Beware the continuing “Bobification” of wine
In DECANTER’s August issue, under their “Good Month…Bad Month…” section at the front of the magazine, there appeared the following “newslet”:
Bobhuggers
Maryland luminary Robert Parker’s wine notes are to be printed on the backs of U.S. Airways seats, revealed when the tray table is deployed, causing the SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE to muse on the ‘omnipresence’ of the the ‘wine god’.
Now let me immediately state that this is NOT another attack, veiled or otherwise, on Robert Parker, and the phenomenon that has grown up around his criticism. Now while my tastes more often than not clash with Mssr. Parker’s, I freely admit that he has done great things in shining the flashlight into the dusty corners of the wine world, and further, to bring every day wine drinking and wine appreciation to “the people”. And this is, after all, the good old USA - a place exhalts both the self made man, and the celebrity, when there is a coincidence of the two, a certain segment of the citizenry just falls all over itself to follow the leader, but, like the old saying goes “Hey, it’s a free country”. More power to HIM. Robert Parker has built HIMSELF a little empire, but he’s had more than a little help from us…
No, it’s not Robert Parker that I have a problem with, but rather the sycophants who sniff his chair like it was their jobs, and this development with US Air DEFINITELY doesn’t help matters…In the end, if you want to be an optimist, this development is the simple case of siding with a winner. If you’re a bit more circumspect, it’s pandering to the least common denominator, or even just “piling on”. But again, whatever you call it, who can blame anybody for striking such a deal? No, in the end, it’s our job, YOUR job to resist the seemingly irresistable avalanche of homogenization.
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve recommended wines to folks in the shop, and after walking away, and casually glancing back in the customer’s direction, have caught them surreptitiously sliding out a copy of THE WINE ADVOCATE to see if they could find my pick amongst Bob’s. If you trust Mr. Parker more than you trust me, I don’t blame you, but then why ask me in the first place? Maybe this is a bit of paranoia on my part, but it FEELS like the customer is checking the official “answer sheet” to see if you’ve misled them or not. THIS is the problem, i.e. the notion that there is actual, “right” and “wrong” in wine, and worse, that there is only one man who knows just which is which…
Once again, I don’t mean to impugn Mr. Parker’s accomplishments in any manner, but I simply cannot understand why anyone would kowtow to anyone else’s OPINIONS about something so readily and completely. Americans are often nearly pathologically independent and contrary with almost everything else in their lives, so why do so many of us just roll over and accept the OPINIONS of one man as Gospel? I really don’t get it. Putting Mr. Parker’s opinions on wine on airline seatbacks only serves to further the notion that Mr. Parker is not only the greatest wine critic of all time, but that he also DESERVES to be…no one else could even get whiff of such a deal, so he MUST be “the best”, right? To me, those that hang on Parker’s every word are nearly exactly analogous to “bandwagon” sports fans, i.e. those that believe that if they side with a winner, it will grant them immediate credibility and status. In my eyes, however, all it makes you is a lemming.
And there are surely those out there that say “So what that Parker’s got the wine world on a string, he’s just one guy.” And my retort would be that he is indeed just one man, but a man with the sort of power in his field that Ruppert Murdoch has in mainstream media - grossly disproportionate. And even THIS might be fine if this disproportionality weren’t eventually driving the kinds of wine that winemakers are actually turning out onto the market. More than one winemaker has admitted, off the record of course, that he makes a special barrel for Robert Parker that is deliberately dialed in for Parker’s palate, and that is substantially different from the rest of the production of the “same” wine. When “one man” elicits this sort of response from the world’s finest winemakers, some of whom are working out of literally hundreds of years of tradition, you know that things gone bass ackwards.
Here’s my prescription: read Parker, but ALSO read Steven Tanzer, and WINE SPECTATOR, and FOOD & WINE and THE WINE NEWS and THE WINE QUARTERLY and DECANTER. Learn and compare what one publication values versus another, but MOST importantly, compare their values with YOUR OWN. Parker is indeed a major force in the wine world, but it is only the blind followers of his every word that allows him to, albeit figuratively, to reach right down into vineyards worldwide to determine, at least in part, what grapes get planted, how they are cultivated, and how they are handled in the cellar, and to my mind, that is EVERYONE’S loss. So the next time you feel Parker’s hand guiding yours to this or that bottle, smack it away. Take the advice of your favorite shop’s consultants. Take the advice of another publication or pundit. Take the advice of a friend, family member or colleague. Cast dice. Flip a coin. Eeenie meenie miney mo, just be a LEADER or at least a dissenter and resist the opinions of the man whose reputation was made by the herd.
TOM CIOCCO
17 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Tom,
I share many of your frustration. But, as someone who became serious about learning about wine less than three years ago, I totally understand the psychology of wine buyers.
It’s human nature to seek out a source of authority one can trust, when spending money on something about which one knows little. Most of us feel inadequate to purchase cars, appliances, computers, etc. without the input of an expert, who we readily admit knows a lot more than we – hence the popularity of Consumer Reports.
It’s no different when it comes to wine. When I first began to purchase wine regularly, I needed something to assist me in narrowing down the thousands of wines offered at my local wine shop to one or two to buy for the week. I chose Wine Enthusiast for one reason – it was the cheapest wine publication I could find.
The most important component of the advisor/consumer relationship is trust. As a financial planner, I know that my clients must place their trust in my expertise to help them best manage their finances, or the relationship is a waste of time for both of us.
Whether warranted or not, I did not trust the floor salespeople at my local wine shop. Firstly, I had no way of judging their level of expertise. Were they a stock person or a certified sommelier? Secondly, I had no way of judging their motivations. Were they showing me a particular wine because it was taking up too much room in the stock room, or because they truly were impressed with the wine?
It’s only natural that people have gravitated to Robert Parker. If one doesn’t know much about, one looks to those who do. Parker is routinely referred to as the world’s greatest wine critic. The assumption becomes, if Parker likes it, it must be good.
I believe the more deleterious impact of Robert Parker’s influence has been to 100 point system. I initially liked the system because it made it easier for me to identify relative value. And, I must admit, high scores still get my attention. However, now I believe it forces people to overlook many wonderful wines, especially those rated below 90 points.
It’s too bad we can’t come up with some way of categorizing palates. In other words, critics could identify the types of predefined palates for which a wine would appeal. That way, the consumer would have a better chance of purchasing something they like. I know it’s silly, but it would be nice.
Even though Gary is compelled to score wines, I like his idea of giving each wine a “pazz” or a “seek out”. Just a simple recommendation to buy the wine is all the consumer needs – a trusted source who says, this wine is worth trying at this price.
Kent
Comment by Kent Benson, CSW — July 30, 2007 @ 5:38 pm
Kent (you aren’t THE Kent Benson are you? I’m a huge IU fan),
Even more important than the pazz and seek out is Gary’s constant, incessant begging for people to ignore his scores and “trust your own palate.” My biggest problem with Parker is that more than anyone else, HE seems to have decided that if he rates it highly, it’s universally good. If a winemaker changed his wines to suit Gary’s tastes, I’m sure he would be ripped to shreds on the next episode of WLTV.
John
Comment by John — July 31, 2007 @ 7:46 am
Kent-
I’m with you for the most part. One of the biggest problems underpinning all this stuff is the “snob factor”. To me, it is impossible to be a “point chaser” and not, at least tacitly, be some sort of snob (though I agree that in the beginning, it provides a set of “training wheels”, but I believe ones that should be jettisoned sooner than later.) Embracing the 100 point system makes another tacit assumption that one accepts that wine is indeed quantifiable, and in a system of quantification, “bigger is better”, ergo, my 91 point wine is “better” than your 89 pointer.
In my mind, point systems, especially the 100 point system, makes wine a sort of “competition” which it is decidedly NOT, if one really understands wine. Further, it TOTALLY removes wine from its context as a lynchpin of a CUISINE, and the CULTURE from which it all grew. Anything less than this sort of wholistic approach is just reductive.
I’ve said this before, and I think that it bears repeating: the “perfect” wine, the “100 point wine”, is the one that matches PERFECTLY with what you’re eating, full stop. Anything else is bullXXXX. That being said, I DO think that it’s possible in a much more “controlled” setting, to RANK wines. For example, a hypothetical tasting of 2004 Nebbiolo Langhe for example. NOW you’re comparing apples with apples - same grape, same place, same vintage. Amongst let’s say 10 examples of Nebbiolo Langhe, I think that is possible to say “This one was my favorite, this one next, then this one…” With this sort of context as the model, the concept of tasting 10 different wines from several different vintages, from 10 different places, and then trying to impose a rigid and uniform 100 point sytem on something with so many variables is clearly absurd.
Another funny thing I’ve noticed as well is that point chasers are OVERWHELMING MALE. It has often been said that on more than a couple of levels, with all things being equal, women have a better fundamental understanding of wine precisely because wine in reality is never black and white, and in general, the female brain does not crave irrefutable quantification that male brains often do.
In the end, and at the risk of sounding harsh, the 100 point system is a crutch for those who won’t or can’t explore the COMPLEXITY of wine, or for those who think that wine is a tasty drink that gives you a good buzz, and simply doesn’t care about culture, terroir, etc.
TOM CIOCCO
Comment by Tom C — July 31, 2007 @ 9:48 am
Thoroughly enjoyable reading, Thank you! Your next to last comment about women not being the point chasers is somewhat of a generalization though. I find that the numbers give a (sometimes false) sense of value, and thrifty shopper that I tend to be, I am lured to the shelves by the higher 80’s and 90’s. However, having said that, not being anything close to a wine connoisseur, I have tended to ignor RP’s ratings, and stick closer to a more trusted rating of Wine Spectator, am I crazy? Thx for your candid and humourous comments. Diane
Comment by Diane Beaudette — July 31, 2007 @ 10:15 am
The biggest problem with the 100 point system IMHO is that the scores are highly dependent on objectivity. If the taster is having a “bad day”, a bad meal, bad setting, etc., it WILL effect the taste and ultimately the score.
Comment by Tom T. — July 31, 2007 @ 10:48 am
Hi Diane-
Thanks for the kind words. IMHO, the Wine Spectator is in some ways better, and in some ways worse than Parker and his staff at the Wine Advocate. Better in the sense that there are MANY different reviewers, so they may not be as beholden to the prevailing trends and influences in the market (though some may debate even this). On the other hand, the Wine Spectator review staff often reveals itself, through its reviews of certain wines, to lack a real understanding of certain kinds of wines - they’re sort of the “Consumer Reports” of wine in that they focus primarily if not exclusively on the “mainstream”. Occasionally, one will see a review for a wine from an obscure appellation, one made from an unusual grape variety, or a specific producer with a particularly idiosyncratic style, and this scenario often puts on full display how little they understand or even care about wines with a few extra wrinkles in its personality…
I know that this is hard for folks on a budget, but as the old saying goes “You learn more from your mistakes than from your successes” so often just taking “flyers” IN A GOOD SHOP (this part is CRITICAL)can teach you more about wine and your own tastes than a very cautious, by the book strategy…if you really don’t like the wine you’ve got good cooking wine or some primo mnaterial to make vinegar!
TOM CIOCCO
Comment by Tom C — July 31, 2007 @ 11:14 am
One thing that may help those of us new to wine to avoid becoming lemmings is to not be afraid to make mistakes. The fear of buying a “bad” wine makes us turn to “experts” to learn what we should drink. I’m very lucky that I’m beginning to learn about wine with so many blogs encouraging me to trust my own palate. I have bought some wine that I didn’t like, at all. I have bought some wine that was scored below 90. But I’m learning what I like. I’m learning what I like to drink with fish or chicken or a turkey sandwhich! Thanks to “The Terroir Blog” and other resources that make it possible to not get caught up in the “wine expert” trap.
Comment by Orion Slayer — July 31, 2007 @ 1:42 pm
Orion-
BINGO! People get caught in the “27 different Carnenet Sauvignons” rut because there’s a comfort zone there. It’s a lot like learning another language - you can’t be afraid to make mistakes - if you are, that means that you never speak, and consequently, never learn either.
And, as you say, there’s a little too much worrying about what “Fred in Sales” thinks about what you’re drinking…
In any event, it sounds like you really “get it”! It’s about learning, challenging yourself, and having FUN with it. Leave the snobbery and the pissing contests at the cellar door, thank you!
TOM CIOCCO
Comment by Tom C — July 31, 2007 @ 3:14 pm
If Wine Library really wants to “change the wine world,” Tom, I dare you to remove all of Parker’s ratings on display in the shop.
For that matter, remove all of Gary’s ratings on display there as well.
Then maybe people will learn to trust their own tastes. Or maybe fewer people will buy wine at Wine Library.
It amazes me that so many people in the wine industry complain about Parker yet use his ratings to help sell wine.
Comment by Dale Cruse — August 1, 2007 @ 9:29 am
Dale-
To some degree you’re right, but ALL wine shops are first and foremost BUSINESSES. Parker et al. ratings sell wine, period. If you own a deli, and you don’t smoke, do you not sell cigarettes? You’re also a vegetarian - do you not sell ham sandwiches? You’re very religious - do you not sell Playboy magazine?
Are there BOATLOADS of particular wines that I’d LOVE to not carry? You better believe it, but often it’s easier to just carry Crappola Vineyards Ruby Cabernet than it is listening to 5 people a day bitch about why you don’t carry it. There are indeed some shops that follow a very strict line, eschewing anything considered “mass market”, but then you are de facto a low volume, “niche” store. More power to those who choose this route, but WL’s business model is a different one.
We continaully encourage everyone to learn about wine, and indeed to trust their own palates with the hope that eventually NOBODY needs to be a point chaser, but until such time, selling these wines are a source of revenue that allows us to sell Marcillac and Szekszardi Bikaver and Cacc’e Mmitte, and Tocai Friulano from California. Further, there are those who will NEVER trust his or her own palate, and want little more than certainty and validation so that they can get a good load on without their buddies making fun of them.
As I said, if serving the niche market of oenophiles is your business (and it probably would be mine if I ever decided to open my own shop), then you are beholden to no critic, but if growing your business is the goal, the wine retailer has no choice but to pay SOME attention to the wine pundits. Choosing not to is just leaving money on the table.
TOM CIOCCO
Comment by Tom C — August 1, 2007 @ 1:41 pm
John,
Yes I am THE Kent Benson, Central Minnesota’s famous wine critic. But, was does IU have to do with me? Just kidding. While I love to play basketball, I’m only 5′ 10′’, so I played tennis instead. I’m a Tarheel, so I don’t have a lot of affection for my namesake from IU. You must be over 40. Not many people ask me that question anymore.
Comment by Kent Benson, CSW — August 1, 2007 @ 9:36 pm
Tom,
Your comments on Parker and the vagaries of ratings inspired me to synthesize all the notes I’ve been making to myself about how I want to construct wine reviews for my newsletter aimed at consumers in Central Minnesota. I’d love for you to take a look at my system and give me your feedback. Could I email it to you? If so, what is your email address?
Comment by Kent Benson, CSW — August 5, 2007 @ 10:24 pm
Kent-
You can reach me at tciocco@winelibrary.com
TC
Comment by Tom C — August 7, 2007 @ 9:41 am
Kent-
I could have sworn that I posted my e-mail address - maybe it was under the wrong piece - in any event sorry…it’s tciocco@winelibrary.com
Comment by Jen Ciocco — August 8, 2007 @ 11:22 am
Tom,
You did post your email in the previous comment. I sent you an email late last night. Did you get it? By the way, who’s Jen Ciocco?
Comment by Kent Benson, CSW — August 9, 2007 @ 12:44 am
Kent-
Got it and replied. Jen’s my wife.
TC
Comment by Tom C — August 9, 2007 @ 9:38 am
Tom, I agree with your point about reading multiple tasters. I think Parker’s tasting notes are often right on but my tastes differ from his in terms of ratings. I have found that many of his 85-90 point wines are much better to my taste than his favorites. Of course, that speaks to a certain consistency in his palate and ratings which is pretty commendable.
I think the vocabulary of tasting notes has gotten pretty out of control, driven primarily by Parker. Granted, they are creative and evocative but it’s very subjective and serves to make the lemmings more dependent on him (wow, Bob tastes so much in wines that I don’t, he must be a super-taster). It’d be better to keep the descriptions pretty simple and relatable and focus on the aspects of the wine that are more objective, balance, acid, tannin, length, etc.
Finally, I think it’d be great if there were a service that aggregated Parker, Tanzer, Decanter, WS, Jancis etc. and pulled out common terms/flavors so that we’d have a better sense of what we’re likely to taste rather than some quirk of an individual’s taste.
P.S. Numerical ratings are silly and Gary should be the first to stop the madness
Comment by Nara — August 9, 2007 @ 12:07 pm