Thanks for the feedback.
This has been my experience as well. For a significant portion of the younger wine drinking populace here in Japan, THAT kind of wine is the new normal. THAT kind of wine represents the standard of quality by which all other wines are to be judged.
I work in a fashion that would put me in the natural camp for most of my wines, and I’m a fan of the idiom for many of the usual reasons. But like you, I developed my tastes for wine a long time ago, before anyone thought to utter the curious phrase “natural wine”. As a result, I have a hard time cozying up to some of the wines being produced and sold under the “natural” banner. Especially so, given that Japan has apparently become the dumping ground for a lot of failed experiments from European vignerons.
Yep. That’s why I used the term “niche”. Most people don’t/wouldn’t like sour beers. The more extreme, the fewer who like them and the more others like them. To some of us, some of the most extreme super-ripe cult wines are as disgusting as the most poopy brett bombs. Some people get orgasmic over weird freaky pungent fermented foods. But, I don’t think being a highly attuned aficionado of some sort of rotting fish is anything equivalent to someone who is happy with any bottom shelf wine.
If that is true, then there are no benchmarks or rules. So if quality and taste is totally subjective then there can be no true consensus, shared understanding or experience. If true then we are merely talking at one and other about wine, because I know no more share your experience with a given wine then you can share mine. That is a lonely thought for a beverage that has brought so many people together.
Sorry for trying to be subtle, and asking you to think about the flaw in what you are saying. My point is yes “Tastes” are subjective and can change over time and very from place to place i.e. paisley bellbottoms. Quality on the other hand has to be, on some level, objective with definitions, rules and expectations i.e. that wool coat you have counted on, to keep you warm for the last 20 years. People may like dogs playing cards painted on black velvet but that don’t make it a Monet.
For those who haven’t followed the whole tread, I am not attacking Natural wines, there are many fantastic wines that are natural wine but like all other wine, some are flawed and bad wine is bad wine. You may not agree, but just because you think that those dogs on your wall think you look nice in those pants doesn’t make it so. Facts are facts.
There absolutely are generally agreed upon measures of quality, most of which the extreme supporters of “natural” wine have chosen to ignore or completely convolute. I think it’s important to distinguish between the sort of quality that is “how good is this wine?” and the technical sort of quality that answers the more important question “is this wine fit for market?”.
Quality control in that technical sense during the winemaking process is important to many people and ignored by some. Some who ignore it still produce a sound product. Some do not. Brettanomyces is tricky because of its historical presence in most of the great old French wines and continued high rate of incidence in wines from certain regions. MLF bacterial faults have generally been far more cut and dry, in that anything more than a barely detectable amount has been considered a fault (not flaw, but a marker for faulty wine that should be rejected by a buyer or consumer), especially given the fact that it will tend to get worse once it appears. The same goes for oxidation faults: acetic acid and ethyl acetate.
Of course, now some people produce wine that tastes exactly like the sour beers mentioned upthread, or like wine spiked with vinegar and nail polish remover, and say that wine is correct/sound because it’s “natural”. There are even legal limitations in many (most?) countries for those things, but I suspect that other than in extreme cases like provinces of Canada that chemically test all wine before it can be sold, those rules are not usually enforced. I have a strong suspicion that I’ve tasted some “natural” wines that exceed those legal limitations.
These things also impact the “how good is this wine?” sort of quality in a major way, at least for anyone who wants to reasonably answer that question.
I think that some natural winemakers and their supporters are more interested and committed to the process rather than the ‘final product’. Is this ‘wrong’? Tough to say . . .
I like your considered wording, and this is indeed a difficult conundrum.
We can certainly put objective rules forward for arguing ‘quality’ e.g. Geoff Kelly made a strong argument that dry extract was indeed one of these Dry Extract and the 2013 red vintage in Hawkes Bay: Cabernet / Merlot; Syrah: 43 reviews FWIW I’m not convinced, but he’s a good thoughtful writer, so I’ll listen to his opinions, even if I wouldn’t always agree. Intensity is another, and one could make the argument that more intensity => better quality (Robert Parker seems to subscribe to this). Complexity is perhaps difficult to measure wine A vs B on, but it is another element that we might see as important in any definition of quality. However what about structure and balancing acidity. This is most certainly a personal taste thing, and one person’s rough and spiky might be another’s soft and flabby. So many other elements of flavour that one may enjoy and another detest. What constitutes under-ripe, ripe, over-ripe is the source of many a heated argument on wine forums.
Where I think there is some mileage, is in well defined existing wines styles where all are trying to work within a tightly defined style, but one producer may be able to sort better, or green harvest, have a greater planting density or have a site that gets more sun, a more preferred soil type. Such advantages may have a well understood effect and be prized by the market. For those that love that wine style, it may feel crystal clear that wine A is better than wine B, and in a well established region, that might be a widely shared view, though a blind tasting can shake a few learnt beliefs - in vino veritas and all that. Then on top of that a revolutionary comes along, be they an Altare, Dagueneau or Pato, shaking the established attitudes. How do you judge them?
So, is sour beer inferior? Lower quality? Flawed? Certainly some people think so. Probably most people trying one would think so. Are people who seek those out or intentionally make them wrong in thinking the best of these are among the best beers made? As legitimate as any other style.
Apologies if my short comment offended.
Sometimes my attempts at humor can come across a bit… deadpan. Some say my humor is too subtle. Others say I have no discernible sense of humor at all, but they’re objectively wrong.
And thanks for trying to get me to think about the consequences of my particular stance on wine quality. If that was your aim, though, I respectfully request you try a bit harder. I’ve been working in wine for close to four decades, and have studied under, worked with, and spent plenty of time in the drunken company of some pretty remarkable people… if that hasn’t gotten me to think about wine it’s doubtful that a single post from you will be sufficient.
Now, a slightly more detailed response to your initial comment…
You wrote:
So if quality and taste is totally subjective then there can be no true consensus, shared understanding or experience. If true then we are merely talking at one and other about wine, because I know no more share your experience with a given wine then you can share mine. That is a lonely thought for a beverage that has brought so many people together.
I most definitely disagree.
If you and I open a bottle and drink it together, that is our shared experience. I tell you what I think of the wine, and you give me your opinion… that is our shared understanding.
You’re right that there may be no consensus. But rather than lessen the experience, I think the possibility of differing opinions heightens the experience. One of the many joys of wine is that it serves as a springboard for serious discussions about beauty, truth, aesthetics v. utility, art v. craft, etc.
You can point to a Monet and tell me that it’s ‘better’ than “Dogs Playing Poker” or a blacklight-capable velveteen depiction of Elvis Presley on stage during his 1972 Burning Love Tour. Stating this, though, tells me precious little about who you are and what you think. Far more important to me are the answers to questions like “Why does Mike prefer Monet to Elvis?” or “What does Mike mean when he says ‘better’?” My time with you would in no way be diminished if I disagreed with the reasoning behind your preference, or even if you expressed a well-considered preference for “Dogs Playing Poker”.
There is much more that can be said here.
As a for instance, I would argue that the concept of “quality” is quite different when discussing overcoats v. wine. But let me just stop at this point to avoid a post that rambles on far too long.
That there are.
But “generally agreed upon” is far removed from “objective”.
When people speak of an objective notion of wine quality it seems to me that they’re usually talking about subjective opinion that has achieved a certain critical mass.
Sure, I agree with that. I also think that some of these widely held opinions have sound reasoning behind them and are generally accepted for excellent reasons. For instance, extremely noticeable MLF bacterial contamination tends to make wines from different places taste extremely similar to each other and obscures or even eliminates any sense of place or distinction. Such contamination often becomes worse over time and varies from bottle to bottle, so there’s really no way to know what the consumer gets when they open a bottle. Because of those things, such contamination is a fault that should be avoided. That all makes perfect sense. Yet many advocates of “natural” wine seem to like these characteristics and even claim that they represent some kind of terroir. They’re free to like what they want to, but that doesn’t negate the sound reasoning behind the traditional approach of trying to avoid such contamination, and the terroir argument doesn’t hold any water. Plus, if one really likes that taste, they can just buy some sour beer. There are plenty of mediocre sour beers that are far less expensive than most wines that taste that way.
Similarly, but even more extremely, I don’t think anyone genuinely likes the aroma of nail polish that is so strong in some “natural” wines, except out of some kind of bizarre association with “naturalness”. That’s some very creative reasoning, to put it mildly.
Even the aroma of apple cider vinegar that’s so common in “natural” whites is something that can be done with any white wine, so I have no idea why anyone would want that other than that some people have claimed intention and a “natural” approach to rationalize uncaring or inept winemaking and others have bought into that. I’m sure it is intentional on the part of some winemakers, but I have to question their motivation.
None of this refers to all wines that are made with a relatively hands-off approach, but the vast majority of producers who use the word “natural” to describe their wines are on board with the thinking I’m arguing against and make wines that I consider faulty. Most of the producers who use similar methods but make really excellent (and consistently sound) wines, so often championed by people who support the whole “natural” things, wouldn’t even use that word to describe their own methods or products.
Ok, I edited this badly, but Eric thank you for this explanation. I love aged Sumatran coffee but had never thought about why I don’t see aged coffee from a lot of other places.
Bruce,
No need to apologies, after three and a half decades working in wine myself, if you want to hurt my feelings, bring a baseball (or cricket if you like) bat. I was less trying to change your mind, then open a dialog. Though my reply was to your post, this is an open forum so I was hoping to expand on all our thoughts on what we each mean when we us words like quality, taste, good, bad, flawed and many others. You maybe want to get that sense of humor checked though, because I don’t really think you hang out in paisley bell bottoms contemplating canine card games.
Also I can’t judge between Elvis and Monet… I’ve never heard Monet sing!
I think that’s changing, at least in some places. Iirc Ken Zinns noted last year’s Brumaire tasting had a lot of flawed wines and this year’s didn’t. (They certainly do use the term “natural wine”.) That makes sense. It’s an event held by a natural wine shop (where some of my friends who are not natural wine enthusiasts buy some really interesting off-the-beaten-path wines). The bad flaws and the sameness of wines with certain lower level flaws will naturally just get old with regular customers - especially when compared to how incredible and unique many of the other wines they carry are. So, who they invite to their event reflects on them, and they appear to not be dumb,
*I think Ken also noted they have a sulfur level maximum for wines that are included. That some of the participating wineries make some wines that exceed that, but just don’t bring those wines. That’s pragmatic rather that being irrationally ideological or self-delusional.
So, I think Jaime’s point is valid that a phase of this movement has run its course and had a positive impact. The same way I can look past the majority of conventionally made CA PN sucking ass to the extraordinary examples, I can look past crappy natural wines to some very unique, intriguing, amazing, inspirational stuff, regardless if they are dubbed natural or not.
![[cheers.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/0ff9bfcdb0964982cd3240b6159868fbdf215b1a.gif "cheers"){kind=small}