The
International Style
One thing we
frequent tasters all know, yet discuss all too
little, is the highly subjective nature of wine
enjoyment. Each of us appreciates different
qualities, differently. That which is "good,"
therefore, may not always be better to us all.
Professional winemakers and oenologists can find
many types of "flaws" and are becoming
increasingly adept at irradicating them. Flavor
characteristics that I have enjoyed in premium
wines, such as the mustiness wrought by
Brettanomyces, have been minimized or
eradicated in modern wines. Some would say,
rightly, that this is as it should be:
Brett is technically a flaw in
wines.
But is it just
me, or are premium wines from all quarters
increasingly lacking in personality? I have
recently tasted, from the current or very recent
vintages, offerings from very reputable
producers of high-end California red wines, and
my conclusion is that they all make the same
wine. The essential components seem to be
overtly ripe, rich fruit (cassis, cherry, plum)
with varying degrees of depth, and almost
nothing else. To add insult to injury, the fruit
is often of the sort that tastes artificial,
with an alcoholic or faintly chemical finish. To
my palate and way of thinking, this sort of
polished, one-dimensional product is very much
the child of the so-called "international style"
of winemaking.
"So what?" you
say. That trend, with its focus on clean
flavors, fruit and polish has dramatically
raised the quality of all wine produced and sold
as "varietal." Wine writers laud that the
across-the-board increase in quality more than
compensates for the boredom of a few erudite
wine geeks.
Well, I'm not
so sure and I am not sure that the wine press,
with its "house style" and set of preferences,
has indeed been responsible for the very real
rise in overall quality, particularly at the
lower end. This should probably be attributed to
the workings of the market, and to the
introduction of new technology to the winery,
rather than to the work of wine writers. The
average wine drinker is not, after all, reading
the Wine Advocate. Instead, they are buying
grocery store wines, produced in vast
quantities, for earliest consumption. These
people are buying the latest technology in a
bottle, and are right to assume that their lot
has improved because of it.
For those of
us that taste wine early and often, however, the
wine press has had an appreciable effect; the
principal disadvantage of their "house style" is
tedium. The wines they advocate (and, I would
argue, are making into a stylistic trend) can be
full, rich, jammy, silky, whatever - but they
will always lack interest to those who remember
the way it used to be. Modern winemakers
(especially in California and Australia though,
sadly, the trend is spreading) are churning out
wines utterly lacking in personality, and which
therefore fail to inspire much interest. They
lack individuality, and leave a hollow feeling
on the taster's palate, in his mind, and,
increasingly, in his wallet.
To those of a
more egalitarian bent that say that the needs of
the many (quaffers) outweigh the pastime of the
few (collectors), I would respectfully disagree.
If the average wine novice thinks that he will,
in the years to come, be able to broaden his
wine experience easily by trading up in price, I
am sorry to be the bearer of ill tidings. It is
becoming increasingly difficult to gain a range
of new flavors and textures not found in
lower-end wines by simply buying more expensive
ones. For example, there are few California
Cabernets in the $25 range offering flavor
revelations not found in a good $15 version.
Likewise, as many of us are also becoming
painfully aware, turning in your $25 Cab for a
$40, reserve-level wine may leave you with a
heightened sense of "no-big-deal." Caveat emptor
is the guiding principle in today's wine shop,
except among solid brands at low-risk prices.
Ironically, it may be that the wine buyer is
safest at the $10 level!
Now, I am not
exactly a Philistine in this brave new world,
which is now so global in its orientation.
Hungary, New Zealand and South Africa are and
should be considered right alongside Bordeaux,
Burgundy and Napa by writer and consumer alike.
By and large, this is a good thing for
consumers. However, if these new regions produce
wines without any connection to place, which
lack any trace of local individuality, what is
the use of introducing them at all, other than
economic? By drinking commercially acceptable,
commercial-tasting cabernet-merlot-chardonnay,
wine drinkers will gain little insight into
traditional styles, and once the wine-producing
world has replanted the countryside with these,
many ancient traditional varietals may be lost.
And replant they most certainly will, for
vintners will realize that the kudos of the
press - including the elusive score of '90' or
above - and the money it brings will come most
easily that way. And so the cycle
spins.
Does this mean
that traditional wines fail to achieve high
scores and status? Of course not. However, many
of the great producers of traditional-style
wines that have been embraced by wine writers
were stars long before the press came along.
Thus, Heitz Vineyards in Napa can accept a few
disappointing scores while continuing to produce
wine like they always have: they were famous for
making great Cabernet before Wine had a
"Spectator" or an "Advocate." Yet most vintners
do not have that luxury. They know that, in
spite of (or because of) the so-called wine
boom, the industry is incredibly competitive.
The seal of approval from important sectors of
the wine media is an important part of the
marketing process. Now, lest dear reader think
that I am completely without regard for the
press let me say that I believe such journalists
to be valuable sources of information. In
particular, the coverage and reporting on the
quality of particular vintages and overall
trends in viticulture have served as the eyes
and ears of many of us unable to keep close tabs
on such things. Thus, the Wine Spectator's
reporting of the '97 vintage in Burgundy, and
the disappointing quality of the
astronomically-priced whites from the Cote d'Or
(May 21, 1999) saved many of us seduced by the
report of a near-perfect growing season from
splurging on what by all reports are little more
than pleasant, early-drinking wines.
Nonetheless, the press also is responsible for
the "100 point scale," which argues, curiously,
that the qualities of a wine can be quantified
numerically. As with every objectification of
the subjective, someone's preferences prevail,
and become something of a standard. Generally
speaking, that preference has been for wines
that produce clean, rich fruit; rich mouth feel;
and soft tannins. This has become the benchmark.
The attraction of this approach is obvious: it
favors the casual drinker, who makes up the
great portion of the wine market, and who cares
little for complexity or true character. This is
aided by the simplicity of the quantification
approach, i.e., for most casual wine drinkers,
higher score = "better" wine. The Wine Spectator
even calls their tasting section a "Buying
Guide", so as to erase any confusion over how
the consumer should use their scores. Thus,
wines with high scores ring up sales, and the
wine world is led a merry chase, in search of a
number.
And so we come
to the crux of the matter: are winemakers
producing a style of wine which meets the broad
standards of excellence/acceptability set down
by the industry's chief marketing wing, the
media? It seems that they are. Every retailer
and wholesaler worth his salt understands that a
'90' in the Wine Spectator is one of the chief
signs of a wine's marketability. This can, of
course, be overstated: image, price, track
record, and value for money are factors, just as
they have always been. Yet increasingly it is
the press that is driving fine wine sales. Can
this have any other effect than the modification
of winemaking, in favor of a preferred style?
Vintners, who are increasingly corporate
employees, have generally succumbed to the lure
of The Score, and because these scores can be
most easily achieved by making a certain type of
wine, with definable characteristics, many wines
are made which resemble each other
greatly.
For a real
feel for it, just look around at some of the
wines you've tasted lately. Can you still find
wonderful Chianti Classicos in the traditional
style? Sure. More and more of them, however, are
eschewing structure, distinctiveness,
personality - and ageability - in favor of
fruit-driven richness. Many of these wines are
absolutely luscious. Fewer of them show an
individuality of style, and fewer still make you
think while you taste. These wines tend to
resemble one another. Maybe this makes sense in
a world of modern, clinical winemaking. I really
don't know. But I do think that the truth of the
existence of this general trend becomes clearer
with each successive vintage, and in most of the
world's traditional winemaking
regions.
Obviously,
this trend should concern the connoisseur of
fine wine: he is most vulnerable in the short
term to catching the blahs at a tasting.
However, it should also be of real interest to
the casual consumer. Taken to its logical
conclusion, this trend could be a tangible
barrier to his search for high quality,
reasonably priced wines that also display
reasonable levels of character and
individuality. In short, many who have begun
drinking lower priced wines over the course of
the so-called Wine Boom will eventually, we
hope, want to trade up. What they likely find
when they make their move will be wines far
inferior in interest and character to those
which seduced many of us some years ago. Some
would say that this is already a real problem:
price inflation in California wines has not led
to the panoply of interesting wines that had
been predicted, just more technically correct
ones. The string of recent outstanding vintages
cannot hide the fact that great California wines
are still not as good as their French
counterparts. What are being produced in
voluminous quantities there are rich,
fruit-driven, sometimes wonderfully tasty wines.
Mostly in the "international style."
by
Mark
Arvanigian
(EDITOR'S
NOTE: PfW Panelist Mark Arvanigian's
Archive
of weekly
articles
on wine topics appears in the Fresno Bee
On-Line.)
