Another fine article by Asimov
- Thread starter Florida Jim
- Start date
Keith Levenberg
Keith Levenberg
I see where he's going but I think "fruity vs. vinous" describes this particular dichotomy better than sweet vs. savory. The problem with "savory" is that it's ordinarily used to connote umami, but some of the flavors he mentions (like herbs and minerality) aren't umami tastes. What's important about most of the "savory" elements in the wine context is that they're transformative flavors (flavors developed by virtue of the grapes being made into something else) rather than flavors that directly channel the fruit. Hence, the key division seems to be fruit vs. vinosity.
Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
I will hereby argue. I thought this one of Asimov's weakest articles. The reason is that while he presents sweet and savory as a new way of simply categorizing wine, every line of the story was driven by inappropriate evaluations. The tip-off was his argument that German Rieslings (not the trockens) were savory because they were high in acid and minerally or that Southern Rhone from ripe years (years he has already classified elsewhere as over-ripe) were sweet. Once the judgment is no longer merely about whether one experiences sweetness (and one does drinking German Rieslings)but about ripeness vs. minerality (there are numbers of reasons not to like 07 CdPs, but one of them isn't that any producers version will give a greater impression of sweetness in 07 than in say his 04 or 06--just ask Jay about the 06 Charvin), then the categories cease to be working well.
I think if he had say divided between fruit driven and earth or mineral driven, and if he had pointedly gotten rid of arguments against kinds of wines and kinds of vintages, so that you could have over-ripe fruit driven or earth driven, for instance, as to my taste you can in either case, he might have gotten farther.
As an aside, his generalizations on 09 CdRs based on the handful he can have tasted is absurd. If he doesn't like those, he will not likely like them in most other years, which is fine with me, but which is not a function of an outré vintage.
I think if he had say divided between fruit driven and earth or mineral driven, and if he had pointedly gotten rid of arguments against kinds of wines and kinds of vintages, so that you could have over-ripe fruit driven or earth driven, for instance, as to my taste you can in either case, he might have gotten farther.
As an aside, his generalizations on 09 CdRs based on the handful he can have tasted is absurd. If he doesn't like those, he will not likely like them in most other years, which is fine with me, but which is not a function of an outré vintage.
Jay Miller
Jay Miller
Gee thanks. I had almost managed to forget.
Florida Jim
Florida Jim
Jonathan and Keith,
Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
But do you really think he was talking to you? Either of you?
Pick nits and split hairs if you must, but for the "man/woman on the street" wine consumer, his choice of categories and his attempts to fit wines into them are easy reference points.
And easy is the gift he brings to the vast majority of his readers.
Best, Jim
Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
But do you really think he was talking to you? Either of you?
Pick nits and split hairs if you must, but for the "man/woman on the street" wine consumer, his choice of categories and his attempts to fit wines into them are easy reference points.
And easy is the gift he brings to the vast majority of his readers.
Best, Jim
Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
Actually, I think he was talking to me, and to Keith and to you, albeit about categories that would help those who were less geeky. Every example he gave was meant to persuade the geeky that this was a good non-geeky set of categories. and I think the categories as he described them would precisely not help the non-geeky. How happy would you be if you had never tried say a Riesling spatslese and he recommended it to you because it was savory? For that matter, how much would you like the category savory to describe muscadet if you didn't know all the, really to my mind, bad thinking, but thinking that you weren't aware of that stood behind that odd descriptor.
I didn't read the whole article (yet) but I am willing to throw in my two cents anyway:
Sweet or Savory
Black or White
Right or Wrong
The closing examples of wines as either sweet or savory better described Asimov's taste in wines more than anything else. Muscadet as Savory? How does that work?
Sweet or Savory
Black or White
Right or Wrong
The closing examples of wines as either sweet or savory better described Asimov's taste in wines more than anything else. Muscadet as Savory? How does that work?
Jeff Grossman
Jeff Grossman
I thought "savory" basically meant "salty".
Oswaldo Costa
Oswaldo Costa
+1
Keith Levenberg
Keith Levenberg
Oswaldo Costa
Oswaldo Costa
Damn! Now I'm going to have to go back and edit thousands of tasting notes.
Oswaldo Costa
Oswaldo Costa
The sentence "Fino sherries, especially manzanillas, are saline rather than sweet, for example" suggests that Asimov is using savory to mean saline, but maybe only here.