Its been interesting to see the reactions to the Landmark event from various people. Those whose definition of independence requires writers not to accept freebies (beyond a sample bottle for critical purposes) struggle with an event like this. But however you compute its cost or value, the result is meaningless. You cant write a cheque and buy the experience. Airfares & accommodation are easy. But some of the wines and the tutoring are not for sale (there must be fewer than a dozen or so bottles left of the 55 Michael Shiraz, for instance it was only one barrel of wine to begin with).
What do the participants get from it? From accusations made, they have to defend themselves against being seen as shills for what? - the entire Australian wine industry? What they have become is much more informed about Australian wine than they could have been in any other way. They had to apply invitations to this didnt just clunk into peoples inboxes, they way they might with a straight PR tour. So they had to demonstrate an interest. They also had to work bloody hard at the tasting. So theyve had the experience of a lifetime tasting some near-unrepeatable wines, they have a better grasp of what Australia can do well, where it struggles, where its been, where it might be going.
The hope of the industry might be that these people might now refrain from writing inaccurate misinformed statements about Australian wine on the basis of tasting cheap commercial critter crap. No-ones going to laud the latest Yellowtail on the basis of the experience at Landmark, but theyre not going to regard it as the perfect illustration of what Australian wine is all about either, which has clearly been a perception thats increasingly widespread.
No, these people have a new perspective. For the Australian industry its a double-edged sword. For all they know the attendees might now ask why the Australian industry isnt making more reds like they did in the 60s & 70s, or why the industry persists with making & selling some food-unfriendly wines at high prices. There are all sorts of reactions from attending a tasting like this, and theyre not all of the fawning, boot-licking kind. The fact you couldnt buy your way to this table however much money you had changes things considerably. And apart from anything, the application process and the nature of the event was hardly going to attract the sort of parasites who might normally infest junkets for new brand launches, for example.
The single biggest problem with the degree of independence required by the more fanatical consumerites is the filter it imposes on the source of your information. Perhaps I should draw a bigger distinction between critics and writers, but theres a small enough field of people who have great palates and can write interestingly about wine to start with; to insist on populating this group with only those who can first jump through the rigorous financial hoop of fiscal independence is too big a restriction to work successfully. To my knowledge maybe only Jancis can tick all three boxes, although even she reckons she couldnt afford to go everywhere on her own account, to judge by her recent article on the subject.
So, Im envious of Jamies experience too, of course. Who wouldnt be? Is it going to turn him into a mere mouthpiece for the Australian industry. Yeah, right. He might start judging Oz commercial swill by commercial standards, and not write off an entire industry on the basis of its most basic offerings (not that he was before, of course)
cheers,
Graeme
