bourbonv wrote:This has been some interesting conversation. John is obviously playing the "Devil's Advocate" to try to stir up conversation with some of his statements...
Well, of course!!
...what was supose to happen in Alabama was for them to make a product where they threw some apples in the mash before they distilled it. They would not be able to call it whiskey, but maybe something like "Brandy malt"...
That's been my point all along with Don (and maybe a few folks here as well). The TRADITION in America is
innovation.
And that includes finding ways to produce a better product.
And in the realm of beverage spirits,
that means finding new materials to ferment and distill.
Onceuponatime, the term "whiskey" meant any spirit at all. For those of us doing research (or even just searching on Ebay), one just can't help noticing how many people STILL think of any bottle that may once have contained an alcoholic beverage of some kind as a "whiskey" bottle.
So, all right, I understand the need to keep our categories straight. I'll be (and, as Chuck can certainly affirm, HAVE BEEN) among the first to defend the practice of preventing muddled terms. But that's only academic. Saying that a beverage labelled "whiskey"
must conform to certain agreed-upon parameters is fine; I have no problem with that.
But allowing only beverages which fit our definition of "whiskey" to be considered worth drinking is MY complaint.
And probably Chuck's, too.
The problem ISN'T that the Alabama company can't make "whiskey" adding apples to the mash. It's that, if they DID do that, and they called the result "Brandy Malt", as MikeV suggests, so many (of us) would
refuse to even taste it, or would do so only with the idea of ridiculing the product for "trying to act as if it were a legitimate beverage like whiskey".
Remember, this forum is made up of people who have (at least) one thing in common: our love of bourbon (and perhaps rye) whiskey. Without trying to bring up another group of online enthusiasts, what I really mean is "straight" bourbon or rye. It's rare to find anyone EVER discussing non-straight whiskey except as a humorous comparison. Check out the reviews of Early Times here. Or Jack Daniel's. Michter's, which was not a straight whiskey gets rave reviews, of course - but that's mostly from people who think that the Hirsch straight bourbon whiskey is Michter's.
What we need to do is to have the courage to seek out, taste, and be prepared to defend, distilled beverages that are NOT straight whiskey. WE need to be the ones (not the marketers of PepsiCola and Clydesdale-piss beer, who will be if we don't) who determine which new kinds of beverages (whether or not they are labelled "whiskey") will be considered "legitimate" (like Campari or Zaya, or George Dickel) and which will be CatDaddy, Pritchard's, or U.S. 1 UnBlended American). Our contemporaries in the thirties had their heads stuck up their leather and oak-paneled butts, and too many of us still do. That's why more Americans today drink Canadian whisky than Canadians drink American bourbon. No, Mike, I'm not campaigning against the Kentucky distillers. I believe they are among the finest in the world. Plus, they are SURVIVORS, and that certainly has to count for something extra. I'm a huge fan of Kentucky distillers. But you can be a huge fan of one and still realize that it's not gonna grow anymore, and that competing groups can't simply remain ignored forever.
You see, there's never gonna be another successful Kentucky whiskeymaker who isn't part of the existing system.
Ever.
Period.
That community is just too tightly knit to allow anyone in that isn't already related to someone there now.
And, to tell the truth, I really have no problem with that. More power to 'em.
Great is great, y'know?
Don't gild the lily.
But we, as whiskey enthusiasts... and make no mistake about it, WE are the ONLY MARKET that give Kentucky distillers a good reason that they can offer to their foreign owners so they can produce these wonderful products they're capable of but need a corporate excuse to do... we need to realize that OUR horizons go beyond Kentucky bourbon. Or even "whiskey". Why SHOULDN'T a distiller be able to put apples into his (or her -- remember, the Goddess is part of this, too) mash? Would I buy a bottle of something called "Apple Malt"? Would I taste it, without trying to compare it to Van Winkle Family Rye? And, if I enjoyed it, would I say so on a forum like this one? Would you?
People whose tastes are so narrowly-defined that they do not vary from, nor add to, the accepted standards, are people whose opinions I, for one, do not need. Isn't that really true of all of us?
Is this a blatantly challenging post, intentionally designed to be provocative, and even disturbing?
Of course it is.
To tell the truth, I'll credit Chuck with starting it. But I seem to be the only one so far who is taking up his banner. The "bourbon apologists" amongst us will feel my challenges to be threatening to "American whiskey as we know it". Be that as it may, the REAL American whiskey enthusiasts will understand the implications of what Chuck brings up... if WE don't have what it takes to set (non-Kentucky-whiskey) standards for new American distilled beverages, Kentucky whiskey will be left in the dust as the regional niche-product some of its proponents prefer it remain to be. And it will eventually fade into the same oblivion as Pennsylvania and Maryland rye.
Is that an easy statement to make?
NO!!!
But the fact is, like it or not, some vodkas really ARE better than others. And the sooner we become capable of discerning that, and figuring out which ones, and why, the better
whiskey advocates we will be.