So it looks like Snapshots is a bust . . .which I had figured out since the first few weeks it was implemented but I'll let the voting continue for another day as there could be some hidden contingency of Rockss and Fruit/Snapshots addicts out there. I would not want to leave them out of the vote. So 24 hours left and the fate of Snapshots will be determined!
Funny coincidence. Just yesterday morning I posted a three-part essay on my Spanish blog that sort of lands on the same conclusions you get here. The article is about recent readings from magazines.
ReplyDeleteThe first article I address is Fiona Morrison's assessment, in the Anniversary Edition of Wine & Spirits, of the lasting impact of the 1982 Bordeaux vintage. Morrison stresses the point that Parker was essentially a novice wine writer when he made the judgment he made about that rather overripe and really (as a quarter century has shown) much less than perfect vintage. No real knowledge, no real historical perspective and a boatload of chutzpah was all it took to proclaim 1982 "The Best Bordeaux Vintage EVER!"
Parker's original pronouncement on the '82s has long since become a bit of a joke. And yet, he's attained the influence he's attained and, most importantly, kept it. Which, in terms of his followers, is pretty damn worrisome.
Second article I dealt with appeared in Wine Enthusiast, which I know is hardly worthy of a trucjstop water closet in terms of quality of reading material, but Gerry Dawes said I should check out their "New Classics of Rioja" coverage. Of course, they're "discovering" the same old-same old: Remírez de Ganuza, Roda, Artadi and all those other wonderful examples of pointy impotability and--gasp!--naming the "movement" these wines apparently constitute as "new classic". Enough to make you want to puke. Of course, some funny moments in there, like when the writer of the article says Muga's horrid Aro "reeks of power and precision". Or the fact that the bodega making "El Puntido" is called Viñedos de Páganos (which would translate as "Pay Us Vnyds.")
Anyhoo, third article was the New Yorker's brilliant piece (didn't get the link here, I regret to say, but from Robin Garr's board) on the Rodenstock mess. My emphasis is on what Michael Broadbent's "Vintage Wine" is worth these days as a serious reference book and the many blows Broadbent's credibility has suffered because of this Jefferson- Bottles affair.
There are connections between all three, of course... And they all lead to something closely related to your conclusion about the discipline of "wine criticism" today.
M.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteManuel,
ReplyDeleteGreat comments. I believe this was for the other post on ramblings and musings but I figured out what you were talking about.
It is amazing that Parker's reputation is based on the 1982 Bordeaux's. His influence is Greenspan-like and yet it is based on not much. His followers believe there is no one else and they silence you if you disagree with him or come up with a contrarian point of view. Paging Mr. Squires . . .
New Rioja is gross just like new Coke was gross. Aro reeks that is for sure . . .
Yea the New Yawka piece is great . .