Technique Fixations

Actually, I do think spoof can be reasonably defined as I said above. I don't think the definition will allow a preditable ability to show in any given case that spoof has occurred, much less that a wine that fits the definition is objectively bad, and I don't think that's necessary in order for it to be a useful term. The problem we have been having is an argument between those who want spoof to apply to any wine they find objectionable and those who want it to apply to one set of wines they find objectionable for a specific category of reasons, which generally revolve around obtrusive manipulation. And there is a secondary problem that some practices that wouldn't normally fit the category of technical manipulation--ripening practices for instance--do produce wines that some people want to keep in the category of spoof and thus want a less confining definition, though perhaps one that is still coherent. Solutions to these problems are within easy sight.

1)Using the term as a synonym for "wine that one finds objectionable" is a meaningful definition, but according to most lights, not an interesting one since empties spoof of its specific objections.

2)The problem with limiting it to things easily identifiable as technical manipulations is that that excludes certain manipulations that one finds unobjectionable and includes certain wines that one finds objectionable in a manner one thinks of as spoofy.

3) The problem with expanding the definition is that it threatens to expand indefinitely.

Working out how to capture the wines that people want to capture under spoofed while keeping the term meaningful, then, is the problem. As I said, I proposed trading in "natural" for "traditional" as the opposing term."Traditional" is a vague term and won't solve all arguments about which wine is spoofed, but it will make the term meaningful. Intention also seems to be a coherent way to go, even though obviously intention is an interpretive quagmire. I'm open to any other solution that preserves the meaning, doesn't include any wine one doesn't like, and is capable of being argued about, even if the argument can't be definitively be resolved.

I am by, at least according to the way universities classify us, not a professional philosopher.
 
originally posted by VLM:
originally posted by Dave Nelson:

Maybe the Politburo will be kind enough to provide us with a small (but getting larger by the comment) laminated reference card (even a .pdf - I can laminate it myself) for each WD member's particular definition of spoof. Perhaps that way we could avoid EVER having this discussion again.
Click to expand...

What a great idea! I wish they had put that on the registration card.
Click to expand...

On this we have found common ground, Nathan...where shall we gather to hug it out and sign the appropriate treaties?

Be well,
Larry

PS -- Great idea, Nelson!
 
I like vanilla and chocolate. I'm not all that crazy about strawberry, but if its there, I'll eat it without any problem. It's just that I don't normally order strawberry.

Don't know what that says about me, or whether it would (or even should) fit in a philosophical treatise, or on the back of a playing card.

As a kid I did eat "Neapolitan"...you know, the three flavors in one layered stuff. But I don't know if you can really call that "layered", can you? I mean, whenver it was served it was always lying so that the different flavors were side by side; I think "layered" would mean the ice cream should be served with one ice cream on top of the other. That's what I think of when I think of layered anyway. Sometimes I would eat the strawberry first, so I could savor the vanilla and chocolate because I liked them better. Sometimes I would save the chocolate for last; sometimes the vanilla. I also somehow thought the strawberry was, somehow, the most 'artifical' tasting. It didn't actually taste, to me, like strawberry, you know; tasted like somebody's idea of strawberry, but not like a strawberry actually tastes. Whereas the vanilla and chocolate were more "real" flavors to me. Don't really know why.

Now my favorite is coconut. Lotta variation there, too. Different wherever I go. Hard to find good coconut. Here, I mean. You can find it all over the place in Italy. The Italians must love coconut ice cream as much as I. Smart people, the Italians. Good taste, anyway. Can't keep a government for long though, and I wish to hell they'd stop changing the wine rules without telling anybody. I mean, who the hell can keep up?

But I guess my ice cream eating habits do sort of mirror my wine drinking habits, now that I think about it. I mean, hey, one of my favorite things when I travel in Europe is hitting the gelateria stands (would that be gelaterie?) and trying pretty much anything that looks interesting, because god forbid I should miss out on anything. Then doing it again at the next gelataria. Can't get enough of that sticky stuff!

Which shows how what you do when you're traveling can be sooooo different than when you're at home. Don't eat ice cream like that at home. Sure, the stuff at home usually isn't anywhere close to as interesting (or as good, except for places like Screamin' Mimi's in Sebastopol and joints like that where people really care, and that's sorta like artisanal winemakers too, isn't it?). I do pig out in Europe, especially Italy; don't know how anyone could resist, really.

And that's usually my approach to wine too: try as much of it as you can, because you just never know what someone is going to do with a wine. And I'm always looking for an epiphany (don't wanta leave that to just the Catholics; epiphanies should be constant and non-denominational, I say).

Lotta parallels between wine and ice cream. The industrial mass-production stuff is a lot of air, and the FSM knows what all additives they get to put in there. Makes you worry, if you're prone to worry about those things. But the righteous stuff----man, that's epiphany time. Revelations!

And can we really say it's as simple as vanilla and chocolate??? I mean, think about it. There's vanilla...and there's vanilla. Am I right? And chocolate, hey, chocolate is all over the place. Chocolate pretty much means whatever you want it to mean,as long as there's something chocolately about it. But the mind boggles at what different people think chocolate is. I saw a free range organic single bean variety single field rainforest high butterfat bittersweet (and why don't we ever see the word "sweetbitter"? isn't that a valid question? If you can say bittersweet, why can't you say sweetbitter? But I've never once heard anyone say that.)....anyway, where was I? Oh yeah the yaddayaddayadda chocolate. Man, I was tired just reading the description. Couldn't event try the chocolate.

We generate a lot of bullshit that we then have to wade through, don't we? Why do we do that? Just wondering.

Hello? Hello. No, I'm coming. Just a second. Hi.
 
originally posted by Bwood:
Maybe we could ask The Politburo for Wine Disorder trading cards that had everyone's definition of "spoof" on the back, next to batting averages.
Click to expand...

Wow -- even better!
 
originally posted by LarryM:
YES
originally posted by VLM:
originally posted by Dave Nelson:

Maybe the Politburo will be kind enough to provide us with a small (but getting larger by the comment) laminated reference card (even a .pdf - I can laminate it myself) for each WD member's particular definition of spoof. Perhaps that way we could avoid EVER having this discussion again.
Click to expand...

What a great idea! I wish they had put that on the registration card.
Click to expand...

On this we have found common ground, Nathan...where shall we gather to hug it out and sign the appropriate treaties?

Be well,
Larry

PS -- Great idea, Nelson!
Click to expand...

Sorry Larry, didn't mean to be so snappy, trying to go back and forth between work and this is tough sometimes...

Like I told Loesberg, I'm open to a relativist approach, but I'm heavily predisposed against it.

I think with enough thought, there is a definition of spoof and this kind of thing is helpful the way that e is very helpful in the statistical world. (Just waiting for bwood to hammer than analogy as well). To me, defining what spoof is may be as important (or close to it) as trying to define what terroir is.
 
originally posted by Hoke:

And that's usually my approach to wine too: try as much of it as you can, because you just never know what someone is going to do with a wine. And I'm always looking for an epiphany (don't wanta leave that to just the Catholics; epiphanies should be constant and non-denominational, I say).

We generate a lot of bullshit that we then have to wade through, don't we? Why do we do that? Just wondering.
Click to expand...

Hoke

"Amen" to the non-denomentaional epiphanies. As a once maverick Catholic, I battled my own to break this harmful and repressive monopoly...though I vote with the Pope 90% of the time.

I loathe parroting an old bumper sticker, but it does just happen. Generating a certain quantity of bullshit is part of our MO. The tricky part for those passing by is knowing when to lend a shovel or when to just avoid the mess. I've become used to the smell, and confess I'm not always bothered by it.

Be well,
Larry
 
Larry, still I think you are missing your chance to be the first WD person to huff off to a hiatus. Think of the fame. Think of your legacy.
 
originally posted by VLM:
originally posted by LarryM:
YES
originally posted by VLM:
originally posted by Dave Nelson:

Maybe the Politburo will be kind enough to provide us with a small (but getting larger by the comment) laminated reference card (even a .pdf - I can laminate it myself) for each WD member's particular definition of spoof. Perhaps that way we could avoid EVER having this discussion again.
Click to expand...

What a great idea! I wish they had put that on the registration card.
Click to expand...

On this we have found common ground, Nathan...where shall we gather to hug it out and sign the appropriate treaties?

Be well,
Larry

PS -- Great idea, Nelson!
Click to expand...

Sorry Larry, didn't mean to be so snappy, trying to go back and forth between work and this is tough sometimes...

Like I told Loesberg, I'm open to a relativist approach, but I'm heavily predisposed against it.

I think with enough thought, there is a definition of spoof and this kind of thing is helpful the way that e is very helpful in the statistical world. (Just waiting for bwood to hammer than analogy as well). To me, defining what spoof is may be as important (or close to it) as trying to define what terroir is.
Click to expand...

FWIW, I do not think that my own brand of relativism (yes, that was intended as a funny) is in any way an abdication from thought and analysis. I spend way too much time thinking about how and why...understanding people is bitch.

Be well,
Larry
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
[...]

Working out how to capture the wines that people want to capture under spoofed while keeping the term meaningful, then, is the problem. As I said, I proposed trading in "natural" for "traditional" as the opposing term."Traditional" is a vague term and won't solve all arguments about which wine is spoofed, but it will make the term meaningful. Intention also seems to be a coherent way to go, even though obviously intention is an interpretive quagmire. I'm open to any other solution that preserves the meaning, doesn't include any wine one doesn't like, and is capable of being argued about, even if the argument can't be definitively be resolved. [....]
Click to expand...

Has no one mentioned "gobs," which, I would think occur naturally, or, at least, can do so without the need for high-tech wizzardry? In this case Keith could reasonably say, "that Pegau was too gobby for me," too over-ripe, too intense and alcoholic. But to call "spoof" seems to me to connote tricked-out manipulation of a technical sort. The individual manipulations might not necessarily lead one to deem a wine spoofulated, but if a bunch of technical tricks were used with the intent of creating a rich, fruit-forward, "hedonistic" style, the term would fit.
 
originally posted by Bwood:
Larry, still I think you are missing your chance to be the first WD person to huff off to a hiatus. Think of the fame. Think of your legacy.
Click to expand...

I know, I know...I missed the fucking boat on this one.
In the end, I'm not built for folklore status. Though I've not yet given up on my legacy...
 
"But to call "spoof" seems to me to connote tricked-out manipulation of a technical sort. The individual manipulations might not necessarily lead one to deem a wine spoofulated, but if a bunch of technical tricks were used with the intent of creating a rich, fruit-forward, "hedonistic" style, the term would fit."

Would the same apply if a bunch of technical tricks were used with the intent of creating a lean, mineral and acid-driven, fruit-supressed, 'anti-hedonistic' style (assuming you're assuming that hedonistic can only refer to gobby stuff; some hedonists may differ with you, a hedonistic masochist, for instance. Or Kane.)?

Relativistically speaking, I mean. Or irrelativistically speaking.
 
Would the same apply if a bunch of technical tricks were used with the intent of creating a lean, mineral and acid-driven, fruit-supressed, 'anti-hedonistic' style (assuming you're assuming that hedonistic can only refer to gobby stuff; some hedonists may differ with you, a hedonistic masochist, for instance. Or Kane.)?

Relativistically speaking, I mean. Or irrelativistically speaking.
Click to expand...

I think this was Dressner's point in the beginning of the thread in reference to some carbonic maceration Southern French red wines but could also be applied to those steely austere Trimbach wines that emerge regardless of the weather patterns.
 
OK everybody, focus! We have established all the details of the problem. Let's now have proposals for definitions that meet the various needs, with explanations for why they don't meet some, why that's OK and why that's the definition we prefer. You can do this. A perfectly good term is at stake. Expect objections to any definition offered, but definitions should preferably therefore come with suggested revisions. Get to work!
 
originally posted by Rahsaan:
Would the same apply if a bunch of technical tricks were used with the intent of creating a lean, mineral and acid-driven, fruit-supressed, 'anti-hedonistic' style (assuming you're assuming that hedonistic can only refer to gobby stuff; some hedonists may differ with you, a hedonistic masochist, for instance. Or Kane.)?

Relativistically speaking, I mean. Or irrelativistically speaking.
Click to expand...

I think this was Dressner's point in the beginning of the thread in reference to some carbonic maceration Southern French red wines but could also be applied to those steely austere Trimbach wines that emerge regardless of the weather patterns.
Click to expand...

Freaky, huh? Some say Dressner and I are kindred spirits. Peas in a pod. Separated at birth. Like minds. Doppelgangers. Fellow travelers.

Relativistically speaking, of course.

And we've never been seen in the same room together either.
 
Sorry, I'm a busy man, I don't have time to wade through this thread. Can someone summarize it for me in a few lines?

Thanks.
 
originally posted by Chris Coad:
Sorry, I'm a busy man, I don't have time to wade through this thread. Can someone summarize it for me in a few lines?
Click to expand...

Spoofalation or Spoofulation? Discuss. Endlessly.
 
Let's now have proposals for definitions that meet the various needs, with explanations for why they don't meet some, why that's OK and why that's the definition we prefer.
Click to expand...

I think you might have been onto something (even though I initially objected) with your equation of spoof and non-traditional winemaking. That allows us to criticize wines that have lost all sense of their place, but also allows us to like wines that may have severed links with their place but still please us (e.g. some of the hipster wines that lose the cepage but please us for other freshness-related reasons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top