I’m speaking of the news last week of uber-wine-critic Robert Parker passing on tasting/reviewing responsibilities for California wine to Antonio Galloni at The Wine Advocate. There have already been several takes on the news in blogosphere, with my faves coming from W. Blake Gray and Jeff Lefevere (both of whom do a stellar job of covering the big and small of the wine industry and provide thoughtful commentary on the potential ripple effects).

When the news broke, I was in Portugal where the Parker news wasn’t even news, presumably because The Wine Advocate doesn’t pay much attention to Portuguese table wines (or so it might be argued by the Portuguese table wine industry, anyway). So I was totally unaware of the announcement from Parker, or the ensuing coverage in the wine media, until I returned at the close of that work week.

Now, what’s to be said about Parker no longer covering CA wines that hasn’t already been said?

Well, as most of you out there will recall, I interviewed Parker not too long ago, and while that hardly qualifies as having a window into his soul, it might be just enough access to have formulated a different – and more cautionary – viewpoint into his recent decision…

I’m not saying that the speculation on the impact of Parker handing over CA tasting responsibilities isn’t warranted – it certainly is, because no one can doubt Parker’s enormous influence over CA wines (even if that influence isn’t as strong as it is in Bordeaux, where they seem totally unable to establish wine prices without his En primeur ratings – I suppose it’s easier to rely on someone else to lead than it is hiring your own qualified people to help set your products’ prices, right?).

But I will say that the wine media shouldn’t draw too many conclusions about the reasons behind Parker’s decision, because it’s very, very likely that Parker has simply assigned wine regions to Wine Advocate staff that he deemed most appropriate for detailed coverage of those regions’ wines so that he can focus on his first loves (Bordeaux and Rhone).  It’s likely as simple as that.

If I were a betting man (I’m not), I’d bet my Faust double-magnum that while he takes the move seriously, Parker didn’t put 1/100th of the time we’ve all spent analyzing the decision in making it.  The impression I garnered from my interview with him (and it’s one that I’ve since confirmed with people much, much closer to him than I am, including Emperor of Wine author Elin McCoy) is that he reaches some decisions rather quickly, as the inevitable conclusion of balladromic events and past decisions. One could argue that those decisions are only inevitable in retrospect, but few who know him would argue that Parker will vehemently defend those decisions as he does his positions on just about everything else.

In other words, don’t look for deep meaning in Parker’s decision to reassign CA reviews at The Wine Advocate: it is what it is, and probably according to Parker would always have ended up this way no matter what he or anyone else did.

Personally, I’m okay with all of that – I’d rather dive into the now-much-murkier field of CA wine critique than over-analyze the past landscape over which Parker’s influence primarily presided.  We are once again “cursed to live in interesting times,” but for those of us who are comfortable with ambiguity – and I’ve never met a winemaker or grapegrower who didn’t have to learn to live (very) comfortably with ambiguity! – we should see some exciting times and changing tides in CA wine media in the near future.

Cheers!

Copyright © 2011. Originally at Robert Parker And California: A Cautionary Tale from 1WineDude.com - for personal, non-commercial use only. Cheers!

So today, we’re not ranking wines, but articles. I had fun pulling together the 2009 recap. of the most-commented posts on 1WineDude.com, so I thought I’d do the same for 2010, using the totally unscientific method of listing all of the posts form the Archives page and ordering what looked like the ones with the most comments.

The rationale of course being that these are the posts that you, the extraordinarily talented, modest, and altogether too-good-looking 1WD readers felt were most worth the effort of contributing your time, passion and opinions.

As was the case last year, controversy (and Robert Parker – honestly… I’m starting to wonder if you folks are obsessed with RMP… you can probably seek help for that, you know…) won out.  I consider the majority of the topics covered in the round-up below (two were giveaways, which weren’t controversial but did turn into interesting discussions on how we take tasting notes, and our preferred methods for cork extractions) to be at least somewhat controversial in the wine world.  And then there’s what seems to be the holy triumvirate of wine controversy: namely, BioDynamic winemaking, The Wine Trials author Robin Goldstein, and uber-critic Robert Parker…

One interesting trend I’ve noticed in the latter half of 2010 is that there are fewer comments and a lot more Twitter RTs and Facebook Likes for each post. I’m convinced that by the time we get to the 2011 round-up, comment count will not be a sufficient yardstick for the most interactive posts of the year, and I’ll have to do a lot more work to determine the list based on a combination of factors including comments across different social media platforms. If I did that for the 2010 list, we’d have a different number one (the Tim Hanni interview would be the leader by a long shot) and mostly a different list altogether.  And that, to me, speaks powerfully to all of the sand-shifting going on in the social media space – a bit difficult to handle at times, but way more interesting than everything staying stagnant!

Since this is naturally a time for reflection, I’ve been looking back on 2010 and I’m energized and encouraged – it was, by any reasonable measure, a great year for 1WineDude.com and that’s of course thanks mostly to you who read it and give it a life of its own, always taking the discussions in directions that I never could have imagined.  I’m not interested in standing still, though; I promised that things wouldn’t stay the same and I do plan on continuing the evolution of 1WD that has taken place in the latter half of 2010 – focusing more on wine itself and particularly on destinations/travels related to wine, of which you’ll see much more in the first half of 2011.  For those hankerin’ for discussion of wine blogging itself, I’ll touch on that as part of my ongoing “Going Pro” series (detailing the triumphs and travails of my foray into making 1WD fiscally viable), so you’ll still get a bit of that -  but it’s not going to be the main component of 1WD.

Anyway… the year-in-review is below, with the posts listed in descending order of comments received.  Thanks again to you, the 1WD readers, for making this blog what it is, and for being the acidity to my tannins, the pumpkin to my pie, and giving me the continued opportunity to be myself and have fun doing it!

Happy New Year – and here’s to another year of crazy-good dialog together!

10) Do You Take Wine Notes? (Giveaway! 33 Bottles of Wine Pocket Notebook Edition)

9) Happier Times = Less Wine? (Will A Better Economy Mean Fewer Wine Blogs?)

8) Biodynamic Wine, Mystified (Is BioDynamics A Bunch of Fertilizer?)

7) Debunking the Argument Against Wine and Social Media

6) “Fun and Messy and Wonderful” – An Interview With Buehler Vineyards’ Helen Buehler

5) How To Make Wine Evaluation Even Less Objective? Don’t Spit!

4) The Otter Badgers of Wine Reviews: Joining the Wine Rating Revolution

3) Your Screwing Preferences (Giveaway!)

2) Wine Satan or Wine Savior? An Interview With Wine Trials Author Robin Goldstein

1) “The First Serious Wine Blogger”: The 1WineDude Robert Parker Interview

Cheers!

Copyright © 2011. Originally at Not Quite Readers’ Choice: Top Ten Articles of 2010 from 1WineDude.com - for personal, non-commercial use only. Cheers!

Among my fellow panelists was the talented Neal Martin, who writes for eRobertParker.com covering Bordeaux.  In some ways, Neal proved the counterbalance to the messages being offered by me and the other panelists, in that he has a rather skeptical approach to the power of social media in the wine world. During the course of the panel, Neal raised several points about social media’s place in the context of wine criticism that I and the other panelists did not address directly – not because we’re without opinion on those points, but because we felt they weren’t relevant to the topic of how wine producers (the largest contingent of our panel audience) could leverage the power of social media online to help their business.

In my case, it certainly did NOT mean that I agreed with those points, as will become clear to anyone in the course of reading this article, in which I will address what I took as the primary (or, if not primary, at least relatively important) points raised or hinted at by Neal about social media’s place in wine criticism – and try to refute them.

I should note that I enjoy Neal’s company, respect his work, and marvel at his writing abilities. But I found many of his views on social media so profoundly off-base that I felt they needed comment.  It’s not that Neal sees no value in social media, but I got the impression that his view is looking backward, not forward – and thinking ahead is absolutely key in understanding what social media can do for you, and the place that it is very likely to take in the future in terms of wine criticism.

Let’s take a look at the contrarian views that are all too often espoused when applying social media to wine, and go from there.  I’ve grouped them below roughly in a group of three, and summarized each as a hypothetical quite or argument. It’s worth noting that I’m not quoting anyone in particular but am paraphrasing and, while it might be tempting to anoint someone like Neal as a sort of dark arts saint of an anti-social-media satanic church, life is rarely that simple and it’s certainly not my intention here.

In this case, Neal’s comments during our panel were simply the catalyst for a sort of… manifesto that took shape in my (twisted) mind.  The kind of thing you’re compelled to write because you have to (and because you’re a bit tired of preaching the same gospel over and over, and would like to have a handy place to keep it so you can refer others to it again… and again… and again…). I will warn you, it’s long and probably not appropriately “scannable” for blog reading, but f–k it I’m posting it anyway.

As always, your comments / criticisms / points / love / hate are all welcome!…

1) Critiquing and writing about wine via established publications is fundamentally different than via blogs. Blogs cannot be taken seriously nor can a non-serious approach/tone to writing about wine.

At first, this seems a sensible argument – “blogs” provide two-way interactive communication via comments, usually have no editor, and primarily are authored by people with no formal background or training in wine.  However, it’s ultimately pointless to distinguish between blogs and other forms of content creation, because a blog is merely a platform – one used by talented writers such as Jancis Robinson (who does have formal training in wine) and Alder Yarrow (who doesn’t).  Why?  Because authors of content on any subject, including wine, are fully capable of using any medium – some have just chosen to publish on-line.  While there are several differences in how an article about wine might be published in print vs. online, there is no fundamental difference between writing about wine and publishing it in one form (online) or another (print).

Another way of putting this argument is that on-line writing is somehow poorer and/or less legitimate than print. But in both cases (print and on-line), someone is creating content and they are either talented, original, and experienced or they’re not – and plenty of both examples are now prevalent in both the on- and off-line worlds; we simply notice the cases in blogging because, with fewer barriers to entry, there are more of them than there are print publications. To assume that print is somehow a requirement for legitimacy is not only arrogant, it’s also incorrect because enough examples of content creators who publish about wine primarily or solely on-line now exist to refute it (Jancis Robinson, Tyler Colman, Alder Yarrow, W. Blake Gray… I wont’ go so far as to submit my own name to that list but I’m aspiring to get there…).

In terms of seriousness, I’ve espoused for over four years that wine coverage needs less stuffiness, less arrogance, and more fun if we hope to keep people interested enough in wine in the coming years to inspire them to delve into its greatness and endless joys at anything beyond the most superficial of levels (and for some, the most superficial of levels will be the end point – and there’s nothing wrong with that, either; but it would be a shame if everyone ended there wine journeys there).  What I’m finding is that as I encounter wine media’s most accomplished and important and inspiring voices, they are anything but arrogant and many times can be giddy with their appreciation of wine and all of its wonders – in other words, the best of the best take wine seriously, but don’t take themselves seriously.

For my part, I’m willing to play the jester in the Court of Wine Media because it’s a hell of a lot more fun than taking myself seriously (both for me and, I hope, for the 1WD readers!). I also suspect many in the budding wine blog-o-world would tell you that they’d rather be a bit silly if it means they’ll enjoy the ride through the wine world more – it doesn’t make what we’re doing somehow less important, and it probably makes it more accessible to the next generation of wine lovers (more on them in a moment or two).

2) The interaction provided by on-line / social media platforms isn’t important, and wine critics don’t need to interact with their audience of consumers.

This, in my view, is the most insidious of the of the arguments against social media because it either presumes that wine consumers don’t want or don’t need to interact with critics and writers, or that somehow it’s not important for wine writers to hear from their audience – and both assumptions are arrogant in the extreme (or else are extremely naive).  Neal didn’t say this directly, but he did say “I don’t want to be interactive” and that’s what got me thinking – is it really a choice?  The trouble with this argument is, everyone else wants to be interactive (do I even need to quote the never-ending statistics of Facebook’s enormous membership as evidence?) so whether or not wine critics/writers want to take that approach is quickly becoming irrelevant.

Ultimately, wine critics and writers serve at the pleasure of their audience. They do not exist to hand down pronouncement from an ivory tower based on our own experiences, no matter how sophisticated our palates or diverse and deep our knowledge of wine. We (I suppose I should be counting myself in these ranks now) exist to foster the global conversation about wine, educate readers on wine and wine experiences, introduce them to new things, help them locate wines of quality, and – most importantly – listen to them so that we can do all of the former to the best of our abilities and provide as much value to them as humanely possible.

In other words, our place is to give back, not to take -  and to spread the “love” of wine in ways that the consumers who listen to what we have to say (and therefore allow us to exist!) in ways that they can best use and understand.  If there’s a way to do that without regularly interacting with those people, I’d love to hear it because I suspect it involves long-distance mind-reading (and therefore would prove not only quite lucrative but also useful in sustaining my marriage for the long term).

Of course, many, many people blog about wine as a personal journal only – and there is nothing wrong with this approach.  However, I would argue that once you’ve built up a following and a community, a blog is no longer really yours; it then belongs to that community, of which you are then the  curator and leader of sorts. Like a public official, your ‘blogging body’ sort of “belongs to the state” at that point, because any other approach undermines that community.

I won’t even go into the profound pleasure that the interaction / argument / discussion / contemplation with readers can provide – words do no justice to the experience of following along with consumers, bloggers, MWs, print wine writers, winemakers and wine PR reps as they interact in the comments of my blog (sometimes all in the same post!). I would be a poorer person (and provide far less value as a writer) without those interactions!

3) The world of wine is complex and difficult; consumers will always need wine experts to help them navigate it and will need them exactly in the same way that they do now.

Nearly every established printed wine coverage seems to think this statement is true – or, if they don’t, they don’t seem to be doing much to dispel the myth. And it is a myth, at least part of it, anyway.

The first half of this paraphrased statement (“the world of wine is complex and consumers will always need wine experts”) is very likely true. While it doesn’t take an expert to appreciate the pleasures of wine, it  often takes one to explain it so that consumers don’t have to be burdened by the detail that they may not even want (and can of course pursue on their own if they become interested – more easily now than ever before, in fact).  However, the second half (“in the same way that they do now”) is, however, now completely false.

Thinking that experts don’t need to change their interaction with their core audience is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears, shutting your eyes, and screaming Rick Astley’s “Never Gonna Give You up” at the top of your voice so as not to hear something you wish weren’t true (as in, “sorry but we’re out of Madeira”…  “NO!  NEVER GONNA SAAAAY GOODBYEEEEEE…. LALALALALALA…!”).

The data exists already to prove it. Through dozens of studies of their purchasing decisions across various goods/markets, Millenial wine consumers have already told the world that not all wine consumer groups are the same, and that they will not be told what to buy – rather, they will be influenced on what to buy by people that they trust. In that context, they idea of expert is malleable and may include wine writers, friends, family, advertisers, wine producers – almost anyone who can successfully interact with them one-on-one and in a genuinely honest way.  Knowing what you’re talking about and having talent aren’t enough – you need to also be trusted, and the only way that you can be trusted is to be known, to interact, to build a relationship. Ivory towers need not apply – and the more savvy wine lovers get on their own (a task made easier and easier each day by the free coverage and readily available tomes of information on the Internet) the less relevant the role of the detached expert becomes in any field.

Just because the Millenials don’t yet move the wine market in significant  numbers to disrupt businesses doesn’t mean that they won’t eventually do that – it is inevitable. As Baby Boomers and Gen Xers move on (ok, die off), Millenials will take over. It is not a question of if, it is a question of when – and we already know that the younger set interact with experts and markets differently.  The question, therefore, becomes whether or not wine will be a market somehow magically immune from this change, somehow amazingly different from every other market in the world in how Millenials will treat it. If you take that bet, then good luck to you for the long term – you’re going to need it.

You can certainly take that bet if you want – and if you believe the latter half of the above point (“the same way that they do now”) then you’ve already made your bet. You can take that bet even though the Jancis Robinsons, James Sucklings, and Tim Hannis of the world are now quite publicly going the other direction in some way/shape/form. You can take that bet, but remember this – it’s the bet that things will always be as they have been, the bet that has never come to pay out even in the industries of taxation and funerals – the bet of self-delusion.

Cheers!

Copyright © 2011. Originally at Debunking the Argument Against Wine and Social Media from 1WineDude.com - for personal, non-commercial use only. Cheers!

For our latest 1WineDude.com interview, I’m tasked with the difficult job of introducing someone who requires no introduction (at least, not when it comes to the world of fine wine).

Today’s interview guest, Robert Parker, is arguably the most famous wine critic on the planet; what is beyond argument is that he is the most influential wine critic on the planet – his scores are capable of sending a wine’s market value into the stratosphere.  He is the founder of the consumer wine review publication The Wine Advocate, which, not unlike a blog, began as a self-published journal – it now has tens of thousands of subscribers in dozens of countries.  Parker is widely regarded as one of the world’s leading authorities on the wines of Bordeaux, and his ability to taste (and recall past tastings of) wines is the stuff of legend.

Parker’s influence and fame at times makes him a polarizing figure (you knew this part was coming, right?).  He established the “love-it-or-loathe-it” 100-point wine scoring review scale. His preference for wines with bold, fruit-forward profiles has, some have argued, divided the wine world into fractions of those who religiously follow Parker’s palate, and those who religiously avoid it.  The divisive effects of his influence have been chronicled in both books and in film.

He has been described as a great equalizer of wine, liberating it from an era of poor quality offerings pushed onto the market at unfairly high prices; he has also been vilified as creating a market of “international style” wines crafted by winemakers attempting to solicit high scores from his reviews, at the expense of regional uniqueness and a sense of place in their wines.

Mr. Parker was a gracious interviewee, so much so that he has tied author Kathryn Borel for the quickest response to interview questions that I’ve ever received.  He even expressed concern that his responses might be a bit dull for the 1WD readers – “thanks for giving me an opportunity to respond to your questions. I’ll try and keep my answers as succinct as possible so your readers don’t nod off while reading them.”

As the Wayne’s World guys might put it – As if!

Below, you will find a fairly intimate glimpse into Mr. Parker’s views on wine blogging, Bordeaux en primeur prices, my friends Gary Vaynerchuk and Tyler Colman, the booming Asian wine consumer market, the Big Lebowski (yes, seriously), and his own influence and professional legacy. It is very likely a side of Robert Parker that few in the on-line wine world have yet seen.

I’m grateful to Mr. Parker for taking the time and opportunity for what might be his first-ever wine blog interview. I’m equally grateful to Jeff Lefevere of GoodGrape.com, who acted as contributing editor on the interview questions.

Ok – appetizers are over; let’s get to the meat-and-potatoes!…

1) 1WineDude: Your place in the history of wine criticism and journalism seems, by any reasonable measure, as secure as those of Andre Simon and Hugh Johnson. However, pockets of the online wine community have viewed you as a polarizing figure (e.g., last year, Tyler Colman made inquiries into policies at The Wine Advocate, which some viewed as investigative journalism while others considered it a grandstanding move, as much about polishing his own star as it was about investigating TWA; Alice Feiring – also now a blog writer – gained media attention based in part on the provocative title of her recent book, “The Battle for Wine and Love: or How I Saved the World from Parkerization”). Why did you agree to take this interview, which is primarily going out to that on-line audience?

Robert M. Parker, Jr.: In many ways, I may have been the first wine blogger when I was the wine authority for the old Prodigy wine board that was way ahead of its time, even though it eventually went defunct. In addition, the www.eRobertParker.com site started over nine years ago and has obviously been a very popular site. We could have moved faster given the extraordinary speed of on-line blogging and social networking, but we moved very authoritatively, and we’re happy with the results of our site. I also began Tweeting a few months back as somewhat of a social experiment. I believe all of these tools can help engage wine consumers and provide reliable information.

—

2) 1WD: You’re widely regarded as the most recognizable and influential wine critic in the world. There’s potentially an immense amount of pressure one could feel under those circumstances, knowing that your opinion might make or break a vintage or a brand. Has that influence changed how you approach wine reviews over the years? How do you address and deal with that pressure on a regular basis?

RMP: The reality is that no matter how influential you are in the wine field, you really can’t break a vintage or a brand. However, you can certainly “make” a vintage or a brand. Most people tend to see wine as I do, with a “glass half full” philosophy, so positive comments generally outweigh negative ones as people are looking to buy good wine and good wine values. Of course, you can’t shy away from criticism, but to tell you the truth, I have never actually felt the pressure. Perhaps living in the boondocks of rural Maryland keeps me away from wine colleagues and people who are constantly raising this question. Around here, no one knows who I am, and I like it like that.

—

3) 1WD: Many online wine writers feel that there exists an ethics/honor code to which a writer must adhere in terms of carrying on the tradition of fine wine writing. However, there isn’t much of a clearly visible mentoring tradition between generations of wine writers. Who did you look to for inspiration when you were getting started? Do you think there would be more hierarchical respect accorded if there was a tradition to pass down?

RMP: Ralph Nader was unquestionably my mentor in terms of ethics and conflicts of interest. I was also in law school during the Nixon scandal and the subsequent Watergate hearings. In fact, my ethics professor in law school was no other than Sam Dash, who was heavily involved in those proceedings. The decision I made 32 years ago never to take advertising continues to exist, not only for the print edition but also for the web site. This decision is philosophically cast in stone. I still purchase many wines in order to corroborate the tasting notes with those from samples that were sent to the office as well as from barrel tastings and in-the-bottle tastings at wineries and in viticultural regions.

I think everyone in the wine world has to decide what position they take on this. I have been very fortunate to have been so successful that I am able to afford to be extremely independent, and not accept advertising. However, I realize everybody may not be able to do this, but I think it is important to be as independent of the wine trade as possible, be pro-consumer, and, if you are taking any freebies, be transparent about it.

—

4) 1WD: With Bordeaux en primeur tastings becoming more consistently high-quality over the course of the last decade, do you think technology and technique in the winery have evolved to the point where the excitement of wine futures from France are seeing diminishing returns relative to marketplace acceptance? A kind of, “I’ve heard it all before…?”

RMP: With respect to Bordeaux, future prices have certainly gotten out of control. There was a real incentive to buy futures in a top vintage when I started 32 years ago because the prices were low, and if you bought the right wines, they obviously appreciated in value. The advantage of buying them early was not only that you would save money, but you would have some great wines to drink when they matured. The Bordelais have increasingly raised prices for their most prestigious estates. Except for the top wines of the great vintages, they really don’t appreciate much in price, so there is no point in buying them as futures and tying up your money two years prior to delivery. Moreover, the potential for bankruptcies for retailers or futures brokers has resulted in considerable risks for these unsecured contracts if you’re not dealing with someone who has delivered in the past, and has a sound financial foundation. This is even more critical during a period of worldwide recession as well as with a vintage like 2009, which is a great vintage. But remember, the wines will not be delivered until 2011, and a lot can happen during the interim. The x factor is the booming Asian economies such as South Korea, Singapore, and China. They will be purchasing 2009 Bordeaux futures. We are also seeing the deterioration of the euro, so perhaps the American dollar will have more strength in terms of consumers buying 2009 Bordeaux futures. Certainly the vintage merits interest from a qualitative standpoint, but if the prices are too high, it seems to me the best advice is to remember there will be another great vintage, usually sooner rather than later. In addition, there are a lot of cherries out there to be picked from previous vintages. The 2008s are very underrated, especially in Pomerol and St. Emilion as well as selected properties in the Médoc. Moreover, they are dramatically less expensive. The 2007s are being given away as it is a mediocre vintage. The 2006s can be good, the 2005s were overpriced from the beginning, although it is a top vintage. Knowledge is very important, and that can play into the strength of picking the best Bordeaux from any of these vintages.

—

5) 1WD: It’s been said that you were the very first “wine blogger” before the advent of blogging – a passionate enthusiast who came from another career to start The Wine Advocate. At that time, you had access to inexpensive printing but not the ease of creating a web site and the extremely low barriers of entry that exist today as a result, but many see a strong similarity nonetheless. Is that a fair statement? Do you agree? Are you a “Godfather” of the blogging trend we’re seeing now with online wine writers?

RMP: I think I was the first serious wine blogger, although I have never heard the expression “godfather of the wine blogging.” This segues into your 6^th question, and that is that good wine bloggers – those who are responsible, feel accountable to their readers, and avoid distortion, factual misrepresentation, grandstanding and polarizing comments found among bad bloggers – should and will succeed. People are looking for balanced commentary. I believe good wine bloggers are here to stay, and provide enduring contributions to wine education and appreciation.

—

6) 1WD: In the past, you’ve been critical of wine bloggers in The Wine Advocate, but you’ve also cited (in the eRobertParker.com forums) certain blogs (like Vinography.com) for individual praise. Has your view on the relevance and quality of wine blogs evolved since then? Where do you see their place now in terms of covering the topic of wine and wine reviews?

RMP: This is a variation on question 5. I have been very critical of irresponsible wine bloggers who shoot from the hip, don’t check their facts, and are clearly trying to exploit my name or someone else’s name for their self-promotion. There are many, many good wine bloggers (such as Vinography, which you cited in your question). I think wine blogs will continue to exist because many wineries see them as a way of inexpensively promoting their brand by participating and perhaps lending a few ads to the sites that accept them. Secondly, I think conscientious wine bloggers have a chance of becoming bigger and bigger, drawing a larger audience, and being gratified by their success in the number of people they reach. They are certainly not going away, and even the worst of them may hang around longer than they deserve because of our low brow culture that feeds on scandal, controversy, and polarization irrespective of any merit to these issues.

—

7) 1WD: The eRobertParker.com forums have been quite active for a long time, but recently moved to a subscription-only access model. There also seems to be a general lack of presence of The Wine Advocate brand in social media (Facebook, etc.). The perception and criticism from this among some in the online wine community is that you may not feel that social media or direct interaction with wine consumers is important. How would you respond to that?

RMP: We had been thinking about moving to a subscription only access model for our Bulletin Board for several years. We wanted to focus our limited budget on subscribers. The general Wine Talk forum was a success, but there were non-subscribers who, rather than discussing wine, seemed to primarily be interested in polarizing the views of participants. We have been very happy with our move. Our e-mails ran seven to one in favor of making it subscriber only. The subscribers seemed to appreciate it, even though we lost some very good non-subscriber content, we also eliminated all the jerks and troublemakers who didn’t care about wine, but simply wanted to divide people’s tastes into convenient black and white boxes. Perhaps we have been slow in adapting to the on-line wine community, but we have an i-Phone application in Japan which has done quite well, and two others are being launched in Korea and the United States. I think the fact that the average age of The Wine Advocate writers is well over 35 probably has something to do with the slowness with which we’ve utilized on-line opportunities, but we have certainly done so. As I mentioned before, the eRobertParker.com site has been up for over nine years, I’ve started Tweeting, and some of the other writers are involved with Facebook as well as Twitter, so I think we’re moving in that direction. But, some of the criticism for this rather lethargic response is justified.

—

8) 1WD: Many in the online wine community felt that Gary Vaynerchuk filming an episode of his WineLibraryTV and essentially talking over you during the Wine Futures Tasting in Rioja (http://tinyurl.com/ylmt45g) typified the disrespect that some veterans of wine criticism feel about the younger generation of wine writers / content creators. Do you think we’re more likely to see a ban on communication at these events, a more strident enforcement of decorum, or something else?

RMP: I am a huge fan of Gary Vaynerchuk. I don’t watch many of his Wine Library T.V. episodes, but I met him at a tasting in Rioja, and I did see a video he did as I was leading a tasting. I never thought of it as disrespect. Gary is the best at self-promotion, and obviously he puts his interest ahead of anyone else’s, which is totally normal. Now that you brought it up, I suppose there is an element of trying to exploit that event for his personal gain, but it didn’t bother me. As I recall, he was sitting in the third or fourth row with a small video camera. I thought it was an opportunity for people to get his comments on things. He is a compelling communicator and is wonderful at explaining the advantages of self-motivation and social networking. Does he overdo it? No doubt, but I find him to be a breath of fresh air. As long as you realize that Gary always comes first, and that he is selling wine, he is a valuable addition to the global wine community.

—

9) 1WD: You’re planning some significant events in Asia in the near future. Is that a response to the increase in importance and volume of the Asian wine consumption market? Do you see Asia as the “next big thing” in terms of fine wine sales?

RMP: I have been going to Asia since 1998 (in fact, I called it the Asian Strategy back then). My daughter is adopted from Korea, so perhaps I have sentimental reasons for pursuing interests in that country. I have had very successful events in four Asian cities (Shanghai, Beijing, Hong Kong, and Seoul), as well as in Singapore and Japan. The Asians are very open-minded, which I love, and seem to accept many diverse wine styles far easier than many wine enthusiasts, sommeliers, and wine bloggers. I think that’s admirable. They can appreciate a big fruit bomb from South Australia as easily as an elegant Bordeaux or complex Barolo or Barbaresco. I love the respect they extend to me, and I’m thrilled with the recognition and success I have been fortunate to enjoy in Asia. I think any wine writer would realize that they are dying for education. Moreover, 50% or more of every wine conference I’ve conducted have been women. It seems that in some of the male chauvinistic countries such as South Korea and Japan, there is no glass ceiling for women in the wine field. Whether they are working as sommeliers, in wine shops, or selling wines, they seem to receive more respect from their male counterparts than in other fields. I find this to be refreshing as well as encouraging. Wine consumption is real in Asia, and it will only grow.

—

10) 1WD: Willie Mays didn’t do it, Michael Jordan couldn’t do it. Cal Ripken, Jr. did do it. Any consideration to “quitting at the top of your game?” How would you like to be remembered in terms of your legacy in the world of fine wine, if/when you do retire from it?

RMP: I have been blessed with extraordinary success, and I could have stopped working many years ago. If I ever felt that I had lost my passion or enthusiasm for wine, or that my abilities had declined, I would stop in a heartbeat. The one thing that separates me from just about everybody else in the wine world is hard work. Yes, I have plenty of talent, but so do many of my colleagues. However, no one has ever worked as hard or as comprehensively as I have. This might also explain the success for athletes such as Michael Jordan (a person who was well-known for spending more time on the practice court than anybody else) and Cal Ripken (a person who constantly worked at his game). Legacy is nice from a spectator point of view, but it is something I never think about. From the day I started tasting and reviewing wine in 1978, until today, I have always tried to do the best job I could, I write exactly what I believe, I am not beholden to anybody, and I sleep very well because of that. That will never change.

Thanks again, Mr. Roberts. I love the name of your site. I’m a huge fan of Jeff Bridges, and I was thrilled he won an Oscar this year. I thought he was a “great dude” in the “Big Lebowski.”

—

Cheers!

(images: jonathonwestbrook.com, bbrblog.com)

Copyright © 2011. Originally at “The First Serious Wine Blogger”: The 1WineDude Robert Parker Interview from 1WineDude.com - for personal, non-commercial use only. Cheers!

You probably could have guessed that Robert Parker isn’t at high risk for becoming unemployed anytime soon without me explicitly stating it, but I thought I should clear up that I’m not after his job, in case there develops any rampant speculation on that topic in the future.

This is because I have never been, am not, and will never be a Wine Tasting Maven.

The point was driven home to me quite clearly and forcefully last week at the 2010 Premiere Napa Valley’s Perspective Tasting, held on two floors (Chardonnays on the top floor, Cabs on the bottom floor) in the meticulously kept sensory analysis classrooms at The Culinary Institute of America in St. Helena.  To put it mildly, tasting three successive comparative vintages of Napa cabs and Chards, blind, lined up one after another in a mostly white, sterile environment was the equivalent of having a joy vacuum attached to my wine-loving soul and turned on full-blast.

Sterile. Quiet.  Introverted.  Not a drip of social aspect or drop of true enjoyment in sight.

I briefly contemplated the alternative activity of banging my head against the CIA’s gorgeous walls of earthtoned, irregular stones, until I bled and then passed out.  As it turned out, I tasted some wines instead (more on the specific wines in a minute. Or two.).  But I didn’t truly taste them – not the way I’d define ‘truly tasting’, anyway.

This isn’t the fault of the wines, vintners, CIA, or the other tasting participants – it’s my fault, without a single shred of doubt.  I am simply incapable of tasting wine – I mean, really tasting it – that analytically.  I’m sure that Parker could rip through that scenario in record time and then, just for shits and giggles, quiz himself on the merits of the 92-96 point scoring wines in the bunch 11 years later.  I watched friend and fellow symposium attendee and panelist Alder Yarrow sniff, spit, and scribble his way through every single one of the dozens of numbered carafes on display in the blind Cab tasting, as if he were a pleasant, well-poised, humanoid-shaped and purple-toothed machine.

I will never be that guy. 

And I never want to be that guy…

Which isn’t to say that Alder and Parker have got it wrong, just different of course, and if my inability to power through a blind tasting will forever doom me to B-list wine writer status, then so be it.  I feel confident that I can do a lot of things, but I can’t change who I am.

And what I am is someone for whom wine appreciation has to involve a measure of social connection – be it to the earth, to another person, another place, a plate of food. Connection is the name of my game, and my participation in Premiere Napa Valley has cemented that focus in my brain indelibly.  The guy who prizes connections, who remembers the individual vino that made his toes curl (good and bad), who needs soul in his wine tasting experience.

Yeah, I am that guy.

I’m not dissing blind tasting, of course – it has its merits and if it’s your job to critically and clinically evaluate wines, then I can think of no better way to go about it.  But for me, I’m sure as shit not enjoying myself when the volume of brown-bagged wines starts to creep up into higher numbers; into the “let’s make a job out of this” territory.

I do enjoy blind tastings from time-to-time, specifically because they often rev up the surprise-o-meter into the red – rarely do I walk away from a blind tasting without preferring at least one wine brand that made me take notice of – or in some cases totally reconsider – the producer.  Here are some of the wines that I sampled at the Premiere NV Perspective tasting that pleasantly caught my tongue (and nostrils):

Chardonnays (2006, 2007, & 2008 vintages tasted):

• Beringer Vineyards 2008 – oozing with tropical fruits, balanced and while it finished a little hot, it’s not too hot.
• Rutherford Hill Winery 2008 – Prettier than many in the tasting, and it helped to set a theme for me (in that I preferred the 2008s on display to their earlier counterparts, many of which were clearly oxidative… and we weren’t supposed to be tasting sherries).
• Shafer Vineyards 2006 – an exception to my 2008 preference, this beauty brought some serious acid structure to the party.

Cabernet Sauvignons (2005, 2006, & 2007 vintages tasted):

• Pride Mountain Vineyards 2006 – They’ve hyped the hell out of the 2007 vintage for Napa Cabs, but by-and-large I found the 2007s in this tasting to be downright brutish and, in quite a few cases, clumsy; not poorly made, just not delivering a consistent, harmonious profile from nose to finish.  Pride’s `07 was a nice exception and had very good tannic balance, but I still preferred their 2006 with its deep, deep, deeeeeep  black cherry fruit action.
• Silverado Vineyards 2006 – One of the most supple of the entire Cab bunch, with tons of blueberry but still having a balanced “attack.”
• Spottswoode Estate Vineyard & Winery 2006 – If you were looking for a Bordeaux-like Cab, then you would have been in the wrong room during this tasting; that is, until you hit this wine.  I was struck by how brilliantly structured this wine seemed, and that it could easily have been overlooked for not being ‘”lush enough” for a Napa Cab.  But if Napa can produce more wines like this, you wouldn’t hear me complaining one bit. 

There you have it – some surprises, at least for me.  Will I stop blind tasting entirely?  Of course not – mostly because often times I don’t have a choice in the matter.  I may have to do it, but I don’t have to like it…

Cheers!

Copyright © 2011. Originally at Robert Parker’s Job Is Safe (A Tasting Perspective on Premiere Napa Valley’s Perspective Tasting) from 1WineDude.com - for personal, non-commercial use only. Cheers!