The word "smooth", or, 'How I Know Your Palate Sucks'

[ToddFrench]

@PeterH

Tim,

Let’s get this out of the way in the beginning. My palate is better than your’s.

But not your grammar

[Scott_Wi3gand]

@KatrinaBI

Second, a lot of what people like is based on what is available to them. In my former profession, we used to analyze at length why some women loved to read Harlequin Romances (with so many seemingly retrograde, misogynist messages in them). But the most convincing answer to why women read them was simply that they were readily available at the supermarket check-out, and so very easy to acquire. I think the same is true of wine. Most people like crap wine because you have to actively seek out the good stuff. Read enough harlequin romances or slurp down enough Rombauer, and you think these things are the apex of each art form. This isn’t a genetic failure of taste, or some kind of “disability” as you seem to be suggesting.

I think you’re onto something with harlequin romance novels but as a corollary not just to liking “crowd pleaser wines” but all sorts of things like eating at Olive Garden and listening to pop music. I don’t necessarily think that it has to do with availability but rather that the end user doesn’t want to or isn’t able to use the kind of higher order thinking required to enjoy more complex art forms. I know plenty of people fully capable of seeking out and obtaining better expressions of any given art form (beer, wine, music, literature, etc…) but will admit that they don’t want to “think” about it that much. They just want to enjoy. If the lower art form is enjoyable to them, that is great for them (usually a huge monetary advantage as well). I often wish I didn’t think so much about the things I enjoy and could appreciate a bud light from time to time. Unfortunately for me, I cannot and maybe that’s the disability.

[CFu]

@Todd F r e n c h

@PeterH

Tim,

Let’s get this out of the way in the beginning. My palate is better than your’s.

But not your grammar

God only gives with one hand.

[Marcus_Goodfellow]

@KatrinaBI

Hmm. I think you’re saying that, just as there are “supertasters” out there genetically endowed with superior wine tasting skills, there are “disabled” wine tasters out there, genetically endowed with inferior wine tasting skills and/or inferior language skills (they can’t describe what they taste). People who call a wine “smooth” fall into the latter category. But beyond that, we tip toe around these “disabled tasters” in our midst, unwilling to criticize their taste or wine descriptions and retreat instead into “happy pluralism” (you like Caymus, I like Graillot, and that’s ok).

That’s what I get out of what you’ve written anyway, Tim. Maybe I’ve misread.

I’d throw out two things. One is that I think every ability to analyze/critique depends on possessing a language of criticism. This is learned, not innate. I think a lot of people just haven’t “learned” the language of wine criticism yet. Hence the inability to describe what they taste and the falling back on “yum” or “smooth.” I don’t think it’s an ingrained inarticulacy.

Second, a lot of what people like is based on what is available to them. In my former profession, we used to analyze at length why some women loved to read Harlequin Romances (with so many seemingly retrograde, misogynist messages in them). But the most convincing answer to why women read them was simply that they were readily available at the supermarket check-out, and so very easy to acquire. I think the same is true of wine. Most people like crap wine because you have to actively seek out the good stuff. Read enough harlequin romances or slurp down enough Rombauer, and you think these things are the apex of each art form. This isn’t a genetic failure of taste, or some kind of “disability” as you seem to be suggesting.

Sweet! Great post and an admirable donation to this thought process.

[Matthew_King]

@Todd F r e n c h

@PeterH

Tim,

Let’s get this out of the way in the beginning. My palate is better than your’s.

But not your grammar

Actually, it’s his spelling that’s in question. Not his grammar.

[Al_Osterheld]

The word “smooth” is less an indicator of tasting ability than of geekiness. I know a number of people with great palates who aren’t interesting in writing tasting notes to impress others and, frankly, they are some of my favorite dining companions.

I’ll admit I did teach a co-worker to say “I love the texture of this wine” rather than “this is smooth”, but I wanted to protect them from the judgement of wine geeks.

-Al

[Marcus_Goodfellow]

@Scott Wiegand

@KatrinaBI

Second, a lot of what people like is based on what is available to them. In my former profession, we used to analyze at length why some women loved to read Harlequin Romances (with so many seemingly retrograde, misogynist messages in them). But the most convincing answer to why women read them was simply that they were readily available at the supermarket check-out, and so very easy to acquire. I think the same is true of wine. Most people like crap wine because you have to actively seek out the good stuff. Read enough harlequin romances or slurp down enough Rombauer, and you think these things are the apex of each art form. This isn’t a genetic failure of taste, or some kind of “disability” as you seem to be suggesting.

I think you’re onto something with harlequin romance novels but as a corollary not just to liking “crowd pleaser wines” but all sorts of things like eating at Olive Garden and listening to pop music. I don’t necessarily think that it has to do with availability but rather that the end user doesn’t want to or isn’t able to use the kind of higher order thinking required to enjoy more complex art forms. I know plenty of people fully capable of seeking out and obtaining better expressions of any given art form (beer, wine, music, literature, etc…) but will admit that they don’t want to “think” about it that much. They just want to enjoy. If the lower art form is enjoyable to them, that is great for them (usually a huge monetary advantage as well). I often wish I didn’t think so much about the things I enjoy and could appreciate a bud light from time to time. Unfortunately for me, I cannot and maybe that’s the disability.

Scott, your thoughts are probably on the right track here but people are not binary creatures.

It’s very possible for someone to have a deep drive to explore one area of expertise and stay in the shallow water in another. Honestly, the more you are driven to an area of expertise the less rounded you become. e.g. I read a lot more books before I decided to go into winery ownership.
After 3-4 years I felt I was a winemaker because it was what I loved and I had a natural aptitude for it. After 10 years I knew I was a winery owner because I didn’t have time to be anything else.

I search for the best things to eat and drink, and read about cheese, foie gras, and the like because I love it and because I don’t have time to read a great author and find out I don’t enjoy his work. It’s too much commitment. Comic books on the other hand…

[Scott_Wi3gand]

@Marcus Goodfellow

@Scott Wiegand

@KatrinaBI

Second, a lot of what people like is based on what is available to them. In my former profession, we used to analyze at length why some women loved to read Harlequin Romances (with so many seemingly retrograde, misogynist messages in them). But the most convincing answer to why women read them was simply that they were readily available at the supermarket check-out, and so very easy to acquire. I think the same is true of wine. Most people like crap wine because you have to actively seek out the good stuff. Read enough harlequin romances or slurp down enough Rombauer, and you think these things are the apex of each art form. This isn’t a genetic failure of taste, or some kind of “disability” as you seem to be suggesting.

I think you’re onto something with harlequin romance novels but as a corollary not just to liking “crowd pleaser wines” but all sorts of things like eating at Olive Garden and listening to pop music. I don’t necessarily think that it has to do with availability but rather that the end user doesn’t want to or isn’t able to use the kind of higher order thinking required to enjoy more complex art forms. I know plenty of people fully capable of seeking out and obtaining better expressions of any given art form (beer, wine, music, literature, etc…) but will admit that they don’t want to “think” about it that much. They just want to enjoy. If the lower art form is enjoyable to them, that is great for them (usually a huge monetary advantage as well). I often wish I didn’t think so much about the things I enjoy and could appreciate a bud light from time to time. Unfortunately for me, I cannot and maybe that’s the disability.

Scott, your thoughts are probably on the right track here but people are not binary creatures.

It’s very possible for someone to have a deep drive to explore one area of expertise and stay in the shallow water in another. Honestly, the more you are driven to an area of expertise the less rounded you become. e.g. I read a lot more books before I decided to go into winery ownership.
After 3-4 years I felt I was a winemaker because it was what I loved and I had a natural aptitude for it. After 10 years I knew I was a winery owner because I didn’t have time to be anything else.

I search for the best things to eat and drink, and read about cheese, foie gras, and the like because I love it and because I don’t have time to read a great author and find out I don’t enjoy his work. It’s too much commitment. Comic books on the other hand…

Marcus, thank you for considering my comments (I’m a little surprised anyone has been able to read through this thread this far). I do want to clarify a little bit however. I don’t necessarily mean that all whom enjoy the oft maligned things mentioned above are all in one camp or another. More so to speak of the motivation to seek out and contemplate the greater pleasures of life and what it means to intentionally avoid such pursuits.

It should also be noted that it was not meant to be a judgment on those not wanting to spend the intellectual capital on such pursuits. It is simply to say that for some, it is due to a lack of motivation and for some a lack of time or priority in ones life. In your case, devoting more time to the winery cost you the freedom to read as you once did. I wouldn’t say you lost the motivation but rather had other priorities that would prevent committing the time required.

[Steve_Anderson]

Could never think of a good tag line for my signature - thanks for the inspiration!

[Sc0tt_F_tzgerald]

Wow, quite the post.

My two cents…I don’t think people have poor palates. I think they may have one or more of the following:

1. Ignorant palates, where they haven’t been exposed to good wines or the history or background that contributes to the wine. That Caymus was their best wine ever, because they simply don’t know what they don’t know.

2. Impatient palates, where they don’t take the time or effort to contemplate what they’re really drinking, enjoy (or not) and why. This can be attributed to guzzling, not focusing on the wine, simply not caring, etc.

3. An inability to describe in detail, and eloquently, what they’ve just tasted. Just because your note is more descriptive, doesn’t mean the person who wrote “smooth” enjoyed it any less.

[jcoley3]

I read the whole OP’s post.

I will say that selling across the entire wine scale, fine and otherwise, bears out a lot of what Scott says.

I have plenty of customers who seek the kind of wines most everyone here could find sophisticated.

I have plenty of customers who seek the kind of wines that reassure them they are getting something safe and acceptable.

I have plenty of customers who use adjectives like “smooth” and “fruity” where it is my job to suss out what they mean (usually, stuff like Apothic/Moscato/Relax Riesling).

The second category can be most fascinating, because they can be quite sophisticated in the way they make other choices in their tastes.

It is my job to learn what they all mean when they say things. It is a remarkable challenge, and really fun in many ways.

[GregT]

When “drank” is the past participle, all bets are off. The length of the post indicates that there’s some passion there, albeit inchoate.

Is the objection to the word “smooth”? To the fact that different people have different tastes? To the controversial concept that the earth orbits the sun?

Or was it all just PWI?

So much to ponder.

Epic post though!

[Rauno_E_NZ]

Tim, if you wanted to “create a dialogue” you might have thought to not start it with a monologue

There’s some useful stuff in your thoughts, but I believe we first need to get rid of the guff and misconceptions, i.e. the pieces that would just intrude or distract from the dialogue you’re seeking.

1. You have framed this (in part) as natural ability and disability, introducing qualitative assessment of someone’s palate - e.g. comparing (and conflating) with other things like sports where there clearly is a qualitative aspect. That’s distracting, because actually palates are simply different, not “better” or “worse”. Yes, there are super tasters and what not, but from an evolutionary perspective it may be the “best” palate is reasonably insensitive. What’s the evolutionary advantage in modern times of having a palate that distinguishes for TCA more accurately? Actually, is that a downer if you love wine? I know one highly knowledgable wine expert, with extremely good ability to distinguish flavors / scents but who is massively forgiving wrt TCA. Sounds like an “advantage” in some ways! So by framing it as “good” (ability) and “bad” (disability) you will not only get people’s back up (reducing chance of successful dialogue) but also be just plain wrong.

2. What is balanced in a wine for some is not so for others, and that is neither right nor wrong. Even within the set of people I regularly enjoy wine with, who pretty much have similar preferences, we have different views on different wines - e.g. I’m less tolerant about high VA (except some wonderfully characterful wines like Soldera) and macerated flavours, while some of them are less tolerant of oak or slightly under-ripe acidity which I don’t mind. This is already zooming into the 5% of the 5%!

3. You mix learned skills (e.g. describing flavours) with physiological aptitude.

4. You also suppose / imply that the ability to fully appreciate wine requires the ability to communicate that appreciation in a critique. That’s not necessarily true at all.

Other than that, all good. Perhaps for your next dialogue we can talk about different abilities people have getting their point across

[Robert.A.Jr]

Didn’t Pepys refer to Ho Bryen as “smooth” in the now historic first published tasting note from 1663?

[Andrew_L]

tl;dr

[Cary_Rosner]

Is it too early to officially call this the best post of 2015! LMFAO!!!

@c fu

guess you’ve become a better man since 2012

TN: 2004 Concha y Toro Carménère Terrunyo Peumo Vineyard Block 27 - WINE TALK - WineBerserkers

@Tim Heaton

• 2004 Concha y Toro Carménère Terrunyo Peumo Vineyard Block 27 - Chile, Central Valley, Rapel Valley, Peumo (6/25/2012)
  PnP. Fading into a very graceful ending. Still a medium dark purple core, little sign of age. Aromas skew toward stewed plum, blackberry pie, baking spices, braised cabbage and tomato paste; flavors largely follow. Medium toward full-bodied with completely integrated grape tannins. Medium finish, but oh so damn smooth, silky, who really cares? All second wines should be this enjoyable. Drink sooner than later. 14,0% abv, drink thru 2014 (91 pts.)

Posted from CellarTracker

[NickRut]

This whole thread is oh so damn smooth

[Craig_G]

@Todd F r e n c h

@PeterH

Tim,

Let’s get this out of the way in the beginning. My palate is better than your’s.

But not your grammar

Well, pretty close. The OP had a grammatical error (“drank”) in his first run-on sentence.

[Craig_G]

@Cary Rosner

Is it too early to officially call this the best post of 2015!

No, it’s too late.

[David_J]

Lighten up Francis