The Meaning of Spoofulation -- September 2008 Clarification

Spoofulated = unexpected and unpleasant.
Click to expand...

I find that the most peculiar defnition yet, and there have been a few.

Unexpected? Really? I would've thought just the opposite.

Unpleasant seems a matter of individual taste. I've had a number of spoofulated wines that were actually quite nice.
 
originally posted by Rahsaan:
Is the taste of Yellow Tail really unexpected?
Click to expand...

If you hadn't been told about it ahead of time, and
if you poured it with the intention to drink wine,
then yes, it's unexpected.
 
originally posted by Chris Coad:
I find that the most peculiar defnition yet, and there have been a few.
Click to expand...

Flatterer!

Unexpected? Really? I would've thought just the opposite.
Click to expand...

If you expect "wine" -- in the Platonic ideal sense -- and you get, say, "Yellowtail", I think that's unexpected.

I do understand your sense of it: that the contrivances, whether Natural or Manly, tend to coerce all wines to a single place.

Unpleasant seems a matter of individual taste. I've had a number of spoofulated wines that were actually quite nice.
Click to expand...

Hm. This might be you. I think a sizable majority of people would not put "spoofulated" under the "nice" rubric.

But, a chacun.
 
I just poured about a 1:4 ratio of 2007 Dupeuble Beaujolais into a glass of 2007 Clos Roche Blanche Cuvee Gamay (CRB). Is that spoofulation? It's not loathsome, I don't think, although it turns out I prefer the drink with the maximum proportion of CRB.
 
Hm. This might be you. I think a sizable majority of people would not put "spoofulated" under the "nice" rubric.
Click to expand...

I suggest that your statistical majority might in fact be a very small minority within a very small community. Yellowtail is wine, believe it or not. Unless we've rarified the definition of wine past 'a beverage made from fermented grapes.'
 
The way I view it, a spoofalated wine is one that does not exhibit historical and classical characteristics, baring extreme vintage conditions, of a particular wine/grape type from a specific region. The non-classical characteristics are recognized as being thicker texture, a more noticeable/elevated oak level, riper fruit/higher alcohol with lower acid levels and in many cases, a clear addition of acidity. Frequently, two or more of these charcteristics appear in a spoofalted wine.

Thus, when Keith rails against CDP as being spoofalated, in most instances he is incorrect and is simply expressingg his well-known disdain for fruit and ripe wines. The fact is, CDP and specifically, Grenache is historically a fruit-forward and high alcohol wine/grape. However, there is spoolation going on in CDP in such wines as the Domaine de la Mordoree "Reins de Bois," or any number of luxury cuvees that have emerged over the past ten years or so.

With regard to reverse osmosis, which many traditionalits would argue automatically qualifies a wine to have the spoofed label, I say unless the procedure has led to any of the aforementioned non-classical characteristics in the wine, then it's simply a matter of deft wine making using modern technology. There are estates that use reverse osmosis well and there are more that do not.
 
originally posted by Putnam Weekley:
I just poured about a 1:4 ratio of 2007 Dupeuble Beaujolais into a glass of 2007 Clos Roche Blanche Cuvee Gamay (CRB). Is that spoofulation? It's not loathsome, I don't think, although it turns out I prefer the drink with the maximum proportion of CRB.
Click to expand...

Heathen! Infidel!
what was it like?
 
originally posted by Brad Kane:
The way I view it, a spoofalated wine is one that does not exhibit historical and classical characteristics, baring extreme vintage conditions, of a particular wine/grape type from a specific region. The non-classical characteristics are recognized as being thicker texture, a more noticeable/elevated oak level, riper fruit/higher alcohol with lower acid levels and in many cases, a clear addition of acidity. Frequently, two or more of this charcteristics appear in a spoofalted wine.

Thus, when Keith rails against CDP as being spoofalated, in most instances he is incorrect and is simply expressingg his well-known disdain for fruit and ripe wines. The fact is, CDP and specifically, Grenache is historically a fruit-forward and high alcohol wine/grape. However, there is spoolation going on in CDP in such wines as the Domaine de la Mordoree "Reins de Bois," or any number of luxury cuvees that have emerged over the past ten years or so.

With regard to reverse osmosis, which many traditionalits would argue automatically qualifies a wine to have the spoofed label, I say unless the procedure has led to any of the aforementioned non-classical characteristics in the wine, then it's simply a matter of deft wine making using modern technology. There are estates that use reverse osmosis well and there are more that do not.
Click to expand...

OK, why is Kane allowed to post on a spoofulation thread? Who the fuck is running this bored?

Keith, I think I know a relative of yours. Levenberg is a fairly rare name (but I'm I'm goy so take that FWIW).
 
....and poking it in the gall bladder with a stick. Seriously, I tried Derrida.....all I got was academic masturbation.
 
originally posted by Chris Coad:
I suggest that your statistical majority might in fact be a very small minority within a very small community. Yellowtail is wine, believe it or not. Unless we've rarified the definition of wine past 'a beverage made from fermented grapes.'
Click to expand...

This comment smacks of Plotnickian reasoning, which I shall resist here: although "Yellowtail" sold 7.5 million cases (in 2005) that does not prove that it is a good wine or even that it is wine.

Is SPAM ham?
 
originally posted by Jeff Grossman:
originally posted by Chris Coad:
I suggest that your statistical majority might in fact be a very small minority within a very small community. Yellowtail is wine, believe it or not. Unless we've rarified the definition of wine past 'a beverage made from fermented grapes.'
Click to expand...

This comment smacks of Plotnickian reasoning, which I shall resist here: although "Yellowtail" sold 7.5 million cases (in 2005) that does not prove that it is a good wine or even that it is wine.

Is SPAM ham?
Click to expand...

But it does speak to the notions of expectations and it all depends on who is doing the expecting.

I don't know much about SPAM/Ham or all these meaty products, but I know quite a few people who have been 'suprised' when they tasted real mustard, yogurt, etc at my house because they are accustomed to eating the artificial stuff.

So I may be with you on the issue of real vs. natural vs. processed but I don't think you can use 'expectations' as a way of discerning spoof unless you only want the 'experts' to be the ones expecting things.
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
originally posted by The Latin Liquidator:
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
the term will have been shown to be without meaning.
Click to expand...

Ah, the signifier, wide open and free!

What's wrong with the absence of a fixed meaning or set of fixed meanings?

M.
Click to expand...

Signifiers without signifieds, as Derrida will tell you, are impossible since they would cease, by definition, to be signifiers. But you can get the effect you want by just making random sounds. One of them could even be "spoof." And such a use of the sound would be innocuous at least, if that's what you want.
Click to expand...

Seems like a decent enough idea, asemiotic inocuousness. Spoof, spof, spoof, spoofie-spoof-spoof.

M.
 
originally posted by Rahsaan:
But it does speak to the notions of expectations and it all depends on who is doing the expecting.
Click to expand...

Yes. This needs more thought.

I don't know much about SPAM/Ham or all these meaty products, but I know quite a few people who have been 'suprised' when they tasted real mustard, yogurt, etc at my house because they are accustomed to eating the artificial stuff.

So I may be with you on the issue of real vs. natural vs. processed but I don't think you can use 'expectations' as a way of discerning spoof unless you only want the 'experts' to be the ones expecting things.
Click to expand...

I had hoped that the focus on expectations would remove the hopelessly-idiosyncratic language of tastes & smells from the definition.

And there still seems to me to be something strong in the concept: for example, those who admire gritty, purple, toothpicky wine find real wine to be thin, sour, and to taste like dirt. They're surprised, too! They don't call it 'spoof'; I'm not sure what word they use.

Is there any semantic traction to be had in trying to define the opposite of 'spoof'?
 
Is there any semantic traction to be had in trying to define the opposite of 'spoof'?
Click to expand...

For my purposes, that would be 'wine' (which is why I am sympathetic to part of your approach) but I realize that is a bit radical and will not gain very broad traction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top