Are wine drinkers qualified to review wines?
This is a post in response to an editorial in Vitisphere. The author has since responded here.
I was a little shocked when reading the editorial on the most recent Vitisphere which concludes with the following:
“Enfin, il faudra accepter une certification des acteurs de la critique, de la notation, par une Autorité, sinon les technologies du numérique pourraient imposer la dictature d’une démocratie virtuelle. ”
Roughly translated: Finally, we must accept a certification process for agents of criticism, of scoring, by some Authority, otherwise digital technology could impose a virtual tyranny of the masses.
The Tyranny of the Masses?
My natural instinct is to say that this is ridiculous. Ultimately, consumers know what they enjoy and they are the best people possible to decide what to buy. But let’s give the editor a chance. What are the potential downsides of a world without authoritative wine criticism? And what are the downsides of a “dictature d’une democratie virtuelle”?
I suppose there is a risk that we create a world where winemakers try to make bland and inoffensive wines that nobody hates (but nobody loves either). As I’ve discussed before, I wouldn’t want that. And it’s not an unrealistic proposition. Vast volumes of wine are already made this way.
Music that goes on the radio is often chosen in a similar fashion where the single release is rarely the best song on the album. It’s frequently just the least offensive song that is still a little catchy (but not too catchy!). There are stories about this where people organize a test group to listen to a CD and they intentionally pick the song with the most average score instead of the song that some people love and some people hate.
And when you see projects like Design A Sam Adams Beer, you see that some beverages are literally being ruled by a virtual democracy. And it is sort of preposterous.
But then the editorial sort of pines for the good old days when everybody’s pockets were full of francs and everybody’s glasses full of delicious wine. At one point, it feels like he’s even blaming the decrease in wine consumption on the absence of an authoritative voice in wine criticism:
“Et au 3ème et dernier acte, disparition de l’art de la critique du vin… Perdu par la multiplicité des références, des origines, des prix, le consommateur perd confiance et se protège en réduisant ses achats de vins !”
Roughly translated: in the 3rd act, the disappearance of the art of wine criticism… lost in a sea of choices, of denominations, of prices, the consumer loses confidence and protects himself by buying less wine!
This seems like a pretty zany argument. The reason people drink less wine in France is because they have less confidence in their ability to pick a good wine? I’m doubtful. It seems more likely that consumption is dropping because people are afraid to get a PV (moving violation) for drink driving. Or because mixed drinks are more fashionable than a glass of wine at most night clubs. Or even because there are more choices of what to drink today than there were 20 years ago. The point is there is no reason to think that dropping wine consumption rates in France are a result of lack of confidence in wine buyers.
And what’s more, I don’t think the rise of blogs and the downfall of authoritative wine criticism do anything to undermine consumer confidence. If anything, the notion that everybody can publish an opinion online should give confidence to consumers. Whereas consumers would be intimidated in a world full of famous wine critics that they haven’t had time to read, they should be liberated in a world where the only thing that matters is what you and your friends think when you open the bottle tonight.
Anyway, I’m puzzled by the logic.
My experience with egalitarian publishing
One of the best things that ever happened to me was the customer interface on Naked Wines. Customers who drink my wine can leave a review on the web site. It’s as simple as that. The majority of them don’t consider themselves bloggers or gurus or experts. They just review wines. And most of them simply say Yes or No to the question “Would you buy this wine again.” And then some of them write in detailed comments.
I used to think that I would never let a critic influence my winemaking style. But once the clients became critics… I changed my tune. When thousands of people are tasting my wines and hundreds are leaving detailed comments, I’m actually very keen to hear what they have to say. Obviously, I still make wines based on my own inclinations. But I’ll take it into account that two hundred people were happy with the 2009 Trah Lah Lah that was a little less tannic than the 08. It gives me confidence in the future to make a blend that’s a little less harsh.
Obviously, I shouldn’t make a bland and inoffensive wine just to appeal to everybody. But at the same time, there’s nothing wrong with taking the pulse of the people who are actually drinking your wine. And I’m glad that these people can share their own opinions, independent of what “recognized” wine authorities have to say.
Who gives authority to the authority?
And the last logical flaw in this editorial is about who gives power to the “Authority” that certifies critics.
“Pour éviter le drame, journalistes et éditeurs, du papier ou du numérique, devraient se réunir pour redonner un sens au journalisme du vin, redéfinir l’art de la critique.”
Roughly translated: To avoid tragedy, journalists and editors, be they paper or digital, should unite to bring back some meaning to wine journalism, redefine the art of criticism
If all wine writers get together to agree on who should write about wine (and how we should write about wine), doesn’t that include all the bloggers and social media voices that the author is denigrating in the rest of the editorial?
And why do we even need to redefine the art of criticism? Will that actually help consumers enjoy wine more? Or increase their confidence about picking a bottle at the restaurant? Personally, if I were a normal consumer, the idea that there are certified wine specialists whose opinions matter more than mine would terrify me far more than the notion that everybody has different opinions and you just like what you like and you shouldn’t feel guilty for not reading all of the “expert” opinions that have been published before picking a bottle and enjoying it.
No, I’m fairly confident in the tyranny of the majority. I like this brave new world we live in.
January 29th, 2012 at 8:24 am
I agree. Of course…
January 29th, 2012 at 8:35 am
good job, Ryan… & good thinking, which mean good drinking too !
January 29th, 2012 at 9:03 am
My friend, I couldn’t agree more with your point of vue about this ugly editorial.
January 29th, 2012 at 10:42 am
Well, Ryan, I am not sure that edito merited the long text you have written. It was one of the dumbest (probably THE one) things I have seen written on wine and journalism. It is so absurd so it is amazing how anyone could even write such a thing. I wonder if the author, whoever that is, really means it or if it is just a provocation.
Perhaps in the next issue Vitisphere will propose that there should be a law against making bad wine?
January 29th, 2012 at 11:14 am
Whoa, the comment section is becoming a bit of a who’s who in French wine. Thanks for all the feedback guys. I was slightly worried that I had totally misinterpreted the édito and that it was actually a joke or something.
January 29th, 2012 at 11:30 am
Really well articulated as usual but a non topic, at least here in the states.
The ‘wisdom’ of the market is the strongest expert there is. Influence we do by being part of it but democracy and taste is a popularity contest even within the smallest, most pure niche.
The smartest and the most knowledgeable of the experts have great value but knowing is not enough. Knowing how to communicate is as important as what is shared.
In case you didn’t see the last post of mine with some 45+ comments (big surprise!) it was loosely connected to this subject:
Wine by the word @ http://awe.sm/5eNEJ
January 29th, 2012 at 11:42 am
Enjoy the period of utter chaos. It’s going to last longer than many expect. Technology shakes the foundation of culture basically by changing faster culture can adopt. The lag, the confusion, the disruption, is inevitable. Yes, I kind of like it. It leaves room for creative minds (such as you) and opens chasm in the shared texture. Sometimes unpleasant and even violent, but at its best very very constructive. Was nice seeing you in Montpellier.
January 29th, 2012 at 11:44 am
Maybe it was a joke and they are sitting laughing at us in Montpellier and over all the time we waste fretting over this brilliant way to improve journalistic quality.
January 29th, 2012 at 11:50 am
I agree with Per in the lenght of your article but I can only understand it was only to soothe you anger and ununderstanding and try to give sens to this non-sens.
Same as everyone here, it’s hard to believe. Thanks for the great article Ryan!
January 29th, 2012 at 12:10 pm
the most intelligent and argumented response on this really stupid edito I’ve read today. Thanks Ryan, for having taken the time to write it:-). I had the same feeling, that it was just a joke – or that it is a virus around Montpellier, of the same family es the one that seems to have infected the president of the AVBLR the other day, when he gave this interview about natural wines versus organic ones, which made me believe that he hadn’t really attended his own trade faire;-).
January 29th, 2012 at 1:19 pm
Power to the little people! Let the voice of the little people stand out above that of the supposed magnificent critic who is glorified in being able to test, taste, and inform us of what we like! Viva! Viva la liberation! Let the people decide! Let the people’s views of what works, and what does not, have influence upon the winemaker! Synergistic delectation is the way forward
Le pouvoir au peuple peu! Laissez la voix du petit peuple se démarquer dessus de celui de la critique supposée magnifique qui est glorifié en étant capable de tester, goûter, et nous informer de ce que nous aimons! Viva! Viva la libération! Que le peuple décide! Laissez vues du peuple de ce qui fonctionne et ce qui n’a pas, ont une influence sur le vigneron! Délectation synergique est la voie à suivre;-)
January 29th, 2012 at 1:50 pm
Dear The Stig,
You are only accredited to comment on cars and racing so please keep out of this discussion concerning wine. It is not on your list of permitted and approved subjects.
Respectfully,
The Inspector
January 29th, 2012 at 1:51 pm
Thank you for this lively riposte, Ryan.
Out and out pomposity to suggest that critics and critiscm should be registered and regulated! This sort of nonsense happens in the arts with theatre, book etc critics complaing about ‘amateur’ reviews. Blogging and social media allows everyone to have an opinion; if you don’t agree or like someone’s style and opinion just move on.
January 29th, 2012 at 1:57 pm
Unfortunately, I can’t explain this edito… Thanks Ryan to spend so much time to give your response. As you say Iris, it seems that there is a virus in montpellier area ! Hopefully, during the week-end I’m in pézenas
January 29th, 2012 at 2:02 pm
Thanks for all the feedback guys. I especially like seeing the anarchists come out of the woodwork. And a lot of your are making me laugh a great deal.
And a special thanks to Olivier for stepping into the conversation. Hopefully you don’t catch the bug!
January 29th, 2012 at 2:04 pm
Comme d’hab, Ryan, in french ;o)
Cet édito de combat d’arrière garde me semble avoir été fait pour faire parler de Vitisphere. Il est trop stupide pour être crédible. S’en prendre aux bloggueurs du vin ou vouloir organiser une pensée unique du vin, c’est un peu comme arrêter le TGV avec une fronde ou faire passer le Minitel pour le dernier cri de la technologie. Quand on sait que Vitisphere est associé à Terre de Vins qui met en avant les bloggueurs : cherchez l’erreur. Ca sent la poudre ou la trahison …
January 29th, 2012 at 4:09 pm
Mais c’est super le minitel! Eh, c’est quoi déjà?
January 29th, 2012 at 9:55 pm
I agree with Per that this was a silly article from the beginning and your conclusions are reasonable. However, I think it is important for us wine writers to think of what more we can bring to the table than a regular consumer. Perhaps it will not be the part of the critic? Perhaps it will be bringing the stories behind the bottles and the context of the wines to the consumer, or help with matchings and inspiration? Otherwise, indeed, we will be run over “by the masses”
(However, if I could get a law against bad ie mass produced and boring wine, who am I to complain?
)
January 30th, 2012 at 12:27 am
Let’s drink wine, nom de dieu ! And let us feel free, wether snob or “spontané”, wether “buveur de masses” or “critique prétentieux”, let us say what ever we feel like saying. Il other terms, ne nous laissons pas emmerder par tout ce qui peut nous empêcher de boire en paix !
January 30th, 2012 at 3:46 am
Totally agree with you Bryan. I would say that purpose of expert / critic should be to give hints, in deep explanations, or well described tasting notes to help people to understand the wine they drink. But each consumer should be free to like the wine or not, and tell others why, as expensive or famous the bottle is…
January 30th, 2012 at 12:22 pm
Let me just add that although some people may think the article was a joke (meaning it was ironic), I’m not sure they have enough of a sense of humour to pull one like that off at Vitisphère…
January 30th, 2012 at 3:16 pm
[...] critiche a questo articolo sono state sollevate a non finire, per riassumerle tutte basti leggere qui, la risposta di Ryan [...]