Antonio Galloni, founder of vinousmedia.com, and, prior to that, selected-regions' wine critic for Robert Parker's Wine Advocate, recently was interviewed by Liv-ex with the results published on the liv-ex blog in two parts. In responding to a question on the impact of wine critics on markets and growers, Galloni stated thusly (as it relates to the grower part of the question): "I firmly believe that it is not a critic's role to tell growers -- or even suggest by way of commentary/criticism -- how to make wine. Any sense of giving direction to growers is completely antithetical to my philosophy." I call this the "Galloni Doctrine."
Tom Stevenson, according to wine-pages.com, "is the world's most respected authority on Champagne and sparkling wine." Stevenson has authored The World Encyclopedia of Champagne and Sparkling Wine, the Annual Champagne and Sparkling Wine Guide, and Sotheby's Wine Encyclopedia, among others. Stevenson has been called "the champagne expert with the greatest depth of knowledge" (Simon Field MW -- champagne buyer of BBR -- as quoted in Patrick Schmitt, Points take on greater importance for Prestige Cuvées, The Drinks Business, 6/20/2012) and this depth has yielded in excess of 30 writing awards and numerous assignments with a number of hardcopy and online publications.
As I pointed out in my article on Jacques Selosse, Stevenson has been one of the most searing and persistent critics of Selosse's wines. According to Tom Hall, Stevenson omitted any mention of Selosse in the 1998 First Edition of Christie's World Encyclopedia of Sparkling Wines; and when he did mention it in the 2007 version, he described it as being too oaky. In his 2008 review of Selosse (The World of Fine Wine, Issue 21), Stevenson confirms the latter part of Hall's statement. He indicated that, in the 2007 edition of Sotheby's Wine Encyclopedia, he had stated that the wines had too much oak for his liking and that he did not "appreciate the style but appreciated that others did." Up until this point, Stevenson is a little close to the line but his critique still keeps him in the Galloni critics circle -- in that he is not telling Selosse "how to make wine."
But then he blows through the boundaries. In that same 2008 Selosse review article, Stevenson says: "Although there is no doubt in my mind about Anselme's passion, or the potential of his terroir, or indeed the quality of the grapes he produces each year, the wines do not live up to either his abilities or his terroir. They are too oxidative, too aldehydic, and too oaky, lacking in freshness, finesse and vivacity ..." In other words, buck up and make wines that live up to your ability and terroir. And you can do that by reducing the oxidative, aldehydic, and oaky nature of your wines. And in case the implication is missed, Stevenson states directly "I would love to see him make just one non-aldehydic cuvée." This Stevenson critique of Selosse's wines would, according to the Galloni Doctrine, constitute telling a grower how to make wine. And that is taboo in his book.
In a recent wine-searcher.com article on underrated and overrated Champagnes, Stevenson continued in the same vein. He began by identifying Bollinger as overrated and then tagged Selosse as "much worse than Bollinger and more expensive too." He wondered about Selosse using SO₂ at harvest rather than at the back-end, classing such an approach as "back to front." His suggestion was to use the SO₂ at the back end thus giving the yeasts the opportunity to suck up early stage oxygen during the first and second fermentations. This is very clearly winemaking advice and, as such, at odds with the Galloni Doctrine.
Now I am in no way implying that Galloni is in any way reacting to Stevenson's actions to date in either developing or discussing his "doctrine." It is most likely that his thoughts were developed within the context of his own values and experiences and is primarily a self-regulating vehicle. Nor am I saying that Galloni's "doctrine" is an approach that should be used as a framework or guiding principle for all wine critics. I juxtaposed his thoughts and Stevenson's actions as a way to generate some dialogue on the matter. My cautionary note is that the critic will never have the full array of information that the winemaker possesses when he/she puts a wine on the market. Maybe the critic should criticize what is rather than wish for what should be. I don't know. What do you think?
©Wine -- Mise en abyme
Greetings!
ReplyDeleteI recognize that wine is a subjective experience, that I focus on the “what is rather than wish for what should be”…Beautifully put and honestly, wine is what it is and humbling speaking, if the critics focus on what they “should” be, then they should be making wine.
What Tim Hall forgot to mention was that I had included Selosse in my book Champagne (Sotheby's Publications), 12 years earlier, in a directory of 500 growers, although Selosse was just one of 50 I had tasted at that time. In 1986 most people in the UK wine trade would struggle to mention more than 12 grandes marques, so although I knew only 50 growers at that time, my directory of 500 was there for others to pick up and run with.
ReplyDeleteAs for Selosse, I preferred his wines back then, but if you like drinking them now, good for you. Re your earlier piece, it does not matter what Anselme says about his own wines or whether he might be misleading anyone about terroir (which I sense you do not believe anyway), the fact that you enjoy his wines should be enough. Re this piece, I do not agree with Galloni's doctrine; wine is such a huge subject with far too many grey areas to restrict any commentator to black and white ideas about what they should or should not discuss, if that indeed is what he is saying (I have not read it).
I am not telling anyone what to drink or how any producer should make wine, but I have every right to examine and discuss elements of how specific producers make wine. I am in print as saying (something like) that over my lifetime I have developed a fair idea of how wines should be made, but I am constantly humbled by the exceptions who do everything the "wrong" way and produce something beautiful, and the exceptions who do everything the "right" way and make something boring. What I was discussing in my wine-searcher piece was a fault. Should critics never mention faults and, if we do, should we always leave it as that, just a black and white negative remark? Or should we try to be more constructive and discuss the problem? Others can do what they wish, but I choose to do the latter and contrary to the impressions given above, I have always taken this approach in my writing. In my 1986 Champagne book, for example, I criticised at length the sur-lattes scandal, which was unknown then, and the dumping of "boues de ville" (garbage) on the vineyards, also unknown. These are just two practices, one in the vineyard and one in the winery, that were intrinsic to how individuals made Champagne. Would Galloni have kept quiet about that?
What I just cannot get my head around is not that you and others enjoy Selosse and other oxidative Champagnes. I might find it odd that the younger gerations like oxidative aromas, as they are so old-fashioned, so seventies, but if that is what they like and they have the money to pay Selosse prices and actually enjoy the sort of thing that winemakers and consultants of my generation spent their life trying to rectify, then that is their right. No, what I cannot get my head around is why anyone is happy to accept such levels of oxidation in Champagne when they do not accept it in other wines. If you are happy to accept an oxidative Chablis or Mâcon, or an oxidative Mosel Riesling, then fair enough. I would not agree with your position on those wines, but I could accept that for you, oxidative Champagne is merely stylistic. If, however, you not happy with oxidative versions of other wines (except for deliberately oxidative sherry, vin jaune etc), then I have yet to hear a clear, valid and rational reason why you (or anyone else) can make an exception for Champagne, especially as it is by method a deliberately reductive wine.
Tom, I would like to get the thoughts on the article linked-to below in relation to the question that you have so ably raised. Thx
Deletehttp://www.foodtourist.com/Natural_Wines/Oxidative_Wines.htm
That was "your" thoughts
DeleteCan we do a deal? I'll look at the article you have indicated and give you my thoughts, if you would be so kind as to clarify where you stand in relation to the last paragraph of my comment?
DeleteTom, I do indeed like oxidative-style "white" wines, but not all whites made in this style appeal to me. Last night, for example, I drank a 1998 Lopez de Heredia Vina Tondonia Reserva, and this is a wine and a producer that I seek out religiously. There are some oxidative white wines that go beyond a level that I can appreciate. Some of Gravner's wines fall into this category. And that is all that the article was trying to show was that there are a number of deliberately oxidative wines produced by winemakers, and consumed by some members of the wine-drinking community, but that it is not a taste/style that everyone appreciates.
DeleteThat is nicely put wineORL. I have drunk some amazingly old-style Tondonia blanco. Some Tondonia blanco are oxidative, but some of the oldest and most successful are not. They are beautifully integrated with no acetaldehyde poking out. I do not like Gravner. Give me Jermann or Shioppetto any day. I have tasted some "interesting" Gravner, memorably so at a restaurant in Venice where the combination with certain dishes (not just all food or any food) enabled me to ignore the oxidative and oxidising aromas (the wines can be both oxidative and volatile), but why should I have to put up with as situation where I can ignore what is essentially a fault or several faults? I was tasting Radikon and its likes at a centralised location on the Slovenian side of the Collio a few years ago and dismissing the wines as wannabe Gravner, when I was told a story about Clive Coates. I've never asked Clive if it's true, but apparantly he was tasting like me and was gradually losing his temper , when he blurted out "If you do not bring me some wines that are not oxidised, I'm going home right now!"
DeleteI don't know how to put this without sounding rude, but I was not referring to you when I mentioned "younger generations"!
ReplyDeleteI guess you must have snuck a peek at my profile picture.
DeleteWell, you look younger than me!
ReplyDelete