bob, do you have any ideas to contribute NO
does name-calling make you feel better? Yes
Roberto, bingo! I could not agree more. For me, wine is about context…mine, and that of those with whom I am sharing the moment, not somebody else’s context, as judged by a bunch of redundant, trite, hastily scrawled notes and an arbitrary score. We have all experienced the proverbial cheap house wine that we will remember in exquisite detail to the grave because of where, when and with whom we had it. We brought back a bottle from France or Italy or Greece or wherever, but the magic of the moment simply could not be transported. I look for that from a wine. I live for the moments when I can open a wine for a friend and say, “First, try a sip of the wine. Now, take a bite of antipasto (or whatever) and then another sip of the wine. Do you notice how the food changed the wine?” There are endless possibilities of that nature. I am advocating something that simple. I can promise you that you cannot rush around tasting thousands of wines a year and expect to have many of those moments, too. The true enjoyment of wine takes time…
There you go. I admire your candor!
Just how much “exploration” do you suppose sipping and spitting two hundred wines at a single tasting, all the while scribbling notes and numbers, actually provides, David? And does that exploration grow exponentially when you escalate to THOUSANDS of wines a year, compulsively sampled in the same way?
I enjoy Brother Klapp’s hyperbolic crusade against seriatim sipper/spitter note vomiters. Wine is a beverage best enjoyed with a meal (I’d add: with friends). I think if one looks beyond the florid language, Bill makes very important points in this regard.
Russell. I did not know Richard well too - until he posted about the subject that : he does not like Burgundy with Stem …
sometimes ago to express his dis-like under this title. ( I tried to post the link of the post - but I was not able to do it ) : -
*** J’accuse: Criminal Stem Inclusion Levels in 2009 Bouchard Red Burgundies by Richard Jennings****
So now we are talking about people talking about wine.
Anyone open something today?
Why don’t you do that once in awhile on here? Drink a wine and talk about it. We’ve all heard a hundred times what you think about everyone else who writes about wine, but we never see you share any actual wine experiences – let’s see how you go about it.
It probably sounds like a taunt, but I’m genuinely interested.
+1.
I find I can’t get as good a sense of the finish when I spit. Also, I think having a sip of wine is sometimes illusory as to quality. Case in point: recently sampled a Cab while walking through the grocery store. What I thought was a rather nice wine in the store was incredibly boring when consumed by the glass.
![[popcorn.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/1/1ca9f29573458cca2424a66a50d6c1261081dd3e.gif "[popcorn.gif]"){kind=small}
Mr K,
Did a search of your mighty contributions to this hallowed Board.
In the threads that you started, most of your commentary is on wine writers and their notes, rather than wine!
You are a Blowhard for the following reasons:
- You complain about name calling, yet in your first post of this thread, you spew that Richard should “seek professional help”.
Seems to me you drew first blood and can’t take the resulting heat. - I’m pretty sure you’ve never met Richard or tasted with him. I have, several times.
So you have no idea what his thought processes are and what motivates him.
Yet, you blindly attack him and spread rumors (eg. doesn’t drink, only spits). - You claim tasting notes are of little or no value.
Well, sometimes one has a limited chance to buy wine one has no access to taste firsthand.
If you are in tune with someone’s palate, that makes a blind acquisition a much lesser risk.
Having tasted with Richard and discussing each wine and independently recorded our evaluations, I find there’s a high correlation
with the wines we really like. So his notes ARE of great value to me.
Good enough?
TTT
Well, personally I’d agree with Neal’s characterization. This case goes beyond “florid”, into the typically venemous, and in a social sense is (IMO) rude. The general point can be made without such a thread title and condescending comments about another member of the community. Bill’s obviously smart enough to know how he’s framing his general points, has the right to post as he pleases, and probably doesn’t care if others are off-put by the tone. At the same time since it’s a social group, others get to try and encourage what they feel is polite and non-confrontational.
Yes - mainly about TNs written by people, specially people who are professional ( or going to become ) wine writers.
One of the reasons why so many posters are talking what Richard is doing recently.
If you wish to know more in details and opinions about subject of wine-making : with stem or no stem, the thread ( which I talked about it ) is very interesting. Bill and specially Don Cornwall participated in that thread too…
This discussion is all a load of Klapp.
Again? Might as well have never left it…
Agree. I haven’t read the other responses yet. Maybe there’s an apology or retraction in there.
Richard is a delight to taste wine with. I wish I put more effort into identifying taste and smell descriptors. After over 20 years of being a wine fan, I’m still sort of a thumbs up thumbs down guy.
Bill, the line you’ve chosen to draw in the sand is subjective and arbitrary, based on your own personal utility. You acknowledge that pear, lemon, citrus, cedar, truffle, cigar, and rock are all perfectly appropriate tasting note terms. That’s a fairly limited set. Again, though, your descriptive set is not so general as you suggest is necessary. You use “truffle” instead of “mushroom.” Perhaps we should add Maitake, Shiitake, Oyster, Chanterelle, or Morel. You focus on cedar, but perhaps we should use apple wood, cherry wood, hickory, mesquite, etc, since each smells considerably different. The differences between an Asian pear and a ripe Bartlett are arguably as great or greater than Morel and Truffle. And rock? Have you washed off a rock and sniffed it? Please elucidate what a rock smells like, without using the term “rock.” Your choice of allowable descriptive terms is simply an expression of what you believe to be appropriate limitations. I simply find it arrogant that you’re allowed to make the call of reasoned limitation, while making fun of Richard for attempting to expand your proposed list.
Your argument is also somewhat hypocritical. In your evisceration of Richard by rumor, you suggest that Richard’s tasting notes frequently repeat the same descriptive terms over and over. You then chastise and belittle Richard for seeking to pinpoint new descriptive terms. Perhaps Richard needs to broaden his descriptive set. Once again, you’ve become the arbiter of appropriateness, while disclaiming that title.
The entire remainder of your argument is soap-box cynicism and fist-waving at the wine critics that have had some influence on many of us, whether positive or negative. It’s a tired argument that we’ve all participated in countless times, and one that applies to countless professions, mine included. Your arguments contain nothing new, and statements like “we have wasted a lot of time reading their garbage instead of tasting wine for ourselves” proves your lack of awareness of the sitaution of many of those who rely on critics for suggestions. More often than not, those that review tasting notes, regardless of scores, are people looking for recommendations because they have neither the time nor the money to self-educate to the degree they would like. I would suggest that many wine drinkers do have critics that they trust, even if they distrust many others. They’ve learned about countless wines they would not have otherwise been exposed to simply by reading and hunting. So yes, the tasting note middleman has done some service to wine consumers. I’ll freely admit that others have provided similar disservice.
As to your suggestions about how some wine critics can improve their skill set, we agree. I do believe that the world of wine “criticism” would be a much more reliable place if critics focused their craft on a region or specific type of wine. I know of zero lawyers that are truly effective practicioners in all or nearly all types of law. I fail to understand how a wine critic can become an expert as to all wines ever tasted on any sort of reliable level. That said, I fail to see how the use of most accurate descriptive terms provides a disservice to potential readers.
I do find it a bit humorous that you have the gall and ego to suggest that wine writers should work to improve their writing ability instead of mastering descriptive terms. My most fundamental issue with your OP, and many of your posts, is not necessarily of content (though we frequently disagree), but of approach. You are frequently, and unnecessarily, brutally rude, obstreperous, condescending, and dismissive. Your opinions must be correct. Period. All else is for uneducated, fooled, and pitifully misinformed plebians. That’s laughable, but you are clearly intelligent enough to avoid such a crass and unpleasant style. Unfortunately, you most usually resemble the letter-jacket wearing jock in high school loudly belittling another student in a hallway simply so that you can get attention while reminding everyone how tough you are. It is an ineffective form of communication. As a result, I find your suggestion to wine critics laughable, and yet unfortunately painful.
Finally, your forest of ideas v. trees approach to wine discussions is surely an effort to shield yourself from real scrutiny, and allows to you hide behind what you must consider a wall of righteousness as to wine consumption. To the rest of us on this board, you are the embodiment of the Emperor’s New Clothes. All bluster, and no substance. You speak in generalities, and yet provide no specifics. You are the contrarian without solution.
So it’s cool if we make personal attacks on people on this forum now as long as you start a thread on it?
So the description “reminds me of the pears from my grandmother’s tree that I had as a child” is allowed and “reminds me of the comice pears I had in my apartment last week” isn’t?
If you allow a tiny tiny bit of wine to go down your throat and spit the rest, that solves this problem.
OK I’ve read all the responses. I think Bill’s original post was way too personal and mean and hurtful as phrased. I think that if a non-wine-writer had said he was trying an experiment by tasting five kinds of pears to see if he could then discern more nuances in a wine with a pear flavor, Bill would not have written the same post. The fact that Richard writes about wine publicly seems to give Bill license not to treat him like a human being.
It comes across as jealousy of those who aer publicly recognized for writing about wine. Maybe Bill got his Rare Wine Co. (a top flight outfit) flyer yesterday where Richard’s comments and scores are cited.
I’ve dined with Bill at an offline and enjoyed his company, but I feel obligated to comment on what I see as an unnecessarily personal attack (the substance of which I also don’t agree with anyway) on someone I’ve met and like, who does have a sense of humor.
I’m also in strong disagreement about Bill’s point buried in the insults, but that would have been an interesting worthwhile discussion had Bill not made it so personal.