If I hadn’t read the comments I would have had an overall very positive impression of Parker’s comments. I think he just doesn’t choose his words carefully, at all. As for the wine criticism industry withering, I took it to mean that he was able to monetize it into a career, and that will be very difficult in the future for anyone (I think there is room for another glossy wine magazine though, half of each issue for newbies and half for more experienced people).
I especially liked this comment:
Parker told us, “I was extremely lucky. I wish you all the success I’ve had. And the climb to the top is what makes it all worthwhile. Once you get there, there’s nothing there.”
I think he’s saying throughout the talk that the circumstances under which he was able to create a career may never be duplicated; I think he would concede that if he came on the scene today (admittedly partly created by him,) he would not rise to where he is. I think his comments are all prefaced by his admission that a LOT of luck was involved.
I appreciate someone who does not couch his comments to please other people. His message is, say what you really think about a wine in wine criticism rather than evaluating it based on whether it fits your favorite model.
Of course there are many bases for criticizing Parker, but I am commenting on Richard’s piece in a vacuum.
As for Parker’s appearance, after you have back surgery you can’t stand up at a sink for a while to shave. Other than things that can be explained by the surgery, he looks pretty good for a 66 year old to me.
Again there are many bases for criticizing Parker. But this talk by itself makes me like the guy more. And my (mistaken?) impression is that the people on this board that criticize him the most tend to be Burgophiles, and Parker has zero influence on Burgundy presently, so doesn’t that make him irrelevant to those people rather than harmful?
Richard, we have had our differences in the past, but thank you for this.
Last night, I saw Alejandro Escovedo play with REM’s Peter Buck in a very small venue. Alejandro did not look well and being seated in third row, his appearance saddened me.
I have a lot more fondness for Alejandro than RMP, but just the same, I find his appearance shocking and saddening.
To my way of thinking, his appearance is relevant-it gives context to his statements about Mr. Squires. In other words, the fact that he is ambulating with two canes and not taking the time to groom himself lends credence that his comments about Squires are coming from a man that is beaten down at the moment. It doesn’t make his comments any more or less trustworthy, but it helps explain why he is saying this about Squires.
And my last comment is this; how ironic that he uses Adam Tolmach as an example of “wines without flavor intensity”. Ironic because Adam had the guts, without any outside pressure to do so, to confess that he had made mistakes along the way (real or otherwise) and had decided to change his winemaking philosophy and yet he is being criticized by Mr. RMP who we have seen again and again disavow his mistakes.
Pretty much with you on this one, Mitch. Not sure I (or Adam) would characterize them as “mistakes” as much as just rethinking his winemaking philosophy
and making wines he more likes to drink. I thought it kinda ironic that Parker invokes Adam as well.
SummerNationals in Columbus in July, but looks like I’m not gonna make it. My last qualifying tournament coincides w/ RhoneRangers.
Give my best to your Dad.
Tom
I agree Thomas that Parker was once important. For me his coverage of the rhone was especially enlightening and influential. Without question, his impact on wine is/was enormous. I have no issue with his palate preference or his method and style of review. I just don’t like the guy. 3 words: pompous, arrogant and hypocrisy. Simply amazing how he places the blame on others with so little self-relfection. The more he speaks out the further I distance myself and find him obsolete.
He needs to do his 4-country “world” tour, then immediately retire, check himself into rehab and try to save his own life. He is killing himself before our very eyes with food, wine and stress that he deliberately brings upon himself. What he did to Squires and Miller is irresponsible and worse. (And now that I find myself actually sympathizing with Squires, I suddenly feel very dirty and must take a long shower!). At least he finally came clean on who owns the Wine Advocate…
Your typing skills show no reason for malignment, Richard----I am very appreciative to you to have the chance to read that piece. Well done, and thanks.
Yep. What this really shows is a total lack of self awareness. Parker was one of the most caustic and insulting voices on his own board, if you failed to agree with him in any way.
I am very surprised that this quote hasn’t attracted more attention…
“I want to leave some kind of legacy in Asia. I started going there in 1998. In China, although the government is a dictatorship, there is robust capitalism. The people there are great students and fast learners. They’re too respectful to challenge you on anything, but they’re learning. They’ve read all the books.”
Would love to hear this story. Heard references to it from time to time, but never heard from the horse’s mouth what happened. All ended well, though, when you look to the community built here. I cannot overstate how happy I am here rather than over there.
+1! Funny, but I thought the exact same thing when I read Todd’s comments.
Many of us have our Squires/Parker devolution stories/moments, but I’ve never heard about Todd’s other than some vague criticism by Squires that led to this board’s namesake.
I think this is the single most consistent quality to Parker’s behavior & statements. He behaves as if he sincerely believes that he is a messianic figure, whose purpose on this earth is to save all the misguided wine producers & consumers from their own ignorance & self-delusion.