The White Musk thread

[Culpa Ire]

White musk may be a marketing term but it is used in so many perfume descriptions that it must represent some smells. This is a useful topic to me because I am one of those anosmic to certain musks and sometimes feel I have no clue if a scent I am wearing smells different to others. It may actually be smelling completely different from how I perceive it.

Associating certain musks with certain scents adds a little knowledge to how my perfumes may be coming across. I don’t care much in general for those musk notes I can smell. Maybe this partial anosmia is an advantage. 😊

P.S. The one I really dislike is laundry musk and thank goodness I can smell it because I can then avoid smelling like it!

I know it might read like I’m banging the same drum but marketing is probably the most defining aspect to “white musk”. It might be worth also defining which perfumes have a dark musk note, or an animalic musk, just as a point of reference, though I suspect there will be many overlaps with marketing being the main player.

But to me, if I was asked to make a “white musk” for someone I would probably look to (apologies for mentioning those already listed) Galaxolide, Edenolide, Ethylene Brassylate, Applelide, Tonalide (the laundry musk!), Celestolide, Macrolide and perhaps even Exaltone. If I wanted a creamy white musk I might add some Traseolide.

Edit :
Here are a couple of links to stuff that might help anyone interested in delving a little deeper. . .

http://quintescential.ca/Musk map/Musks.html

https://pkperfumes.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Musks-and-Animalics-Profiles-rev-1-2023.pdf

 

[imm0rtelle]

There's a big disconnect between amateur perfumers + perfume enthusiasts vs industry professionals. Enthusiast communities are notorious for the blind leading the blind. If I had a choice, I would always defer to professionals in the fragrance industry over amateurs. Here are two excerpts on white musks by Dr. Phillip Kraft, an organic chemist who works for Givaudan, written for professionals in the fragrance industry in mind:

Habanolide® and Globalide® are only slightly less expensive, but became trendy because of their metallic character reminiscent of hot-ironed linen, usually considered an undesirable side aspect by perfumers. However, this daring ‘urban high-tech’ facet can provide some special radiant freshness for which the term of ‘white musks’ was coined. The prototype white musk accord was created by Alberto Morillas in answer of the brief for »Emporio Armani White for Her« (Armani, 2001). His own code name for the winning submission was »cotton and linen«, and bergamot as well as mandarin oil, cassis, ginger and woody notes together with mint and fig leaves join in the white musk theme. The traditional hesperidic (citrus-fruit like) yet modern green »Cologne« (Thierry Mugler, 2002) and the intense white floral »Glow by J. Lo« (Lancaster, 2002) also feature white musk accords, which of course have nothing to do with the rare Arctic white musk-oxen, as some may have believed.

Serenolide is about 6 times more intense than Helvetolide and 17% of it formed the white musky counterpoint to the green galbanum accord in ‘(untitled)’ (Maison Martin Margiela, 2010).

While the origins of the term "white musk" might have been for marketing reasons, dismissing the term is shortsighted and entirely just shows why a little learning is a dangerous thing.

 

[Culpa Ire]

There's a big disconnect between amateur perfumers + perfume enthusiasts vs industry professionals. Enthusiast communities are notorious for the blind leading the blind. If I had a choice, I would always defer to professionals in the fragrance industry over amateurs. Here are two excerpts on white musks by Dr. Phillip Kraft, an organic chemist who works for Givaudan, written for professionals in the fragrance industry in mind

The text you’ve quoted merely confirms what is being proffered as “white musk”. It’s clear that it is no single musk but a combination (usually) of a what I would term “clean” musks. Habanolide is a laundry musk because of the hot iron aspect, noticeable in, say, ADG Essenza. Tonalide is another musk associated with laundry, thought it lacks the hot iron aspect. Both could form part of a white musk accord.

I can see the cotton and linen theme thing being based on Habanolide because of the hot iron association (Morillas apparently had a real thing for dosing that one quite high to get that modern bright effect ((30% in one fragrance)), but it is only "white" due to the marketing (even to other industry perfumers where it just becomes a term or trend) or perhaps the association with linen or, more accurately, the ironing of said linen. I'm imagining white linen as I write this so I would imagine others do, too.

I haven’t smelled Serenolide but have used Helvetolide extensively. I would categorise that as a fruity musk, albeit with a clean-ish profile. In the right setting and with the right marketing you could call it a white musk if you were so inclined. To me it is a pink musk, having red fruit aspects in use.

While the origins of the term "white musk" might have been for marketing reasons, dismissing the term is shortsighted and entirely just shows why a little learning is a dangerous thing.

I don't think anyone is dismissing the term. I thought we were trying to identify what it actually means, or more accurately, which materials might form part of something deemed "white musk". I think it is reasonably clear there is a distinction between clean musks and animalic musks. But whether only clean musks are used in a white musk accord is known only to those privy to the formula or a GC-MS of the fragrance in question. I wouldn't be even slightly surprised to see something I might consider animalic tucked away as part of a white musk accord. It is, after all, just marketing.

For the record, as you might already know, David Ruskin is an ex-industry professional. So, according to your logic he should know his stuff, right.

 

[imm0rtelle]

It’s clear that it is no single musk but a combination (usually) of a what I would term “clean” musks.

While your statement is true, it is very misleading to the OP's original request. So much so, it even feels slightly intentional. Just look at FiveoaksBouqet's response, and you can see that the narrative the thread was pushing towards was dismissing the term "white musks".

Most fragrances are composed of multiple musks. One rare exception would be Helmut Lang's Velviona. And while this is true, it adds little to understanding what musks are categorized as "white musks". The intention is clear that everything said was to push against the use of the term "white musk", and dismiss it as "just marketing". The truth has more nuance than that.

For the record, as you might already know, David Ruskin is an ex-industry professional. So, according to your logic he should know his stuff, right.

Let's just say not all professionals are equal. The temper tantrum was hardly professional.

It is easy to get sucked into an echo chamber and just blindly repeat what other lay people say. I don't blame you for not having the technical expertise and training in this area. Mistakes happen, so don't beat yourself over it.

 

[chypre]

I think one of the biggest issues for us here is that the industry is always so cagey about their ingredients that even if consumers were to try to educate themselves on the musk ingredients they like, we won't know which perfumes use them until we smell these perfumes anyway, as they would never list the actual musk ingredients in the notes. So the best we can do is guess our way through their usually incomprehensible ad copies and published but not very accurate note lists.

The prototype white musk accord was created by Alberto Morillas in answer of the brief for »Emporio Armani White for Her« (Armani, 2001).

That's strange he would talk about a prototype white musk accord in 2001 when The Body Shop actually named a perfume "White Musk" in 1981.

I don't think anyone is dismissing the term. I thought we were trying to identify what it actually means, or more accurately, which materials might form part of something deemed "white musk". I think it is reasonably clear there is a distinction between clean musks and animalic musks. But whether only clean musks are used in a white musk accord is known only to those privy to the formula or a GC-MS of the fragrance in question. I wouldn't be even slightly surprised to see something I might consider animalic tucked away as part of a white musk accord. It is, after all, just marketing.

Yes, it's just marketing, but it's useful for us consumers to know the general attributes that distinguish a white musk from a laundry musk, or a "solar musk", or an "aquatic musk", or any other terms that the industry decides to throw at us. What confuses the topic more for me, is that some brands eschew the term "laundry musk" and choose to call it "white musk" instead. Or some brands may call a white musk accord a "clean musk" instead.

From having followed musk fragrances (as a consumer) for some decades, I've noticed, historically, companies used to designate the term "white musk" to those scents featuring a clean musk with some floral/powdery elements to round out and sweeten the accord. Now, though, with companies trying to use these terms to appeal rather than describe, I think they've taken the artistic licence of calling their clean musk accord anything they think the consumer will be attracted to. "Radiant musk"... "Silk musk"... "Pink musk"... I don't remember all of them, but they can be pretty creative. And until there's some industry-wide guideline on terminology (unlikely), I think we still won't really know what they mean until we smell these scents.

 

[Culpa Ire]

While your statement is true, it is very misleading to the OP's original request. So much so, it even feels slightly intentional. Just look at FiveoaksBouqet's response, and you can see that the narrative the thread was pushing towards was dismissing the term "white musks".

I’m not sure why this is so difficult for you to get your head around. White musk is a marketing term. At best it’s an accord of a handful of “clean” musks. And of course my comment was intentional; I felt it needed clarifying. No one is trying to piss off anyone else by making such claims, it’s just how it is.

The intention is clear that everything said was to push against the use of the term "white musk", and dismiss it as "just marketing". The truth has more nuance than that.

The only nuance to the term is the high probability of the “white musk” accord being made of clean musks. There is the possibility of the linen aspect from Habanolide coming into play (ironing laundry = white = clean etc.) but I suspect many marketed notes of “white musk” won’t always contain Habanolide so it’s a tenuous theory. Better to just say clean musks, most of which have been listed on the thread.

The temper tantrum was hardly professional.

Even if that was a temper tantrum I fail to see how it would detract from David’s professional qualification and experience.

All that aside, I can see this descending into a circular discussion or even bickering as is evident from your last two posts, so there’s little point in me attempting to aid in the definitions or understanding of this subject. Perhaps the next step is to ascertain why you feel so aggrieved by the notion of white musk being a marketing term rather than an actual product and perhaps privately address your need to insult other people over such trivial matters.

Yes, it's just marketing, but it's useful for us consumers to know the general attributes that distinguish a white musk from a laundry musk, or a "solar musk", or an "aquatic musk", or any other terms that the industry decides to throw at us. What confuses the topic more for me, is that some brands eschew the term "laundry musk" and choose to call it "white musk" instead. Or some brands may call a white musk accord a "clean musk" instead.

From having followed musk fragrances (as a consumer) for some decades, I've noticed, historically, companies used to designate the term "white musk" to those scents featuring a clean musk with some floral/powdery elements to round out and sweeten the accord. Now, though, with companies trying to use these terms to appeal rather than describe, I think they've taken the artistic licence of calling their clean musk accord anything they think the consumer will be attracted to. "Radiant musk"... "Silk musk"... "Pink musk"... I don't remember all of them, but they can be pretty creative. And until there's some industry-wide guideline on terminology (unlikely), I think we still won't really know what they mean until we smell these scents.

I feel your confusion. I've tried to help by listing a few of the clean musks that I think would fall under the "white musk" banner. The next step might be to seek out samples of those musks and learn their aromas, but that's not really going to help as they can have different effects once blended. For example, Emanuel76 has recently been experimenting with various ACs, some of which are musks. I've found it quite amusing reading his account of how they smell in isolation knowing they perform so differently in blends.

For the average consumer I don't think knowing which musks are defined as white, pink, bright, solar or whatever quality you or the industry want to attribute is of much use really. Like you write, fragrance houses are using any term they want to sell their product and sod any reality behind such claims.

I make a fragrance which has a listed note of "cacao husk ash". As you can imagine there's not a hint of real cacao husk ash in the perfume. I list it because it sounds novel and, hopefully, intriguing.

That's strange he would talk about a prototype white musk accord in 2001 when The Body Shop actually named a perfume "White Musk" in 1981.

I was thinking of that very product when reading the quote. I recall being enamoured by that at the time and thinking WTF white musk was. At least now, all these years later, I have a better understanding. Sadly, these days I would probably bore shitless anyone unlucky enough to be in the same room when I explain which musks make up the perfume, if I was able to actually determine by smell alone. A very doubtful notion!

 

[Yuri-G]

Does anyone think that the idea of a white musk accord involves more than just musks? My personal interpretation (it is a rather arbitrary term after all) is clean musks like galaxolide, habanolide, tonalid etc combined with muguet materials and perhaps traces of aldehydes. It could also be sold as 'cotton' or 'linen'.

 

[donna255]

The first White Musk I knew and the original, so I believe, is the Body Shop. Yes, way back in 1981 they sold a perfume oil called White Musk. Now still sold but not in oil version now and does not really smell the same. It was years later that the perfume houses suddenly started using the term white musk. Thousands of UK teenagers wore The Body Shop oil version.

 

[David Ruskin]

I discard the term White Musk as a marketing term. For a perfumer it is meaningless. After 30 years as a perfumer I think I have more than a little learning, dangerous or not.

The Body Shop White Musk fragrance built on the idea of clean laundry. People associate the smell of clean sheets with certain musks because they were used in large amounts in laundry products. They were used because they show excellent cloth retention. Galaxolide and Tonalide are the most commonly used musk molecules for detergents and fabric conditioners. Yuri-G, above, makes a good point. The original fab cons had Galaxolide, Tonalide, and two other chemicals; Vertenex, a warm, woody smell, and Lilial, which has a sort of Lily of the Valley smell. Of course the fab con fragrances contained a lot more, but those four chemicals were key to people's perception of clean, white sheets. If you smell Galaxolide or Tonalide alone, in my opinion, they do not smell at all clean or "fresh". Both musks have a sweet, sticky, claggy smell. Tonalide, especially, smells fruity, almost raspberry.

Imm0rtelle, may I ask, "What temper tantrum"? Wanting to know why you thought something I had written, in all good faith, was so funny is not, again in my opinion, a "temper tantrum".

 

[David Ruskin]

I see that the link to the Paul Kiler Musk post has now been provided, post number 21. I didn't do that myself because I don't know how to; sorry.

 

[David Ruskin]

Lenor fab con was launched in 1963, Comfort in 1969; they contained the first White Musk fragrance accord.

 

[chypre]

I feel your confusion. I've tried to help by listing a few of the clean musks that I think would fall under the "white musk" banner. The next step might be to seek out samples of those musks and learn their aromas, but that's not really going to help as they can have different effects once blended.

A couple of years ago, I ordered a few samples of some musks; Galaxolide, Exaltolide and something else, I can't quite remember. I should continue doing that. But yes, it's still not terribly useful for a consumer as it would not put us any closer to being able to blind buy more safely, to talk in practical terms.

I was thinking of that very product when reading the quote. I recall being enamoured by that at the time and thinking WTF white musk was. At least now, all these years later, I have a better understanding. Sadly, these days I would probably bore shitless anyone unlucky enough to be in the same room when I explain which musks make up the perfume, if I was able to actually determine by smell alone. A very doubtful notion!

I dunno, I think more people should talk about musks, and more often

The Body Shop White Musk fragrance built on the idea of clean laundry. People associate the smell of clean sheets with certain musks because they were used in large amounts in laundry products. They were used because they show excellent cloth retention. Galaxolide and Tonalide are the most commonly used musk molecules for detergents and fabric conditioners. Yuri-G, above, makes a good point. The original fab cons had Galaxolide, Tonalide, and two other chemicals; Vertenex, a warm, woody smell, and Lilial, which has a sort of Lily of the Valley smell. Of course the fab con fragrances contained a lot more, but those four chemicals were key to people's perception of clean, white sheets. If you smell Galaxolide or Tonalide alone, in my opinion, they do not smell at all clean or "fresh". Both musks have a sweet, sticky, claggy smell.

Tbh, I really do not like associations with clean laundry. I discovered TBS White Musk when I was a child, and what astounded me was the warm and sweet smell lingering on my skin after I woke up the next day. I had never smelt anything like that, I thought it was heavenly.

 

[Yuri-G]

Yuri-G, above, makes a good point. The original fab cons had Galaxolide, Tonalide, and two other chemicals; Vertenex, a warm, woody smell, and Lilial, which has a sort of Lily of the Valley smell.

Lillial is the specific muguet I was thinking of actually. When I first smelled it I was smacked round the face with the smell of laundry and shampoo. I have some vertenex on the way, so will try that too.

 

[Yuri-G]

There we go, thank you!
Now we’re putting names to smells.
That was the point of my thread- what are the names of these musks and which is used in which fragrances.

David’s post saying theres no such thing as white musk and that it’s a marketing term, highlights just how little we know about these musks.
Everyone uses the term “white musk”. Perfumers, brands, critics, Luca Turin, reviewers, knowledgeable people in the community, etc.
And now here‘s some who knows what they’re talking about saying it’s not a real thing.
So what do we call them? What are their names? Which is which?
“Musk” is clearly the category, just like “florals” or “woods” or “herbs”.
But I want us to know which musk is which and what they’re names are, just like we know the names of individual flowers, woods & herbs that are used.

Thats the point of this thread.

I believe Le Male is mostly galaxolide and tonalid in the musk accord, along with a smaller amount of something like traseolide. But I think that lilial and lyral add to the fluffy 'white musk' effect.

 

[Xcaliber6685]

Whenever someone mentioned "White Musk", I'd immediately associate the ISO E Super with it.......

 

[slpfrsly]

White musk may be a marketing term but it is used in so many perfume descriptions that it must represent some smells. This is a useful topic to me because I am one of those anosmic to certain musks and sometimes feel I have no clue if a scent I am wearing smells different to others. It may actually be smelling completely different from how I perceive it.

Associating certain musks with certain scents adds a little knowledge to how my perfumes may be coming across. I don’t care much in general for those musk notes I can smell. Maybe this partial anosmia is an advantage. 😊

P.S. The one I really dislike is laundry musk and thank goodness I can smell it because I can then avoid smelling like it!

Yes, this is a good way to put it. We all talk about 'notes' and 'accords' in fragrances when, in reality, this is what 'white musk' is referring to: a category of scents that are 'musk-like' but non-animalic, clean, modern, airy, obviously synthetic, similar to scents used in cleaning products, and so on.

If we have to stop talking about notes and accords because they are not found in chemical formula of a fragrance, basenotes may as well just shut down all but the DIY forum.

To say it is "just" a marketing term misses the reality that it is also an understandable category of notes, accords, smells etc. It's not the most useful of terms but that doesn't mean it has no meaning or utility.

While your statement is true, it is very misleading to the OP's original request. So much so, it even feels slightly intentional. Just look at FiveoaksBouqet's response, and you can see that the narrative the thread was pushing towards was dismissing the term "white musks".

Most fragrances are composed of multiple musks. One rare exception would be Helmut Lang's Velviona. And while this is true, it adds little to understanding what musks are categorized as "white musks". The intention is clear that everything said was to push against the use of the term "white musk", and dismiss it as "just marketing". The truth has more nuance than that.


Let's just say not all professionals are equal. The temper tantrum was hardly professional.

It is easy to get sucked into an echo chamber and just blindly repeat what other lay people say. I don't blame you for not having the technical expertise and training in this area. Mistakes happen, so don't beat yourself over it.

Well said.

True wisdom would be knowing that the interpretation of chemical combinations in to 'notes' can be much better understood with an understanding of the chemicals used and the effect they have in a fragrance. However, that does not mean the note interpretation (i.e. "white musk") is 'meaningless' - quite the opposite, it conveys something understandable, if broad and non-specific, to people who either do not have that chemical understanding or lack the interest in dissecting perfume at that level. As you say, the nuanced professional position would be to use the language/terminology that is appropriate to the audience, and although basenotes contains perfume enthusiasts, there is a divide between the DIY forum (hobbyists and professionals) and the masculine/general/feminine forums. Users who frequent the latter - not to mention your average customer, or even non-perfumers involved in the creation of a perfume - are going to better understand a smell when it is referred to as "white musk", say, with further description of the scent, than reference to an aromachemical.

I have to say, this is why I hate to see people mention aromachemicals in reviews rather than notes and (more importantly) smells - particularly when they're not perfumers. It's easy to do, particularly with something like ambroxan that seems common enough by now and without an obvious naturalistic points of comparison; but on the whole, it fails to achieve the intended aim (an air of gravitas and 'deep', objective/material understanding) and is instead mostly frustrating and offputting to the reader. That's not to say discussing aromachemicals is never appropriate, and obviously this thread is a great example of a time when it is useful, but for the most part it tends to obscure and confuse more than it adds to any conversation.

 

[Culpa Ire]

Re-reading a few points raised, I think I’m beginning to see why there is some negativity and unnecessary goading.

you can see that the narrative the thread was pushing towards was dismissing the term "white musks".

The intention is clear that everything said was to push against the use of the term "white musk"

If we have to stop talking about notes and accords because they are not found in chemical formula of a fragrance, basenotes may as well just shut down all but the DIY forum.

I don’t think anyone is taking such a draconian stance on the matter. It's weird you inferred that notion TBH.

So, let me make my position on this clear so you no longer have to guess my motives. I was not and would never dream of “pushing” a point in the way suggested or for the reasons being implied or stated. I can’t speak for anyone else but that’s where I fall on the matter.

My reason for joining the discussion was an attempt to enable people to determine what white musk actually means in perfumery terms. I did this in order to aid in deciding if a perfume that claims it has a white musk note is, in fact, the same white musk note you like in a perfume you already own or have sampled and appreciate. As you can see from the contents of this very thread it’s a difficult thing to elucidate for the masses and I failed to help at all. I now understand that discussing these things on the DIY section is far easier than it is in this section of the forum. My mistake; I took that for granted. I don’t write that to condescend, I write it as a matter of fact and it’s obvious why that’s the case. I’ll be sure to modify my language if I engage on subjects of a similar nature in future threads.

 

[slpfrsly]

I don’t think anyone is taking such a draconian stance on the matter. It's weird you inferred that notion TBH.

So, let me make my position on this clear so you no longer have to guess my motives...

Worry not, I don't think any of the users you've quoted were referencing your posts.

 

[Culpa Ire]

I'd like to think not. But thanks for clarifying your position.

 

[Dorje123]

Any experts care to weigh in on Dihydromyrcenol? I think I recall that being the original "laundry musk" used by Tide, with Drakkar Noir being the first to use it as a prominent note? Now it seems to be ubiquitous...