Giving short shrift to blenders...

[cowdery]

Seagram's founder Sam Bronfman always said distilling is a science, blending is an art.

But I don't see the question of "who's more important" as really the question. 'Master Blender' has become a marketing position as much as 'Master Distiller' has, the point being that many people other than the 'master' have a hand in deciding what goes into the bottle. And, yes, even in straight bourbon, a lot happens to 'make' the product after the barrels have been dumped.

Sadly, the United States has a long tradition of the blender as flim flam man or snake oil salesman and while we can certainly get past that we can't pretend that history doesn't exist, especially when so many producers want our respect even as they commit some of the same offenses as their forebears.

[MarkEdwards]

So... have we decided that blenders can be pioneers? Or not? :cool:

[Gillman]

I would say so. Those who pioneered blended Scotch whisky created a world famous and lasting style of the spirit. Indeed they are responsible for putting scotch on the map outside Scotland. Some of the early names are Andrew Usher, John Walker, Peter Ballantine, Dewar, Teacher. One of the things behind the revival of the malts is that blends had declined in quality by the 1980's. And so an alternative arose, just as it did in North America when a reaction formed to the rule of American-style lager beer - itself quite different than it was 100 years ago. (Sam Adams Boston Lager is a typical 1800's lager, enuf said). But Scotch blends are still a major category worldwide and I would say too they have improved in the last 30 years.

Given the enduring popularity of Canadian whisky, it's fair to say its early inventors (Hiram Walker, Jos. Seagram, amongst others) were pioneers.

However, blending as practiced in North America, while it captured a large part of the whisky market, failed to make a mark at the highest level of quality. The blends here were never as good as the straights. They could have been, but weren't.

Gary

[cigarnv]

I would say so. Those who pioneered blended Scotch whisky created a world famous and lasting style of the spirit. Indeed they are responsible for putting scotch on the map outside Scotland. Some of the early names are Andrew Usher, John Walker, Teacher. One of the things behind the revival of the malts is that blends had declined in quality by the 1980's. And so an alternative arose, just as it did in North America when a reaction formed to the rule of light lager beer - itself quite different than it was 100 years ago. (Sam Adams Boston Lager is a typical 1800's lager, enuf said).

On the other hand, blending as practiced in North America, while it captured the market for a time due I believe to marketing, failed to make a mark at the level of high quality, or so I would argue. The blends here were never as good as the straights. They could have been, but weren't.

Gary

Gary, as usual great info... were the original Scotch blends something you would call high quality or were they something less when first coming on the scene?

[Gillman]

Reid, thanks, of course it is difficult to know at this remove. However, we do know that malt whiskies then were heavier than even in 1920 when George Saintsbury, in his Notes on a Cellar Book, noted the change. They originally were more sherried, more peated, more heavy with congeners. Therefore, the initial blends had to have more character than later. I've tasted a couple of blends from the 1930's and 40's - as late as that - which were superlative, heavy and smoky-brandy-like.

There is every reason to think, therefore, the first blends - which indeed first were vattings (all-malt), were much better than the norm, say, in 1980 at the eve of the malt whisky revival.

Gary

[cowdery]

As Gary says, the first Scottish blends were what we would call vattings, as they were mixtures of malt whiskey. No grain whiskey at that point. But the purpose of blending was to make whiskey more palatable to people who did not find it palatable and that led, probably inevitably, to the lighter blends that nearly-neutral grain whiskey made in Coffey stills made possible. Andrew Usher is usually credited as the first blender, both of the all-malt blends and the later, lighter blends.

He was certainly a pioneer.

[smokinjoe]

Just to clarify, I am not saying that the "act" of distilling is the most important part of the whiskey making process. Certainly, there are many parts of the process that must be melded together to make quality whiskey. From grain selection, mashing, distilling, aging, barrel selection, etc., etc., etc. What I'm saying is, that I believe those people who participate in all of these aspects get a lot more of my respect, than those who only participate at the end using distillate they did not make. If this is giving short shrift to blenders, then yes, I guess I am.

The industry of our hobby here, has some great names associated with it: Russell, Lee, Beam, Rutledge. They are the creators. They are the real deal. They make whiskey. Using what these men do as my model, I am entirely more apt to include the works of men such as McKenzie, Garrison, and Leopold, as recipients of my admiration, rather than those named Bush, Perkins, and Kulsveen. This doesn't mean I won't drink, and potentially enjoy what the latter names bottle, but it just ain't the same, to me.

[ebo]

Just to clarify, I am not saying that the "act" of distilling is the most important part of the whiskey making process. Certainly, there are many parts of the process that must be melded together to make quality whiskey. From grain selection, mashing, distilling, aging, barrel selection, etc., etc., etc. What I'm saying is, that I believe those people who participate in all of these aspects get a lot more of my respect, than those who only participate at the end using distillate they did not make. If this is giving short shrift to blenders, then yes, I guess I am.

The industry of our hobby here, has some great names associated with it: Russell, Lee, Beam, Rutledge. They are the creators. They are the real deal. They make whiskey. Using what these men do as my model, I am entirely more apt to include the works of men such as McKenzie, Garrison, and Leopold, as recipients of my admiration, rather than those named Bush, Perkins, and Kulsveen. This doesn't mean I won't drink, and potentially enjoy what the latter names bottle, but it just ain't the same, to me.

:toast:

.............

[Gillman]

Points taken Joe, I guess I just view it as different business models, factoring too that some bourbon and rye from traditional producers (not any of those you mentioned) just isn't that great IMO.

But I share the admiration for the makers, of course.

Gary

[macdeffe]

Most, if not all, innovation and pioneering in the scotch whisky industry comes from the maturation and blending part of the proces. As mentioned before, its often said that distilling is a craft while blending is an art

Can anyone tell me why this discussion is happening on a site like straightbourbon.com and not on a site mainly discussing single malt?, where I would reckon it never would happen. I find it peculiar as single malt fans normally are much more focused on the actual distilling process and exact origin of the product they are drinking than I see here

In this sense the bourbon industry has a lot of similarities to the scottish blend industry (and this is not meant negative by me, blends can be good). Jim Beam is from two distilleries randomly I guess, and quite a few brands have changed distillery of origin. A lot of brands from bourbon IB it is sometimes hard to find origin of.

All the pioneering these days comes from the blending/maturation side of the industry. In my opinion and its very solid.

For some reason a few people in this thread think it's a huge importance that the people doing this is actual employed by the company owning the distillery.

To me this is irrelevant.

They often are yes!. In single malt one of the first innovators with wood maturation were Glenmorangie. They started finishing whisky. To me this has been taken to extremes other companies, Arran, Bruichladdich/Murray McDavid/Edradour, not always for the best

Glenmorangie is still on the forefront of this kind of innovation with their new Ardbeg Alligator

As I mentonioned here http://www.straightbourbon.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13848&page=3

my favourite innovator right now is Amrut. One of the other great innovator here is Compass Box, as others have mentioned. I also like some of the things Duncan Taylor and Berry Bros has done blend wise

Duncan Taylor bottled Black Bull 30, a limited product of preblended whisky. It was bottled a few years ago, but you can say the innovation happened 30 years ago!

You can be a distiller, or distillery manager/operator without having a clue about whisky, I have seen this many times. You can't be a blender!

So of course people like Perkins are innovators and pioneers, it's exactly at this point of the process where innovation and pioneering happens these days

Steffen

PS The greatest change in a product at distilling level was Morrison Bowmore removing the FWP character of their whisky/whiskies, but somehow I reckon this will never been seen as being very innovative:slappin: , but I do think it was a very clever step

[cowdery]

Steffen,

Perhaps you didn't read the whole thread, where I described some of the history of blended whiskey in America. That's the reason. Blending, especially as the Scots mean it, is just not part of the American tradition, which is why people who are steeped in the American tradition don't get it, just like you don't get us because you're (I assume) steeped in the scotch tradition.

[craigthom]

According to my guide at the Scotch Whisky Heritage Centre in Edinburgh blending is the magic behind Scotch Whisky. I'm pretty sure the attraction was sponsored by major blenders.

[tmckenzie]

If you ain't got a man that know how to make whiskey, then it does not know how much ability the blender has.

[Rughi]

If you ain't got a man that know how to make whiskey, then it does not know how much ability the blender has.

This argument has stretched across several threads, and it's become clear that some of the primary voices are of industry people talking smack about their competitors.

This is an enthusiast forum where consumers come to talk, not an industry convention, and it's starting to look like negative advertising to me. I've got to say that even though I've never tried your products, they are leaving a bad taste in my mouth from your posts on this topic.

Please let your consumers create positive buzz for you, instead of trying to create your own buzzkill against your competitors.

Roger

[macdeffe]

If you ain't got a man that know how to grow barley or corn, then it does not know how much ability the distiller has.

[mrviognier]

If you ain't got a man that know how to make whiskey, then it does not know how much ability the blender has.

True...but a talented blender can oft times utilize a lacking whiskey as a component in a final blend which is better than the parts.

[cigarnv]

True...but a talented blender can oft times utilize a lacking whiskey as a component in a final blend which is better than the parts.

Very true.......

[smokinjoe]

Yes, blending barrels together to reach the required flavor profile of the brand is something the distilleries, and their master distillers and tasting teams, do every single day. And have, for a hundred years.

[Gillman]

It's interesting to speculate: if column-distilled whisky had not been invented, and if the Scottish malts as known in the later 1800's: pungent, often peaty and congeneric, had remained unblended, would Scotch whisky have become the world-famous spirit it did?

A glimmer of what might have happened is the development of triple-distilled, non-peated malts as occurred in the south of Scotland (Lowland whisky, Glenkinchie is one of the few left). Possibly this might have become the world style in Scotch, just as Cognac became a famed drink but remained traditionally distilled; it is hard to say.

In the event, blended Scotch became the leading style of Scotch whisky: only recently have the malts properly been "re-positioned" by the industry and rightly so since they are the acme of the art, but that doesn't mean Scotch could have become what it did without rectification and blending.

But Tom is right of course too: without the whiskies to begin with, the blenders can't get going: in Scotland it's hand-in-glove though, and here too basically I think when you factor that most bourbon distillers make or distribute other spirits. And some of course make blended (American) whisky, of which 7 Crown is the leading example and very popular still.

Gary

[macdeffe]

A few points.

Of the 5 operating Lowland distilleries only one is triple distilled (Auchentoshanm, Glenkinchie is not).

If the scottish whiskies of the 1800's were as you say : pungent, often peaty and congeneric

I am pretty sure it's lack of maturation and cask management most of all thats the reason :-)

I mention two side as main innovation points, blending and cask managements. The focus in this thread is blending versus distilling, but I do believe that cask management is greater innovation point than blending. In my opinion very few products has arisen to great whiskies due to blending. Blending is usually a way to make whisky easy approachable and not a way to make great whiskies. But it do happen. And a lot of the good blending is not done in producing blends but in producing single malts. So blends aren't the prime examples of good blending but single malts is

But blends is often a way to make "bad" whisky drinkable, and to be honest, its not this kind of innovation we are looking for.

One of my favourite vatting is the Arran Peacock, it just doesnt get better than that really. The way the ex-bourbon and ex-sherry components working together and expressing themselves is pure pleasure. It's a vatting of 13 casks just, but you can still expereince the components in a very delightful way whisch is a reason I really like this

Often vattings of amny casks will grey out the single components to a degree beyond pleasure

Steffen

[smokinjoe]

Steffen, I'm not sure the "focus in this thread is blending versus distilling". The OP's original post asks about non-distilling blenders getting short shrift from some in the bourbon enthusiasts community, versus what those same people in this community think of bourbon distilleries who do the entire process. Quite different angle, I think.

Respectfully, the history of Scotch blending, though interesting, is irrelevant, here.

Maybe, that's where we all may be getting hung up.

[Josh]

But blends is often a way to make "bad" whisky drinkable, and to be honest, its not this kind of innovation we are looking for.

Except for almost all American blends, which tend to do the opposite. They make good whiskey bad.

[cowdery]

A blend like Johnnie Black is like a tour of Scotland. It would be very hard to make a whiskey taste like that, with all the elements of scotch whiskey in such perfect balance, any way other than through blending. It's about creating an enjoyable taste experience that would be impossible to duplicate with a single malt. It was originally about tempering malts that were too strongly flavored but that's not the case now. That's what blending is about and if micro-distillers want to take that on and develop that as a specialty, I think that's a fine idea. But it is not presently part of the American whiskey experience.

[Gillman]

To me it's all related (Scotch, etc.) but to get back to the narrow original question, I think, yes, many here probably do have a lesser regard for the NDPs but I do not, for all the reasons previously suggested. If malt scotch could not have become a world spirit on its own, which I think is likely, I think that argues for equal respect to be given the NDPs albeit their role here is lesser (in number, products on the market). The potential is there, as Chuck puts it. I would say though the tradition of American blended whiskey provides a basis, a platform.

Thanks for the correction viz. Glenkinchie, it is its lightness I really meant to highlight.

Gary

[macdeffe]

But to those who says that it was wrong to approve a blender and IB'er with innovation and pioneering awards this year, who should have had it instead ?

I don't see a lot of innovation going on in the distilling side of of the industry

I can think of Tobermory and Bowmore changing characters recently due to changes in the distilling (Bowmore: some claim its the mashing!) part of the proces, but thats from horrible whisky to "normal" or almost normal whisky!

When I say recently I would guess Bowmore's change is almost 20 years ago and Tobermory's migh be 10 years ago

Steffen