With audio, courtesy of Bertrand Celce.
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.
Bettane v. Richaud
- Thread starter Thor
- Start date
Ian Fitzsimmons
Ian Fitzsimmons
Thanks, Thor, interesting story. I run across this blog from time to time and it's always nicely-done.
He even enjoyed a visit to some wineries in the Pacific NW, imagine that.originally posted by BJ:
What the heck, that's a great blog!
Check out his pics of Bainbridge Island.
It would be interesting to know if this blogger actually understands French well, because I'd then know if he misrepresents the debate intentionally or not. Since Bertrand Celce is French, I can only surmise he may be a little hard of hearing...
I'm just listening to the debate and reading his version of it and it's amazing. He accuses Bettane of "bad faith" and then distorts Bettane's words. Or he ignores them, not mentioning (for instance) that Bettane responds to the introduction by Bazin by pointing out that all these Bettane statements about 'biocons' and the rest have been quoted out of context. Indeed it's a remarkably simplistic and distorted introduction, which Bazin does for the sake of provocation, I guess, and to make the debate more interesting by making it more confrontational. As Richaud and Bettane never really contradict one another, I understand Celce's final disappointment
To the misrepresentations:
"Does he really think that because the EC or the French laws ignores the difference between an additives-stuffed wine and an additive-free wine, that makes the former as natural as the latter?" he writes. Yet Bettane NEVER makes such an assertion. What he says (and Richaud concurs!) is that there are charters and regulations in Europe defining bio viticultural practices, but no charters and regulations defining bio winemaking practices.
"Bettane seems to mean that a wine made without biotech additives is often plain bad; it would be interesting to check how many natural wines he has ever tasted. Maybe he isn't that prolific a taster..." Celce writes.
That must be a joke, I guess. Bettane tastes wines by the thousands. His argument is indeed that in France too much terrible wine is made and accepted, even lauded, simply because it's labeled as "natural". And that's the truth.
Bettane has been one of the principal advocates of biodynamic viticulture in Europe. He has been decisive in convincing many of the current practitioners of biodynamie to take the step. Why the heck would a wine writer with such a track record be an enemy of comparable natural procedures in the cellar? That's absurd. Bettane has always been an outspoken proponent of native yeasts, for instance. (As he has been of slection massale in planting vineyards, instead of clones.)
Does Celce really ignore all this?
What Bettane really thinks, and while not the absolute truth it's not an offensive position but one that should be respected, is that bad wine is not excusable, period, and that some of the diktats emanating from the natural wine movement have more to do with religion than with science. If, for instance, a charter says that natural wine allows for a maximum of 20 grams of SO2 to be added at bottling, does that mean that wine with 25 grams is "unnatural"? Well, to some fundamentalists it does. So La Romane-Conti is unnatural At the same time, Bettane professes great admiration for the good producers of natural wines, such as Richaud himself. No mention by Celce, of course.
I'm just listening to the debate and reading his version of it and it's amazing. He accuses Bettane of "bad faith" and then distorts Bettane's words. Or he ignores them, not mentioning (for instance) that Bettane responds to the introduction by Bazin by pointing out that all these Bettane statements about 'biocons' and the rest have been quoted out of context. Indeed it's a remarkably simplistic and distorted introduction, which Bazin does for the sake of provocation, I guess, and to make the debate more interesting by making it more confrontational. As Richaud and Bettane never really contradict one another, I understand Celce's final disappointment
To the misrepresentations:
"Does he really think that because the EC or the French laws ignores the difference between an additives-stuffed wine and an additive-free wine, that makes the former as natural as the latter?" he writes. Yet Bettane NEVER makes such an assertion. What he says (and Richaud concurs!) is that there are charters and regulations in Europe defining bio viticultural practices, but no charters and regulations defining bio winemaking practices.
"Bettane seems to mean that a wine made without biotech additives is often plain bad; it would be interesting to check how many natural wines he has ever tasted. Maybe he isn't that prolific a taster..." Celce writes.
That must be a joke, I guess. Bettane tastes wines by the thousands. His argument is indeed that in France too much terrible wine is made and accepted, even lauded, simply because it's labeled as "natural". And that's the truth.
Bettane has been one of the principal advocates of biodynamic viticulture in Europe. He has been decisive in convincing many of the current practitioners of biodynamie to take the step. Why the heck would a wine writer with such a track record be an enemy of comparable natural procedures in the cellar? That's absurd. Bettane has always been an outspoken proponent of native yeasts, for instance. (As he has been of slection massale in planting vineyards, instead of clones.)
Does Celce really ignore all this?
What Bettane really thinks, and while not the absolute truth it's not an offensive position but one that should be respected, is that bad wine is not excusable, period, and that some of the diktats emanating from the natural wine movement have more to do with religion than with science. If, for instance, a charter says that natural wine allows for a maximum of 20 grams of SO2 to be added at bottling, does that mean that wine with 25 grams is "unnatural"? Well, to some fundamentalists it does. So La Romane-Conti is unnatural At the same time, Bettane professes great admiration for the good producers of natural wines, such as Richaud himself. No mention by Celce, of course.
Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
From insufficient knowledge, but as a result of clearly insufficient answers to questions posed on another board, I am skeptical about biodynamie (as opposed to organic practices) on general enlightenment principles. That said, does anyone really believe that either biodynamic or organic practices are a sufficient cause of a good wine (or even a necessary cause) as opposed to a contributing factor? It's a provable certainty that bad wine can be made from biodynamically farmed grapes: just give them to me to make the wine! This sounds like a straw man argument.
Since when. I've seen no evidence, have you? And again, farming is different than winemaking.
Two years ago Bettane published an article condemning natural wine, it doesn't seem as if this has changed very much. It seems as if VS (?) was making Bert's translation even more provocative than it actually was.
Two years ago Bettane published an article condemning natural wine, it doesn't seem as if this has changed very much. It seems as if VS (?) was making Bert's translation even more provocative than it actually was.
U
Unknown
Guest
originally posted by VS:
It would be interesting to know if this blogger actually understands French well, because I'd then know if he misrepresents the debate intentionally or not. Since Bertrand Celce is French, I can only surmise he may be a little hard of hearing...
no, just like he says in his comment section, "a little provocation brings salt to a debate". He seems like he knows exactly what he's doing. Total misinformation that post...fucking shame if you ask me.
originally posted by VS:
25 grams is "unnatural"
Victor,
For a dry wine and if you mean g/hl, I would say yes, a wine like that is totally and definitely "unnatural", as least given my personal resilience to SO2.
Even 20, I'd add.
25 g/hl is 250 ppm!!! at least 4-5 times more than any serious grower should use.
I doubt any natural wine charter would allow 20 g/gl (200 ppm).
Nature et Progres (the most restrictive charter existing to my knowledge) says 7 g/l for reds and 9 g/l for whites.
For any standard, one have to draw lines, no?
Eric
Sorry for the mistake. You can see I'm no oenologist, ric... I meant 20 and 25 milligrams/liter. Actually, I was quoting the figure (20 mg) used by the fledgling association of natural wines in Spain - a figure I find arbitrary, although I do understand and share their concern with SO2 levels. Most of these producers are very good friends of ours and we do things quite similarly - only we don't hold such rigid views on "naturalness" or the lack thereof.
Celce might have done a poor job. I can't juge.
But Michel Bettane has done a lot for the international style, IMHO.
Through the 80-90s, he really encouraged the oaky, ripe techno style that made most of the northern rhone look like any syrah from anywhere (except the prices though).
I understand that he did the same for most of the french regions.
In this context I think that his unfocused bashing of organic growing was inappropriate for the least.
Saying that a refermenting, bad smelling, bretty with 1.5 g of VA natural wine is a worse wine than a syrah from anywhere, overripe, totally spoiled by oak taste, with 10 g of residual, and added roasted tannins and 150 ppm of SO2, is just a matter of cultural choices.
To my taste both of them are barely drinkable.
To most of my MTBike buddies the first one is only drinkable after 15 pastis, 24 beers and some grappa. They would drink the second one straight from the fridge with either grilled merguez or industrial pizzas, and go on with beer after that.
To my kids and their friend, the first one is like a Rebeyrolles painting or a David Lynch movie : intriguing but worth a trial. The second one will be used for any imaginable cocktail, as a lot of ingredients are already in...
Again only a matter of culture, IMHO
But Michel Bettane has done a lot for the international style, IMHO.
Through the 80-90s, he really encouraged the oaky, ripe techno style that made most of the northern rhone look like any syrah from anywhere (except the prices though).
I understand that he did the same for most of the french regions.
In this context I think that his unfocused bashing of organic growing was inappropriate for the least.
Saying that a refermenting, bad smelling, bretty with 1.5 g of VA natural wine is a worse wine than a syrah from anywhere, overripe, totally spoiled by oak taste, with 10 g of residual, and added roasted tannins and 150 ppm of SO2, is just a matter of cultural choices.
To my taste both of them are barely drinkable.
To most of my MTBike buddies the first one is only drinkable after 15 pastis, 24 beers and some grappa. They would drink the second one straight from the fridge with either grilled merguez or industrial pizzas, and go on with beer after that.
To my kids and their friend, the first one is like a Rebeyrolles painting or a David Lynch movie : intriguing but worth a trial. The second one will be used for any imaginable cocktail, as a lot of ingredients are already in...
Again only a matter of culture, IMHO
Joe Dressner
Joe Dressner
Hear, Here!
Sharon Bowman
Sharon Bowman
[No message]
Jeff Grossman
Jeff Grossman
Their, There!
Sharon Bowman
Sharon Bowman
Jeff, everybody knows French people can't say "th."