The way that the class on Monday was divided into two sections neatly reflected dual (and sometimes opposing) roles of critics. Professor Malter provided an excellent history of wine ratings and outlined the role modern critics such as Robert Parker play in providing objective metrics for subjective qualities such as taste. The panel of Mark Oldman and Alder Yarrow provided a very engaging example of critics as entertainers and populists. I would argue that critics as entertainers are becoming more important than critics as judges.
As Malter noted, the modern ratings systems were created to instill discipline in the wine industry; the traditional "Crus Bordeauxs" rating classifications were outdated and provided no incentives for winemakers to produce high quality wines. They have served their purpose, and raised the quality bar across the board. However, as he also noted, differences in ratings at the top (87+) no longer provide us with much objective information about quality of the wine; rather, they reflect subjective differences in taste as determined by the critic, which are unlikely to correspond with your own. Since these differences in ratings at the top (87+) have real effects on price, winemakers must constantly adapt to the tastes of respected arbiters such as Parker to survive.
With the internet, blogs and social media, we can access curated or crowdsourced reviews about wine that may not be able to distinguish between best in class and very good wines, but can surely identify when quality is too low. Since this problem of identifying quality was the reason for modern wine ratings in the first place, I believe today's consumers will identify more with entertaining critics who can tell a story about the winemaker, produce entertaining video blogs, or write books with chapters on "bon mots to describe the effects of alcohol." Further, I would argue that these types of critics are doing the modern wine industry more good by popularizing wine and reaching new consumers.
I agree with the idea that critics as entertainers are good for the industry generally. As we discussed in class, the ratings tended to skew higher over time, but that "grade inflation" also accompanied a rise in quality for the wines. So much of wine buying or wine enjoyment for people is the story of the wine - whether it's the winemaker, the vineyard, the appellation, or a memory of the last time you had the wine. Critics, and today's bloggers, can help a great deal in contributing to the storytelling.
ReplyDeletePersonally I believe that the future of wine ratings will be based on a future of recommendations, not points or scores, from socially active wine enthusiasts and industry professionals who cultivate their own following and hold court over a smaller sphere of influence. I think that experience and continued education inspires the passionate wine enthusiast with the kind of knowledge and confidence to entertain and communicate what is complex about wine, what is fun about wine. The new generation is comprised of socially active oenophiles (I truly love this word) who post photos of labels and talk about wine in the vernacular will emerge as the collective voice for wine drinkers of the future. Increasingly more people are learning about wine’s complexities simply through social engagement, tastings, television, etc. Friends, specialty wine store owners, and confidants will eventually replace the overhyped critic and wine drinkers will realize the power and worth of a discerning palate because of the value their friends place on such expectations.
ReplyDelete