So asks Matt Kettman of the Wine Enthusiast here:
Your thoughts?
I like to see balance between the two.
Complexity. Bigness alone isn’t a virtue. Many factors can add up to a wine being both complex and big, which can be great. But, light and lighter wines that deliver complexity can be great, too. The idea that the best wines are the biggest is just silly. There’s a place for quality wines for every context. A light, refreshing summer sipper doesn’t have to be boring.
Since the article touches on it: I’ve seen a trending improvement from the SLH. It’s not just vine age. I mean, old vines at a mediocre site aren’t going to yield better fruit than young vines at a great site. The growers seem to have learned a lot, dialing back the bigness an undramatic degree while picking up massive aromatic complexity.
The article refers to power, and specifically the concentration of higher ripeness (rather than structure, which I thought it would given the article title), and this very much brings us back to that recent debate of (to simplify it) Parker vs. the AFWE. Whilst I may be much towards the latter in my preferences, I can see why some at the other end of the spectrum might see it as a poorly disguised swipe at the wines they like.
Certainly plenty of concentrated and very ripe wines that are complex, and are so on release. For the more restrained styles their complexity can take time - take Hunter semillon for instance, often dull as dishwater on release, but gains great complexity and a better balance with age.
There is also a great danger of terms like finesse, class, elegance carrying a bit of social innuendo, that people who don’t appreciate them are uncouth and brutish. All nonsense of course.
I hope we see wines made across a broad range of styles, as although I may not generally care for the super-ripe wines, many do, and the variety of styles are a great use when trying to pick a wine to match the mood and situation.
What is strength? High ripeness and alcohol? Or concentration achieved other ways (e.g., classic Bordeaux, Northern Rhone)?
I’m all in favor of allowing the wine be what it was intended to be.
Hi John,
The article alludes to it being the former pair.
Regards
Ian
I’m so tired of binary thinking.
This article makes absolutely no sense at all. Does the writer have a vineyard? Is he tasting and testing from that vineyard, year after year, and considering any variable other than vine age and “ripeness” and what is considered fashionable?
This stuff makes me nuts.
He is a writer, not a Vineyard owner. But he does taste a lot of wines and has done so for the past decade. I think his insights are interesting. Yes, you have plenty of great points as well. And yes, the term ripeness certainly means different things to different people.
Love the discussion. Keep it up folks!
I know, I know. But geez. How many buzz words and buzz thoughts do you need to write an article? The generalizations are what get to me. But then we all need something to talk or write about, yes? Or maybe just grow, make, taste taste taste, and yes: sell.
I read very few professional articles or notes these days, and his is one reason why.
+1. Well said.
I do not know you, so am not carrying anything personal into this conversation, but I just re-read your post, and I like most of what you are saying.
Balance is key. What is balance? It is a place where someone finds a middle or common ground regarding something they are interested in. And they find that in someONE or someTHING. Wine, music, interpersonal relationships…it is all game.
I’m with Merrill. It’s like Asimov lite. Postulate something you don’t like and then proceed to knock it down while appearing quite reasonable.
There are people who choose to make wines as big (bigly?) as possible. That doesn’t necessarily mean that those wines lack complexity though. It could just mean that they’re big and complex instead of small and complex, kind of like a symphony vs a quartet.
And there’s a huge market for big wines, otherwise people wouldn’t be making them. In the end, I want a wine that interests me but most of all, a wine I enjoy. And that enjoyment depends on the day, mood, temperature, and so many other things.
It’s why I welcome more people trying more things and learning what they can and can’t do with the land, grapes, resources they have. More choices are good IMO, and it’s not like we’re supposed to progress toward some vinous goal, although that’s what a lot of wine writers seem to think.
If this were, to quote Ted Cruz, a binary decision, I would vote complexity.
Is “tasting good and giving pleasure” a choice?
I guess those of us who are wine lovers but not vineyard owners cannot judge wine so maybe we should just stop drinking it and leave it all for vineyard owners. Boy, I hope you don’t really mean what you wrote.
Given a binary choice, I prefer wines of complexity over wines of power. Some of my very favorite wines are not very powerful.
Howard - that is not what I said. Read it again.
It kind of is what you said, but perhaps not what you meant.