Kenneth makes a couple great points. The first being Glenburgie. I'm very fond of bottlings I've had, particularly from G&M and Signatory. The Signatory bottling I've had is a 26 year cask strength marvel. I've had 10 and 21 from G&M, and an 18 from the Prime Malt line. But things change and new bottlings don't seem to quite have the character of older bottlings.
I wholly agree that wood management is becoming more common with many distiller's due to the influence of the independents. The trick for the consumer is knowing whether it is merely lip service or dedicated practice. Sometimes these things become catchphrases - I remember wineries in Napa telling anyone who'd listen their wines were "Burgundian" in style. The problem was that cannot be said when they're pouring Cabernet because Cabernet isn't grown in Burgundy. As amusing as this seems, I've sadly seen it at many more than half a dozen wineries. So when the monster brands and distillers talk about their wood program, my first inclination is to not accept what I'm hearing at face value.
The smooth - harsh comment is also a good one. There are technical harshness-es which shouldn't be in a whisky, generally from a distiller taking to wide of a cut weighted toward the feints. A good example of this is Edradour; it has a component that some might say is harsh but is really its character. I'd also say it's a man's man whisky, one I particularly enjoy for its malty, big beefy character - plus they and Signatory were the first producer/bottler I visited on my first trip to Scotland.
Anyway, Kenneth's comments are spot on, and will consider them further with while enjoying the Rosebank 21 G&M I'm finishing tonight!