Or we may end up debating the difference between complex and complicated.
That’s progress in my book, because so many people assume reflexively that great↔complex that even for it to be known that there’s a debate is a step forward that will surely cause some people to give the idea some critical thought.
No no. MY definitions are the right ones. The rest of you don’t count. Sheesh… I thought you’d all have understood the basics by now.
![[cheers.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/0ff9bfcdb0964982cd3240b6159868fbdf215b1a.gif "cheers"){kind=small}
Yet, I’ve found this much more interesting and thought-provoking than the “What’s the Most Complex Wine You’re Ever Drunk” thread.
Great thread, John. FWIW, when I was just getting into wine I also came from the Keith Levenberg “TNs are BS” school and I also believed there was no such thing as complexity in wine. I thought that wine tasted just like… well, wine.
However, as I followed the board more and read more and more TNs here and on CellarTracker and drank more types of wine, I started to reconsider the whole “complexity” thing.
To me, complexity is when a wine has a myriad of flavors blending into a harmonious whole that is so great, I must actually focus and concentrate to pick out the individual flavor components. Even better, the flavors return to a harmonious whole the second I stop focusing.
If a wine has a certain characteristic that is too dominant then to me it is not complex. That doesn’t mean that it is not good wine. It may even be great wine. It just means that it is not complex.
Most of my beloved icewine is a great example of this (hence the infamous overheard TN at Royal DeMaria I once wrote about with a female customer exclaiming out loud that an icewine she was sipping tasted just like… icewine), though I occassionally run across an exception. I also just had an Alsace Vendange Tardive which I posted a thread about is another good example. Not complex, but very good.
Similarly, I learned recently at the Al Stewart offline that a complex wine sometimes isn’t very good as we tasted a 2004 Sauternes that was complex but not very good overall. (Coincidentally, it turned out to be my contribution but I didn’t know how it would turn out.)
Now that I understand complexity in a wine, I appreciate tasting notes more. This said, I agree that sometimes they are completely misused as a grocery list of flavors rather than attempting to actually get across hwo good a wine is as a whole.
I’d argue Cantor is actually comparing rates of counting towards an unreachable number, but what the hell I’m probably wrong.
Go back to my original contribution to the thread where I say that you don’t get to complexity until you’ve crossed the purity and precision threshold. Therefore, P&P are a prerequisite to complexity in a great wine, so one can design a system assigning a different degree of necessity to them than to complexity. It depends on what you mean by “necessity,” but you are not necessarily stuck in a world that has only necessary and unnecessary, although that is the logic that we usually live with.
Agreed…
One aspect of this which I’m interested to hear people discuss is the interaction between “purity and precision” and “complexity.” When I read tasting notes speaking of purity or precision, those terms convey to me specificity, that the wine is pleasing and unified, but that there’s also something of a simplicity or narrow focus to it. (Maybe these terms are used to evoke pleasing complexity, but on a subtle scale?)
For my current thinking about wine terminology, greatness (among other things) requires complexity, but a pleasing and harmonious complexity, while purity and precision aren’t strictly necessary…but, then again, I might be using the terms differently. Thoughts?
I haven’t had a wine prove me wrong yet, but to me this works:
Great wine must be complex. Complex wine is not necessarily great. Simple wine can be simply good.
I think purity and precision toes a different line. Brett can be an impurity, and yet can, in rare cases, increase the complexity and enjoyability of a wine (in small concentrations). What the hell is precision?
I couldn’t agree more.
Glad everyone is enjoying it. I’m finding it interesting, too.
I just couldn’t help laughing at some of the angels-on-the-heads-of-pins definitional digressions.
The problem here is the meaning of the word necessary. If A and B are necessary for C, you can’t say that in terms of C, that A is more important than B. That would imply that with A and not B, you can still have some degree of C, which contradicts the first rule, which says B is necessary for C. Necessary is indeed a binary term, something is necessary or it’s not. If A is more important than B, then describing the relationship needs a word that allows for degrees, e.g. desirability.
I don’t understand at all how purity and precision are a prerequisite to complexity (I’d define an unbalanced wine with a multitude of flavors as complex but not precise) so maybe when you say “complexity” you mean something different than what I’m taking from the word.
Larry, you can always adopt alternate axioms and then end up with different systems. There is no complete and consistent system underlying all mathematics and hence logic.
That’s not what he said. Look at his logic:
For me, you’ve first got to have purity and precision before complexity becomes a factor in any positive way…
He was saying that, before complexity is a plus, you have to have P&P; not that P&P are a precondition to complexity.
You’ll know it when you smell it.
Especially in your sushi roll.
Claude, it sounds like you’re saying, if we’re free to redefine “necessity” then the logic works. I can’t disagree with that, but I’d prefer to choose words whose existing definition works for the semantics, rather than dilute the meaning of a word through misuse.
Well, Claude did follow the line you quoted with, “Therefore, P&P are a prerequisite to complexity in a great wine…”
I’m not sure I even understand what that means, but I think Claude is saying that without purity and precision, complexity is moot. That’s fine, but it doesn’t follow into degrees of necessity.
You could say, “Therefore, P&P are a prerequisite to greatness in a complex wine…” then I’m on board.
Complexity is definitely a positive, depending on how it is achieved.
I do agree that many times tasting notes go overboard.
For example. If a wine has a flavor component of, say, grapefruit, a lot of tasting notes will treat it as if grapefruit is only one component.
In reality, grapefruit has a whole bunch of flavor components all by itself.
You get a white wine with grapefruit, melon, green apple, and some minerals and that can be a pretty complex wine.
I’ve often read that the best wines are supposedly woven together so that nothing stands out. I understand the idea and I even agree with it to some extent. But, there are a lot of interesting wines where there are flavor components sticking out here and there.
Complexity is good, but so is personality.
Finally, some wines are complex, woven together masterfully and the resulting wine can be admirable, but not necessarily pleasurable.
On the other hand, a wine may be rather more simple and even disjointed but a hell of a lot of fun to drink – or it may pair well with certain dishes.
Also depends on the price.
I like my personality wines to come in under budget.
I’ll spend more for the beautiful tapestry as long as it is pleasurable as well as admirable.
Usually demands some patience, too.
I like aged wine where there are a whole bunch of very subtle flavor components. So many and so subtle that you cannot pinpoint them all. Not only that, but you don’t even want to make the analytical effort because you don’t want to leave the pleasure center of your brain in order to carry out the task – where you feel that too many specifics will only detract from what is truly ineffable.
My highest recommendations tend to come with the shortest notes.
Yet another thread telling people what they are and aren’t allowed to say in a tasting note. Classy.