1Wine Dude interviews Parker

Be careful that you don’t become the pot though.

As for your second paragraph, I think that’s a completely fair point, though with the fracturing of the voice (bloggers/more reviewers/CellarTracker) there will likely never be a singular voice that is as popular or more popular than Parker. That’s probably a good thing. Ultmately we must all find a voice that rings true for us, or alternatively taste every wine in the world prior to buying. For now I am hoping that Jancis keeps on working for a long, long time. Her style is so much less shrill than you Americans.

So now Parker says he invented wine blogging. Interesting, to say the least.

But he is right, just not for the reasons he thinks. Back in the 1980s there was no internet. They had paper. Paper logs, or Plogs, were the thing. And Parker made this Plog called The Wine Advocate that was independent and a fresh voice.

In 2010, Blogs are the new Plogs.

I’m gonna let the “you Americans” thing pass as everything else you said was logical and enlightening. [highfive.gif]

Oh, I know I am towing a fine line, but I will always call myself out before anybody gets the chance too.

I love Jancis because she is intelligent and respectful, but then again the British wine writers are a different animal. I love them. Jancis and Jefford in particular.

I know there will never be a single voice again BUT I’d like Mr. Parker to acknowledge that. As for him being the first blogger, that’s just laughable.

Al Gore created the Internet just for him. We are just tag-alongs.

The difference of course being that Al Gore never said that while Parker did. High Performance Computing Act of 1991 - Wikipedia" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Or 2*.


No, it’s 2+*

A lot of legitimate points to argue in this interview, but found this particularly interesting, “The reality is that no matter how influential you are in the wine field, you really can’t break a vintage or a brand.” Would think an influential critic could seriously hurt or break a brand if they really wanted to, intentially or unintentially! Often wonder if the risk is greater than the potential reward in submitting a wine to a professional reviewer, particularly on an up and coming producer . . .

Here is what he said… “In many ways, I may have been the first wine blogger when I was the wine authority for the old Prodigy wine board that was way ahead of its time, even though it eventually went defunct.” What is laughable about that? One can quibble over whether that was blogging or not, but Parker provided the definition for the reader to consider.

I suppose this is a big event for those who are obsessed with Parker. For the rest of us, not much of a deal at all. I continue to be puzzled by the degree of Parker obsession some folks have.

Indeed. And that’s why the posts on the board discussing the change were heavily negative, and any posting (from subscribers, of course - everyone else had been removed) questioning the change was immediately deleted and moved to a single buried thread with no response of any kind? One would think they weren’t reading them, except that the average lifespan of any post that didn’t say how wonderful the changes were was about 2.3 seconds.

If opinion is running 7 to 1 in your favor, you don’t have to squelch the dissenters. They’ll lose the argument.

Parker is sort of right. He had the foresight to get online in the mid-'90s and buy the Squires board circa 2002. I don’t know why he’s since decided that the Internet is the tool of the devil. Well, I guess I do. It’s all about him. The Internet was great when it made Parker a big deal. Now that it’s made a big deal out of criticism of Parker, it’s not so great.


No, but a nobody amateur like me can break a brand. neener

Actually, I think that the statement is essentially true for established brands. I am buying Skewis, and I don’t give a rat’s ass what anyone else’s scores- other than mine- are. Are any of you going to stop buying Alesia if it gets a bad score even if you like it? not hardly.

Again, I am a RMP fan- I have never tried to hide that- but I generally liked his interview and don’t disagree with most fo what he said. I don’t like having a subscription only BB, but that is a different issue.

Didn’t Jim Laube put some serious hurt on Ch. Montelena a couple of years back, and BV before that - both over TCA? Of course, I could be delusional.

That interview gave me the queesy feeling I always get when encountering a slime bucket. There he goes off on his Ralph Nader bit. Let me say it again: what a phoney. It just gets worse.

I don’t blame him for trying to spin positively as to how and why he lost thousands of valuable opinions on his board and set it back years–but, frankly, nobody is more about black and white than Mr. Parker–especially if one’s opinion contradicts or challenges his.


Thousands of valuable opinions? Weren’t there about 150 people who did most of the talking on eBob (now down to 50 or so)?

“we also eliminated all the jerks and troublemakers who didn’t care about wine, but simply wanted to divide people’s tastes into convenient black and white boxes.”

Looks to me like he missed the biggest one.

[pwn.gif] [winner.gif]