Wine Enthusiast Magazine
Subscribe
Stocalism, or why everything tastes like everything else
by Steve Heimoff
I came across a truly ugly word, but a necessary one, while surfing the Web. “Glocal” it is, a neologism that’s a combination of “global” and “local” and used by economists to describe the intersection of global forces and local impacts.
In a fascinating essay he wrote for his blog, The Wine Economist, Michael Veseth, an economics professor at the University of Puget Sound, describes examples of glocalics, or glocalism, in the wine world. The phenomenon of “flying winemakers,” as exemplified by Michael Rolland (among others), is a classic glocalism. Rolland has been associated with the International style of wine, which many critics world-wide have decried as undermining terroir, and Veseth poses this thought-provoking question: “Which feature will dominate - the global or the local, or will some synthesis emerge?”
Here in California, we have our own version of glocalism. (With due apologies, I’m coining a new word: Stocal = “state” + “local.”). It’s the result of two forces that are undermining local influences and combining to make everything taste like everything else:
- Consulting winemakers: You’d be surprised how many wineries utilize the services of a relatively small number of for-hire vintners, often anonymously, to push their wines into a certain style. (Rolland also consults here for several wineries.) They’re not “flying” winemakers so much as Mercedes-driving winemakers. Typically, they’ll spend time at the winery, especially at harvest, advising the regular winemaker and/or owner what to do in order to achieve a certain style (early drinkability, soft, round, fruity, smooth tannins, well-integrated oak).
- Vineyard companies. The state’s wineries increasingly are turning to a handful of the largest and most respected vineyard management companies. Often, entire regions of the state are dominated by one or two such. This tends to homogenize vineyard practices (canopy management, trellising, pruning, harvesting and even organic grapegrowing), which in turn results in a certain similarity of viticulture across that region.
The result of these twin forces increasingly is a sameness of character, especially in red wines. It used to be that Merlot, Syrah, Cabernet Sauvignon and Zinfandel really were distinguishable from each other. Nowadays, it’s much less so, as alcohol levels hover around 15 percent and ripe fruit married to roasted oak turns to flavors of chocolate and fruit pastry.
I’m always amazed when a winemaker offers me tastes of different Pinot Noirs or Cabernets made from blocks or clones within the same vineyard, or perhaps from separate but nearby vineyards, and tells me how different they are from each other. The idea, of course, stems from France; for example, how different Romanée-Conti and La Tâche are, even though they’re right across the donkey path. But all too often the distinctions are without true differences. Yes, maybe this one is a little spicier than that one, or slightly more tannic, or a little heavier in body. Maybe one has a scent of violets while the other doesn’t. I never want to be disagreeable under such circumstances, but most of the time the wines taste more similar to me than not. And why shouldn’t they, when they’ve been raised exactly the same terroir-hurting way?
Which brings us back to Veseth’s question, “Which feature will dominate - the global or the local, or will some synthesis emerge?” The synthesis, I would think, is not to be desired, for, as with all syntheses, the product is mush. Nor is much more globalization of wine a good thing; we’ve already gone too far in that direction. What would benefit California is a return to local conditions. The wine world here needs something along the lines of the locovore movement in food — the practice of eating foods grown and produced locally. We need wines that show true regional and sub-regional differences, the way they once did. I’m not sure it’s going to happen, though. Are you?
Filed under: Commentary, Varietals, Winemaking
24 Responses to “Stocalism, or why everything tastes like everything else”
Please Wait
July 28th, 2008 at 4:11:16 PM
I’ve been amazed at the number of times I have visited large wineries and discovered staff comparing their wines to better known wineries or different areas of the country or world.
When I visit a winery, it is important to me that I learn about the terroir and why the wine tastes as it does. Of course, I’m interested in the style of the winemaker which also is reflected in the final product. This also means I want to know where the winery’s grapes are growing. Are they purchasing grapes from their immediate area, state or across the country? (I actually came across a winemaker living in the US who purchases his grapes from his brother in Europe.) Certainly most wineries cannot grow every type of grape for every wine they want to make but the winery needs to be upfront about where the grapes are growing.
Perhaps terroir is affected by glocalism. I met an excellent winemaker in Virginia that was from South Africa. He was using grapes grown in Virginia, South African yeasts and French barrels.
Cheers,
Kathy Sullivan
http://winetrailtraveler.com
July 28th, 2008 at 4:38:49 PM
Steve,
There is, unfortunately, too much money to be made by homogenizing wine styles, that plus consulting, “safe” vineyard and farming practices coupled with idiotic myths about wine grape growing and the nearly annual game of musical chairs wine makers seem to to play are immense odds stacked against a change taking place. Mavericks make history, but who whats to be the white dove in a flock of gray ones?….
July 29th, 2008 at 4:07:49 PM
I read your piece carefully, unfortuately I could not find anything in which I am in disagreement. Funny, I was just talking to my wife about the idea of inviting a wine journalist to taste with a winemaker during assemblage - whether they would find it interesting. Your point is well taken, I suspect you would again be trying not to be disagreeable.
Sitting on my desk is a report I wrote on a tasting I did in 1972. In it are my comments and evaluation of a wine that I tasted then in ‘72 and then again a few months ago…the 1968 B.V. Private Reserve. It was 12.1% alcohol and 6.1 gr./ liter acidity. My notes in 1972 indicate it showed very little oak (their bbl. program had all new barrels seasoned first with a vintage of B.V. Burgundy) and a dominate varietal aroma. The antithesis of “fruit forward” which, translated, means 4 acidity, 4 pH, and strong in the aroma of ethanol. Today, after being stored 35 years under the SFO house of a former B.V. grower, it is a wonderful wine that can be still distinguished as the Cabernet grape variety.
I also believe, since wines like these are sold based on critics scoring them when they are 2 years of age, this wine style would appear hard, weedy, and weak compared to the wine that would sit in the glasses on either side of it today. I would expect it to be panned.
July 30th, 2008 at 3:45:37 PM
I just cannot wait until everybody realizes that these modern wines do not age gracefully. Not to say that many of them can’t age at all, but that they don’t really get much better with age. And what disgusts me is the BLATENT ROLE that the CRITICS play in this rediculous modern wine phenomenon. If the critics simply didn’t play into this crap, it wouldn’t be a problem. Worse, it just so happens that the most influencial of them all is the strongest voice speaking in favor of these wines. People need to be pushed to try things they don’t know, or are not familiar with. The key to an educated palate lies in forcing americans, who are used to one thing, into understanding why it is not as good. Now you might argue with me about that, that “if you like it, its good” or by saying “just drink what you like, don’t let people be snobby and tell you it is right or wrong.” Well I dont believe in that. Because when I first got into wine, all i drank were fruity crap california wines. But after years of working in wine, my palate is trained to know the difference between quality and what i like to call “commercial quality.” There are definitely different kinds of wines for different palates. But making wine in a fake-tasting, modern way with too much fruit and alcohol does nothing for anybody. I can’t argue with you if you don’t have an open mind and you don’t want to try something different, but just understand that you are missing out if you have the attitude aforementioned. Because there is better wine. AND IT IS CHEAPER. I suggest a re-education of the American wine-drinking public which will involve lessons on the NECESSITIES of DECANTING, AGING/CELLARING, and how to taste imperfections in wine. It is not beyond the average drinker to learn these things, it will just take a little effort and some good will. I hope we can rid the world of garbage modern wines, but I know there will always be some dumb financier who wants robert parker’s 95 point + wines only. For them, keep the prices hikinig upwards, lets make the most $$ we can off the ignoramous’ who love that crap. I hope that instead of jumping down my throat for being a little judgemental and pretentious, that you all go out and buy decanters and old vintage wines. Because if you start drinking them the right way, in the right conditions, with the right foods, you’ll see how much better wine can really be… and if you mock me, I don’t mind, I’ll be laughing all the way to the cellar.
July 30th, 2008 at 11:22:05 PM
I agree completely, and it’s one of the reasons I’ve almost switched almost exclusively to European wines, some of which still have a sense of place. CA has a taste, but so many wines from CA taste that way that you can’t tell Napa from Sonoma from Santa Barbara anymore. It’s a real shame, as there are some great spots for grape-growing.
A blog I read a while back had a great posting about this issue:
http://vinotas.blogspot.com/2007/12/why-european-wines-part-1.html
and
http://vinotas.blogspot.com/2008/01/why-european-wines-part-2.html
Anyway, keep up the good work, and hopefully a CA winemaker wll read this and look at his vineyard and say, “hey, I wonder what it really tastes like?”
JM
July 31st, 2008 at 8:26:19 AM
It’s all about the perception of what sells. That’s what the winemaker is trying to accomplish. That’s why one style, whatever that style is, dominates.
The winery sees success and tries to duplicate it. That cuts down the downside risk aspect and increases the odds of selling the product.
So, no matter where or what… as soon as something gets to a point of success…. the copycats are out in full force.
Distinct…. a thing of the past…. unless you’ve got the guts to be different and a lot of capital behind you.
July 31st, 2008 at 2:58:04 PM
I’m glad to be part of this interesting discussion. I’ve written a bit more on the economic analysis of glocalism over on The Wine Economist site if anyone’s interested, Go to http://wineeconomist.com/2008/07/31/creative-destruction/
Cheers!
August 1st, 2008 at 11:08:44 AM
Arthur, Sometimes the white dove has babies who have babies that eventually take over the flock.
August 1st, 2008 at 11:15:02 AM
Mike, I hope “distinct” is not a thing of the past! Let’s hope the mavericks are out there. There are people here and there in California tinkering with “odd” varieties. We consumers have to find and support them (provided the wines are good). Here at Wine Enthusiast we try our best to report on them.
August 1st, 2008 at 11:16:17 AM
Mike, I’ve looked at your site and it’s very interesting. Thanks for your comment,
August 1st, 2008 at 11:34:19 AM
Morton, my deepest sympathies on not being able to disagree with me (and you are so agreeable when you do). Your comment on that ‘68 BV is interesting. I’ve had that wine and loved it, but you know what? I would not be surprised if the BV PRs from this era age interestingly, although I doubt that few people will be cellaring them for more than 10 or 15 years. It would be great to have a time machine and fast forward to see how the Harlans, Colgins, etc. actually do age over many years.
August 8th, 2008 at 12:37:42 PM
I wonder if consumer preferences have moved to far away from unique and distinctive wines and are these wines somewhat endangered? Hopefully not.
As a young company importing wines from New Zealand we see this happening with New Zealand wines too. I often wonder if this is a result of wine being served in cocktail settings rather than at the table with food and friends. Our food experiences certainly are enhanced by unique wines with food.
Good effort on your part to add this conversation and new language to the world of wine. It would be interesting to listen to some really good commentary and explanation on the role and importance of acidity in wine. This is something that I have become more tuned to has shaped my likes and dislikes for wine.
August 10th, 2008 at 8:01:00 PM
Ron, your comment about acidity turns me on. I’ve been thinking about acidity for the last year and appreciating its role in wine’s vitality. I just returned from a big wine festival that attracted many high level winemakers, and this topic of acidity came up repeatedly. I think you’re going to see a trend toward drier, more acidic wines — which means more distinctive and unique varieties.
August 20th, 2008 at 12:54:32 PM
I’ve just returned from Argentina’s Mendoza wine region, where friends and I were lucky to have some fabulous wine-tasting opportunities. One comment by an employee of one of the major wineries was particularly interesting in light of this discussion. When asked why the winery exported certain labels but not all of their labels to the US, we were told that they make different wines for different palates, basically, and that the wines they export to the US are bigger, more in the Michel Rolland style, while they produce wines in a more elegant style for Argentinian consumption. Also that they only provide the “international-style” wines to well-known raters because “that is what they like.”
Not what we’d wish for, but very interesting nonetheless!
August 20th, 2008 at 5:10:04 PM
Janelle, fascinating! But not that unusual. I think wineries for a long time have shipped different styles of their wines to countries where they perceived a preference for that style. It’s not all that strange, when you think of it…standard marketing and sales. What troubles me, though, is if the people making these decisions have the wrong impression of “the American palate.” To the extent they’re marketing and sales people, then (with all due respect to them), I’m worried.
August 20th, 2008 at 5:42:27 PM
Steve, whether they are right or wrong, it doesn’t give people the chance to explore other wines produced from other grapes. The more we experiment with different nuances from different grape varieties, the more wines we can pair with a variety of foods. Then again, we have a whole lot of wines to explore in this country. Let’s consider the positives of buying “local.”
September 3rd, 2008 at 11:17:33 PM
Not to revitalize a dead thread, but please stop with the whole Europe-is-good-America-isn’t theme. So we have a lot of consulting winemakers, many who came from Europe incidentally, and also consult there. But all US wine is exactly the same regardless of varietal. Maybe we should pass laws that dictate the grapes to be planted, the trellising to be used, the yields to be allowed, the date to be harvested, the maceration time allowed, the oak regime required, and the holding time before releasing the wine to the market. That way we’ll be able to distinguish real terroir and we’ll show that we’re a real wine producing nation, not some Johnny-come-lately to the wine world. But the wine still won’t be any good because it won’t come from Europe, the “true” home of the grapes, be they nebbiolo, tempranillo, barbera, merlot, pinot noir, or whatever. Personally, I’m proud to disdain American wine or any new world wine for that matter. It makes me fell more sophisticated and isn’t that the whole reason to drink wine in the first place?
September 4th, 2008 at 10:23:30 AM
Greg…
Those are some of the most rediculous comments that I have ever heard…
Some domestic wines are as good as, if not better than many wines from Europe.
And if your sole purpose for drinking wine is to be more sophisticated… look for some help…. fast!
September 6th, 2008 at 11:01:14 AM
Mike G, although you are right to point out that greg should not be in this for the sophistication, I completely disagre with your first point, that some domestic wines are as good as if not better than wines from europe. Lets talk context here. A $50 California Pinot? NOTHING even close to a good $50 burgundy. $50 california cab? Bordeaux beats it every time with wines from $20-60. Sauvignon Blanc from the Loire valley - nothing in california, NZ, or australia could ever come close. Keep the cat piss and Body Odor smells out of my wine thanks. Ribera del Duero from spain - ever tried one from california? I thought not. The point is, that the TRADITIONAL wines from europe (NOT MODERN EUROPEAN WINES) are way better than anything this country makes. We have a habit in this country of producing wines way too high in alcohol, way to high in sugars/fruit flavors, and way too thick and jammy. Of course we make some great wines, but overall we produce crap. Nobody blames you for liking this crap, you just need to open your mind and taste something new. Actually, scratch that. You don’t NEED to change anything. But you are missing out on what makes true quality wine because you are only interested in grape juice with alcohol. Wine is not traditionally a big alcoholic and fruity drink. It used to be more earthy, more balanced, and more tannin. And that kind of wine needs age, decanting, and food. But that is how wine is meant to taste. If you don’t like it, fine, but don’t promote your modern junk to the rest of us who know the difference.
September 6th, 2008 at 2:32:43 PM
ADAM….
Apparently the need to open the mind is yours!
Have you never tasted a Panther creek Pinot Noir? A Beringer Alluvium white OR red?
Or have you read anything on the Deacanter website about the trend back to balanced wines instead of the “fruit bombs” of the past 15-20 years? It’s amazing how he was much-maligned…. but Tim Mondavi was right all along! Food-friendly, balanced and elegant is the way to go.
And, by the way Adam, I’ve been selling wine professionally for over 25 years! I’ve been all over the world tasting wines…. I OUTRANK YOU!! Ha, ha ,ha……
September 7th, 2008 at 11:29:02 AM
Boys, boys, boys. You need a time out. Greg, I agree with you on the Loire and Bordeaux, especially if we’re talking $25 2005’s. Top end classified Bordeaux tastes overdone, like top end Napa Cab to me. I especially agree with the your disdain of cat piss smell in SB, though I believe the accepted term for that is “gooseberry”….except have you ever smelled a gooseberry? (My guess is almost no one has who uses the term.)
But Burgundy? The last mixed case of Burgundy I bought was really disappointing, maybe three or four of merit. And the prices were in the $50 range, which means they were bottom tier wines. (crap) If I were to do the same from the Russian River or Sonoma Coast it would be 6 or 8 out of 12 at least and I would be drinking some of the better properties. A good vintage from the Dundee Hills would even be more predictable.
I’ve made Cab in the Napa Valley for 35 years, but i rarely drink it anymore. Classified Bordeaux is headed in the same direction. There is no sign of a let up, except for empty words. (like campaign promises) It’s still about score… and alcohol and wood gets you the score. Yesterday a winery I know picked Pinot at 28 Brix. God knows what plans they have for Cab. This November defoliated vines will be sitting there with raisined grapes while some “cult wine consultant” waits until all grape character is erased. In Bordeaux they all have their R O equipment out from hiding ready to pretend that it is global warming, not water extraction, that is bringing us their 14 alcohol wines.
My wife and I have a huge oak buffet and it is lined with $100+ Cabs (in bottles that weigh equally heavy empty or full) that have been given to me by dinner guests. Every night I look around for something to drink and every night I pass over the oaky, raisin bombs from either region in favor of something refreshing. Last night it was a $15 Grenache Blanc from Santa Ynez that was absolutely delicious and satisfying. There is hope.
September 8th, 2008 at 12:23:45 PM
Right on about the time out!
Time out to go to the bookstore and find a copy of Edward De Bono’s book “I am Right You are Wrong” for an interesting discussion of what this style of discussion leads to.
At the same time maybe stop by the marketing section for a review of market forces and the idea that “markets move until they are out of balance” This seems pretty relevant to the idea of wine and maybe the forces will return wine to its original purpose as a beverage to be enjoyed with food and friends.
For the moment with soft drinks one of the top items purchased by consumers along with foods from the center of the grocery store - the current styles of wines are very satisfactory. This is a huge win for the global conglomerates whose manufacturing ability can churn this stuff out with little effort or worry about the unique conditions in each vintage. Probably pretty easy for a smaller producer too.
Until consumers say no to the wines as described above they will continue to prosper because they are a profitable business proposition. And the temptation is to great to produce something that is different. This is why Bobby Flay usually loses when he does a “Throw Down” against some local and established expecation for a dish. He produces a tastier dish and because it is different, does not connect.
Since this dicussion began with Steve’s coining a new word — Stocal = “state” + “local.”). It’s the result of two forces that are undermining local influences and combining to make everything taste like everything else:
Maybe its time for another new word that might lead wine consumers to a different place.
How about something that combines “people + terrior” I feel that this has the potential to bring the people out of the closet who remember the original purpose of food and friends. Maybe the flavors will return to complement the setting not the reviewer.
My sense is that in many cases the “people or persons” are left out of the conversation and replaced by ratings and tasting notes that personalities can hide behind.
Best case is the joy of discovery will then extend to all wine regions in the world and we all win as we can confidently go exploring for new and fun wines.
There probably is something else to the concept of equal but opposite reaction and that will come to play some day in the current wine industry too.
September 9th, 2008 at 12:16:49 PM
Re: “something that combines “people + terrior” I feel that this has the potential to bring the people out of the closet who remember the original purpose of food and friends.” To which I would add farming - which is done on a local level - even if the crop sadly gets tanked and blended away. Unfortunately the economics of artisan/terroir driven wines is getting hard to sustain ( no news I’m sure to many) - however the argument to buy local becomes even more compelling (as long as the savings are passed along) when you consider shipping wine from Europe is up to $18 a case.
September 9th, 2008 at 3:35:53 PM
Michael
You are right the buy local conversation is going to grow. I have a true bias on this subject and it is shared in the following link.
http://newzealandfoodandwinetv.wordpress.com/2008/08/14/moat-building/
I think losing the Artisan / Terrior wines from any wine producing region would be very sad. We should not allow these treasures to be blended away, we are smart enough to find a balanced solution.
You are right this is something we all need to come to grips with or have everyone move to the Wine Country.