Wine Advocate to start winery consulting service

A new consulting service, "Wine Benchmarking" by Robert Parker's Wine Advocate, being launched this fall was introduced to the Colorado wine industry. I've reached out to Editor-in-Chief Lisa Perrotti-Brown and will update this post with more information when/if I get it.

Described in the announcement, the Wine Advocate is providing detailed advice to wineries for $800 per winery. For this fee, wineries will get two of their wines assessed by Wine Advocate reviewers and receive two tickets to a "Wine Benchmarking Seminar" in February 2018. Additional wines for evaluation may be submitted subject to availability and volume pricing is available on request. It appears that the main difference between this evaluation and the normal published evaluation is that wineries will receive personalized notification of where their wines sit qualitatively to their peers. The Wine Advocate reviewers will also provide specific actionable advice that may be taken in the vineyard and winery to address detected shortcomings - as well as possible opportunities for future wine quality enhancement. This information will be provided to wineries in confidential, sealed envelopes after February's seminar.

It would appear to me that this new service may result in a new direction from the fiercely independent critical approach Mr. Parker has espoused for years. However, this publication is Mr. Parker's now in name only. I am all for wineries hiring consultants to help with their businesses, but I don't see how an independent critic can start taking money from those he/she is reviewing and still claim complete separation from the trade. I can't imagine how this statement: "it is imperative that I keep a distance from the trade. While this may be misinterpreted as aloofness, such independence guarantees hard‑hitting, candid, and uninfluenced commentary" remains on the Writers Ethics page on RobertParker.com form much longer.

Don't get me wrong, as a proponent of small regional wineries, I think this could be a great opportunity for wineries to improve their wine quality, improve their scores and increase sales. Yet, shouldn't this kind of feedback be what wine reviews are all about in the first place? I've been advocating that all regional wineries submit wines for critical review to Wine Advocate, Wine Enthusiast, and Wine Spectator. Critical feedback is very important to the wine industry. So is for-hire consulting services. My personal hunch is Mr. Parker had nothing to do with this. 

Dr. Harry Oldman on replacing Jeb Dunnuck in the Wine Advocate

Dr. Harry Oldman has been quiet for quite sometime here on the blog, but he hasn't quit quite yet. His last appearance was his rant on Andy Warhol wines a little over two years ago. He recently asked if he could respond to the paparazzi rumor mill about his supposed impending employment at a renowned wine publication (other than this one). I don't normally dabble in speculation, but I figure I should give the old man a chance to set the record straight.

It may seem as if I have been laying low for awhile now, but I actually been working real hard in the wine industry. I was quite surprised that I was able to gain employment in the wine industry with my background as a blogger. We all know wine bloggers never amount to anything in the wine industry.

Ever since January 21, I've been working as communications director and press secretary for a major East Coast winery. I know what you're thinking - East Coast wine is an oxymoron, kind of like affordable Napa Cab or affordable health care. But after working at the highest levels of the greatest winery on Earth, I've had change of heart - granted it was a medically necessary heart transplant - about non-California wines.

I was having dinner with my friends Jared and Sergei one evening last December when they told me that their boss' hand-picked personal assistant wanted me to be the public face of his I mean his son's winery. I've been busy ever since giving daily briefings to the Atlantic Coast wine media. I've of course banned all cameras and bloggers (No Fake Media Allowed) from attending, but Jim Acosta and Jay McInerney, who is usually drunk or high, show up everyday. I suppose dealing with these two losers is a part of making wine great again.

I've been amazed with how I've gone from being a retired computational physicist to being stalked by the wine paparazzi on the Interwebs. This rise of epic porportions almost didn't happen. I remember the day so clearly. August 22, 2016. That was the day I lost one of my best friends. He was there one day and gone the next. At my age it is bound to happen, but when a moderately notorious wine writer decides to stop writing about wine to write about Crooked Hillary it is a dark, dark day. I almost gave up wine myself. I was in a funk - thank god it wasn't a 12% Contra Costa Carignan-type funk - but an emotional funk that cracking open my 15-yr vertical of Harlan Estate was able to break. That's what friends like Jared and Sergei are for. Without them opening this backchannel for me I wouldn't be in the position I am in today.

And what position is that exactly? Well, approximately 12 people in the entire country have seen my name mentioned over on WineBerserkers.com as  the likely replacement for Jeb Dunnuck's beat in Robert Parker's Wine Advocate. Apparently Jeb decided that he actually wanted to review wine for consumers instead of traveling the world in the Singapore Dog, Pony and Wine Show. And what a pony he was. But now the speculation has turned to who will fill the heir apparent's shoes. Funny how my name got thrown into the mix. We must find the leakers! This is a big deal! Word even spread to the Robert Parker Bulletin Board. Now 14 people suspect that the one and only Dr. Harry Oldman will fill the bung-sized void to review the wines of Central California and the Rhône Valley.

Can you imagine a world in which that would actually happen? Oh boy, watch out when old Dr. Oldman strikes pen to paper in the fully made-over print editions with full-color photos, with over 25% more tasting notes and articles. I will personally guarantee that my writing will be more than 25% more colorful! If you thought the feud between the Hosemaster and Levi Dalton was epic, just you wait. I once saved Wine Spectator, why not add one more American literary icon to my resume?

Despite how much sense this move would make, I must deny this speculation. Seeing as I was instrumental in helping drive the creative direction of this site, it is possible I could have done the same for another even more prestigious wine publication. I can confidently say that I've been a wine journalist, editor and taster for over a decade and am a regular wine panelist, speaker and educator for events and organizations worldwide. Those qualifications alone would make me qualified to replace Jeb. Writing alongside Bob would give me a bigger podium from which to mock those who mock he who shall not be mocked.

No, Dr. Harry Oldman will not be replacing Jeb Dunnuck. Joe Czerwinski, former managing editor of Wine Enthusiast will be the new reviewer in Monkton. He will fit the corporate environment and bow down to the Master herself. For all those claiming end of days at the Wine Advocate better eat their shorts now. The ship has been righted and Joe will help Bob regain the glory of the early 1990s. This morning there is joy in Mudville! This all being said, I will not deny that I will not be joining the Wine Advocate in some capacity in the future. I better get back to my podium, I see McInerney waking up from his nap.

I will let the tweets speak for themselves.

Dr. Harry Oldman on Andy Warhol Wines

Dr. Harry Oldman recently got back into town after spending the past few weeks in Florida to help knock on doors before the March 15 primary. He tells me he had a successful time and drank some fantastic wine, but something has been bothering him. He just had to get this off his chest.

Harry Oldman on Killing the Geezers that lay the Golden Eggs

Hello, friends, Dr. Harry W. Oldman here! It has been a while since I've come here to put pen to paper - or do these young whippersnappers call it fingering the computer - partly because I wanted to see what the reaction would be when I said to myself I might cease writing. About a year ago, I took a position with a big-name wine producer, but recently left. My non-disclosure agreement only allows me to say good things about them, but I can't identify them by name. Anyway, I'm back because the wine world needs more old white guys to keep it from destroying itself. Without us, I'd be surprised if the wine industry would survive more than a few weeks. Millennials and bloggers - scum of the earth - are intent on destroying what we worked so hard to achieve: delicious wine.

There used to be hedonism in the wine business. I know, because I know some wonderful women winemakers who... well, let's just leave it at me knowing them. I don't want to get in trouble because the FCC won't let me be, or let me be me. So, let me see... well, we don't have hedonism anymore. No, now, because of all those slack-line-walking bloggers, we have another form of prejudice that’s just as pernicious: asceticism.

Read, for example, this piece, from The New York Times Magazine, that refers to "a band of upstart winemakers ... trying to redefine what California wine should taste like." This group of self-proclaimed arbiters of taste wants wine to be minerally and flavorless. They think wine should have no perceivable alcohol! We are basically living a second-coming of the temperance movement.

Okay, let's break this down.

101 Punctuations

In an exclusive interview, Jeff Siegel, aka The Wine Curmudgeon, confided in me a stunning reversal to his wine reviewing policy. "As of today, I will be review wine on the 101-point scale," Siegel giddily revealed. "I know I've bellyached about the quantitative rating of wine for many years now, but I've finally realized the beauty of the system." Siegel has obtained both a patent and a trademark on the revolutionary system. Siegel made clear that any attempt to co-opt the use of the additional point will be met with swift action by Siegel's legal team, the famous Dewey, Cheatem, & Howe.

The 100-pt system for rating wine has been widely ridiculed, but yet remains popular. "I've seen how Cruella de Monkton has kidnapped the wine world with his 100 points. I have no plans to skinning wines for financial gain," explained Siegel. "I've rolled myself in the soot of bloggerdom long enough and will finally give Bogle and Cristalino the points they deserve. I will start a Dynasty of Dearly Deserving Wines," Siegel said with a sardonic grin. "I'm even thinking of taking the idea further than wine with a magazine called 101 Points by Jeff Siegel," admitted Siegel. "My crackpot legal team is working out the details as we speak!"

After finishing a bottle of cheap Gascon wine, Siegel let another secret slip. Not only will he attempt to change the world of wine critiquing, Siegel claims to have plans to take cheap wine mainstream via broadcast television. "Not enough wine consumers pay attention to cheap wine. If I can put it on TV maybe consumers will start buying the stuff! I've got a green-light to start filming a remake of a famous sitcom," whispered a clearly intoxicated Siegel. "I can't give you any details right now, but will say that Jon Bonné, W. Blake Gray, and I will start filming next month. Just as the original series was all about hedonism, jingle writing, and drinking, I couldn't think of a better way to put cheap wine on center stage than on CBS' Monday night programming."

Siegel went on to mention that the project kicked off when Bonné approached him about starting show about two ex-newspaper wine writers living together and working in a local wine shop while attempting to raise funds to start a winery. The show was going to be called 2 Broke Guys. Getting word of the project, Gray wrote a draft of a scandalous blog post uncovering the plans and demanded to be included or else he would expose the project to the world, taking away the thunder of Bonné's first story for Punch.

Siegel sighed and explained that to make the best of a bad situation he called his friend Chuck Lorre. "I've already said too much, but damn isn't this colombard tasty. I think it might be the first 101-pt wine," Siegel slurred. I figured out the details of the project when Siegel doffed his trademark fedora, winked repeatedly, and not-so-subtly mouthed the name of the show. Apparently, Chuck Lorre thought it would be great to remake Two and a Half Men. Sadly, Siegel refused to tell me which character each writer would play.

Look for the revamped Two and a Half Men on your local CBS affiliate this coming September.

Matt Kramer got it wrong about bullies who put down wine

Without wine lore, and wine tasting, and wine talk, and wine labels, and, yes, wine writing and rating—the whole elaborate idea of wine—we would still get drunk, but we would be merely drunk. The language of wine appreciation is there not because wine is such a special subtle challenge to our discernment but because without the elaborate language—without the idea of wine, held up and regularly polished—it would all be about the same, or taste that way. —Adam Gopnik, The New Yorker

Two days ago, in Wine Spectator, Matt Kramer penned a polemic against nameless skeptics of the sensory value of wine. In Kramer's defense, he attempted to use an article by Adam Gopnik (yes, I misspelled his name (twice) in a comment over on the Jackson Family Wines blog, and for that I apologize) in the The New Yorker as evidence this anti-intellectualism bullying. The problems with him basing his condemnation on Gopnik's article are twofold. First, the article is more than ten years old. If you haven't read it, I strongly suggest that you do so. Yes, it reads as if it were written yesterday (or maybe tomorrow) and that is the sign of a good writer. But nevertheless it was written at a different point along the wine industry continuum and was actually an editorial on the 2004 state of wine prompted by William Echikson's book, Noble Rot. Second, and more important, Kramer completely missed the point of Gopnik's article. Kramer chose to quote Gopnik out of context. He should have started his article with the full quote that I've provided above. Gopnik actually accomplished what Kramer was attempting to do by making the case that wine talk and wine description are an integral "part of what lets the experience happen."

Dr. Harry Oldman on the Wine Bloggers Conference

With the 2014 Wine Bloggers Conference wrapping up over the weekend, I heard from Dr. Harry Oldman, my extern. I was actually looking forward to attending this year, but my wife was in Panama for a conference and I had to stay home with Ben. Having never attended a WBC, I don't have a whole lot to say about the event, but Dr. Oldman was insistent on chiming in. I know I shouldn't give the crotchety old guy the attention he wants, but I suppose everyone is entitled to their opinions.

So, apparently the Wine Bloggers Conference was held this past weekend in Santa Barbara County. I don't consider myself a blogger (more of a human chameleon that can become a master at whatever I choose), so the big event wasn't on my calendar. You know how I found out about the conference? I saw it all over the news. ABC, CNN, FOX and NBC all picked up on the story. It was all Bill O'Reilly and Brian Williams were talking about over the weekend. Even Wine Spectator published a special issue on the conference that arrived this morning.

Dr. Oldman channels Oprah to expose a doping scandal that will rock the wine world...

After his surprising Boxing Day interview, Dr. Harry Oldman thought that today would be the perfect day to share his next interview with us.

I had so much fun with my interview with my anonymous wine critic friend (though I hope the interview wasn't the real reason he is no longer a critic...), that I thought I'd try my hand again at asking another famous wine personality some tough questions. Bobby P and I go all the way back to his early days as the world's first blogger, a camp which I too have fallen into. Together, Bob and I would take on the heathens of the wine world on Prodigy's Wine Forum. It had been some time since we last talked, but I've long defended him from the many sheep of the Interwebs. When Bob agreed to sit down with me I decided that I had better improve my interview skills, so I watched countless hours of the best interviewer I could think of: Oprah. I've followed Oprah from her very start on AM Chicago, but spending a week straight of watching reruns gave me all the insight I'd need to make this a newsworthy interview sure to cause a ripple in the space-time-wine-blogger continuum. One day, I am sure that this interview will be as talked about as any interview Oprah did with Tom Cruise, Lance Armstrong or Lindsay Lohan. Make sure that you are sitting, because what I'm about to share with you will knock your tastevins off!

Dr. Oldman on the Wine Writers Symposium

I was in Napa Valley two weeks ago for Premiere Napa Valley, but I was unable to attend the Wine Writers Symposium. Others have written a few accounts of what transpired during the workshops and sessions at the secluded Meadowood Napa Valley resort and spa. With not being there, I find it interesting to hear about the fun and informative events attended by a whole host of wine writers. I think it is pretty cool that simple bloggers, or people new to the world of wine writing, can hang out with established writers from Food & Wine, Wine Advocate and Wine Enthusiast as well as columnists from the New York Times, San Francisco Chronicle and Wall Street Journal. My extern, Dr. Harry Oldman, was disappointed that I was not going to chime in on an event that I did not attend, so he asked if he could. I know I shouldn't let him post anymore, but he can be very persuasive...

Dr. Harry Oldman: Damn right all these teetotalers should get out of my vineyard!

I really didn't want to weigh in on the recent Robert Parker rant, and I won't, but my extern, Harry Oldman, insisted that I publish what he has to say. Please, I'm just the messenger, so don't shoot me!

I can't sit idle any more and watch an idol be dragged through the mud. When I read Robert M. Parker, Jr.'s "Article of Merit," I stood up an applauded. I said, "Well, Parker's the best critic in the game! When you try him with a sorry wine like crappy trebbiano, that's the result you gonna get! Don't you ever talk about him! Crappy trebbiano! Don't anyone open their mouth about the best, or Bob's gonna shut it for you real quick! Legion of Boom!" Granted, I was alone in my living room drinking a delicious 2007 Châteauneuf-du-Pape, but it's the thought that counts. My balls are big enough, and sag low enough, that I am not afraid to stand by my man!

Marketing myopia in the wine world

This morning, my good pal Steve Heimoff published a blog post about how wineries can get famous. He raised some interesting points about the changes that have taken place in mass communication between the present and 1994 when the movie Disclosure "made Pahlmeyer a star." Obviously, he discussed the rise of social media, but concluded that a critic's score was the "best way to get huge notice by the public."

Prognostications old, prognostications new... (A look back at 2013 and a peak at 2014)

A little over a year ago, I wrote an article outlining my five predictions for 2013. Today, I want to briefly examine those statements and make a few new guesses for 2014.

My first prediction came on the heels of Robert Parker, Jr. taking on foreign investors and yielding editorial control of the Wine Advocate to Lisa Perrotti-Brown, MW. Going against popular belief at the time, I said that the Wine Advocate would expand and increase its popularity. Well, I didn't quite nail this, but the publication did not shrivel up and die like many other people thought it would. Many wine aficionados still wait with anticipation for the release of each issue. Wine prices still jump when Parker (or his other reviewers) throw high numbers at already expensive wines. I still think Robert Parker and his henchmen will remain pertinent (but not dominant) in the American wine industry, but will look to expand to Asian markets as they rapidly grow.

My first prediction may have been a push, my second prediction was both spot on and a bust. I thought that regional wine, and especially Colorado, would see more coverage in the major publications (Wine Advocate and Wine Spectator). Wine Advocate maintained the status quo on ignoring wine from the other 47 states despite having a reviewer living in Colorado (Jeb Dunnuck) who is eager and willing to taste and review Colorado wine. Dunnuck had personally told me that he wanted to get CO reviews into the Wine Advocate, but "the powers that be" have squashed that idea.

The Wine Spectator actually took a step forward before jumping three steps back. In 2013 alone (prior to a policy change), Wine Spectator reviewed more than 115 Colorado wines, doubling the number of Colorado wines reviewed by the magazine the previous 20 years combined! Moreover, both James Moleworth and Harvey Steiman had written relatively positive blog posts about Colorado wine (read more on my take here). But unfortunately, the gains regional wine saw in 2013 looks to have all but evaporated going into 2014. An assistant tasting coordinator at Wine Spectator informed several Colorado wineries that Wine Spectator will "not [be] tasting any wines from Colorado at the moment. Furthermore, we have a new policy which requires all importers and wineries to send the info sheet with samples listed that they would like to submit and then they wait for our approval." For this, they were bestowed a Curmudgie by local and cheap wine proponent, Jeff Siegel. Unfortunately, I don't think regional wine will gain much traction with the large wine publications in 2014.

Voiceless

After reading Dr. Oldman's guest post a few weeks ago, another friend of mine wrote me and demanded to contribute to the blog, too. I had to ask her to remind me who she was again, and then it hit me. Her name is Remi Burmí. How could I forget her, with her bright red, Buddy Holly glasses and Converse low tops. She's a few years older than I. She's a self-taught wine expert whose dad was an award-winning science fiction author (I think his last novel even won gold at the California State Fair). Her mom was a sex therapist from Mendocino. She writes a biennial wine column for Examiner.com (or at least that's what she claims). Her writing makes me think of Eric Asimov and Jon Bonné co-publishing an online magazine using a nom de guerre.

Any way, she said that with all the Baby Boomers and Millennials writing past each other in the wine blogosphere she felt like she was part of a forgotten generation. She said, for some reason, that my blog was the hispster-est place to speak out for these forgotten beer wine consumers. Oh, and to even make it more hipster, she wanted the post to go live after 5:00 EDT on a Friday because no one will read it over the weekend and people will still be talking about the non-cabernet Parker perfect wine and the imminent wine shortage. Oh and it's a poem... (Oh Lorde, save yourself and just stop reading right now!)

Guest post from my extern

I've turned this post over to my friend and psuedo-mentor, Harry Oldman.

Dr. Oldman has been in the wine business for decades. He used to be a computational physicist at a national laboratory in New Mexico, involved in computational fluid dynamics of wine. But after getting sidetracked on a trip to California by Randall Grahm, he has never been the same.

He shares his thoughts and opinions on wine and wine writing on various online wine boards, but I of course don't listen to what he has to say (you know, with me being a Millennial and all).

Since 1WineDude and The Hosemaster of Wine^TM have occasionally handed their blogs over to their interns, I figured I’d open my blog to this extern. Plus, this will allow me to put in extra hours on social media and get my beauty rest all at the same time.

So, with out any further ado, here is Dr. Oldman:

The beauty of, and problem with, the wine industry today...

Last week, I attended the first-ever portfolio tasting for Synergy Fine Wines. 350 different wines, beers, spirits and sakes were hopefully poured for Denver's restaurant and retail buyers to taste and buy. It was nice to see the guys from Ruby Trust Cellars pouring their 2011 wines. With only a handful of Colorado wineries represented by distributors, it's a big deal to see one at an event like this. I was only at the tasting for about an hour and I spent most of that time walking around and randomly trying wines; a few Burgundies, some Californian wines, a couple from Italy  and of course a handful of Spanish wines. I wasn't surprised to see that the lone Slovenia ribolla gialla was thoroughly ravaged by the flock of sommeliers at the venue (what do you call a group of sommeliers?).

Congratulations, not condescension are in order...

I'll go ahead and say it. Congratulations, Charles Shaw Winery on your three gold medals at the Orange County Fair Wine Competition. I commend the judges for not being influenced by the label and I commend the winery for (mass) producing a drinkable $2.49 wine.  I don't see why so many people in the twitterverse and blogosphere have decided that this is the worst thing since socks with sandals. But if you do wear socks with sandals, please stop!

Sure, wine competitions aren't the best arbiter of wine quality, but neither are Robert Parker, James Laube or Steve Whatshisname. I've had 100-pt Parker wines that tasted like dilly dishwater. I've had wines from Iowa that were pretty damn good. All competitions do is give feedback to a select set of wineries about how their wine fared against a few other wines on a given day as decreed by people that think they know a lot about wine, but don't know as much as they think they do. Yes, I count myself as a member of the illustrious club.

I think a lot of the angst has do do with the obnoxious "triple gold" headlines. It is a bit misleading. All that happened was three Charles Shaw wines earned gold medals. None were chosen as Best in Category or even 4-star gold medals (whatever the hell that means). 70% of the wines entered in this competition received a medal (1765/2521). Only 15.8% of the entries earned gold or better. Not bad for a sub $3 bottle of wine. But no wine competition is as influential as the major publications, and few consumers know what competition medals mean (if they mean anything at all). So lay off the criticism, people.

Now I won't make any claims to the quality of any Two Buck Chuck (as Charles Shaw is affectionately called). The last time I tried one, probably 4 years ago, it didn't impress me, but it wasn't the "beyond dreadful" or the "watery, alcoholic null set" that two respectable personalities claimed on Twitter. If I remember correctly, the glass I had was simplistic and uninteresting, but varietally correct and not flawed. I wonder when the last time any of the naysayers on the Internet actually tasted a bottle of Charles Shaw.

What should be praised, but is overlooked is the fact that this blind tasting showed that a wine can be judged by what's in bottle and not what's on the label. Preconceived notions should not influence what a judge thinks about a wine. Too often in the world of wine criticism, writers judge a wine by the label and not the wine. None of the judges that reviewed these wines knew what they were tasting. It's not like they lined up the wines themselves, put them in bags, moved them around their desk and magically forgot the identities of the bottles. Had the judges known they were tasting Two Buck Chuck, I'd bet gold medals would not have been awarded. But that is the beauty if blind tasting. A $3 wine can stand on equal footing with a $30 wine.

So, I say lets celebrate the idea of a quality cheap wine. It's not like Charles Shaw is going to raise its prices to $850 a bottle because of these accolades. This competition isn't the most important source of consumer information and in fact is open only to "wine produced from grapes grown in California and commercially available for sale in Orange County." Charles Shaw will still be loved by its fans and loathed by most wine snobs...

How to sell wine before it's finished and alienate people

There are so many ways to sell wine it can make a vintner's head spin. Finding the easiest and most efficient way is the goal of every winery. Case in point: en primeur. Every spring, the châteaux of Bordeaux invite the wine world to come taste the wines that are sitting in barrel from the previous harvest. En primeur is a method for selling wine while it is still in barrel. It is often referred to as "wine futures." Payment is made 12-18 months before the finished wines are bottled. The idea behind the system is that wines may be cheaper during en primeur than when they are released on the open market. Though, with the exorbitant prices the top châteaux now charge (Mouton Rothschild, Château Margaux and Haut-Brion released their 2012 wines at €240 per bottle ex-negociant, and that was roughly 33% less than the release price of the 2011 vintage!), investment opportunities are not going to be as easy to come by as they were in the early 1980s.

Many wineries around the world offer future wines for sale, but the producers of Bordeaux have been fine tuning their system for what seems like eternity. The system has been in place in Bordeaux for centuries. Why do they do this and why do other producers attempt to do the same? Well, producers benefit from the early cash flow. They also often sell their entire inventory before the finished wines are released. Pretty good deal, huh? It's almost like printing money. Or at least painting your own masterpiece...

A Good Wine Seldom Mentioned Is Soon Forgotten

As I begin to read Doug Shafer's A Vineyard in Napa, a motto he attributes to his father, John, and founder of the renowned Shafer Vineyards made me think of the current debate about the state of wine criticism. "A good wine seldom mentioned is soon forgotten." To me, this maxim speaks volumes to me about how both we as writers/critics and consumers talk about wine.

The Wine World is Changing and Some Wine Writers ARE Losing It (Influence, that is...)

One of the favorite discussion items in the wine industry of late revolves around changes in wine criticism. Some recognize changes and others hold on to the belief that wine writing is a static enterprise. In the past few years, the rise of wine bloggers has caused traditional writers to get a bit defensive. This rise in the democratization of information is upsetting the critical dictators. Those in the ivory towers continue to say that wine criticism and the traditional media in which it has been conveyed is stronger than ever. Those that say otherwise are attacked as losing their minds. Regardless of the ridiculous amount of navel gazing going on, the short and skinny of it is simple: yes, the wine industry is changing and the role of wine criticism is a big part of that change. To say otherwise is to proclaim your stubbornness (or ignorance).

Going back to Cali (off to PNV)

When the wine hits ya lips just spits ya
Tannins so hard, that ya tongue can't lick ya
Either Parker's 90+ or against ya
Highway 29, back through that maze I go ya
Heading to the wine mecca
Wineries wit the fruit tight, pour that bottle right
Spell my name right, K-Y (oh that sounds bad...), L-E
Snow on my driveway, Headin out on the highway
Gettin wine from some winemaker you know
See it's all about the cabernet, nobody do it better
Going back to Cali, strictly for the weather

I'm going going, back back, to Cali Cali
Checking out Premiere Napa Valley
I'm going going, back back, to Cali Cali
Reporting from Premiere Napa Valley
Check me out on Twitter
 Find out which wines ain't bitter

I'm going going, back back, to Cali Cali
I'm going going, back back, to Cali Cali