I find when writing about fragrance so many are easy to describe as I smell x, y & z. These tend not to be to my taste.
My perfume journey started in the 70s & my preference is largely for more dense & complex perfumes. These engage my imagination as well as my olfactory brain. Meaning I do sometimes use fanciful language. I have been known to describe a particularly beautiful musk as smelling of quivering, pink inner thigh!
To me the world of fragrance writing will be a sadder & vastly poorer place if every piece simply becomes a list of notes.
I agree with you, it is much harder to describe a certain density in terms of notes, but the notes themselves are often nothing but the abstraction on the level of ‘pink inner thigh,’ notes are not the same as chemicals that are used. The problem really starts when people refer to the chemicals but they don’t explain the effects that they achieve. Recently I have discovered that I have never smelled opoponax properly in a fragrance. Many list it as a note but it is nothing like I have imagined. It smells of oily mushroomy warmth. You can only say that the effect of a certain warmth is created by adding opoponax, but whoever can really smell it in the composition is either misleading or misled. I cannot even imagine how much of it you will have to add to actually smell it. Many other chemicals can be used for subtle effects. I don’t think IBQ is listed or should be listed each time it is actually used. Often it is used not for creating leather accords. It seems that speaking in notes is deeply problematic. Partly, because customers are not perfumers and a lot of knowledge of the actual craft is irrelevant to them. But at the same time too abstract and evocative language also does not do justice to the composition for it never stretches beyond someone’s opinion and as such cannot enter the discourse on fragrances.
Great thoughts as usual. I wonder who is prompting this simplicity (customers or creators). Stripped down notes lists make it more insta / YouTube review ready. Here’s x, here’s y, z, etc.
I wonder if realism is at play as well. It seems there is more of a push for a ‘realistic rose” or “realistic woods” or whatever. This seems like it would be anathema to some old perfumers, who composed mainly in the abstract and favored like your suggestion more complex and layered creations.
I find when writing about fragrance so many are easy to describe as I smell x, y & z. These tend not to be to my taste.
My perfume journey started in the 70s & my preference is largely for more dense & complex perfumes. These engage my imagination as well as my olfactory brain. Meaning I do sometimes use fanciful language. I have been known to describe a particularly beautiful musk as smelling of quivering, pink inner thigh!
To me the world of fragrance writing will be a sadder & vastly poorer place if every piece simply becomes a list of notes.
I agree with you, it is much harder to describe a certain density in terms of notes, but the notes themselves are often nothing but the abstraction on the level of ‘pink inner thigh,’ notes are not the same as chemicals that are used. The problem really starts when people refer to the chemicals but they don’t explain the effects that they achieve. Recently I have discovered that I have never smelled opoponax properly in a fragrance. Many list it as a note but it is nothing like I have imagined. It smells of oily mushroomy warmth. You can only say that the effect of a certain warmth is created by adding opoponax, but whoever can really smell it in the composition is either misleading or misled. I cannot even imagine how much of it you will have to add to actually smell it. Many other chemicals can be used for subtle effects. I don’t think IBQ is listed or should be listed each time it is actually used. Often it is used not for creating leather accords. It seems that speaking in notes is deeply problematic. Partly, because customers are not perfumers and a lot of knowledge of the actual craft is irrelevant to them. But at the same time too abstract and evocative language also does not do justice to the composition for it never stretches beyond someone’s opinion and as such cannot enter the discourse on fragrances.
Great thoughts as usual. I wonder who is prompting this simplicity (customers or creators). Stripped down notes lists make it more insta / YouTube review ready. Here’s x, here’s y, z, etc.
I wonder if realism is at play as well. It seems there is more of a push for a ‘realistic rose” or “realistic woods” or whatever. This seems like it would be anathema to some old perfumers, who composed mainly in the abstract and favored like your suggestion more complex and layered creations.