This topic came up when we were discussing modern vs traditional styles with Gaia Gaja when we were visiting the winery two yeas ago.
She mentioned abut the convergence of styles as the traditionalist were using shorter fermentations and also having more cleaner cellars, and also topping up barrels (with loss of oxidative character and less rustic nature). Also more riper and cleaner fruit was brought in now.
I think it is combination of all those small changes put together that is resulting the change.
Honestly, I donât care if the wine made now lasts only for 50 years and not 60 -70years. What I am more interested in is extending the drinking window.
AG referred to the 2006 Monfortino opened over the weekend as âsimply dazzlingâ. He describes it as having âthe most extraordinary bouquet imaginable, followed by bright, explosive fruitâ. Who knows when it will be when this wine will begins to shut down?
Tanzerâs quotation may be out of date, big barrels and long macerations are hip these days, thank God, and I am told that used rotofermenters are being sold cheap. This is true in southern Italy as well, I talked to an Etna producer and two Taurasi producers who started with barriques but have moved to botti recently, or are about to.
If you can ignore the sociology jargon (and there is a lot of that), this Stanford research paper from 2010 has a great history of the tug of war between the modernists and the traditionalists and the eventual (partial) convergence, with lots of interviews from the protagonists. It really explains the motivations of the new generation in the 80s and 90s who went the roto-fermenter/barrique route, and the mindset of those who resisted. Itâs essential reading for any Barolo/Barbersco lover, I think.
I see no reason that any producer (in the world) should have to choose between making earlier âsweet-spotâ bottlings and later âsweet-spotâ bottlings. They could take a look at the material they have at hand, then decide which path suits it best and bottle each kind of wine if they have both types. This can be a variety-specific thing and/or a site-specific thing. Understanding the destiny of the material is one leg of the stool, I think. Being able to optimize that material is the second leg of the stool. Finally, communicating the differences to the public is the third leg.
I agree that extending the happy zone of any wine is a good thing. Selling out the soul is not.
We should all look around, learn and then adapt or continue a reasoned course. It sounds like some of that is going on in Barolo. What is hard on the folks that value long-term wines is that it takes many years for changes to prove their appropriateness and consistency to the goal. The long-term view is seldom rewarded during the short-term and gives few opportunities for adaptation over the producersâ life-spans.
I find it interesting who it is that didnât participate in this thread. (I found it interesting who didnât participate in a thread I originated on AGâs board asking whether one can equally enjoy both traditional and modern producers.) It makes me wonder whether itâs a question of the validity of the premise, or just that the concept is simply inconceivable to some.
I donât understand what youâre getting at. Were you expecting an argument? You feel your thread is being ignored?
I think the premise you threw out â that even traditional Barolo is more approachable young today â isnât that controversial. As for ânew paradigm,â Iâm still not sure what thatâs supposed to mean.
Actually, I do think that âthe materialâ determines the style is most appropriate for it. What do you think answers the question best?
Producers should strive to refine their work thru experimentation. However, this does not mean changing EVERYTHING they make as the experiment. The same producer could conceivably have both earlier and later maturing bottlings of Barolo if they had material that lent itself toward both.
And in fact many producers in the region age some crus in barrique and others in botti, so they can offer different styles to different buyers.
I guess I think the style is much more of a choice by the winemaker. I doubt Iâd find any vineyard that I thought was better with a very short maceration and heavy new oak treatment, for instance. You can say, âOh, this fruit can handle more oak or longer barrel aging,â but I donât think it dictates those choices.
Re that Stanford paper, I NEVER thought I would read THIS in an article about wine:
Fuzzy-set theory allows partial memberships in sets. A fuzzy set is defined by a grade-of-membership (GoM) function, which maps objects in some universe of discourse to the [0,1] interval. An objectâs GoM in a category (or degree of typicality as a member of a category) from the perspective of an audience member tells the degree to which its perceived feature values fit her schema the category.
Yeah, IMO that is a very tough read - Johnâs a writer by trade, so maybe he is more comfortable with the scholarly bent used in this paper, but I struggled to get through it.
You have to realize that they are not really talking about wine but actually about tribal identity including âinsider defectorsâ and âopportunistsâ.
PS: I think the de Grazia inspired cold soaking and rotary fermenters were at LEAST as important a dividing line as barrique or botti.
So you are saying the 2010s will peak at 20 years of age or so and will be tough (like the 01 we tried) at pretty much any age before then? (Of course not all of them, but stillâŚ)