Has The Whole Anti-Critic Schtick Gotten Old?
No.
Two possibilities: Like Whitman, I contain multitudes or I’m a bot.
Easy to sum up the problem with most modern wine critics and criticism: “I rate this thread a 71.”
Still waiting for the 1,000 point scale.
![[rofl.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/a/a7452fcd8e675af869f8da01174474a545b03944.gif "rofl"){kind=small}
Yeah, this.
Since Michael won’t tell you, his beef is with criticisms of Galloni’s ballooning scores and TNs which ready like ad copy puffery. See the Monprivato thread for the details.
It may be that Michael has an axe to grind with those who criticize critics. But his question seems to me to have validity nevertheless. I don’t spend my time criticizing movie or book critics with whom I disagree. I just stop listening to them. Why are wine critics different. Once upon a time, Parker’s influence had the result of changing winemaking styles so that wines I had previously liked, I no longer did or do. Even that wasn’t that big a deal since there has always been plenty of wine to discover regardless of my taste. Now, I don’t even think that influence is that great, especially since I don’t care about Bordeaux and most CA and he doesn’t write about wines from areas I do. I don’t even know who the other critics are since I don’t follow any of them (I of course know names from hanging around haunts like this too much). But really, if you don’t care what they think, why do you complain about what they think?
Jonathan, I think I answered your question for myself above, but I wanted to restate in response to what appears to be a fair question. I don’t subscribe to any wine publications and do not care very much, per se, what most critics think. To the extent I do at all, it’s because I actually want to learn from them. What I do care about greatly is how hype affects the market for the low production wines I enjoy most, particularly those from Piemonte. I and others believe that the business model of some critics creates an incentive to build hype and actively influence the market. I and others also believe that the most recent example of this phenomenon is the dramatic increase in prices for barolo and barbaresco for the 2010 vintage. I understand and agree that hype created by one critic in particular is not the sole reason for this increase – other reasons include the fact that yields are down pretty significantly – but to the extent that the increase is the result of a wine critic trying to build his personal brand by creating a lot of hype and being the one to issue the highest scores, I have a problem with that.
While I think there is plenty of evidence to support my opinion, others may disagree (and have done so). But as a wine consumer, I think you will agree that I have a valid reason for voicing my criticism of this phenomenon, given my opinion.
Jay: Do formulate all of your opinions in life based on self-centered assumptions?
Michael, I suggest you consider putting a rubber-band around your wrist and snapping it every time you pose a rhetorical question to make a point. Socrates you are not.
Taking your question at face value, I don’t know what distinguishes a “self-centered” assumption, but as I understand it, the answer is no. On the subject of this thread, you don’t know what subjectively motivates any given critic, and neither do I. All we can do is take into account the objective evidence and use our brains. I’ve stated the evidence for my opinion here and elsewhere, as have others. You’ve responded here and elsewhere by personally attacking those sharing that opinion, including me, mostly through passive-aggressive rhetorical questions. My approach is better.
+1
It’s of course true that high pointyness can cause sudden artificial interest in a wine that raises its price. In the long run, though, either it creates an enduring audience that raises the price of the wines over an enduring period–which is just the market finding the wine–or it doesn’t and you’ll get future vintages at reasonable prices. Even Parker could only nudge a market, he couldn’t move it except to the extent that people shared his taste. Even in CdP (the poster child for an area in which he inflated the interest), it was and is not that hard to find wines that he never created high pointy hysteria for that only inflated with the general inflation of wine prices.
Jonathan, in the long run, we’re all dead. In the short run, we’re trying to buy wine, the price of which is influenced by critics’ scores in a way that movie tickets are not. As such, I think your anecdote supports my point. You may be agnostic as to producer and therefore feel the freedom that comes with simply shifting to ones that have not yet been hyped; unfortunately, I am not. But I’m not trying to argue with you on the substance; I was just trying to answer your question, as you apparently did not understand why anyone would take the time to criticize wine critics.
Seriously, Michael. What the hell do you think this place is? A discussion board or something?
I tried to be snarky in the first response on the thread. 
But overall this week WB has been woefully lacking in snark, animosity and ad hominem posts. We have to step up our game.
It seems reasonable that this post and this thread are the result of your displeasure with comments made in the Piemonte threads regarding Galloni. Since many of those posts are mine, it is reasonable to assume that this post is, in part, directed at me (if I am incorrect in my assumptions, please do let me know).
No one in the threads I have referenced has made the statements you began your post with. I certainly did not state that that professional critics serve no purpose, nor did I state that I don’t rely on them for purchasing decisions. I do not believe I have disparaged anyone who finds critics useful. In my read of these threads, I have not seen anyone else do any of these things either.
Michael, you have been asked to explain why you doggedly defend Galloni from criticism, yet you have chosen not to answer. If you wish to have others explain their motivations (which I think a fair question, by the way). I ask that you do the same. I would be happy to answer your questions if you answer those that have been posed to you throughout this thread.
Not in the least, I love critics. And dare I say, may spoon with them.
Michael:
Has the whole Critic Schtick gotten old?
The anti-Critic is an inevitable response to the existence of the critic.
They’re really just mirror images.
Both sides purport to do the same thing: review work product and render a judgement.
There are intemperate voices in both camps, and some valuable insights as well. Sometimes it is the same person vacillating between these two poles.
By changing a few nouns in your OP the entire message could have been turned into something attacking today’s wine critics, turned into something that capably summarizes the anti-critic’s stance.
Do what you will.
But please do keep smiling.
Eric Asimov. Isaac’s nephew I believe.
If it is Jonathan Favre who mentions Brett Favre, I fear that may open up some kind of vortex that tears the space-time continuum.
I understand people talking about agreeing with and disagreeing with this critic or that one. I am personally turned off by the need to amplify the criticism with (as far as I can tell) unfounded criticisms of giving higher scores to advertisers, calling their readers sheep and score whores and people who don’t think for themselves, and so forth.
There is also an undercurrent of elitism I see sometimes, as people say you should ignore the critics and taste everything and make your own judgments, then they jet to Bordeaux for en primeur tastings and select dozens of cases of top wines on futures, But if you’re the average Joe who can afford to buy 6 bottles of 2010 Bordeaux, maybe you don’t have anywhere you can taste through 40 top 2010s, and instead have to rely on critics and then wait 20 years to open the wines because you only have six.
I get why many ballas on here don’t need to use critics to find wines, since they go to wineries, tasting events, tasting dinners, wine bars, and so forth and have a myriad of opportunities to try everything, but if you’re some regular guy in flyover country, you don’t get those opportunities, and maybe it’s not so unreasonable to say “I’ve never tried a Loire red before, maybe the first place I’ll start is this Baudry wine that got a high score in WS last month.”
They serve their function, some a little better or worse than others. Most of us here at WB don’t need them anymore, and that’s cool.