John Cleese's Wine for the Confused

[Bux]

Hermitage and Cote Roties, great wines of the Rhone are not made from your triumverate. My guess is that there are fans of Nebbiolo who would view your selection with some scorn as prejudiced. I agree that it was necessary to simplify the field. My argument is that it was not simplified, it was made simplistic. It's not the choice of the six wines that bothers me, it's how they were presented. I mentioned Grenache only in reply to "most common." I don't need to be told that it's a common grape. Much of what's made certain grapes more noble than others is the accident of geography and ease of trade. No one will convince me there's a direct across the board relationship between wine popularity or price and taste. I think Cleese himself made that point. I'll grant that the best Pinot Noirs can compete favorably with the best Syrahs, but is there a Savignon Blanc that can compete with the best Semillion dominated wines in terms of greatness--price or majestry? When the show presented the six wines as they did, it reinforced popular conceptions. That's just directly opposed to my idea of enlightenment. The show pandered to currently popular myth when it could have taught novices how to enjoy wine without prejudice.

It's focus on the way wine is made in California is probably misleading as well. In spite of it's mention of the concept of terroir there was no hint that the part of the world that gave us five of these six grapes generally buys it's wine on place name than on grape name. Surely a little history and a mention of changing taste might also have been enabling if the intent was to make the novice feel confident as opposed to putting blinders on him.

[KatieLoeb]

Hermitage and Cote Roties, great wines of the Rhone are not made from your triumverate. My guess is that there are fans of Nebbiolo who would view your selection with some scorn as prejudiced. I agree that it was necessary to simplify the field. My argument is that it was not simplified, it was made simplistic. It's not the choice of the six wines that bothers me, it's how they were presented. I mentioned Grenache only in reply to "most common." I don't need to be told that it's a common grape. Much of what's made certain grapes more noble than others is the accident of geography and ease of trade. No one will convince me there's a direct across the board relationship between wine popularity or price and taste. I think Cleese himself made that point. I'll grant that the best Pinot Noirs can compete favorably with the best Syrahs, but is there a Savignon Blanc that can compete with the best Semillion dominated wines in terms of greatness--price or majestry? When the show presented the six wines as they did, it reinforced popular conceptions. That's just directly opposed to my idea of enlightenment. The show pandered to currently popular myth when it could have taught novices how to enjoy wine without prejudice.

It's focus on the way wine is made in California is probably misleading as well. In spite of it's mention of the concept of terroir there was no hint that the part of the world that gave us five of these six grapes generally buys it's wine on place name than on grape name. Surely a little history and a mention of changing taste might also have been enabling if the intent was to make the novice feel confident as opposed to putting blinders on him.

←

Bux:

I haven't even seen the program yet. It's my intention to tape it this upcoming weekend. My only point was that those six varietals are from the places that were the foundation of Western civilization as we know it, and played an important role in the history there, both economically, socially, spiritually etc. The word divine translates as "of the vine", does it not? Let's not forget that the vineyards of France were originally planted by various orders of monks and it is through the Church that viticulture was spread throughout Europe. The production of fine wine (not just the sacramental stuff, but the wines they were trading with nobility for power and favor) was considered a means of getting closer to God (and better treatment from the aristocracy) by those orders that began to specialize in viticulture and winemaking. In addition to Bordeaux and Burgundy, there are several larger monasteries in the Loire. Under the Valois kings the Loire was effectively the capital of France. And yes - I think the folks in Pouilly-Fume might argue with you vociferously over whether their wines are as "noble" as those made from Semillon.

I'm certain that the program needed to be "dumbed down" to some extent to fit into an hour format. I'm certain there's plenty of effective historical points that were either completely ignored or glossed over. Undoubtedly some of the ones you and I have made right here. But I'll reserve judgement until I see it myself.

[Bux]

Bux:

I haven't even seen the program yet.  It's my intention to tape it this upcoming weekend.  My only point was that those six varietals are from the places that were the foundation of Western civilization as we know it, and played an important role in the history there, both economically, socially, spiritually etc.  The word divine translates as "of the vine", does it not?  Let's not forget that the vineyards of France were originally planted by various orders of monks and it is through the Church that viticulture was spread throughout Europe. The production of fine wine (not just the sacramental stuff, but the wines they were trading with nobility for power and favor) was considered a means of getting closer to God (and better treatment from the aristocracy) by those orders that began to specialize in viticulture and winemaking.  In addition to Bordeaux and Burgundy, there are several larger monasteries in the Loire.  Under the Valois kings the Loire was effectively the capital of France.  And yes - I think the folks in Pouilly-Fume might argue with you vociferously over whether their wines are as "noble" as those made from Semillon. 

I'm certain that the program needed to be "dumbed down" to some extent to fit into an hour format.  I'm certain there's plenty of effective historical points that were either completely ignored or glossed over.  Undoubtedly some of the ones you and I have made right here.  But I'll reserve judgement until I see it myself.

←

If you haven't seen the program and my points are based on how the six grapes were presented, let's talk after we've shared common ground. "Divine translates as "of the vine", does it not?" I assume that's humor, but that kind of humor doesn't easily communicate on the net without a smiley and many are going to get stuck on the actual derivation from Latin and French--meaning "from god." Many historians may suggest the foundations of western civilization go back all the way to antiquity, to Greece and Rome, and to a time when Bordeaux and Burgundy were not producing much in the way of wine. The supremacy of Bordeaux and Burgundy wines is neither the beginning of western civilization, nor necessarily guaranteed forever. I'm sure there are those in Pouilly-Fumé might argue about the superiority of their wines, but the lists in restaurants will show higher prices for the best Sauternes than for the best Pouilly Fumés and some of the finest wines in the Loire Valley come from the Chenin Blanc grape. I also have it on good advice that there are winemakers in the Loire who grow American hybrid grapes (clandestinely, as it's against the law) and will argue about their superiority. I trust you're not making the professional suggestion that Dageneaux's Silex or Pur Sang is superior to Ch. Yquem?

I don't believe any instructional show for adults needs to be dumbed down or made simplisitc just to be simplified for beginners. More importantly, the hour format was hardly a reason in my mind as I said the information could be presented in ten minutes even allowing for repetition.