Wine Enthusiast Magazine
Subscribe
How we taste Wine Enthusiast is a hot topic with many angles. One healthy debate I’ve had with numerous friends and acquaintances is whether we, tasting blind and essentially in a void (well, stark, controlled tasting room environment anyway), are really doing a service to consumers. Most wine drinkers enjoy wine in a completely different way, namely with food, in varied settings, with wafting restaurant smells surrounding them and outside stimulus galore coloring–and they believe–enhancing, their wine experience. They ask me whether I’m missing out on the true spirit of certain wines by tasting them at 10 a.m. on a Tuesday morning in a room as quiet as the grave. People crinkle their noses at me and make a face when I tell them that on tasting days here it’s normal for me to taste 10 or 15 red wines before lunch. “Do you eat any food with them? Doesn’t it kill your stomach? Aren’t you honestly a little grossed out by tasting Cabernet at 10 a.m.?”
Is there a disconnect between the clinical deconstruction of wine in a controlled chamber and the real-world way in which our readers drink those same wines? Are perfectly enjoyable, social wines dismissed when stripped of their atmospheric finery in our tasting room? Do we suck the life and joy out of a wine by deconstructing it the way we do?
I agree that a wine’s true expression goes beyond clinical steps, stats and notes. Much of what contributes to what we love in a wine has to do with, in my own case, what it does with food, and also where we are when we drink it, who we’re drinking it with, even when or what time of the day we drink it (the image of a nice, beefy Cabernet at dinner with a succulent filet has more mojo than with a glass of water on a weekday morning).
My response is usually this: without the controlled procedure of clinical deconstruction, we’d have no consistent base on which to build our own analysis. Our ratings would be inconsistent, whimsical, and of no service to the reader. But while most of my own ratings are the result of my formal tasting procedures, I leave room for the kind of creative analysis that I think will bring me more in line with the real wine drinker.
What can I imagine drinking this wine with? Where would I like to be drinking this? First I build the case for or against the wine on clinical grounds, and the same elements I analyze in every wine I taste. Then I switch hats and think like my friends and family, and try to imagine how this wine will do in a real-world setting. Sometimes I find that when I step back from the table, some of the layers I’ve stripped back from a wine will be laid on again when I give it a real world once-over.
The proliferation of peer reviews online has given wine readers a new outlet for wine opinions, and while not always the most studied, these novice notes can offer the kind of living, emotional take on wines that everyday wine drinkers often seek. There might not be talk of tannic structure, mouthfeel or any mention of gooseberries, but it’s hard not to be enticed when an energetic peer says “This wine blew my mind. With a bucket of oysters on a hot summer day next to the ocean, it’s an experience I won’t forget.”
Do the words and procedures of formal critics speak to your own approach and understanding of the wines you love, or are we disconnected vampires sucking the life out of a living experience with our clinical ways?
Filed under: Connoisseurship, Critics/Competitions, How to, Industry Issues, Opinions and Commentary, Wine Tasting
6 Comments
6 Responses to “Are Critics Sucking the Life Out of Wine?”
Please Wait
July 24th, 2009 at 1:47:10 PM
Great post Susan, as this comes up in a lot of discussions for me as well. I think there is definitely a need for the service provided by professional wine tasters, as that really is what those who review wine for the established magaizines are, professionals! I know there is the argument that everyone has different tastes, and wines will show differently with food and at various points later in time…which is valid. However the benefit of the review is clearly to have an educated, experienced individual breaking down the stong, and sometimes weaker, aspects of the wine. And yes, the rating system goes under the microscope about all its inherent flaws, of which there are a few. But in light of all other options, it is still the best system….especially with the categories now used (Best Buy, Value, Collectible, etc.) But in the end, it is a way to learn about different wines and to read or hear an opinion from someone who does this for a living, not just as a hobby or socially.
That being said, there is no law that says everyone has to agree with a review from a professional either. A wine is going to taste totally different to someone who has tasted thousands of wine throughout their lives, than to a social wine drinker that doesn’t have the same experience. Hell, Roger Ebert is the most prominent movie critic in the world, yet I would find it hard to believe that everyone who watched the movies he has reviewed agrees with him even half the time! So I always tell my friends to formulate their own opinions, and not to be swayed by a review. Trust your palate and what you like. And if you can find a wine critic who shares your taste, then you just hit the jackpot!!
July 24th, 2009 at 2:46:58 PM
I think that you’re right on the money, Susan. Wine reviewers/critics need to remember that there are a set number of criteria that they should be evaluating for each and every wine they taste, and that those elements should always be considered and taken in to account. Items like color, aroma, texture, balance, etc should always be considered when scoring. Undoubtedly, some wines will taste better or worse in varying situations (i.e. a California Cab would be less than ideal for a 110 degree Arizona summer day with a cold cucumber soup, and who has ever heard of an Albariño with venison stew in the winter, but switch those pairings around and it’s a whole ‘nother ball game!) but that is not what being a reviewer is about as you can never know the situation that the wine will be consumed in.
The power of environment is a tremendous thing, and by removing that for wine reviewers the idea is to achieve the most fair and unbiased assessment of the wine. I think that is the ultimate goal and should remain as such, and people should just understand the practices and intentions of professional wine reviews.
July 24th, 2009 at 3:21:10 PM
A short rant on the 100 point wine scale: (Warning: this rant only received 78 points from a famous, yet unnamed, wine critic for its lack of concentration and its hints of herbaceousness). Last week I had a revelation in the shower. I have no idea why hot water and nakedness usually figure into my better ideas, but I’m guessing it has something to do with synaptic patterns and a lack of constraining underwear. But anyways… That day I was thinking about the 100-point wine scale and how it impacts wine consumers. Here’s a few statistics that I was considering:
· 85% of the wine purchased in the US is consumed within 48 hours
· The amount of expensive, fine wine sold in the US is insignificant compared to the amount of ‘cheap’, ‘fighting varietal’ wines that are sold.
· Less than 10% of wine drinkers buy nearly all of the expensive wine in this country.
· Wine drinkers consistently buy more expensive wine as their palates mature. Keeping a steady influx of new wine drinkers excited about the industry is vital to keeping all levels of wines viable in the market.
· Most publications that use the 100 point scale like to believe that numerical scores ‘help consumers wade through a sea of mediocre wine’ and come to purchase better wines using points.
Well, I will agree that points matter. But not in the way you might think.
alt
Here’s the biggest problem with wine scores from my perspective, and I don’t remember anyone putting forth this argument (although I may be wrong):
· Giving wine a point score (generally 75-100) implies that there is a consistent, objective and measurable manner in which wine can be tasted and evaluated.
· No one would argue that the ‘kingmaker’ critics have stylistic preference, and that preference changes peoples’ tastes and how the market responds to varying wine styles. (I personally believe that the most famous wine critics have an amazing ability to be true to their own taste preferences, but are unwilling to admit these preferences in their notes).
· Point scores mislead drinkers of ‘consumer’ brands of wine (let’s say $10 and under per bottle), convincing them that they don’t belong in the world of fine wine because their wines don’t measure up to those that earn high point scores.
· Point scores appeal to Americans because we are a culture confused by our Puritan ancestors, and by a consumer culture where everything is rated for our enjoyment: movies, restaurants, video games, refrigerators. We like to be told what to consume so we aren’t responsible for our own choices.
· Wine Scores establish a caste system in the world of US wine that discourages drinkers to take up wine as a hobby, because they believe their palate is not up to the task of recognizing the differences between an 82 point wine and a 93 point wine. If a 93 point wine is too intense and alcoholic for me, does that mean my palate is broken?
· Now if a consumer sees that a wine is given 91 points, buys the wine, takes it home and finds it is not to their liking, what has happened? They are betrayed by a simple number—the wine press has made their palate disposable because it can’t understand the density of a Screaming Eagle or the pedigree of a First Growth Bordeaux.
· To me, wine is NOT about big wines, expensive wines or who can bring the bottle with the highest score rating. I find Ratings Whores and Bounty Hunters to be uninteresting dinner guests—much more compelling is a person who loves food and brings a Koshu from Japan or a Tannat from Uruguay to teach me something via a bottle I’ve never seen.
· High Point score wines are like carrying a Chanel Purse. It’s cool because someone who’s cooler than me told someone else that it was cool, and the coolness built until it’s worth $500 to carry around a symbol of who thinks Chanel purses are cool. It’s the lazy way to enlightenment—mescaline one afternoon instead of a lifetime of zazen meditation. Maybe I’m being unfair to mescaline in this comparison.
Conclusion:
To be fair; being upset about the power of wine scores is like being mad at McDonalds for fat people. Wine publications that use wine scores have done an excellent job building and supporting the fine wine market in the U.S. To an extent their popularity and success makes them a target. If wine scores weren’t so compelling I wouldn’t be writing this blog.
Anything we do to simplify the enjoyment of wine will increase US consumption, and I believe anything we do to further complicate the enjoyment of wine will confound potential wine drinkers. The final summation of the utility of point scores should come down to this: do points bring more consumers to wine, or scare more away? From my research, wine ‘geeks’ are pretty damn rare, and most do an amazing job of making wine seem unapproachable and elitist. Walking through the supermarket wine aisle should not be the torture that it is for so many. It should be like looking at travel brochures: a chance to travel the world in a wine glass every night.
No tool is evil unto itself. A pistol needs a finger, a bomb needs a bombardier. Rating and discussing fine wines will persist, even though the advent of the internet has allowed a level playing field for bloggers and young critics to develop an audience for their wine journeys. And that’s what wine is: a journey. And when I take a journey I find that the less money I have, the more I am able to integrate into the common culture, food and kindness of a people. Fancy hotels and restaurants have a tendency to shield us from the true flavor and hospitality of the common folk. And in my favorite countries, those common folk are drinking wine—not because it received a good rating, but because a table without wine, food, family and friends just doesn’t seem right.
Consider this can of worms open.
July 24th, 2009 at 3:54:46 PM
This reminds me of an old book that I’ve recently picked up again – Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance – in the dissection of Classical vs Romantic appearances. Like the first poster wrote, there is a need for the information and exposition that wine professionals create; perhaps its not meant to be consumed by the general public. Ditto the rankings system. You would not be swayed if I described to you that I tuned up my Ducati 749cc engine into delivering 92hp with so-and-so carburators, etc. but might be able to empathize with a sunny day, no traffic, light ocean breeze, a tuned motorcycle and a full tank of gas. Specifications are technological; what you wine pros do is create specs that might be similar to the way that the wine-maker operates, but communicate them to the wine-buying-public. You are supposed to be the only source of objectivity in the whole wine industry. I will bring my own context to the numerical ratings provided by professionals.
July 24th, 2009 at 4:06:23 PM
Thanks to everyone so far for their comments. Sean, your last line really resonated with me: “You are supposed to be the only source of objectivity in the whole wine industry. I will bring my own context to the numerical ratings provided by professionals.” Thanks for the thoughtful input.
July 26th, 2009 at 12:13:25 PM
I believe that it’s always good that an expert leads you in the right direction but as with film, only the comsumer can make up their mind in the end as to what is acceptaple and what isn’t. . That’s why we call it taste–we all have our own. I give you a thumbs up. You might not be able to change what people think but you can at least … shorten the process.