constructing skyscrapers with mud and sticks

On tap for this evening?

Eminent advocates for molecular innovation, who fancy the swashbuckling spirit of modern chemistry, often sermonize that the practice of botanical perfumery is hackneyed, analogizing that it’s like constructing skyscrapers with mud and sticks. Fruit fragrances, for instance, they maintain, are impossible to represent using only essential oils.

“They are neomanic fanatics for neoteric novelty, flagrant agents for the crass human movement of mass imprudent perfumery.”

First off, their whatfors and wherefores have flaws in their therefores, and what’s more, we don’t much care for what they stand for.

“Well, there is no shortage of manufactured esters: synthetic methyl butyrate resembles pineapple … but is lacking in something? also isobutyl formate is like raspberry … but sadly is lacking … and ethyl butyrate recalls, errr, orange? but is lacking too … and there’s pentyl acetate, similar to banana … but lacks something … ethyl heptanoate brings to mind grape … but is likewise lacking … and amyl valerate suggests apple … it’s another that’s lacking … and amyl butyrate is reminiscent of cherry … but again, is lacking … and octyl acetate evokes, umm, citrus? but is lacking as well … and isoamyl acetate is remindful of pear … but once more, as you might have guessed, is lacking.”

I understand—that these odorants made by laboratory technicians are intended to be mere ingredients, parts of a whole (though theirs is an inflated sense of control), of a fully realized perfume, I understand (that theirs is an exaggerated sense of understanding).