Steve Plotnicki

Actually, he really should have spoken English. Or there should have been someone in the shop who should have. The place was teeming with people and there must have been at least five people working behind the counter.

Actually the problem is compounded by the fact that Bob is a great self-promoter (and I do not say that with any negative inference) and his competition are a bunch of wine geeks. If someone wanted to really compete with him, the first thing they should do would be to make a list of all the things Parker is wrong or imperfect about and then run on that campaign. But nobody out there currently has the personality to take that approach. Too bad I'm not a wine critic . You have to give Parker credit. He organized wine for consumers. He created hierarchys within regions as well as across regions. Whether you like his position on these things or not, you have to give the guy credit for making wine accessable to people who historically found it confusing. And for someone to actually compete with Parker, they have to stake out a different way of organizing the information.

Actually I do pretty well communicating in Italy. But if you haven't noticed, the problem wasn't being able to communicate I am looking for. The problem was that he never heard of Tylenol and couldn't offer me the equivelent.

Yes one is good and one is like soda pop. I would love to like Ca. pinot. But it isn't good. That's not exactly a small problem you know. But it's not like I am alone in comparing them.

Well they all taste like bubblegum. I mean I am exagerating but not really. I honestly don't know how anyone who has tasted good wines from Burgundy can still like California pinot? It's the same for Central Coast Rhone wines when compared to wines from the Rhone. You can buy a nice Rhone wine like Allain Graillot Crozes-Hermitage for something like $22. And then Ojai single vineyard Syrahs cost $60. You have to be a nutjob to buy the Ojai. At least with Burgs I can understand the desire to buy Ca pinots because the price of a good Burg is not cheap. Still, you can buy the good Gevry's in the $60 range and wines like Dujac Clos de la Roche can be found for aound $90. I would rather buy one of those wines then three bottles of Ca. pinot. In fact I'd rather drink beer then buy Ca. pinot. And I used to collect and drink them on occassion. But they are truly an inferior product compared to their French counterparts. Of course this has nothing to do with Calera and its ageability. But then again, I'm a non-believer.

Jaybee - It wasn't my point, it was vmilor's point. I was just asking him to expound on what he said. Excuse me for saying this but, there is no equivelent between a drug store on Michigan Avenue not speaking Italian and the farmacia in the Piazza del Duomo not understanding any English. If you haven't noticed, the world works on English. Go to any Northern European country and 100% of the people speak English. This is not necessarily the case in France, Italy and Spain although in France almost everyone in a shop speaks English these days. And for it not to be the case in a pharmacy in that location is a little bit shocking to me. As for Americans and their isolationism and not learning foreign languages, you are correct to comment that we are well behind the rest of the world about it. But it is turning out to not be such a terrible mistake as the rest of the world is converting to English as a second language.

Gee what does the pharmacist in the Piazza del Duomo not being able to speak English have to do with me being the ugly American? One would think that in that location their clients would be diverse enough so they would be able to speak the basics in most languages. I am sure there must have been 100 people or more walk into that place asking for drugs like Tyleneol. If I owned that business, I would have a little chart with what the Italian equivalents are for the name brand drugs from other countires. But then again, we are speaking about Italy and that type of efficiency doesn't seem to be their forte. Vmilor - I don't know if I want to read the literature but, I would be happy for you to regale us with stories of why Italians fail at big business. But they do have Olivetti and Fiat. Those seem like pretty big, and pretty sucessful businesses. And they also have Tiscali, one of the biggest Internet service providers on the continent. I know this because they used to license music that I own as their theme music and they paid molto lire for the privilage .

Since when is the destination a function of the journey?

What does surpressing your feelings have to do with the acquisition of knowledge and altering your choices as a result? Your post seems to project some inconsistancy between a person's sensual likes and their choices made on the basis of the thought process. Let's call that one neurosis. But what difference does any of it make if they come to the correct conclusions?

Er, what's the difference between jaded and over-critical? Aren't you jaded when you have had mutlitple experiences and you adopt a higher standard? How is that different from being over-critical?

I can't read this any other way then to say that the acquisition of knowledge, and the desire to acquire knowledge, can be bad because it can possibly lead to less sensual pleasure in life. Is that what you are saying? If so, I think that is bogus. We are wired the way we are wired but I can't think of anything that becomes less enjoyable because we have acquired superior knowledge. In fact, as I was trying to say, really good things become even more enjoyable. But unfortunately, there are also fewer really good things because your standards are now higher.

I guess I meant to say that Columbia isn't being phlantropic when they make a new Dylan album.

Hollywood - Good point. But that is a commercial subsidy meaning that Columbia gets to add Dylan copyrights to their existing stable. And when he makes a new album, they can sell their customers the entire catelog. So while I agree it is some kind of a loss leader, it isn't exactly philantrophy like donations to the Metropolitan Opera are. Britcook - Because our sensual or visceral reaction is instinctive and cerebral reaction is learned. And once again I think you have mistated the point. Nobody said that you can't enjoy "lesser pleasures anymore." Seeing them for what they are doesn't mean you can't enjoy something. When I was a teenager, I used to go to Greenwich Village to hear music. I also liked to eat the food in the city. One of the things I liked to eat was the Gyro (doner kebab) from a specific place on McDougal Street. Now 30 years later, I see the gyros at that place for the greasy crap they really are and I understand their place in the continuum of food. But you know what, I still like eating them. You will on occassion late at night find me in front of the place sitting in my car chomping away on one. So stop confusing the two. Real sensual pleasure is something that stands up with time, and enhanced knowledge doesn't compromise something that was really good to begin with.

Jaybee - Just to show you how right you are, look at Heston Blumenthal. Nobody else in England cooks like him, but you can compare to any other chef and he will come out on top. From the standpoint of technique, creativity, originality, nobody comes close. Thanks for making that point.

Well the other argument is that opera is such an important art form that people subsidize it. And tell me who complains about the subsidies? In fact, what museum would exist if it wasn't subsidized? Our greatest art is all subsidized. That's just how the market for high art is established, mostly through subsidy. That's why you can't compare popular art, measured through commercial success, to grand art measured by how much money people are willing to contribute. Look at jazz, as great an artform as everyone says it is. There is only one subsidized jazz orchestra that I know of in the entire world. The Lincoln Center Jazz Band. I'll give you something else that would go out of business besides opera if they weren't subsidized. Universities. If the cost of an education was that you had to pay fair market value, who would be able to go to universty? And how many professors have seats that were endowed by contributors? There are so many things that can't be properly measured by a supply and demand scenario, where you have to change the way you measure if you want a meaningful result.

Ah this thread is finnally getting good. First, let's look at my complexity criterium. StefanyB's assessment is correct. The issue is how complex the diner thinks the final result it. How complex the creators believe it to be is meaningless unless the diner is able to ascertain the complexity. But I will stand behind my statement that the more complexity a diner discerns, with the inference being harmonious complexity, the more they will value an item. That sometimes complexity can be found in a simple thing, like the Campbell's Soup Can or the Mona Lisa, doesn't detract from the fact that it is also found in Guernica or the Garden of Earthly Delights. It's a function of its context and how profound a statement anything makes is discreet from anything else about it. As for Wilfrid's question to me, I think the problem is that the marketplace is different for various items. For example take opera. Opera's greatness can be measurted by how much money people pay to support the opera thorugh contribution. Without private funding, the opera is a money loser. Yet people donate millions of dollars in order to ensure its performance. Now who would donate money for Bob Dylan to be able to make his next recording if it wasn't going to be profitable? Or to subsidize his live peformances if they were going to be money losers? So you need to be realistic about what, and how to measure things. Not everything works on a simple supply and demand matrix. Some things have their value shifted around and finding the common denominator to measure them takes a little work. So comparing Lennie Tristano to Jarre through sales figures is probably a mistake. But it isn't a a mistake to compare Tristano and Brubeck. And if you want to compare Tristano and Jarre since there is no commercially available measurement that would have any meaning, you have to find different criteria. And you would have to resort to a panel of experts who would be able to itemize their respective virtues.

Hollywood - You miss the point. We all agree that everyone has standards. It's just that experts are trained to understand things at a higher level then your average museum goer can. A person without much experience might be moved by that exhibit on some innate or visceral level. But to see it metaphorically would probably entail formal training. Did you see the movie The Pianist (excellent fim by the way.) What is it about? Jews in Poland during the time of the Nazi occupation or is it about advanced isolationism? The answer is that it is about both. But one description is not only a more complex discussion then the other, it subsumes the other argument. Isn't that what expertise is about? Advanced discussion? And that brings us back to the topic of this thread. How are high standards bad?

But now you are tying performance to a quantity or money standard and that isn't the way you necessarilly measure it. For example, which is a better indicator that heirloom tomatoes are superior to other tomatoes, their price at market or the fact that between mid-August and mid-September every important restaurant in NYC has an heirloom tomato appetizer on their menu? One assumes that price would follow demand but it doesn't have to.

That was prety reasonable post. Don't you think?

Wilf - I don't I disagree with you about any of your examples. But, that doesn't really address my assertion (or Lxt's) that things get measured based on how well they perform in their marketplace and that those measurements become an objective standard.

What do you mean? There are operas by Mozart that are still performed today that are what, in excess of 325 years old? And you say that opera hasn't stood the test of time? I'd like to see the format of the pop song stand the test of time in the same way. Do you really think that 350 years from now people will be performing "I Want to be Sedated?" As for complex technique, I haven't said complex technique by itself means anything. I have said that there is technique that is profound because it offers a complex result. That is why I think we are going in circles. Because the best peach in the world offers great complexity in the simplest way. But it is less complex then a pairing with something that compliments it perfectly. Then it is complex plus. And whether the thing you pair it with is just something fashionable (think lobster with vanilla) or actually can stand the test of time (think goose fat and garlic) is a different question. It depends on what we are measuring doesn't it? Opera is measured over centuries. Food is measured over decades so for each you need to adopt a different standard.

Or why some people insist that "objective" can only mean the result of a scientific formula and not the adoption of a standard based on statistical analysis? All the word reasonable does is sound less harsh because it implies room for disagreement. But you are correct to point out that the word "objective" in this instance is the same thing. The latter. I understood that you had a conversation with someone at that meal that led to this thread being posted.

Well at least Joe Morehouse was there. Not only does he have a great palate (and is sensible about it) but he's an awfully nice guy. And your trip sounds great. But I don't think I can handle ten days of that sarcasm. Eat and drink well though.

Is it a charter flight to Ollivier's? That sounds like fun. Are you tasting anywhere other then the Loire? I met Texier for the first time at the Marche last weekend and he invited me to come up to the Macon to taste. Are you going there? And next year you should organize doing this so you can come to the Marche au Vin. The dinner we have is classic. I haven't seen so many people in one place that were upset with Stuart Yaniger's wine selections since the days of the Wine Spectator forums. It was classic.

Wilfrid - But to get to this point you have to be drawing an inference that I am not making. I am only speaking of technique. The technique you need to employ to be able to play guitar like Segovia is very complex and not everyone can do it. But anyone, and I mean anyone, can learn how to play Blowing in the Wind on a guitar in just a few hours time. Those aren't subjective statements. They are quanitfiable. But then I do make the following inference. Great art, or things that last, are built on complex and profound technique that people try to both replicate and improve on over time. So I feel safe saying that opera employs technique so profound that it has stood, and will stand, the test of time. I cannot say that about the Ramones. And in that light (the eternal acceptance of their music) indeed they might have had something to learn from Mozart. Because his techniques were eternal. You cannot make that statement (yet and you will probably never be able to) make it about the Ramones.