Good honest feedback. My basic view on biodynamics is that it is a mix of natural farming and superstitions, but if it makes you work your vines better and makes you feel better than I am all for it. The benefit you get is that you have to constantly be in your vines, work the earth, and pay constant and close attention. You can do all of this without biodynamics, but the structure of biodynamics makes it easier for folks to actually go out and ‘do it’. Many also enjoy the more mystical, less tangible, or superstitious parts of it too and this helps them to keep at it. It is no different to me than having a routine at the free throw line. Dribbling the ball three times before you shoot shouldn’t make you shoot a better free throw, but if you believe it does then it probably does and I have no problem with you doing it.
I neither understand all of it nor believe in all of it, but I do believe in working the vines and there is usually a difference in tasting the same wine farmed in the traditional un-natural Champagne method, by-the-book organic, and by-the-book biodynamic. Overall, I find biodynamics to be a fascinating topic and, to me, the film was more about the family than anything else. It was a way to get to know Bertrand and based on your feedback, it accomplished that. Whether anyone agrees or disagrees with him or his vinegrowing/winemaking, he is doing his best in the way that he sees fit. Personally, I have a hard time with his wines from release to release though I find the Saignee de Sorbee Rose to always be a winner.
The real point of these Virtual Visit Sessions is to get to know the winemaker, their vision, and thier passion. Whether you agree or disagree really isn’t relevant. You get to know them and understand them better. This might make you happy, it might make you sad, or you just might not care at all.
I would also point out that another place to find some top notch magical bullshit is the Monsanto website. I’ll take my bullshit with a side order of valerian.
Not believing in biodynamics is not the same as believing in full on manipulation Monsanto style. It’s not either-or.
You can be kind to your vines without falling full on into the dogma of biodynamics is what I would say and I think Mike would agree with. Biodynamics is not science. It’s a practice.
I haven’t watched the film, but I did watch the trailer and while the film looks beautiful, it always does strike me as bizarre that winemakers who depend so much on demonstrable, applicable scientific principles for their work can also genuinely insist that a cow’s horn is an antenna that harnesses cosmic forces to nourish their vines.
In the grand scheme of things, letting people have their fantasies when it comes to viticulture is not a particularly harmful thing and there are sure a whole heck of a lot worse things to be concerned about. But I also think truth matters no matter what the venue especially in this day and age, and the truth is that sustainable, best-practices-oriented agriculture accomplishes everything biodynamics does without the need for the mysticism. To conflate them is wrong and unfair to people who have worked to observe, develop, and promote farming that is better for everyone. I think biodynamics intentionally piggybacks on these principles to give it credence in a way I find disconcerting.
Biodynamics is impossible to discuss rationally because it is fundamentally irrational. I’m sure this event will be interesting for many and this is no insult to anyone involved in putting it together, obviously.
I guess that makes two of us. I appreciate that M. Gautherot genuinely thinks these things are true, but I think indulging anyone who insists on its efficacy or even existence is antithetical to rational thinking. Pseudoscience doesn’t really benefit anyone.
I fully agree with Cris’ comment and am not in any way an adherent of biodynamic philosophy. But in my view intolerance for views that you may not agree with that are actually delivering a net benefit to society (as with many religious views, say) is more harmful than allowing them to be voiced and granting a modicum of respect to their proponents.
I appreciate the event today everyone. We had a lot of good questions, and I was impressed again with the candidness of Bertrand in the answers he offered.
We’re not going to learn, to be able to have a discussion unless we listen to each other. That means really listening, and trying to understand the other POV. We’re then free to make a judgment about that position. For me personally, I grew up on things that were not farmed cleanly, but I learned to adopt a lifestyle where I make choices about eating organic (most everything I buy is), about the wines I support, etc. That doesn’t have to be your own view nor an agreement with my decision.
Mike, I noticed you were on the Zoom, and I appreciate you coming to hear the event. As I said earlier, even if you don’t agree with the line of the film or the approach of bio as covered, I do hope you enjoyed today’s session.
Thanks to Todd for being our partner again, and for Brad in helping to enrich the moderator role I took on today.
Here is my TN for the wine I was tasting during the event. I’ll be enjoying this the rest of the day. Stay safe everyone.
2014 Vouette et Sorbée Champagne Blanc d’Argile Brut Nature- France, Champagne (5/29/2020)
Disgorged October 2017, which mirrors the bottle from last year. 100% Chardonnay, zero dosage, from the neighboring village of Ville-sur-Arce. This bottle started off a little more settled down than the one fom last year, yet the wine noticeably blossomed with an hour of air. It seemed to start off a little funky and soft…but with that air, it came alive. Lemon, dried pear, green apple, mineral, with a good spine that was not present when I first opened the bottle. Of note, there are at least 2 disgorgements, as I also saw a 2016 disgorgement in my cellar but I decided to let that one age and open the 2017 disgorgement instead. Given the structure, I think the older disgorgement will be even better with a bit more time. As I continue to drink these Vouette et Sorbee wines, they will take anchoring place in my cellar as I buy deeper into my coming offers. Bertrand is really all-in with his bio approach and the wines are terrific.
Thank you Frank, Todd, Brad, and Bertrand Gautherot for this special deep dive into the region and your special champagnes. The generosity of your time and sharing of passion and knowledge of wine is so appreciated. In times like these, its a welcome respite from the world around that is not as warm and bright.
It reminds me of how special this is and the opportunities to learn and expand my appreciation of Champagne and its many regions. (Thanks to Todd and how the WB community helps to expand the knowledge. And Brad for sharing his love and as well for his knowledge of the region.)
The movie was such a special treat to dive deeper and in more unexpectedly. It was excellent and helped me to think about Champage and its nuances. Please especially thank Bertrand and others that gave us the special preview to the movie. It expanded my knowledge about the grower house and practices that you normally don’t get to see, since we only have a brief visit.
Bertrand Gautherot, special thank you for your honest humility and perspective. (And yes, this is true of all the other special and wonderful Champagne grower producers that Frank has shared with us and have generously shared parts of their Saturdays‘ in France.)
The fact that the film and the beliefs of Bertrand have sparked a discussion is what this is all about. Getting to know why someone does what they do and how their passions and beliefs relate or do not relate to you is important. That is how we all make choices about who we want to be friends with, who we want to support, and who we want to stay away from. It also allows us all to open our minds to different ideas and viewpoints. For better or worse, everyone should have a much better picture of Bertrand.
Who knows where Bertrand will be in ten years, maybe not fully biodynamic anymore. A lot of producers have gone that route and found that they would rather just go natural in the vinyards. Along with bringing in new methods, they keep the good practices that are a part of biodynamics, limit the bad (potential for Copper over-use), and forget the mystical.
Well that was a great wrap up to 24 hours of getting to know Bertrand. This was live and personal and the best. I find him interesting as much or more from a philosophical and personal point of view than from the wines and winemaker perspective I will seek out Vouette et Sorbee Champagne and also hope to get a chance to visit when we can safely plan our first visit to Champagne. Thanks again to Bertrand for being so open and genuine. Thanks also to Todd, Brad and especially to Frank, who stepped it up as the lead moderator. Nice job, Frank.
Frank, I enjoyed the Zoom session and appreciated getting to know Bertrand better. I pulled a 2015 Fidele two weeks ago to drink during the session but hurt my knee yesterday and didn’t want to mix it with pain meds. One thing I came to realize as I reflected further on the documentary are my own mixed and somewhat contradictory attitudes towards biodynamics. While many of my favorite producers are biodynamic, I prefer to remain detached from the more mystical and unscientific elements attached to it.
I share this same opinion. It may not be scientifically provable, and it may not make sense to everyone, but if it gets the vigneron out in the vines, taking care of them and more interested in the process and the end result, does it do harm? Whether bio or not, as wine lovers I think we all benefit from producers who truly care about their farming and their end product as opposed to just mass market sales and how much money they can make.
The irony of Bertrand promoting biodynamics, or anything dynamic, seems too large to ignore. The most dynamic bit of his chat was tied between when his wife walked into the room and the guy filled his glass. Maybe it is his age, but Bertrand comes across dry, and unfortunately, some aspects of Bertrand that were included in the film and confirmed in his live conversation left a negative impression on me.
I do not mean the magic or mysticism, or other non-conventional philosophies Bertrand promotes. I mean the elitist arrogance that appeared in the film, for example, when he was at the chalkboard near the amphorae with his daughter and in his response to a WBer’s question. The egocentricity seems common among engineers of all types, which doesn’t make it any more palatable.
It was with distaste for Bertrand personally that we opened our first Vouette & Sorbee Fidele last evening. And I gotta hand it to him, the bottle was excellent. A little frothy with the first two pours, but the appealing nose, blended fruit in mouth, tart bone dry finish left a positive impression. We are looking forward to opening the other bottles!
So, I am very glad to have seen the film and listened to Bertrand as a build-up to drinking the wine. Very desirable wine from a not-so-desirable guy.
Thanks for your thoughts. To me this means that we are doing these visits right and not just talking about the wine range, how a wine tastes, or what the upcoming release cadence looks like.
If nothing else, the hope of these type of virtual visits is to get you to see the real person, good and/or bad, behind the wine. We are trying to show you the true character of the vinegrower and winemaker. The content shared and phrasing of the questions asked hopefully accomplish two tasks. One is to give some interesting background and information that you can’t easily get elsewhere that is hopefully thought provoking/eye opening. The other is to give the producer a path to show their true soul and personality.
One thing I will say about Bertrand and really almost anyone where English is not their main language is that you are never going to capture everything; things are lost in translation and understanding. We would have discovered more had the visit been done in French. I’m not saying the character of Bertrand would have changed, but there would have been more substance to it.
Interesting range of reactions to Bertrand. As in almost every situation, different folks (myself included) focus differently to what was said and how it was said it and then respond favorably or unfavorably. Or maybe don’t even care. Different strokes! In his less than perfect, but very adequate, English, and without trying to do so, Bertrand provoked favor, disfavor, and maybe boredom. For example he started his answer to one question with a rather terse “I don’t make wine for you.” (uh-oh?!) , but completed the answer by giving a very personal, philosophical, profound (quoting Brad at the time) and maybe touching(my thought at the time) and maybe long winded (to others?) explanation of how he approaches winemaking. And he did his best to give us this in English. For this type of open communication in this instance and others, and putting aside some of my own skepticism about the magic and the alchemy, I was left with an overwhelming feeling of “Bravo, Bertrand!”
My favorite quote of our session with Bertrand was, ‘I don’t make wine for you’. That quote really sums up who Bertrand is. This needs to be put in context a bit, but you could see his expression as he said it and I liked it for its openness and honesty. Bertrand is not in favor of making wine for anyone’s tastes and is sensitive to what he would call marketing or formula wines meant to taste a certain way and appeal to a certain person. He is focused on making wines that showcase his vineyards regardless of what flavors/aromas that may result in. Personally, I would argue that changing up his winemaking a bit might make for better wines, but he is doing as he sees fit. We saw the real Bertrand. I don’t agree with him on a number of topics, but I like him. Different views and opinions make the world go round.
I really can’t thank Frank enough for setting this session up and leading it as he put in a lot of hard work and back and forth with Bertrand to make this happen. Of all our Champagne sessions, this one brought out the most content that is divisive and discussion worthy. To me, that is fun.
* Edited to add an ‘and’ between openness & honesty in the third sentence of the first paragraph
