Why Turin isn't updating the Guide

Originally Posted by Bigsly

Good point. If I thought 500 of 2000 were great, I'd be quite satisfied.

Originally Posted by monsieur_sparkle

Actually, he says that 1500 out of 2000 are completely inept, not that 500 out of 2000 are great. Very big difference.

Originally Posted by monsieur_sparkle

Actually, he says that 1500 out of 2000 are completely inept, not that 500 out of 2000 are great. Very big difference.

Originally Posted by shamu1


If you go back in any point in time during the past 50 years, I'm sure people were complaining about the state of the perfume industry the same way people are now: 1970s - too many aromatic fougeres, 1980s - too many powerhouses, 1990s - too many "quiet" fragrances, etc., etc., etc.

All I'm saying is that one should always step back first and put things in perspective. Not every new release can be a classic.

Originally Posted by flouris


Sometimes, having fewer options makes you really appreciate and love what you have. If I had to run through 2000 fragrances per year I'd become jaded too.

Originally Posted by Thebark

One can substitute almost any artistic endeavor with "perfume" and it would still hold true. I feel the same exact same way about movies, music, books... I've long stopped blaming the makers-they're out to make a buck. It's the people who buy into it, excepting pure mediocrity, or less, that I'm passionately pissed at now-a-days. Sorry, but when somebody on a web-board tells me how much better Rob Zombie's Halloween is than the original, my faith in society drops significantly. Same thing with politics. I told my boss before the last election that I wasn't worried about what McCain had to say, or Obama... What worried me was the vast majority of voters are the same people who make Transformers 2 one of the highest grossing films of all time.

Originally Posted by Thebark

I've long stopped blaming the makers-they're out to make a buck. It's the people who buy into it,

Originally Posted by Thebark

It's the people who buy into it, excepting pure mediocrity, or less, that I'm passionately pissed at now-a-days.

Originally Posted by Brielle87

.......fervently embracing "mediocrity". This is the market every capitalist is trying to win over, why would they ever create anything above mediocre, they would be 'casting pearls before swine'.

Bravo to you Thebark

Originally Posted by zztopp

The number of frag launches has increased to what, a 1000 per year? Ofcourse 80-90% of these are mediocre-to-crap. Which makes 100-200 worth commenting on. Enough to fill a book if your comments stretch more than 2 lines.

Ofcourse in the 'good ol days', probably around 80-90% of the fragrances launched were worth fawning upon. But the total number of fragrances launched was also dramatically less...I am guessing what, 300-400? Which makes 100-200 worth commenting on. Enough to fill a book if your comments stretch more than 2 lines.

See...nothing has changed much. You just need to wade through a lot more crap to find (almost) the same quantity of jewels. This ofcourse ignoring the broken hearts and heart attacks over the reformulations of beloved classics, which often plays into 'tHe FrAGRanZe InDUstrYz iZ nOWs CrAPzz!" sentiments bandied about so much..

Originally Posted by Galamb_Borong

Very good post. The thing that baffles me is that some of the people who dismiss the modern fragrance industry at large as containing nothing worthwhile quite often have a large number of modern fragrances in their wardrobes.

Originally Posted by Galamb_Borong

Very good post. The thing that baffles me is that some of the people who dismiss the modern fragrance industry at large as containing nothing worthwhile quite often have a large number of modern fragrances in their wardrobes.

Originally Posted by Bigsly

"Which makes 100-200 worth commenting on. Enough to fill a book if your comments stretch more than 2 lines."

Bingo! What's funny is that you also have to wade through a lot of "stuff" in his book in order to appreciate the fine reviews there. Moreover, it's possible that this endeavor isn't worth the time, money-wise. We don't know the finances of the situation, after all.

Originally Posted by flouris

Blick. Reminds me of Bob Dylan saying all new music is rubbish.. sounds like he's just burnt out. There's plenty of great new stuff out there imo.

I like Luca Turin, but this is kind of silly.

Originally Posted by 3xasif

True.

In that article Turin sounds like an old elitist snob who is tired of his job. Or, like my parents who said "all the music you kids listen to is such garbage compared to what we did". Or my friends who disparage "that rap music" that our kids listen to.

To accuse everyone who buys perfumes we don't like as being "dumbed down" is a bit dangerous. People buy what they like. If they are being presented with generic perfume that perfumistas (who sniff a ridiculous amount of perfume) cannot abide, how does that dumb them down?

I guess wine critics can keep tasting and reviewing wine because there is no crappy wine out there? "Good old days"? Come on guys, throw away the canes and dust off the cobwebs.

I find Turin amusing, bright, & I enjoy his writing, but I don't know if I would/ could like him. He sounds like a pompous self important boor. There are way too many a@@holes out there for me to meet any new people anyways. Like, 1 out of the 4 people I like are un-friendable.

Hold on, I'm going to go call Whine--1-1 for him.

Originally Posted by Strollyourlobster

I wish they'd review more niche stuff, more old stuff, more well composed but unremarkable stuff. Plenty of untapped goodness that they haven't considered in print yet.

Originally Posted by Brielle87

You have spoken words from above. This is the core of it all.

I have been saying it for years and people have tut tutted me; this country is not only accepting, but fervently embracing "mediocrity". This is the market every capitalist is trying to win over, why would they ever create anything above mediocre, they would be 'casting pearls before swine'.

Bravo to you Thebark

Originally Posted by Thebark

When it comes to people settling for mediocrity, I've got a funny example. I previously worked on a government project where the average age was mid-fifties. It was a predominately male work force, but there obviously were some females, and a handful of younger people here and there out of nearly 2,000 employees.

One day, a younger guy who started as an intern while in high school, was looking out the window of an office he shared with a few other people on the second floor overlooking an intersection. From a distance, he saw this female approaching, and made a comment something along the lines of "woah, she looks pretty good".

I looked at the other guys in the office and started laughing. As she grew nearer, he kept making positive comments. The other guys and myself knew who was approaching. Finally, I said "Chris, I think you've been working here too long. You need to find another job".

Confused, he asked what I meant.

"Well, it's become apparent that you've lost all sense of what an attractive female looks like. I mean, it's understandable, working with a bunch of old men... It's bound to make you get all excited with the first female that crosses your path... Even if she turns out to be... a man".

DOAH!

Originally Posted by ToughCool

I don't think alot of the new releases are bad. In fact most can be pleasant in their own way.

Originally Posted by monsieur_sparkle

LOL!!!! Allegory of the Cave, anyone?

Originally Posted by Basteri

"you get what you deserve" <---- this is soo true.

Do not blame the industry only but the consumers as well . I do not remember who say that 95% of men and women are not datable, and I agree. Most people are uneducated in the sense of understanding art and beauty. People in general behave like a herd of sheep , utterly shallow and boring. I am sick and tired of conventional people, materialistic and predictable.
Give them "One Million" by Paco Rabanne and most of them will have an erection by looking at the gold bottle. Give them "The Da vinci code" book, movie, video game and action figures.
(maybe I am having a bad day )

Originally Posted by 3xasif

True.

To accuse everyone who buys perfumes we don't like as being "dumbed down" is a bit dangerous. People buy what they like. If they are being presented with generic perfume that perfumistas (who sniff a ridiculous amount of perfume) cannot abide, how does that dumb them down?

Originally Posted by Thebark

Haha, I wish everybody in all industries shared the same attitude and beliefs, but sadly, they don't. My perspective, as an aspiring writer, is this doesn't necessarily come from a critic's point of view, but rather the industry's itself.

Let me explain: Each year, there are 50,000 screenplays registered to the WGAw, with probably another 50,000 that have been written without the authors bothering to register them. Out of all these, perhaps a couple of hundred movies get made. Out of all these, even a smaller percentage make it to the big screen. Out of all of those, a smaller percent actually make money and are deemed a critical success. Out of everything, at least in the past, 5 movies would be considered Oscar-worthy (this year it will be 10).

Now, the industry folks themselves tell you how dreadful most of the work they see is. Because of this, it's near impossible to actually get your material read. They won't accept anything unsolicited, and it's becoming the norm that, if they even accept a query letter, it needs to come with a referral attached.

Their reasoning for this is because there's just so much crap out there. I literally had a reader write in my coverage about how overworked they were. I would love to pull the whine-11 on him (very funny, by the way ), but it's not going to cut it. It's so ridiculous that you now read where agents don't even bother to read an entire query! It used to be if the script didn't catch them by page 10, it went into the trash. Now if your query letter doesn't catch them in the first few sentences, it's rubbish, and you're considered unworthy of their time.

Then of course, one drives by the local cineplex and sees what's playing, and just rolls their eyes.

At the end of the day, a critic can only critique things that have made it through this process. They're not responsible for it, nor the outcome. And while it does come across as uppity-nose-man-like for them to make vast generalizations, from the example I've given, it starts way before they're ever involved, and with those responsible for producing the product.

When it comes to people settling for mediocrity, I've got a funny example. I previously worked on a government project where the average age was mid-fifties. It was a predominately male work force, but there obviously were some females, and a handful of younger people here and there out of nearly 2,000 employees.

One day, a younger guy who started as an intern while in high school, was looking out the window of an office he shared with a few other people on the second floor overlooking an intersection. From a distance, he saw this female approaching, and made a comment something along the lines of "woah, she looks pretty good".

I looked at the other guys in the office and started laughing. As she grew nearer, he kept making positive comments. The other guys and myself knew who was approaching. Finally, I said "Chris, I think you've been working here too long. You need to find another job".

Confused, he asked what I meant.

"Well, it's become apparent that you've lost all sense of what an attractive female looks like. I mean, it's understandable, working with a bunch of old men... It's bound to make you get all excited with the first female that crosses your path... Even if she turns out to be... a man".

DOAH!

Originally Posted by Thebark

Yeah, it was one of those hippie-scientist from Berkeley type; long hair in a pony-tail, wearing sandals... I still laugh hard thinking about it. Once he found out it was a guy, his face turned beat red. We teased him good. "What? Let me guess... The sun was in your eyes?" and "yeah, she's kind of cute... in a penis sort of way".

Originally Posted by GourmandHomme

The problem with a perfume is not because something is "2007 new release" or "1921 vintage extrait version" or whatever. Or because a lot of them use more synthetic cheaper material or reformulated. "Tocade" is a completely synthetic perfume, yet it smells good.

Anyway, I see the problem with a lot of new perfumes is the same problem with a lot of older perfumes: most of them simply "DO NOT SMELL GOOD." There's just more of them new perfumes that don't smell good now than they are then due to the sheer number of launches.