‘If you want constructive criticism, hire a consultant. If you want exposure, take out an ad. If you want nice things (written) about what you do, then do it well.’ AA Gill
I dig AA Gill. To some people he is just a self important wanker who strings together random stand up comedy (or poetry) and calls it writing. But to me he is a genius.
One thing he – and many other food critics – do is to call a restaurant exactly as he sees it (in an Australian context, John Lethlean does this particularly well in The Australian). They point out the flaws, the highlights, the slip ups, the admissions, the omissions, the good bits, the bad bits and sometimes, the truly abominable bits, without hesitation. When they give out great reviews, people flock, the restaurants become overnight successes and the critic gets lauded. Conversely, when they give out a poor review for a restaurant that is underperforming, said critics are encouraged and applauded by people who have had similarly poor experiences and everyone else nods sagely. The critic wins again.
The same thing happens with books, movies, tv shows, comedy routines, everything. Even sex toys. Ultimately it’s all healthy criticism, or at least criticism as it should work. Balanced.
Yet none of this healthy criticism happens in the wine industry. As Woody points out in his comment (that motivated me to write this post – not trying to single him out) the ‘poor restaurants’ of the wine world – the underperforming wines – simply die a death of silence. If a wine critic happens upon a poor wine, or if a wine judge happens upon a poor entrant, they just mark it low and move on, never to be heard from again.
What this then leads to is a vast ocean of wines out there that are merely sufficient – that have never been formally criticised, that are likely poor value, or poor quality, or both. Yet no one ever knows this, for they get no medals, no critical reviews, just silence. It’s caveat emptor at it’s finest.
Admittedly it is wrong to point the finger at most wine critics, particularly print based, as lukewarm wine reviews are not only harder to write, more time consuming but ultimately less enjoyable for everyone involved (‘life is too short to talk about bad wine’). What’s more, editors don’t want them either. Editors instead want shopping lists, ‘wines of the week’, ‘top 5 wines’ style articles that are easy to read and easy to promote. It is also wrong to go after editors though, for they also know that ‘Top 100 wines of 2010’ style lists sell newspapers/magazines.
The right answer is actually that the restrictions of space, time and obligation are what is the reason for this dearth of mainstream, ‘healthy’ wine criticism.
For I’d argue that the ‘death match’ style comparative tastings that I really like (particularly blind tastings) actually happen every night at most top wine reviewers tasting benches. They pick up a range of similar wines, just like I do, and pitch them against each other, with the top wines making it through to the recommendation stage, with the middling wines noted but ultimately pushed aside, whilst the writer concentrates on writing about the gooduns’ for their columns and articles.
The challenge in that instance is that the writers literally only have the space (column, article, review spot, whatever) and the time (wine writing pays notoriously badly – ‘It’s a lifestyle choice’ – so reviewers work very hard) to write up the wines that people will ultimately like.
Similarly, at wine shows, the whole idea is to sort out the good wines and award them, with everything else going unrewarded, ultimately because the judges believe that they aren’t that good and hence people won’t like them.
I, on the other hand, have no such obligations. I have no column restrictions, have obviously too much time on my hands (and am obsessive/don’t sleep enough) and have no one bankrolling this blog. I can thus write anything I like (within reason) as I am simply expressing my opinions as a wine drinker.
As a result, I write up whatever I taste. Or at least whatever makes it into my notebook (of which lots doesn’t – who seriously wants to read about a tasting of 20-30 $5 cleanskin tank samples?). The flow on effect is that plenty of the reviews on this site are lukewarm, critical and brutally honest, as I write up all of the wines that most wine writers simply don’t have the time, space, desire etc to write up.
What comes of all this is what I would argue is just balanced criticism. Balanced in that it reveals the good and the bad, without leaving the (arguably more interesting) ‘challenging’ reviews out. What’s more, I am hardly a pioneer in this respect either, as Jeremy Oliver has been handing out lukewarm reviews since I was in high school. Parker has similarly been ripping into ‘underripe’ (make of that what you will) Burgundies for decades.
More recently, Campbell and Gary at the Winefront have never been afraid of publishing less than glowing reviews, particularly on disappointing icons, and even Bob Campbell now freely publishes all his tasting notes, including plenty of sub 80 point wines (and I thought I was a hard marker). In both cases the ‘new’ channel that is the internet has resulted in more space to allow these middling wines to be reviewed.
In the end I just hope that you think that this blog is balanced too (and if not, do let me know, as criticism works both ways).
Help keep this site paywall free – donate here
You might also like
14 Comments
Agree. The sorry thing is that I rarely drink 'bad' or even particularly 'mediocre' wine because I tend to cherry pick from reviewers' tips, or the writings of people such as yourself. But, every so often, it pays to randomly pick a bottle of white wine at a BWS or other purveyor of commercial dross just to see what many people are drinking – to keep it all in check. Sometimes thety turn out to be rather nice, sometimes bland, or just plain bad. And then I can return to the better wines knowing that I'm not just sycophantically and obligingly fawning over the wines promoted by reviewers with a 93 here, a 94 there. Just as ugliness helps us to define beauty (in whatever sense we define it), so does poor wine help us to define what is really worth drinking.
Keep up the honest appraisals.
MichaelC
Yes. Well said. I'll add that (and you picked it up) I'm more likely to write a poor review of a 'banana skin' wine, and leave the rest alone. They are the ones that have a high profile (i.e. a Chalambar, Penfolds, Wynns BL, Taylors Cab etc etc.) that people want to know about. Also the big price tag wines quite often. I'm less inclined to give a thrashing to smaller producers and not so well known wines. I sometimes post them just to balance out the good reviews. Sometimes because I've formatted a tasting note before hand (it all takes time!) and think.."oh well, I've done most of the work now anyway". I'm also of a mind that generally there's a lot of hard work gone into many a wine…it's just that its not very good (in my opinion, on the day) so I don't like to be too caustic generally. But if it's expensive and has tickets on itself…then I'm happy to pull a few off.
GW
GW
I would be quick to point out that the Job of a restaurant reviewer and a wine critic differ in several major ways.
For a restaurant a new day can mean a new dish, or wholesale menu overhaul pending a poor review.
Obviously a winery doesn't have this luxury. What is put in the bottle is often an entire seasons work that the business has pulled together to produce.
Also a restaurant critic will only generally review one establishment per day and can take the surroundings and other mitigating circumstances into account, whereas a wine scribe will look at dozens of bottles a day ideally under laboratory conditions.
That said. If a wine is poor or faulty, record it. I would.
Dr Middleton of Mount Mary had in my opinion very sound reasoning for never issuing trade samples to reviewers.
I am personally finding the Cullen 07 reds to be suffering acutely from volatile acidity, and can't understand how none of the critics have called them on it. Jeremy Oliver in his notes recorded 93pts and the "polished presence of fruit and oak backed by a mineral presence and punctuated by delightful acidity."
Conversely he berates Sparky Marquis contribution.
Mollydooker Two Left Feet '05 75pts.
"Dull, flat and hard, this browning young red offers a cooked, soupy expression of juicy cumquat and candyfloss fruit before finishing short and thin." Which is probably a fair cop.
I don't want to pick on Mr Oliver, but the prose he employs would be misleading to most casual wine observers.
Having tasted the Cullen I'd formed my opinion prior to reading the review and I felt vindicated in some way by his comments, however backhanded. (points is another issue) However had I bought the wine on the strength of his notes I'd have been disappointed and without accusing him of bias it seems that his preferences have been clearly outed or is Cullen a sacred cow?
Which brings me back to my original concern which was the "Showdown" format recently employed here.
Taking the wines out of a neutral setting for review and highlighting its weaknesses against a peer opens up many questions about how the tasting was conducted and its variables. Which wine was tried first, how many 'rounds' (glasses) did the reviewer endure before the bout was called?
I would happily sit down over a bottle and duke this out with you AG.
Andrew,
Just as an aside, a restuarant review has the problem of being at a single point in time, when possibly the place is having a particularly good or bad day. ie the product being written about is naturally very variable.
The same thing can obviously happen with say a cork sealed wine, but generally the consistency of what is in the bottle should be greater and so I think a wine critic or film critic or book critic is on firmer ground when giving praise or finding fault.
I agree with this post. However, this is where blogs come in in general. Nobody has any obligations or dependencies.
On the other hand, I have more positive reviews than negative ones, because I tend to drink what I like. However, recently I had disappointing experiences with Greenock Creek (not unexpected) and Craiglee.
Good post – I've enjoyed the conversations we've had about this. I'd add to your thoughts the observation that preferences differ and, while I'm not a relativist by any means, when it comes to matters of taste I'm less interested in whether something is good or bad than in whether it attracts or offends me. The distinction is subtle, but for me it's the difference between objective evaluation (which I find dull) and aesthetic reaction. I'll drink a bad wine and not care, but a wine that insults my intelligence will enrage me.
🙂
Julian.
Great comments. Much to discuss. I have a White Rabbit open to help me respond to everyone (such an excellent beer)
Starting from the top.
MichaelC – My buying habits are much the same as yours, although there are some wines – and wine styles – that I just buy on a whim. Like Riesling. Am in complete agreeance that ugliness makes us appreciate beauty, couldn't agree more. Personally I like reading bad reviews more than good ones for this very reason.
GW – all this agreement is bad for both of our healths. As a point of interest though, what happens to the wines that you taste but don't publish? Do you stick them in a spreadsheet or such?
Woody – good point about the context of a review. I'll endeavour to try and set the scene a bit more for the 'death match' as normally it's actually a very fair tasting (and I write my notes at the first glass stage or often spit). Lets organise something at Fix in the next few weeks to argue and such anyway:)
Edward – maybe it is this sort of variability that makes food reviewing so much more straightforward (and discriminatory)?
Alontin – I don't know whether I would enjoy the hyper ripe reds of Greenock Creek either. Have never had one though so can't comment. I do like Craiglee though…
Julian – always the aesthete! What is most interesting is that we end so often end up liking quite similar wines, even though we obviously approach wines slightly differently.
It's an interesting dynamic.
My beer is now empty.
Sometimes a spreadsheet, sometimes scraps of paper, sometimes no note. I pretty much remember them all though…tho sometimes we simply choooose tooo forget.
GW
PS. Cullen 07's that I have tried have no VA. Clean as a whistle.
This is all very interesting, although as someone who has tasted a shed load of wines I'm loathe to be indifferent when I know what in some cases is a huge amount of passion invested in a bottle.
I was talking to a few fellow wine bores recently who cannot see a valid reason for giving a bad review and believe it just means those producers will possibly never send you samples again? Perhaps you disagree and see it as constructive criticism. Do you have good dialogue with many producers when you've given a mediocre review?
It is weird I guess that Wine seems to fall short of intense scrutiny and if we don't like one we just overlook it or move on.
However talking of wine shows being the arbiter of good taste Steve Pannell said to me recently that Croser once said to him "You don't think we buy the wines we give medals to." Which is a bit of a worry.
I like AA. Gill have followed him for well over a decade but there are very few like him and he is unanimously disliked by the UK restaurant scene. Having said that he wields enormous power akin to Parker in the wine world but I don't think they should have so much influence. A winemaker recently told me that when he used to take his wines annually to see Parker, he would get two extra points for making the effort to get there- and I think that is horrendous.
What I guess I'm trying to say is that wine is all about democracy and civilisation and if it's not that great, move on, there's an ocean of it out there.
WP
I guess the challenge with mediocre reviews will always be that the producers aren't going to like them, and quite possibly choose to not send samples again. There is more than one producer who's Christmas card list I'm off and that is obviously a shame,
But I'd argue that wine criticism without mediocre reviews is not criticism, but wine promotion, with wine critics acting as merely a step in the wine marketing machine.
Thankfully, I don't think that actually happens, or at least not amongst the good reviewers, but it does beg the question of what role a critic is meant to have if they aren't being particularly critical.
Ultimately, I think that the whole purpose of wine criticism is for one drinker to opine about what they think about a wine, good, bad or otherwise, with the intention of sharing this opinion with other wine drinkers. What the winery might think about this opinion should never come into consideration (unless it's actually slanderous).
Or at least that's the theory.
In reality, it is much more enjoyable, easier and personally gratifying for a reviewer to hand out a positive review (not to mention good for relations with wineries) which is why we see little but positive reviews.
But it is a problematic system, for as MichaelC noted, to fully appreciate beauty we need ugliness, and hence we need a wide range of reviews to fully appreciate what really is a good (or bad) wine. It might even actually improve the standard of most commercial wines (which in many instances is variable to say the least).
Or at least that's the theory.
Have just reread that last comment and my original post and it sound like I am a negative and self righteous bastard.
I'm actually a quite positive person in the flesh, I promise. I still believe that every winery makes a great wine and look for that wine in every range I taste.
For all my comments about mediocre wines and dissapointing commercial products, I know that on this site there are some shit hot wines, and that there are plenty more shit hot wines out there. That alone is enough to keep me positive.
Phew
Interesting debate.
I tend to only post positive comments, and have not yet savaged a mediocre wine (having definitely had a few in the last 6 months!!).
However, our blog does not profess to be of the scope or standard of The Winefront or Wine Companion, and therefore we have no qualms discussing wines, styles and regions in a relatively informal, conversational but positive way. For me, not reviewing a wine (because we didn't like it) is criticism enough (and a virtually personal type of criticism as the winery is most likely never to know we tried, and didn't like the wine!).
In saying that, mediocre reviews definitely have a place on a serious wine website/blog – As a regular reader of these blogs (including OzWine) it offers useful information (or 'intelligence' :-)) on a vintage, region, winemaker, winery etc. None of these blogs/websites slander wineries, just offer an honest opinion.
As an example, I remember reading 4 reviews of a smoke tainted wine from 2007. Only one review savaged the wine, another rated it below Bronze and noted the smoke taint (having made it clear on the site that the 07 vintage was smoke tainted in the region). The two other reviews were glowing. If you only read the latter two reviews(or the first two critical reviews had not been posted), you would be pretty pissed in 4 years time when you opened your bottle of wine and it tasted like liquid ashtray!.
Still, I think this relates primarily to the larger wine websites who regularly get sent samples and process 100s of bottles of wine each month, not the small players who buy wines and post on them.
As an aside, I don't see much wrong with a wine 'dying a death of silence' – would be much more annoyed if criticism of the wine led to more marketing and thus its ongoing survival on the wine shelves! (eg: would hate to see NZ Sauv Blanc re-invented and persisting for another 15 years) 🙂
Cheers,
Rod
I think your site's balanced Andrew 😉
if you want to experience viewing a wine review deathmatch then try this http://www.winearoundoz.com/2009/11/australian-wine-review-shiraz-smackdown/
Not classy, not very professional, but with some thought, practice and regular guests such as Andrew, it would at least be a different, an maybe amusing, way of spending time reviewing wines.