I like the taste of caramel toffee it then It really does not mean anything if our tastes are not 100% aligned. Tasting notes should be considered guide lines not absolutes.

The best way to use tasting notes is to find a bourbon that several different people have reviewed and hopefully in a different way. If some like it better than others or not at all, the better for the use by the reader. Copy the reviews and go to your favorite watering hole and try a glass of that bourbon and see whose review you most agree with. The look at the other reviews that person has done and see if you agree with him on those as well (I say "him" because until we get a few female reviewers it is simply "him").

So does the BourbonEnthusiast review section have value - definitely yes. I know of many people who read the reviews even if they never look at anything else. It helps them for an opinion on what to purchase next and that is of value. It also draws attention to some brands that may not have been noticed by them before which is even better.

So the final question here is do we need to define our terms. I say no. I think we use language clear enough for people to figure out. If Mike and I both say a bourbon is spicey but he is thinking pepper spice and am thinking cloves and cinnamon, we are both right but with different taste buds. I f we define the terms we are also limiting them and that would make things very, well limiting - when trying to do reviews.

I hope this answers your questions Mike and I do hope those that disagree with me will put in their two cents worth as well and that does include you Mike if you have opposing views to my statements.

[bunghole]

ima had better shut up, and just whistle Dixie.

[Mike]

The fact that no two persons taste are exactly alike is of little consequence. If you describe the taste of caramel toffee in the bourbon and I know what caramel toffee tastes like and I like the taste of caramel toffee it then It really does not mean anything if our tastes are not 100% aligned.

So the final question here is do we need to define our terms. I say no. I think we use language clear enough for people to figure out. If Mike and I both say a bourbon is spicey but he is thinking pepper spice and am thinking cloves and cinnamon, we are both right but with different taste buds. I f we define the terms we are also limiting them and that would make things very, well limiting - when trying to do reviews.

Thanks for taking the time to answer, Mike. I could not agree more with the answers you gave above.

I am cursed with an 'I wonder' bent that in my college days took me to the study of Philosophy (my mother said that caused the ruination of me because it led me to ask too many questions).

One of the more interesting problems of Philosophy is that of the Solipsist. Solipsists take the extreme subjective position that all one can ever know with certainty is one's own thougths, emotions, tastes, etc. There was the humorous case of the Solipsist who wrote a famous Philosopher to report that of course he was a Solipsist, wasn't everyone?

The problem of Solipsism became a non problem for me when I read Ludwig Wittgenstein, who proved to my satisfaction that there could be no such thing as a private language. My understanding of what he was saying is that NO language could exist in a truly Solipsistic universe. That we have and use language rules out Solipsism, according to Wittgenstein, if I understand him aright.

Why this little seemingly unrelated and pedantic digression? I suppose because it disturbs my philosophical sense when folks say with all the authority they can muster that all opinions, indeed all judgements and even tastes, are completely subjective and imply that in being so they are all equal. It just ain't so, as I have said on BE several times.

This is not to totally discard subjectivity. Just because there is a subjective component in many of our judgements and tastes does not imply a complete lack of standards by which we can judge them. In fact, using standards in this way is is exactly what we practice all the time, so in a sense what I am saying is only trivially true!

There must be a public means of discourse (i.e. a language that cannot be private) with agreed upon usages that, while they lack the specificity that we often desire (another of Wittgenstein's great insights), nevertheless do carry meaning.

Thus, I assert that tasting notes and opinions about quality and taste are not completely subjective and are not only interesting, but meaningful...........even while not ever being completely SETTLED. For many folks, this is itself quite UNSETTLING.

So Ludwig Wittgenstein (insofar as I understand his meaning), were he alive, and I, like your answers very much.

I appreciate the indulgence of those of you who see nothing of interest in this discussion and apologize for boring you!

[bunghole]

Dark Fruits!

[EllenJ]

Mike and Mike:
Wow! Do youse guys know how to light a fire under an opinionated (and at this moment slightly -- well, more than slightly -- inebriated) student of both American whiskey and, well, Americans, or what??

Unfortunately, it's a little before 2:00 am and I can hardly see the keyboard. I agree with both Mikes (can you believe it? -- maybe I'm just smashed) and I'll be diving into this after we get home tomorrow (or maybe Tuesday after such home-from-vacation things as mowing the lawn and catching up on my back-work).

Ima:
Yes! Especially such dark fruits as olives, overripe bananas, prunes.

[bourbonv]

Mike,
Very interesting discourse. I enjoyed your philosophical take on the subject but I have always leaned toward the Skeptic philosophy that states everybody has to experience for themselves before an opinion can be made. They had the their philosophy summed up in a single phrase - "So it seems to me", meaning in my opinion,"that is the way I experienced it as well but we both could be wrong". That is also my take on bourbon reviews as well.

Linn,
You are a man of many talents my friend. In just two words you pointed out a weakness of my argument against standard terms. Dark Fruits indeed! That is a term I try never to use without listing the fruits I am tasting, or as John pointed out it could mean olives, and over ripe bananas. It might be best not to describe terms so much as to simply list the terms in the old flavor wheel chart.

[Mike]

Excellent additions to the conversations Linn, John, and Mike.

I am also more than sympathetic to the Sceptic's take on things and do not find it in conflict with any of my ramblings above.

I also find much to admire in the Stoic philosophy, especially as I grow older.

I have abused the 'Dark Fruit' phrase myself and have confessed that at times I am 'reaching' in my reviews and can easily miss the mark. I will now avoid that phrase like the plague.........point taken, Misters Bunghole and Lipman!

When the dust settles on this post I would like to discuss how the alcohol in bourbon affects both the aroma and taste, but I will hold off on that for a bit.

[bourbonv]

Mike,
I just did a review (number 701 for the forum, number 222 for myself) and I was thinking a couple of things. The first is you need to work hard to catch up on the reviews. Yours are always much more fun than mine.


The other thing is if Mark and Chris does decide to change the reviews section then they need to add a place for the glassware used in the tasting. The style of glass does effect the experience. I have always used a Glencairn glass myself but I do have other styles of tasting glass and the standard old fashioned glasses and jiggers. maybe a tasting of the same whiskey in four different glass styles would be interesting.

[Mike]

Mike,
I just did a review (number 701 for the forum, number 222 for myself) and I was thinking a couple of things. The first is you need to work hard to catch up on the reviews. Yours are always much more fun than mine.

Thank you Mike! I have always enjoyed and relied very much on your reviews, as well as those of Bunghole (wish he would get back at it, the man knows so much about bourbon), Gillmang, MikeK, BourbonJoe, TNBourbon, abcgroup, LogicalFrank, and many others to learn about bourbon and improve my tasting experience.

I think it best to live life as a comedy and cannot even take bourbon tasting notes too seriously. I think humor keeps me from becoming too stale and repetitive in my reviews.............and I find sipping bourbon, especially with friends, to be fun!

A little part of me fears that a chorus of BE folks will say, 'Enough with the reviews and posts already!' and take away my keyboard........

[EllenJ]

Two of the most important philosophical expressions I know...

(1) Life is just one fool thing after another; love is just two fool things after each other.

(2) What our friends think of us becomes much less significant when we realize just how seldom they do.

[EllenJ]

The other thing is if Mark and Chris does decide to change the reviews section then they need to add a place for the glassware used in the tasting. The style of glass does effect the experience. I have always used a Glencairn glass myself but I do have other styles of tasting glass and the standard old fashioned glasses and jiggers. maybe a tasting of the same whiskey in four different glass styles would be interesting.

One thing that I was reminded of when we were tasting ryes for LeNell is that it's not so important to use a specific KIND or SHAPE of glass for taste-comparison as it is that you use the SAME glass. We were using a very limited variety that day, "normal" stemmed tasting glasses, your Glencairn, and a couple of medium snifters, and the difference in both aroma and flavor notes was quite substantial, depending on which glass you were using. I think your idea of establishing a standardized set of tasting glasses (a glaxicon?) and performing a tasting across that spectrum is a very good one. We should probably include the Bungbowl snifter as well.

[bunghole]

Learning how to taste whisk(e)y is a lifelong trek. There is always something new to find and explore, and every bottle can be an adventure.

I cannot overstress the importance of tasting with other experienced tasters. It really helps accelerate the learning curve. Also folks that are good cooks usually have good taste buds. Tina Angleshare's observation that a burbon had a nutty bitterness like a Brazil nut was something I missed. I got the bitterness easily enough, but missed nailing it down to an identifiable common taste experiance. Likewise while in the "tasting barrel" at Heaven Hill's new Bourbon Hertiage Center they had two vials containing sents that were common to most Heaven Hill bourbons. The first one was easy as it was mint, but the other struck me as medicinal or champhorous. Brendaj stated immediately that it was pickled ginger. Now I have never heard of nor smelled nor tasted pickled ginger. It is easy to see that everyone has a somewhat different set of flavor and aroma references.

Also I highly recommend attending the Master Distiller's class at the Woodford Reserve distillery. Learning directly from master distiller Chris Morris is a big help.

Good glassware is a must.

Take this simple challenge. Walk out of the room and have someone make a blind pour for you. Then come back and write down your tasting notes. Be sure to take plenty of time and be sure it is the first pour of the day. After your notes are done, also state whether it is a wheated or ryed recipe and do your best to name the distillery and brand. Then when the bottled is revealed see how good you were.

After that just enjoy drinking many fine bourbons as you have done more than enough work for one day.

ima saintly bunghole

[Bourbon HQ]

Bunghole is right. The right glassware is a must. Allow me to suggest a glass. Picture attached.


Gayle

[Bourbon HQ]

Oops! NOW the picture is attached.

Gayle