Further
Thoughts on the International Style
I
especially enjoyed Mark's column on The
International Style, finding it to be an
extremely thought provoking analysis of an
increasingly difficult, almost tortuous,
question for those of us on the sales end of the
wine industry: that is, what exactly is good,
or great, wine in this day and
age?
Mark's
opening point -- that fruitiness has become
pervasive to the extent of blurring regionality
-- leads me to these thoughts:
- The
observation certainly can lead to the easy
conclusion that winemaking has become
"internationalized."
- The
questions remain -- are winemaking styles, in
fact, becoming "international," or is this
just indicative of the fact that winemakers
around the world are improving their
winemaking and growing techniques to the
point where the more serious flaws peculiar
to their respective regions are being
eradicated?
Mark,
of course, answers answers these questions
himself, noting that the wine press, in
observing this evolution, have been lauding "the
across-the-board increase in quality." Alas,
this makes for boredom among "wine geeks." So
the second set of questions comes up:
- Is
increased overall wine quality preferable to
wines with distinctions which may also be
considered flaws?
- How
important is it for wine producers to appease
the "few erudite wine geeks," as opposed to,
or at the possible expense of, average
consumers?
And
of course, the answers are rather
self-evident:
- Certainly,
it's far better to have higher quality wine
-- especially since it results in greater
consumer enjoyment, leading to increased
sales (more visibility and profitability for
producers). Why else is wine
made?
- As
for wine geeks, it is far more harmful to the
industry to have wines appeal solely to small
segments of the wine drinking population. Are
we not all in favor of increased consumption
and greater profits?
Which
returns us to our original question: What is
good, or great, wine? Mark's concern is
obviously that cleaner, brighter, fresher fruit
flavors in wine leads to loss of regional
distinctions. This is a big negative if one's
measure of a good or great wine is its adherence
to regional characteristics -- sense of terroir,
if you will. By this way of thinking, diversity
is defined primarily by regionality.
Throughout
the history of fine wine, there are numerous
examples of quests by individuals, followed by
family generations, who's labors establish
traditions that produce wine of such high
quality and enduring appeal that their products
eventually assume identities that go far beyond
regional distinction and sense of terroir. Here
are a ten obvious examples which have gained
general acceptance amongst critics and consumers
alike, from old to new:
- Methode
Champenoise -- an enduring style of wine
in which craftsmanship blurs distinctions of
both terroir and vintage.
- Tokaji
Aszu -- the use of puttonyos or tubs of
botrytized grapes to concentrate otherwise
ordinary dry table wine.
- Italian
Recioto and Passito -- deliberate
raisining of grapes throughout an entire
country to enhance ordinary table
wine.
- Eiswein
-- the big "game" amongst German growers to
produce incredibly racy sweet wines that are
less about terroir and more about maximum
intensity.
- Lambrusco
-- production of very low alcohol, spritzy,
often off-dry style of red wines for the
quaffing enjoyment, first, of Italians, and
later, wine drinkers around the
world.
- Chateau
Mouton Rothschild -- one family's
movement towards singular varietal definition
(Cabernet Sauvignon) in order to exude more
power and distinction than neighboring crus
that continue to follow traditional varietal
blending regimes.
- Chateau
Petrus -- the same idea as Mouton, only
with Merlot.
- Penfolds
Grange Hermitage -- definitely a
glorious, and now traditional, concept of
producing the finest, most powerful red wine
possible, no matter what the varietal makeup
(even if usually mostly Shiraz), vineyard
sourcing, fermentation and barrel regimes
(anything goes, with the results that
count!).
- Bonny
Doon Cigare de Volant -- another moveable
feast of flavors concerned aimed solely
toward emulation of red Rhone style wine, but
not necessarily the techniques and
varietals.
- Chalk
Hill Chardonnay -- a widely lauded "white
Burgundy" style wine made from vineyards with
no real limestone, in a far warmer climate,
yet nevertheless was developed through
adherence to techniques not generally
accepted in its own region (i.e., 100%
natural yeast barrel fermentation, 100% ML,
zero filtration, 100% new oak,
etc.).
Now
I ask you: is not the world all the better for
just these few examples of wine producers who,
at some point in their lives, decided that they
wished to make wine that expresses far more than
terroir, and which go way beyond previously
accepted practices?
I
think that is why the question -- "how good are
today's wines?" -- is so perplexing to purists,
or geeks or whatever you wish to call them. It
is difficult for them because purists don't like
change or techniques that seem rather
manipulative; yet deliberate change and decisive
technique are what has always defined many of
our greatest wines. Many of our great wines, of
course, will continue to represent completely
unique, almost accidental growing circumstances
-- it is certainly very much a part of Petrus,
of course, and Romanée-Conti, Montrachet,
Roxburgh, Scharzhofberger, et al. But if
anything, I would say that loss of some kind of
previously recognized distinction is often a
necessary, in fact good, consequence of overall
improvement of even wines grown in our greatest
vineyards!
But
such losses certainly do not have to run an
entire course. The fact is, during the past 5 to
10 years (and I've been in the business since
1974) I have observed in my markets, other
markets, and during my own travels around the
world that:
•
Increased quality of both wines and
distribution has resulted in a greater
consumer interest in diverse styles and types
of wine than ever before. Twenty years ago,
few of us (and far fewer consumers) even knew
of wines from Jurançon, Gigondas,
Carmignano, Banyuls, Bourguiel and other
small districts, or wines made of Gruner
Veltliner, Roussanne, Viognier,
Spätburgunder, Lemberger and other
varietals. Yet go to any of our own (Roy's)
restaurants tonight and you'll find each and
every one of these wine types, and more,
being sold quite successfully. Something not
possible just a short time ago!
•
Although there has been some attrition owing
to the popularity of standard varietals,
there simply has not been a total loss of
interest in indigenous or "lesser" varietals
on the part of growers and producers. If
anything, the reverence is still alive and
flickering, just waiting to be ignited as
soon as the industry as a whole begins to
expand our customer base, and when consumers
continue this recent pattern of increased
variety and sophistication of
tastes.
As
to Mark's final question -- will tomorrow's
sophisticates find superior, or inferior, wines
at their disposal?-- I have this to say: quality
may very well be synonymous with broader based
appeal and technical correctness. But if the
vast majority of consumers and even critics
think this preferable, is this not better? It is
certainly far more preferable -- in my opinion,
at least -- to the extremely narrow range of
wines, much of which were highly flawed and even
undrinkable (and therefore bad at any price),
which we used to have to deal with just 15, 20
years ago.
In
fact, if what vintners are doing is improving
the quality and expressiveness of their wines,
are they not actually fulfilling the full
potential of their vineyards, and thus offering
more diverse product than ever before, while
continuing to bring a greater part of the world
of wines to each and every interested consumer?
Let me put it this way: if you were present on
the day that the Baronne Philippe Rothschild
decided to produce a Mouton with virtually no
Merlot or Cabernet Franc, and to go to strictly
new oak barrel élevage, would you have
protested and said, "No, no, you will lose your
Pauillac identity!"? Very often, there is some
bad involved with the good; but in most cases,
the bad is of far less consequence.
by
Randal
Caparoso
(EDITOR'S
NOTE: The basic text of this article came as
an E-mail response to Mark Arvanigian's "The
International Style", from Randal Caparoso,
corporate wine buyer for Roy's Restaurants
--17 locations internationally--, and wine
columnist since 1981 for The Honolulu
Advertiser. Randal is also a frequent
contributor to Jerry
Mead's open
forum
on wines and has his
own page
linked to Robin
Garr's Wine Lover's
Page.)
