The Art of Self Defense
****This is going to be a long one, but please read it in its entirety****
My head is about to explode. On October 25, the Wall Street Journal ran an article in the column 'In Vino Veritas' which was the latest of myriad calls for the French to change the manner in which they label their wines. The argument is that labeling by place is archaic and confusing, and as a result the 'global market' is spending its money on wines from regions that label by grape. While the latter may be true, I take serious exception to the former.
My brother the economist, is the one who brought this article to my attention. Being an economist, his take is that yes, indeed the French must change or suffer the circumstances i.e. loss of market share. On its face, this statement is 100% correct. As The Lone Biker of the Apocalypse stated so eloquently 'Not what you say, but what the market will bear.' My take is a little different.
Let us establish a few things from the get-go.
1. Whenever you see terms like 'global market' or 'international taste' or 'international/global taste market' this means 'America'. Why this has to be veiled under some phrase or another, I don't know but I wish it would stop.
2. Grapes have been grown and wine made in what is now known as France for about 2000 years. During this period, the people who make wine have had time to figure out which grapes grow best in different regions. This is now a matter of law in many parts of France as well as Italy, Germany, Spain and Portugal. Here in the U.S., wine production has been going on in earnest for about 40 years. Without question, there are older houses and vineyards but for the most part, we are in a winemaking infancy. To put it bluntly, we are the child at the dinner table. This is not to say we are not or cannot produce wines to rival the Old World, it is obvious that we can and do. But I think in the context of this argument for 'change' among the French, a little perspective is appropriate.
3. I find it slightly arrogant to think that the rest of the world and the wines it produces should cater to what I feel is essentially fashion. I find it somewhat disturbing that one country could wield so much power and even more disturbing that other countries would so willingly conform solely for monetary reasons.
Before you call a 'commie-pinko bastard', let's walk it through. If you feel the same afterwards, fine.
Keep breathing and imagine that we are two or three hundred years in the future. As stated earlier, the French have had a head start of about 1900 years on this whole wine thing and they have learned things about their weather, microclimates, soil types and the like. Granted the advent of science has helped speed part of this process here in the U.S but there is no substitute for time. And it is time that I believe will lead us to the same conclusion that Europe reached centuries ago.
Wine Spectator has an article every other month singing the praises of Syrah,the Santa Ynez Valley and how well the two complement each other. This is not news and it pisses me off every time I read something like it. This is the passing of time and people paying attention to how grapes respond to that ubiquitous 'terroir' that the French are always on about. That's right, the same 'terroir' that the winery will wax ad naseum over in brochures, on the website and in the tasting yet always seems to get second billing to the fact that it is from the 'Central Valley' or even better 'California'.
And speaking of which, throw anything up in the air in California, it will sprout wings and grow. Sometimes it will grow like a bastard. My contention is that just because it will grow, doesn't make it good. And just because you made wine from it doesn't mean I should buy it. If I tried hard enough I could probably figure out how to raise salmon in my bath tub. This, of course, would be no substitute for Yukon or Copper river Kings and should not command the attention that these other fish do.
Let us move on to our collective psyche as a country. Just about all of us identify with the idea of being 'American'. Within this context there is a secondary qualification. I'm from Georgia. I am proud of this. I suppose that were I from New Jersey, I might be proud of that. And if you've ever been to Texas, you know what they think of their little piece of paradise. Yet, within the context of my friends across the pond, they're all French. Curious isn't it? France is a pretty big country yet they get lumped in together. For the sake of this argument, let us put aside the designation of 'states' and look at them more as 'regions'. The French version of this is known as a 'département'. We could very easily establish a similar system here in this country. For that matter, it is more or less already established. It is simply a matter of tweaking it a bit so that it makes sense.
Of course, all of this is predicated on some level of education, at least geographically if not palate-wise as well.
As I go through this keep in mind that while I may agree with some of the 'generalizations', I am deferring to 'popular opinion' on others. Washington becomes the sister of Alsace. Riesling is what they do truest to form and the Merlots bear little resemblance to their French counterparts. Oregon is in effect Burgundy. The press can't seem to burn enough ink writing about how amazing every Pinot Noir ever thought about here has been. Need proof? Monsieur Parker himself owns a vineyard in Oregon. I suspect that with equal emphasis afforded to Chardonnay some impressive wines could emerge. They could further develop sparkling wines like in Champagne by virtue of varietals grown and climate. On into California. The Central Valley is akin to Bordeaux. Napa being the left bank (more Cabernet Sauvignon dominant) with Sonoma a la Pomerol/St. Emilion i.e. Merlot dominant. Central Coast, as stated before is the long lost brother of the Rhône Valley. I trust you are starting to see the pattern.
There is also the issue food. Throughout Europe, there are as many varied types of food as there are wine. This stands to reason because more often than not, the wines are made to compliment the local fare. This may be a problem for us in this country because we don't have a particularly unique food culture. This, of course is because we are a country made up of people from everywhere else. And with the people, come their cultures. And thus the melting pot. I'm not sure what the answer is for this one.
In closing, I suggest that while indeed France is/may be losing market share of the 'global' wine market currently, that all things are cyclical. It is no surprise that there are other countries stepping up to challenge the 'Old Man'. And in the short term, many of these will be perceived as 'better' wines. However, attention is often a fleeting thing. And I hope that instead of giving into the fashion of the moment, the French will stay the course, maybe even dig in harder. It is intellectual laziness that is driving the 'global' trends. This too is cyclical.
The French may be silly, but they're not stupid.
My head is about to explode. On October 25, the Wall Street Journal ran an article in the column 'In Vino Veritas' which was the latest of myriad calls for the French to change the manner in which they label their wines. The argument is that labeling by place is archaic and confusing, and as a result the 'global market' is spending its money on wines from regions that label by grape. While the latter may be true, I take serious exception to the former.
My brother the economist, is the one who brought this article to my attention. Being an economist, his take is that yes, indeed the French must change or suffer the circumstances i.e. loss of market share. On its face, this statement is 100% correct. As The Lone Biker of the Apocalypse stated so eloquently 'Not what you say, but what the market will bear.' My take is a little different.
Let us establish a few things from the get-go.
1. Whenever you see terms like 'global market' or 'international taste' or 'international/global taste market' this means 'America'. Why this has to be veiled under some phrase or another, I don't know but I wish it would stop.
2. Grapes have been grown and wine made in what is now known as France for about 2000 years. During this period, the people who make wine have had time to figure out which grapes grow best in different regions. This is now a matter of law in many parts of France as well as Italy, Germany, Spain and Portugal. Here in the U.S., wine production has been going on in earnest for about 40 years. Without question, there are older houses and vineyards but for the most part, we are in a winemaking infancy. To put it bluntly, we are the child at the dinner table. This is not to say we are not or cannot produce wines to rival the Old World, it is obvious that we can and do. But I think in the context of this argument for 'change' among the French, a little perspective is appropriate.
3. I find it slightly arrogant to think that the rest of the world and the wines it produces should cater to what I feel is essentially fashion. I find it somewhat disturbing that one country could wield so much power and even more disturbing that other countries would so willingly conform solely for monetary reasons.
Before you call a 'commie-pinko bastard', let's walk it through. If you feel the same afterwards, fine.
Keep breathing and imagine that we are two or three hundred years in the future. As stated earlier, the French have had a head start of about 1900 years on this whole wine thing and they have learned things about their weather, microclimates, soil types and the like. Granted the advent of science has helped speed part of this process here in the U.S but there is no substitute for time. And it is time that I believe will lead us to the same conclusion that Europe reached centuries ago.
Wine Spectator has an article every other month singing the praises of Syrah,the Santa Ynez Valley and how well the two complement each other. This is not news and it pisses me off every time I read something like it. This is the passing of time and people paying attention to how grapes respond to that ubiquitous 'terroir' that the French are always on about. That's right, the same 'terroir' that the winery will wax ad naseum over in brochures, on the website and in the tasting yet always seems to get second billing to the fact that it is from the 'Central Valley' or even better 'California'.
And speaking of which, throw anything up in the air in California, it will sprout wings and grow. Sometimes it will grow like a bastard. My contention is that just because it will grow, doesn't make it good. And just because you made wine from it doesn't mean I should buy it. If I tried hard enough I could probably figure out how to raise salmon in my bath tub. This, of course, would be no substitute for Yukon or Copper river Kings and should not command the attention that these other fish do.
Let us move on to our collective psyche as a country. Just about all of us identify with the idea of being 'American'. Within this context there is a secondary qualification. I'm from Georgia. I am proud of this. I suppose that were I from New Jersey, I might be proud of that. And if you've ever been to Texas, you know what they think of their little piece of paradise. Yet, within the context of my friends across the pond, they're all French. Curious isn't it? France is a pretty big country yet they get lumped in together. For the sake of this argument, let us put aside the designation of 'states' and look at them more as 'regions'. The French version of this is known as a 'département'. We could very easily establish a similar system here in this country. For that matter, it is more or less already established. It is simply a matter of tweaking it a bit so that it makes sense.
Of course, all of this is predicated on some level of education, at least geographically if not palate-wise as well.
As I go through this keep in mind that while I may agree with some of the 'generalizations', I am deferring to 'popular opinion' on others. Washington becomes the sister of Alsace. Riesling is what they do truest to form and the Merlots bear little resemblance to their French counterparts. Oregon is in effect Burgundy. The press can't seem to burn enough ink writing about how amazing every Pinot Noir ever thought about here has been. Need proof? Monsieur Parker himself owns a vineyard in Oregon. I suspect that with equal emphasis afforded to Chardonnay some impressive wines could emerge. They could further develop sparkling wines like in Champagne by virtue of varietals grown and climate. On into California. The Central Valley is akin to Bordeaux. Napa being the left bank (more Cabernet Sauvignon dominant) with Sonoma a la Pomerol/St. Emilion i.e. Merlot dominant. Central Coast, as stated before is the long lost brother of the Rhône Valley. I trust you are starting to see the pattern.
There is also the issue food. Throughout Europe, there are as many varied types of food as there are wine. This stands to reason because more often than not, the wines are made to compliment the local fare. This may be a problem for us in this country because we don't have a particularly unique food culture. This, of course is because we are a country made up of people from everywhere else. And with the people, come their cultures. And thus the melting pot. I'm not sure what the answer is for this one.
In closing, I suggest that while indeed France is/may be losing market share of the 'global' wine market currently, that all things are cyclical. It is no surprise that there are other countries stepping up to challenge the 'Old Man'. And in the short term, many of these will be perceived as 'better' wines. However, attention is often a fleeting thing. And I hope that instead of giving into the fashion of the moment, the French will stay the course, maybe even dig in harder. It is intellectual laziness that is driving the 'global' trends. This too is cyclical.
The French may be silly, but they're not stupid.
1 Comments:
Hello,
I am relatively new to wine and I have stumbled upon your blog and am enjoying your critical notes on all things vino. "Cyclical" may be a slippery word (if not sloppy) to describe global trends in wine, imaginative laboratory machinations, the effects of the monopolization of wine, the supposed reproduction of "terroir" in different geographical locales (sibling terroirs as you suggest) in addition to the ahistorical labels which seem to be the pull of the market. Cyclical suggests a return of sorts. Can there be a return to a still intact (wine) past? Like you, I too hope for an appeal to the rigors that require "staying the course" in France and elsewhere and the reinvention of the artisinal. As concerned purveyors and industrious wine drinkers/readers, perhaps a more organized effort is required to increase geo-political literacy as it relates to wine (and otherwise).
Keep writing!
Post a Comment
<< Home