It's Time To Stop Whining About Wine

[TheConfusedCaster]

No matter where I turn in the drinking realm (or in this case, wine review websites), there's a wine connoisseur bashing every single bottle of wine under the sun that isn't some overpriced $50 bottle of crap. I recently bought some Franzia Box wine. This is the "chilled red" brand, but guess what? I'm not going to chill it, I'm drinking it at room temperature, and liking it.

How did this weak stomached bullcrap theory that wine has to be chilled to perfection (and stirred) come to pass? Thousands of years ago, we lifted heavy goblets of mead and drank out of dirty tankards, just to get drunk, as the vicious cold snow pelted our make-shift tents and half of us prepared to die in some bloody savage war (probably over wine as well). Why can't todays wine community grow some hair on their chests and just stop complaining?

It's almost as if the wine has to perform some type of miracle for these jerks to actually give it their "seal of approval". I say to hell with stuck up wine connoisseurs who want to make me pay $50-100 for a 750ml bottle of wine when I can spend $10 on Franzia for 5 LITERS (5,000 ml).

I enjoy the fact I'm drinking "cheap warm wine", it makes it feel like a real mans wine, not this pussified chilled "wine expert" bullcrap that people are buying into these days in order to give them a false sense of "sophistication" due to their obvious lack of intelligence.

/rant off

[surodat]

Just like real men eat raw meat, don't shave/wax/laser, build their own furniture and don't know the meaning of "scented lotion".

Why are you even drinking wine pretty boy? You should be drinking a Colt45. Or maybe rubbing alcohol. Because it's not worth getting drunk if there's not a possibility you'll go blind.

[TheConfusedCaster]

Just like real men eat raw meat, don't shave/wax/laser, build their own furniture and don't know the meaning of "scented lotion".

Why are you even drinking wine pretty boy? You should be drinking a Colt45. Or maybe rubbing alcohol. Because it's not worth getting drunk if there's not a possibility you'll go blind.

I'm guessing you're being sarcastic :p Are you talking about Colt45 beer? That generally has less alcohol content than the 9% alcohol wine I'm drinking now.

If I really wanted to get messed up I'd go for Jack Daniels or Captain Morgans (40%, 80 proof), but sometimes wine is what hits the spot. It's also a big part of my culture (the first wine was invented in Persia).

Anyway, the topic has to do with wine in general, not all alcoholic beverages ;)

[surodat]

To actually respond:
:D
Wine tasting, I think, comes from a philosophy that when you are in plenty (as the west is right now) you seek not to consume as much as you can (gluttony) but to seek to experience the pinnacle of pleasure in how your senses experience the world. If you're going to drink wine, discover what makes a fine wine. If you're going to smoke cigars, find fine cigars. If you're happy doing this on you're own, then you don't have to try to explain it to anyone else, and you only ever have to worry about your own personal tastes, because you never really have to attempt to communicate it.

However, if you join a cigar CLUB, then you're going to be told how to smoke the cigar, how to age it, what humidor to use, ect. Nomenclature emerges when we try to interact with each other and arrive at some sort of consensus on how we, as humans, interact with a particular part of our environment. Perhaps you should taste the wine the way they suggest. Then taste the wine the way you are currently drinking it, and if you find that you believe it tastes better your way, write them a strongly worded letter concerning your own personal experience. :)

I personally enjoy Irish whiskey and certain varieties of lighter scotches. I enjoy spending some time a money discovering the different tastes and qualities of different makes. I find that other's description on the qualities of the particular brand helpful only in as much as I have identified what I like (a sweet, crisp whiskey) and can use that as a reference point when examining the qualifiers others have assigned to the brand. I completely ignore any comments about "this is the best whiskey you've even tasted!" because, as almost everything in life, that comes down to.... taste.

[elsegundo]

i'd drink more wine.. but they usually dont sell that at the clubs.

[TheConfusedCaster]

To actually respond:
:D
Wine tasting, I think, comes from a philosophy that when you are in plenty (as the west is right now) you seek not to consume as much as you can (gluttony) but to seek to experience the pinnacle of pleasure in how your senses experience the world. If you're going to drink wine, discover what makes a fine wine. If you're going to smoke cigars, find fine cigars. If you're happy doing this on you're own, then you don't have to try to explain it to anyone else, and you only ever have to worry about your own personal tastes, because you never really have to attempt to communicate it.

"Wine tasting (often, in wine circles, simply tasting) is the sensory examination and evaluation of wine. While the practice of wine tasting is as ancient as its production, a more formalized methodology has slowly become established from the 14th century onwards. Modern, professional wine tasters (such as sommeliers or buyers for retailers) use a constantly-evolving formal terminology which is used to describe the range of perceived flavors, aromas and general characteristics of a wine. More informal, recreational tasting may use similar terminology, usually involving a much less analytical process for a more general, personal appreciation. [1] The results of the four recognized stages to wine tasting"


With that quoted, I'd like to say that the core motive of wine tasting may have possibly started as a way to "enjoy the senses", but todays modern bastardized consumer-based form (in my opinion) is more of a "social status" qualifier rather than an actual attempt at self-enjoyment.

When you're 21 (like me) and looking for wine in a market, you usually don't think "hmmm, let me see how I can find the finest wine in this place!", as that will probably lead to a very large bill that wouldn't sit well with college/car/dorm/etc. payments.

I'd take it a step further and say that the consumption of wine pre-dates the social trend of "wine tasting", and hence my initial argument regarding consumption of wine vs. making wine consumption into a brutally eloquent and expensive process whilst berating anyone else who chooses a less expensive wine.


However, if you join a cigar CLUB, then you're going to be told how to smoke the cigar, how to age it, what humidor to use, ect.

Of course, but here's the problem: I didn't join a club. I guess you could call humanity "one big club", but the thing about the "human club" is, there's so many different opinions. So when someone out there that belongs to a "wine club" decides to write an article for the unwashed masses (not just for his wine club), he should be prepared for apt criticism of his perceived unneeded exaggeration of "wine eloquence" being sprayed all over his readers like a dirty water hose filled with putrid rotting mud that was left to sit out in the sun for several months.


Nomenclature emerges when we try to interact with each other and arrive at some sort of consensus on how we, as humans, interact with a particular part of our environment.

The problem therein seems to be the every evident fact of variation. A consensus can still be a very inaccurate consensus. Not all humans are going to interact the same, but it appears this element of variation is not present in most wine connoisseur reviews.


Perhaps you should taste the wine the way they suggest. Then taste the wine the way you are currently drinking it, and if you find that you believe it tastes better your way, write them a strongly worded letter concerning your own personal experience. :)

Good idea, here's a start: Dear wine drinking club of eloquent sophisticated and highly recognized imbibers of extra supreme expensive wine. I am writing you to make you aware of a miracle I've discovered. Just last night, as I was surrounded by mounds of unsuitable trashy wine that I would never touch, and was heading to buy my normal $200 bottle of wine a week. I came across a box, nay, a SAVIOR, his name was Franzia. I discovered that I could purchase good quality wine in large amounts for simply $10. Wine connoisseurs, countrymen of the grape! Lend me your ears, hearts, minds, and palates! I have found the messiah and our eternal freedom! HAIL FRANZIA!

Sound good?


I personally enjoy Irish whiskey and certain varieties of lighter scotches. I enjoy spending some time a money discovering the different tastes and qualities of different makes. I find that other's description on the qualities of the particular brand helpful only in as much as I have identified what I like (a sweet, crisp whiskey) and can use that as a reference point when examining the qualifiers others have assigned to the brand. I completely ignore any comments about "this is the best whiskey you've even tasted!" because, as almost everything in life, that comes down to.... taste.

Maybe we're just coincidentally very different, but I find the reviews to be very unhelpful. What's "crap" or "terrible" to the connoisseur reviewers, is usually not "supreme wine" to me, but still pretty damn good.

I think in conclusion, we should tell the connoisseurs to keep their wine discrimination in their clubs, and not our mouths ;)

[surodat]

I'd take it a step further and say that the consumption of wine pre-dates the social trend of "wine tasting", and hence my initial argument regarding consumption of wine vs. making wine consumption into a brutally eloquent and expensive process whilst berating anyone else who chooses a less expensive wine.

I'm pretty sure that the first "wine tasting" club was a bunch of Greeks arguing over whose wine had the smallest dregs of crap at the bottom of the cup. ;D



Of course, but here's the problem: I didn't join a club. I guess you could call humanity "one big club", but the thing about the "human club" is, there's so many different opinions. So when someone out there that belongs to a "wine club" decides to write an article for the unwashed masses (not just for his wine club), he should be prepared for apt criticism of his perceived unneeded exaggeration of "wine eloquence" being sprayed all over his readers like a dirty water hose filled with putrid rotting mud that was left to sit out in the sun for several months.

This brings up the question of who, exactly is the intended audience of the review? Is it a kid at a local campus paper being a dick? Or is it in the food section of a newspaper with a 10 million+ circulation? I think that this whole issue may hinge upon that you, unfortunately, are not the target audience of this particular part of the paper. And it also seems that you can quite adequately form your own opinions without the help of a "professional" taster, so I'd think we can safely say, screw it. :D

The problem therein seems to be the every evident fact of variation. A consensus can still be a very inaccurate consensus. Not all humans are going to interact the same, but it appears this element of variation is not present in most wine connoisseur reviews.


Ah, but then, there are the opinions that:
a) There is a specific state of existence that we must strive to obtain, and if we work really hard at it we can all be the same. (Wow, I'm writing in verse)
and
b) We identify that we are all different, accept it, and seek through empathy to identify the qualities in other that we can identify in ourselves. Through this struggle to sift through the plethora of differing human experiences we try to find some sort of definition of self.

In both cases the reviewer is doing the right thing, although it's more arrogant if it's the first case. If it's the second then you have correctly identified that you and he do not share the same views when it comes to wine, and should therefore look elsewhere for advise and guidance in the subsection of life should you ever require it. And he will continue on reviewing, or, eventually, get fired if not enough people identify with his opinion.


Good idea, here's a start: Dear wine drinking club of eloquent sophisticated and highly recognized imbibers of extra supreme expensive wine. I am writing you to make you aware of a miracle I've discovered. Just last night, as I was surrounded by mounds of unsuitable trashy wine that I would never touch, and was heading to buy my normal $200 bottle of wine a week. I came across a box, nay, a SAVIOR, his name was Franzia. I discovered that I could purchase good quality wine in large amounts for simply $10. Wine connoisseurs, countrymen of the grape! Lend me your ears, hearts, minds, and palates! I have found the messiah and our eternal freedom! HAIL FRANZIA!

Sound good?


lol :P


Maybe we're just coincidentally very different, but I find the reviews to be very unhelpful. What's "crap" or "terrible" to the connoisseur reviewers, is usually not "supreme wine" to me, but still pretty damn good.

I think in conclusion, we should tell the connoisseurs to keep their wine discrimination in their clubs, and not our mouths ;)

First, the Pond impressed me with their 9th place finish at the OntarioWineReview Cabernet Franc Challenge (Regular Franc category) … and that was out of 32 wines from all over Ontario. Now comes the ’02 Cab/Merlot into Vintages – and what a treat. Gamy and leathery on the nose, which almost put me off, but in the mouth it was something altogether different. Sweet herbs, black fruit and sweet spice, culminate in a sour cherry finish – it’s enjoyable right now with burgers or pizza.

This is an extract from ontariowinereview.com, reviews of the local wines from my area. The italicized parts are the ONLY important parts of the review. The reviewer talks about his own tastes, whether he likes it or not, and what foods he think it will go with, and the awards that it's won, but that's not important. What's important is the description of the kinds of tastes. The undercurrents, the texture, how it feels in the mouth and so forth. The rest is nice, (especially if you find yourself liking the kinds of wine he likes) but even if he hated it, you still know what kind of wine it is.

I think that, when it comes to mass produced wine, if it'll make you puke, it most likely won't be on the shelves very long because people just won't drink it. So every wine will be "pretty decent". The next step is to finding the wine that you can sit back with after a long day, crack open the bottle and think to yourself "damn, that's great."

[clevins]

Hmm not at all what I was expecting when I clicked on the title...
First off, you have to separate people who take wine seriously as a pleasure to be enjoyed from the people who want something that tastes decent and gets them buzzed. It's no different from the people who see food as fuel vs those who get into the tastes, textures and pleasure of fine cooking.

If you're in the first group, don't read wine reviews. They're targeted at people who care about wine as a sensual pleasure, who care about the subtleties and complexities that wine can show. You just want something that tastes ok to you and gets you buzzed. I was the same way at 21... And there's nothing wrong with that.

Take something you're passionate about.. movies, music, bikes, whatever. If you REALLY get into it, you look weird to people who don't care about the subject much. I have friends who LOVE road cycling. $5000 custom bikes, the whole thing. They'll sit there and talk wheel rims as long as you want. Are those bikes really that much better for riding to the store on than a $200 bike? Nope... but to certain people and for certain things they're worth the 25x price difference.

And it's not boxed wine or $100 per bottle stuff... there's excellent wine for $15 per bottle and less... it doesn't get big reviews for the same reason Motor Trend puts Ferarris on the cover - people like to dream. And, yeah, for some it's a status thing. But for most people who stay with wine collecting and drinking as a serious hobby it's that we enjoy it. If you don't care about it, cool. The only mistake you'll make is if you dismiss it entirely because you're such a man that you drink boxed wine only.

[TheConfusedCaster]

I'm pretty sure that the first "wine tasting" club was a bunch of Greeks arguing over whose wine had the smallest dregs of crap at the bottom of the cup. ;D

Certainly "dregs at the bottom" is a simplistic minimization of the current social trend present in todays "wine tasting" communities. This really goes beyond the physical appearance of a wine and drinkability. It moves into the realm of trashing good wine because it doesn't meet their "standards", and then attempting to force said standards onto the masses by flaunting around a self-acquired aficionado status.




This brings up the question of who, exactly is the intended audience of the review? Is it a kid at a local campus paper being a dick? Or is it in the food section of a newspaper with a 10 million+ circulation?

When something is publicized on the internet, it's literally targeting everyone. In regards to the message, I believe it targets all drinkers of wine. If you drink wine, you are a part of said review when it comes to involving an opinion regarding said wine.

My criticism basically backhanded the entire self-perceived "sophistication" of the current "wine tasting trend club". I didn't target a specific outlet.


I think that this whole issue may hinge upon that you, unfortunately, are not the target audience of this particular part of the paper. And it also seems that you can quite adequately form your own opinions without the help of a "professional" taster, so I'd think we can safely say, screw it. :D

Regardless if the writer decided to target me or not with his message, I can safely say that it is irrelevant when he is stating something that is false.



Ah, but then, there are the opinions that:
a) There is a specific state of existence that we must strive to obtain, and if we work really hard at it we can all be the same. (Wow, I'm writing in verse)

This seems to be the case when wine tasters attempt to set the "status quo" for wine.


b) We identify that we are all different, accept it, and seek through empathy to identify the qualities in other that we can identify in ourselves. Through this struggle to sift through the plethora of differing human experiences we try to find some sort of definition of self.

This part diverges into a philosophical discussion. I'd say that our perceived sense of self is based on our ego, upbringing, environment, and personality traits which are also influenced by the above mentioned things along with the individuality of how each person perceives these influences.

But a philosophical discussion seems to be off-topic.


In both cases the reviewer is doing the right thing, although it's more arrogant if it's the first case. If it's the second then you have correctly identified that you and he do not share the same views when it comes to wine, and should therefore look elsewhere for advise and guidance in the subsection of life should you ever require it. And he will continue on reviewing, or, eventually, get fired if not enough people identify with his opinion.

I didn't read the wine review to receive life guidance. I'd disagree with example A being the right thing. I feel that the example of arrogance in example A is what leads to falsity. I don't think he needs the majority to support him to keep his job. There are plenty of wine reviewers out there who are still reviewing wine in an arrogant disagreed fashion.






This is an extract from ontariowinereview.com, reviews of the local wines from my area. The italicized parts are the ONLY important parts of the review. The reviewer talks about his own tastes, whether he likes it or not, and what foods he think it will go with, and the awards that it's won, but that's not important. What's important is the description of the kinds of tastes. The undercurrents, the texture, how it feels in the mouth and so forth. The rest is nice, (especially if you find yourself liking the kinds of wine he likes) but even if he hated it, you still know what kind of wine it is.

You'd know what kind of wine it was as perceived by the writer, since the taste of wine (or anything else for that matter) is very subjective.


I think that, when it comes to mass produced wine, if it'll make you puke, it most likely won't be on the shelves very long because people just won't drink it. So every wine will be "pretty decent". The next step is to finding the wine that you can sit back with after a long day, crack open the bottle and think to yourself "damn, that's great."

The problem occurs when wine reviewers attempt to label this "pretty decent" wine as "terrible crap", irregardless of their motivation and with no concern for their target.




Hmm not at all what I was expecting when I clicked on the title...
First off, you have to separate people who take wine seriously as a pleasure to be enjoyed from the people who want something that tastes decent and gets them buzzed. It's no different from the people who see food as fuel vs those who get into the tastes, textures and pleasure of fine cooking.

I think the spectrum is much broader than those who take wine as a "serious hobby" and those who drink simply to "get buzzed". I'm pretty sure there are wine drinkers out there who drink wine because they enjoy it but don't wish to subject themselves to the arrogance of the wine tasting community.


If you're in the first group, don't read wine reviews. They're targeted at people who care about wine as a sensual pleasure, who care about the subtleties and complexities that wine can show. You just want something that tastes ok to you and gets you buzzed. I was the same way at 21... And there's nothing wrong with that.

I've actually read some decent reviews on many drinks, it's really only the "wine tasting" bunch that gets on my nerves.


Take something you're passionate about.. movies, music, bikes, whatever. If you REALLY get into it, you look weird to people who don't care about the subject much. I have friends who LOVE road cycling. $5000 custom bikes, the whole thing. They'll sit there and talk wheel rims as long as you want. Are those bikes really that much better for riding to the store on than a $200 bike? Nope... but to certain people and for certain things they're worth the 25x price difference.

I've had relatives who were into motorcycles/professional bicycling as well. Lets use that example. I'm sure I could find a median range of bikers who like to detail their bikes but still ride them as a necessity to get to their destination. One does not need to spend $200 on a bike or go to the extreme of getting a $5,000 custom bike in order to like bicycling but still not be obsessed with it.


And it's not boxed wine or $100 per bottle stuff... there's excellent wine for $15 per bottle and less... it doesn't get big reviews for the same reason Motor Trend puts Ferarris on the cover - people like to dream. And, yeah, for some it's a status thing. But for most people who stay with wine collecting and drinking as a serious hobby it's that we enjoy it. If you don't care about it, cool. The only mistake you'll make is if you dismiss it entirely because you're such a man that you drink boxed wine only.

Nobody is saying you can't enjoy it. In fact, nobody is saying that wine tasters can't criticize wine that isn't up to their standards, but they shouldn't do so as if it was the end-all judgment regarding wine for all groups, and I feel a large majority do this.

[Herald of Doom]

Certainly "dregs at the bottom" is a simplistic minimization of the current social trend present in todays "wine tasting" communities. This really goes beyond the physical appearance of a wine and drinkability. It moves into the realm of trashing good wine because it doesn't meet their "standards", and then attempting to force said standards onto the masses by flaunting around a self-acquired aficionado status.

You've just described the goal of every reviewer on this planet ;)




Regardless if the writer decided to target me or not with his message, I can safely say that it is irrelevant when he is stating something that is false.

Reviews are a matter of taste, you can't claim they are false. I've done reviews on food, software, sports equipment...all of them contained objective criteria and what *I* thought about the product.






You'd know what kind of wine it was as perceived by the writer, since the taste of wine (or anything else for that matter) is very subjective.

No in fact, that's what is good about wine clubs, there is (up to a certain level) a consistency in terms used to describe wines. "A full, fruity wine with a dry oak wooden aftertaste" gives me a good general idea of what the wine will be like. In this case, it is similar to wines I've tasted before and liked. Granted, many terms are vague and not everyone uses them properly, but that's not a wine-specific issue :)




The problem occurs when wine reviewers attempt to label this "pretty decent" wine as "terrible crap", irregardless of their motivation and with no concern for their target.


That depends on your standard. You feel it's pretty decent. Write a review and say it is pretty decent!

Let's take computers. A 500$ pc might be pretty decent for me (Office, mails, watching DVD's), while it may be crap to you (heavy video editing). As long as your reader is aware what criteria you use there is nothing wrong with labeling a wine as terrible crap, although you may want to rephrase that to make sure you will keep receiving free samples to test :laugh:





I think the spectrum is much broader than those who take wine as a "serious hobby" and those who drink simply to "get buzzed". I'm pretty sure there are wine drinkers out there who drink wine because they enjoy it but don't wish to subject themselves to the arrogance of the wine tasting community.

I'm pretty sure there are wine reviews that you would enjoy reading, aimed at the way you experience wine.




I've actually read some decent reviews on many drinks, it's really only the "wine tasting" bunch that gets on my nerves.

Wine is a lot more complicated than most drinks. I'd say whiskey and wine reviews are very much alike. Right now I can't think of any other drink with flavours that vary as much, which partially explains what you feel is the elitist tone of the reviews.



Nobody is saying you can't enjoy it. In fact, nobody is saying that wine tasters can't criticize wine that isn't up to their standards, but they shouldn't do so as if it was the end-all judgment regarding wine for all groups, and I feel a large majority do this.

Well to be honest if you're fine with drinking boxed wine you don't really need the reviews do you? I've drank plenty of of cheap and expensive wines and decided I'd rather drink one bottle of 20$ that I thoroughly enjoy than drink each day from a 10$ 5 liter box which tastes OK-ish. There's nothing wrong with either way, it's just that when I do buy that single bottle I like to experience new flavours and a review is a nice benchmark for that to avoid wasting my 20$. In comparison, I buy my whiskey like you buy your wine. A bottle of the 12 year Glenfiddich is all I need, I've never read a single review :smiley:

Right back to work... Duty on Easter is so bloody boring..

HoD

[TheConfusedCaster]

You've just described the goal of every reviewer on this planet ;)

I'd disagree, there are plenty of reviewers who try to remain subjective and fair in their reviews.



Reviews are a matter of taste, you can't claim they are false. I've done reviews on food, software, sports equipment...all of them contained objective criteria and what *I* thought about the product.

I never claimed they were false when it came to that persons tastes, I am not the one to tell them how they should taste something, and my point remains, they aren't either ;)

Reviews cross the line when the reviewer starts to tell you how you should view a product. Many winer reviewers by majority have done this through the established "status quo" they create with these trends.




No in fact, that's what is good about wine clubs, there is (up to a certain level) a consistency in terms used to describe wines. "A full, fruity wine with a dry oak wooden aftertaste" gives me a good general idea of what the wine will be like.

Incorrect, I was not disputing the terms, but even those terms are subjective in useage ;) What tastes "full and fruity" to one reviewer, may taste bitter or sour to another. In regards to a "general idea", I'd have to quote your own words in saying it's a matter of taste ;)


In this case, it is similar to wines I've tasted before and liked. Granted, many terms are vague and not everyone uses them properly, but that's not a wine-specific issue :)

This issue does not revolve around wine itself, but "wine club arrogance" when it comes to making one own tastes the standards for all.






That depends on your standard. You feel it's pretty decent. Write a review and say it is pretty decent!

Awesome! So you're offering me a free job at a very large reviewing site? :p


Let's take computers. A 500$ pc might be pretty decent for me (Office, mails, watching DVD's), while it may be crap to you (heavy video editing). As long as your reader is aware what criteria you use there is nothing wrong with labeling a wine as terrible crap, although you may want to rephrase that to make sure you will keep receiving free samples to test :laugh:

The problem with this analogy lies within comparing prices to taste. The comparison of an items priced is very much related to ones income and budget. I'd have to say these two factors are far more consistent and similar than ones individual taste buds.



I'm pretty sure there are wine reviews that you would enjoy reading, aimed at the way you experience wine.

I'm not bashing reviewers as a whole, but rather those who cross the line of opinion into standards.




Wine is a lot more complicated than most drinks. I'd say whiskey and wine reviews are very much alike. Right now I can't think of any other drink with flavours that vary as much, which partially explains what you feel is the elitist tone of the reviews.

The elitist tone has everything to do with their willingness in regards to making "their taste your taste", and nothing to do with the substance itself.




Well to be honest if you're fine with drinking boxed wine you don't really need the reviews do you? I've drank plenty of of cheap and expensive wines and decided I'd rather drink one bottle of 20$ that I thoroughly enjoy than drink each day from a 10$ 5 liter box which tastes OK-ish. There's nothing wrong with either way, it's just that when I do buy that single bottle I like to experience new flavours and a review is a nice benchmark for that to avoid wasting my 20$. In comparison, I buy my whiskey like you buy your wine. A bottle of the 12 year Glenfiddich is all I need, I've never read a single review :smiley:

Right back to work... Duty on Easter is so bloody boring..

I drink more than boxed wine :) I have no problem with opinions, but I think you got the wrong idea in regards to what/who my argument was aimed at.

HoD[/QUOTE]

[surodat]

Alright, so I'm not going to quote anymore because it's compartmentalizing everything and making this much harder to read. I'm going to try to sum up my thoughts here a succinctly as possible without getting too far off point.

I think the most important thing that was missed from my first post was the two different views that I was espousing. The subjective versus the objective. While even the review I cite contains subjective statements, I highlighted the objective statements as examples of the most pertinent information.

Objectively: the wine tastes like _____.

While, yes I concur that we all taste *blank* differently, and will enjoy/dislike a certain taste based on our personal makeup, usually we can all get together and say that it does taste like *blank*. Saying something has an "Oakey" or "Musty" taste may take some time for people who have never had to describe these things before, but eventually you can use these terms the same way you user "Sour" and "Salty."

When I say, "These pretzels are saltier than those other pretzels. I don't like these pretzels."
You can say: "I LOVE salty pretzels! I bet I'll love those pretzels."

Even though I've given it a negative review, you have taken the pertinent objective information and removed the subjective information to form your own opinion.

This is what I mean when I talk about the second point of view. All the reviewer CAN do is say what they feel, but even though the tone may feel elitist (and this is where it ties into the philosophy we're trying not to fall over into) it is NOT elitist because it says a certain wine is crap.

"b) We identify that we are all different, accept it, and seek through empathy to identify the qualities in other that we can identify in ourselves. Through this struggle to sift through the plethora of differing human experiences we try to find some sort of definition of self."

Going back to the pretzel analogy, we have identified that I hate really salty pretzels, but you love them. Fast forward 20 years in the future to where we both have tasted pretzels professionally and are now writing feature length articles for the New Yorker about the nuances and craftsmanship that goes into a good pretzel. No matter how many words I use and how objective I claim to be: I still hate salty pretzels, and you still love them. Every review that I write will be the subjective opposite of what you write, but will contain the same subjective data.

However, a fellow Salt-Lover could read either of our reviews and still obtain the information he needs to form his opinion. If I hate it because it's too salty, but identify other great qualities then it may be the one for him. If you think it's salted to perfection, but then also identify other problems, then we don't know anymore...

Now, this analogy seems silly doesn't it? Pretzels are pretzels, right? The point I'm trying to make is that the only reason wine reviewers seem elitist is because they seem like rich snobs who are telling you what to do. Two guys talking about pretzels don't sound elitist because *anyone* could sample almost any pretzel. Yet, when we start talking about wine that come $200 a bottle, all of a sudden our perceptions about class shift from average joe to educated snob. Elitism only enters into the question when you see the reviewer as an authoritarian voice and not just a voice like any other: to be disagreed with and criticized just like you're doing now. The reviewer isn't being elitist, you are perceiving the reviewer as elitist.

And even IF the reviewer is a complete I-Rowed-Crew-At-Yale-Trust-Fund-Skimming-Lacoste-Sweater-Vest-Wearing-Polo-Swinging-Country-Club-Deuchbag, he can only approach the problems from his own perspective and allow other people to parse the relevant information as they see fit. This is why we deconstruct - to determine within any given system whether there is any validity.

Before I finish my break, I'd like to touch on what you brought up about something on the internet having no target audience. I'd have to say this is patently false. Sorry. The following target audiences are not equal:
disney.com - randomactsofbeastiality.com
nationalenquirer.com - thewallstreetjournal.com
puppies.com - kitties.com

Just because something is available to everyone, does not mean that it's targeted at everyone.

In conclusion, this is fun. :D

PS. OH! And my comment about the dregs was not a slight in any way. In Ancient Greece *all* wine had dregs, in fact they had specially designed cups to ease settlement. Which is why I brought that up... Although they we're most likely too busy "worshiping" Dionysus (God of wine and fertility) ;)

[surodat]

Paragraph 9 should read "objective data" not "subjective data".

[Twoflower]

omg way too much to read.

drink what you feel like drinking.

[spadron]

I was expecting help on getting WoW running nice under linux.

[TheConfusedCaster]

Going to throw in a quick rebuttal here (well, long it seems).

I'll follow your pattern of not using quotes if that's the format you feel is more comfortable.

The review that you quoted is not the issue at all. This thread has nothing to do with the single individual review you quoted (not even as an example), it encompasses a mentality trend displayed by the majority of the wine community. So to say "X review shows objectivity/subjectivity, thus your qualms with said wine issue is compromised" would be false. It would be false even to suggest that your example has any bearing on the issue I was speaking on.

I'd take it a step further and say that your example of "oakey" and "musky" do not exist for a lot of people. I said it before and I will say it again, what's perceived as "oakey"/"musty" to one may be "fruity"/"sweet" to another. Even if a large amount of people get together and say "this tastes like X", it does not necessarily mean said item actually tastes that way to everyone, thus it would be wrong for those individuals to tell others how they should feel about said item.

Using salt as an example is almost as silly as a previous posters example regarding financial situations and the cost of bicycles. When you say something tastes "saltier", you are passing a judgment on how much salt said product contains. Saying "this tastes saltier" (via possessing large amounts of salt, or larger amounts of salt than it previously had) would be like saying "this wine bottle has more wine in it than that other bottle that's full/empty". The discussion has nothing to do with measuring quantity, but rather quality.

Nobody stated that a 2nd point of view cannot be given, in fact, I am giving my "2nd point of view". The problem occurs when "wine tasting clubs" try to set the standards for everyones "2nd point of view" and begin stomping on the opinions of others by merely dismissing them as "wine amateurs".

When a wine taster states a certain wine is crap based on the fact their standards are well beyond the average good tasting wine, they are indeed espousing elitist views when it comes to making their standard our standard. I hardly think you could deny that reviews definitely work towards setting a standard.

Lets use your example then. You write a review about how the majority of pretzels suck and you will only eat a certain upscale fancy brand that really isn't that different from the thousands of brands you say "suck". You then go ahead and lambaste anyone who eats "lower brand" pretzels while stating the only real pretzels out there are the fancy brand you prefer. You step out of the zone of subjectivity and into the land of objectivity when you start creating a status quo or "standard" for all pretzel eaters.

It is completely fine and subjective to say "I like X and think Z is crap", but it's very objective to say "I like X because X is the best irregardless of how much you like/dislike X". The 2nd example is what is occurring in a very large majority of wine tasting organizations.

With that being said, as I stated previously, salt was a very bad example when discussing quality.

Wine reviewers aren't always rich, I know individuals who are wealthy that don't blow their money on overpriced wine. I stated earlier that many wine tasters get into the hobby in order to feel some type of "sophistication".

I'd go a step further and challenge your perception argument that you sort of borrowed there. I'd argue that my perception of elitism is a very accurate and reasonable one, when the reviewer is attempting to set/lay down the law when it comes to all wine and all drinkers.

"Elitism is the belief or attitude that those individuals who are considered members of the elite -- a select group of people with outstanding personal abilities, intellect, wealth, specialized training or experience, or other distinctive attributes"

I'd say their own self-perceived ability to "judge wine" would fall under "specialized training or experience".

I want to thank you for giving me a good laugh when you tried to compare news sites to animal lover domains in order to try to and argue against my "target theory". I never said the internet didn't have a target audience, I stated that when you publicize something on the internet, the literal target is anyone who uses the internet. I also stated that this was separate from who the reader was targeting with his "main point/message". "Targeted" can be seen as two things. Who the article is available to, and who the articles message was meant for. In the latter case, I don't see wine reviewers limiting their opinions to their own club. It's very easy to mask falsity by saying "Oh, you're just not the target".

Regarding dregs, my response was to clarify that dregs in wine have no relevance today when most wine is dreg-free, thus I saw it as an unfit analogy.

[surodat]

Nevermind. I'm not even going to try. If you're wondering when I decided this, it was after reading you say someone can confuse "Oakey" and "Sweet" and then describe a particular taste as "quantitative". I now believe you simply have no taste buds.

Excuse me, my drink tastes 356mL, it should have been 370. I'm going back to the store and getting a refund.

[TheConfusedCaster]

Nevermind. I'm not even going to try. If you're wondering when I decided this, it was after reading you say someone can confuse "Oakey" and "Sweet" and then describe a particular taste as "quantitative". I now believe you simply have no taste buds.

Excuse me, my drink tastes 356mL, it should have been 370. I'm going back to the store and getting a refund.

If I had no taste buds, wouldn't that contradict any type of confusion between oakey and sweet? I don't think I'd be able to taste either.

I described your "salty pretzel" analogy as quantitative in relation to the amount of salt on the pretzel being an issue of amount, thus not an accurate analogy when talking about the taste of wine.

[Xlorep DarkHelm]

I was expecting help on getting WoW running nice under linux.

Easy: Step 1: Install Wine. Step 2: Install WoW.

At least, for my Ubuntu system, it was that easy.

...there are moments I miss the complexity and frustration that was older versions of Linux. Then I realize that is really really dumb of me and get over it.

[TheConfusedCaster]

I thought I'd give an example of a typical picky wine taster

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXlB1BfXV1U

Notice he describes the smell as "dirty soiled grape"....no crap sherlock, WINE is fermented grapes, LOL!

[XCompanion]

Thousands of years ago, we lifted heavy goblets of mead and drank out of dirty tankards, just to get drunk, as the vicious cold snow pelted our make-shift tents and half of us prepared to die in some bloody savage war (probably over wine as well).

Replace goblets with tumblers, mead with ale or whiskey, tents with houses and wine with oil.

The human race hasn't come nearly as far as we thought huh?

You have a problem with critics. Fine. Don't read them. Go to a wine store, tell the person running it your budget and they'll have some fine suggestions for you.

[TheConfusedCaster]

Replace goblets with tumblers

Ok, good one.

mead with ale or whiskey

Mead, ale, and whiskey are all different drinks. Mead is an alcoholic drink made up of fermented honey and spices. There is mead in production today.

tents with houses

When preparing for war, tents were used. Kings in palaces usually sent out their soldiers to stay in these tents. Sorry, nitpicking.

wine with oil.

This is what I don't get. Wine with oil? An alcoholic beverage vs. a resource? If I could pour wine into my car every morning instead of spending $4 a gallon at the pump then I'd probably save quite a bit ;)


The human race hasn't come nearly as far as we thought huh?

You have a problem with critics. Fine. Don't read them. Go to a wine store, tell the person running it your budget and they'll have some fine suggestions for you.

Oh I love critics, in fact, I am a critic myself, seeing as how I am criticizing the critics. I have a problem with those who wish to forcibly set the standards for all of us in regards to wine. They want to violate our preferences and befoul our tastes with their insignificant catch-phrases and silly vocabulary of taste terms.

It's not really my budget that's the problem. I can buy expensive wine, but is it worth it? That's the question.

[Xlorep DarkHelm]

Nice thing about where I live. Smack-dab in the middle of So-Cal wine country. Probably easily dozens or so of different wineries to go wandering around and seeing what there is.

[XCompanion]

Ok, good one.



Mead, ale, and whiskey are all different drinks. Mead is an alcoholic drink made up of fermented honey and spices. There is mead in production today.



When preparing for war, tents were used. Kings in palaces usually sent out their soldiers to stay in these tents. Sorry, nitpicking.



This is what I don't get. Wine with oil? An alcoholic beverage vs. a resource? If I could pour wine into my car every morning instead of spending $4 a gallon at the pump then I'd probably save quite a bit ;)




Oh I love critics, in fact, I am a critic myself, seeing as how I am criticizing the critics. I have a problem with those who wish to forcibly set the standards for all of us in regards to wine. They want to violate our preferences and befoul our tastes with their insignificant catch-phrases and silly vocabulary of taste terms.

It's not really my budget that's the problem. I can buy expensive wine, but is it worth it? That's the question.

That whole first sentence was just a reflection on what you said initially: basically that we still sit around getting drunk and preparing to die in a bloody war. When I read it, it just made me think "not much has changed". Ale or whiskey for mead because they are the 2 most commonly consumed drinks where mead probably was in the time period you're talking about.

Is expensive wine worth the price? For me, no. I can't point to any part of it and say "ahh, there's where the extra $235 went." It can be good for impressing a woman who is impressed by such things...

[TheConfusedCaster]

That whole first sentence was just a reflection on what you said initially: basically that we still sit around getting drunk and preparing to die in a bloody war. When I read it, it just made me think "not much has changed". Ale or whiskey for mead because they are the 2 most commonly consumed drinks where mead probably was in the time period you're talking about.

That analogy was made to sort of bring the drinkers of todays modern society down to earth. To say "hey, who cares if it's "oaky" or "fruity"? It's wine".


Is expensive wine worth the price? For me, no. I can't point to any part of it and say "ahh, there's where the extra $235 went." It can be good for impressing a woman who is impressed by such things...

I guess that all comes down to the kind of woman you're looking for. My girlfriend hates drinking, even though she's Irish, lol.

[XCompanion]

HA. If you're looking to impress a woman with wine, dinner and money, we all know exactly the kind of woman you're looking for...