Battle of the titans
Battle of the titans
deleted
Last edited by Sean on Fri Dec 16, 2005 4:16 pm, edited 2 times in total.
I would like to have seen Schildknecht's response on Jancis' site, but I'm not a 'purple-pager'. He seems a reflective sort of critic, which made me all the more surprised he was taken on by the WA, who in the personas of Parker and Rovani at least, seem to be very dogmatic. And indeed, his motive for joining them - although even critics have to eat, I guess.
'Dogmatic' reflects the Squires forum as well, though. Don't think they've got much chance of Halliday himself making an appearance!
(Actually, after Squires' intemperate and entirely unjustified spray against Michael Broadbent earlier this year, I'd be surprised if any critic wanted anything to do with the site. It largely turned me into a lurker, and I'm not even in the industry!)
Perhaps, sadly, it's hard to imagine Schildknecht disagreeing with what his boss said on the Squires thread anyway...
cheers,
Graeme
'Dogmatic' reflects the Squires forum as well, though. Don't think they've got much chance of Halliday himself making an appearance!
(Actually, after Squires' intemperate and entirely unjustified spray against Michael Broadbent earlier this year, I'd be surprised if any critic wanted anything to do with the site. It largely turned me into a lurker, and I'm not even in the industry!)
Perhaps, sadly, it's hard to imagine Schildknecht disagreeing with what his boss said on the Squires thread anyway...
cheers,
Graeme
Sean,
Nicely put. The one area that I would disagree on is the assertion that James Halliday doesn't like or rate "big wines" highly. In fact, many of the icon Parker favourites ( Torbreck, Two Hands, Kaesler, Kilikanoon, Journey's End) all receive very good scores from him, especially when you take into account that his scale ends at 97.
The difference between JH and Parker is that JH can find merit in the cooler climate styles as well, whereas Parker doesn't.
Nonetheless, its all "pistols at dawn" stuff at the moment. Where is that high moral ground?!
Cheers
Nicely put. The one area that I would disagree on is the assertion that James Halliday doesn't like or rate "big wines" highly. In fact, many of the icon Parker favourites ( Torbreck, Two Hands, Kaesler, Kilikanoon, Journey's End) all receive very good scores from him, especially when you take into account that his scale ends at 97.
The difference between JH and Parker is that JH can find merit in the cooler climate styles as well, whereas Parker doesn't.
Nonetheless, its all "pistols at dawn" stuff at the moment. Where is that high moral ground?!
Cheers
Wow, really good rant there Sean, thanks for that, an interesting read.
Cheers
-Mark Wickman
WICKMAN'S FINE WINE AUCTIONS
FREE membership, LOWEST auction commissions in Australia.
Now accepting wine for our next auction.
http://www.wickman.net.au
Twitter: @WickWine
YouTube: WickWineAuction
-Mark Wickman
WICKMAN'S FINE WINE AUCTIONS
FREE membership, LOWEST auction commissions in Australia.
Now accepting wine for our next auction.
http://www.wickman.net.au
Twitter: @WickWine
YouTube: WickWineAuction
Just one thing, I am pretty sure it was a group of pom wine writers who raved about shiraz first, I think it was the late 80s early 90s. Pretty much kicked off the whole boom I seem to recall.
Parker and crew seem to make out that they discover these regions, absolute crap, read one where he discovered oz shiraz and chateauneuf du pape, just silly stuff
cheers
Parker and crew seem to make out that they discover these regions, absolute crap, read one where he discovered oz shiraz and chateauneuf du pape, just silly stuff
cheers
Agreed - excellent post Sean. Of course, that means I agree with all your main points!
I too find it surprising that in the last 5 years or so wine critics seem to be increasingly willing to publicly denigrade other critics, and there's a clear 'Old World' vs 'New World (for lack of a better term - perhaps 'terroirists' vs 'fruitlovers'?) dichotomy to the battles. Earlier critics may have occasionally sniped at each other I suppose; the fact that most of them were Old School British, where such behaviour would have been deemed to be unworthy of a gentlemen, might have limited such untoward behaviour. I wasn't reading Waugh or Broadbent or similar writers 20 years ago, so I can't say for sure.
But I wonder if it isn't related to the rise of internet chat groups and the explosion of public interest in wine? Certainly the sniping and the internet groups seemed to be arrive at the same time, and I think its immediate, global communication had a hand in this. Perhaps it allowed us, the consumers and amateur critics, to align ourselves with whoever we felt best represented our views and tastes on wine. And the power of these internet groups to influence critics and wineries is increasing too.
Perhaps it's also related to the increasing commercialization of the global wine industry. Money, power and wine were always linked (think of the original Bordeaux classifications), but the last 10 years or so has seen an incredible amount of money and power attached to an increasingly global wine industry. Much more money and power is concentrated in a small number of critics, and the stakes are MUCH higher than they used to be. Right from the production of wine on up, wine isn't as much about a way of life as it used to be, it is increasingly about power and wealth. The critics, both consciously and unconsciously, may be reacting to these increasing amounts of money and power.
I lose respect for each critic that bad-mouths another critic. Grow up, and take the high ground, I say!
GraemeG, good point. The amrriage between Parker and Schildknecht is a strange one, as I always saw David S as more on the terroirist
side of the equation. But it's definitely Tanzer's loss.
Marsalla, while Parker didn't 'discover' CNP or Oz (or Bordeaux), he certainly caused an EXPLOSION of interest in these wines globally, especially in the U.S., the most powerful nation - economicially, politically, culturally - in the world. I don't think his influence is exaggerated (for good or ill). He opened the world's eyes to, among other things, Barossa and McLaren Vale old vine shiraz, as he had a more global voice than other critics who may have champoined the same wines. Too bad the wines he champions become so expensive and hard to find!
I too find it surprising that in the last 5 years or so wine critics seem to be increasingly willing to publicly denigrade other critics, and there's a clear 'Old World' vs 'New World (for lack of a better term - perhaps 'terroirists' vs 'fruitlovers'?) dichotomy to the battles. Earlier critics may have occasionally sniped at each other I suppose; the fact that most of them were Old School British, where such behaviour would have been deemed to be unworthy of a gentlemen, might have limited such untoward behaviour. I wasn't reading Waugh or Broadbent or similar writers 20 years ago, so I can't say for sure.
But I wonder if it isn't related to the rise of internet chat groups and the explosion of public interest in wine? Certainly the sniping and the internet groups seemed to be arrive at the same time, and I think its immediate, global communication had a hand in this. Perhaps it allowed us, the consumers and amateur critics, to align ourselves with whoever we felt best represented our views and tastes on wine. And the power of these internet groups to influence critics and wineries is increasing too.
Perhaps it's also related to the increasing commercialization of the global wine industry. Money, power and wine were always linked (think of the original Bordeaux classifications), but the last 10 years or so has seen an incredible amount of money and power attached to an increasingly global wine industry. Much more money and power is concentrated in a small number of critics, and the stakes are MUCH higher than they used to be. Right from the production of wine on up, wine isn't as much about a way of life as it used to be, it is increasingly about power and wealth. The critics, both consciously and unconsciously, may be reacting to these increasing amounts of money and power.
I lose respect for each critic that bad-mouths another critic. Grow up, and take the high ground, I say!
GraemeG, good point. The amrriage between Parker and Schildknecht is a strange one, as I always saw David S as more on the terroirist
side of the equation. But it's definitely Tanzer's loss.
Marsalla, while Parker didn't 'discover' CNP or Oz (or Bordeaux), he certainly caused an EXPLOSION of interest in these wines globally, especially in the U.S., the most powerful nation - economicially, politically, culturally - in the world. I don't think his influence is exaggerated (for good or ill). He opened the world's eyes to, among other things, Barossa and McLaren Vale old vine shiraz, as he had a more global voice than other critics who may have champoined the same wines. Too bad the wines he champions become so expensive and hard to find!
JDS,
You've really hit on something here. The internet has really opened up the wine world and given people the opportunity to discuss wine and wine critics in a way never previously possible. I'm not sure that everyone is comfortable with that just yet, and I also think that it is just a matter of time before someone takes a discussion board somewhere to court for allowing people to openly and publicly denigrate their work and reputation.
Could make for an interesting test case...?
Cheers
You've really hit on something here. The internet has really opened up the wine world and given people the opportunity to discuss wine and wine critics in a way never previously possible. I'm not sure that everyone is comfortable with that just yet, and I also think that it is just a matter of time before someone takes a discussion board somewhere to court for allowing people to openly and publicly denigrate their work and reputation.
Could make for an interesting test case...?
Cheers
Sean wrote:A character in one of Milan Kundera's novels says there are two kinds of men in the world. The first loves many different women and enjoys their differences. The second loves many women, but he is always looking for the same kind of woman. If it is the same with wine, then Halliday is the first and Parker the second.
Sean, a great analogy.
I think I'll have a few days of Yarra Valley Cabernet, starting at about 1994, I think I'll find a little sizzle there too. (No Mt Mary though, I've never really thought them worth the price). Maybe follow that up with some supposedly thin and green cooler-climate shiraz and be thankful Parker doesn't like these sort of wines.
Cheers
Brian
Life's too short to drink white wine and red wine is better for you too! :-)
Brian
Life's too short to drink white wine and red wine is better for you too! :-)
Great piece Sean.
It was only in his top 100 that he said he was trying to keep them below 15% alc.
in the last few years he has given me some pretty good scores (I have 10 wines 90-95 points) from 03-04.
All are 16-17.5% alc.
So I hope to Billy-oh you haven't got this exactly right.
Seems the WA crew are defending their patch ( and methodology beyond the realm of logic)
Wouldn't swap JH for RPJ in a million years!
Cheers
Smithy
home of the mega-red