Jamie Goode: 3 cheers for RMP

[MLipton]

originally posted by maureen:

Parker helped significantly in getting that changed. I'm not saying he alone - but when he complained about excessive filtration and lauded those importers who imported unfiltered wine - or shipped under temperature control - or brought in interesting quirky stuff, he helped push the market up for those things. When he exposed overly unsanitary cellar practices and bitched about it, he educated consumers to complain about it and I think that's improved the quality of winemaking. Do the current crop of winemakers deserve lots of credit for improved wine? Sure - but I think Parker helped pave the way.

Now I'm talking about his influence in the 80s. By the 90s he'd gotten so influential and middle-aged white men with more money than sense got interested in wine and the next thing you know, too many winemakers start trying to make what they perceive to be Parkerized wines. Not sure you can "blame" parker for this although I do think it is because of him it happened. So what Jamie seems to like seems to me not what Parker should be thanked for.

It's dangerous IMO to ascribe too much responsibility (or blame) to Parker for what occurred in the wine world in the 1980s. Yes, he was a vocal critic and proponent of change, but at the same time Bordeaux and Burgundy were emerging from the economic hard times of the 1970s. Much of the change in the cellars in Bordeaux, I would suspect, were driven as much by their increased fortunes as they were by Parker's commentary. At best, it was a complex mix of factors, I think. And let's not discount the influence of Kermit Lynch, who at that time brought Chave, Clape, Verset, Tempier, Meo-Camuzet, Coche-Dury and Raveneau to the attention of US consumers, while at the same time investing in reefer transport to assure that the wines would better reflect the intentions of the producers.

Mark Lipton

 

[Sharon Bowman]

originally posted by MarkS:
And Sharon, is this your new day job? Scouring the web for our enjoyment and reading pleasure?

New? I thought this bored already believed I had no legitimate professional vocation.

 

[VLM]

originally posted by Sharon Bowman:

originally posted by MarkS:
And Sharon, is this your new day job? Scouring the web for our enjoyment and reading pleasure?

New? I thought this bored already believed I had no legitimate professional vocation.

Uh oh.

Claws.

Out.

 

[Sharon Bowman]

Don't tell me you didn't see it coming.

 

[VLM]

originally posted by Sharon Bowman:
Don't tell me you didn't see it coming.

I'm terribly self-absorbed at the moment.

 

[Jeff Grossman]

Ah, the difference three little words make!

 

[Jonathan Loesberg]

originally posted by maureen:
I think Jamie has a point but not exactly as he's expressed it. That is, I do think Parker deserves some large amount of credit for the world-wide increase in quality of winemaking. When he first started, there was tons of plonk out there selling for high dollars. If you could put certain names on the label, you were assured of a certain minimum price, despite what was inside. Plus the French seemed to think they had to filter the hell out of all bottles shipped to the States.

Parker helped significantly in getting that changed. I'm not saying he alone - but when he complained about excessive filtration and lauded those importers who imported unfiltered wine - or shipped under temperature control - or brought in interesting quirky stuff, he helped push the market up for those things. When he exposed overly unsanitary cellar practices and bitched about it, he educated consumers to complain about it and I think that's improved the quality of winemaking. Do the current crop of winemakers deserve lots of credit for improved wine? Sure - but I think Parker helped pave the way.

Now I'm talking about his influence in the 80s. By the 90s he'd gotten so influential and middle-aged white men with more money than sense got interested in wine and the next thing you know, too many winemakers start trying to make what they perceive to be Parkerized wines. Not sure you can "blame" parker for this although I do think it is because of him it happened. So what Jamie seems to like seems to me not what Parker should be thanked for.

I'm OK with this reading, but there is a problem with it. When Parker complained about filtration and temperature control, he did so on the basis of valuing artisanal wines that reached consumers in an integral condition. Whereas he still campaigns for the latter of those two things, he now supports intrusive oenology in the name of enhanced flavor. Since he thought that filtration stripped flavor, in retrospect his campaign could always have been to make wine thicker, richer and yummier, which are just the values that some people criticize him for. Parker may be influential because the values he hold are ones that one can sign on to without much effort.

That said, I do think that in overturning the form of wine writing that went before him and in having values that stood separate from price and label, he did a service and does deserve a lot of credit for it. Moreover, even if one doesn't allign with his values, he is a critic who stands for a certain set of values fairly consistently (except for the odd mixture of whining and pugnaciousness that has crept into his writing over the last few years as he has become more explicitly controversial)and that is what, as far as I'm concerned, I want critics to do. But I've gotten into that argument here as well.

 

[Arjun Mendiratta]

Yawn.

 

[Ian Fitzsimmons]

For a minute, I thought I had something worthwhile to add to this discussion. Then I thought again.

 

[Tom Blach]

The Robert Parker phenomenon is preposterous beyond words; quite,quite ridiculous, and one can only feel sorry for a chap so horribly imprisoned by his own hyperbole. He clearly hates wine, as we all would having led the life he has led.

 

[Tom Glasgow]

originally posted by Tom Blach:
The Robert Parker phenomenon is preposterous beyond words; quite,quite ridiculous, and one can only feel sorry for a chap so horribly imprisoned by his own hyperbole. He clearly hates wine, as we all would having led the life he has led.

This is the USA, we only understand hyperbole.

 

[Yixin]

Tasting the unappealing for the miseducation of the undeserving! What a job!

 

[Peter Creasey]

I feel that I got to know RP quite well during the Prodigy days where he was the resident expert. Prodigy, especially during early days, was a bulletin board that promulgated close personal relationships.

Reflecting back, my impressions of RP are better than what many people choose to believe and offer up in various venues.

I hope the foregoing comments don't paint (taint?) me as a Parker apologist. Nevertheless, assuming he has not changed dramatically (which I guess is possible... but probably unlikely), he is not the evil force that some folks ascribe to him.

. . . . . . Pete

 

[Matt F]

originally posted by Tom Blach:
The Robert Parker phenomenon is preposterous beyond words; quite,quite ridiculous, and one can only feel sorry for a chap so horribly imprisoned by his own hyperbole. He clearly hates wine, as we all would having led the life he has led.

brother

 

[Jeff Grossman]

originally posted by Peter Creasey:
...he is not the evil force that some folks ascribe to him.

I believe he never intended it. (He is a pioneer, of a sort, and, as has been said about others, pioneers are not always the easiest people to get along with.)

 

[Filippo Mattia Ginanni]

... a thread that claims the uselessness of Parker which is now 35 posts long.

You guys crack me up.

 

[Unknown]

originally posted by Sharon Bowman:
Jamie Goode: 3 cheers for RMPThis just up. I predict a thriving comments section.

WTF ??

Can someone tell Jamie there is this wonderful feature called NWR, reserved for slow days.

 

[Lee Short]

originally posted by Peter Creasey:

I feel that I got to know RP quite well during the Prodigy days where he was the resident expert. Prodigy, especially during early days, was a bulletin board that promulgated close personal relationships.

Reflecting back, my impressions of RP are better than what many people choose to believe and offer up in various venues.

I hope the foregoing comments don't paint (taint?) me as a Parker apologist. Nevertheless, assuming he has not changed dramatically (which I guess is possible... but probably unlikely), he is not the evil force that some folks ascribe to him.

. . . . . . Pete

People change. It would be quite surprising if Parker were not changed by his success. I'm too ignorant of too many aspects of his life to say exactly how he has changed, though. And maybe he was a very decent guy. And I'm sure he still has his good side.

That said, he sure has a penchant for insulting and belittling those who disagree with him about wine; HE is the one who makes it about the person, not about the wine. He also loves to encourage sycophantic behaviors, and to engage in the argument from (his own) authority. I can't say that I find any of those traits endearing. I don't know if the RP you know has those traits, but I think they are clearly established trends of the present day RP.

 

[Thor]

a thread that claims the uselessness of Parker which is now 35 posts long

False conclusion, actually. The thread started with a link to Jamie Goode that claims the exact opposite.

 

[Filippo Mattia Ginanni]

originally posted by Thor:

a thread that claims the uselessness of Parker which is now 35 posts long

False conclusion, actually. The thread started with a link to Jamie Goode that claims the exact opposite.

Not really, Jamie stated RMP is useful, the thread does the contrary.

Sorry to prolong this agony further.

Parker who ?