The Van Morrison Theory of Wine

Van_morrison
Having reconciled myself to the idea that there is no such thing as an objective criteria for quality in any category of wine, I began deliberating on what I think we all must do to bring reason to our palate and preferences; to put our preferential house in order, so to speak.

What I began looking for were other artistic (yes, artistic) creations that might serve as a model for my personal beliefs about wine quality. What I was looking for were expressions in other art forms that, for lack of a better word, "touched" me in a way that was inescapably real and visceral. Upon experiencing this unique sort of touch, I then asked myself what it was about the work of art that was able to move me…move me to tears, joy, elation, contemplation. If I could identify what it was that moved me through another art form, I just might have a model for describing what, for me, represents quality.

I found my model, and it wasn’t too hard to find: Van Morrison.

Listening all the way through Morrison’s "Moondance", "Astral Weeks" and "Hymns To Silence" albums touch me deeply, and they do so every time I listen to them. Absorbing Morrison’s eloquent "Rave on John Donne", "Into the Mystic", "Crazy Love", and "On Hyndford Street" always stop me in my tracks.

So what is it about this music and artist that is so arresting for me personally? Authenticity. The authenticity of the sound of Van Morrison, the authenticity of the expressions in the works, the authentic input of unadulterated instrumentation carried out by the hands of man, rather that the 1’s and 0’s of computer-generated sound. There is Affinity to deal with here too. The connection that Morrison’s musicAstral
makes with me has a great deal to do with the substance of his message and feeling, most of which I clearly have an affinity.

Can a wine touch me in the same way? I don’t know. I don’t think so. But I do know that the qualities that I find in Van Morrison’s music can be found in wine and I’m sure that when I see or taste their expression I’ll know that I’ve come across my version of "high quality" wine.

It’s important to begin here with the acknowledgment that there is a real similarity between great wine and great music. There can be no mistaking Van Morrison. No one else sounds like him. He has, as it were, a "house style", a sound that identifies him just as a great winery will also have a voice that comes through in all its wines. Perhaps its a deft touch. Perhaps it’s a rustic-ness or a purity of flavor that runs across its wines.

Yet while always being unmistakably "Morrison", the man has investigated and experimented with many different genre of music from R&B and Rock n Roll to Country and Jazz. Wineries too do just this as they work with different varieties of grapes. The resulting wines will carry the voice of the winery, but the character of the grape will also come shining through.

Finally, in listening through Morrison’s more than thirty years worth of recordings it’s quite clear that the personal changes, tragedies, failure and victories that make up his life are communicated in his various musical stages, be they immensely spiritual in nature, Christian in substance, bound to his Irish homeland Hymns
or born of his aging voice. Wineries too must reflect the changes they are confronted with and, like Morrison, seemingly unable to direct in the form of vintage variation. The winery will always have a voice and will certainly experiment with different varieties, but they too will be subject to the untamable variation in vintage.

So, we have a solid connection and similarity between music and wine that allows me to use the music model to understand and define my notion of "great wine".

Can then, a wine be, above all, "authentic"? Most certainly it can. A wine can be a representation of a place and people. It can in its origin and treatment be authentically OF a real place. And it can authentically represent the voice and interpretation of a winemaker or winery without losing that authenticity of place. That is to say, aging a wine in oak or whole cluster pressing the grapes or use of particular yeasts that are not native can all be expressions of a winemaker’s unique touch or voice, and all the while not necessarily extract what the place from which the grapes came brought to the wine.

I think I need to admit that just as I have developed a certain intimacy with the music and message of VanMoondance
Morrison, I’d need to develop an intimate relationship or understanding with the winery and its wines’ ‘places" to be able to say, "Ah, this is authentic". And this of course brings us back the fundamental truth that leads to this uncomfortably long  and indulgent post: that there is no such thing as objective criteria for greatness in wine, but rather only the comfort that comes with familiarity and affinity that lets each of us define greatness.

There is one more final question that all the above begs: Who’s familiar experiences and affinities will define your criteria for greatness?

A Selection of Lyrics from Van Morrison’s
"RAVE ON JOHN DONNE" From the "Inarticulate Speech of the Heart" Album


Rave on, you left us infinity
And well pressed pages torn to fade
Drive on with wild abandon
Up tempo, frenzied heels

Rave on, Walt Whitman, nose down in wet grass
Rave on fill the senses
On nature’s bright green shady path

Rave on Omar Khayyam, Rave on Kahlil Gibran
Oh, what sweet wine we drinketh
The celebration will be held
We will partake the wine and break the Holy bread

Rave on let a man come out of Ireland
Rave on on Mr. Yeats,
Rave on down through the Holy Rosey Cross
Rave on down through theosophy, and the Golden Dawn
Rave on through the writing of "A Vision"
Rave on, Rave on, Rave on, Rave on, Rave on, Rave on

Rave on John Donne, rave on thy Holy fool
Down through the weeks of ages
In the moss borne dark dank pools


50 Responses

  1. TH - April 29, 2008

    Great analogy, great artist (as you may recall from a previous post of mine, Astral Weeks is my all-time favorite album — since it came out in 1968), great post for a wanderer in Verona, Italia. Grazie, Tommaso.

  2. Tom Wark - April 29, 2008

    Terry,
    Listening to “Ballerina” now as I type and work.

  3. Thomas Pellechia - April 29, 2008

    Tom,
    Not that I disagree with anything you wrote, about Morrison and his music, and about greatness. But greatness and quality are not exactly the same thing, although without the latter, the former is impossible to reach.
    To me, greatness transcends quality.

  4. Arthur Przebinda - April 29, 2008

    What would happen (to the wine industry and all those who make a living along wine’s way from vine to glass) if there were absolute, objective criteria for wine quality?

  5. Thomas Pellechia - April 29, 2008

    Arthur,
    I don’t know what would happen to the wine industry, but I sure think I know what would happen to wine critics, and it would be fun to watch…

  6. Arthur Przebinda - April 29, 2008

    Thomas,
    Well, for the sake of the argument, let’s just work with the assumption that there are those objective standards and that a good number of the population (including the critics) are able to detect and identify and agrees upon.
    What would happen to the wine industry and all those who make a living along wine’s way from vine to glass?
    Feel free to elaborate on what would happen to wine critics as well.

  7. Arthur Przebinda - April 29, 2008

    Tom (W),
    Regarding your final question:
    If we are to believe the conclusions of Economics and Marketing studies of those like Goldstein (The wine Trials, etc) and Rangel (Caltech, fMRI, etc), it would appear that it will be those with the least wine knowledge and the preference for (often) simpler, (often) more cheaply made, more immediately approachable wines that will define our nation’s criteria for greatness in wine.
    The question that begs asking – particularly on the basis of the conclusions of the Rangel study – is will these simple wines go up in price because they will be then new standard of greatness?
    While it can be argued that the Goldstein paper was a way to give some publicity and an appearance of scientific validity to the findings in the book, the Rangel study’s utility is not in giving better understanding of wine to the enthusiast, but in helping the producer, distributor and marketer find ways to make more money on wine by determining how much people will willing shell out for wine as its quality production costs (generally directly proportionate to the resulting quality – not necessarily the quaffability – of a wine) re reduced.
    To subscribe wholeheartedly to the notion that “there is no such thing as objective criteria for greatness in wine” deflects attention from the fact that many people stand to loose a lot o money if the wine they now sell for $35 and up were deemed (by objective standards) not to be worth even half the asking price.
    Never mind that many of those spouting superlatives about those same wines would end up red-faced at best.

  8. Tom Wark - April 29, 2008

    Arthur:
    That would be impossible. There is no such thing as an objective, absolute standard for quality. Anyone who suggests there is cannot produce any warrant for their position outside of personal preference.

  9. Tom Wark - April 29, 2008

    “What would happen to the wine industry and all those who make a living along wine’s way from vine to glass? Feel free to elaborate on what would happen to wine critics as well.”
    Critics would become mathematicians and at the same time would be able to “wine laws” that are either part of nature of handed down from God.

  10. Arthur Przebinda - April 29, 2008

    Tom,
    Why is it that we are OK with applying quality standards to other goods and service and not this one? We do it with cars, sports equipment, doctors, lawyers, reporters, clothing, food and countless other things.
    This notion of “there is no objective standard of wine” serves those making and selling wine (and doesn’t ruffle the feathers of those who prefer one particular style of wine over another).
    That amounts to political correctness: skirting the true nature of the issue so as to avoid anyone getting their feelings hurt.
    I have no problem with people liking different styles of wine, but let’s not pretend that they are all of equal quality and value and that popular demand means quality.
    I’m having trouble following you in the last part of your second response.

  11. Tom Wark - April 29, 2008

    Arthur,
    I’m find with the idea of applying quality standards to wine. I just recognize that they can’t be objective standards.
    Actually, this does not so much amount to political correctness as it does philosophical correctness.
    I recognize that certain criteria are generally accepted by educated wine drinkers as indicators of quality. I further recognize that certain criteria are recognized by not so educated wine drinkers as indicators of quality.
    I defy anyone to rationally justify the claim that one set of standards is the objective and absolute criteria that is to be used to judge wine quality.

  12. Tom Wark - April 29, 2008

    Arthur,
    In order to have an objective and absolute standard one needs to identify the warrant for that claim. I can see no warrant for the claim that there is an objective standard for quality in wine.
    If there were such a warrant it would have to be couched in terms of natural sciences or theological claims, hence the mathematician and God comment.

  13. Thomas Pellechia - April 29, 2008

    Well, Arthur and Tom, I disagree with Tom that there is no objective measure of quality–there are a number of objective measures that can be measured in a lab.
    Many times, I’ve encountered wines that critics and cult followers alike rave over but measured technically would not pass the test for v.a. or extreme oxidation or some other such measurable parameter like pH etc. (Anyone who knows anything about producing wine will agree that a pH of 4.5 and up has meaning, and it isn’t so good.)
    The problem is not with the objectivity of the measurements. The problem is with the subjectivity of the tasters. Some people just like crap, and some of them get paid to produce it while others get paid to proclaim its greatness. But then, to Tom’s point, without agreement on the objective measures, which there isn’t, what I call crap can still be called wine.
    One other problem is that many wine critics don’t start their careers with technical training. You can’t get more subjective than that.

  14. Arthur Przebinda - April 29, 2008

    Are you working with the assumption that I propose to apply one single standard to all wines? eg: all Cab/merlot based blends (Napa, East Paso, West Paso, Santa Ynez, Chile and Médoc) being subjected to the same standard?
    That is *not* my contention.
    Wines from each respective region or site should be considered in the context of their place.
    I acknowledge that there is an element of human intervention. (I see that with wines from different producers sourcing from the same vineyards in the same vintage)
    However, the issue that must be addressed is: at what point is the wine a product of the intervention and not of the grapes and the site?
    I am not really a “slippery slope-ist” but in meeting the general public’s demands for ‘consistnency’ (and in eschewing things like pyrazines), producers sacrifice uniqueness for ‘sameness’. By ridding the wine of its sense of origin (that which makes the wine uniquely the best Rutherford, the Jura, the Sta. Rita Hills or La Tache is capable of), the quality is knocked down a few notches because it has lost authenticity and its soul. It’s like Van Morrison fronting a hair-metal band in the 80s – simply because that was what the public liked and what sold out stadiums.
    Too often I read and see what amounts to lip service to ‘terroir’ (more like the brand equity of the AVA) and ‘hand crafting’ (more like overworking the wine so it appeals to everyone) and the wine just does not live up to the hype.

  15. Arthur Przebinda - April 29, 2008

    My earlier post was in response to Tom W.
    Thomas:
    “One other problem is that many wine critics don’t start their careers with technical training. You can’t get more subjective than that.”
    Lest we forget, a certain Maryland attorney is said to have developped his scale as an ammateur/enthusiast.
    I am all for getting wine bloggers, writers and critics trained. Organoleptic assessment is teachable/learnable and so are the other fundmentals of wine science.
    Unfortunately, there is no incremental value to most writers to learn these things.

  16. Tom Wark - April 29, 2008

    Arthur,
    Why is a wine of higher quality if it better reflects the grape’s origin? I’m not saying it isn’t, but rather suggesting that this criteria for quality is really just subjective in nature. There’s nothing objective that makes this a rational statement.

  17. Arthur Przebinda - April 29, 2008

    Tom:
    A: Because each site affects vine (and berry) physiology differently.
    Your next question, then, is: what/who determines what is the best expression of the grape or its physiological products in a given site?
    My response is:
    That is why we should have an appellation system that includes levels of the following
    These would focus on: degree of complexity (giving consideration to the grape, not oak) vs absolute power and levels extraction, longevity vs immediate approachability (taking into consideration the variety), general drinkability and food friendliness, finesse, fermentation flaws or lack thereof, etc.
    This still leaves a lot of room for stylistic expression.
    And who will determine these things? Who will do the work?
    I say that there comes a point where we have to relinquish our individualistic mindsets and allow an authority – a body of people who do the research.
    But they should be sommeliers, enologists, wine growers etc who look at the wine in the context of its cépage and origin and not from the perspective of personal preference.
    If that was not possible, then matchmakers would not have any success in creating lasting unions between people they may not personally like.

  18. Jeff - April 29, 2008

    Good post, Tom. I love Van Morrison and he certainly shares another trait with wine–he can be mercurial, finicky and inconsistent album to album, similar to a vintage. But, as you note, always authentic.
    Jeff

  19. Heloisa Fialho - April 29, 2008

    Dear Tom
    I’ve been following your blog for some time already. I live in Southern Brazil, where most of our wine is produced. I consider myself a “not so educated wine drinker”, as you put it. I do try hard to educate myself, although it’s almost a lost case, as “quality” wine is way too expensive for my pocket.
    I find the discussion here extremely interesting; it reminds me of “Zen & the art of motorcycle maintenance”.
    As you can see, I write some lines in English in one of my blogs, but the main one (http://esoumdiario.blogspot.com) is in Portuguese. In it, I write about several things but mostly about wine and the local wineries. It’s just the opinion of a non-educated wine drinker trying to change.I follow posts by Alice Feiring and a couple of Brazilian wine writers.
    I’d like to ask your permission to translate your post and publish it in the Portuguese blog. No changes and only my comment about it.
    big Brazilian hug.

  20. Tom Wark - April 29, 2008

    Arthur:
    I like your system. It’s logical, makes sense to me, meets with tradition, respects the grape, and is something I could probably endorse …but, as a measure of quality it is completely subjective.
    This is my only real point. However, the point does touch on the issue of what the “massess” like and whether their uneducated assessment of wines is a legitimate quality assessment. While the educated assessments of quality may be just that…educated, their exists no real and rational warrant that makes their judgments any more valid than the uneducated.
    In the same way, someone might explain to me that Van Morrison’s music is trumped up, sentimental tripe the exposes his juvenile appreciation of simple rhymes and doesn’t compare to the work of Bob Dylan. Their’s would be a perfectly legitimate assessment of Morrison’s music. As would mine.

  21. Tom Wark - April 29, 2008

    Heloisa:
    Thanks very much for the kind Brazilian thoughts. And thank you for reading Fermentation. Translate anything you want!
    Cheers,
    Tom…

  22. Arthur Przebinda - April 29, 2008

    Tom:
    Let’s set aside our disagreement about objectivity/subjectivity of quality for a bit and consider this:
    Given the general public’s limited wine knowledge, do you think it would serve the consumer to have the system I’ve described:
    1. Guide the buyer to understand the general category of wine they are buying (say simple sipper with no longevity vs complex and elegant vs a must-age wine)?
    and
    2. Make the resulting price ranges for each category (because they would arise organically and not need to be imposed or regulated) more reflective of the value you get from your purchase? This last point does hinge on your agreement that one would pay more for a finer, more elegant, more complex and more age worthy wine.

  23. Scott Klann - April 29, 2008

    Sorry to break up the Thomas, Tom and Arthur show…but I think that you might be over-thinking things a bit. It is wine! For the same reason that my daughter rolls her eyes when I’ve got Van Morrison on the box, I roll my eyes when Nelly Furtado reveals her (ugly) head. The point is that Van makes my mornings better and Nelly mekes her mornings better.
    If we are using music as the analogy (which is the most appropriate analogy in existence), then in the words of Mr. Lennon…”whatever gets you through the night, it’s alright, it’s alright”.
    As the music biz created critics to legitimize itself, so have we created Mr. Parker, Mr. Laube et al. If we look deep enough, it is a relatively unimportant part of our world in terms of quality. It is important in terms of consumer acceptance, which helps us continue to drive the engine of this industry, but it is of no more importance than Gene Siskel giving a thumbs up or a thumbs down to the latest Indiana Jones flick…who gives a shit? In the end, the market will decide! Sure there will be some critical influence, but it is a flicker of influence.
    And as a winemaker fresh off of a few bottling days, I must say that Van Morrison is as important to a bottling morning as Van Halen is to a bottling afternoon…it takes all kinds to build a village!!
    -Fermento

  24. Arthur Przebinda - April 29, 2008

    Yes, Scott, but movie tickets don’t skyrocket to $100 a person or more if the flick is popular with the public or gets unanimous critical acclaim. Nor should they.
    At some point, thoug there has to be some way of communicating about the wine and informing the consumer about the stuff in the bottle. What we have is far from ideal for a number of reasons, the question of what quality is and if it can be objectively defined and measured is just one of them.
    Whether you communicate the quality of a wine with prose, points or rubber chickens, everyone along the distribution chain down to the consumer wants to know the *value* of the stuff – either because they’re spending money on it or stand to gain some from it.

  25. Jeb - April 29, 2008

    Hi,
    Interesting! It would be tough to imagine absolute, objective criteria for wine quality, just as with music.
    Music scholars can say how great Bach is to someone who loves only Burt Bacharach, but who is correct?
    Each person has DNA slightly different from everyone else, and additionally different experiences in the world. Nature and nurture combine to form a person who is genetically and psychologically different from everyone else.
    Yet of course there are great similarities among people’s tastes. Most people will call ice cream “sweet”, lemons “sour”, etc.
    Tasting wine, like listening to music, is filtered through each person’s slight genetic difference and huge individual/personal difference from each other.
    The point being that absolute, objective criteria are darned hard to find!
    Oh, and BOTH Bach and Bacharach rock!
    Cheers,
    Jeb

  26. Arthur Przebinda - April 29, 2008

    Ah yes, “no wrong notes, just notes in the wrong places”.

  27. Fermento - April 30, 2008

    At the risk of adding another recurring role to the credits…the reason that movie tickets don’t skyrocket to $100 is that the movie industry has decided to regulate itself (in a sense)…(or we as customers of the movie industry have allowed the playing field to be leveled). Does anyone doubt that if this were not the case, the price of a ticket to see the Godfather would be immeasurably higher than the price of a ticket to see Along Came Polly? The music industry has leveled the same playing field. The reason this is the case is that someone (or some group) figured out that it is indeed artistic expression, yet it is easily criticized because it relies on linguistics to purvey it’s intents.
    The only thing that makes music and movies different from art and wine is that music and movies are literal, whereas wine and art are subjective. That is to say that music and movies telegraph their themes and their expression and use the crutch of language to gain critical acceptance. Wine and art do not have that luxury so the general public (me included sometimes) tend to rely on an “expert’s” judgement as a habit of laziness and/or insecurity to quantify the status of said artistic expression…which as I think back now, was the main point of Tom’s original post.
    Wow…I could’ve saved myself a lot of time tonight by reading the post twice! Good night all.

  28. Arthur - April 30, 2008

    Scott,
    What about when one is able to verbalize the essence of music or wine?
    Musicians do this ALL the time. There is structure and construct to music as there is to wine. There is an accepted ‘trade’ parlance for both. That is why musicians who have never met before can come together, and start playing: they know music theory and recognize what the others are playing and can do their par for the piece. You’d be surprised how common it is for leads who have never met and not heard the rhythm ‘track’ before to play very similar sounding music over the ‘rhythm track’.
    I think that once one assimilates the common standard, acceptance parlance of any field, the uniqueness and irreproducibility of the experience fades rather quickly. This is what organoleptic assessment is about.
    Your thoughts and contribution *is* valued and you should not feel that any time you spent posting to this discussion was wasted time.
    Tell Jeff I’ll miss seeing him and “Jersey” at HdR this weekend.

  29. Thomas Pellechia - April 30, 2008

    Scott,
    As an ex-winemaker, I concur with your view with this exception: what about the volume of “odd” wines that are handed high scores and high prices?
    By odd I mean wines with dangerously high pH alongside ridiculously high alcohol, or wines with v.a. strong enough to mug a Cyclops, or wines called Pinot Noir that taste like Syrah?
    I like Arthur’s points much, but I would add to his points that along with regional specific-agreements there needs to be technical-specific agreements. What is a reasonable pH for certain wines, at what level is v.a. out of hand for other wines, should wine’s alcohol be more confined within a range rather than allowed to skyrocket, etc. etc.?
    Rigorous, to be sure, but the only way I can see to guarantee what is now elusive: quality. Other than such activity, wineries and consumers are at the mercy of so many untrained critics whose job is to tell us what they like, and to quote someone else in this thread, “who gives a shit?”

  30. Tom Wark - April 30, 2008

    “By odd I mean wines with dangerously high pH alongside ridiculously high alcohol, or wines with v.a. strong enough to mug a Cyclops, or wines called Pinot Noir that taste like Syrah?”
    Is it possible for me to LOVE a ridiculously high alcohol wine with dangerously high pH and be justified loving it? Am I wrong to love it? And if I do love it, is the wine really dangerous or ridiculous in any way?

  31. Marco Montez - April 30, 2008

    Great post Tom. I’m surprised that there has been little response to this:
    “That is to say, aging a wine in oak or whole cluster pressing the grapes or use of particular yeasts that are not native can all be expressions of a winemaker’s unique touch or voice, and all the while not necessarily extract what the place from which the grapes came brought to the wine.”
    I agree with the comment but only after I read it a couple of times. The key word is “extract”… sure there is no extraction of place, but we have to be careful. And we could leave it at that. But…
    I’m not against the use of new oak or non-native yeasts (I’ve used both myself in my “young” winemaking experience) but I shake my head when I read or hear a winemaker celebrate and make their UNIQUE terroir their #1 selling point, while at the same time aging their wines in new oak that is not from within their terroir and using yeasts that were isolated in a different continent. Sure they have terroir but how unique and authentic is it if the wine’s flavors are being impacted by the use of these additives? Certainly, no complete “extraction of place” but authenticity is at best partially lost.

  32. Nancy - April 30, 2008

    A very fine post, and most interesting comments by Arthur and Tom. May I lug in a heavy hitter, whose presence here may seem completely incongruous? The scholar Jacques Barzun in one of his books did define “greatness” objectively. Speaking of literature, he said that a great work will have a “thickness” to it, having nothing to do with the number of pages but rather with the number of ideas in the work, the justice they do to the deepest questions of life, and the sophistication of their treatment. A “thick” work does not give up its treasures easily: reading it is like “cutting a channel” through the thickness. It takes patience, thought, and discipline on the part of the reader.
    All of this, transferred to our topic of objective greatness (or not) in wine, may imply that, unless your glass of wine is some sort of disciplined chore that you have to “cut” through, it’s not great and you’re not having a great experience. But if the only criteria for greatness otherwise lies in millions of individuals’ familiarity with something that seems authentic to them, well — what we are saying is that a glass of Britney Spears, so to speak, is as good as a glass of Mozart. And no, uneducated as I still am about wine, I won’t agree with that.
    Barzun’s “From Dawn to Decadence” is a good place to start. Again, a most interesting post.

  33. Thomas Pellechia - April 30, 2008

    “Is it possible for me to LOVE a ridiculously high alcohol wine with dangerously high pH and be justified loving it? Am I wrong to love it? And if I do love it, is the wine really dangerous or ridiculous in any way?”
    Tom, you can love anything you want to love, but I thought we were talking about objective standards for quality.
    Dangerously high pH is a technical consideration, since the wine would be subject to spoilage much easier and can suffer from a shorter life span.
    I believe this is where your problem with the quality concept lies: you either don’t accept or understand that technical standards can be agreed to applied and by professionals. Even Coca Cola applies technical parameters for its product and I am sure that when the parameters are not met, a quality assurance team rejects that batch.

  34. JohnLopresti - April 30, 2008

    Good comparison, TomW. Some of the reasons a person appreciates VanM might be generational. I liked the Barzun comparison to, say, the UCDavis organoleptic scale, as informed by understanding the basic food science but also the most recent developments. There is a certain independent minded Dry Creek Valley vineyardist who is known to extoll the merits of head trained spur pruned vines, despite the upright shoot growth modern school DickSmart did so much to nourish. The value of the wine is a combination of many events, lives, work ethics, pallates, and chemistries. And there is a timing effect, as well, much like well performed music. Some of the meaning is the signature of the composer and lyricist, some of it the venue in which it is shared. And though an enterprising and thoughtful person might translate VMorrison into, say, Portuguese, or ship a wine that was gently binned for delivery by the local package dispatch service, some of the poetry and balance might be lost in the colloidal shifts going from one civil context to the next. I once had a conversation about Bob Dylan with an English lit instructor from Poland, who averred there was a Polish singer and writer who was as forceful and beautifully sensitive as Dylan, but she admitted being a native speaker of Polish and although extremely natural sounding speaker of English, she still had difficulty understanding some of Dylan’s message. I tried to imagine what Dylan might sound like sung in Polish.

  35. Arthur - April 30, 2008

    April:
    As a Polish-born English speaker since the age of 10, I can’t understand every word Dylan utters either.
    Thomas P:
    I agree with you that there are technical parameters to wine quality and that they have a place in determining quality ‘levels’. I am 100% with you that each variety should be viewed in its own context of technical parameters: a Pinot noir should have lower pH than a Syrah.
    I have deliberately avoided giving these technical issues too much focus because one might argue that the consumer is not a pH meter but an organoleptic assessor at best. Additionally, some argue that Australian wine has been stripped of its soul and quality by that country’s regulatory body technical criteria. Finally, things like VA may be intended in a wine as part of its regional style: Dan Berger’s recent example of Château-Chalon, white from the Jura. This is more tradition and is apt to be cited by those that propose that higher VA or an oxidized character is part of the regional style of some places in CA I vehemently disagree because I see neighboring estates producing vastly different wines and I see similar profiles in wines from non-adjacent AVAs – which leads me to chalk VA and oxidized traits more to bad winemaking. But I don’t necessarily believe a wine should be all about “purity of fruit”. Like my women, I like ‘em a little dirty and spicy.
    (You should look at the wine professors group at OWC)

  36. Thomas Pellechia - April 30, 2008

    Arthur,
    I don’t dispute any of what you say. My point is simply that there are technical parameters that can be applied. But first they have to be agreed upon.
    In the context of this discussion, the objective is that which can be measured; the subjective is that which cannot. One can say “This wine is flabby.” That is a subjective statement. But if one says, “This wine is flabby because of its high pH.” The pH can be measured and determined high or low based on agreed upon parameters.
    I don’t think this kind of evaluation is for the consumer to make, but I do wish that part of becoming a wine critic included training to make such evaluations. Anyone can spout off about what he or she prefers or does not prefer, but not anyone can tell you why.
    Until there is such a thing as technical, objective parameters, Tom’s right–there will always be subjective opinion, which is why I take little, if anything, from most wine criticism.

  37. Tom Wark - April 30, 2008

    “Until there is such a thing as technical, objective parameters, Tom’s right–there will always be subjective opinion, which is why I take little, if anything, from most wine criticism.”
    Actually, I’d argue that even with Objective technical parameters that can be measured, any pronouncement as to what those parameters mean in terms of quality are subjective, mere preference.

  38. Thomas Pellechia - April 30, 2008

    “Actually, I’d argue that even with Objective technical parameters that can be measured, any pronouncement as to what those parameters mean in terms of quality are subjective, mere preference.”
    Sorry Tom, but that’s just false.
    First, there has to be agreement on the parameters that constitute wine: there is already something technical about that. Table wine falls between 8 and 15% alcohol; its optimum pH is between 3 and 4, give or take a decimal; its v.a. levels must be under a certain threshold that I cannot remember off hand; and its make up cannot be a scientific, prescribed formula (although, that’s a rather loosely observed one these days.
    There are additional parameters like SO2 levels, copper, et al, levels, and so on. All are measurable–except the formula.
    The reasons behind the above parameters, and others, concern the definition of wine, the stability of wine, and, in some cases, human health.
    Over my career, I’ve tasted commercially released wines (some with good ratings) that failed one or more of the parameter tests. To me, the ratings said nothing about the quality of those wines, only about the taste of those who rated them.
    As I said, first, the parameters must be universally agreed to in the profession; then, even if they start out subjective, they are measurably objective.
    In some appellations of Europe, length of time in oak has been agreed upon before wines can be released commercially. While that isn’t exactly measurable and it is a subjective rule imposition, it does say something about how the industry views the quality of the product, and when the producer stays within its confines, then that becomes an objective measure.
    Again, what you seem mainly to be talking about is a matter of taste or preference, which can never be objectified–well, not never; I suppose if we all agreed to a particular preference, well then…

  39. Tom Wark - April 30, 2008

    Thomas,
    Isn’t it true that though a set of agree upon standards can be objective in nature, that they can also be arbitrary? I think this is unquestionably true.
    Take, for example, the question of morals. It may be that 99.9% of a community agrees that kicking cats is immoral. However, this is an arbitrary principle. Without some authoritative warrant for that statement of morality all you have is principle that 99.9% of a population agree upon. The fact that this majority agrees, however, does not make it universally and objectively true that kicking a cat is immoral.
    The same for the issue of what represents “high quality” in wine. Any agreed upon standard or criteria will in the end only be a collection of agreed upon standards that really have no objective and universal warrant other than the agreement at hand. The fact that this agreement could fall apart only underscores the fact that these standards are arbitrary.
    This is not to say that they are not useful. They certainly are. And an outstanding argument can be made for their acceptance and teaching. But arbitrary they are, nonetheless.

  40. Thomas Pellechia - April 30, 2008

    Perhaps, Tom, but certainly wine isn’t vinegar, it isn’t beer, it isn’t milk, so it must be something that can be pinned down. Once a definition of wine is agreed upon, that’s what it ought to be. The individual products within the overall “wine” product line then are assigned their individual specifications.
    It’s really like any other product, where quality is established by first finding out what expectations are, and then developing a product that meets or exceeds expectations.
    I believe we are talking about two different things. You are talking about taste preference and I am talking about product quality. I don’t believe that taste preferences necessarily lead a discussion on quality.

  41. Tom Wark - April 30, 2008

    “I don’t believe that taste preferences necessarily lead a discussion on quality”
    Thomas,
    After a certain point of basic marksmanship by the winemaker (OK..we agree what he’s made is “wine”) I don’t think that quality and preference can be separated.
    It’s more likely we are talking about consensus and personal preference.

  42. JohnLopresti - April 30, 2008

    TomW has written about standards interestingly before. It is a difficult part of US viticulture and enology, whereas by comparison as other contributors mention, above, entities like OIVV tend to be pretty fussy about things like hang time and premier cru, or trockenberenauslese standards; or how about the minimum permissible mannitol content. One of the difficulties in US still tablewine drinkers learning to scale the organoleptic ladder is the food additive arts practices in the US…whether the quercetins are oak or oak chips, e.g.; or, say, whether that US state of Georgia tonneliere has dried new cooperage too hastily, and whether the cellarmaster is sufficiently meticulous to observe when the tartrate crystals are too thick in a supposedly cleaned barrel; or whether to add a dollop of citric acid for prettiness sake in the glass on the table. Last Thanksgiving I had a cold, so, took a raincheck for a nice feast, from which a friend kindly returned with a full meal still on banquet china to me in my self imposed quarantine; that bug lasted nearly two weeks; some flu. But the bottle of wine that was part of that gift was from a certain unnamed Central Valley winery which claimed the chardonnay had won a gold medal. It was slick, as if the food science allowed additives which included the chemical flavor of butter. The label did not have an Animal on it but it could have. This was the 3-minute pop music kind of wine. I doubt anyone on the vinification crew had read Yeats or Barzun, or even would like the churning driving music of VMorrison. One of the neat things about Dylan’s sensibilities, sometimes, were his humor, even if ill-placed and over-brash. Consider the following social caste commentary disguised as a simple lyric:
    “Well, I see you got your brand new leopard-skin pill-box hat
    Yes, I see you got your brand new leopard-skin pill-box hat
    Well, you must tell me, baby
    How your head feels under somethin’ like that
    Under your brand new leopard-skin pill-box hat
    “Well, you look so pretty in it
    Honey, can I jump on it sometime?
    Yes, I just wanna see
    If it’s really that expensive kind
    You know it balances on your head
    Just like a mattress balances
    On a bottle of wine
    Your brand new leopard-skin pill-box hat”
    ____
    http://bobdylan.com/moderntimes/songs/leopard.html

  43. Thomas Pellechia - April 30, 2008

    Too funny, John, but with grains of truth all over the place.
    Tom. There’s little wiggle room with things like excessive v.a. or excess SO2 or wine spoiled because it’s unstable. But on other matters, consensus may be required, so let’s assume that we are talking about consensus vs preferences.
    Which do you think has a better shot at establishing the specifications for quality?

  44. Thomas Pellechia - April 30, 2008

    Tom,
    I just thought of another way to put it:
    Quality is the acceptance of identifiable flaws within a specified tolerance.
    Greatness is the complete absence of flaws.
    Personal preference has nothing to do with either.

  45. Arthur Przebinda - April 30, 2008

    Thomas,
    But then we do get into the issue of what a flaw is?
    If you abhor even a tinge of pyrazines in your Cabs (the fabled Rutherford dust, anyone?) then you will do everything including fermenting them with oak flour to get a smooth, round ripe cherry elixir.

  46. Tom Wark - April 30, 2008

    Thomas:
    Arthur’s point is well taken, outside the really offensive flaws, what else would constitute a flaw? I’ll give you spoilage. I might even give you an extraordinarily high risk of spoilage over the mid term as a flaw. But is relatively high pH a flaw? No. That’s a matter of preference. Is a 16.7 percent alcohol Pinot a flaw? Maybe to some, but not to others.
    As for “greatness”, well, this is clearly something that is well beyond simply “not flawed” isn’t it. But when you say something is without flaws, you are judging it against a standard that has been created. That standard does not fall from the sky unless we can verify that God gave us the standard. Neither do we find that standard in nature the way we find the principle of decomposition in carbon based life. No. That standard of “greatness”, whatever it is, is created by humans using their imagination.
    Now, let me be clear. I think this pursuit, the pursuit of defining greatness, is a great a noble and necessary endeavor. I think it’s in part what makes us human. But whatever standard is devised after significant practice and contemplation is still subjective.

  47. Thomas Pellechia - May 1, 2008

    “But when you say something is without flaws, you are judging it against a standard that has been created.”
    Exactly. And without standards you can’t even begin to talk about quality. In fact, without standards you can’t talk about greatness either. All you can talk about is preference. So, we agree, that the word “quality” when applied to wine, at least, doesn’t really exist as anything more than subjectivity.
    Where we disagree is that I believe standards can and should be set, even if they are basic standards that wine should minimally live up to in order to be called wine. Most governments have set standards, and many regions have exceeded those standards.
    I’ll use your reference to high pH, Tom, when you ask if relatively high pH is a flaw.
    The answer to your question is that it would be a flaw if the pH falls outside the standards that are set, but I admit that it is complicated to set those standards. A pH of 5, to me, and to most long-standing wine consumers, presents a strange product, but more importantly, it creates conditions for that product to potentially spoil while in the bottle and to die within a shorter time frame than a wine with pH of 3.5. If the industry standard is that wine cannot exceed pH of, say, 4.5, then a pH of 5 would be a flaw.
    All quality controls are technical and I think that’s where the problem in this discussion lies.
    Taste is a complicated technical mechanism that happens in the human mouth, it is not one that is willfully altered.
    The technicalities of wine are willfully altered; without a set of standards those alterations cannot be considered to have met a quality control regimen, and that makes a discussion on quality as it relates to taste moot.

  48. Tom Wark - May 1, 2008

    “”But when you say something is without flaws, you are judging it against a standard that has been created.”
    Exactly. And without standards you can’t even begin to talk about quality. In fact, without standards you can’t talk about greatness either. All you can talk about is preference. So, we agree, that the word “quality” when applied to wine, at least, doesn’t really exist as anything more than subjectivity.”
    AGREED!
    ————–
    “Where we disagree is that I believe standards can and should be set, even if they are basic standards that wine should minimally live up to in order to be called wine. Most governments have set standards, and many regions have exceeded those standards.”
    Actually I do agree with this. Standards should be set. At least minimal ones. Beyond that, I have no problem with individuals or groups setting standards against which wine should be judged. I just think whoever is setting them should recognize they are not objective but reflections of preference.
    ——————–
    “All quality controls are technical and I think that’s where the problem in this discussion lies.”
    I’m not sure it’s really a problem. Some technical issues are such that ignoring them doesnt even get thet winemaker into the ballpark. But this is a low bar. And a bar I’m willing to set.

  49. Thomas Pellechia - May 1, 2008

    “I just think whoever is setting them should recognize they are not objective but reflections of preference.”
    Which is where I really disagree.
    Some technical matters, like pH or SO2 or v.a. or even inducing ML, create problems that most professional winemakers will agree on. Setting standards for avoiding those problems may be possible measuring when a winemaker does not follow the standards or the wines fall outside set parameters then becomes objective.
    My real problem with this subject is wine reviews and wine critics who may or may not love wines that are riddled with flaws. I don’t understand what benefit their love of those wines gives to the general consumer, other than the portion of the population that agrees with their love of the flaws.
    At best, reviewers should have basic technical wine training, and they should be get on board any quality control program that is established…of course, I am the world’s greatest dreamer, too!

  50. Ken Payton - May 1, 2008

    Delightful exchange. I would like to add one note. While it is true there exist objective technical standards for winemaking, amply examined above, I believe wine enthusiasts should be encouraged to cultivate subjective standards, by which I mean an ‘openness’ or ‘humility’ with respect to differences in wines. All too often the unassailable fortress of subjectivity devolves into simple personal small-mindedness. (Politicians especially excel in reassuring us that we are fine just as we are!) And it often turns out subjectivity is not all that subjective: parental influence, an exciting historical moment, an advertisement jingle, a comic book superhero, a song or a movie gets lodged in our brains never to leave. But we had no part in its production! Subjectivity cannot simply be a passive accumulation of events or evaluations but must also, more honestly, involve our own productivity, how bravely we engage the world. Are folks willing to put their precious subjective truths to the test? Are they willing to try new wines? Explore the notion of terroir? Learn about the winemaking process? Talk to a farm worker? Wine can be about many things, from transubstantiation to Mad Dog 20/20. Bottom line, wine is too intriguing a subject/object to be limited to tasting alone.
    That’s my subjective opinion, anyway!


Leave a Reply