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

...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.

Cool.

Wish him a happy, happy for me, OK?


And thanks....it was great day!

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.

Covert, synthesia is a neurological condition, not a psychological one (hardware, not software, if you'll accept that analogy). There are various forms of it, the most common of which is to view letters and numbers as colored (grapheme, IIRC). I've never heard the term "gross synthesia," though, so I don't know what it means.

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.

I am not a doctor, except in the most trivial sense of holding a doctorate, so I defer to the medical establishment in matters of defining medical conditions. In this case, they have a fairly rigorous definition that excludes (as I read it) most transient experiences apart from those induced chemically.

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!

My apologies if I left you with the impression of doubting its existence in the populace at large. To the contrary, it's been well documented for over 100 years, far longer than LSD has been known. From what I've read (mostly Oliver Sacks's works) the prevalence of synthesia within the populace is somewhere between 5 in 100,000 to 5 in 100. If the latter figure is more accurate, then the odds are strong that I have indeed met at least one person who's got synesthesia, but if so I've never heard of 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.

But how do we know what something tastes like without invoking our perceptions? Perception is our interface with the world at large, so if I say that something changes the taste of a wine, I don't know how to interpret that statement if I discount perception.

Mark Lipton

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.

But how do we know what something tastes like without invoking our perceptions? Perception is our interface with the world at large, so if I say that something changes the taste of a wine, I don't know how to interpret that statement if I discount perception.

Mark Lipton

Nor do I, which is why the claim, if made, is suspect.

Sure, the wine in my glass at the piano evolves, but I doubt the piano has anything to do with that evolution (except perhaps the vibrations, as I leave the glass on the right side of the console)

Isn't it the evolution that makes an impression on our perception? If you leave a glass of wine exposed over a period of time while you change the music, which is what I think Smith's experiment was, you should perceive changes in the wine.

I've sent an email to Smith for clarification of his findings. If he responds, I'll let everyone know.

Isn't it the evolution that makes an impression on our perception? If you leave a glass of wine exposed over a period of time while you change the music, which is what I think Smith's experiment was, you should perceive changes in the wine.
I've sent an email to Smith for clarification of his findings. If he responds, I'll let everyone know.

Excellent!

Oh and my Pinot Grigio, sadly, did not morph into a nice glass of '89 Bordeaux Gran Cru.

One might think even Bill Evans with his smooth keyboarding and flowing solos would have been able to produce such a change but, alas, it did not.

Ah well....the cigar I had didn't become a Davidoff Double R either.



Rats.

Oh and my Pinot Grigio, sadly, did not morph into a nice glass of '89 Bordeaux Gran Cru.

One might think even Bill Evans with his smooth keyboarding and flowing solos would have been able to produce such a change but, alas, it did not.

Ah well....the cigar I had didn't become a Davidoff Double R either.



Rats.

You know, Tim, I don't expect Smith to respond to my email. But I've been thinking further.

In the article, Smith recommends specific music for specific wines. If that's the case, then he would be saying that everyone of us who listens to that specific music and sips that specific wine would have the same specific response.

That also doesn't sound to me like he is talking about our individual perception at work.

By the way, I have it on good authority that Bill Evans pairs well with Sneaky Pete!

TimMc wrote:
Oh and my Pinot Grigio, sadly, did not morph into a nice glass of '89 Bordeaux Gran Cru.

One might think even Bill Evans with his smooth keyboarding and flowing solos would have been able to produce such a change but, alas, it did not.

Ah well....the cigar I had didn't become a Davidoff Double R either.



Rats.

Sorry to hear that Tim, but I hope you had a great Birthday anyway.

Salute

TimMc wrote:
Oh and my Pinot Grigio, sadly, did not morph into a nice glass of '89 Bordeaux Gran Cru.

One might think even Bill Evans with his smooth keyboarding and flowing solos would have been able to produce such a change but, alas, it did not.

Ah well....the cigar I had didn't become a Davidoff Double R either.



Rats.

Sorry to hear that Tim, but I hope you had a great Birthday anyway.

Salute

I did, and thank you!

Oh and my Pinot Grigio, sadly, did not morph into a nice glass of '89 Bordeaux Gran Cru.

One might think even Bill Evans with his smooth keyboarding and flowing solos would have been able to produce such a change but, alas, it did not.

Ah well....the cigar I had didn't become a Davidoff Double R either.



Rats.

You know, Tim, I don't expect Smith to respond to my email. But I've been thinking further.

In the article, Smith recommends specific music for specific wines. If that's the case, then he would be saying that everyone of us who listens to that specific music and sips that specific wine would have the same specific response.

That also doesn't sound to me like he is talking about our individual perception at work.

All's I'm saying is I didn't see anything where Smith was quoted as being an endorsement of music physically altering the taste of wine.

TBH, I think maybe the author himself has an ax to grind here.

By the way, I have it on good authority that Bill Evans pairs well with Sneaky Pete!

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

Tim,

You are an educator, and from your responses on this thread, I have the feeling that you might get something in the way I get it that I used to argue on this forum to no avail. It seems that the prevailing idea about perception is that it only comes into play when someone is being “fooled” by a label, or unduly influenced by a particularly nice mood—or music, in this case. Otherwise, it seems, most wine drinkers think that they are directly in touch with “the flavor” of a wine one to one. In other words, if a person is not with a particularly charming woman or listening to Beethoven, he will pretty much be tasting a wine “for what it is.” And if the person is tasting blind, then he is really in touch with the flavor, and not having his perception fooled.

My understanding is that we are tasting through individual perception any time we taste. That “taste” is a physiological sensation and experienced consciously only through perception. If the person is tasting blind, he is really not blind at all, he has all kinds of assumptions and guesses about the wine, and other things, which cause the wine to taste a certain way.

My point is that a wine isn’t anything other than whatever an individual perceives to be. People because they are genetically similar perceive in generally the same way, so it seems like what they are perceiving is a constant rather than a relative entity. For this reason, I conclude that the “truth” of a wine lies closest to the thing that a person perceives; that a person tasting a Lafite while looking at the label is “tasting” a different entity than a person tasting liquid from the same bottle blind, and not a false entity. Because the entity is the perception, not what is in the bottle. The entity is the result of the individual group of neurons firing when tasting, rather than what is in the bottle.

When wine drinkers speak of how someone would get a false idea of the taste of a wine while looking at the label, they are making the same error that Thomas is making, albeit more subtly. They, like Thomas, assume that a wine has a “real” taste or flavor independent of perception, which can be gotten at my tasting blind. Or they assume that a blind taste is more honest than an open eyed taste, rather than just a product of a different set of assumptions coming from longer term memories following looking at a label. There is a perceptual lag in the brain after viewing a label which puts the perception of the label into the same "other-than-direct" neurological memory field that a person has with his eyes closed. Every perception is a memory clouded by countless other memories, regardles of whether eyes are open or shut.

Do you see it differently?

Covert

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

Tim,

You are an educator, and from your responses on this thread, I have the feeling that you might get something in the way I get it that I used to argue on this forum to no avail. It seems that the prevailing idea about perception is that it only comes into play when someone is being “fooled” by a label, or unduly influenced by a particularly nice mood—or music, in this case. Otherwise, it seems, most wine drinkers think that they are directly in touch with “the flavor” of a wine one to one. In other words, if a person is not with a particularly charming woman or listening to Beethoven, he will pretty much be tasting a wine “for what it is.” And if the person is tasting blind, then he is really in touch with the flavor, and not having his perception fooled.

My understanding is that we are tasting through individual perception any time we taste. That “taste” is a physiological sensation and experienced consciously only through perception. If the person is tasting blind, he is really not blind at all, he has all kinds of assumptions and guesses about the wine, and other things, which cause the wine to taste a certain way.

My point is that a wine isn’t anything other than whatever an individual perceives to be. People because they are genetically similar perceive in generally the same way, so it seems like what they are perceiving is a constant rather than a relative entity. For this reason, I conclude that the “truth” of a wine lies closest to the thing that a person perceives; that a person tasting a Lafite while looking at the label is “tasting” a different entity than a person tasting liquid from the same bottle blind, and not a false entity. Because the entity is the perception, not what is in the bottle. The entity is the result of the individual group of neurons firing when tasting, rather than what is in the bottle.

When wine drinkers speak of how someone would get a false idea of the taste of a wine while looking at the label, they are making the same error that Thomas is making, albeit more subtly. They, like Thomas, assume that a wine has a “real” taste or flavor independent of perception, which can be gotten at my tasting blind. Or they assume that a blind taste is more honest than an open eyed taste, rather than just a product of a different set of assumptions coming from longer term memories following looking at a label. There is a perceptual lag in the brain after viewing a label which puts the perception of the label into the same "other-than-direct" neurological memory field that a person has with his eyes closed. Every perception is a memory clouded by countless other memories, regardles of whether eyes are open or shut.

Do you see it differently?

Covert

Covert,

Now I know how you feel about being misunderstood.

The error I make, if I make one, is to argue via the Internet with people whom I do not know.

First, I agree with just about everything you posted (almost) which is why this guy's claim drives me nuts. Don't know how many times I've said that he is NOT referring to our perception but to what he believes is a fact--that music changes the TASTE of the wine (edit--not the taste of it but its flavor, there is a subtle but important difference there). He seems not to argue that the music changes how WE taste the wine.

I may be misunderstanding the article, and if so, that is likely because it is rather confusing--I pointed that out in my email to Smith.

Second, if you haven't read that in my many posts, then you may suffer from a perception problem when you read.

Third, while most tasting is perception, there are hard, objective, measurable chemical components in wine that do something on the palate. I'm not even going to entertain arguing with you on that point. You are dealing in abstracts--I have studied wine.

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

Tim,

You are an educator, and from your responses on this thread, I have the feeling that you might get something in the way I get it that I used to argue on this forum to no avail. It seems that the prevailing idea about perception is that it only comes into play when someone is being “fooled” by a label, or unduly influenced by a particularly nice mood—or music, in this case. Otherwise, it seems, most wine drinkers think that they are directly in touch with “the flavor” of a wine one to one. In other words, if a person is not with a particularly charming woman or listening to Beethoven, he will pretty much be tasting a wine “for what it is.” And if the person is tasting blind, then he is really in touch with the flavor, and not having his perception fooled.

My understanding is that we are tasting through individual perception any time we taste. That “taste” is a physiological sensation and experienced consciously only through perception. If the person is tasting blind, he is really not blind at all, he has all kinds of assumptions and guesses about the wine, and other things, which cause the wine to taste a certain way.

My point is that a wine isn’t anything other than whatever an individual perceives to be. People because they are genetically similar perceive in generally the same way, so it seems like what they are perceiving is a constant rather than a relative entity. For this reason, I conclude that the “truth” of a wine lies closest to the thing that a person perceives; that a person tasting a Lafite while looking at the label is “tasting” a different entity than a person tasting liquid from the same bottle blind, and not a false entity. Because the entity is the perception, not what is in the bottle. The entity is the result of the individual group of neurons firing when tasting, rather than what is in the bottle.

When wine drinkers speak of how someone would get a false idea of the taste of a wine while looking at the label, they are making the same error that Thomas is making, albeit more subtly. They, like Thomas, assume that a wine has a “real” taste or flavor independent of perception, which can be gotten at my tasting blind. Or they assume that a blind taste is more honest than an open eyed taste, rather than just a product of a different set of assumptions coming from longer term memories following looking at a label. There is a perceptual lag in the brain after viewing a label which puts the perception of the label into the same "other-than-direct" neurological memory field that a person has with his eyes closed. Every perception is a memory clouded by countless other memories, regardles of whether eyes are open or shut.

Do you see it differently?

Covert

Not at all...that is exactly the way I understand how perception works.


Excellent post!

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

Tim,

You are an educator, and from your responses on this thread, I have the feeling that you might get something in the way I get it that I used to argue on this forum to no avail. It seems that the prevailing idea about perception is that it only comes into play when someone is being “fooled” by a label, or unduly influenced by a particularly nice mood—or music, in this case. Otherwise, it seems, most wine drinkers think that they are directly in touch with “the flavor” of a wine one to one. In other words, if a person is not with a particularly charming woman or listening to Beethoven, he will pretty much be tasting a wine “for what it is.” And if the person is tasting blind, then he is really in touch with the flavor, and not having his perception fooled.

My understanding is that we are tasting through individual perception any time we taste. That “taste” is a physiological sensation and experienced consciously only through perception. If the person is tasting blind, he is really not blind at all, he has all kinds of assumptions and guesses about the wine, and other things, which cause the wine to taste a certain way.

My point is that a wine isn’t anything other than whatever an individual perceives to be. People because they are genetically similar perceive in generally the same way, so it seems like what they are perceiving is a constant rather than a relative entity. For this reason, I conclude that the “truth” of a wine lies closest to the thing that a person perceives; that a person tasting a Lafite while looking at the label is “tasting” a different entity than a person tasting liquid from the same bottle blind, and not a false entity. Because the entity is the perception, not what is in the bottle. The entity is the result of the individual group of neurons firing when tasting, rather than what is in the bottle.

When wine drinkers speak of how someone would get a false idea of the taste of a wine while looking at the label, they are making the same error that Thomas is making, albeit more subtly. They, like Thomas, assume that a wine has a “real” taste or flavor independent of perception, which can be gotten at by tasting blind. Or they assume that a blind taste is more honest than an open eyed taste, rather than just a product of a different set of assumptions coming from longer term memories following looking at a label. There is a perceptual lag in the brain after viewing a label which puts the perception of the label into the same "other-than-direct" neurological memory field that a person has with his eyes closed. Every perception is a memory clouded by countless other memories, regardles of whether eyes are open or shut.

Do you see it differently?

Covert

Not at all...that is exactly the way I understand how perception works.


Excellent post!

First, I agree with just about everything you posted (almost) which is why this guy's claim drives me nuts. Don't know how many times I've said that he is NOT referring to our perception but to what he believes is a fact--that music changes the TASTE of the wine (edit--not the taste of it but its flavor, there is a subtle but important difference there). He seems not to argue that the music changes how WE taste the wine.

Thomas, you are right, I was probably misinterpreting exactly what you were saying. My apologies. But I do equate “the taste” (I know that "flavor" is the better word, since taste does not include olfactory) or flavor with perception. So I think music does in fact change the taste or flavor of the wine, which is what I thought the article said. If you had said only that the guy said the chemical composition changes with the wine, I would have left my remarks at "I didn’t interpret the article that way."

A larger question (which Tim alluded to with his "methinks" comment) is why some mistake someone makes in an article drives you nuts. If every time someone made a mistake in thinking drove me nuts, I would be a raving lunatic by now. Perhaps I am. (I know, Nietzsche already said that. )

Anyway, I have made too many misinterpretations to shake a stick at, even, so I will admit that I could have made a mistake in what I attributed to your comments.

Covert

A larger question (which Tim alluded to with his "methinks" comment) is why some mistake someone makes in an article drives you nuts. If every time someone made a mistake in thinking drove me nuts, I would be a raving lunatic by now. Perhaps I am. (I know, Nietzsche already said that. )


Covert

Covert,

I go nuts because part of my professional wine life is to teach the subject. Some of the questions from students make me keenly aware how much nonsense is spewed about the product. Knowing of Smith's past work, I don't think what was in the article is a mistake--in fact, he posts such things on his blog.

I know it may be difficult for those who are not in the wine business to think it is more than simply a drink for them to love and to opine over, but, like other professions, there are actual protocols and technicalities to producing wine.

As to "flavor" and "taste," wine sitting in a glass with no one else in the room will have flavor. When someone enters the room and drinks the wine, that someone's perception of the wine's flavor is called taste.

It's a semantics, I know, but when you want to communicate hazily, you can select your words more pin-pointedly, and I believe in that context the word "flavor" as applied to the contention about music, is another clue to who or what the music is supposed to be changing.

Maybe I over analyze things, but maybe, too, people who have products to promote are smarter than those of us who are in their promotion sights...

As to "flavor" and "taste," wine sitting in a glass with no one else in the room will have flavor. When someone enters the room and drinks the wine, that someone's perception of the wine's flavor is called taste.

That's what I thought you were saying. I say the glass has no flavor, it has chemicals which need to be interpreted by the mind before there is flavor. It is similar to HTML code that needs a browser to make it into a picture on a screen. Two different browsers will project the same HTML code differently.

Thomas wrote:
As to "flavor" and "taste," wine sitting in a glass with no one else in the room will have flavor. When someone enters the room and drinks the wine, that someone's perception of the wine's flavor is called taste.

Covert wrote:
That's what I thought you were saying. I say the glass has no flavor; it has chemicals which need to be interpreted by the mind before there is flavor. It is similar to HTML code that needs a browser to make it into a picture on a screen. Two different browsers will project the same HTML code differently.

Covert,
Basically I think you and Thomas are saying the same thing. (What are those chemical components in the wine? The aromatics of the wine?)

Salute

Thomas wrote:
As to "flavor" and "taste," wine sitting in a glass with no one else in the room will have flavor. When someone enters the room and drinks the wine, that someone's perception of the wine's flavor is called taste.

Covert wrote:
That's what I thought you were saying. I say the glass has no flavor; it has chemicals which need to be interpreted by the mind before there is flavor. It is similar to HTML code that needs a browser to make it into a picture on a screen. Two different browsers will project the same HTML code differently.

Covert,
Basically I think you and Thomas are saying the same thing. (What are those chemical components in the wine? The aromatics of the wine?)

Salute

I never did hear that tree that fell in the forest where I wasn't, which of course means it made no sound when it hit the ground.

Thomas wrote:
As to "flavor" and "taste," wine sitting in a glass with no one else in the room will have flavor. When someone enters the room and drinks the wine, that someone's perception of the wine's flavor is called taste.

Covert wrote:
That's what I thought you were saying. I say the glass has no flavor; it has chemicals which need to be interpreted by the mind before there is flavor. It is similar to HTML code that needs a browser to make it into a picture on a screen. Two different browsers will project the same HTML code differently.

In your first sentence you do not state- wine sitting in a glass in an empty room will have flavor or wine sitting in a glass with no one in the room will have flavor. Instead you state- wine sitting in a glass with no one else in the room will have flavor. From that I can assume there is one person in the room.

Salute

Thomas wrote:
As to "flavor" and "taste," wine sitting in a glass with no one else in the room will have flavor. When someone enters the room and drinks the wine, that someone's perception of the wine's flavor is called taste.

Covert wrote:
That's what I thought you were saying. I say the glass has no flavor; it has chemicals which need to be interpreted by the mind before there is flavor. It is similar to HTML code that needs a browser to make it into a picture on a screen. Two different browsers will project the same HTML code differently.

In your first sentence you do not state- wine sitting in a glass in an empty room will have flavor or wine sitting in a glass with no one in the room will have flavor. Instead you state- wine sitting in a glass with no one else in the room will have flavor. From that I can assume there is one person in the room.

Salute

No, Victor, from that you can assume that wine has a personality of its own--it's flavor, if you will.

Covert's position is what I would call "subjectfying" the universe. Nothing happens until a human ordains it to have happened. The possibility exists, and the one I favor, is that things happen in the universe to which humans react and have adapted for survival, and who knows, maybe even for pleasure.

If left completely alone, grapes will ferment into something resembling what we have identified as wine. The properties that the wine has--aroma and flavor, etc.--are there either to entice, repel, or recycle for living organisms.

Or maybe wine's properties are just there, whether or not we or any other organism discovers them. Science tells us that grapes were here quite a long time before humans arrived on the planet. Were they just hanging out, doing nothing?

Question: if the sound that a tree makes in the forest were captured on a CD and then played for Covert, would he hear the sound of the tree, a digital replica of the sound of the tree, the sound of his ears, or any sound at all?

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

Getting back to the original idea here and seeing where this thread has going, the answer is a definite "YES". Music is simply a complex combination of sound waves. The sound waves can resonate in the wine glass, causing variations at the molecular level. It's like the butterfly flapping it's wings in Japan that ends up causing Hurricane Katrina.

Hi Sue,

Great topic! I think so. I was at a jazz club in Montreal and I think it really enhanced the taste of the Ca Zin (can it really have been as smooth as we thought it was?) we were drinking. One question I have thought of asking in this forum is: Does your mood influence your perception of the wines you are tasting? Music affects mood. Mood can affect perception. Definitely a connection.

One question I have thought of asking in this forum is: Does your mood influence your perception of the wines you are tasting? Music affects mood. Mood can affect perception. Definitely a connection.

While I agree with Howie, the sound waves may in fact stir things up in wine, I don't agree with Smith's claim that reds like minor keys or negative emotion music and that one should never play happy music when drinking red wine or that only a certain polka played by a certain band can be paired with White Zinfandel! But I generally don't agree with such sweeping generalizations about anything connected to wine.

In fact, what you post, Tom, is what I believe mostly happens, and is what has been posted in this thread a number of times. It happens when we listen to music and taste wine, steak, French fries, or a chocolate mousse...

I don't know which is affecting which, but I'm drinking 2006 Vietti Dolcetto while listening to Sister Christian by Night Ranger and this wine is MOTORING!