Technique Fixations

J

Joe Dressner

Joe Dressner
Lately, I'm reading too much material on the web, in memoirs and in wine publications about correct winemaking techniques.

The argument is always that any given wine will be better if the winemaking technique is pure -- work organically, harvest by hand, use wild yeasts, don't chaptalize, don't acidify, don't filter. The opposite side of this argument is that spoofulated wines are the way they are because they don't use these pure techniques.

I think everyone can agree that the old argument that great winemakers are non-interventionist is a silly one. Winemakers intervene all the time. The best formulation I have heard is that a great vigneron accompanies their crop into the bottle. But even this subtle formulation is inherently subjective.

The key point to me is often the vigneron's intent. That is, I don't think Big Ass Cabernet is better because the grower decides to use a wild yeast fermentation, or has his Mexicans work the fields organically. Mr. Big Ass Cabernet Wine Producer's intent is to get a type of wine I really don't want to drink and which doesn't interest me. How he gets there doesn't really matter to me. So much the better if they do not pollute the earth, but that doesn't make for a better wine.

The longer I am in the wine trade, the more complex and varied and subjective making great wine appears to me. I've been guilty of sloganeering in the past, but now that I hear the same slogans I used years ago coming from other voices, I can have some detachment and see it is not so simple as all that.

I still believe in all the slogans and am still happy to sloganeer. But everyday when I visit a grower or vineyard, I see just how complex the chain is and how difficult it is to get to the sweet spot of great wine.

For instance, working in the Beaujolais with an extended cold carbonic maceration without sulfur seems to privilege yeast strains which make for delicious gamay. But use the same technique with Carignan in the South and you get something hollow and formulaic to my taste. Even if everything is "natural" you still get a triumph of technique over terroir.

Grow grapes in hot climates with fertile soils of little geographic interest and the technique is trumped by the terroir. It is going to be very hard to get anything of interest.

Work fields with monotone clones which express nothing but varietal (a misused word which doesn't exist but which best describes clonal dominance) and there are true limits to what you can get in bottle.

Anyhow, I'm going to go back to watching the hurricane.

A big welcome to everyone else on this new wine forum! This is almost as exciting as the inaugeration of Wine Asylum years ago.
 
Somewhere, I heard that a winemaker and his daughter (who was taking over the winemaking duties) addressed an audience.
He said that grapes, once harvested, wanted to be wine. Hence, the winemaker's job was to let them.
She said that grapes, once harvested, wanted to be vinegar. Hence, the winemaker's job was to intervene at the right moment.

Simplifications, no doubt but, along the lines of your comment about intent, I find both are persuasive.
For myself, I choose the daughter's comments.
Best, Jim
 
Absolutes make for great sound bites in the campaign season, but they mostly seem silly when it comes to wine making and appreciation for what is in the bottle.

"Subjective is sexy"!

Larry
Neophyte Sloganeer
 
The point I'm trying to make is that a guy making spoof has the intent of making spoof. There are numerous ways to make it, some of which are quite natural. Hang time, pigage, macerations, etc., are all effective ways to concentrate. Furthermore, the choice of clonal materials can be key.

Converting to organic or converting to wild yeast fermentations does not make a Spoofed Wine a work of beauty. There is a wine culture and a conscious intent, combined with a good terroir and good material in the fields that has to mesh, extrapolate and be guided into bottle. Fixating on particular techniques which produce spoof or techniques which produce balanced wines is too narrow an approach.
 
quote: "I think everyone can agree that the old argument that great winemakers are non-interventionist is a silly one."

I don't think everyone can agree on anything.
 
originally posted by Joe Dressner:
I'm just as inflexible as everThe point I'm trying to make is that a guy making spoof has the intent of making spoof.
Click to expand...

Ah "intent." One of my favorite words. Yes, I agree, as long as you recognize that you can know intent but you can never prove it to anyone who disagrees with you.
 
originally posted by Joe Dressner:
I'm just as inflexible as everThe point I'm trying to make is that a guy making spoof has the intent of making spoof. There are numerous ways to make it, some of which are quite natural.
Click to expand...

I like your example of carbonic maceration in the Languedoc but the problem here is that you've just exploded your definition of spoof. If 'spoof' can be 'natural' then it is no longer about the techniques but just Wine That Joe Doesn't Like. Which is a fine evaluation, but will obviously not be very useful as terminology for people who aren't Joe.
 
Why pretend otherwise. Spoofed wine is not spoofed because of a particular technique but because how it tastes. It could be any number of factors or finally it could just be terroir that can only produce spoof.

The point is that there is a large enough group of folks out there in America, Europe and Asia or share generally similar likes and dislikes when it comes to real or natural or authentic wines that a category has been defined that is totally arbitrary and without scientific definition.

It is wine, afterall!
 
originally posted by Joe Dressner:
Wine evaluation is totally subjectiveWhy pretend otherwise. Spoofed wine is not spoofed because of a particular technique but because how it tastes. It could be any number of factors or finally it could just be terroir that can only produce spoof.

The point is that there is a large enough group of folks out there in America, Europe and Asia or share generally similar likes and dislikes when it comes to real or natural or authentic wines that a category has been defined that is totally arbitrary and without scientific definition.

It is wine, afterall!
Click to expand...

Actually, if this is the case, I think the term should be retired. It used to be the case that the term denoted something like--or I errantly used it to denote something like--a set of wines that no matter where they came from had a common taste of oak, overripeness, etc., and these tastes could reasonably be tied to a set of techniques whose purpose or intent was to produce that desired taste. It was particularly useful for pointing to wines from old and known regions that now tasted like new world cabs. It may have been imprecise and it may have been connected with other preferences (hence Keith's claim that Pegau was spoofed)but it still meant something. There is a large difference between being incapable of being verified with absolute certainty and being without specific meaning. The old term had a meaning. Under this new position, I think Rahsaan is right that it would just mean "wine I don't like."
 
The point is that you can get that heavy extract and concentration without using clumsy intervention. Global warming has certainly helped out and in a certain sense a good vigneron has to intervene in certain years to maintain balance. Spoof has evolved and spoof has become more sophisticated.

As the market looks increasingly for organic solutions and gentler processing, many producers are going to jump on the market and manufacture "politically correct" wines. But the final product in the bottle is not going to be all that much different from what they were doing originally. Spoof has evolved and why not recognize that.

Taking it from the other angle -- the Granite de Clisson is an exceptional wine because it is selections masale, because it is low yields, because it is hand harvested, because it is old vines, because it is a great terroir, because all the litanies of becauses.

But finally, it is a great wine because it tastes like a great wine. Who decided that....me and a bunch of other people.
 
originally posted by Joe Dressner:
The point is that you can get that heavy extract and concentration without using clumsy intervention. Global warming has certainly helped out and in a certain sense a good vigneron has to intervene in certain years to maintain balance. Spoof has evolved and spoof has become more sophisticated.

As the market looks increasingly for organic solutions and gentler processing, many producers are going to jump on the market and manufacture "politically correct" wines. But the final product in the bottle is not going to be all that much different from what they were doing originally. Spoof has evolved and why not recognize that.

Taking it from the other angle -- the Granite de Clisson is an exceptional wine because it is selections masale, because it is low yields, because it is hand harvested, because it is old vines, because it is a great terroir, because all the litanies of becauses.

But finally, it is a great wine because it tastes like a great wine. Who decided that....me and a bunch of other people.
Click to expand...
Clearly someone needs to invite Plotnicki to join us and help clarify these issues.
 
originally posted by SFJoe:
Joe Dressner is a sock puppet for Michel Bettane.
Click to expand...

I'm all about sock puppets these days and believe a Joe Dressner puppet would be a great addition to the collection I have built for my kids' entertainment. I would also like a Brian Loring sock puppet and, if at all possible, a Chris Coad puppet. Where on the internet can I purchase these? Does Mr. Bettane have a site running?

And since this is my first post and I am posting under a pseudo-pseudonym, I shall make my signature my real name, as in

Best,

Manuel
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top