|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
173.85.211.191
In Reply to: RE: High Fidelity Report: Reviewer Accommodations Compromise Credibilty posted by Sprezza Tura on April 30, 2014 at 09:53:47
There's an element of truth in the quote you cite, but it pertains to most, if not all, industries. And Mkuller makes a good point below regarding accommodation pricing.
That said, here's how one guy went about avoiding this perceived problem.
"The Wine Advocate accepts no advertising. A subscription costs $50 a year. Each issue consists of an editorial or two and about fifty-six pages of blunt commentaries on wines that Parker has recently tasted. The commentaries are short, usually two or three sentences, grouped by region and winery, and associated with "Parker Points," which are scores on a scale of 50 to 100. One of the lowest scores Parker ever gave a new vintage was 56, for 1979 Lambert Bridge Cabernet Sauvignon, about which he wrote, "One has to wonder what this winery does to its cabernet to make it so undrinkable.... This wine has an intense vegetative, barnyard aroma and very unusual flavors." But generally, poor wines score in the 70s, adequate ones in the 80s, and really good ones in the 90s. There are significant gradations within those ranges. Rarely, Parker has given a wine a perfect score of 100 -- seventy-six times out of 220,000 wines tasted. He always lists an approximate retail price and provides an opinion about when the wine will be ready to drink. He works hard to avoid conflicts of interest: he pays his own way, accepts no gifts or payoffs, and does not speculate financially on wine. As a result he has an unimpeachable reputation for integrity in an industry that does not.
"The Wine Advocate has 40,000 subscribers, in every U.S. state and thirty-seven foreign countries. These are influential readers, and they pass the issues around, igniting the markets of Asia, the United States, and now even Europe, where collectors and wealthy consumers can be counted on to search out wines on the basis of Parker's recommendations. The effects are felt on store shelves, where retailers display Parker's comments or scores, and up the supply chain, influencing speculation, negotiation, and price-setting, until even the producers of mass wines feel the weight of Parker's opinions. The trade has never known such a voice, such a power, before. When it comes to the great wines -- those that drive styles and prices for the entire industry -- there is hardly another critic now who counts.
"The effects are global. As wines rise and fall on the basis of Parker's judgments, and as producers respond to his presence, the industry worldwide is moving in an unexpected direction, toward denser, darker, and more dramatic wines. It would be simplistic to believe that the movement is entirely due to Parker: he may just be its most effective agent. In any case, these denser, darker, wines are the wines that Parker and now much of the world prefer to drink.
"Last spring in Monkton, Parker said to me, 'What I've brought is a democratic view. I don't give a shit that your family goes back to pre-Revolution and you've got more wealth than I could imagine. If this wine's no good, I'm gonna say so.'
"That's the sort of English everyone can understand -- and the big French winemaking families don't like it at all…"
Since the time this was written the cost of a yearly subscription has doubled as the circulation rate has boomed.
Follow Ups:
...but I generally prefer James Laub's ratings in the Wine Spectator which does take advertising.
Go figure...
I'm a fan of Laube, too. What I can't understand is why Laube and Parker are so far apart in their evaluations of Randy Dunn's wines; given the fact that both men enjoy big, highly extracted Cabs. Parker raves while WS yawns (at least until very recently). I think part of it is due to Dunn's refusal to goose his alcohol levels, a trait that I apprecicate. Parker, to his credit, has not let this trait affect his evaluations even though he enjoys higher levels of alcohol himself.
...whether it's of wine, beer, food or audio equipment.
Different reviewers have different tastes.\
You follow the one whose taste best matches yours.
More than a few critics were irked by Dunn's letter below; penned several years ago. Dunn still stands by it and continues to call for lower alcohol wines. For one publication to award his wine a score of "96" while another publication ranks it "83" (using the same scale), is akin to Stereophile awarding Wilson's flagship speaker "Class A+" status and the TAS relegating it to "Class C" status (though both reviewers were on record as being huge fans of big box speakers). And if this were to occur year after year with the same product some hobbyists might be forgiven for scratching their heads.
"It is time for the average wine consumers, as opposed to tasters, to speak up. The current fad of higher and higher alcohol wines should stop. Most wine drinkers do not really appreciate wines that are 15 -16. +% alcohol. They are, in fact, hot and very difficult to enjoy with a meal. About the only dish that seems to put them in their place is a good hot, spicy dish.
"I don’t believe the average person is so insensitive to flavors and aromas that they must have a 15% Cabernet, Chardonnay, or Pinot Noir to get the aromas and flavors. Influential members of the wine press have lead the score chasing winemakers/owners up the alcohol curve and now I hope that it soon will lead them down.
"Winemaking is not really much different than cooking. The end product should be enjoyable to consume—not just to taste. Hopefully most who read this don’t think it’s a novel concept that we should be making wines to consume. Would you want to sample a soup, meat dish or other course that is so overpowering that you cannot enjoyably finish what is in front of you? These new wines are made to taste and spit—not to drink.
"This is all linked to my views on the ever evasive and vanishing terroir; the subtleties of terroir in wines have been melted together in a huge pot called “overripe” or the vogue “physiologically mature” grape. Gone are the individualities of specific regions, replaced by sameness—high alcohol, raisiny, pruney, flabby wines. Likewise, the descriptor “herbaceous” was often used in a positive sense when describing Cabernets. Now it is the kiss of death. Voluptuous—I do remember seeing that only occasionally, but not on the aroma/flavor wheel.
"So I would like the consumers to take the lead for a change, rather than being led. Ask for wines that are below 14% when you are out to dinner. The reactions are fun, but the results are not good for United States wines. The sommelier usually comes back with a French or New Zealand wine. On the restaurant level, high alcohol wines have reduced the number of bottles sold. It is very simple arithmetic; % alcohol times volume equals satisfaction. If % alcohol goes up, volume must go down for satisfaction to stay the same—or else we all get plastered.
"Consumers—wake up and get active. Reviewers—please at least include the labeled alcohol percentage in all your reviews, and try to remember that not everyone is spitting."
Randy Dunn
Dunn Vineyards
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: