 Currents on the Pallet October 3, 2007 Arthur Z. Przebinda, redwinebuzz.com Founder |
|
I spend a lot of time reading other wine websites. I don’t want to operate redwinebuzz.com from a bubble. It’s important to me to know what others have to say about topics relevant to wine as well as about the wines I have tasted. In that scouring of the internet, I often find websites which appear to enjoy a good amount of success in spite of some profound errors of fact.
The most commonly encountered errors are ones of spelling and grammar. My favorite are: “currents” and “palette” (or “pallet”). “Currents” run through streams and electrical wires, while “currants” are a fruit whose aromas and flavors are often encountered in wines. A “pallet” is a small platform for storing and transporting goods. A “palette” is both the flat tool used by artist painters to mix paints and the spectrum of colors or other sensory qualities, while a “palate” is both the roof of the mouth and the abstract concept encompassing the set of sensory skills useful in assessing a wine or other culinary creations. But “palate” is not synonymous with “preference”. Then, there is the ever more frequent use of the word "varietal" in place of "variety". While all languages evolve and change with time the acceptance of misspellings and grammatical errors into common usage is generally not the best way to go. Unfortunately, spelling and grammatical errors are the most benign and forgivable errors in wine writing today.
The things people say...
We are witnessing an
incredible boom in the wine industry. Along with that, there has been an
explosion in wine writing - casual, amateur or otherwise. Every field
and art form has its critics and commentators. Traditionally, in the
world of wine, these have been people who, in one way or another, made a
study of wine. They have been Sommeliers, Masters of Wine, people who
studied culinary arts and wine itself, and wine merchants. They have
also been journalists who found a niche in wine writing and lawyers and
doctors who put their passions on paper (or the computer screen). These people
became the conduits of information and, as some suggest, the dictators
of taste. The influence of some of the most prominent wine writers has
been implicated as causative in the very real shift in the character of American wine.
Market demands, consumer preferences and even climate change have been
invoked by others to explain this trend. In either case, this shift is considered by many as a turn in the
wrong direction. Those who raise the alarm about this new direction
contend that, ultimately, the trend is towards lower quality wines. I
personally believe that no one person has power unless others give it to
them. I also believe that any trend or movement requires many people to
give it momentum.
Enter the wine lover/blogger. Current states of the internet and technology allow everyone with
access to a computer to post their opinions on a
web site. Many young wine enthusiasts are now putting their
thoughts on the internet in both casual and formal formats. There are
countless blogs relating the authors' experiences or impressions of
wines - some with words, some with just numbers and others only with
pictures and photographs. There is audio and video podcasting – a medium
employed by several web sites. There are also countless on-line
communities and forums where people can exchange tasting notes and
scores or ratings of wines. There are even dating sites for wine lovers.
A number of these portals offer accurate information. However, there are
a number of websites (commercial and personal) which are ill-informed
and propagate myths and inaccuracies about wine rather than serving as
sources of reliable information.
|
|
I think it's great that people of all ages and strata are sharing their thoughts on wine. I want to see people educate themselves about any topic. There is not one wine maker or merchant out there who is not happy to see more people getting interested in wine and joining the ensuing discussion. While I commend and welcome the passion, I have to say that there is some very misinformed writing out there.
Aside of the spelling errors mentioned earlier, I have seen posts which attribute a grape’s origins to the wrong regions. Another gaffe was in a review of a 2005 wine from the Sta. Rita Hills which stated the the wine showed "the vintage's heat" in the intensity of fruit flavors. But 2005 was long cool year with some rain at the end of the growing season... At times, some of the tasting notes I have seen are just uninformative and tell me nothing about the wine. One such example is a posting which describes the subject wine as having: “luscious aromas of Cabernet grape” as the core of the tasting note. Given the range of styles and climates, and the resulting variations in expressions of aromatic compounds in a Cabernet grape (never mind the differences between Cabernet franc and Cabernet sauvignon), this is not an informative description. Then, there are tasting notes which relate aromas in a wine that are atypical and unexpected to say the least. Possibly, these aromas may even be undesirable or indicative of production problems. One such tasting note concluded: “that is just what you would expect from ____" after reporting aromas and flavors suggesting the wine was grown at a sub-optimal site and was possibly flawed by microbial contamination during production. Making such a conclusion is akin to seeing a duck waddle in front of you and declaring: “Look at those stunning antlers! That is just what I expect to see on a well-bred Rottweiler”.
"Yummy, Yummy!" / "Loved it!"/ "What is this swill?"
With such a discrepancy in the various author's impression of a given wine, many reviewers have turned to numbered systems to give a "bottom line" assessment of a given bottling. Many wine geeks, aficionados and wine writers have, over the years, railed against numbers in wine reviews. At least some of that seems to stem purely from an aversion to anything that has to do with Robert M. Parker Jr. - the lawyer-turned-wine critic who introduced a 100 point scale now adapted by countless publications and went on to be one of, in not THE, most influential wine critics. In many ways, though, they are right to raise objections.
|
Be it 100, 20 or 5 points (or stars, corks etc), the majority of wine web sites (professional, amateur, single author or community-based) that employ a rating scale, utilize a scale that reflects the taster's own, personal enjoyment of the wine and, at times, their inclination to recommend or buy the wine again. Given the wide range of preferences in wine, it’s no wonder these scores for a given wine can vary so widely! |
Famous Winery, 2005 Wine.
|
I am not completely disparaging this type of wine recommendation system. It certainly works in a casual exchange of recommendations between friends who are familiar with each other’s preferences. However, if one examines the rating scales used by wine publications, these are rather loose and do not seem to follow any clear criteria which may be applied repeatedly by independent users with reproducible results. There is no indication of any absolute quality standard other than the taster's own preferences. Rather, these scales are often based on subjective perceptions of the wine at the moment and those all rest on personal enjoyment. They do not offer any clear criterion or standard for what a well-made wine from a particular region of a particular grape and vintage can offer. In the setting of a publication which aims to offer impartial recommendations of wines for the benefit of the reader/consumer, this enjoyment-based rating system requires people having the same preferences as the reviewer and in so doing, it dictates tastes and preferences.
|
|
One only has to follow the recommendations of the prominent wine writers
for a few months to see that there is a very distinct style these people
prefer. This usually tends to be a style built on power and immediate
impact. In addition, blind tasting of large numbers of wines at one
sitting does not allow for decanting and letting a wine open up. Never
mind that, inherently, this paradigm is set destined to select the wines with most power and
immediate appeal and result in them being rated higher. This, then, leads consumers
(who
rely on the reviewer’s recommendations to make purchasing decisions) to
begin to believe that a wine with power of extraction and big, bold
flavors is somehow inherently superior to one that is more reserved.
Furthermore, this system leads wine producers (who rely
on high scores to motivate sales which generate revenue) to make wines
that will be more likely to receive higher scores from a target critic
and appeal to the public which subscribes to the “bigger is better”
approach. These critics, by their own admission, also find themselves
competing for “better” scores which the wineries will in turn publish on their
websites.
So what do you do to improve the way a wine's character is communicated?
How do you make sure that people reading your notes will know which wine
will suit their preferences? How do you avoid dictating taste? While
actually learning proper sensory assessment of wine and common wine
terminology and describing the wine objectively is a good start, the consensus these days (at least among a number of wine bloggers) seems to be that a universally adopted system of rating will solve the
problem. This approach is based on:... You guessed it: how much the taster enjoyed a given
wine. In the instance of on-line communities where numerous posters can
separately review the same wine, these portals just decide to average
the discrepant and varying scores. Well, that is just leaps and bounds
beyond the evil rating systems of yore. Now we can all use a
standardized scale of rating wine and everything will be as right as
rain!
The can of worms.
Accurate and correct descriptors have been, are and will be the best way to relate information about any particular bottle of wine. Those who want to be serious about writing about wine, and even those who want to benefit from written communication about wine, should educate themselves about wine. You don't have to get a degree in enology. The fundamentals are no more intellectually challenging than sports statistics or soap opera plots. Intrinsic to this, is learning to correctly identify aromas as what they are. Detecting wine aromas, flavors and textures is much more about being a careful and informed observer than it is about being endowed with some wolf-like sensory ability. It is also like learning to knit or to speak a new language (actually, more like the latter). Consistently and reproducibly "calling a duck a duck" will allow us to communicate more clearly and accurately as well as allow the reader to better understand the taster’s experience of the wine and help them decide if the wine being described is for them.
There is an unfortunate notion floating around the blogosphere that whatever aromas one perceives in a wine, no matter how disparate from another person’s, are accurate and valid. That would be fine if the same wine somehow changed chemical composition for each taster. While this approach is acceptable for casual enjoyment, it should not have a place in the work of those who want to be credible sources of wine information. The philosophy of “whatever you perceive in a wine is accurate” ignores the principles of a common human sensory physiology. I have entered (against my better judgment) into this debate countless times. Each time, I am left baffled how, in some people’s minds, opinion trumps the laws of chemistry, physics, biology and human physiology - all that I've learned in my undergraduate studies in Biology and Psychology, four years of medical school, specialty training in Neurology and Functional Imaging and while earning my daily bread assessing people's neurobehavioral functioning with medical imaging modalities. With reality being subjective, I can only suppose that the facts of science are of no consequence to those who choose to disregard them and to espouse scientifically unfounded notions of uniqueness of their own physiology. If they are correct, and human beings are all wired differently, aspirin should make some drunk, relieve other people's headaches, have no effect on some and kill others.
|
|
It is perhaps the anecdote about Harry Waugh, the English wine writer
and merchant that is the standard waived by those who refuse to believe
that aromatic compounds in wine can be reliably and reproducibly
identified. The story goes that when asked: "Have you ever mistaken a
Burgundy for a Bordeaux?", Waugh answered: "Not since lunch". Waugh was
known for having a very sharp palate and sharp wit, so it is highly
likely that this famed quote was a jocular quip. For many years before
the internet and a 100 point scale were invented, sommeliers and wine
professionals like Waugh trained their palates to reliably identify
aromatic components in wine. Yes, there are arguable nuances in a wine,
ANY wine. However, those are nuances are not major components of the
bouquet. The core characteristics that each grape, production method (meticulous or sloppy),
weather, farming methods, site, cooperate, etc, brings to a wine are chemically and
physically invariable. The same is true of distinct flaws caused by
specific and unchanging compounds such as
TCA.
It may seem appealing, and cause less conflict, to accept the belief
that “everyone’s perceptions of what’s in a wine are accurate, true and
valid”. While being self-validating and relieving any initial anxiety
someone may feel about wine, it also requires a lot less of
anyone than doing a little casual reading and learning. The path to
produce more valuable and consistent results is not always the easiest
one. Despite all the differing opinions about sensory perception in the
internet ether, there are laws to the universe and identifying aromas
can be learned like a language. Although some want to believe otherwise,
there is only minimal variation in human physiology and
the single molecule responsible for any give aroma always triggers the
same smell receptors in all homo sapiens – much the way that flipping
the light switch will make the lights turn on or off (but it won’t make
the toilet flush).
I know that it may take the magic out of wine for some to break things down into physiology and biochemistry. I know it may spoil the mystery and shatter images of the winemaker as artist-alchemist. It sure flies in the face of individualist notions of uniqueness that many erroneously extrapolate into the realm of human sensation, perception and neurophysiology. Wine has its own rules, as an art form (or craft). It is the audience that needs to understand it, before it can comment on and affect it. It's just a bit absurd to expect a field with centuries of experimentation and experience to bend to unfounded opinions.
|
As more and more of today's winemakers routinely employ the principles of science to make their wines, it is incumbent on the wine commentators to understand that science. It is both limiting of ourselves and incredibly insulting to our audience to presume that learning about wine is “too much”, “too complicated” and “above the public’s understanding” or to just accept that some people are less capable, or even incapable, of detecting and recognizing the aromas, flavors and textures in wine. This is a teachable skill. It does take a little time and a little effort. The investment, however, gives high yields. |
 |
What 's really at stake.
I don't know how many
times I have heard people talk about being intimidated by wine. It is
not uncommon for people to feel intimidated by something that they do
not understand. One of the goals of
redwinebuzz.com
has been, and is, to demystify wine. “Demystifying” means sharing
information (correct information) and making it available in accessible
and understandable terms. There is no magic to demystifying any subject.
There are no easy, simplified flash cards. Simplified explanations lead
to incomplete and erroneous understanding. “Demystifying” wine is a
two-way street: My job is to make sure that the wine information
available on this web site is accurate and correct and not “dumbed-down”.
You, then, must read and absorb that information. That is your half of
the equation.
Not everybody wants to be an expert in wine. They don’t have to be. Why
is it, though, that when faced with complex information we want to
simplify and distill it to no more than seven simple bullet points?
Worse yet, when faced with the opportunity of learning something new and
enriching ourselves and our experiences, we often choose to retreat into
our insecurities. More than that, we turn that insecurity and
intimidation into anger and resentment and set it on that which
intimidates us. This also happens with wine. Wine is complex and carries
notions of refinement and sophistication. Do some people resist
broadening their horizons for fear of coming off as “snobby”? I guess
it's because "sophisticated" people are somehow thought of as "stuffy",
"snobby" and "elitist". Would you call the best doctor or lawyer in
their specialty an “elitist” because of their expertise? Still, those
who really know wine and draw a line between quality wine and the
average stuff somehow end up being relegated to the status of “wine
bullies” and “elitists”. Better yet, those average folks who would want
to learn more about wine face some weird but very real, though unspoken,
social pressure to not appear “too smart” or "too snobby”.
I believe that what's really at stake here is more than clear,
consistent and reliable communication about wine. It's more than
educating oneself about wine or learning to recognize specific aromas.
It is the soul and essence of our nation's wine and our wine culture
that are at stake.
|
There has been an undeniable trend towards a riper, more alcoholic, sweeter, less food friendly style in California wines. These new wines have their appeal and are quite approachable in their youth. Certainly, these wines are popular with the larger part of the consumer base. Even writers like the Wine Spectator’s James Laube proclaim that they prefer their wines young for the risk being wrong in speculating on their longevity. Ironically, the build of these wines ultimately makes them less age worthy and more difficult to pair with food. While there may be a lot of validity to the notion of “The Wisdom of the Masses”, might does not make right. Showiness and popularity do not make for quality. There are absolute standards of quality in wine and, yes, 50,000,000 fans CAN be wrong. |
 |
I do not want to dictate what wines people should drink. I also don’t want to lead a movement to eradicate any particular style of wine. Every product has its place in the marketplace. I also do not intend to say here that the people who tend to enjoy this new style of wine are somehow diminished for their preference (or for not wanting to acquire new knowledge or a new skill). People should drink what they enjoy. But, I believe that if we are all more informed about wine in general, we will make much better choices about wines. Knowing the basics of wine does more than just establish a common language between writers and readers. It sets the stage for tasting notes that describe the wine's components accurately. In so doing, it takes the emphasis off personal preferences. A writer can then focus on communicating the character of the wine and an informed reader can decide if the described wine meets their preferences or the tone of the occasion.
|
|
Most people who either enjoy wine casually, or as a hobby, know rather little about wine. A neophyte wine lover gets much of their wine information from the internet long before they subscribe to any wine publication. They will enter the name of a wine, winery or grape into a search engine. The engine returns thousands of pages in one way or another relevant to their query. The information they (usually randomly) choose to read, absorb and assimilate, should be correct and accurate. All of us writing about wine should hold ourselves to a high standard. We must be well-informed to inform and educate our audiences. We should strive, through our writing, our web sites and publications, to convey this knowledge to our readers. Without possessing an understanding of the facts and science of wine and not sharing that with our readers, we will just be the blind leading the blind.
Tell a friend about this article
Discuss this story
Get the buzz:
-
Wine reviews
-
Great stories
-
Interviews
-
Wine education tools
-
New content every month
It's FREE!
Click here
Go here to find out
Shop redwinebuzz.com:
Home | Contact Us | About Us | Feedback | Search | Tell a friend
Copyright © 2007 redwinebuzz.com All rights reserved.