Netscape Forum Poll: Parker's influence in 2007?

[Robin Garr]

Robert M. Parker Jr. is often described as the world's most powerful wine critic, and he's widely admired. But he has his share of detractors, being portrayed less than admiringly, for example, in the film <I>Mondovino</i> and in a more balanced biography by Elin McCoy. Meanwhile, as Parker moves toward retirement age with his fellow Baby Boomers , he has begun naming surrogates to cover many world wine regions on his behalf. What do you think? Will Parker's considerable influence remain strong, or will it start to diminish in 2007? That's the topic of this week's Netscape/CompuServe WineLovers Community poll.

<b>Click to vote</b>
(Remember, you do not need to register with Netscape or log in to vote.)

I may be in the minority but I have not paid very much attention to Mr. Parker. I don't subscribe to his newsletter and don't own any of his books. He has had almost zero influence on me in the past and that is likely to continue. The part I object to is that I have read that producers have changed their wines in order to please him and I think that is a shame and hope it diminishes.

Glenn

I think members of the UK and Australian wine press will continue to have subtle (and none-too-subtle) digs at him and they'll continue to elicit angry reactions from him.

As far as his influence - it seems e-bob forum is far more critical of his palate than I recall when I first stumbled across it. There seems to be plenty of people wondering why they bought those soupy aussie (made for US market) and Californian fruit / alcohol monsters.

I think the days of the all conquering Parker palate are limited, but he'll still be a major force for the rest of this decade. Whatever else happens, I think the 100 point scale is here to stay.

regards

Ian

Robin,
Certainly, he is now more a brand than a critic, hence his stable of critics. And I do think that the retail wine trade will continue to keep him and his brand strong and that his considerable influence will continue.
Personally, I don't subscribe to the Advocate, don't own his books and pay little attention to his recommendations.
But one thing I will say for Perker; I have never doubted his passion and enthusiasm for wine; it is contagious.
And that alone will keep the fires burning.
Best, Jim

I agree with Jim, in particular because Parker has listened to his critics and beefed up the line with some really splendid palates.

I'm pretty sure that Parker scores will continue to be called "Parker scores", even though others actually assign them. The mere fact that more wines will be reviewed and scored, and that many geeks will give them more weight, knowing that Parker wasn't the source of, say, Italian wines, will increase his influence.

People who don't follow him -- like me -- will continue to pretty much ignore his ratings and reviews for my own gratification. I don't see his influence waning elsewhere though, that's for sure.

I think Mondovino damaged him. I also think that the wide reporting of his preferences has taken away some of his oracular power. He's not really the world's greatest wine critic anymore; he's a wine critic who likes big, oaky, fruit-forward wines. That's quite a comedown.

I find his self-righteousness loathesome. I remember watching Mondovino for the second time: Every time he began a sentence with "As an American..." I wanted to slug him.

I've always admired his dedication and enthisiasm. He deserves a lot of credit for assisting a bunch of neophytes, including me, in finding their way around the world of wine. I think he is particularly to be credited for quashing that horrible wine fad, the "food wine". Left to itself, California will always produce overblown, overly alcoholic fruit bombs. It's their climatic curse, just as the French have to wrestle with achieving enough ripeness. Frank Prial managed to start a counter-trend towards wines that were more suitable companions to a meal, and a good thing, too. But a distressing number of producers excused thin, tasteless efforts as "food wines". Then along came Parker, who insisted that a wine for which one was shelling out good money actually should have some flavor and structure there.

But IMO Parker has in many cases gone too far in the other direction. Elegance and insipidness aren't always synonyms. Grace, as well as size, has its place. Bigger isn't necessarily better.

The other thing I fault Parker for is his absolutism. He has a Bush-like "you're with me or agin' me" attitude. I happen to think that there's room for dissenting opinions on such a subjective experience as wine. But Parker's attitude is that his pronouncements are fatwa. To disagree means that you are at best ignorant, or at worst somehow in the pay or conspiracy with those out to promote inferior wine.

Personally, I outgrew Parker years ago. It's been years since I paid any attention to what he's said.

-Paul W. (ex-15 year subscriber to The Wine Advocate)

I've always admired his dedication and enthisiasm. He deserves a lot of credit for assisting a bunch of neophytes, including me, in finding their way around the world of wine. I think he is particularly to be credited for quashing that horrible wine fad, the "food wine". Left to itself, California will always produce overblown, overly alcoholic fruit bombs. It's their climatic curse, just as the French have to wrestle with achieving enough ripeness. Frank Prial managed to start a counter-trend towards wines that were more suitable companions to a meal, and a good thing, too. But a distressing number of producers excused thin, tasteless efforts as "food wines". Then along came Parker, who insisted that a wine for which one was shelling out good money actually should have some flavor and structure there.

But IMO Parker has in many cases gone too far in the other direction. Elegance and insipidness aren't always synonyms. Grace, as well as size, has its place. Bigger isn't necessarily better.

The other thing I fault Parker for is his absolutism. He has a Bush-like "you're with me or agin' me" attitude. I happen to think that there's room for dissenting opinions on such a subjective experience as wine. But Parker's attitude is that his pronouncements are fatwa. To disagree means that you are at best ignorant, or at worst somehow in the pay or conspiracy with those out to promote inferior wine.

Personally, I outgrew Parker years ago. It's been years since I paid any attention to what he's said.

-Paul W. (ex-15 year subscriber to The Wine Advocate)

Paul
A fine (and balanced) analysis. I guess his absolutism is the thing that most grates with me.
regards
Ian

It seems e-bob forum is far more critical of his palate than I recall when I first stumbled across it. There seems to be plenty of people wondering why they bought those soupy aussie (made for US market) and Californian fruit / alcohol monsters.

I think the days of the all conquering Parker palate are limited.

One would only hope that Ian is right. While there will always be those who follow Arpy blindly, and brag about their cellars with an average Arpy rating of 96.5, I believe more and more winos will eventually chose wine they like rather than wine that has high RP points.

One would only hope that Ian is right. While there will always be those who follow Arpy blindly, and brag about their cellars with an average Arpy rating of 96.5, I believe more and more winos will eventually chose wine they like rather than wine that has high RP points.

I think it's a phase any wine aficionado goes through. There are thousands of wines out there clamoring for your attention, often at very daunting prices. It all becomes so much easier if one can put a numeric quality rating on them all, and simply choose those with the highest numeric score.

I started out that way. It wasn't long before I discovered that just because two wines both scored 90 points doesn't mean I'll like them to the same degree. I found that there are regions or grape varieties that I love, and those that I detest, or (to be charitible) don't understand. And, tasting two wines that a critic scores 88 and 90, I sometimes prefer the one that scored 88.

As in any other fashion trend, there will be those who follow the critics for a guide to what they themselves are likely to enjoy. Then there are those who follow the critics for a guide to what they think they're supposed to like, if they're to be seen by others as with-it and trendy.

I'm stubborn and pig-headed enough to be able to form my own opinions, thank you very much. It's why I very rarely participate in polls. I don't care what most people think is good. I know what I like, think, and feel, and that's good enough for me--I don't really care what anyone else thinks.

I'll follow the recommendations of the wine critics to the extent that their tastes match their own. But never just because they say something's good or bad.

-Paul W.

Scores were one (hopefully minor ) for us newer drinkers. I've quickly decided that I don't l agree with Mr. Parker when it comes to, for example, Napa wines. About the only scores I trust anymore are Wine and Spirits which seem a little closer to what I like.

I may decide to renew my subscription to the WA as a result of David Schildknecht's growing role and the promised increased attention to regions (Alsace, Germany, Beaujolais, the Loire) that I care about. Parker as a critic isn't anathema to me: I find him a reliable critic of Bordeaux and the S. Rhone, though I have taken to parsing his language carefully to decide which wines I should try. I don't know how I feel about him as a person: his portrayal in Mondovino told me more about Jonathan Nossiter than it did about RMP and he certainly came off better than did many others (James Suckling, anyone?). I haven't spent any time on eBob to form an opinion, and that's partly by design since I've heard less than savory tales of the goings-on there.

Mark Lipton

The biggest problem I've had with Parker is that I don't find consistency in his reviews, i.e. I've not been able to calibrate to his palate. Sometimes I find a wine that I find overly fruity and very Parkerised where I expect a score in the 90s and I find out that he has given in the 70s. Other times I love a wine (most recently with Fèvre Les Clos 2004) that just doesn't fit with the image I have of a wine that Parker would like, yet he gave a very high score for it (high 90s IIRC). I hate points, but that is not the point here. The point is that I see no logic to his likes and dislikes.

Robin,
Certainly, he is now more a brand than a critic, hence his stable of critics. And I do think that the retail wine trade will continue to keep him and his brand strong and that his considerable influence will continue.
Personally, I don't subscribe to the Advocate, don't own his books and pay little attention to his recommendations.
But one thing I will say for Parker; I have never doubted his passion and enthusiasm for wine; it is contagious.
And that alone will keep the fires burning.
Best, Jim

Jim, one more thing to admire is his consistency. If (and I am not saying he doesn't) have anything other than his notoriety going, it is his consistency.

I may decide to renew my subscription to the WA as a result of David Schildknecht's growing role and the promised increased attention to regions (Alsace, Germany, Beaujolais, the Loire) that I care about. Parker as a critic isn't anathema to me: I find him a reliable critic of Bordeaux and the S. Rhone, though I have taken to parsing his language carefully to decide which wines I should try. I don't know how I feel about him as a person: his portrayal in Mondovino told me more about Jonathan Nossiter than it did about RMP and he certainly came off better than did many others (James Suckling, anyone?). I haven't spent any time on eBob to form an opinion, and that's partly by design since I've heard less than savory tales of the goings-on there.

I've met Parker in person. He's friendly. He's a very eloquent speaker. His enthusiasm for the subject of wine is absolutely infectious. His dedication to what he does is plainly obvious.

I think all of us have our blind spots when it comes to wine evaluation. For me, it's sauvignon blanc. I've had some pretty good Loire examples, but in general I'm put off by wines that either smell like cat's piss, or, at the other end of the spectrum, like a ripe hay infusion in a Biology lab. I don't grok sauvignon blanc, and I don't want to, thank you very much. And for that reason I never try to pass judgment on them.

Parker's blind spots are Burgundy and Germany. He doesn't understand either of them, and because of that he isn't in a position to offer useful reviews on them. Failure to recognize this eventually resulted in his metaphorically being tarred, feathered, and run out of town on a rail by the Burgundian producers. He then smartened up and got someone else to do his reviews for those regions.

-Paul W.