Jim Murray and Whisky Magazine

There is an article by Jim Murray in the latest Malt Advocate. Is that the magazine you are referring to?

Teehee... that is old gossip and speculation, really just a "he says, he says" yarn, nothing concrete. If you feel like reading up on the rumours check out the MALTS-L archives for December 2005 at:

Sla> Does anyone know why Jim Murray left (or whatever) whisky MAgazine. >

Wow, I agree 100% with your posts in that link Johanna, and no doubt you all did not get any clarification re: Jim Murray's strange inuendos that liter his book....

This makes another discovery in malt-L all the weirder: it seems that you defended Jim Murray in a previous Malt-L post. Specifically it was regarding what was one of Jim Murray's (many) conflicts of interests with distilleries. My questions is why did you defend him at the time? As a reader of WM I read, in one of the earlier issues, his glowing reviews for Japanese whiskies and one company in particular got great grades all around but nothing in the magazine allowed to figure out that he was or had been a 'consultant' for that company(!). It seems to me that Jim Murray is clearly an inferior whisky writer who uses the worst kind of innuendos to 'jazz up' his tasting notes, and has had some obvious ethical issues as his bible is replete with whiskies he has 'made' and grades very, very highly all the while loudly proclaiming his independence! So why your previous defence of Murray which I cannot for the life of me reconcile with your valid criticism of his book.

Curiously yours,

Vulcanite

In his Whisky Bibles he usually mentions when he has consulted for a certain whisky during the review. I don't know if he does this for all of them or not but it does happen a few times throughout the book. Maybe it was the magazine publishers error not to put the necessary information in the article.

I do not take anyone else's reviews too seriously because at the end of the day it is really what I like. That being said I usually find his reviews informative and fairly accurate with my taste.

I agree! Although there are some strange things about this bible (for instance: it took me some time to figure out that you can't compare his ratings of malts with blended whisky... as they seem to be in a category of their own...).

michel

The whole point of blended whiskies is that they are blended to produce a consistent taste. Therefore however good they taste, and some do taste passably good, there is never any adventure with them. With single malts, especially non-standard or independent bottlings, every bottle is a new adventure. Although of course a single malt may well contain whisky from more than one barrel, as long as those barrels are from the same distillery it's still a "single" malt

Roger

Good question,

will Johanna ever answer it? And if so which Johanna, the Jim Murray gunslinger, or the rightly tough critic of his absurd tasting notes? I'm not holding my breath" usually when faced with one's contradictions one prefers to hide behind silence (and a glass or two....).

Are you for real or has someone chained you to your notebook? ;o)

If I remember the thread correctly, Jesper was talking about Jim Murray and other writers essentially being on the take, biasing their tasting notes in exchange for financial considerations. This is a very serious and potentially damaging accusation that IMO was way out of line and has never been proven. To my knowledge, Jim Murray has always disclosed his working relationship with various distilleries although how seriously you can take his tasting notes on his own products is up for debate. But so long as these come with "total disclosure" of his consulting activities, I do not see a conflict of interest with his work as a writer.

Fast forward a couple of years and I comment on the new Whisky Bible which to me is littered with illogical, confused mutterings of wife swapping, naked women and memories of pubescent flings. I honestly don't see how any of these sexist remarks contribute to a tasting note. Neither do I see what is wrong with a certain British whisky magazine publisher trying to turn a profit. I've worked in magazine publishing and know firsthand that you won't last more than a few issues if you're not motivated by the dollar (or pound if you're in the UK). That was a cheap shot at a former employer and I saw no place for it in a book of tasting notes. I also saw no place for his swipes at other whisky writers or brand ambassadors. JM's remarks were petty and childish and severly undermined his credibility.

If there is a connection between these two threads then please fax me a drawing. Jim Murray's writing has deteriorated in a serious fashion with his Whisky Bible series and his swipes at former colleagues undermine his professional reputation. That said, it does not imply that he is "on the take" or that he should not hire out his services as a consultant blender. I do not even see a problem with writing tasting notes on his own whiskies so long as he includes a disclaimer that he is commenting on his own work.

So sorry to disappoint but I don't see myself as gunslinger nor as tough critic -- just simply a commentator on two very separate incidents as they came up.

Johanna