Semantics (e.g. "what is dry about whiskey?...)

[SMOWK]

Only by drinking bourbon with friends, talking about it, and coming to some sort of agreement, or disagreement, can you really start to understand and "get" what flavors you, and your friends, like, and agree to disagree on.

Lots of times I have been enlightened by a simple explanation of a flavor/aroma I was looking to put my finger on. Once you find it, it becomes like an old friend when you come across it in the future.

Dryness, while hard to explain, I know it when I taste it.

[T Comp]

I think y'all are trying to instill precision in an environment that is inherently imprecise. And thank goodness it is.

The beauty of whiskey appreciation is partially due to the fact that drinking whiskey recalls so many experiences...both sensory and lifetime. I think that in trying to pin down the whys and hows with empirical assuredness detracts - at least for me - from the entire experience.

Whiskey appreciation - like whiskey making - is better when practiced as an art than a science.

Only by drinking bourbon with friends, talking about it, and coming to some sort of agreement, or disagreement, can you really start to understand and "get" what flavors you, and your friends, like, and agree to disagree on.

Lots of times I have been enlightened by a simple explanation of a flavor/aroma I was looking to put my finger on. Once you find it, it becomes like an old friend when you come across it in the future.

Dryness, while hard to explain, I know it when I taste it.

I'd say these words express, without semantics, what I'm thinking on this subject too :cool:. Oh and OWA at 107 = hot (but still excellent) and most cask strength 4Rs = not hot (but still excellent)...so back to semantics at least on excellent :grin:.

[CoMobourbon]

In other words, I think that while all the objective physiological/neurological bells and whistles of taste memory have something to do with it, they account for only a vey small part of the subjective taste experience. Taste memory, I would argue, provides a valuable prompt or template for the process by which you pretty much make taste up and then verbalize it.

The beauty of whiskey appreciation is partially due to the fact that drinking whiskey recalls so many experiences...both sensory and lifetime. I think that in trying to pin down the whys and hows with empirical assuredness detracts - at least for me - from the entire experience.

Whiskey appreciation - like whiskey making - is better when practiced as an art than a science.

Only by drinking bourbon with friends, talking about it, and coming to some sort of agreement, or disagreement, can you really start to understand and "get" what flavors...

Lots of times I have been enlightened by a simple explanation of a flavor/aroma I was looking to put my finger on. Once you find it, it becomes like an old friend when you come across it in the future.

Dryness, while hard to explain, I know it when I taste it.

I'd say these words express, without semantics, what I'm thinking on this subject too :cool:. Oh and OWA at 107 = hot (but still excellent) and most cask strength 4Rs = not hot (but still excellent)...so back to semantics at least on excellent :grin:.

So no intention to be confrontational at all (I will break down and use tons of smilies to demonstrate my mood :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool::grin: :grin: :grin: :grin: :grin: :grin: ), but I think we are all missing my point here and making me into some kind of scientific geek strawman . If you read any one of my posts in this thread, you will see that I agree with mrviognier's main point - that scientific pinning down plays only a very small role in defining our taste experiences, which are and are supposed to be mysterious, subjective, existential, artistic etc. If we could quantify bourbon taste with "precision", bourbon would be less good, and this site would have no reason to exist. To the extent to which I suggested otherwise, I was entertaining counter-arguments of respectable bourbon drinkers (like tommy and young blacksmith) with whom I did not completely agree.

What I think deserves attention, though, is the language with which we manage that subjective experience. Just because we accept that something is mysterious and subjective does not mean that we consent to putting in a black box. This whole freaking website is a testament to our ability to take these wonderful mysterious experiences and express them in a language that, though anything but scientific and objective, is at least coherent and meaningful. For example, I can use the term "dry" to translate the experience of a mysterious taste into a description (not a definition) that other people can on some level find useful, interesting, or even beautiful. And, as I said in my first post, while these terms are best put together in the context of a fluid conversation, I would suggest that it is a little refreshing to sometimes think about these subjectively constructed terms that we use (without, of course, trying to pin them down too "precisely").

Also, I think the way we talk about bourbon has subtle but profound effect on our enjoyment of the juice. If there is one major point in which I disagree with the posts above, it would be the underlying notion that subjective = individual. I think that whiskey HAS to be some combination of personal indescribable experience and social experience.

And frankly, though I not sure that you guys would admit it, I think your posts show that you guys agree with my call to appreciate bourbon language. You claim to discount semantics but in the same breath make very interesting contributions to a discussion of semantics. I think saying things like 'hot is not necessarily bad' is really valuable, T Comp. And you very clearly recognize the value of talking about taste with friends in context. Why not then talk about the words that we use in a discussion no more scientific or objective than our use of those words in the first place?

[CoMobourbon]

Only by drinking bourbon with friends, talking about it, and coming to some sort of agreement, or disagreement, can you really start to understand and "get" what flavors you, and your friends, like, and agree to disagree on.

Lots of times I have been enlightened by a simple explanation of a flavor/aroma I was looking to put my finger on. Once you find it, it becomes like an old friend when you come across it in the future.

Dryness, while hard to explain, I know it when I taste it.

Totally agree (whether you meant to agree with me or not). Maybe I was a little careless when I lumped your post in with the others.

So let's do that on a larger scale. No science, just semantics. What does 'hot' or 'dry' or 'spicy' or 'sweet' or 'oily' or 'balanced' mean / taste like to you?

For example, for me, an inexperienced drinker, spiciness has nothing to do with palate and everything to do with the finish. It is that slightly prickly tingling burning, combined with a slightly prickly taste, that sticks on the roof of my mouth in the finish. I don't necessarily get more of it in rye whiskey's than I do in wheaters.