I think this might speak to the consumer as well. Burgundy drinkers (especially 1er and GC) tend to be geekier and more specific about wine. It’s a generalization but one that I have observed except maybe in France where there are a lot of casual Burgundy drinkers because of family history (that’s what Dad drank) or geographical reasons (e.g. those that live in Dijon). Burgundy lovers I know in the US or Canada are pretty particular about their tastes and wines. Thus, they tend to analyze (over analyze?) and rate accordingly. As there are more and more wine geeks, this has also spread to a lot of other regions or sub-regions as well (Bojo, Loire, Oregon, etc.) but it might have started with Burgundy.
Absolutely. I am always amazed at what a great resource WB is. And always happy to find something new to explore, in wine or music.
Luckily we can all access the greatest music, though not necessarily the greatest wines…
oooh… we should introduce you to Nathan Smyth!
Maybe I’m gullible…
Wonderful thread.
Absolutely there is. The biggest wines are always served last and make any previously served wines seem pale in comparison.
Usually those “big” wines are hard to drink on their own if you bring one home.
This is why Parker thought the term Anti Flavor Wine Elite" was a disparaging term.
Also, as the reviewers got older, they made up for it by over-rating ‘big fruit.’ It’s the equivalent of an old guy who keeps turning up the treble because these new records don’t have any high end.
I agree with what a few people said above about the Burgundy hierarchy distorting scoring somewhat – it sometimes seems like people cap village wines at 92 and will only go above 95 for Grand Crus.
But I still think the “size bonus” is very real and important to think about in assessing changes in wine quality over the years. I think it’s related to why older vintage Bordeaux (e.g. pre-2009) are consistently lower rated than more recent Bordeaux, why average CT scores don’t tend to increase with the age of the wine as one would expect for ageable wines (because the wine becomes less sweet and “big” as it ages), why California wines tend to consistently outscore wines from other regions, etc.
BTW found a particularly funny examples in comparing Clos Fourtet (classic right bank monster wine) to the 2010 Bertheau Amoureuses, a wine from a prestigious enough address that it should obviate the hierarchy issues with Burgundy. Every single review of that Bertheau Amoureuses was an over-the-top rave and it sells for like $500/bottle, but the CT rating was 93.4 points, about what a sexy $50 right bank Bordeaux gets in a good year these days.
Anyway, here’s what a 92 point review for a balanced beautiful wine sounds like –
2010 Bertheau Amoureuses – 92 points: “Tasted blind - A gorgeous bouquet of fresh strawberries, blackcurrant, rose petals, and gravels. Sublime purity with mild volatile acidity (which I adored). Premier Cru weight with Grand Cru intricacy. Incredibly approachable and soft, old school style of very gentle extraction and destemmed (think Jacky Truchot), 2001? Rousseau Gevrey Chambertin Clos St Jacques?”
Here’s what some 97 point reviews for YEAH MAN CRANK THAT WINE TO 11 right bank wine sound like:
2015 Clos Fourtet – 97 points: “This is a massive wine with a head bending exit. Red fruit, pomegranate pith, seeds, skin, the whole nine yards…It is going to need at least 10 years to come to, but man, this one is the most structured wines of the 2015’s for me. Love the youth and long throbbing of the massive finish. This stays in the mouth for about 2 minutes right now. I know its a bit much for most, but its a tannic monster that needs some love and understanding. HOLD HOLD HOLD HOLD…”
2009 Clos Fourtet – 97 points: “Another sex bomb after the Clinet 09. Dark chocolate, truffle, a port like liquor. I just preferred the Clinet over this but both are terrific wines. I can see if people find them too ripe and I am aching for a glass of Burgundy after this, also not sure I would be able to drink them by the bottle, but certainly by the glass a wonderful delight!”
I know I’m cherry picking these reviews but I like them because they literally take you inside the subjective experience of why people seem compelled to praise pure size. The 2015 Clos Fourtet review has an almost sadomasochistic vibe to it in that the guy almost appears to have been assaulted by the wine but needs to find a way to love it anyway.
To be fair, Clos Fourtet was not this way before. We had a quite lovely, balanced 1998 a year or two ago that sounds like it would be hard to reconcile with the younger expression.
I’m not a musician or even especially knowledgeable about music so my agreement doesn’t hold much weight but I’m with you.
I think they express two completely different idioms. Prokofiev is much easier to like than Shostakovich. Shostakovich is arguably the greater composer, with complete mastery of formal structures, including counterpoint. Like comparing Fitzgerald and Faulkner. Or young Leoville Poyferre versus LLC. (No experience with fourtet and bertheau so I’m sticking to what I know). Personally I like Prokofiev better but he’s something of a guilty pleasure as far as 20th century composers are concerned. Neither are as great as Bela Bartok. 
.
For a completely different side to Shostakovich than the well known symphonies, have a listen to this and see if it changes your mind at all about bite or freshness.
