On the natural wine front, I have done my best to ignore both the broadbrush simplistic dismissal of it by my wine friends and the natural/low intervention producers themselves trying to sell me on the story of the winemaking techniques utilized (not much different than in that way than regular producers). I only care about what's in the glass. Is it pleasurable? Is it interesting? Is it showing me something new and worthwhile in the realm of wine? I just continue to call 'em as I see 'em. You talked about natural wine needing a 'dumb phase' and that's a good way to put it. For me, ultimately wine has to give pleasure. As I see it, natural wine is about producers beginning at the opposite end of the scale to "factory wine". They begin with crushed grapes, leave it alone and see what they get. Great! Really, it's great. The results may be strange, they may be boring, they may be great but for me the judgement of that is what is in the glass, not the story of how it got to the glass though I may be interested in that later. Thus, tasting natural/low intervention wine is the same as ever - clear your mind and focus on what your senses bring to you and make your evaluation. I think of Steven Spurrier, whom I was fortunate enough to know a little through some tutored tastings he put on through Christie's in London. He had deep wine knowledge and tasting experience but he also brought fresh curiosity to every wine he tasted, making no assumptions, just tasting what was there and evaluating honestly. I have not gone out of my way to taste natural/low intervention wines but I am enthusiastic about the movement despite the distracting chatter pro and against. I have tasted a bunch. Mostly they were not very pleasurable, some were OK and a few were lovely in an original way and as producers have to sell what they make in order to be able to do it the next year, I expect that many more lovely wines will be made. That's exciting. So yes, a dumb phase would be good. Let the producers do what they are doing for a few years without the general yammering and see what it brings.
Amen, although I have a nasty suspicion that the point of all this is as a reminder that wider discourse about wine is usually a decade behind where those of us in the bubble think it is.
I think that the big legacy publications have a responsibility to have someone writing about wine who is knowledgeable and conversant in current trends and styles. They wouldn't have a fashion writer still writing about fashion of the 1990s or a football writer still pining for the days of leather helmets. There is this sense that wine writers have some sort of protected, endowed chair.
I was just emailed an article from NYT called "14 Easy Breakfast Ideas to Jump-Start Your Mornings" Included on the list was waffles, pancakes, bacon, French toast, and overnight oats. Wow....pancakes. I can't wait to try them. Thanks NYT Cooking.
I believe her name is Nicolle. Something that a shitbag like LT doesn't bother to learn.
Can you imagine NAMING a bartender in a column for the WSJ for the sole purpose of being negative about them? Like that is next-level Karen stuff.
It's insane to me that this occurred.
Hence the tern shitbag. The insane level of privilege and narcissism on display from LT is just mind boggling.
On the natural wine front, I have done my best to ignore both the broadbrush simplistic dismissal of it by my wine friends and the natural/low intervention producers themselves trying to sell me on the story of the winemaking techniques utilized (not much different than in that way than regular producers). I only care about what's in the glass. Is it pleasurable? Is it interesting? Is it showing me something new and worthwhile in the realm of wine? I just continue to call 'em as I see 'em. You talked about natural wine needing a 'dumb phase' and that's a good way to put it. For me, ultimately wine has to give pleasure. As I see it, natural wine is about producers beginning at the opposite end of the scale to "factory wine". They begin with crushed grapes, leave it alone and see what they get. Great! Really, it's great. The results may be strange, they may be boring, they may be great but for me the judgement of that is what is in the glass, not the story of how it got to the glass though I may be interested in that later. Thus, tasting natural/low intervention wine is the same as ever - clear your mind and focus on what your senses bring to you and make your evaluation. I think of Steven Spurrier, whom I was fortunate enough to know a little through some tutored tastings he put on through Christie's in London. He had deep wine knowledge and tasting experience but he also brought fresh curiosity to every wine he tasted, making no assumptions, just tasting what was there and evaluating honestly. I have not gone out of my way to taste natural/low intervention wines but I am enthusiastic about the movement despite the distracting chatter pro and against. I have tasted a bunch. Mostly they were not very pleasurable, some were OK and a few were lovely in an original way and as producers have to sell what they make in order to be able to do it the next year, I expect that many more lovely wines will be made. That's exciting. So yes, a dumb phase would be good. Let the producers do what they are doing for a few years without the general yammering and see what it brings.
Amen, although I have a nasty suspicion that the point of all this is as a reminder that wider discourse about wine is usually a decade behind where those of us in the bubble think it is.
I think that the big legacy publications have a responsibility to have someone writing about wine who is knowledgeable and conversant in current trends and styles. They wouldn't have a fashion writer still writing about fashion of the 1990s or a football writer still pining for the days of leather helmets. There is this sense that wine writers have some sort of protected, endowed chair.
I was just emailed an article from NYT called "14 Easy Breakfast Ideas to Jump-Start Your Mornings" Included on the list was waffles, pancakes, bacon, French toast, and overnight oats. Wow....pancakes. I can't wait to try them. Thanks NYT Cooking.
lol
Dang you can be funny and snarky at the same time. #100points. #beNicole
“Nobody wants to buy sub $20 wines! Millennials and Gen Z only drink hard seltzer while watching TikToks!”
....
“These sub $20 wines that young people love are stupid.”
Amen
Some people have more sophisticated palates than others. Isn't that what one looks for in a good wine writer?