列為「最高等級」的麥芽威士忌；成立於1890年間，位於Rothes與Elgin之間，且緊鄰它的姊妹廠，Benriach。這家蒸餾廠的麥芽威士忌主要為Chivas調和威士忌的主要基酒。所以我們很驚訝這桶麥芽威士忌能免除，並讓我們有機會品嚐到。舊的歐勒蘿索雪莉酒桶(Oloroso sherry butt)將威士忌染成深琥珀色，並帶點紅色的光輝。一開始聞時有水果般耐人尋味的濃密香氣─過熟的水果，慢慢變成浸泡在來姆酒的乾果，接著轉變為溶解的羌活和糖漬的果皮香。再仔細細聞，還可以聞到麝香葡萄的芳香、橡木油脂的味道，最後是假漆的味道。不摻水也容易入喉；甜美乾純的馥郁口感，但不過於強烈，與些許雪利桶的餘香。加水後會讓原本的複雜風味平坦化；假漆的味道提高，並多添了劃火柴的氣味(選酒團隊認為這是雪莉桶通常會產生的氣味)，和些許乾百里香的味道。易於入喉的陳年酒；充滿著果香、雪利桶，和劃火柴時的味道。
A ‘Top Class’ malt from an 1890’s distillery standing between Rothes and Elgin, on the site of an ancient chapel and close to its sister distillery, Benriach. The make is a key filling for the Chivas blends, so it is surprising that this cask escaped. An ex-Oloroso butt has coloured this a glorious deep amber, with magenta lights. The first nose is dense, dark and fruity – over-ripe fruit, becoming rum-soaked dried fruits and Christmas cake and resolving as angelica and glace peel; Muscat grapes; a nuttiness and an oiliness, with boat varnish. It drinks well straight; sweet and mouth-drying; rich, but not overpowering, with some sherry in the aftertaste. Adding only a little water tends to flatten its complexity; raising varnish notes, introducing struck matches (what the Panel would we expect from sherry wood) and a trace of dried thyme. The flavour is pleasant and mild, fruity, with sherry and struck matches; rounded and aged.
產地 : Speyside 斯佩賽
來自世界第二大品牌的單一麥芽威士忌，位於Speyside區的River Livet旁。使用的是美國大酒桶(Hogshead)來熟成這款夏天般的麥芽威士忌，而酒的色澤有如金雀花酒般的金黃色。相當的錯綜複雜─不摻水的香氣如閃爍著芳香的蜂蜜、柑橘油、水果冰沙、鳳梨、添加辛香料的餅乾、茶櫃的香味，和淡淡的煙薰味。當加水後，它有肉桂、鳳梨蛋糕、薄荷、香橙花和Manzanilla橄欖的氣味-西班牙南部的主題漸漸浮現在我們的眼前。純飲的口感是富麗、溫暖、甜美，與柑橘和胡椒的辛香味。加水後，感到酒的風味被展開，但酒質依然保留原有的長度。甜美的酒體帶點柑橘的點綴，讓整體的口感是平衡和充滿活力氣勢的。就像是位西班牙的佛朗明歌舞者。
The world’s number two malt from the ‘longest glen’ in Scotland. A refill hoggie produced this summery dram, the colour of gorse wine. Certainly complex – the nose at full strength is perfumed and shimmering with honey, orange oil, sherbet, pineapple cubes, spicy biscuits, tea chests and light smoke. Diluted, it has cinnamon, pineapple upside-down cake, mint, orange blossom and Manzanilla olives – an Andalusian theme emerging. The flavour is rich, warm, sweet and spicy with orange and pepper. It opens up with water while retaining its length. Sweet-bodied with a citrus edge, it has balance and energy, like a Flamenco dancer.
協會歷史:
大約在1970年中期，一小群愛好威士忌的好朋友聚在一起，一同品嚐出自Glanfarclas蒸餾廠的一桶麥芽威士忌原酒。蘇格蘭麥芽威士忌協會(The Scotch Malt Whisky Society，簡稱SMWS)的歷史從此開始了。
當時單一麥芽威士忌(Single Malt)的生產成本過高，只有少數知名蒸餾廠會將他們的威士忌裝瓶為「Single Malt」；調和威士忌(Blended Whisky)是當時的市場主流。這群威士忌愛好者對Single Malt的美妙滋味並不陌生，但最讓他們感到驚訝的是，原來直接飲用出自酒桶的 Single Malt原酒，和市面上經特殊處理已裝瓶的Single Malt(通常為多桶麥芽威士忌調和而成)，它們的風味是如此的不同。不僅是如此，原酒的酒精濃度相對的較高，展現出來的風味也更精彩多元。其中一位好朋友是如此解釋的；為了不讓酒體因加水或遇低溫而霧化，一般市面上的Single Malt在裝瓶前，酒廠通常會施以降溫後，再將一些在酒桶凝固的芳香酯類過濾去除。但這些芳香酯類可提供威士忌的特有質地，也就是我們俗稱的口感。協會從過去到現在一直堅持用單一酒桶的威士忌直接裝瓶成單桶原酒(Single Cask Strength)：不稀釋，不採取冷過濾裝瓶方式，只會在裝瓶前過濾掉一些肉眼可見的雜質，以呈現最原始的風味和獨特口感。
堅持獨特和對品質的極高要求，讓協會的單一麥芽威士忌原酒越來越風行。從原來的一小群愛好者，漸漸的增加為一大群。就在1983年，他們決定成立一個協會，開放給社會大眾加入會員。同時間買下位於愛丁堡Leith的The Vault (目前為協會的總部與會員俱樂部的所在地，也是全蘇格蘭最古老的商用建築物)。而那一群愛好威士忌的好朋友也就成為協會的第一批股東們。2004年，法國時尚界的巨人LVMH集團併購了Glenmorangie集團(SMWS的大股東之一)，SMWS也正式成為LVMH集團中的一分子。這也突顯出SMWS所提供的單桶威士忌原酒就像LVMH的精品一樣稀少與珍貴。
目前協會在全世界的會員超過28,000人；也是全世界規模最大，會員人數最多的麥芽威士忌協會。協會正積極朝向國際化發展，全世界共有12個分會分部於14國家，並有4間會員專屬的會員俱樂部。台灣也將於2007年正式成為蘇格蘭麥芽威士忌協會在亞洲的第二個分社。
台灣分會:
台灣分會的經營團隊，也是由一群愛好威士忌的人士所組成的。經營團隊感嘆近年來台灣進口的威士忌酒類雖然非常多，但水準參差不齊。為了提供威士忌愛好者更好、更多元的選擇，台灣的經營團隊經過努力的交涉，與多次造訪SMWS的愛丁堡總部，才獲得協會的首肯，正式於2007年成立台灣分會。所有台灣分會的會員，也都與協會全球會員一樣享有同樣的權利。
未來台灣分會，一方面會致力推廣台灣威士忌品酒文化，在台灣各地舉辦會員品酒會，讓各地會員也有機會品嚐到協會所推出的珍貴單一麥芽威士忌原酒；同時也讓各地的會員拓展自己的社交圈，達到以酒會友的目的。由於協會所推出的酒非常稀有與珍貴，未來台灣分會的酒，也將只提供給會員享用，並不會在市場上銷售。每一位會員對我們來說都是非常珍貴的，所以協會所推出的獨一無二的限量單一麥芽威士忌原酒，只會留給每一位獨特的會員。在不久的將來，台灣分會也會開設協會會員專屬的會員俱樂部，提供會員一個隱密安靜又舒適的用餐、品酒，與宴客的場所。
我們歡迎全台各地的威士忌的愛好者加入我們並成為我們的會員，一同享受來自蘇格蘭麥芽威士忌協會(The Scotch Malt Whisky Society)總部，特地為會員嚴選的單一麥芽威士忌原酒。
| Hotel California Eagles On a dark desert highway Cool wind in my hair Warm smell of colitas rising up through the air Up ahead in the distance I saw a shimmering light My head grew heavy and my sight grew dimmer I had to stop for the night There she stood in the doorway I heard the mission bell And I was thinking to myself 'This could be heaven or this could be hell' Then she lit up a candle and she showed me the way There were voices down the corridor I thought I heard them say--- Welcome to the Hotel California Such a lovely place (such a lovely face) Plenty of room at the Hotel California Any time of year, you can find it here Her mind is Tiffany-twisted She got the Mercedes Benz She got a lot of pretty, pretty boys that she calls friends How they dance in the courtyard Sweet summer sweats Some dance to remember Some dance to forget So I called up the Captain 'Please bring me my wine' He said, 'We haven't had that spirit(註2) here since nineteen sixty nine' And still those voices are calling from far away Wake you up in the middles of the night Just to hear them say--- Welcome to the Hotel California Such a lovely place (such a lovely face) They living it up at the Hotel California What a nice surprise, bring you alibis Mirrors on the ceiling The pink champagne on ice And she said 'We are all just prisoners here of our own device' And in the master's chambers They gathered for the feast They stab it with their steely knives But they just can't kill the beast Last thing I remember I was running for the door I had to find the passage back To the place I was before 'Relax', said the night man 'We are programmed to receive You can check out any time you like But you can never leave' | 加州旅館 老鷹合唱團 黑暗的沙漠高速公路上 冷風吹亂了我的髮 空氣中飄來科麗塔(註1)溫暖的氣味 望向遠方 我看到閃爍的燈光 我的頭越來越昏沈，視線越來越模糊 我得停下來過夜 她就站在門邊 我聽到了教堂的鐘聲傳來 我心裡想 這兒可能是天堂也可能是地獄 然後，她點燃蠟燭為我帶路 走廊傳來許多聲音 我想它們是說-------- 歡迎蒞臨加州旅館 多麼美麗的地方（接待人員和藹親切） 旅館內有充足的房間 無論哪一天，隨時恭迎大駕 她總是追求名牌時尚 她擁有賓士轎車 還有很多她稱之為朋友的俊美男孩 他們在庭院裡跳著舞 汗水淋漓 有人跳舞是為了回憶 有人是為了遺忘 於是我請領班過來 "幫我端杯酒來" 但他說"我們這兒從1969年起就不再供應烈酒了" 那些聲音依然在遠方召喚 將你從午夜時分喚醒 只聽見它們說著-------- 歡迎蒞臨加州旅館 多麼美麗的地方（接待人員和藹親切） 人們都在加州旅館裡尋歡作樂 多麼美麗的驚喜，是你逃避的藉口 天花板上的鏡子 冰鎮的粉紅色香檳 她說"我們都是自投羅網的囚犯" 在主人的房裡 所有客人齊赴盛宴 他們用小鋼刀戳刺獵物 卻無法宰殺那隻野獸 我最後記得的是： 我奪門而出 我得回到未完的旅程 回到從前的地方 " 別緊張"，值夜者說 " 我們已接獲指示 您隨時都可以買單 但您休想離開！" | ||||
| (Don Felder/Glenn Frey/Don Henley) 本翻譯於2004年2月17日再度修訂，修訂之前的翻譯已被多個網站收錄。 「加州旅館」是流行音樂史上的一首搖滾經典，這首歌曲於1976年推出以後，不僅很快的佔據排行榜冠軍，使得老鷹合唱團在美國的地位更加鞏固，樂評界一致稱許該團為美國本土最偉大的搖滾樂團。 寫作並主唱這首歌的團員唐亨利表示，歌詞內容是反映他們生活在好萊塢必須面對的殘酷現實，那段日子對他們而言，每天都像是萬聖節一樣，充滿了性、毒品與精 神上的各種試煉。然而，這首長達六分多鐘的作品，在當時 卻引起許多衛道人士的攻訐，原因是經過六十年代越戰以及嬉皮運動啟蒙的美國社會，風氣日漸開放，吸食大麻、迷幻藥以追求自我解放的年輕人日益增多，流行音 樂界有許多藝人靠著迷幻藥來尋找創作靈感，更是做了最不良的示範。70年代的美國樂壇，就有好幾位重量級的藝人因為吸食過量而斃命，包括「門戶合唱團」 （The Doors）的主唱吉姆莫里森（Jim Morrison）、吉米罕醉克斯（Jimi Hendrix）、珍妮絲賈普琳（Janis Joplin）。許多衛道人士憂心世風敗壞，紛紛指陳搖滾樂腐蝕人心，教唆青少年吸毒犯罪，呼籲電台禁播這類歌曲，甚至在街頭當眾銷毀大批的搖滾唱片。 「加州旅館」這首 當紅的歌，成了眾矢之的，衛道者指責這首歌，就是在描述一個吸毒者的天堂，是撒旦的大本營。 事過境遷，這首歌的魅力不曾稍減，經過時間的沈澱，它成為西洋音樂中一首不可不聽的傑作，末尾那一段雙吉他的演奏尤其成為典範，更動任何一個音符，都會影響其精彩的程度。 這麼經典的一首作品，卻很少有人翻唱，原因是想演繹出另一種風味，實在太難（國內歌手 齊秦曾翻唱）。1994年，在1980年初即解散的五位團員 再次重組，舉辦了一場復出演唱會， 用「不插電」（Unplugged）的方式重新詮釋了這首曲子，獲得滿堂喝采，也只有他們自己 才能超越老鷹合唱團。而這 場演唱會的實況錄音，後來發行上市，專輯名稱「Hell freezes over」，台灣的代理公司翻為「永遠不可能的事」，除了演奏演唱十分精采，CD及DVD均是錄音奇佳的發燒名盤，音響迷們人手一張，以考驗自己的音響系 統，喜愛老鷹的樂迷當然 更不能錯過。 | |||||
3oz rye or bourbon
Scotch or Irish Whiskey
juice of ½ a lemon
sugar syrup to taste
2 dashes of Angostura bitters
Shake, strain & serve with a twist of lemon।
1oz bourbon
2oz orange juice
1 dash cherry liqueur
champagne to top up
Shake well and strain into a cocktail glass. Top up with champagne.
Kenny Rogers肯尼羅傑斯，1938年8月21日生 於美國休斯頓。高中時期就喜歡彈彈唱唱 ，經常參加合唱團的演出。
1968年，他與幾位好友合組Kenny Rogers & The First Edition樂團，相繼以＜Just Dropped In＞ (To See What Condition My Condition Was In)和＜Ruby, Don’t Take Your Love To Town＞等二首暢銷單曲成功崛起樂壇，可惜好景不常，樂團因財務問題，於1975年宣告解散。
1977年，Kenny以鄉村歌手之姿，冀望東山再起，一曲＜Lucille＞不僅獲得Billboard單曲排行第五名的好成績，更勇奪鄉村歌曲榜冠軍的位置，成為他個人身平第一張白金唱片，也正式宣告Kenny Rogers的年代來臨。1980年，在Lionel Richi的跨刀寫曲下，單曲Lady甫一推出即造成轟動，將他的事業推向最高峰，成為當時橫跨流行與鄉村排行上最成功的男歌手。
How does one unravel the flavours of whisky? How does one pin down in mere words (and worse, marks out of ten) the flavours and aromas, from ginger to cedar to hay; lavender to juniper; marzipan to pepper, that make up this most deliciously complex, teasing and satisfying of drinks?
Of course, it can’t really be done; and yet I have to try. When I appraise a whisky in print, my first concern is to build up a description. You may not wholly agree with what I find, but it will have been the result of thorough nosing and tasting on my part, and a careful effort to find the right words. What follows is an account of my tasting criteria for the notes on New Releases that follow; my fellow-taster Jim Murray may well disagree with me on some points, but at least then you will know that we each have our own prejudices.
I use a tall, clear glass, shaped like a tulip or a sherry copita, to highlight colour and retain aroma. I pour the whisky at room temperature and initially sample the whiskies neat, because I wish to describe the body, texture and mouthfeel of each. I will then dilute each slightly, nosing and tasting for a second time. The purpose of this is to note the effects of the water as it opens up the whiskies. Sometimes I will make several degrees of dilution as I seek the most individual aromas and flavours of a particular malt. In all whiskies, I am looking for aroma, flavour, complexity and harmony, but never, ever blandness.
The finest whiskies have an interesting colour (the more subtle it is the harder it is to describe); a tempting aroma; teasing flavours, developing with each mouthful; an enjoyable texture (whether delicate or rich) and a long finish (I want to savour the pleasure, not forget what I have just sampled). If the colour is dark, I expect that to be echoed in some sherry-wood flavours (or, these days, perhaps the flavours of wood from port or Madeira casks), not in burnt-sugar caramel notes. I also expect the aroma to be echoed on the palate but, again, in a complex of flavours. I prefer outlining merits to pondering flaws, but would certainly not favour a whisky that was raw and aggressive, that collapsed in the middle or fell away in the finish. These are faults of structure.
In analyzing the aromas and flavours of whiskies, people who work in the industry often seem preoccupied with defects. They sometimes use very negative descriptors: ‘rubbery’, ‘cooked vegetables’ and ‘fecal’, for example. Whiskies can also manifest biscuity flavours (from the malt), clover notes (picked up by the water), smoky fragrances (imparted during the kilning of the malt), fruity characteristics (perhaps coming from the yeast during fermentation), hints of vanilla (from the wood), apricot (from sherry casks) and mint (arising from reactions during maturation).
If it is a blended Scotch it should have enough complexity to suggest that someone took trouble over assembling the component whiskies. What about single malt Scotches? If there were a perfect malt (or beer, or wine, or cheese), we would need only the one. I do not want them all to taste the same. Food and drink should know its own mind, and reflect its own origins. If it is a Lowlander, I am looking for a clean, grassy, barley-malt character; a Highlander might be expected to be more flowery; a coastal malt more salty; an islander seaweedy. An Irish whiskey should have some of the leathery suggestions of unmalted barley; a Canadian the spiciness of rye; a Bourbon the sweetness of corn and new oak; a Tennessee whiskey a hint of charcoal. It is when these elements sing through, without the whisky being one-dimensional, that my interest becomes more deeply engaged.
These are some of my benchmarks: The Famous Grouse is a beautifully-balanced blend but with notably enjoyable wood character. Johnnie Walker Black Label is hugely complex and with a distinct hint of peppery Talisker. As a Lowlander, Auchentoshan has a lemon-grass barley note, while Glenkinchie’s is drier and spicier. The Glenlivet has, to my nose and palate, a peachy floweriness, Glen Grant more hazelnut; Clynelish a mustard-cress suggestion of seaweed, Laphroaig more iodine. Wild Turkey has a robust Bourbon character, Maker’s Mark a smoother interpretation.All of these factors contribute to the final score. For Whisky Magazine I mark out of ten, with a mark of five indicating that yes, this is a whisky. I rarely score below six. A score of seven indicates a pleasant whisky; one of eight something exceptional, one of nine a great whisky. As for a ten.
Traditionally, malt whiskies have been classified by region: first Highland / Lowland, then Highland / Lowland / Islay / Campbeltown / Speyside, then a proliferation ofsub-divisions of Highland and Speyside. The original division – and to an extent the later sub-divisions – discerned differences in the flavour, style and character to be found in the various regions. Such a break-down was seized upon by writers in the 1980s, when malt whisky began to be more widely appreciated, since it was a convenient way of communicating the virtues of single malt, distinguishing it from blended whisky and begging comparison (for the consumer) with fine wine.
With greater understanding of the influence of production and maturation upon flavour – to some extent inspired by the demand forsingle malts – it has become possible to produce malts with similar characteristics almost anywhere in Scotland.
But not quite anywhere. The essential distillery character is unchangeable. But you can easily alter the degree of peating of the malt. You can extend your fermentation times; alter your distilling programme. Vary the wood in which you mature your whisky: has it not been said that this can contribute up to 80 per cent of the mature product?
So where are your regional differences now, when Islay-style whiskies can –theoretically, at least – be produced on Speyside? And with the increasing interest in individual cask bottlings (which emphasise the difference between one cask and the next), the stress on region becomes secondary to that on wood. There might be other systems of classification more helpful to the consumer who asks, ‘if I like this malt, which others will appeal to me?’
‘I classify the malts I use in terms of their style and opulence,’ says Richard Paterson, Master Blender for JBB ( Greater Europe) whose best-selling blend is Whyte & Mackay. ‘I use the traditional four-way regional division [Highland, Lowland, Islay, Campbeltown] and I split my Highlands into heavy, medium, light and floral. The division of Highland malts into First, Second and Third class, is poppycock. It’s a beginners guide, and I doubt whether any blenders follow it today. Dalmore, one of my malts, is every bit as good as a Top Class Speyside for blending purposes.
‘The individual casks in which the whiskies have matured – especially ex-sherry casks – will influence where I marshall the malts; the classification is not rigorous or necessarily consistent. For me, the important things are how the constituents work together, and how they combine after a period of time, the marrying period.
‘Selection and classification all depend upon what style of blend you want to create. It is a very personal overview, based on an understanding of the contribution likely to be made by individual whiskies to the overall effect.’
John Ramsay, who is responsible for The Famous Grouse, Cutty Sark and Lang’s Supreme, agrees. ‘I am not influenced by the traditional geographical classifications. I go on weight and flavour; the character of the new make and the kind of wood it has been matured in – Spanish or American oak; sherry or bourbon or refill casks. I will group the product of a single distillery differently, according to how it has been matured.
‘For example, I use Glengoyne in all my blends, but will specify all Spanish oak for Lang’s, three parts Spanish to two parts American for Grouse and one part Spanish to four parts American oak for Cutty Sark।In my view, regional styles are not helpful: Glengarioch can work like an Islay in a blend; Bunnahabhain like a Speyside, and so on. If I want to create a new blend with a certain character, I know which malts, in which woods, are most likely to deliver that character – and they might come from all over Scotland.’
Some blenders use a simple ‘phenol and ester’ rating for their filling malts, not unlike that produced by John Lamond and Robin Tucek in The Malt Whisky File (1995), where they gave a ‘sweetness’ and ‘peatiness’ score out of ten for all the malts considered. ‘The ratings are a statement of fact,’ they say in their introduction, ‘a guide to help you find those malt whiskies which are most akin to your own taste. If, for example, you like a malt with a sweetness factor of seven and a peatiness factor of four, then those other malts which have a similar rating should be of interest to your palate.’
There have been other attempts by the Scotch whisky industry and by liquor retailers to provide simple flavour guides for perplexed consumers. None of them have worked, and many consumers remain confused. For example, four years ago United Distillers embarked upon a complex research programme, codenamed Project Huxley, with the laudible task of coming up with a simple way of classifying both malt and blended whiskies. If memory serves they measured what they termed ‘intensity’ on an A-J scale, categorising whiskies as ‘light’, ‘medium’ and ‘full’. ‘Intensity’ was defined as the ‘overall drinking experience, from the enjoyment of the colour of the whisky to its aftertaste’, in spite of the fact that it has a somewhat different meaning to sensory scientists. This did not solve the problem.
Clearly, classification by character, style or flavour is more useful to the consumer than mere geographical grouping. The most exhaustive attempt to do this was made last year by Dr David Wishart, a designer of statistical software, using a statistical method known as ‘cluster analysis’ to classify malt whiskies.
Although originally developed for studies in biological taxonomy, cluster analysis can also be used for market analysis. Dr Wishart’s classification is provisional and on-going. He is keen to have your comments on his findings to date, so please let us know your views and we will pass them on to him.
How it works is this. Dr Wishart analysed the descriptive terms used in eight current books to describe 85 readily available single malts in proprietory bottlings at around ten years old.
A vocabulary of some 800 aromatic and taste descriptors was compiled. These words were then bundled into a number of flavour/aroma groups: sweet, peaty, smoky, medicinal, honeyed, spicy, sherried, nutty, cereally, fruity and floral. Each of the 85 malts was ‘consensus coded’ (2 where a majority of authors agreed, 1 where a minority agreed, 0 otherwise) according to the number of times a descriptor was applied to it.
Using his Clustan software, Dr Wishart then classified the 85 malts into ‘clusters’, each having broadly similar taste characteristics.
The result is what’s called a ‘hierarchical classification tree’ in which the 85 malts have been ordered and classed into a kind of taxonomy of malt whisky based on their flavours and aromas. Dr Wishart then examined – somewhat arbitrarily – the division of this tree into ten groups of whiskies plus one singleton.
Although you may be surprised to find, for example, Knockando and Glen Grant clustered with The Macallan and Springbank, or Glenkinchie lumped with Highland Park, the methodology is interesting and the findings potentially of great value to the consumer.
But to obtain more meaningful clusters, the language of whisky tasting must be more rigorous, the descriptors more narrowly defined, more analytical. The ideal body to do this would be the Scotch Whisky Research Institute. But since most of us, including this magazine’s distinguished Noses, do not suppress personal preferences and subjective assessment, the most meaningful clusters are personal, based upon our own experience. So why not set about producing your own clusters, based upon your own tasting notes?
Traditionally, malt whiskies were classified geographically by their region of origin – the region itself lending style and character to the whisky made there. With the rediscovery of malt whiskies in recent years, this classification has been eagerly adopted, and indeed expanded, by writers and marketing people addressing consumers who are familiar with the idea of regional classifications for wine.
But such a parallel is tenuous. As the chemistry of production and maturation becomes better understood, making it possible to produce, for example, Islay-style malt on Speyside, the usefulness of classifying malt whiskies by region has come to be doubted in certain quarters.
In this article, I will look at how regional classification came about, and explore its usefulness as a guide to the malt whisky drinker; in the next issue I will examine other ways of grouping and classifying whiskies, in relation to their flavour characteristics.
The original regional division was simply between whiskies made in the Highlands and those made in the Lowlands. The Wash Act of 1784 defined 17 counties as ‘Highland’; this was tightened up by an amending Act the following year which narrowed the region somewhat by redrawing the Highland Line from approximately Dumbarton to Dundee. Whiskies made above the Line were subject to different legal provisions from those below (in other words, those in the Lowlands) and the nature of some of the provisions, especially in relation to the permitted size of stills, strength of wash and speed of distillation, meant that whisky of very different character was produced in the two regions. Highland whisky was universally considered better than Lowland whisky.
By the mid-19th century three further whisky regions were being recognised – Campbeltown, Islay and Glenlivet. In the case of Islay and Campbeltown, this came about simply because of the number of licensed distilleries which opened there. In the case of Glenlivet, it was because of the historical reputation of the whiskies from this remote hot-bed of smuggling and the fame of what might be described as the first whisky brand, Old Vatted Glenlivet. By the 1860s, distilleries over 30 miles from Glenlivet Parish itself were adopting the name, giving rise to its being called ‘the longest glen in Scotland’. In truth, it had come to describe a style of whisky, approximating to our ‘Speyside’.
Not surprisingly George Smith, the owner of the first and most famous licensed distilleries in Glenlivet itself at Minmore and Drummin, and the supplier of the fillings for Old Vatted, was not happy about this state of affairs. In 1858 he enlarged and consolidated his operation and renamed it ‘Glenlivet Distillery’, a name he registered at Stationer’s Hall in London 12 years later, obliging other distilleries to use it as a prefix or suffix only. By the 1890s – the heyday of distillery building on Speyside – 25 distilleries were using the name Glenlivet in this way: there was Aberlour-Glenlivet, Macallan- Glenlivet, and so on.
From a blender’s perspective, Glenlivet continued to be lumped in with the designation ‘Highland’, and Highland malts themselves were divided into ‘Top’, ‘First’, ‘Second’ and ‘Third Class’ for blending purposes. This classification varied somewhat from blender to blender, but generally the dozen or so ‘Top Class’ malts were all Speysides (or Glenlivets – see box), were slightly more expensive and were used as ‘top dressings’ in a blend. The ‘Third Class’ malts were considered as useful ‘fillers’, balancing the flavours of the other whiskies. Over half of the 34 distilleries classified as ‘Third Class’ in the 1974 list have since closed.
With the rise in interest in single malts during the 1980s, distillery owners, consumers and writers began to look more closely at regional classifications, in order to explain to consumers the difference between one malt and another. Especially, we were interested in the ways in which individual regions might be considered to bestow regional styles or characters to the malts made there, although, in truth, it was also an accessible way of laying out the contents of a book on malts.
Professor R.J.S. McDowell [in The Whiskies of Scotland] had divided the Highlands into ‘The Glenlivets and their Like’, ‘Dufftown’, ‘Northern’ and ‘Island’ as early as 1967, but it was not until Wallace Milroy’s Malt Whisky Almanac of 1986 that sub-division really got underway, quickly brought to geographical sophistication by Michael Jackson in The World Guide to Malt Whisky (1987). Milroy divided the Highland Region into Northern, Southern, Eastern, Western, Speyside, Islands and Orkney. Jackson followed this, but renamed the Southern Highlands The Midlands, and sub-classified Speyside (where over one third of malt whisky is made) according to its main rivers, the Findhorn, the Lossie, the Upper Spey, the Lower Spey, the Livet, the Fiddich and the Dullan, Strathisla, the Bogie and the Deveron. A simplified version of this classification of Speyside by rivers was adopted at the same time by the Scotch Malt Whisky Society: Spey, Lossie, Deveron and Findhorn.
Some blenders still think geographically, although they tend not to follow the old ranking system. Colin Scott, Chivas Brothers’ master blender, is one. Last summer he gave a demonstration of how he puts together Chivas Century of Malts which, as the name implies, is a vatting of 100 malt whiskies. He arranged his malts geographically as follows: North Speyside (28 malts, including those from Elgin, Keith, Rothes and ‘The Coast’), South Speyside (25 malts, including the products of Dufftown), North Highlands (14 malts), South Highlands (15 malts) and ‘The Rest’ (18 malts from Campbeltown, Lowlands, Islands and Islay. These were each vatted separately for Century).
Having nosed the whiskies individually, Colin then vatted them by regional group and a tasting panel (that included myself ) nosed them again, before finally nosing and tasting the end product.
Although this arrangement was purely geographical, it was possible to detect family resemblances, even in broad districts such as the North and South Highlands and North and South Speyside. For example, the Southern Highlanders were marginally heavier, fruitier and more intense than their heathery Northern cousins, while the Northern Speysides were firmer, sweeter and more aromatic than those in the south of the region. Most of the whiskies seemed to have come from refill casks, and there was little evidence of sherry-wood, so the character of the malt, as bestowed by the distillery, was relatively unveiled by the effects of maturation.
But is classification by region really much help to us in guessing the likely character and taste of a malt? Even within regions there are marked differences – consider the powerful smokiness of the whiskies of southern Islay (Laphroaig, Lagavulin and Ardbeg) and contrast with those of the north and west of the island (Bruichladdich and Bunnahabhain). Look at the fruity richness of The Glenlivet and compare it with the cut-grass freshness of Tamnavulin, just up the road. Glen Grant and Caperdonich share the same source of water, but are quite different in flavour. Glen Mhor and Glen Albyn, the lost and lamented Inverness distilleries, were separated merely by a railway track, but could not be substituted in a blend, since each bestowed a different effect.
Recently the Nosing Panel of the Scotch Malt Whisky Society was presented with a 10-Year-Old Tomatin (Speyside), distilled from highly peated malt and matured on site in a refill sherry cask. It was superb – rich and gamey; very sweet and very smoky. But we all agreed we would have named it an Islay in a blind tasting. This is where regional classification breaks down.
Someone once tried to persuade Hugh Macdiarmid, whom many believe to be Scotland’s greatest poet of the 20th century, to think of the various whiskies as being like an orchestra. ‘The Islay malts are heavy and sombre as cellos. Highland malts are violas. Lowland the discursive violin, and grains are like pianos – sometimes fortissimo, sometimes pianissimo.’ With a snort, Macdairmid dismissed such ‘pseudo-poetical attempts’ as futile. ‘You can only know any or all of them by actually drinking them’.
在流行音樂史上，很難找出幾個像琳達朗絲黛（Linda Ronstadt）這樣歌路如此寬廣、而且不論嘗試哪一種，都同樣獲得驚人成功的歌手。60年代末期，她以鄉村歌手的姿態崛起，70年代，她蛻變為流行搖滾的巨星。1980年，她第一次令人跌破眼鏡，登上大銀幕，主演了根據音樂劇「盤冉斯的海盜」（The Pirates of Penzance）改編的同名電影，四年之後，甚至更登上紐約大都會歌劇院的舞台，演出了普契尼的歌劇「波西米亞人」。如果你以為這是她偶發的奇想，那你就錯了，因為她早在十七歲的時候，就曾經獲得進入歌劇界的機會，但是她卻因為生存的考量，而選擇了流行音樂。基本上，她對於搖滾樂並不是真正那麼熱中，充其量也只是喜歡50年代之前的早期搖滾樂，而她最喜愛的，則是父母、親人文化根源的墨西哥歌謠曲，以及40年代以前的爵士樂經典。1983年，在製作人的建議之下，她大膽的嘗試灌錄一張傳統爵士樂歌謠曲的專輯，由資深大師尼爾森瑞鐸（Nelson Riddle）親自指揮自己的大樂團為她伴奏，推出了造成轟動的「What's New」專輯，而且欲罷不能的連續出了三張。爵士老歌的階段，由於尼爾森瑞鐸的過世而劃上了休止符。1987年，琳達回到了鄉村的歌路，跟老友桃莉芭頓（Dolly Parton）和艾美露哈瑞絲（Emmylou Harris）共同推出了一張「三重唱」（The Trio）的專輯，再度獲得了相當高的評價，成為該年度「最佳鄉村合唱團體」葛萊美獎的得主。接著，琳達再度「改變歌路」，開始演唱她從小熟悉與熱愛的墨西哥拉丁歌謠，首先登場的是「我父親的歌」（Canciones De Mi Padre），奔放而燦爛的旋律，獲得了廣大的迴響，這回又是一連三張。然後，除了回到主流的流行搖滾路線，她又陸續嘗試了新世紀音樂和兒童歌曲。總之，不論她唱什麼，表現都是令人喝采的，現在，大概只剩下饒舌與嘻哈是她還沒有嘗試過的。只可惜，原本精力充沛的她，卻在90年代末期罹患了甲狀腺機能亢進的毛病，不但身材變得十分臃腫，體力也衰退了很多，經常必須臨時取消演唱會。但是，也正因為如此，她反而更積極的錄製專輯、或者參與其他藝人作品的客串，希望趁著還能唱，好好留下一些自己真正喜歡的作品。而由於她過去已經有了太多在商業上大為成功的作品，如今她已經不在乎商業的價值，她要繼續利用她的才華，製作符合自己理想的音樂，哪怕是「格局」越來越小、跟「主流」市場越行越遠，她也不在乎。2004年，琳達告別了合作三十年的老東家，投入以爵士音樂而著名的Verve唱片旗下，發表最新專輯「Hummin' to Myself」，而這個時候的她，已經逼近六十歲了。這回，她再度挑選了復古的爵士經典，當作重新出發的路線。熟悉唱片市場的朋友，應該都知道，最近這幾年，歌壇非常盛行「復古」，包括洛史都華（Rod Stewart）、蓓蒂密勒（Bette Midler）、麥可波頓（Michael Bolton）等人，都先後推出爵士老歌的專輯，早在二十年前就已經以這種遊戲大獲成功的琳達，當然更是駕輕就熟的，儘管體力大不如前，至少在錄音室裡，她卻仍然保持著過去的高水準表現。不過，她可不想炒冷飯。這次，我們可以發現，她捨棄了當年那一系列老歌專輯華麗的大樂團風格，改用小編制的樂隊，在製作大師喬治梅森伯格（George Massenburg）掌舵之下，由亞倫布洛本特（Alan Broadbent）負責編曲，率領幾位頂尖的樂手共同為她伴奏，營造出一種精緻而親密的感覺。也不曉得是否刻意安排，正如當年的「What's New」專輯，她在這張專輯的一開頭，首先就唱出了同樣描繪失戀女子故作堅強、向老情人問好的「Tell Him I Said Hello」，表現絲毫不遜於1955年把這首歌唱紅的蓓蒂卡特（Betty Carter）。
早在’55年即出道的Johnny Cash/強尼凱許，事業起始於正當搖滾樂興起之時所以他的音樂簡單直接，綜合著民謠音樂的率直性感，搖滾樂的叛逆不羈、鄉村音樂的多愁善感，到現在縱橫美國歌壇將近50年，他已擁有上百首的唱銷歌曲，甚至是橫跨民謠、鄉村、搖滾、與流行樂界的大老。Johnny Cash深沉宏亮的男中音、遊刃有餘具衝擊性的吉他和富有特色的音樂都是造就他不朽傳奇的主要因素，也是因為這種雄厚實力而使他能推陳出新，不斷有新作品推出。
