You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Technique Fixations
- Thread starter Joe Dressner
- Start date
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
originally posted by VLM:
It is much simplerA spoofulated wine is one where techniques are applied to meet a specified aesthetic target. By this definition, both Jambon and Harlan are spoofed.
A non-spoofulated wine is where techniques are employed to get the grapes safely to wine. By this definition, both Texier and Trimbach are un-spooofed.
This seems to be a rather easy distinction to make.
"Getting grapes safely to wine" is an aesthetic target. And of course this distinction depends on judging the intention of the winemaker, the best evidence of which will always be the wine s/he produces. So a definition in terms of the wine would be preferable. Otherwise OK though.
I see your point. You claim that determining whether there is an aesthetic target requires some sort of knowledge of an interior state of someone else.
I would posit that this is a somewhat strong requirement. I think the fact that Harlan and Jambon represent a somewhat extreme version of Napa and Beaujolais that it is rather easy to detect some kind of aesthetic target, even if you don't know exactly what it is.
Jay Miller
Jay Miller
And how do we describe those 2003s that tasted a little spoofy even though that was simply a reflection of vintage conditions?
Trimbach is definitely aiming for a specified aesthetic target. It happens to be a unique and attractive target, but a target nonetheless.
Trimbach is definitely aiming for a specified aesthetic target. It happens to be a unique and attractive target, but a target nonetheless.
Keith Levenberg
Keith Levenberg
Oh no, I'm still in trouble over the Pegau thing!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."
I'm not 100% sure I used the word spoof, but with this particular incident the wine was poured to me blind and tasted atrocious for exactly the same reasons that spoofy wines taste atrocious. The fact that it got there by leaving the grapes on the vine until they became "port-like" (I believe that was the winemakers' term for their intent, no?) and stomping them with all-natural peasant feet and putting the wine in old casks, versus running it through a high-tech contraption and giving it the full Aussie treatment, isn't important to me. In other words, I guess I agree with Dressner. It's the aesthetic sensibility of spoof I care about, not the process.
In other words, I guess I agree with Dressner. It's the aesthetic sensibility of spoof I care about, not the process.
A spoofulated wine is one that is about process, not an aesthetic sensibility per se.
If you don't like a wine, you don't like it. There are plenty of non-spoofed wines that I don't like, although the converse is not so true.
originally posted by Marc D:
Maybe it is the new site, but I am actually able to follow what Prof Loesberg is saying!
Bigger font, perhaps?
Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
originally posted by VLM:
Then don't use the wordIn other words, I guess I agree with Dressner. It's the aesthetic sensibility of spoof I care about, not the process.
A spoofulated wine is one that is about process, not an aesthetic sensibility per se.
If you don't like a wine, you don't like it. There are plenty of non-spoofed wines that I don't like, although the converse is not so true.
It may be that I just object to using "aesthetic" as a bad word. Of course, wine isn't art so that may be the problem. Still, there are perfectly good words like "artificed," "technically manipulated," that used to be what "spoof" was about that should work here.
Keith Levenberg
Keith Levenberg
The important thing about the wine isn't the fact I don't like it, but the reason. In this case the word I usually use is Parkerized, which can connote a wine that got that way through spoofulation or by all-natural means. Even so, if the essence of spoof is manipulation towards a certain end, I'm not sure why all-natural means of manipulation should be exempt.originally posted by VLM:
Then don't use the wordIn other words, I guess I agree with Dressner. It's the aesthetic sensibility of spoof I care about, not the process.
A spoofulated wine is one that is about process, not an aesthetic sensibility per se.
If you don't like a wine, you don't like it. There are plenty of non-spoofed wines that I don't like, although the converse is not so true.
originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
The important thing about the wine isn't the fact I don't like it, but the reason. In this case the word I usually use is Parkerized, which can connote a wine that got that way through spoofulation or by all-natural means. Even so, if the essence of spoof is manipulation towards a certain end, I'm not sure why all-natural means of manipulation should be exempt.originally posted by VLM:
Then don't use the wordIn other words, I guess I agree with Dressner. It's the aesthetic sensibility of spoof I care about, not the process.
A spoofulated wine is one that is about process, not an aesthetic sensibility per se.
If you don't like a wine, you don't like it. There are plenty of non-spoofed wines that I don't like, although the converse is not so true.
To me, it isn't. I would call many hipster wines as spoofy as Rolland wines. But I live in NC, so it's easy for me to be unfashionable.
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
originally posted by VLM:
Then don't use the wordIn other words, I guess I agree with Dressner. It's the aesthetic sensibility of spoof I care about, not the process.
A spoofulated wine is one that is about process, not an aesthetic sensibility per se.
If you don't like a wine, you don't like it. There are plenty of non-spoofed wines that I don't like, although the converse is not so true.
It may be that I just object to using "aesthetic" as a bad word. Of course, wine isn't art so that may be the problem. Still, there are perfectly good words like "artificed," "technically manipulated," that used to be what "spoof" was about that should work here.
But the manipulation is for some goal, so what would you use instead of aesthetic? Because it is a "taste" goal that I have in mind.
Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
The important thing about the wine isn't the fact I don't like it, but the reason. In this case the word I usually use is Parkerized, which can connote a wine that got that way through spoofulation or by all-natural means. Even so, if the essence of spoof is manipulation towards a certain end, I'm not sure why all-natural means of manipulation should be exempt.originally posted by VLM:
Then don't use the wordIn other words, I guess I agree with Dressner. It's the aesthetic sensibility of spoof I care about, not the process.
A spoofulated wine is one that is about process, not an aesthetic sensibility per se.
If you don't like a wine, you don't like it. There are plenty of non-spoofed wines that I don't like, although the converse is not so true.
This problem has already been solved by this thread. We are getting rid of the word "natural" as the opposite of "spoofed." My bid for "traditional" seems not to have caught on, so we still need a new one. If it works, however, it will disallow your desire to find a way to peg Pegau as spoofed, though even your definition does that, probably.
originally posted by VLM:
Then don't use the wordIn other words, I guess I agree with Dressner. It's the aesthetic sensibility of spoof I care about, not the process.
A spoofulated wine is one that is about process, not an aesthetic sensibility per se.
If you don't like a wine, you don't like it. There are plenty of non-spoofed wines that I don't like, although the converse is not so true.
Do you care what various simaians, philosophers, wine icons think of your desciptors? Their brute squads are not nearly as tough as they look.
Call the spoof as you perceive it or the joke is on you!
Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
originally posted by VLM:
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
originally posted by VLM:
Then don't use the wordIn other words, I guess I agree with Dressner. It's the aesthetic sensibility of spoof I care about, not the process.
A spoofulated wine is one that is about process, not an aesthetic sensibility per se.
If you don't like a wine, you don't like it. There are plenty of non-spoofed wines that I don't like, although the converse is not so true.
It may be that I just object to using "aesthetic" as a bad word. Of course, wine isn't art so that may be the problem. Still, there are perfectly good words like "artificed," "technically manipulated," that used to be what "spoof" was about that should work here.
But the manipulation is for some goal, so what would you use instead of aesthetic? Because it is a "taste" goal that I have in mind.
Well, the connotation of calling a wine spoofed is that the end is not to achieve a wine that matches the winemakers taste but that matches his economic needs. I don't think this is probably true of most winemakers who spoof, though I don't mind the connotation. Since not all taste is aesthetic taste, "taste goal," would probably do, though it is clunky.
Keith Levenberg
Keith Levenberg
I don't think that's the connotation. Many producers spoofulate to make the kind of wines they like. And they're not suffering from false consciousness, either!Well, the connotation of calling a wine spoofed is that the end is not to achieve a wine that matches the winemakers taste but that matches his economic needs.
Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
I don't think that's the connotation. Many producers spoofulate to make the kind of wines they like. And they're not suffering from false consciousness, either!Well, the connotation of calling a wine spoofed is that the end is not to achieve a wine that matches the winemakers taste but that matches his economic needs.
I didn't say the connotation was accurate (I explicitly said it wasn't). But I think it's there and I think a survey of sentences in which the word appears without the kind of self-consciousness going on here would show it. Your proposed synonym, Parkerized, would be meaningless without that connotation since it denotes that the wine was made according to criteria that would please Parker. If they also pleased the winemaker, that would be a mere accident or the label is worthless.
originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
I don't think that's the connotation. Many producers spoofulate to make the kind of wines they like. And they're not suffering from false consciousness, either!Well, the connotation of calling a wine spoofed is that the end is not to achieve a wine that matches the winemakers taste but that matches his economic needs.
I have not yet tasted the L'Enfant Terrible - maybe this week. But I have tasted other Dashe creations and from the reviews, L'Enfant is a radical departure. Is Dashe now making wine he actually likes to drink or are we back to the economic choice?
Keith Levenberg
Keith Levenberg
I don't think so - I think the survey would more likely show that the term is deployed to attack the bad taste of the winemaker, not his business judgment.originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
I don't think that's the connotation. Many producers spoofulate to make the kind of wines they like. And they're not suffering from false consciousness, either!Well, the connotation of calling a wine spoofed is that the end is not to achieve a wine that matches the winemakers taste but that matches his economic needs.
I didn't say the connotation was accurate (I explicitly said it wasn't). But I think it's there and I think a survey of sentences in which the word appears without the kind of self-consciousness going on here would show it.
Not really a proposed synonym, but a proposed alternative to describe a similar aesthetic sensibility, necessary precisely for those cases when the terms are not synonymous, since spoofulation is but one route to Parkerization. Why is it worthless in those cases where Parker's tastes and the winemaker's coincide? You can have eager Parkerizers or grudging Parkerizers, but Parkerizers just the same.Your proposed synonym, Parkerized, would be meaningless without that connotation since it denotes that the wine was made according to criteria that would please Parker. If they also pleased the winemaker, that would be a mere accident or the label is worthless.
Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
I don't think so - I think the survey would more likely show that the term is deployed to attack the bad taste of the winemaker, not his business judgment.originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
I don't think that's the connotation. Many producers spoofulate to make the kind of wines they like. And they're not suffering from false consciousness, either!Well, the connotation of calling a wine spoofed is that the end is not to achieve a wine that matches the winemakers taste but that matches his economic needs.
I didn't say the connotation was accurate (I explicitly said it wasn't). But I think it's there and I think a survey of sentences in which the word appears without the kind of self-consciousness going on here would show it.
Not really a proposed synonym, but a proposed alternative to describe a similar aesthetic sensibility precisely, necessary precisely for those cases when the terms are not synonymous since spoofulation is but one route to Parkerization. Why is it worthless in those cases where Parker's tastes and the winemaker's coincide? You can have willing Parkerizers or grudging Parkerizers, but Parkerizers just the same.Your proposed synonym, Parkerized, would be meaningless without that connotation since it denotes that the wine was made according to criteria that would please Parker. If they also pleased the winemaker, that would be a mere accident or the label is worthless.
Again, I stipulated that a winemaker might agree with Parker's taste. But the point of the term is to specify Parker's taste as opposed to the winemakers. If one meant merely a taste that Parker and a set of winemakers shared, then the term is inflammatory and should be traded in for one that simply points to the aspects of the wine one is referencing.
The same argument goes for spoofing. The word pretty obviously connotes decking out, falsifying (from a spoof). Although it is entirely possible to have a taste for the kind of wine another person would declare spoofed, a person who likes that wine would never call it spoofed, precisely because of the connotation of the words. I see nothing wrong with using evaluative labels. But using them while declaring that they are merely pointing terms is invidious when done knowingly and destructive of the ability to think clearly when done unawares. One interest of this thread, as well as one like it on Therapy has been the way that, as it has clarified denotations and connotations of the term, it has looked either like they need to be cleared up or, the Parker people are right and it is just an accusatory term for a wine one doesn't like and should be abandoned. I would rather it were not abandoned, but that will mean restricting its reference to an accusation rather than just a taste distinction.