The future of Michael Jackson’s single malt scotch book
February 1st, 2008I would like your thoughts on the fate of Michael’s “Complete Guide to Single Malt Scotch” (”Malt Whisky Companion” in the overseas edition).
As you know, it’s been nearly four years since he last revised it. For many of us, this book has been our “go to” book for many years. With Michael’s passing, what do you think should be done with the book?
I see two obvious options:
- Let it RIP, and be happy and content that we had this great reference for all those years.
- Honor Michael by keeping the book going with fresh reviews by respected writers. If you like this option, how many writers do you think should be involved?
Or would you like to suggest a different scenario?
February 1st, 2008 at 5:14 pm
option #1 and pick up a copy of Jim Murray’s whiskey bible.
regards,
/mp
February 1st, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Option 2 if enough reviewers are willing to work on the next edition. The ideal situation for me would be a book that offers differing reviews. When I can read the tasting notes of more than 1 person for a whiskey I get a much better sense of what that whiskey may be like.
And pick up a copy of Jim Murray’s book.
February 1st, 2008 at 5:31 pm
I have my own thoughts, but I will not express them until I give everyone a chance to chime in. Keep ‘em coming. –John
February 1st, 2008 at 5:52 pm
I wouldn’t put Mr. Jackson’s name on any new version, otherwise you’d have an eerie Tupac scenario. After he died there were a number of songs coming out that “featured” the dead rapper. The inclusion of the rapper certainly boosted the status of those songs, but he had nothing to do with them. I’m not comfortable with recycling a dead man’s work.
Of course, I never knew him, Mr. Hansell did, and who am I to instruct those that are still grieving?
Also, it would be better justified if it financially benefitted his family.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:09 pm
Since I have started enjoying single malts, Michael Jackson’s Complete Guide To Single Malt Scotch has always been my favorite source for information.
To see it revived would be a great thing indeed. I think keeping the original name would be a great homage to Michael Jackson, the father of whisky writing.
I like Mike K’s idea of multiple reviewers, would give more view points on each single malt (as we all know not everyones tastes are the same). Two reviewers could give multiple viewpoints without making too large a book I hope. Three would give even more depth to reviews, not just side A and side B but a middle ground as well. I think any more then 2 or 3 would make it just too much for one book.
As for any changes in the book, I always enjoyed Michael Jackson’s format. An introduction to the distillery, then reviews. The only thing that I would like to see, perhaps I am alone in this though, is something contributed by the distiller themselves. A note or comment from the distiller would give the reader an even deeper connection to the product.
-Scott-
February 2nd, 2008 at 4:38 am
Did’nt MJ use other people for some of his reviews anyway? And is’nt there at least half a new version allready written by MJ?
It would make sense to complete his last effort, and then take it from there. To complete it, use some of the people that he used himself.
As for a small comment from the distillers themselves, that would be ok for me
Peter
February 2nd, 2008 at 8:12 am
If anyone other than Michael reviewed whiskies in his single malt scotch book, they were never credited for it. And, to my knowledge, no additional work had been done (by Michael) on a new revision.
One of Michael’s other books (called “Whisky”) did have several contributors on various topics, so having other writers contribute to Michael’s single malt book would not be a first for him.
February 2nd, 2008 at 9:07 am
I’m with Mark on this one. I met Michael once or twice and I don’t think that anyone, with all due respect to all other whisk(e)y writers out there, should be permitted to borrow his plumage.
As has been said, Jim Murray’s book is freely available, and there are other places too where great guidance on whiskies can be found, including your own estimable magazine.
Personally, much as I loved Michael’s work, it was his work on beers that I found most informative and most enjoyable, and I believe that will be more missed than his whisk(e)y work.
Why? Because the depth in quality of beer writers is not the same as the depth in quality of whisk(e)y writers.
I think the whisk(e)y scene is well served by people like Murray and yourself and many good writers, some of whom regularly grace your pages.
Let them continue to write under their own names and let’s hope that eventually the same quality of beer writers will develop to fill the gaping hole Michael has left in that arena, because I think the whisk(e)y scene is well-served already.
February 2nd, 2008 at 9:33 am
Michael Jackson’s books have been my top source of information on whisky ever since I got interested in the topic. Heck - those books are one of the main reasons I got interested!
I’d love to see them continued, with other writers taking the reins. I’ve glanced at Jim Murray’s Whisky Bible, and will probably purchase a copy soon, but we’re all the richer for having two high-quality, comprehensive resources on single malts. No, it won’t be the same as MJ’s original, but if the contributors are top notch writers/critics, then it could still be worthy of having his name on the cover.
February 2nd, 2008 at 8:21 pm
i would let the book RIP … it was Michael Jackson’s experience, knowledge, taste and opinion written in that book … his book is comprehensive but not an encyclopedia which could be carried on by anyone who’s got the knowledge in the field.
there might come a new generation of experts with fresh viewpoints; and writers with new ideas.
it’s like old whiskies … only some tries to reproduce them … but the remakes are never the same as the good old ones.
February 2nd, 2008 at 9:12 pm
Thanks guys for your thoughts so far. Obviously, Michael meant so much to us. –John
February 2nd, 2008 at 9:47 pm
some great points made. I however would vote for not continuing on to a 6th edition, unless it is MJ’s own writing.
I had always wished for more pictures of labels or actual bottles. then I could see the color for myself etc. so what if the book gets thicker…
however, if it does go to the 6th edition, I want my money back for the 5th edition I just bought last week!
February 2nd, 2008 at 10:17 pm
Not to be a lame-o, but any idea what Michael wanted?
I can see decent arguments either way. On one hand, if it was meant to be a continually evolving record of the world’s single malts, then I think it could be appropriate for the right people to pick up the torch and carry on. Obviously something like this becomes outdated relatively quickly and it would be a shame for it to fall by the wayside and disappear from bookshelves (virtual and real). I don’t know enough about the dynamics/politics of the major whisky reviewers to comment on how many should be involved in such a project, whether there was an heir apparent, etc.. My gut tells me that fewer is preferable.
On the other hand, I think the more cynical among us can easily see this as an easy opportunity to capitalize on a name. There’re alternatives for this type of information, The Whisky Bible and the two major magazines (where’s your book, John?), so there isn’t really a need. Don’t tarnish the legacy.
Personally, I think the most tasteful thing to do would be for someone to create their own guide in a similar fashion and dedicate it to Michael. In every edition, include a foreword that clearly lays out the influence that he and the “Complete Guide to Single Malt Scotch” had on the world of whisky and whisky writing (if the Whisky Bible includes such a reference, I apologize, but I actually don’t own a copy).
February 3rd, 2008 at 1:39 am
I would like to see Mr. Jackson’s Complete Guide To Single Malt Scotch continue to be published and updated along the lines of well respected technical references.
The Complete Guide was my first source for exploring the universe of single malt. Naturally, I tended to seek out the whiskies that Mr. Jackson scored highest. However as my palate developed, I gave less weight to the scores and instead appreciated how insightful the tasting notes are in the Complete Guide.
The Complete Guide remains an excellent resource for both the beginning and more experienced taster, but it is not without fault. The complete guide rarely took into account that established single malt “brands” can change dramatically over time - examples include Talisker 10 year old, Bowmore 17 year old, Oban 14 year old, taste examples of these over 20 years of bottlings and you will see how these have slowly changed. Another weakness of The Complete Guide is the systematic over-rating of the single malts of certain distilleries (most notably Macallan) while other categories such as single malts released by independent bottlers tended to be under-rated. While I disagreed with these apparent biases, they are due most likely to differences in taste.
Which raises the question of single or multiple contributors for future editions. While I’m in the minority position, I think a single author/palate is preferable. While I did not always agree with Mr. Jackson, I did find his biases to be systematic. And future single author contributor will have their own identifiable pattern of preferences and biases. If multiple future authorship is the direction taken, then averaged scores from blind tastings conducted by experienced tasted is a good format. This is similar to that employed by the Malt Maniacs, an internet based tasting group who conduct a yearly set of whisky scores based on blind tastings. The most significant problem with the Malt Maniacs is that their tastings and scores are largely limited to European releases - and very few if any single malt release specific to the US are scored. Any future version of the Complete Guide should have a clear indication of Mr. Jackson’s notes and scores to distinguish them from future contributors.
Regardless of what happens, there are now multiple high quality sources of information other than the Complete Guide, including the Malt Advocate, Jim Murray’s Whisky Bible, the aforementioned Malt Maniacs website, and Serge Valentin’s Whiskyfun website. Mr. Jackson’s enterprise has generated interest that paved the way for other writers. Many of us were introduced to the range of single malts thanks to Mr. Jackson’s Complete Guide, and his books will be read and appreciated for years to come.
February 3rd, 2008 at 9:21 am
When I read John’s blog my first instinct was to discontinue the book. Part of the fun for me is zipping around my various resources to see who said what about what…and there are many resources. If it’s not Michael’s oponion then the resource should not bear his name. I’m reminded of a few years back when Kenny G made the faux pas of recording himself over tracks laid down by Louis Armstrong so as to “play wih Louis”. Not cool. I know it’s not quite the same thing but maybe it’s not so far off the mark…like jazz musicians, whisk(e)y writers are artists with their own descriptive vocabulary that is very different, even when describing the same bottle ( i.e. piece of music). Now after reading the various responses, I do see some validity to at least keeping his legacy going. I think the best idea was John W’s last paragraph which is a dedicatory type book. Even if it’s a one time offering…get the best in the business to evaluate the best in the market and dedicate it to Michael. Or hey…start a Michael Jackson institute where young journalists, aficionados, and enthusiasts can by trained to pick up his torch.
February 3rd, 2008 at 1:10 pm
I feel that Michael Jackson’s book was unique in its evaluation of whisky. While Jim Murray whisky bible offers extensive reviews of whisky and serves as a buyers guide, and Misako Udo and others have written extensively about facts about distilleries. Michael Jackson book was a wonderful introduction to all the distilleries. The sections on the general characteristics of the whisky are the real value of the book. Those sections are timeless and do not need to be redone. But what about an addendum to cover all the new distilleries that are opening.
February 5th, 2008 at 11:56 am
Magically remove Michael Jackson and his original book from arriving in the world, a la “It’s a Wonderful Life” and how many of your above respondents, without the benefit of the erudition and excitement of the first and subsequent editions, run into a whisky that runs contrary to their tastes and give up the drinking of same as a bad job?
We have prospered in our education and enjoyment of malt as a result of Mr. Jackson’s efforts, and we need to ensure that future generations have a touchstone just as we had, or the danger will be that we believers are in the bunker but the hatch is too rusty and heavy for others to join us.
I can see several ways that future editions could honor Mr. Jackson’s memory, rather than becoming something base. If you look to the great Almanacs you will see Benjamin Franklin’s image, or if you want to look at the great annual cricket bible, Wisden’s, you will see a name that has continued for over a century as the definer and measurer of a sport/way of life. It’s a legacy.
What a fitting tribute to Michael’s life it would be if whisky appreciators in the 2100’s and beyond still know his name and have come to regard it as the gold standard of trustworthy and insightful whisky reviewing?
Obviously his intentions should be considered, as well as the wishes of his family, but I really think this is an opportunity to recognise and honor him as he surely deserves.
Best to all!
February 19th, 2008 at 7:40 am
I think it would be an injustice to Mr. Jackson’s legacy if his work is discontinued. As you are well aware each year different expressions are released. Some will disappear for various reasons, thus the need for introspection of what works and what does not. In addition, the whiskey staples continue to be produced and in time the flavor profiles may change (as has been documented already- remembered how peated or smokey scotches were) and don’t we want our future generations to have a comparision.
The whiskey industry spends enourmous resources on mixing “just the right ingredients ” and consumers have come to relay on what the “experts” believe. I have learned so much from all of Jackson’s works. In fact, I buy everything I can to educate myself of whiskies.
In Mr. Jackson’s honor, please continue publishing resources that are similar to his format. Perhaps the book(s) could be called John Hansell’s Whiskey Review. He was your mentor and I see the same passionate and drive for excellent that Mr. Jackson inparted in the whiskey world.
Cheers!
Katie
February 19th, 2008 at 7:53 am
Thank you Katie for your thoughts. I did have a discussion with Michael’s “Literary Executor” and she said the Michael signed a contract with the book’s publisher to do a revision. She said that the Publisher is going to revise to the book, one way or another. The only decision to be made, now that Michael has passed away, is who the author (or authors) will be. We will see. –John
May 13th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Are there any online repositories of MJ’s tasting notes and ratings? I would love to, for example, have the ratings for various expressions stored in my PDA while browsing in whisky shops…
Thanks!
May 13th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
I am not aware of an online database. And problem is, his last revision was about 3-4 years ago and many of those whiskies are no longer available.
May 18th, 2008 at 2:17 am
I’m all for revising it with a panel of well-known writers, then retiring it. It’s one thing to make a single posthumous issue within a couple of years of the author’s death; it’s quite another to continue a franchise for decades, long after the public is painfully aware that the author is no longer with us and could not possibly have tasted the last five new expressions of a given spirit.
The only writer I might even suggest excluding from such a project is, oddly enough, Jim Murray. The styles of the two writers were very different; Michael Jackson bent over backward to say nice things about every whisky, even “Jackson’s Row” which (in the Fourth edition at least) it was clear that this was not a whisky he would personally recommend. Jim Murray, on the other hand, has absolutely no compunctions about saying “This is not so much whiskey as alcohol-infused water in which someone’s filthy socks were washed. Don’t buy this crap; save your money and buy something decent.” This is a trait that endears Mr. Murray (and his writings) to me, but it isn’t something I’d expect in a book written in the MJ style.
August 30th, 2008 at 2:26 am
As a 57 year-old near-ignoramus (who’s probably tasted no more than a dozen singles in 25 yrs., my favorites being the two big ‘L’s from Islay, Talisker, and now The Speyside), it seems as if something as basic as Jackson’s spectacular book is something that simply cannot be left to die. I mean, what would ya do, discontinue the Audubon bird guide? Huh?
And if it isn’t kept going, someone is bound to establish another guide at some point. And it needn’t have Jackson’s increasingly out-of-control scope: Tracking the explosion on our shelves of these nutzoid cask / wood / un-chill-tered / collector’s varietals by right likely need not be a priority.
I mean, amid the 1K entries in Jackson’s 5th edition, am I interested in Glencampbell’s full-strength, plywood-cask, bottled-on-Tuesdays-by-men-dressed-only-in-Tartan offering? Nope.
I mean, are singles now subject to Moore’s law? Varieties and strengths double every 18 months? It sure seems that way.
Or this real datum: Jackson’s 80 listed varieties of Macallan? Yikes! Again, nay nay. A handful of entries would suffice for the likes of philistine I.
So surely one of you captains of the singles industry can and will continue to publish a running directory of at least the basic offerings from each major distillery. Heck, even a singles club could do that. (Maybe one has?)
Best,
Jim L.
***