Should tasting notes be abolished? [Eric Asimov]

I haven't found a copy of Asimov's speech online, but from reading a number of sources, his argument seems to run along the following lines:

Asimov believes anxiety prevents Americans from enjoying wine, anxiety arising from the belief that one has to know something about wine in order to enjoy it.

"I know I should know something more about wine, and I really would like to learn. I've been meaning to take a class...or is there one book that you really recommend?"

He argues that most people assume that the key to enjoying wine lies is connoissuership, rather than simply drinking wine with a meal as if it is just another food group. Asimov finds this an odd belief: we don't usually make this sort of assumption about other joys of life.

It's amazing how pervasive this attitude is; a recent ad in "The New York Times" for a wine tasting promised that there would be "no geeks" in attendance.

Asimov suggests that American wine lovers and writers didn't grow up in households where wine was part of the family culture. So, they learned about wine as adults through magazines, books, and other sources of formal criticism and education.

Those sources are filled with tasting notes. Millions according to Asimov. As a result, wine lovers focus on what they read -- numeric scores and descriptions of flavors and aromas in the wine. Asimov argues this is the equivalent of describing a concert using decibels and frequencies.

Bottom line: the clinical approach to wine criticism, according to Asimov, inhibits wine culture. People believe that if they aren't able to either identify with the descriptions contained in tasting notes or generate their own tasting notes, that somehow they don't and can't understand wine.

Wine anxiety festers. If wine writers and critics really wanted to help foster the growth of wine as an every day event, they would stop writing tasting notes and find a better way to communicate the joys of wine. At least, if I understand Asimov correctly.

****

I'm not sure I've got his argument right, or even if he really means it. But I found it interesting to summarize his argument and consider whether my 50,000 tasting notes might really have inhibited the growth of a more viable wine culture in the US.

Best, Bob

Bob, Hi...

Perhaps I'm being a bit defensive but then again, I am a man who tastes wines nearly every day and devotes far too much time to writing up tasting notes. I enjoy reasing Asimov but I think this particular argument is more than a bit fallacious.

First of all, I think most people are put off by and made at least somewhat anxious by many things they do not understand - that applying as much to the opera and post-modern novels as to wine or the world of art. In an ideal situation one's being put off and anxious should be a trigger to "want to learn". Using Jean Piaget's term of disequilibrium, the realization that we have to move on is an impetus to that moving on.

Second, as much as I agree that wine, like a painting, a symphony, an automobile should be enjoyable at any level, all of those things, like all human endeavors, is most fully enjoyable and understood when one has the languge to master that subject. Perhaps intellectual effeteness* on my part but I do not believe saying "I like it" is enough. One should be capable of explaining why one likes (or dislikes) the thing under observation.

I do agree (and am sure that you do as well) that wine snobbery should be shunned and using language merely to impress others is a sham.

Best
Rogov

*That phrase was the only thing I ever admired about Spiro Agnew. I did not of course agree with him but how that anti-intellectual arse managed to put together two coherent words of more than six letters each still fascinates me.

So is Eric Asimov going to quit his job at the NYT? I doubt it! WTNs are for people who are interested in others’ reactions to a wine. I have learned to calibrate my taste to that of of Robin Garr, Antonio Galloni, Mister Rogov and others to help me out when debating whether or not to buy unknown wines. The same goes for some of the posters here. Kinda distant would be Cellar Tracker WTNs, but all pale before my own notes!

It’s natural to want to know more about something one’s already interested in.

Here’s a link to a blogger’s review of Asimov’s presentation: http://www.vinography.com/archives/2009 ... ny_of.html

I had to laugh at the following:

"In short, most people assume that the key to enjoying wine lies in the path towards connoissuership, rather than simply drinking wine with a meal as if it is just another food group. Most people, it seems, wrongly put wine on a pedestal, according it some status that is not reserved for anything else.

This is strange, Eric noted, as people don't make this sort of assumption about anything else in their lives, be it air conditioners, football, or cheese. But when it comes to loving and enjoying wine, somehow everyone thinks that you really, truly need to know a lot about it."

Now the AC ref is unfortunate, because despite the plethora of brand names, there are really only 3 manufacturers of AC units in the USA—not much choice there. But football? Just google “Maradona” (or “Tom Brady”) and see how many incredibly nuanced discussions are out there. And cheese? Everyone eats it, yet who feels intimidated by my Tilsiter TNs on Champignon vs. Kaeserei Holtsee on the Cheese Board website?

I give Asimov credit for coming up with a way to titillate the audience while not saying a whole lot.

*That phrase was the only thing I ever admired about Spiro Agnew. I did not of course agree with him but how that anti-intellectual arse managed to put together two coherent words of more than six letters each still fascinates me.

You don't actually think he wrote that by himself do you? As far as I know his speech writers were Pat Buchanan and Bill Safire. I'd credit one of them. So sorry. Now you have nothing at all to admire about Spiro.

Now you have nothing at all to admire about Spiro.

Probably just as well.

Best
Rogov

Mission creep?

Asimov argues this is the equivalent of describing a concert using decibels and frequencies.

Best, Bob

If you are representing his opinion accurately, it is BS pure and simple.

Decibels and frequencies do not constitute an analysis of an experience. It is technical data far removed from how people respond psychologically. The equivalent with wine would be technical stats like % alc, acidity, pH, etc.

However, a wine geek would at least know how to interpret that technical info. A music geek would not know how to interpret a fourier decomposition of a concert, since that is not reductively related to how we experience the show.

Asimov would do well to have himself edited by a better critic who doesn't let him get away with such hyperbole.

Having had a foot firmly planted on both sides of this ongoing debate, I can state unequivocally that both sides are correct!

Seriously, I think any one who has been a passionate advocate, whether professionally or not, but especially professionaly---has dithered on this issue.

For those of us who truly love wine, we can't help but invest ourselves in it. We can't be Episcopalian, with a genteel dab and trickle; we have to go for the Baptist Full Immersion. We so passionately love the vinous stuff we want to be both evocative and evangelical, both precise and romantic. And we sometimes (often? usually? inevitably?) err on the side of beating people to death with our exaltation, so that we go from Baptists to Jehovah's Witnesses, constantly out on the hustings and bringing The Word to the pagans.

If only they knew, they would beleive too.

On the other hand, same professional at one time or anther understands the wide-eyed mystification of the neophyte, and we want to yell, "Leave them alone. Let them discover it themselves. Don't make it too complicated or you'll scare them off/bore them to death!!!"

So at times I've espoused the KISS approach of "It's only a beverage", and then turned around and discussed the garden of earthly delights a newbie could discover if they'd.just.pay.attention!!! to the marvel that is in their glass in front of them.

Sometimes I've done both in the same night.

Bob, Hi...

Perhaps I'm being a bit defensive but then again, I am a man who tastes wines nearly every day and devotes far too much time to writing up tasting notes. I enjoy reasing Asimov but I think this particular argument is more than a bit fallacious.

First of all, I think most people are put off by and made at least somewhat anxious by many things they do not understand - that applying as much to the opera and post-modern novels as to wine or the world of art. In an ideal situation one's being put off and anxious should be a trigger to "want to learn". Using Jean Piaget's term of disequilibrium, the realization that we have to move on is an impetus to that moving on.

Second, as much as I agree that wine, like a painting, a symphony, an automobile should be enjoyable at any level, all of those things, like all human endeavors, is most fully enjoyable and understood when one has the languge to master that subject. Perhaps intellectual effeteness* on my part but I do not believe saying "I like it" is enough. One should be capable of explaining why one likes (or dislikes) the thing under observation.

I do agree (and am sure that you do as well) that wine snobbery should be shunned and using language merely to impress others is a sham.

Best
Rogov

*That phrase was the only thing I ever admired about Spiro Agnew. I did not of course agree with him but how that anti-intellectual arse managed to put together two coherent words of more than six letters each still fascinates me.

I am very much on the same page as Rogov here.

There are many products of this fascinating but flawed world which can be appreciated at several levels but which reserve the best rewards for those who put the most effort into learning their depths and subtleties. If this intimidates those who do not make the effort, that is regrettable but so be it.

As to the need to avoid snobbery, I agree even though I sometimes find it hard not to make comments which risk offending those who like things which I despise, e.g. cross-over renditions of classical music.

well, all the flowery language can go for sure. and unfortunatly that stuff often gets in the way of the really important stuff. so, what is the important stuff? i think we need to know the following in a tasting note:

any flaws? if so which(i'd include overripeness, overly alcoholic)
typical of the grape or region?
balance? acid, sugar if any, oak if any.
overall quality relative to its cohort

anyone have other essentials?

well, all the flowery language can go for sure. and unfortunatly that stuff often gets in the way of the really important stuff. so, what is the important stuff? i think we need to know the following in a tasting note:

any flaws? if so which(i'd include overripeness, overly alcoholic)
typical of the grape or region?
balance? acid, sugar if any, oak if any.
overall quality relative to its cohort

anyone have other essentials?

Off the top of my head, I'd add producer to your second point. Some producers have distinctive styles, so it's nice to know if a wine is consistent with those stylistic expectations.

In terms of balance, I'd emphasize structure and where the wine is along its developmental curve.

anyone have other essentials?

.... what about color, length, depth, structure, aroma and flavor profiles, varietal composition and predicted drinking window? By the time we get down to it, all of the necessary descriptive and quality factors for a short but thorough criticism (after all, a tasting note is a form of evaluation and thus criticism).

Going a step beyond - becoming too forumlaic could become even more tedious and boring than the flowery language used at times. At least one can smile at the critics' sometimes tendency towards the poetic and boredom does nothing at all for us.

Best
Rogov

I think I fall in somewhat with Hoke here. Wine geeks will always need to read, discuss, analyze, and pontificate about wine, and they'll enjoy the hell out of that process. In a sense, they're no different from Harley Davidson fans or film geeks. Tasting notes and such are important to these people and I don't see why anyone would want to discourage them (us) from pursuing their passion in such a manner. At the same time, there are plenty of people who just like the stuff and don't want to hear someone bloviate about it. They most certainly don't want to have to defend their taste or feel implicitly inferior in their choices nor should they have to. Once they get going in their wine drinking they may end up developing a passion for it or not, but they'll never get that chance if they feel like dunderheads for not being able to figure out what "cassis" is supposed to smell like. That will send them right back to drinking beer. For these people, it would be far better just to put a carafe of quaffable wine in front of them at supper each night and otherwise leave them alone. They'll figure it out from there.

So I think I can see what Asimov's saying, but I don't agree with his solution. People who don't care about tasting notes probably aren't going to read them. Wine writers aren't writing for them and I doubt that there's much they can do to get these people more interested. I would think that the best way to get these people going on wine drinking would be to make sure there's always plenty of inexpensive-but-tasty wine available and to get it in front of them without too much fanfare. In that sense, Fred Franzia may be more important in promoting the wine culture Asimov's talking about than any writer ever could be. But that's no reason to deprive the rest of us of tasting notes from experienced critics.

As long as Fodors stays in business, so will Rogov.
Such is the world we live in; Asimov's utopia is a nice dream.
Best, Jim

any flaws? if so which(i'd include overripeness, overly alcoholic)
typical of the grape or region?
balance? acid, sugar if any, oak if any.
overall quality relative to its cohort

anyone have other essentials?

For me the essentials are:
The basic dimensions of the wine, e.g. body, acid, sugar tannin (so I know what food to have with it)
How much do I like it (often with an implicit how much would I like to buy)
How long do I think I need to cellar it for if at all
Oh, and I suppose I have a longer term objective of establishing how much I like particular style/producers/regions/ grapes

You will notice that there are (deliberately) lots of "I"s in the above.