Does tasting wine with music change a wine's flavor?

[David M. Bueker]

Riesling always tastes better while listening to "South Side of the Sky."

I find anything tastes better when listening to "Dark Side of the Moon".

I usually put on "Animals."

Do you feel the pulse of the animals behind the wall on the dark side of the moon? Gosh I wish you were here so you could see for yourself I didn't have a momentary lapse of reason. My atom heart mother knows my saucerful of secrets. Do you want more ummagumma or is this the final cut.

Do I hear a 'yes' from the south side of the sky?

BTW - Peope who like Pink Floyd like Led Zeppelin. True in my case. I guess I'm just a living loving maid who wants a whole lotta love as I ascend a stairway to heaven.

LOL.

1. Holy crap...

2. Hey you, I've become be dimly aware of a certain unease in the air. This whole discussion is getting close to the edge, so I'm going to have to ramble on because I'm going to California to bring the boys back home. Be sure to send my regards to the piper at the gates of dawn.

Riesling always tastes better while listening to "South Side of the Sky."

I find anything tastes better when listening to "Dark Side of the Moon".

I usually put on "Animals."

Do you feel the pulse of the animals behind the wall on the dark side of the moon? Gosh I wish you were here so you could see for yourself I didn't have a momentary lapse of reason. My atom heart mother knows my saucerful of secrets. Do you want more ummagumma or is this the final cut.

Do I hear a 'yes' from the south side of the sky?

BTW - Peope who like Pink Floyd like Led Zeppelin. True in my case. I guess I'm just a living loving maid who wants a whole lotta love as I ascend a stairway to heaven.

LOL.

1. Holy crap...

2. Hey you, I've become be dimly aware of a certain unease in the air. This whole discussion is getting close to the edge, so I'm going to have to ramble on because I'm going to California to bring the boys back home. Be sure to send my regards to the piper at the gates of dawn.

I certainly will, but it won't make my wine taste any better. Just my mood.

So guys, the real question here is - Does music actually change a wine's flavour.?

Or does it simply put you in a better mood for tasting wine?

So Sue, are you implying that wine has a flavor apart from someone's perception? Taste is a sensation, which you can't measure. We use the term taste loosely to mean perception of the taste sensation. How do you define "flavor?" How would you measure it, if not by perception?

Thomas is saying that the author said something about the wine itself changing apart from taste perception. Like if you squirted it into a GLC (chromatograph) it would show different peaks after being subjected to music - like somehow the music gets through the neck of the bottle into the wine and changes the molecular composition. I don't think the author is psychotic, so obviously he wasn't inferring something crazy like that. Actually, I guess I am not absolutely sure that this might not be able to happen. I'm pretty sure, though. If it did happen, it wouldn't amount to much of a change; certainly not to perceptible degree by blind tasters not subjected to the music themselves.

So guys, the real question here is - Does music actually change a wine's flavour.?

Or does it simply put you in a better mood for tasting wine?

So Sue, are you implying that wine has a flavor apart from someone's perception?

Covert, wine has flavour. We all know that. You might perceive the flavour differently to the way I perceive the flavour. Chemists can tell us in formulas and unfamiliar words exactly what the flavours are. But let's not get pedantic about the usage of taste and flavour (nor my spelling!).
Can I suggest you go back and read the first posting in this thread again. That should explain it all. Have you read the article that was referenced?
Here's the link again - click for article.
I don't believe music can change the taste of a wine. BTW I like your analogy of the GLC and the idea that different peak patterns may occur after the wine has been subjected to music. It just won't happen.
I believe that if there is any change, it is the taster that changes, not the taste of the wine.

Salut!

Yes, and I understand what a rare condition it is. Can you tell me what purple smells like, or the taste of Beethoven? No? Then you're not experiencing true synthesia. Apart from experiences under the influence of LSD, I have never known anyone who had a true synesthetic experience.

Mark, you are talking about gross synesthesia. I think a lot of psychologists would maintain that subtle synesthesia happens all the time, since perception is so malleable and influenced by unconscious elements.

I am not going to argue this point, though. I believe that a person's ability to accept what I just said is largely a function of personality type.

Yes, and I understand what a rare condition it is. Can you tell me what purple smells like, or the taste of Beethoven? No? Then you're not experiencing true synthesia. Apart from experiences under the influence of LSD, I have never known anyone who had a true synesthetic experience.

Mark, you are talking about gross synesthesia. I think a lot of psychologists would maintain that subtle synesthesia happens all the time, since perception is so malleable and influenced by unconscious elements.

I am not going to argue this point, though. I believe that a person's ability to accept what I just said is largely a function of personality type.

Covert,

As a pianist, I experience synesthesia. Certain chords cause me to envision colors: G sharp (red-orange), A minor (blue or, to be more Ellingtonian, indigo), B flat (green), C natural (yellow). Believe it or not, when I paint in oils, I can hear music whenever I apply those particular colors, but that's probably association.

So I disagree with Mark that short of an LSD experience, it doesn't happen, although it may be possible that the trips of forty years ago linger---but I doubt it!

I usually play the piano whilst sipping wine. Neither chord progressions nor switching from one piece of music to another has ever changed the flavor of the wine in my glass--and if you look at the quote from Smith, you will see that he in fact says that music changes the wine's taste, not the perception of the wine's taste.

Have you read the article that was referenced?

Heavens, no; otherwise I might know what I was talking about. ADHD makes it difficult for me to read. But I just read it because you asked me if I had. The guy is simply talking about analogous perception influenced by sensitization. Not synesthesia. He is not saying that the wine changes at all.

And I am glad that I took a peek, not a peak, at the article. I agree with the dark Cab tones. Dark Russian music goes best with it.

Thanks, Sue.

Cheers!

Covert

And I am glad that I took a peek, not a peak, at the article. I agree with the dark Cab tones. Dark Russian music goes best with it.


Covert

My word, this is frustrating. Covert, what about this quote?

But Smith felt something else going on. He wasn't experiencing music as flavor; he believed the music was changing the flavor of the wines."

And I am glad that I took a peek, not a peak, at the article. I agree with the dark Cab tones. Dark Russian music goes best with it.


Covert

My word, this is frustrating. Covert, what about this quote?

But Smith felt something else going on. He wasn't experiencing music as flavor; he believed the music was changing the flavor of the wines."

I think he just means the wine tasted different to him and other folks who were likewise affected by the music in the same way in their brains. I didn't see anything in the article that suggested there was a chemical change in the wine independent of taste perception. Did you? I'm not trying to be cute, I'm really asking.

Did anybody else besides Thomas take away that there was an objective change in the wine itself independent of the perceptions of the people tasting it?

One more f*ing time: the man is saying that the music changes the wine, not what we perceive about the wine.

The fact that I respond to a mechanism in my brain known as synestesia, which I do, changes neither my keyboard nor the sounds that come out of the strings in my piano. It's a brain associative response.

Hm.


I understand your concerns here, but when you say this is a "brain associative response" that would be perception, would it not?

How else do we explain perception if it isn't directly connected to what the brain associates to a given sensory, uh...perception?

Let's define terms then, shall we?

per·cep·tion –noun

1. the act or faculty of apprehending by means of the senses or of the mind; cognition; understanding.
2. immediate or intuitive recognition or appreciation, as of moral, psychological, or aesthetic qualities; insight; intuition; discernment: an artist of rare perception.
3. the result or product of perceiving, as distinguished from the act of perceiving; percept.
4. Psychology. a single unified awareness derived from sensory processes while a stimulus is present.
Source: Dictionary.com

That would include music....am I right?


In reality, isn't that how all human beings relate to the World?



Why should our perception of wine be any different on that level?

Yeah, it would be perception, but I don't know how many times it takes to say that the man specifically stated that the music changes the wine, not our perception of it.

Is there something about cognizance that needs to be said?

Here are some quotes from the story--try hard to understand them, Tim:

“…it's not possible to record a generic ‘music to drink wine by’ CD because a song that might make Pinot Noir taste great can make Cabernet Sauvignon taste awful. You have to pay attention to individual music and wine pairings."

"Blackburn was interested in synesthesia, in which people experience one type of sensation with a different sense. Famous synesthetes include composers like Duke Ellington and Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov, who experienced musical notes as colors.

But Smith felt something else going on. He wasn't experiencing music as flavor; he believed the music was changing the flavor of the wines."

I think the last paragraph might be the one, but what do I know? I don't use a dictionary to develop my powers of comprehension.

OK.

I think you're reading way too much into this article, Thomas.


He never said the wine somehow morphs into this wonderful glass of grape juice....the reporter did.

To wit, your chiefest piece of "evidence":

"But Smith felt something else going on. He wasn't experiencing music as flavor; he believed the music was changing the flavor of the wines."

This is not a direct quote, Thomas...it is the reporter's opinion of what he thinks Smith is saying. You are using as evidence a line not directly atributed to Smith. Rather, it is a reporter's pontification. I am sure he meant well, but it is not evidence of Smith's actual findings.

Instead, what Smith is relaying to us is that wine "changes" because the mind's sensory attention to music causes it to perceive that change. Not that the wine itself was altered.

I don't read in this article that one can "see" or taste the wine actually become something else and, quite frankly, I don't understand how you can.

As an example:

"You're changing people's mood. What mood you're in changes your palate. I think there's absolute truth to what you're talking about, but it's part of a bigger picture."

Another example:

Smith's spiel for the wine-music interaction effect involves cutaway slides of the brain and explanations of what function different parts of it play in processing music. But he doesn't actually know, physiologically, why Cabernet tastes significantly better with the Doors' "People Are Strange" or the overture to Carmina Burana, than with Mozart or the Beach Boys.

Further [and this is where I think you may have gone wrong, Thomas]

Smith postulates that wine tasting requires the same logical processing areas of the brain as listening to music. A slice of brain research that particularly interests him is a study published by Anne J. Blood and Robert J. Zatorre of McGill University in Montreal in 2001. Blood and Zatorre showed that when subjects listen to music they enjoy (different from Smith's experiments because the subjects chose the music), they activate pleasure centers of the brain - the same areas of the brain that react to, their abstract states, "euphoria-inducing stimuli, such as food, sex and drugs of abuse." In other words, good music can make us feel the same as a good duck confit - and wine probably fits in there as one of those three euphoria-inducing stimuli, if not all three.

Here is the last paragraph of the article, Thomas:

"Let's say you're going to listen to a Mozart piano, violin and cello trio," he says. "Do you choose a Muscadet, light and crisp? Or say you're going to listen to one of Beethoven's late quartets, among the most soulful of all music. Is that the time to pull out the 1929 Romanee-Conti?"

I don't know. Neither does Smith. But open that bottle, turn on the iPod and let's find out.



Methinks thou dost protest too much.....

I don't read in those quotes that one can see the wine actually become something else, do you?

I suppose the difference is that I have this crazy habit of reading what people say or write, rather than to interpret what I think people said or wrote. It's hard for me to interpret "...he believed the music was changing the flavor of the wines." any other way but that the music was changing the flavor of the wines.

The quote doesn't say that he believed the music was changing how we perceive the flavor of the wines; it doesn't say that he believed that as various music plays we may be more or less receptive to certain stimuli, both of which I believe is true.

Coupled with earlier quotes from the article, it is clear to me that Smith's contention is that music definitely influences the wine--not the people tasting the wine, which may be what in fact is happening or maybe not, since his so-called scientific method is quite flawed.

Aside from our disagreement on this single matter, Tim, may I say that I strongly object to the patronizing way that you try to make an argument--dictionary and all; just like your patronizing question above.

By now, you know damned well what I read in the quote. Your method might work with children (do you?), but this adult finds it both offensive and revealing. I'd rather you call me an idiot, if that's what you really believe. I promise to do the same in the future for you, if that's what I believe.

One more f*ing time: the man is saying that the music changes the wine, not what we perceive about the wine.

The fact that I respond to a mechanism in my brain known as synestesia, which I do, changes neither my keyboard nor the sounds that come out of the strings in my piano. It's a brain associative response.

Hm.


I understand your concerns here, but when you say this is a "brain associative response" that would be perception, would it not?

How else do we explain perception if it isn't directly connected to what the brain associates to a given sensory, uh...perception?

Let's define terms then, shall we?

per·cep·tion –noun

1. the act or faculty of apprehending by means of the senses or of the mind; cognition; understanding.
2. immediate or intuitive recognition or appreciation, as of moral, psychological, or aesthetic qualities; insight; intuition; discernment: an artist of rare perception.
3. the result or product of perceiving, as distinguished from the act of perceiving; percept.
4. Psychology. a single unified awareness derived from sensory processes while a stimulus is present.
Source: Dictionary.com

That would include music....am I right?


In reality, isn't that how all human beings relate to the World?



Why should our perception of wine be any different on that level?

Yeah, it would be perception, but I don't know how many times it takes to say that the man specifically stated that the music changes the wine, not our perception of it.

Is there something about cognizance that needs to be said?

Here are some quotes from the story--try hard to understand them, Tim:

“…it's not possible to record a generic ‘music to drink wine by’ CD because a song that might make Pinot Noir taste great can make Cabernet Sauvignon taste awful. You have to pay attention to individual music and wine pairings."

"Blackburn was interested in synesthesia, in which people experience one type of sensation with a different sense. Famous synesthetes include composers like Duke Ellington and Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov, who experienced musical notes as colors.

But Smith felt something else going on. He wasn't experiencing music as flavor; he believed the music was changing the flavor of the wines."

I think the last paragraph might be the one, but what do I know? I don't use a dictionary to develop my powers of comprehension.

OK.

I think you're reading way too much into this article, Thomas.


He never said the wine somehow morphs into this wonderful glass of grape juice....the reporter did.

To wit:

But Smith felt something else going on. He wasn't experiencing music as flavor; he believed the music was changing the flavor of the wines.

This is not a direct quote, Thomas...it is the reporter's opinion of what he thinks Smith is saying.

What Smith is relaying to us is that wine "changes" because the mind's sensory attention to music causes it to perceive that change. Not that the wine itself was altered.

I don't read in this article that one can "see" or taste the wine actually become something else and, quite frankly, I don't understand how you can.

As an example:

"You're changing people's mood. What mood you're in changes your palate. I think there's absolute truth to what you're talking about, but it's part of a bigger picture."

Another example:

Smith's spiel for the wine-music interaction effect involves cutaway slides of the brain and explanations of what function different parts of it play in processing music. But he doesn't actually know, physiologically, why Cabernet tastes significantly better with the Doors' "People Are Strange" or the overture to Carmina Burana, than with Mozart or the Beach Boys.

Further [and this is where I think you may have gone wrong, Thomas]

Smith postulates that wine tasting requires the same logical processing areas of the brain as listening to music. A slice of brain research that particularly interests him is a study published by Anne J. Blood and Robert J. Zatorre of McGill University in Montreal in 2001. Blood and Zatorre showed that when subjects listen to music they enjoy (different from Smith's experiments because the subjects chose the music), they activate pleasure centers of the brain - the same areas of the brain that react to, their abstract states, "euphoria-inducing stimuli, such as food, sex and drugs of abuse." In other words, good music can make us feel the same as a good duck confit - and wine probably fits in there as one of those three euphoria-inducing stimuli, if not all three.

Here is the last paragraph of the article, Thomas:

"Let's say you're going to listen to a Mozart piano, violin and cello trio," he says. "Do you choose a Muscadet, light and crisp? Or say you're going to listen to one of Beethoven's late quartets, among the most soulful of all music. Is that the time to pull out the 1929 Romanee-Conti?"

I don't know. Neither does Smith. But open that bottle, turn on the iPod and let's find out.



Methinks thou dost protest too much.....

This is not a direct quote, Thomas...it is the reporter's opinion of what he thinks Smith is saying.

What Smith is relaying to us is that wine "changes" because the mind's sensory attention to music causes it to perceive that change. Not that the wine itself was altered.

And since this is not a direct quote from Smith, you, Tim, are expressing your opinion about what he means.

But he doesn't actually know, physiologically, why Cabernet tastes significantly better with the Doors' "People Are Strange" or the overture to Carmina Burana, than with Mozart or the Beach Boys.

Really. So, that will happen no matter who is listening to the music. If so, is it individual perception at work, or is it the music?

If it's the former, then we are all alike; if it's the latter than it isn't us it's the wine that the music influences. In either case, bs.

Further [and this is where I think you may have gone wrong, Thomas]

Smith postulates that wine tasting requires the same logical processing areas of the brain as listening to music. A slice of brain research that particularly interests him is a study published by Anne J. Blood and Robert J. Zatorre of McGill University in Montreal in 2001. Blood and Zatorre showed that when subjects listen to music they enjoy (different from Smith's experiments because the subjects chose the music), they activate pleasure centers of the brain - the same areas of the brain that react to, their abstract states, "euphoria-inducing stimuli, such as food, sex and drugs of abuse." In other words, good music can make us feel the same as a good duck confit - and wine probably fits in there as one of those three euphoria-inducing stimuli, if not all three.

No, Tim. I generally agree with this, but Smith did not say it; it is the writer's interpretation.

"Let's say you're going to listen to a Mozart piano, violin and cello trio," he says. "Do you choose a Muscadet, light and crisp? Or say you're going to listen to one of Beethoven's late quartets, among the most soulful of all music. Is that the time to pull out the 1929 Romanee-Conti?"

I don't know. Neither does Smith. But open that bottle, turn on the iPod and let's find out.

Again, that's the writer talking, not Smith.

I don't read in those quotes that one can see the wine actually become something else, do you?

I suppose the difference is that I have this crazy habit of reading what people say or write, rather than to interpret what I think people said or wrote. It's hard for me to interpret "...he believed the music was changing the flavor of the wines." any other way but that the music was changing the flavor of the wines.

The quote doesn't say that he believed the music was changing how we perceive the flavor of the wines; it doesn't say that he believed that as various music plays we may be more or less receptive to certain stimuli, both of which I believe is true.

Coupled with earlier quotes from the article, it is clear to me that Smith's contention is that music definitely influences the wine--not the people tasting the wine, which may be what in fact is happening or maybe not, since his so-called scientific method is quite flawed.

Aside from our disagreement on this single matter, Tim, may I say that I strongly object to the patronizing way that you try to make an argument--dictionary and all; just like your patronizing question above.

By now, you know damned well what I read in the quote. Your method might work with children (do you?), but this adult finds it both offensive and revealing. I'd rather you call me an idiot, if that's what you really believe. I promise to do the same in the future for you, if that's what I believe.

Well, geez, Thomas.

What you went on an on about wasn't patronizing...and in the worst way

You go off on everybody like what this reporter said is coming straight out of the mouth of Smith....?

It simply is not.

I am sorry to find you so reticent, but at the same time.....maybe you were wrong?

You spoke too soon Tim. Read the post above your last one.

You spoke too soon Tim. Read the post above your last one.

I read it.

"One more f*ing time: the man is saying that the music changes the wine, not what we perceive about the wine. "


This isn't patronizing....?


And I have to ask: Why is there a problem with defining terms?

People do this all the time on this BBS, I don't understand what the issue is.

Hey, look Thomas.

If what I wrote offended you, I apologize. Maybe you will see you went a little bit "out there" and offended us, as well. I won't speculate.

But today is my birthday and I plan to enjoy a nice glass of wine to some great Straight Ahead Jazz.


Maybe my Pinot Grigio will turn to an '89 Bordeaux Gran Cru....I'll let you know. OK?




Cheers!

You spoke too soon Tim. Read the post above your last one.

I read it.

"One more f*ing time: the man is saying that the music changes the wine, not what we perceive about the wine. "


This isn't patronizing....?


And I have to ask: Why is there a problem with defining terms?

"And I have to ask: Why is there a problem with defining terms?"

Well, let's see: Patronize, v. tr. 1. treat condescendingly.

"One more f*ing time:"

I'd have to say that rather than patronizing, my post was quite strident--said what it meant. Maybe we do need to define terms with you.

But a dictionary lesson on the definition of perception, especially after the lecturer had either misunderstood or misrepresented the "lecturee's" position, that's patronizing and by my definition that is: an unappealing fall-back position to take when you think you are smarter than the other person; proven to maybe work on children, but even then its application is unappealing.



Debate:

Maybe my Pinot Grigio will turn to an '89 Bordeaux Gran Cru....I'll let you know. OK?




Cheers!

Call Smith. He'll tell you which musical score will accomplish the feat.

And happy birthday--anyone who listens to jazz has some redeeming value

(from article)
"Let's say you're going to listen to a Mozart piano, violin and cello trio," he says. "Do you choose a Muscadet, light and crisp? Or say you're going to listen to one of Beethoven's late quartets, among the most soulful of all music. Is that the time to pull out the 1929 Romanee-Conti?"

..

Wow, can't Kermit just say "piano trio"? Will the music affect a Pepiere Briords the same as a Sauvion negociant Muscadet? And is '29 DRC only option with Beethoven quartet?

Certainly music can affect mood, and mood tasting perceptions. But these "tests" don't show predictable changes. Would be easy enough to establish blind tastings that were more indicative, one way or the other.

"Let's say you're going to listen to a Mozart piano, violin and cello trio," he says. "Do you choose a Muscadet, light and crisp? Or say you're going to listen to one of Beethoven's late quartets, among the most soulful of all music. Is that the time to pull out the 1929 Romanee-Conti?"

..

Wow, can't Kermit just say "piano trio"? And is '29 DRC only option with Beethoven quartet?

Certainly music can affect mood, and mood tasting perceptions. But these "tests" don't show predictable changes. Would be easy enough to establish blind tastings that were more indicative, one way or the other.

Just to set the record straight, I never posted the quote above, Dale.

Sorry, Thomas, I used quote function from your post, but I thought it was evident in context (from my response) that it was Kermit's statement from article.

Sorry, Thomas, I used quote function from your post, but I thought it was evident in context (from my response) that it was Kermit's statement from article.

To show you where my head is at, I thought you were channeling Kermit Lynch.

...But today is my birthday and I plan to enjoy a nice glass of wine to some great Straight Ahead Jazz...
Cheers!

Happy Birthday Tim. Today (11/6) is also my brother's birthday - he's 61.

Maybe my Pinot Grigio will turn to an '89 Bordeaux Gran Cru....I'll let you know. OK?




Cheers!

Call Smith. He'll tell you which musical score will accomplish the feat.

And happy birthday--anyone who listens to jazz has some redeeming value

Thanks, Thomas.

In my book, a pianist has to be just plain OK, too.