Non-pro wine writing should be done how?

originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
Pete, Yixin means that only the blind are capable of accurate and unbiased observations.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't they have an edge on textural description?
 
originally posted by SFJoe:
Ripeness, acidity, complexity, structure, drinkability. Those tell me something...But the tasting note genre is a stylistic and communicative dead end, IMO. Twenty flavors followed by a number, no thanks.
Click to expand...

This doesn't seem to follow. "Ripeness, acidity, complexity, structure, drinkability" is just as much a tasting note as "Twenty flavors followed by a number."

But hey, the argument is getting smaller and smaller on this thread.
 
originally posted by Rahsaan:
originally posted by SFJoe:
Ripeness, acidity, complexity, structure, drinkability. Those tell me something...But the tasting note genre is a stylistic and communicative dead end, IMO. Twenty flavors followed by a number, no thanks.
Click to expand...

This doesn't seem to follow. "Ripeness, acidity, complexity, structure, drinkability" is just as much a tasting note as "Twenty flavors followed by a number."

But hey, the argument is getting smaller and smaller on this thread.
Click to expand...

You know, I don't agree.

I think the aromatic descriptors in most notes are arbitrary and nearly random, and are not shared in a common vocabulary. In the chapter Mark L recommends (as do I), Asimov parses tasting notes for the same wine by three professional critics. You can get to structural elements amid the underbrush, but really they have no flavors in common. Are those cherries "baked" or in "compote" or "smashed"?

But if I tell you the wine is 15.5% and feels like it, or if I tell you, "damn, this shit is tannic!" or if I tell you, "cloying sweetness not balanced by acidity," I think we can talk.

Also, those common qualities also tell me what to do with the wine--is it a cocktail, is it rich or lean, and so on.

But you may have a different experience of the world, and you may not find notes of "melted licorice" or "liquified persimmon" or all the rest as parody the way I do. You may be able to tell whether your currants are mulled, whether your tobacco is maduro, and so on.

In which case your commonality with your fellow man is greater than mine.
 
My only quibble was that your claim "the tasting note genre is a stylistic and communicative dead end" is not about tasting notes in general but rather about the particular kind of tasting notes that you don't find useful. And I think we all agree on that.

But "damn, this shit is tannic!" is still a tasting note.

That's all.
 
originally posted by Rahsaan:
My only quibble was that your claim "the tasting note genre is a stylistic and communicative dead end" is not about tasting notes in general but rather about the particular kind of tasting notes that you don't find useful. And I think we all agree on that.

But "damn, this shit is tannic!" is still a tasting note.

That's all.
Click to expand...

I guess the question is what SFJ meant by "the tasting note genre;" i took him to mean not merely all (or any) expressions of sensation in written or oral form. But as a genre: the 20 flavors (the more obscure and proustian the better) and a number. But I am just a reader; just as unreliable as all authors.
 
I think we can all agree that the descriptive value of the vast majority of tasting notes is useless, and that, at most, all you can learn is whether the taster likes the wine or not.

But, that can be useful information. If Parker waxes poetic about the "unctuous mouthfeel and port-like intensity" of a Sonoma pinot noir, I'm pretty sure I'm not going to like it. And when JLL says a St. Joseph is STGT, there is a decent shot I will like it.

But, yeah, it would be more helpful if people limit their tasting notes to descriptors like "tannic," "acidic," "fruity," "heavy," or "hot" and avoid the Baskin-Robbins adjectives.
 
"Bear Lake Vineyards coalesces romantic onion overtones and a chunky crack-cocaine aroma in their 1990 White Zinfandel."

Is it getting steamy in here?
 
Discussions like this have not been uncommon on wine boards...usually with wide variances of opinions.

I tend to think tasting notes should be an amalgamation of all the descriptors being discussed here, including the flavors/body/texture/size/intensity/character/ageability/food compatibility/etc./etc.

The notes should also convey some level of judgement as to the quality and likableness of the wine.

In any case, discouraging (or criticizing) tasting notes on a wine board would seem to work to erode, even sabotage, the underpinnings of a good wine board. Tasting notes are often the necessary tool that leads to worthy broader discussions of wines and wine events. And, if desired, they can easily be skipped over.

Just my $.02 worth!

. . . . . . . Pete
 
Write what you need to say, regardless of genre. Try to write as best you can according to your lights. Educate your lights as best you may. The rest isn't up to you.

I don't write tasting notes, although, out of intellectual curiosity to see how someone might describe something I have tasted, I read them if I have already tasted the wine . I will almost never be your audience. Many others will, however, and they are who you will be writing for. Don't ask them what they want, give them what you have. On the other hand, by all means ask others what they think they are reading to see if you are writing what you want to.

If you ask me for style preference, I much prefer the genre of notes common to Brits from the late 19th to the mid 20th century: "this elixir has re-educated me on the meaning of transcendent beauty," etc. etc. It doesn't tell me any more than "this hedonistic beauty offered up notes of strawberry and pain grillé" but I do occasionally enjoy reading it more.
 
emoticons are the way forward.

schnait.jpg
fb.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top