more on Bosker ....

originally posted by mark e:
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
Malo is "blocked" for the most part, as I understand it, by keeping vinification at cool temperatures. Since you don't get it in Rieslings, Chenin Blancs, etc. they are vinifying so it does not happen. When one wants to make sure it happens, other than using additives, one raises the temperature of vinification to induce the requisite yeasts to be more active.
Click to expand...

No, actually that is not quite right. Without getting into a long-winded explanation, primary fermentation is done by yeasts, ML by bacteria. And the issue of fermentation temperature is more complex; suffice to say it is difficult for ML to happen in a very cold cellar, which is somewhat different than a temperature-controlled primary fermentation.
Click to expand...

If it is difficult to happen in a cold cellar, what did I say that was not right (other than your important corrective that the fermentation occurs because of bacteria and not yeast)?
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
originally posted by mark e:
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
Malo is "blocked" for the most part, as I understand it, by keeping vinification at cool temperatures. Since you don't get it in Rieslings, Chenin Blancs, etc. they are vinifying so it does not happen. When one wants to make sure it happens, other than using additives, one raises the temperature of vinification to induce the requisite yeasts to be more active.
Click to expand...

No, actually that is not quite right. Without getting into a long-winded explanation, primary fermentation is done by yeasts, ML by bacteria. And the issue of fermentation temperature is more complex; suffice to say it is difficult for ML to happen in a very cold cellar, which is somewhat different than a temperature-controlled primary fermentation.
Click to expand...

If it is difficult to happen in a cold cellar, what did I say that was not right (other than your important corrective that the fermentation occurs because of bacteria and not yeast)?
Click to expand...

I think he's fussing with you over the definition of "vinification": if that covers only the Great Work of the Yeasts then your sentence is inaccurate; if that covers everything from harvest to taping-up the cartons then your sentence is fine.
 
Prof, pH and must nutrients play a role as well, although temperature is the simplest lever to pull. And I think someone else would be better placed to comment on the different effects of Lactobacillus and Oenococcus populations (not to mention the different strains of Lb.) on the wine.

I think, as with most aspects of wine, it's too easy to over-simplify.

In other news, the frost damage assessment is pretty grim, and a timely, if painful, reminder that wine is an agricultural product. That influences how I think about MLF, but YMMV.
 
My understanding is that MLF, unless blocked, will happen almost all the time in both reds and whites, including riesling and chenin, unless there is very little malic acid to start with (e.g., very old vines), or the cellar is extremely cold (which in Germany is, of course, more likely).

Keith, I love you old blog post on the definition of natural, and I'm fine with keeping things equally loose in terms of what is spoof (though heating up wine to generate diacetyl surely is). Adding a bit of sulfur, sugar or acid is manipulation, but maybe not all manipulation is spoof, especially when adding a bit of something that is already in the grape. I just couldn't accept it when MLF was described as a nefarious practice of olden times, when it's one of the naturalest things in winemaking. I just had to defend its battered (not to say buttered) honor, especially May being Malo Awareness Month, and all.

With that in mind, Jeff, diacetyl is NOT the taste of malo. There is no taste of malo, per se, just a diminution in the perception of total acidity. In some cases, if a ton of lactic acid is generated, I suspect the wine can taste yogurty, but most wine goes though malo and doesn't taste lactic or buttery.
 
Spoof isn't terribly hard to define. The dictionary definition of spoof is to "imitate something while exaggerating its characteristic features for comic effect." That's pretty close to the way we use it, too, minus the comedy part (or at least minus intentional comedy). It describes both the process and the result. For me the result is key.

The distinguishing characteristic of spoof is that it takes a classical model - the way wine was made before modern techniques were available to manipulate it - identifies several characteristics with base appeal, and then aims to exaggerate those characteristics the same way a cartoonist will draw exaggeratedly big ears. The exaggeration beyond the parameters of the classical model is an essential component of spoof. A wine manipulated to taste exactly like 1961 Lafite might be manipulated, but it isn't spoof.

To the extent process is relevant, it's more a matter of intent than a matter of manipulation. As you've demonstrated, an oaky, buttery chardonnay is not necessarily any more manipulated than a bright, crisp one (and perhaps less so). It's the intent to imitate and then exaggerate that makes spoof spoof.
 
originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
Spoof isn't terribly hard to define. The dictionary definition of spoof is to "imitate something while exaggerating its characteristic features for comic effect." That's pretty close to the way we use it, too, minus the comedy part (or at least minus intentional comedy). It describes both the process and the result. For me the result is key.

The distinguishing characteristic of spoof is that it takes a classical model - the way wine was made before modern techniques were available to manipulate it - identifies several characteristics with base appeal, and then aims to exaggerate those characteristics the same way a cartoonist will draw exaggeratedly big ears. The exaggeration beyond the parameters of the classical model is an essential component of spoof. A wine manipulated to taste exactly like 1961 Lafite might be manipulated, but it isn't spoof.

To the extent process is relevant, it's more a matter of intent than a matter of manipulation. As you've demonstrated, an oaky, buttery chardonnay is not necessarily any more manipulated than a bright, crisp one (and perhaps less so). It's the intent to imitate and then exaggerate that makes spoof spoof.
Click to expand...

This is a great definition.I believe that spoof is a shortening of spoofulation, so the etymology may, alas, not be correct. But it's a great definition. I hope the OED picks it ups.
 
originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
Yes, I don't know if history records whether "spoofulation" is etymologically derived from "spoof" or from "spoo."
Click to expand...

This is why we have an OED. The word spoof was invented by a British comedian and dates back to the 1880s. Its uses are all about comedy or humbugging. It has no earlier version or other etymology listed. The word spoofulation I think is only wine related. It has no entry in the OED or any other dictionary I can find with a 5 minute search on Google. The only listings are for wine related sentences. I don't see any reason, given its use--to guess that the word was other than--to coin a term--neologified on the moment.
 
Not sure about the US, but in England spoof was, or is, a common term for satire, which jives with the British comedian reference. And satire often resorts to exaggeration, which jives with Keith's observation.
 
I have no doubt that spoofulation was in some sense suggested by the word spoof. I also think that any attention to usage external to Keith's definition--which, I reiterate, I think is a great one, and I hope one that replaces current usage--shows pretty clearly that the word drops out all senses of comedy and much of exaggeration in favor of the concept of artifice,which is behind your defense of malolactic fermentation (though your views could be made to align with Keith's, I'm sure) and which is the target of Keith's realignment. A straightforward etymological defense of Keith's definition would be largely mythological, like the supposed etymology of barbecue from barbe au cul (as opposed to barbe au que, which is the same thing, without the frisson). If the word continues to accrue a usage history such as to get it included in the OED (with the online updating of the OED that is hardly beyond the pale of probability), I hope Keith's suggested use takes over. Even if it does, I expect there will be two entries to register the divergence.
 
originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
Not sure what is this second entry (or meaning) you refer to. The only one we seem to agree on is (goal-driven) artifice.
Click to expand...

The point of Keith's definition is precisely to avoid the question of artifice by identifying spoof with an exaggeration of standard features, no matter how it is achieved. Remember, he was twitting you about what he took to be your rigid position on malolactic. That is the second entry
 
originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
Well, the exaggeration of standard features is achieved through artifice, so the second meaning still eludes me.
Click to expand...

For you and hypothetical entry one, the defining feature is the fact of artifice. For Keith, artifice, at some level, is virtually a necessary condition of wine. The defining feature of spoof is exaggeration. The distinction shouldn't be so hard to get. At least one of its intents was to undermine your argument that stopping malolactic was spoof. Under entry 1, stopping malolactic occurs through artifice and thus is spoof. Under entry 2, since its intent is not to create the relevant form of exaggeration, it is not.
 
Gotcha. Makes sense, hinging on a liberal definition of artifice in "artifice, at some level, is virtually a necessary condition of wine." I understand artifice as having the same etymology as artificial, so it doesn't jive with my ideal of natural winemaking. A natural winemaker has process decisions to make that I wouldn't call artifice, even with the "at some level" qualifier.
 
originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
Gotcha. Makes sense, hinging on a liberal definition of artifice in "artifice, at some level, is virtually a necessary condition of wine." I understand artifice as having the same etymology as artificial, so it doesn't jive with my ideal of natural winemaking. A natural winemaker has process decisions to make that I wouldn't call artifice, even with the "at some level" qualifier.
Click to expand...

I mostly, sorta, agree with you. But the concept causes multitudes of near metaphysical disputes about which interventions count as artificial and also some obvious accepted contradictions (new oak is OK in Rioja because they've always done it that way--which protects tradition but not against artifice). I think Keith may be getting nearer to what (some) people object to about wines they consider spoofed. It admittedly makes spoof a judgment of taste and thus not a quality that one can point to in terms of objective traits. But such is the burden judgments of taste must bear.
 
Absolutely. I was just thinking that even the goal-oriented v. process-oriented distinction that I hold so dear has its limitations, because a winemaker may do a short maceration for a wine to be drunk young, and a long maceration to generate structure for ageing, and would not be criticized for being goal-oriented in either case. At the end of the day, I think we are all happy that natural wine, like pornography and beauty, is not a defined term, and each can choose their point along the line of purity. I don't like oak, so happily reject anything that doesn't come from the vine as "unnatural," but others don't, for reasons such as the one you mention.
 
Well, but the Supreme Court has ruled that we all know pornography (or at least obscenity) when we see it. So since there's never an argument about that, we don't have to worry about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top