|
caeleric -> RE: my rant- i just couldn't help myself (2/22/2012 6:57:38 AM)
|
i am a mere 30 years old, so take everything i've said and will say with that in mind. also, i've only been at this "wine thing" for about 4-5 years, but i feel i've gotten the most out of that short time by learning and drinking everything i can get my hands on.
to the questions about why i was offended by kramer's post, the questions are certainly valid. perhaps it's a historical trend of kramer's comments in which he continues to denegrate "big" wines, and more specifically the "tricks of the trade" that many winemakers employ. if i'm not mistaken, winemakers have ALWAYS manipulated the wine to achieve certain aromas, flavors, textures, etc. i mean seriously... isn't manipulation of grape juice how we get friggin' wine in the first place?! but i digress.
so here are a few excerpts that to me suggest - nay, scream - that larger-bodied, fuller-flavored wines are passe and for the simple-minded:
quote:
They only sell light-roasted coffee and say that dark roasting is tantamount to ruining good coffee.
admittedly, that is a quote from an article kramer didn't write. however, kramer included it in his article, so i am making the conclusion that he is using it to buttress his ultimate over-arching if only implied point that "dark-roasted red wines" (see below) are tantamount to ruining good wine.
quote:
What has this got to do with wine, you ask? A whole helluva lot, is my answer.
this is probably a "no doy" statement, but kramer is suggesting that changing tastes in coffee portend changing in tastes in wine. my takeaway was a general feeling of him saying, "it's about time" and almost reveling in the fact that everyone else finally coming to a conclusion at which he arrived long ago. to polymer's point above and to reiterate, this conclusion is derived not only from the "feel" of this article, but by adding up kramer's sentiments in posts for quite some time. i would be more than a little surprised if the average person reading this article came away thinking that kramer was a big fan of dark-roasted coffee and "dark-roasted red wine" and was lamenting the possibility that his preferred style was falling out of favor with the general public. my schooling was in journalism, and we spent oodles of time crafting pieces that stated facts in a way that still espoused one viewpoint over another. hell, what you choose to right about is often in and of itself an indication of where you fall on an issue. welcome to the spin zone.
quote:
In California right now you find-hell, you can easily drown in-a flood of, er, dark-roasted red wines made from overripe grapes that, as finished wines, clock in at 15 percent alcohol or higher.
again, i believe it is a rather overt if admittedly implied preference that kramer is espousing in which he feels that these dark-roasted red wines in which you can easily drown in California are not good wines and are, to a certain extent, indicative of lower-brow winemaking. i think many would bristle at my sacrilege if i stated, "In Burgundy right now you find-hell, you can easily drown in-a flood of, er, light-roasted red wines made from underripe grapes that, as finished wines, clock in at 12 percent alcohol or lower." it's obviously a writer saying, without saying, he doesn't like that wine. and the fact the "nanny nanny boo boo stick your head and doo doo" feel i get from the article is where my panties got twisted.
quote:
Two deceits are accomplished in one stroke.
taken as a preponderance of evidence, the word "deceit" is not meant to extract the warm and fuzzies when discussing some practices of californian winemakers.
quote:
Are we becoming-dare I say it?-more nuanced? By golly, I think we are.
this is one of the "cheekier" (i'm not sure i'm using that term correctly; i mean, i AM only 30 [:D]) comments kramer is making. again, as a preponderance of evidence, this sums up his over-arching implied theme that a palate that prefers nuance is more refined, while those that prefer bigger (and typically more alcoholic) wines are more sophomoric in their preferences. shame on him.
quote:
...big wines with obvious, outsize [sic] flavors and plenty of oak.
once again, the words "obvious" and "outsize(d)" don't connotate an ethos of winemaking that the author appreciates.
in conclusion, i don't give two sh*ts what matt kramer prefers to drink. just don't tell me, whether implicitly or explicitly, that i should be glad that winemaking is finally moving away from riper, more forward wines.
|
|
|
|
