Long waffle ahead (some now trimmed) - skip to the pic of the Mysore Musk box to get to the review.
- Waffle
Musk is a deep, warm, rich, sexy scent. I have loved it for years. The scent is based on the secretions from the scent glands of a musk deer. The word musk comes from the Sanskrit for testicle - possibly because the deer's scent glands resemble testicles. There may be examples of true musk available, though as far as I am aware, most musk used these days is a simulation of the original. I hesitate to use the word synthetic or artificial, as I'm unclear what these terms mean. There is the sense in those terms that the product produced is not "natural" - and, again, I struggle to pin down precisely what that means in regards to scents like musk and amber. We know that musk and amber scents are not based on the original, natural sources, and so substitutes are used. Does that make the substitutes "not natural"? Well, if the substitutes are based on or derived from natural substances themselves, would they not be "natural"? Or does it depend on how much processing is used to go from the natural substance to the final product? Is beer more "natural" than whiskey because it has gone through less processing, most of which can occur in nature without human intervention? Whiskey has to be distilled, a process which faintly occurs in nature when water evaporates and then condenses back into water as dew, though too randomly and diffused a manner to actually make spirits. Distillation is essentially a process of physical separation, so may not technically be a chemical process, but it doesn't feel to me as "natural" as the fermentation of beer, which will and does occur naturally.
My thinking is that the less human intervention there is in a product, the more natural it is. And the closer to the original a product is, the more natural it is. So a resin that has been collected from a tree and then warmed or burned to release the aroma is much more natural than an attar, oil, or perfume which has been distilled or processed from that resin. And an oil or perfume made from a resin is more natural than an oil or perfume made from a substitute for that resin. A substitute may be made from a plant or from crude oil (petroleum - which in itself is a natural product), but it goes through a distillation process. But does natural always smell better? Shit, vomit, swamp or marsh gas, and skunks are all natural, but do they smell better than Chanel No 5 - a famously synthetic perfume?
I'm waffling here because I'm reaching out to discover my own thoughts and feelings on the whole natural v synthetic debate that occurs in the incense world. There isn't the same debate in the perfume world (an advanced, sophisticated, and very knowledgeable world as I'm discovering). Though there has been a similar debate in the beer world since at least the early 1970s, and those with a feel for the natural have almost lost the argument as the modern commercial brewers have won over new consumers with their "craft beer" marketing campaign.
My thinking is that the less human intervention there is in a product, the more natural it is. And the closer to the original a product is, the more natural it is. So a resin that has been collected from a tree and then warmed or burned to release the aroma is much more natural than an attar, oil, or perfume which has been distilled or processed from that resin. And an oil or perfume made from a resin is more natural than an oil or perfume made from a substitute for that resin. A substitute may be made from a plant or from crude oil (petroleum - which in itself is a natural product), but it goes through a distillation process. But does natural always smell better? Shit, vomit, swamp or marsh gas, and skunks are all natural, but do they smell better than Chanel No 5 - a famously synthetic perfume?
I'm waffling here because I'm reaching out to discover my own thoughts and feelings on the whole natural v synthetic debate that occurs in the incense world. There isn't the same debate in the perfume world (an advanced, sophisticated, and very knowledgeable world as I'm discovering). Though there has been a similar debate in the beer world since at least the early 1970s, and those with a feel for the natural have almost lost the argument as the modern commercial brewers have won over new consumers with their "craft beer" marketing campaign.
My heart goes to natural. I prefer wearing natural fibres, and eating whole foods. I am an old hippy after all. But I don't reject the synthetic. While I prefer "real ale", I do drink and frequently enjoy craft beer - and honestly at times can't tell the difference in taste and flavour. Some of my favourite shirts have synthetics in them, some are entirely synthetic. They look good, wear well, and are easy to care for. I wear essential oils (which, though partly synthesised via distillation, are very close to natural), though I also use both for convenience and pleasure modern perfumes such as Police and Givenchy. I guess I'm a hippy who wants everything to be natural, but I'm also a realist who sees that synthetic can at times not only be more convenient or practical, but also be at least as pleasurable as natural, and sometimes better. It depends on the moment.
I guess I tend to waffle when I come upon a "musk" incense made by possibly the oldest and most traditional of all the great Indian incense houses, who I know from conversations are having to adapt to the modern world. Also, I was caught by the word Mysore. I am curious as to why Shroff have called this a "Mysore" Musk, as - as far as I'm aware - there's no musk tradition associated with Mysore. There is a sandalwood tradition associated with Mysore, though production and export is limited, so modern perfumeries tend to source from Australia or use synthetics.
The scent on the stick is more sandalwood than musk, with attractive floral top notes - rose accented - touches also of iris and violets, with an amber heart. It's a very pleasing and attractive scent. Perhaps a little too pleasant - some spice or counterpoint would really bring it to life.
The burn is fresh and lively - surprisingly so. To be honest I was expecting it to be a little harsh and woody from my recent experiences with other Shroff "dry" masala incense. I'm burning this stick upright, which I'm starting to think is the best way to burn joss sticks. Funny enough, that's the way I have usually burned incense - either holding the sticks upright, or placing them upright in flowerpots, in the soil, or in odd, available crack and niches. Burning upright appears to reveal the full range and complexity of notes, from top, though heart, down to the woody, musky notes at the base. Here I'm getting pretty much all the notes I got on the stick. My assumption is that the top notes are not getting scorched by the heat, and are allowed to simply warm and disperse, followed by the heart and base notes in the proper order. I've tried burning this stick upside down, and it immediately turns crude and ugly, with more of a burning cardboard aroma than the delicate and beautiful scent from burning burning upright. And I've tried burning at 20 degrees, which results in an experience somewhat between the upright and the upside down. More experiments need to be done, as it's possible that the experience would vary depending on the stick. But, at the moment, I am absolutely preferring the Shroff Mysore Musk burned upright.
For me this is all about creamy sandalwood and powdery florals. I'm not getting any musk at all. There's a chalky element between the sweet sandalwood and the restrained florals which links and unifies them. After a time, the musk does come through, though it's a floral or amber style musk. It's not deep, rich and sexy. It's a lighter, delicate, sweeter, musk, such as that attached to a Damask rose or a benzoin.
 |
| Mysore Musk 50g box from Lotus Zen |
- Review
I guess I tend to waffle when I come upon a "musk" incense made by possibly the oldest and most traditional of all the great Indian incense houses, who I know from conversations are having to adapt to the modern world. Also, I was caught by the word Mysore. I am curious as to why Shroff have called this a "Mysore" Musk, as - as far as I'm aware - there's no musk tradition associated with Mysore. There is a sandalwood tradition associated with Mysore, though production and export is limited, so modern perfumeries tend to source from Australia or use synthetics.
The scent on the stick is more sandalwood than musk, with attractive floral top notes - rose accented - touches also of iris and violets, with an amber heart. It's a very pleasing and attractive scent. Perhaps a little too pleasant - some spice or counterpoint would really bring it to life.
The burn is fresh and lively - surprisingly so. To be honest I was expecting it to be a little harsh and woody from my recent experiences with other Shroff "dry" masala incense. I'm burning this stick upright, which I'm starting to think is the best way to burn joss sticks. Funny enough, that's the way I have usually burned incense - either holding the sticks upright, or placing them upright in flowerpots, in the soil, or in odd, available crack and niches. Burning upright appears to reveal the full range and complexity of notes, from top, though heart, down to the woody, musky notes at the base. Here I'm getting pretty much all the notes I got on the stick. My assumption is that the top notes are not getting scorched by the heat, and are allowed to simply warm and disperse, followed by the heart and base notes in the proper order. I've tried burning this stick upside down, and it immediately turns crude and ugly, with more of a burning cardboard aroma than the delicate and beautiful scent from burning burning upright. And I've tried burning at 20 degrees, which results in an experience somewhat between the upright and the upside down. More experiments need to be done, as it's possible that the experience would vary depending on the stick. But, at the moment, I am absolutely preferring the Shroff Mysore Musk burned upright.
For me this is all about creamy sandalwood and powdery florals. I'm not getting any musk at all. There's a chalky element between the sweet sandalwood and the restrained florals which links and unifies them. After a time, the musk does come through, though it's a floral or amber style musk. It's not deep, rich and sexy. It's a lighter, delicate, sweeter, musk, such as that attached to a Damask rose or a benzoin.
On the whole I really like this scent. It's light, floral, warm, pleasant. It's also slightly dry, chalky, and restrained. It doesn't quite have the passion or richness or uniqueness or cleverness I really love in incense, but it is a wholesome, attractive, uplifting, and cleansing scent. Nice one.
This must be one of the most controversial scents made by Shroff (along with Pavitram).
ReplyDeleteI like it a lot, I do find it quite musky, but I know through Reddit that many people absolutely don't get along with it. I've read someone describing it as "barnyard Musk". Max finds it way too powerful on the animalic/musk front and agrees with the barnyard remark.
I'm thinking that Shroff has a lot in common with Haridas Madhavdas Sugandhi (HMS) - they are both long established traditional incense houses, and they are both (in my experience) rather inconsistent and variable.
DeleteVariable is not in itself something that puts me off - I kinda like the organic nature of the inconsistencies. But it does mean it is difficult to talk with others about a particular Shroff incense because we could be talking about two different experiences - and not just down to personal preferences or local environment conditions, but also the vagaries of the incense production which means that the scent will not be the same each batch. I have seen film of some incense production, including HMS, and it is clear that there will be no consistency within a batch let alone between batches, because of the haphazard way the fragrant oils are added.
All we can do is report on what we experience. On the sticks I had, there was little in the way of musk, and the scent was way more floral than barnyard. Nobody is wrong here. As each of us will experience even the most consistent incense in a different way - there are no absolutes when it comes to human interaction with scent (and this has been scientifically measured - some of us can detect certain scents in minute amounts, while others struggle to detect the same scents even in huge amounts. Diacetyl is one such scent that I am very familiar with as a beer taster. Some people hardly notice it even in large volumes while others - such as myself - are very susceptible even at very low volumes. Musk is interesting in that it is primarily detected by adults - most prepubescents cannot detect it. So a musk perfume or incense would be lost on a child.
So, here with this Shroff, we not only have the usual individual scent variations, we have the added variations due to inconsistencies in production.
I would say that it is likely that what you and Max had was different to what I had, even though the producer and the name are the same. (Assuming, of course, when I say producer, that Shroff did not commission someone else to make some of the batches - which is possible.)