Levi & Joe & Thor & Company

originally posted by VLM:
originally posted by Levi Dalton:
originally posted by VLM:
originally posted by Cory Cartwright:
originally posted by Levi Dalton:
I have to say, one of the things that was refreshing about Putnam's piece is that it totally avoided the tendency of certain days to veer into "Advertisements for Myself and/or My Business Interest" pieces, which seem to be much more prevalent this year.
Click to expand...
As you can see from today's comments section, Guilhaume agreed with you (although in somewhat harsher language).
Click to expand...

Let's not get too precious about all this.

Levi, you know that you self promote here and that you have put together tastings with that partially in mind. That's OK (they had the added benefit of being very interesting). Your 32 days post wasn't self promotional at all, I'll grant, merely self-indulgent. But isn't that the whole point of the blogosphere?

Let's cut thew poor girl some slack, I mean, she has to sell Savio Soares wines, which are mostly terrible.

And Cory, 32 days is self-promotional for you so how can you begrudge anyone else self-promotion? That said, I think that you can probably judge what is pathetic (Dressner, Thor) from what is just plain out of bounds (Amy, your mom).
Click to expand...

I really don't think it is precious to say "one of the things that was refreshing about Putnam's piece..."

Also, here is not there. There is supposed to be a series about Natural Wine. Asking for folks to stay on topic wouldn't be out of bounds.

Being creative in addressing a subject should most always be encouraged. Being self-referential to the point that the subject is completely lost is another situation altogether.

VLM: specifically I think it is funny that you would go out of your way to call my piece self-indulgent.
Click to expand...

Levi, the particulars of my post were cheeky with only a grain of truth in there.

Your contribution was creative and welcomed universally. Even if I did find it a bit self-indulgent seeming, that would be a critique of the work, not you as a person. You are a very accomplished and valuable member of this community and the wine community as a whole and I admire your body of work.

My piece is tomorrow and I welcome your criticism of my idea. I am a bit worried it might be lame.

I just think it's difficult to parse intentions. Not impossible, but difficult. Amy's piece may have been self-promotional, but I read it as earnest. Too earnest for Natural wine, certainly. And really, Savio Soares wines are terrible, poor girl.

As an aside, thank you for the edits.
Click to expand...

I want to thank Amy Atwood for bringing The Monkey and me closer together on this day in July.
 
originally posted by Jeff Grossman:
Isn't that "fuck all y'all" ? VLM, please advise.
Click to expand...

It is. I used it earlier this year correctly and Nathan was thoroughly impressed.

My piece is a listing of current natural wines I have in inventory, written on a scroll in my own blood. If I am going to shill, may as well do it as naturally as possible.

Fuck all y'all
 
Gonna remove some of my bones and make a skeleton pen. Kind of like the skeleton gun Jude Law uses in Existenz. But way more natural.
 
originally posted by Levi Dalton:

I want to thank Amy Atwood for bringing The Monkey and me closer together on this day in July.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Unintended consequences are not always negative.
 
originally posted by Cory Cartwright:
And the VLM breaks his blogging hiatus

http://saignee.wordpress.com/2010/0...atural-wines-and-the-perils-of-human-frailty/
Click to expand...

I was never good with statistics nor do I speak the lingo.
So when I say that what I got from that piece is that real, natural and industrial tend to overlap, I realize that I may have missed the point entirely.
But these terms, like many used in subjective analysis, strike me as being much like the supreme court definition of obscenity - I know it when I see it. No self-respecting scientist can abide such an ambiguous definition, I'm sure, but, IMO, there's a lot more grey in the world than black and white.
Maybe we should just acknowledge imprecision and let it go at that.
Best, Jim
 
I like the distinctions made in the vlm-model. So in this model the natural wine category overlaps with real wines category, but it is a view dominated by top-down folks who view process or methodology as sancrosanct, possibly to the "detriment" of the end result (thus the derided "hipsters," in the vlm lexicon), and the real wines category is dominated by bottom-up empiricists who are willing to use industrial or natural wine methods as long as those methods produce the best result, as measured by some indefinable fidelity to terroir. The steepness of the respective curves makes sense if you accept the logic of the categories.

So, what I am left wondering is whether the natural winemakers and real winemakers see themselves this way or not. Are there really that many Natural Wine winemakers who care about process above all? I suppose we just need to quiz the winemakers and see if they prefer Plato to Hume (insert goofy emoticon here).
 
Congratulations to Cory on getting Scott Shrewbridge to come out of retirement and write for 32 Days.
 
originally posted by Florida Jim: So when I say that what I got from that piece is that real, natural and industrial tend to overlap, I realize that I may have missed the point entirely.
Click to expand...

That seems to be the main value of the chart from my perspective as well.

But I'm not sure what the probability discussion adds.

When Nathan says that wines have mixed probabilities of ending up in various categories, does that depend on vintage or the palate of the person making the judgment?

Either way, the point about overlap is good.
 
Although no one calls him out on sliding everything onto a univariate parameter.

I'll just let it slide.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top