T. Matthews: blog post on Marcel

Alice F.

Alice Feiring
Had to share.

thomas matthews' blog

Thomas Matthews

"Call me hard-hearted, or wrong-headed. But as I read the outpouring of admiration and love for Marcel Lapierre following his untimely death in early October, I thought of Georges Duboeuf.

Lapierre, who tended a small family domaine in Morgon, in the Beaujolais region of France, had an impact far beyond the size of his production. He was an early and faithful adherent to a traditional, non-interventionist approach to grapegrowing and vinification. This made him a hero to the proponents of "natural" wine. And they, in turn, have positioned him in opposition to the wines they judge as industrial or even immoral.

As New York Times wine critic Eric Asimov put it in his obituary, "[Lapierre] and a group of three other producers were instrumental in demonstrating to the world that Beaujolais had far more to offer than its often insipid mass-market nouveau wines."

Wine writer Alice Feiring cast Lapierre's legacy in ethical terms. She wrote in her blog, "There are stars in the world, leading men and women, ones that make a difference. You can smell them, see them vibrate The saving of Beaujolais was mostly his heavy lifting in his quiet way he left behind a legacy of commitment, [that] belief + action changes the world."

I regret to say that I never met Lapierre. Based on the eulogies, I am sure he was an admirable person. I don't know his wines well, either. Based on our reviews, I can tell they were exemplary, too. Last night, out for dinner with friends at a locavore restaurant in Brooklyn called Rose Water, I spotted a half-bottle of Lapierre Morgon 2007 on the list for $36, and we drank it.

It was lovely. Light ruby in color, just showing some age at the rim, it offered alluring aromas of berries, tobacco, tea and spices. It was supple on the palate, with notes of tobacco and fresh earth framing a core of sweet cherry fruit.

...Reading between the lines, I suspect that Asimov and Feiring would say that Lapierre saved Beaujolais from the likes of Georges Duboeuf, the epitome of "insipid mass-market nouveau." As if cheap and cheerful Beaujolais Nouveau was the threat, the enemy....

In I'll Drink to That, his history of Beaujolais, Rudolph Chelminski portrays Duboeuf as a key figure in the confrontation between deep-rooted tradition and relentless modernization that has transformed not only Beaujolais, but much of Europe in the last half century. ... In Chelminski's view, which I share, much of the good enjoyed by the region is due to the efforts of Georges Duboeuf. (You can read more about his history in our article archives: Georges Duboeuf: Beaujolais and Beyond, Challenges for a King and Duboeuf's Wine Museum.)
...

I imagine Duboeuf knew Lapierre, too, and knowing Duboeuf, I am sure he admired the principled vigneron from Morgon. I suspect he feels that much of the praise now being lavished on Lapierre is a veiled attack on him..."

[Alice, the Politburo has edited your full repost into a link and something that we think better approximates fair use. Thank you for bringing this interesting article to everyone's attention. You may wish to reedit our first cut to more closely fit your needs. You may even consider interspersing your own comments or responses to the post, which would also more closely approximate fair use. Curiously, the Politburo supports everyone's rights of free expression (more or less), and also we don't want to pick a fight with the laws of the US, what with Obama's gulag being better than our gulag and all.]
 
That's actually pretty funny...Not surprising to read this from Wine Speculator.
What a stupid magazine.
That said, I wonder what Lapierre thought of Duboeuf...
 
I was quite surprised that most people do not speak ill of George. George was good for region and many farmers, bad for wine. A little like the relationship land owners have with Moet in champagne. This is Tom's war, not George, I suspect.
 
Funny, was discussing this topic (sans Matthews) elsewhere this morning. If I'm not mistaken, a lot of people like Duboeuf's wines, and his approach to production and marketing has been good for many farmers. Not my glass of wine, but so what? Vive la difference.
 
He retains his touching faith in critics.

" I don't know his wines well, either. Based on our reviews, I can tell they were exemplary, too."
 
originally posted by SFJoe:
He retains his touching faith in critics.

" I don't know his wines well, either. Based on our reviews, I can tell they were exemplary, too."
Really, why bother to actually taste the wines?
 
I checked scores for the bile that rose in my throat at the dnouement of that sentence, and am now assured that it was unpleasant as my impressions suggested.
 
Firstly, it is improper and illegal to copy an entire article here. Alice, please take out your lifted quotes and put in a link.

Several journalists have made it seem that Lapierre somehow "opposed" Nouveau.

Lapierre produced lots of Nouveau, which when it was "on" was a model of what a fresh Beaujolais could be. There was a long tradition of Beaujolais being sold in Lyon in November in celebration of the recent harvest. Harvest celebrations are common in all civilizations and the institutionalization of Nouveau (in a society that has regulations for most everything) made sense.

Lapierre's objection was the type of work in the vineyards (overcropping and picking under ripe), chaptalization, cultured yeasts, spoof tricks for homogenization and the Beveragization of Beaujolais into a banal, perfumed drink that came to dominate the region.

Yes, it was Georges Duboeuf who led the charge into a policy that made the region famous and which now threatens its survival. But he is still alive and all the recent talk about Lapierre was just that and that only -- talk about Lapierre.

Thomas Matthews is a marginal figure in the wine world whose small impact is as big as it is because he works for a popular magazine with a dynamic publisher. A publisher who might be called a bit George Duboeufesque. A modern success story.

I've met Duboeuf and I've met Lapierre. Both of them were larger than life personalities and greatly touched the world around them. Lapierre never took out an advertisement in The Wine Spectator although Duboeuf does. I've never met Matthews but his "blog" on Lapierre's death is small minded, petty and vicious. A journalist might have tried to learn something about Lapierre rather than write such vile copy using a Duboeuf straw man to attack those who admired Lapierre.

Unfortunately, Matthews is no Lapierre. His column is mindless rambling about someone who Matthews never knew and whose wines he admittedly knew little about. Marcel Lapierre's death, for Matthews, is a good opportunity to attack Alice Feiring and Eric Asimov and to express solidarity with Georges Duboeuf against vague attacks.

If this Matthews has any integrity, he owes his readership an apology.
 
It's a little amazing to me that Matthews knew so little of Lapierre and apparently has never had his wines. It's remarkable in a second-order way that he'd nonetheless feel free to attribute unpleasant motives and hidden agendas to Lapierre's honest admirers. Perhaps this is a projection issue that he can work through with his therapist.

But it goes to show you how different worlds can be. In my world, Lapierre Morgon is almost the default wine. If you wander into a bunch of the places I drink, here and there in my travels, Lapierre is on the list or the chalkboard in a way that, yes, they also have some water and even maybe some ice. Frankly, it gets to be a bit much. Could we maybe have some Foillard or something?

It just goes to show you how different folks travel in different circles and have different experiences.

Doesn't excuse them being meretricious ignorant assholes, but there you are.
 
originally posted by SFJoe:


But it goes to show you how different worlds can be. In my world, Lapierre Morgon is almost the default wine. If you wander into a bunch of the places I drink, here and there in my travels, Lapierre is on the list or the chalkboard in a way that, yes, they also have some water and even maybe some ice. Frankly, it gets to be a bit much. Could we maybe have some Foillard or something?

I have noticed this recently. It seems like the Lapierre Morgon has been on the wine list of every single DC restaurant I've been to lately --- the default sub-$50 red. I think I've seen a Chignard once, but other than that, Lapierre is the sole representative of Cru Beaujolais. Not that I'm complaining. Better one bottle of Cru Beaujolais than none at all.

And hear, here to Joe D as well. It is never pleasant to see an axe publicly grinded, and it was unseemly for Matthews to have done so, especially in light of Lapierre's recent passing.
 
originally posted by SFJoe:
It's a little amazing to me that Matthews knew so little of Lapierre and apparently has never had his wines. It's remarkable in a second-order way that he'd nonetheless feel free to attribute unpleasant motives and hidden agendas to Lapierre's honest admirers. Perhaps this is a projection issue that he can work through with his therapist.

As you learned some time ago, Mr. Matthews's job seems to be that of "defender of the brand." It's just a damn shame that he has to use the sad news of M. Lapierre's death to further his own agenda.

Mark Lipton
 
Pedantic interlude: it's 'Hear, hear:' the imperative form of the verb 'to hear,' exhorting the listener to undertake the action of hearing, the exhortation amplified through repetition.

Hear, hear! Hear what Joe says; hear what Mark says. Hear!
 
originally posted by MLipton:
As you learned some time ago, Mr. Matthews's job seems to be that of "defender of the brand." It's just a damn shame that he has to use the sad news of M. Lapierre's death to further his own agenda.
Just so. Can't let folks fawn all over a natural wine guy.
 
Who is this guy? Is he related to Dave Matthews the inexplicably popular leader of an inexplicably popular band? Does he do a summer tour?
 
originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
Pedantic interlude: it's 'Hear, hear:' the imperative form of the verb 'to hear,' exhorting the listener to undertake the action of hearing, the exhortation amplified through repetition.

Hear, hear! Hear what Joe says; hear what Mark says. Hear!

You musta missed that thread...
 
Back
Top