Current designer perfumery = bad?

[Izzie]

So I've been a fraghead for 10+ years and I feel like the past 3-4 years ALL of designer perfumery has been completely and utterly uninspired. Not even just uninspired but BAD. Mainstream stuff has been boring for a long time, granted, but now it seems like every single scent that comes out - both masculine and feminine - are very small variations on a boring, overly chemical, screechy theme. Every male release smells like the epitome of "cologne guy" - screechy, sharp, chemical and unpleasant. Every female release smells like Armani Si with a twist - floral and candy sweet and teenaged. The last interesting designer release I've come across was Gucci Guilty Absolute pH but that is discontinued now. What's going on? I've taken an interest in 80s-early 90s scents because back then stuff actually smelled different from each other, interesting and with some artistry and depth. I dip my toe into niche stuff and it's definitely better if you know where to look, but I like designer stuff usually. Older designer frags feel like a time capsule, and I can't imagine looking back at this era of fragrances and feeling happily nostalgic about it. More like "thank god that's over".

It's sad watching youtube reviewers these days, talking up newly released trash like umpteenth variations on Armani Code or Bleu de Chanel or the completely butchered "new" Dior Homme line. Smelled Burberry Hero the other week and it's absolutely VILE?! I can't imagine anyone finding it pleasant yet it seems to sell. Are my tastes just out of touch or are current designer releases just really really bad?

 

[ultravisitor]

It's the same as it has always been: some of them are good, and some of them are bad, and some of them are cheap, and some of them are expensive.

"Niche" perfumes are the same: some of them are good, and some of them are bad, and some of them are cheap, and some of them are expensive.

 

[freewheelingvagabond]

So I've been a fraghead for 10+ years and I feel like the past 3-4 years ALL of designer perfumery has been completely and utterly uninspired. Not even just uninspired but BAD. Mainstream stuff has been boring for a long time, granted, but now it seems like every single scent that comes out - both masculine and feminine - are very small variations on a boring, overly chemical, screechy theme. Every male release smells like the epitome of "cologne guy" - screechy, sharp, chemical and unpleasant. Every female release smells like Armani Si with a twist - floral and candy sweet and teenaged. The last interesting designer release I've come across was Gucci Guilty Absolute pH but that is discontinued now. What's going on? I've taken an interest in 80s-early 90s scents because back then stuff actually smelled different from each other, interesting and with some artistry and depth. I dip my toe into niche stuff and it's definitely better if you know where to look, but I like designer stuff usually. Older designer frags feel like a time capsule, and I can't imagine looking back at this era of fragrances and feeling happily nostalgic about it. More like "thank god that's over".

It's sad watching youtube reviewers these days, talking up newly released trash like umpteenth variations on Armani Code or Bleu de Chanel or the completely butchered "new" Dior Homme line. Smelled Burberry Hero the other week and it's absolutely VILE?! I can't imagine anyone finding it pleasant yet it seems to sell. Are my tastes just out of touch or is current designer releases just really really bad?

I completely agree. Quantity over quality. It's the same with mainstream music. Most things mainstream, in fact. You can say the same thing about condo developments in Toronto, where I live. This is what happens when industries are driven by accountants.

 

[slpfrsly]

This thread has become a perennial reference for any discussion on the state and/or quality of perfumery: https://basenotes.com/threads/is-perfumery-dead.521888/

I believe that most of us on this forum understand and act as if designer perfumery is inferior compared what it used to be. Despite the relative lack of articulation behind the feeling, the significant increase in investment in niche, boutique, independent, and artisanal fragrances by your average basenoter hints at the hunger that is produced by the paucity of the designer market.

If we were to split fragrance in to eras, rather than decades as is often the way, then there are really only three years that could be chosen as the turning point for what we're currently experiencing. The first would be Dior Homme and 2005, although I think this is the least reasonable place to start. The second would be 2008 and PR's 1 Million. The third is 2010, with Aventus and Bleu de Chanel. Perhaps a fourth claim could be made for 2015 and Dior's Sauvage but I see this as easily coherent with 2010, being as it is a kind of novel mash-up of (primarily) Aventus and (less so, despite the branding) BdC. 1 Million perfectly demonstrates the sweet spicy gourmand masculine clubbing 'bomb' trend, while the 2010s have been defined by ambroxan/salty/metallic/citrusy/amberwoody 'blue' things. Both have existed alongside one another: sweet spicy gourmands on one hand, and fresh salty stick-woods citruses on the other. The early years of this era, if you want to call it that (2008-mid 2010s) saw some really good masculine designer fragrances, like Eros and Invictus and Guerlain's L'Ideal. But after a point, refinement (Layton for Eros, flankers to Ideal and Invictus etc) runs its course, and instead of tweaking for improvements, you get regurgitation and entropy. Hence, the market produces an abundance of substandard yet samey fragrances in both the blue and gourmand masculine genres. Dior Homme's "unisex" (very feminine) floral cut a path for the current unisex market, where men are encouraged to wear ostensibly feminine worksafe scents; this is provided as an antidote to the two main masculine options - some alternative, between a rock and a hard place! Hence, this leads to indie and niche upstarts trying to fill the aesthetic void - as well as cash in on a trend started by more serious independent niche perfumers in the 90s and 00s - but unfortunately these are mostly amateurish and/or substandard attempts that bring additional issues, however much of a fanbase they build through modern online marketing and astroturfing. It's hard to see how quality and competence can rise when the incentives are so heavily stacked towards this entropic cycle of imitation through regurgitation and appealing to the lowest common aesthetic denominator.

There is something else to be said, which relates to the demographics of the customers who are buying designer/mass selling fragrances. This has changed signficantly in the past 20 years. It's no surprise, therefore, that the fragrances would change as well.

I increasingly believe that perfume companies - like so many multinational businesses - are flippant about the market of today and are much more concerned about meeting the 'needs' of the market of tomorrow. To put it simply, fragrances are not being made for people like us as much as they once were. There are several ways in which this is true, however uncomfortable and/or annoying - bit it is true, and that's the important point to remember. Naturally, some people will adapt to various changes, happy to go where the winds of change blow. Yet even then, there's still the nagging sense of inferiority compared to what once existed. Ignorance may well be bliss; knowing how good designer fragrances were even 20 years ago, the risks they took, the competence, the innovation, the connection to tradition etc, lessens one's enjoyment of designer fragrances in the present. Being cognisant of decline is an unfortunate thing, as it provides a point of comparison to the present. Of course, this is not just something that relates to perfumery: Orwell's idea of "the endless present" is fitting for neverending TikTok scrolling and the frequent memory holing that takes place in the immediate, 24 hour, rolling news cycle. To remember - let alone to ask questions beyond one's own personal past - is problematic to the supposed stability of the declining present.

One important thing to consider is how designer fragrances have gone boutique. Chanel and Dior created more expensive 'high end' lines a good while ago, but for the most part these stood out as distinct from the fashions and wants of the more affordable designer lines produced by other houses. If you're happy to consider Tom Ford and Louis Vuitton (especially) as designer houses, then things aren't quite as bad as they seem. Tom Ford makes/puts out a lot of duds - and discontinues them just as rapidly - but they/he/the brand has made a number of quality, innovative fragrances in the last decade. The same goes for LV, whose fragrances seem to me to be perfectly in keeping with what you'd expect to find from a good masculine fragrance in the 90s or early 2000s. The difference with LV compared to, say Armani or Calvin Klein, is the cost of LV's fragrances. Hence the point about demographics, and how affordability and mass appeal has shifted with social and economic changes (the move from national to global middle classes). Different people have different reasons for buying fragrances. The $40-70 designer fragrance 20 odd years ago is not the $60-90 designer fragrance of today (at least not for the most part; Chanel etc are now ramping up prices well in to 3 figures, leaving a significant gap back to the the 'affordable' range of ~$50 scents). What was once $60 or $70 is now $200; what is now $60 or $70 is (mostly, not always) something new: an expansion of the market via derivative variations of the top end/leading brands' products. It's not just that there are loads of these brands and fragrances available; it's a fact that this phenomenon was far less common and less financially viable a few decades ago than it is now. Stepping over and ignoring fragrances is now a major part of fragrance enjoyment - no doubt this is true for all sorts of consumer products. Again, as I said, the market is not interested in making products for people like us; awareness of this change requires some sort of strategic understanding about how to navigate the decline. Because, having said all of this, there are good affordable fragrances stil being made: the cost comes from the time and effort it takes to find them, which is made harder by the noise of social media (as you point out, with youtube etc).

 

[Izzie]

I completely agree. Quantity over quality. It's the same with mainstream music. Most things mainstream, in fact. You can say the same thing about condo developments in Toronto, where I live. This is what happens when industries are driven by accountants.

True of where I live also, new buildings look like complete mass-produced dystopian boxes.

 

[PrinceRF]

Of the recent designers I've tried, I tend to agree.

 

[GWM]

There were less companies, who in total made less fragrances, who all competed in a significantly smaller market prior to around the turn of the century. Even then, all of the well known classic fragrances that survive in the public conscious are the few products that were excellent enough to stand out, and more importantly, stand the test of time. There's really not that many, and there's a whole lot bland, derivative, or just plain bad fragrances out there, and that was when the whole world produced significantly less perfume products per year.

There's always been a lot of horrible products out there, and technological advances have made it easier for more people, to make more bad products, quicker -- so there's a lot more of it out there now. There's also a lot more interesting,fragrances out there, like the Gucci, so just take the good with the bad and roll with it.

 

[sjg3839]

It's the same as it has always been: some of them are good, and some of them are bad, and some of them are cheap, and some of them are expensive.

"Niche" perfumes are the same: some of them are good, and some of them are bad, and some of them are cheap, and some of them are expensive.

Agreed!

 

[Ifti]

It's the same as it has always been: some of them are good, and some of them are bad, and some of them are cheap, and some of them are expensive.

"Niche" perfumes are the same: some of them are good, and some of them are bad, and some of them are cheap, and some of them are expensive.

Truth!

Yeah - I get that "samey" smell in the new designer things I may sniff occasionally. However it could also be that I haven't tried enough.

 

[hednic]

I don't find the current designer releases to be that bad at all. Some are actually very nice IMO.

 

[ShawnS]

I think the only decent recent mainstream fragrances are Chanel Bleu De Chanel, Dior Sauvage, Acqua Di Gio Profumo, Tom Ford Ombré Leather while played out nothing has really stuck or stood out since their releases. Gucci Guilty Absolute Pour Homme would be the other I’d say was the last great mainstream release they are not creative anymore just cash grabs these days. Here’s to hoping Giorgio Armani Acqua Di Gio Parfum is a good positive release for once!

 

[Pippin06]

I wouldn't call today's or recent designer fragrances bad, as it's a matter of personal taste. However, I do find the designer fragrances available in department stores the past several years to be rather redundant and generic.

 

[tspencer]

Well,

Most of my fragrance buys are not designers, so aside from many classics, most modern designer scents are not good IMO. I don't like saying that because there are still some good ones.

 

[Ken_Russell]

Ultimately tending to second that both fragrance tastes and the current designer output along with perceptions towards it are subjective.
But maybe also that all recent/current designer fragrances are invariably bad, having (at least personally) to test far more designer options for a more definitive opinion.

 

[Izzie]

This thread has become a perennial reference for any discussion on the state and/or quality of perfumery: https://basenotes.com/threads/is-perfumery-dead.521888/

I believe that most of us on this forum understand and act as if designer perfumery is inferior compared what it used to be. Despite the relative lack of articulation behind the feeling, the significant increase in investment in niche, boutique, independent, and artisanal fragrances by your average basenoter hints at the hunger that is produced by the paucity of the designer market.
...

Thank you for your insightful thoughts! I agree with most of it. I have also noticed that price points seem to be getting higher and higher for a lesser product, which I've found frustrating. It's like you say, perhaps one needs to spend more time weeding through the noise these days.

 

[Izzie]

I don't find the current designer releases to be that bad at all. Some are actually very nice IMO.

Which ones have you enjoyed lately? Maybe I'm missing out on some hidden gems!

 

[Izzie]

I think the only decent recent mainstream fragrances are Chanel Bleu De Chanel, Dior Sauvage, Acqua Di Gio Profumo, Tom Ford Ombré Leather while played out nothing has really stuck or stood out since their releases. Gucci Guilty Absolute Pour Homme would be the other I’d say was the last great mainstream release they are not creative anymore just cash grabs these days. Here’s to hoping Giorgio Armani Acqua Di Gio Parfum is a good positive release for once!

I can't stand Sauvage and I think that one was kind of the start of the steep decline, but I have to give them credit for at least somewhat being the OG, I feel like every new male fragrance is trying to somehow emulate Sauvage or move in a Sauvage-like direction. Ombre Leather is pretty decent though, that's true.

 

[L'Homme Blanc Individuel]

The problem is math. It's not even complicated math.

We're seeing more fragrance releases every year than we used to see in a decade. Hell, I'd bet we've seen more new scents released already this year than were released during the entire 1970s. Flankers and flankers of flankers are being pumped out and discontinued to make room for the next round of flankers of flankered flankers. Entire lines of fragrances are released all the time, often by "houses" that didn't exist a year ago. Youtubers have fragrance lines now.

It's ridiculous. Are actual perfumers making most of this stuff? If so, that raises a few interesting questions. Are there REALLY 10X to 100X as many master perfumers these days compared to decades ago? Are perfumers REALLY spending as much time creating each new release compared to decades ago?

C'mon now. These aren't even complicated questions. It's elementary school math.

There has always been good stuff and there has always been junk, but these days, the market is being flooded with junk so you have to work 10X harder to find the good stuff.

Making matters worse, we're in an era of fragrances dominated by scrachy harsh aroma chemicals. This is compounded by the fact that anybody under age 30 came of age during this harsh chemical era, and many of them probably think that harsh scratchy smell is actually the way scents are supposed to smell, if not even being a sign of the good stuff.

So, we're seeing a flood of new releases every year, and an entire generation of consumers came of age in an era of harsh chemical trash.

 

[The Bark]

I've bought one designer fragrance in the last two years: Polo Intense. I'm not sure which is worse: the current state of affairs with an infinite release of flankers every year or the YouTubers who repeatedly put together lists that seem to feature the same five fragrances. I would never know some of them had huge collections if they weren't on display behind them.

 

[Larry Hoover]

To be honest, the perfume market is saturated these days. Anyone with some cash can have their own fragrance line. There are countless so called perfumers who are ''self-taught'' and pump out fragrances as well. Especially since the advent of social media, a portion of the marketing of said fragrances has shifted to these type of channels as well. There were nearly 6,000 fragrances released in 2018. I'd rather see, say 1,000 releases per year, most of which consist of creative and interesting scents, than 5,000+ releases consisting of countless flankers and other drab creations.