Bartending philosophies

[daisy17]

NY Times article today tries to categorize "Bartending Philosophies" - Let 100 (O.K., 8) Bartending Philosophies Bloom

I'm still trying to make sense of this. Most of the bartenders I know incorporate various of these approaches, perhaps leaning more towards one than another, but I'm not sure I see them each as distinct "philosophies." (Don't all good cocktail bartenders care about ice?) Your thoughts?

[tsquare]

Nice showing in Seattle...though they missed quite a few.

[vice]

Though the NY Times has written occasionally about the renewed interest in cocktails in the past, the fact that two cocktail-related stories appeared in the same dining section (the other being Jonathan Miles's story about cocktail geekery) suggests they've caught the whiff of blood that is a new trend to be exploited. And then to add icing to the cake, there's Eric Asimov's assertion that single malts don't have a place in cocktails:

In fact, I can think of only one place where a good single malt will almost never be found: in a cocktail.

I've been waiting all day for someone to seize upon that nugget.

[thirtyoneknots]

Though the NY Times has written occasionally about the renewed interest in cocktails in the past, the fact that two cocktail-related stories appeared in the same dining section (the other being Jonathan Miles's story about cocktail geekery) suggests they've caught the whiff of blood that is a new trend to be exploited. And then to add icing to the cake, there's Eric Asimov's assertion that single malts don't have a place in cocktails:

In fact, I can think of only one place where a good single malt will almost never be found: in a cocktail.

I've been waiting all day for someone to seize upon that nugget.

←

I think it's a pretty accurate statement, really. When you get outside of the brains of the most creative people working in the most avante-garde bars in the best cocktail cities in the world (or the people reproducing their successes elsewhere), single malt scotch is something that isn't really found in cocktails. The drinks using them that we know are often excellent, but when one considers how many Single Malt cocktails there are, versus even the modest number that are possible with even other challenging to use spirits like blended scotch or tequila, then it really shows how difficult it is to use properly, to say nothing of a comparison with something like Rye Whiskey or Dry Gin.

The presence of single malt scotch in cocktails is more a testimony to the creative genius of their inventors, rather than some sort of versatility or mixability on the part of the spirit in question. That's how I see it anyway.

[KatieLoeb]

Seems a very contrived way of creating a story. Let's make up a premise and find bars that fit our mythical criteria.

I make Sazeracs, Aviations and Bourbon Crustas at my bar. I also make cocktails I've created myself, using fresh local ingredients when they're in season. Just because Lancaster County herbs may not have the same national cachet and recognition that something from the Napa Valley Farmer's Market does, doesn't make my "farm fresh" cocktails any less appealing. Although the ice is obviously quite important at The Violet Hour (or they wouldn't waste their valuable time having eight different kinds), I strongly suspect Toby would rather be known for the brilliant concoctions surrounding the ice than the ice itself. Toby, please correct me if I'm wrong. Do we have to cleave to narrow definitions? Can't we all just make the best drinks we can whether we appreciate the retro-cool old school pre-Prohibition recipes or enjoy experimenting with new flavors that we find interesting in the present day? Can I make my own homemade mixers and use them in cocktails from several different schools of thought? Does it have to be categorized to death? Kind of sucks the joy out of it for me....

Edited December 4, 2008 by KatieLoeb (log)

[vice]

I think it's a pretty accurate statement, really. When you get outside of the brains of the most creative people working in the most avante-garde bars in the best cocktail cities in the world (or the people reproducing their successes elsewhere), single malt scotch is something that isn't really found in cocktails. The drinks using them that we know are often excellent, but when one considers how many Single Malt cocktails there are, versus even the modest number that are possible with even other challenging to use spirits like blended scotch or tequila, then it really shows how difficult it is to use properly, to say nothing of a comparison with something like Rye Whiskey or Dry Gin.

The presence of single malt scotch in cocktails is more a testimony to the creative genius of their inventors, rather than some sort of versatility or mixability on the part of the spirit in question. That's how I see it anyway.

←

First off, this may be a discussion for another thread.

That said, I completely agree with you that single malts aren't common ingredients in cocktails, nor are they particularly easy to implement therein. My interpretation of Eric's comment (which very feasibly could be a mistaken one) was that single malts are often unsuitable for use in cocktails. If I am correct in my interpretation, then I must disagree.

For example, I was playing around with Rob Roys tonight, adding a barspoon or so of Laphroaig to the majority of Famous Grouse, and it ended up being quite an interesting addition. Due to the sheer diversity of single malts, they defy generalizations about their utility as an ingredient in cocktails. Malts with a specific strong character (such as Laphroaig) may play well as modifiers, whereas more nuanced ones often work wonderfully as a base spirit.

[db_campbell]

That said, I completely agree with you that single malts aren't common ingredients in cocktails, nor are they particularly easy to implement therein. My interpretation of Eric's comment (which very feasibly could be a mistaken one) was that single malts are often unsuitable for use in cocktails. If I am correct in my interpretation, then I must disagree.

←

Additionally, nearly all the blends I've seen are bottled at either 40 or 43% abv. I find it interesting that such whiskies have become the standard for Rob Roys, Bobby Burns, etc., whereas for Manhattans and the like the 40% abv Ryes are held in much lower esteem than the 50% Rittenhouse BIB or the 50.5% Wild Turkey.

It goes without saying that if you want a Whisky in the 50%+ range, you'd better look toward the malts. FWIW, I made a Bobby Burns once with the 59.6% Aberlour A'bunadh and it was fantastic.

[phlip]

Most disabused principle is Philosophy. Thought article was just another exercise in the long history of "philosophizing" for the sake of it. Labels don't explain much they are just convienant. Blah Blah Blah.

[Alcuin]

That said, I completely agree with you that single malts aren't common ingredients in cocktails, nor are they particularly easy to implement therein. My interpretation of Eric's comment (which very feasibly could be a mistaken one) was that single malts are often unsuitable for use in cocktails. If I am correct in my interpretation, then I must disagree.

←

Additionally, nearly all the blends I've seen are bottled at either 40 or 43% abv. I find it interesting that such whiskies have become the standard for Rob Roys, Bobby Burns, etc., whereas for Manhattans and the like the 40% abv Ryes are held in much lower esteem than the 50% Rittenhouse BIB or the 50.5% Wild Turkey.

It goes without saying that if you want a Whisky in the 50%+ range, you'd better look toward the malts. FWIW, I made a Bobby Burns once with the 59.6% Aberlour A'bunadh and it was fantastic.

←

Macallan cask strength makes a powerful Rob Roy. I treat myself to one every once in a while. I agree that mixing with single malts is complicated and you have to attend to their characteristics.

I think the problem with Asimov's statement is that he says, in a pretty dramatic fashion, that single malts will "never" be found in a mixed drink. This is demonstrably untrue.

[thirtyoneknots]

That said, I completely agree with you that single malts aren't common ingredients in cocktails, nor are they particularly easy to implement therein. My interpretation of Eric's comment (which very feasibly could be a mistaken one) was that single malts are often unsuitable for use in cocktails. If I am correct in my interpretation, then I must disagree.

←

Additionally, nearly all the blends I've seen are bottled at either 40 or 43% abv. I find it interesting that such whiskies have become the standard for Rob Roys, Bobby Burns, etc., whereas for Manhattans and the like the 40% abv Ryes are held in much lower esteem than the 50% Rittenhouse BIB or the 50.5% Wild Turkey.

It goes without saying that if you want a Whisky in the 50%+ range, you'd better look toward the malts. FWIW, I made a Bobby Burns once with the 59.6% Aberlour A'bunadh and it was fantastic.

←

Macallan cask strength makes a powerful Rob Roy. I treat myself to one every once in a while. I agree that mixing with single malts is complicated and you have to attend to their characteristics.

I think the problem with Asimov's statement is that he says, in a pretty dramatic fashion, that single malts will "never" be found in a mixed drink. This is demonstrably untrue.

←

Except for the all-important "almost" which I still think makes the statement true, overall.

[Alcuin]

That said, I completely agree with you that single malts aren't common ingredients in cocktails, nor are they particularly easy to implement therein. My interpretation of Eric's comment (which very feasibly could be a mistaken one) was that single malts are often unsuitable for use in cocktails. If I am correct in my interpretation, then I must disagree.

←

Additionally, nearly all the blends I've seen are bottled at either 40 or 43% abv. I find it interesting that such whiskies have become the standard for Rob Roys, Bobby Burns, etc., whereas for Manhattans and the like the 40% abv Ryes are held in much lower esteem than the 50% Rittenhouse BIB or the 50.5% Wild Turkey.

It goes without saying that if you want a Whisky in the 50%+ range, you'd better look toward the malts. FWIW, I made a Bobby Burns once with the 59.6% Aberlour A'bunadh and it was fantastic.

←

Macallan cask strength makes a powerful Rob Roy. I treat myself to one every once in a while. I agree that mixing with single malts is complicated and you have to attend to their characteristics.

I think the problem with Asimov's statement is that he says, in a pretty dramatic fashion, that single malts will "never" be found in a mixed drink. This is demonstrably untrue.

←

Except for the all-important "almost" which I still think makes the statement true, overall.

←

True, and I agree with you about the difficulty of using single malts and that they will probably not have the kind of wide use that rye and gin have. I guess I was reacting to the highly rhetorical and definitive sounding way he wrote that sentence. Even if he does hedge enough to be true overall, it seems to me to imply that single malts have a lot of uses (he cites pairing it with steak and oysters) and using them in a cocktail isn't one of them.

The crux here is that he's talking to a very general audience that doesn't even know what single malt scotch really is. So I guess it's fine if he implies they aren't used in mixing because most of his readership might not be expected to try it anyway. On the other hand, following the conventional wisdom that single malts should never be used in mixed drinks (we've all heard that one) is unfortunate, since many have shown that it can be done to good effect. Gary Regan talks about it at length in Joy of Mixology and was even hired by Glenkinchie to make a drink using scotch as the base spirit. Why pass on a tired and limiting old chestnut like this?

[Alchemist]

People seem to want and need definitions, but most hate being put in catagories. And there are always exceptions to every rule. I would say that most bartenders would fit in some middle part of a VIN diagram that you could make out of these groups.

Toby

Seems a very contrived way of creating a story.  Let's make up a premise and find bars that fit our mythical criteria.

I make Sazeracs, Aviations and Bourbon Crustas at my bar.  I also make cocktails I've created myself, using fresh local ingredients when they're in season.  Just because Lancaster County herbs may not have the same national cachet and recognition that something from the Napa Valley Farmer's Market does, doesn't make my "farm fresh" cocktails any less appealing.  Although the ice is obviously quite important at The Violet Hour (or they wouldn't waste their valuable time having eight different kinds), I strongly suspect Toby would rather be known for the brilliant concoctions surrounding the ice than the ice itself.  Toby, please correct me if I'm wrong.  Do we have to cleave to narrow definitions?  Can't we all just make the best drinks we can whether we appreciate the retro-cool old school pre-Prohibition recipes or enjoy experimenting with new flavors that we find interesting in the present day?  Can I make my own homemade mixers and use them in cocktails from several different schools of thought?  Does it have to be categorized to death?  Kind of sucks the joy out of it for me....

←